Skepticism

[Misj']

[off topic]

The "seed" thing was told by God when punishing Onan when He caught him performing a "coitus interruptus". So, yes, God was meaning "semen" when He said "seed", and he was punishing him for that. Every "sperm" is sacred for God, and every wasted drop is a Sin... 

A. Coitus interruptus is not the same as mastrubation (unless you call having sex but not finishing the job masturbation).
B. Was the spilling of the seed punished by God, or the fact that he (after his brother had died) was not willing to fertilize his brother's wife in his brother's name to make sure his brother's line would continue...even though he was willing to have sex with her. (it may be a weird custom, but in a world where bloodlines and offspring are more important than ours, it does make some sense...I guess).
C. I had to look it up, but the 'every "sperm" is sacred for God, and every wasted drop is a Sin...' idea is not in the text that I read

Nacho refers to: Genesis 38:7-10 "And Er, Judah's first-born, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. And Judah said unto Onan: 'Go in unto thy brother's wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her, and raise up seed to thy brother.' And Onan knew that the seed would not be his; and it came to pass when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did was evil in the sight of the LORD; and He slew him also."[other translations]

Wiki: "Certain interpretations of the narrative concerning him have led to the use of the term onanism to refer to masturbation or to 'pulling out'."

Nacho mentioned something earlier about "thou shalt not throw your seed" He also equivocated this to mean that you shouldn't masturbate. But it doesn't actually say that. Couldn't it just be about throwing away valuable crops or something?

Whenever someone references anything I try to go back to the source...in this case the Hebrew text (a good thing we have the internet). While the word seed is used in these verses, the translation would be 'child'. The verse that Nacho quoted 'thou shalt not throw your seed' does not exist in this Bible passage. The thing that comes closest is 'he spilled [it] on the ground', which does not contain the word seed, nor is it a commandment but merely a description of what a person did. So basically the text Nacho referred to does not exist in the Hebrew text, and he still owes us the passage in the Bible that concerns masturbation and considers it sinful (because Google did not give me such a verse, so I couldn't go back to the source, so I couldn't investigate what he said).

Ps. The reason why I always try to go back to the source is because of things like this: people (both believers and non-believers) claim so many things about the Bible. So at one point in my life I decided to make sure I could at least check whether their claims make any sense or not. In this case I would dismiss it.

[/off topic]

[Nacho]

Man... If what God was punishing was sperm wasting, masturbation is, may lightning strike me where I stand if it is not.

And I didn't went into "That line punishes bestiality and homosexuality" as well, because, even considering that it is, I didn' t want to put "Bible" into that unpopular position... Everybody likes fuckin' animals.

[MrColossal]

Misj, that raises a question from me then, is there not concern over the hebrew word for virgin and the hebrew word for young girl?

Stating that Mary was not a virgin when she had jesus, just young, which isn't so miraculous.

Does that make the difference between Jews and Christians boil down to a mistranslation? Going back to the source, that is.

[Misj']

Man... If what God was punishing was sperm wasting, masturbation is, may lightning strike me where I stand if it is not.

Or you could just re-read my previous post and ponder for a few minutes until you saw that the text isn't about mastrubation...

[Ozzie]

I kinda wonder why I'm arguing when my arguments get ignored all the time. So I'm outta here. 

[Nacho]

But Misj, if you go even a bit further and read my posts you' ll see that I didn' t wanted to talk about what the book says (Basically because my point is that the book does not say anything in clear). My point is that Bible brings as much different teachers as readers. You don' t think God punishes Onan for wasting the seed (I don' t know why you do think Onan is punished, though? Because he dissobeys God?)  but I, when reading that, think he is.

Two people, 2 teachings.

So... what to we do? Easy. Go to the "authorities" and ask... And here comes the teologycal congress, makes a meeting and say "Ok... Misj was right, Nacho not... God punishes Onan for disobbeying God, not for wasting sperm".

