Contraception

[Thekla]

What's any of that got to do with the topic being discussed?
On that note, I don't assume all this stuff you are bringing up is isolated to those first few years, so even you recognize the significance of all the history between the beginning and now playing an important role in the things we do and believe today. So, your issue with our arguments not reflecting the early church are still refuted by this comparison. Thus, you are not helping your own position with this off-topic rant.

It played out in the first years in the slaughter of Christians and others in Central America.

I understand that you disagree with the RC on this, but again has been skipped a benefit in their position: the encouragement to self-control and it's benefits and conversely the effect of desire (2 Peter 1).

This is related: the desire for profit led to policies which resulted in blood baths and starvation (commodity price speculation in more than one period of food crisis since the Reagan Thatcher era).

 

[cubinity]

It played out in the first years in the slaughter of Christians and others in Central America.

I understand that you disagree with the RC on this, but again has been skipped a benefit in their position: the encouragement to self-control and it's benefits and conversely the effect of desire (2 Peter 1).

So, your argument is that I need to somehow restrain my desire for my wife? And, if I strategically choose not to sleep with her during her fertile periods in order to avoid conception, that would somehow reflect a pursuit of Biblical and beneficial self-control?

If by "effects of desire", in contrast to "self-control and its benefits," you are referring to children, then I have much more wrong with your position than that it is contradictory.

Btw, if you "understand that disagree with the RC on this," then I'm not entirely sure you understand me at all. All I'm doing is trying to discuss this in an objective and logical manner (though obviously I'm flawed in that quest, it is worth the effort).

 

[sunlover1]

So, your argument is that I need to somehow restrain my desire for my wife?.

Yet Scripture says not to deny her.
AND, the answer for lust, in the Bible, is marriage.

 

[Thekla]

So, your argument is that I need to somehow restrain my desire for my wife? And, if I strategically choose not to sleep with her during her fertile periods in order to avoid conception, that would somehow reflect a pursuit of Biblical and beneficial self-control?

By agreement, yes; which requires more mutual self-control, dealing with quelling bodily desire, or artificial methods of contraception ? Which is better for being a spouse, a parent, a Christian - willed self control or artificial birth control ?

If by "effects of desire", in contrast to "self-control and its benefits," you are referring to children, then I have much more wrong with your position than that it is contradictory.

I don't understand ...

Btw, if you "understand that disagree with the RC on this," then I'm not entirely sure you understand me at all. All I'm doing is trying to discuss this in an objective and logical manner (though obviously I'm flawed in that quest, it is worth the effort).

I am also trying to approach this in an objective and logical manner - and the issue I have raised has been completely skipped. We can see the triumph of desire and the lack of self-control played out in human misery all over the world for eons.

 

[Thekla]

Yet Scripture says not to deny her.
AND, the answer for lust, in the Bible, is marriage.

It says periods of continence may be practiced for the purpose of prayer.

I asked before if it is wrong to practice continence in the interest of a sick child for example (as that is not prayer).

 

[cubinity]

By agreement, yes; which requires more mutual self-control, dealing with quelling bodily desire, or artificial methods of contraception ? Which is better for being a spouse, a parent, a Christian - willed self control or artificial birth control ?

Since willed self-control and artificial birth control are not mutually exclusive, this question is preposterous.

I don't understand ...

No, you don't. I can tell.

I am also trying to approach this in an objective and logical manner - and the issue I have raised has been completely skipped. We can see the triumph of desire and the lack of self-control played out in human misery all over the world for eons.

Since this is a topic about making children, or not making children, I can only assume that by "human misery all over the world for eons," you are referring to children.

What issue got ignored?
I'd be happy to discuss that.
I'll go back and look...

 

[cowboysfan1970]

There was a time when I thought that artificial contraception wasn't all that bad but then some things about it came to light that started making me think differently. One thing was the original intent of it. Margaret Sanger's intent for artificial contraception was to control and limit the racial minority population in America and later the world. It was called "The Negro Project." It wasn't about family planning or the liberation of women. It was about selective race population control. It was not something that had good intentions.

