DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: _JS on June 01, 2007, 10:10:58 AM
-
I wanted to address this, if for no other reason than to provide some clarity, which was sorely lacking (through my own fault) in another thread.
Note that nearly all Christian Churches (I don't want to say all because there may have been a stray denomination of Protestantism or two) were completely against contraception until the 1930's and it was really the 1960's when the Protestant denominations reversed their prior stances and either fully accepted birth control or chose "individual conscience" which is another way of accepting it.
The question is, what changed?
Christians throughout early Christianity and even the early Reformationists knew of it as the sin of Onanism: Genesis 38:7-10.
The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). Yet, God killed Onan as punishment for his crime (note that this is one of the few times God kills a human without any go-between). This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. Jewish and Christian theologians had always considered Onan's crime as a violation of natural law, even separate from that of self-pleasure as Leviticus separates (15:16-20 - which discusses ritual purification).
The natural law that Onan violated was one of the earliest forms of birth control, coitus interruptus.
By the way, contraceptives are nothing new and neither is the Christian attitude that they should be forbidden.
Augistine wrote in 419:
I am supposing, then, although you 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.
Martin Luther:
The exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to 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. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him.
John Calvin:
The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring.
John Wesley:
Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.
Note: quotes taken from Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control
My question is, what changed in the mid 20th century that 1900 years of Christian and Jewish teaching was suddenly reversed?
-
cultural dyamics, lead by emboldened atheististic and secular movements, influenced the chuches, particularly the mainstream ones that tend to drift Scripture to fit revised cultural norms.
-
cultural dyamics, lead by emboldened atheististic and secular movements, influenced the chuches, particularly the mainstream ones that tend to drift Scripture to fit revised cultural norms.
So you disagree with Plane and Sirs view on contraception? Interesting.
Professor, do you think the acceptance of contraceptives has changed the attitude towards abortion?
-
Sorry, what ARE Sirs and Plane's view on contraception? I must've missed that. I've been really busy adding and addition to our home this past few weeks. And, we are in the process of an interniitonal adoption, a very laborious affiar.
-
Sorry, what ARE Sirs and Plane's view on contraception? I must've missed that. I've been really busy adding and addition to our home this past few weeks. And, we are in the process of an interniitonal adoption, a very laborious affiar.
In fairness, everyone (not just Sirs and Plane) should state their opinion in their words on this matter. I'd be interested to read them all (though clearly it is geared more towards Christians, but as always, anyone may respond).
By the way, congratulations on the adoption.
-
I only have a few moments before I have to go out and lay some new drywall ("I'm getting too OLD for this!"). I briefly scanned the other thread and found their positions, I believe.
That thread did tend to wander quite a bit, but...
As is typcial, Plane and I agree, I believe so anyway. It IS interesting how often we tend ot agreeo nthese matters, considering our interconnected relationship (me being married to his ex-wife).
I will briefly attempt to answer your question, JS:
Abortion:
I AM pro-life, so much so that I cannot envision voting for a political candidate who is not. For exampl,e if the Republicans stnad up a guy who is NOT pro-life, I will do what many will do, I will ,for the first time in my voting life, sit out the upcoming Presidential eleciton.
Birth control:
I agree with Plane that it all comes down to what you mean here. For example, the reason I oppose the "morning after pill" is that is is basically abortion. Why?
<here it comes>
Because life begins at conception.
THerefore, any method of birth control that destroys the embryo after the egg and sperm have met, is tantamount to abortion. An example would be an IUD.
What churches state or decry from the pulpit is important to me, particulaythe denominations I feel are closer to conservative Scriptural inrerpretations, but I make up my own mind, in prayer, as to what is proper and just. As Plane said, Papal statements are perhaps cool to note, but not the final say in the matter, to me at least. But then again, neither is a statment from the General Assembly of the Assemblies of God, my present denomination.
Did that present my position?
-
That is fair, but you and I disagree.
This is not based on what Pope Paul VI has said, which in essence was just a summary of what had been the Church's stance for 1,968 years (give or take 4 years).
What you describe are abortifacient contraceptives, which I agree, should not be accepted by Christians.
Yet, that was not Onan's sin. The problem was with contraception full stop.
The problem of contraception is social and very destructive. Roughly sixty percent of women who receive abortions each year have said that their contraceptives failed. Also, note what contraceptives do: prevent pregnancy - i.e. children. The other main reason for contraception is to prevent sexually-transmitted disease. Socially we've placed children and pregnancy alongside herpes, genital warts, and HIV as negative effects of intercourse.
So family size has dwindled to where having a large family is looked upon as an oddity. Many married couples see children as a burden and choose lifestyles that exclude them or at the least, minimizes their interaction with their children. Individualism is the name of the game. What gives me self-fulfillment? What choices can I make for me?
And one of those choices is contraception, which is the sin of Onanism and at its heart - one of the most selfish decisions one can make.
That is my position.