BUT

Those people who decided who was right or not ARE NOT GOD. So... I am going even to consider that, yeah, Bible is sacred and was inspired by God.

How can we, even with that, follow it's beliefs since the teachings are made by mere, flawable man? Impossible. At least I wouldn' t.

And if God was punishing Onan not for dissobeying him, but for wasting the seed, he was pursuing masturbation and homosexuality as well.

And Ozzie... we all know you were a sabotager It' s okay, don' t be sad! 

[Misj']

[more off topic]

Misj, that raises a question from me then, is there not concern over the hebrew word for virgin and the hebrew word for young girl?

Stating that Mary was not a virgin when she had jesus, just young, which isn't so miraculous.

Does that make the difference between Jews and Christians boil down to a mistranslation? Going back to the source, that is.

Well...in Matthew 1:23 it is said: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel". This is a reference to Isaiah 7:14 which states: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.". The Greek word used in Matthew is parthenos, which means (according to Strong's (G3933)) 'a maiden; by implication, an unmarried daughter:--virgin.'. So nothing special here: virgin is the correct translation of the word. However, since it's a reference, we may assume the the Hebrew word in Isaiah was the original. The Hebrew word used was almah (Strong's H5959), which can be translated as virgin, however the primary translation is young girl. So...while few Christians will accept this (since they will consider the Greek Matthew translation as inspired by God, and thus correct), young girl is - indeed - a valid translation, and the virgin birth as such not a necessity based on the source.

At least...as far as I've been able to understand it. But I may be wrong of course.

But the difference between Jews and Christians is caused by the difference between Greek and Hebrew philosophy.

[/more off topic]

But Misj, if you go even a bit further and read my posts you' ll see that I didn' t wanted to talk about what the book says (Basically because my point is that the book does not say anything in clear).

My pont is that Bible brings as much different teachers as readers. You don' t think God punishes Onan for wasting the seed (I don' t know why you do think Onan is punished, though? Because he dissobeys God?)  but I, when reading that, think he is.

That doesn't make sense: you don't want to talk about it, because it isn't clear. But if it IS clear you don't want to talk about it either. The text states that God slew him because the thing that Onan did was evil according to God. This part is still simple: Onan did something, and God punished him. So what did Onan do - according to the text - "and it came to pass when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest he should give seed to his brother". So he had sex with the woman, but in order to prevent fertilization (for he did not want to conceive his brother's child according to the text) he spilled the seed. That is what the text says: no where does it mention masturbation...unless you're Bible is different from the ones I found on the internet.

Two people, 2 teachings.

Which is actually a good thing, so I don't understand why you're opposed to it.

But Misj, if you go even a bit further and read my posts you' ll see that I didn' t wanted to talk about what the book says

But Zooty asked as question, you didn't answer it...or at least not very well, since you quoted the Hebrew Bible about as good as the apostle Paul...maybe even slightly worse. This is bad for your credibility, and would reflect on the other things you referred to as well: one might wonder that if you didn't think about checking this, even though this is easy (since it took me a few seconds in Google looking for Onan), then how much of what you state is checked (and well thought out). And since this thread is about rationality and logic, fact-checking is a major part.

This was actually the only way to help/defend this thread. If I hadn't stepped in, it would have been easy to dismiss you...I decided to prevent that (hopefully that was the right decision, so please don't disappoint me  ).

As I said: I'm here as the voice of reason (I always wanted to be someone's voice of reason, but no one in his or her right mind ever listens to me )

[Nacho]

So, the Sin why God punished Onan finally was "eyaculating without intention to procreate" or not?

Man, if masturbation is not "Eyaculating without intention to procreate", then, what it is?

