First use of birth control

  • Thread starter Thread starter emilyt67
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

emilyt67

Guest
Can Anyone give me the scripture in the bible where the man is killed for spilling his seed i know it is in there but I can not find it i would greatly aprreciate it 😃
 
emilyt67 said:
Can Anyone give me the scripture in the bible where the man is killed for spilling his seed i know it is in there but I can not find it i would greatly aprreciate it 😃
Click to expand...
<< Genesis 38 >>
Douay-Rheims Bible
1 At that time Juda went down from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Odollamite, named Hiras. 2 And he saw there the daughter of a man of Chanaan, called Sue: and taking her to wife, he went in unto her. 3 And she conceived, and bore a son, and called his name Her. 4 And conceiving again, she bore a son, and called him Onan. 5 She bore also a third: whom she called Sela. after whose birth, she ceased to bear any more.
6 And Juda took a wife for Her his firstborn, whose name was Thamar. 7 And Her, the firstborn of Juda, was wicked in the sight of the Lord: and was slain by him. ****8 Juda, therefore add to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother’s wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother. 9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name. 10 And therefore the Lord slew him, be- cause he did a detestable thing. ****11 Wherefore Juda said to Thamar his daughter in law: Remain a widow in thy father’s house, till Sela my son grow up: for he was afraid lest he also might die, as his brethren did. She went her way and dwelt in her father’s house.
 
So the Church’s views on birth control (that is not abortive) is based on that passage?

Surely he was “slewn” for being disobedient to God, rather than spilling his seed? :confused:
 
LemonAndLime said:
So the Church’s views on birth control (that is not abortive) is based on that passage?

Surely he was “slewn” for being disobedient to God, rather than spilling his seed? :confused:
Click to expand...
scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html

Gen. 38:8-10 - Onan is killed by God for practicing contraception (in this case, withdrawal) and spilling his semen on the ground.

Gen. 38:11-26 - Judah, like Onan, also rejected God’s command to keep up the family lineage, but he was not killed.

Deut. 25:7-10 - the penalty for refusing to keep up a family lineage is not death, like Onan received. Onan was killed for wasting seed.

Gen. 38:9 - also, the author’s usage of the graphic word “seed,” which is very uncharacteristic for Hebrew writing, further highlights the reason for Onan’s death.
 
I think it is important to recognize that the Church isn’t against ‘birth control’, but artificial birth control. Natural Family Planning (NFP), if used properly, is as effective as artificial means, doesn’t have the physical side effects of something like ‘the pill’, and isn’t against Church teachings.
 
God struck down Onan for doing a detestable thing, that detestable thing was spilling his seed AND refusing to have children with his lawful wife. Either way it was for practicing contraception.
 
LemonAndLime said:
So the Church’s views on birth control (that is not abortive) is based on that passage?

Surely he was “slewn” for being disobedient to God, rather than spilling his seed? :confused:
Click to expand...
Not at all. Few if any Church teachings are based on a solitary passage of Scripture. It is really rooted in the overall understanding of what it means to be a human being and the function of our sexual faculties within that context.
 
Brendan_McCabe said:
God struck down Onan for doing a detestable thing, that detestable thing was spilling his seed AND refusing to have children with his lawful wife. Either way it was for practicing contraception.
Click to expand...
Would Onan have been struck down for using NFP to avoid impregnating Tamar?
 
mdkirkbride said:
I think it is important to recognize that the Church isn’t against ‘birth control’, but artificial birth control. Natural Family Planning (NFP), if used properly, is as effective as artificial means, doesn’t have the physical side effects of something like ‘the pill’, and isn’t against Church teachings.
Click to expand...
You are oversimplifying. The Church allows for the use of NFP for grave and serious reasons but encourages people to have large families. NFP can be used in a way that is contrary to Church teaching.
 
