1,942
edits
Changes
→St Jerome et al on coitus interruptus: reply
::I don’t know what it means to suggest that I’m intent on misunderstanding. I either understand, or do not. In any case, that’s not what I mean. It seems that sperma in this passage implies both offspring (especially in its first occurrence) and ejaculate (especially in its second occurrence, along with the meaning of offspring). In any case, we both agree that this passage is conveying that Onan spilt his ejaculate on the ground instead of in the vagina of Tamar when he had sex with her, in order to avoid procreating a child that would legally be his brother’s. If we both agree that this is the meaning, what is the significance of St Jerome’s inclusion of “semen” as the direct object of “fundebat”? Surely none? --[[User:Gmharvey|Gmharvey]] ([[User talk:Gmharvey|talk]]) 08:49, June 28, 2018 (UTC)
You ares till misstating it. In Gen 38.9, there are two instances of zera/sperma, both of which refer to offspring. Jerome added a word to the text. which is something Orthodox don't generally like -- think filioque! I agree that it is implied by the text, but not specified. I say all this because you objected to my saying Jerome added the word, at which point you claimed the verse mentions vera/sperma twice -- it does, but in neither case does it refer to semen. I'm happy to let this question of what is in the verse end. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] ([[User talk:Fr Lev|talk]]) 14:34, June 28, 2018 (UTC)
:I’m not sure what you mean by “Greek” views on marriage? Please elaborate. Also, how is approval of contraception any less unbiblical than its condemnation (by Jerome or whomever)? No verse either directly approves of or condemns its use. Is everything that isn’t forbidden in the bible moral, or edifying for the Christian? It should also be noted that “for the procreation of children” does not necessarily mean that its enjoyment it to be precluded, just that it is naturally oriented towards this (i.e. procreation is at least one of its teloi), and that actively preventing sex from leading to procreation would be unnatural. This, I argue, is very Orthodox, and very Patristic.
::Sure, this second position of Augustine’s is in conflict with his usual line. That may just indicate that he had some doubts about his usual position, given that he could find sex that didn’t consciously avoid procreation (and so was motivated by a unitive purpose) acceptable. St Augustine is known to have revised some of his earlier positions.
::Yes, it’s a lazy construction. Perhaps I should remove “there are those who hold the view” and just start the sentence with “that one of sex’s natural purposes…”. I thinks it’s reasonable to append to this dissenting position a statement that no modern bishops or local churches have publicly endorsed such a position. However, I hold this position, as do others I know personally. For this reason I don’t think the statement requires a citation (I’m sure you believe me when I say that I hold this dissenting position and am an Orthodox Christian – or do you need to see my baptismal certificate?). --[[User:Gmharvey|Gmharvey]] ([[User talk:Gmharvey|talk]]) 08:49, June 28, 2018 (UTC)
==Dissenting position #1==
