Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

6 Reasons Why Contraception is Sinful and Contrary to God's Will
Canterbury Tales Blog ^ | February 15, 2012 | Dr. Taylor Marshall

Posted on 02/15/2012 6:49:17 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

6 Reasons Why Contraception is Sinful and Contrary to God's Will


Prior to 1930, all Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox held that contraception was sinful and contrary to God's will. Not only Catholics, but even dissenting voices such as Martin Luther and John Calvin agreed that contraception was against the natural law and the revealed will of God.

The unified consensus against contraception fell apart in 1930, when the Seventh Lambeth Conference of the Church of England, representing the Anglican Communion, issued a statement allowing birth control "when there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence." This highly controversial decision was gradually accepted by Protestants in general so that currently 90% or more (according to a Harris Interactive poll) practicing Evangelicals support the use of contraceptives and contraceptive behavior. Although the Duggars of "19 and Counting" fame are Protestant, they are certainly the exception.

It's been about 80 years since Protestants changed their position, so that hardly anyone living today remembers a time when all those claiming the title "Christian" opposed contraception. Even the Eastern Orthodox have caved in. The Eastern Orthodox, who claim to be stalwart defenders of their tradition, have reversed the tradition and allowed for contraception - contradicting the plain teaching of Saint John Chrysostom on this matter. The Eastern Orthodox Metropolitan Jonah here in the United States is leading the charge in this regard.

The only people defending the traditional view universally against contraception are Catholics. We're riding solo and it's a tough battle.

In the discussions regarding American health care and the HHS debate, many folks (even some Catholics) are confused as to why Catholics are so concerned about contraception. "Everybody is doing it," so it can't be wrong...right?

Well, just remember that "contraceiving Christians" is a new phenomenon. It was formerly believed to be gravely evil. Let us examine six reasons why contraception is sinful and contrary to God's will.

1. Contraception is contrary to natural law. The male and female procreative organs naturally come together to procreate a child. The word procreate includes the term "create" since a new life is made. In the case of humans, a new immortal soul is created by God when the father and mother come together and conceive a new person. As Peter Kreeft said, the most holy place on earth is the altar where the Eucharist is consecrated - the second most holy place is the woman's body since it form there that new immortal souls spring forth. The procreative organs naturally function for procreation. That is why God made them as they are. To frustrate the act (interruptus or barrier) is gravely sinful. To poison the body with hormones so as to inhibit the woman's natural cycle of fertility (birth control pill) is gravely sinful. To cut out or purposefully scar procreative organs (sterilization) is gravel sinful. These acts seek to destroy what is natural.

2. In the Bible, babies are always a blessing, never a curse.
Lo, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the sons of one’s youth.
Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate (Ps 126:3-5).
The Catholic Church has always agreed with the words of this Psalm: “children are a heritage from the Lord. Happy is the man who has a quiver full of them!” To this effect, Saint Paul teaches:
Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty (1 Tim 2:15).
Granted, this is an obscure passage, but it highlights the esteemed role that women have in bringing new souls into the world. The Christian wife is exhorted to possess “faith and love and holiness, with modesty” but her personal sacrifice of bearing children is esteemed as the greatest response to the grace of God in her life. Just as God the Father is always open to more and more children whom he loves, so also the Catholic parent remains open to this precious gift of life.

The emphasis on the gift of life and the rules and norms for protecting it are essential to Catholic moral teaching. The sexual abuses condemned by the Apostle Paul can be summed up as an abuse of one of the greatest gifts given to humanity—the ability to cooperate with God’s creative power. God could have continued to create human beings just like he created Adam; instead He chose to bring about new persons through the institution of marriage and the family.

3. The case of Onan. Catholics (and pre-1930 Protestants) condemn both masturbation and contraception by appealing to the case of Onan who "spilled his seed on the ground":

He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, he spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name. And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing. (Genesis 38:9–10, D-R)
Here, God directly kills Onan for performing coitus interruptus. Onan's crime included gaining the pleasure of sexual relations with Tamar but the refusal to see the act through as a natural act intended for procreation. Hence, intentional spilling of seed, either in the form of masturbation or contraception is gravely sinful - so much so that God killed a man for it.

Some may object: "Yes, but God killed him for not fulfilling Levirate duties - not for contraception." This objection is poor since Judah also failed in executing the Levirate obligations - but he was not killed by God. So then, it was the contraceptive act in particular that proved both sinful and mortal for Onan.

