Posted on 02/14/2014 7:17:17 AM PST by marshmallow
It's my turn to ask if this is a serious question.
No, of course not. God designed the sexual act as a gift to a married man and woman to enjoy and enhance their familial bond and this is true even outside of conceiving children. I haven't had a uterus since I was 37 years old, my physical relationship with my husband is STILL honorable in all and our bed is undefiled.
Rash, you've got a good point here: grasping the meaning of Gen 38 takes a commitment to a sustained analysis of this chapter itself, and where it fits in with the WHOLE scriptural testimony about God's creative design for human sexuality, lovemaking and marriage, and most people aren't willing or able to do that.
But I would add another point: in the 19-teens and 1920's, Margaret Sanger was launching her Birth Control Revolution together with the other social radicals of her coterie, and Christian churches formed a solid phalanx against her. It was clear she was making war against the decencies of a Christian civilization: she knew it, and they knew it.
But in 1930, the Anglicans gave her the password and the keys to the city when they approved contraception at their 1930 Lambeth conference. They couched it in good enlightened-compassionate-progressive language; and they didn't seem to be fascists, racists and statists like Sanger and her radical friends. They didn't (as far as I know) try to provide a fig-leaf of justification from Scripture at all (which they couldn't, because there are no pro-contraceptive Scriptures): so they just lumped it in with progressive ideals such as the abolition of war and so forth.
By the end of that year, Pope Pius XI came out with an Encyclical letter ("Casti Connubii" -- "Chaste Wedlock") which frontally opposed Lambeth on directly moral and theological grounds and exposed the moral vacuity and theological liberalism of the Anglican position.
However --- as I read it --- at that time, the antagonism between conservative and liberal interpretations of Christianity began to intensify, and basically, in most mainline denominations, the liberals gained the upper hand.
This "Social Gospel progressive" Zeitgeist went entirely for Sanger and the Left, with the American Episcopal church leading the way. Many denominations agreed with Pope Pius as to the moral teaching, but very few spoke out or published any support, perhaps not wanting to side with the Vatican against the liberal "Social Gospel" wing.
That triumphant modernism is, of course, still with us today, but people don't identify it as radical Sanger stuff, they just accept it without much analysis as "the way it is."
At this point, the Sanger radicalism and the Anglican "respectability" have been blenderized into the same mush, and the few voices which still object in the name of God are like "the voice of one crying out in the wilderness."
Obviously if a man has intercourse with his post-menopause or post-hysterectomy wife, he is still making love in way which is simply and fully spousal. This is THE natural and honorable act which is proper only to the two, which is a sign of their entire openness and self-gift to each other, like the sacred unity of the Christ and the Church.
On the other hand, what Onan did with Tamar was --- even though they were married --- not a marital act. It was not the "Act of Marriage", the act that makes of the two one flesh. It did not express entire and holy acceptance of the whole of her, but rather rejection. It was not honest lovemaking. It was not a sign of sacredness, but rather a sign of contempt.
It would have been wrong for Onan to do that, even if he had no live sperm at all, or if she was post-menopausal (and therefore his withdrawal made no effective difference, contraceptively speaking.) He deprived sex of its SIGN value, its significance --- the significance of total receiving, and totally being received --- which is the significance of "One Flesh."
It is this fleshed-out significance -- "I am my lover's, and he is mine" -- which embodies the "Mysterium Tremendum" of which the Apostle speaks.
Let me ask another question, which while in itself is --- to say the least ---- indelicate, is necessary to bring out the "sign" aspect. Do you think Holy Matrimony can be consummated by anal penetration? Is that a nuptial act?
As for Onan, Scripture says that EVERY time he went into Tamar, he did this act. You have to ask why God didn't off him the FIRST time if it was the act, itself, which was the crime? I think Scripture teaches that Onan's sin was in NEVER intending to fulfill his tribal obligation to his dead brother and he was only interested in using Tamar like a prostitute rather than a full fledged wife. It says it right there in Genesis 38:9, "But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother." It was a pattern that dishonored his heritage, not, I believe, the actual act of withdrawal, that displeased the Lord.
You asked:
As I said before --- and I don't mind saying it again! --- intending "no babies right now, please" is not a negative or evil intent. It is an intent that COULD be evil (e.g. if it's motivated by selfishness), or COULD be good (e.g. if it's motivated by protecting the mother's life or health, or in cases of economic hardship and so forth.) Limiting pregnancies can even be a grave moral duty. It's not the intent of limiting pregnancy (in itself) that's a sin. Do you get that?
I wonder if you get that "limiting pregnancy" for grave or other moral duty is an issue that each couple should decide for themselves between them and God and which is not the duty of their church to make this determination for them with blanket verdicts which do not take into consideration the responsibilities of each couple? It boils down to the method of this limiting of pregnancy and whether or not it causes death, which would be a grave moral wrong.
