#the sin of Onan

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Judah and Tamar

1 And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah.

2 And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her.

3 And she conceived, and bare a son; and he called his name Er.

4 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and she called his name Onan.

5 And she yet again conceived, and bare a son; and called his name Shelah: and he was at Chezib, when she bare him.

6 And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar.

7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him.

8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

9 And Onan knew that the seed should 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 that he should give seed to his brother.

10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also.

11 Then said Judah to Tamar his daughter in law, Remain a widow at thy father's house, till Shelah my son be grown: for he said, Lest peradventure he die also, as his brethren did. And Tamar went and dwelt in her father's house.

12 And in process of time the daughter of Shuah Judah's wife died; and Judah was comforted, and went up unto his sheepshearers to Timnath, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite.

13 And it was told Tamar, saying, Behold thy father in law goeth up to Timnath to shear his sheep.

14 And she put her widow's garments off from her, and covered her with a vail, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife.

15 When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face.

16 And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she was his daughter in law.) And she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me?

17 And he said, I will send thee a kid from the flock. And she said, Wilt thou give me a pledge, till thou send it?

18 And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him.

19 And she arose, and went away, and laid by her vail from her, and put on the garments of her widowhood.

20 And Judah sent the kid by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive his pledge from the woman's hand: but he found her not.

21 Then he asked the men of that place, saying, Where is the harlot, that was openly by the way side? And they said, There was no harlot in this place.

22 And he returned to Judah, and said, I cannot find her; and also the men of the place said, that there was no harlot in this place.

23 And Judah said, Let her take it to her, lest we be shamed: behold, I sent this kid, and thou hast not found her.

24 And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.

25 When she was brought forth, she sent to her father in law, saying, By the man, whose these are, am I with child: and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff.

26 And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.

27 And it came to pass in the time of her travail, that, behold, twins were in her womb.

28 And it came to pass, when she travailed, that the one put out his hand: and the midwife took and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, This came out first.

29 And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out: and she said, How hast thou broken forth? this breach be upon thee: therefore his name was called Pharez.

30 And afterward came out his brother, that had the scarlet thread upon his hand: and his name was called Zarah. — Genesis 38 | King James Version (KJV) The King James Version Bible is in the public domain. Cross References: Genesis 4:1; Genesis 24:65; Genesis 25:24; Genesis 37:32; Genesis 41:42; Genesis 46:12; Leviticus 21:9; Numbers 26:19; Deuteronomy 25:6; Joshua 15:1; Joshua 15:10; Joshua 15:35; Joshua 15:57; Ruth 4:12; 1 Samuel 24:17; 1 Chronicles 2:3-4; Nehemiah 11:24; Proverbs 7:10; Matthew 22:24

Genesis 38 (John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible)

[gatheringbones]

[“Doctrine tied itself into infinite knots over the realities of sex. If the sacrament of marriage was holy, how could sexual pleasure within marriage be sinful? If enjoyment was venial sin, at what point did it become concupiscence, or immoderate desire, which was mortal sin? Was bearing a child outside marriage, though procreative, more sinful than intercourse only for pleasure within marriage? Was a chaste or virgin marriage, though non-procreative, more holy than marital intercourse? What if a man slept with his wife when she was pregnant or after menopause when procreation could not be the purpose? Or, being tempted by another woman, slept with his wife to “cool off” illicit desire: that is, committed one sin to avoid another? Or departed on crusade without his wife’s consent or without taking her along, which was anti-procreative, yet in the interests of the Church?

These were questions that concerned the dialecticians probably more than the average person. Like usury, sex defied doctrinal certitude, except for the agreed-upon principle that any sexual practice contrary to the arrangements and ends “ordained by nature” was sinful. The covering term was sodomy, which meant not only homosexuality but any use, with the same or opposite sex, of the “unfit” orifice or the “unfit” position, or spilling the seed according to the sin of Onan, or auto-erotic emission, or intercourse with beasts. All were sodomy, which, by perverting nature, was rebellion against God and therefore counted as the “worst of sins” in the category of lechery.

Marriage was the relationship of the sexes that absorbed major interests. More than any other, it is the subject on the minds of the Canterbury pilgrims and its dominant theme is who, as between husband and wife, is boss? In real life too the question of obedience dominates the manual of conduct composed by the Ménagier of Paris for his fifteen-year-old wife. She should obey her husband’s commandments and act according to his pleasure rather than her own, because “his pleasure should come before yours.” She should not be arrogant or answer back or contradict him, especially in public, for “it is the command of God that women should be subject to men … and by good obedience a wise woman gains her husband’s love and at the end hath what she would of him.” She should subtly and cautiously counsel him against his follies, but never nag, “for the heart of a man findeth it hard to be corrected by the domination and lordship of a woman.” Examples of the terrible fate that meets carping and critical wives are cited by the Ménagier and also by La Tour Landry, who tells how a husband, harshly criticized by his wife in public, “being angry with her governance, smote her with his fist down to the earth,” then kicked her in the face and broke her nose so that she was disfigured ever after and “might not for shame show her visage.” And this was her due “for her evil and great language she was wont to say to her husband.”

So much emphasis is repeatedly placed on compliance and obedience as to suggest that opposite qualities were more common. Anger in the Middle Ages was associated with women, and the sin of Ire often depicted as a woman on a wild boar, although the rest of the seven Vices were generally personified as men. If the lay view of medieval woman was a scold and a shrew, it may be because scolding was her only recourse against subjection to man, a condition codified, like everything else, by Thomas Aquinas. For the good order of the human family, he argued, some have to be governed by others “wiser than themselves”; therefore, woman, who was more frail as regards “both vigor of soul and strength of body,” was “by nature subject to man, in whom reason predominates.” The father, he ruled, should be more loved than the mother and be owed a greater obligation because his share in conception was “active,” whereas the mother’s was merely “passive and material.” Out of his oracular celibacy St. Thomas conceded that a mother’s care and nourishment were necessary in the upbringing of the child, but much more so the father’s “as guide and guardian under whom the child progresses in goods both internal and external.”

