T
truagape
Guest
the actual Greek here is “sarkos hetras” literraly flesh different, in reference to the materialized angles. I’d say that’s pretty clear-cut.
- Status
D
DCD
Guest
I would also add that some protestants aren’t getting it either.
Calvin, in his commentary on the sin of Onan (Gen 38), wrote as follows,
“Onan not only defrauded his brother of the right due him, but also preferred his semen to putrefy on the ground….The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between a man and a 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 is born the hoped-for offspring….If any woman ejects a foetus from her womb by drugs, it is reckoned a crime incapable of expiation, and deservedly Onan incurred upon himself the same kind of punishment, infecting the earth by his semen in order that Tamar might not conceive a future human being as an inhabitant of the earth.”
Peace,
David
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Oh, does it? Now, all I have is a pathetic dictionary here, but:
hôs Sodoma kai Gomorra kai hai peri autas poleis,
… Sodom and Gomorra and those cities about them …
ton homoion tropon toutois ek-porneu-sasai
the same path these out-of-porn
kai ap-elthou-sai opisô sarkos heteras
and depart-from extracting-juice-from flesh different/one-of-two
You missed the two words before which reverse the sense of the condemnation. Heterosexual means one of the two sexes, eg: the two different sexes. The complaint here is that the person in Sodom and Gommorah, and all the towns around (which were not visited by angels?), are damned because they departed from the normal hetero-flesh extraction of juices. Eg: from the normal transfer of liquid from man to woman – one kind of flesh to the other.
It is the departure from the norm which is condemned.
The angels, not being human, and presumably not flesh – are probably not being discussed…
Though that was a cute thought…
They fall under the general condemnation of “pornea” which is any sordid sexual act, incest, or extra-marital affair – as the people of Sodom were not married to the angels, the attack on them is de-facto condemned. Also, since the angels came looking like “men” (their disguise) – it is plain that the particular sin probably had something to do with males… and males…
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
I am accepting it because it is irrelevant to the argument and Levirate law is as acceptable to interpretation as an un-named version which preceded it. God revealed principles in natural law which the Pagans discovered – though mildly distorted, they none the less were tolerated in preference to greater evils by both Moses and God during the formation of the later covenant.
Divorce being one such abuse…
The name may be anachronistic, but the Levirate law is a codification of a general law found within peoples hearts even before the time of Moses – which though distorted, converges toward to natural meaning of the body as God created it especially when the dialog with God in the OT is taken into account where God shows his displeasure with deviations…
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
You’re right in pointing out that they distort the scriptures too.
Contraception was probably not viewed as the murder of the whole future person as the protestants seem to argue. The ancients appeared to understand some type of difference between seeds and plant, the “clay” and the body from everything I have come across.
They still viewed the act as immoral, so “science” showing that the bodily fluids are not fully human has nothing to do with the old testament arguments – and is another reason to look carefully at what displeased and pleased God at these times, and why.
T
truagape
Guest
I hope you’re willing to take the extent of your willingness to research even furthur. Because I have several propositons for you in regards to homosexuality and scripture that will require you to do just that.
Oh, does it? Now, all I have is a pathetic dictionary here, but:
hôs Sodoma kai Gomorra kai hai peri autas poleis,
… Sodom and Gomorra and those cities about them …
ton homoion tropon toutois ek-porneu-sasai
the same path these out-of-porn
kai ap-elthou-sai opisô sarkos heteras
and depart-from extracting-juice-from flesh different/one-of-two
You missed the two words before which reverse the sense of the condemnation. Heterosexual means one of the two sexes, eg: the two different sexes. The complaint here is that the person in Sodom and Gommorah, and all the towns around (which were not visited by angels?), are damned because they departed from the normal hetero-flesh extraction of juices. Eg: from the normal transfer of liquid from man to woman – one kind of flesh to the other.
It is the departure from the norm which is condemned.