I didn' t want to discuss about that because I assumed you were not thinking God punished Onan for "spilling the seed without intention to procreate" but because Onan dissobeyed God. I assumed that because, from, the beginning you said "God did not punished Onan for this", and you quoted the entire paragraph, allowing people to take any decission about the meaning of it... If you really think that God did punish Onan for "coitus interruptus" then, that God dislikes masturbation is a logical consequence. It' s like saying "my dad does not like me to hurt animals... I will try killing one, I am not sure if he will dislike it" Of course he will.

If God "forces" a person to lie with a woman he does not like because some ancestral law, and punishes him because after that, because he did not finish the act, we have three possibilities:
a) God punished the man for dissobeying him. (YOU said this is not the case)
b) God punished him for lying with a woman, and eyaculating without will to procreate. Why? I don' t know. Maybe because of this ancest law of not spilling the seed, or because he lied with a woman without wanting to procreate (Both work for punishing masturbation, as well... Wasting voluntarilly semen is wasting semen voluntarilly, no matter if it's a coitus interruptus, a wanka, making love to a cow or to a man)

And that raises a question to me... Does that paragraph tell you that you can make love to your wife if she has been told to be unfertile? Making love to her would be wasting your sperm with a woman which can't have kids...

I don't want to follow such an unfair "Omniscent God", sorry.

[Khris]

Wow, you guys are arguing about what's depicted in the bad copy of a bad copy of a bad copy of a Rorschach picture...
It's so pointless.

Can't we talk about skepticism, pretty please?

[Nacho]

It' s important, Khris... I want to bring the point that "X Bible readers, X teachings" (Something that Misj sees as "good"). I said it before... If I ask 20 pilots how does the manual of the Boeing 767 tell about wind speed in wings 2 in two miles of distance to the landing track, they will say "40 knots". If I ask the altitude at that point, they will say "1000 feet" (Or whatever, I don't mind... they will all reply something reasonabily similar). I don' t think 20 different replies should be seen as "good" here. Why when we talk about religion it is? Religious amnisty, again.

If I ask a priest about that Onan passage, and what it means toward masturbation or homosexuality, I will probably have as much as replies as priests asked. Can' t you (believers) see then that "religion" can be taken individually, with no need of more ceremonies?

[miguel]

KhrisMUC, you asked (a few pages ago) for believers to explain why they believe in God.
Well, some of the non-believers here showed me lots of scientific facts about why is just not possible for God to be.
I understand and appreciate the effort but, to them I ask:
Do you not think  believers asked those same questions?
Do you not think they did some research and read the books and googled like some of you did just to answer on this forum?
I mean, what is the source of your rage against believers?
"If God is so powerful why doesn't he..." - is that it? Are you still at that point?
Some of you guys are fathers and mothers, most aren't. When things aren't going well, who do you call when you are sitting on your toilet with a handful of bills? Ghostbusters? Space Boys's friend George?
To all non-believers, I believe in God and I don't take it that serious, I just feel that this generation thinks that to believe is to be uncool or something.
Look at the life of Jesus and even if you don't believe in all that stuff, how much would you give up just to be near such a person?
I love you guys and I probably should dress my avatar when talking about this things.

[Stupot]

Do you not think  believers asked those same questions?
Do you not think they did some research and read the books and googled like some of you did just to answer on this forum?

A lot of the time the answer is 'no'.  The majority of believers are only so because of their upbringing, and by the time they are old enough to ask questions they don't feel the need to, because they have faith and to question it would be doubting that faith (which they have naively and unwittingly inherited anyway, rather than making a concious decision about it).

And yes, before anyone argues, I'm aware that some people DO make the transition from non-believer to believer, but these people are few and far between.  They normally have some kind of special case such as they 'miraculously' survived an accident and suddenly have no way of explaining it other than to ask themselves if God did it (when most of the time if they asked an expert he could have explained it easily).