-
My position is that people should make up their own minds as to whether they will have children, and how many, and what contraceptives to use. There's not even a question in my mind that God wants us to use our talents, and to not hide our light under a bushel. Which many women have been doing lo these many years, because they had no choice in the matter: no contraceptives, no abortion, no choice period.
-
The problem of contraception is social and very destructive. Roughly sixty percent of women who receive abortions each year have said that their contraceptives failed. Also, note what contraceptives do: prevent pregnancy - i.e. children. The other main reason for contraception is to prevent sexually-transmitted disease. Socially we've placed children and pregnancy alongside herpes, genital warts, and HIV as negative effects of intercourse.
60%
that`s abit high
I know a ton of people who got unplanned kids and not once have I heard the contraceptives didn`t work.
it`s more likely they needed something to blame.
remember people prefer not to use contraceptives at all.
it really takes the edge off the fun.
and it can`t be too much of a deal about people not having kids since I don`t recall that many people volunteering getting vasectomies or hysterectomy.
-
That is fair, but you and I disagree.
This is not based on what Pope Paul VI has said, which in essence was just a summary of what had been the Church's stance for 1,968 years (give or take 4 years).
What you describe are abortifacient contraceptives, which I agree, should not be accepted by Christians.
Yet, that was not Onan's sin. The problem was with contraception full stop.
The problem of contraception is social and very destructive. Roughly sixty percent of women who receive abortions each year have said that their contraceptives failed. Also, note what contraceptives do: prevent pregnancy - i.e. children. The other main reason for contraception is to prevent sexually-transmitted disease. Socially we've placed children and pregnancy alongside herpes, genital warts, and HIV as negative effects of intercourse.
So family size has dwindled to where having a large family is looked upon as an oddity. Many married couples see children as a burden and choose lifestyles that exclude them or at the least, minimizes their interaction with their children. Individualism is the name of the game. What gives me self-fulfillment? What choices can I make for me?
And one of those choices is contraception, which is the sin of Onanism and at its heart - one of the most selfish decisions one can make.
That is my position.
JS, perhaps I am somehwat confused by your position here. Yes, contraceptives have indeed changed the culture, for both good and ill. The Glloria Steinem crowd said it no longer makes women subject to men, but that is mostly false. This supposed cultural inferiority is so much more broader and deeper than just the use of more effective contraceptives.
And, I do agree that contraceptives have radically changed some of the marital roles, but aren't you accusing tehcnology? After all, it is technology that has provided for this change, just as heart transplant technology has changed a landscape there.
By "contraceptives", I assume we primarily are referring to the Pill, since it is the msot effective?
I agree that family size has dwindled, but it is not clear to me that you can definitively link that to the Pill. Perhaps it is part of the puzzle but the general afluence of society is the major culprit, I would posit.
-
Abortion:
I AM pro-life, so much so that I cannot envision voting for a political candidate who is not. For exampl,e if the Republicans stnad up a guy who is NOT pro-life, I will do what many will do, I will ,for the first time in my voting life, sit out the upcoming Presidential eleciton.
Birth control:
I agree with Plane that it all comes down to what you mean here. For example, the reason I oppose the "morning after pill" is that is is basically abortion. Why?
Because life begins at conception.
THerefore, any method of birth control that destroys the embryo after the egg and sperm have met, is tantamount to abortion. An example would be an IUD.
Couldn't have answered it better Professor. Not sure what Js as referring to when he referenced how you, Plane, & I disagree on this
-
on the matter of family size
the real questions is how healthy can this really be for the mom to have 8+ kids
ex. bonanza every single son had a different dead mom.
yeah it`s a tv show,but the reality is it is fairly common for women to die giving birth
I know of many close calls.
I`m pretty sure it`s not exactly safe for alot of women to be pregnant that many times.
-
on the matter of family size the real questions is how healthy can this really be for the mom to have 8+ kids
I swear to God, I just came back from vacation, where our local van guide let us in on the fact that she was the 23rd of 24 sibblings, the last girl. WOW And they weren't a wealthy family, they lived off the land, fished from the ocean, hunted in the hills, even used a multitude of plants, herbs, and soil for medications and treatments for various physical/medical problems. It was funny how whe would frequently point to locals along our route and say "that's my cousin.....that's my nephey....that's my cousin.....that's another cousin" 8)
-
I thought that Onan had refused a direct order , that is pretty serious when the order comes from God , whether the order was about procreation or whatever.
I find that Wicipiedia agrees with me even if Augistine doesn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan
I think that reading the scripture by itself supports this view , even if several famos commentators afterwards think otherwise.
How Tamar finally does solve her problem and gets pregnanant is interesting , one wonders if Augistine,Martin Luther,John Calvin and John Wesley found Tamar's solution as instructive as Onan's error?
