Posted on 02/15/2012 6:49:17 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
Well...that explanation is certainly better than the one you gave...which surely isn't biased at all.../sarcasm.
Seriously. The reason Onan was killed was because he disobeyed...not simply because he performed Coitus interruptus. One merely has to look at Leviticus 15, which gives ritual cleansing for "spilled seed." There is no death sentence. And there are no other stories of God's divine judgments in the Bible because of spilled seed...and you can GUARANTEE that there were instances.
This is a man disobeying a divine order...to raise up the seed of his brother.
So...it's not disobeying his mother and father...and its certainly not because he spilled his seed...well yes....indirectly. It's because he disobeyed a divine mandate to raise up the seed of his brother. That mandate precedes the Mosaic Law...just like tithing.
Anyone who says ANYTHING different has an agenda. This is the interpretation not only of this theologian, but of most other scholars...including Jewish Scholars (such as Keil & Delitzsch and the Babylonian Talmud). The ones who disagree are the ones who wish to make this about masturbation...which BTW is not mentioned in the story.
Dr. Nelson W. Lee, ThD
I think we’ve managed to circle around now and say essentially the same thing. Here is my original comment:
“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.”
Some history of Christian thought on Birth Control:
(Note: The quotes of the early church fathers can be researched in their entirety, courtesy of Calvin College.)
191 AD - Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children
"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted." (2:10:91:2) "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (2:10:95:3).
307 AD - Lactantius - Divine Institutes
"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . .or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (6:20)
"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ['generating'] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (6:23:18).
325 AD - Council of Nicaea I - Canon 1
"[I]f anyone in sound health has castrated [sterilized] himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy"
375 AD - Epiphanius of Salamis - Medicine Chest Against Heresies
"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (26:5:2 ).
391 AD - John Chrysostom - Homilies on Matthew
"[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father's old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization]" (28:5).
393 AD - Jerome - Against Jovinian
"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" (1:19).
419 AD - Augustine - Marriage and Concupiscence
"I am supposing, then, although are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives] . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife" (1:15:17).
522 AD - Caesarius of Arles - Sermons
"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion [an oral contraceptive] so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a women does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman" (1:12).
Martin Luther (1483 to 1546) -
"Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed."
John Calvin (1509 to 1564) -
Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race.
John Wesley (1703 to 1791) -
"Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone, refused to raise up seed unto the brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - And it is to be feared, thousands, especially single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.
(Examining sermons and commentaries, Charles Provan identified over a hundred Protestant leaders (Lutheran, Calvinist, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical, Nonconformist, Baptist, Puritan, Pilgrim) living before the twentieth century condemning non- procreative sex. Did he find the opposing argument was also represented? Mr. Provan stated, "We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox [protestant]theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900's. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it." )
1930 AD - Pope Pius XI - Casti Conubii (On Christian Marriage)
"Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."
1965 AD - Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World - Gaudium et Spes, Vatican II
Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law. (51)
1968 AD - Pope Paul VI - Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life)
Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, propose, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible. To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil, or the fact that such acts would constitute a whole together with the fecund acts already performed or to follow later, and hence would share in one and the same moral goodness. In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil to promote a greater good, it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom; that is to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life. (14)
1993 AD - Catechism of the Catholic Church
"The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception)." (2399)
I really thougfht that was what I had said in agreement with you in my initial post.
Do you think for one moment these Catholics that wrote and gave Obama this power are ignorant of Church teachings? They intend to ‘re-cut’ Peter's keys once again. AND yet these same Catholics remain in good standing.
What was the reaction by the Catholic Church when the secularmites tore down the Ten Commandments from their public churches? (Public school houses.) Maybe just maybe because we the people turned over to the ‘gods’ of this world the authority to removed God from education He is allowing the ‘gods’ of this world to have their way with US????
You might have, and if so, please accept my apologies.
John Wesley (1703 to 1791) - "Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone, refused to raise up seed unto the brother.
You proved my point.
Jerome - "or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed." Again, you prove my point.
Clark (1810-1826) - "The sin of Onan has generally been supposed to be self-pollution; but this is certainly a mistake; his crime was his refusal to raise up seed to his brother..."
Gill (1746-1763) - "Being done out of envy to his brother, and through want of affection to the memory of his name; and it may be out of covetousness to get his estate into his own hands, and especially as it frustrated the end of such an usage of marrying a brother's wife; "
Keil & Delitzsch - "This act not only betrayed a want of affection to his brother, combined with a despicable covetousness for his possession and inheritance, but was also a sin against the divine institution of marriage and its object, and was therefore punished by Jehovah with sudden death. "
You needn't quote me catechisms or popes. They are so far from the Apostles and Christ...and we will never agree on it so it's not worth discussing.
