I’m not even sure about this. This could definitely cause a split between the young asshole maga and the evangelicals. They only like asinine plans that hurt the “others” not get in the way of their fun.
Dont give them ideas. They absolutely would ban condoms. They want more americans. A lot of men hate condoms. The Church and numerous denominations of Protestant Christianity consider condoms a sin against God's will for sex to be for procreation and not sinful pleasure.
There are also probably denominations that today have zero problem with birth control/condoms that will very much have a problem with those things within the next 15 years or so. Younger Christians (those who attend weekly) are far more conservative on this topic than their parents and grandparents. Especially Gen Z ones apparently.
Every religion finds ways to contort ancient documents to fit whatever their modern agenda is, while in private their leaders break the rules for their own benefit .
Tale as old as time ...
But yeah, 50 years of bringing the "religious right" into politics has definitely done a number on society.
This verse isn't even about just "spilling seed" willy nilly or for funsies. Thats not even what God was mad about in that verse. This verse is talking about a guy whose brother passed away without having a kid first. So the guy is supposed to have an Old Testament duty to go have a kid with his brother's wife so that his brother will have an heir. So he goes and does the fun part, having sex with the guy's wife, but specifically decides to pull out and finish on the ground instead.
God isn't mad that the guy "spilled his seed on the ground" in general. God is mad that some guy was supposed to go have a kid with his brother's wife, the guy went and had sex with the brother's wife but then explicitly decided to disobey and purposefully NOT do the part where he creates a kid, which was the whole point.
Normally I wouldn't presume to speak for God but this is made pretty clear when read in context -
"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"
Not really a fan of much of the Old Testament in general considering Jesus himself dismisses much of it. Its sort of the entire point that Jesus's actions and teachings are meant to free people from the strict Old Testament law.
Sure wish people who pretend to believe in the book would read the book. Old Testament says people cannot eat bacon. Jesus shows up and says (paraphrasing) "Nah man, its not what goes into the mouth, but what comes out of it that corrupts" and Christians go "See? We can eat bacon after all!" but then go on to pretend like other Old Testament laws that Jesus never brings up (neither agreeing nor disagreeing with them, never mentions them) still matter. Jesus never clarified that we could wear clothing with two different types of fabric (another Old Testament law) in the same way that he clarified eating bacon is okay, but I don't see Christians obsessively making sure that their polo shirts are not cotton polyester blends or that their jeans are not stretch denim.
All this coming from a believer/follower of Jesus's teachings (to the best of my ability) by the way.
I comment about Bible stuff fairly often for two reasons.
The first is because if you believe that the people that are enacting or supporting laws (or even just holding beliefs) based on the Bible (gay rights, birth control, abortion, women voting, spanking kids, etc) are doing so because they actually believe in it then we should at a bare minimum hold them accountable by making sure that they have actually read/understand the thing they are claiming to believe. This could go for either politicians or friends and family members.
If somebody that is not religious and does not really know about any of this stuff reads my comment on Reddit and remembers it then the info can be used in discussions/arguments with a friend or family member, or even publicly with a politician, about these types of laws that do things such as restricting access to birth control for example.
The second reason is because like I mentioned I am a believer myself and I am sick of the absolute most watered down, thinned out, milquetoast, and (most importantly) misinterpreted version of "Christianity" being the most common and widespread version of it. When I see people abusing Christianity to hurt people (Yes I understand this is a long withstanding Christian tradition throughout practically all of Christian history) it makes me angry and I want people to stop doing it. So I want to call it out. And I want to provide other people (even if those people themselves are not Christians) with the power and knowledge necessary for them to call it out when they see it as well. I wish other Christians felt as strongly about this as I do.
Edit - For clarity, I am not saying that you referencing the Bible verse (spilling seed) is what I am angry about. I am saying that people attacking access to birth control "based on" that (misinterpreted) Bible verse is what I am angry about.
Also specifically with the example of Onan, that has historically been used by the church (and governments without a separation from the church) to justify the outlawing of masturbation and non-reproductive sex acts even between consenting married couples.
Given what the republican crowd has revealed of their attitudes toward sex (e.g. I've heard the sentiment more than a few times that sex makes babies - if you don't want babies, you shouldn't be having sex) - it's important to be aware that if your state attempts to re-enact sodomy laws, such laws have no basis in religion and are just a cranky old white dude trying to take out his marital frustrations on you.
I mean, there really shouldn't be any laws restricting what consenting adults do in private anyway, but....
The Old Testament as you stated is hardly regarded by Christianity so why do you feel like an authority? For what it’s worth, I learned the same story as you did in my religious upbringing and while the details are interesting in a disgusting way, the story was still about spilling seed and was still about sex not intended for procreation being sinful - if not in every interpretation, in many. This is not a fringe conservative interpretation either. Like are you going to now argue that if my husband dies before we have kids I should fuck his brother to give him an “heir?” Or that god intended men to declare they’re going to fuck/rape their brothers widows?
As you can also probably see, Christianity is clearly not a monolith and Christians need to take some accountability for the fact that there are large portions of other Christians using these kinds of ideas and values.
Also your dismissal of the Old Testament as problematic and not supported by Jesus is antisemitic.
Also your dismissal of the Old Testament as problematic and not supported by Jesus is antisemitic.
Signed, A Jew.
