tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post116796066005883886..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Debate on the Morality of Masturbation (Onan) (vs. Steve Hays)Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-14540120714839769692010-04-13T15:22:05.870-04:002010-04-13T15:22:05.870-04:00Noonan (I have his book) is a liberal who doesn...Noonan (I have his book) is a liberal who doesn't accept the Church's dogmatic teaching on contraception. It was forbidden by the early Church and even by the early Protestants (and indeed by all Protestant bodies until 1930):<br /><br /><i>Contraception: Early Church Teaching</i> (William Klimon) <br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/contraception-early-church-teaching.html<br /><br /><i>Contraception and the "Fewer Children is Better" Mentality: the Opposition of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Other Protestants</i><br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/contraception-and-fewer-children-is.htmlDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-38311326748877475402010-04-13T14:25:30.951-04:002010-04-13T14:25:30.951-04:00DA wrote:
The levirate law is clearly spelled out...DA wrote:<br /><br /><i>The levirate law is clearly spelled out as part of the Mosaic Law, including its penalty (which is not death). Therefore, it makes no sense that Onan was killed for simply failing to follow this law. It is not an argument from silence; rather, it is an argument based on explicit biblical teaching elsewhere: by both proclamation and actual example-in-practice.</i><br /><br /><br />In response,<br /><br />But the flip side is that given the extensive and explicit condemnations of other sexual acts in the OT - including the requisite penalties - the absence of same with regard to masturbation and contraception is a strong argument from silence. In fact, that is the point made by the preeminent Catholic scholar on this topic:<br /><br />“It can scarcely be surmised that there was no occasion to legislate on contraception…There is explicit post-Exilic legislation (Lv 18:22, 20:13, 20:15-16, Dt 23:18). If these acts had to be prohibited by law, it seems unlikely that, in the absence of clear prohibition, the Jewish people would have believed that coitus interruptus or the use of contraceptives was immoral…These considerations – the lack of any commandment, the contrast with other explicit regulations on marriage, the evident need to restrain other forms of sexual misconduct – support the view that contraception is not the act for which Onan was killed. The story nonetheless furnished a striking example by which later commentators, Jewish and Christian, could demonstrate the sinfulness of contraception.” Noonan, John T., Jr. Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986, p. 35 ff.<br /><br />For anyone really interested in this topic, I highly recommend Noonan’s book. It is written by a Catholic Ph.D. (Catholic University in America), and it uses Catholic sources. It is prohibitively expensive to buy, but may be available at local seminary libraries. It also dispels the misconception of anything like a “uniform teaching” on this topic in the Christian era. And it documents the wide and divergent uses of Genesis 38 – including its abject avoidance in the Catechism – throughout church history.<br /><br />Peace.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00759432774174066023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-9806721894320388642010-04-11T23:54:54.144-04:002010-04-11T23:54:54.144-04:00If the footnotes in the officially sanctioned New ...<i>If the footnotes in the officially sanctioned New American Bible really are overly liberal compared to the actual teaching of the Catholic Church, isn't that a serious problem for millions Catholics who use it as their source of Scripture?</i><br /><br />Yes.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-28091625596435605222010-04-11T13:59:00.610-04:002010-04-11T13:59:00.610-04:00Hannah said..
I don't mean to in any way advoc...Hannah said..<br />I don't mean to in any way advocate masturbation, but I'd like to point out that the commentary in the Catholic New American Bible actually seems to agree with Hays's interpretation of Onan.<br /><br />""Preserve your brother's line: literally "raise up seed for your brother." The ancient Israelites regarded as very important their law of levirate, or "brother-in-law" marriage; see notes on Deut 25:5; Ruth 2:20. In the present story, it is primarily Onan's violation of this law, rather than the means he used to circumvent it, that brought on him God's displeasure (Genesis 38:9-10)."<br />Maybe and i am not trying to explain what they meant,but in my Jerusalem bible,it`s both,it was breaking the levitical law , and God condemns both his selfishness ( Onan ) and his sin against the divine law of marriage.<br />So i believe that you are right,when you wonder why?<br />The least i could say , is that what they said is not enough and i wonder why?<br />Thank you for pointing it out for us and GBUMarounhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891800446559973689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-22499840596159935172010-04-11T04:33:10.614-04:002010-04-11T04:33:10.614-04:00Well, that brings up another issue. If the footno...Well, that brings up another issue. If the footnotes in the officially sanctioned New American Bible really are overly liberal compared to the actual teaching of the Catholic Church, isn't that a serious problem for millions Catholics who use it as their source of Scripture?HMorris73https://www.blogger.com/profile/16996099091923623542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-75450924929022207292010-04-10T21:42:29.974-04:002010-04-10T21:42:29.974-04:00That is one reply, but I think it fails when exege...That is one reply, but I think it fails when exegetical and cross-referencing factors are taken into consideration. I refuted it in another paper of mine:<br /><br /><i>Dialogue: Why Did God Kill Onan? Why is Contraception Condemned by the Catholic Church?</i><br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/dialogue-why-did-god-kill-onan-why-is.html<br /><br />The NAB footnotes are notoriously liberal. I wouldn't place all that much confidence in them in the first place, myself.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-63906964991676473102010-04-10T13:24:52.555-04:002010-04-10T13:24:52.555-04:00I don't mean to in any way advocate masturbati...I don't mean to in any way advocate masturbation, but I'd like to point out that the commentary in the Catholic New American Bible actually seems to agree with Hays's interpretation of Onan.