Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 06/09/2010 6:00:15 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; markomalley; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; ...
“Personally, I don’t believe there are any Scriptural prohibitions to most common methods of contraception,” said Randy Bell of the Association for Biblical Higher Education.

Artificial Birth Control – What Does the Bible Teach?

2 posted on 06/09/2010 6:01:23 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer

“Personally, I don’t believe there are any Scriptural prohibitions to most common methods of contraception,”

We must be reading different bibles.


4 posted on 06/09/2010 6:08:27 AM PDT by Cheryllynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Graybeard58; JLLH; Outlaw Woman; StarCMC; AZ .44 MAG; prairiebreeze; Beloved Levinite; ...

Baptist ping


5 posted on 06/09/2010 6:23:16 AM PDT by WKB (Oil spill = illegal immigration -- Until we stop the leak we will never fix the problems.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer
There is little agreement among Christian denominations regarding general theology. Despite this fragmentation, Christianity has maintained a remarkably cohesive body of moral theology. Included in this universally accepted code of moral theology is the prohibition on murder, abortion, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, and contraception.

It is only within the past several generations that this universally accepted code of moral theology has broken down among the separated brethren.

It could be argued that apostasy in moral theology is the harbinger of that Great Apostasy foretold by scripture.

In which case, Evangelical Christianity can make no claim to being "true Christianity," in that it has clearly apostasized on moral theology, i.e., on contraception.

Some history of Christian thought on Birth Control:

(Note: The quotes of the early church fathers can be researched in their entirety, courtesy of Calvin College.)

191 AD - Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted." (2:10:91:2) "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (2:10:95:3).

307 AD - Lactantius - Divine Institutes

"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . .or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (6:20)

"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ['generating'] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (6:23:18).

325 AD - Council of Nicaea I - Canon 1

"[I]f anyone in sound health has castrated [sterilized] himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy"

375 AD - Epiphanius of Salamis - Medicine Chest Against Heresies

"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (26:5:2 ).

391 AD - John Chrysostom - Homilies on Matthew

"[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father's old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization]" (28:5).

393 AD - Jerome - Against Jovinian

"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" (1:19).

419 AD - Augustine - Marriage and Concupiscence

"I am supposing, then, although 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 [oral contraceptives] . . . 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" (1:15:17).

522 AD - Caesarius of Arles - Sermons

"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion [an oral contraceptive] so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a women does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman" (1:12).

Martin Luther (1483 to 1546) -

"Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed."

John Calvin (1509 to 1564) -

Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race.

John Wesley (1703 to 1791) -

"Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone, refused to raise up seed unto the brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - And it is to be feared, thousands, especially single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.

(Examining sermons and commentaries, Charles Provan identified over a hundred Protestant leaders (Lutheran, Calvinist, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical, Nonconformist, Baptist, Puritan, Pilgrim) living before the twentieth century condemning non- procreative sex. Did he find the opposing argument was also represented? Mr. Provan stated, "We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox [protestant]theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900's. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it." )

11 posted on 06/09/2010 6:51:16 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer

I’ve found this to be a rather interesting discussion. When my wife and I went through our marriage preparation with our priest — which included a marriage workshop and NFP classes — we developed our understanding of the marital act as possessing a procreative and unitive aspect in accordance with Church teaching.

Attempting to negate the procreative aspect with contraception also hurts the unitive aspect. If the marital act represents God’s will that husband and wife become one flesh and give completely of themselves, that reality can’t truly be realized in the presence of contraception, which impairs the the ability to truly give completely of oneself to your spouse.

Pope Paul VI warned everyone about these consequences when he wrote “Humanae Vitae”.

Interestingly enough, my wife’s sister (Baptist) takes a position that the birth control pill is ok — disregarding the fact that it can act as an abortifacient — and NFP is somehow “unbiblical”.


18 posted on 06/09/2010 7:48:46 AM PDT by Crolis ("Nemo me impune lacessit!" - "No one provokes me with impunity!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer
I attend a protestant church, I don't agree. I am not a very fertile woman, we have two girls and maybe I would feel different if I was getting pregnant every two years but this is a discussion the “church” needs to have.
21 posted on 06/09/2010 8:59:19 AM PDT by ThisLittleLightofMine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer

**Evangelical Leaders are Ok with Contraception**

Then they really aren’t pro-lifers, are they?


23 posted on 06/09/2010 9:08:47 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer
More from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

enter the Table of Contents of the Catechism of the Catholic Church here
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
(click on the book for the link.)
 
 
2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

24 posted on 06/09/2010 9:11:14 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All

From Humanae Vitae:

Faithfulness to God’s Design

13. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one’s partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. “Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact,” Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. “From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.” (13)

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.


33 posted on 06/09/2010 11:52:43 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer

Of course Evangelicals aren’t opposed to contraception. Why would they be? Being anti-birth control is ridiculous.


35 posted on 06/09/2010 12:16:49 PM PDT by MayflowerMadam (Every time a liberal whines, an angel gets his wings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer

“Evangelical Leaders are Ok with Contraception”

A) All of them?

B) What is wrong with contraception?


59 posted on 06/09/2010 6:40:33 PM PDT by Grunthor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer; P-Marlowe; wagglebee; blue-duncan

I am no longer supportive of anything that gives humans the impression that they control the beginnings or endings of life.

That is a power to divine for a human to exercise.


179 posted on 06/10/2010 1:15:38 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer

This has to have been referenced already: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkIOG1Y9GVg


209 posted on 06/10/2010 7:26:28 PM PDT by Sensei Ern (Akbar Zib)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson