Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

[Curious_Hobbit]

You need to read more about the history of Jewish teachings on birth control and the morality of sex without reproductive potential. The Jewish tradition is more flexible AND more complicated than how you have put it here. And presently today, as is true of Christianity today (and ACTUAL practice among Catholics today), the response to modern sexual morality over birth control is quite varied.

Well I know that Judaism has a few different sects and there are exceptions to birth control in some forms or in some cases and so on. However, Judaism has always understood that Onan was killed for wasting his seed on the ground.

Here’s from the Encyclopedia Judaica:

BIRTH CONTROL, Jewish tradition ascribed the practice of birth control to the depraved humanity before Noah (Gen. R. 23:2, 4; Rashi to Gen. 4:19, 23). The sole explicit reference in the Bible to what may be considered as some form of birth control occurs in Genesis 38:9–10: the Lord punished Onan by death because he had “spilled his seed on the ground” to prevent the birth of a child from the levirate marriage to his deceased brother’s wife Tamar.* On the strength of this passage, and as constituting a deliberate violation of the first commandment to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28), the Talmud sternly inveighs against “bringing forth the seed in vain,” considering it a cardinal sin (Nid. 13a).**

-The Encyclopedia Judaica (Vol.4,p.1054, article “Birth Control”)

ONANISM , term derived from the biblical narrative of Onan, son of Judah (Gen. 38, 7–10), who “spilled” his seed “on the ground.” Onanism refers to the thwarting of the sexual process in one of several ways. In Hebrew, it is called more fully ma’aseh Er ve-Onan (“the act of Er and Onan”) and is taken by the Midrash (Gen. R. 85:5; and by Rashi to the Pentateuch) to mean coitus interruptus and by the Talmud (Yev. 34b) to refer either to unnatural intercourse or (cf. Nid. 13a) to masturbation.

-The Encyclopedia Judaica (Vol. 12, p.1495, article “Onanism”)

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

In Gen 38:11, Judah promises Tamar his other son Shelah and in Gen 38:14 we learn that Shelah doesn’t fulfill his levirate duty to fulfill his brother’s line with Tamar. If Onan was killed for not fulfilling his levirate duties, then why wasn’t Shelah killed? It’s been pointed out several times that in Deut 25 the punishment for not fulfilling a levirate marriage is just public humiliation, not death.

Also, I’ve read that the hebrew word used to describe Onan’s “wasting/ spilling seed” is “shacath”. This word means to corrupt, destroy, devistate, etc. There are several places in the OT that speak of emission of seed and this is the only passage that uses the word “shacath”.

 

[rev_kevin]

Do you have a method by which you discern what tradition should stay and what should go?

Also, I still don’t see how you can get around the fact that Jesus was a Jew and Jews have always understood Onan being killed for spilling seed and that passage being a condemnation of birth control.

Ya I do have a method. Its called hearing it, listening to it, see if it stands to reason, and then I look at human nature and realize that things people say over a period of time have a way of changing, See when you tell someone something and they tell someone, and that someone tells someone and so on next thing you know what you said in the beginning is nothing close to what is being said now.I take all that into consideration and come up with my conclusion, Here’s how you descern it , They told me its true so I believe them, Its easy I don’t have to use my brain.

Ok the Jews always UNDERSTOOD, which they don’t know for fact, that Onan was killed for spilling his seed. Well thats fine, I UNDERSTAND it as he was killed for not fulfilling his obligation to his dead brother by giving him a child to carry on his name.

 

[larkin31]

Well I know that Judaism has a few different sects and there are exceptions to birth control in some forms or in some cases and so on. However, Judaism has always understood that Onan was killed for wasting his seed on the ground.

Yes, but you dismiss these other traditions and interpretations in two sentences. Only the most orthodox of Jews have taught what you indicate, and even they gave exceptions for young women or other dire circumstances. Other Jewish groups allow barrier contraception but NOT external ejaculation. Other groups allow contraception after both a son and a daughter have been born. Others allow all contraception.

No one denies that the most conservative Jews and the most conservative Christians read Onan basically the same way. This is no surprise. My point was to acknowledge the Jewish variety of response to this complicated issue instead of summing them all up as the same, as if there is a single “Jewish” outlook toward birth control.

Here’s from the Encyclopedia Judaica:

BIRTH CONTROL, Jewish tradition ascribed the practice of birth control to the depraved humanity before Noah (Gen. R. 23:2, 4; Rashi to Gen. 4:19, 23). The sole explicit reference in the Bible to what may be considered as some form of birth control occurs in Genesis 38:9–10: the Lord punished Onan by death because he had “spilled his seed on the ground” to prevent the birth of a child from the levirate marriage to his deceased brother’s wife Tamar.* On the strength of this passage, and as constituting a deliberate violation of the first commandment to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28), the Talmud sternly inveighs against “bringing forth the seed in vain,” considering it a cardinal sin (Nid. 13a).**

-The Encyclopedia Judaica (Vol.4,p.1054, article “Birth Control”)

ONANISM , term derived from the biblical narrative of Onan, son of Judah (Gen. 38, 7–10), who “spilled” his seed “on the ground.” Onanism refers to the thwarting of the sexual process in one of several ways. In Hebrew, it is called more fully ma’aseh Er ve-Onan (“the act of Er and Onan”) and is taken by the Midrash (Gen. R. 85:5; and by Rashi to the Pentateuch) to mean coitus interruptus and by the Talmud (Yev. 34b) to refer either to unnatural intercourse or (cf. Nid. 13a) to masturbation.

-The Encyclopedia Judaica (Vol. 12, p.1495, article “Onanism”)

See above.

 

[larkin31]

In Gen 38:11, Judah promises Tamar his other son Shelah and in Gen 38:14 we learn that Shelah doesn’t fulfill his levirate duty to fulfill his brother’s line with Tamar. If Onan was killed for not fulfilling his levirate duties, then why wasn’t Shelah killed? It’s been pointed out several times that in Deut 25 the punishment for not fulfilling a levirate marriage is just public humiliation, not death.

He displeased God. His brother was killed for the same reason (displeasing God). As many OT figures were. God isn’t even always consistent about his punishment. Was everyone punished the way Moses was?..

 

[adrift]

What in the world are you talking about? My post has nothing to do with a baby being still born. Sure there are couples that are told the shouldn’t try another pregnancy and I feel for them. If you would bother to read my posts you will see that if a couple can’t have a child the normal ways they can have a child through artifical conctraception. But the CC don’t see it that way. If they can’t have a child period then adoption is a option according to Catholics here of the CAF.

I have read your post. Do you? You stated that NFP was for selfish reasons. I responded that it was used for health reasons. You responded what health reasons. That is what this post is about. Read my post carefully and you will see why it has to do with health reasons.

 

[benedictus2]

Oh I see now. You critize those who have had children and decided not to have more but you yourself are denying yourself the gift and blessings of God by not having any children because you refuse to be married and therefore you are not helping in multiplying the earth as commanded by God. Is it God’s plan for you not to have children?

I think it is God’s plan for me not to be married. (check St Paul on that).

Now if I were to have children when I am not married, then that means I would have been guilty of fornication which would have been very much against God’s will.

If so then how in the world can you sit there and say that its not God’s plan for me or anyone with 2 or 5 children wasn’t God’s plan for us?

Because you are contracepting. You have sex and decided not to have the fruit of that sexual union which only God can decide.

I chose not to be married (or rather God I believe chose not o give me a husband). If I were married, then I would let God decide how many children I should have.

If you insist on having such intimacies, then you have to be open to God’s action with regards those intimacies, i.e. the possibility that He may want to bring a new life out of said intimacies.

You decided not to have children but if a couple alread has children and don’t want more you say their wrong.

Quite illogical. I did not decide not to have children. It so happened that I ended up not getting married. If I had gotten married, ABC would have been totally out of the question.

They are two very different things.

Would you say that St Paul decided not to have children so violated God’s command to go and multiply. Nothing could be more ludicrous.

You’re clutching at straws now. Your reasoning is going awry.

Once again how do you know that its not God’s plan for couples not to have more children?

When people practice ABC then you know that they are going against His plan.

**Let’s take you for example.

If you are so sure that God’s plan for you was only 5 children then why are you still using ABC. Surely, if you are sure that as far as God is concerned that is all the children that He wants you to have there would not be a need for ABC.**

It is precisely because you are afraid that sex with your wife will result in children that you practice ABC.

You don’t know what God wants from every single couple.

Yes, I do because He is quite clear about that. Everyone must be open to life once they decide to engage in sex.

It is wholly God’s domain whether a child will come out of that union or not.

You don’t know that if they have 2 children that that is all he wanted them to have.

Oh yes I do know. If they are not contracepting, then if they cease to have children then we know that that is how many children God wants them to have.

I mean some try to have more but are unable to have more because that is all that God wants them to have.

So long as you contracept, you denied God the sole right to determine how many children you should have. That is what ABC is all about.

I mean the term itself says it: against conception.

You don’t know that God don’t want them to use contraception so they don’t have more children but he wants them to enjoy and love eachother through sexual relations.

Nope. Because God forbade contraception. We have gone through the Biblical passages forbidding it.

You do not want to accept that Onan was a very strong Biblical support against contraception because it goes against your will.

I mean history shows that this is how Jews understood it and this is how Christians understood it. I mean even Luther and Calvin spoke scathingly about it.

So what makes you think you are right when for one nine hundred thirty years, Jews and Christians (even the founders of Protestantism) understood this passage as an indictiment of contraception and yet you think now you have the right to interpret it your own way?

 

[benedictus2]

You don’t know that God don’t want them to use contraception so they don’t have more children but he wants them to enjoy and love eachother through sexual relations.

And there goes the lie of the devil.

I am currently reading an excellent book called God and His Image by Fr Dominique Barthelemy.

There was a section where he gives an analysis of Adam and Eve’s fall and I thought this is exactly the process that people go through when they justify contraception.

Fr Barthelemy wrote :… the tree of knowledge of good and eveil denotes the possibility of man determining for himself what is good and what is evil, in other words, of becoming the principle of his own moral conscience…
Man would always like to make the scale of his desires into his scale of values and is always distressed to feel that what is good seems bitter to him and what is evil seems delightful. Here is a paradox, for there is the everlasting temptation in man to say to himself, "Well, I decree that henceforth what is delightful to me I will call good, and what is distasteful to me I will call evil".

A few pages down he elucidates on how we end up with this rationalization. He says Eve began responsible "when she left herself open to the fascination of the doubt, when she entertained the doubt " - the doubt here referring to "Did God really forbid it?

He continues: "….It was precisely then that she became responsible, at the moment when she began to dwell pleasurably on the eventuality, on that doubt which touched on the motive of the divine command, when she let her mind play with what the serpent suggested."

This is exactly the kind of process that people go through in their attempt to justify what is evil. People knew how to interpret Onan’s sin from the very beginning. There was no break in that understanding way back to the time of the Jews up to 1930.

Then the devil started to sow doubt, and people followed it because it is pleasurable.

Your reasonings are the same kind of lie that the devil told Eve. Everyone who believes in ABC believe in the devils lies. But of course the devil is subtle (as scripture says), he makes it look like its a good thing. But the end result is this, you become god, the determiner of what is good and what is evil.

If God wants them to have children then nothing will stand in his way and I mean nothing.

That is the most ludicrous thing you have ever said. Of course nothing is impossible to God but it does not mean that he will usurp your will.

This is precisely why we have so many ills in this world, because God will not usurp your will. If you want to disobey him you are free to do.

But what is most disturbing is that you couch this entrenched disobedience in rationalizations.

I quote Fr Barthelemy again. *
There is nothing dramatic in doing evil, provided man preserves a wide-awake conscience by which he can judge himself. The sinner who conscience remains lucid, even though it acts as a jarring discord that causes him inner suffering but which he cannot stifle, has not eaten the forbidden fruit. On the other hand, St Paul, in his Epistle to the Roman (1:32), speaks of those who not only do evil, but consent to those who do it. This gradation from “not only” to “but” seems surprising when we first read it. One is inclined to say that to consent to those who do evil is not as bad as actually doing it. Yet it is in fact worse, because the man who does evil may do it inspite of himself. but the moment he consents to evil for himself and for others, he has stifled his conscience, he has eaten the forbidden fruit. And is not this the sin against Spirit? Not only to fail to obey the Holy Spirit, but to endeavour to silence Him.*

Remember nothing is impossible with God.

You are rationalizing. And you know it too.

The question is not whether it is impossible for God to do it or not but what is His will?

Is it His will that you should put all kinds of barriers against His work of creation?

 

[benedictus2]

You say my was is idolatry but you can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that its not God plan for me or for anyother couple not to have more children.

Oh yes I have.

I challenge you, if you are so sure that it is God’s plan for you not to have any more children, then stop ABC right now.

You can’t? I thought so. Because you don’t know for a fact that God wants you to have only 5 children. Or you would not be practicing ABC would you?

Can’t you see the tail of the serpent there?

Sure how many people on this earth is up to him and how do you know he hasn’t already.

When people stop practicing ABC and there are no more children, then we know He has decided that that’s enough.

Do you have a direct line to God that he will tell you what he is going to do.

Nope. Just scripture.

I have no right to say who and who will not be born,

Oh but you claim to do so. You claim you have the right as to who will not be born. That is what you do when you practice ABC. That is why I said it is idolatry.

you have decided that you will not have children therefore you have decided who will and who will not be born.

Wrong again. I have decided not to get married. Or rather God has not sent me a husband. So you are telling me I should commit fornication just so I can have children? You want me to sin against God because you sin against him when you contracept?

I can’t believe you have the gull to sit there and critize people because they don’t have 10, 20, 30 children when you don’t even have one.

Sorry Rev Kevin, but this line of your reasoning is so idiotic.

Since God has not blessed me with a husband, are you recommending that I should fornicate? Is this your advice as a reverend? You are telling me that I should sin?

 

[benedictus2]

I said “I don’t put too much into tradition.” But you said “I don’t trust God enough.”

So therefore you are distregarding Jesus? That’s not surprising.

So you see, I was right after all. It’s a religion of I/Me/Myself that you follow.

And yes, I said you don’t trust God enough. That’s what contraception means.

 

[Calliso]

What I donlt get is how God is apparently so powerless that he can;t get around a latex barrier or a little pill to make a woman become pregnant if he wants to. Really this is God we are talking about he could make a woman become pregnant at any time if he so wished. No I donlt think God directly wills and decides how many biological children a couple has. That is more determined by their own fertility, when they have sex how healthy they are their age and probably many other factors. Of course God knows about every children before they are even conceived. And at some point after conception I think he must give us our souls. I just donl think he micromanages things to the point where he decides how many children each couple will have. Besides if he did why then would God decide to give a child to a poor couple who can;t even feed their current children much less another one but not to a infertile couple that can take care of a child and desperately wants one. No I believe what it comes down to is the poor couple has another kid because they chose to have sex and got pregnant, as sometimes happens when a man and woman have sex! The infertile couple doesn;t have kids because well they are infertile. Of course if God can and I think in the bible does interfere in this matter at times. But in general I donlt think he is directly controlling it.

 

[mark_a]

try a simple google search for Jewish birth control history

A google search. Brilliant!!

 

[mark_a]

What I donlt get is how God is apparently so powerless that he can;t get around a latex barrier or a little pill to make a woman become pregnant if he wants to.

He can, but he gives us free will to accept His blessings or deny His blessings.

But in general I donlt think he is directly controlling it.

If God gives blessings, and a child is a blessing, how dare you not give Him credit!!!

 

[Calliso]

He can, but he gives us free will to accept His blessings or deny His blessings.

If God gives blessings, and a child is a blessing, how dare you not give Him credit!!!