[Misj']

if God "forces" a person to lie with a woman he does not like because some ancestral law, and punishes him because after that, because he did not finish the act, we have three possibilities:
a) God punished the man for dissobeying him. (YOU said this is not the case)
b) God punished him for lying with a woman, and eyaculating without will to procreate. Why? I don' t know. Maybe because of this ancest law of not spilling the seed, or because he lied with a woman without wanting to procreate (Both work for punishing masturbation, as well... Wasting voluntarilly semen is wasting semen voluntarilly, no matter if it's a coitus interruptus, a wanka, making love to a cow or to a man)

I seem to be missing a third possibility, but anyway (I'll give one later on based on the text): As for [A] could you please direct me to the post where I said this was not the case? - I seem to have misplaced the post where I said that. I reread my posts on this subject and it's not in any of them, so could you please point me to a direct quote.

So, the Sin why God punished Onan finally was "eyaculating without intention to procreate" or not?

I'm really starting to wonder now whether you actually read the text in the bible. Or, and that's the second option, you just don't want to read the actual words. It says literally: "And Onan knew that the seed would not be his; and it came to pass when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest he should give seed to his brother." - This is simple reading of the text completely independent of your or my believes, the text states that Onan spilled his seed because he didn't want to conceive a child for his brother. No interpretation here. The story is simple: Onan was supposed to do something (conceive a child with his dead-brother's wife in his brother's name), he decided that while he was willing to have sex with her (he went in unto his brother's wife) he did not want the bloodline of his brother to continue (lest he should give seed to his brother). God then punished him. Whether this story is historical or not, and whether you or I believe in it doesn't matter, the story states simply what Onan did was evil, and what Onan did was (basically) killing his brother's bloodline even though it was his duty to continue via his brother's wife (read Dt. 25:5-9).

If you really think that God did punish Onan for "coitus interruptus" then, that God dislikes masturbation is a logical consequence.

But if you read the verse (literally, but I know you are against the literal reading of the bible, because that's irrational and stupid, since in your first post you stated 'Okay... I've been told that saying that Bible literalism is stupid') than you see that it has nothing to do with spoiling seed, it has nothing to do with masturbation, it has to do with the reason why: he didn't want the bloodline of his brother to be continued (Dt 25:9).

It' s like saying "my dad does not like me to hurt animals... I will try killing one, I am not sure if he will dislike it" Of course he will.

Then again, a better example would be: It's like saying "my dad doesn't want me to eat my brother's apples", where you say that means that you are not allowed to eat pears, since what dad said was clearly about fruit.

Ps. Neither of us has to believe this story to understand it. It was simpler than your average Day of the Tentacle puzzle. All the answers were there (and Deuteronomy was easy to find since it was the only other place where 'yabam' (levirate) was used. The idea of leviration is not something I would prefer (my brother's wife is nice, but I don't intend to share her bed, even if he were dead (although someone might be able to convince me to donate my sperm for IVF...maybe)), but it has nothing to do with masturbation.

Pps.

It' s important, Khris... I want to bring the point that "X Bible readers, X teachings" (Something that Misj sees as "good"). I said it before... If I ask 20 pilots how does the manual of the Boeing 767 tell about wind speed in wings 2 in two miles of distance to the landing track, they will say "40 knots". If I ask the altitude at that point, they will say "1000 feet" (Or whatever, I don't mind... they will all reply something reasonabily similar). I don' t think 20 different replies should be seen as "good" here. Why when we talk about religion it is?

If you have the problem that you can't play a game on your Vista computer, and you go to a forum, and all you get is on answer than applies only XP computers...wouldn't you have preferred multiple answers so you can make a decision which one is the most appropriate solution for your problem? - I would. So if 20 different replies is 'good' here (allowing you to play the game) then why can't you accept that it might be good in other cases as well? - If you ask 20 scientist to interpret a scientific 'fact' you will get 20 different answers. That is what keeps science alive. If it is good for science, then why isn't it good for religion, art, philosophy, etc. The only logical answer to that I can think of is: because you believe religion is static, or because you don't want it to be alive.

Can't we talk about skepticism, pretty please?

What do you think all this is about?

