Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

[benedictus2]

Again, not true. You don’t get to blame your or anyone else’s sins on Adam and Eve.

And where did I say we are blaming our sin on Adam and Eve. You said that Er was killed because God wanted to cut him out of the line from which Jesus will be born.
Well if that was the case, then He should have come from another line considering that the entire human line was compromised at the root.

It doesn’t work that way. We are more PRONE to sin based upon Adam and Eve, but each of our specific sins are our responsibility. If they were not, everyone would equally evil/good. We all know that this is not the case.

Wrong. We are not just prone to sin because of Adam and Eve, we are sinful because of Adam and Eve. That is what original sin is all about. At the root of our being we are sinful because we came from sinful parents. End of story.

And as I have said over and over again, you must read it with the New Testament in mind, just as when you read the Psalms, their meaning becomes clear in light of Christ’s sacrifice.

That is true, but there is NOTHING REMOTELY close to your interpretation in the New Testament. This is just something you made up without any scriptural support.

Obviously I disagree. It makes perfect sense. Onan would not have been stricken dead for spilling his seed because the consequences or this were simply a ritual washing and being unclean until the next day.

It is interesting that you do not cite here the specific Levitical regulation. It seems that you are afraid that if one were to look closely at the rule, it will debunk your argument.

Sorry, but here it is. Lev 15: 16-18

When a man has an emission of seed, he shall bathe his whole body in water and be unclean until evening.

Any piece of cloth or leather with seed on it shall be washed with water and be unclean until evening.

"If a man lies carnally with a woman, they shall both bathe in water and be unclean until evening.

As you can see, the prescription of ritual washing is not specifically to the spilling of seed but for any emission of seed. Even if Onan completed his union with Tamar and had not wasted his seed, He would still have been considered unclean and would have had to do the ritual washing.

So therefore, what Onan did was more than just a case of mere emission but the grave fact that he “ruined” (as the Hebrew Bible put it) his seed on the ground.

Actually at the time, not even this. This was the original Levirate marriage. The law did not exist then. There was no punishment for such because such did not exist at this time.

Aaah Thoughtfulone, I knew that this time would come – when you would make my case for me.

Let me go along with your argument – the Levirate marriage was not law then. Correct. We are still in Genesis after all.

**If that is so, then God could not have been punishing Onan for not giving seed to his brother since there was no such law to break then! **

That would be like punishing someone for DUI when DUI was not even a regulation yet!

So if the Levirate marriage was not law, then what could God be punishing Onan for? What directive had he contradicted?

Remember, it is still Genesis. So what explicit commandment could he have possibly broken?

The only commandment that relates to what Onan did was "Go forth and multiply!

Douay-Rheims says this:
[9] He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name. [10]And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

He certainly did. He specifically acted to NOT give Tamar children, a detestable thing indeed, but as we have seen above, neither ejaculating on the ground nor failing to give one’s brother children were worthy of capital punishment. So why then was Onan slain by God?

Nope. As I explained above that no longer holds water.

And besides, Douay-Rheim as you cited here is very clear. He did a detestable thing.

He was punished for the THING that he did. What was the THING that he did before he was slain?

I mean if all God was concerned with was for Onan to make Tamar pregnant, all He had to do was give a specific command to Judah to make sure that Onan complied. Striking him dead just beats the purpose of making sure that Tamar became pregnant don’t you think?

 

[benedictus2]

If such a thing happened I WOULD WRITE TO YOU A BIG FAT “I TOLD YOU SO.”

Just as I thought. You wouldn’t be able to answer.

Difficult isn’t it - once you reeaaaally start thinking about it?

 

[geebob]

I’m not able to answer someone who is so persistently clueless.

Difficult isn’t it - once you reeaaaally start thinking about it?

keep working on those mind reading skills. Then again, with no current aptitude, perhaps there isn’t a point.

 

[benedictus2]

I’m not able to answer someone who is so persistently clueless.

I suppose that is as good enough an evasion tactic as any.

keep working on those mind reading skills. Then again, with no current aptitude, perhaps there isn’t a point.

