D
dlame
Guest
will a catholic goto hell if they have a tubal ligation and cintinue to have marital relations?
- Status
P
puzzleannie
Guest
not necessarily but if they understand the Church’s teaching on this matter and the reasons why it is gravely wrong, they will be living their life in a state of mortal sin, and be barred from the sacraments including Eucharist, until they have repented, confessed, expressed contrition, and been absolved in sacramental confession. If they die in full knowledge of the sin and refuse to repent then yes their soul is in danger of eternal damnation. Their guilt might be mitigated if they have never been properly taught about this moral issue, but objectively, yes it is a mortal sin, that is, deadly for the soul. The remedy is contrition and confession. Surgical reversal of the procedure is not required, More info is on AAA if you search because this has been answered there many times. This is the moral teaching for all Catholics, not just those who identify themselves as “traditional”
M
MARKOS08
Guest
God is merciful, and we don’t know if that person will go to hell. I’ve known cases in which a couples were living together, not married, and got married and have gotten a reversal on the tubal ligitation. They did it because they repented with a truthful heart. It all depends on how our hearts are living with this situation. The Church gives us a awareness of what we are doing wrong, and in that specific case of the couple, they realized that they weren’t doing God’s will and that there was a way to get a remedy.
D
dj_dave
Guest
Where does the Bible teach that every act of sex must be open to life? You are causing a heavy burden on poor couples. True, God considers the life of a child to be precious, even in the very earliest stages of development. King David of Israel wrote under inspiration: “You kept me screened off in the belly of my mother. . . . Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing.” (Psalm 139:13, 16) A new life begins at conception, and the Mosaic Law indicates that a person could be called to account for injuring an unborn child. In fact, Exodus 21:22, 23 specifies that if a pregnant woman or her unborn child suffered a fatal accident as a result of a struggle between two men, the matter had to be brought before the appointed judges. They were to weigh the circumstances and the degree of deliberateness, but the penalty could be “soul for soul,” or life for life.
Those principles are relevant to contraception in that some methods of birth control appear to be abortive. These methods of contraception are not in harmony with the divine principle of respect for life. Most contraceptives, though, are not abortive.
Nowhere does the Bible command Christians to procreate. God told the first human couple and Noah’s family: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.” But this command was not repeated to Christians. (Genesis 1:28; 9:1) Hence, married couples may decide for themselves whether they will raise a family, how many children they will have, and when they will have them. The Scriptures, likewise, do not condemn birth control. From a Biblical point of view, then, whether a husband and wife choose to use some nonabortive method of contraception is really a personal decision. Why, though, does the Catholic Church condemn contraception?
From what I have read, Catholic sources explain that it was in the second century C.E. that professed Christians first adopted a Stoic rule according to which the sole lawful purpose for marital intercourse was procreation. The reasoning behind this position was thus philosophical rather than Biblical. It was based, not on divine wisdom, but on human wisdom. This philosophy persisted down through the centuries and was elaborated on by various Catholic theologians. ( It was only in the 13th century that Gregory IX enacted what the New Catholic Encyclopedia calls “the first universal legislation by a pope against contraception).”The logical outgrowth of this teaching, however, was the idea that sexual pleasure as an end in itself is sinful and, consequently, that sexual relations that exclude the possibility of procreation are immoral. But this is not what the Scriptures teach.
Noticer how using poetic language, the Bible book of Proverbs describes the joy that can result from appropriate sexual intimacies between husband and wife: “Drink water out of your own cistern, and tricklings out of the midst of your own well. . . . Let your water source prove to be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of your youth, a lovable hind and a charming mountain goat. Let her own breasts intoxicate you at all times. With her love may you be in an ecstasy constantly.”—Proverbs 5:15, 18, 19.
Sexual relations between husband and wife are a God-given gift. But procreation is not their sole purpose.
The Catholic Church’s opposition to contraception was confirmed by John Paul II at the Second International Congress on Moral Theology held in Rome last November. According to the Vatican City newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, he said: “It is not a doctrine invented by man. It is written by the creative hand of God in the very nature of the human person. To doubt it is tantamount to refusing God the obedience of our intelligence,” and therefore, he adds, “cannot be questioned by the Catholic theologian.”