The angels, not being human, and presumably not flesh – are probably not being discussed…
Though that was a cute thought…
They fall under the general condemnation of “pornea” which is any sordid sexual act, incest, or extra-marital affair – as the people of Sodom were not married to the angels, the attack on them is de-facto condemned. Also, since the angels came looking like “men” (their disguise) – it is plain that the particular sin probably had something to do with males… and males…
Now, in my following posts, I will address your errors:
T
truagape
Guest
Problem # 1.
Oh, does it? Now, all I have is a pathetic dictionary here,
Perhaps you are familiar with The Jerusalem Bible, first published in 1966. It’s a catholic translation. So, I’d think you’d like it. You may want to familarize your self with the commentary that is provided in regards to Jude 7. With out me having to say anything, the first thing you’ll recognize is that it challenges everything you present in your post. If you need my (name removed by moderator)ut, I’ll provide it. But I think the JB should be enough to make my point without me having to say anything.
P.S. Never rely on just a dictionary. Especially a “pathetic” one, as you say.
T
truagape
Guest
Problem #2
You missed the two words before which reverse the sense of the condemnation. Heterosexual means one of the two sexes, eg: the two different sexes. The complaint here is that the person in Sodom and Gommorah, and all the towns around (which were not visited by angels?), are damned because they departed from the normal hetero-flesh extraction of juices. Eg: from the normal transfer of liquid from man to woman – one kind of flesh to the other.
It is the departure from the norm which is condemned.
You say I missed the two words which “reverse” the sense of the condemnation. I would first of all like you to elaborate furthur about what you’re referring to by “reverse”. If you’re talking about a “reverse” from Jude 6, which refers to the angles who forsook their heavenly postion to lust for mortal women, you may want to consider the contrast provided in Jude 7. The mortal men, who intended to abuse (not lust after) the materialized angels. This is completly in tune with Ez. 16:48-50, (haughty,prideful, not caring for the oppressed). This is also consistent with Gen 19:9 when the mob threatened to do “worse” to Lot. And,this is also consistant with the “cry of complaint”, God heard, as recorded in Genesis. From whom was the “cry”, and from what was the “complaint”? Their victims! Victims from what, homosexuality? Try again! Abuse! Again all of scripture is remarkably consistent in recounting the Sodom account and their sin. Jude 7 metions fornication, “porneia,” which literally means “to sell” of a sexual nature. Even God used the Sodom story to contrast the prostitution that existed within the Isrealites. Seems odd, if the sin of Sodom was that of a homosexual one. In fact, out of all the supposed “anti-gay” scriptures “Christians” proclaim, none of tose scriptures refer back to the Sodom account for support! None of them! So your remark about Sodom being “damned because they departed from the normal hetero-flesh extraction of juices” is not not only off base, but relies on the support of influences outside the bounds of scripture. And you and I both know, that’s a problem!
T
truagape
Guest
Problem # 3
Sheer confusion!
You say that "the angels, not being human, and presumably not flesh – are probably not being discussed…
That statement is a 180 that’s out of control! You make this claim while still referring back to the Sodom story to support your erroneous “homosexuality” theory. Yet suddenly, now, you want to conviently discount the facts of that story. The fact remains that the vistors were materialized angels, flesh different, “sarkos hetras”. If you claim that the “angels are probably not being discussed”, then guess what; you don’t have the Sodom account to refer to. So you might want to return that statement back to the land of nowhere and tell nothing they can keep it!
And your last sentencet:" …it is plain that the particular sin probably had something to do with males… and males…" is as you say, a “plain probably”, not to mention not true! Fortunately, in regards to scripture, homosexuality, and the Sodom account, there’s no need to guess. Besides, you don’t seem to be all that good at it!
S
sobino
Guest
this post should really be about The Sin of Onan and contraception if you mention homosexuality give us clear evidence that could help us to understand the sin of onan.
pleas discuss homosexuality in the different threads to the details.
thanx
pleas discuss homosexuality in the different threads to the details.
thanx
S
sobino
Guest
The reason for this thread is that the Protestants always ask the Catholic Christians: show me in the Bible where God prohibited the contraception.If it is evident from story of Onan we should offer to the Protestants deep biblical explanation and exegesis of this text so that they would not think that we are against contraception just because Humanae Vitae says it 1900 years later after the Bible was written
N
Nita
Guest
Gen 38:10 And **what he did **was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.