The second was that idea that Onan was killed because he failed to continue his brother's bloodline. When you take Deuternomy 25:5-10 into account that idea just doesn't add up. The penalty for failing to continue a brother's bloodline was public humiliation and not death.

The third one was that so many methods of artificial contraception have some very bad side effects to them. Some even leading to birth defects and cancer. When we try and play God it always blows up in our faces. Maybe those side effects are God trying to let us know that we need to quit messing with His design.

Another one is how sexual ethics changed so much during the 20th Century, especially in the last thirty years of it. I think what happened is that feeling a great deal of pressure from society over its very rigid and anti-sexual Victorian beliefs on sex, many churches and denominations tried to loosen up partly to keep people in the seats on Sunday. They may have gone too far in the other direction and are making sex something that it was never intended to be. Some may even be making sex into an idol by giving it too much emphasis. In many ways churches have taken a very worldly attitude towards sex. Instead of the doors of the churches opening up and going out and changing the world, maybe what's happened is that when those doors opened the world came in and changed many of those churches. Like Pope Paul VI or not but pretty much everything he wrote about artificial birth control has come to pass.

For a long time now the acceptance of artificial birth control in many Protestant circles has become so deeply entrenched that it can't even be questioned without that person fearing strong denouncement. People want to have their cake and eat it too but things just don't work that way. Contrary to what some preach or want to believe not everything goes between a husband and wife. The Bible does give us sexual prohibitions even in marriage so the attitude that anything goes is of the world and is apostate. The concept of self control does not disappear when we get married and we are still expected to behave honorably and in chastity even after we say "I do." That's a concept that not only seems to be lost now but is even treated with disdain when it's brought up.

Don't count on the Vatican changing its position on artificial birth control in anyone's lifetime but do expect at least one mainstream Protestant denomination to change its position from acceptance to speaking out against it in that lifetime.

 

[Thekla]

Since willed self-control and artificial birth control are not mutually exclusive, this question is preposterous.

One method requires developing a characteristic which is crucial to healthy human relationships and is encouraged in the Scriptures.

The other method is neutral, but can also encourage the opposite of self-control and what is encouraged in the Scriptures.

Since this is a topic about making children, or not making children, I can only assume that by "human misery all over the world for eons," you are referring to children.

Nope.
But desire and lack of self control has led to the misery and deaths of millions upon millions of children and adults.

What issue got ignored?
I'd be happy to discuss that.
I'll go back and look...

The benefit of developing self control as an aspect of continence within marriage. Paul says not to abstain except for prayers because the Corinthians lacked self control.


Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

 

[Thekla]

Through desire, corruption entered the world. (Peter)
Practice and develop self control. (Peter)
Give in to desire within marriage because you lack self control. (Paul)

Here's the summary:

It's acceptable to bash the RC.
Here, on the matter of birth control, even the positive aspects of what they teach are ignored. The positive aspect is self control vs. the self-indulgence aspect of artificial birth control.

In the political and economic arena, our lack of self control, our self indulgence, our bowing to desire has caused great pain for others.
The free reign of the "free market" under Reagan was the excuse for our policy in Central America. In El Salvador, people were labeled "Communists" by those in power and executed for owning Bibles. In Guatemala, Efrain Rios Mott, touted as a "good evangelical Christian" was responsible for the slaughter of aprox. 200,000 people - many were RC. And the line among some US Christians was that this was acceptable because RCs aren't "really Christians".

It's one thing to disagree with the RC, but give credit where credit is due !
Self-control may be a hard teaching in a culture politically and economically dedicated to self indulgence; but practicing self-control is Scriptural.