All I know is the "ENTIRE HISTORY of Christian THOUGHT" does not agree. But I guess it does when you cherry pick the data.
John Wesley (1703 to 1791) - "Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone, refused to raise up seed unto the brother.
You proved my point.
Jerome - "or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed." Again, you prove my point.
Clark (1810-1826) - "The sin of Onan has generally been supposed to be self-pollution; but this is certainly a mistake; his crime was his refusal to raise up seed to his brother..."
Gill (1746-1763) - "Being done out of envy to his brother, and through want of affection to the memory of his name; and it may be out of covetousness to get his estate into his own hands, and especially as it frustrated the end of such an usage of marrying a brother's wife; "
Keil & Delitzsch - "This act not only betrayed a want of affection to his brother, combined with a despicable covetousness for his possession and inheritance, but was also a sin against the divine institution of marriage and its object, and was therefore punished by Jehovah with sudden death. "
You needn't quote me catechisms or popes. They are so far from the Apostles and Christ...and we will never agree on it so it's not worth discussing.
All I know is the "ENTIRE HISTORY of Christian THOUGHT" does not agree. But I guess it does when you cherry pick the data.
If Onan was Killed for spilling his seed and this was the ONLY reason he was killed...then why aren't 99% of all men dead. PERIOD.
If it was NO OTHER REASON...and as I have said...the spilling of the seed was an indirect reason...but what angered God was the refusal to carry on the family line...the Messianic Line....but if the MAIN REASON was SIMPLY spilling SEED....why aren't MOST of men dead?
Wouldn't it still ANGER GOD?
Didn't it anger God back then equally? Didn't men in the OT do this to avoid getting whore's pregnant? (yes!)
Didn't POPES do this? (uh...yes...and sometimes not successfully - Pope Alexander VI...)
Haven't most men masturbated? Yes? Wouldn't this ANGER God and cause God to SLAY Them?
OK. So what's the answer? Why ONLY Onan? Huh? What makes his case Unique? Hmmmm. IT MUST be something ELSE.
Please...don't allow common sense and LOGIC to flaw your eisegesis. Perhaps the BILLIONS of other examples of spilled seed onto the ground...and people not being killed...well...maybe those haven't really happened. Just pretend they have.
Yeah...Onan's example is what GOD really means to do when you spill your seed. There's not another example of it...and he doesn't do it today...but yet we can hold it up as an example....a warning if you will.
Please read Dr. Brian Kopp’s comment #56.
In the other, no act is performed (simple abstinence during fertile times) so there IS no act, therefore the practice is morally neutral.
I spend money every day: to support my family, pay my taxes, give to charities, etc. Suppose in the future, I choose to abstain from spending on any charity. Is this action morally neutral because no act is performed?
Still rolling around a rebuttal to an abstract analogy that compares sex and vomiting... See the first paragraph of my first comment.
Instead, I think I'll log off, go home, light a fire and enjoy my family.
It takes moral blinders to ignore simple Natural Law.
Jack is very clear and mostly right. The Catholic Church is mistaken in insisting that others are in “doctrinal error” when we disagree with their forbidding to marry and in calling priests “father, “ in declaring that Mary was a virgin for her whole life, and in condemning trur contraception.
You never did explain why contraception is expressly forbidden by the law on levitate marriage, but levitate marriage is not commanded by the same scripture.
That should be “levirate” marrige.
Sincerely, why dispute over these things? You only divide and cause stumbling blocks for others.
Because all of Christianity, Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox in unison, has constantly and universally condemned contraception until just 80 years ago. You'll have to do a lot more to convince me the last 80 years are correct and the prior 1,930 years of unanimous Christian teaching on the subject was wrong. Its far more likely that, living in an age of apostasy, the last 80 years of caving in on contraception is simply part of that great falling away
You only divide and cause stumbling blocks for others.
In the end times, men will call good evil, and evil, good.
Calling contraception good is exactly that.
Conversion by torture and the sword was practiced for almost as long, and the Bible prescribes stoning for various offenses, yet we’ve dropped those traditions.
The pill causes abortion, just by the way it works. Regular birth control pills have 2 female hormones: estrogen and progestin (a synthetic version of the naturally-occurring hormone progesterone), which causes a fertilized egg, zygote, to starve to death, because it cannot attach to the uterus lining.
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.