Onan's Sin

[slinky1882]

Another note, if a Protestant walked up to me and gave me that argument or interpretation (which I am not granting is conrrect), my reply would be “and???”. Logically, their argument is a red herring (they are trying to got something out of nothing) as is. Throughout the Old Testament, individuals defied God’s authority, but God only slew after deliberate acts. Take the Isrealites after leaving Egypt. For their disobediance, God made them wander in the desert for 40 years until all had died who participated. Now Onan did this, and God slew him on the spot. Now, the action of God demonstrates the gravely immoral nature of the act. I would ask the Protestant, how did Onan defy God??? "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." Hope this helps.Thanks and God Bless.

 

[Fieryjades]

As for Song of Solomon, one said, “It boils down to the ‘sex for pleasure’ vs. ‘sex for procreation’ argument. If sex wasn’t intended for pleasure, then please explain Song of Solomon to me.” They also said by using ABC, we are being stewards of our bodies and families. Is it possible that Onan was slayed because he was not married to Tamar and had sexual relations with her?

Thank you for the responses!

 

[Church_Militant]

Fieryjades:

As for Song of Solomon, one said, “It boils down to the ‘sex for pleasure’ vs. ‘sex for procreation’ argument. If sex wasn’t intended for pleasure, then please explain Song of Solomon to me.” They also said by using ABC, we are being stewards of our bodies and families. Is it possible that Onan was slayed because he was not married to Tamar and had sexual relations with her?

Thank you for the responses!

So far as testing God or trying God, offer these:
Matthew 4:7 Jesus said to him: It is written again: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Luke 4:7 Jesus said to him: It is written again: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.

As for Onan’s sin, I wish the n-Cs’d make up their minds about this. Some tell me it’s masturbation, and others say other stuff like you’ve heard.

I believe that his sin was straight up disobedience, since he knew what God’s willl was and chose to rebel against it and in the process deprive his brother’s widow of anyone to support her or protect her. In effect casting her into prostitution, since to my knowlege there wasn’t a big job market for women in those days outside the home.

So far as the other info you’ve got here, it all looks pretty good. The sudden change in 1930 is a chilling indictment against the n-C churches, and in point of fact, there are historical documents showing that even the pagans abhored the use of contraceptives.

As for NFP being the same thing: not so since the NT teaches Christian abstinence by agreement for a time for spiritual reasons (1st Corinthians 7:5 Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.) and I’d point out that not wanting to use drugs to prevent conception (ask 'em what the Greek word in the NT is for “witchcraft”…It’s where we get the word “Pharmacy” from!) in obedience to God is certainly better than going into witchcraft and rebellion against God.

The abortifacient nature of contraceptives is certainly another point, since they will cause a new fetus to detach from the womb wall and die I understand.

Song of Solomon is all about love, not sex, though the language is certainly passionate enough. This is nothing more than them using a passage of the Bible to rationalize what they wanna do anyway. You can easily embarrass them by pointing out that in all that heat…it nowhere says that she broke to go take her pill or that he put on a condom. Using Song of Solomon like that is pretty lamely grasping at straws IMO. A married couple’s sex for pleasure is fine so long as the act is open the the possiblity of new life from that union, since pleasuring each other is a legitimately loving part of the act. (Stop and think about it…does anyone have sex not for pleasure?!)

In the end it’s all gonna be a lot of their rationalizations to justify themselves. If they refuse to listen, you know what the Lord said to do when someone rejects your good news message. Dust your feet off against them…and walk off, leaving them in the Lord’s hands.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Fieryjades:

As for Song of Solomon, one said, “It boils down to the ‘sex for pleasure’ vs. ‘sex for procreation’ argument. If sex wasn’t intended for pleasure, then please explain Song of Solomon to me.” They also said by using ABC, we are being stewards of our bodies and families. Is it possible that Onan was slayed because he was not married to Tamar and had sexual relations with her?

Thank you for the responses!

A question I would ask is, if there is no difference between NFP and ABC, why not just use NFP? It is safer, cheaper, does not put an artificial barrier between the couple, immediatley reversable (pills require a wearing off period of several months), does not put you at the mercy of drug companies, won’t cause abortions–in other words, it blows away ABC in every respect.

