Talk:Religious views on masturbation/Archive 2

serial undoing of policy violations
An IP has edit warred with original research and changing what other reliable sources actually say (they do not even speak of "eternally damning"), despite being told that it is his burden to cite reliable sources for his edits. I want him to actually cite a reliable source in support of his position. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I specifically object to the false unsourced pov and or statement "On the matter of masturbation, the Hebrew and Christian Bibles are silent." I am assuming that this topic is one you have little knowledge of, and not that you personally dispute how Leviticus 15 is interpreted. 172.56.35.90 (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"A third passage which may deal with masturbation is part of the Mosaic Code, and is contained in Leviticus 15. Verse 16 may be interpreted as referring to masturbation in a matter-of-fact manner. The passage does not condemn the practice. We have only seen one reference to this verse on Christian web sites."

- http://www.religioustolerance.org/masturba3.htm


 * Cited by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The Bible nowhere mentions the word masturbation and nowhere describes the act of masturbating. This is an objective fact about the Bible, recognized by the scholars cited in the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Every source agrees that Leviticus 15 is about masturbation including the one you just quoted. Why, does TGeorgescu say Leviticus 15 is about something else and if so what I wonder? 172.56.35.90 (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * First, religioustolerance.org isn't Bible scholarship or treatise in theology, so it may not be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia's purpose. Second, it is up to you to actually cite Bible scholars who actually support your position. Theological viewpoints may be inserted in the section corresponding to their specific religious denomination, since theology isn't objective knowledge. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Im not so sure there is a burden to prove something that is common knowledge among all sources to someone who seemingly lacks any knowledge of the chapter and is too lazy to look it up. Try http://lmgtfy/q=%22leviticus+15%22+masturbation for some perspectives 172.56.35.90 (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)




 * Cited by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)




 * Cited by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The gist is: when citing a primary religious source which does not even mention masturbation (as word or act), but only mentions semen flow, it is original synthesis to affirm that it does speak of masturbation. Only reliable sources are entitled to draw such inferences, and so far as I could see so far, even for them it is dubious that the Leviticus verse refers to masturbation. I reiterate that it is not my WP:BURDEN to cite sources supporting your position and in the first two pages of results for "leviticus masturbation" (without the quotes) Google Books does not seem to support your position through offering such results from reliable sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)




 * Cited by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Somehow you managed to cherry pick through all the theologians and produce the most skeptical fringe, yet even they all grudgingly admit that Leviticus 15 refers to masturbation and not one yet pretends it does not refer to masturbation (of course Hebrew does not use a modern word like "masturbation" but that is what all sources have interpreted it to mean for a couple thousand years at least. So the OR assertion, that the Bible is silent on the consequences of masturbation, is a false statement on its head as well as pov pushing, you have yet to find anything saying Leviticus 15 has nothing to do with masturbation. 172.56.35.90 (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Fortress Press and Tyndale House books are "most skeptical fringe"? LOL. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a case of English comprehension difficulty, since every source you have so far unequivocally connects Lev 15 with masturbation, then you turn around and hypocritically accuse me of OR which would mean I am the first person in the world ever to publish the suggestion that Lev 15 concerns masturbation. The next time you accuse me of OR because you DON'TLIKEIT, I will file my own report. 172.56.35.90 (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The Bible never mentions masturbation as either word or as act (behavior). It mentions semen flow. So, basically, you could make an argument that the Bible condemns emission of semen. And you have not yet explained why you have changed the meaning of two reliable sources quoted in the article. That's not allowed per WP:VER: we simply report what reliable sources say, we don't put words in their mouth. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