What he did was to decide not to fulfill his obligation (attitude) by spilling his seed on the ground (act) while having relations with his sister-in-law. I’m sure both his attitude and his act were displeasing to God. But somehow or another, it seems to me it was spilling his seed that was the especially offensive act that wrought the punishment.
Eg. If he had sought to avoid his obligation and refused to have relations, somehow or another I don’t think he would have been slain. This is just my personal opinion. I cannot see that such an act would break any natural law (imprinted in our hearts by God) and neither would it be breaking a law revealed by God. It was a societal law and it seems more likely to me that God would have left judgment up to the governing body that established it.
Nita
S
sobino
Guest
thanks Nita,my attitude to this is the same,but we have to find as many evidence as possible to prove it.
The first is that there are other two similar cases in Genesis where God did not slain individuals for it.so Onan`s action was not just about some levirate or different kind of law.
The other evidence to support the idea of contraception in this case is that this verses are described in strong expressive sexual words which is unusual when comparing OT
What are the other evidences?
thanks for posts of you all
C
CryptoCatholic
Guest
Four verses of the Bible expressly condemn use of contraceptives. Three of those four verses do it with a very nasty warning that Hellfire waits for those who do it.
K
kysaberinger
Guest
I’m a bit late to this thread. I hope it isn’t dead.
For all this talk about what is “natural” or “unnatural”, it seems to me that anyone who is a man or has raised a boy knows that genital activity is, by design, different between the genders. Males (especially boys & teens) are frequently aroused without any conscious overt sexual thoughts or impulses, largely due to hormonal fluctuations and other physiologic activities. Nocturnal emissions can be common. If Onan has little do to with deceit/intention and mostly to do with “spilling seed”, you’ll have to argue that God condemns males to death for nocturnal emissions or the natural tendency to engage in masturbation (often in baby boys, boys/teens, and sometimes in men moreso due to tension rather than overt lust - yes, all are signs of immaturity, but by your argument, also deserving of death). Such punishment is wholly ‘unnatural’ and grossly out of proportion to what many/most (?) moral rationale people find ‘written on their hearts’.
Frankly, I find it disingenuous for married men over 40 to advocate for the strictest possible interpretation of Onan, forgetting the degree of unremitting tension that unmarried younger men/boys can experience.
Another point to consider is that the availability of ‘the seed’ for a woman is not timed to, or remotely related to, sexual activity, unlike the male. For the woman, this separates the moral problem of masturbation from the moral problem of wasting ‘seed’. Was Onan, then, killed for masturbation or for spilling seed, since one does not necessarily follow the other (particularly in the case of woman)? Do masturbating women deserve death too? The fact that we rarely consider such activity in women during these kinds of discussions is a testament to the inherent physiologic differences between men/women. Why is it that wasting seed in the woman (unfertilized egg) is not problematic, but every male seed must be directed toward fertilization? This is nonsense, particularly since (as noted above) male physiology naturally leads to wasted seed, no matter how virtuous the man/boy.
It would also be problematic, following the strict logic of some here, if a husband and wife engaged in sexual stimulation that did not always end in sex with the male completing the act in the female. It would be impermissible pleasure/passion frustrating the procreative dimension. Again, this seems the furthest thing from “natural”, to the point of nonsense.
For all this talk about what is “natural” or “unnatural”, it seems to me that anyone who is a man or has raised a boy knows that genital activity is, by design, different between the genders. Males (especially boys & teens) are frequently aroused without any conscious overt sexual thoughts or impulses, largely due to hormonal fluctuations and other physiologic activities. Nocturnal emissions can be common. If Onan has little do to with deceit/intention and mostly to do with “spilling seed”, you’ll have to argue that God condemns males to death for nocturnal emissions or the natural tendency to engage in masturbation (often in baby boys, boys/teens, and sometimes in men moreso due to tension rather than overt lust - yes, all are signs of immaturity, but by your argument, also deserving of death). Such punishment is wholly ‘unnatural’ and grossly out of proportion to what many/most (?) moral rationale people find ‘written on their hearts’.
