> > Citations of Soloman and the others > that have been discussed here are used. That is to Biblically justify > it.
I must have overlooked the Biblical defense of Onanism. Could you please refresh my memory? Also, the motivation of the non-Onanist position is this: they want to know God's thoughts about the actions we can perform, and if God wants us to do a certain action in a certain context, then they want to do that action in that context; if God wants us to refrain from a certain action in a certain context, then they don't want to do that action in that context. So the motivation is to discover God's will about contraception by carefully interpreting the Bible, and to follow God's will about contraception. They find the balance of reasons to be in favor of non-Onanism, as did early Jewish and Christian commentators. The 'straining at gnats' defense strategy only works if your interlocutor is basing his case or criticism on minute details that are insignificant to showing the truth or falsity of the proposition in question. However, the Onan passage, the considerations about the *telos* of sexual activity, the historical interpretations, the condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible because of it's unnatural function (which, by parity of reasoning, also condemns Onanism because it is unnatural in the same way: namely, that it doesn't lend itself to reproduction) -- all of these considerations are not insignificant, minute details. They strongly suggest that the disputed proposition -- that Onanism is okay with God -- is false. Now, if you have a scriptural case (not an argument from silence after showing that it's possible that the Onan passage is not normative against Onanism) that *God is okay with Onanism in marriage*, then fire away. Paul says that if we can't live with an unfulfilled sexual drive, then we should get married, where we can have sex. This suggests that satisfying our sexual drive is a consequence of sex. What Paul doesn't speak to is the *telos* of our sexual drive. What is it? What is it for? Why did God design us to want sex? The standard answer up until recently was that God designed us to want sex *so that we will reproduce. *And it's fine with God if we don't reproduce, if we do refrain for the right reasons. But what's not clear is that God's fine with us having sex without intent to reproduce. You think it is clear that God is okay with sex without intent to reproduce? ** In today's age, with population control issues and with modern medicine's advances in the area of birth control, an issue arises concerning whether we should have large families and whether we should practice safe sex within marriage. What does God think? What is His view? How are you so sure? Bobby On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Darrin M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Radical, yes, but was Jesus Himself not considered to be eschewing > radical teaching? hehe You speak of motivation and I applaud that. > I agree that the motivation of being able to have pleasurable sex is a > motivation for one side. Btw, are you referring to Onanists as those > who think you should or shouldn't have non-procreative (NP) sex? I am > thinking it's the former so that's what I'm using in this post. The > Onanists want to go with the interpretations and discussions that NP > sex is not only ok, but it only serves to strengthen the marriage as > well as being ordained by God. Citations of Soloman and the others > that have been discussed here are used. That is to Biblically justify > it. Beyond that, there is a natural want to do it, especially within > the confines of marriage that not only motivates, but is somewhat used > as a justification at times. On the other hand, you have the non- > Onanists' (NO) position that only has one semi-ambiguous verse to > provide a picture and in some ways a law of what should be done. I > ask, what is the motivation of the NO? The only thing I can come up > with is a desire to have their views seen as correct or (and I tend to > lean this way) a motivation to make the law fit what's available to > them. And, of course, I don't mean this in a mean or detracting way > whatsoever, merely an observation. If you just go by numbers alone, > the verdict would shift to the Onanist. I am of that feeling, for > sure, as are most married people I know. I, therefore, pose the Jesus > gnat explanation. In this case, the actual yes or no is not discussed > as much as the desire to not do anything detestable to go willfully > against, anger and be separated from God. Yes, the detestable act can > be debated, but in this case, I think it would fall to the individual > to determine which side fit themselves. If you really feel one way > and go against it, you're committing that detestable act. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crosspointe Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/crosspointe-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