 

[cubinity]

Through desire, corruption entered the world. (Peter)
Practice and develop self control. (Peter)
Give in to desire within marriage because you lack self control. (Paul)

Here's the summary:

It's acceptable to bash the RC.
Here, on the matter of birth control, even the positive aspects of what they teach are ignored. The positive aspect is self control vs. the self-indulgence aspect of artificial birth control.

In the political and economic arena, our lack of self control, our self indulgence, our bowing to desire has caused great pain for others.
The free reign of the "free market" under Reagan was the excuse for our policy in Central America. In El Salvador, people were labeled "Communists" by those in power and executed for owning Bibles. In Guatemala, Efrain Rios Mott, touted as a "good evangelical Christian" was responsible for the slaughter of aprox. 200,000 people - many were RC. And the line among some US Christians was that this was acceptable because RCs aren't "really Christians".

It's one thing to disagree with the RC, but give credit where credit is due !
Self-control may be a hard teaching in a culture politically and economically dedicated to self indulgence; but practicing self-control is Scriptural.

I agree 100% that self-control is all that you say it is.
I disagree with you about birth control for reasons completely unrelated to self-control.
Because the issue is so much more complicated than self-control vs. contraception, I believe your attempts to simplify it into that are just attempts to refuse to think about the real issues being discussed.

You are doing the same thing with the example I gave you.
Violence and hate and evil killed all those people, not the free-market.
I'm not advocating free-market or anything. This isn't about free-market at all.
But that's just it, isn't it?
You don't want to discuss what this thread is about. You want to discuss self-control, not contraception. Fine. Make a thread about it, and I'll be there agreeing with you.
But this isn't about self-control. It is about contraception. Self-control is only one of the many things we can say about contraception and birth control. Great. You've said it. And in so far as you've said it, I agree with you.
But, don't neglect the fact that there are many other things to be discussed about this. The choices being condemned, though neutral in regards to self-control, are not so neutral in regards to other things. Therefore, now that we have discussed that particular aspect of it, can we not discuss the other things that actually make this an important issue?

 

[sunlover1]

It says periods of continence may be practiced for the purpose of prayer.

Which could almost go without saying.. time spent in prayer and fasting,
being wholly devoted to God mind body spirit...sort of a given.
But this wasn't about prayer and fasting.

I asked before if it is wrong to practice continence in the interest of a sick child for example (as that is not prayer).

And if your house starts on fire, too bad, stay in bed and pay your dues.

 

[cubinity]

There was a time when I thought that artificial contraception wasn't all that bad but then some things about it came to light that started making me think differently. One thing was the original intent of it. Margaret Sanger's intent for artificial contraception was to control and limit the racial minority population in America and later the world. It was called "The Negro Project." It wasn't about family planning or the liberation of women. It was about selective race population control. It was not something that had good intentions.

Isn't it an ad hominem to say that something is bad because the person who made it had bad intentions?

Are you absolutely sure of the intentions of every inventor of every product you use?

Granted, since you happened to know this one, and are making a conscious choice based in the context of that knowledge, I genuinely commend you for your ethical convictions.

The second was that idea that Onan was killed because he failed to continue his brother's bloodline. When you take Deuternomy 25:5-10 into account that idea just doesn't add up. The penalty for failing to continue a brother's bloodline was public humiliation and not death.

I'd be interested to know what you're getting at here.

The third one was that so many methods of artificial contraception have some very bad side effects to them. Some even leading to birth defects and cancer. When we try and play God it always blows up in our faces. Maybe those side effects are God trying to let us know that we need to quit messing with His design.

It's true. However, what Onan did, which is condemnable as artificial contraceptive, does not involve exposure to anything that may cause the physical harm being described. Also, apart from allergic reactions, I have not seen any evidence that condoms cause physical harm.

