Birth control in ancient times

[PJM]

=TomFromMD;10011729]In other words, you’re saying that it must follow because the Church says is does? I guess my faith isn’t quite that strong, at least at this point. Usually, the Church has pretty good arguments, but the argument against contraception (at least, non-abortifaciant contraception), and the appeal to infallibility, leave me a bit wanting

Tom my friend, have you asked yourself why that us?

Either God is in charge or we are. And the responsibility cannot be split.

1John.2: 3,5 “And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. … but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him:” Contraceptiion is a Mortal sin against the Fifth Commanment. From God’s point of view: His “Divine Justice”; taking a life or intentionally preventing one is the SAME ACT!

Consider this reality, and again ask your self 1. Why? 2. How?

Every unprotected sexual union between a man and a women DOES NOT result in pregnancy?

How? Because God has built into women a “non-fertile” period

Why? God as our Creator knows well man’s needs and desires and therefore allows a “safe period”. Does this require sacrifice? Absolutely!

1Pet.4: 13 ” But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

Phil.1: 29 “For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake,

Isa.43 Verses 7 and 21: “every one who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made." AND the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise.”

God leaves the choice of heaven or hell up to us! Amen!

Deuteronomy 30:19 “I call heaven and earth to witness this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Choose therefore life, that both thou and thy seed may live”

3 Ecclesiasticus 11:14 “Good things and evil, life and death, poverty and riches, are from God”

Question: How many Old Testament women can you recall who were barren but later, by the will of God, gave birth to men who had an important impact on salvation history? agapebiblestudy.org

**Answer **
Sarah was barren prior to the birth of Isaac (Gen 11:30; 21:1-3).
Rebekah was barren prior to the birth of Jacob/Israel (Gen 25:21-26).
Rachel was barren prior to the birth of Joseph (Gen 29:31; 30:22-23).
Manoah’s wife was barren prior to the birth of the Judge Samson (Judg 13:1-7, 24).
Hannah was barren prior to the birth of the Prophet Samuel (1 Sam 1:1-5, 19-21).
In each case the bareness of the mother was reversed by God’s intervention. It is by God’s divine will that sons were born from these women’sons who played an important role in God’s plan of salvation:

Luke 1:31-35 "Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. And of his kingdom there shall be no end. And **Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. **

ALL OF THE ABOVE TOOK PLACE BECAUSE IT IS GOD WHO PERMITS PREGNANCY TO HAPPEN. TO BELIEVE IN CHRIST REQUIRES ABSOLUTELY TO BELIEFE IN WHAT GOD TEACHES, COMMANDS AND DEMANDS, IF ONE IS TO ATTAIN HEAVEN.

John 14:6 “Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me” GOD; IN ORDER TO BE GOD, MUST BE PERFECT AND CANNOT LIE OR DECEIVE.

Heb.6: 10 “For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do.”

Rev.2: 23 “and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches shall know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.”

Tom, there is insufficient room space permitted here to also address the issue of Infallibility.

BECAUSE “WE CAN CHOOSE” HAS NEVER MEANT THAT GOD APPROVES OF THE CHOICES WE MAKE; OR WILL NOT REWARD OR PUNISH AS OUR CHOICES DEMAND OF HIM.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[TimothyH]

In other words, you’re saying that it must follow because the Church says is does? I guess my faith isn’t quite that strong, at least at this point. Usually, the Church has pretty good arguments, but the argument against contraception (at least, non-abortifaciant contraception), and the appeal to infallibility, leave me a bit wanting…

That’s exactly what I am saying.

The Church is God’s instrument of salvation in the world, with the divine authority to bind and loose, protected by the Holy Spirit against teaching error.

That’s not a “pretty good argument.”

***Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” *(Luke 10:16)

We can argue about Genesis 38 and Dueteronomy 25 all we want, nuancing the words and moving the commas about, but the Church, operating in its God given capacity as the mounthpiece of Christ on earth, has spoken on the matter. If we reject what the Church says then we reject Christ, and that’s a bad place for anyone to be.

Onan spilled his seed TO AVOID GIVING OFFSPRING TO HIS BROTHER. God was offended and struck him dead. That’s what scripture says.

Again, not raising an heir to your brother (avoiding offspring) was not a capital crime according to God. According to God, not raising an heir to your brother was punishable by public humiliation. That punishment was spelled out by God.

God cannot specify public humiliation for a crime and then take someone’s life for the same crime. God cannot contradict his own law. Contradicting the law is injustice. God cannot be unjust. The punishment was something other than public humiliation so the crime must have been something other than refusing to produce offspring.

If God was offended at his avoidance of offspring, then why did he take Onan’s life when God’s own commandment was that the crime was punishable by public humilation, spit in the face, etc.?

The church has said that these verses teach us that spilling one’s see (masturbation) and contraception are mortal (AKA deadly) sins, reflecting God’s own will that Onan be struck dead.

-Tim-

 

[wiggbuggie]

so did women charted back then and knew there fertile period? or had sex whenever?

 

[hieroglyph]

Again, not raising an heir to your brother (avoiding offspring) was not a capital crime according to God. According to God, not raising an heir to your brother was punishable by public humiliation. That punishment was spelled out by God.

