the Christian truth about the evil of birth control

[Free]

But those are natural circumstances, whereas artificial contracedption is UNnatural. It is the blocking of the life giving power of God

My argument wasn't against birth control; it was against using the inability to conceive as an argument against homosexuality.

Whether or not you want to interpret the passage about Onan as specifically condemning contraception is really a moot point.

But it doesn't condemn contraception, explicitly or implicitly. So no, it is not a moot point.

The biblical punishment for refusing to give your brother's widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deuteronomy 25:5-10... or around there, I think). So there's something else in that biblical passage that warns us why God struck Onan, and the only other thing we have to go on is the fact that Onan refused to complete the sexual encounter by pulling out and spilling his seed on the ground.

That is the only other thing, based on a light reading of the text. There is much more to it than that. So, no, it is not because of his failure to complete the act.

Here is the main problem with this argument that several of you are overlooking: you are arguing to the law to prove that it could not have been about offspring but contraception. However, that very law gives no punishment, at all, for using a form of birth control. Either way, God contravenes the law, so it does not necessarily follow that it is about the point of the law on which God remains silent.

I would also make the argument that when someone was killed according to Mosaic law, it was carried out in public, by the people. Here it is God that kills Onan, not the people. And all that is based on an inadequate reading of the text anyway.

One could also argue that God's condemnation of homosexual actions stems from the fact that in such encounters seed is wasted, as Onan wasted his seed

One first has to establish with absolute certainty that this was the reason God killed Onan. This cannot be done so such an argument against homosexuality is weak, at best.

Homosexual actions are like spilling seed on the ground-- no children (/blessings) can come of it--it's sterile sex, which is exactly what contraception makes sex--sterile--through unnatural means.

Perhaps you and Catholic Crusader should get together then and discuss if those who can no longer conceive and those who never could conceive are excused from the RCC's condemnation. Catholic Crusader argues that those are "natural circumstances". As much as the act of homosexual sex is un-natural, the fact that they cannot produce offspring is just as much of a "natural circumstance" of contraception.

By both of your arguments either those who are sterile, those who by age have become sterile, and homosexuals are all in sin because nature will not let them reproduce and sperm is being "spilled", or none are in sin as pertaining to sperm being spilled.

 

[Timz]

I apologize that I am joining late. I do not believe I have posted on this forum in years.

But, if the Body of Christ is going to point to birth control as a MORTAL sin, surely then God would have condemned as such in the Word.

Here in lies the most common fallacy of my Evangelical brothers. The Scriptures are our sole source of infallible truth, yet there are others ways to arrive at truth. We have both natural revelation (natural law) and our God given reason (though not infallible). The Scriptures are silent on birth control as it is silent on space ships. Neither existed when God inspired His Word. We are now left with the need to lift Scriptural principals and apply them to this issue.

My wife and I (both being Evangelical) came to the difficult decision that Rome is right on this about two years ago. We were terrified to leave behind our contraceptives. We wanted to remain in absolute control and avoid more children. Both of those reasons are the main reasons for contraception and both are the antithesis of principles God has given us in His Word about families. Fertility and children are not a disease you should go to the doctor to prevent.

-Tim

 

[darkwater]

Fertility and children are not a disease you should go to the doctor to prevent.

I like how you put that.

 

[darkwater]

But it doesn't condemn contraception, explicitly or implicitly. So no, it is not a moot point.

Then why is Onan killed, in your view?

Perhaps you and Catholic Crusader should get together then and discuss if those who can no longer conceive and those who never could conceive are excused from the RCC's condemnation. Catholic Crusader argues that those are "natural circumstances". As much as the act of homosexual sex is un-natural, the fact that they cannot produce offspring is just as much of a "natural circumstance" of contraception.

A "barren" couple having sex that is open to the creation of new life is possible. It is not possible to say this same thing with either homosexuals or the mentality of contraceptive using heterosexuals. I remember some stories in a book somewhere of rather old and supposedly barren people getting pregnant. Also, I know a couple who was declared infertile by a doctor and they now have a biological son because the doctor was wrong.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Let me add another twist to this debate. Although I already made the apparent statement that having children are in the realm of the parents' choice in my first post

First Post

I also acknowledge that maybe we should have more kids. Being a son of Israel myself, God made promises that many nations and people were to come from him. Instead, I find the same practicing birth control and limiting their peoples, only to find others moving in. And to top it off---- the others would rather we limit our population so theirs will increase more. You see, Satan wants to turn God's promises into lies, and such promises can't be fulfilled without offspring, even though a conservative estimate of my kinfolks are presently in the hundreds of millions, perhaps over a billion people on this earth.

Since Onan is so often brought up, I want to briefly address that as well. The issue (no pun intended) there was that fact that he would not take his brother's wife to produce offspring as opposed to assuming that he got is rocks off by doing what he did instead. God knew that this would be the royal lineage, and to do what he did was the same detestable act as Esau despising the birthright blessing and letting Jacob have it. Doing that is calling God a liar by making his promises to no effect. That birthright was the whole point of the bible, and a small part of that birthright included promise of Messiah amongst many other things equally important.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

It seems to me that Onan has more to do with masturbation than birth control. The teaching on birth control goes deep in to the understanding of the sacrednees of marriage, and the true purpose between the joining of man and woman. You can't find just scripture to deal with this. You must go much, much deeper.

Its like, when the Catechism explains each of the 10 Commandments, it goes deep into implications I would have never dreamed of. (As an example, look at everything it says about Thou Shalt Not Steal: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3 ... t2art7.htm .)

The teaching on birth control, believe it or not, is ultimateley under Thou Shalt not commit Adultery. I ecourage you guys to read it, and then pay special attention to paragraph 2370 which is under the sub-heading "The Fecundity Of Marriage" here:
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3 ... t2art6.htm

 

[Free]

The Scriptures are silent on birth control as it is silent on space ships.

I believe that the point about the Bible not mentioning birth control as a mortal sin is a valid point. Are not all mortal sins explicitly condemned in Scripture? That is why "The Scriptures are silent on birth control as it is silent on space ships", is irrelevant as an analogy. It's apples and oranges. You cannot use an amoral argument to prove that something else is immoral.

If you want to prove that birth control is a mortal sin, or that it is immoral, then argue from morality.

We wanted to remain in absolute control and avoid more children. Both of those reasons are the main reasons for contraception and both are the antithesis of principles God has given us in His Word about families. Fertility and children are not a disease you should go to the doctor to prevent.

No, they're not, and no one is saying that they are. You cannot win an argument by changing what is being said by the other side.

Then why is Onan killed, in your view?

Gen 38:8 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."
Gen 38:9 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.
Gen 38:10 And what he did was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and he put him to death also.
(ESV)

It's odd that the whole argument against birth control is based on the last part of verse 9 but completely ignores the first--"But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his." There is much more to it than merely not performing the duty of a brother-in-law. There is something in Onan's heart that isn't right.

And now that I even think about it, the argument to the Law is inapplicable here as this is prior to that law.

The teaching on birth control goes deep in to the understanding of the dacrednees of marriage, and the true purpose between the joining of man and woman. You can't find just scripture to deal with this.

Is that not precisely what has been said all along? How can something be considered a mortal sin when Scripture remains silent?

 

[handy]

OK, let's deal very frankly with the sin of Onan here. Let's just take a good look at what he did. He was supposed to impregnate Tamar in accordance to the Law, so that his brother would have an heir. Tamar was a rightous woman, not a slut. The only reason why she laid with Onan was so that he could perform his duty to his brother, Tamar and God. Without an heir, Tamar was in a horrible postion. She was sent back to her father's house, unable to marry another and without any children of her own in order for her to have a home of her own. Also, as Tim pointed out, the Lord had planned for Tamar's son, who would be considered the first-born of the first-born of Judah, to be of the royal lineage that would go on to produce David and Jesus Himself.

Onan however did not want to impregnate Tamar, because he knew the child wouldn't be his. In essence what he wanted to do was to steal Er's birth-right. All of Er's child's inheritence from Judah would go to Onan if Tamar remained childless. So, Onan had a choice to make: Either perform his duty to Tamar and watch all his father's possessions go to a child, or try to obtain the birth-right himself. Judah had commanded Onan to impregnate Tamar. Onan didn't want to openly rebel against Judah. So, he chose to do something that was pretty despicable: He acted like he was going to impregnate Tamar, he had her come into his bed, uncover her nakedness and expose herself to him. He used her body to the point of being able to ejaculate, then 'spilled the seed'. Meanwhile, Tamar has had to go through the indignity of laying there exposed and naked before this jerk, just to have him waste the seed.

This has nothing to do with birth-control and it has nothing to do with masturbation, because Onan was NOT there by himself. What Onan did to Tamar was utterly despicable and akin to rape. His motives were to steal the birth-right and Er's inheritence and he was in open rebellion to his father Judah and to God Himself.

 

[handy]

Free is correct in that this whole sorry episode takes place long before the Law of Moses came about. However, the Law of Moses did incorporate the law of Levirate Marriage.