-
From a time of ignorance (1968 years ago, give or take four years), some posit eternal wisdom. From a time when propagation was needed, some telescope forward the same rules for a time of human saturation. From a time of primitive-to-nonexisting science, some attempt to bind the human mind and spirit with arcanities from bygone years. From a time when sex was mysterious, we project forward into a modern enlightened time benighted notions that bedevil our humanity. From a time when sex was a duty, nay, a chore, some try to perpetuate it as a burden in an age when learning, experience and the needs of society celebrate its naturalness as a regular and integral part of human life, essential in its exercise not its repression.
-
Unadulterated feldercarb!
Nice to hear that awe-inspiring condescending tone! Wow! Do it again. Please. I desparately need another hit.
-
[snip]
One would wonder why an omniscient being couldn't figure all this out. Forgot about geometric progressions?
-
From a time of ignorance (1968 years ago, give or take four years), some posit eternal wisdom.
And our ancestors from 2,000 were not as ignorant as most moderns assume. It's the height of arrogance to assume so.
-
......From a time when sex was a duty, nay, a chore, some try to perpetuate it as a burden in an age when learning, experience and the needs of society celebrate its naturalness as a regular and integral part of human life, essential in its exercise not its repression.
::)
-
I guess we're to assume that gipper walks in and around his house naked, since by all concepts of humanity, that is as natural as being human can get. No repression in the gipper household ;)
-
So family size has dwindled to where having a large family is looked upon as an oddity. Many married couples see children as a burden and choose lifestyles that exclude them or at the least, minimizes their interaction with their children. Individualism is the name of the game. What gives me self-fulfillment? What choices can I make for me?
And one of those choices is contraception, which is the sin of Onanism and at its heart - one of the most selfish decisions one can make.
That is my position.
Is it your assertion then that sex should only take place with intent to conceive and never merely for pleasure? And if we're going to use Old Testament as our values guide, is ejaculation during sex something that makes the participants unclean?
-
OK, this is going to be really uncouth so if you want to skip it, do so. Beware.
I have this Monty Pythonesque image of someone going around a village saying, "Bring out your dead! Bring out your dead!" and abashed, shamefaced boys and men would bring out towels....sheets....whatever the poor dead little sperm were on.
But that's silly.
Natural birth control is, as I understand it, a method where you figure out when you're most likely to be fertile, and avoid having sex on those days. So you're deliberately spilling your seed on unfertile ground. Is this a sin? Shouldn't you only be allowed to have sex on the 7-10 days a month when the woman probably IS fertile?
How is this any different from taking the pill? It has some risk to it? It MIGHT not work? Is that why it's approved?
-
From a time of ignorance (1968 years ago, give or take four years), some posit eternal wisdom. From a time when propagation was needed, some telescope forward the same rules for a time of human saturation. From a time of primitive-to-nonexisting science, some attempt to bind the human mind and spirit with arcanities from bygone years. From a time when sex was mysterious, we project forward into a modern enlightened time benighted notions that bedevil our humanity. From a time when sex was a duty, nay, a chore, some try to perpetuate it as a burden in an age when learning, experience and the needs of society celebrate its naturalness as a regular and integral part of human life, essential in its exercise not its repression.
Would it be a good idea to rewrite the diffrence between right and wrong on a regular basis?
-
Already being sone, Plane. On a regular basis. As cultural mores become more entrenched farther away from Absolute Right and Wrong, this process only continues.
As far as an earlier post, did not Onan refuse a direct order from God? If so, this is not his punishment "just"?
Reproductive rights is, in my mind, yet another example of how the god of Technology, is impacting societal issues. Other examples are cloning ("does a cloned person, whih is surely soon to happen, have a "soul"? does it/he/she have al lthe rights of any other citizen? is it/he/she covers by Government programs? and so on), transplants ("I remember Pat Robetrson saying that a person who has a transplanted heart has some spiritual issues now), reproductive techs such as the new male contraceptive) and so on.
This issues will play themselves out in society in various forms from legislative to legal to the workplace and on and on and it will be intriguing to see how society isthereby shaped.
Ad yet, being a Luddite will only get you passed over in the race for supremacy. SO, then, is embracing Technology the correct path? Can we be in some trouble for doing so? And, yet, is it the "right" thing to do sometimes? (as in not allowing the cloning of humans)
-
technology is just tool.
it`s how we use it
just because we can clone does not mean we will.
remember we had the nuke for decades and humanity has not used it very often.
it really is something to be proud of.
if it`s religion we`re talking about
would any theocracy say no to genocide of their enemies.
I remember a christian group trying to create a war during Y2K in the middle east
hoping to bring doomdays alittle quicker.
-
I find that Wicipiedia agrees with me even if Augistine doesn't.
No offense, but I'll take Augustine over Wikipedia any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. :)
Is it your assertion then that sex should only take place with intent to conceive and never merely for pleasure?
No. There is certainly a great deal that can be achieved by love between a husband and wife that transcends pure biological conception. Yet, one should always be open to that possibility.
And if we're going to use Old Testament as our values guide, is ejaculation during sex something that makes the participants unclean?
