Contraception in other Religions

[thereselittleflower]

If it is, it certainly isn't obeyed.

Remember, the Qur'an was written before contraception and they have no 'Church' to guide them. So they can pretty much decide on their own if it is immoral or not.

Contraception has existed since before there are records . .


Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

What is the Scriptural basis for a person's belief against birth-control (abortion excluded) ?

The Holiness and Sacred nature of Marriage, why it was instituted by God, for what purpose(s) . ..


No Christian group even considered the possiblity that contraception could be morally permissable under any circumstances until the seeds laid by Luther had begun to bear their fruit . . . .

I know this sounds like an attack on Luther and protestantism, but hear me out.


Luther, in his Babylonian Captivity, denied the sacramental nature of marraige, that it was of divine origin, that it was holy or sacred, of God, and relegated it to the area of civil authority . . .

What is lowered to the control and authoirty of civil authority is dissoluable . .

Marriage, as instituted by God is indisoluable . . What God has joined together let no man put assunder.


Luther attacked this whole concept, and made marriage only a matter of civil law . . a contract that can be broken . . .


Once this was promoted, and as we see today this is the concept that is prevailent in the western world, the whole understanding of maraige, what it is, what it is all about began to change . . And if marraige wasn't a sacred union for the two fold purpose of unity and procreation, then it bacame a union for other purposes .. Sexual pleasure became a big focus of the purpose of marriage . . .

With a shift in understanding of the true purpose of marraige from a sacred union for procreation to one primarily for sexual pleasure and enjoyment, companionship, the whole idea of the sacredness of procreating began to be put to the side . . If procreation was not one of the primary purposes of marriage, but sexual pleasure is, then why not be able to do something to artifically prevent pregnancy while at the same time allowing sexual pleasure?


The whole idea of contraception being morally acceptable is directly tied to society's concept of what marriage is and what it is all about . . .that it is now viewed primarily as a civil union, dissoluable, and not sacred, or not so in its fullest sense ..

The Catholic Church is the only Church to have maintained the full sacred sense and meaning of sacramental marraige . . which is why we condemn as immoral any artificial birth control . . .

Pope Leo the 13th said in response to Luther's claim, that marriage is not a civil issue, not to be regulated by civil authority otherwise it would deprive marriage of its holiness . .


When one of the primary function of marriage was accepted as being for sexual pleasure, then the proverbial pandora's box was opened, and eventually, anything goes . . this goes beyond our discussion of contraception to even where we find ourselves today fighting against same sex marraiges . . for if marraige is not holy, sacred, sacramental, then why any restrictions concerning marriage?

The acceptance of artificial birth control is a natural outgrowth of the degredation of marriage from a purely sacramental and holy union to one of a mere civil union regulated by civil authority . .

If this is truly understood . . as offensive as what I am going to say next sounds, if one will stop for a momment and really think about it, I think you will understand what is being said . .. I heard this in a talk on this topic and I had to stop and think about it too . . and I realized that they were right:

Contraception is 1st cousin to sodomy . . .

Contraception is the marital act of sodomy . ..
​

It used to be taught in all Protestant traditions that the wilful use of Birth Control in marriage would send someone to hell . . .



Now here is the real kicker - I had to think about this one too . . the natural consequence of Birth Control in society is the eventual ultimate acceptance of Sodomy as a moral and natural act.


The devaluing of the holiness and sacredness and sacramental nature of marriage to that of mere civil union eventually leads to:

Birth Control
Abortion
Euthenasia
Promiscuity
Divorce
Sodomy
​

For the truth of this, just look where we are today . .. .


Here is another kicker I heard in this discussion and after I thought about it, I realized it was true also . ..

We cannot stop the spread of homosexuality without stopping the spread of birth control . . . it is the logical moral consequence of BC . . .
​

It was recommended to read the Encyclical Humanae Vitae



Peace in Him!

 

[AMDG]

Mormons don't allow it.

It depends on their bishop. Some of their bishops think it is simply a matter between the woman (and their doctor) and their bishop.

