Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

[benedictus2]

Personally I think a couple should have their choice in what they want to use artifical contraception, NFP or heck even abstinence.

The couple does have a choice. No one is forcing them to do anything.
There is a choice to say yes or not to God. No one will force you either way.

All we are doing in this thread, is showing you that artificial conception is a No to God. A refusal to let God be God. And as I have said before, that essentially is what sin is.

What God requires from us is not rationalization and insistence that something sinful is not sinful at all. What God requires of us is repentance. A Lord Have Mercy.

Though trust me long term abstinence is really not good for a marriage.

And not one should. But for a proper ordering of their married life, occasional abstinence will actually be very beneficial for it.

Its easy to not realize how important the bonding aspect of sex in a marriage is until you don;t have it anymore And NFP doesn;t work for everyone.

There has been much over valuation of the bonding aspect of sex. That is not what it was created for. If you limit the value of sex to this, then all sort of sexual abominations become permissible.

And if NFP does not work and you still end up with children, that is a very sure sign that God meant you to have them. And if He did, He will also give you the necessary grace.

“His grace is all we need” is a truth that we can only truly take to heart by practice, practice, practice.

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t think Onan’s sin was spilling his seed, but in having sex with his brother’s wife KNOWING that she believed they were trying to make a baby, and then pulling out anyway. He lied to his brother’s wife and basically violated her.

Nope. Scripture was very clear. He was punished for what he did not what did not do.

 

[benedictus2]

What if the reason is just that neither of you feel driven to have sex? I think there’s an obligation to have children, but if you already have children… is there an obligation to continue having children?

You really misunderstand this.

If neither of you want to engage in marital intercourse there is no demand that you do just so you can have more children.

The whole discussion here is about wanting to engage in the marital act whenever one feels like it and yet taking all artificial means that a child will not ensue.

The whole point is about being open to life when you do get “driven to have sex”.

 

[benedictus2]

Yep and even if the sin was spilling his seed. How does spilling ones seed equal that all forms of contraception are wrong?

Not all forms of contraception is wrong. NFP is not wrong.

Also we donlt require people today to marry their brother in law and have his kids if a womans husband dies or whatever.

What does that have to do with anything other than the fact that that was not the reason Onan was struck dead?

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Nope. Scripture was very clear. He was punished for what he did not what did not do.

Not at all:

8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan*** knew that the child would not be his***; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother**. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.

As you can see, the same sentence reiterates TWICE that Onan’s reasons or spilling his seed were that he did not want to give children to his brother. Also, Onan did this repeatedly, for it says “WHENEVER he slept with his brother’s wife” he would spill his seed on the ground. If just spilling one’s seed on the ground was enough to incur God’s wrath, then Onan would have been stricken dead the first time he did it.

Onan’s sin has to be looked at in context of the New Testament. ** Jesus was to come from this line**. By refusing children to Tamar, Onan was essentially thwarting God’s plan for the salvation of humanity. He repeatedly did this, and God knew that he had no intention of giving her children and continuing the line.

By slaying Onan, God freed Tamar to then sleep with Judah, by whom she would become pregnant. Eventually, Jesus would be born of this line.

THAT is why God slew Onan.

 

[Calliso]

There has been much over valuation of the bonding aspect of sex. That is not what it was created for. If you limit the value of sex to this, then all sort of sexual abominations become permissible.

“His grace is all we need” is a truth that we can only truly take to heart by practice, practice, practice.

Personally I think the bonding importance of sex in a marriage is actually often undervalued. Of course it depends alot on the couple I think too and even the individual spouse. But for many couples sex is extremely important to feel bonded with and connected with your spouse emotionally. No God I would argue definately made sex not only for procreation but also to bring a husband and wife closer together. Also I am not saying that sex is just about bonding the procreation part is pretty important too. But since you are single if I remember correctly sorry if I am wrong I think it is understandable that you undervalue the importance of sex in a marriage for bonding. if you have never really experienced it it can be hard to believe.

 

[Calliso]

Not at all:

8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan*** knew that the child would not be his***; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother**. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.

As you can see, the same sentence reiterates TWICE that Onan’s reasons or spilling his seed were that he did not want to give children to his brother. Also, Onan did this repeatedly, for it says “WHENEVER he slept with his brother’s wife” he would spill his seed on the ground. If just spilling one’s seed on the ground was enough to incur God’s wrath, then Onan would have been stricken dead the first time he did it.

