Is Spilling Your Seed a Sin? Is It Wrong to Waste Sperm?

[Si_monfaith]

The gospel that Jesus destroyed the moral law needs to be preached to the church before it reaches the unsaved.

 

[Dave-W]

The gospel that Jesus destroyed the moral law needs to be preached to the church before it reaches the unsaved.

????

He never "destroyed" the Law in any way shape or form. Especially not the moral part.

 

[Si_monfaith]

Law contains curses. To destroy curses the whole of law has to be destroyed-gal3:10,13 including moral law. Lord did a complete work on cross by not keeping curses open by keeping moral law undestroyed.

 

[Hieronymus]

Christ gave us the Law of Agape.
Agape is THE moral.

 

[Si_monfaith]

We love not to be savec but becz we r saved by grace. Saying that one loves others to be saved is to make love moral. Such a moralism diminishes love of Christ by stating that his love on cross is insufficient to save us.

 

[JackRT]

I am engaged to someone and this question is being asked for when we are married. I want to ask now because its seems very confusing. I apologize if I am blunt about this. Theres really no other way to ask. And yes I am very serious about this. I want to make sure everything I do is correct!

I was always taught a man should not spill his seed (sperm). Which might I add confuses me when it comes to masturbation, buts thats another topic. My question(s) are/is am I taken the line about spilling the seed out of context?

A few examples are when I am married and I use a condom, am I sinning by letting the sperm be in the condom and die off?

Another thing along the same lines is I don't want to get my wife pregnant because of issues I don't wish to discuss. So if I pull out and let the semon spill is that a sin to?

Lastly what about when it comes to, um... your wife using her mouth? Is this also considered a sin? Someone told me (again I apologize for the bluntness) that its a sin if she spits it out. But if she swallows then its not a sin because somewhere in the Songs of Samson (?) it talks about her eating his fruit or something.


---EDIT---
I might as well ask while I have the topic up. If for some reason she gets pregant and we use the morning after pill, is that considered abortion and a sin? My health is very complex and I fear having a child as sick as me because not only will the childs life be rough, but I get SSI and cannot afford to have a child. Theres also the issue of because of my disabilities I may not be able to raise them properly. I guess I could have the dotor do that thing where the cut me so I can't have children.

We must realize, that at that point in biblical history, it was believed that the father, and the father only, contributed what we would today call the genetic make up of the child. What they called the male seed was regarded as containing an entire nascent human being. As a consequence, they regarded any wastage of the seed as tatamount to murder. This explains why masturbation, coitus interuptus and even wet dreams were considered to be serious sins. The role of the woman was solely that of providing the warm nurturing environment for the developing child. She had no genetic contribution to make. Since she contributed nothing to the make up of the child, she could, of course, not be the agency through which Original Sin was passed on. Of course the mother herself was cursed with Original Sin but this flaw in her was not felt to have any bearing on the state of the child.

This entire theory fell apart about 300 years ago when it was discovered by microscopic studies that the mother did indeed contribute genetically to the child. She of course supplied the egg cell to be fertilized by the male sperm.

 

[LinkH]

We must realize, that at that point in biblical history, it was believed that the father, and the father only, contributed what we would today call the genetic make up of the child. What they called the male seed was regarded as containing an entire nascent human being. As a consequence, they regarded any wastage of the seed as tatamount to murder. This explains why masturbation, coitus interuptus and even wet dreams were considered to be serious sins. The role of the woman was solely that of providing the warm nurturing environment for the developing child. She had no genetic contribution to make. Since she contributed nothing to the make up of the child, she could, of course, not be the agency through which Original Sin was passed on. Of course the mother herself was cursed with Original Sin but this flaw in her was not felt to have any bearing on the state of the child.

This entire theory fell apart about 300 years ago when it was discovered by microscopic studies that the mother did indeed contribute genetically to the child. She of course supplied the egg cell to be fertilized by the male sperm.

The Bible doesn't teach any of these things, that masturbation or coitus interruptus or wet dreams were sins, or that either men or women made a 'genetic contribution' or that the woman contributed to the child.

