Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: GonzoII
It’s hard to imagine but I think it needs to be said…. Wesley, Luther, Calvin, C.S. Lewis, J.D. Douglas, Matthew Henry and others really got it wrong about the passage of Onan. How could all these revered individuals gotten it so wrong? This passage has nothing to do with contraception except almost in an incidental or peripheral way to the story. And it also has nothing to do with masturbation…. thankfully that’s not mentioned in this article but Onan typically gets mentioned when the morality of masturbation is the subject. And this idea that sex is strictly for procreation also needs to be challenged because it is just plain wrong. And scripture that is applied wrongly is a tool of the devil himself.

Sex is the very definition of marriage….there are many types of relationships that exist amongst humans but only one that has sex as the distinguishing feature and that’s the sexual relationship between a husband and a wife. God created mankind with the intrinsic desire to have sex as a natural element that is woven right into the fabric of our physical, mental and emotional characters. He did not create sex to be a vehicle by which we could all be condemned because of desiring after something that is prohibited…he did not create humans to live lives which are filled with aching and long for something that is unattainable and thus we would have to exist in a constant state of self-denial. He created sex for a pure and perfect purpose…. to set the foundation of the institution of marriage itself which becomes the vehicle by which sex moved from the realm of being something that is absolutely prohibited to the realm of not only being encouraged, it’s completely mandated. If you don’t believe this (or you believe that somehow it’s only for the purpose of having children), take a look at the great marriage chapter which is 1 Corinthians 7:

1. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. It is explained elsewhere in scripture that if a man does not feel the need to have a wife, this is a good thing because he does not have additional burdens to deal with when conducting ministry.

2. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.This verse simply recognizes the nature of humanity is sexual and it is normal that we desire sex physically because God created us that way…. and marriage is the institution which God also has created so that sex can happen in a God approved way.

3. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.The sexual act as the defining characteristic of marriage is to be given by the husband and wife to each other freely as an obligation that is loving in nature.

4. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.The mandate to have sex in marriage is so great that if either the husband or the wife wants to engage the other sexually, the other meets that need willingly and without reservation.

5. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. As if to drive the point home from verse 4, the mandate for the husband and wife to have sex is so great that it is only superseded IF both the husband and wife mutually agree to take a break and ONLY for the purpose of fasting and prayer. And if one of the parties denies the other sex, it’s called fraud. Why? Because God created that desire for sex to be so strong that regular sex in a marriage strengthens the bonds of the marriage itself while denial of sex in a marriage exposes one or both of the parties to Satanic temptations.

Note that nowhere in this passage are children mentioned…. children are the outcome of sex, not the sole purpose of sex. Sex is the means created by God to establish and solidify the loving relationship between the husband and the wife so that if children are the result, they will be welcomed into a loving family that is doing things God’s way.

As for Onan, he was killed simply because he disobeyed God and God's laws…. and in so doing, he violated the holiness that God ascribes to the sex act between husbands and wives. How exactly was he disobedient? Onan disobeyed God on what ultimately was one of the 10 commandments…….Exodus 20:14 ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’ What is adultery? Well, we know that it is having sex with someone other than your husband or wife. Under normal day to day circumstances, a sexual act between Onan and his sister-in-law would be considered to be an adulterous act and absolutely prohibited by the above commandment….. however God in His infinite wisdom had created this one exception to the rule which is explained clearly in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 ……. “5. If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. 6. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.” The exception to the rule would appear to be created by God because he wanted the widow to be looked after as well as the name of the dead brother to not simply disappear. And so this exception for sex outside of marriage was not only allowed and created, it was God approved. It was not meant to be interpreted as an exception that could be exploited to avoid falling under the law concerning adultery….... within the bounds of the holiness ascribed to the sexual act, this was simply an allowed exception that fulfilled a specific purpose of God. By ‘spilling his seed on the ground’, Onan disobeyed God and it could be in fact inferred that he thought he was doing an end-run around God’s commandment on adultery. He essentially thought he could commit adultery and get away with it scot-free (and ultimately responsibility-free) by leaving his sister-in-law childless. And by his actions, he mocked God and was killed for it. By perverting God's purpose of the exception, Onan turned it into an act of adultery.