Frankly, I find it disingenuous for married men over 40 to advocate for the strictest possible interpretation of Onan, forgetting the degree of unremitting tension that unmarried younger men/boys can experience.
Another point to consider is that the availability of ‘the seed’ for a woman is not timed to, or remotely related to, sexual activity, unlike the male. For the woman, this separates the moral problem of masturbation from the moral problem of wasting ‘seed’. Was Onan, then, killed for masturbation or for spilling seed, since one does not necessarily follow the other (particularly in the case of woman)? Do masturbating women deserve death too? The fact that we rarely consider such activity in women during these kinds of discussions is a testament to the inherent physiologic differences between men/women. Why is it that wasting seed in the woman (unfertilized egg) is not problematic, but every male seed must be directed toward fertilization? This is nonsense, particularly since (as noted above) male physiology naturally leads to wasted seed, no matter how virtuous the man/boy.
It would also be problematic, following the strict logic of some here, if a husband and wife engaged in sexual stimulation that did not always end in sex with the male completing the act in the female. It would be impermissible pleasure/passion frustrating the procreative dimension. Again, this seems the furthest thing from “natural”, to the point of nonsense.
K
kysaberinger
Guest
I’m a bit late to this thread. I hope it isn’t dead.
For all this talk about what is “natural” or “unnatural”, it seems to me that anyone who is a man or has raised boys knows that genital activity is, by design, different between the genders. Males (especially boys & teens) are frequently aroused without any conscious overt sexual thoughts or impulses, largely due to hormonal fluctuations and other physiologic activities. Nocturnal emissions can be common. If Onan has little do to with deceit/intention and mostly to do with “spilling seed”, you’ll have to argue that God condemns males to death for nocturnal emissions or the natural tendency to engage in masturbation (often in baby boys, boys/teens, and sometimes in men moreso due to tension rather than overt lust - yes, all are signs of immaturity, but by your argument, also deserving of death). Such punishment is wholly ‘unnatural’ and grossly out of proportion to what many/most (?) moral rationale people find ‘written on their hearts’.
Frankly, I find it disingenuous for men over 40 (often married) to always be the ones who advocate for the strictest possible interpretation of Onan, forgetting the degree of unremitting tension that unmarried younger men/boys can experience. I have less confidence in the likes of Augustine who sows the wild oats, deflowers many, and then offers a strict interpretation later in life when the tensions are placated, the physiology changes, and the passions cool.
Another point to consider is that the availability of ‘the seed’ for a woman is not timed to, or remotely related to, sexual activity, unlike the male. For the woman, this separates the moral problem of masturbation from the moral problem of wasting ‘seed’. Was Onan, then, killed for masturbation or for spilling seed, since one does not necessarily follow the other (particularly in the case of woman)? Do masturbating women deserve death too? The fact that we rarely consider in these discussions such activity in women is a testament to the inherent physiologic differences in drive between men/women. Why is it that wasting seed in the woman (unfertilized egg) is not problematic, but every male seed must be directed toward fertilization? This is nonsense, particularly since (as noted above) male physiology naturally leads to wasted seed, no matter how virtuous the man/boy.
It would also be problematic, following the strict logic of some here, if a husband and wife engaged in sexual stimulation that did not always end in sex with the male completing the act in the female. It would be impermissible pleasure/passion frustrating the procreative dimension. Again, this seems the furthest thing from “natural”, to the point of nonsense.
Traditional faithful Catholics hold a position of reasoned temperance when it comes to vices such as gambling, smoking, and alcohol. That’s a great thing. Orthodox Catholics need not opt for the strictest unnatural interpretation of Onan to be faithful.
