Problably going to regret posting this

[TimothyH]

hmmmm, then i guess i will ask this, why believe something that is not Biblical?

and the verses that i have been shown are all old testament, which would be Jewish law, not modern.

Not everything Christian is in the Bible.

There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written. (John 21:25)

Believing that there are things which are Christian yet not in the Bible is biblical.

-Tim-

 

[EternalJade]

I assume you will reject the notion that Onan showed that contraception was wrong however if you deny the means of which birth can be morally regulated you cannot deny the reasons by which the decision to have a child so be based on that are spelled out in Humane Vitae. The mentality that “children are the greatest gift that God can give us” is at the forefront throughout the Bible and cannot be denied. I would hope that even if a couple does not accept the Church’s teachings on contraception, they still give themselves over to prayerfully considering if they have serious reasons completely devoid of selfishness for not allowing God to bring another child into being.

Yes, I believe that the lesson to be learned from Onan is centred on disobedience to God. And, I totally agree with what is bolded above! This should apply to everyone no matter what method they use to space their children.

 

[ahs]

Read this: catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

Then come back if you have questions.

I have to +1 this. I found that incredibly helpful when I read it just now. That answered every question/comcern that’s been mentioned in this thread so far, I believe.

 

[Nate13]

Yes, I believe that the lesson to be learned from Onan is centred on disobedience to God. And, I totally agree with what is bolded above! This should apply to everyone no matter what method they use to space their children.

Have you really looked into the story of Onan?

matt1618.freeyellow.com/birthcontrol.html

Whether you think in the end he was killed only for disobedience or more directly for the act he committed itself, the biblical language used to describe the act committed tells the story in and of itself.

 

[TimothyH]

To follow on to Nate’s post above, the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception, and all of Protestantism’s teaching until the 1930’s for that matter, is rooted firmly in scripture. Here is my standard explanation of the biblical and reasons behind the Church’s teaching that contraception is a sin. Take it or leave it. It’s up to you.

============

God’s law as given to Israel through Moses upheld the traditional Jewish understanding of how important it was to have a male heir and to perpetuate the family name and blood line.

"When brothers live together and one of them dies without a son, the widow of the deceased shall not marry anyone outside the family; but her husband’s brother shall go to her and perform the duty of a brother-in-law by marrying her. The first-born son she bears shall continue the line of the deceased brother, that his name may not be blotted out from Israel. If, however, a man does not care to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go up to the elders at the gate and declare, ‘My brother-in-law does not intend to perform his duty toward me and refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel.’ Thereupon the elders of his city shall summon him and admonish him. If he persists in saying, ‘I am not willing to marry her,’ his sister-in-law, in the presence of the elders, shall go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, saying publicly, ‘This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother’s family!’ And his lineage shall be spoken of in Israel as ‘the family of the man stripped of his sandal.’ (Deuteronomy 25:5-10)

Perpetuating the family name and having a male heir was so important that if a married man died without a son, his brother was responsible for raising his heir with his dead brother’s widow. The surviving brother would incur the expense and bear the responsibility for caring for the widow and raising the child, but the child would not be counted as his. Instead, the son would inherit the estate of his mother’s deceased husband. The God given penalty for not doing so was public humiliation.

Then Judah said to Onan, “Unite with your brother’s widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother’s line.” Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too. (Genesis 38:8-10)

In not raising an heir on behalf of his dead brother, Onan disobeyed God’s law. But God punsished Onan far in excess of what God’s own law demanded. God himself set the punishment of public humiliation for not raising his brother’s heir yet God did not mete out the punishment which his own law demanded. Instead God handed down the harshest possible punishment, death. Why?

Because when man and woman unite in sexual union, man brings the sperm, woman brings the egg and God brings the spirit. Without the spirit, the sperm may penetrate the egg but there is no conception. Without the spirit there is no life. This is why sexual union between husband and wife in the context of a committed relationship is a holy act. When man and woman unite, God is present in a special way. Man and woman bring the created parts necissary for a human body but God alone brings the spirit created in His image required for that body to be alive. In so doing, God allows man and woman to become participants in one of the greatest things He does, creating a human life. Man and woman thus become co-creators of human life in cooperation with God.

Under the mosaic law, Onan’s punishment made perfect sense. Any eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. When Onan withdrew and spilled his seed, he denied God the opportunity to create a life, and his life was demanded of him in return.

A life for a life.