See, I knew you were confused about this topic you are arguing so vehemently about. You will note nobody claims that Lev 15 "condemns" seminal emissions (and neither did my edit) because it does not say that, this would be an OR view all your own. It merely says seminal emissions result in defilement for 7 days. Every commenter includes masturbation (male) among seminal emissions and your original argument that it does not because "masturbation" is not a word in Ancient Hebrew, is specious. And if you try to find out how verse three is interpreted, you will find it is interpreted to mean the male is defiled even if he masturbates without seminal emission. 172.56.35.90 (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, hereupon we do agree: the Bible says that all semen emissions are defilement. So if you find a reliable source for it, you are entitled to state "the Bible says that all semen emissions are defilement". Would you put this in the article Religion and sexuality and state that it also applies to intercourse among married partners? Since I do not get why you insist so much upon masturbation and not upon marriage. Since emissions of semen during marriage lead to defilement, that's what the Bible says. But you have still to make a case that the Bible speaks about masturbation in particular, so far you only made a case that it speaks about semen emissions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to make the case that Lev 15 concerns masturbation because all sources already make that case, even the most skeptical ones you quoted yourself. And once again your lack of familiarity with the topic is showing. Seminal emissions with a woman are treated in a separate chapter and result in one day defilement, not seven. 172.56.35.90 (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Your latest edits look alright, so looks like you are on the right track now and this discussion turned out to be fruitful after all 172.56.35.90 (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm still not persuaded that the Bible ever mentioned masturbation, but I will leave the deleted statement out, even if I still consider it to be accurate. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Dr. James Dobson
The section on Dr. Dobson is inaccurate. He wrote in his book "Bringing Up Boys" that masturbation is a safe alternative to premarital sex and that parents should actively inform their youth that masturbation is not a shameful act. --98.26.187.80 (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * True, see:

"Still, the subject of masturbation is a very controversial one. Christian people have different opinions about how God views this act. Unfortunately, I can't speak directly for God on this subject, since His Holy Word, the Bible, is silent on this point. I will tell you what I believe although I certainly do not want to contradict what your parents or your pastor believe. It is my opinion that masturbation is not much of an issue with God. It's a normal part of adolescence, which involves no one else. It does not cause diseases, it does not produce babies, and Jesus did not mention it in the Bible. I'm not telling you to masturbate, and I hope you won't feel the need for it. But if you do, it is my opinion that you should not struggle with guilt over it."

- Dr. James Dobson


 * Quoted from by Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

What Bible scholarship means
Bible scholarship is the empiric-analytic study of the Bible. Bible scholarship is an academic endeavor, it should not be conflated with preaching the good news. Views such as " However, the Bible does implicitly give verses which point out that the act of masturbating is not what God sees as glorifying, for it neither appears moral nor passes the test of God's having ownership of the committer's body. " aren't objective facts about the Bible, but are theological opinion. Theological opinion is always subjective, i.e. belongs to and depends upon some church or religious affiliation which is not universally shared by human subjects. Bible scholarship does not address a certain church community, but seeks to reach objective results, i.e. results which do not depend upon the theological affiliation of the subject. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That was what I tried to do: make it subjective; I just had a minor setback, and, please, do not use my claim as an example; it is a little embarrassing and thus rude. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

These Implicit Verses May Be Useful
Romans 14:23 1 Corinthians 10:31 Ephesians 5:3

Look. I was only trying to help by getting verses from a presumed reliable source of gotquestions.org, but I did not know that it is not a Biblical scholarship. Also, I was not trying to make these verses objective because they are beliefs, and how could anyone assume that I were disguising the subjective information as objective from a so-called "unreliable" organization? These verses were linked to a reliable source, although I can see why they would not include them because gotquestions.org is not a Biblical scholarship, even though it could have been and though I thought that it were, yet I was given all of these rules which I already know, making me upset and feel stupid as we know it. I did not do anything wrong, and not necessarily all of my contribution needed to be reverted. What are your opinions upon these implicit yet notable verses? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * As you should already know, our own opinions upon primary religious sources do not matter. Secondary sources are all that matter. Specific theological viewpoints should go into the section for their specific religious denomination, and academic Bible scholarship should go into the section reserved for Bible scholarship. In order to cite the theological views of gotquestions.org you have to establish (i) that it is a notable organization (notable for theological opinion) and not just another blog from the internet and (ii) the religious denomination it speaks for, since if it speaks for Baptists, it does not speak for Adventists, Pentecostals and Catholics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * About (ii): they say of themselves "We are Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational." I'm not sure which denomination is non-denominational, but they are certainly fundamentalist evangelicals. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * So you are saying that I had a mix-up of that information by misplacing it and thought that it were sourced by a secondary source which links to a more primary source of these verses, and am I correct? That would make sense, and I am sorry for having sounded cantankerous. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think that gotquestion.org is a scholarly source or anything like a theological treatise or notable theological statement. It is just a website run by volunteer missionaries who seem to have no particular denomination, other than claiming to speak for evangelical fundamentalists. So probably it should not be quoted in the article, it isn't a reliable source. There are other publications which could make a case about those verses, but it is not my burden of proof to find them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * What about biblia.com, the site to which gotquestions.org linked those verses? It is probably better off than gotquestions.org, and burdening is just being lazy, which is not my character trait. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The Bible is a primary religious source and its interpretation should be left to scholars and theologians. Not everything you find on Google Books is a reliable source, e.g. the Daniel Loeb book is self-published (Lulu.com), he does not have credentials as a Bible scholar (such as a PhD or ThD or studying for such degrees), he does not have research output in this field, he does not have a paid teaching position in a higher education institution. Besides, the book does not even pretend to be Bible scholarship (i.e. academic historical or anthropological analysis), it is rather a self-help book which states what churchgoers should believe instead of what historians should believe (that is, regardless of their religious affiliation). Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Masturbation and spilling seed
TGeorgescu must have searched high and low to come up with sources to make the case that male masturbation is excluded from seminal emissions, but once he has finally found them, these sources do not automatically supercede the vast body of recorded human thought on that question. 172.56.35.205 (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In the words of User:Ian.thomson:


 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.


 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.


 * Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon.  It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience.  Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information.  Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will objectively [expose] false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (c.f. Indigo children). Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

So let me make sure I have this right. You manage to find some books arguing that male masturbation does not involve seminal emissions, and those automatically become the only"neutral" sources? I didn't know anyone existed on Earth with their head that deep in denial. 172.56.35.205 (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * What exactly is the argument here? Let's try to reach consensus instead of edit warring, since there's absolutely no point to endlessly reverting each other's edits. ~ RobTalk 12:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP paints this problem as a clear cut consensus (black and white situation). In fact, scholars do no see this as either black or white, but they acknowledge that there are competing interpretations. Do they acknowledge that "semen flow" has been interpreted as referring to masturbation? Definitely. Do they acknowledge that semen flow has been interpreted as having nothing to do with masturbation? Definitely. Both interpretations have a very long tradition and here we do not decide who is right, but simply state with attribution both views (since there is no consensus all major views have to be rendered). In the end, the Bible does not tell us if it discusses either masturbation or wet dreams or both&mdash;it is simply a matter of interpretation and different interpreters come to different conclusions. Of course, if you start from IP's assumption, then several full professors and a notable evangelist speak utter nonsense. But the Bible does not tell us that his assumption would be right, the interpretation is not written in the stars and it has to be guessed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Does the Bible really means all semen flows? This is not a question for Wikipedia editors, it is question for Bible scholars and theologians. It cannot be solved once and for all in Wikipedia talk pages, but they have to use peer-reviewed publications in order to discuss this problem. And that's what I did: quoting peer-reviewed publications and books by reputable authors and from reputable publishers. And the IP has simply deleted such verifiable information simply because his assumption does not like it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to have reliable sources that back up the existence of your Evangelicals section. As far as I'm concerned, that deserves to go back in. On the other hand, there are some WP:NPOV issues with the way that your edits interacted with the Bible section. That information may be able to be split off, but inserting several qualifiers into the first point of view is not treating both points of view neutrally. Both points of view should have a section free from interjections of the other point of view, to prevent NPOV issues. Does that make sense and is that agreeable? ~ RobTalk 13:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. I am prepared to state in the article what I stated above, that both views have a long tradition. Since it is not up to Wikipedia to tell which is right, I will only mention them with attribution instead of in Wikipedia's voice. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because serious undue weight is being given to the proposition that seminal emissions in the Bible has nothing to do with masturbation. Look at the Zoroastrianism section, it says "spilling seed", any books arguing Zoroastrianism is silent about masturbation because Avestan did not use that term would be ludicrous as sources. 172.56.35.205 (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not know much about Avesta so I do not know what scholars say about that. However, your interpretation is not true by default, even if the rabbis have sided with you for several millenniums (but not since 3000 years ago, at that time Judaism probably did not exist and Leviticus still had to be written several centuries later). Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've added back in the Evangelicals section as per our consensus here. There were other minor differences between your edits that I have not touched, as there are some WP:NPOV issues and a lack of consensus. I strongly recommend continuing to talk here about any additional changes before doing them. It took us around an hour to find common ground, as all parties are working in good faith. You both want to make this as good an article as possible, even if you have different views on how to do that. I'm sure the remaining differences can be resolved through continued discussion. I'll keep an eye on this article/page, but probably won't be an active participant in the discussion, as religion is not my area of expertise. ~ RobTalk 14:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

