Husband and I not having sex because we don't want children.

[Rau]

A simple question. Was Onan killed for disobeying God or for how he disobeyed God?
What would happened if he disobeyed God by using NFP?

Killed for his actions. Killed for “what he did”. The text reads: “What he DID was displeasing in the sight of the Lord”.

The punishment for disobeying the law of God concerning giving the wife of dead brother a child was public humiliation, not death. Can you see now?

What do the Church Fathers say on this point? What does the Church say?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Killed for his actions. Killed for “what he did”. The text reads: “What he DID was displeasing in the sight of the Lord”.

The punishment for disobeying the law of God concerning giving the wife of dead brother a child was public humiliation, not death. Can you see now?

What do the Church Fathers say on this point? What does the Church say?

The Onan’s case is not about the law of God. Onan got a command from God.
It’s one thing to follow the law and the other to obey a command.
The law is not to kill but when God’s command to kill came they were killing.
God’s command is above the law.

Onan was not dealing with the law but with the command.
That’s why the intro is longer and more important than the end. That’s how it appears to me.
Do you see the difference? The law and the command?

 

[Rau]

The Onan’s case is not about the law of God. Onan got a command from God.
It’s one thing to follow the law and the other to obey a command.
The law is not to kill but when God’s command to kill came they were killing.
God’s command is above the law.

Onan was not dealing with the law but with the command.
That’s why the intro is longer and more important than the end. That’s how it appears to me.
Do you see the difference? The law and the command?

The Church Fathers, and the Church throughout history disagree with you entirely. Perhaps that is cause to reconsider?

 

[Vico]

This is your original quote:

Here is the quote from Edlinked:

Your original quote describes physical/biological act.
It appears you failed to define how it’s related to the Natural Moral Law.
You really are describing physical/biological part of the act.

My reply was meant to point out where you made the mistake.
Yes, car is not natural way of transportation, still it’s not a sin to use it.
Why is it a sin to use condom?

The use of a condom (blocking fluid transfer) is not an act apt for procreation, shown by the fact that the Church has stated it is not valid for consummation. Also, the original statement on use of condoms is no Casti Canubii of Pope Pius XI in 1930, that frustrating the procreative act is “an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such acts are branded with the guilt of a grave sin”.

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii.html

 

[Rau]

The Onan’s case is not about the law of God. Onan got a command from God.

Can you quote and provide a bible reference to the text where God issues this command to Onan?

PS: I suspect not, for it was not God, but Onan’s father Judah who informed him of his duty under the Levirate law. A law which admitted a refusal, but with public humiliation as the punishment. (See Deuteronomy 25:9). God got involved to make a point about the evil of what Onan DID.

This is what is evil: an unnatural separation of what God intended to be together. If Onan didn’t want children, he shouldn’t have agreed to the levirate marriage. Once married, he should have agreed to having children. But he tried the “middle way” of having sex but willfully separating procreation from it. This was the sin, and this is why God killed him.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Can you quote and provide a bible reference to the text where God issues this command to Onan?

PS: I suspect not, for it was not God, but Onan’s father Judah who informed him of his duty under the Levirate law. A law which admitted a refusal, but with public humiliation as the punishment. (See Deuteronomy 25:9). God got involved to make a point about the evil of what Onan DID.

This is what is evil: an unnatural separation of what God intended to be together. If Onan didn’t want children, he shouldn’t have agreed to the levirate marriage. Once married, he should have agreed to having children. But he tried the “middle way” of having sex but willfully separating procreation from it. This was the sin, and this is why God killed him.

Your timeline does not check.
Deuteronomy is from Moses; that’s about 400 years later after Onan lived.
How do you know what law was the law at the time of Onan?
It’s not right to apply the law 400 years back just like that.

Isn’t disobeying father on a serious issue as disobeying God?
Isn’t father’s command understood as God’s will in the religious communities even these days?