And that is another reasonable evasion tactic because it sounds like one is making a point when one is not making any.

But that’s okay. If you can’t answer, you can’t answer. Accepted.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Well if that was the case, then He should have come from another line considering that the entire human line was compromised at the root.

Again, Jesus came from a SINFUL line, yes. EVIL? No. Do you think any of the Jews would have accepted Him as the Messiah if his ancestors had been downright EVIL?

SIZE=3]Wrong. We are not just prone to sin because of Adam and Eve, we are sinful because of Adam and Eve. That is what original sin is all about. At the root of our being we are sinful because we came from sinful parents. End of story.

Yes, but this does not make us all evil. There is quite a difference. Please stop harping on this.

That is true, but there is NOTHING REMOTELY close to your interpretation in the New Testament. This is just something you made up without any scriptural support.

Actually, I didn’t make it up. When I find my source, I will provide it. It was awhile ago.

It is interesting that you do not cite here the specific Levitical regulation. It seems that you are afraid that if one were to look closely at the rule, it will debunk your argument.

Sorry, but here it is. Lev 15: 16-18

When a man has an emission of seed, he shall bathe his whole body in water and be unclean until evening.

Any piece of cloth or leather with seed on it shall be washed with water and be unclean until evening.

"If a man lies carnally with a woman, they shall both bathe in water and be unclean until evening.

As you can see, the prescription of ritual washing is not specifically to the spilling of seed but for any emission of seed. Even if Onan completed his union with Tamar and had not wasted his seed, He would still have been considered unclean and would have had to do the ritual washing.

So therefore, what Onan did was more than just a case of mere emission but the grave fact that he “ruined” (as the Hebrew Bible put it) his seed on the ground.

Absolutely incorrect again. Note, as per your own biblical quote:

When a man has an emission of seed, he shall bathe his whole body in water and be unclean until evening. …
If a man lies carnally with a woman, they shall both bathe in water and be unclean until evening.

As you can plainly see, the first bolded instance refers to a man emitting semen alone, OUTSIDE of a woman’s body, while the second bolded instance refers to a man emitting semen during the sex act, in which case they BOTH become unclean. This is extremely clear from the text.

Aaah Thoughtfulone, I knew that this time would come – when you would make my case for me.

Let me go along with your argument – the Levirate marriage was not law then. Correct. We are still in Genesis after all.

**If that is so, then God could not have been punishing Onan for not giving seed to his brother since there was no such law to break then! **

That would be like punishing someone for DUI when DUI was not even a regulation yet!

So if the Levirate marriage was not law, then what could God be punishing Onan for? What directive had he contradicted?

Remember, it is still Genesis. So what explicit commandment could he have possibly broken?

I most certainly did not prove your point or you…sorry. Had he merely broken a Levirate law, he would have been punished according to the law. He did not/was not. He displeased God by disobeying his father, deceiving Tamar (essentially raping her), and MOST importantly, by not intending to ever grant her children, a thing which was of ultimate importance. He had to be gotten rid of so that she would conceive through this line.

I mean if all God was concerned with was for Onan to make Tamar pregnant, all He had to do was give a specific command to Judah to make sure that Onan complied. Striking him dead just beats the purpose of making sure that Tamar became pregnant don’t you think?

You would have to ask God about that…

 

[benedictus2]

Again, Jesus came from a SINFUL line, yes. EVIL? No. Do you think any of the Jews would have accepted Him as the Messiah if his ancestors had been downright EVIL?

Reality check. The Jews did not accept Jesus as Messiah.

Evil comes from being sinful. And while Er may be evil, there’s nothing in the Bible that says he was struck down to make sure that there is no one Evil in Jesus’ line.

For one thing, Jesus’ humanity came from Mary. It is Joseph who is of the line of David.

Yes, but this does not make us all evil. There is quite a difference. Please stop harping on this.

Then stop making those ridiculous conclusions that are not borne out by Scripture.

Actually, I didn’t make it up. When I find my source, I will provide it. It was awhile ago.

