Justication for Onan's Punishment? I Don't Think So

MrC
Posts: 5
Joined: 2014-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Justication for Onan's Punishment? I Don't Think So

I have used the search engine tpo find out about the irrational Biblical story of Onan and Tamar. It has been discussed, yes, but I have something even more irrational.

According to Tekton Ministries (heheh), God's punishment of Onan was justifiable in a socio-cultural context.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/onanbash.php

I've been doing some dismantling of it myself, but I'd like to know what others here think about the posted article.

(Note: please read the article all the way through before critiquing it. It's very short. Oh, and don't forget the cheap, limited animation video that accompanies it.)


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Wow. That's a terrible

Wow. That's a terrible explanation. As a quick point by point list:

 

1. The other option is to just give her the inheritance, because Onan's older brother Er was killed by god (with no explanation provided other than "he was wicked in the eyes of the lord". If these holy books were even slightly ahead of their own time, perhaps you could deem them at least slightly helpful historically...

2. Times mentioned that god warned Onan to not do it again: 0

3. Umm, you're positing a god who was capable of noticing what Onan's actions were anyway, so how could he "hide" this from god? Does it take a few sessions of pulling out before an alarm bell rings in god's office or something?

4. See point 1. 

 

To elaborate some more, the explanation that it was a repeated offense is the first I've ever heard of this. I have been reading the KJV, which seemed to not imply as much (but perhaps that could be due to my ignorance of how old English is written). The NIV does suggest exactly that though, as does the version I've just read in Polish (which I like to always do as I'm fluent in it, and it's probably helpful in clarifying things that are lost in translation).

When you read the chapter, the events unfold as so. 

1. Judah finds meets Shua's daughter (her name appears to not be mentioned at ALL showing, as usual, how misogynistic this book is)

2. Judah and McShua pump out some kids. Er, Onan and Shelah (3 sons of course. Daughters would be boring, right?)

3. Judah provides Er with a wife named Tamar

4. God kills Er because he finds him wicked (literally NO further explanation is provided, but it has been established that god is no Er fan)

5. Onan is instructed by his father to pork and knock up Tamar.

6. Onan decides to pull out and spunk all over the place instead, because the "seed would not be his", implying that the sons would be considered Er's and not his (even though he's the one doing the poking). 

7. God kills Onan for this

8. Judah tells Tamar to live with him as a daughter in law until Shelah grows up, and she does so. 

9. She's not given Shelah, dresses up as in a veil, Judah thinks she's a hooker and bones her, knocks her up, she has twins, one overtakes the other at the finish line, etc. etc....

Instead of simply offering Tamar an inheritance for trying two of his 3 sons already, Judah still holds her hostage waiting for Shelah to be old enough to skronk her, because that's normal somehow. It's quite messed up. Onan may have committed this "crime" repeatedly, but no comment is made on getting warned that it's wrong to do. Further, Onan's concern is that in context of the time period, any sons (or daughters, but like they cared about those) are considered those of Er, and not himself. Certainly if god felt Er to be wicked, he would probably concur that contributing to Er's legacy would not be a good thing to do. 

At the end of the day, it's never necessary to even read this far into it, but with what I just outlined, it would be interesting to see what happened if Onan HAD knocked up Tamar. If god felt Er to be wicked, then perhaps he would have found it fitting to kill Onan if he had knocked her up as well, as it would give Er metaphorical sons. Maybe Onan knew that Er died at the hand of god for being wicked, and avoided knocking up Tamar for this reason? Of course, the book doesn't elaborate. What this means, is that my interpretation in this paragraph is just as valid as any other. Of course, my interpretation (of this chapter anyhow) hinges on god not being omnibenevolent, but as such a thing is only proposed in the bible, and it contains contradictions, positing an evil or at least a morally apathetic god is one way to reconcile the contents. I would also propose that it's the simplest solution that reconciles the bible aside from "it's pretty much all bullshit" which is what I truly believe at this point in time. 

 

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Wow. That's a terrible

Wow. That's a terrible explanation. As a quick point by point list:

 

1. The other option is to just give her the inheritance, because Onan's older brother Er was killed by god (with no explanation provided other than "he was wicked in the eyes of the lord". If these holy books were even slightly ahead of their own time, perhaps you could deem them at least slightly helpful historically...

2. Times mentioned that god warned Onan to not do it again: 0

3. Umm, you're positing a god who was capable of noticing what Onan's actions were anyway, so how could he "hide" this from god? Does it take a few sessions of pulling out before an alarm bell rings in god's office or something?

4. See point 1. 

 

To elaborate some more, the explanation that it was a repeated offense is the first I've ever heard of this. I have been reading the KJV, which seemed to not imply as much (but perhaps that could be due to my ignorance of how old English is written). The NIV does suggest exactly that though, as does the version I've just read in Polish (which I like to always do as I'm fluent in it, and it's probably helpful in clarifying things that are lost in translation).

When you read the chapter, the events unfold as so. 

1. Judah finds meets Shua's daughter (her name appears to not be mentioned at ALL showing, as usual, how misogynistic this book is)

2. Judah and McShua pump out some kids. Er, Onan and Shelah (3 sons of course. Daughters would be boring, right?)

3. Judah provides Er with a wife named Tamar

4. God kills Er because he finds him wicked (literally NO further explanation is provided, but it has been established that god is no Er fan)

5. Onan is instructed by his father to pork and knock up Tamar.

6. Onan decides to pull out and spunk all over the place instead, because the "seed would not be his", implying that the sons would be considered Er's and not his (even though he's the one doing the poking). 

7. God kills Onan for this

8. Judah tells Tamar to live with him as a daughter in law until Shelah grows up, and she does so. 

9. She's not given Shelah, dresses up as in a veil, Judah thinks she's a hooker and bones her, knocks her up, she has twins, one overtakes the other at the finish line, etc. etc....

Instead of simply offering Tamar an inheritance for trying two of his 3 sons already, Judah still holds her hostage waiting for Shelah to be old enough to skronk her, because that's normal somehow. It's quite messed up. Onan may have committed this "crime" repeatedly, but no comment is made on getting warned that it's wrong to do. Further, Onan's concern is that in context of the time period, any sons (or daughters, but like they cared about those) are considered those of Er, and not himself. Certainly if god felt Er to be wicked, he would probably concur that contributing to Er's legacy would not be a good thing to do. 

At the end of the day, it's never necessary to even read this far into it, but with what I just outlined, it would be interesting to see what happened if Onan HAD knocked up Tamar. If god felt Er to be wicked, then perhaps he would have found it fitting to kill Onan if he had knocked her up as well, as it would give Er metaphorical sons. Maybe Onan knew that Er died at the hand of god for being wicked, and avoided knocking up Tamar for this reason? Of course, the book doesn't elaborate. What this means, is that my interpretation in this paragraph is just as valid as any other. Of course, my interpretation (of this chapter anyhow) hinges on god not being omnibenevolent, but as such a thing is only proposed in the bible, and it contains contradictions, positing an evil or at least a morally apathetic god is one way to reconcile the contents. I would also propose that it's the simplest solution that reconciles the bible aside from "it's pretty much all bullshit" which is what I truly believe at this point in time. 

 

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.