How did they know that Mr. Spock might have need of birth control alternatives in the 1800's?
On Oct 14, 10:07 pm, "Robert Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rob, what did you think about the position of Piper's church? I know it > falls in line with your perspective, but I was wondering what your thoughts > were about that paper. > > You raise some really good points, as you have throughout this discussion. > I know you are exasperated by this topic, but maybe it will take me awhile > to come around to you all's way of thinking. I'm starting to become > persuaded that you are right, especially after reading your post. Good > work! > > Bobby > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:13 PM, Robert Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > I thought we were done with this... sigh... > > > I did take the time to read both and they were good reads. In my opinion > > Bayly's logic lacked in at least one place. He dismissed adultery as a > > possible explanation on the grounds that the acceptable form of punishment > > for adultery was death and yet Judah did not die when he committed adultery; > > while dismissing the failure to produce an heir theory by saying that > > humilation and not death was the punishment for this and yet Onan died. The > > argument appears the same yet the conclusions run counter to each other. > > > I made the anachronism point myself during the previous discussion - i.e. > > there was no "law" per se in place that stated Onan needed to get with his > > sister-in-law. It was a custom of the time which of course later became > > law. And incidentally, if this custom became law why didn't a prohibition > > on birth-control also become law? Granted some things are seen as so > > obvious to the denizens of the time that no law is necessary but this > > theorom would seem to apply to the heir custome as well then, right? > > I get a little lost in the civil law versus moral law discussion but as > > Bayly also mentions himself - the acceptable form of birth-control was > > coitos interruptus in the time and yet we don't hear of a bunch of men > > dropping dead all over the place. I wouldn't expect the bible to record > > every instance of this, but I would expect that if men were dropping dead > > every time they pulled out - word would get around and this form of birth > > control wouldn't last long (surely not to the 1800's and the invention of > > vulcanized rubber...). The question then becomes why did God take a special > > interest in Onan? As I've already proposed in the previous discussion it is > > because we are dealing with the line of Jesus and God acted to preserve it, > > which is something He is seen doing more than once. > > > A couple of other thoughts that I had as I read through is I'm not entirely > > sure I buy the premise that our life on this earth is so valuable to God. > > It seems odd that we would have a problem with the death of Onan's semen and > > less problem with the death of Onan himself. Bayly tries to put Onan in > > select ranks for committing some particularly heinous crime but in actuality > > God kills lots of people in the Old Testament for a lot smaller > > transgressions. Bayly didn't even mention Er who died for being wicked. > > Heck, God wiped out everyone but Noah's family at one point. Not to mention > > enemy armies whose only crime was being on the wrong side. Or how about a > > soldier who tried to save the ark of the covenant from falling but dies > > because he touched it. The point is that clearly human life means something > > very different to God. (Hence, killing Er and Onan for not propogating the > > line of Jesus.) I'm ok with this: not that He needs my approval. But why > > then would I think God wants me having kids everytime I engage in sexual > > relations? Maybe I should limit my sexual relations? Why then does Paul > > tell me to get married if I burn with passion. Not because burning with > > passion is wrong I think.... After all, if someone is not a eunuch or a > > sworn celibate than they should get married right? > > > It also occurred to me when reading Luther's quotes on page 11 that maybe > > we're / their all still seeing it wrong. Maybe it wasn't the loss of the > > seed at all but just the pulling out. Forgive me for being graphic but it > > certainly feels better to consumate inside rather than out. Maybe the > > pulling out and the subsequent degredation of the experience is the issue > > and not the loss of the seed at all. A bit far-fetched but interesting. > > Didn't Mike say something similar in previous discussion? (Check, check, > > check- yes, he did.) > > > And finally, I just can't get on board with the argument that because the > > church saw it this way for thousands of years that the twentieth century is > > somehow wrong in its updated analysis. Maybe we are but maybe we're not and > > the length of time the beliefs were held and by whom seem pretty > > irrelevant. Chopsticks were around for a long time too but it turns out the > > fork is better. > > > Rob > > > > Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:45:16 -0700 > > > Subject: [crosspointe-discuss] Is Birth Control Okay? (Revisited) > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Fellas, > > > > I know that all of you value God's word and believe that it should be > > > treated with care and applied with caution. This is why I propose > > > that we talk more about the controversial topic of birth control and > > > the Bible. > > > > Most of you disagree with me on this topic, so I want to shift the > > > focus off of me and onto a legitimate and real debate that is > > > transpiring the Evangelical world today. Maybe if we sift through the > > > arguments, we can come to agreement on this topic. I know that you > > > all want harmony and peace between us, both interpersonally and in > > > terms of our Biblical interpretation. Perhaps through some hard > > > thinking and honest discussion, we can come to agreement, even if it > > > means my changing my mind. First, I want to propose that this is a > > > topic worthy of our interest. Very good Biblical commentators agree > > > with the position that birth control is not okay according to the > > > Bible. It's not just Catholics, but also well known -- indeed, famous > > > -- Protestant reformers interpret Genesis 38:8-10 this way. And as > > > we'll see from the Bayly sermon below, there are actually three > > > scriptural lines of argument against Birth Control, although the > > > following is the most notorius for "proving" the point: > > > > "Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife and perform > > > the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your > > > brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So > > > whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on > > > the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he > > > did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death > > > also." > > > > Says John Calvin: > > > > "I will content myself with briefly mentioning this, as far as the > > > sense of shame allows to discuss it. It is a horrible thing to pour > > > out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately > > > avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is > > > doubly horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his > > > family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. > > > This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the > > > Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and > > > untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as > > > cruel as shamefully was thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as > > > much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. > > > When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through > > > aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was > > > guilty of a similar crime, by defiling the earth with his seed, so > > > that Tamar would not receive a future inheritor" (Commentary on > > > Genesis). > > > > How good and careful was John Calvin in interpreting Scripture? > > > Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius, after whom the anti-Calvinistic > > > movement Arminianism was named, says with regard to the value of > > > Calvin's writings: > > > > "Next to the study of the Scriptures which I earnestly inculcate, I > > > exhort my pupils to peruse Calvin's Commentaries, which I extol in > > > loftier terms than Helmich himself (a Dutch divine, 1551–1608); for I > > > affirm that he excels beyond comparison in the interpretation of > > > Scripture, and that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued > > > than all that is handed down to us by the library of the fathers; so > > > that I acknowledge him to have possessed above most others, or rather > > > above all other men, what may be called an eminent spirit of prophecy. > > > His Institutes ought to be studied after the (Heidelberg) Catechism, > > > as containing a fuller explanation, but with discrimination, like the > > > writings of all men." > > > > I like it that Arminius included the last part, "but with > > > discrimination, like the writings of all men." We shouldn't take > > > Calvin's word as the last word on this topic, but just whose word > > > should we take? Our own? An authority on Scripture in today's > > > world? > > > > One theologian I trust who disagrees with me is John Piper. Here is > > > his stance on the issue: > > >http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/AskPastorJohn/ByTopic/45/1... > > . > > > His writings on this topic are definitely worth reading, and I will > > > read them. But the deal I want to make with you all is this: If I > > > read Piper's stance on this issue with care and take it seriously, I > > > ask you to take the Calvinist stance on this issue seriously too. Is > > > that a deal? So participating further in this discussion means that > > > we will engage each other after "seeing it from the other person's > > > point of view." I will > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
