Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter ScapularDude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I dunno. It sounds like sexual assault to me since the only reason that Tamar is sleeping with him is for the express purpose of a child. For no other reason. They aren’t married. There is no bonding to take place within a marriage bed.
There certainly was deceit but not sexual assault anymore than the guy who lies about loving a girl just so he can bed her is guilty of sexual assault.
In fact, their sex wouldn’t even be licit if it weren’t to further the line.
But since as Thoughtful one has said, the levitical rule was not in force then then it is neither licit nor illicit.
She was willing to have sex only in order to have a child. Nothing more. If there had been turkey basters in their day…🙂
And that is true. It would be similar to a prostitute being willing to have sex for money and the guy does not pay up. That is called cheating not sexual assault.
To be honest, this story reminds me more of Ananias and Sapphira. To recap their story, they sold land and told Peter that they were donating all of the money when that was an untruth. He reproaches them by telling them that it was their land and their money and that they didn’t have to give it. However, by their lie, they weren’t lying to men but to God. And then they were struck dead.
Yes indeed that is lying but many people have lied and cheated and they were not struck dead. David was a major one.
Onan’s sin seems very similar.
Contracepting and deceit do not compare. Onan was contracepting. Ananias and Sapira were not.
He did not have to raise up a child for his brother. His seed was his. However, he said that he would yet held back at the crucial moment. Onan, like Ananias and Sapphira, thought he was deceiving Tamar and Judah but he was really deceiving God.
Huh! He was deceiving God? Can God be deceived? He was disobeying God. The sin was disobedience to God.
But that’s just my opinion.
Which in my opinion is a theological novum.
 
There seems to be some disagreement as to the exact nature of the sin of Onan. People interpret it differently.
And that is true. That is what we have been trying to sort out over so many posts, to try to figure out who is right - the Jewish and Christian understanding or the other personal interruptions abounding.
 
]
SIZE=3]And as I have said, if that was all God cared about He could have given Tamar straight to Judah instead of going the convoluted line.
Have you ever read the Bible? The entire OT is one convoluted way of preparing the Jews for the Messiah.
Top marks for attempting to do some homework but unfortunately said homework was extremely badly done.
Joseph was not son-in-law of Heli but rather son of Heli because of levirate marriage.
**Here’s the explanation in the DRB :
“Who was of Heli”… St. Joseph, who by nature was the son of Jacob, (St. Matt. 1. 16,) in the account of the law, was son of Heli. For Heli and Jacob were brothers, by the same mother; and Heli, who was the elder, dying without issue, Jacob, as the law directed, married his widow: in consequence of such marriage, his son Joseph was reputed in the law the son of Heli.
So, how can this be the genealogy of Mary when all it talks about is Joseph.**
And really Throughtful one, Dr Morris is not a credible exegete. You should have checked that before using his conclusions in your post. He is putting words into the text that is not there.
The Church has never ever interpreted that text in that manner because it is **very clear that the lineage in both Luke and Matthew is of Joseph’s.
**
And how did he come up with that conclusion? Where in the text or anywhere else in the Bible does it suddenly change to being Mary’s genealogy?
No it isn’t because “son-in-law” means son by virtue of your daughter’s marriage. Joseph is not the son-in-law of Heli because Mary is not son of Heli.
**Mary IS NOT TO BE FOUND in any of that genealogy. **As I have said before, the only book that says that Mary is of the line of David is the non-canonical proto-evangalium of James.
Next time you use someone’s interpretation, please check his credibility as an exegete.
Whatever you feel or think about my source, I can provide many, many others. The Catholic Church and pretty much everyone else knows/believes that Mary was descended from the tribe of Judah. End of story.
You are not following this are you? The levetical rule regarding emission of seed was not law then so does not apply.

One you start going along that line you will have to admit into your line of argument the levirate marriage rule as well.
Sorry but you can’t even follow your own line of reasoning.

