Someone may have been infected through rape or molestation. I don't think you would want them to be deprived due to something that happened out of their control.
Preventing Pregnancy Displeases Thee Lord
- Thread starter Where is the Messiah
- Start date
- Status
I see this discussion as less a quarrel about the law and more of an educational discussion for any guests who may be reading here. You are right that most of the people speaking on this thread have already made up their minds about what is good for them. However, there are many who have never given this whole topic much thought. Hopefully, it will be provocative enough to cause deep thinking both in unbelievers and new believers.
I think someone responded to it recently (months after it was last active) and so I've been responding. I figured the people talking about it weren't involved previously. I obliged to respond to them. It's true I've said the same things multiple times, but I'm responding to different people all asking the same things.
What do you mean what should happen to this thread?
Last edited:
That's a great question. Consider that if contraception is a sin, then man doesn't have the authority to permit it to be OK, even if it is for someone who has suffered. To live devoted to Christ can in fact many times mean great suffering, but God remains our comfort.
HisManySongs
Passed on, February 28, 2022
I said no such thing! If you are going to quote me, please get the wording correct.
What I said was:
Hey come on , I said "my words not HMS'" I placed that in parenthesis. Surely that should be plain and clear enough to all that I was not quoting you.
I do agree with you, Lys, regarding depending upon God's comfort through heinous times and trials. For instance, many people are agreeable to abortion in the case of rape; but I say even under that circumstance, it is the taking of an innocent life. The rapist's feet should be held to the fire instead. It is extremely tragic that the rape occurred and a pregnancy resulted; but I would rather the victim of the rape be encouraged to carry to full term and would offer all support I could.
I'm not so sure about ALL types of contraception being a sin. I have been reading the posts here, and while your posts have certainly caused me pause; I'm not quite ready to abandon my position that some might be acceptable...though again, I am thinking upon these things a great deal.
Some types of contraception may sound innocent but are, in actuality, an abortifacient (i.e., IUD, the "Morning After Pill"). The various agencies promoting abortion and pro-choice options have historically misled millions of women into believing their babies are "tissue", "fetuses", and "not really a baby yet" (their words, not mine). These same agencies do not inform the women about the statistics of health problems women face after abortion (depression, suicide, cancer, regret).
I wonder how many Einsteins, George Washingtons, or Mozarts have been killed in the name of convenience. During the early 70's, I bought into the propaganda of "planned parenthood" and opted for contraceptives. Having only two sons during my childbearing years, I am envious of women who have many children and enjoy them. And, facing old age with minimal support, I regret not having more children. It is very difficult for only two grown children to manage a parent's old age. God knows this and is probably part of the reason He gave the command to be "fruitful and multiply."
Children are a blessing from the Lord, and you are right about not interfering with a pregnancy. If a pregnancy occurs, I believe it is God-ordained, no matter what the circumstances are. He has decided to create a life and has a purpose for every life. It is not up to us to decide for God whether we let it live or not. However, I still do not see reason enough to forbid someone from preventing pregnancy. After all, if God wants a pregnancy to occur, He will see to it one way or another. It is only after a pregnancy occurs that our choice to interfere becomes sinful, IMHO.
So, yes I can see that my reasoning still sounds a bit confused...as I said, I'm still thinking on these things. This is a profound matter and really requires deep thinking on the part of anyone who is serious about living a godly life.
HisManySongs
Passed on, February 28, 2022
Your words gave the wrong impression as to why the thread was closed.
I wouldn't say we can even forbid someone from using contraception just as we can't forbid someone from NOT getting pregnant (like forcing them to have sex and get pregnant). My only position is that contraception is and always has been a pretty grievous sin. But I know many here disagree with me on that. We won't find a common ground. It's just a reality.
So, in this case, yes, all sincere Christian denominations believe as a moral principle that sex is for, and only for, committed couples in a marital relationship.
However, Catholic morality holds that anytime sexual contact occurs between husband and wife, it must be so as to provide the opportunity for procreation. In my interaction with Protestants (an granted I don't talk extensively about the subject) not all sexual contact must be to this end.
In summary, Catholic morality holds that sex is only for procreation, and procreation is only for married couples. Protestant morality is that sex is for only married couples and so is procreation. We don't necessarily see sex and procreation as one in the same, or as a means and an end. Paul's tone in Corinthians seems to support this also.
Now personally, I see it as the other way around. In NFP there is a constant assessment of whether or not a sexual experience will lead to a pregnancy. So, the end is either a child, or no child, and sex or no sex is the means to that. With AFP sex is an end in and of itself, and ideally a expression of a deep love. Pregnancy is then like an added bonus when the couple is ready.
