I'm tempted to make and OSU joke.
On Aug 27, 2:52 pm, "Robert Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I can be rightfullly accused of straining at gnats. But it strikes me as
> radical to interpret the Onan story in the manner you are suggesting. It
> seems that we need some motivation to change the dominant interpretation.
> And this motivation has been supplied, but I gather that the motivation
> isn't the sort we need to overturn a traditional teaching (and feel
> intellectually satisfied in so doing). The motivation we need is a more
> plausible interpretation based upon textual and cultural evidence. But
> instead, the motivation that drives people to overturn the traditional
> interpretation of the Onan passage seems to be that they enjoy sex, they
> don't see anything wrong with intentionally non-reproductive sex, they were
> told by pastors etc. that its okay to have as much sex as you like in
> marriage, they looked forward to marriage in part because of the freedom to
> have lots of sex, they thank God they're not single and that they don't have
> to worry about abstinance, and they think that spouses have duties to each
> other, whenever it comes, to scratch each other's sexual itch. The
> traditional interpretation of the Onan passage upsets all this, so you'll
> find married couples ready to fight (!) for a revisionary interpretation of
> the Onan passage! And often what they have to say is not what we normally
> would expect from a person who is careful with the truth and wants to
> rightly divide truth and error in their thinking. Conemporary Onanists seem
> to pervert natural law by intending to do something with sex that it not in
> accordance with its function. This doesn't mean that they are perverts in
> the googly eyed sense, but yes, they are intentionally perverting the
> natural function of things. And this is precisely the grounds that
> homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. I'm feeling intellectually
> satisfied that the traditional interpretation of the Onan passage is the
> best interpretation, but that won't change the fact that Onanists will
> continue "milking the sacred cow of sexual pleasure." : )
>
> BJ
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Darrin M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well, that sure was interesting! hehe
>
> > I have a thought on the sin of Onan and Jesus' response. Could this
> > be a case such as when the Pharisees were so worried about straining
> > the gnats? Jesus didn't necessarily tell them to keep straining gnats
> > or to stop. He just told them that they were focusing too much on the
> > minute details and missing the point of the story. I Onan's case,
> > might it not be so much the spilling of seed or not doing his
> > brother's wife as much as it is someone does a detestable act before
> > God and is severely punished? And could death just be a metaphor?
> > Spiritual death or separation from God? (I realize it said he
> > actually died) It is my thought that Jesus wasn't so much into
> > removing rules as much as seeing the reasons behind them and applying
> > the underlying thoughts to your life with Him. Way off base?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