To use a woman for your own personal enjoyment while denying God the opportunity to create a new life is an insult to God. Onan’s punishment, far in excess of what was demanded for refusing to raise his brother’s heir, bears witness to his real crime, which was denying God the opportunity to create a new life. This is not my own intepretation; it is the teaching of 1500 years of Jewish tradition and twenty centuries of Christian belief which is clearly laid out in the oldest books of the Bible.

============

There it is, in a nutshell. This is not my own interpetation. It is a paraphrase of Blessed John Paul II’s own interptetation. So if you disagree with what was stated above, you disagree with Blessed John Paul II, no me. And it doesn’t really matter to me exept when otherwise faithful Catholics are told that Contraception is not a sin. Except when my 14 year old daughter is told that it is not a sin. That’s when it matters to me. Other than that, like I said, anyone can take it or leave it. It’s up to you.

-Tim-

 

[ahs]

To follow on to Nate’s post above, the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception, and all of Protestantism’s teaching until the 1930’s for that matter, is rooted firmly in scripture…

============

… Onan’s punishment, far in excess of what was demanded for refusing to raise his brother’s heir, bears witness to his real crime, which was denying God the opportunity to create a new life. This is not my own intepretation; it is the teaching of 1500 years of Jewish tradition and twenty centuries of Christian belief which is clearly laid out in the oldest books of the Bible for anyone who cares to read.

============

The article Nate13 posted really puts it into perspective along with the above. “1500 years of Jewish tradition and twenty centuries of Christian belief which is clearly laid out in the oldest books of the Bible for anyone who cares to read…” and then suddenly after 1,930 years of Christianity (if you start from Christ’s Birth )someone decides, “oh, wait…that’s rather inconvenient for our modern lifestyle…I’d like to offer a new spin on what that scripture verse means…”

(Second “quote” is not actually a quote.)

 

[EternalJade]

Have you really looked into the story of Onan?

matt1618.freeyellow.com/birthcontrol.html

Whether you think in the end he was killed only for disobedience or more directly for the act he committed itself, the biblical language used to describe the act committed tells the story in and of itself.

I think that the penalty for spilling seed was public washing, not death. I think that if Onan had decided to disobey God by not engaging in the act at all, he would have still met with the same fate. “what he did” that greatly offended God was to refuse to give his brother an heir.

Birth control was common even in biblical times, and God knows all. So God had to know that times would change to where everyone could not feasibly have a baby every year, and so therefore like with all other things that could endanger your soul, he would have spelled it out plainly. Even if times hadn’t changed, it would have been spelled out clearly in my opinion. After all, everything else is. Even people who are not Christian at all, cannot argue that Christians should not steal, commit adultery, fornicate, etc. It’s so plain that anyone can understand it for what it is.

 

[ahs]

I think that the penalty for spilling seed was public washing, not death. I think that if Onan had decided to disobey God by not engaging in the act at all, he would have still met with the same fate. “what he did” that greatly offended God was to refuse to give his brother an heir…

You didn’t read either article, did you…it’s spelled out pretty plainly.

 

[EternalJade]

You didn’t read either article, did you…it’s spelled out pretty plainly.

yes, I did read the link. It didn’t change my thinking though. This has been my one problem with the church and believe me I have tried to understand it. I actually took a 6 month break from converting just because of this problem. The problem is, if a barrier method is wrong, then NFP is too. You can’t focus on the inaction of one method and the action of the other while at the same time pretending the intentions aren’t the same and as an added bonus, attributing negative mindsets to the contracepting couple that are outright not true. Comparing them logically, they are the same morally.

 

[PJM]

=Ruthyankees;8202308]i am sure this has been explained, but. i see lots of arguments against contraception, one argument in particular read something along the lines of, condoms are wrong, Jesus preached about it.
i am curious as too what the Biblical backup of this is.
i understand thou shalt not kill. but why is preventing so wrong?

Jesus WHO IS GOD [One God co-equal and co-eternal Father, SON, and holy Spirit], did in FACT in a most dramatic manner address this issue directly. What God say’s in the OT certainly applies to the current times.

Gen.38: 6-10 “And Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah’s first-born, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. Then Judah [the Father of both sons] 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." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.

***God never changes His teaching> ****** Mal.3: 6 “For I the LORD do not change;” ***

God ALONE is the author of Life and Death issues. Any and ALL attemps to USURP God’s rightful authority will be revenged.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Nate13]

I think that the penalty for spilling seed was public washing, not death. I think that if Onan had decided to disobey God by not engaging in the act at all, he would have still met with the same fate. “what he did” that greatly offended God was to refuse to give his brother an heir.