That women reacted shrewishly in the age of Aquinas was hardly surprising. Honoré Bonet posed the question whether a queen might judge a knight when she was governing the kingdom in the king’s absence. No, he answered, because “it is clear that man is much nobler than woman, and of greater virtue,” so that a woman cannot judge a man, the more so since “a subject cannot judge his lord.” How, in these circumstances, the queen governed the kingdom is not explained.

The apotheosis of subjection was patient Griselda, whose tale of endurance under a husband’s cruel tests of her marital submission so appealed to male authors that it was retold four times in the mid-14th century, first by Boccaccio, then in Latin by Petrarch, in English by Chaucer in the Clerk’s Tale, and in French by the Ménagier. Without complaint, Griselda suffers each of her children to be taken away to be killed, as her husband informs her, and then her own repudiation and supposed divorce, before all is revealed as a test, and she willingly reunites herself with the odious author of her trials. The Ménagier, a kindly man at heart, thought the story “telleth of cruelty too great (to my mind) and above reason” and felt sure “it never befel so.” Nevertheless, he thought his wife should be acquainted with the tale so that she will “know how to talk about all things like unto the others.” Medieval ladies depended on stories, verbal games, and riddles for their amusement, and a well-bred young married woman would need to be equipped to discuss the abject Griselda and her appalling husband.”]

barbara w. tuchman, from a distant mirror: the calamitous 14th century, 1987

[porcelainlipgloss]

Twelve, desolation, there in lies sacred geometry of onanism An ouroboros of punishment I am what I was as I no longer am, for I am nothing...

this excerpt is the last verse of 'pulldrone', the 6th track off of Ethel Cain's album, 'Perverts'. to me, this mention of the ouroboros is a reference to generational trauma (a common theme of Hayden’s work), specifically surrounding shame. the ouroboros, the snake eating it’s tail, is a never ending cycle. it is life, death, rebirth, and everything. a curse that we cannot escape. shame is a cycle as well. shame does not help us overcome anything, it sinks us deeper into the quicksand of our minds, causing us to repeat these actions over and over, never escaping the hunger of the snake.

the ouroboros being a snake also connects to Genesis, the origin of shame and sin. the beginning of the cycle. the never-ending cycle of shame mothers pass down to their daughters, that fathers pass down to their sons, that cannot be broken without biting the tail with our own fangs.

thank you, @mothercain for this masterpiece. i am aware art is subjective, this is simply my interpretation.

[burningvelvet]

Every Instance of Lord Byron Hating On John Keats, Listed in Chronological Order.

“No more Keats I entreat — flay him alive. If some of you don’t I must skin him myself.”

To his publisher John Murray, 12 October 1820:

“‘I’m thankful for your books dear Murray / But why not send Scott’s Monastery?’ the only book in four living volumes I would give a baioccho to see, abating the rest of the same author, and an occasional Edinburgh & Quarterly – as brief Chroniclers of the times. — Instead of this – here are John Keats’s piss a bed poetry – and three novels by God knows whom [..] Pray send me no more poetry but what is rare and decidedly good. — There is such a trash of Keats and the like upon my tables – that I am ashamed to look at them. [..] – I am in a very fierce humour at not having Scott’s Monastery. – You are too liberal in quantity and somewhat careless of the quality of your missives. – [..] No more Keats I entreat – – – flay him alive – if some of you don’t I must skin him myself. There is no bearing the drivelling idiotism of the Mankin. – – – – – [editor’s note: ‘dashes degenerate into scrawl’]”

To his publisher John Murray, 4 November 1820:

“They Support Pope I see in the Quarterly. [Let them] Continue to do so – it is a Sin & a Shame and a damnation – to think that Pope!! should require it – but he does. – – – Those miserable mountebanks of the day – the poets – disgrace themselves – and deny God – in running down Pope – the most faultless of Poets, and almost of men – – the Edinburgh praises Jack Keats or Ketch or whatever his names are; – why his is the Onanism of Poetry — something like the Pleasure an Italian fiddler extracted out of being suspended daily by a Street Walker in Drury Lane – this went on for some weeks – at last the Girl – went to get a pint of Gin – met another, chatted too long – and Cornelli was hanged outright before she returned. Such like is the trash they praise – and such will be the end of the outstretched poesy of this miserable Self-polluter of the human Mind [editor’s note: ‘untranscribable scrawl’]. W. Scott’s Monastery just arrived — many thanks for that Grand Desideratun of the last Six Months.”

Note: “onanism” refers to masturbation.

To his publisher John Murray, 9 November 1820:

“Mr. Keats whose poetry you enquire after — appears to me what I have already said; such writing is a sort of mental masturbation — he is always frigging his Imagination. I don’t mean that he is indecent, but viciously soliciting his own ideas into a state which is neither poetry nor any thing else but a Bedlam vision produced by raw pork and opium.”

Note: “frigging” was slang for masturbation.

To his publisher John Murray, 18 November 1820:

“P.S. — Of the praises of that little dirty blackguard Keates in the Edinburgh — I shall observe as Johnson did when Sheridan the actor got a pension. ‘What has he got a pension? then it is time that I should give up mine!’ — Nobody could be prouder of the praises of the Edinburgh than I was — or more alive to their censure — as I showed in English Bards and Scotch Reviewers — at present all the men they have ever praised are degraded by that insane article. — Why don't they review & praise ‘Solomon's Guide to Health’ it is better sense — and as much poetry as Johnny Keates.”