No. The first clause is a false premise and the second clause is a an issue for Jewish persons.
Natural birth control is, as I understand it, a method where you figure out when you're most likely to be fertile, and avoid having sex on those days. So you're deliberately spilling your seed on unfertile ground. Is this a sin? Shouldn't you only be allowed to have sex on the 7-10 days a month when the woman probably IS fertile?
No one is bound to Natural Family Planning, but it is not the same as contraception for obvious reasons, there is no chemical or device preventing conception.
How is this any different from taking the pill? It has some risk to it? It MIGHT not work? Is that why it's approved?
I think I've explained the technical difference as well as the social ramifications above.
-
First off, the Bible is simply folklore, a mixture of useful advice mixed with tribal customs that may have made sense 3000 years ago, and quite a bit of ranting. Onan did not get any message from God, and he was not killed by God, and maybe there was no Onan. But back then, the survival of the tribe depended on reproduction.
Life may begin at conception, but HUMAN life quite arguably only begins no0 earlier than the eight month of pregnancy.
People 4000 years ago were no less intelligent on average than they are now, but they were tons more IGNORANT (ie, unaware of the actual way that things happen i9n the universe).
Whether to reproduce is logically by nature up to those who reproduce. Women are the ones who actually do most of the rearing of children and they do all of the birthing, so it's more up to them than it is to men.
-
I prefer the jewish concept
life begins when all the kids moved out of the house
-
Life may begin at conception, but HUMAN life quite arguably only begins no0 earlier than the eight month of pregnancy.
Care to elaborate on this point?
Someone who was born via Cesarean section at 26 weeks is not human?
-
There's a very serious, momentous and portentous issue, or set of issues, in here, XO, which you've pretty much refined to its essence. Biblical times, viewed by an outsider or wary insider, were mythological times in the full sense of that expression: both myth generating but also mythic themselves. As such, as inherited "lore" as you put it, the signal narratives and statements of moral precepts, divined as a response to then-contemporary times but cast as universals and eternals, which some of them are, can collectively be referred to as Western Civilization's "moral gold standard." With exceptions (time-honored but durable truths, referred to above), many rules are followed because they are rules rather than because of any inherent truth or goodness of the precept. Birth Control as taught by the Catholic Church falls into this latter category.
-
With exceptions (time-honored but durable truths, referred to above), many rules are followed because they are rules rather than because of any inherent truth or goodness of the precept. Birth Control as taught by the Catholic Church falls into this latter category.
With due respect, I think that view misses both the truth and inherent goodness of the precept in question. Moreover, the decades since the moral authorities outside of the Church have accepted contraceptives have only proven this teaching to have been correct all along.
It does not matter to me whether or not Onan was a real person, that seems to be more of an issue for XO and yourself, and perhaps some literalists. The fact that it is recorded in the Pentateuch and has held a steady interpretation throughout Christian history (and I should add Jewish history), until 1930 is meaningful enough to me.
-
That's fine, JS, we can disagree. We can even revisit at some later time the issue of from whence flows morality: revelation, tradition or something(s) else.
-
That's fine, JS, we can disagree. We can even revisit at some later time the issue of from whence flows morality: revelation, tradition or something(s) else.
You know where to find me. ;)
-
all this talk about onan made think
how can abstinence be accepted ?
if the dude says no than a kid will not be born also.
-
I don't think the existence or non-existence of Onan is important: he surely does not exist in his former shape or form now. He was symbolic of the need for a man to care for his brother's widow, and for the tribe to survive. There was no Social Security in Hebraic times, and lots of tribes have ceased to be because they did not have the tenacity of the Jews. No one still considers themselves to be a Visigoth, an Alan, a Pottawattomie, or a Gaul these days.
It's not that these people have not procreated; but as a tribe with their customs they have ceased to be.
Without major medical attention, a premature fetus has little or no chance of becoming a human being.
I am not even sure that all births surviving is not an inherently good thing for the planet or the rest of humanity. There are too many people to sustainably survive now, probably, and eventually the birth rate will result in the collapse of the population due to excess numbers.
I continue to consider the decision of an individual to reproduce as his/her own. Onan had a right to not diddle his brother's wife, and any woman that finds herself pregnant has the inherent right to not give birth. It is none of my business.
-
Without major medical attention, a premature fetus has little or no chance of becoming a human being.
So, anyone that requires major medical attention is not human? Person on a respirator, for example?
-
And if we're going to use Old Testament as our values guide, is ejaculation during sex something that makes the participants unclean?
No. The first clause is a false premise and the second clause is a an issue for Jewish persons.
Then why should we be concerned about Onan refusing to ejaculate into his brother's widow to give her a child? Yes, I do realize there is a history of using Onan's story as a reason for opposing masturbation and contraception. But if I'm supposed to care about Onan's story as a morality tale, doesn't that mean I need to take the Old Testament seriously about other sexual issues? We don't get to pick and choose what parts of the Old Testament apply to us, do we? I need a reason why I'm supposed to care about Onan spilling his seed but not that he was refusing to impregnate his brother's widow.