 

[CatholicXian]

Perhaps you and Catholic Crusader should get together then and discuss if those who can no longer conceive and those who never could conceive are excused from the RCC's condemnation. Catholic Crusader argues that those are "natural circumstances". As much as the act of homosexual sex is un-natural, the fact that they cannot produce offspring is just as much of a "natural circumstance" of contraception.

By both of your arguments either those who are sterile, those who by age have become sterile, and homosexuals are all in sin because nature will not let them reproduce and sperm is being "spilled", or none are in sin as pertaining to sperm being spilled.

Not so. Not even remotely the same. Those who were born "sterile" (or really, "infertile") have not deliberately done anything to prevent the conception on a child. God is a worker of miracles... remember Sarah? Homosexual actions leave no possibility for conception, miracle or not. Nature is designed in such a way that conception can only come about except through the union of a sperm and egg. Children have a mother and a father--parents, not partners. No matter how much 2 men (or 2 women) have sexual relations they can never produce an offspring--it's a contradiction, no act of God could overcome this (because God is the author of nature--it'd be like trying to make a square triangle). Barren women or sterile men have a defect that can be overcome through an act of God, or occasionally through medical means (working to correct a defect, not impair something that's already working as it was designed to...)

 

[CatholicXian]

Forgot to mention...

Birth-control would fall under several of the 10 Commandments-- adultery (/lust) or murder. The Pill is an abortifacient and thus akin to an abortion. Barrier/other methods of contraception turn the marital embrace into an event of lust--using the other person as an object of pleasure, rather than a spouse (a mother, or a father). Contraceptive sex is sex "without consequences" as though children were a burden, it's "I-have-to-have-sex-right-now-whether-we-are-prepared-for-a-baby-or-not" (since there exist periods when a woman is naturally infertile). If a husband and wife truly needed to avoid conceiving a child, they could still engage in the renewal of their wedding vows for the majority of the month and naturally not conceive (how many husbands and wives actually have sex every day of the month anyway? (excluding newlyweds)). During times when they couldn't have sex because they needed to avoid a baby they could find other ways to express intimacy and love with one another.

 

[CatholicXian]

Fertility and children are not a disease you should go to the doctor to prevent.

Bingo.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

But those are natural circumstances, whereas artificial contracedption is UNnatural. It is the blocking of the life giving power of God

My argument wasn't against birth control; it was against using the inability to conceive as an argument against homosexuality......

Ooops. Oh. Well in that case, homosexual sex is an obvious violation of the natural law, let alone a violation of the divine law.

 

[Vic C.]

Wow, I wasn't expecting this many posts. Let me explain my last post.

(hypothetical situation)

I am married for several years now. My wife now finds out she is infected with a STD (no need to hash out the details here). I decide to use condoms to protect from spreading this STD to myself. I decide to do this to keep the intimacy as part of marriage. Is that wrong? Do I risk going somewhere else for intimacy instead? You get the picture.

Another scenario is my wife finds out there would be major risks to her health and life if she gets pregnant. Any option used to avoid getting outside of abstinence would be considered a sin by the RCC. Is that any way to ensure a happy and long lasting marriage?

What about all you males out there who have had nocturnal emissions during puberty? Is that a sin? :o

Now I have asked this question before and no one ever answered. We're all adults here, so lets be honest. I believe God make "it" feel good for a reason. He could have easily made it an innate act with no feeling whatsoever, but He didn't.

Question - would anyone actually do "it" if it didn't feel good? What would be the incentive? Just think about it.

We need not be so prudent about sex within the confines of marriage.

 

[CatholicXian]

(hypothetical situation)

I am married for several years now. My wife now finds out she is infected with a STD (no need to hash out the details here). I decide to use condoms to protect from spreading this STD to myself. I decide to do this to keep the intimacy as part of marriage. Is that wrong? Do I risk going somewhere else for intimacy instead? You get the picture.

So this hypothetical male would *need* sex to the point of committing adultery? Is it not possible to live without sex? What about when Jesus commends those who have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:12)...

Another scenario is my wife finds out there would be major risks to her health and life if she gets pregnant. Any option used to avoid getting outside of abstinence would be considered a sin by the RCC. Is that any way to ensure a happy and long lasting marriage?

The only fool-proof method to avoid pregnancy is abstinence, if your wife's health was in such danger, would it be worth it to risk her life?

What about all you males out there who have had nocturnal emissions during puberty? Is that a sin? :o

This is involuntary.