Onan’s sin has to be looked at in context of the New Testament. ** Jesus was to come from this line**. By refusing children to Tamar, Onan was essentially thwarting God’s plan for the salvation of humanity. He repeatedly did this, and God knew that he had no intention of giving her children and continuing the line.

By slaying Onan, God freed Tamar to then sleep with Judah, by whom she would become pregnant. Eventually, Jesus would be born of this line.

THAT is why God slew Onan.

Wow now that is interesting! That actually maybe makes more sense then any reason I have heard before about why God killed Onan.

 

[Calliso]

Not all forms of contraception is wrong. NFP is not wrong.

What does that have to do with anything other than the fact that that was not the reason Onan was struck dead?

I should have been clearer I meant artifical forms of contraception like the pill condoms and what not. The point I was trying to make is that people like to make a big deal out of the spilling of the seed and decided to expand it to mean that all forms of contraception well besides NFP though if I remember correctly even NFP was considered sinful for a long time wasn;t it? which is quite a stretch. But no one ever takes that other part I mentioned and says we should take that practice and put it into use.

 

[geebob]

I sometimes get the feeling that I speack in language that is not understandable to the Human mind. bark bark,

I left it open that I might’ve been misinterpreting you.

Other than that, I don’t understand it, but some people don’t seem to get that I will take what they say and draw out implications that they won’t agree with, and they think I am attributing those implications to them. Not so, I’m saying that what they say leads to this and they wouldn’t like that (ergo, they should reconsider what they hold to, or explain why what they hold doesn’t have those implications).

 

[WTSherman]

The problem with Protestants of any kind is owing to the early 1500s when King Henry and Martin Luther separately created their own religions to suit their particular lifestyles, instead of changing their behavios to match their principles.

At the time it was a matter of kings and aristocrats. This is where it all began. Now we have billions of Kings like Henry throughout the world who find their faith in matters of their own convenience.

 

[benedictus2]

Not at all:

8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan*** knew that the child would not be his***; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother**. 10 **What he did **was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.

Onan was struck for what he DID (spill his seed) not for what he DID NOT do (give children to his brother).

In the Leverite law THERE IS ALREADY A PUNISHMENT for not giving children to one’s brother and it is public shaming. That is all. The man is to be slapped on the face with slippers by his brother’s wife.

Therefore this could not have been the reason why Onan was stuck dead.

As you can see, the same sentence reiterates TWICE that Onan’s reasons or spilling his seed were that he did not want to give children to his brother. Also, Onan did this repeatedly, for it says “WHENEVER he slept with his brother’s wife” he would spill his seed on the ground. If just spilling one’s seed on the ground was enough to incur God’s wrath, then Onan would have been stricken dead the first time he did it.

That he was not stuck dead the first time may be because he was given ample of chances to repent and not do it. That he kept doing it means that he had hardened his heart.

Onan’s sin has to be looked at in context of the New Testament. ** Jesus was to come from this line**. By refusing children to Tamar, Onan was essentially thwarting God’s plan for the salvation of humanity. He repeatedly did this, and God knew that he had no intention of giving her children and continuing the line.

That is a long shot and an interpretation not borne out by the text. If that was the case then God would have brought offspring from her marriage with Er.

** By slaying Onan, God freed Tamar to then sleep with Judah, by whom she would become pregnant. Eventually, Jesus would be born of this line.**

Wrong again. If providing off-spring for Judah’s line was all that was needed, then why did it have to take Judah? Why not Shelah?

 

[geebob]

The problem with most internet discussions is that people go off topic.

 

[benedictus2]

Wow now that is interesting! That actually maybe makes more sense then any reason I have heard before about why God killed Onan.

No it doesn’t. Refer to my post above.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Onan was struck for what he DID (spill his seed) not for what he DID NOT do (give children to his brother).

In the Leverite law THERE IS ALREADY A PUNISHMENT for not giving children to one’s brother and it is public shaming. That is all. The man is to be slapped on the face with slippers by his brother’s wife.

It didn’t have to be Judah. It very well COULD have been Shelah, I suppose, but the text states very clearly that Shelah was not anywhere near being of age at the time and that Tamar would have had to wait for him for many more years. On top of that, Judah specifically (for whatever reason) refused to give Shelah to Tamar when he DID become of age. As you can see, she took matters into her own hands to ensure that she would become pregnant through his line by disguising herself as a prostitute and sleeping with Judah.

 

[geebob]

Onan’s sin has to be looked at in context of the New Testament. Jesus was to come from this line. By refusing children to Tamar, Onan was essentially thwarting God’s plan for the salvation of humanity. He repeatedly did this, and God knew that he had no intention of giving her children and continuing the line.