Then I wait.

Absolutely incorrect again. Note, as per your own biblical quote:

When a man has an emission of seed, he shall bathe his whole body in water and be unclean until evening. …
If a man lies carnally with a woman, they shall both bathe in water and be unclean until evening.

As you can plainly see, the first bolded instance refers to a man emitting semen alone, OUTSIDE of a woman’s body, while the second bolded instance refers to a man emitting semen during the sex act, in which case they BOTH become unclean. This is extremely clear from the text.

Exactly my point. In both instances the man emits seed and in both instances he becomes unclean. The uncleanness comes from emitting bodily fluids that is why the woman also becomes unclean.

Whatever the circumstance, it is the emission of seed that makes him unclean. So the punishment is not for “spilling the seed” or as the Hebrew text puts it “ruining” the seed but simply for emission.

In actual fact, the emission in the first instance may actually refer to masturbation or to “wet dreams”.

The first kind of emission, cannot possibly apply to Onan’s case because he did lie carnally with Tamar.

Therefore, what ever Onan did was outside of these two scenarios. He ruined His seed and that is what made God angry.

And something else, you are forgetting. As you pointed out, Levitical laws were not in force at that time. So therefore this argument of yours does not hold because that law was not even formulated yet.

I most certainly did not prove your point or you…sorry. Had he merely broken a Levirate law, he would have been punished according to the law. He did not/was not. He displeased God by disobeying his father, deceiving Tamar (essentially raping her), and MOST importantly, by not intending to ever grant her children, a thing which was of ultimate importance. He had to be gotten rid of so that she would conceive through this line.

Oh but you most certainly proved my point.

in case you forgot, your point was that there was no law at that time.

Your words were: “Actually at the time, not even this. This was the original Levirate marriage. The law did not exist then. There was no punishment for such because such did not exist at this time.”

There were no laws regarding any of this at the time. Moses had yet to give the Ten Commandments.

So there was no law for disobeying his father, there was no law for deceiving Tamar and most importantly there was no law requiring him to marry Tamar and give seed to his brother.

If there is no law requiring Onan to give seed to his brother, then Judah had no grounds for requiring Onan to do so.

And you were the one who pointed that out. So yes, thank you for making my case for me.

You would have to ask God about that…

I don’t need to. I already know the answer.

 

[Calliso]

Let me go along with your argument – the Levirate marriage was not law then. Correct. We are still in Genesis after all.

**If that is so, then God could not have been punishing Onan for not giving seed to his brother since there was no such law to break then! **

That would be like punishing someone for DUI when DUI was not even a regulation yet!

So if the Levirate marriage was not law, then what could God be punishing Onan for? What directive had he contradicted?

Remember, it is still Genesis. So what explicit commandment could he have possibly broken?

The only commandment that relates to what Onan did was "Go forth and multiply!

So your saying Onan was killed for not obeying the so called “command” to multiply correct? sigh You know the more I think about it the more I think I will just have to realize this whole Onan thing makes very little sense indeed. Though I wonder if God did kill Onan for disobeying that command I wonder why we never hear of any other incidences like this? Is Onan the only man to have ever spilled his seed on the ground with the intent of avoiding getting the woman pregnant? I am sure not! Not to mention there are plenty of people now and in the past who have avoiding conceiving, but you certainly donlt hear about God striking them down. Was God just really having a bad day that day? lol. Ahh well if I die and actually managed to make it to heaven and get to ask God any questions I might have to ask him whats up with the whole Onan thing God? lol

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Reality check. The Jews did not accept Jesus as Messiah.

Reality check: Some of them did - they’re called Christians.

Evil comes from being sinful. And while Er may be evil, there’s nothing in the Bible that says he was struck down to make sure that there is no one Evil in Jesus’ line.

For one thing, Jesus’ humanity came from Mary. It is Joseph who is of the line of David.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

The story of the Hebrews, the entire Old Testament, is ENTIRELY about God caring for and preserving this single covenant-line, this people through which the Messiah would be born. Each and every time this line is threatened, God intervenes PERSONALLY to ensure its propagation!