To his publisher John Murray 26 April 1821:

“Is it true – what Shelley writes me that poor John Keats died at Rome of the Quarterly Review? I am very sorry for it – though I think he took the wrong line as a poet – and was spoilt by Cockneyfying and Surburbing – and versifying Tooke’s Pantheon and Lempriere’s Dictionary. I know by experience that a savage review is Hemlock to a sucking author – and the one on me – (which produced the English Bards &c.) knocked me down – but I got up again. Instead of bursting a blood-vessel – I drank three bottles of Claret – and began an answer – finding that there was nothing in the Article for which I could lawfully knock Jeffrey on the head in an honourable way. However I would not be the person who wrote the homicidal article – for all the honour & glory in the World, – though I by no means approve of that School of Scribbling – which it treats upon.”

To Percy Shelley, 26 April 1821:

“I am very sorry to hear what you say of Keats — is it actually true? I did not think criticism had been so killing. Though I differ from you essentially in your estimate of his performances, I so much abhor all unnecessary pain, that I would rather he had been seated on the highest peak of Parnassus than have perished in such a manner. Poor fellow! though with such inordinate self-love he would probably have not been very happy. I read the review of ‘Endymion’ in the Quarterly. It was severe, — but surely not so severe as many reviews in that and other journals upon others.

I recollect the effect on me of the Edinburgh on my first poem; it was rage, and resistance, and redress — but not despondency nor despair. I grant that those are not amiable feelings; but, in this world of bustle and broil, and especially in the career of writing, a man should calculate upon his powers of resistance before he goes into the arena. ‘Expect not life from pain nor danger free, Nor deem the doom of man reversed for thee.’

You know my opinion of that second-hand school of poetry. You also know my high opinion of your own poetry, — because it is of no school. [..] I have published a pamphlet on the Pope controversy, which you will not like. Had I known that Keats was dead — or that he was alive and so sensitive — I should have omitted some remarks upon his poetry, to which I was provoked by his attack upon Pope, and my disapprobation of his own style of writing.”

To Percy Shelley, 30 July 1821:

[First page missing] “The impression of Hyperion upon my mind was – that it was the best of his works. Who is to be his editor? It is strange that Southey who attacks the reviewers so sharply in his Kirk White – calling theirs ‘the ungentle craft’ – should be perhaps the killer of Keats. Kirke White was nearly extinguished in the same way – by a paragraph or two in ‘the Monthly’ – Such inordinate sense of censure is surely incompatible with great exertion – have not all known writers been the subject thereof?”

To his publisher John Murray 30 July 1821:

“Are you aware that Shelley has written an Elegy on Keats, and accuses the Quarterly of killing him?

‘Who killed John Keats? / ‘I,’ says the Quarterly, / So savage and Tartarly; / ‘Twas one of my feats.’ / Who shot the arrow? / ‘The poet-priest Milman / (So ready to kill man), / Or Southey or Barrow.’’

You know very well that I did not approve of Keats’s poetry, or principles of poetry, or of his abuse of Pope; but, as he is dead, omit all that is said about him in any M.S.S. of mine, or publication. His Hyperion is a fine monument, and will keep his name. I do not envy the man who wrote the article; — you Review people have no more right to kill than any other footpads. However, he who would die of an article in a Review would probably have died of something else equally trivial. The same thing nearly happened to Kirke White, who died afterwards of a consumption.”

4 August 1821, to his publisher John Murray:

“You must however omit the whole of the observations against the Suburban School – they are meant against Keats and I cannot war with the dead – particularly those already killed by Criticism. Recollect to omit all that portion in any case.”

To his publisher John Murray, 7 August 1821:

“All the part about the Suburb School must be omitted – as it referred to poor Keats now slain by the Quarterly Review — [..] I have just been turning over the homicide review of J. Keats. – It is harsh certainly and contemptuous but not more so than what I recollect of the Edinburgh R. of ‘the Hours of Idleness’ in 1808. The Reviewer allows him ‘a degree of talent which deserves to be put in the right way’ ‘rays of fancy’ ‘gleams of Genius’ and ‘powers of language’. – It is harder on L. Hunt than upon Keats & professes fairly to review only one book of his poem. – Altogether – though very provoking it was hardly so bitter as to kill unless there was a morbid feeling previously in his system.”

To Thomas Moore, August 27th 1822:

“It was not a Bible that was found in Shelley's pocket, but John Keats's poems.”

From his poem Don Juan Canto Eleventh written October 1822 and published August 1823. He was going off the popular gossip shared to him by Shelley (who believed it), which was that Keats health had sharply declined due to receiving bad reviews:

“John Keats, who was killed off by one critique, / Just as he really promised something great, / If not intelligible, without Greek / Contrived to talk about the Gods of late, / Much as they might have been supposed to speak. / Poor fellow! His was an untoward fate; / ‘Tis strange the mind, that very fiery particle, / Should let itself be snuffed out by an article.”

To his publisher John Murray, 25 December 1822:

“As to any community of feeling, thought, or opinion, between Leigh Hunt and me, there is little or none. We meet rarely, hardly ever; but I think him a good-principled and able man, and must do as I would be done by. I do not know what world he has lived in – but I have lived in three or four – and none of them like his Keats and Kangaroo terra incognita – Alas! poor Shelley! – how he would have laughed – had he lived, and how we used to laugh now & then – at various things – which are grave in the Suburbs. You are all mistaken about Shelley – – you do not know – how mild – how tolerant – how good he was in Society – and as perfect a Gentleman as ever crossed a drawing room; – when he liked – & where he liked. – – – – –“

The excerpts above are taken primarily from Peter Cochran’s transcriptions.

[nerdygaymormon]

Genesis 38 - Tamar : It is a sin to deny people fair treatment & they are justified to find ways to get what they deserve

The story of Tamar interrupts the story of Joseph and his coat of many colors, which means it is often skipped over, in part to follow the story of Joseph and also because it is an uncomfortable story.

————————————————————

Judah has 3 sons. He arranges for his oldest son to marry a Canaanite woman named Tamar. His oldest son dies without Tamar having children.

As per their tradition of levirate marriages, the brother of a man who dies without children is permitted and encouraged to marry the widow and any children that comes from that marriage are considered to belong to the deceased brother. Judah assigns Tamar to be wife of his second son who is named Onan.

Onan has sex with Tamar but pulls out and spills his semen on the ground rather than possibly impregnate her. Why would he do this? Under their tradition of primogeniture, Judah’s wealth would be divided among his 3 sons, but with the oldest getting double what the others receive. This meant the oldest would inherit 1/2 of all Judah has, the two younger brothers would each get 1/4. With the oldest son dead, if Tamar has a son, he would inherit his father’s share. However, if Tamar doesn’t have a son, then Onan would move into the spot of the oldest son and inherit 2/3 of Judah’s wealth. 

Onan dies and Tamar still doesn’t have a child, so tradition would be for her to go to the final brother. Judah is worried that if Tamar marries his final son, then he will also die, perhaps Judah sees Tamar as the common denominator in the deaths of his two oldest sons. Judah tells Tamar to go back to her father's home and live as a widow.

Judah’s wife dies. The scriptures say he was comforted, I think this is meaning he did the requisite mourning period.

Tamar finds out it is time for Judah to shear his sheep, and she puts her plan into motion. The local fertility cult had women who had sex with worshipers as a way to ensure the land's fertility, and Tamar dressed like one of these women, which included wearing a veil to hide her face, then she waits along the road that leads to where Judah’s sheep are located. Judah, who hasn’t had sex since his wife died, sees Tamar and wants to have sex with her and in exchange offers to give her a young goat. He doesn’t have the young goat with him, so to assure that Judah will send the goat, Tamar asks that he leave his staff, seal, and cord.

Judah later sends one of his workers with the young goat, except he can’t find the woman in this consecrated role, and the villagers say there hasn’t been such a woman at the local shrine for some time. 

In 3 months, reports come to Judah that Tamar is pregnant from prostituting herself out for money. He is outraged and orders for her to be burned to death.

Tamar produces the staff, seal, and cord, and announces these belong to the man who impregnated her and asks if Judah recognizes who these belong to. Judah admits to what he did, and takes care of Tamar and the twins she is pregnant with, although he never sleeps with her again, so it sounds like he does not marry her.

————————————————————

This is a weird story. I have some observations.

Judah is pretty much a failure as patriarch of the tribe of Judah and this is really the story of how Tamar rescued this tribe and became the matriarch of the people of Judah. 

All the men in this family, by treating Tamar this way, risked the continuation of this family's line by putting in jeopardy the creation of the next generation. 

—————————

In their society, the value of a woman is her virginity and her ability to bear children, and she will be provided for by either her father or her husband.

Judah’s family has left her valueless. Tamar is no longer a maiden. Onan denied her the opportunity for children. After Onan's death, Judah denies her the opportunity to marry his youngest. They've put her in a precarious position.

—————————

In Genesis 37, the chapter preceding this story, Judah is the one who came up with the idea of selling Joseph into slavery and telling their father that Joseph is dead, causing their father immense grief. It feels a bit like karma that in this story Judah loses two of his sons and he experiences the same grief at losing them as his father.

—————————

Some Christians have used the story of Onan to argue that masturbation is sinful because it also results in spilling the man's seed on the ground, not in the vaginal canal. In other words, it's sex which can't result in pregnancy.

The scripture seems clear that the sin of Onan isn’t that his semen hit the ground, but that Onan refused to impregnate Tamar, which was his duty to his dead brother. Onan broke the contract to raise up children to his deceased brother. Onan used Tamar for his sexual pleasure and/or as a way to disgrace his dead brother. Blocking Tamar from having children would result in Onan receiving his brother’s inheritance for himself, essentially robbing Tamar.

It is strange to use this story to teach masturbation is a sin as there was no masturbation mentioned in the story. Masturbate to your heart’s content as long as it isn’t hurting anyone. 

—————————

When Tamar heard that Judah was going to shear his sheep, that seemed to convey important information, like shearing sheep isn't the only thing that happens at this time.

It makes me think of cowboys on the cattle drives who would receive their lump sum payment at the end of the trail when the cattle are sold, and many of them would immediately go looking to spend it on booze and women. Perhaps it is similar in that having all this wool to sell is an economic windfall and vices can be afforded.

It is interesting there is no condemnation of Judah for soliciting the prostitute. However, when he learned that Tamar had prostituted herself, he is furious and demands that she be burned to death. It shows the double standard of patriarchy. It was fine for Judah to use a woman for sex, but unthinkable for a woman in his family to be engaged in that activity. What is acceptable depends on which side of the patriarchal system you find yourself. Women at that time were viewed as property, and being a harlot, even a religious one, dramatically reduces the value of the woman.

—————————

It wasn't happenstance that Tamar required Judah to hand over his seal, staff, and cord. These are the symbol of his family and his tribe. The seal is used to mark his property. These items are highly valuable, and by handing them over, he is putting the future of his family in the hands of the sacred prostitute. It is reminiscent of Esau selling his birthright to satisfy his hunger. Judah was satisfying a different hunger.

—————————

Judah admits to what he did and agrees to take care of Tamar. He recognized the wrong he did and took steps to fix it, so in a way he redeems himself in some measure. This is considered justice and a fulfilling of what is owed to Tamar.