Judah, Jacob’s son, was a leader, he had an authority, people did what he said.
His brothers listened to him when he said not to kill Joseph.
It’s reasonable to look at Judah’s command as God’s will. Onan knew the severity of the command.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The use of a condom (blocking fluid transfer) is not an act apt for procreation, shown by the fact that the Church has stated it is not valid for consummation. Also, the original statement on use of condoms is no Casti Canubii of Pope Pius XI in 1930, that frustrating the procreative act is “an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such acts are branded with the guilt of a grave sin”.

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii.html

Still it does not change the fact that the Church’s definition of the procreative aspect is based on physical/biological order. As John Paul II says it is deprived of all importance.

I gave you a few examples to emphasize this point.
How walking is a natural way of transportation. This is based on the physical/biological order.
Walking is deprived of its importance therefore using a car is not a sin.

If the same can not be said about condoms then the logic is not consistent. Therefore it appears to be a false logic.

 

[Rau]

Your timeline does not check.
Deuteronomy is from Moses; that’s about 400 years later after Onan lived.
How do you know what law was the law at the time of Onan?
It’s not right to apply the law 400 years back just like that.

Isn’t disobeying father on a serious issue as disobeying God?
Isn’t father’s command understood as God’s will in the religious communities even these days?

Judah, Jacob’s son, was a leader, he had an authority, people did what he said.
His brothers listened to him when he said not to kill Joseph.
It’s reasonable to look at Judah’s command as God’s will. Onan knew the severity of the command.

There is no evidence the law changed! And I’m sorry, but no, there was no command from God. Just the law, for which a breach had a defined punishment, that was not death.

 

[Vico]

Still it does not change the fact that the Church’s definition of the procreative aspect is based on physical/biological order. As John Paul II says it is deprived of all importance.

I gave you a few examples to emphasize this point.
How walking is a natural way of transportation. This is based on the physical/biological order.
Walking is deprived of its importance therefore using a car is not a sin.

If the same can not be said about condoms then the logic is not consistent. Therefore it appears to be a false logic.

Give me the quote from St. Pope John Paul II that “it is deprived of all importance.” because I do not understand your sentences. When you say “it” do you mean the “procreative aspect”?

Secondly, I think you did not read Casti Canubii of Pope Pius XI, to see the logic. It is given there:

1. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances.
2. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
3. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]

 

[Jaaanosik]

There is no evidence the law changed! And I’m sorry, but no, there was no command from God. Just the law, for which a breach had a defined punishment, that was not death.

The law you mentioned, your reference, was established about 400 years after Onan. What law you are talking about?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Give me the quote from St. Pope John Paul II that “it is deprived of all importance.” because I do not understand your sentences. When you say “it” do you mean the “procreative aspect”?

Secondly, I think you did not read Casti Canubii of Pope Pius XI, to see the logic. It is given there:

1. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances.
2. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
3. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]

The quote was posted by edlinked: “The order of nature, writes John Paul II, is generally confused with the “biological order” and so deprived of all importance.”
It’s from Love and Responsibility. When googled, one of the links:
enotes.com/topics/love-responsibility

I read the Casti Connubii. I know what the Church teaches.
The Church defines the procreative aspect as a specific way to have sex. That’s the physical/biological order. Do you agree?
The Church follows with the argument that by breaking/separating the physical/biological order one breaks/separates the act from the Natural Moral Law. This act disrespects the personal authority of the Creator that created sex for procreation. Am I correct?

Here is something to think about though.
The most fundamental inclination of the Natural Moral Law is life/existence.
The self-preservation is natural thing to the point that killing in self-defense is not a murder.

We got hearing for self-preservation, listening to dangers around us. That’s the physical/biological order as designed by the Creator. This is how the physical/biological order of listening is linked to the Natural Moral Law - to save life.

If we use the same logic as with the sex then by breaking the physical/biological order one breaks the listening from the Natural Moral Law. This disrespects the personal authority of the Creator that listening is for self-preservation.
Example - putting on earphones and listening to music for pleasure is a sin by this logic because one would not hear dangers around.

