Posted on 02/15/2012 6:49:17 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
I don’t God would have made it a pleasurable act, unless he £eant for it to be pleasurable in and of itself.
In regards to Onan, according to Rabbis, he wasn’t killed for making it only an act of pleasure, but because he was purposefully not completing his obligation to give his brother an heir.
It was an act to bind a married couple with the intent of creating children, but also an act of pleasure.
Dimocrats are counting on us having this type of discussion, and they will use it to club us over the head and reelect the big 0.
We need to stay far, far away from the religious arguments, and stay with the unConstitutionality of the the whole thing.
The media sensation created by the HHS mandate is causing many Christians of good will to honestly reexamine this issue, and it will bring about a conversion of many hearts, not only to renewed openness to God's Providence and new Life, but also to the Church.
Among those genuinely seeking the Truth and eager to do the Lord's Will, this subject has never been a "losing" battle.
It has brought many home to Christ's Church, and will bring many more, not thanks to the USCCB but, paradoxically, to Obama.
Please, continue to pray for the conversion or the confounding of the enemies of God and His Church.
QUAERITUR: Why pray to “confuse” enemies rather than “convert”?
From a reader:
Sometimes you write that we should pray for strength for the Pope but confusion for his enemies. Shouldn’t you pray for the conversion the his enemies?
Okay. Pray for conversion. By all means.
Perhaps I have read 19th century English novels, Patrick O’Brien, and both the King James and Douay versions of the Bible enough that some of turns of phrase stick in my head.
“Confusion to one’s enemies” is a constant prayer in the Scriptures and it is what God inflicts on those who are doing something in defiance of His will. It also came to be a standard expression in English, probably because of the KJV.
“Confusion” and the related “confound” are both from Latin, of course. Confundo means basically “to pour, mingle, or mix together”. By extension it means that, when things are poured together they become jumbled and confused, disordered. Thus there is a moral notion of dissaray, intellectual confusion, ineffectiveness. Someone who has been “confounded” has been thwarted in his scheme, has been demonstrated to be wrong.
This is what God did to the people who built the Tower of Babel: he confused them and their wicked goal by scrambling their speech. In English, “confound” concerns making someone confused or defeating them, or even refuting a bad argument.
In the Psalms we have myriad references to confusion and confounding.
Thus, in Psalms 70:13 in the older numbering we find: “Let them be confounded and come to nothing that detract my soul; let them be covered with confusion and blame that seek my hurt.”
In Jeremiah 8:12 we have this confounded confusion: “They are confounded, because they have committed abomination: yea rather they are not confounded with confusion, and they have not known how to blush: therefore shall they fall among them that fall; in the time of their visitation they shall fall, saith the Lord.”
In Acts 9:22 St. Paul gets to confuse people: “But Saul increased much more in strength and confounded the Jews who dwelt at Damascus, affirming that this is the Christ.”
And to the Corinthians Paul wrote (1 Cor 1:27): “But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise: and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the strong.”
In the Douay Bible you can find all sorts of uses of confound.
So, in sum, sometimes I use archaic language.
But by all means, pray that the Pope’s enemies, after being confounded, be converted as well.
I was trying to think of a way to make this comment, but you said it perfectly SuzyQue.
The Obama team is desperately hoping that we make recent events a debate about birth control. Don’t get suckered into playing their game.
Ain’t gonna happen.
An interesting article with many valid points. I was already much less accepting of contraception than the average Evangelical, but if the word translated “sorcery” actually refers to contraception, I may need to rethink my position.
I’ve always based my view on Paul’s instructions for couples to “come together for a time” - I’m paraphrasing here - and not let sexuality get in the way of spirituality, which ought to play a more significant part of the marriage. That, to me, suggested a limit, so I concluded that using contraceptives only on certain occasions wasn’t that bad.
What “ain’t gonna happen”? That we keep our heads, keep the goal in sight and act deliberately and effectively?
Silly Rabbis. The penalty for that is in Deuteronomy:
Deuteronomy 25
[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.
[7] And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.
[8] Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;
[9] Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.
[10] And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.
Obviously, Onan was not put to death because of refusing the obligation to give his brother an heir. He was put to death for the plain meaning of the scripture in question, and all of Christianity has understood it as such for 1930 years (at which time the separated brethren caved on this moral theology issue).
That is why I was having a hard time figuring out how to phrase my comment. Any and all matters of faith are a worthy topic for discussion, but in the context of recent events, this discussion, at this time, can be used as a wedge at a time when we need unity.
The contraception issue is the issue of our age.
I posted why in this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2836350/posts
Luke 21:23 "But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people.
Silly Rabbis indeed.
If you read the actual passage where the act takes place, you will see why God killed Onan.
http://www.christianpatriot.com/onan.htm
The First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits Congress from making any law infringing on your right to the free exercise of your religion. That is the only rightful legal question.
As long as your practice does not infringe on the right to life, liberty or property of another - and in that order - then the rest of us must protect your rights.
Nonsense. It may be one of the issues, but hardly THE issue. You can use it as a means to thwart a possible win in the upcoming election, but to do so is dead wrong, prideful and short-sighted, IMHO.
Your family practice levirate marriage?
True, but since "of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone" we're supposed to Trust in Him and rely on His Providence and obey the continual teachings of 2000 years of Christianity until He comes again, lest we be lead astray in those days by men whispering the falsehoods of the Great Apostasy.
The idea that the State provides for us, and therefore must limit us (which is what this HHS mandate is all about, not "freedom" but population control/the control of populations), and that God no longer Provides for His children, and we must provide for ourselves and limit our children - for lack of trusting in and believing in His Providence - is, IMHO, the harbinger of the Great Apostasy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.