Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

[Curious_Hobbit]

These are the kinds of things I find when looking up the Jewish view on the act of Onan:

experiencefestival.com/a/Onan_-_Interpretations/id/1817637

“The Jewish interpretation is that Onan spilt his seed, and therefore was deserving of the death penalty (see e.g. Babylonian Talmud tractate Niddah 13a)”

jewishjournal.com/nation/article/what_faiths_teach_about_birth_control_20100715/

“Orthodox Jews prohibit males from using contraceptives such as condoms that waste the “male seed,” a teaching derived from Genesis 38:9-10, in which God killed Onan for spilling his seed on the ground during intercourse.”

Church Fathers:

St. Augustine says: ‘For it is illicit and shameful for a man to lie with even his lawful wife in such a way as to prevent the conception of offspring. This is what Onan, son of Judah, used to do, and for that God slew him’ (cf. Gen. 38:8?10)."

John Chrysostom: "Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth?. . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and Fight with his [natural] laws? (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

Clement of Alexandria: “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” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191])

Protestant Reformers:

Martin Luther said, “[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him.”

John Calvin said, “The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring.”

John Wesley warned, “Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.”

It appears to me that contraception has always been condemned in the Christian tradition.

 

[benedictus2]

I stand by what I said.

Reread Onan with a open mind and not what you have been taught. It clearly says he was killed because he refused to give his dead brother a baby. Onan is a weak argument against artifical contraception.

**
Well no. Read this bit and explain why God chose to kill Onan Himself when the prescription under Mosaic law is that the man should only be publicly humiliated by the Jews. Notice, God did not leave it to the Jews to mete out the law. He actually struck Onan dead Himself.**

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as “Onanism,” after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as “Sodomy,” after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

Please address this point.

You are reading too much into it. Murder is not ok and I’m not saying it is. Stop going to the extreme on things. I noticed you like to do that.
Now by your last statement I assume you are talking about abortion. I have never condoned abortion and never will. Please do not put my thinking in a subject like that unless you know where I stand on it.

Well no. According to you what is considered a grave immorality can several years later be deemed no longer immoral.

So I extended your point accordingly. What I wrote follows perfectly from what you wrote.

I am just using your own reasoning against you. I think you better start re-thinking your posts otherwise it puts you in this kind of quandary.

 

[benedictus2]

These are the kinds of things I find when looking up the Jewish view on the act of Onan:

experiencefestival.com/a/Onan_-_Interpretations/id/1817637

“The Jewish interpretation is that Onan spilt his seed, and therefore was deserving of the death penalty (see e.g. Babylonian Talmud tractate Niddah 13a)”

jewishjournal.com/nation/article/what_faiths_teach_about_birth_control_20100715/

“Orthodox Jews prohibit males from using contraceptives such as condoms that waste the “male seed,” a teaching derived from Genesis 38:9-10, in which God killed Onan for spilling his seed on the ground during intercourse.”

Church Fathers:

St. Augustine says: ‘For it is illicit and shameful for a man to lie with even his lawful wife in such a way as to prevent the conception of offspring. This is what Onan, son of Judah, used to do, and for that God slew him’ (cf. Gen. 38:8?10)."

John Chrysostom: "Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth?. . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and Fight with his [natural] laws? (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

Clement of Alexandria: “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” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191])

Protestant Reformers:

Martin Luther said, “[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him.”

John Calvin said, “The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring.”

John Wesley warned, “Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.”

It appears to me that contraception has always been condemned in the Christian tradition.

Excellent! Let’s hope that the supposedly Christian supporters of artificial contraception read your post thoroughly and not just skim over it.

 

[larkin31]

Thanks for the link.

Could you clarify the "Right to die with dignity " listing? The rest is pretty self explanitory.

Maybe in a pm so that I am not derailing the thread?

Thanks.

I don’t know more about that specifically. You’re on your own from here.

 

[larkin31]

These are the kinds of things I find when looking up the Jewish view on the act of Onan:

experiencefestival.com/a/Onan_-_Interpretations/id/1817637

“The Jewish interpretation is that Onan spilt his seed, and therefore was deserving of the death penalty (see e.g. Babylonian Talmud tractate Niddah 13a)”

jewishjournal.com/nation/article/what_faiths_teach_about_birth_control_20100715/

“Orthodox Jews prohibit males from using contraceptives such as condoms that waste the “male seed,” a teaching derived from Genesis 38:9-10, in which God killed Onan for spilling his seed on the ground during intercourse.”

Thanks. It’s a little start.

 

[rev_kevin]

**
Well no. Read this bit and explain why God chose to kill Onan Himself when the prescription under Mosaic law is that the man should only be publicly humiliated by the Jews. Notice, God did not leave it to the Jews to mete out the law. He actually struck Onan dead Himself.**

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as “Onanism,” after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as “Sodomy,” after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

Please address this point.

Well no. According to you what is considered a grave immorality can several years later be deemed no longer immoral.

So I extended your point accordingly. What I wrote follows perfectly from what you wrote.

I am just using your own reasoning against you. I think you better start re-thinking your posts otherwise it puts you in this kind of quandary.

Addressing the point: The law about marrying a widow in the family is well explained in Deuteronomy 25: 5-10 as you stated. Its purpose was to enuer that a childless widow would have a son who would receive her late husband’s inheritance and who, in return, would care for her. Because Judah’s son (Tamar’s husdand) had no children, there was no family line through which the inheritance and the blessing of the covenant could continue. God killed Onan because he refused to fulfill his obligation to his brother and to Tamar.

"…he spilled his semen on the ground to keep her from having a baby who would belong to his brother. But the Lord considered it a wicked thing for Onan to deny a child to his dead brother.

What did the Lord consider wicked? Denying a child to his dead brother. But the Lord considered it a wicked thing FOR Onan to DENY a child to his dead brother. Here is say “for Onan to deny a child to his dead brother.” It don’t say “The Lord consideded it a wicked thing for Onan to spill his semon on the ground to deny a child to his dead brother.” No it don’t say that. If it was said that way I could agree with you but it don’t it clearly says “FOR Onan to DENY a child…”

I don’t think God is bound by Mosaic law. So if he wants to kill him because he denyed a child to his dead brother, he can.

You take the reasoning to the extreme. You are not using my reasoning against me, you are making a mountain out of a mollhill by going to the extreme on things.

Thanks for the advice about rethinking.

 

[1234]

Here’s a Jewish commentary on the issue of Onan:

“[Onan] misused the organs God gave him for propagating the race to unnaturally satisfy his own lust, and he was therefore deserving of death” (Bereshis: Genesis [Brooklyn: Mesorah, 1980]. 5:1677)

The early church fathers and all Christians up to 1930 including the protestant reformers (Calvin, Luther, Wesley, etc.) all believed birth control is a sin and that Onan’s sin demonstrated that.

Here’s an article on Onan.

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9704chap.asp

Your article on Onan is from a Catholic source.

If God killed Onan for masturbating, then half of the world’s population, ie the men, should be dead.

The OT God commanded his subjects to do things they didn’t want to do. Nathan told Saul to commit genocide, to wipe out an entire tribe, every pregnant woman, child, man and the elderly. Saul didn’t want to do it. The prophet Nathan cursed him for disobeying God. Saul fell. David succeeded him. Onan didn’t want to impregnate his brother’s wife. For that he (apparently) died. Stiff penalty. No argument against contraception.

 

[inocente]

**
Well no. Read this bit and explain why God chose to kill Onan Himself when the prescription under Mosaic law is that the man should only be publicly humiliated by the Jews. Notice, God did not leave it to the Jews to mete out the law. He actually struck Onan dead Himself.**
The issue is that the Onan verses are contentious and appear to be pressed into service to support a policy rather than being the origin of the policy. Protestants, or at least my branch, read the Bible as a whole, the Bible in the Spirit and the Spirit in the Bible, and there are no commands or general themes relating to ABC. Using Onan here is like the way that some try to use Matt 10:15, as if the crimes of Sodom and Gomorrah weren’t legion and Jesus is interrupting his discussion to blurt out a case against homosexuals . If condoms are a sin there must surely be a stronger case than Onan.

 

[benedictus2]

Addressing the point: The law about marrying a widow in the family is well explained in Deuteronomy 25: 5-10 as you stated. Its purpose was to enuer that a childless widow would have a son who would receive her late husband’s inheritance and who, in return, would care for her. Because Judah’s son (Tamar’s husdand) had no children, there was no family line through which the inheritance and the blessing of the covenant could continue. God killed Onan because he refused to fulfill his obligation to his brother and to Tamar.

And the punishment, **this you must remember, the punishment for this is NOT DEATH **but a public shaming. That is what you just don’t get. Onan got a punishment that is so much worse than what is prescribed in Deuteronomy.

What is so hard to understand about that? I have written that three times in this thread.

How do you account for the fact that instead of just being publicly shamed God put Onan to death.

Furthermore, according to levitical law, it is the Jews who mete out this punishment. But in Onan’s case, God actually stepped in.

Don’t you get that at all?

"…he spilled his semen on the ground to keep her from having a baby who would belong to his brother. But the Lord considered it a wicked thing for Onan to deny a child to his dead brother. "

See how you are resorting to lying with your post. **You are ADDING TO SCRIPTURE WORDS THAT ARE NOT THERE. ** You are distorting scripture in order to to justifiy your wrong interpretation.