But the encyclical letter Humanae Vitae that was referred to by Pope John Paul and written some 20 years ago by Paul VI “was immediately questioned by a large number of theologians,” observed the Italian newspaper La Stampa, and ignored by “the majority of Catholics.”
Clearly, the church’s inflexibility on the question of birth control has disunited theologians and greatly disturbed sincere Catholics. The continuing dissension over the use of any sort of contraceptive even prompted John Paul to exhort theologians all to speak “the same language.” Yet, contrary to the pope’s claim that the church’s position on contraception was “written by the creative hand of God,” the Italian newspaper La Repubblica observes that “no verse from the Gospels or the Old Testament is cited to validate the doctrine.”
Nowhere does the Bible discuss the use of contraceptives or birth control in marriage, nor does it say that Christians are obliged to produce children. God’s Word leaves the question of family planning to the conscience of each Christian couple. By imposing its ruling about birth control, the Catholic Church has gone “beyond the things that are written.”—1 Corinthians 4:6 causing as I said a heavy burden on poorer countries Why? Maybe because contraception hinders the church’s projected income.
Contined…
Those principles are relevant to contraception in that some methods of birth control appear to be abortive. These methods of contraception are not in harmony with the divine principle of respect for life. Most contraceptives, though, are not abortive.
Nowhere does the Bible command Christians to procreate. God told the first human couple and Noah’s family: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.” But this command was not repeated to Christians. (Genesis 1:28; 9:1) Hence, married couples may decide for themselves whether they will raise a family, how many children they will have, and when they will have them. The Scriptures, likewise, do not condemn birth control. From a Biblical point of view, then, whether a husband and wife choose to use some nonabortive method of contraception is really a personal decision. Why, though, does the Catholic Church condemn contraception?
From what I have read, Catholic sources explain that it was in the second century C.E. that professed Christians first adopted a Stoic rule according to which the sole lawful purpose for marital intercourse was procreation. The reasoning behind this position was thus philosophical rather than Biblical. It was based, not on divine wisdom, but on human wisdom. This philosophy persisted down through the centuries and was elaborated on by various Catholic theologians. ( It was only in the 13th century that Gregory IX enacted what the New Catholic Encyclopedia calls “the first universal legislation by a pope against contraception).”The logical outgrowth of this teaching, however, was the idea that sexual pleasure as an end in itself is sinful and, consequently, that sexual relations that exclude the possibility of procreation are immoral. But this is not what the Scriptures teach.
Noticer how using poetic language, the Bible book of Proverbs describes the joy that can result from appropriate sexual intimacies between husband and wife: “Drink water out of your own cistern, and tricklings out of the midst of your own well. . . . Let your water source prove to be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of your youth, a lovable hind and a charming mountain goat. Let her own breasts intoxicate you at all times. With her love may you be in an ecstasy constantly.”—Proverbs 5:15, 18, 19.
Sexual relations between husband and wife are a God-given gift. But procreation is not their sole purpose.
The Catholic Church’s opposition to contraception was confirmed by John Paul II at the Second International Congress on Moral Theology held in Rome last November. According to the Vatican City newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, he said: “It is not a doctrine invented by man. It is written by the creative hand of God in the very nature of the human person. To doubt it is tantamount to refusing God the obedience of our intelligence,” and therefore, he adds, “cannot be questioned by the Catholic theologian.”
But the encyclical letter Humanae Vitae that was referred to by Pope John Paul and written some 20 years ago by Paul VI “was immediately questioned by a large number of theologians,” observed the Italian newspaper La Stampa, and ignored by “the majority of Catholics.”
Clearly, the church’s inflexibility on the question of birth control has disunited theologians and greatly disturbed sincere Catholics. The continuing dissension over the use of any sort of contraceptive even prompted John Paul to exhort theologians all to speak “the same language.” Yet, contrary to the pope’s claim that the church’s position on contraception was “written by the creative hand of God,” the Italian newspaper La Repubblica observes that “no verse from the Gospels or the Old Testament is cited to validate the doctrine.”
Nowhere does the Bible discuss the use of contraceptives or birth control in marriage, nor does it say that Christians are obliged to produce children. God’s Word leaves the question of family planning to the conscience of each Christian couple. By imposing its ruling about birth control, the Catholic Church has gone “beyond the things that are written.”—1 Corinthians 4:6 causing as I said a heavy burden on poorer countries Why? Maybe because contraception hinders the church’s projected income.