God is holy…. and there are very serious consequences for those who mock Him and discount His holiness in all its forms.

53 posted on 10/26/2014 12:10:51 PM PDT by hecticskeptic (In life it's important to know what you believeÂ….but more more importantly, why you believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: hecticskeptic

hecticskeptic, I could not have said as good myself, glad some one told it like it is.


56 posted on 10/26/2014 12:19:50 PM PDT by ravenwolf (` know if an other temple will be built or not but the)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

To: hecticskeptic
It’s hard to imagine but I think it needs to be said…. Wesley, Luther, Calvin, C.S. Lewis, J.D. Douglas, Matthew Henry and others really got it wrong about the passage of Onan. How could all these revered individuals gotten it so wrong? This passage has nothing to do with contraception except almost in an incidental or peripheral way to the story. And it also has nothing to do with masturbation…. thankfully that’s not mentioned in this article but Onan typically gets mentioned when the morality of masturbation is the subject. And this idea that sex is strictly for procreation also needs to be challenged because it is just plain wrong. And scripture that is applied wrongly is a tool of the devil himself.

The Hebrew word shahat, used in the verse, means “to be spoiled / corrupt / gone to ruin”. Spilled is quite inaccurate.

So Onan let his seed "go to ruin". Sounds like a pretty strong condemnation in the text.
66 posted on 10/26/2014 1:24:27 PM PDT by DarkSavant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

To: hecticskeptic; CynicalBear; daniel1212; Mrs. Don-o

Excellent.


73 posted on 10/26/2014 1:45:06 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

To: hecticskeptic

I completely agree with what you posted. I’m not a theologian, but I can read what they write and they are continuously seeing things that are not mentioned in the written word. Jesus spoke about religionists placing burdens on people.


78 posted on 10/26/2014 2:15:18 PM PDT by odawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

To: hecticskeptic
So, you think it is ethically right to surgically and/or hormonally change our natural sex characteristics, disrupt our bodies hormonally and deliberately disable healthy sexual functions?

You think we can sabotage our bodies' physical integrity in order to prevent God granting us children?

You think we can do this and God doesn't care?

Are there any other circumstances in which you think it's OK to impair natural bodily health features?

See what I'm getting at?

Really, I'm curious.

93 posted on 10/26/2014 5:17:02 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness & gentleness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

To: hecticskeptic
This passage has nothing to do with contraception except almost in an incidental or peripheral way to the story.

Agreed

Under normal day to day circumstances, a sexual act between Onan and his sister-in-law would be considered to be an adulterous act ...the exception to the rule would appear to be created by God because he wanted the widow to be looked after as well as the name of the dead brother to not simply disappear. And so this exception for sex outside of marriage was not only allowed and created, it was God approved. It was not meant to be interpreted as an exception that could be exploited to avoid falling under the law concerning adultery….... within the bounds of the holiness ascribed to the sexual act, this was simply an allowed exception that fulfilled a specific purpose of God.

I disagree here, as the text teaches that the brother was to marry the widow:

But if he will not take his brother's wife, who by law belongeth to him, the woman shall go to the gate of the city, and call upon the ancients, and say: My husband's brother refuseth to raise up his brother's name in Israel: and will not take me to wife . (Deu 25:7)

And thus the statement by the Sadducees regarding "seven brethren: and the first having married a wife, died; and not having issue, left his wife to his brother..."

At the resurrection therefore, whose wife of the seven shall she be? For they all had her. (Mat 22:28)

Moreover, that the bros. still dwelt together may indicate the living brother was yet unmarried. Otherwise polygamy would be required by a law of God, if only in this circumstance.

140 posted on 10/28/2014 9:03:09 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson