Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

[1234]

Then why are you on this thread?

…and “slave to one’s own opinion”? What does that even possibly mean? Your entire post here is about yielding to hierarchy and dogma, but you call Protestants “slaves to their own opinions”? Yeah, I confess that I am a “slave” to independence of thought. Guilty as charged!

Hear, hear!

Also what is wrong with illegitimate children, pray tell? I know a number of them, all much loved by their parents. Interesting that as a ‘faithful’ Catholic, you would despise them. Avoiding illegitimacy was one of the strongest arguments for abortion in the old days.

 

[rev_kevin]

And how is that passage supposed to support artificial contraception?

But we do not say either that sex is simply for procreation but it is it’s primary goal. As St Paul said, you must give yourselves to each other. But artificial contraception is making a lie of that self donation .

And did it also say that one should should artificial contraception to stop the formation of life? I didn’t see that one so perhaps you could tell me which verse says that.
You are right, the Bible does not say that it is wrong to have sex without the intent of procreation. Sex is a wonderful thing that God Himself designed for us. But one thing God did not say is that you may indulge in this but use artificial means to stop conception.

I refer you to the passage regarding Onan.

Furthermore, until 1930, EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION SAW ARTIFICIAL CONTRACEPTION AS INTRINSICALLY EVIL.

Now, how can something that is wrong for one thousand nine hundred thirty years suddenly become right?

It supports it because if you want to have relations with your spouse strictly for pleasure and not to have children then contraception is a way to do it.

No it don’t say that one should us contraception in that verse, but in the same way it don’t say not to, does it? Tell me which verse says not to.

Yes sex is a wonderful thing that God gave us but if God didn’t want us to indulge in it why did he make it pleasurable? He didn’t make us like animals that have intercourse to strictly procreate. He made it pleasurable for us, to enjoy our spouse in a loving way. And no where in the Bible does it say not to use any type of contraception.

About the story of Onan. In verses 9-10 it says that Onan was not willing to have a child who would not be his own heir. (Here Onan wanted the child to be his heir not his brothers)
So whenever he had intercourse with Tamar, he spilled the semen on the ground to keep her from having a baby who would belong to his brother. ( Once again Onan wanted the child to be his own and not his brothers) But the Lord considered it a wicked thing for Onan to deny a child to his dead brother. (It wasn’t the spilling of the semen on the ground that the Lord saw as wicked it was the deny a child to his dead brother that the Lord found wicked) So the Lord took Onan’s life too.

Now lets look at what the Lord found to be wicked. "But the Lord considered it a wicked thing FOR Onan to DENY a child to his DEAD brother. Its not the act of contraception that the Lord found to be wicked but the denying a child to his dead brother the child.

Just because something was considered wrong for many,many years don’t mean that it is right. It may take many, many, many years to see that it was wrong.

 

[larkin31]

It supports it because if you want to have relations with your spouse strictly for pleasure and not to have children then contraception is a way to do it.

No it don’t say that one should us contraception in that verse, but in the same way it don’t say not to, does it? Tell me which verse says not to.

Yes sex is a wonderful thing that God gave us but if God didn’t want us to indulge in it why did he make it pleasurable? He didn’t make us like animals that have intercourse to strictly procreate. He made it pleasurable for us, to enjoy our spouse in a loving way. And no where in the Bible does it say not to use any type of contraception.

About the story of Onan. In verses 9-10 it says that Onan was not willing to have a child who would not be his own heir. (Here Onan wanted the child to be his heir not his brothers)
So whenever he had intercourse with Tamar, he spilled the semen on the ground to keep her from having a baby who would belong to his brother. ( Once again Onan wanted the child to be his own and not his brothers) But the Lord considered it a wicked thing for Onan to deny a child to his dead brother. (It wasn’t the spilling of the semen on the ground that the Lord saw as wicked it was the deny a child to his dead brother that the Lord found wicked) So the Lord took Onan’s life too.

Now lets look at what the Lord found to be wicked. "But the Lord considered it a wicked thing FOR Onan to DENY a child to his DEAD brother. Its not the act of contraception that the Lord found to be wicked but the denying a child to his dead brother the child.

Just because something was considered wrong for many,many years don’t mean that it is right. It may take many, many, many years to see that it was wrong.

good points.

 

[larkin31]

Hear, hear!

Also what is wrong with illegitimate children, pray tell? …

After all, according to the story, Jesus was not Joseph’s son! Joseph, of course, had to receive explanatory information from an angel or he would have been outraged!

 

[rev_kevin]

After all, Jesus was not Joseph’s son!

Good point

 

[TracyR]

You write about 1000 words, but you’re “not he[re] to debate it”? Just so you know, this IS a thread challenging the Protestant defense of ABC. If you don’t want to debate it with even a “former” Protestant, then I suggest you find another thread in the apologetics forum.

The best defense of ABC is that Jesus never cares about the issue and that the Onan passage is about disobedience about God’s specific command to him to make a child with a specific woman for a specific plan. Onan was not even married to the woman. The Genesis exhortation to “be fruitful and multiply” is nothing close to “having sex and avoiding conception is a sin”. Even many Catholics feel like the Church fathers have gone too far with these interpretations into the extreme realm of controlling physical intimacy between man and wife in the modern world.

Thanks for counting all my words.
No I’m not going to debate it with you and the last I knew it wasn’t a debate but a question on defending a stance that doesn’t exist.
You are a very confused individual and your title shows that.

I am a former Protestant and I know what I’ve learned throughtout the years and I know what it true and what is not. What you say makes no sense whatsoever. And the last I knew I didn’t need your permission to post on a thread with my opinion. Since you seem so hostile to my thread you know it holds truth.
From what I read here I do not see any Catholics challenging or saying that the Church fathers have taken it to far. I think that is your interpretation alone.

As for the post of a Baptist minister on this thread, he has proven my point about who makes the laws about contraception/ ABC in the Protestant church. The laws are governed by the person who is preaching from the pulpit. Once he retires there may come someone who believes differently from him and then the rule and belief will change. I know exactly how it works. I will continue my stance that you can not defend something that isn’t a law in the Protestant faith. There is no true stance about ABC in the Protestant faith. So therefore you can not defend it. If you believe it in , then you do. If you don’t then you don’t. It depends on the teachings of that particular faith. It is not taught to be morally wrong in the Protestant faith.

As for sex in the modern world. Please. We live in a throw away, no accountibility society. People need to learn accountiblity. Period.
I don’t think its strict at all but honestly about common sense.

I will pray for you because you are a very bitter individual, and I will not allow you to bully me on this thread. May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

 

[rev_kevin]

Thanks for counting all my words.
No I’m not going to debate it with you and the last I knew it wasn’t a debate but a question on defending a stance that doesn’t exist.
You are a very confused individual and your title shows that.

I am a former Protestant and I know what I’ve learned throughtout the years and I know what it true and what is not. What you say makes no sense whatsoever. And the last I knew I didn’t need your permission to post on a thread with my opinion. Since you seem so hostile to my thread you know it holds truth.
From what I read here I do not see any Catholics challenging or saying that the Church fathers have taken it to far. I think that is your interpretation alone.

As for the post of a Baptist minister on this thread, he has proven my point about who makes the laws about contraception/ ABC in the Protestant church. The laws are governed by the person who is preaching from the pulpit. Once he retires there may come someone who believes differently from him and then the rule and belief will change. I know exactly how it works. I will continue my stance that you can not defend something that isn’t a law in the Protestant faith. There is no true stance about ABC in the Protestant faith. So therefore you can not defend it. If you believe it in , then you do. If you don’t then you don’t. It depends on the teachings of that particular faith. It is not taught to be morally wrong in the Protestant faith.

As for sex in the modern world. Please. We live in a throw away, no accountibility society. People need to learn accountiblity. Period.
I don’t think its strict at all but honestly about common sense.

I will pray for you because you are a very bitter individual, and I will not allow you to bully me on this thread. May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

As far as the Baptist minister on this thread, I assume that would be me. So please tell me what point did I make for you? Can you show me where in the Bible it say not to use contraception? Can you show me where in the Bible it says its alright to use contraception? You can’t because neither of them exist in the Bible. Why is contraception morally wrong? Because the CC tell you it is. Where in the Bible does it say that it is morally wrong? You can’t because no where in the Bible does it say its morally wrong.

 

[1234]

After all, according to the story, Jesus was not Joseph’s son! Joseph, of course, had to receive explanatory information from an angel or he would have been outraged!

Yes, in the old days, when there was plenty of abortion for illegitimacy. Lots of septic abortion with death for the mother and fetus. Lots of deaths due to abortions by desperate women who were already mothers of many children. Abortion has been around since women got pregnant. If you don’t treat out of wedlock pregnancy as a catastrophe, you will decrease the incidence of abortion.

 

[1234]

As far as the Baptist minister on this thread, I assume that would be me. So please tell me what point did I make for you? Can you show me where in the Bible it say not to use contraception? Can you show me where in the Bible it says its alright to use contraception? You can’t because neither of them exist in the Bible. Why is contraception morally wrong? Because the CC tell you it is. Where in the Bible does it say that it is morally wrong? You can’t because no where in the Bible does it say its morally wrong.

Catholics use the Onan-spilling-his-seed argument, and take a large extrapolation from this single, specific incident. I think that all Christians, but especially Catholics, are on very shaky ground in using the Old Testament to support their arguments. I would consult learned Jewish rabbis and Jewish OT scholars who are experts in Old Testament Hebrew to get an opinion on that text.

 

[rev_kevin]

Catholics use the Onan-spilling-his-seed argument, and take a large extrapolation from this single, specific incident. I think that all Christians, but especially Catholics, are on very shaky ground in using the Old Testament to support their arguments. I would consult learned Jewish rabbis and Jewish OT scholars who are experts in Old Testament Hebrew to get an opinion on that text.

Yes I see what you are saying about consulting a Jewish Rabbi.
But if you read what is being said in those 2 verses its clear that the Lord was upset about Onan not willing to give his dead brother a baby, not because he spilled his semen on the ground.

 

[larkin31]

Thanks for counting all my words.
No I’m not going to debate it with you and the last I knew it wasn’t a debate but a question on defending a stance that doesn’t exist.
You are a very confused individual and your title shows that.

I am a former Protestant and I know what I’ve learned throughtout the years and I know what it true and what is not. What you say makes no sense whatsoever. And the last I knew I didn’t need your permission to post on a thread with my opinion. Since you seem so hostile to my thread you know it holds truth.
From what I read here I do not see any Catholics challenging or saying that the Church fathers have taken it to far. I think that is your interpretation alone.

As for the post of a Baptist minister on this thread, he has proven my point about who makes the laws about contraception/ ABC in the Protestant church. The laws are governed by the person who is preaching from the pulpit. Once he retires there may come someone who believes differently from him and then the rule and belief will change. I know exactly how it works. I will continue my stance that you can not defend something that isn’t a law in the Protestant faith. There is no true stance about ABC in the Protestant faith. So therefore you can not defend it. If you believe it in , then you do. If you don’t then you don’t. It depends on the teachings of that particular faith. It is not taught to be morally wrong in the Protestant faith.

As for sex in the modern world. Please. We live in a throw away, no accountibility society. People need to learn accountiblity. Period.
I don’t think its strict at all but honestly about common sense.

I will pray for you because you are a very bitter individual, and I will not allow you to bully me on this thread. May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

I am not bitter at all. I love the information and exchanges I learn here. I think that it is simply your feelings are hurt on a thread that challenges Protestants to defend ABC. I have repeatedly defended use of ABC and given very clear reasons.

 

[benedictus2]

The best defense of ABC is that Jesus never cares about the issue

Oh yeah! The fact that it was never brought up before him means that everyone knew it was a no-no.

and that the Onan passage is about disobedience about God’s specific command to him to make a child with a specific woman for a specific plan. Onan was not even married to the woman.

http://www.users.interport.net/l/a/lanat/Contraception.htm

I am going to be lazy and do a cut and paste here from this web page
users.interport.net/l/a/lanat/Contraception.htm

If contraception was all fine and dandy, why didn’t Moses talk about how to do it “right”? Moses gave a LOT of very specific rules for a lot of different things in Leviticus, even things as mundane as how to properly clean mold off walls, or cleanse oneself after having their menses… but no where at all does he mention proper ways to use contraception. Not with herbs, not with any of the other methods and techniques that were common with the Greeks, Romans, Persians Egyptians and Babylonians …

Many point to the passage regarding the sin of Onan, who was put to death by God, for spilling his seed on the ground, and say that it merely had to do with his refusing to impregnate his brother’s wife, according to law at that time. Well, for one thing, punishment at that time for that offense, that is, the breaking of the leverate law, was not death, it was a public shaming, but not death. But God put Onan to death, why?

It is also the ONLY time a sexual act is graphically depicted in the Bible. Euphemisms are used at every other instance. Yet, in this case, the inspired author of Genesis is graphically specific about what is occurring. Why?

The implications of this for Genesis 38:9, where Onan’s sexual act is described in extraordinarily explicit terms, are pretty clear. At least to me, and apparently for one thousand nine hundred and thirty years of Christians… the passages regarding Onan were NOT about masturbation, or ancient quaint laws, as many like to believe. Onan’s spilling of his seed upon the ground was his method of CONTRACEPTION, and for this, God put him to death. God did.… not the Jews, God…

The Genesis exhortation to “be fruitful and multiply” is nothing close to “having sex and avoiding conception is a sin”. Even many Catholics feel like the Church fathers have gone too far with these interpretations into the extreme realm of controlling physical intimacy between man and wife in the modern world.

What many Catholics feel like has nothing to do with whether an act is moral or not. Just because someone feels like doing something does not make it moral.

 

[benedictus2]

Good point

Well duh! How does that make it a good point.

Are you saying that God is condoning adultery and fornication? Because that "good point’ means exactly that.

Is this how you justify evil by saying that god approves of it?

You are so losing your hold on Christian morals all in your effort to defend the indefensible.

 

[LongJohnSilver]

Catholics use the Onan-spilling-his-seed argument, and take a large extrapolation from this single, specific incident. I think that all Christians, but especially Catholics, are on very shaky ground in using the Old Testament to support their arguments. I would consult learned Jewish rabbis and Jewish OT scholars who are experts in Old Testament Hebrew to get an opinion on that text.

Well, do that, and you’ll be suprised to learn that the traditional Jewish interpretation is the same as the Catholic: that Onan was killed because he sinned against life.

 

[benedictus2]

It supports it because if you want to have relations with your spouse strictly for pleasure and not to have children then contraception is a way to do it.

Well noooo it doesn’t. Just because God made sex pleasurable does not mean that it is an end in itself. The command was to “go and multiply” NOT to copulate to your heart’s content and while your at it employ every contraption possible to prevent the creation of an eternal soul.

No it don’t say that one should us contraception in that verse, but in the same way it don’t say not to, does it? Tell me which verse says not to.

I referred you before to Onan.

Yes sex is a wonderful thing that God gave us but if God didn’t want us to indulge in it why did he make it pleasurable?

And who said God did not want us to indulge in it? Of course He does. But God Himself has decreed through nature that the likely consequence of sex is babies.

As i said before, you want sexual bulimia - you want the pleasure but not the consequence.

He didn’t make us like animals that have intercourse to strictly procreate. He made it pleasurable for us, to enjoy our spouse in a loving way. And no where in the Bible does it say not to use any type of contraception.

Exactly! He did not make us animals. Animals can’t control their urge. When they are in heat, they are in heat period.

We on the other hand are human beings with intelligence, soul and free will.

We can control our lustful inclinations.

God has not completely decreed that you completely abstain from sex if for some very grave reason you need to control birth. That is why He has also made woman in such a way as there are fertile and non-fertile periods.

Note however that there has to be a grave reason for doing this. The one command that we know God has decreed is to be fruitful.

About the story of Onan. In verses 9-10 it says that Onan was not willing to have a child who would not be his own heir. (Here Onan wanted the child to be his heir not his brothers)
So whenever he had intercourse with Tamar, he spilled the semen on the ground to keep her from having a baby who would belong to his brother. ( Once again Onan wanted the child to be his own and not his brothers) But the Lord considered it a wicked thing for Onan to deny a child to his dead brother. (It wasn’t the spilling of the semen on the ground that the Lord saw as wicked it was the deny a child to his dead brother that the Lord found wicked) So the Lord took Onan’s life too.

The punishment for not having children by your brother was public humiliation not death. And the punishment is supposed to be meted out by the Jews not God.

rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

The childless widow, in the presence of the town elders, was authorized to remove her uncooperative brother-in-law’s sandal and spit in his face for his refusal to marry her. He was then supposed to receive an uncomplimentary nick-name - "the Unshod. But since he nonetheless became sole owner of his deceased brother’s house and goods, ** it is evident that his offence was scarcely considered a serious or criminal one - much less one deserving of death. Death, however, is precisely what Onan deserved, according to Genesis. It follows that * those who say his only offence was infringement of the levirate marriage custom need to explain why such an offence was punished by the Lord so much more drastically in the case of Onan than than it subsequently was under the Mosaic law***

Also Gen 38:10 states
What he DID greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too.
Onan was killed not for what he did not do (have children by his brother’s wife) but for what he DID (spill his seed)

Now lets look at what the Lord found to be wicked. "But the Lord considered it a wicked thing FOR Onan to DENY a child to his DEAD brother. Its not the act of contraception that the Lord found to be wicked but the denying a child to his dead brother the child.

Well no. Verse 10 DOES NOT SAY THAT AT ALL.
That is a a sin of omission. What Onan was punished for was for what he DID, sin of commission.

Just because something was considered wrong for many,many years don’t mean that it is right. It may take many, many, many years to see that it was wrong.

I think you ought to re-read what you have written here before it does not make sense.

Perhaps what you means is “just because something was considered wrong for many yeears don’t meant that it is WRONG”. THAT, makes sense.

But do you even realize what you are saying here? You are saying that there is no such thing as objective morality. Why, murder is probably okay we just have not realized it yet?

But you know what, the kind of thinking you have is actually in force now. At the rate they are killing babies, it is true, we have now come to a time when murder is no longer a sin.

