Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

[benedictus2]

Here is something I lifted from the 40 Days for Life email updates.**

** **God’s intention is that we multiply and fill the
earth.

One of the most pernicious lies that sociologists have
foisted off on the public is that the earth is
becoming overpopulated.

What kind of a sadistic god would create the earth and
human creatures on it, only to have them literally
reproduce themselves into oblivion?

The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is
our divine Creator, has commanded us to multiply and
fill the earth and far from letting the population get
out of control, He has, in fact given his human
creatures a dominical role over all the lesser
creatures.

The “birth control” movement, which had its beginnings
with Margaret Sanger in the early years of the last
century, has led, in many parts of the world, to a
birthrate that is drastically below the normal
replacement rate.

God’s Word assures us that children are a blessing,
that they are a reward of faithfully trusting and
serving God and that they are the crown of their
parents’ old age.

The spread of the contraception mentality that has so
permeated our culture is, undoubtedly, a factor in the
ready acceptance of abortion.

God’s commandment to multiply and fill the earth has
never been withdrawn. May He help us to accept the
gift of children and give him thanks for every baby
who is born into the world.

---

PRAYER​

Father of mercy and grace, we thank you for the gift
of our children.

Grant that every fiber of our being may rejoice when a
new baby, our own or any else’s, is born into the
world.

Help us to welcome them as we would welcome you, for
whenever a new baby is conceived, another life to bear
your image and another voice to praise and worship
you, is beginning.

In Christ’s name we pray, Amen.

**
**
**

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=geebob;7722298

onegodonechurch,

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.

There is nothing inconsitant about it. No one said it was the only it is part of it. When you remove through artifical means one of the components, you have perverted the act.

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!

If they don’t then they are a major waste of time and pointless. Also If someone continues to miss the point and repeatedly makes statements that lead to error it is our responsibility to continue to try and correct them.

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 key you seem to be missing is the use of artifical means. And just a side bar Why are we here? Because God choose so. That is the answer that is most correct If things being the way they are because God says is not a good enough answer for you I suggest you start doing a lot more time in prayer.

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.

You would not be the first to say I am prudish, and maybe I am. That does not chang the Fact that though sex within marrigae is a glorious gift that can express the love of the couple for one another, The artifical attempts to prevent pregancy stains that love. It is also arrogant to say that they are wrong just because they say you are.

no one even hinted otherwise.

Read back over the post you will find one were a poster told someone else that because they were not married they did not understand. or words to that effect.

Just a few more thought here that have not been address is the health concerns that most all forms of ABC bring about. Has anyone bothered to read the warnning lables on these.
And condoms give a false since of protection.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

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

Sorry, I misread you.

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.

No, not merely angry at Onan (although that may have been part of it). He wanted to get Onan out of the way so Tamar could conceive. It’s a matter of practicality as well.

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.

Er was evil. Evil enough that God wanted him wiped from the face of the Earth. Clearly, He did not want Jesus to come from his loins.

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!

Both Solomon and David are revered the Jewish people despite their flaws. They were wise and heroic and blessed and favored by God. Clearly, Er was not. How can you even compare them? And Tamar didn’t “prostitute” herself. She did what she needed to do to ensure that she would conceive of her husband’s line.

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. **

Not at all! God had a very specific plan as to how Jesus would be born and from whom. Your reading of this story is simplistic and doesn’t take the New Testament into account at all. The idea that God killed Onan because he ejaculated on the ground is ludicrous. The Jews at the time frowned upon this sort of behavior, but it was NOT a serious sin.

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.

You’re kidding, right?
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.

Being a sinner and being EVIL are to totally different things. The Bible is not clear as to what Er did to displease God, but obviously, it was enough to warrant his death and for God to punish him by cutting him out of Jesus lineage altogether.

[/QUOTE]

 

[mysta02]

I’ve read a number of threads about why NFP is ok and other types of contraception are forbidden, but none of them make any sense.

The Apologists all say that having sex while ‘eliminating’ the possibility of children is sinful, but NFP is doing just that. It is having sex for pleasure while reducing the likelihood of a pregnancy. Sure, NFP has a higher failure rate than condoms or birth control pills, but God doesn’t care about statistics! He can make a condom-wearing couple get pregnant as easily as an NFP-couple! Or, he can cause a fixed man and a fixed woman to have a child!