I think the Mormon magazine, The Ensign, said that it can be all right (if the bishop has a "revelation" saying so). I know, I was surprised. I thought Mormons welcomed children, but it seems that it is only SOME--even though it seems that it is more than most. (Since daughter became one, I actually don't know how many grandchildren I now have in heaven.)

 

[Maggie893]

What is the Scriptural basis for a person's belief against birth-control (abortion excluded) ?

Genesis 38:8-10 pretty much shows God's stance on withdrawal as a means of conception.

Genesis 38
8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his sperm on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.

So the only instance of contraceptive use recorded in Scripture shows that the person received the death penalty for it.

There is a good book called The Bible and Birth Control by Charles Provan which does a great job of showing how sex offenses in the OT that were worthy of the death penalty are all intended to be sterile acts; male homosexual intercourse, intercourse with a woman during her menstruation, withdrawal and others.

I'd have to pull out some books to find others but that is by far the most obvious and direct scripture which the Catholic Church uses in most circumstances. There are also NT references to contraception/abortion and of course the Didache is very clear on it.

 

[Benedicta00]

What is the Scriptural basis for a person's belief against birth-control (abortion excluded) ?

What is the scripture reference for a person's belief to contracept? Where in the bible does it say it is okay to contracept?

 

[Benedicta00]

Luther, in his Babylonian Captivity, denied the sacramental nature of marraige, that it was of divine origin, that it was holy or sacred, of God, and relegated it to the area of civil authority . . .



Luther attacked this whole concept, and made marriage only a matter of civil law . . a contract that can be broken . . .

And exactly who was he to do this??

 

[Anthony]

Genesis 38:8-10 pretty much shows God's stance on withdrawal as a means of conception.

Genesis 38
8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his sperm on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.

So the only instance of contraceptive use recorded in Scripture shows that the person received the death penalty for it.

That doesn't sound like conception; which is the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures. The story in scriptures sounds more like coitus interruptus.

 

[geocajun]

That doesn't sound like conception; which is the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures. The story in scriptures sounds more like coitus interruptus.

It is coitus interruptus, which is contraceptive. Onan seperated the unitive aspect of the sex act, from the procreative aspect, by intentionally spilling his seed on the ground.
This is exactly what contraceptives do - they say in effect "I want to enjoy sex with you, without producing any fruit from it" and this as we see from scripture, is why Onan was killed. Showing us that Onanism, or implicitly, any contraception is a grave matter.

 

[Anthony]

It is coitus interruptus, which is contraceptive. Onan seperated the unitive aspect of the sex act, from the procreative aspect, by intentionally spilling his seed on the ground.
This is exactly what contraceptives do - they say in effect "I want to enjoy sex with you, without producing any fruit from it" and this as we see from scripture, is why Onan was killed. Showing us that Onanism, or implicitly, any contraception is a grave matter.

If you take that stance all practices and methods which attempt to outplay, out guess, out wit, those tricky sperm and eggs is contraception.

 

[geocajun]

If you take that stance all practices and methods which attempt to outplay, out guess, out wit, those tricky sperm and eggs is contraception.

yes, that is the teaching of the Catholic Church.
It is better to not have sex at all (abstain), than it is to interfere with the natural design of the sex act with chemicals, barriers, or anything else which seek to pervert its dual purpose, of unity and procreation.

 

[AMDG]

yes, that is the teaching of the Catholic Church.
It is better to not have sex at all (abstain), than it is to interfere with the natural design of the sex act with chemicals, barriers, or anything else ...

Probably healthier too. I haven't figured out how a man could condone possible damage to his sweetheart's psyche or her very health (by allowing her to introduce chemicals to her body--artificial hormones, or even spermicides, and particularly those that things that could act as abortifacients.) In fact, I can't quite understand why such things wouldn't be against the Fifth Commandment--"Thou shall not kill".

Seems to me, though, at the very least, contraception would be against the Commandment that is against lying when taking vows. I mean, at the heart of things, doesn't contraception say "I take all of you--but not the reproductive part of you." Don't the wedding vows sort of imply that the WHOLE person is being accepted?