The objection they need to face is that it would require a change in behavior, and there you have it. The first clue that something may be the right thing to do is that it requires a change in what you do.

Keep on trucking. We can blow these objections out of the water all day.

Scott

 

[Fieryjades]

I’m planning on posting my response ASAP to the Protestants as soon as a few people proof read and check for errors. If they object further to my post, would you like to help me refute them?

Peace,
FJ

 

[slinky1882]

Church Militant:

So far as testing God or trying God, offer these:
Matthew 4:7 Jesus said to him: It is written again: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Luke 4:7 Jesus said to him: It is written again: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.

As for Onan’s sin, I wish the n-Cs’d make up their minds about this. Some tell me it’s masturbation, and others say other stuff like you’ve heard.

I believe that his sin was straight up disobedience, since he knew what God’s willl was and chose to rebel against it and in the process deprive his brother’s widow of anyone to support her or protect her. In effect casting her into prostitution, since to my knowlege there wasn’t a big job market for women in those days outside the home.

So far as the other info you’ve got here, it all looks pretty good. The sudden change in 1930 is a chilling indictment against the n-C churches, and in point of fact, there are historical documents showing that even the pagans abhored the use of contraceptives.

As for NFP being the same thing: not so since the NT teaches Christian abstinence by agreement for a time for spiritual reasons (1st Corinthians 7:5 Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.) and I’d point out that not wanting to use drugs to prevent conception (ask 'em what the Greek word in the NT is for “witchcraft”…It’s where we get the word “Pharmacy” from!) in obedience to God is certainly better than going into witchcraft and rebellion against God.

The abortifacient nature of contraceptives is certainly another point, since they will cause a new fetus to detach from the womb wall and die I understand.

Song of Solomon is all about love, not sex, though the language is certainly passionate enough. This is nothing more than them using a passage of the Bible to rationalize what they wanna do anyway. You can easily embarrass them by pointing out that in all that heat…it nowhere says that she broke to go take her pill or that he put on a condom. Using Song of Solomon like that is pretty lamely grasping at straws IMO. A married couple’s sex for pleasure is fine so long as the act is open the the possiblity of new life from that union, since pleasuring each other is a legitimately loving part of the act. (Stop and think about it…does anyone have sex not for pleasure?!)

In the end it’s all gonna be a lot of their rationalizations to justify themselves. If they refuse to listen, you know what the Lord said to do when someone rejects your good news message. Dust your feet off against them…and walk off, leaving them in the Lord’s hands.
Pax vobiscum,

Hey, Church MIlitant brought up a great point. Ask them about the Greek word “pharmacia” (please correct me if the spelling is wrong) and its two definitions as realted to Rev. 22: “15 Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the unchaste, the murderers, the idol-worshipers, and all who love and practice deceit.” Thanks and God Bless.

 

[Fieryjades]

I’m not sure I understand the connection between the Greek word for witchcraft, Pharmacies and contraception.
Explain!

Thanks,
FJ

 

[Fieryjades]

Protestant refutations: NFP is not biblical and the use of contracpetion should be to the choice of the couple. 1 Cor. 7:5 is being taken out of context when used for proof of NFP.

Any ideas?

 

[Church_Militant]

Ideas…? :banghead: :banghead: sounds like time to dust off your shoes and leave them to God.

 

[John_Joseph]

Fieryjades:

Is it possible that he was put to death because he was not married to his brother’s widow?

The problem I have rationalising this is as follows, one would have to really generalise what Judah meant when he made the following statement:

"Unite with your brother’s widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother’s line." (NAB Genesis 38:8)

The fact that Judah used the term “duty” implies to me that he was well aware of Levirate law as per Deuteronomy 25. Why would he expect Onan to fulfill his duty only partially? Don’t you think that both Onan and Judah would have known that he and Tamar be married BEFORE partaking in sexual relation? To suggest otherwise is to support the notion that Judah invokes a law without the intention of making sure his son follows it.

 

[Angainor]

Fieryjades:

Another Protestant refutation: Condoms and abstience prevent life so there’s no difference btw ABC and NFP…what do you make of this?

Here is a thought problem:

What if Onan had special insight into Tamar’s fertility cycle and instead of spilling his semen on the ground, Onan only had relations with Tamar when he was reasonably certain she was not fertile.

Would Onan have wound up any less dead?