—————————

The sin of this story was not prostitution, it wasn’t sex outside of marriage, it wasn’t masturbation or birth control. They failed to take care of Tamar and meet their obligations to her, that is the sin. They had an obligation to care for someone in a vulnerable position.

—————————

This family has many generations of women who are infertile, but who finally have a son who grows up to save the nation. Think of Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Elizabeth, and Hannah. Although, since the common denominator is the males from the same family line, perhaps it's not the women who are infertile.

While not infertile, Tamar is similar in that she is unable to have children due to the men of this family. Tamar uses trickery and extra-marital sex to seize the means of reproduction, and she was declared righteous for doing so.

This Canaanite woman lived up to all the traditional roles expected of her, but she was betrayed by the patriarchy. Perhaps they did this because she wasn't an Israelite, but rather than polluting the tribe, she lifts it up. She became the one to carry on Judah’s lineage through her children.

—————————

A queer application of this is we need to take care of the people around us, especially those more vulnerable and on the margins of society.

Many laws are being passed to deny basic rights and decency to queer people, especially trans individuals. Do we stand up for these vulnerable groups of people and oppose this legislation?

It’s okay for non-queer people to get gender-affirming care. For example, hormone blockers if puberty comes too early or to treat the symptoms of PCOS, testosterone to boost sex drive, hormone replacement therapy for menopause, breast reduction or enhancement surgery, hair transplants, Viagra, injections of filler to plump up lips and bums, and the list goes on and on. Cisgender people affirming their gender through healthcare is commonplace.

But for queer people to seek gender-affirming healthcare, that's not seen as the same. Laws target trans people to forbid them accessing gender-affirming care.

When I read that Judah thought it was fine for him to pay a woman for sex, but terrible for Tamar to be paid by a man for sex, it reminded me of how those in power and positions of privilege often allow for themselves things they deny to others. We live in a cis-normative and heteronormative society and gender-affirming healthcare is easily accessible for those in the majority. Meanwhile, the same health treatments for a queer person are tightly controlled and difficult to access. Estrogen is readily available to cis women as a hormonal contraceptive from their doctor, yet extremely hard to get hold of for trans women, who must go through a specialist gender clinic and a psychiatric assessment to access the same drug.

Most trans healthcare is actually cis healthcare. Very few of the speech and language therapists, laser hair-removal specialists, or surgeons constructing penises for trans men, originally trained to offer their services to trans people. Their services were for cis people first, and then adapted for trans people.

Cis people would be very upset if the government severely limited or outlawed their access to these treatments. Why are they upset that queer people receive gender-affirming healthcare? Perhaps it’s not the healthcare that they have a problem with, but it's about their own discomfort with queer people.

Just as Judah didn't have an issue with sex outside of marriage for himself but was ready to kill Tamar for essentially the same thing, many people in our society are ready to shame, bully, outlaw and even cause the death of queer people for accessing treatments available to everyone else.

—————————

Another queer application for queer Mormons is we can relate to growing up being promised that we would be married and have a family, but then being denied those blessings and reminded of it at every turn.

Like Tamar, queer members have to make families in unconventional ways, and we get shamed and labeled a sinner because of it.

Eventually Tamar’s choices were validated and she was honored to become a foremother of Jesus Christ. One day queer Latter-day Saints will receive the blessings we were promised and be able to stay in the Church. In the meantime, we need to be persistent like Tamar to get the blessings we deserve.

[eightspidereyes]

the shifter's manual -- part one

chapter one -- onanism

1a I am a creature of pleasure, I seek desire. I am desperate, yet in my gasps, 1b I breathe seduction. I am beauty incarnate, and my face shall I use. 2 I will dislocate my jaw to fit it all in. 3 I am the egg meeting the sperm. 4 The sperm. The sperm. Thou shan't spill thy sperm. I am a whore and a whore I shall be, I shall lick thy sperm off the floor, if thy hath spilled thy holy mead. 5 Not one drop shall be wasted. Not one drop. My tongue shall allow my heart indulgence. My only will in life, to taste thy cum. 6 In the sacred silence. I yearn. No condoms. No protection. No protection from our inevitable procreation. 7 In the solemnity of the night, whilst thou fall asleep. I shall ride. If not you, I shall ride another. 8 But his sperm I shall let drip, I shall prevent his seed from entering my bidden womb. 9 For my womb is thy precious. 10 The dark is a clandestine entity. Every autonomy be lost to the beholder of the black. The empty. The void.

Asmodei, the horny

chapter two -- acedia

1 This is my holding of sin. My exhaustion deep within. In this, I am done. Fin. 2 For I care not no more. 3 I shall die, once again. The everlasting Fin. 4 I forgot the face of my floor from the pile of clothes. Sin. I shall rest, everlasting. Eternal Fin.

Abaddon, the depressed

chapter 3 -- studiose

1 Hark! Behold! The fat, the thin, the never even in. The fit, the one digit, the holy piece of shit. 2 The open eyes, and open mouth. Hunger resides deep in south. 3 The teeth, the broken, the sharp yet stolen. 4 The most indulgent, and the least demure. Then comes the most daint, and the least impudent. 5 Damned the table of feasts. Damned the right-handed beasts. 6 If food doth reaches my mouth. The food doth indulges in my stomach. The food doth escape, and the food shall leave. 7 The further the throw, the better the fit. As I am, I am a holy piece of shit. 8 Hark! Behold! Cometh near the beast. The most of most, the least of least. 9 Cometh near the beast that hold vanity to thine face. The held glass. 10 Hark! Behold! Where art thou dignity. Thou hath becometh too much large. A large life is easy to come by. Yet, thy hath prevented thyself of joy. 11 Repented happiness in life. For vanity thou hast devoured daintily. For the in the hunger I shall feel full. 12 The frown of my stomach, shall be the uproar of my life.

