jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Nobody) (01/15/90)
It has been suggested that God alone decides when intimate relationships are to result in conception, and while we may engage in sexual acts for pleasure without intending to have children, we are at to accept without question when those actions result in conception. Let us examine one particular situation. Lets say an individual, for unique particular reasons, *enjoys* the feel of an orgasm outside the woman's body, and while open to the possibility of children ( they may even on occasion stay in just because they want to concieve) they much prefer to pull out. They enjoy sex much more this way. Is this person violating the will of God? I am aware of the story of Onan so let me just add that while the side effect of this is contra- ception, it is not the *primary* reason for the action. If intimate relations can be engaged in past child bearing years ( as D. Meilke suggests ) then it is being said that sex can be engaged in solely for the purpose of pleasure, and if someone finds sex pleasurable in this manner, then it can't be considered wrong. Another question. Lets suppose a married Christian man has to go in for an operation, and needs a blood transfusion, and in the process unfortunately gets exposed to HIV. Would it then be wrong, if now that he is HIV postive, that he wear a condem to protect his wife. Would you argue that God may want an HIV positve baby born so that possibly a new found cure might further glorify Him. Would the wife have to expose herself to HIV in order to be in compliance with the will of God. Or would the couple have to completely refrain from sexual activity at this point. Could a condem at this point be used without contradicting scriptures? -- -jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ...the love shack is a little 'ol place -ames!elroy!jato!jrossi where we can G E T T O G E T H E R. **********************STANDARD DISCLAIMER******************************
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (01/18/90)
In article <Jan.15.03.42.58.1990.15074@athos.rutgers.edu> jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Nobody) writes: >Let us examine one particular situation. Lets say an individual, for >unique particular reasons, *enjoys* the feel of an orgasm outside the >woman's body, and while open to the possibility of children ( they >may even on occasion stay in just because they want to concieve) they >much prefer to pull out. They enjoy sex much more this way. Whether or not such an action is sin depends entirely on what is in the heart of the person who wishes to ejaculate his sperm in this manner. It would definitely be sinful if contraception were a nonzero factor in his decision to do so. It is also highly probable, though I do not say this with 100% assurrence, that it would be sinful if his own pleasure were part of the criteria for his decision. An extremely important goal of a married person, second only to the requirement that he glorify God through everything that he does, is the spiritual, emotional and physical (in that order) well-being of his spouse. This necessarily includes, way up high on a prioritized list, that he conduct his intimate activities such that she is as fulfilled in all of these areas as he can possibly achieve. 1 Corinthians 7:3-4 says "Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.". 1 Corinthians 7:32-34 says (carefulness is an old english word for anxiety) "But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please {his} wife. There is difference {also} between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please {her} husband.". Hebrews 13:4 begins "Marriage {is} honourable in all, and the bed undefiled:". A husband would most definitely not be committing sin if his sole motivation for choosing to ejaculate his sperm outside his wife's vagina if he knew that she found it more pleasurable that way. She, on the other hand, would be committing sin if she led him to believe that it was more pleasurable for her that way when, in fact, her real motive is contraception. She would also be committing sin if she insisted that he do it that way as her duty is to maximize his pleasure and not her own. Each spouse should conduct his intimate activities such that he joyfully sacrifices his own pleasures whenever such an act would enhance those pleasures which are being experienced by his spouse. This form of intimate relations between a husband and his wife is not in and of itself sinful. If it is His will, God can bring about conception even when a man ejaculates his sperm outside his wife's vagina. He may, for example, cause a bit of sperm to be prematurely seaped while the couple is still intimately engaged. He may, for example, cause some of the sperm to splash onto the opening of the wife's vagina and then cause at least one of those sperm to successfully navigate its way to one of her eggs. As long as the only goal of both participants is the maximizing of the other's pleasure, neither of them need consider their conduct to be sinful before God. The Biblical story of Onan was mentioned in conjunction with this question. Genesis 38:8-10, for those who either do not know or do not recall it, says "And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled {it} on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.". Onan's sin was not that he "pulled out". It was that he did not want to raise up seed to his dead brother by his wife. This was Onan's duty as his brother had married and then died before having children. God formally declares this particular piece of Old Testament ceremonial law in Deuteronomy 25:5-6 which says "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, {that} the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother {which is} dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.". Note that this law, being ceremonial, is no longer in effect today. It only applied to citizens of Israel prior to Christ's crucifiction. The explanation of this really ought to be deferred to another posting. >Another question. Lets suppose a married Christian man has to go in >for an operation, and needs a blood transfusion, and in the process >unfortunately gets exposed to HIV. Would it then be wrong, if now >that he is HIV postive, that he wear a condem to protect his wife. >Would you argue that God may want an HIV positve baby born so that >possibly a new found cure might further glorify Him. It would be sinful to engage in contraceptive activities, even as an act of perceived kindness due to the risk of disease contraction by either the wife or the child. If God did not want that particular risk to enter into that family then He would not have permitted it to do so. We must assume that God wishes to accomplish some particular piece of His overall plan through this occurrence. If the wife is saved then God may wish to bring about her physical death and subsequent entry into heaven through this disease. This may also be the very reason that He permitted the husband to contract the disease through the blood transfusion. He may wish to draw others to Himself through their observing of the Godly way in which the infected couple handle all the suffering that is usually associated with this particular disease. He may wish to strengthen the faith of either the husband or the wife or both through a circumstance which they will likely initially find somewhat stressful and are in no position to control as they must now fully rely on Him for the best possible outcome. With respect to this last point, if they were to use contraceptive measures, then they would be voluntarily taking a step in the direction of reducing their dependence on and faith in God. Whatever happens to them, they must remember 1 Thessalonians 5:18 which says "In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.". They should also remember Romans 8:28 which says "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to {his} purpose.". >Would the wife have to expose herself to HIV in order to be in >compliance with the will of God. Or would the couple have to >completely refrain from sexual activity at this point. Could a >condem at this point be used without contradicting scriptures? If it is God's will that she contract HIV then she ought not attempt to overrule Him. If it is not God's will that she contract HIV then He will insure that this does not happen. The preceeding statements also apply with respect to both the husband with his blood transfusion and all those children whom God may choose to bless the couple with. Under no circumstances ought they use something like a condom as that would merely be an attempt to overrule God's will. It would also be wrong to refrain from having intimate relations as that might tempt the wife toward the sin of adultery as her sexual appetite will grow stronger and stronger as the abstainence continues. 1 Corinthians 7:5 says "Defraud ye not one the other, except {it be} with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.". Even if she does not actually physically commit adultery she will find it more and more difficult to keep her thoughts off that topic. Matthew 5:27-28 says "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.". This passage applies equally well to the thoughts of a woman with respect to a man who is not her husband. A married couple should enjoy each other to the full and just have a child-like trust that God will carry them through whatever suffering they will endure. They must remember that it will not be that bad, in fact it will be ecstatically wonderful, when this suffering eventually results in the termination of their earthly lives as they will then immediately enter heaven and be in the very presence of God Himself. 2 Corinthians 5:8 says "We are confident, {I say}, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.". These statements only apply, of course, to those whose Lord and Saviour is Jesus Christ. I urge each and every one of you to reassess your lives with these facts in view. If Jesus Christ is not both your Lord and Saviour then your eternal future will be quite different! John 5:28-29 says "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.". Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3