Now I have asked this question before and no one ever answered. We're all adults here, so lets be honest. I believe God make "it" feel good for a reason. He could have easily made it an innate act with no feeling whatsoever, but He didn't.

Of course God made sex pleasurable. But pleasure is not the be-all, end-all of sex. It's not the main point of sex. Other things are pleasurable as well, sex is not the only means of pleasure. But sex is the only means of procreation.

Question - would anyone actually do "it" if it didn't feel good? What would be the incentive? Just think about it.

Sex is not always pleasurable the first time for the wife. In fact, the first time it usually hurts (sometimes a lot) for the wife. Why does she do it? To grow in union with her husband and to consummate her marriage, and to produce offspring, to start a family, to receive the great blessing that children are.

Children would still be blessings even if their conception was not so pleasurable.

We need not be so prudent about sex within the confines of marriage.

Prudence is a virtue. Yes, sex is great fun in marriage... but we ought not lose sight of our spouse in our quest for a pleasurable experience. Lust is not appropriate (at all), even within a marriage. Spouses are called to LOVE one another, not lust after one another.

 

[Free]

Those who were born "sterile" (or really, "infertile") have not deliberately done anything to prevent the conception on a child. God is a worker of miracles... remember Sarah? Homosexual actions leave no possibility for conception, miracle or not.

That is not the point. The point is that semen is knowingly being wasted in each case.

The Pill is an abortifacient and thus akin to an abortion

Is that so? Just what is abortion?

Barrier/other methods of contraception turn the marital embrace into an event of lust--using the other person as an object of pleasure, rather than a spouse (a mother, or a father).

So now a spouse is only one who is a mother or a father, or a potential mother or father? And on what basis does contraception turn sex into lust? Are you even married?

But sex is the only means of procreation.

It is also the most intimate act between a man and wife--"the two shall be one". I think I see the main problem with the Catholic view of sex--it is utilitarian. It is seen as only useful if the chance of procreation is involved. This utilitarian view ignores the other aspects of sex. That's too bad.

Sex is not always pleasurable the first time for the wife. In fact, the first time it usually hurts (sometimes a lot) for the wife. Why does she do it? To grow in union with her husband and to consummate her marriage, and to produce offspring, to start a family, to receive the great blessing that children are.

Wow, that sure is a distortion of the point being made. I cannot speak for Vic but I am quite certain that he is not talking about the first time. The point is, if sex wasn't pleasurable, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion.

I can't help but notice that there still has not been a sound biblical basis given for contraception being a sin.

 

[Imagican]

Well MEC, I think you are wrong. (Are you suprised?) In essensce, birth control is saying to God: WE decide when life comes into the world, not you!

I'm NOT surprised, but I guess you didn't really understand what I was attempting to offer for I would say that I completely agree with what you have offered here. So, what did you 'think' that I offered that was 'wrong'?

I'm not going into lengthy discussion concerning ANY particular reply on this thread. But I would like to offer that MANY seem OVERLY concerned with 'death'. Do you NOT realize that 'physical death' is 'just another PART of LIFE'? Comments about using birth control that deal with medical reasons seems as if it might be 'taking the control' out of God's hands and attempting to place it in one's own.

I thought that the message that we have been offered is that we are to live 'by FAITH'. Yet so many seem SO concerned with this PHYSICAL life that I would say that it borders on a LOVE of 'this life'. This life is FLESH. IF one has been ABLE to be conformed to SPIRIT, then there should be NO FEAR of 'death' of THIS LIFE.

But I guess IF you LOVE this life, then you most certainly DO have a NEED to fear. For we have been CLEARLY shown that to LOVE this life is to 'give up' the gift that has been offered. For it IS he who HATES this life that will BE granted life eternal. Or did I somehow miss the significance of these words?

Sometimes it seems that MANY believe that 'faith' doesn't REALLY matter. But you KNOW WHAT? If it is YOUR TIME to DIE, then there is REALLY NOTHING that you can DO about it but ATTEMPT to 'usurp' the POWER out of God's hands and place it in the hands of 'this world'.

What IF it was God's hope that one that is sick of cancer would DIE in the flesh to be 'saved' in Spirit. But through the intervention of HIS will through the FAITH in a 'man', (doctor), you were SAVED from the disease ONLY to live LONG enough to 'turn away' from God and DIE without being ABLE to be judged WORTHY of the 'gift' that has been offered? Sound 'crazy'? Hmmmm....... We do MANY things that are AGAINST God's will. For His WILL is that His children BE OBEDIENT.

MEC

 

[Vic C.]