BU Rob, my problem is that I am editing by phone which limits me from adding complex links or edits. Looking in a commentary I have here "Peake's Commentary" it says "Issues - This chapter is concerned with discharges from the sexual organs... 16-18 deals with the discharge of semen, whether in sexual intercourse or not... at root there are the taboos which have to do with things that contain life, I.e. blood and semen..." 172.56.35.205 (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Apparently Peake's Commentary has been published in 1962 and has been recently reprinted. Are you sure it is up to date? In 50 years a lot changed in Bible scholarship (then William F. Albright was still the boss of biblical archaeological research). Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Mormon Section
Mormons mostly discuss masturbation in the context of male masturbation, while female masturbation is considered by context of "impure thoughts".

What does that sentence mean? - Concerned in Fullerton

Frankly, I don't even know, and I'm a mormon. Although, it's true that male masturbation is more focused on than female, just like females are more likely to get a 'modesty' talk than a guy is, generally speaking. Sagittarius Flame 03:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Masterbation, whether it be by male or female, is considered a sin in the Mormon Church.
 * See Spencer W Kimball's "Miracle of Forgiveness." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.132.161 (talk • contribs)

Leviticus 15 issue (discussion)
I notice that between the two quotes from Milgrom there is a contradiction: he states that in P the verses apply to masturbation and then states that it is the enactment of the rabbis, not that of Scripture. However, I am not here to sort out Milgrom's contradictions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I realized that condemned is not the same as ritual defilement. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course, if we assume that the Bible means what it literally means, without qualification, then the IP wins by default. But that's what theologians (both Jews and Christians) were saying for the past millennium and a half: sometimes the literal reading of the Bible is misleading. Example: http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2027582,00.html Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Literal interpretation of the Bible might be the default mode for karaites and for fundamentalist and conservative evangelicals, but it is not the default mode for theologians and Bible scholars. In fact much of theology would have to be abandoned if it were mandatory to interpret the Bible literally. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

And if I'm not allowed to quote professors who disagree with IP's view, then of course he has won the game by default. But that isn't a level playing field and in order to claim that his view is the only true and possible one he would need very strong sources complying with WP:RS/AC. I do not need such sources, since evidence of disagreement is evidence of disagreement (among scholars who live by publish or perish in respect to the discussed matter). People say that if Milton Friedman tells you let's assume this and that and you agree with that, he has already won the dispute. The only defence against him is "Let's not assume your assumptions!" The IP has accused respected professors of belonging to the lunatic fringe. Seriously? Like Augsburg Fortress would publish lunatic views. Really? Is this the way he wants to discard my sources? So far I was the only one doing research here, I even did it on his behalf (perhaps because I'm lazy?). If he comes with the lunatic fringe argument again I will take it to WP:FTN. He will have to make his case there. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Per Mertonian norms, being skeptical is not a fault, it is a positive quality, since science is organized skepticism. So it is bizarre to argue that scholars would be untrustworthy because they are skeptical. All scholars are required to participate in organized skepticism by the very requirements of academic scholarship. A scholar is by Merton's definition a professional skeptic. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This quote may explain IP's cognitive dissonance when confronted with the publications of several professors of Bible scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are making a lot of replies in argument style... but no one else is talking, . What's going on? Ogress smash! 23:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There is (or at least were) a heated dispute going on. Seemed to have calmed down for the past hours. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've made a few changes. In particular, I've condensed the sections into one, since we do not need that many headings for relatively little new information. I've removed the wording at the beginning of the section, as the somewhat rhetorical question could cause concerns about WP:NPOV and was not written in an encyclopedic fashion. Someone may want to write a short and neutral transition sentence to go between views towards masturbation and views against, but this does not require headings. ~ RobTalk 16:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Jewish section seems backwards
The Jewish section, here and in the Jewish article, seems to be backwards. Onanaism, like Sodomy, are Christian terms, and do not really work well with Jewish tradition. The main prohibition, which is to arouse the libido (outside the context of mrital relations) is derived outright from the law of the army camp. Onanaism is a more severe form of this. In fact, the death of the first brother (Er) is also blamed on this, so perhaps we would call it Erism ( :-) ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzk1 (talk • contribs)
 * This would be really good to include if you have citations for it.49.183.130.35 (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The OP has not been active in the past four years. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. Pity as it is an interesting topic. :( By the way, thanks for all your hard work on this article,Tgeorgescu. I hope my recent contributions have been of some help, too. "Anonymous Australian" 49.182.134.2 (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Drawing board
 Screen shot of the film Onan (1963), directed by Takahiko Iimura. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberAnth (talk • contribs)