Another one is how sexual ethics changed so much during the 20th Century, especially in the last thirty years of it. I think what happened is that feeling a great deal of pressure from society over its very rigid and anti-sexual Victorian beliefs on sex, many churches and denominations tried to loosen up partly to keep people in the seats on Sunday. They may have gone too far in the other direction and are making sex something that it was never intended to be. Some may even be making sex into an idol by giving it too much emphasis. In many ways churches have taken a very worldly attitude towards sex. Instead of the doors of the churches opening up and going out and changing the world, maybe what's happened is that when those doors opened the world came in and changed many of those churches. Like Pope Paul VI or not but pretty much everything he wrote about artificial birth control has come to pass.

So, basically, you don't want to participate in the wave of change. I get that. Sometimes I think I was born in the wrong era, too.

For a long time now the acceptance of artificial birth control in many Protestant circles has become so deeply entrenched that it can't even be questioned without that person fearing strong denouncement. People want to have their cake and eat it too but things just don't work that way. Contrary to what some preach or want to believe not everything goes between a husband and wife. The Bible does give us sexual prohibitions even in marriage so the attitude that anything goes is of the world and is apostate. The concept of self control does not disappear when we get married and we are still expected to behave honorably and in chastity even after we say "I do." That's a concept that not only seems to be lost now but is even treated with disdain when it's brought up.

Well, just so you know, I'm all for questioning it, and I love that it is being discussed.

Don't count on the Vatican changing its position on artificial birth control in anyone's lifetime but do expect at least one mainstream Protestant denomination to change its position from acceptance to speaking out against it in that lifetime.

Of course this is true. It is the characteristic of some Protestant communities to be progressive, and thus they will change.

 

[Thekla]

There was a time when I thought that artificial contraception wasn't all that bad but then some things about it came to light that started making me think differently. One thing was the original intent of it. Margaret Sanger's intent for artificial contraception was to control and limit the racial minority population in America and later the world. It was called "The Negro Project." It wasn't about family planning or the liberation of women. It was about selective race population control. It was not something that had good intentions.

The second was that idea that Onan was killed because he failed to continue his brother's bloodline. When you take Deuternomy 25:5-10 into account that idea just doesn't add up. The penalty for failing to continue a brother's bloodline was public humiliation and not death.

The third one was that so many methods of artificial contraception have some very bad side effects to them. Some even leading to birth defects and cancer. When we try and play God it always blows up in our faces. Maybe those side effects are God trying to let us know that we need to quit messing with His design.

Another one is how sexual ethics changed so much during the 20th Century, especially in the last thirty years of it. I think what happened is that feeling a great deal of pressure from society over its very rigid and anti-sexual Victorian beliefs on sex, many churches and denominations tried to loosen up partly to keep people in the seats on Sunday. They may have gone too far in the other direction and are making sex something that it was never intended to be. Some may even be making sex into an idol by giving it too much emphasis. In many ways churches have taken a very worldly attitude towards sex. Instead of the doors of the churches opening up and going out and changing the world, maybe what's happened is that when those doors opened the world came in and changed many of those churches. Like Pope Paul VI or not but pretty much everything he wrote about artificial birth control has come to pass.

For a long time now the acceptance of artificial birth control in many Protestant circles has become so deeply entrenched that it can't even be questioned without that person fearing strong denouncement. People want to have their cake and eat it too but things just don't work that way. Contrary to what some preach or want to believe not everything goes between a husband and wife. The Bible does give us sexual prohibitions even in marriage so the attitude that anything goes is of the world and is apostate. The concept of self control does not disappear when we get married and we are still expected to behave honorably and in chastity even after we say "I do." That's a concept that not only seems to be lost now but is even treated with disdain when it's brought up.

Don't count on the Vatican changing its position on artificial birth control in anyone's lifetime but do expect at least one mainstream Protestant denomination to change its position from acceptance to speaking out against it in that lifetime.