My argument has nothing to do with the levirate marriage rule. I used it as a point of reference. I have stated this before.
Act of disobedience to what? What law was Onan disobeying since neither the Levirate Marriage rule was not law then.
Disobeying his father for one. While not a commandment as of yet, I think we can safely assume it was most certainly frowned upon.
 
To Onan this is just all about fun. Now we get right back on the track. Onan was using sex for the fun of it without the wanting the consequences! In short he was contracepting!

But he wasn’t a rapist. He didn’t rape Tamar. Tamar went willingly. So therefore your case collapses.

You don’t consider it an act of rape to deceive your dead brother’s wife into having sex with you by making her believe that you intend to legitimize her by granting her offspring in a time when this was of the utmost importance? O.K. then…
 
You have been saying that ad nauseam with** zero, zilch, nada **

support for it.

The OT is my source and support. Try reading it IN context.
The tribe of Judah yes, but where does it say that IT HAD TO BE Tamar? And if it had to be Tamar and Judah why not just her and him straight away instead of doing this merry go round of marriages?
 
Wrong, it is common knowledge that Mary and Joseph both are from the tribe of Judah:
Common knowledge does not mean correct knowledge.

It was common knowledge then that the earth was flat.
This is from Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 1, chapter 7
Chapter VII. The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in Regard to the Genealogy of Christ.
“7 Thus far Africanus. And the lineage of Joseph being thus traced, Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him, since, according to the Law of Moses, inter-marriages between different tribes were not permitted. For the command is to marry one of the same family and lineage, so that the inheritance may not pass from tribe to tribe. This may suffice here.”
Finally, you come up with a more credible citation.

However, I still need to verify what this prohibition in tribal intermarriage entails.

But based on this, it is clear that the Davidic-line claim for Mary is based not on Biblical statement but rather on the assumption that since tribal inter-marriage is forbidden then Mary and Joseph must be of the same tribe. The claim is based on a deduction rather than a clear and definitive statement from the Bible.
No, as I said, it is COMMON knowledge that Mary must have been from the tribe of Judah. Look it up.
And as I have said, it was also common knowledge that the earth was flat.
Wrong. Judah’s wife was a Canaanite and thus, his sons were of mixed decent. Judah and Tamar were both pure-blooded Jews, enabling the birth of the Tribe of Judah.
And as I have said, why not just get on with Tamar instead of going through Er, Onan and through deceit to Judah?
I am not arguing that contraception is right in this thread. I have admitted that it is a teaching I do not necessarily agree with or understand, but I do follow it nonetheless out of obedience. My issue is with the fact that people claim that the Onan story is about contraception when CLEARLY it is not. There is nothing about contraception in the Bible.
No it is NOT CLEAR. If anything, it is CLEAR that it was a case of contraception, because based on our forgoing discussion - with much invention from you - the only thing that stands out is that Onan was struck dead for contracepting.

It could not have been for refusing to give seed to Er because the levirate marriage as you pointed out could not have been in force then.

It could not have been because of seed emission because that is another levitical rule that could not have been in force then.

And this “protecting the covenant line” theory you are trying to give us has been proven false over and over again for the simple lack of proof and for the bad citations that you have provided.

The only thing left is therefore contraception and all the evil that that entails : a disobedience to God and the hegemony of the self -I/Me/Myself am god so will decide who will and will not be conceived.

Now you might want to propose another theory and we can asses that later if you do.

But as things stand, Contraception is the only one that makes sense out of the whole lot of explanations.
 
You are giving a stupid answer and ascribing that as the rational for the Church’s understanding.

That is not quite why Onanism is considered a sin. Onanism is a sin because it is No to God. The spilling of the seed is secondary for after all men have nocturnal emissions and that could hardly be called sinful.