God cannot specify public humiliation for a crime and then take someone’s life for the same crime. God cannot contradict his own law. Contradicting the law is injustice. God cannot be unjust. The punishment was something other than public humiliation so the crime must have been something other than refusing to produce offspring.

If God was offended at his avoidance of offspring, then why did he take Onan’s life when God’s own commandment was that the crime was punishable by public humilation, spit in the face, etc.?

Public derision was the punishment for refusing to marry your brother’s wife. Onan did not commit this sin since he did marry, but I can see a whole host of others.

He was deceitfully entering into marriage (a sacrament) with no intention of procreating with his wife. Would she have married him if she had known this? Certainly not, the whole point was to get an heir. So he deceived her privately as to his intent, as well as defiling God’s role as witness to the sacrament.

Next, he takes advantage of her sexually, while perpetuating his lies. This is in essence rape, since she would not have given herself except for his deceit. Finally, as his false pretenses slip away and she can see the type of person he is, she is trapped in a fraudulent marriage. The impression that we are left with is that he would have continued in this relationship; He is reducing her to a concubine.

God intervened into that cess pool to spare that poor woman.

 

[TomFromMD]

so did women charted back then and knew there fertile period? or had sex whenever?

Interestingly, Jewish women weren’t supposed to have sex during their period, or for a few days after - which meant that for most women, their husbands’ pent up demand would correlate with their fertile period.

 

[TomFromMD]

Public derision was the punishment for refusing to marry your brother’s wife. Onan did not commit this sin since he did marry, but I can see a whole host of others…

Yeah, that’s pretty much my feel for it too. The Sola Scriptura argument is weak on this one, IMHO.

So you basically accept it because the Church says so, or you don’t. And I’m not trying to belittle that - it’s a major deal. You do have the Jews taking a very similar interpretation to the Church, but as I said before, they love building fences.

On the other side, you have the Orthadox churches, which are a bit more squishy, and the Protestants and others, some of which are much more permissive.

 

[PJM]

=wiggbuggie;10016662]so did women charted back then and knew there fertile period? or had sex whenever?

I’m OLD BUT NOT THAT OLD

They knew a great many things. While I can’t say with certitude; I suspect they did based on the fact that God’s way was as applicable then as now.

God Bless,
pat /PJM

 

[TimothyH]

Public derision was the punishment for refusing to marry your brother’s wife. Onan did not commit this sin since he did marry, but I can see a whole host of others.

He was deceitfully entering into marriage (a sacrament) with no intention of procreating with his wife. Would she have married him if she had known this? Certainly not, the whole point was to get an heir. So he deceived her privately as to his intent, as well as defiling God’s role as witness to the sacrament.

Next, he takes advantage of her sexually, while perpetuating his lies. This is in essence rape, since she would not have given herself except for his deceit. Finally, as his false pretenses slip away and she can see the type of person he is, she is trapped in a fraudulent marriage. The impression that we are left with is that he would have continued in this relationship; He is reducing her to a concubine.

God intervened into that cess pool to spare that poor woman.

This is very insightful, especially about it being tantamount to rape.

-Tim-

 

[wiggbuggie]

Interestingly, Jewish women weren’t supposed to have sex during their period, or for a few days after - which meant that for most women, their husbands’ pent up demand would correlate with their fertile period.

interesting point thanks for sharing!

Leviticus 18:19

Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period

 

[Alucard1966]

I think he was being more selfish because any child concieved would legally be considered his late brother’s and not his. the custom and then law was for a brother to have an heir on behalf of their deceased brother who might not yet have had children to conitnue the line.

Very subjective here! I’d like to see what some other Christian Churches or Theologians think of Onan and his form of birth control that in reality, leaves it open to God, if you truly understand the biology of sex.

 

[vames]

Again, not raising an heir to your brother (avoiding offspring) was not a capital crime according to God. According to God, not raising an heir to your brother was punishable by public humiliation. That punishment was spelled out by God.

God cannot specify public humiliation for a crime and then take someone’s life for the same crime. God cannot contradict his own law.

We can interpret it as a logical contradiction and draw the logical conclusion (death punishment was for spilling one’s seed, therefore we should obey this law too) only if we assume both laws as God’s unchanging laws, then and now. So 1) God’s law = one should not refuse to raise heirs to his deceased brother (punishment: publich humiliation) and 2) God’s law = one should not spill his seed (punishment: death). But the Catholic Church doesn’t teach us that refusing to raise a heir to one’s brother deserves **any **punishment by God’s law. So what God are we talking about?

 

[Alucard1966]

We can interpret it as a logical contradiction and draw the logical conclusion (death punishment was for spilling one’s seed, therefore we should obey this law too) only if we assume both laws as God’s unchanging laws, then and now. So 1) God’s law = one should not refuse to raise heirs to his deceased brother (punishment: publich humiliation) and 2) God’s law = one should not spill his seed (punishment: death). But the Catholic Church doesn’t teach us that refusing to raise a heir to one’s brother deserves **any **punishment by God’s law. So what God are we talking about?

“Interpet” being key here.