4. The New Testament condemns contraception, which it calls pharmakeia. As I detail in my book The Catholic Perspective on Paul, Saint Paul condemns contraception by the name of "pharmakeia," the word from which we derive our term "pharmacy."
Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery {pharmakeia}, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal 5:19-21).
Surely, Paul does not mean to condemn those who prescribe herbs for those suffering from gout. Looking back to Saint Paul’s list, we see that the sin of pharamakeia follows sexual sins and the sin of idolatry. These ancient witchdoctors or pharmacists were especially popular in idolatrous cultures, since pagan fertility rites often involved sexual orgies. Obviously, the women involved in these depraved rituals would not wish to bear children to strangers, and so they sought to become sterile or sought to relieve themselves of the responsibility of a child through abortion. The ancient Greek pharmacists could provide drugs to meet these goals.

The book of Revelation also condemns those who practice pharmakeia along with those who practice idolatry, murder, and sexual immorality (Rev 9:20-21). The grouping of pharmakeia with the three sins of idolatry, murder, and sexual immorality further confirms that pharmakeia is sin relating to killing and sexual impurity. The second-century physician Soranos of Ephesus, in his book Gynecology, uses the Greek term pharmakeia to refer to potions used for both contraception and abortion. In a similar manner, the third-century theologian Hippolytus condemned certain Christian women who employed “drugs {pharmakois} for producing sterility.”

5. The Church Fathers condemned contraception. This could be a post on its own. I'll just provide three quotes from the Church Fathers on this subject. The first is from the eminent Saint John Chrysostom (in AD 391):
"[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." John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 28:5 (A.D. 391).
The second is from Saint Jerome (in AD 393) and draws on the sin of Onan:
"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?" Jerome, Against Jovinian 1:19 (A.D. 393).
And then third from Saint Augustine (in AD 419):
"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." Augustine, Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 (A.D. 419).
In this last quote, we see that Saint Augustine's concern that contraceptive acts turn a wife into a harlot since she is merely satisfying the lusts of her husband and not for the sake of matrimony - a word which means in Latin duty or gift of motherhood from matris (of a mother) and munus (gift, duty, office). This objectification of women brings us to our last reason...

6. Contemporary Observations and the so-called Sexual Revolution. The advent of contraception also accompanied the rise abortion, feminism, pornography, out of wedlock birth, and homosexuality. They all come and go together. If sexual pleasure is formally divorced from conceiving children, then why would pornography by sinful? Why would masturbation be sinful? And if a couple just wanted the pleasure and never intended to conceive a child with their act, then don't they have the "right" to terminate a pregnancy if a conception should happen "by accident"? And if sexual pleasure is for the sake of pleasure, then why would homosexuality be sinful? If God wanted people to experience these pleasures, then pleasure should be the measurement. But this is all ridiculous. The natural, God-appointed purpose of this act is to procreate children and this is why pornography, masturbation, homosexuality, and abortion are wrong. It is also the reason why contraception is gravely sinful.

Contraception is often an uncomfortable topic to discuss with family and friends - especially when they are amused or alarmed by large families that welcome new children. Let this post do some of the work for you. Please share this with your friends via Facebook and other means. People, especially women, don't really want to subject themselves to contraceptive practices. Let's prayerfully and humbly help others to be whole, healthy, and holy in this regard.

“Behold the inheritance of the Lord are children: the reward, the fruit of the womb.” (Psalm 126:3, D-R)
Do you enjoy reading Canterbury Tales by Taylor Marshall? Make it easier to receive daily posts. It's free. Please click here to sign up by Feed or here to sign up by Email. Please also explore Taylor's books about Catholicism at amazon.com.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 last
To: Dr. Brian Kopp
Well, if you’re the author of it, I sincerely feel sorry for you.

Well...that explanation is certainly better than the one you gave...which surely isn't biased at all.../sarcasm.

Seriously. The reason Onan was killed was because he disobeyed...not simply because he performed Coitus interruptus. One merely has to look at Leviticus 15, which gives ritual cleansing for "spilled seed." There is no death sentence. And there are no other stories of God's divine judgments in the Bible because of spilled seed...and you can GUARANTEE that there were instances.

This is a man disobeying a divine order...to raise up the seed of his brother.

So...it's not disobeying his mother and father...and its certainly not because he spilled his seed...well yes....indirectly. It's because he disobeyed a divine mandate to raise up the seed of his brother. That mandate precedes the Mosaic Law...just like tithing.

Anyone who says ANYTHING different has an agenda. This is the interpretation not only of this theologian, but of most other scholars...including Jewish Scholars (such as Keil & Delitzsch and the Babylonian Talmud). The ones who disagree are the ones who wish to make this about masturbation...which BTW is not mentioned in the story.

Dr. Nelson W. Lee, ThD

81 posted on 02/16/2012 8:23:14 AM PST by NELSON111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: verga

I think we’ve managed to circle around now and say essentially the same thing. Here is my original comment:

“Dimocrats are counting on us having this type of discussion, and they will use it to club us over the head and reelect the big 0.

We need to stay far, far away from the religious arguments, and stay with the unConstitutionality of the the whole thing.”