Just a few examples of this:

He did not kill Adam and Eve for their sin and start over, but merely exiled them. This is where it all begins.

God saved Noah from the flood instead of just wiping out the whole human race and starting over AGAIN, not just because Noah was a good man, but to preserve this single, unbroken line from Adam and Eve through to Jesus Christ.

When Abraham and Sarah were thought to be sterile, God personally intervened and gave them Issac.

When the line threatened to become extinct AGAIN through Judah and Tamar both (both were a part of the covenant-line, although Judah’s 3 sons were not, being of mixed blood) God directly intervened to see that Tamar would conceive through Judah, continuing the line.

God took a shepherd boy, David and intervened again to help him defeat Goliath and to install him through His will as the greatest king ever known to Israel.

There are many more examples of God’s favor toward this line, of His grooming this line

God did ALL of this to fulfill His wishes for Israel to send them a Messiah from this covenant-line. Again EVERY SINGLE TIME this line is threatened, God personally intervenes to see that it goes on. This is a constant theme and if the Bible is read as a single unit instead of in snatches out of order, this becomes very clear.

In fact, here is a biblical prophecy SPECIFICALLY referring to the fact that Jesus would be born of Judah’s line:

Genesis 49:10:
The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.

And a prophecy that says He will come from the line of David, which comes about from the line of Judah:

Jeremiah 23:5:

“The days are coming,” declares the LORD, "when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land.

And a prophecy saying He will come from the line of Jesse:

Isaiah 11:1-10

11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:

11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;

11:3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:

11:4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth: with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.

11:5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.

11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den.

11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

There are MANY other prophecies in the Old Testament pointing to the lineage of Jesus, all of which are fulfilled.

**The entire Old Testament is oriented toward ensuring and pointing to the propagation of this SAME line for the purpose of the birth of the Messiah. **

If God did not intervene to ensure that Tamar conceived through Judah, the entire TRIBE OF JUDAH would not exist! The Virgin Mary came from the tribe of Judah, ergo MARY WOULD NOT EXIST! Jesus would not exist. But I’m sure God just didn’t want Onan ejaculating on the ground

Any other interpretation about the death of Onan is agenda-driven propaganda based on a misunderstanding of both human biology and upon a non-wholistic analysis of the Bible itself.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

By the way, I am not saying here that birth control (aside from NFP) is licit. The Catholic Church teaches that it is not, and although I may not like it or understand it, I obey the Church in this matter and my husband and I do NOT use ABC. In fact, I’m pregnant right now, so as you can see…no ABC here!

I just think that attributing this rule to the Onan story is ridiculous and that the evidence is simply not there. Let’s call it what it is and just say that there is no prohibition of contraception in the Bible but that based on Tradition, the Magisterium teaches that it is nevertheless evil. This is after all, the truth.

 

[Personanongrata]

The Catholic Church teaches that artificial contraception (pill, condom, IUD, etc) is a mortal sin.

How are you able to accept condom use, etc? Do you not see it as the seed that led to a bad tree (sexual revolution, huge pornography industry, etc)???

I can not comprehend how Protestants have such varied views on artificial contraception. This might be because I have for most of my Christian life been a Catholic.

Your thread title doesn’t make sense. I would ask Catholics to defend their use of artificial contraception? Protestants use it for the very same reasons as Catholics.

 

[mysta02]

And I am supposed to believe the sincerity of this statement after you have just labeled the Catholic Church murderers and after you have demanded that she change her doctrine on contraception because she got it all wrong and you go it all right.

Actually, yes. I don’t think I’ve attacked anyone on here, though I may have been overzealous in my responses. I didn’t label the Church as murderers anymore than anyone labels someone as human. My point was that the Church has made mistakes. So has the Protestant Church (lesser or greater is of no consequence, as murder is murder in the eyes of God). I’m not denying that fact, either.
People have been attacked over and over again in this thread, and this on a Christian forum. We all sin, but it seems counterproductive, and un-Godly, to attack people and literally fight over these issues. Debate is one thing. War is another.

Someone earlier said that the Protestant Church is totally unholy as some denominations allow abortions. I know that many denominations are unholy, but that doesn’t mean they all are. If I felt my church was teaching contrary to the ways of Christ, I would speak to its elders and join a Godly church. We can’t group any church together and say it is Godly or un-Godly. The Catholic Church has un-Godly people, and the Protestant Church has un-Godly people. And, both have people (or, sects, even) who say they are Christian but are living contrary to Christ’s teachings. We, as The Church (together, as God’s Church, not as Catholic and Protestant), need to work together to bring glory to God.

I apologize for any rudeness previously; I was too easily angered, I admit. I honestly believe that the Church (again, all parts of it) needs to, and can, work together. If I didn’t believe this, I wouldn’t be here in the first place.

Again, I’m sorry
And, God Bless

 

[benedictus2]

**So your saying Onan was killed for not obeying the so called “command” to multiply correct? **sigh You know the more I think about it the more I think I will just have to realize this whole Onan thing makes very little sense indeed.

No, that’s not what I am saying.

I was pointing out to Thoghtfulone that if the Leverite marriage law was not law then, therefore Onan was not killed for breaking that law. So if not for that, then for what then was he struck?

We go back to the whole point of what God intended for sex. God’s primary reason for creating sex was for pro-creation.

At the time of Onan, all this Levitical rules were not in force. The only rule applilcable then, is therefore to use sex for it’s primary purpose and that purpose we see in the command to go forth and multiply.

What Onan did was contrary to that because he used sex for the pleasure it would give him but stopped the possible consequences. If at that time the Levitical rule was not inforce then there is no need for him to obey his father.

Though I wonder if God did kill Onan for disobeying that command I wonder why we never hear of any other incidences like this? Is Onan the only man to have ever spilled his seed on the ground with the intent of avoiding getting the woman pregnant?

That this is recorded quite early in salvation history means that God is making His wishes known.

I am sure not! Not to mention there are plenty of people now and in the past who have avoiding conceiving, but you certainly donlt hear about God striking them down. Was God just really having a bad day that day? lol. Ahh well if I die and actually managed to make it to heaven and get to ask God any questions I might have to ask him whats up with the whole Onan thing God? lol

And that is not the point. Many people who lied and cheated were not struck dead. Many people who murdered and raped were not struck dead.

This I believe is an instance where God is making a clear teaching that if one were to engage in sex for pleasure, they must be ready for the consequence.

 

[copperblade]

By the way, I am not saying here that birth control (aside from NFP) is licit. The Catholic Church teaches that it is not, and although I may not like it or understand it, I obey the Church in this matter and my husband and I do NOT use ABC. In fact, I’m pregnant right now, so as you can see…no ABC here!

I just think that attributing this rule to the Onan story is ridiculous and that the evidence is simply not there. Let’s call it what it is and just say that there is no prohibition of contraception in the Bible but that based on Tradition, the Magisterium teaches that it is nevertheless evil. This is after all, the truth.

I agree, the Onan story is a really weak argument. I also think the “trying to thwart God’s will” is at best a vague argument. It more has to do with purpose of a thing. One of the main purposes of sex (if not the primary purpose) is procreation. Using NFP is only ok because it works within the system that God has created, and should not be used to avoid procreation indefinitely.

It’s like eating. The main purpose of eating is to provide the body with nutrition. While it’s good to also enjoy eating, the glutton will pervert the act of eating by putting the enjoyment far above and beyond the natural purpose. If it got really bad and people wanted to avoid the horrible consequences of overeating cake all the time without giving it up, someone might invent a “stomach condom” to let you have your cake and eat it too. I think it’s easy to see why that would be at the very least unhealthy.

On the other hand, if you wanted, you could just control yourself in moderation just like with NFP.

Of course the analogy isn’t perfect because there are other considerations with sex (such as new life), and they can’t be equated in every way. But I think it’s the same idea.

