Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

[benedictus2]

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.

With regards NFP, you control conception by not engaging in sex during fertile times. That is the big difference. You are actually not engaging in sex so therefore no conception.

With ABC you are engaging in sex and willfully trying to stop God.

If one does not want children then don’t engage in sex. It really is quite simple.

ABC is like bulimia. You want the pleasure but you don’t want the consequences. The pleasure of eating is secondary to the main purpose of nourishment and health maintenance.

Openness to life has to be at each and every act of intercourse because that is what it was created for and that is the means by which God brings forth new life.

It has to do with who decides who will and will not be willed into existence.

This is all about the 1st commandment - He is the Lord God and we cannot usurp His prerogatives.

This is issue really only boils down to that: Who is God, the Lord God or you?

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Regarding NFP I suggest you read this link. It is a very good explanation and answers the point you raised about it considered sinful

catholicapologetics.info/morality/family/nfamp.htm

Regarding the extension of “spilling of the seed” to all other modes of ABC, well, because they are all direct acts of contraception, where one engages in the sexual act but willfully stops the possible result - LIFE.

We never retained the practice of giving offspring to one’s dead brother in the same way we have not retained circumcision and several other Jewish laws.

We have however, retained the Decalogue, and the first commandment says : I am the Lord thy God.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

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.

 

[thirddec]

Neat interpretation of Onans sin as thwarting Gods plan by interupting the line to Christ ( I had not realised this ), but this then raises the issue what other of Gods plans could we be thwarting by using contraceptive devices or can we ever thwart Gods plans?

I don’t have a position on this but i’t does lead to a strange but humerous possible conclusion that if you use contraception and are not thwarting Gods plan your fine but if you are thwarting Gods plan your not. The question is how will God ensure his plan isn’t thwarted … aaaaaargggghhhh i feel a catch 22 coming on here.

 

[edowitz1]

Roman Catholic Doctrine Vs. The Doctrinal Teaching of the Word of God

Eternal life is a merited reward [1821, 2010]. - Roman Catholicism
Eternal life is the free gift of God (Romans 6:23)

No one can know if he will attain eternal life [1036, 2005] - Roman Catholicism
The believer can know that he has eternal life by the Word of God (1 John 5:13)

The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation [846]. - Roman Catholicism
There is salvation in no one but the Lord Jesus Christ, “for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12)

Purgatory is necessary to atone for sin and clean the soul [1030-1031]. - Roman Catholicism
Purgatory does not exist. Jesus made purification for sins on the cross (Hebrews 1:3)

Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin from the first instant of her conception (the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception) [490-492].
Mary, a descendant of Adam, was born in sin (Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12)

Mary is the Mother of the Church [963, 975]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary was the earthly mother of Jesus ( John 2:1)

The Magisterium is the authoritative teacher of the Church. [85-87]. - Roman Catholicism
The Holy Spirit is the authoritative teacher of the church (John 14:26; John 16:13, I John 2:27)

The pope, as the Bishop of Rome, is the successor of Peter [882, 936] - Roman Catholicism
Peter had no successor, nor was he a pope.

The pope is infallible in his authoritative teaching [891]. - Roman Catholicism
God alone is infallible (Numbers 23:19)

Scripture and Tradition together are the Word of God [81, 85, 97, 182]. - Roman Catholicism
Scripture is the Word of God (John 10:35, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21). Tradition is the words of men (Mark 7:1-13).

The sacrificial work of redemption is continually carried out through the Sacrifice of the Mass. [1364,1405, 1846]. - Roman Catholicism
The sacrificial work of redemption was finished when Christ gave His life for us on the cross (Ephesians 1:7, Hebrews 1:3).

God desires that consecrated bread and wine be worshiped as divine. [1378-1381] - Roman Catholicism
God forbids the worship of any object, even t hose intended to represent Him (Exodus 20:4-5, Isaiah 42:8)

Justification is lost through mortal sin [1033, 1855, 1874] - Roman Catholicism
Justification cannot be lost. Those whom God justifies will be saved from the wrath of God (Romans 5:8-9).

Justification is furthered by sacraments and good works [1212, 1392, 2010] - Roman Catholicism
Justification is the imputation of the perfect righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21). In Christ the believer has been made complete (Colossians 2:10).

Salvation is attained by cooperating with grace through faith, good works, and participation in the sacraments [183, 1129, 1815, 2002]. - Roman Catholicism
Salvation is attained by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Good works are the result, not the cause, of salvation (Ephesians 2:10).