 

[Glorianna]

Hmmm, I wish I knew. It would be interesting!

I can see both sides of the debate though. I love how my mind works like that most of the time!

 

[geocajun]

Hmmm, I wish I knew. It would be interesting!

I can see both sides of the debate though. I love how my mind works like that most of the time!

There is no "other side of the debate" - that is sort of like saying "Well.. satan does have a point ya know..."

 

[entropy_rising]

If you take that stance all practices and methods which attempt to outplay, out guess, out wit, those tricky sperm and eggs is contraception.

Natural family planning strikes me as a practice/method which attempts to outwit sperms and eggs.

 

[Benedicta00]

If you take that stance all practices and methods which attempt to outplay, out guess, out wit, those tricky sperm and eggs is contraception.

You’re right Anthony. Intent to contracept no matter the method is always morally wrong.

 

[Benedicta00]

Natural family planning strikes me as a practice/method which attempts to outwit sperms and eggs.

Intent is what is wrong. Not, “outwitting” the sperm and egg. If you have a mentally that is not open to life and that is anti family, anti baby then it really does not make much difference if you use NFP or not. You would still be guilty of the sin of contraception.

 

[Benedicta00]

Hmmm, I wish I knew. It would be interesting!

I can see both sides of the debate though. I love how my mind works like that most of the time!

And what is the other side of this that has a point? B/C basically means sex with no birth- and no self-control. That has a point, IYO?

 

[Skripper]

What is the Scriptural basis for a person's belief against birth-control (abortion excluded) ?

What is the scripture reference for a person's belief to contracept? Where in the bible does it say it is okay to contracept?

Good answer, Michelle. One might also ask: “What is the scriptural basis for suggesting that there must be a “scriptural basis” for every Christian truth?”

 

[Skripper]

Probably healthier too. I haven't figured out how a man could condone possible damage to his sweetheart's psyche or her very health (by allowing her to introduce chemicals to her body--artificial hormones, or even spermicides, and particularly those that things that could act as abortifacients.) In fact, I can't quite understand why such things wouldn't be against the Fifth Commandment--"Thou shall not kill".

Exactly. The health risks to women from oral contraceptives are significant. It’s not very well known, but way back when, back in the day when they were developing “the pill,” there were actually some deaths in the test group of women . . . so they adjusted the dosage. Yet when trying to develop a contraceptive pill for men, some small shrinkage was recorded in the ball of one male . . . they shut the program down completely.



Or how about this scenario: A young adolescent male goes to the doctor and says he wants to get the girls. And the way to get girls is to have big muscles so can he please have massive amounts of some male hormones, steroids. The doctor, and rightly so, tells him to take a hike, that it’s harmful to the body to overload it with hormones. But on the other hand, a young adolescent girl goes to the doctor and says that she would like to have sex with her boyfriend . . . or boyfriends . . . can she please have a bunch of hormones? The same doctor writes her out a prescription. Anyone see a double standard here?

 

[Benedicta00]

Exactly. The health risks to women from oral contraceptives are significant. It’s not very well known, but way back when, back in the day when they were developing “the pill,” there were actually some deaths in the test group of women . . . so they adjusted the dosage. Yet when trying to develop a contraceptive pill for men, some small shrinkage was recorded in the ball of one male . . . they shut the program down completely.



Or how about this scenario: A young adolescent male goes to the doctor and says he wants to get the girls. And the way to get girls is to have big muscles so can he please have massive amounts of some male hormones, steroids. The doctor, and rightly so, tells him to take a hike, that it’s harmful to the body to overload it with hormones. But on the other hand, a young adolescent girl goes to the doctor and says that she would like to have sex with her boyfriend . . . or boyfriends . . . can she please have a bunch of hormones? The same doctor writes her out a prescription. Anyone see a double standard here?

That is a good point. If we want to really get deep into the underlying evil of contraception it is nothing more than an attack on women. Satan is out to get women because he hates “the woman,” the woman from Genesis whose heel crushes his head.