That seems to be a solid argument, Bobby.
On Oct 15, 10:39 am, "Robert Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Okay,
>
> Here is an argument I can live with. Tell me what you think.
>
> Either it is permissible to limit the number of your children or it is not.
> Certainly it seems permissible to limit the number of your children, for all
> the reasons mentioned in the position paper of Piper's church. Children are
> a great thing -- so is land -- and both are blessings, but it is not a sin
> to limit those blessings. So on the assumption that it is permissible to
> limit the number of your children, there seem to be only two ways to limit
> them. First, you could practice "onanized" birth control (which involves
> ejaculation which is not intended for reproduction). And second, you could
> practice abstinence (a non-onanized form of birth control). But long term
> abstinence within marriage doesn't make sense at all from a NT perspective,
> since it is quite possible that a reason you got married was to follow
> Paul's advice to marry rather than to burn with lust (1 Cor 7:8-9). It
> makes no sense to marry, in part, to satisfy your "lust" and then to abstain
> once you desire no more children. For you will still burn with lust, which
> Paul claims should be satisfied within the confines of marriage. So, the
> only alternative is to practice "onanized" birth control. This means so
> called onanism cannot be wrong, because, again, (a) It is permissible to
> limit the number of your children, and (b) Long term abstinence within
> marriage is never required. So even if God killed Onan in Gen. 8:9-10
> precisely for ejaculating on the ground, we cannot draw the conclusion that
> it is wrong, always and everywhere, to do so. Accordingly, Christians
> should feel free to practice any type of non-abortive birth control within a
> marriage relationship.
>
> Bob Johnson
>
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Robert Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> > Drat... I'm embarassed that I get that... ha!
>
> > > Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 07:39:55 -0700
> > > Subject: [crosspointe-discuss] Re: Is Birth Control Okay? (Revisited)
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > To: [email protected]
>
> > > 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."
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
