Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

[mark_a]

Leave it, Mark.

You’re beating a dead horse.

I guess you are right. Rev. and I made the same observation about 200 posts ago.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes but I still donlt think that means he micromanages our lives.

Only because you refuse to let Him be God of your life.

I suggest you read the Bible. Throroughly.

Asctually, start with Psalm 139.

 

[benedictus2]

Eh while I am sure God could chose to micromanage our lives I am still not convince that he normally does.

Only because you would not let him.

It seems to me that you are more of a deist than a Christian.

Sure I could for instance see him purposely at times interfering for instance with an infertile couple and making them get pregnant. But in general I think an infertile couple doesn;t get pregnant because they are infertile.

Yes, because He was the one who made them infertile in the first place.

Not because God is deliberately withholding children from them.

Of course He is. In making them infertile, He deliberately withheld children from them.

Have you not read the OT at all?

Now I think God can and does sometimes gives us “signs” that basically point us in the direction he wants us to go in our lives.

Yes, He does. But, these signs all have to line up with His revelation.

I think for instance he wanted me to get married. I wasn;t even looking to get married and then met and fell in love with my current husband. He wasn;t looking to get married either. Of course I accept that this might not have had to do anything with God and could have been chance,

There is no such thing as chance.

I tend to believe God was involved somehow though.

Of course He was. But it was still up to you to make your decision whether to cooperate or not.

Anyway I never thought I was God when I used abc

Whether you thought so or not is immaterial. You play God when you use ABC because it goes against His will for life.

The natural way He set things about ( if you want to stick to your “non micromanaging” god) is through nature.

The natural result of marital relations is a child if you don’t stop it. When you don’t practice ABC only God decides whether your marital activities result in a child or not.

I knew he could get around it if he so chose or just plain badluck and chance could happen and I got pregnant.

That is a really stupid reasoning.

Would you jump in front of a moving train because " He could save you if He really so wishes?"

Sometimes God makes miracles and goes beyond the natural laws that He Himself set but the way He acts is usually through the natural laws that He has set up.

Of course isn;t using nfp and deliberately making sure you only have sex during the most infertile times kinda the same thing?

Well no. Because you are abstaining. You see that is the difference. Plus as I have said many, many times before, the Church does not recommend people use NFP just for the sake of contracepting. This may only be used for grace reasons.

I mean isn;t a person basicaly trying to withhold their fertility and all from Gods control then too?

As I said to Rev Kevin, if you think that NFP is the same, then how come you are no practicing it?

 

[benedictus2]

But you are not accurate in your generalizations, and not all Jews teach what you say. And not “all Christians” who say what you write believe what you write of them.

Your point is, apparently, that original interpretations are the only legitimate interpretations.

Considering that the Jews were the ones intimately involved with God in the OT, then obviously their interpretation with regards the case of Onan has to be believed.

But not only that, the Jews believed it and so did the early Christians and so did all Christians up till 1930.

 

[benedictus2]

According to Deuteronomy 25 If the brother-in-law does not want to marry his sister-in law then he will suffer public humiliation.
According to Genesis 38:8 “Judah said unto O’-nan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her and raise up seed to thy brother.” Now according to this passage O’-nan married Ta’-mar. Now the law in Deuteronomy 25 says if the man DOES NOT want to MARRY his sister-in-law, then the sister-in-law shall go to the elders at the city gate, and say, 'My brother-in-law REFUSES to carry on his brother’s name in Israel; he will not do the duty of a brother-in-law to me; whereupon the elders of his city shall summon him, and speak to him, and if he maintains his position, and says, I DO NOT want to MARRY her, his sister-in-law shall lgo up to him and pull his samkdes off his feet, and spit in his face and solemnly declare, so shall it be called in Israel the house for which the sandal was pulled off."
Now lets look at Genesis 38:9 “But O’nan, knowing that the family would not be his, wasted his semen on the ground WHENEVER he had intercourse with his brother’s widow, so as not to give his brother a family. What he did was so displeasing to the Lord that he killed him too.”