-
And if we're going to use Old Testament as our values guide, is ejaculation during sex something that makes the participants unclean?
No. The first clause is a false premise and the second clause is a an issue for Jewish persons.
Then why should we be concerned about Onan refusing to ejaculate into his brother's widow to give her a child? Yes, I do realize there is a history of using Onan's story as a reason for opposing masturbation and contraception. But if I'm supposed to care about Onan's story as a morality tale, doesn't that mean I need to take the Old Testament seriously about other sexual issues? We don't get to pick and choose what parts of the Old Testament apply to us, do we? I need a reason why I'm supposed to care about Onan spilling his seed but not that he was refusing to impregnate his brother's widow.
I think that a reading of the origonal is good to preceed all the later commentary , don't stop reading untill Tamar is finally pregnant.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2038&version=9;
Onan dies for being disobedient ? Or for refuseing to impregnate whether ordered or not?
It is not seperated out well ,but I don't see Augustenes case being all that strong.
-
And if we're going to use Old Testament as our values guide, is ejaculation during sex something that makes the participants unclean?
No. The first clause is a false premise and the second clause is a an issue for Jewish persons.
Then why should we be concerned about Onan refusing to ejaculate into his brother's widow to give her a child? Yes, I do realize there is a history of using Onan's story as a reason for opposing masturbation and contraception. But if I'm supposed to care about Onan's story as a morality tale, doesn't that mean I need to take the Old Testament seriously about other sexual issues? We don't get to pick and choose what parts of the Old Testament apply to us, do we? I need a reason why I'm supposed to care about Onan spilling his seed but not that he was refusing to impregnate his brother's widow.
No, you don't get to pick and choose do you? Where should the ability to discern what is and is not necessary to keep as such a precept come from?
It was quite clearly important to the Early Christians (I can provide many more quotes if you like). It was even important to the leaders of the Protestant Reformation. Yet, it isn't important now. Why do you need a reason, more than the opinions of some of the greatest theological minds in Christian history?
-
Without major medical attention, a premature fetus has little or no chance of becoming a human being.
I am not even sure that all births surviving is not an inherently good thing for the planet or the rest of humanity. There are too many people to sustainably survive now, probably, and eventually the birth rate will result in the collapse of the population due to excess numbers.
There are not too many people to sustainably survive now.
I continue to consider the decision of an individual to reproduce as his/her own. Onan had a right to not diddle his brother's wife, and any woman that finds herself pregnant has the inherent right to not give birth. It is none of my business.
Should she be told of the psychological impact of aborting a child?
-
[ Why do you need a reason, more than the opinions of some of the greatest theological minds in Christian history?
Because it is impossible to always agree with all of them ,they donot een always agree with each other.
They should be respected , and their arguements refered to , but they should not be considered as a barrier between our present selves and the origional sorces as if their fewer centrys of sepration made their vision clearer.
In the present we can discuss the impact of germ theroy and the effect of genetic informatiom encoded in DNA ,this was preumeably information availible to God as he inspired the writing but not availible to other commentators untill quite recently.
Why did Juda praise Tamar?
-
This seldom comes up in our country.
Has a woman a right to exploit her reproductive potential?
Is there a limit to a mans right to refuse to impregnate?
This seldom causes a problem because men are seldm stingy with sperm , so this question is a seldom worry.
-
I think that a reading of the origonal is good to preceed all the later commentary , don't stop reading untill Tamar is finally pregnant.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2038&version=9;
Onan dies for being disobedient ? Or for refuseing to impregnate whether ordered or not?
It is not seperated out well ,but I don't see Augustenes case being all that strong.
You could use a better translation ;)
Seriously though, it is not explicitly stated in the passage. Of course if Onan is simply being disobedient, then why aren't many others who are disobedient summarily executed as Onan is?
This is theology, not simple literalism.
And it remains that both Protestant and Catholic theologians agreed on this issue until 1930 (and moreso split in the 1960's). Why? Why suddenly disagree with nineteen centuries of teaching? Surely the Protestant churches did not suddenly get together and decide that Augustine all the way to Luther all the way to modern times were all wrong all along...
-
I think that a reading of the origonal is good to preceed all the later commentary , don't stop reading untill Tamar is finally pregnant.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2038&version=9;
Onan dies for being disobedient ? Or for refuseing to impregnate whether ordered or not?
It is not seperated out well ,but I don't see Augustenes case being all that strong.
You could use a better translation ;)
Seriously though, it is not explicitly stated in the passage. Of course if Onan is simply being disobedient, then why aren't many others who are disobedient summarily executed as Onan is?
This is theology, not simple literalism.