It is also the most intimate act between a man and wife--"the two shall be one". I think I see the main problem with the Catholic view of sex--it is utilitarian. It is seen as only useful if the chance of procreation is involved. This utilitarian view ignores the other aspects of sex. That's too bad.

Wow, that sure is a distortion of the point being made. I cannot speak for Vic but I am quite certain that he is not talking about the first time. The point is, if sex wasn't pleasurable, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion.

Actually, you are doing just fine. You are saying what I believe in a much less graphic way. 8-)

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I can only repeat what Pope Paul VI said, when he said that "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil.

In "Humanae Vitae" the Pope was quite prophetic. In the late 60's, he forsaw the rise in divorce, the disrespect of women (such as in pornography) and decaying morals in areas of sex being a result of easy to get contracepetion. And he was right. Forty years later, look around.

People would do well, whether they are Catholic or not, to read the things the popes write.

 

[Imagican]

Isn't it AMAZING the way in which man has been ABLE to 'invent' a 'means' to prevent or treat ALL of his 'ailments'? To 'find a way' to prevent pain and misery through the use of chemicals for those that are able to 'afford it'? Becoming more and more dependant upon his OWN devices.

But when one is able to 'look back', it becomes more and more clear that the means was ONLY inspired by the ENVIRONMENT that 'he' has 'created'. That MOST of the 'pain and misery' was 'created' by MAN himself.

And isn't it even a 'further' amazement when we CLEARLY SEE the 'symbol' that was chosen by THOSE that would 'create' the devices and methods that we have BECOME dependant upon?

From an AMA site:

Why does the AMA symbol have a snake with a staff on it?
The AMA logo depicts the Staff of Aesculapius, a single snake wrapped around a rod or branch. The mythical figure of Aesculapius as a symbol of healing and medicine began to appear as early as 1200 BC. According to legend, Aesculapius, the son of the sun god Apollo, became so gifted in the healing arts that the god Pluto accused him of diminishing the population of the Underworld (Hades). Myth also describes how he came to choose his symbol. While examining a patient, Aesculapius killed a serpent that had surprised him. He then witnessed another snake place magical herbs in the mouth of the dead one and restore it to life. Impressed with this power, he chose a symbol that depicted a serpent coiled around his staff. Beginning in the 17th century, the Staff of Aesculapius enjoyed increased popularity as the primary symbol of medicine as the traditions of the Greco-Roman period were rediscovered.

The AMA has utilized this symbol in its logo since 1910. It is often confused with the Caduceus, a symbol that depicts two winged serpents intertwined around a single staff. While the modern day depiction of the Caduceus is often used to symbolize the profession of medicine, most scholars agree that this use is no longer appropriate.

Strange indeed. For if this 'science' or 'medicine' was REALLY an offering of God, wouldn't it stand to reason that the 'symbol' used to represent such would have some DIFFERENT source?

I tend to agree with the CC's perception of the NATURE of 'birth control'. It is NOTHING other than a MEANS to fornicate without the NATURAL consequences of such. To have 'sex' with whores without the worry or consequence of the DISEASES that otherwise MIGHT ensue, (and perhaps these WERE natural punishments DESIGNED to punish those that DID participate in such behavior). To deny the WILL of God in an unatural denial of the physical function of the human body.

Was sex 'created' for enjoyment? I don't think that this is SO. It was offered coupled with a PLEASURE. But that PLEASURE was NOT meant to become PERVERTED into a SIMPLE ACT of copulation. It was designed for TWO to BECOME ONE. And YES, for these TWO to find PLEASURE in the act of BECOMING ONE. Nothing WRONG with that.

But when it becomes an ACT that is performed with NOTHING in mind OTHER THAN THE PLEASURE, it becomes LUST. And WHAT a 'lustful people' we HAVE become. MORE concerned with the PLEASURE than the 'ritual'.

And birth control has 'turned it into' a 'simple ACT' without even the possibility of the RESULTS that it WAS designed for: PROCREATION. Once again, mankind deciding that THEY know better than Our Father Himself.

There is a story of a man DYING for 'wasting his seed'. I DO believe that there is a significance to this story. For it was NOT placed within The Word for NO REASON. The World could not POSSIBLY be held accountable for it's INABILITY to SEE the TRUTH. But those that profess Christ AS their Savior should CERTAINLY be 'able' to discern the TRUTH concerning such issues.

Once again, just goes to show how LIBERAL the 'churches' have become in their inability to SEEK or TEACH the TRUTH. Becoming MORE AND MORE secular in their approach to this life and teaching it and condoning such to their flocks.

MEC