God has a sense of humor, but it does not look good for us

[BNR32FAN]

Reread the first sentence of the final paragraph of my post. I never said it was the "only" reason.

Reread my explanation of the two possible causes for Onan's act being evil where I addressed this.

I apologize but it appears to me that your argument was that Onan was obligated to uphold a law that wasn’t recorded as being in effect yet, whereas my argument is that Onan’s obligation came from his agreement to cooperate with Judah’s request. If Onan’s intention wasn’t to honor Juda’s request then he had no business sleeping with his brother’s wife in the first place. So I see our two explanations as being different from one another because my explanation has nothing to do with Deuteronomy 25:5.

 

[jas3]

My point about Onan's case is that it seems to me more than plainly not a matter of contraception, but a matter of obedience.

It seems to me that you've only restated the problem of the interpretation of this passage I presented in #13 and said you think the modern interpretation is plain.

The early Christians/ church fathers/ Christian patriarchs/ whoever, to me were no closer to the matter than we are nowadays, except in certain things, such as being less centered on the individual (vs the group) and more understanding of Tamar and her desire for children.

The early Christians were certainly closer, both in time and culture, and I would even say in pious understanding, to the matter than we are. And as C. S. Lewis says, they provide us a valuable perspective in that they're removed from the conceits of our own time. It's telling that this change in teaching on contraception came about in the midst of the feminist movement.

 

[jas3]

I apologize but it appears to me that your argument was that Onan was obligated to uphold a law that wasn’t recorded as being in effect yet, whereas my argument is that Onan’s obligation came from his agreement to cooperate with Judah’s request.

"First, it's speculative in that we don't actually have a record of a law requiring this of Onan like we see in Deuteronomy 25:5; the argument extrapolates backward from Deuteronomy and assumes that there was a similar law binding Onan in Genesis. All we have is Judah's instruction to him in verse 8."

My point was that whether you say there was a law Onan was supposed to follow or his obligation came from Judah's instruction, there's no evidence Onan was under any obligation on pain of death. Strictly speaking, all we have is that Judah instructed him to marry Tamar and have children with her. We don't have any response from Onan. But let's say Onan did promise Judah he would follow through with these instructions; at worst, he's guilty of going back on his word to his father about having children, but not about marrying Tamar. That alone wouldn't be adultery, and there's no indication that deceiving one's father, as happened multiple times throughout the Old Testament, would be cause for God to kill him.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It seems to me that you've only restated the problem of the interpretation of this passage I presented in #13 and said you think the modern interpretation is plain.

The modern interpretation is not better than any other. My point is that THE REASON God did Onan in is given in Scripture, and doesn't need interpreting, I don't think. We don't need to justify God.

The early Christians were certainly closer, both in time and culture, and I would even say in pious understanding, to the matter than we are. And as C. S. Lewis says, they provide us a valuable perspective in that they're removed from the conceits of our own time. It's telling that this change in teaching on contraception came about in the midst of the feminist movement.

Sure. No doubt. I even showed a couple of ways that their POV is different from ours. But that isn't the point.

 

[jas3]

My point is that THE REASON God did Onan in is given in Scripture, and doesn't need interpreting, I don't think.

The only reason given is that "the thing he did was evil in the eyes of the Lord." What exactly "the thing" is is a matter of interpretation.

Sure. No doubt. I even showed a couple of ways that their POV is different from ours. But that isn't the point.

The point is that those differences exist because they weren't subject to some of the cultural forces we are today. Given that we can identify major secular cultural forces that were pushing for "free love" and fighting against the institution of marriage, it doesn't seem to be a very big leap to me to make the connection between 20th century acceptance of contraception and 20th century feminism. And if that connection is there, then the modern interpretation has its origin not in Christian thought, but in the enemy.

 

[BNR32FAN]

First, it's speculative in that we don't actually have a record of a law requiring this of Onan like we see in Deuteronomy 25:5; the argument extrapolates backward from Deuteronomy and assumes that there was a similar law binding Onan in Genesis. All we have is Judah's instruction to him in verse 8."

I’m not saying anything about any laws pertaining to the subject.