Onan’s sin was contraception. It is not just a matter of seed spilling. That is one thing that people have to understand before they reduce Onan’s evil act to just seed emission.
Well I donlt think the Church actually uses that incorrect information now to justify its teaching on this. What I can;t figure out is what it bases it teaching on! I mean I have read the arguments for the Onan story being about contraception and how it is wrong. But to be honest I just donlt see it. I mean if was used to say that withdrawing is wrong I could see that. But to apply it to all forms of artifical contraception? Well it just seems like one needs to take a large leap of logic to come to that conclusion. But eh I think I am safe from this “sin” assuming it is a sin since I have yet to see any strong evidence since I am not even using any sort of contraception well other then abstinence.
 
It is, for the simple reason that no Church doctrine or teaching or exegesis has ever given this theological novum that you are now foisting on us.

Once again, if you read the OT in context, you will see that God is CONSTANTLY culling out the undesirables and protecting those whom He has blessed and wishes to continue in order to produce the Messiah. Almost every OT story revolves around this idea in some way, from Adam and Eve to Moses to Abraham and Sarah to Solomon to David and on and on and on. This is nothing new!
The Church then had a very limited understanding of human biology, believing that actual human life was contained in semen. No wonder they thought Onan was stricken dead because of coitus interruptus.

I am done arguing with you. You are insulting, rude and frankly, too (intentionally?) obtuse to understand an argument that is more complex than “Onan pulled out and ejaculated on the ground so God killed him”. I’m actually surprised you haven’t been reported yet with the way you can’t seem to have an intelligent debate without resorting to name-calling and derision.
 
The OT is my source and support. Try reading it IN context.
No it isn’t. I have read it in context and some of the things you have said are correct but this thing about “protecting” the covenant line, is nowhere to be found.
Do you put this much effort into dissecting every other decision God makes in the Bible? Because He willed it so. That is enough.
No I do not put this much effort into dissecting every other decision God makes. That God will it is enough.

The effort I am putting is dissecting YOUR THEORY, your fairy tale. THAT is why I am dissecting.

It is quite arrogant on your part to think that in dissecting your own flawed conclusions is equivalent to dissecting God’s decisions. By doing so you are putting your feeble mind in equal footing to God’s.
The Onus is on you here. Nearly every biblical scholar and the Catholic Church believe that Mary came from the tribe of Judah, if for no other reason than inter-marriage was forbidden.
Nope, the onus was on you to provide Biblical support and every single one you gave backfired because you did not read it before giving the citation. Then you gave a source that was not even Catholic and whose interpretation actually went against the DRB.

Finally, you came up with the real rational for the belief that Mary was of the line of David but it was not because it was explicitly stated in the Bible but more based on an inference from the law that forbids inter-tribal marriage.

But as I said before, if Mary is Elizabeth’s cousin and Elizabeth is of the tribe of Levi then it is possible that Mary is of the same tribe.

I will check if inter-marriage between the tribe of Levi and the tribe of Judah are not allowed.
Um, it’s the same thing. Without the covenant line, there is no covenant???
Sorry but it isn’t. God is not bound to any line. God can make a covenant with whatever line He chose so He did not need to protect this line.
 
Well, as far as deceiving God goes, that is what Peter accused A & S of doing in Acts. Acts 5 verse 4: “Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Why has thou conceived of this thing in thine heart? Thou has not lied unto men but unto God.”

Obviously God saw through the lie, He being God and all. 🙂

As far as sexual assault goes, I still disagree. Had I been in Tamar’s shoes, I would feel very violated. It’s a really weird gray area due to their lack of technology at the time. The best example I can come up with would be a modern day woman going to a fertility doctor to be artificially inseminated. In order for this to occur, she is told that she has to be knocked out. Believing herself to be in the hands of a professional, she agrees. While she is sedated, the doctor has sex with her. He then tells her that it didn’t “take” and she has to repeat the process again and again.