Here are 3 versions of that text from New American Bible and New International Version and from the New King James,

**NAB: **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.

**NIV - **But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he DID was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.

**NKJV **- 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. **And the thing which he did **displeased the LORD; therefore He killed him also.

Notice how in every rendering, it was the THING THAT ONAN DID THAT DISPLEASED THE LORD. It was **not what he did not do **(provide children for his brother) but what he DID (spill his seed).

The way the King James rendered that was actually quite precise.** IT WAS THE THING THAT HE DID.**

Nowhere in the above versiosn did it say that what the Lord considered wicked was the denial of a child to his dead brother. NOWHERE.

You are distorting the word of God to serve your selfish ends so that you can justify an immoral act.

What did the Lord consider wicked? Denying a child to his dead brother. But the Lord considered it a wicked thing FOR Onan to DENY a child to his dead brother.

Sorry but **that is not what scripture says. ** **SCRIPTURE DID NOT SAY that " **the Lord considered it a wicked thing FOR Onan to DENY a child to his dead brother."

I just cited 3 versions of the Bible and none of them said that!

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t think God is bound by Mosaic law. So if he wants to kill him because he denyed a child to his dead brother, he can.

No he isn’t. There was no prescription for spilling one’s said so He stepped in.

You take the reasoning to the extreme.

No, you are grasping at straws. That is why you have resorted to distorting the word of God, you were adding words to scripture that was not there.

You are not using my reasoning against me, you are making a mountain out of a mollhill by going to the extreme on things.

Nope I am not.

You said something I took it to its logical conclusion. Start thinking clearer and more logically so you don’t fall into this kind of quandary.

Thanks for the advice about rethinking.

It’s a good advice. You seem to fire shots without thinking where it will lead.

 

[benedictus2]

Thanks. It’s a little start.

No it’s more than a little start. It makes a very good point and that is why you cannot make any comment other than “It’s a little start” because you know that you are stumped.

 

[benedictus2]

The issue is that the Onan verses are contentious and appear to be pressed into service to support a policy rather than being the origin of the policy.

How do you know that it is not the origin of a policy? How do you know that the Jews did not forbade this because of this incident?

I mean just look at where it happens. It happens in GENESIS. At the very first book of the Torah!

Protestants, or at least my branch, read the Bible as a whole, the Bible in the Spirit and the Spirit in the Bible,

That is one of the biggest lies if I ever heard one. Read the Bible as a whole !!! It is a a known fact that you chop up the Bible when it suits your own man made theology so that statement is one big misrepresentation of the truth.

and there are no commands or general themes relating to ABC.

I am the Lord they God, thou shalt have no other Gods before me.

Using Onan here is like the way that some try to use Matt 10:15, as if the crimes of Sodom and Gomorrah weren’t legion and Jesus is interrupting his discussion to blurt out a case against homosexuals

No it isn’t. The case of Onan applies very well to this discussion.

The kind of analogy that you are trying to make with Matthew 10:15 and homosexuality does not apply.

. If condoms are a sin there must surely be a stronger case than Onan.

Well duh, condoms are not a sin . Using condoms to stop the procreation is. Stopping procreation is what Onan did.

 

[annecatherined]

Excellent! Let’s hope that the supposedly Christian supporters of artificial contraception read your post thoroughly and not just skim over it.

“Supposedly Christian”? Do you really believe that people who hold different views to you on this issue (ABC) are not saved?

 

[benedictus2]

“Supposedly Christian”? Do you really believe that people who hold different views to you on this issue (ABC) are not saved?

I suggest you thoroughly read (read twice) the post I replied to. Then you will understand the “supposedly Christian” bit.

 

[TracyR]

I grew up as a Protestant minister’s son. I know Protestants inside and out. My “dog” is the occasional misrepresentation of their point(s) of view and thinking on these threads. I also am deeply opposed to the moral condemnation of birth control. That makes two dogs in the fight!

Seriously is that all you have to back it up? Is that your a minister’s son? Is that how your such an authority because you are a son of a minister? My husband said some of the most wildest people he knows are ministers kids. Even my husband had been engaged to a woman who was a ministers daughter and she went on to have an abortion! He even used to have to cover for a guy at work,that was a minister’s son who was always hammered from alchohol.So your going to have to come up with more than, I know the Protestant faith because I’m a minister’s son. That absolutely gives you no authority on knowing your faith. If it did you’d still be what ever flavor of Protestant you grew up with and not Agnostic.

You might know the faith of your own particular church growing up as a kid ,but you do know the teachings of thousands of others that exist.