 

[benedictus2]

Reality check: Some of them did - they’re called Christians.

And there is nowhere in Scripture that said that they would not have followed Him had one of his ancestors been evil. Not one teeny, weeny bit of indication.

The Apostles were not concerned with impeccability of His genealogy.

Wrong. They both came from the line of David. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38.

Seriously Thoughfulone, you should have read that before you gave the citation. That was Joseph’s genealogy not Mary’s.

It goes: When Jesus began his ministry he was about thirty years of age. He was the son, as was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,………… the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Wrong yet again. The text is CLEAR that in the first circumstance, the seed is emitted outside of a woman and he becomes unclean, and in the second circumstance, there is a woman involved and both become unclean. What are the ways that a man can emit seed and not make a woman unclean? Think real hard…

You really are not getting this… The man is declared unclean whether he emits seed inside or outside of a woman. Don’t you get that? Wherever he emits seed, he is unclean. He is declared unclean for the simple fact of emitting seed

Yes, but he did not emit semen inside the woman, therefore, she was not made unclean.

And what has that got to do with anything?

We are not discussing the woman we are discussing the man. Nice try at side-stepping the issue.

The whole point of those two verses is that a man is deemed unclean whenever he emits seed and thus the ritual cleansing is not a prescription for spilling one’s seed on the ground.

A laughable interpretation that God goes around killing people solely for practicing coitus interruptus.

Considering that this is how Jews and Christians understood it, you obviously have not idea what is and is not laughable.
What is laughable is the fairy tale that God struck Er dead because He did not want someone evil in Jesus’ line and that He struck Onan dead to “protect the covenant line”. Pure fantasy.

You see, you think of this as just coitus interruptus but God sees in this wilful disobedience. An enslavement to the pleasures of the flesh coupled with utter disregard for God’s will.

This was always never ever just a simple matter of spilling seed. This was always about the evil reality of contraception – a No to God.

I was hoping you’d bring this up! There was at the time no law forbidding any of this behavior, and no punishment for it. Those came later, and punishments would be much milder than the death penalty, which we have already seen

Exactly! Wasn’t that exactly what I wrote in my previous post? That if this were a simple case of “emitting seed” then God would have struck dead those who had “emitted seed” in their sleep.

The case of Onan was more heinous because this was an act of contracepting. This was an act of preventing conception.

If it was just a case of Onan not wanting to give seed to his brother, then he could simply have refused to sleep with Tamar.

If there was no law regarding uncleaness associated with seed emission therefore the punishment was not merely for seed emission. Therefore the spilling of seed in this case was seen not just seen as seed emission but something more primordially evil.

So therefore your line of argument is once again debunked.

Finally we’re getting somewhere! Now we have determined that Onan broke no laws that were currently in place.

Nope. What I am saying is that Onan broke no Levitical laws and no law pertaining to the Decalogue so therefore this was not a case of disobedience to his father or a case of lying to Tamar.

The one law he WOULD have broken had it been in place at the time (levirite marriage, which came from this instance here) would require a much lesser penalty than death. Ergo, God did not slay him for breaking a levirite marriage law or for simply ejaculating on the ground, but to PROTECT THE COVENANT-LINE through which Christ would be born.

Wrong again since protecting the covenant line is nowhere to be seen as an issue in either the OT or the NT. As I keep saying, t if all God wanted was to ensure the continuation of the covenant line He could have instructed Judah to give Shelah to Tamar.

If all God wanted was to ensure that Tamar conceived, He could have given clear instruction to Judah or directly to Onan that Tamar must be made pregnant.

“Protecting the covenant line” is an invention of yours that no Church Father, no Doctor of the Church, no Saint, no Confessor has ever taught.

It was not simply a case of ejaculating on the ground but a wilful disobedience to God.

 

[benedictus2]

You see, the Bible is a single book, to be read from beginning to end. It is a love letter from God, starting with Adam and Eve, and ending with the resurrection.

And that is true, but the kind of thread that you are trying to use to pull the NT and OT is non-existent.