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2146946_ITM - Promoting 20/20 vision: a Q & A ministry to undergraduates


 * Now at https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Promoting+20%2F20+vision%3A+a+Q+%26+A+ministry+to+undergraduates.-a093083672, Garry H. Strauss, a psychologist from the Christian Biola University says there is nothing in the Bible about masturbation, so masturbation is ok, but pornography (real or imagined) isn't. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Spam claim
To claim that rendering the viewpoints of a Harvard Bible scholar would amount to spam is dubious. See http://hds.harvard.edu/people/mark-d-jordan Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Luther on masturbation
The article states:

"Luther sees masturbation as a sin more terrible than heterosexual rape since such rape is considered to be "in accordance with nature", while masturbation is "unnatural".

Well, that is truth. But in order to do justice, one must say that this thought was common in the middle ages and early modernity, because even St. Thomas said that masturbation is more wrong than rape in the Summa. The way that is written, it is showed an anti luther bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:FC80:88DB:9437:3775:C99:1668 (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I have added a citation stating that Thomas Aquinas said this. 49.199.4.243 (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Leviticus 15 issue
There are two competing views upon some verses of Leviticus 15: that it refers to masturbation and that it does not refer to masturbation. Both views have a long history, since the issue is a matter of interpretation: does the Bible really means all semen flows or just some of them? Various interpreters have come to different conclusions.

Bible scholars and theologians who acknowledge that it applies to masturbation
The traditional rabbinical interpretation was that Leviticus 15 applies to all sperm flows, including sperm flows due to masturbation.

"But [in P] the ejaculation of semen results in only a one-day impurity that requires laundering and ablutions (15:16-18), regardless of whether the act takes place during (legitimate) intercourse or by the self, deliberately (masturbation) or accidentally (nocturnal emission)."

- Jacob Milgrom

Bible scholars and theologians who deny that it applies to masturbation
Before Pope Gregory I, the monastic interpretation of those verses was about "nocturnal emission".

Carl L. Jech stated "(Masturbation is never mentioned in the Bible!)". M.K. Malan and Vern Bullough have stated "nowhere in the Bible is there a clear unchallenged reference to masturbation" and "masturbation is not mentioned in the Bible or Book of Mormon".

In this case I simply did not knew the traditional Jewish perspective upon those verses. If one shows me the WP:SOURCES, I can write for the WP:ENEMY. (Just to be sure, my enemies aren't the Jews.) Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Citing Matthew Vines
Matthew Vines is cited regarding the sin of Onan (footnote 3). As far as Im aware, he has no widely recognised qualifications, and his theology is highly controversial. It doesnt seem helpful to cite him as an authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomkentwell (talk • contribs) 09:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, many Christians see him as having an ax to grind, but we also look at the publisher and all notable views are welcome, as long as we know who said what. Also for the claim see WP:BLUE: it is not a particularly controversial claim. "The biblical story of Onan (Gen. 38) is traditionally linked to referring to masturbation and condemnation thereof"&mdash;that's what he is cited for, no rocket science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

About the Bible
"Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that: • The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive; • The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;"

- Beardsley Ruml

This POV is enacted all across Wikipedia and you will be crushed if you oppose it. We do not need jokers who deride academic learning. WP:CHOPSY do not pander to piety and neither does that Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Changing quotes
Changing verbatim quotes is vandalism of the lowest sort. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

What is a sin?
Sin is something for which the Old Testament provides shedding of blood. If there is no shedding of blood, that stuff is not a sin, although it may well be ritual impurity. So, yes, definitely, the Old Testament nowhere provides shedding of blood for masturbation, in fact it lacks any mention of masturbation, whether as a word (term) or as describing such behavior. Conclusion: the Bible never and nowhere claimed that masturbation would be a sin.