If you notice, in your post, it said, the Lord killed Onan because of what HE DID AND NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT HE DID NOT DO.
So your reasoning does not hold because the public humiliation is not just for consenting to marry but “not building up his brother’s family line”

Ok with all that said, according to Genesis 38: 8 Judah said to O’nan to marry Ta’mar. It is assumed he did because Ta’mar did not go to the elders of the city and tell them he would not marry her. So its safe to say O’nan married Ta’mar.
Levirate law says, If he REFUSES TO MARRY HER or if the man like not to take his brothers wife (KJV) she shall publically humiliate him.
O’nan was not publically humiliated because he married Ta’mar so this law would not apply to O’nan. Its only if he REFUSED TO MARRY HER.
So if this law does not apply to O’nan his punishment for not giving his brother a child could be death.

Here is what Deuterony 25 7:10 actually says.
"However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.” 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” 9 his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line. That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled. ”

So your reasoning does not hold because the public humiliation is not just for consenting to marry but for"not building up his brother’s family line"

So therefore Onan was not struck dead for not building up his brother’s family line because the prescription for this is public humiliation.

So Curious Hobbit’s point is valid. How come Shela was not struck dead for not doing the same thing?

 

[Dokimas]

The Catholic Church teaches that artificial contraception (pill, condom, IUD, etc) is a mortal sin.

How are you able to accept condom use, etc? Do you not see it as the seed that led to a bad tree (sexual revolution, huge pornography industry, etc)???

I can not comprehend how Protestants have such varied views on artificial contraception. This might be because I have for most of my Christian life been a Catholic.

IMO, the Bible isn’t against contraception as long as the ‘little baby’ isn’t killed.

 

[Dokimas]

Onan’s brother Shelah also avoided levirate marriage with Tamar and he was not killed like Onan.

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”. The word “shacath” is even used as a synonym for kill, destroy in other places in the bible like Gen. 6:17, 9:15 and Judges 20:21.

These are just a few things that cause cognitive dissonance in my brain (when I use my brain) when trying to accept your position.

Did Shelah refuse to marry Tamar or did Judah got do his job of giving Tamar to his son?

BTW, were adulterers and murderers supposed to be stoned to death in the OT? If so, why was David spared this?

Your ‘shacath’ point is interesting. I’ll give it some thought. Thank you!!

 

[Dokimas]

Considering that the Jews were the ones intimately involved with God in the OT, then obviously their interpretation with regards the case of Onan has to be believed.

But not only that, the Jews believed it and so did the early Christians and so did all Christians up till 1930.

You thought Curious Hobbit had a good point when saying Onan’s brother didn’t get his fate when seemingly doing the same thing he did (jury’s out still on that one, IMO) then let’s use similar logic: why don’t we hear of men dieing like Onan when they don’t but their seed into their wives? My guess is many Christians (that includes Catholics) over the years have done what Onan did and did they dies as Onan die?

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus 2
You have my sincer appology for the comment I said about you not being married and not having children. Irish_Polock reminded me of what Paul said.
Once again I’m sorry. :imsorry:

No need to apologize. Absolutely no offence taken.

I only care about arguments. Insults just slide by like water off a duck’s back and you were not insulting me, just making an ad hominem fallacy.

 

[benedictus2]

IMO, the Bible isn’t against contraception as long as the ‘little baby’ isn’t killed.

Go back through the thread and follow the discussion between me and Rev Kevin regarding Onan.

 

[Dokimas]

Go back through the thread and follow the discussion between me and Rev Kevin regarding Onan.

As you most like have found out, I did and have commented.

 

[benedictus2]

You thought Curious Hobbit had a good point when saying Onan’s brother didn’t get his fate when seemingly doing the same thing he did (jury’s out still on that one, IMO) then let’s use similar logic: why don’t we hear of men dieing like Onan when they don’t but their seed into their wives? My guess is many Christians (that includes Catholics) over the years have done what Onan did and did they dies as Onan die?

That is a ridiculous line of reasoning.

Here’s a little homework for you. Go through the OT and look at all the kinds of people that God had instructed to be killed. Do you have any record of men such as these being struck down like it was in the OT?

 

[Dokimas]

That is a ridiculous line of reasoning.

Here’s a little homework for you. Go through the OT and look at all the kinds of people that God had instructed to be killed. Do you have any record of men such as these being struck down like it was in the OT?

I agree it’s rediculous; that’s why I used it to question your line of reasoning about Onan’s brother.

 

[benedictus2]

As you most like have found out, I did and have commented.

You haven’t. You said that according to you the Bible was not against contraception.

I mentioned Onan. Your comment about Onan was not about whether the Bible permitted it or not but whether God still struck dead those who “spill their seed”.

The argument about Onan was the reason why he was struck dead.