The OT is revealed in the NT and the NT is hidden in the OT but protecting the covenant line was never ever given as a reason for striking Er dead nor for striking Onan dead. This is a theological novum.

The story of the Hebrews, the entire Old Testament, is ENTIRELY about God caring for and preserving this single covenant-line, this people through which the Messiah would be born. Each and every time this line is threatened, God intervenes PERSONALLY to ensure its propagation!

Just a few examples of this:

He did not kill Adam and Eve for their sin and start over, but merely exiled them. This is where it all begins.

And nowhere does it say that this was done to protect the covenant line.

God saved Noah from the flood instead of just wiping out the whole human race and starting over AGAIN, not just because Noah was a good man, but to preserve this single, unbroken line from Adam and Eve through to Jesus Christ.

And nowhere does it say that this was done to “protect the covenant line”

When Abraham and Sarah were thought to be sterile, God personally intervened and gave them Issac.

Exactly. God can personally interfere and if His main concern was giving a son to Tamar that is of the line of Judah, He could have made sure that that happened either through Er or Onan or Shelah. Which just debunks your theory once again.

When the line threatened to become extinct AGAIN through Judah and Tamar both (both were a part of the covenant-line, although Judah’s 3 sons were not, being of mixed blood) God directly intervened to see that Tamar would conceive through Judah, continuing the line.

Well helloo, if that is all that God was concerned of, why did He not just give Tamar directly to Judah and bypassed all this rigmarole.

God took a shepherd boy, David and intervened again to help him defeat Goliath and to install him through His will as the greatest king ever known to Israel.

There are many more examples of God’s favor toward this line, of His grooming this line

And that had nothing to do with “protecting the covenant line” because if that was all it was about, any one of Jesse’s son would have done.

God did ALL of this to fulfill His wishes for Israel to send them a Messiah from this covenant-line.

God did all this for the simple fact of sending them a messiah. Indeed it was through this line that He made it happen but all his actions were NOT about “protecting” this line. God is NOT bound to this line.

Again EVERY SINGLE TIME this line is threatened, God personally intervenes to see that it goes on. This is a constant theme and if the Bible is read as a single unit instead of in snatches out of order, this becomes very clear.

May be so, but striking Er dead and striking Onan dead has nothing to do with this.

In fact, here is a biblical prophecy SPECIFICALLY referring to the fact that Jesus would be born of Judah’s line
Genesis 49:10…
Jeremiah 23:5:…
Isaiah 11:1-10…

There are MANY other prophecies in the Old Testament pointing to the lineage of Jesus, all of which are fulfilled.

And that is all true. But tell me where in any of the above does it say that that was all about “protecting the covenant line”. They in no way support your contention that Er was struck dead and Onan was struck dead to protect this “covenantal line”.

It is one thing to say that there is such a thing as a covenantal line and another to insist that some actions that God has taken were done to protect this line when no other verses in scripture supports this kind of interpretation.

God is not about protecting a covenantal line but rather about re-establishing the covenant and bringing to fulfilment the final and definitive covenant through His Son.

The entire Old Testament is oriented toward ensuring and pointing to the propagation of this SAME line for the purpose of the birth of the Messiah.

And that may true but there is no scriptural support for your conjecture that God struck Er and Onan dead to “protect” this line.

 

[benedictus2]

If God did not intervene to ensure that Tamar conceived through Judah, the entire TRIBE OF JUDAH would not exist! The Virgin Mary came from the tribe of Judah, ergo MARY WOULD NOT EXIST! Jesus would not exist. But I’m sure God just didn’t want Onan ejaculating on the ground

**First off, as I showed you above, the genealogy you gave was Joseph’s. **

Luke 1:27 insists that it is Joseph who was from the House of David, not Mary. In fact, Luke claims that Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth, who he says was a descendant of Aaron the high priest, which makes her a member of the tribe of Levi, not David’s tribe of Judah

Just with that point alone, this section of your post crumbles.

The idea that Mary is of David’s line came from the proto-evangelium of James but this is not a canonical book.

You really ought to pass these things through a logical process before you post them.