Contined…
X
xformer7
Guest
The Church established by Christ to teach and sanctify in His name teaches it. [Luke 10:16 ; Matthew 16:19]
D
dj_dave
Guest
Nowhere does the Bible discuss the use of contraceptives or birth control in marriage, nor does it say that Christians are obliged to produce children. God’s Word leaves the question of family planning to the conscience of each Christian couple. By imposing its ruling about birth control, the Catholic Church has gone “beyond the things that are written.”—1 Corinthians 4:6 Contined…
NOTICE THIS
*** w89 6/15 p. 29 Questions From Readers ***
Is it compatible with Bible principles for a Christian married couple to use birth control pills?
The Scriptures do not clearly say that Christian couples are obliged to have children or, if they do, how many. Each couple should privately and responsibly determine whether to try to regulate the size of their family. If they agree to practice birth control, their choice of contraceptives is also a personal matter. However, they ought to consider—in accord with their understanding of the Bible and their conscience—whether using a certain method would show respect for the sanctity of life.
The Bible indicates that a person’s life begins at conception; the Life-Giver sees the life that has been conceived, “even the embryo” that will thereafter develop in the womb. (Psalm 139:16; Exodus 21:22, 23; Jeremiah 1:5) Hence, no effort should be made to end a conceived life. To do so would be abortion.
Birth control pills are widely used around the world. How do they
prevent childbirth? There are two major types of pills—the combination pill and the progestin-only pill (minipill). Research has clarified their primary mechanisms for preventing births.
The combination pill contains the hormones estrogen and progestin. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “the primary mechanism” of the combination pill is “inhibition of ovulation.” It seems that when taken consistently, this type of pill almost always prevents the release of an egg from the ovary. When no egg or ovum is released, conception cannot occur in the Fallopian tubes. While this type of pill may also cause changes in “the endometrium [lining of the womb] (which reduce the likelihood of implantation),” this is considered a secondary mechanism.
In order to reduce side effects, combination pills containing lower doses of estrogen have been developed. Apparently, these low-dose combination pills allow more activity in the ovaries. Dr. Gabriel Bialy, chief of the Contraceptive Development Branch of the National Institutes of Health, says: “The preponderance of scientific evidence indicates that even with the low-estrogen pill, ovulation is blocked, not 100 percent, but most likely around 95 percent. But the mere fact that ovulation occurs is not tantamount to saying that fertilization has occurred.”
If a woman misses taking the combination pill according to its designed schedule, there is an increased possibility that the secondary mechanism will play a role in preventing births. A study of women who missed two of the low-dose pills found that 36 percent had “escape” ovulations. The journal Contraception reports that in such cases the “effects of pills on the endometrium and cervical mucus may continue to provide . . . contraceptive protection.”
What of the other type of pill—the progestin-only pill (minipill)? Drug Evaluations (1986) reports: “Inhibition of ovulation is not a prominent feature of contraception with progestin-only minipills. These agents cause formation of a thick cervical mucus that is relatively impenetrable to sperm; they may increase tubal transport time and also cause endometrial involution [which would hinder the development of any fertilized ovum].”
Some researchers claim that with the progestin-only pill, “normal ovulation occurs in over 40% of users.” So this pill frequently allows ovulation. The thickened mucus at the cervix may block passage of sperm and thus not permit conception; if not, the hostile environment that the pill creates in the womb might prevent the fertilized ovum from implanting and developing into a child.
It can be appreciated, then, that when used regularly for birth control, both main types of pills seem to prevent conceptions from occurring in most cases and thus are not abortive. However, since the progestin-only pill (minipill) more frequently permits ovulation, there is a greater possibility that it sometimes prevents a birth by interfering with the implantation in the womb of a conceived life that has begun. Scientific studies indicate that normally (with a womb unaffected by birth control pills) “sixty per cent of fertilized eggs are . . . lost before the first missed period.” That this happens, though, is quite different from choosing to use a method of birth control that is more likely to impede implantation of a fertilized ovum.
Hence, there are definite moral aspects to consider if a couple discuss with a physician the matter of using birth control pills. Christians should resolve even private and personal questions so as to maintain a “perfectly clear conscience” before our God and Life-Giver.—Acts 23:1; Galatians 6:5.