Birth control was common even in biblical times, and God knows all. So God had to know that times would change to where everyone could not feasibly have a baby every year, and so therefore like with all other things that could endanger your soul, he would have spelled it out plainly. Even if times hadn’t changed, it would have been spelled out clearly in my opinion. After all, everything else is. Even people who are not Christian at all, cannot argue that Christians should not steal, commit adultery, fornicate, etc. It’s so plain that anyone can understand it for what it is.

Yeah well homosexuality is spelled out pretty clear and people still argue that haha. Also, God did foresee us not all be able to have 10 kids each. How many days out of the month is a women fertile? 2. Do you think its coincidence that God made our bodies like this? If he wanted us to all pump out kids no matter what, a women would be fertile 100% of the time.

Even people who are not Christian at all, cannot argue that Christians should not steal, commit adultery, fornicate, etc. It’s so plain that anyone can understand it for what it is.

I think you need to get out more. It is not as apparent to some as you would think i.e Libya? Egypt? Adultery is pretty common place in America as well and most American’s steal music?

 

[Bookcat]

The Compendium of the Catechism which was issued by Pope Benedict XVI…gives a nice brief outline.

1. What are the goods of conjugal love to which sexuality is ordered?

2360-2361
2397-2398

The goods of conjugal love, which for those who are baptized is sanctified by the sacrament of Matrimony, are unity, fidelity, indissolubility, and an openness to the procreation of life.

1. What is the meaning of the conjugal act?

2362-2367

The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life). No one may break the inseparable connection which God has established between these two meanings of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other of them.

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

1. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

 

[EternalJade]

Yeah well homosexuality is spelled out pretty clear and people still argue that haha. Also, God did foresee us not all be able to have 10 kids each. How many days out of the month is a women fertile? 2. Do you think its coincidence that God made our bodies like this? If he wanted us to all pump out kids no matter what, a women would be fertile 100% of the time.

They argue it, yes, but it’s still extremely clear. As for the rest, with no bc whatsoever I’m willing to bet that many women would have several more children over their lifetime than they would otherwise have. But, I would go so far as to say that sex is more for unity than procreation, since fertile days are much fewer than infertile. Procreation is a wonderful gift, but sex definitely isn’t just for procreation. So, I agree with most of what you write above. What I don’t agree with is that wearing a piece of rubber is somehow worse than “I don’t want our reproductive organs anywhere near each other when I may be fertile because I don’t want there to be the least, tiniest chance that God could create a baby”. Sorry, that isn’t logical. There is nothing virtuous in waiting for there to be 0% chance of conception to engage in the act. It’s also not too virtuous to abstain out of the fear that a pregnancy could result.

I think you need to get out more. It is not as apparent to some as you would think i.e Libya? Egypt? Adultery is pretty common place in America as well and most American’s steal music?

You are oversimplifying what I wrote, and I think you know that. I didn’t say that having the knowledge would stop people from sinning, I said people who aren’t Christian could research the faith and it would be apparent to them that Christians should not do those things, because God has made sure to spell out what is a danger to our souls.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Ruthyankees
hmmmm, then i guess i will ask this, why believe something that is not Biblical?

and the verses that i have been shown are all old testament, which would be Jewish law, not modern.

Christians do not practice the Jewish Laws of purification because they have been fulfilled by Christ. In Him, with Him and through Him we are purified. This however does not mean everything in the Old Testament does not apply to Christians. If that’s the case let’s just throughout the 10 commandments!

My dear friend in Christ,

Your logic is off a bit. Are the Commandments voided simply because they were given in the OT? Of course not

God is unchangable: What God deststed then; God Detest NOW!

Christ KNOWING that he would soom suffer and die; desireing that His 3 year Ministry NOT be in vain; not be voided; did exactly what you or I would do. He took the necessary steps to insure that the Time od His Visitation WOULD NOT go to waste, and that what he taught would be valid FOREVER.

Thuis He, Jesus, made Peter the “Keeper of the Key’s to heaven” [Mt. 16:18-19, Mt, 18:18], and KNOWING that Peter and the Apostles would live shortened lives due to pursectution, He structured and set up His Church.