Well, we are then just getting into slippery slope theory (a logical fallacy btw). So, this is what I'm going to say, I can sincerely say that non-abortafacient contraception is moral exactly because I believe life begins at conception. This is because I know that contraception of that nature does not destroy a fertilized egg, but prevents it from becoming fertilized in the first place.
RID (rape, incest, and danger of death) being acceptable excuses for abortion is completely independent of contraception. Indeed these are concessions that apparently come from a belief that either forcing a mother to carry a child of rape to term, or allowing her to die to save the child, is more evil than aborting the fetus. I personally feel that I don't have a right to judge these circumstances because none of these affect me, since I am a male. However, I generally would hope that victim of any of these circumstances would exhaust all alternatives before executing an abortion.
To be fair, there is a tendency among some to equate a fertilized, but unborn fetus, as a half-human. This I believe is wrong, but again is not because of contraception.
Yes.....I would have to disagree with you on this.
I have really enjoyed the banter back and forth thanking God I was not in the middle of the arguments.
However I would like to say that the notion that the bearing of children is the only God-given purpose for marital relations is wrong.
The Bible stresses the true purpose; that God made man and woman to complete one another and to fulfill each other's needs.
I Corinthians 7:2-5 makes this very clear......
"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence; and likewise, also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud you not one the other, except it be with the consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and in prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you because of you lack of self control." This passage very clearly teaches that the purpose of sexual relations is to fulfill the natural biological urge and thereby avoid fornication.
Thus, the doctrine that the only God-given purpose for marital relations is for the purpose of having children is wrong. Opposition to birth control is based on this false assumption. Many good people who have misunderstood the teaching of the Bible on this point, have mistakenly assumed that Genesis 1:28 applies to Christians today, when it says, "Be you fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it."
This, however, was, obviously, a command given to Adam and Eve, not to all mankind today. Not every command given to every individual in the Bible applies today; we are not to build an ark because Noah did, neither are we to stone adulterers because the Jews did. No Old Testament command applies today, because the Old Testament was fulfilled and replaced by the New Testament at the death of Christ. Study Romans 7:6; Galatians 3:23-25; Hebrews 9:15-17.
I understand that the Catholic view is that contraception is a sin but the Bible does not say that.
Last edited:
My wife used birth control after we had our second child. Our second child was born with Downs Syndrome.
My wife was not any longer interested in having any more children.
But one night while we were eating Jesus told me that we were to have another child. I shared what Jesus just told me, and my wife said she knew, because Jesus just told her that also.
Our third child was born blind, but after some months of our prayers Jesus healed her. By the way this child is now going on thirty-seven years old, and has 20/14 eyesight.
Two years later after I had given away/lost everything owned by me and was totally without any money or possessions. And was earning three dollars and seventy-five cents an hour, with no benefits. We were living in a rented house with no air-conditioning.
This was in a Southern City where it was often in the hundreds. We were sleeping on the floor, and cooking with a pump-up Colman stove.
One evening as I was getting out of the car after working all day, when Jesus told me to have another child.
I went in the house, and told my wife what Jesus had told me. She again said I know, Jesus told me that also.
We conceived our fourth child that night.
I am sharing all this to give people another understanding of how to know if he or she doing God’s will or not
One does do not need to be all concerned if using contraception is of God’s will or not, because God will tell him or her.
All a person needs to do is obey God.
My wife was not any longer interested in having any more children.
But one night while we were eating Jesus told me that we were to have another child. I shared what Jesus just told me, and my wife said she knew, because Jesus just told her that also.
Our third child was born blind, but after some months of our prayers Jesus healed her. By the way this child is now going on thirty-seven years old, and has 20/14 eyesight.
Two years later after I had given away/lost everything owned by me and was totally without any money or possessions. And was earning three dollars and seventy-five cents an hour, with no benefits. We were living in a rented house with no air-conditioning.
This was in a Southern City where it was often in the hundreds. We were sleeping on the floor, and cooking with a pump-up Colman stove.
One evening as I was getting out of the car after working all day, when Jesus told me to have another child.
I went in the house, and told my wife what Jesus had told me. She again said I know, Jesus told me that also.
We conceived our fourth child that night.
I am sharing all this to give people another understanding of how to know if he or she doing God’s will or not
One does do not need to be all concerned if using contraception is of God’s will or not, because God will tell him or her.
All a person needs to do is obey God.
By no means am I saying bearing children is the only purpose of marriage. There are far more than just that -- though it is one of the core reasons -- one which not every couple will be able to do.