Best to use condoms. AGAIN, The Scriptures do not clearly say that Christian couples are obliged to have children or, if they do, how many. Each couple should privately and responsibly determine whether to try to regulate the size of their family. If they agree to practice birth control, their choice of contraceptives is also a personal matter.
NOTICE THIS
*** w89 6/15 p. 29 Questions From Readers ***
Is it compatible with Bible principles for a Christian married couple to use birth control pills?The Scriptures do not clearly say that Christian couples are obliged to have children or, if they do, how many. Each couple should privately and responsibly determine whether to try to regulate the size of their family. If they agree to practice birth control, their choice of contraceptives is also a personal matter. However, they ought to consider—in accord with their understanding of the Bible and their conscience—whether using a certain method would show respect for the sanctity of life.
The Bible indicates that a person’s life begins at conception; the Life-Giver sees the life that has been conceived, “even the embryo” that will thereafter develop in the womb. (Psalm 139:16; Exodus 21:22, 23; Jeremiah 1:5) Hence, no effort should be made to end a conceived life. To do so would be abortion.
Birth control pills are widely used around the world. How do they
prevent childbirth? There are two major types of pills—the combination pill and the progestin-only pill (minipill). Research has clarified their primary mechanisms for preventing births.
The combination pill contains the hormones estrogen and progestin. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “the primary mechanism” of the combination pill is “inhibition of ovulation.” It seems that when taken consistently, this type of pill almost always prevents the release of an egg from the ovary. When no egg or ovum is released, conception cannot occur in the Fallopian tubes. While this type of pill may also cause changes in “the endometrium [lining of the womb] (which reduce the likelihood of implantation),” this is considered a secondary mechanism.
In order to reduce side effects, combination pills containing lower doses of estrogen have been developed. Apparently, these low-dose combination pills allow more activity in the ovaries. Dr. Gabriel Bialy, chief of the Contraceptive Development Branch of the National Institutes of Health, says: “The preponderance of scientific evidence indicates that even with the low-estrogen pill, ovulation is blocked, not 100 percent, but most likely around 95 percent. But the mere fact that ovulation occurs is not tantamount to saying that fertilization has occurred.”
If a woman misses taking the combination pill according to its designed schedule, there is an increased possibility that the secondary mechanism will play a role in preventing births. A study of women who missed two of the low-dose pills found that 36 percent had “escape” ovulations. The journal Contraception reports that in such cases the “effects of pills on the endometrium and cervical mucus may continue to provide . . . contraceptive protection.”
What of the other type of pill—the progestin-only pill (minipill)? Drug Evaluations (1986) reports: “Inhibition of ovulation is not a prominent feature of contraception with progestin-only minipills. These agents cause formation of a thick cervical mucus that is relatively impenetrable to sperm; they may increase tubal transport time and also cause endometrial involution [which would hinder the development of any fertilized ovum].”
Some researchers claim that with the progestin-only pill, “normal ovulation occurs in over 40% of users.” So this pill frequently allows ovulation. The thickened mucus at the cervix may block passage of sperm and thus not permit conception; if not, the hostile environment that the pill creates in the womb might prevent the fertilized ovum from implanting and developing into a child.
It can be appreciated, then, that when used regularly for birth control, both main types of pills seem to prevent conceptions from occurring in most cases and thus are not abortive. However, since the progestin-only pill (minipill) more frequently permits ovulation, there is a greater possibility that it sometimes prevents a birth by interfering with the implantation in the womb of a conceived life that has begun. Scientific studies indicate that normally (with a womb unaffected by birth control pills) “sixty per cent of fertilized eggs are . . . lost before the first missed period.” That this happens, though, is quite different from choosing to use a method of birth control that is more likely to impede implantation of a fertilized ovum.
Hence, there are definite moral aspects to consider if a couple discuss with a physician the matter of using birth control pills. Christians should resolve even private and personal questions so as to maintain a “perfectly clear conscience” before our God and Life-Giver.—Acts 23:1; Galatians 6:5.
Best to use condoms. AGAIN, The Scriptures do not clearly say that Christian couples are obliged to have children or, if they do, how many. Each couple should privately and responsibly determine whether to try to regulate the size of their family. If they agree to practice birth control, their choice of contraceptives is also a personal matter.