God is all-powerful and saying that one form of contraception is morally superior to another is simply wrong.

Using Onan as an example is ineffective, as well, as it was his disobedience to God that caused his death, not his use of ‘birth control’. The passage clearly states this, and to read it otherwise and create a rule based on a false interpretation is irresponsible, to put it mildly.

The whole issue of birth control laws within the Church needs to be re-examined, and not followed blindly based on an old, and incorrect interpretation.

 

[Calliso]

Here is something I lifted from the 40 Days for Life email updates.**

** **God’s intention is that we multiply and fill the
earth.

One of the most pernicious lies that sociologists have**
foisted off on the public is that the earth is
becoming overpopulated.

What kind of a sadistic god would create the earth and
human creatures on it, only to have them literally
reproduce themselves into oblivion?

The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is
our divine Creator, has commanded us to multiply and
fill the earth and far from letting the population get
out of control, He has, in fact given his human
creatures a dominical role over all the lesser
creatures.

The “birth control” movement, which had its beginnings
with Margaret Sanger in the early years of the last
century, has led, in many parts of the world, to a
birthrate that is drastically below the normal
replacement rate.

God’s Word assures us that children are a blessing,
that they are a reward of faithfully trusting and
serving God and that they are the crown of their
parents’ old age.

The spread of the contraception mentality that has so
permeated our culture is, undoubtedly, a factor in the
ready acceptance of abortion.

God’s commandment to multiply and fill the earth has
never been withdrawn. May He help us to accept the
gift of children and give him thanks for every baby
who is born into the world.

---

PRAYER​

Father of mercy and grace, we thank you for the gift
of our children.

Grant that every fiber of our being may rejoice when a
new baby, our own or any else’s, is born into the
world.

Help us to welcome them as we would welcome you, for
whenever a new baby is conceived, another life to bear
your image and another voice to praise and worship
you, is beginning.

In Christ’s name we pray, Amen.

**
**

Well the thing is God also expects us to be reponsible with the Earth. We might not be overpopulated at this point but the risk is still there. Especially when you consider that much of the reason we are able to support our current level of population is because of fossil fuels. Once those become scarce if a viable subsititute is not found there could be a pretty big crash in population. The issue with overpopulation is not really an issue with the amount of room we have on the planet we have plenty its with resources. And some resources are limited like oil and coal.

To what degree do you think God wants us to fill the Earth? I mean we have humans on every single continent except Antartica and who would want to live there full time anyway… Do we need to “fill the earth” till the point where all the surface is covered by our citys towns farms and what not. Or do you think there is a point before that when God will be ok with us not doing so much multiplying. And besides its not like everyone has stopped multiplying. The human race is still definately growing in population!

 

[geebob]

There is nothing inconsitant about it. No one said it was the only it is part of it. When you remove through artifical means one of the components, you have perverted the act…

And of course you would say this. And my point at that juncture is that your summery statement about what it all boils down to doesn’t win any points and demonstrated this by offering a counter summery. It’s one of those things that just doesn’t go very far.

If they don’t then they are a major waste of time and pointless.

They aren’t a waste of time because like NFP, they reduce the probability for pregnancy, not the possibility. (yet the probability and possibility for some natural situations is zero)

The key you seem to be missing is the use of artifical means.

No, I’m not missing that at all, and my fault is that I didn’t make it explicit that that is precisely what I had in mind. It remains unexplained as to why artificial means to do something that is also achievable via natural means is wrong especially when the only difference in the result for some of the means is in terms of degree (likelyhood for pregnancy) and not quality.

If things being the way they are because God says is not a good enough answer for you I suggest you start doing a lot more time in prayer.

ah, here’s what you misunderstand. Since there is no biblical clear indicator that God prohibited ABC, the lack of an explanation for why God has forbidden this is just further evidence that God has not forbidden it. God was a really good competent creator, competent enough to make creatures capable of understaning him and many of his reasons. And we may not understand everything, but when something is neither clearly stated from God nor explained, the poorest reason to support it is the unsupported claim of “because God said so.” I went on to explain that your prohibition isn’t just on poorly substantiated grounds, it is inconsistent with the fact that we do indeed play decisive roles in procreation both to do it and not to to begin with. There is no reason not to hold that ABC is an unfitting part of that decisive role. That we are playing God to rings hollow.

You would not be the first to say I am prudish…

And you completely missed the point on that one.

Read back over the post you will find one were a poster told someone else that because they were not married they did not understand. or words to that effect.

okay, I didn’t hint otherwise.

 

[geebob]

It turns out that NFP is just as effective as the pill. In other words ABC, with the pill in particular doesn’t remove the possibility nor the probability for it when compared to NFP.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm

So why use the pill at all? Because couple may want to have sex more often than NFP permits.

 

[Calliso]

It turns out that NFP is just as effective as the pill. In other words ABC, with the pill in particular doesn’t remove the possibility nor the probability for it when compared to NFP.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm

So why use the pill at all? Because couple may want to have sex more often than NFP permits.

Yep exactly! So that one particular argument really doesn;t work.

 

[benedictus2]

Well the thing is God also expects us to be reponsible with the Earth. We might not be overpopulated at this point but the risk is still there.

That is not for you or anyone to decide.

You know the only thing that we have a say on? It is on how we use our resources.

The one thing that is causing this pressure on the resources is not over population but greed. A couple with 1 child in the West probably uses up more resources than a family of 12 in poorer countries.

That is where the problem is. Not over population but sin.

Just assess your own personal situation. Take stock of everything you consume and use. Probably 70% of your consumption is not even necessary. When it comes down to it we all need only the basics to survive.

It is because the world has become so dis-ordered because of sin that we see this catastrophe looming.

I mean just think of the waste that the developed countries poduce, buying new things when the old will do just as well. Look at how corporations build obsolescence into the product they manufacture.

That, is where the problem is. The problem was always about sin. And now you are proposing to solve the problem created by sin by employing a sinful solution.

It won’t work.

Especially when you consider that much of the reason we are able to support our current level of population is because of fossil fuels. Once those become scarce if a viable subsititute is not found there could be a pretty big crash in population.

So you have bought into fear, eh? Isn’t that exactly what the devil wants to happen? Make people afraid so that they will become even more curved-in on themselves.

God provided us with fossil fuels long before we even thought we would have a need of it and yet you think that He is incapable of providing for the eventuality of fossil fuel running out?

The Israelites in the desert were afraid that there might not be food tomorrow so they started hoarding the manna and the quail when God specifically told them to get only enough for the day. You know what happened after that.

This fear is the work of the devil. And the solution that you are proposing is a lie and hence comes from the devil as well.

We have so far wandered from the truth that we think the lie is the truth.

It is about time that we started appraising the problem from the correct vantage point. There is no problem with the environment, food supply, fuel supply etc. But there was always a problem with the heart of man that is given over to evil.

The issue with overpopulation is not really an issue with the amount of room we have on the planet we have plenty its with resources. And some resources are limited like oil and coal.

That is a bogus argument as I have shown above.

To what degree do you think God wants us to fill the Earth?

We don’t know and we don’t need to know. As I keep saying, we don’t decide that. The only thing He said was be fruitful and multiply and steward the earth. Be caretakers of creation. But we have ceased being caretakers and instead have become plunderers because of our selfishness and our greed.

 

[benedictus2]

I mean we have humans on every single continent except Antartica and who would want to live there full time anyway… Do we need to “fill the earth” till the point where all the surface is covered by our citys towns farms and what not.

Again, that is not for you to decide. You are trying to create a panic situation where there is none.

Christ’s message after the resurrection is : Peace! Do not be afraid.

The devil’s voice will always be the opposite.

The picture you are painting is one that the devil wants you to see so that you will lose your peace and therefore take matters into your own hands at the price of disobeying the One who loved you into life.

Or do you think there is a point before that when God will be ok with us not doing so much multiplying.

No. There was only one command. Be fruitful and multiply. If we follow God’s precepts then everything will be okay, not according to your own parameters of what okay means, but according to God’s parameters.

The earth is God’s earth. Not our earth but God’s earth and it is about time we started treating it as such.

We are God’s creatures. We belong to God. And it is about time we started acting as if that fact matters.

And besides its not like everyone has stopped multiplying. The human race is still definately growing in population!