And it remains that both Protestant and Catholic theologians agreed on this issue until 1930 (and moreso split in the 1960's). Why? Why suddenly disagree with nineteen centuries of teaching? Surely the Protestant churches did not suddenly get together and decide that Augustine all the way to Luther all the way to modern times were all wrong all along...
Yes we do,do that , as Prodestants we do not thnk that a commentator a century ealyer is a century more right.
Er dies for an unspecified disobedient act Onan dies and Juda starts to worry that Tamar is going to be a widow to all of his sons.
But Tamar has rights and is willing to do a desprate thing to have them respected.
How the star of this show came to be Onan I don't see ,Tamar is an ancestor of Jesus and Onan is a guy that passed on a chance to be in that lineage.
-
Should she be told of the psychological impact of aborting a child?
this is one of the few subjects that I do waiver on the issue of abortions
in life their is very few one answers fits all
this is one of them
many women DO suffer getting abortions are this should be made public.(but not all)
everbody should as much as possible get full information
both sides only are guilty of pretty much being one sided of the story on abortion.
-
Why do you need a reason, more than the opinions of some of the greatest theological minds in Christian history?
Because I'm a thinking person with my own mind. Saying this is the way it is because he said so just doesn't satisfy me. Onan was sent to his brother's widow to perform his cultural duty of giving her a child to raise as her dead husband's heir. Onan refused to inseminate her, and God killed him. The main reason I can discover for why Christian theologians have focused on the coitus interruptus and not the duty to impregnate the brother's widow is that culturally Christians were not engaged in the practice of taking care of widows in that fashion. Not even in the early church which was much more closely connected to Judaism than the church of today. And so I am left with the question of how much of the sexual morality lesson you've discussed is a result of culture and how much is theology.
Reading the related scriptures in several different versions, I see that Onan deciding to not produce offspring for his brother is an integral part of the story. And I don't see anything that says God killed Onan specifically for spilling the semen rather than for refusing to impregnate his brother's widow. So I have to ask myself, what makes theologians focus on the semen rather than Onan's intent? Intent almost always has more to do with sin and God's judgment than the actions themselves. The obvious answer, to me, is the culture in which the theologians lived.
So if we're going to use the story of Onan as a basis for a moral statute, I need a reason why I'm supposed to care about Onan's coitus interruptus but not that he was refusing to impregnate his brother's widow.
I get that you're asking why the judgment of the church, at least the Protestant side, seems to have changed regarding contraception. I'm ultimately asking is the issue purely theological, or is there a significant element of culture involved both in the change and in the prior theological opinion(s)? In my opinion, I think the latter question has to be answered before an answer to the former question can be found. And I think culture is deeply involved. So when our culture changed, our approach to the theology changed.
-
all this talk about onan made think
how can abstinence be accepted ?
if the dude says no than a kid will not be born also.
However, how often is THAT the case? Isn't it usually the gal who has to say no? I'm not syaing this is correct, only that, based upon my experience, this is the case.
-
maybe in the past guys don`t say no
but in the present with lame excuses we will find reason not to.
remember the sitcom married with children al bundy is rarely in the mood
that`s not fiction.
publicly men will not admit it,but the drive does thin out with time.
hef needs 3 women to function ,when before one would be enough.
-
Well, I can concur with that. I am in my fifties and the drive has lessened, which I understand from my physician, is perfectly normal. Still high, according to my wife. ;D But lessened nonetheless.
But, at a younger age particularly, I believe in many cases, my statement is sound.
And, Hef has Bob Dole's solution to meet his, er, someone's needs. Of course, at his advanced age, he might not want it as much, if your theory is true.
-
There are not too many people to sustainably survive now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just not true: if the birth rate and the consumption rate of resources continues at its present pace, there will be a collapse, certainly within 200 years, probably sooner.
The Salvador war was about overpopulation; the present Iraq war is about resources.
Both caused the resources to be consumed more rapidly.
-
he might not want it as much, if your theory is true.
remember he used to be with seven blonds
and he`s paid to be with these women
it`s just a paycheck with benfits to him.
except for a couple of women,most of these women leave with affection for him.
he even charmed a highly offended jessica alba.
the duide has class
but speaking about bob dole
I just can`t help but like him for doing that viagra commercial
and that pepsi commercial talking about his blue friend
a sense of humor goes along way with me.
-
Yes we do,do that , as Prodestants we do not thnk that a commentator a century ealyer is a century more right.
So morality is relative to the Zeitgeist?
No one is saying that earlier commentary is better, nor is anyone saying that Onan is more important than Tamar. Indeed, judging by the story itself, that certainly seems not to be the case. Nor is this teaching of the Church based upon one biblical part of Genesis.
Yet, it doesn't strike you as a little peculiar that an entire segment of Christianity reversed over 19 centuries of teaching in the same 30 year period?
-
And if we're going to use Old Testament as our values guide, is ejaculation during sex something that makes the participants unclean?
No. The first clause is a false premise and the second clause is a an issue for Jewish persons.
Then why should we be concerned about Onan refusing to ejaculate into his brother's widow to give her a child? Yes, I do realize there is a history of using Onan's story as a reason for opposing masturbation and contraception. But if I'm supposed to care about Onan's story as a morality tale, doesn't that mean I need to take the Old Testament seriously about other sexual issues? We don't get to pick and choose what parts of the Old Testament apply to us, do we? I need a reason why I'm supposed to care about Onan spilling his seed but not that he was refusing to impregnate his brother's widow.
I have never understand why this is construed as a message against masturbation. Onan got in trouble because he disobeyed God. If God says to dig a hole, you di a hole. If he says to do WHATEVER, you do it or risk the consequences.
-
Because I'm a thinking person with my own mind. Saying this is the way it is because he said so just doesn't satisfy me. Onan was sent to his brother's widow to perform his cultural duty of giving her a child to raise as her dead husband's heir. Onan refused to inseminate her, and God killed him. The main reason I can discover for why Christian theologians have focused on the coitus interruptus and not the duty to impregnate the brother's widow is that culturally Christians were not engaged in the practice of taking care of widows in that fashion. Not even in the early church which was much more closely connected to Judaism than the church of today. And so I am left with the question of how much of the sexual morality lesson you've discussed is a result of culture and how much is theology.
Reading the related scriptures in several different versions, I see that Onan deciding to not produce offspring for his brother is an integral part of the story. And I don't see anything that says God killed Onan specifically for spilling the semen rather than for refusing to impregnate his brother's widow. So I have to ask myself, what makes theologians focus on the semen rather than Onan's intent? Intent almost always has more to do with sin and God's judgment than the actions themselves. The obvious answer, to me, is the culture in which the theologians lived.
Oh, but it is incorrect to assume that the theologians did not look to the duty of Onan to impregnate his brother's widow. Remember that Jewish teachers also taught (and a sect of Judaism still teaches) that contraception is wrong, especially in specific circumstances. Both Jerome and Augustine discuss Judah, Tamar, and Onan.
So if we're going to use the story of Onan as a basis for a moral statute, I need a reason why I'm supposed to care about Onan's coitus interruptus but not that he was refusing to impregnate his brother's widow.
Because Christ defined marriage as a sacrament from God (Matthew 19:5-6). Augustine made that clear when he addressed the Manichaens.
I get that you're asking why the judgment of the church, at least the Protestant side, seems to have changed regarding contraception. I'm ultimately asking is the issue purely theological, or is there a significant element of culture involved both in the change and in the prior theological opinion(s)? In my opinion, I think the latter question has to be answered before an answer to the former question can be found. And I think culture is deeply involved. So when our culture changed, our approach to the theology changed.[/color]
I think that is a fair questions and statement. Theological approaches and interpretative approaches do change over time. The problem in that question is that it assumes that the Church has not reviewed the issue either. She has, on many occasions - one of which I posted was Paul VI encyclical of Humanae Vitae. The Church has had councils and disagreements over this issue, but nothing to warrant a change in the overall precept.
I think there are two problems people have with any teaching that is anti-contraceptive. First, there is a misconception that this is some sort of strict rule that is arbitrarily waved about by the Church (or more sinister minds have claimed that it is part of some nefarious plot by the Church). Of course this is not true. The rule if it must be called that, is born very much out of love and as I said, was once accepted by all of Christendom. It holds marriage in the highest possible regard as a union of man and wife into one flesh. A Christian marriage cannot be dissolved. It is a calling (just as the presthood, or a religious vocation). More than that, it is vital to hold women to the highest regard. From Epiphanius and Augustine to Paul VI have come warnings that contraceptives will bring degredation and objectification of women.
The other problem is that people are so deeply engulfed in a society that is accepting of contraceptive use that they cannot imgagine a modern society without them. Western nations heavily prioritise constant economic growth and improvement of living standards (at least for segments of their population) and it has become accepted that population control is a part of this economic formula. To emulate that success, poverty-stricken third world nations follow suit. Along with contraceptive use comes abortion as a means to control family size or keep individuals within a certain economic range (children are expensive!).
But, it is interesting that in Germany, once a country that frowned upon women having children, they are now providing many incentives (mostly tax breaks) for women to do just that. So we might see a time where these views change, at least somewhat.
-
"Of course if Onan is simply being disobedient, then why aren't many others who are disobedient summarily executed as Onan is?"
This is God's call, not ours. He chooses what to do when. He obviously wanted to make a point here.
-
I have never understand why this is construed as a message against masturbation. Onan got in trouble because he disobeyed God. If God says to dig a hole, you di a hole. If he says to do WHATEVER, you do it or risk the consequences.
==========================================================================
It is pretty difficult to disobey God directly these days, because the Supreme Being has become remarkably tongue-tied for the past thirty centuries or so.
He supposedly sent Jesus to explain stuff, but for some weird reason, Jesus wrote nothing, and all we have from him are some recollections by people who claim to have known him, written decades after the fact.