With all due respect to everyone (and I respect that we won't all agree) much of what I've said seems to keep getting misunderstood; from the idea that only Catholics believe that contraception is wrong to the idea that I'm suggesting child-bearing is the only reason for marriage, or that it's the only reason for sex between married couples.
By no means am I saying this to try and change anyone's minds, but I'd like to say, for the record, that I never said any of that, nor do I believe that to be true.
Last edited:
Moreover major, Paul says in part to the Ephesian Church:
Eph 5:31. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
Eph 5:32. This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
I think special attention needs to be paid to Paul's observation immediately after quoting from Gen 2:24., that there is in play here a mystery and that it is a profound mystery.
The Church is often referred to as the bride of Christ, and that their is to be a marriage feast in heaven. Jesus also referred to Himself as the Bride Groom.
So is making babies at the head of the list of priorities? I think not. I'm not and neither is Paul just talking about sexual relations as such, but marriage overall.
As I digest Paul's teaching here, sexual relations is a small part of the purpose of marriage.
I agree with both of you for the most part. And your citing Paul's writings are on the money. However the duties and responsibilities and purposes of love, marriage, and sex are not either/or but rather both/and. Both bonding and procreation. Both joy and work. Both give and accept. It ought never be one without the other.
Last edited:
But Lysander, the premise of the anti-contraception doctrine is that sex, when not engaged for the purpose of procreation, is sinful. Indeed St. Augustine makes not of that rather clearly in a lot of his apologies.
There is scriptural reference to both situations. It was a custom of Jews for a deceased man's wife to marry his brother that the man's bloodline might be continued through his brother. There was no contingency that it required bonding. And as Major noted, 1 Corinthians notes it can also be used to avoid fornication.
Ideally, sex is a bonding and procreative experience, there is no command that it has to be. Sex can be a versatile experience to achieve many ends which are positive, provided they take place in a martial commitment, and involve communication and consent.
That's true about the brother of the deceased husband and his role in carrying on the bloodline, but this was Mosaic law, divine law, especially for the role of populating Israel.
I thought Augustine made it pretty clear. Here's one quote (apologies if this was quoted already--I don't remember):
"I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility…Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife."
I wouldn't expect many in here to take Augustine's words with anything but a grain of salt -- his words mean nothing to most people here, but at the very least, it should be looked at as food for thought because he makes a jarring statement that a husband and wife who engage sexually with absolutely no consideration of procreation are not truly husband and wife. He means that in devoted sense of course, not a literal one.
Again, I'm really not arguing that sex isn't a versatile experience. I've been saying that this entire time. Sex isn't only about procreation. It's really not. But every time sex is performed, there must always be an openness to it, not even simply because you want a child every time, but because you honor your wife's or husband's procreative as part of them. Once you block that part of the spouse off, then you've just made it clear that you only want them partially, not entirely. It becomes less giving and more taking (as apposed to accepting).
We may be reaching our limit soon, but I don't want to block off anyone's responding comment if they have one first.
And I agree with you.
The bottom line on this subject is that the Bible gives clear, direct guidance on many topics of morality, but not on birth control. Thus, any inferences from the Bible are opinions and not Biblical evidence. What is being debated therefore is the directions of a particular church doctrine and not Bible directions.
The Roman Catholic Church is a notable exception. The official church teaching still opposes all forms of birth control except abstinence and the rhythm method, saying, "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."
However, polls show that only 15% of U.S. Catholics view contraception as morally wrong.
It's true -- so many Catholics are going directly against Church teaching and are putting judgment on themselves. Many Catholics--even practicing--have abandoned so much and may not make it to heaven. I'm not going by what Catholics practice, but what Christ has taught us and is being delivered to us through His Church. What individuals do vs. what Christianity teaches are two different things.
However, once again, this is not "the rhythm method." I know you think it is, but unless you do the research yourself, I know you'll only see it that way. I honestly don't believe couples who practice contraception intend to dishonor each other, but unbeknownst to them, they do. And since our souls are at stake, we can't afford to go by our own personal judgment -- we have to look toward guidance of the Holy Spirit to what is right and wrong, and He has always spoken to us through Scripture, through the Church, through reason, that contraception is a problem. And one of the biggest problems, even outside of marriage, is that it doesn't combat abortion, but it fuels it. You can't fight lies with half-truths and those who promote contraception as a way to curb abortion are doing just that. You can't claim to be pro-life and still accept contraception. It cannot be done.
We really have come full circle.
Last edited:
- Status