M
MARKOS08
Guest
Nowhere does the Bible discuss the use of contraceptives or birth control in marriage, nor does it say that Christians are obliged to produce children.
We, the church (you and everyone believers in the Christ ressurected), have never said that a marriage has to produce children. What has been said is that we have to be open to the Will of God, open to life. And this Will can be to have many or not even any at all.
We, the church (you and everyone believers in the Christ ressurected), have never said that a marriage has to produce children. What has been said is that we have to be open to the Will of God, open to life. And this Will can be to have many or not even any at all.
T
TheDoctor
Guest
We can never say for sure who is going up or down, that alone is up to God.
What we can say about someone who has had a tubal is this: If, when they got the tubal, all 3 conditions for a mortal sin were in effect, then the tubal was a mortal sin. As with any unrepented mortal sin, if we did with it on our soul we are probably heading for the hot spot because knowing it was a sin, we have chosen to stay apart from God.
The great news is that as with any mortal sin, absolutioin is a short confession away. Note - you do NOT have to have the tubal reversed or even promise to try to get it reversed to obtain absolution. If you want it reversed that is up to you alone.
If the act was not mortal sin (e.g. the person did not know it was a sin to have a tubal) then that is cleared from their soul.
The continuing of martial relations really has no bearing on this as far as I can see.
Hope that helps.
M
manualman
Guest
dj,
Your argument is typical in that it regurgitates MANY tired old attacks that have been gone over MANY times by catholics in response.
The long and short of it is that what you’ve posted is nonsense / non-history. Catholic prohibitions against contraception are as old as the church itself. From the earliest, it has been recognized that the “sin of Onan” was that of contraception. Contraception is wrong for precisely the same reason that fornication before marriage is wrong: it does a violence to God’s design for human sexuality and degrades it into MERELY pleasure and recreation. Note that “merely” does not denigrate the value of the pleasure as you assert earlier. The pleasure was given by God to signal the greatness of the gift of sexuality. To deliberately sterilize sex and isolate the pleasure from its fuller function is as obviously disordered as gorging oneself on rich foods and puking it up to prevent the body from absorbing it. God made things go together. We pull them apart at great hazard to ourselves.
If you are genuinely interested in catholic teaching on contraception (as opposed to coming here to argue), please look at the book “Good News About Sex & Marriage” by Christopher West. It is simply written and explains the complex theology in laymen language.
Your argument is typical in that it regurgitates MANY tired old attacks that have been gone over MANY times by catholics in response.
The long and short of it is that what you’ve posted is nonsense / non-history. Catholic prohibitions against contraception are as old as the church itself. From the earliest, it has been recognized that the “sin of Onan” was that of contraception. Contraception is wrong for precisely the same reason that fornication before marriage is wrong: it does a violence to God’s design for human sexuality and degrades it into MERELY pleasure and recreation. Note that “merely” does not denigrate the value of the pleasure as you assert earlier. The pleasure was given by God to signal the greatness of the gift of sexuality. To deliberately sterilize sex and isolate the pleasure from its fuller function is as obviously disordered as gorging oneself on rich foods and puking it up to prevent the body from absorbing it. God made things go together. We pull them apart at great hazard to ourselves.
If you are genuinely interested in catholic teaching on contraception (as opposed to coming here to argue), please look at the book “Good News About Sex & Marriage” by Christopher West. It is simply written and explains the complex theology in laymen language.
D
dj_dave
Guest
D
dj_dave
Guest
C
Claire_from_DE
Guest
At the time the bible was written, children were considered a blessing from God. Being barren was a cause for sorrow.
The Catholic church has just maintained that biblical attitude in the face of secular values. It doesn’t require that couples attempt to have as many children as possible. Couples may refrain from sex for a time if they agree about it.
Couples may use modern scientific knowledge to determine when an act of love is most likely to result in pregnancy. If they feel God is calling them to have another child, they will make use of this knowledge. They may also use medical methods to improved their reproductive health when they wish to conceive. But there are methods that separate the act of love from the act of conception; these should not be used.