82 posted on 02/16/2012 8:25:13 AM PST by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: NELSON111
I disagree. So does the entire history of Christian thought on the subject:

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." )

In 1908 the Bishops of the Anglican Communion meeting at the Lambeth Conference declared, "The Conference records with alarm the growing practice of the artificial restriction of the family and earnestly calls upon all Christian people to discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare."

The Lambeth Conference of 1930 produced a new resolution, "Where there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, complete abstinence is the primary and obvious method..." but if there was morally sound reasoning for avoiding abstinence, "the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of Christian principles."

1930 AD - Pope Pius XI - Casti Conubii (On Christian Marriage)

"Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."

1965 AD - Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World - Gaudium et Spes, Vatican II

Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law. (51)

1968 AD - Pope Paul VI - Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life)

Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, propose, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible. To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil, or the fact that such acts would constitute a whole together with the fecund acts already performed or to follow later, and hence would share in one and the same moral goodness. In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil to promote a greater good, it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom; that is to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life. (14)

1993 AD - Catechism of the Catholic Church

"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)." (2399)

83 posted on 02/16/2012 8:34:01 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

I really thougfht that was what I had said in agreement with you in my initial post.


84 posted on 02/16/2012 8:40:58 AM PST by verga (Party like it is 1773)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
You are missing the point. IF the Catholic Church is demanding UNIVERSAL health care then they are going to be required to let the ‘secularmites’ regulate health care.

Do you think for one moment these Catholics that wrote and gave Obama this power are ignorant of Church teachings? They intend to ‘re-cut’ Peter's keys once again. AND yet these same Catholics remain in good standing.

What was the reaction by the Catholic Church when the secularmites tore down the Ten Commandments from their public churches? (Public school houses.) Maybe just maybe because we the people turned over to the ‘gods’ of this world the authority to removed God from education He is allowing the ‘gods’ of this world to have their way with US????

85 posted on 02/16/2012 8:53:23 AM PST by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: verga

You might have, and if so, please accept my apologies.


86 posted on 02/16/2012 9:30:41 AM PST by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
Uhhh...No...the "ENTIRE HISTORY of Christian THOUGHT" does NOT agree. Only the ones you picked. Also...if you want to discuss this...please...let's have an ORIGINAL discussion. Not a REPOSTED discussion. It's not really "doing it for me" when you copy/paste a whole lot of stuff from previous posts or from other websites. SO...if that is what you are going to do...then don't bother.

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.

You proved my point.

Jerome - "or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed." Again, you prove my point.

Clark (1810-1826) - "The sin of Onan has generally been supposed to be self-pollution; but this is certainly a mistake; his crime was his refusal to raise up seed to his brother..."

Gill (1746-1763) - "Being done out of envy to his brother, and through want of affection to the memory of his name; and it may be out of covetousness to get his estate into his own hands, and especially as it frustrated the end of such an usage of marrying a brother's wife; "

Keil & Delitzsch - "This act not only betrayed a want of affection to his brother, combined with a despicable covetousness for his possession and inheritance, but was also a sin against the divine institution of marriage and its object, and was therefore punished by Jehovah with sudden death. "

You needn't quote me catechisms or popes. They are so far from the Apostles and Christ...and we will never agree on it so it's not worth discussing.

All I know is the "ENTIRE HISTORY of Christian THOUGHT" does not agree. But I guess it does when you cherry pick the data.

87 posted on 02/16/2012 9:51:41 AM PST by NELSON111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
Uhhh...No...the "ENTIRE HISTORY of Christian THOUGHT" does NOT agree. Only the ones you picked. Also...if you want to discuss this...please...let's have an ORIGINAL discussion. Not a REPOSTED discussion. It's not really "doing it for me" when you copy/paste a whole lot of stuff from previous posts or from other websites. SO...if that is what you are going to do...then don't bother.

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.

You proved my point.

Jerome - "or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed." Again, you prove my point.

Clark (1810-1826) - "The sin of Onan has generally been supposed to be self-pollution; but this is certainly a mistake; his crime was his refusal to raise up seed to his brother..."

Gill (1746-1763) - "Being done out of envy to his brother, and through want of affection to the memory of his name; and it may be out of covetousness to get his estate into his own hands, and especially as it frustrated the end of such an usage of marrying a brother's wife; "

Keil & Delitzsch - "This act not only betrayed a want of affection to his brother, combined with a despicable covetousness for his possession and inheritance, but was also a sin against the divine institution of marriage and its object, and was therefore punished by Jehovah with sudden death. "

You needn't quote me catechisms or popes. They are so far from the Apostles and Christ...and we will never agree on it so it's not worth discussing.

All I know is the "ENTIRE HISTORY of Christian THOUGHT" does not agree. But I guess it does when you cherry pick the data.