<br /><br />""Preserve your brother's line: literally "raise up seed for your brother." The ancient Israelites regarded as very important their law of levirate, or "brother-in-law" marriage; see notes on Deut 25:5; Ruth 2:20. In the present story, it is primarily Onan's violation of this law, rather than the means he used to circumvent it, that brought on him God's displeasure (Genesis 38:9-10)."HMorris73https://www.blogger.com/profile/16996099091923623542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-32752864524916655112010-01-12T23:50:53.781-05:002010-01-12T23:50:53.781-05:00Yeah; that would be a good approach. My emphasis i...Yeah; that would be a good approach. My emphasis in my apologetics, however, is usually on the Bible, because of the need to convince Protestants, who are the Scripture Alone folks. It's my favorite way to argue anyway. I love delving into the Bible. It's always an exciting adventure of discovery.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-2756350449737035992010-01-12T12:54:44.552-05:002010-01-12T12:54:44.552-05:00Thanks for this blog Dave. It is fascinating to me...Thanks for this blog Dave. It is fascinating to me the evidence you have brought to this issue from old testament law and morality and I almost laughed out loud when someone rebutted that you should turn to JPII's Theology of the Body, as if that somehow justifies masturbation (unless I misunderstood their intent). Anyway, I'm sure someone as well read as yourself is familiar with the Theology of the Body, and I also understand that you're confining and directing your argument to specifically towards whether or not the old testament forbids masturbation, but wouldn't some of the arguments present in the Theology of the Body be useful in explaining why masturbation is wrong in light of the true beauty of sex and sexuality? I only think that someone would be much more ammenable to such a restriction (which is what you are proving does exist) if they understand it is for the sake of true and pure love, total gift of self.JWendthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10150217302245726543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-13349200441527940192009-10-13T13:30:23.054-04:002009-10-13T13:30:23.054-04:00If someone is truly interested in debating a point...If someone is truly interested in debating a point, they will cease and desist from immediate judging of the opponent, as happened here. That's a tactic used to avoid rational discussion from the outset.<br /><br />It's special pleading because obviously these people aren't interested in actually discussing the matter. They're too busy rationalizing away how any sane adult could believe it was wrong.<br /><br />I can spot the mentality in two seconds, from over 30 years experience of intense discussions on theology, etc.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-88105248039345400552009-10-13T12:16:06.128-04:002009-10-13T12:16:06.128-04:00How was it special pleading?How was it special pleading?Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09485329228951004629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-35456339823213187222009-10-13T10:52:07.301-04:002009-10-13T10:52:07.301-04:00Well, I don't waste my time with special plead...Well, I don't waste my time with special pleaders who have a direct emotionally-based interest in what they are advocating. That's neither rationality nor true discussion and inquiry. It's emotionalism, will, and sophistry. Add to that a built-in prejudice against both Christianity and any semblance of moral tradition, and it's hopeless.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-81567762115960297832009-10-13T09:29:10.119-04:002009-10-13T09:29:10.119-04:00(Cont'd)
After I mentioned Dave's citatio...(Cont'd)<br /><br />After I mentioned Dave's citation of the Jewish and Early Christian idea that all spilling of seed outside of the Vulva was a sin, it was said that "Dave had an old testament legalistic obsession of the same kind that Jesus condemned in the Pharisees" and "what's he gonna do? Become a Jew or something?". <br /><br /> An analogy was drawn. They granted that even if Masturbation was sinful and unhealthy, it was still not wrong. They compared it to an obese person who eats incessantly and is harming himself. It was asked "Is this guy sinning?", I said "If he is aware of the harm then, yes", it was answered "no he isn't,even if he harms himself it is the thoughts and feelings that count. For Jesus saw into people's hearts and said that only there can the sin be found." "And if a man kills his agressor to defend himself is it a sin?", "No", I replied", "therefore", came the answer, "If one masturbates with love it is not a sin."Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09485329228951004629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-32297528721302044872009-10-13T09:12:16.758-04:002009-10-13T09:12:16.758-04:00Your point exactly Dave, and I said the same thing...Your point exactly Dave, and I said the same thing. That all Christian denominations have held to the ban on masturbation and contraception until the mid twentieth century, and that one has to account for this.<br /><br /> They said that it is impossible to comply with this rule since "all men masturbate", "not to masturbate causes desperation in men" and "many would laugh in your face if you told them not to do it". I asked them to explain how then many cultures placed tabboo on the act, and that it was widely condemned in the Middle ages, even though men and their sex drive have remained mostly unchanged through history. It was replied that in the Middle ages people married earlier leaving less time for them to experiment. I then asked them to explain the medical condemnations of masturbation from the 18th century. They said that even if doctors condemned it in the 1700s, most men would still ignore it and thus proved nothing. It was then told me that for a man, to not masturbate is to "castrate himself".<br /><br /> The scenario was then put to me of someone "masturbating out of love for another person". I asked how this could be and it was replied that "if one is madly in love with an unnatainable person, sometimes masturbation is the only solution".Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09485329228951004629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-4438692072221982402009-10-13T01:14:56.524-04:002009-10-13T01:14:56.524-04:00Hi guys.