Ppps. Nacho, I am sorry to say - and please don't be offended by this (although I can't blame you if you are) - but based on simply reading this Onan-text all I can conclude is that you base your interpretation on preconceived ideas that are neither logical (based on the text) nor rational (researched and well thought-out). For this little piece of text it was easy to test, but it does make me doubt - and I told you that you were at risk of this - whether any of your other opinions are logical (based on 'evidence'),rational (researched and well thought-out), or mostly objective (not based on pre-conceived ideas). Consequently, I doubt whether you are truly sceptical. I'm sorry. This is all I can conclude from your recent posts. Not because different interpretation of the text, but because you have no better argumentation than - basically - 'I once heard this was about masturbation, so it must be true', and that is not being sceptical, it's blindly following other people (which is the same as many of those religious people do).

[LGM]

Let me just go back to my post and apologize to InCreator. I did not mean to say that you were wrong by making my logic assessment. I was merely trying to explain why some do not and will not share your viewpoint. It is my fault that I did not present it more in that manner.

I don't mean to say anyone is WRONG about their beliefs or non-beliefs in the afterlife. Faith should be an individual thing, it guides you and you alone. Yes, it's great to find fellowship in those who believe as you do, but that being said, these people must arrive to this point in their lives completely on their own terms.

As I tried to explain, as a person who has found something the works for me and me alone, it would be hypocritical and highly unfair of me to say what works for others is WRONG. It just does not apply to me. And that is fine. Part of living is accepting everyone else who are also living and the choices they make. But there is a difference between accepting something and agreeing with it. Or even liking it. You can accept something and completely hate it. For instance, I accept that Paris Hilton is a socialite beauty-queen that makes the news every freaking day... But I also hate those very same things about her.

Anyway, I just wanted to apologize. I know I sounded a bit stand-offish, but really, it's okay. And Nacho, I wasn't targeting you specifically either. I know you've been demonized a bit in this thread, but I understand we're all only human. Thanks for understanding, though. I knew you weren't as stupid as you look.

[Ozzie]

A lot of the time the answer is 'no'.  The majority of believers are only so because of their upbringing, and by the time they are old enough to ask questions they don't feel the need to, because they have faith and to question it would be doubting that faith (which they have naively and unwittingly inherited anyway, rather than making a concious decision about it).

And yes, before anyone argues, I'm aware that some people DO make the transition from non-believer to believer, but these people are few and far between.  They normally have some kind of special case such as they 'miraculously' survived an accident and suddenly have no way of explaining it other than to ask themselves if God did it (when most of the time if they asked an expert he could have explained it easily).

And if you raise your children as atheists then they will continue to be atheists, the majority at least. What a surprise, really.

I think it would be interesting to know then how many non-believers became believers and the other way around.

[LimpingFish]

KhrisMUC brought up a point, and MrColossal again touched on it, regarding the validity of what is largely considered by Christians to be the word of God. Whether they take this as literal is a source of debate in itself, but in my opinion the Bible has been through far too many human hands to be considered the word of any one individual, be they God or Man.

Does any Christian believe that the Bible isn't the word of God?

Where in the bible does it tell us who exactly wrote the first few chapters of Genesis; written as they are from God's point of view? Genesis is in part written as though someone was there taking notes as God did his thing. Did God impart this information personally to the first Bibliographer? All we know for sure is that at some point somebody wrote something down about the light being good, etc, etc. Then we had 2000 years of peoples opinions, alterations, and what have you, leaving us with a book that nobody can agree over, agree with, or even agree that it should be taken as writ.

Faith is in essence blind, so Christians who argue, though free to argue they are, over the finer points of what, how, and why God did what he did, really have no business feeling slighted by arguments in which they have absolutely no solid counter-argument. Beyond their belief.

So it's not solid facts they are defending, but the belief itself.

And how can you argue with that?