Authority is one thing; but with out the necessary powers to REQUIRE obedience in HIS Name it would be meaningless. So Our All WISE God gave to peter and the Apostles the SAME Powers that He Christ had while on earth:

**Mt. 16:18-19 **And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

FIRST TO PETER; THEN TO ALL OF THE APOSTOLES THROUGH PETER
Mt.18:18 “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”

**Matt.10: 1-5 ** "And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity. The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb’edee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans,

*** THEN after rising from the DEAD, He Confirms and AFIRMS there Power and Authority.***

John 20:19-23 "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Four CRITAL POINTS:

1. Jesus Sends the Apostles with His Power, and His Authority
2. Jesus commits the Holy Spirt to enlighten, protect and GUARD Her [the CC] Teaching Truths [John14:16-17; Jn. 17:15-19]
3. This is the official INAUGURATION OF THE CC
4. While this POWER and Authority are NOW transfered; Jesus COMMANDS the Holders of ALL SALVATION ACCESS to heaven, to Hear Cconfessions and to Forgive sins in His Name. [It remains God who does the forgiving] when authorized by HIS CATHOLIC PRIEST.

TO PRETEND that OT TEACHINGS are some how volided or invalid; is seriously dangerous to ones POSSIBLE Salvation.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Nate13]

“I don’t want our reproductive organs anywhere near each other when I may be fertile because I don’t want there to be the least, tiniest chance that God could create a baby”. Sorry, that isn’t logical. There is nothing virtuous in waiting for there to be 0% chance of conception to engage in the act. It’s also not too virtuous to abstain out of the fear that a pregnancy could result.

Sane reasoning says to me that I should respect the way a women’s body is made and therefore if there is a serious reason for not bringing a new life into the world I will choose not to have sex when this is most likely to happen instead of one of us taking measures to reject the way we were made so we can have sex anyways. Also I think the way you look at sex is somewhat weird. I’d assume most couples assuming we had no worries, no jobs, and all the time in the world would consummate their marriage on a regular basis possibly even every day. Therefore that is the default condition. The question is not “why should we have sex?”, it is “why shouldn’t we have sex?”. How is it not virtuous to respect how GOD has made a woman and work within the way we have been made? If someone was using NFP with the attitude you have described it would be a sin, but I believe that is where your folly lies in assuming everyone who uses it has the intent you described. It’s no secret that NFP can be misused, but contracepting is wrong no matter what.

Anyways, I believe the OP wanted biblical reasoning behind this issue so I will stop here. There are plenty of other topics that go into the philosophical/moral reasoning behind this topic.

 

[EternalJade]

Problem is, there really is no biblical reasoning, at least not any that is clear cut. I’ll overlook what you say about how I view sex because obviously people who contracept don’t have sex everyday, they simply don’t track fertility and then abstain just to avoid conception. And I do believe that if a person is using nfp to avoid, they have a contraceptive intent. Hence, both are equally sinful. I will go ahead and stop here as well, as I joined this forum for positive reasons.

 

[Corki]

Problem is, there really is no biblical reasoning, at least not any that is clear cut. I’ll overlook what you say about how I view sex because obviously people who contracept don’t have sex everyday, they simply don’t track fertility and then abstain just to avoid conception. And I do believe that if a person is using nfp to avoid, they have a contraceptive intent. Hence, both are equally sinful. I will go ahead and stop here as well, as I joined this forum for positive reasons.

Ok. But the logical conclusion to that line of thinking is to use neither contraception nor NFP but to practice no family planning or to abstain totally. Both are totally acceptable options according to Church teaching.

 

[Nate13]

Problem is, there really is no biblical reasoning, at least not any that is clear cut. I’ll overlook what you say about how I view sex because obviously people who contracept don’t have sex everyday, they simply don’t track fertility and then abstain just to avoid conception. And I do believe that if a person is using nfp to avoid, they have a contraceptive intent. Hence, both are equally sinful. I will go ahead and stop here as well, as I joined this forum for positive reasons.

We don’t have to redo this debate haha. If you look through past threads you will find plenty of chatter on this topic. Lets keep it to biblical references for this thread in respect to the OP.

 

[Nate13]

Ok. But the logical conclusion to that line of thinking is to use neither contraception nor NFP but to practice no family planning or to abstain totally.

Nope its obvious God doesn’t have any opinion in the matter what so ever…lots of sarcasm there

 

[EternalJade]

Ok. But the logical conclusion to that line of thinking is to use neither contraception nor NFP but to practice no family planning or to abstain totally.

Exactly!! I’m not saying that they are sins, but IF one of them is, they both are. Edit- technically speaking the bible tells us to only abstain for a time, so our option would just be no family planning, not permanent abstinence.

Thank you Nate13, I will keep up with this thread and hopefully learn something new that is biblical