I'm pretty sure that especially in ancient Israel children were seen as a blessing, and many children was seen as an even bigger blessing. This makes sense because more people means more laborers and more standing armies. So in a sense it would be wrong to deprive your fellow countrymen of more security and workforce by spilling seed. For the sake of this post, let's assume that it was normative in that culture to try to have as many children as possible. In America today, if anything, we have a population control issue, so things are different. Perhaps we could argue for the opposite conclusion on the same consequentialist grounds. However, as Theists, we use ancient laws and norms to guide and evaluate our actions (unless we have an explanation of why that norm doesn't hold). So norms that may have made excellent sense for developing nations may make little sense to us today. However, noting this does not give us a "get out of norm free card". There has to be a persuasive reason why certain teachings and commands are not normative for us.
For example, why are women not told to be quiet in church? We've uprooted this teaching by fiat, it seems. Or please enlighten me why that teaching is not normative while others are. Now, the stuff in the Torah about killing bulls etc. -- I understand why that's not normative any more because of what Jesus did on the cross. And I think an apostle's vision allowed us to eat pork again, or something like that. So there are correctives in the NT for certain OT norms. But there's a lot of norms that weren't corrected. And we don't follow them. Why? That's what I'm asking. How do we sift the teachings that are normative from those that are not? How do we handle people who do not obey what the Bible seems clearly to teach? What did the apostles say to do? I understand that people can become like some lawyers, for example, and find loopholes, spinned interpretations, and squirrel logic to support whichever case they want. Ancient philosophers call such people sophists. They were good at persuading people, but their arguments, on close inspection, were not very good. I feel this way about many Christians who claim to be Biblical Divine Command Theorists, but seem to honor their current beliefs about the way the world should be and spin off any texts that seem to contradict their beliefs. They say, well, Paul could have meant this, or that. This is true, but are the alternate interpretations the most likely interpretations? I think most likely the ancient Israelites would have thought it to be wrong to be selfish enough to stop trying to have children. In part, I think this because I have extra-biblical evidence that this was their position and it makes eminent sense that they would think this, because they were an emerging country and it was good for families to have many children. So I have two new points: First, it makes sense that ancient Isrealites would have thought it to be normative to try to have as many children as possible (as many as God would bring). And second, since the Onan passage could be viewed in this light, and since the ancient commentators did view it in this light, it seems that the teaching was in fact that families should reproduce as much as possible. It increases Israel or the Church, and "taking away from it" seems to have been viewed as a no-no. And I have one conclusion. Since there doesn't seem to be a NT corrective to this norm, it doesn't seem that as Biblical Divine Command Theorists (what is wrong is what God prohibits; what is right is what God permits (doesn't prohibit); what is obligatory is what God commands) can weasal their way out of this norm in todays world, no matter how inconvenient or countercultural it is. The biblical (AND THE EXTRABIBLICAL) evidence is that ancient Israelites viewed contraception (or its equivalent) as prohibited by God. Now it seems like it's a pretty big chore for us to refute them, instead of being Nick Naylor about the issue. And by the way, in exegetical arguments, one passage in support of P is better than none in support of not-P. Are you guys thinking that the stronger case is for contraception: that contraception is permitted by God? I'm having a hard time seeing the weight of evidence on your side. You all present passages where Paul talks about avoiding lust by getting married. But doesn't it seem that it's taken for granted that nobody is going to stop trying for children? And to think that this wasn't a major topic back then is to deny the large extrabiblical literature written at these times and shortly thereafter against seed spilling. Paul was writing in a Jewish culture that was clearly against it. And given that the Romans and Greeks most likely were not (as their permitting homosexuality and licentious sex suggests), it's reasonable to assume that Paul was taking for granted the extant Jewish teaching against onanism in all of his prohibitions of sexual perversion. Bobby On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Robert Johnson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Suppose it was even clearer that God wanted married couples to practice > abstinence if they wanted to cease having children. Do you think that your > marriage could last in the absence of sex? I'm just curious. I'm not > trying to prove a point. > > Bobby > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Darrin M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> I can agree that erring on the side of caution would probably be the >> safe thing to do in this case. This assuming you care what God thinks >> about what you're doing. If you don't, you've got some different >> problems. hehe One problem with that is can it be proved one way or >> another? And until it can, are you (you in a broad sense) as a >> married person willing to possibly risk your marriage on something >> that may not be necessary? As a single person it would be easier to >> stop until it was decided but for a couple married many years it could >> cause terminal problems. Either you stop having sex or end up with a >> bunch of kids. I suppose we could leave it in God's hands to give us >> the number of children He desires and maybe that's what we should do >> anyway, leave it in His hands. >> >> Frankly, I had never heard of this issue until now and not really ever >> considered it. I'm relatively new into deep doctrine and even newer >> to philosophy so excuse me if my arguments aren't up to standards. >> It's a work in process. Personally I feel satisfied in the Onanist >> viewpoint but by all means if someone wants to or better yet strongly >> feels that they should adopt the NO view I can understand and respect >> that. For the huge amount of commitment, if for nothing else. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