Brendan_McCabe said:
I have no idea.
Click to expand...
The fact is that the “detestible” thing that Onan did was to avoid his duty to his brother and bear children for him. The rest of the passage bears this out, as there is a multi-sentence discussion of what he would have to do for this child and how the child wouldn’t be his in the end.

Clearly the point of the story is that Onan refused to continue his brother’s line, and that was why he was killed. The spilling of the seed was just the means by which he attempted to do so.
 
Muze said:
Would Onan have been struck down for using NFP to avoid impregnating Tamar?
Click to expand...
I have no idea

Given that the Law at that time was that a man must have children with his brothers wife if the brother dies childless then I would have to say it is a possibility.
 
Muze said:
Which is to say “yes”, but you don’t like the repercussions of that answer.

The fact is that the “detestible” thing that Onan did was to avoid his duty to his brother and bear children for him. The rest of the passage bears this out, as there is a multi-sentence discussion of what he would have to do for this child and how the child wouldn’t be his in the end.

Clearly the point of the story is that Onan refused to continue his brother’s line, and that was why he was killed. The spilling of the seed was just the means by which he attempted to do so.
Click to expand...
The two do not need to be mutually exclusive. Nor is it a clear fact that the detestable thing was to avoid his duty to his brother. You have a certainty in your words that are not based on scripture.

In fact given that the penalty for breaking this law was not death according to the scriptures then it cannot just be for the reason you say alone otherwise God would have broke His own law and treat Onan with unjust severity. So we are forced to conclude it was the means he employed. ie. spilling his seed.

Note the penalty for refusing to raise up children for ones dead bother:

“But if he will not take his brother’s wife, who by law belongeth to him, the woman shall go to the gate of the city, and call upon the ancients, and say: My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up his brother’s name in Israel: and will not take me to wife. And they shall cause him to be sent for forthwith, and shall ask him. If he answer: I will not take her to wife: The woman shall come to him before the ancients, and shall take off his shoe from his foot, and spit in his face, and say: So shall it be done to the man that will not build up his brother’s house:” Deut 25:7-9

The beliefs of the first Christians also seem to agree.

““Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 (A.D. 191).”
 
Muze said:
The fact is that the “detestible” thing that Onan did was to avoid his duty to his brother and bear children for him. The rest of the passage bears this out, as there is a multi-sentence discussion of what he would have to do for this child and how the child wouldn’t be his in the end.

Clearly the point of the story is that Onan refused to continue his brother’s line, and that was why he was killed. The spilling of the seed was just the means by which he attempted to do so.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the punishment for shirking this duty was not death (see Deuteronomy 25:9). If that was all Onan was guilty of, death would have been a little severe.
 
LemonAndLime said:
So the Church’s views on birth control (that is not abortive) is based on that passage?

Surely he was “slewn” for being disobedient to God, rather than spilling his seed? :confused:
Click to expand...
God’s own law for not having children with your brother’s widow was public humiliaiton. This was clearly spelled out by God in the Mosaic law as per Dueteronomy 25.

When brothers live together and one of them dies without a son, the widow of the deceased shall not marry anyone outside the family; but her husband’s brother shall go to her and perform the duty of a brother-in-law by marrying her. The first-born son she bears shall continue the line of the deceased brother, that his name may not be blotted out from Israel. If, however, a man does not care to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go up to the elders at the gate and declare, ‘My brother-in-law does not intend to perform his duty toward me and refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel.’ Thereupon the elders of his city shall summon him and admonish him. If he persists in saying, ‘I am not willing to marry her,’ his sister-in-law, in the presence of the elders, shall go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, saying publicly, ‘This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother’s family!’ And his lineage shall be spoken of in Israel as ‘the family of the man stripped of his sandal.’ (Deuteronomy 25:5-10)

If Onan’s crime was just a matter of being disobedient to God, why did God not mete out the punishment that he himself established, namely spit in the face, loss of a sandal strap, etc.? God demanded Onan’s life, a punishment far in excess of what God’s own law demanded… So whatever Onan did, it must have been worse than just not raising an heir to his brother with his brother’s widow.