If I may, as a follow up to your post (effect of birth control pills and estrogen mimickers):

Bringing Cancer to the Dinner Table: Breast Cancer Cells Grow Under Influence of Fish Flesh

Tests of river fish indicate their flesh carries enough estrogen-mimicking chemicals to cause breast cancer cells to grow.
Bringing Cancer to the Dinner Table: Breast Cancer Cells Grow Under Influence of Fish Flesh: Scientific American


Also:

Estrogen in Waterways Worse Than Thought: Scientific American

 

[patricius79]

Originally Posted by patricius79

also, all of the arguments I've ever seen in favor of contrraception not only conflict with the early Church's teaching as in Augustine e.g. but violate the principle of Sola Scriptura in that they involve sentences not shown to be deduced from Scripture

can anyone show otherwise?
​

[cubinity:]My first thought: Even the biggest condemner of contraception on this thread said that he was not Sola Scriptura, so I don't know why that's significant at all.

Furthermore, no one participating in this thread lives in the early church period, so I'm not really sure why it would be important to any of them to try to shape their beliefs off of that.

I think it is significant that one cannot insist that contraception is morally acceptable without violating the oral tradition of Sola Scriptura

as to the early Church, I think that Christ did found a historical Church community so that the Word of God would be written through personal relationships as 2 Jn 12 and 3 Jn 13 show.
'
also 1 Thes 3:

8 For we now live, if you stand firm in the Lord. 9 2 What thanksgiving, then, can we render to God for you, for all the joy we feel on your account before our God? 10 Night and day we pray beyond measure to see you in person and to remedy the deficiencies of your faith. 11 Now may God himself, our Father, and our Lord Jesus direct our way to you, 12 and may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, just as we have for you, 13 so as to strengthen your hearts, to be blameless in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his holy ones. (Amen.)


I can clearly see the differencce betweeen contracepted sex and simply trying to avoid pregnancy/NFP.

the biggest difficulty I have, besides living out Catholic doctrine, is in understanding why the early Church doesn't seem to have promoted NFP, at least not openly.

maybe they didn't have the scientific knowledge or the doctrinal development to see this issue clearly. it is perplexing.

I do agree with the Catholic Church and am convinced that contraception is a kind of divorce, which is why it correlates with divorce, and NFP with happinesss, more romance, and non-divorce


anyone looking at this issue also might be concerned about the endorsement of the Pill by so many Christians, when the Pill is even abortacient, as well as something the reformers certainly would have condemned

also, I think that sex is meant to be a sort of sign of the Cross. not in the sense of being painful but in the sense of a death to self and a complete gift of self without any reservation of any kind.

of course, that's easier said that done--very very much easier--but I think that has to be the goal. and I don't think that contraception moves us objectively toward that goal at all

perhaps it does move us objectively toward other sexual sins

 

[narnia59]

If I may, as a follow up to your post (effect of birth control pills and estrogen mimickers):

Bringing Cancer to the Dinner Table: Breast Cancer Cells Grow Under Influence of Fish Flesh

Tests of river fish indicate their flesh carries enough estrogen-mimicking chemicals to cause breast cancer cells to grow.
Bringing Cancer to the Dinner Table: Breast Cancer Cells Grow Under Influence of Fish Flesh: Scientific American


Also:

Estrogen in Waterways Worse Than Thought: Scientific American

You know, I've seen multiple references to those types of studies. My guess is that if it were anything besides the "sacred cow" of oral contraceptives the environmentalists would have cried foul a long time ago, and they'd be banned.

 

[cubinity]

I do agree with the Catholic Church and am convinced that contraception is a kind of divorce, which is why it correlates with divorce, and NFP with happinesss, more romance, and non-divorce

Still waiting for the evidence on this point...

 

[Thekla]

Which could almost go without saying.. time spent in prayer and fasting,
being wholly devoted to God mind body spirit...sort of a given.
But this wasn't about prayer and fasting.

But Paul does say it is about a lack of self control; he is addressing Christians who have not yet developed self control.

And if your house starts on fire, too bad, stay in bed and pay your dues.