My point was that whether you say there was a law Onan was supposed to follow or his obligation came from Judah's instruction, there's no evidence Onan was under any obligation on pain of death. Strictly speaking, all we have is that Judah instructed him to marry Tamar and have children with her. We don't have any response from Onan. But let's say Onan did promise Judah he would follow through with these instructions; at worst, he's guilty of going back on his word to his father about having children, but not about marrying Tamar. That alone wouldn't be adultery, and there's no indication that deceiving one's father, as happened multiple times throughout the Old Testament, would be cause for God to kill him.

We don’t have any response from Onan? His very actions indicate his response. If his intention was never to give Tamar a child he should’ve never slept with her in the first place.

 

[jas3]

If his intention was never to give Tamar a child he should’ve never slept with her in the first place.

From the pro-contraception position, it apparently shouldn't matter whether he intended to give her a child as long as they were married.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I’m not saying anything about any laws pertaining to the subject.

We don’t have any response from Onan? His very actions indicate his response. If his intention was never to give Tamar a child he should’ve never slept with her in the first place.

Agreed.

@jas3 Onan acted deceitfully and treacherously; he simply acted unfaithfully on all sides, in effect lying and refusing his responsibility to Judah and to the immediate social structure, committing adultery against Tamar and against his dead brother's legacy, even refusing life to his brother's progeny, and last, but not least, being disobedient to God. It is vaguely analogous to the story of Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5.

In the end, it was, according to Scripture, wickedness, and that is all it takes for God to put someone to death. God would be just to kill anyone at any time for any sin. And for some it is a mercy in that, had their lives continued, they would have continued, or would have done worse. Dissecting it makes no difference.

 

[jas3]

committing adultery against Tamar and against his dead brother's legacy

By all indications, Onan and Tamar were married, so the accusation of adultery is unfounded.

even refusing life to his brother's progeny

And yet from the pro-contraception position there's nothing wrong with this.

In the end, it was, according to Scripture, wickedness, and that is all it takes for God to put someone to death. God would be just to kill anyone at any time for any sin.

I don't disagree on the principle, only on what exactly constituted the wicked act. Certainly part of it was Onan's apparent dishonesty, but it seems clear to me that Onan would not even be killed for having illegitimate relations with her if his father were later spared for also having illegitimate relations - call it adultery, fornication, whatever you want - with the same woman.

What was the difference between Onan and Judah? I hope it doesn't have to be spelled out. The latter had offspring, the former didn't.

 

[Mark Quayle]

By all indications, Onan and Tamar were married, so the accusation of adultery is unfounded.

And yet from the pro-contraception position there's nothing wrong with this.

I don't disagree on the principle, only on what exactly constituted the wicked act. Certainly part of it was Onan's apparent dishonesty, but it seems clear to me that Onan would not even be killed for having illegitimate relations with her if his father were later spared for also having illegitimate relations - call it adultery, fornication, whatever you want - with the same woman.

What was the difference between Onan and Judah? I hope it doesn't have to be spelled out. The latter had offspring, the former didn't.

Ok.

 

[BNR32FAN]

From the pro-contraception position, it apparently shouldn't matter whether he intended to give her a child as long as they were married.

The passage doesn’t say that they were married. Abraham wasn’t married to Hagar but their intercourse for the purpose of providing a child for Abraham wasn’t condemned by God.

 

[BNR32FAN]

By all indications, Onan and Tamar were married, so the accusation of adultery is unfounded.

And yet from the pro-contraception position there's nothing wrong with this.

I don't disagree on the principle, only on what exactly constituted the wicked act. Certainly part of it was Onan's apparent dishonesty, but it seems clear to me that Onan would not even be killed for having illegitimate relations with her if his father were later spared for also having illegitimate relations - call it adultery, fornication, whatever you want - with the same woman.

What was the difference between Onan and Judah? I hope it doesn't have to be spelled out. The latter had offspring, the former didn't.

Where is marriage between Onan and Tamar mentioned in the scriptures?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

There are a lot of things the early church taught that I disagree with and the use of contraception between a husband and a wife is one of them. The reality is that at some point a husbands income might not be able to support more offspring and intercourse between a husband and a wife diminishes the effects of lust. Not to mention that eventually child birth will become very dangerous for the wife. So I completely disagree with this idea that contraceptives are sinful and I’m not aware of any passages of scripture that teach otherwise.