In a way it can be argued that separating the physical/biological order from the marital act is a sin when listening to music for pleasure is a sin otherwise the logic is not consistent and that’s a false logic.

I hope that you see how separating the physical/biological order from the act is not a sin unless you are for a double standard.

 

[Memaw]

“3 The tempter approached and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become loaves of bread.” 4 He said in reply, “It is written: ‘One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.’”” Matthew 4, 3-4

“13 Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again;14 but whoever drinks the water I shall give will never thirst; the water I shall give will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”” John 4, 13-14

I have NO idea why you think the quotes you’ve made have ANYTHING to do with the OP’s post. You forgot to post what Jesus has said about marriage. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Rau]

The law you mentioned, your reference, was established about 400 years after Onan. What law you are talking about?

If you wish to announce new discoveries such as this, you’ll need to provide a reference. The law preceded Onan. It remained in place for a long time.

 

[Rau]

The quote was posted by edlinked: “The order of nature, writes John Paul II, is generally confused with the “biological order” and so deprived of all importance.”
It’s from Love and Responsibility. When googled, one of the links:
enotes.com/topics/love-responsibility

I read the Casti Connubii. I know what the Church teaches.
The Church defines the procreative aspect as a specific way to have sex. That’s the physical/biological order. Do you agree?
The Church follows with the argument that by breaking/separating the physical/biological order one breaks/separates the act from the Natural Moral Law. This act disrespects the personal authority of the Creator that created sex for procreation. Am I correct?

Here is something to think about though.
The most fundamental inclination of the Natural Moral Law is life/existence.
The self-preservation is natural thing to the point that killing in self-defense is not a murder.

We got hearing for self-preservation, listening to dangers around us. That’s the physical/biological order as designed by the Creator. This is how the physical/biological order of listening is linked to the Natural Moral Law - to save life.

If we use the same logic as with the sex then by breaking the physical/biological order one breaks the listening from the Natural Moral Law. This disrespects the personal authority of the Creator that listening is for self-preservation.
Example - putting on earphones and listening to music for pleasure is a sin by this logic because one would not hear dangers around.

In a way it can be argued that separating the physical/biological order from the marital act is a sin when listening to music for pleasure is a sin otherwise the logic is not consistent and that’s a false logic.

I hope that you see how separating the physical/biological order from the act is not a sin unless you are for a double standard.

That’s hilarious! The creator must have envisaged we’d be living on African plains with lions for eternity! Haha.

 

[Jaaanosik]

If you wish to announce new discoveries such as this, you’ll need to provide a reference. The law preceded Onan. It remained in place for a long time.

Please, show me the law. Who established that law prior or at the time of Onan.

 

[Jaaanosik]

That’s hilarious! The creator must have envisaged we’d be living on African plains with lions for eternity! Haha.

Yes, those lions are called ‘cars’ livescience.com/17995-accidents-pedestrians-headphones-infographic.html

"*Lichenstein and his colleagues reviewed past reports and databases published between 2004 and 2011 of pedestrian injuries or fatalities from crashes involving trains or motor vehicles. They specifically looked at those cases involving headphone use.

In total, they reviewed 116 accident cases in which injured pedestrians were documented to be using headphones, with 70 percent of these accidents resulting in death to the pedestrian.*"

I’d say it’s not so funny.

 

[Rau]

Please, show me the law. Who established that law prior or at the time of Onan.

Read any biblical scholar. The practice long preceded Moses but it was codified in the Mosaic Law and with a modest punishment specified. Read:
rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

Earlier, you told us that God commanded Onan. Now you say the practice did not even exist despite the Bible text referring to Onan’s duty. Note that Onan did not even have reason to view the levirate practice as being of divine origin.

"Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” "…

“What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death…”

 

[Rau]

Yes, those lions are called ‘cars’ livescience.com/17995-accidents-pedestrians-headphones-infographic.html

"Lichenstein and his colleagues reviewed past reports and databases published between 2004 and 2011 of pedestrian injuries or fatalities from crashes involving trains or motor vehicles. They specifically looked at those cases involving headphone use.