I am not saying God is not involved in the process at all just saying I donlt think he is micromanaging things to the point of going, hmmm that couple has 5 kids I think I will give them exactly two more kids and that is it! Then there is that other couple with 2 kids…hmmm I think I shall give them no more kids.

 

[Lisel]

The pill and IUD are generally accepted methods of birth control in Judaism. Onan spilled his seed. He prevented the sperm from reaching it’s target. So any method of birth control that does likewise is a no-no, under orthodox judaism.

Usually, the use of certain birth control methods are allowed if pregnancy presents a danger to the mother, or if you want to space out the kids. Of if you having more children will be a detriment to the family.

 

[rev_kevin]

I think it is God’s plan for me not to be married. (check St Paul on that).

Now if I were to have children when I am not married, then that means I would have been guilty of fornication which would have been very much against God’s will.

Because you are contracepting. You have sex and decided not to have the fruit of that sexual union which only God can decide.

I chose not to be married (or rather God I believe chose not o give me a husband). If I were married, then I would let God decide how many children I should have.

If you insist on having such intimacies, then you have to be open to God’s action with regards those intimacies, i.e. the possibility that He may want to bring a new life out of said intimacies.

Quite illogical. I did not decide not to have children. It so happened that I ended up not getting married. If I had gotten married, ABC would have been totally out of the question.

They are two very different things.

Would you say that St Paul decided not to have children so violated God’s command to go and multiply. Nothing could be more ludicrous.

You’re clutching at straws now. Your reasoning is going awry.
When people practice ABC then you know that they are going against His plan.

**Let’s take you for example.

If you are so sure that God’s plan for you was only 5 children then why are you still using ABC. Surely, if you are sure that as far as God is concerned that is all the children that He wants you to have there would not be a need for ABC.**

It is precisely because you are afraid that sex with your wife will result in children that you practice ABC.
Yes, I do because He is quite clear about that. Everyone must be open to life once they decide to engage in sex.

It is wholly God’s domain whether a child will come out of that union or not.

Oh yes I do know. If they are not contracepting, then if they cease to have children then we know that that is how many children God wants them to have.

I mean some try to have more but are unable to have more because that is all that God wants them to have.

So long as you contracept, you denied God the sole right to determine how many children you should have. That is what ABC is all about.

I mean the term itself says it: against conception.

Nope. Because God forbade contraception. We have gone through the Biblical passages forbidding it.

You do not want to accept that Onan was a very strong Biblical support against contraception because it goes against your will.

I mean history shows that this is how Jews understood it and this is how Christians understood it. I mean even Luther and Calvin spoke scathingly about it.

So what makes you think you are right when for one nine hundred thirty years, Jews and Christians (even the founders of Protestantism) understood this passage as an indictiment of contraception and yet you think now you have the right to interpret it your own way?

Its the same ol same ol again. Don’t preach to me about not wanting to have no more children when you don’t even have one.

 

[rev_kevin]

Oh yes I have.

I challenge you, if you are so sure that it is God’s plan for you not to have any more children, then stop ABC right now.

You can’t? I thought so. Because you don’t know for a fact that God wants you to have only 5 children. Or you would not be practicing ABC would you?

Can’t you see the tail of the serpent there?

When people stop practicing ABC and there are no more children, then we know He has decided that that’s enough.
Nope. Just scripture.
Oh but you claim to do so. You claim you have the right as to who will not be born. That is what you do when you practice ABC. That is why I said it is idolatry.

Wrong again. I have decided not to get married. Or rather God has not sent me a husband. So you are telling me I should commit fornication just so I can have children? You want me to sin against God because you sin against him when you contracept?

Sorry Rev Kevin, but this line of your reasoning is so idiotic.

Since God has not blessed me with a husband, are you recommending that I should fornicate? Is this your advice as a reverend? You are telling me that I should sin?

