> I must have overlooked the Biblical defense of Onanism. Could you please > refresh my memory? I was referring mainly to Butler's posts on the first two pages
> 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. That's fair, I can see where they could come up with that conclusion. I am arguing against it due to there being the one small and possibly inconclusive passage that refers to it. If it were completely clear, I feel that it would have been overwhelmingly accepted at this point in time. I share their desire to do as God wants which supports my argument that Onan was killed for knowingly violating that will. I surely don't want to be guilty of that, too. > 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. This would be true, yes, if homosexuality and non-procreative sex between married partners is made equal by the fact they both are not for procreation. A homosexual act could not be the same type of sexual act as the NP married sex due to there being two sets of the same genitalia so even though they are the same because of not being for procreation, they are different because of the mechanics of the act involved. So disputing the gnat defense would only work if the 'both not for procreation' definition was used to make them guilty by association of being unnatural and ignoring the differences. > > 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. Sorry, I was unaware that the fact my response was made late in the game made it invalid. I have been busy with things during the first part and have had no time to respond. Again, my argument is that it is only mentioned once, only mentioned ambiguously, and may be likened to the gnats since it didn't seem to be directly address by Jesus (or at least not written about). > 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? I'm not saying it's clear at all. I, much like you and everyone else, are trying to come up with a solution and discovery of the answer. I am merely arguing a possible conclusion. And granted, I'm coming from a viewpoint that wants NP to be ok. That's why I brought up the motivation of the NO. I understand and acknowledge mine, I was trying to determine theirs. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