That is pretty weak. God’s plans for centuries down the road are external to Onan and I don’t see how they should play a role in the moral judgment of him.

Onan was killed because he was engaging in sexual activity that neither had the purpose of bonding nor reproducing in the special situation where it actually and explicitely was required of him. He was using Tamara without concern for her, (also not relevant to married couples mutually satisfying each other even if they use ABC). And this was an affront to his brother’s memory. (which further makes this poor evidence against ABC, of course we might agree on this issue, I’m just pointing out what I think are the better arguments).

Great chapter though. Where else do you read of a woman who plays prostitute for a day and is called righteous for it!

 

[mark_a]

Great chapter though. Where else do you read of a woman who plays prostitute for a day and is called righteous for it!

Not exactly trhe same, but Lot’s daughters make Tamar’s story seem pretty tame.

 

[Curious_Seed]

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.

Any means employed, including NFP, is artificial, if it has manipulation of an unencumbered sexual relationship, inside or outside of marriage.

Yes, the Protestant and Catholic denominations have disagreements among each other.

However, there are no more varying views among Baptists with Baptists, for example, than Catholics with Catholics.

The unification of view within the Catholic denomination has no more integrity than the unification of view within the Presbyterian denomination, by example.

Some Catholics think that Protestants have varying views with each other, simplifying their understanding, by lumping all Protestants under the same tent.

There is only one tent: His Church.

Under that tent are found Protestant and Catholic denominations/branches and each of these denominations are at variance with each other, on certain aspect of artificial contraception.

I understand that, to Catholics, the true Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.

I understand that Catholics do not see themselves as a denomination.

I understand that some Catholics lump all Protestants together and have a me versus them mentality.

What I would be curious to learn is if the Catholic teaching on artificial contraception is considered infallible and the suitable reference.

 

[copperblade]

Because that is the primary reason for sex.

Yeah, I know you said that before. But I guess I thought there may be a more detailed explanation as to why it has to be each and every act of sex, rather than treating artificial birth control the same way you’d treat NFP.

Just in case, I also remember you pointing out that NFP requires a sacrifice and for us to work within God’s framework, so you don’t have to point out that difference again.

If there isn’t any more to it, then it’s ok. I just felt the way you talk about it indicates you’ve put more thought into this than I have.

 

[benedictus2]

It didn’t have to be Judah. It very well COULD have been Shelah, I suppose, but the text states very clearly that Shelah was not anywhere near being of age at the time and that Tamar would have had to wait for him for many more years.

Wrong again. Judah told her to wait for Shelah but he had no intention of giving Shelah to Tamar because he thought he might die as well.

On top of that, Judah specifically (for whatever reason) refused to give Shelah to Tamar when he DID become of age.

What do you mean “for whatever reason”? The reason was clear, Judah was afraid Shelah might die as well. It’s on verse 11.

So why didn’t God strike Judah dead for refusing to give Shelah to Tamar in marriage so that Tamar could conceive?

As you can see, she took matters into her own hands to ensure that she would become pregnant through his line by disguising herself as a prostitute and sleeping with Judah.

As you can see that has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Your hypothesis was that Onan was punished because he did not give seed to his brother and that punishment was on account of Jesus being born in the line of Judah.

My argument was if that was the only requirement, God could have ensured that she got pregnant through Er or that he could have ensured that Shelah ended up marrying Tarmar.

Therefore your theory fails.

As I have said before, the text just does not support your exegesis.

 

[benedictus2]

That is pretty weak. God’s plans for centuries down the road are external to Onan and I don’t see how they should play a role in the moral judgment of him.

Aaah, for once we agree

Onan was killed because he was engaging in sexual activity that neither had the purpose of bonding nor reproducing in the special situation where it actually and explicitely was required of him.

Bonding had nothing to do with. You will not find anything in the OT that says that sex was for bonding.

He was using Tamara without concern for her, (also not relevant to married couples mutually satisfying each other even if they use ABC).

Quite wrong since there is nothing in the text that bonding is a requirement. This concept of “bonding” is not present in Jewish understanding of this text.

And this was an affront to his brother’s memory. (which further makes this poor evidence against ABC, of course we might agree on this issue, I’m just pointing out what I think are the better arguments).

It certainly was an affront to his brother’s memory but such an affront was not punishable by death but by public shaming.

That God stepped in to strike him dead means that that was not his crime at all.