Ok I’ll take the challenge. I know I will not have more children. I know for a fact. Don’t give me a challenge then say I can’t. Did I ever say I was practicing ABC? Ya I see the tail of the serpernt I’m writting to it right now. When you get married and have children then we will know that not being married was God’s plan for you. You have made the decision not to get married so you won’t have children. You are denying the gift and blessing from God. I never said I wanted you to fornicate and have children out of wedlock. I see you started saying I don’t want to get married or God hasn’t sent me a husband yet. Don’t blame God for your decision. Get married and have children once you do that then you can speak to me about not having children. At least I have had God’s blessing and gift of childeren you can’t say that.

 

[rev_kevin]

And there goes the lie of the devil.

I am currently reading an excellent book called God and His Image by Fr Dominique Barthelemy.

There was a section where he gives an analysis of Adam and Eve’s fall and I thought this is exactly the process that people go through when they justify contraception.

Fr Barthelemy wrote :… the tree of knowledge of good and eveil denotes the possibility of man determining for himself what is good and what is evil, in other words, of becoming the principle of his own moral conscience…
Man would always like to make the scale of his desires into his scale of values and is always distressed to feel that what is good seems bitter to him and what is evil seems delightful. Here is a paradox, for there is the everlasting temptation in man to say to himself, "Well, I decree that henceforth what is delightful to me I will call good, and what is distasteful to me I will call evil".

A few pages down he elucidates on how we end up with this rationalization. He says Eve began responsible "when she left herself open to the fascination of the doubt, when she entertained the doubt " - the doubt here referring to "Did God really forbid it?

He continues: "….It was precisely then that she became responsible, at the moment when she began to dwell pleasurably on the eventuality, on that doubt which touched on the motive of the divine command, when she let her mind play with what the serpent suggested."

This is exactly the kind of process that people go through in their attempt to justify what is evil. People knew how to interpret Onan’s sin from the very beginning. There was no break in that understanding way back to the time of the Jews up to 1930.

Then the devil started to sow doubt, and people followed it because it is pleasurable.

Your reasonings are the same kind of lie that the devil told Eve. Everyone who believes in ABC believe in the devils lies. But of course the devil is subtle (as scripture says), he makes it look like its a good thing. But the end result is this, you become god, the determiner of what is good and what is evil.
That is the most ludicrous thing you have ever said. Of course nothing is impossible to God but it does not mean that he will usurp your will.

This is precisely why we have so many ills in this world, because God will not usurp your will. If you want to disobey him you are free to do.

But what is most disturbing is that you couch this entrenched disobedience in rationalizations.

I quote Fr Barthelemy again. *
There is nothing dramatic in doing evil, provided man preserves a wide-awake conscience by which he can judge himself. The sinner who conscience remains lucid, even though it acts as a jarring discord that causes him inner suffering but which he cannot stifle, has not eaten the forbidden fruit. On the other hand, St Paul, in his Epistle to the Roman (1:32), speaks of those who not only do evil, but consent to those who do it. This gradation from “not only” to “but” seems surprising when we first read it. One is inclined to say that to consent to those who do evil is not as bad as actually doing it. Yet it is in fact worse, because the man who does evil may do it inspite of himself. but the moment he consents to evil for himself and for others, he has stifled his conscience, he has eaten the forbidden fruit. And is not this the sin against Spirit? Not only to fail to obey the Holy Spirit, but to endeavour to silence Him.*

You are rationalizing. And you know it too.

The question is not whether it is impossible for God to do it or not but what is His will?

Is it His will that you should put all kinds of barriers against His work of creation?

You can quote what ever Father said what it won’t do any good. Like I said don’t preach to me about children until you get married and have children.

 

[rev_kevin]

I have read your post. Do you? You stated that NFP was for selfish reasons. I responded that it was used for health reasons. You responded what health reasons. That is what this post is about. Read my post carefully and you will see why it has to do with health reasons.

I have and I feel sorry for you and your wife. I know there are some who for health reasons can’t have children. Your post does not say what the health reasons are?

 

[mark_a]

I am not saying God is not involved in the process at all just saying I donlt think he is micromanaging things to the point of going, hmmm that couple has 5 kids I think I will give them exactly two more kids and that is it! Then there is that other couple with 2 kids…hmmm I think I shall give them no more kids.

Is this the same God that numbers the hairs on our heads?