Your projecting Roman Catholic theology and a bunch of your own ideas into Biblical history.

 

[Dave-W]

We must realize, that at that point in biblical history, it was believed that the father, and the father only, contributed what we would today call the genetic make up of the child.

Your projecting Roman Catholic theology and a bunch of your own ideas into Biblical history.

Not Roman Catholic per se - but a western Greek understanding. The Hebrew understanding actually recognized the female contribution; and even in Genesis we see reference to the "seed of the woman."

 

[Dave-W]

Law contains curses. To destroy curses the whole of law has to be destroyed-gal3:10,13 including moral law. Lord did a complete work on cross by not keeping curses open by keeping moral law undestroyed.

The Law is SO much more than just "curses."

 

[dayhiker]

The thing with the law is that it is the law not the OT laws or Moses laws. There are several verses in the NT that mention of one tries to obey one law he is obligated to obey them all. If one breaks on of the laws he has broken them all. While some try to divide the law in ceremonial, ritual and moral there isn't a divide along any lines
in the Bible and there is no agreement as to which verses of the Bible fall into which group. I've also read how hard it is to even put verse in one group of the other as even within a verse are aspects of each group.

So I had to give up on that idea and my living by faith has become very simple. Love God and Love people. I must say since I been living by that mode, my Christianity has become very simple and full of joy. Plus I'm free from any legalism others try to put me under.

 

[Si_monfaith]

Jesus fulfilled the law as no man coul fulfil it (though adam chose it)& God sees us thru Jesus as having perfectly done the law. God created man without moral law-ml. Nudity did not separate man from God. It is choosing the ml & ml fruit separated man from God.

 

[Si_monfaith]

When adam chose ml curse of death came to mankind. Jesus destroyed ml by his death & set us free from the curse of death.

 

[ValleyGal]

When adam chose ml curse of death came to mankind. Jesus destroyed ml by his death & set us free from the curse of death.

All of the law (commandments) can be summed up in one command: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and love your neighbour as yourself. If the law can all be summed up into one law, and there is only one moral absolute (law), which is that love is always right, then the law and love are congruent. In fact, you can't have one without the other.

 

[Si_monfaith]

Law=love God&man to be blessed or suffer curses. But Grace = we r blessed becz Jesus fulfilled law on our behalf & no curses under grace-gal3:10.

 

[ValleyGal]

You can lift a curse without lifting the law.

 

[Si_monfaith]

You r not under law but under grace-rom6:14. no middle ground. If you trust that you r under law remember, sin will overcome you easily & make u do what you dislike-rom7:17, & cause guilt & insecurity of eternity.

 

[ValleyGal]

I might not be under law, but I certainly do my best to live by the law that is all summed up in the command to love. Iow, I am not under law (as in a list of can-do and can't-do) to be suppressed by it from an external source; rather, I submit myself to the love-law (the moral absolute that love is always right, and that might look different in different situations and with different people) simply because I love my God. And there is no grace aside from the grace which is a necessary cornerstone of God's love. I live in the grace which motivates me to submit to the moral absolute.

 

[Si_monfaith]

If u call love for God&man as moral absolute then u r still under law. But if u say,'Jesus lives &loves thru me & i am blessed &saved only by Jesus' blood & not by my loving God/man', u r under grace. Under grace u love as it gives joy & not to earn blessings or salvation.

 

[ValleyGal]

The fact that love is always right as the moral absolute does not mean I am not under grace. You can't separate love from grace, mercy, justice, etc. These are all part of who God is - and 1 John repeatedly tells us that God is love. If you live in that love, and love him because he first loved you, and you accept his gracious gift of salvation (he died for us because he loved us - and the human mind cannot comprehend such great love), then you are living under grace. I am using my freedom under grace to reciprocate the great love he had for me. Not because I have to earn it.

 

[Si_monfaith]

I am not separating love from grace. Rather i am separating love from law. If u say that by your love for God&man u r saved then u r under law not grace.