The Church taught it for 1900 years until 1930, so it was not just the early Church. There are two ways to look at the righteousness of an act.
Does the word of God speak against it?
That is legalism
Does the word of God teach and promote it? Is it in harmony with the spirit of the law?
That is the straight and narrow way that follows the commands of God


Contraception is not taught in scripture, it was conceived in the minds of men, therefore became the tradition of men. The word of God did not specifically prevent men from saying that some of their wealth was for the temple, so they did have to honor their parents with it, but Jesus said their tradition was nullifying the word of God which commands them to honor their mother and father.
The same way we can see that contraception denies the word of God, which commands us to flee fornication. We say, not so Lord, fornication need not be fled from, as long as a couple is married, they can pretend to fornicate and it’s ok, they are married, they can do what they want
The word of God does not teach that either. It is taught by man’s tradition.

You say that you do not agree, so what? It does not change the fact that the legalism of contraception has the effect of nullifying the word of God which commands us to mortify the deeds of the flesh. Sexual intercourse is ordered toward children, not for the sake of pleasure only.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

If the Roman Catholic Church can’t err then why were the inquisitions sanctioned by 99 popes for 686 years?

The inquisition was only used against Catholics. It was meant to discover those that claim to be Catholic but were not

If you want to discuss the inquisition, then we need another thread. We can talk about data, not wild accusations and yellow journalism.

If the subject does not interest you, then why bring it up? I think you need to do some more studying

 

[jas3]

Where is marriage between Onan and Tamar mentioned in the scriptures?

In the plain reading of Gen. 38:8 - "And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother."

"Marry," then "raise up seed." Onan got to part 2, which implies part 1.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The Church taught it for 1900 years until 1930, so it was not just the early Church. There are two ways to look at the righteousness of an act.
Does the word of God speak against it?
That is legalism
Does the word of God teach and promote it? Is it in harmony with the spirit of the law?
That is the straight and narrow way that follows the commands of God


Contraception is not taught in scripture, it was conceived in the minds of men, therefore became the tradition of men. The word of God did not specifically prevent men from saying that some of their wealth was for the temple, so they did have to honor their parents with it, but Jesus said their tradition was nullifying the word of God which commands them to honor their mother and father.
The same way we can see that contraception denies the word of God, which commands us to flee fornication. We say, not so Lord, fornication need not be fled from, as long as a couple is married, they can pretend to fornicate and it’s ok, they are married, they can do what they want
The word of God does not teach that either. It is taught by man’s tradition.

You say that you do not agree, so what? It does not change the fact that the legalism of contraception has the effect of nullifying the word of God which commands us to mortify the deeds of the flesh. Sexual intercourse is ordered toward children, not for the sake of pleasure only.

There are an infinite number of things that aren’t addressed in scripture. Contraceptives being one of them because they hadn’t been invented yet. And equally there are an infinite number of things that were conceived in the minds of men like for example the internet and whatever device you’re using to access it, so that argument is absolutely ridiculous. Fornication is specific to sexual immorality not sexual intercourse between a husband and a wife. In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul specifically said that intercourse between a husband and his wife was NOT ONLY FOR REPRODUCTION, but was also to remove the temptation of lust so that they would not sin.

“Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. But this I say by way of concession, not of command. Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭7‬:‭1‬-‭9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

NOWHERE in the Bible are contraceptives forbidden in the scriptures nor is sexual intercourse between a husband and his wife for any reason whatsoever.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The inquisition was only used against Catholics. It was meant to discover those that claim to be Catholic but were not

If you want to discuss the inquisition, then we need another thread. We can talk about data, not wild accusations and yellow journalism.

If the subject does not interest you, then why bring it up? I think you need to do some more studying

Do you deny that the inquisitions took place between 1184AD-1870AD and that during that time there were 99 popes who could’ve put a stop to it who didn’t? Because it was initially instituted by the pope in 1184 and was officially abolished by the pope in 1870 so I think you’re just making claims that aren’t actually supported by the facts.