Mary, “the All-Holy,” lived a perfectly sinless life [411, 493]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary was a sinner; God alone is sinless (Luke 18:19, Romans 3:23, Revelation 15:4).

Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ [496-511]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary remained a virgin until after the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:25). Later she had other children (Matthew 13:55-56, Psalm 69:8).

Each Sacrifice of the Mass appeases God’s wrath against sin [1371, 1414]. - Roman Catholicism
The once-for-all sacrifice of the cross fully appeased God’s wrath against sin. (Hebrews 10:12-18).

The Bishops, with the Pope, as their head, rule the universal church. [883, 894-896]. - Roman Catholicism
Christ, the head of the body is the Head of the Church. (Colossians 1:18).

The faithful receive the benefits of the cross in fullest measure through the Sacrifice of the Mass [1366, 1407]. - Roman Catholicism
Believers receive the benefits of the cross in fullest measure in Christ through faith (Ephesians 1:3-14).

God has exalted Mary in heavenly glory as Queen of Heaven and Earth [966]. She is to be praised with special devotion [971, 2675]. - Roman Catholicism
The name of the Lord is to be praised, for He alone is exalted above heaven and earth (Psalm 148:13). God commands, “You shall have no other gods before Me.” (Exodus 20:3).

Mary is the co-mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions 9 968-970, 2677] - Roman Catholicism
Christ Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions (1 Timothy 2:5, John 14:13-14, 1 Peter 5:7).

Mary is the co-redeemer, for she participate with Christ in the painful act of redemption [618, 964, 968, 970]. - Roman Catholicism
Christ alone is the Redeemer, for He alone suffered and died for sin (1 Peter 1:18-19).

The sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in the Sacrifice of the Mass [1323, 1382] - Roman Catholicism
The Sacrifice of the cross is finished (John 19:30).

Indulgences dispensed by the Church for acts of piety release sinners from temporal punishment [1471-1473]. - Roman Catholicism
Jesus releases believers from their sins by His blood. (Revelation 1:5).

The Magisterium has the right to define truth found only obscurely or implicitly in revelation. [66, 88, 2035, 2051]. - Roman Catholicism
No one has the right to go beyond what is written in Scripture (1 Corinthians 4:6, Proverbs 30:5-6).

Scripture and Tradition together are the Church’s supreme role of faith [80, 82]. - Roman Catholicism
Scripture is the church’s rule of faith (Mark 7:7-13, 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

 

[geebob]

The text clearly says that Er was an evil man, so God struck him dead. It’s not surprising that God would not want His son to come from him is it?

I think if you examine Jesus’ ancestry, you will find that there evil people in it. Some of the kings of Judah definitely qualify.

 

[mark_a]

Striking Judah dead would have done no good whatsoever.

If withdrawal isn’t a concern, why didn’t Judah withdraw when he had relations with Tamar thinking she was a prostitute??

 

[Thoughtfulone]

If withdrawal isn’t a concern, why didn’t Judah withdraw when he had relations with Tamar thinking she was a prostitute??

Who knows? What’s your point?

 

[Thoughtfulone]

I think if you examine Jesus’ ancestry, you will find that there evil people in it. Some of the kings of Judah definitely qualify.

Apparently not evil enough to be stricken dead where they stood…

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Look it all boils down to this. When God made man he had two purpose in mind for sex. One of mutal love, resept, and bonding of the couple.
Two provreation. If you remove either one of these parts by an artifical means you are removeing part of what is in Gods plan.

If one is missing because of the natural design of God; such as the mothly cycle, age, or even pregancy at the time it is not you that are removeing that part as you would still be open to life if god so choose to Grant it.

The Arguemnst of those that say well what about the infurtile couple, or the woman that is all ready pregant, or the older women that no longer has a cycle is all justification of actions that deep down they know is not right.

They are looking for a acceptable reason of unacceptable behavior.
ABC is never acceptable.
Abstinance from sex by married couples can be acceptable if both are agreed to it. And speacking as someone that was married there are other ways then sex to express that love and bonding that are just as intiment and powerful and meaningful.

 

[geebob]

If withdrawal isn’t a concern, why didn’t Judah withdraw when he had relations with Tamar thinking she was a prostitute??

With the relationship of prostitution, there is an expectation that it is just for sex. It is the expectation of the prostitute that because this is an exchange for sex for money, offspring. However the prostitute takes care of it, whether she is a prostitute in part because she is infertile, or whether she has a method of contraception or abortion, it is her prerogative, and in virtue of her profession, if she has a child, there is no way to hold the father accountable since there is no way to tell who the father is (in biblical times of course).