Then Judah said to Onan, “Unite with your brother’s widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother’s line.” Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too. (Genesis 38:8-10)

“What he did” offended the Lord so much that his life was demanded. There are those who will say that Onan lied to the holy Spirit but the Bible clearly states exactly what he did - he wasted his seed on the ground.

Wasting seed, denying God the oppotunity to join with man and woman as co-creators of human life greatly offended God. God graciously allows man and woman to join him in one of the greatest things he does, creating a human life. Man brings the sperm, woman brings the egg and God brings the spirit. And when we shut God out of the process, when we decide we are going to use another human being for our own enjoyment and at the same time denying God the opportunity to create a life, God is greatly offended. After all, he can create a life by himself. He doesn’t need us. But he invites us to participate in the genesis of new life and in the face of that invitation, it is a slap in the face to God to deny him participation in that very same process.

Under the mosaic law, Onan’s punishment makes perfect sense. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. In Onan’s case, he denied God the opportunity to create a new life, and so God demanded Onan’s life in return. Life for a life.

-Tim-
 
What he did was to avoid his duty to his brother. The wasting of seed on the ground was only the means by which he did the destible part, which is not having children for his brother. In this passage (and in the book of Genesis), not furthering his brother’s line is far more important than spilling his seed
 
Muze said:
What he did was to avoid his duty to his brother. The wasting of seed on the ground was only the means by which he did the destible part, which is not having children for his brother. In this passage (and in the book of Genesis), not furthering his brother’s line is far more important than spilling his seed
Click to expand...
Your opinion is not in accordance with the scriptures as has already been shown previously. Both Christianity and Judaism always recognized the sin to be the spilling of the seed.

"Jewish law clearly prohibits male masturbation. This law is derived from the story of Onan (Gen. 38:8-10), who practiced coitus interruptus as a means of birth control to avoid fathering a child for his deceased brother. G-d killed Onan for this sin. Although Onan’s act was not truly masturbation, Jewish law takes a very broad view of the acts prohibited by this passage, and forbids any act of ha-sh’cha’tat zerah (destruction of the seed), that is, ejaculation outside of the vagina. In fact, the prohibition is so strict that one passage in the Talmud states, “in the case of a man, the hand that reaches below the navel should be chopped off.” (Niddah 13a) " jewfaq.org/sex.htm
 
Brendan_McCabe said:
Your opinion is not in accordance with the scriptures as has already been shown previously. Both Christianity and Judaism always recognized the sin to be the spilling of the seed.

"Jewish law clearly prohibits male masturbation. This law is derived from the story of Onan (Gen. 38:8-10), who practiced coitus interruptus as a means of birth control to avoid fathering a child for his deceased brother. G-d killed Onan for this sin. Although Onan’s act was not truly masturbation, Jewish law takes a very broad view of the acts prohibited by this passage, and forbids any act of ha-sh’cha’tat zerah (destruction of the seed), that is, ejaculation outside of the vagina. In fact, the prohibition is so strict that one passage in the Talmud states, “in the case of a man, the hand that reaches below the navel should be chopped off.” (Niddah 13a) " jewfaq.org/sex.htm
Click to expand...
  1. If we are going to Jewish way, then the RCC is wrong:
bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/jewishethics/contraception.shtml

In Judaism, birth control pills both the acceptable and preferred as a way to limit family size, for medical purposes, and to space out having Children.
  1. This isn’t Jewish LAW. Rules about contraception come from the Rabbinic traditions (post-exile), which would be the same traditions Jesus condemned repeatedly during His ministry here on earth.
So, I don’t think you really want to stand on Jewish Tradition. It really undermines you.
 
Muze said:
Would Onan have been struck down for using NFP to avoid impregnating Tamar?
Click to expand...
I suggest submitting your question to the “Ask an Apologist” forum. You’ve asked it in various threads, but don’t seem to have gotten the answer you want.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top