And again, the existence of God and Organized Religion are two completely different things. The fact that Organized Religion validates itself on the basis of something that can't be proven shouldn't blind us to the possibility that Man, and not God, is the problem here.

[Nacho]

Misj'... Finally I understand it!!! It' s easy when a believer do explain what he believes in spite of posting a long passage, no?

Now... Knowing what you think of it... Do you agree with me that many people doesn' t agree? Yes. Many people thought that this passage was condemning any kind of waste of sperm, no matter if masturbating, in a homosexual relationship or in a zoophilian one.

So, Bible does not work as a manual of morale, since anyone can find certain sentence to justify everything, from killing to robbery, to the opposite if they twist the words enough (And nobody said you can' t twist the words a little, since Bible does not come with intructions...)

A Roschard... if you are good, you will go on being good. If you are evil, you will go on being it, but with "divine justification".

And Ozzie... what is to be raised as atheistic? I never was told a word about religion by my parents, only "We will talk of it when you will be a teenager" and received religion at school, so, I think I was mildly religious upbrought... I was not told "anything of the die hard atheistic stuff" I said here, so, basically no... I haven't been raised as "atheistic" but as "neutral".

[Ozzie]

Well, if you're neutrally raised then you probably won't care much for religion either. It's pretty much the same, maybe only that more likely you would acknowledge religion and faith as a valid aspect in the life of some people.

Anyway, I can't help myself, I have to post this link! Jesus is my friend!

[Misj']

Misj'... Finally I understand it!!! It' s easy when a believer do explain what he believes in spite of posting a long passage, no?

Well...it's not about what I do or do not believe, but what is written in the passage. In this case it's the Bible, so anyone who gives an interpretation is automatically considered religious because he or she interprets a religious text. But we could have talked in the same manner about any other text. Had we discussed about the Code of Law from Hammurabi (particularly the greatly miss-understood 'eye for and eye' passage, which is about protection of the weak and not about revenge) no one would have considered me a Babylonian.

Now... Knowing what you think of it... Do you agree with me that many people doesn' t agree? Yes. Many people thought that this passage was condemning any kind of waste of sperm, no matter if masturbating, in a homosexual relationship or in a zoophilian one.

I agree that many people don't agree. However, I think that the following Jewish explanation is better: they say that for every verse in the Hebrew Bible there are (at least) 70 possible explanations possible; the exception being the Shema Yisrael, which is not open for interpretation to a Jew (Christians re-interpreted it though, which is one of the reasons why a Jew cannot accept it).

So, Bible does not work as a manual of morale, since anyone can find certain sentence to justify everything, from killing to robbery, to the opposite if they twist the words enough (And nobody said you can' t twist the words a little, since Bible does not come with intructions...)

Well, when looked into Jewish Karaism a while back I found two things:
A. In Deuteronomy 4:2 it is written: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." - So twisting the words a little would be in disagreement with the instructions given. Sure you can discuss whether this concerns the entire Hebrew Bible, only the Torah, or only the words on the stone tables (that were - according to the same Bible written by God himself (Exodus 34:1)).
B. The Karaites had the following in the FAQ
How can you have a community if everybody interprets the Bible themselves?
This is only a problem if we start off with intolerance. Karaites have learned to have tolerance of greatly varying interpretations as long as they are derived from sound principles of Biblical exegesis and only based on the Tanach. The reason for this tolerance is that we know that it is more important to do the right and moral thing than to do the same thing as everyone else.

So the answer of these believers to your question is an obvious: 'the Hebrew Bible is very much a moral guidance'.

Oh, and just for the record: I am neither a Karaite, nor a Jew. So while I tried to answer these questions from the point of view of these believers, I cannot guarantee that they agree with me.

Ps. I can understand why a believer would say that since life is not black and white, it would not make sense to have a guide that is.

[Sam.]

I think I have been outclassed in this debate, there are people here voicing mostly my opinions much more eloquently and efficiently than me  , so as a parting shot, I present this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFO6ZhUW38w