I would like to quote also the words of s...Hi guys.<br />I would like to quote also the words of saint Augustine , on adultery and unchastity...<br />If we look at 5 different persons which have not commited adultery or unchastity , we as humanbeings would say that they were all chaste and pure,but when we look at the reasons why each one of them didnt commit adultery or unchastity then things change dramatically.<br />The first one didnt commit adultery because he couldnt,and the second didnt commit adultery because he didnt have the chance , and the third didnt commit adultery because he is afraid of being caught in the act , the fourth didnt do it because he tried and didnt succeed , and the fifth didnt do it because as an obedient son of God , he loved God`s commandments and trusted His heavenly Father and obeyed Him...Now for God only the last one was chaste and pure and didnt commit adultery .<br />So when we speak of masturbation , again it`s the same thing,that person is unchast and not pure and he is or she is commiting adultery or something else like unpure desires in his or her heart .So no matter how we try to justify the act of masturbation , it is a sin and never as something positive or indifferent.<br />So i cannot see how anyone could ever say that masturbation is not a sin or not condemned in scripture?because remember that even to think of anything evil or desire anything lustful is already a sin,check for example the ninth commandment.<br />GBUMarounhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891800446559973689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-947613967913901142009-10-12T19:01:04.854-04:002009-10-12T19:01:04.854-04:00Right. So now masturbation is fine and dandy, huh?...Right. So now masturbation is fine and dandy, huh? Where and how did this big change in Christian moral teaching occur? Calvin and Luther were just as strongly opposed to it as Catholics are.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-79359935073301859032009-10-12T17:14:41.917-04:002009-10-12T17:14:41.917-04:00"his rigiity reflects judgementalism and prej..."his rigiity reflects judgementalism and prejudice that is not Christian and contrary to the gospel."Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09485329228951004629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-79451426952811761292009-10-12T17:13:23.723-04:002009-10-12T17:13:23.723-04:00I have put your argument against masturbation to a...I have put your argument against masturbation to a certain person who puts forth the following objection:<br /><br />"Armstrong is so caught up in Old Testament law that he completly overlooks the love of Christ. The morality of acts is not dependent on external signs (e.g the spilling of seed outside the vulva) but on internal thought and feeling. If somebody masturbates with loving intent then it is not a sin. Armstrong has a legalistic absession. Instead of reading the church fathers on masturbation he should turn to John Paul IIs theology of the body."Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09485329228951004629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-53487356237200006782009-06-26T01:01:05.516-04:002009-06-26T01:01:05.516-04:00Hi Tom,
I think your counter-argument fails.
The...Hi Tom,<br /><br />I think your counter-argument fails.<br /><br />The levirate law is clearly spelled out as part of the Mosaic Law, including its penalty (which is not death). Therefore, it makes no sense that Onan was killed for simply failing to follow this law. It is not an argument from silence; rather, it is an argument based on explicit biblical teaching elsewhere: by both proclamation and actual example-in-practice.<br /><br />I get into that consideration in greater depth in my paper, "Why Did God Kill Onan? Luther, Calvin, Wesley, C.S. Lewis, & Others on Contraception"<br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/why-did-god-kill-onan-luther-calvin.html<br /><br />Glad you like my blog. I have lots of arguments against contraception on this web page:<br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/life-issues-abortion-euthanasia.htmlDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-78148166377958254402009-06-25T17:07:50.174-04:002009-06-25T17:07:50.174-04:00Isn't Onan's sin not so much the masturbat...Isn't Onan's sin not so much the masturbation, but his refusal to follow the law and marry his late brother's wife? While I am a baptized Catholic, I'm afraid I have to agree with the Protestants on this one, Dave. On a related issue, contraception, it has seemed to me for a very long while that our Church's position on that question has been confusing at best. Pope Paul VI ignored the advice of his own commission in determining to continue with the Church's blanket condemnation of the practice. Seems to me a more nuanced position is called for -- perhaps one which rejects only those forms of contraceptive that cause an already fertilized egg to be expelled from the woman's body?<br /><br />Thanks for your blog; some very good things here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com