Posted on 05/15/2018 7:28:18 AM PDT by Salvation
"It is a sin to have intentionally barren intercourse.I went on to explain in detail that at all those times when the woman is naturally NOT fertile (which comprises by far most of her life) marital intercourse is morally unobjectionable, even though you know very well that the intercourse is not going to cause conception.
That is, to choose against the natural God-designed fertility of marital acts."
Making good use of naturally infertile times is A-OK with God and man, does not violate the religious convictions of anyone on earth, costs nothing, has no side-effects, and embodies an attitude of harmonizing with, instead of fighting again, healthy function. The marvelous female design.
Nothing cut out, nothing chemically suppressed.
Complete in every detail.
There's a moral difference between accepting the natural alternation between fertility/infertility, and deliberately chemically or surgically impairing it.
There's a moral difference between cooperating with the God-given healthy bodily design of a woman, and damaging the God-given bodily design of a woman.
You are equating things that are
and then saying *I'm* inconsistent.
You obtain your conclusions mainly by ignoring what I actually wrote.
It wasn't the contraceptive sex that was the sin thus making all contraceptive sex sinful, it was the rebellion against God's Word. That was the sin that judged.
Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.
It wasn’t just a matter of failing to fulfill the Levirate obligation, because the punishment for that is described in detail in Deuteronomy 25: 5-10: it consists of a public insult: the woman can take off the sandal of the man who refused to impregnate her, and spit in his face.
That's it: public disgrace of the man at the city gate.
But Onan was not just given public disgrace: God judged him worthy of death.
Why? Because it wasn't just his refusal of his Levirate obligation-- that only merited a public shaming --- but the WAY he did it: by performing a perverted, contracepted act.
Scripture says "And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; therefore He killed him also."
It doesn't say Onan was punished for "the thing he didn't do" (raise up a son for his deceased brother). It says he was punished for the thing he DID do.
And what did he do? He contracepted an act of intercourse.
That's why God slew him. God thought was he did was detestable. The point is this: for 1900 years, all Christians---Protestant, Orthodox, Reformed, Catholic, Evangelical, all of them--- understood God's law as forbidding any kind of altered sex act, including both Onanism and Sodomy. Now, since 1930, most of them ignore, have redefined, or have accepted, Onanism.
Give them another 15 years, and most of the contraceptors will redefine and accept Sodomy as well.
Many already do. Right here on this forum, you have FReepers already saying that God didn't explicitly condemn anal ejaculation, and it must be OK, because they do it to their wives.
David often sinned, and sinned very badly. Murder, even.
“And Samuel said to Saul, “You have done foolishly. You have not kept the command of the Lord your God, with which he commanded you. For then the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. 14 But now your kingdom shall not continue. The Lord has sought out a man after his own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be prince over his people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you.” - 1 Sam 13
David sinned. He also truly repented. He trusted God and wanted to live in God’s approval. He had faith, not perfection.
It is easy for me to point out the incompatibility of slavery with Christianity - in 2018. I’d have to be very arrogant to believe I would have done the same in Alabama in 1832, or in Rome in 47 AD.
Though I disagree with how you got here I'll skip the steps and cut to the chase. It really seems that you are saying that the bible says that oral sex between husband and wife is forbidden.
Oh my! Weren’t you paying attention during the reign of slick? Oral is not sex. Silly Dungeon Master.
Whew! That's a load off.
The semen --- I'm talking about semen, which is a fluid, per se --- goes into the genital tract. That is the definition of the marital act. That's the one unique act that by definition consummates marriage. It's what makes the whole encounter procreative in form, even if not in effect.
That's why you can't have "marriage" with a man and a man. They can't perform the marital act, duh. They get the whole live gamete shipment down the throat or up the caboose, poor sods, because they don't have a kosher place to stick it.
I'm not going to get any more explicit. Note this: husband and wife are really quite at liberty. Do what you want, but don't forget the marital act.
Wow! Great clinical lesson! lol
And this doctrine of “marital act” comes entirely from Onan?
No. I didn’t say that.
But Onan ought to have put semen into Tamar genital tract. Instead he used her for a kind of contraceptive pseudo-intercourse, which was rebellious against God.
“There’s a moral difference between accepting the natural alternation between fertility/infertility, and deliberately chemically or surgically impairing it.”
You’ve asserted this, but you’ve never backed it up from God’s Word.
“And what did he do? He contracepted an act of intercourse.
You brought this idea to the passage, likely because Rome taught it. It is false.
(Referring specifically to why God condemned him)
I’m reminded, in light of other Old Testament writings, that it was considered a shameful thing for a woman not to conceive. That may also be the significance of the Scripture about not spilling seed.
Are you saying that Onan performed an act of normal, non-contracepted intercourse?
No, I'm saying your interpretation of God's judgement is not in the passage.
It is a Roman teaching you are bringing into the passage.
It happens to be the shared Christian teaching of all denominations for nearly 19 centuries, specifically until 1930. Why 1930? Because it was then, at their Lambeth conference, that the Anglican Church became the only Christian denomination to approve or marital contraception.
How do you account for the fact that for over a millennium, all Christians were wrong? And I mean all Christians---Protestant, Orthodox, Reformed, Catholic, Evangelical, all of them--- who understood Scriptural principles as forbidding any non-natural alteration of sex?
Did the Holy Spirit go asleep for 19 long centuries, only to awaken to tell the Anglicans (of all people!) to ignore the old Christian ethic and get with the contraceptive revolution?
Do you know why the Anglican Church broke ranks and abandoned the historic Christian teaching on marriage (Protestant as well as Catholic) and accepted the contraceptive revolution pioneered by such figures as Margaret Sanger, Robert Malthus, Thomas Huxley, Marie Stopes and Havelock Ellis?
You don't know the history, if you're thinking that this is some peculiarity of Catholicism. It was a Scripturally-rooted consensus that continued for centuries after the Reformation.
The Gay and Trans movements are just the latest manifestations of this self-same revolution against natural sex.
So few people know this history.
I will summarize one more time.
You have made an assertion.
You have not backed it up with God’s Scriptures.
You’ve been forced to claim natural law, history, personal assertions, etc.
You have misused one passage of Scripture.
You have provided nothing else.
No commands from God.
Certainly no command to have limitless children.
Nothing in God’s writings to the church.
If you want to adhere to this personal belief, of course you can. I’ve no complaints about personal preference or practice.
But you are claiming this is a universal, moral, important rule, applicable to all Christians - and presumably all Jews.
Yet God didn’t say it or teach it or command it.
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.