I mean: the uncrowned king of US evangelicals, James Dobson, agrees that the Bible does not say anything about masturbation.

A Catholic scholar (Giovanni Cappelli) endorses this conclusion.

Both Evangelical and Catholic authorities affirm that the Bible says nothing about masturbation. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Deletion
IP, your mere claim that it would be an error does not make it an error. Provide WP:RS for your claim.

If my search of Migne's Patrologia is accurate, the Church Fathers did not write more than half A4 upon Onan and onanism. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Strange contents groupings
Why are we grouping most religions by geographic region, but not the abrahamic religions? Seems inconsistent. Also, major religions themselves have various sects or schools of thought within them (e.x Within Buddhism, there is Theravāda, Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna.) We should delete the categorization of religions by geographic location, and instead move up major world religions to their own spot in the table of contents.

Also, wouldn't it be more accurate to put "biblical scholarship" under "Christianity", not "abrahamic religions" JewelsVerne (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Bible scholarship is not necessarily Christian, e.g. Bart Ehrman and Francesca Stavrakopoulou are atheists. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The scholars themselves, and the history surrounding the bible, may be secular, but the bible is still the holy book of Christianity, so it is more relevant to Christianity than to Judaism or Islam. Also, there is currently no section for Torah scholarship or Quran scholarship, so the placing of "bible scholarship" as it's own category within "abrahamic religion" seems out of place, and makes the article seem christian-centric.


 * Francesca Stavrakopoulou is a specialist in the Hebrew Bible, not in the Christian Bible. Ilona N. Rashkow is an Associate Professor Emerita of Judaic Studies. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Fair enough JewelsVerne (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Article Split?
I think we need to split this article, as the "christian" section dominates this article. That would allow us to be more concise here, but still cover the more in-depth information elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JewelsVerne (talk • contribs) 20:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, Christians made the most fuss about it. For all other religions, even if formally prohibited, it is regarded as minor claptrap in practice. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And the deal is this: Muslims preachers do preach against masturbation, but I've never heard of masturbators punished in Islamic states (pornography is a different issue). But we have historical records of masturbators punished in Puritan colonies from US. It is formally banned in Islam, but there is no Sharia punishment for it. This is an example wherein Sharia has been much milder than past Catholic and Protestant teachings. Catholics and Protestants did not jump the gun either, but were asking masturbators to repent, and only the "unrepentant" ones got penalty for it. Such Inquisition people were sick bastards! The Inquisition consisted of sick bastards. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Mastrubation
It is a sin 196.15.224.35 (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

What the Bible actually says about masturbation
Leviticus 15:16-17 is actually quite clear: "When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Any clothing or leather that has semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean till evening." These verses clearly talks about masturbation, as, how would a man have an emission of semen otherwise?

Verse 18 discusses ejaculation in the context of sex with a woman as well: "When a man has sexual relations with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both of them must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening."

Since the undertaking are the same in both cases, in that they just have to wash and remain unclean until the evening, masturbation is obviously not a sin, otherwise, the Bible would have been clear that emissions of semen outside of wedded sexual contact with a woman would be sin. In the case above, the only thing that such a person is told to do is to bathe his whole body with water and remain unclean until evening. Remaining unclean is not sinful, as, otherwise, by using the same logic, having sex with a woman would be sinful, which it is not, therefore, the first instance can't be treated as sin either.

Also Deuteronomy 23:10-11 specifically discusses nocturnal emissions: "10 If one of your men is unclean because of a nocturnal emission, he is to go outside the camp and stay there. 11 But as evening approaches he is to wash himself, and at sunset he may return to the camp."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:A702:EA85:21EF:DA6F:8F91:F42B (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * What the Bible says about X is a source of endless quarrels. That's why we only WP:CITE WP:SCHOLARSHIP and we don't cite WP:RANDY. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ești un prost. Dispari. În alte articole se citează în mod clar versete din Biblie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributes_of_God_in_Christianity 2603:8080:A702:EA85:21EF:DA6F:8F91:F42B (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * m:Don't be a jerk. I have replied at your talk page. WP:OR performed upon the Bible is not done.
 * Citing Bible verses at Attributes of God in Christianity is stupid, since other Bible verses can be found to contradict those. And you don't even need to search very hard for such verses. E.g. and . tgeorgescu (talk)  01:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)