If the only thing that God wanted was to ensure that Tamar conceive through Judah, He could have simply instructed Judah to take Tamar as wife instead of going through Er and Onan.

Furthermore, using your own line of logic, since it is the father’s line (Judah’s) that is important, then all that is necessary is that the son be Judah’s son, it did not have to be Tamar’s.

The only thing that those line show is that Jesus will come from this paternal line. There is nothing in those prophecies that EVEN REMOTELY HINT that God struck Er and Onan did to protect this line.

Any other interpretation about the death of Onan is agenda-driven propaganda based on a misunderstanding of both human biology and upon a non-wholistic analysis of the Bible itself.

Agenda driven? Hellooo, that is what Jews and Christians have always believed about contraception for thousands of years.

The agenda came only in 1930 when the Anglican Church at the Lambeth conference approved contraception, and every other Christian church followed.
And it is not surprising that they would get this wrong considering that that communion was born of King Henry’s sin.

It is no surprise that the Church to whom the guidance of the Holy Spirit was promised, would be the only one who would be able to hold on to this truth and who would be the only one with enough fortitude to withstand the secular dictatorship to give in to the prince of the world and abandon the teaching of God.

 

[benedictus2]

Actually, yes. I don’t think I’ve attacked anyone on here, though I may have been overzealous in my responses. I didn’t label the Church as murderers anymore than anyone labels someone as human.

I suggest you go back and re-read your post then.

My point was that the Church has made mistakes.

Mistake in practice but not in doctrine. Which is why she is always able to renew herself. Because so long as you maintain the right doctrine, there is still a way to get back to the truth. This is what will illumine your path to return to the Father. But once that teaching is compromised and starts teaching lies, lies which could only come from the devil, then how do you change? Why would you change considering that you think the lie is the truth?

The problem with the protestant Church is the latter. They started teaching lies and so there is no longer this illumined path that lets you return to the Father. If the only problem with them was practice, just like the Church then that would have been easily rectifiable.

So has the Protestant Church (lesser or greater is of no consequence, as murder is murder in the eyes of God).

Exactly so I don’t understand your diatribe in your earlier post if you claim that Protestants sin equally.

I’m not denying that fact, either.
People have been attacked over and over again in this thread, and this on a Christian forum.

And you my dear was the one doing the attacking. You had the temerity to demand that the Church change her teaching when you don’t even belong to the Church.

And even if you belonged to the Church you do not have the right to demand either because as a child of Mother Church, all you are supposed to do is obey her teachings.

We all sin, but it seems counterproductive, and un-Godly, to attack people and literally fight over these issues. Debate is one thing. War is another.

Exactly. So why were you doing just that. That is why you came off so insincere with that post.

Someone earlier said that the Protestant Church is totally unholy as some denominations allow abortions.

So you are into misrepresenting what other’s say? Did I say “TOTALLY” un holy?

I know that many denominations are unholy, but that doesn’t mean they all are.

All denominations are un-holy. If you were then you do not need Jesus Christ.

If I felt my church was teaching contrary to the ways of Christ,

And what would your criteria would be of what is and is not contrary to Christ. And what makes you so sure that you by yourself can decided what is and is not contrary to Christ.

Again, I’m sorry
And, God Bless

You know what I suggest, before you start attacking something, read about it first. Find out what the Church teaches and why she teaches so and then and only then, will you have any credibility.

I suggest that you read Humanae Vitae.

And one more thing, the more Protestants read, the more Protestants try to learn about Christianity and the Bible and the Church Fathers, the more they realize that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ.

So if you are really interested in the truth and are not saying all these to make yourself sound nice, then get on to it and start studying.

 

[benedictus2]

I agree, the Onan story is a really weak argument. I also think the “trying to thwart God’s will” is at best a vague argument. It more has to do with purpose of a thing.

And the purpose of a thing, the purpose of what something was created for is God’s will for that thing.

 

[mysta02]

@Benedictus:

I feel it is better that I don’t respond point-by-point to your previous post…

I have no further purpose here.