Judah was almost doing the same thing that Onan was doing, having sex with no expectation of producing offspring, having sex for sex’s sake, though of course he left all that responsibility to the woman he assumed to be a prostitute to prevent a child. So why wasn’t Judah struck dead? You could say that he was open to life, but leaving that in the hands of the prostitute who would normally most likely prevent it, it really isn’t a respectful openness. In some ways, it might arguably be even be worse. it was also an openness to death since prostitutes would get abortions or commit infanticide albeit. Still, he is only indirectly responsible in those situations. It makes more sense to me that even though having sex with the prostitute may be unsavory for Judah and possibly sinful (not clearly sinful for him as prostitution isn’t even prohibited in the law (though it is frowned on in the old covenant and of course is viewed as a sin for us under the new covenant)), Judah did not have the combined sinful intention of using a woman just for sex, using a woman for sex against her intention to have children (having sex with her deceptively) and refusing to perform what is explicitly his duty in a context where he owes offspring. Onan had all of that going on.

Of course the counterexample of Judah and his assumed prostitute doesn’t prove that Onan’s sin wasn’t simply engaging in contraception, but it fits and still highlights the shortsightedness of oversimplifying this as a story where mere contraception warranted the death of a man.

 

[geebob]

Thoughtful,

Apparently not evil enough to be stricken dead where they stood…

God doesn’t work that way. Can’t imagine what Er did that would be worse than Hitler who was not struck dead immeadiately. It appears in scripture that God may strike wicked people dead to make a point, that some wickedness is truly deplorable and deserving of death, and not because he consistently strikes people dead after crossing some undefined threshold of wickedness. Consider Ananias and sapphira who were struck dead merely for lying about how much of their property they gave to the church. No doubt, some of the Judean kings were more wicked than that.

onegodonechurch,

Look it all boils down to this.

fraid not. it all boils down to the lack of biblical evidence for your perspective and the inconsistency of holding to NFP while being against ABC as well as the inconsistency of holding that procreation always is the intention behind sex when it just isn’t possible.

If one is missing because of the natural design of God; such as the mothly cycle, age, or even pregancy at the time it is not you that are removeing that part as you would still be open to life if god so choose to Grant it.

Look this has been answered in the following way and it isn’t going to go aways because you ignore it. And when you ignore it and repeat this that has been responded to you are backtracking and putting the conversation into pointless circles: Most contraceptive methods DO NOT REMOVE THE POSSIBILITY FOR LIFE!

And here is something unexplained, why if it isn’t the consistent purpose of sex, why it is wrong for us to take steps to remove it partially or fully since the consistent purpose remains. So it God choice, why? Because it just is. Well, that doesn’t fly. I don’t accept things just because. Because it is God’s choice of whom to bring into existence? That doesn’t work either. We necessarily play a cooperative role not in just bringing people about, but also not bringing them about, whether through NFP which does indeed result in fewer fewer pregnancies or abstinence. There are a many angles through which we humans, stewards of our bodies and created in the image of God play a role in determining whether what people will come about, also including when to have sex, whether to get fertility treatments, who to marry if at all and so on.

The Arguemnst of those that say well what about the infurtile couple, or the woman that is all ready pregant, or the older women that no longer has a cycle is all justification of actions that deep down they know is not right.

Oh puhlease. playing Freud gets us nowhere. I could say with equally unjustifiable presumption to yours that you just don’t want to admit that the catholic church is wrong, or that you’re just to prudish to see the value of sex in and of itself in marriage even when taking steps to reduce or excluding procreation. But that would be no more fruitful than your psychologizing of us. It’s often arrogance that suggests that no one truly thinks differently than I do and anyone who doesn’t is just in denial.

And speacking as someone that was married there are other ways then sex to express that love and bonding that are just as intiment and powerful and meaningful.

no one even hinted otherwise.

 

[copperblade]

With regards NFP, you control conception by not engaging in sex during fertile times. That is the big difference. You are actually not engaging in sex so therefore no conception.

With ABC you are engaging in sex and willfully trying to stop God.

If one does not want children then don’t engage in sex. It really is quite simple.

ABC is like bulimia. You want the pleasure but you don’t want the consequences. The pleasure of eating is secondary to the main purpose of nourishment and health maintenance.

Openness to life has to be at each and every act of intercourse because that is what it was created for and that is the means by which God brings forth new life.

It has to do with who decides who will and will not be willed into existence.

This is all about the 1st commandment - He is the Lord God and we cannot usurp His prerogatives.

This is issue really only boils down to that: Who is God, the Lord God or you?

