[Mrs. Don-o]

Take another look at the Sin of Onan. It was always understood as the sin of rendering an act of intercourse infertile. John Kippley (google that name), who has researched this intensively, says he cannot find a single instance, from the 1st century AD to the 19th century AD, of any Christian writer who did not considered Onan’s offense to be perverting the act of intercourse by wasting his seed.

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.

That's why God slew him. God thought this 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 intentionally sterile sex, including both Onanism and Sodomy.

Now, since 1930, most of them ignore, have redefined, or have accepted, Onanism.

BTW, that's not a "development of doctrine." That's a rejection of doctrine.

Give them another 15 years, and most of the contraceptors will redefine Sodomy as well. Many of them already have, because morally they're closely related: both sodomy and contraception are the rejection of natural fertile sex, and the choice of something other than natural fertile sex.

That's not just a "slippery slope," it's a logical four-lane highway.

[kosciusko51]

He did not do the ritual of not taking his brother’s wife, and bear public shame; instead took his brother’s wife and then did not perform the act of giving her a child. Therefore, he broke the vow.

This example is why doctrine should never hang on a single historical narrative. It is akin to bad case law.

Let’s look at this another way: what if Onan never had a relationship with his brother’s wife? Would he not have violated the duty to bear his brother a child? And is it a sin to intentionally have a childless marriage, regardless of the means?

And as for the other items: fornication and sodomy are outside of marriage, despite what some of your clergy claim.

[MHGinTN]

Oh Good grief! Don’t you believe God? GOD defined Onan’s offense, but apparently the catholic trained mind must focus upon sex-sin rather than defying God’s command to produce a descendant for the deceased brother!

[MHGinTN]

BTW, ‘teacher’ did you know that some ‘seed’ can be lost when a man urinates, especially first thing in the morning? God doesn’t fit in the Catholic box, sorry.

[DungeonMaster]

Gen 38:6 Then Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord killed him. 8 And Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and marry her, and raise up an heir to your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother’s wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did [a]displeased the Lord; therefore He killed him also.

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.