You can disobey God by refusing to follow some of the instructions mentioned in the Old Testament, such as allowing witches, homosexuals, and disobedient offspring to live, or eating the wrong sort of locusts, but this apparently is not sufficient to cause divine destruction.
I have decided not to stone witches, queers or sassy kids, and nothing really bad has happened to me. I don't even bother to look up when I hear thunder anymore.
Perhaps the Supreme Being is on vacation, or off creating another universe.
-
From Epiphanius and Augustine to Paul VI have come warnings that contraceptives will bring degredation and objectification of women.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Well in experimental terms , now that we have contraception widely availible , are we becoming an oversexed society that disrespects women and dismisses the reproductive acts importance ?
Are we emphasiseing the enjoyment of sex above responsibility ?
One might argue that we indeed are ,"Girls gone wild " seems evidence of it.
But is the connection to contraception direct inderect or illusionary?
-
girls gone wild is a funny thing
it`s not true porn but it sells more than porn
it promotes flashing without sex.
but it`s refer to as ther break down of our morals.
I personally think kids doing jackass type pranks more dangerous than legal age girls flashing in mardi gras
but i do see a connection here
excitement
until parents figure out studying and going to church is not equal to a extreme sport/video games
we will always have this problem.
-
From Epiphanius and Augustine to Paul VI have come warnings that contraceptives will bring degredation and objectification of women.
===================================================
This is nonsense: women were treated much more as objects by Paul himself than anyone would dare treat them now.
Paul said that women should not even speak in church.
Let him try that crap today, and he'd be pitched out on his ample, albeit possibly holy, butt.
Contraception means that women can decide whether they want to have children or not, and the same for men.
It takes the apprehension out of sex. That is a GOOD thing.
Think about it.
Most of you antediluvians who are against abortion are also against contraception. I am at a loss to understand why you aren't for cannibalism and ritual scarification as well.
-
Most of you antediluvians who are against abortion are also against contraception.
What a load of AMBE.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Multi-Band_Excitation
huh??
-
huh??
AMBE
Adult Male Bovine Excrement
Adult Male Bovine -> Bull
Excrement -> Shit
-
oh
that makes more sense than advance multi-band excitation
-
oh that makes more sense than advance multi-band excitation
LOL.....yep, it does
-
I have never understand why this is construed as a message against masturbation.
I believe the basic idea is that masturbation is wasting semen, and since God was offended by Onan wasting his semen, therefore masturbation is a sin.
Which naturally makes me think of Monty Python's "Every Sperm Is Sacred" song from their movie, The Meaning of Life.
-
By that logic, UP, sex when there is no chance of procreation is a sin as well. ???
-
Oh, but it is incorrect to assume that the theologians did not look to the duty of Onan to impregnate his brother's widow. Remember that Jewish teachers also taught (and a sect of Judaism still teaches) that contraception is wrong, especially in specific circumstances. Both Jerome and Augustine discuss Judah, Tamar, and Onan.
I'm sure that is all true. But I notice the question you're asking is about contraception being acceptable to some Christians, and not refusing to impregnate one's brother's childless widow being acceptable to some Christians. So obviously one aspect of the story has received a great deal more attention than the other.
Because Christ defined marriage as a sacrament from God (Matthew 19:5-6). Augustine made that clear when he addressed the Manichaens.
Not having read Augustine's writings regarding the Manichaens, I'm not sure what argument he used. The passage of scripture you mention is a response from Jesus in response to a question about divorce. Jesus quotes Genesis in His reply, so obviously He was not proposing a new concept. And it seems to have little bearing on the story of Onan. But possibly I am just missing whatever piece of information that links these together.
The problem in that question is that it assumes that the Church has not reviewed the issue either.
I'm not assuming that at all. I'm not saying there are not valid theological reasons against contraception. But I think culture has played a part in the focusing and forming of theological arguments, and therein lies the answer to your question. We're not as concerned about contraception for the same basic reason we're not concerned about making sure childless widows get pregnant, because we've decided it isn't culturally relevant. The whole widow thing is not even considered an issue any more because it has been culturally irrelevant for much longer.
More than that, it is vital to hold women to the highest regard. From Epiphanius and Augustine to Paul VI have come warnings that contraceptives will bring degredation and objectification of women.
Has that occurred in our society as a result of contraception becoming commonplace? Some might suggest it had had the opposite effect.
Western nations heavily prioritise constant economic growth and improvement of living standards (at least for segments of their population) and it has become accepted that population control is a part of this economic formula.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by population control. We do not, after all, have population control regulations in place. At least, none so far as I know.
-
By that logic, UP, sex when there is no chance of procreation is a sin as well. ???
And arguments to that effect have been made in one form or another. Many of them in support of the theological objection to contraception. I have seen people make such an argument as a reason why homosexuality is a considered a sin. I'm not saying I agree. I'm just saying these arguments have been made.