That is sexual assault. She wanted a baby, not to be a sex toy. Same with Tamar, only that there were no doctor’s treatments at the time. She wanted a baby, an heir. Nothing more or less. And instead, she was treated despicably as only a sex toy by her BIL. And by licit, I didn’t mean according to Levirite law. I meant according to the strict sexual code of the time. When Judah discovered that she was pregnant (before he knew that it was his child), he was going to burn her.

Sorry if my example above doesn’t make sense/work. I’m half asleep. If it’s incoherent, I’ll try again tomorrow.
 
Here is a very interesting commentary on the story of Judah and how God saved his line (and possibly Judah himself) through Tamar. In this context, it is ridiculous to think that God killed Onan simply for practicing coitus interruptus, considering how beautifully orchestrated Judah’s union with Tamar was for ALL of our sakes:

As one of the sons of Israel, Judah is part of the covenant line-the Kingdom of God as it existed at this point in time. In this present age, we come to Christ through a church that is catholic-not tied to any one ethnicity or nation-and that is apostolic-founded by Christ’s apostles. But at the time of this story the covenant was centered on a special family that was eventually to become a Kingdom of Priests to all the nations. If you wanted God’s blessing, you needed to bless that family. If you were a Canaanite you especially needed to join yourself with them because God had revealed that the Canaanites were going to be exterminated in a couple of centuries by the Israelites.
The stakes involved in what happens between Judah and Tamar are nothing less than salvation and damnation. How one treats the chosen line of Abraham, demonstrates how one treats Christ and His covenant. Judah and Tamar, despite our different situation, teach us that we must desire Christ above all else.
Remaining in Christ is what all professing Christians are instructed to do, as the Apostle John recorded in chapter 15 of His Gospel. We must not abandon Christ for the world, yet that is what Judah does. In fact, the very language of v. 1 indicates this. Judah literally descended or went down from his brothers and turned aside to visit an Adullamite, just as he later, in v. 16, turned aside to engage the services of a prostitute. He has abandoned the covenant people.
Why did he do that? From our text, it seems for the same sorts of reasons which entice us to abandon our Lord.
First we face the temptation of evil company (vv. 1, 12 & 20). Judah becomes friends with a man who is quite willing to help him hire an harlot…Secondly, we see Judah involved in being unequally yoked through marriage (vv. 2, 15 & 16). Even this early in Scripture, the problem of intermarriage has already become a Biblical theme. In Genesis 6 we read of how the God-fearing sons of Seth were seduced by the pagan daughters of Cain so that no one was left but Noah and God destroyed the whole world with a flood. Abraham considered it extremely important for Isaac to not marry any local Canaanite women. Jacob followed the same course. Yet Judah doesn’t seem to care. When we read this rather terse description of Judah’s marriage, we’re supposed gasp in horror. All the concern voiced by Abraham regarding intermarrying with Canaanites doesn’t seem to matter to Judah.
And what happens when we abandon Christ? We get death. From Judah’s example we see what we’re told throughout the Scriptures: There is no life outside of Christ; only death. Having removed himself from the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Judah is removed from God’s blessing. Judah’s first two sons are wicked and are killed by God (vv. 7-10, 12). His posterity is dying out.
But even worse than death, is that without Christ our own hearts tend to love death. We see this in Judah’s downward spiral into depravity.** The man who simply sinned by intermarrying, umpteen years later has become a man who has a reputation for frequenting prostitutes (Tamar’s entire plan makes no sense unless she could predict Judah’s behavior). Furthermore, notice in v. 21, we’re suddenly informed that Judah thought he was engaging a temple prostitute. So not only is fornication at issue, but outright idolatry. Judah is obviously in a downward spiral.**