Thanks, that makes the point a lot more clear to me. It’s sort of like saying “the proper way to avoid having children is to not have sex.” In that sense, calling NFP “birth control” may be somewhat misleading.

 

[geebob]

There are several important disanalogies between bulimia and ABC. Thinking that way would condemn NFP as well like by making the parallel that its okay to lose weight if you eat only when the stomach is least capable of digesting food and taking in nutrients (that the stomach doesn’t have a similar cycle is beside the point… or it itsn’t and if one wants to push that, it only highlights another disanalogy that speaks against the quality of this analogy).

 

[benedictus2]

There are several important disanalogies between bulimia and ABC. Thinking that way would condemn NFP as well like by making the parallel that its okay to lose weight if you eat only when the stomach is least capable of digesting food and taking in nutrients (that the stomach doesn’t have a similar cycle is beside the point… or it itsn’t and if one wants to push that, it only highlights another disanalogy that speaks against the quality of this analogy).

As you observed quite well, the stomach does not have cycles. But we do however tend to over-eat beyond what the body needs for maintenance and nutrition. We tend to eat beyond satiation. We can actually survive on a lot less food than what we consume.

The analogy applies very well to ABC because you are engaging in the act (eating / sex) but artificially preventing the consequence (weight gain / children).

You want the pleasure of food/sex without the “undesirable” consequence (weight gain/ baby).

This does not apply only to Bulimia but to people who gorge on food and then take pills such as laxative that will “flush” the fat out of their system.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, he was afraid that his 3rd son would die. The text does say this. What makes you think that Tamar would have ended up with Shelah if Judah had died?

And where did I say that Shelah would have ended up with Judah if Judah had died? You are not making any sense.

Without Judah to give Tamar to Shelah, this was certainly no guarantee. Striking Judah dead would have done no good whatsoever. Then the line would NEVER have continued…

Which is all beside the point. Your point was that God was angry with Onan because he was preventing the line that will give birth to Jesus from continuing.

As I pointed out, that was a ludicrous explanation because if all God was concerned with was making sure that Jesus was born in this line, He could have ensured that Tamar conceived through Er.

Wrong. The text clearly says that Er was an evil man, so God struck him dead.

So he was, but what does that have to with anything?

It’s not surprising that God would not want His son to come from him is it? He culled Er out of the line.

Huh!

Hellooo, Jesus’s lineage was not short of less-than-desirable characters. Solomon worshiped false gods (on account of his being beguiled by his many wives), David committed adultery and had Batsheba’s husband killed, and Tamar prostituted herself! Jesus’ whole line is a flawed and sinful humanity!

Jesus was born from an evil line because there was no other line to be born from! Or did that escape your notice?. Humanity had fallen badly since Adam and Eve decide they wanted to be God. (Which by the way is exactly what ABC is – a demand to be God).

The whole Old Testament is a prelude to the New.

Indeed it is but your whole take on it is completely up the creek. You are reading into the text something that is not there

It is about God preparing the Jewish people for the Messiah. It is about being able to trace Jesus straight back to Adam and Eve.

Exactly! Exactly! Exactly! **The genealogy of Jesus traces back to Adam and Eve who was the cause of all these evil! That alone debunks your argument. **

If God were concerned about the human lineage of His Son then He would have made Him come from a different genus altogether, because this one is extremely flawed.

The lineage is extremely important.

Which proves your point wrong again. Because this lineage of Adam and Eve was evil from the beginning or don’t you know that they were the reason we are in this quagmire after all.

God in His power though, chose Mary and made her immaculately conceived. You can do the extension from there.

 

[benedictus2]

And when you ignore it and repeat this that has been responded to you are backtracking and putting the conversation into pointless circles: Most contraceptive methods DO NOT REMOVE THE POSSIBILITY FOR LIFE!

If that is so then what is the point of using them?

I have asked this of vickimonica before and I wish someone would answer.

If after taking a lot of trouble through ABC, you conceive every single time, what do you do? Will you have all the children that are conceived?

You see, if you set your mind on the agenda of preventing conception, then I doubt very much if you will not resort to abortion should ABC should fail every single time.

Evil begins in the heart and it is in the heart that it must first be rooted out.

God alone is God.

 

[benedictus2]

Neat interpretation of Onans sin as thwarting Gods plan by interupting the line to Christ ( I had not realised this ), but this then raises the issue what other of Gods plans could we be thwarting by using contraceptive devices or can we ever thwart Gods plans?