In total, they reviewed 116 accident cases in which injured pedestrians were documented to be using headphones, with 70 percent of these accidents resulting in death to the pedestrian."

I’d say it’s not so funny.

. You really should write a blog!!

 

[Vico]

The quote was posted by edlinked: “The order of nature, writes John Paul II, is generally confused with the “biological order” and so deprived of all importance.”
It’s from Love and Responsibility. When googled, one of the links:
enotes.com/topics/love-responsibility

I read the Casti Connubii. I know what the Church teaches.
The Church defines the procreative aspect as a specific way to have sex. That’s the physical/biological order. Do you agree?
The Church follows with the argument that by breaking/separating the physical/biological order one breaks/separates the act from the Natural Moral Law. This act disrespects the personal authority of the Creator that created sex for procreation. Am I correct?

Here is something to think about though.
The most fundamental inclination of the Natural Moral Law is life/existence.
The self-preservation is natural thing to the point that killing in self-defense is not a murder.

We got hearing for self-preservation, listening to dangers around us. That’s the physical/biological order as designed by the Creator. This is how the physical/biological order of listening is linked to the Natural Moral Law - to save life.

If we use the same logic as with the sex then by breaking the physical/biological order one breaks the listening from the Natural Moral Law. This disrespects the personal authority of the Creator that listening is for self-preservation.
Example - putting on earphones and listening to music for pleasure is a sin by this logic because one would not hear dangers around.

In a way it can be argued that separating the physical/biological order from the marital act is a sin when listening to music for pleasure is a sin otherwise the logic is not consistent and that’s a false logic.

I hope that you see how separating the physical/biological order from the act is not a sin unless you are for a double standard.

It seems that the procreation is not defined biologically by the Church, which would be incomplete. There is in addition to the human mode of the act of reproduction, the intention to accept a new life that results, promote it, and to raise that new life in holiness. Intention, action, and omission are all significant to the preservation of charity. Disrespect for the Creator in his plan for the preservation of the species is a sin of pride.

In Love and Responsibility, Wojtyla gives that procreation is based in the existential – the existence of the human person and love for the person.

“If the sexual urge has an existential character, if it is bound up with the very existence of the human person–that first and most basic good–then it must be subject to the principles which are binding in respect of the person. Hence, although the sexual urge is there for man to use, it must never be used in the absence of, or worse still, in a way which contradicts, love for the person”.

Wojtyla, Love and Responsibility, p. 53.

“inasmuch as it is realized under the constant influence of God the Creator. A man and a woman, through their conjugal life and a full sexual relationship, link themselves with that order, agree to take a special part in the work of creation”

Wojtyla, Love and Responsibility, p. 56.

The “order of nature” and the “biological order” must not be confused or regarded as identical; the “biological order” does indeed mean the same as the order of nature but only insofar as this is accessible to the methods of empirical an descriptive natural science, and not as a specific order of existence with an obvious relationship to … God the Creator. This habit of confusing the order of existence with the biological order, or rather of allowing the second to obscure the first, is part of that generalized empiricism which seems to weigh so heavily on the mind of modern man …

Wojtyla, Love and Responsibility, pp. 56-7.

“The sexual urge owes its objective importance to its connection with the divine work of creation…and this importance vanishes almost completely if our way of thinking is inspired only the biological order of nature”

Wojtyla, Love and Responsibility, p. 57.

See christendom-awake.org/pages/may/summaryofl&r.htm

 

[Jaaanosik]

Read any biblical scholar. The practice long preceded Moses but it was codified in the Mosaic Law and with a modest punishment specified. Read:
rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

Earlier, you told us that God commanded Onan. Now you say the practice did not even exist despite the Bible text referring to Onan’s duty. Note that Onan did not even have reason to view the levirate practice as being of divine origin.

"Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” "…

“What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death…”

One question to you and any scholar in the world.
At what point a custom or a tradition becomes a law?