I’ve posted the Westminster Cathechism to the Protestant faith on the board for others to look at and see. So far I don’t see anyone posting proving me wrong. You haven’t backed anything up at all with any facts to prove that there is or isn’t a stance on ABC with the Protestant faith.

Because there isn’t any. Its whatever you and the preacher on the pulpit believes. I grew up in the Protestant faith all of my life as well. I attended MANY different types of Protestant churches as well as my sister. So your saying your the only one who knows the truth and the rest of us are liars because your a minister’s kid? I don’t think so. Like I said there is no such thing as an Agnostic Protestant.

 

[onenow1]

Onan was killed for disobeying God’s direct order (to him only) to conceive a child with a particular widow to produce an heir. With Adam and Eve it is not eating fruit that is wrong, it is disobeying a direct order. And their punishment was rather harsh, too, and all they did was eat something (and they even felt bad about it!)

Yup ! God did give us a sense of remorse when we do something wrong, and yes even Adam and Eve felt it the one thing it seems they didn’t do, at least in scripture, was to repent . Adam blamed Eve and she blammed Satan and God blamed them all.npatrol:

Peace

 

[annecatherined]

I suggest you thoroughly read (read twice) the post I replied to. Then you will understand the “supposedly Christian” bit.

Thanks for your suggestion, I have read that post thoroughly. I still do not understand the “supposedly Christian” bit and was hoping you could answer my question directly, as it was a fair and politely posed question. Do you think that Christians who hold different views to you on ABC cannot be saved?

Thanks and God bless.

 

[larkin31]

Seriously is that all you have to back it up? Is that your a minister’s son? Is that how your such an authority because you are a son of a minister? My husband said some of the most wildest people he knows are ministers kids. Even my husband had been engaged to a woman who was a ministers daughter and she went on to have an abortion! He even used to have to cover for a guy at work,that was a minister’s son who was always hammered from alchohol.So your going to have to come up with more than, I know the Protestant faith because I’m a minister’s son. That absolutely gives you no authority on knowing your faith. If it did you’d still be what ever flavor of Protestant you grew up with and not Agnostic.

You might know the faith of your own particular church growing up as a kid ,but you do know the teachings of thousands of others that exist.

I’ve posted the Westminster Cathechism to the Protestant faith on the board for others to look at and see. So far I don’t see anyone posting proving me wrong. You haven’t backed anything up at all with any facts to prove that there is or isn’t a stance on ABC with the Protestant faith.

Because there isn’t any. Its whatever you and the preacher on the pulpit believes. I grew up in the Protestant faith all of my life as well. I attended MANY different types of Protestant churches as well as my sister. So your saying your the only one who knows the truth and the rest of us are liars because your a minister’s kid? I don’t think so. Like I said there is no such thing as an Agnostic Protestant.

I was replying to a polite request of me by someone else. What are you barking about? None of this reply had to do with you.

And you sentence above that I have enlarged is just comically false. I have never said ANY SUCH THING. As I noted, you seem to be taking this all rather personally, despite the fact that you said you would not debate with me. Interestingly, you suggest that as an agnostic (and former Protestant minster’s son) that my view is not legitimate, yet all you have is also a former Protestant’s experience too–which, please note, I have not said is not legitimate. Protestants come in many stripes. No one denies this. So do Catholics, Muslims, and atheists.

I can’t even remember what your beef is except now to take shots at me. If you want to make this personal and nasty, have at it. I will simply report you and then ignore you.

 

[1234]

There are Jews on this forum, who are learned in teh Law and know Hebrew.

Where are they?!

Jews who are fluent in OT Hebrew, the Law and the context are the only ones I would trust on this passage.

Give it a rest, Benedictus.

 

[Sonny69]

Here’s a Jewish commentary on the issue of Onan:

“[Onan] misused the organs God gave him for propagating the race to unnaturally satisfy his own lust, and he was therefore deserving of death” (Bereshis: Genesis [Brooklyn: Mesorah, 1980]. 5:1677)

The early church fathers and all Christians up to 1930 including the protestant reformers (Calvin, Luther, Wesley, etc.) all believed birth control is a sin and that Onan’s sin demonstrated that.

Here’s an article on Onan.

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9704chap.asp

Why not just look at Scripture for what it says in context of what it says. He ticked God off because He spilled His seed in order to to disobey a command given by God to prduce a child for his dead brother. That passage is not even complicated and has ZERO to do with contraception unless one finds themselves guilty of twisting the Scripture to fit a man-made tradition that is neither affirmed nor condemned by Scripture. If your religion says not to do it, then do not do it according to your religion and vice versa; as long as the method is not murder.