Judah found death outside God’s covenant, and he also came to love death more and more, but that’s not all that went wrong because of Judah’s drift away from Christ’s Kingdom. Judah also tended to spread death to others. Let’s remember that Abraham wasn’t simply called in Genesis 12 to be blessed so that the rest of the world could be cursed. No, he was set apart to be a blessing to the nations. By abandoning the Abrahamic promise, Judah ceased to be a blessing to those around him. The most obvious way this takes place is in Judah’s horrible example. Nothing short of a miracle would make anyone desire to be part of the Covenant because of Judah’s testimony.
But Judah presents more than just a bad witness, he puts up self-serving barriers. He not only refuses to enter the Kingdom himself, but he prevents others from entering it as well. Tamar, after having a husband so wicked that God killed him, and then another who abused her in order to rob her of his brother’s inheritance, for some reason still wants to become part of Judah’s family. But Judah lies to her in the hope that she will seek another husband, so he can marry off his last son to someone else.
But more than self-serving barriers, sin leads Judah into self-righteous, hypocritical condemnation. This begins when Judah regards Tamar as somehow responsible for the death of his sons, as if marrying his youngest to someone else will take care of the problem. Finally, in v. 24,** Judah jumps at the chance to kill Tamar. This way he was going to be able to gain freedom for his youngest son to remarry some supposedly non-lethal woman.** ***Here we see a man known for visiting prostitutes is quite unabashedly willing to condemn someone else to death for the same sin he himself is guilty of.
Judah’s sins should and would have led him and his posterity to death. And that would have affected not only him, and those around him, but also us worshipping here today. For Christ was supposed to come from the line of Judah. If it wasn’t for the way God drew Tamar, this would be a very sad story. But by God’s grace, while Judah abandons the Kingdom, Tamar forces her way in. ***
 
Because of Tamar’s faithfulness despite Judah’s faithlessness she obtained salvation. This is represented in vv. 27ff where we read that she had children-descendants who would not be destroyed when the Israelites later invaded the land of Canaan.
Furthermore, Tamar saved Judah. Judah’s confession is in v. 26 where he acknowledges his hypocrisy and wickedness. Apparently, he truly repented because the next time we hear of him in the Bible, Judah is back with his brothers trying to help his father get grain from Egypt. Furthermore, in chapter 44 v. 33 we find Judah offering to become a slave in order to save his youngest brother Benjamin. The Judah who wanted to abandon his brothers has been radically changed.


Tamar’s pursuit of the Kingdom is not merely meant as an example, but also as a foreshadowing of her descendant by Judah, Christ Jesus, who suffered more than Tamar did for the sake of the Kingdom. For the sake of Judah and Tamar themselves. For the sake of us.
Indeed, why did God have mercy on Tamar, drawing her to His Kingdom? Was it only for her sake. No, for not only was Tamar saved, but Judah was turned from his path as well. So for Judah’s sake also Tamar was called.** But it doesn’t stop there. For Tamar’s son was the ancestor of Jesus Christ, our Savior. That son would not have been born if Tamar had not been called.** So it was for our sakes also that Tamar was called into the Kingdom. We’re reading not just about what God did for Tamar or Judah, but what He did for us.

hornes.org/theologia/mark-horne/do-you-want-it-bad-enough
 
The Church then had a very limited understanding of human biology, believing that actual human life was contained in semen. No wonder they thought Onan was stricken dead because of coitus interruptus.
But the Church NOW no longer has a limited understanding of human believe and she still holds to this understanding. So what is the excuse?
I am done arguing with you. You are insulting, rude and frankly, too (intentionally?) obtuse to understand an argument that is more complex than “Onan pulled out and ejaculated on the ground so God killed him”.
Nope. You are done arguing because you have failed time and again to provide support for your “complex” understanding.

Unfortunately, proof is required and every single one you have provided has not hold true.

And you are right, I am quite obtuse on a lot of matters. But just not on the topic that we have been discussing. You could of course prove me wrong and confirm that I am obtuse on this one as well but sad to say you just have not been able to do that. 🙂
I’m actually surprised you haven’t been reported yet with the way you can’t seem to have an intelligent debate without resorting to name-calling and derision.
Oh I am sure someone has reported me.