We agree, I believe, that some birth control methods have as their primary or secondary purpose to prevent implantation of an embryo (which IS a human life self-contained) and expel, or abort, this new life. These include the IUD as well as hormones in pills, implants and injections. Other methods such as the diaprahm, condoms and other barrier types do not directly or indirectly kill new human life. They work to prevent fertilization from happening at all, some more successful than others. My sense is that couples, as their own consciences dictates between them and God should have use of these methods without condemnation from others. NFP is in essence not different from other barrier methods OR withdrawal because, while they seek to limit pregnancy, they do not cause the death of new human life.
One last thought...very, very few methods can guarantee 100% prevention of pregnancy, I know people who became pregnant while faithfully using the BC pill as well as one who had a vasectomy and fathered TWO sons afterward. If a couple decides to use a method that doesn't cause human death in helping them control pregnancy responsibly and in prayerful consideration with God, they should have that freedom to determine for themselves what is best for them. Should pregnancy happen in spite of their attempts, then part of that decision is one of welcoming whatever is God's will for their family and a joyous acceptance of the child into the family as a blessing from God. I do not believe there is ANY justification for aborting a child other than an imminent threat to the mother's life should the pregnancy continue - in which case BOTH would die.
I respect your right to hold to the beliefs you do and appreciate all you do to reinforce a respectful and polite exchange of thoughts and opinions on this forum.
No, I don't know of anyone nor do I believe so.
As to mdmathis6's contention WRT 100% assurance of a woman's fertility, he qualified that with saying a woman could not "TRULY" know she is fertile/infertile. NFP is probably a good option for couples who want to responsibly control their family size but I don't think even its most vocal proponents guarantee it is a 100% effective method. Is that correct?
I have to ask you to extend your view of what in Onan's actions was displeasing to the Lord. I propose it was two things: an omission (what he didn't do), and an act or actions (what he did). What he didn't do, was have children by Tamar, and that was evidently because of selfishness (or maybe he hated his late brother.) That pattern of selfishness or enmity was surely displeasing to God But in addition to that, you have to consider what the text actually says: "What he DID was evil in the sight of the Lord." It clearly refers to an act, not an omission.
Your view that "what he did"--- the very act --- was not displeasing, is not well supported by the text. It is weighty, too, that all Christendom agreed with this Biblical view --- including the Reformers of the 16th century and their fellow believers through the centuries ---until 1930. What changed? The Bible? In 1930?
"I wonder if you get that "limiting pregnancy" for grave or other moral duty is an issue that each couple should decide for themselves between them and God and which is not the duty of their church to make this determination for them with blanket verdicts which do not take into consideration the responsibilities of each couple?"
We're in 100% agreement on that. Each couple must decide this between themselves: that is exactly the Catholic teaching.
"It boils down to the method of this limiting of pregnancy and whether or not it causes death, which would be a grave moral wrong."
Yes, it boils down to the method.
Yes, those that cause death involve a grave moral wrong.
But --- death is not the only possible moral wrong. There are other moral wrongs, short of death, which are still grave. (After all, Onan didn't kill anybody, but "...what he did was evil in the sight of the Lord.")
Tell me this: do you think it is morally right for people to attempt to change their so-called "gender" with sex-change "therapies" --- hormones and surgery?
Would you explain why?
I know you'll give me a thoughtful answer, and then we can build off of that.
Gotta go do dishes.
Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm
Scroll 3/5 of the way down the page, and you'll see that works out to a 99.6% effectiveness rate. ( = 0.4% method failure rate).
You make good points about when the slide into quasi-paganism mixed into "pop Christianity" began.
What Onan "did" in the sight of the Lord he DID many times, right? It wasn't one time and he was zapped. The passage in Genesis 39 says EVERY time he had sex with Tamar he did the same thing and it says the reason very clearly that he didn't want his firstborn son to "belong" to his dead brother. He wasn't treating her as his wife, wasn't giving her a child as was the agreement he made when he married her and his actions were a rejection of his obligation before God as well as his family. That is simply why I disagree that his "act" of withdrawal was the cause of his death - it doesn't add up and is too simplistic a reason. Let's not forget that it was only in the last several centuries or so that human biology advanced to the point that it became common knowledge that the man's sperm did NOT contain a tiny baby that he "planted" in the woman's womb. That just could be the basis for what theologians as well as physicians thought about the act of conception. At least factor that into the idea of what may have been held by Christians on the subject.
But --- death is not the only possible moral wrong. There are other moral wrongs, short of death, which are still grave. (After all, Onan didn't kill anybody, but "...what he did was evil in the sight of the Lord.") Tell me this: do you think it is morally right for people to attempt to change their so-called "gender" with sex-change "therapies" --- hormones and surgery? Would you explain why?