 

[benedictus2]

Catholics use the Onan-spilling-his-seed argument, and take a large extrapolation from this single, specific incident. I think that all Christians, but especially Catholics, are on very shaky ground in using the Old Testament to support their arguments. I would consult learned Jewish rabbis and Jewish OT scholars who are experts in Old Testament Hebrew to get an opinion on that text.

Well, do that, and you’ll be suprised to learn that the traditional Jewish interpretation is the same as the Catholic: that Onan was killed because he sinned against life.

Yes, that is correct. I suggest that you have a read of this page, 1234.

rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

 

[benedictus2]

Thanks for counting all my words.
No I’m not going to debate it with you and the last I knew it wasn’t a debate but a question on defending a stance that doesn’t exist.
You are a very confused individual and your title shows that.

I completely agree.

 

[benedictus2]

I am not bitter at all. I love the information and exchanges I learn here. I think that it is simply your feelings are hurt on a thread that challenges Protestants to defend ABC. I have repeatedly defended use of ABC and given very clear reasons.

No you haven’t. You have given very weak reasons which have been easily rebutted (and this goes not just for this thread but for others).

And when your arguments are refuted convincingly you ignore them so you can keep continuing on believing the lie that you believe in.

It’s called intellectual dishonesty.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes I see what you are saying about consulting a Jewish Rabbi.
But if you read what is being said in those 2 verses its clear that the Lord was upset about Onan not willing to give his dead brother a baby, not because he spilled his semen on the ground.

Nope. If you read the link in my earlier reply, that goes into Jewish understanding of Onan’s sin.

What is also interesting is that this became traditionally known as Onanism.

Also, I get the feeling that you are not comfortable with 1234s suggestion of consulting a Rabbi? Why? Afraid that they might disagree with your understanding of this text?

 

[TracyR]

No you haven’t. You have given very weak reasons which have been easily rebutted (and this goes not just for this thread but for others).

And when your arguments are refuted convincingly you ignore them so you can keep continuing on believing the lie that you believe in.

It’s called intellectual dishonesty.

Honestly I am not hurt at all. Please don’t make your feelings my own because they aren’t.

Anyways the original question is : Protestants Defend your use of Artificial Contraception.

They really can’t. There are no hard or steadfast rules or laws within the Protestant faith for artificial contraception. Its all about you. If you believe in it, then fine use it, if you don’t then don’t use it.
There is no true stance on the matter. If there is a stance, its from the preacher from the pulpit. Not rules governed by the Methodist, Baptist, Christian missionary Alliance, Presbyterian, Assemblies of God, Christian Science , and all the other ones in between church rules.

I hope my point is coming across. Its that darned " me, myself and I" again. You might believe that, but I don’t thing again.

So really there is no reason that ABC should be used. Not only does it mess with a woman’s body and their hormones,its just shear laziness because you are saying you can’t control yourself.

NFP is not denying a husband anything. Being a woman and all the last I knew women only menstrate one week out of a month. Its definitely in the Bible that a man should not have sex with their wives during mentrastion. So a woman ovulates once, maybe twice in a month. The last I knew there were 30 to 31 days in a month. So there are plenty of days that a woman could make love with their husband. They won’t shrivel and die if their wife says " Today’s not a good day, hun." Honestly.
Plus there are so many other ways of making love with your husband, such as spending time with each other, cuddling in bed, or cuddling together watching a movie, giving each other a kiss, having a wonderful dinner together without the kids. There is more to making love with your husband than just sex. And if its not then you are using your wife as an object. End of story. Women were created to be more than sexual objects.God created us with a purpose and we are more complex than any man on the planet.

I even had this discussion with my sister who is still Protestant. She also agrees with me 100% so this is not something that it totally made up by me. Sorry to say.

I grew up in the Protestant faith. I’ve just about been to them all : Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Evengelical,Christian Missionary Alliance etc. So I know exactly what I’m talking about. I don’t need someone who doubts in the existance in God to tell me so.

I continue to hold my faith in God and pray someday you will too. I think the best line of defense is to continue to pray for you.

Please by all means back up what your saying. please show me that what I’m saying is otherwise according to the Westminster Catechism.
I’ll include the link… If anyone on here albeit Catholic , Protestant or Other can p(name removed by moderator)oint and show me where in the Protestant catechism where is says anything about birth control in it please let me know.
Otherwise the rules and laws on this topic is setforth by the person preaching from the pulpit.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.v.html

p.s Sorry Benedictus 2. I clicked the wrong quote. This wasn’t directed to you:blush: But the fellow who thought that my feelings are hurt. LOL