If they feel that they should not have another child they can use this knowledge and refrain from intercourse during the fertile time. However, we must always acknowledge that God is the author of life, whether we are trying to conceive or avoid conceiving. It is not moral to alter our bodies surgically or chemically to render us barren. The act of intercourse within marriage is a mutual self-giving which, for the Christian, is a reflection of the life-giving love of Christ for the church (St. Paul tells us this!). Using a condom actually and symbolically blocks this total self-giving so it no longer is an image of Christ’s love for the church which gives us new life.
Onan’s sin was that he refused to do God’s will as it was expressed in Jewish law.
Jesus established a church. He promised to be with it. He promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead it into all truth. If different Christians differ as to how to apply biblical morality to their lives, it’s obvious that this confusion isn’t from God. He gives guidance to the church He set up so that we can know His will. The bible was inspired by God. The Catholic Church was founded by God (yes, Catholics and most other Christians believe that Jesus is God, the second person in the Trinity, one with the Father and the Holy Spirit). Church teaching is not opposed to the truth of the bible.
And, in answer to the original question, having a tubal ligation in order to prevent pregnancy is seriously sinful. If the person repents, confesses, and is forgiven by God, she is forgiven. She should continue marital relations with her husband.
Some couples in that situation have the tubal ligation reversed. Some refrain from relations during the time the woman would ordinarily be fertile (as a sort of penance). However, neither of these actions is necessary for God’s forgiveness.
The Catholic church has just maintained that biblical attitude in the face of secular values. It doesn’t require that couples attempt to have as many children as possible. Couples may refrain from sex for a time if they agree about it.
Couples may use modern scientific knowledge to determine when an act of love is most likely to result in pregnancy. If they feel God is calling them to have another child, they will make use of this knowledge. They may also use medical methods to improved their reproductive health when they wish to conceive. But there are methods that separate the act of love from the act of conception; these should not be used.
If they feel that they should not have another child they can use this knowledge and refrain from intercourse during the fertile time. However, we must always acknowledge that God is the author of life, whether we are trying to conceive or avoid conceiving. It is not moral to alter our bodies surgically or chemically to render us barren. The act of intercourse within marriage is a mutual self-giving which, for the Christian, is a reflection of the life-giving love of Christ for the church (St. Paul tells us this!). Using a condom actually and symbolically blocks this total self-giving so it no longer is an image of Christ’s love for the church which gives us new life.
Onan’s sin was that he refused to do God’s will as it was expressed in Jewish law.
Jesus established a church. He promised to be with it. He promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead it into all truth. If different Christians differ as to how to apply biblical morality to their lives, it’s obvious that this confusion isn’t from God. He gives guidance to the church He set up so that we can know His will. The bible was inspired by God. The Catholic Church was founded by God (yes, Catholics and most other Christians believe that Jesus is God, the second person in the Trinity, one with the Father and the Holy Spirit). Church teaching is not opposed to the truth of the bible.
And, in answer to the original question, having a tubal ligation in order to prevent pregnancy is seriously sinful. If the person repents, confesses, and is forgiven by God, she is forgiven. She should continue marital relations with her husband.
Some couples in that situation have the tubal ligation reversed. Some refrain from relations during the time the woman would ordinarily be fertile (as a sort of penance). However, neither of these actions is necessary for God’s forgiveness.
C
Claire_from_DE
Guest
A bit more about Onan’s sin:
Onan’s sin was that he refused to do God’s will as it was expressed in Jewish law. He refused to raise up children for his brother. He could simply have refused to lie with his brother’s widow. Would God have killed him for that? Probably not. Instead Onan actually did have intercourse with her but at the instant of climax he poured out his seed onto the ground. He showed contempt for the woman, for God’s law, and by his very act he showed contempt for God’s gift of sex which was meant to give life as well as pleasure. So there is good reason to believe that God’s punishment was for the act of contraception which was the means Onan used to defie the Lord God rather than just for his refusal to follow God’s law.
Onan’s sin was that he refused to do God’s will as it was expressed in Jewish law. He refused to raise up children for his brother. He could simply have refused to lie with his brother’s widow. Would God have killed him for that? Probably not. Instead Onan actually did have intercourse with her but at the instant of climax he poured out his seed onto the ground. He showed contempt for the woman, for God’s law, and by his very act he showed contempt for God’s gift of sex which was meant to give life as well as pleasure. So there is good reason to believe that God’s punishment was for the act of contraception which was the means Onan used to defie the Lord God rather than just for his refusal to follow God’s law.