Absolutely there are moral wrongs that are grave that don't involve death. I just don't agree that a married couple using a barrier method or withdrawal to prevent pregnancy is one of them. As I think back, I also know of a couple who DID use withdrawal and STILL got pregnant. They did marry and have the child. So that isn't even a 100% effective way either. Condoms break, spermicides fail, vasectomies and tubal ligations don't always work either. I am 100% POSITIVE, though, that not having a uterus anymore would qualify as 100% though that's a pretty extreme way to avoid pregnancy and no moral doctor would do so.
As with "gender" reassignment, transsexualism and such, my opinion isn't a factor. I know that in rare cases, some people are born with what is called "Gender Identity Disorder" or gender dysphoria as well as some with real biological existence of BOTH genders within the same body (I don't recall the medical term for that). I am not a medical doctor or psychologist to pass judgment on people effected by this problem. Homosexual acts are grave moral wrongs - and we know that not only from science but from the giver of all moral law - our Creator God.
I have said before that the Protestants who love Francis tend to be liberal, social justice type Protestants. OTOH, I find the evangelical, bible-only, conservative types at best unsure of how they feel about him and in some cases are strongly critical of him.
I think this theory proves out on this forum.
Seems more probable than not. I met some great Protestants doing pro-life work, including a Baptist minister who had been a foster parent to over 20 kids. He said, "a priest told me that I'm a better Catholic than most Catholics."
They quoted Pope John Paul II and Mother Theresa quite a bit.
Great post #9! This Baptist agrees wholeheartedly!! I live in a state that is largely Catholic. I’ve never seen the kind of zeal for Roman Catholicism as an institution and disregard for Scripture from the same venue that I’ve seen on this board. Crazy!
Always appreciate your posts, .45 Long Colt! (And I’m one of the traditional Southern Baptists!)
“We teach that every human being has the capacity and the freedom to read and interpret the Bible as she or he sees fit.”
That’s basic Baptist theology.
Once again, somebody straighten me out if I’ve got any kinks in this.
If that is “basic Baptist theology,” then the SBC would not have disfellowshipped (excommunicated) at least two entire congregations in Texas within the past decade for “interpreting the Bible as they saw fit.”
There is a difference between reading the Bible for yourself, asking the Holy Spirit to make the passages meanings perspicuous to you, and imprinting your own desired interpretation onto it. The Scriptures are unambiguous and very plain on the essential doctrines of the faith. Any departure from them is heresy.
BRAVO and well said, fwdude! You nailed the difference beautifully and hopefully put “paid” to that tired attack of many Roman Catholics here against Protestant believers that we “make up our own interpretation”.
No I disagree...and being an RN for 27 years, I might know a little bit about the subject. If a woman is very attuned to her self maybe....but I know many folks who’ve tried the natural methods but became pregnant anyway. Also the Song of Solomon has a lot to say about the love between a man and a woman, and nothing about the end result of such love simply being about children. Lot’s of lovin’ in the Song of Solomon but nothing about kids at all in the whole book.
No I disagree...and being an RN for 27 years, I might know a little bit about the subject. If a woman is very attuned to her self maybe....but I know many folks who’ve tried the natural methods but became pregnant anyway. Also the Song of Solomon has a lot to say about the love between a man and a woman, and nothing about the end result of such love simply being about children. Lot’s of lovin’ in the Song of Solomon but nothing about kids at all in the whole book.
“We teach that every human being has the capacity and the freedom to read and interpret the Bible as she or he sees fit”---is one I got off of a Baptist Church webpage, http://www.nhbcfayette.info/#!what-we-believe/c1zez; it isn't some paraphrase I made up. That's why I was sincerely inquiring about it.
Thanks to you, I now know that's not basic Baptist theology. I realize that every denomination has individuals and congregations which are dissident and which deviate from the essential beliefs. I try to avoid equating Baptist beliefs with what I read here and there from Baptist websites.
I wasn't aiming for slander, but for a more accurate understanding.
No harm, no foul. I believe you are sincere in your quest for knowledge in this area, as your cordial responses here show. My response is referencing a good bit of the slanderous comments in other places that I have seen from Roman Catholics towards Protestants on what is “sola scriptura”.
Maybe or maybe not: it's not something we know from the text. The actual verse says "when he went in to his brother's wife.." Check it out (LINK). It could have been once, or a dozen times or a score of times.
I don't see how the number of time he did it, matters. There were whole strings of apostate royalty (e.g. Johoiaim), and good kings that went bad (e.g. Solomon), and crooked sons (like Eli's sons) who made quite a career of their evil over a period of time, and the promised downfall doesn't come until months or years later, or even doesn't hit them but rather the next generation. It's very rarely in Scripture that a guy sins once, and gets instantly zapped.