 

[BNR32FAN]

In the plain reading of Gen. 38:8 - "And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother."

"Marry," then "raise up seed." Onan got to part 2, which implies part 1.

Yeah i apologize i use the NASB version which isn’t translated as marriage but the Hebrew word Yabam is specific to marrying a brothers widow if she has doesn’t have a male heir which was commanded by God in Genesis 25.

““When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.”
‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭25‬:‭5‬-‭6‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

So this is why Onan was killed by God because he didn’t follow this commandment.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

In the plain reading of Gen. 38:8 - "And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother."

"Marry," then "raise up seed." Onan got to part 2, which implies part 1.

When I was a Protestant, the story of Onan caused me confusion. He flat out refused to raise up children for his brother and desecrated the marital act, but what if he had children but only occasionally desecrated the act?

I was frustrated by the lack of answer to that question

There are an infinite number of things that aren’t addressed in scripture. Contraceptives being one of them because they hadn’t been invented yet. And equally there are an infinite number of things that were conceived in the minds of men like for example the internet and whatever device you’re using to access it, so that argument is absolutely ridiculous. Fornication is specific to sexual immorality not sexual intercourse between a husband and a wife. In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul specifically said that intercourse between a husband and his wife was NOT ONLY FOR REPRODUCTION, but was also to remove the temptation of lust so that they would not sin.

“Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. But this I say by way of concession, not of command. Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭7‬:‭1‬-‭9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

NOWHERE in the Bible are contraceptives forbidden in the scriptures nor is sexual intercourse between a husband and his wife for any reason whatsoever.

contraceptives have been know since ancient times. The thing is, for the first 1900 years of the Church, contraceptives were known as the behavior or prostitutes and lechers.
Christian couples were taught mortification of desire and responsibility. They were not told that they were too weak to control sexual desires.
Pregnancy gives you nine moths intercourse without the need for contraception and breast feeding can stop menstruation for up to a year afterward. There are plenty of times when a couple can have intercourse during infertile periods, and that would be in line with Biblical teaching

For some reason in the 1930s some people thought they were smarter than God and thought prostitutes and johns have too much fun, let’s do what they do. They made it mainstream and we can see the result. The marital act is no where respected, not even in so called churches that claim to worship God, yet retain attachment to lust. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it does not work that way. We are required to mortify the deeds of the flesh and God has provided us ways to do it naturally. Don’t believe me? Don’t care. You will answer at the judgement seat of Christ.

People tried to get around God’s commands in ancient times, but Jesus sternly rebuked them. Man used his reason and said I will just look at a woman and pleasure myself. I didn’t do anything with her, so I am not guilty of adultery. Jesus said if you even look, you have committed adultery in your heart
Jesus said a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. Two cannot become one flesh when there is a barrier between them or one is mutilating his flesh or poisoning it with chemicals. That makes a mockery of the commands of God and marriage itself
Contraception in marriage is committing fornication in your heart. It does not lead to responsible marital behavior

Instead of a responsible man proposing to a woman, will you be my wife? It’s now hey babe, I am a beast and cannot control myself, can I get my jollies on you? Is it any wonder men are no longer respected and divorce is rampant in society? What woman would want to be married to that?

It was only when I submitted to Church teaching and repented of contraception that I received the grace of God in real time. I have a much better relationship with my wife and children as I am responsible, not demanding

Sex is not a need, it is a desire. Desire must be brought under control of the will. That is what mortification of the flesh means. God will help you to do it, if you ask Him. If you don’t ask, you will not receive. If you think that you do not need to ask for chastity, you will become as the Church in Laodicea. You will say I am rich and have need of nothing staying lukewarm. You know what the Bible says God does about that
Buy gold tried in the fire, don’t stay lukewarm, contraception is sin

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Do you deny that the inquisitions took place between 1184AD-1870AD and that during that time there were 99 popes who could’ve put a stop to it who didn’t? Because it was initially instituted by the pope in 1184 and was officially abolished by the pope in 1870 so I think you’re just making claims that aren’t actually supported by the facts.

I said we can speak about it. Start a thread and present facts. It is not appropriate here