I don’t have a position on this but i’t does lead to a strange but humerous possible conclusion that if you use contraception and are not thwarting Gods plan your fine but if you are thwarting Gods plan your not. The question is how will God ensure his plan isn’t thwarted … aaaaaargggghhhh i feel a catch 22 coming on here.

The argument is posed wrong by approaching it from God’s plan. It is actually about God’s Will and God’s prerogative.

It may be God’s plan for someone to have only 1 or 2 children, but so long as you contracept you will not know that.

It is about orienting our will towards God’s will and letting the Author of Life decide.

 

[benedictus2]

fraid not. it all boils down to the lack of biblical evidence for your perspective

There was and so far you have not be able to rebut fully our argument from the Biblical perspective.

and the inconsistency of holding to NFP while being against ABC

But as we have shown, there is no inconsistency. You have tried to show that there was and we have proved you wrong. Unless you can rebut the last position then I am afraid we have shown that there was no inconsistency.

as well as the inconsistency of holding that procreation always is the intention behind sex when it just isn’t possible.

Again, we have shown that procreation is the primary reason God made sex. Your intentions don’t count because you will give valence to sex as you please. What counts is what the Author of sex intended it for. And right from the word go, in Genesis it was about procreation. It is very clear from the Bible that the consequence of sex - i.e. children - has always been seen as a blessing.

Look this has been answered in the following way and it isn’t going to go aways because you ignore it.

But we haven’t ignored. You have however ignored our argument.

 

[benedictus2]

And here is something unexplained, why if it isn’t the consistent purpose of sex, why it is wrong for us to take steps to remove it partially or fully since the consistent purpose remains.

Huh???! What consistent purpose remains? If the consistent purpose of sex is procreation, how can you be said to be cooperating with God when you thwart that purpose but doing everything in your means to ensure that no life comes from that union?

So it God choice, why?

Are you for real? God’s choice does not matter? You are questioning God’s prerogative? Since when have you become God?

Because it just is. Well, that doesn’t fly. I don’t accept things just because.

Yes, yes, and a further yes. Because God said so because He is the one who is God not you.
That is precisely the nature of Adam’s sin - a refusal to let God be God - and in this post of yours it is as plain as day that you are doing the same.

Because it is God’s choice of whom to bring into existence? That doesn’t work either. We necessarily play a cooperative role not in just bringing people about, but also not bringing them about, whether through NFP which does indeed result in fewer fewer pregnancies or abstinence.

Yes indeed we do. We either co-operate with God or we don’t.

We either follow God or we don’t follow him and therefore sin.

What you have written is a flat out refusal to co-operate with God.

It is one thing to sin, it is another to justify it by saying that it is okay to sin.

What you are saying here is that co-operation with God’s will and a hard headed refusal to co-operate with God’s will is of equal valence. Hogwash.

There are a many angles through which we humans, stewards of our bodies and created in the image of God play a role in determining whether what people will come about, also including when to have sex, whether to get fertility treatments, who to marry if at all and so on.

Total rubbish. What you are talking about is not stewarding. Stewarding involves a co-operation with God by a will that is ordered towards God’s will.

What you are outlining here is not stewardship but your own dictatorship as regards your body. You will decide what you will do with your body regardless of God’s will.

Oh puhlease. playing Freud gets us nowhere. I could say with equally unjustifiable presumption to yours that you just don’t want to admit that the catholic church is wrong,

Oh, but the Catholic Church is so right. It is the only Church that has held on to the truth of this teaching. As a matter of fact, many Protestants have converted when, after much study, they realized that the only position that is Christian, is the Catholic position.

You know it deep down. And it is not playing Freud. You know it but because it is inconvenient, you have mustered all sorts of rationalizations to keep the guilt at bay. But the truth will out. There is no stopping it.

or that you’re just to prudish to see the value of sex in and of itself in marriage even when taking steps to reduce or excluding procreation.

Aaah, geebob. We have been replying to you on this point over and over and it seems comprehension is just slow.

There is no prudishness in the Catholic position. The couple must enjoy each other. They are God’s gift to each other. But that is one thing they must never forget. They are GOD’S gift therefore they must use their bodies according to the way GOD designed. God must reign in every aspect of their union because it is God who brought them together and sanctifies that union.

By all means they must glory in the marital embrace, and it is precisely because they must glory in it that they must not frustrate the primary reason for which it was created.

But that would be no more fruitful than your psychologizing of us. It’s often arrogance that suggests that no one truly thinks differently than I do and anyone who doesn’t is just in denial.

On this instance it is not arrogance. It would be different if you are an atheist. But you are supposedly a Christian so the only way one can run away from the truth that Christ gives is by a conscious determined effort.

Rationalization.