88 posted on 02/16/2012 9:52:04 AM PST by NELSON111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
OK...you know what. I just had a thought that settles this once and for all.

If Onan was Killed for spilling his seed and this was the ONLY reason he was killed...then why aren't 99% of all men dead. PERIOD.

If it was NO OTHER REASON...and as I have said...the spilling of the seed was an indirect reason...but what angered God was the refusal to carry on the family line...the Messianic Line....but if the MAIN REASON was SIMPLY spilling SEED....why aren't MOST of men dead?

Wouldn't it still ANGER GOD?

Didn't it anger God back then equally? Didn't men in the OT do this to avoid getting whore's pregnant? (yes!)

Didn't POPES do this? (uh...yes...and sometimes not successfully - Pope Alexander VI...)

Haven't most men masturbated? Yes? Wouldn't this ANGER God and cause God to SLAY Them?

OK. So what's the answer? Why ONLY Onan? Huh? What makes his case Unique? Hmmmm. IT MUST be something ELSE.

Please...don't allow common sense and LOGIC to flaw your eisegesis. Perhaps the BILLIONS of other examples of spilled seed onto the ground...and people not being killed...well...maybe those haven't really happened. Just pretend they have.

Yeah...Onan's example is what GOD really means to do when you spill your seed. There's not another example of it...and he doesn't do it today...but yet we can hold it up as an example....a warning if you will.

89 posted on 02/16/2012 10:05:11 AM PST by NELSON111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Jack of all Trades; Dr. Brian Kopp

Please read Dr. Brian Kopp’s comment #56.


90 posted on 02/16/2012 12:46:41 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; Dr. Brian Kopp
The analogies fail. The only real justification that holds water is that the Pope says NFP is OK for Catholics, and therefore it is.

In the other, no act is performed (simple abstinence during fertile times) so there IS no act, therefore the practice is morally neutral.

I spend money every day: to support my family, pay my taxes, give to charities, etc. Suppose in the future, I choose to abstain from spending on any charity. Is this action morally neutral because no act is performed?

Still rolling around a rebuttal to an abstract analogy that compares sex and vomiting... See the first paragraph of my first comment.

Instead, I think I'll log off, go home, light a fire and enjoy my family.

91 posted on 02/16/2012 1:45:06 PM PST by Jack of all Trades (Hold your face to the light, even though for the moment you do not see.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Jack of all Trades

It takes moral blinders to ignore simple Natural Law.


92 posted on 02/16/2012 2:41:14 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp; Jack of all Trades

Jack is very clear and mostly right. The Catholic Church is mistaken in insisting that others are in “doctrinal error” when we disagree with their forbidding to marry and in calling priests “father, “ in declaring that Mary was a virgin for her whole life, and in condemning trur contraception.

You never did explain why contraception is expressly forbidden by the law on levitate marriage, but levitate marriage is not commanded by the same scripture.


93 posted on 02/16/2012 10:01:22 PM PST by hocndoc (WingRight.org: Have mustard seed & I'm not afraid to use it. 2 men inherited a Bush economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc

That should be “levirate” marrige.

Sincerely, why dispute over these things? You only divide and cause stumbling blocks for others.


94 posted on 02/16/2012 10:21:10 PM PST by hocndoc (WingRight.org: Have mustard seed & I'm not afraid to use it. 2 men inherited a Bush economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc; Jack of all Trades; NELSON111; little jeremiah
Sincerely, why dispute over these things?

Because all of Christianity, Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox in unison, has constantly and universally condemned contraception until just 80 years ago. You'll have to do a lot more to convince me the last 80 years are correct and the prior 1,930 years of unanimous Christian teaching on the subject was wrong. Its far more likely that, living in an age of apostasy, the last 80 years of caving in on contraception is simply part of that great falling away

You only divide and cause stumbling blocks for others.

In the end times, men will call good evil, and evil, good.

Calling contraception good is exactly that.

95 posted on 02/17/2012 7:05:16 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Conversion by torture and the sword was practiced for almost as long, and the Bible prescribes stoning for various offenses, yet we’ve dropped those traditions.


96 posted on 02/17/2012 7:33:19 AM PST by Jack of all Trades (Hold your face to the light, even though for the moment you do not see.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Jack of all Trades
When in fact true contraception prevents life from starting, in fact really no differently than celibacy prevents life from starting.

The pill causes abortion, just by the way it works. Regular birth control pills have 2 female hormones: estrogen and progestin (a synthetic version of the naturally-occurring hormone progesterone), which causes a fertilized egg, zygote, to starve to death, because it cannot attach to the uterus lining.

97 posted on 02/17/2012 7:55:32 AM PST by bvmtotustuus (totus tuus Blessed Virgin Mary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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