Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter ScapularDude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dokimas said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is a good point. But still one of them is breaking a law (either be it Judah or Shelah) but neither was struck dead if indeed the death was in pusnishment for nothing giving a son to one’s brother. I don’t think the levirite law says that the father has to give the son. It just says that the brother has to marry the widow. There was nothing about the father having to give the son or tell the son to marry the brother’s widow.
According to you, a catholic, is it a mortal sin for Christians not to have children if they are able to have them?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a grave matter, and there certainly is the deliberate consent if they are practicing ABC, but the third condition of full knowledge is hard to ascertain. Only God
knows that.

There is a lot of rationalization that goes on. And one only rationalizes an evil act so for someone to rationalize means they know it’s wrong.
Any exceptions? Any correct way to prevent conception if there are exceptions?
Click to expand...
The natural way. Abstain. Plus God gave us the natural means. He made the woman infertile at certain times of the month.

BUT only do this if there is a grave reason to do so.
 
Dokimas said:
It was direct disobedience to God’s order given to Onan by Judah.
Click to expand...
Indeed. His brother, too, had been killed for displeasing God. If this were meant a a lesson against married persons using using contraceptive methods, well, the better example would have been about married persons using contraceptive methods. This example, however, is about a man being told to have sex with a former sister-in-law in order to produce heirs for the family. He says no, likely, out of stubbornness and willfulness and jealousy–not because he thinks that he already has a large enough family or that he is tired of spending his retirement money on children or because he doesn’t want more stretchmarks on his wife’s (sister-in-law’s) belly or that he is now 50 and does not want to raise children into old age. This is not about, SIMPLY, ejaculating in the wrong place. It is not even about a husband and a wife. It is about disobedience.
 
larkin31 said:
Indeed. His brother, too, had been killed for displeasing God. If this were meant a a lesson against married persons using using contraceptive methods, well, the better example would have been about married persons using contraceptive methods. This example, however, is about a man being told to have sex with a former sister-in-law in order to produce heirs for the family. He says no, likely, out of stubbornness and willfulness and jealousy–not because he thinks that he already has a large enough family or that he is tired of spending his retirement money on children or because he doesn’t want more stretchmarks on his wife’s (sister-in-law’s) belly or that he is now 50 and does not want to raise children into old age. This is not about, SIMPLY, ejaculating in the wrong place. It is not even about a husband and a wife. It is about disobedience.
Click to expand...
Of course it is about disobedience. Isn’t all sin? The question is what is the disobedience?
 
larkin31 said:
Indeed. His brother, too, had been killed for displeasing God. If this were meant a a lesson against married persons using using contraceptive methods, well, the better example would have been about married persons using contraceptive methods. This example, however, is about a man being told to have sex with a former sister-in-law in order to produce heirs for the family. He says no, likely, out of stubbornness and willfulness and jealousy–not because he thinks that he already has a large enough family or that he is tired of spending his retirement money on children or because he doesn’t want more stretchmarks on his wife’s (sister-in-law’s) belly or that he is now 50 and does not want to raise children into old age. This is not about, SIMPLY, ejaculating in the wrong place. It is not even about a husband and a wife. It is about disobedience.
Click to expand...
That’s not what the Bible says. It said that Onan was killed for WHAT HE DID, NOT for WHAT HE DID NOT DO

Perhaps you need to get re-acquainted with the Bible. 😃 You’ve probably been a long time apart since you turned agnostic.
 
benedictus2 said:
Yes, that is a good point. But still one of them is breaking a law (either be it Judah or Shelah) but neither was struck dead if indeed the death was in pusnishment for nothing giving a son to one’s brother. I don’t think the levirite law says that the father has to give the son. It just says that the brother has to marry the widow. There was nothing about the father having to give the son or tell the son to marry the brother’s widow.
Click to expand...
Are you absolutely sure Shelah knew about Tamar and his role in her life? Remember, Judah told her to go back to her family.

You seem to be holding on to your analogy of why it’s not about disobedience. I tried to show you using David and his sin that the analogy is not valid. I guess we are at an impass. Why don’t we move on?
 
benedictus2 said:
That’s not what the Bible says. It said that Onan was killed for WHAT HE DID, NOT for WHAT HE DID NOT DO

Perhaps you need to get re-acquainted with the Bible. 😃 You’ve probably been a long time apart since you turned agnostic.
Click to expand...
What Onan did was disobedience, whether commission or omission.
 
Calliso said:
Eh while I am sure God could chose to micromanage our lives I am still not convince that he normally does. 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. Not because God is deliberately withholding children from them. 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. 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, I tend to believe God was involved somehow though. Anyway I never thought I was God when I used abc I knew he could get around it if he so chose or just plain badluck and chance could happen and I got pregnant. Of course isn;t using nfp and deliberately making sure you only have sex during the most infertile times kinda the same thing? I mean isn;t a person basicaly trying to withhold their fertility and all from Gods control then too?
Click to expand...
It seems to me that the contracepting couple is actually trying to do the micro-managing.
 
Dokimas said:
Are you absolutely sure Shelah knew about Tamar and his role in her life? Remember, Judah told her to go back to her family.
Click to expand...
What is the likelyhood that a Jew did not know the affairs of the family and did not know the law considering that his brother was given over to Tamar.
You seem to be holding on to your analogy of why it’s not about disobedience. I tried to show you using David and his sin that the analogy is not valid. I guess we are at an impass. Why don’t we move on?
Click to expand...
It is also about disobedience, but not the disobedience relating to giving children to your brother. That disobedience was only punishable by public shaming.

Therefore, Onan must have violated a graver rule than not giving to his children.

The question here is what kind of disobedience was being punished with death?
 
Dokimas said:
What Onan did was disobedience, whether commission or omission.
Click to expand...
But as I said before, there are two kind of disobedience happening here.

One was a refusal to follow the levirite law regarding giving children to one’s brother, the other was the spilling of the seed.

Since the punishment for the former was already prescribed, which was public shaming, then there must have been something else that Onan did on top of the refusal that the Lord found extremely displeasing.

As Curious also pointed out, if you look at the Hebrew text, the spilling of the seed was termed in such a terrible way, “shakath” which means “ruin” or “devastate”.
 
Last night I listened to the replay of the webcast of “Unplanned” Abby Johnson’s story on how she shifted from pro-abortion to pro-life.

I highly recommend tuning in.

instantteleseminar.com/?eventid=16864185

What struck me was when she said that all the women who go to the clinic were contracepting. Even she herself had two abortions and she was contracepting at the time.

So as some have mentioned before, God can still bring a child forth in spite of our best efforts.

But what this highlighted is that contraception and abortion are two sides of the same coin, a no to life, a No to God.

If contraception will not stop that pesky life from forming, abortion will ensure it goes no further.

Pope Paul VI was so right.
 
Suni_Moon said:
So, two people are married. They want to have a family.
They have a family. They now have a couple of kids, and cannot support anymore.
And they do not want that to mean no sex ever again, they want to continue to enjoy that intimacy. And they haven’t exactly taken the purpose out of sex… Because they have three kids.

I can understand a lot of the Catholic stance on birth control, but in other ways…
In other ways, I do not get it at all, and it’s one of the stances I disagree with you guys on.
I mean, the pill I’m a little eeehhhhh on, but not condoms, when used in this situation.

I mean, I UNDERSTAND the Catholic stance when people are just using it to take the possibility of reproducing out the equation entirely… But I don’t understand it in situations like these.

Aaaaaaaand apparently I’m going to hell for this belief. Lovely. :confused:
Click to expand...
 
I converted to Catholicism over 2 years ago. The “no birth control” was one rule of the RCC that I cannot agree on. I DO NOT agree in having children that you cannot afford. I think to prevent having children that you are not able to support is being nothing but responsible…
 
benedictus2 said:
Yes and No. That is why NFP is not be used willy nilly. NFP is to be used only in extreme cases. That is Catholic teaching. If the mother is gravely ill then yes. But once she is well again this is to stop.

Another thing with the NFP is that it does not completely stop the Hand of God.

If you abstains from sex during the fertile times, God can still bring forth a child even during the infertile times. That is why Protestants don’t use NFP because they know that they cannot totally control this.

Furthermore, with NFP both couples are making a sacrifice during the fertile times when they abstain. Something ABC proponents don’t want to do that because they are only after sexual gratification when they want it and however they want it.

I think the fact that God has made the woman infertile at certain times of the month is His way of providing us a way to not have children when for grave reasons we cannot have them.

If He has already given us a means, there is no need to for any other.
Click to expand...
 
As I look around in my church congregation, I do NOT see large families. I see that most people have 2 or 3 children. I remember growing up, it was normal for a family of Catholics to have 7, 8, 9 children. No longer. I guess this generation isn’t buying the “no birth control” rule…
 
vickimonica said:
I converted to Catholicism over 2 years ago. The “no birth control” was one rule of the RCC that I cannot agree on. I DO NOT agree in having children that you cannot afford. I think to prevent having children that you are not able to support is being nothing but responsible…
Click to expand...
Nope. Deciding on who will and will not be willed into existence means playing God.

Only God decides that.

So you insist on being God.

Whatever happened to the first commandment?
 
vickimonica said:
As I look around in my church congregation, I do NOT see large families. I see that most people have 2 or 3 children. remember growing up, it was normal for a family of Catholics to have 7, 8, 9 children. No longer.
Click to expand...
And whoever said that most Catholics obey the teachings of the Church. Most are Catholics in name only.

There is a disease that has afflicted so many and it goes by the pseudonym of Cafeteria Catholicism but in truth it is nothing but Egoism with a capital I.
I guess this generation isn’t buying the “no birth control” rule…
Click to expand...
True. Which is hardly surprising because this generation isn’t buying God either. They’ve got the god of I/Me/Myself and that suits them fine.
 
ScapularDude said:
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.
Click to expand...
What do you believe about firearms control and the moral rights and responsibilities of the individual?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top