Belphegor, the hungry

[radial-symmetry-enjoyer]

angel with a breeding kink citing that technically it's a sin to pull out, look what happened to Onan.

[hoping-for-novelty]

In Christianity it is often said that a married couple becomes "one flesh" which means that post-marital sex is the sin of onanism

[wormsngods]

Step Fathers & Masturbation

Tamar and Judah (1667) by Aert de Gelder

Most of us have heard of Onan. At the very least those of us familiar with Christianity during puberty are familiar with him. For centuries, he has been cited as evidence that masturbation is a sin and has filled many a teen with immense guilt. Be that as it may, I re read the passage tonight and noticed something that had passed my notice for years prior.

But I am getting ahead of myself. The story starts in the bronze age when a tribal chief, Judah, has a son with a canaanite woman whom he names Er. Er takes Tamar to be a wife. However YHWH, finds his conduct to be evil and kills him. As per the ancient tribal custom of levirate marriage, Tamar was now to be wed to Er's brother Onan. Onan on marrying Tamar, refuses to impregnate her and instead pulls out every single time they sleep together so YHWH kills him too and the story continues.

That is the story of Onan. Or is it?

That is how most of us remember this story. But there is one little line nestled in there that my brain for some reason passed over every single time I have read this passage. That line is ,"But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother." [Gen 38:9]

Onan's sin was not wasting his semen (although that in itself is not enough to deem masturbation permissible, sorry to disappoint!) but his sin was refusing to raise a child that was not his!* Where else have I heard this before?

Anywhere you go online these days you will see bitter lonely religious young men decry step fathers for being "c*cks" and insulting single mothers with much worse expletives. Why? because in their eyes it is not masculine or just to raise the child of another man. Precisely what was bad enough for YHWH to smite Onan. If YHWH is not directly killing you for your own bitter refusal to be a man and to fulfill your societal duty and letting stupid hang ups like this get between you and love and happiness and health, that does not mean He is not damning you to a slow and miserable destruction.

As you continue reading, Tamar takes on the dressing of a prostitute and proceeds to seduce her father in law and by this act she births twins who will, in time, go on to produce King David and his royal house that as per the new testament culminates in Jesus the son of Mary.

Judah and Tamar (1840) by Horace Vernet

What is the lesson to be learnt from this peculiar passage? Maybe past christians and jews who lived in peace time could not understand as well as we stand to do.

We however live in a time almost as sexually free as that of bronze age canaan. We may see reflections of the onlyfans girls, the step fathers, the born again virgins, the bitter redpill bros in these ancient names who produced mighty men and kings from their human and fallible deeds. and Allah knows best. Amen.

*Levirate marriage required that the parentage of the child be called from the deceased brother

[josemanuelhortelanopi]

Onán es una publicación de ilustración erótica cuyo contenido nace de la correspondencia entre el artista José Manuel Hortelano-Pi y la gente que envía sus fotos para que él las dibuje.

En Onán todo el mundo tiene cabida. Con esta publicación, José Manuel Hortelano-Pi quiere ilustrar las diferentes formas en que la gente expresa conceptos como el autoerotismo, la intimidad y la desnudez. También es una celebración de la diversidad de cuerpos que existen, y pretende darles visibilidad a esos cuerpos que tienen poca presencia en el imaginario erótico colectivo.

Si quieres participar en el proyecto y ser dibujado, puedes mandar tus fotos directamente al artista a su correo jmhortelanopi@gmail.com o ponerte en contacto con él a través del

instagram de la publicación @onan.fanzine

Requisitos de las fotos:

- Onán es una publicación de ilustración erótica, por lo tanto la foto tiene que tener un carácter eminentemente erótico. Onán es una celebración del cuerpo humano y el placer de sentir la belleza con la visión de nuestro cuerpo desnudo.

- Se valorará enormemente que la foto esté hecha expresamente para el proyecto teniendo en cuenta los conceptos mencionados. Con fotos exclusivas se consiguen dibujos más especiales y tanto el trabajo del artista como del retratado se ven recompensados.

- El límite de desnudez o de sexualidad explícita lo ponéis vosotros, pero recordad que primeros planos de genitales o un selfie sin camiseta no son muy excitantes para dibujar.

Participa en Onán y en la celebración de uno mismo, de la alegría de sentirse hermoso tengas el cuerpo que tengas.

Onán is a publication of erotic illustration whose content is born from the correspondence between the artist José Manuel Hortelano-Pi and the people who send their photos for him to draw them.Everyone has a place in Onán. With this publication, José Manuel Hortelano-Pi wants to illustrate the different ways in which people express concepts such as autoeroticism, intimacy and nudity. It is also a celebration of the diversity of bodies that exist, and aims to give visibility to those bodies that have little presence in the collective erotic imaginary.If you want to participate in the project and be drawn, you can send your photos directly to the artist at his email jmhortelanopi@gmail.com or contact him through the publication's instagram @onan.fanzine.

Photo requirements:

- Onán is an erotic illustration publication, therefore the photo has to have an eminently erotic character. Onán is a celebration of the human body and the pleasure of feeling beauty with the vision of our naked body.

- It will be highly valued that the photo is made specifically for the project taking into account the concepts mentioned above. With exclusive photos, more special drawings are achieved and both the work of the artist and the portrayed are rewarded.

- The limit of nudity or explicit sexuality is up to you, but remember that close-ups of genitals or a shirtless selfie are not very exciting to draw.