For all this talk about what is “natural” or “unnatural”, it seems to me that anyone who is a man or has raised boys knows that genital activity is, by design, different between the genders. Males (especially boys & teens) are frequently aroused without any conscious overt sexual thoughts or impulses, largely due to hormonal fluctuations and other physiologic activities. Nocturnal emissions can be common. If Onan has little do to with deceit/intention and mostly to do with “spilling seed”, you’ll have to argue that God condemns males to death for nocturnal emissions or the natural tendency to engage in masturbation (often in baby boys, boys/teens, and sometimes in men moreso due to tension rather than overt lust - yes, all are signs of immaturity, but by your argument, also deserving of death). Such punishment is wholly ‘unnatural’ and grossly out of proportion to what many/most (?) moral rationale people find ‘written on their hearts’.
Frankly, I find it disingenuous for men over 40 (often married) to always be the ones who advocate for the strictest possible interpretation of Onan, forgetting the degree of unremitting tension that unmarried younger men/boys can experience. I have less confidence in the likes of Augustine who sows the wild oats, deflowers many, and then offers a strict interpretation later in life when the tensions are placated, the physiology changes, and the passions cool.
Another point to consider is that the availability of ‘the seed’ for a woman is not timed to, or remotely related to, sexual activity, unlike the male. For the woman, this separates the moral problem of masturbation from the moral problem of wasting ‘seed’. Was Onan, then, killed for masturbation or for spilling seed, since one does not necessarily follow the other (particularly in the case of woman)? Do masturbating women deserve death too? The fact that we rarely consider in these discussions such activity in women is a testament to the inherent physiologic differences in drive between men/women. Why is it that wasting seed in the woman (unfertilized egg) is not problematic, but every male seed must be directed toward fertilization? This is nonsense, particularly since (as noted above) male physiology naturally leads to wasted seed, no matter how virtuous the man/boy.
It would also be problematic, following the strict logic of some here, if a husband and wife engaged in sexual stimulation that did not always end in sex with the male completing the act in the female. It would be impermissible pleasure/passion frustrating the procreative dimension. Again, this seems the furthest thing from “natural”, to the point of nonsense.
Traditional faithful Catholics hold a position of reasoned temperance when it comes to vices such as gambling, smoking, and alcohol. That’s a great thing. Orthodox Catholics need not opt for the strictest unnatural interpretation of Onan to be faithful.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
The Church defines a sin as the willful rejection of God’s Laws - i.e. knowing that something is sinful and doing it anyway.
Onan did exactly this when he spilt his seed.
Now, nocturnal emissions would not fall under this category. And young men who are doing it without realizing they are sinning would also fall in this category. Yes, the urge is there in teens, I’ll grant you that - and I think you underestimate us over 40-ers, too!
But just because the urge is there, doesn’t mean you should give in to it. Should those addicted to gambling be given a pass simply because they feel a similar release?That’s funny. I wasn’t aware you were the judge of genuous-ness.
Onan was killed for willful disobedience to God’s command. Period.
I appreciate your point, but the goal of sex is life. If we bypass that goal, then we cheapen sex. Cheapen sex and you cheapen marriage. You can say what you want about teens with over-active imaginations (and hands, for that matter), but their actions are detrimental to the marriage covenant that they later may enter.
Can you please clarify this statement. You lost me, here.
That’s strange. I haven’t seen any white smoke coming out of the Vatican lately. And when I checked the news, it says that Benedict hasn’t died recently. So I’ll follow him, rather than your dogmatic logic.
BTW, Kysa, Welcome to the Forums!!!
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Kysa, sometimes what someone says sticks with me and I bounce it around while I read from the Bible. Then I come across something that pertains to the subject at hand (whatever that may be).
With that in mind, and at the risk of sounding disingenuous
, what are your thoughts on what Jesus says during His Sermon on the Mount:*** But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart***.
If this is a perfectly natural thing (admiring a woman’s “attributes”) and it leads to a perfectly natural end result (flying solo), then why is it sinful?
M
mark_a
Guest
M
mark_a
Guest
Who was Onan trying to deceive? His brother’s wife or the elders?
I’m of the opinion that its pretty difficult to deceive a woman about this.
- Status