There were only two reasons proposed: that it was for his spilling his seed or for his not giving his brother’s wife a child.

I and the others said the former and gave ample proof.

If like Rev kevin you say the latter, then you have to debunk our arguments…

 

[benedictus2]

I agree it’s rediculous; that’s why I used it to question your line of reasoning.

Your interpretation is the one that is ridiculous because your analogy does not apply.

Just because God does not now mete out an on the spot death punishment for murder, fornicators, adulterers, etc, etc, does not mean that He did not do so before, in the OT. We have it on the Bible that He did.

That He did so in the case of Onan meant that it is despicable in His sight.

 

[Dokimas]

You haven’t. You said that according to you the Bible was not against contraception.

I mentioned Onan. Your comment about Onan was not about whether the Bible permitted it or not but whether God still struck dead those who “spill their seed”.

The argument about Onan was the reason why he was struck dead.

There were only two reasons proposed: that it was for his spilling his seed or for his not giving his brother’s wife a child.

I and the others said the former and gave ample proof.

If like Rev kevin you say the latter, then you have to debunk our arguments…

It was direct disobedience to God’s order given to Onan by Judah.

BTW, I don’t have to debunk anything. I share what I see in the Bible. If it’s true, the Truth debunks untruth; if it is not true, then it’s my wrong opinion in need of debunking by the Word of God.

 

[Dokimas]

Your interpretation is the one that is ridiculous because your analogy does not apply.

Just because God does not now mete out an on the spot death punishment for murder, fornicators, adulterers, etc, etc, does not mean that He did not do so before, in the OT. We have it on the Bible that He did.

That He did so in the case of Onan meant that it is despicable in His sight.

You misunderstand my point. You agreed with CH that if Onan was killed for not having a baby with Tamar then why wasn’t his brother killed? Is that not what CH implied and which you seemed to agree with?

If so, then my example points out why that’s not really good logic which you now seem to agree by telling me I have faulty logic. Correct?

 

[benedictus2]

It was direct disobedience to God’s order given to Onan by Judah.

No it wasn’t

Here are my responses to the usual Protestant argument regardding Onan.

I think rev kevin and I covered quite a bit of ground there Click on the links and it will take you directly to the post

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7381861&postcount=278

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7381945&postcount=281

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7384275&postcount=308

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7385280&postcount=315

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7388862&postcount=335

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7391963&postcount=353

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7415623&postcount=544
BTW, I don’t have to debunk anything. I share what I see in the Bible. If it’s true, the Truth debunks untruth; if it is not true, then it’s my wrong opinion in need of debunking by the Word of God.
Then read the above links and you will know that what I say is true since I gave several versions of the Bible as well and each with full quotes from the relevant passages.

 

[benedictus2]

You misunderstand my point. You agreed with CH that if Onan was killed for not having a baby with Tamar then why wasn’t his brother killed? Is that not what CH implied and which you seemed to agree with? If so, then my example points out why that’s not really good logic which you now seem to agree by telling me I have faulty logic. Correct?

Yes, but bear in mind, Onan and Shelah were both in the same situation. They were both still in the OT at the very specific spot and point in time we are talking about. The example your mentioned was in the present day and age. Two different things. In OT times, they were both subject to OT law.

So obviously, if the punishment of death was for “not giving a child to your brother”, then Shelah should have been struck down too. But he was not. So therefore, what Onan was punished for was not for the breaking of the levirite law (which was only punishable by public shaming) but for something else he did.

The KJv was very clear that it was “THE THING THAT HE DID” that was punished with death.

 

[Dokimas]

Yes, but bear in mind, Onan and Shelah were both in the same situation. They were both still in the OT at the very specific spot and point in time we are talking about. The example your mentioned was in the present day and age. Two different things. In OT times, they were both subject to OT law.

So obviously, if the punishment of death was for “not giving a child to your brother”, then Shelah should have been struck down too. But he was not. So therefore, what Onan was punished for was not for the breaking of the levirite law (which was only punishable by public shaming) but for something else he did.

The KJv was very clear that it was “THE THING THAT HE DID” that was punished with death.

Did Shelah refuse to marry Tamar or did Judah not give Shelah to her? IMO, there’s a big difference if your point is logical.

According to you, a catholic, is it a mortal sin for Christians not to have children if they are able to have them? Any exceptions? Any correct way to prevent conception if there are exceptions?