You’re anger stems not from my obtuseness or rudeness but from the fact that you have fallen flat on your face because you have provided citations that have been proven wrong.

If you have bothered to check them and read them properly before posting them, you could have avoided that.
 
Here is a very interesting Catholic commentary on the story of Judah and how God saved his line (and possibly Judah himself) through Tamar. In this context, it is ridiculous to think that God killed Onan simply for practicing coitus interruptus, considering how beautifully orchestrated Judah’s union with Tamar was for ALL of our sakes:
Catholic?

Here is what the website says:

From the desk of Mark & Jay Horne
Theologia started as a collection of short writings by Mark Horne which was put on the web by his brother, Jay. Since that time, the site has grown to include contributions from numerous authors. Theologia is all about theology, understood in it’s widest possible meaning–soteriology, church history, apologetics, liturgics, etc, as well as theology proper.
We both are partisans of the Reformation Tradition, as being the healthiest and most promising heritage in Christendom. In addition to being (and because we are) distinctively Reformed,

As I said before, check your sources before copying and pasting.


And there was never any question about the covenant line. It was your theory that was in question. The theory that God struck Onan and Er did to protect the covenant line.
 
Well, as far as deceiving God goes, that is what Peter accused A & S of doing in Acts. Acts 5 verse 4: “Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Why has thou conceived of this thing in thine heart? Thou has not lied unto men but unto God.”

Obviously God saw through the lie, He being God and all. 🙂
Exactly, so hardly a case of deceiving God.
As far as sexual assault goes, I still disagree. Had I been in Tamar’s shoes, I would feel very violated.
You probably would but hardly a case of sexual assault and rape.
It’s a really weird gray area due to their lack of technology at the time.
It has nothing to do with technology.
The best example I can come up with would be a modern day woman going to a fertility doctor to be artificially inseminated. In order for this to occur, she is told that she has to be knocked out. Believing herself to be in the hands of a professional, she agrees. While she is sedated, the doctor has sex with her. He then tells her that it didn’t “take” and she has to repeat the process again and again.
That scenario does not even come close.

Tamar was not sedated. She went willingly. The only thing reprehesible was the Judah knew from the start that he intended not to give her a child.
That is sexual assault. She wanted a baby, not to be a sex toy.
Yes, she did but it still is not rape because she consented.

As I said, that would be like a prostitute agreeing to sex for money (in Tamar’s case it was a baby) and then the guy not paying.
 
Catholic?

Here is what the website says:

From the desk of Mark & Jay Horne
Theologia started as a collection of short writings by Mark Horne which was put on the web by his brother, Jay. Since that time, the site has grown to include contributions from numerous authors. Theologia is all about theology, understood in it’s widest possible meaning–soteriology, church history, apologetics, liturgics, etc, as well as theology proper.
We both are partisans of the Reformation Tradition, as being the healthiest and most promising heritage in Christendom. In addition to being (and because we are) distinctively Reformed,

As I said before, check your sources before copying and pasting.


And there was never any question about the covenant line. It was your theory that was in question. The theory that God struck Onan and Er did to protect the covenant line.
You’re right. Something else on the site gave me the impression it was Catholic. The sermon stands on its own though as a really excellent history of the tribe of Judah and the role of God in ensuring that Tamar and Judah produced offspring together…it is NOT about contraception.

That’s the whole point. This whole story is orchestrated by God to see that Tamar and Judah produce offspring and initiate the tribe of Judah, from which Christ is descended.

Once again, we see a Catholic (ahem) so obsessed with where the semen goes that he misses the whole point of the story and how it relates to our salvation :rolleyes: Classic.
 
Well I donlt think the Church actually uses that incorrect information now to justify its teaching on this. What I can;t figure out is what it bases it teaching on! I mean I have read the arguments for the Onan story being about contraception and how it is wrong. But to be honest I just donlt see it. I mean if was used to say that withdrawing is wrong I could see that. But to apply it to all forms of artifical contraception?
Because sex was created primarily for pro-creation. This is the means by which God brings to being eternal souls.