The population is not the issue here. Evil is the issue. The evil of playing God and thus deciding for yourself who will and will not come into existence.
That is the height of arrogance and pride and that is the sin of our first parents and the reason for the mess that we are now in.

If disobedience is the problem then it sure ain’t the solution.

 

[benedictus2]

It turns out that NFP is just as effective as the pill. In other words ABC, with the pill in particular doesn’t remove the possibility nor the probability for it when compared to NFP.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm

So why use the pill at all? Because couple may want to have sex more often than NFP permits.

Sigh! So many posts and you still fail to get it.

Unlike the pill, NFP works within God’s design. The Pill does not.

The issue here is never about the outcome but about what you do to get to that outcome.

It was never about effectivity. It was always about you playing God and apportioning for yourself the prerogative that belong solely to God.

 

[benedictus2]

Yep exactly! So that one particular argument really doesn;t work.

Wrong again. Refer my post above

 

[benedictus2]

No, not merely angry at Onan (although that may have been part of it). He wanted to get Onan out of the way so Tamar could conceive. It’s a matter of practicality as well.

As I have said before the text does not support that.
Besides, if conception was the only objective, then God could easily have made her conceive through Er.

Er was evil. Evil enough that God wanted him wiped from the face of the Earth. Clearly, He did not want Jesus to come from his loins.

Nope that is your interpretation that the text itself does not support. Jesus came from a sinful line because there was no other line to come from. What is so hard to understand about that?
The NT does not even hint at this. Not even remotely.

Both Solomon and David are revered the Jewish people despite their flaws.

Revered has nothing to do with it. Your argument was that God did not want Jesus to come from a sinful line. Reality check. He did.

They were wise and heroic and blessed and favored by God. Clearly, Er was not. How can you even compare them? And Tamar didn’t “prostitute” herself. She did what she needed to do to ensure that she would conceive of her husband’s line.

It doesn’t help your argument any because your simple argument was that God did not want Jesus to come from someone sinful and the line He came from was peppered with sinful people. So that debunks your argument.

Not at all! God had a very specific plan as to how Jesus would be born and from whom.

Yes, He did. And there is nothing in the Bible that says that God wanted Him to come from a “not sinful” loin thus He struck Er dead. You are making things up and no exegete will support you on that. There is nothing in the OT and nothing in the NT that remotely hints at this.

Your reading of this story is simplistic and doesn’t take the New Testament into account at all.

Actually, yours is the one that is simplistic… No Church Father, no Catholic theologian will ever support your kind of reading. This is your own invention . Even geebob disagrees with you on that one.

The idea that God killed Onan because he ejaculated on the ground is ludicrous. The Jews at the time frowned upon this sort of behavior, but it was NOT a serious sin.

It was a very serious sin. The Jews regarded it so and so the Church has always seen contraception as evil. Even Martin Luther and John Calvin regarded it as a very serious sin.
If you look at the original text, the word used was shakath – ruined. Onan ruined his seed.

You’re kidding, right?

No. That conclusion follows from your ludicrous premise. The most ludicrous ever presented on this thread.

Being a sinner and being EVIL are to totally different things.

It is only a matter of gradation.

The Bible is not clear as to what Er did to displease God, but obviously, it was enough to warrant his death and for God to punish him by cutting him out of Jesus lineage altogether.

Again, it has nothing to do with cutting him out of Jesus’ lineage. That is your fairy tale.

 

[benedictus2]

The Apologists all say that having sex while ‘eliminating’ the possibility of children is sinful, but NFP is doing just that.

It has nothing to do with eliminating the possibility of children but the way in which that “eliminating of possibility” is accomplished.

There is a Godly way (because God has already built that into our biology) and there is an evil way which goes against our biology.

Any other argument misses the point.

The whole issue of birth control laws within the Church needs to be re-examined, and not followed blindly based on an old, and incorrect interpretation.

Hear ye, hear ye and listen to Pope mysta02 as he makes an infallible decree that the church should re-examine her doctrine.

 

[confusedius]

Hear ye, hear ye and listen to Pope mysta02 as he makes an infallible decree that the church should re-examine her doctrine.

Poor form.

 

[benedictus2]

Poor form.

Poor form? I was only expressing the truth.

In demanding that the Church bow to him, he is in fact claiming to be infallible. So, yes, hear ye, hear ye indeed.