Participate in Onan and in the celebration of oneself, of the joy of feeling beautiful no matter what body you have

[uboat53]

A thought occurs, SHORT RANT (TM) time? No titles or sections on this one, it's more of a stream-of-consciousness rant.

We talk a lot about the way that Christianity interacts with politics, but has anyone else noticed the sheer arrogance of fundamentalist/evangelical Christians here in the US?

I'm not talking about normal arrogance, the kind that we have day-to-day. Heck, I'm sure many of you think (and some of you accurately) that I'm pretty arrogant myself! No, I'm talking about a deep and abiding arrogance beyond the realm of man. Can you imagine telling someone that you have perfectly understood the mind of God?

They won't say it like that, but that's what they mean if you put the pieces together. They say that they're just reading the Bible, but how many people do you know who agree on exactly what every single passage of the Bible means after studying it for a lifetime, let alone just reading it a few times? I can tell you, as a Jew, that the parts of the Bible that are shared are not remotely agreed upon by Jewish scholars even after millennia of study and debate. They also say that the Bible is inerrant, but how do they know which version? Is it the King James Version? The New International Version? Is it the version that the Council of Nicea agreed upon? Is it the few scraps and passages that have survived in the original Aramaic from the first century CE?

And even when they do get a little bit of focus and clarity, they don't use it to pursue a deeper understanding. They'll say that the story of Sodom and Gomorah tells you that God rejects homosexuality, ignoring the passage in Ezekiel that describes the sin of these two cities as refusing to use their wealth to help the poor and needy. They'll say that the story of Onan and Tamar in the Book of Genesis tells you that God detests masturbation, ignoring the scholarly consensus that Onan's sin was actually his refusal to fulfil his obligation to Tamar and his brother's family line by providing her with a child.

And, despite all of the issues with how they arrive at their perfect understanding of the mind of God they're not shy about enforcing any of it. These things they've perfectly understood from the mind of God aren't just things that they think that Christians should do, they think that the force of law and the violence of the state should be brought to bear to force every single person, regardless of their beliefs, to follow their understanding of the mind of God as well. After all, if they've perfectly understood it, then why shouldn't it be enforced with all possible power?

And that's the arrogance of it. It's not just that they think that the mind of God is perfectly understandable or that they think that the will of God should be enforced, it's that they think that they and only they have perfectly understood the mind of God and, therefore, their understanding must be forced on everyone else no matter the cost.

Even at my worst, I'm not that arrogant.

[freebiblestudies]

Lesson 038: More Righteous?

Genesis 38:26 - So Judah acknowledged them and said, “She has been more righteous than I, because I did not give her to Shelah my son.” And he never knew her again. 

Genesis chapter 38 tells a rather sordid story about sexual sins.  Judah and Tamar both committed sins in this story, yet Judah called her more righteous than him.  Why did he say that?

Let’s read together Genesis 38:1-11; Deuteronomy 25:5-10; and Numbers 36:7.

In the Old Testament, there was a custom known as levirate marriage.  If a man died childless, it was the duty of an unmarried brother to marry the widow.  The first child they had together would be the legal descendant of the dead man.  The purpose of this custom was to protect family lines and inheritances.

Er married Tamar, but Er died without an heir.  It was Er’s brother Onan’s duty to marry Tamar and have a child who would be considered Er’s legal heir.  Onan took advantage of the situation to have sexual relations with Tamar, but he did not want to provide an heir for Er.  The Lord killed Onan for his disobedience.  Judah promised Tamar she would marry his next son Shelah, but he reneged on his promise.

Let’s read together Genesis 38:12-25; Leviticus 20:14; Leviticus 21:9; Deuteronomy 22:20-22; and John 8:41.

The penalty for adultery in Old Testament times was stoning for both the man and woman.  Burning was the penalty for extreme cases.    Judah in his anger demanded Tamar should be burnt to death because he thought she committed harlotry.  However, Tamar gave proof that Judah was the one who got her pregnant.  Judah had to come clean about lying to Tamar and committing sexual sin.  

When Judah said Tamar was more righteous than him, Judah acknowledged his hypocrisy.  They both sinned, but he was the worse sinner.  Judah never had sex with Tamar again after this admission.

Let’s read together Matthew 7:1-2 and Luke 6:41-42.

May we be careful not to judge others and act as hypocrites.

[thisismyideaofhumor]

We must learn from the sin of Onan. We must get our brother’s wives pregnant

[caught-tumbling]

Its not a sin to waste cum because of the little sperms souls, it was a sin because of the context of the story. A man named Er died, so his brother Onan was tasked with providing the widow with a child, an heir for the now dead Er. My understanding is this was common at the time. The brother instead wanted to fuck the widow with no strings attached, so he came on the ground to avoid impregnating her. That was the sin.

So unless you're fucking your brothers wife cumming on the ground isn't a sin. Also abortions are healthcare not sinful

pro lifer blocked me on twitter for asking this but if embryos have souls, and then they're aborted, exactly how sapient are they in the afterlife? Are they forever doomed to float around with no thoughts in their heads? Is it like just animal intelligence like a little happy goldfish? Do they still have an embryonic form? I've always seen an assumption that child souls are still in child form so I guess so. Do the other people in the afterlife keep abortions as little pets? Will they stay in a fishbowl or are they too stupid + intangible and float right out again?

[thefernmanner]

"Jonathan." From the Book of Sirach, "The Manner of the Fern" 37: 27-31.

Food and eating represent the processes of self-illumination. Anything we "eat" goes straight to the mind and creates either a desire or a revulsion. Persons who think using copious amounts of drugs and sex for example to satisfy their appetites think they are engaging in a spiritually illuminating activity when in fact they are shortening their lives. All "good foods" lengthen life by sharpening the mind and jam packing life with "good things" alone.