"That is simply why I disagree that his "act" of withdrawal was the cause of his death - it doesn't add up and is too simplistic a reason."
Can you adduce any evidence for this? It seems to be a mere assertion of opinion without foundation.
"It was only in the last several centuries or so that human biology advanced to the point that it became common knowledge that the man's sperm did NOT contain a tiny baby that he "planted" in the woman's womb."
If they thought that turning the sex act away from conception was itself offensive to God (Onanism and Sodomy)--- it wouldn't make any difference whether they knew that men produced gametes and not zygotes. The fact that the man was intentionally doing an unnatural sex act, would be enough to make it morally objectionable.
That's how the Prophets of Israel, the Fathers of the Church, and the founders of the Reformation all saw it. (Luther said that anti-conceptive acts were "Sodomitical" --- did you read the link I supplied on that?) They weren't just looking narrowly at the Sanctity of a conceived Life. They also recognized the Sanctity of Sex. They saw the Lord God as not only the Lord of Life, but also the sovereign designer of our sexuality. They saw that it would be impious for anyone to pervert its normal, healthy, natural design, which is always procreative in "form"--- look, that's what the word "genital" means: generative, apt for generation. It means "this is the life-giving act" even if it does not accomplish conception.
Do you think they (Prophets of Israel, Fathers of the Church, Reformers) would be OK with a married couple doing oral and anal penetration and ejaculation as a contraceptive choice?
"I just don't agree that a married couple using a barrier method or withdrawal to prevent pregnancy is one of them."
I know that's your opinion, bu what you haven't shown is that your opinion is rooted in Biblical thought.
Consider this: there is a lot of sex, good and bad, in the Bible. But here is not one act of lawful procreative intercourse that is ever disapproved by God, and not one act nonlawful antiprocreative intercourse that is ever approved by God.
Check the OT and the NT: you NEVER find that. Surely that's not insignificant?
As with "gender" reassignment, I should have made my question more clear. I was not speaking of the unfortunate people who have very rare chromosomal anomalies (XXY, XYY or whatever) or who are born with objective genital malformation. I was writing about people who have a dysphoric emotional reaction against their healthy bodies, thinking their actual sex is "wrong," and who engage a doctor to surgically and hormonally alter themselves, e.g. castration.
There are all kinds of body image dysphorias: sighted people who want their eyes removed, people with normal healthy limbs that they strongly feel should be amputated, people of normal weight who want to starve themselves until they are practically skeletal. They want to alter their healthy normal body to match their confused emotions, rather than healing their confused emotions to match their healthy normal body.
Do you think there is an error here, in terms of medical ethics or a moral reverence for the human body? Or are doctors justified in enabling these self-maiming choices?
"Homosexual acts are grave moral wrongs - and we know that not only from science but from the giver of all moral law - our Creator God."
Agreed. Substitute the phrase "The deconstruction of sex" for the phrase "Homosexual acts" and the statement is still true. God doesn't want us to sabotage our bodies. It directly contradicts the Biblical attitude toward the human body, which is, "I give you thanks, O God, that I am fearfully, wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works!"
And you realize that "data" is not the plural of "anecdote" :o)
The solid research is unanimous on the effectiveness of NFP being fully on a par with the oral contraceptive pill, >99%. It has practically no "method failures" when used correctly.
That last part, "when used correctly," is important, since no method will work when used incorrectly. A condom isn't very good if you put it on your nose; NFP isn't very good if you're just trying to guess or predict ovulation, as opposed to actually observing real-time signs of impending ovulation. Your "many folks who tried the natural methods" possibly were guessing and predicting, and not doing actual Sympto-Thermal Method (STM) type NFP, or possibly did know when they were in the cycle and had intercourse knowing they were fertile. This latter case is not method failure: this is called "successfully achieving pregnancy through NFP."
Ross Pomeroy, a zoologist and science journalist who is derisive of the Christianity and dismissive of moral considerations in general, still admits that
"A large study conducted in 2007 found that the "symptothermal" method of natural family planning, in which the female user tracks both her body temperature and cervical secretions to gauge her fertility, is 99.6% effective when properly adopted, roughly the same as a copper intrauterine device.The Oxford Journal's Human Reproduction issue found 0.6 per 100 women and per 13 cycles when there was no unprotected intercourse in the fertile time (LINK) --- in other words, a 99.4% method effectiveness rate.
If you want to do a real survey of the studies, here's a huge list of studies, most (but not all) in English (LINK)
Personally, I wish everyone knew about this. It's literally God's gift to women.
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.