Why is it that non-Catholics think that they have the right to dictate what the Church ought and ought not to do considering that they do not know even know in full the teaching of the Church?

Mysta02 in all her wisdom and all of one of her has decided that the Church (with all her doctors, saints and theologians and a 2000 year history) has somehow stuck to an old and incorrect interpretation. Which of course implies that Mysta’s own interpretation must be the correct one.

Sheer arrogance.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Poor form? I was only expressing the truth.

In demanding that the Church bow to him, he is in fact claiming to be infallible. So, yes, hear ye, hear ye indeed.

Why is it that non-Catholics think that they have the right to dictate what the Church ought and ought not to do considering that they do not know even know in full the teaching of the Church?

Mysta02 in all her wisdom and all of one of her has decided that the Church (with all her doctors, saints and theologians and a 2000 year history) has somehow stuck to an old and incorrect interpretation. Which of course implies that Mysta’s own interpretation must be the correct one.

Sheer arrogance.

Amen.

 

[mysta02]

It turns out that NFP is just as effective as the pill. In other words ABC, with the pill in particular doesn’t remove the possibility nor the probability for it when compared to NFP.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm

So why use the pill at all? Because couple may want to have sex more often than NFP permits.

That’s COMPLETELY missed the point. The point is that if the Bible says that reducing the possibility of sex is sinful (which the Church says it is), than EITHER WAY of reducing (NFP or ABC) is sinful. Personally, I don’t think the Bible says that it is sinful. And, I plan on multiplying one day, so I will fulfill God’s plan, and can live in peace with God on that point. But, if your personal moral compass doesn’t let you have sex for pleasure, and that every act must be fully aimed at making children, then NFP is JUST as sinful as ABC.

@Everyone who calls me Pope:

I’m not the Pope, but that also doesn’t mean that I’m wrong. The Church spent several hundred years MURDERING people and charging money for their sins to be forgiven!! Does that mean that they were right??? That tradition made it so?!? Of course not! What I’m saying is that the passages Catholics are using to allow NFP and denounce ABC are being misread.

Neither am I infallible, nor am I arrogant. God wrote the Bible through men for people to interpret. He doesn’t give insight to a small number of people (ie: Pope, Bishops, Cardinals, etc), but to EVERYONE. And, I am part of that everyone. Just because my interpretation doesn’t fall inside the Church’s doesn’t make it wrong.

@Jharek: It is everyone’s business to steer people who have been misled toward the True path and to attempt to make changes that have no Biblical grounding.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

That’s COMPLETELY missed the point. The point is that if the Bible says that reducing the possibility of sex is sinful (which the Church says it is), than EITHER WAY of reducing (NFP or ABC) is sinful. Personally, I don’t think the Bible says that it is sinful. And, I plan on multiplying one day, so I will fulfill God’s plan, and can live in peace with God on that point. But, if your personal moral compass doesn’t let you have sex for pleasure, and that every act must be fully aimed at making children, then NFP is JUST as sinful as ABC.

@Everyone who calls me Pope:

I’m not the Pope, but that also doesn’t mean that I’m wrong. The Church spent several hundred years MURDERING people and charging money for their sins to be forgiven!! Does that mean that they were right??? That tradition made it so?!? Of course not! What I’m saying is that the passages Catholics are using to allow NFP and denounce ABC are being misread.

Neither am I infallible, nor am I arrogant. God wrote the Bible through men for people to interpret. He doesn’t give insight to a small number of people (ie: Pope, Bishops, Cardinals, etc), but to EVERYONE. And, I am part of that everyone. Just because my interpretation doesn’t fall inside the Church’s doesn’t make it wrong.

@Jharek: It is everyone’s business to steer people who have been misled toward the True path and to attempt to make changes that have no Biblical grounding.

:dts::dts:

 

[ESMDHokie77]

benedictus2, I’m not sure what to make of this… mysta02 must be the first pope to demand sola scriptura!

Mysta02, once you get your attitude fixed: please look up the real meaning of the word “indulgence”, read up on the real history of the “inquisitions”, figure out who determined what should be in the Bible WAY before the 16th century, and then please tell us who gives you the authority to correct God’s Church on theology.

Peace,
Phil