Sex is the most beautiful thing that God has given us for by it we become participants in His act of creation.

In Genesis, the one command that He gives is go forth and multiply. But the fact that not every un-contracepted act does not bring forth life means that this is left entirely to Him.

Contraception is a participation in the sin of Adam, an apportioning to one’s self that which alone belongs to God - the right to decide who will and will not be conceived. It is Adam’s sin of disobedience all over again.

At this time when there are no rules about this, He does this to say this is the rule.
Well it just seems like one needs to take a large leap of logic to come to that conclusion. But eh I think I am safe from this “sin” assuming it is a sin since I have yet to see any strong evidence since I am not even using any sort of contraception well other then abstinence.
Well no you are not sinning since you are not practicing this sin.

And we do not have to be completely convinced that something is a sin before we can say that we are guilty of sin. We are children of Mother Church and as such are meant to obey her.
 
You’re right. Something else on the site gave me the impression it was Catholic. The sermon stands on its own though as a really excellent history of the tribe of Judah and the role of God in ensuring that Tamar and Judah produced offspring together…it is NOT about contraception.

Once again, we see a Catholic (ahem) so obsessed with where the semen goes that he misses the whole point of the story and how it relates to our salvation :rolleyes: Classic.
No we see a Catholic (ahem) not verifying her sources yet again. This is really not giving me much confidence in anything you cite.

As I have said before, that there is a covenant line is true. But that Er and Onan were struck dead to protect that line… pure fairy tale.:rolleyes:
That’s the whole point. This whole story is orchestrated by God to see that Tamar and Judah produce offspring and initiate the tribe of Judah, from which Christ is descended.
And as I have said several times, if that was ALL that was necessary, then why give Tamar to Er, then to Onan and only conceive with Judah through deceit. So now we have the line continuing through deceit.

And don’t say I can’t question God because I am not questioning God but questioning your explanation of God’s action.

And another thing. I thought you’re done talking to me.😃
 
As I have said before, that there is a covenant line is true. But that Er and Onan were struck dead to protect that line… pure fairy tale.:rolleyes:
It’s cute that you believe this even after reading and supposedly “understanding” the context. By the way, I never said they were struck dead ONLY to protect that line, just that the evidence for the contraception argument is not there at all as far as a reason to kill Onan goes. Using the old God said “Go forth and multiply” argument is the lamest argument EVER against contraception. When God said that, there were TWO people. TWO.
And as I have said several times, if that was ALL that was necessary, then why give Tamar to Er, then to Onan and only conceive with Judah through deceit. So now we have the line continuing through deceit.

You can keep asking, but I don’t think God is going to answer you…but from what I can tell? People have free will do they not? Judah wanted nothing to do with Tamar (Remember how he tries to have her burned to death? That means he doesn’t like her.). Deception was her only choice.

And yes, I am done arguing with you…I just thought this particular line of questioning warranted a response.
 
Have you ever read the Bible? The entire OT is one convoluted way of preparing the Jews for the Messiah.
Yes, that is true. That is God’s action. But it is not the convoluted way that is in question but the conclusions you arrived at from that convoluted way.
Whatever you feel or think about my source, I can provide many, many others.
Okay, the gun’s been fired so start now.
The Catholic Church and pretty much everyone else knows/believes that Mary was descended from the tribe of Judah. End of story.
If you had provided the correct rational it would have been end of story. But you haven’t.

And here is something to think about. God made Mary Immaculately Conceived. So therefore all that “striking Er to get an evil one out of the lineage” is pure unfounded conjecture because God has shown that He can step in and make a clean start if He so wishes.

He is not bound by any rule or line because He creates the rule and He created the covenant line.
Disobeying his father for one. While not a commandment as of yet, I think we can safely assume it was most certainly frowned upon.
So God struck Onan dead for doing something that was “frowned upon”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top