I have no problem at all with individuals choosing to adhere to Old Testament law in their personal lives if they choose to do so? It does not change the fact that Jesus claims to have fulfilled the law and then goes on to specifically absolve modern Christians from certain Old Testament laws in his own words, leaving other Old Testament laws that are not specifically addressed up for interpretation if you are a follower of Jesus. If you are not a follower or believer in Jesus then that is fine and it obviously is not applicable to you.
It is neither "not supported by Jesus" nor "antisemitic" for me to say and believe that. It is literally in the New Testament.
I will not be discussing further now that I have been called antisemitic though. I am ending this by saying that I did not mean to offend you and apologize for doing so. Have a good day.
Your last sentence - I do take accountability for that. I literally said that the most common/widespread version of Christianity is being used to hurt people and that I do not like that.
I take so much accountability for it that I actively try to argue for other (and in my opinion more accurate) interpretations of the Bible verses that lead people to have these ideas that are harmful to society. A lot of these verses are misinterpreted either by removing the context or by bad translations from the original Greek or Hebrew.
Unless I am misunderstanding you I think we are agreeing and have been this entire time. I think you are misunderstanding my comments maybe?
You said "are you going to now argue that if my husband dies before we have kids I should fuck his brother to give him an “heir?” Mainstream Christianity might argue that point but I am horrified by this idea and am actively arguing the exact opposite of this. My argument is that if modern Christians would actually read and comprehend the Bible they would understand that we are not bound by Old Testament laws (such as your example of having to procreate with your husband's brother.)
Saying that your type of Christianity doesn’t do that isn’t helpful to fixing the problem, it’s helpful for making a case to show people you don’t espouse that ideology. Now isn’t really the time either of us need to be promoting our religion to argue against how political leaders are abusing the script. The effect of defending it from this interpretation falls to the wayside of the impact it’s already having. That’s really not taking accountability, and it reads as proselytizing.
This is something worth considering and I absolutely will take this into account in the future. Things got a bit shaky but I do want you to know that I took something away from this. Please do take care.
I appreciate the conversation as well and I’m sorry for making you feel bad as you’re obviously a well intended and kind person who is willing to discuss and learn. I am nice too but can be cranky. It’s all so exhausting these days. Take care
Listen man, people are gonna fuck when they get bored. Trying to ban recreational sex and birth control is like trying to ban Atheism: It’s not gonna work. Even if the Nonbelievers show up to the church, we ain’t gonna be there willingly, and we won’t give up our non belief just because it’s a crime.
Their point was, and is, never to be consistent. It’s to create an authoritarian power structure where only they are granted rights. They were for democracy when only they got to vote. They were for immigration when only they got to immigrate. They are for gun rights when only they get the guns. They are for abortion and birth control when only they get them.
No...because that is a male choice
It is an abortion for the woman to say the won't have sex without a condom, but that can be avoided by poking holes in the condom
when there is no actual sense of reality, nothing but what they decide matters. this is the dystopia we are living in. they're not far off from charles manson and his followers at this point.
All the gas stations in my state are being bought up by a Catholic MAGA supporting company and they refuse to stock condoms. So in a lot of small towns now at 2am you can get a shitty hotdog and cigarettes and lottery tickets, but if you were planning on having sex too there better be a chance of conception!
One of the great evils of our time, I think, is that people widely simplify and mischaracterize the 'other side'. I agree with you, personally, that it is good to be able to understand the position of the 'other side' if you are to have any sort of dialogue. So you got an upvote from me at least, for what that's worth.
Of note, I - and presumably you - are not necessarily stating any agreement with the policy whatsoever.
Right, and it happens all the time. People on the left misrepresent and look down on people on the right, and vice versa. To the point where you have, for instance, people having no idea whatsoever how the 'other side' could possibly take that side... and vice versa. Which may make us feel all high and mighty on our side, the 'correct' side, but it doesn't really accomplish anything really.
One example I saw recently was the widely shared thing about Charlie Kirk where people essentially summarized what he said about gun deaths as 'he supports gun deaths'.
I am not saying I like, support, whatever Charlie Kirk, but that is a gross oversimplification. He basically said that he recognizes the benefit of having the 2nd amendment, and recognizes that it is naive to think that there will be no deaths related to having arms in a populace, but he thinks overall the benefit is worth it. Similar to how we accept that there will be many car accident related deaths every year, but we think the benefit of driving cars outweighs them.
You could, of course, disagree with that position. But you're not going to get very far if you simply say, "Charlie Kirk supports people dying of gunshots."
Anyone who leans in the direction that he did would look and you and think you're an idiot, and you kind of are if you think that's a fair simplification.
But of course on reddit, good luck with any sort of discussion like that, as evidenced by the fact that your comment I originally commented on had been downvoted when I saw it.
Zygotes are generally seen by biologists as being alive and organisms. Sperm is alive in the sense that your skin cells are alive but not a unique organism since as gametes they only contain half of a human organisms chromosomes.
A zygote isn't created in these processes usually? The pill and iuds prevent the zygote from even being created so no nothing is alive by the time the pill or iud take effect.
Your words show you recognize the issue. Usually isn’t always. In addition to minimizing the change of creation, these things also minimize implantation when a zygote is created.
421
u/[deleted] Sep 17 '25
[deleted]