D
dj_dave
Guest
D
dj_dave
Guest
J
Jacafamala
Guest
This.
All others really ought to take their debate to another thread; it doesn’t help the op.
C
Claire_from_DE
Guest
D
dj_dave
Guest
Thank you for your answer, I still think your Church should leave it up to the couples to decide since it is not mentioned in God’s Word. As for Onan…: “
This was also an expression of hatred for Er, as Onan worked, not for, but against his dead brother’s interests. Onan callously disgraced his brother’s widow. He selfishly laid bare her nakedness but withheld from her the rightful due of motherhood. He also showed that he had no appreciation for “sacred things,” as there was a possibility that the promised Messiah would have come through the offspring he might have fathered by means of Tamar. (Compare Hebrews 12:16.) All these factors reveal that Onan was a wicked man who had no regard for the interests of others when his own interests seemed to be at stake. It is because of the baseness of Onan’s reason for failing to give offspring to his dead brother that Jehovah slew him.
"(Genesis 38:10) …Now what he did was bad in the eyes of Jehovah; hence he put him also to death"..
Usually in the Bible when the expression "did was bad in the eyes of Jehovah.”–is mentioned it ends with the death of the individual(s) by God’s judgement.
.whatever the case,
Thank you for your answer…time is short, time will tell.
C
Claire_from_DE
Guest
Onan’s motives were base but so were David’s when he ordered Uriah into the front of the battle and Herod’s when he ordered the slaughter of the babies in Bethlehem. But only in the first case was God’s judgment immediate death. I think there is good reason to think that it was the method by which he carried out his desires, not only his motives, that was being punished. This was taken for granted by early church writers also.
Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to the church to guide it into all truth. If the Church teaches this very unpopular idea, couples, in making their decisions, should at least seriously consider that artificial means of contraception may not be what God wills for us. I think that this was the teaching of most Christian churches until well into the 20th century. Our secular culture today stresses that contraception is ok. It is assumed even in TV commercials. Of course, we are influenced by our society. But we aren’t supposed to be conformed to the world.
Hebrews 12:16 seems to me to have nothing to do with the motive or method of Onan’s sin. Paul is urging the Hebrew church to accept God’s discipline and not to fall into apostasy, not to give up their faith for something easier like Esau did when he gave up his birthright, his inheritance, for a bowl of stew. If this chapter was applied to the contraception question, it would be that we should accept discipline rather than give in to the desire for pleasure so that we can have the reward promised by God, our inheritance of eternal life. I cite the chapter below.
(continued in next posting)
C
Claire_from_DE
Guest
New American Standard Bible © Hebrews 12
Jesus, the Example
1 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
3 For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.
A Father’s Discipline
4 You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin; 5 and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons, “MY SON, DO NOT REGARD LIGHTLY THE DISCIPLINE OF THE LORD, NOR FAINT WHEN YOU ARE REPROVED BY HIM;
6 FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES, AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES.”
7 father does not discipline?his 8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? 10 good, so that we may share His holiness.disciplines us**our 11 All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.
12 Therefore, strengthen the hands that are weak and the knees that are feeble, 13 which is lame may not be put out of joint, but rather be healed.the limb
14 Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord. 15 See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled; 16 .hat there be**single 17 For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.
I do appreciate that you have researched the issue of contraceptive methods that prevent implantation or cause abortion and recognize that these are immoral since they can result in ending a life that has already begun. Many people don’t realize this.
Jesus, the Example
1 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
3 For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.
A Father’s Discipline
4 You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin; 5 and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons, “MY SON, DO NOT REGARD LIGHTLY THE DISCIPLINE OF THE LORD, NOR FAINT WHEN YOU ARE REPROVED BY HIM;
6 FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES, AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES.”
7 father does not discipline?his 8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? 10 good, so that we may share His holiness.disciplines us**our 11 All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.
12 Therefore, strengthen the hands that are weak and the knees that are feeble, 13 which is lame may not be put out of joint, but rather be healed.the limb
14 Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord. 15 See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled; 16 .hat there be**single 17 For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.
I do appreciate that you have researched the issue of contraceptive methods that prevent implantation or cause abortion and recognize that these are immoral since they can result in ending a life that has already begun. Many people don’t realize this.
- Status