So Sirach says control of the appetites along with observing the rules of Kashrut is essential for the attainment of what is called Shabbos, "the good things."

Controlling the Appetite

27 My child, as you go through life, keep your appetite under control, and don't eat anything that you know is bad for you. 28 All food doesn't agree with everyone, and everyone doesn't like the same kinds of food. 

29 Don't feel that you just have to have all sorts of fancy food, and don't be a glutton over any food. 30 If you eat too much, you'll get sick; if you do it all the time, you'll always have stomach trouble. 31 Gluttony has been the death of many people. Avoid it and live longer.

The Values in Gematria are:

Controlling the Appetite=872, ףעב‎ ‎, epha'av‎ ‎, "the authority figure in the public house."

The future King of Israel is required by the Rambam to teach the people of Israel how to read the Torah and the Kashrut this is done. A major gear shift is not required except in the mind except towards the actions that do not bring happiness and long life. These according to the observance of the Shabbos have to end. One cannot work without pay, that is forbidden by the Torah.

The same is true regarding the prohibtion on squeezing the weasel. Because of the sin of Onan. The sin of Onan is the sin of prejudice. God told the Jewish people in Vayeshev to interbreed and ensure the Torah was taught all around the world in every language. Onan was prejudiced and did not want a bastard baby from another race, so he fucked a hole in the ground instead of his brother's foreign wife and this made God angry.

Restraint of the hand with regards to the penis is discussed in Bereshit and also released in Kedoshim. Every observance and restraint in the Torah has a logical explanation, one that leads to the observance of the Shabbos. Telling young men to keep their hands off their gunn is cruel and weird and distorts the biological reality in the mind.

The desired result is the opposite, a King of Israel who has control over all of his bodily functions and faculties and exacts tribute from life, but does not sin, i.e. harms his neighbor or endangers his life.

v. 27-28: As you go through life, keep your appetite under control. The Number is 12089, יב‎א'ףט, yav aeffet, "and the surprise."

"Effect" in Hebrew would be spelled "מָעָש" (ma'as) or, more commonly, "תָּפִיּוֹת" (tufiyot), which means "effect" or "effect."

There are no causes and no effects in the attainment of the stage after Shabbos called Shabbat. This is very difficult to grasp, few are able to do it. Masturbation of the penis is a good example. This troubles most people because of religious weirdness about it. Once a boy squirts, that is it, the practice is here to stay. There are no longer any causes or effects available about the behavior or sensation, God has decided this is how it is to be, it is therefore said to be without a cause or an effect as man has no say in it.

The consequences associated with sex, which are within a man's control are the issue. Upon attainment of Shabbat, these disappear, exhausted in the knowledge God has already preordained divine and holy ways to intercourse. These cannot be changed, only the functional awareness changes. Changes in this level of function yield Shabbat. That is the surprise.

v. 29-31: Gluttony is the death of many people. Can you hook up lots and lots? Should you? The Book of Nehemiah says you are going to do it anyway, if you are a boy, and the Book of Ruth says the same thing about girls. It is, admittedly, cute and funny to watch people go to the bath house and get down and dirty and then watch them try to assimilate afterwards, most of us have tried it and failed. Except at some point, the adults around expect it to stop, lessons learned, haha, and for the work of life to take precedence. Persons who are able to do this earn the respect of others. Persons who cannot transcend the potty do not earn the respect of others.

The Number is 13454, יגתן‎ד‎‎, yagtand, Jonathan. Jonathan is perhaps the highest attainment in all religion. It means "using one's gifts and talents to transform the situation."

For reasons we do not need to try to ponder, there is no point, we find ourselves wanting to take our clothes off and spend time in ways lauded and hated by most. One cannot attain to Shabbos or Shabbat until one conquers this duality and yields to the laws God made inalienable within each of us.

The final Gemara is ףעביב‎א'ףט יגתן‎ד, ephaviv‎aeffet yagtan‎d, "End the lament and finally cross over."

Crossing over=1204, יב‎אֶפֶסד‎, "the geography of the natural world, the region of deduction."

[hisaltmystic]

Lent Seasonal Reflection

Lent has arrived and I would love to share a few verses and some reflection to inspire others throughout the season.

~~~~

Psalm 17: David’s prayer to God for guidance and protection

'My steps have held to your paths; my feet have not stumbled.' ( Psalms 17:5)

Since taking my personal journey with God more seriously, my central goal have been trusting the path that Christ has for me while standing close by him every step of the way. He has yet to fail me. I hopeful that during this Lent season, we all see a upgrade in our personal spiritual relationship with Christ

1 Chronicles 21:1-17

'The sons of Judah: Er, Onan and Shelah. These three were born to him by a Canaanite woman, the daughter of Shua. Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the Lord ’s sight; so the Lord put him to death. Judah’s daughter-in-law Tamar bore Perez and Zerah to Judah. He had five sons in all. ' (1 Chronicles 2:3-4)

This is the tribe that Jesus originates from, which makes it rich in history and impact. So much can be said about this tribe. As a historian and theologian I can go on for hours. One thing that I can say is how comforting it is that our savior came from an imperfect family as well as a various marginalize groups from the lens of greater society. Our God knows and

1 John 2:1-6

'Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did. ' (1 John 2:4-6)

For as long as Christianity existed, so many people have used this used this religion or form of spirituality to their own benefits for power. They often forget the deep, radical and progressive teachings of Christ. Agape/universal love for All of God’s children. I don’t claim to be perfect, nor do believe I will ever be a perfect Christ follower due to the original sin coursing through my veins originating from my fallen ancestors Adam and Eve. It’s within us all. But, I pray that in this Lent season, we all have the opportunity to better ourselves and live out the teachings of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Radical love for ALL people