Exactly - to say he meant only for prayer and fasting since he states the reason (lack of self control) would be silly, and dangerous.

That he does ask for mutuality in this should be clear from his teaching on marriage in general.

 

[sunlover1]

Exactly - to say he meant only for prayer and fasting since he states the reason (lack of self control) would be silly, and dangerous..

Right. so we might want to just follow what He says rather than thinking
we are above that?
If he says DONT DENY her... BECAUSE of lack of self control..
then we should what? Deny her because we think we're not
like the next guy?
God created that desire inside of us. It's a part of our make up..
Do you think He created this desire in us for us to fight against?
... to show we're somehow ... above how He created us? Anyhow
it doesnt work ... self control is fruit of the Spirit.. and having
intimacy with your spouse isn't a "lack" in any way.


Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their
self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment
of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
.

 

[cowboysfan1970]

Isn't it an ad hominem to say that something is bad because the person who made it had bad intentions?

Are you absolutely sure of the intentions of every inventor of every product you use?

Granted, since you happened to know this one, and are making a conscious choice based in the context of that knowledge, I genuinely commend you for your ethical convictions.

No. Ad hominem isn't always a fallacy. Sometimes the intent or the character of the person in question when in relates to an invention or device is relevant. "The ends justifies the means" has been used to defend some very barbaric things.

I'd be interested to know what you're getting at here.

A common explanation of why Onan was killed was because he disobeyed God by refusing to continue his brother's bloodline with Tamar. When you read Deuteronomy 25:5-10 though it clearly points out that the penalty for refusing to continue a brother's bloodline is public humiliation. The refusing brother was to be taken before the village and chastised. Death wasn't mentioned at all. Onan had to have done something far worse for God to have taken him out like that.

It's true. However, what Onan did, which is condemnable as artificial contraceptive, does not involve exposure to anything that may cause the physical harm being described. Also, apart from allergic reactions, I have not seen any evidence that condoms cause physical harm.

The thing that gets me about condoms is how they are demonized by some evangelicals but when a couple gets married their opposition to them evaporates. They constantly talk about their failure rates and cast general suspicion on them in teen abstinence groups but when two get married then they are great. It's at the very least inconsistent.

Also, if two people agree to abstain for a period of time, where's the denial of one's spouse there? How can you deny someone something that they either don't want or aren't seeking?

 

[Thekla]

Right. so we might want to just follow what He says rather than thinking
we are above that?

And what he says is in reference to the lack of self control. Both Paul and Peter do admonish that Christians are to develop self control.

If he says DONT DENY her... BECAUSE of lack of self control..
then we should what? Deny her because we think we're not
like the next guy?

I'm not sure that we are always all at the same level spiritually, or the same level of emotional maturity, or at the same level of self control. In fact, I thnk it entirely reasonable to say that we are not, and also that over the course of any lifetime, and likewise the Christian journey, we always are at the same level we were previously.

Can we deny ourselves; can we practice self control ? Or would we prefer not to practice self control ? The Scriptures admonish that we should develop self control. The collections that Paul takes for others require self control - to not spend all of one's resources on oneself. Likewise, if we can practice self control over our sexual urges sufficiently to remain faithful to one partner, and if can practice self control for prayer and fasting, then in both these cases we are developing greater self control in general.

God created that desire inside of us. It's a part of our make up..
Do you think He created this desire in us for us to fight against?

Appetite is a desire created for our sustenance - does this mean that overeating is part of our makeup ? Likewise, anger is a protective measure; is all anger good ?
Sexual desire is not inherently wrong, nor is self control.
Those abilities or orientations (toward God) that were distorted in the fall - are those natural or good ?

... to show we're somehow ... above how He created us? Anyhow
it doesnt work ... self control is fruit of the Spirit.. and having
intimacy with your spouse isn't a "lack" in any way.

I'm not arguing against intimacy with ones spouse -- but if continence for the purpose of prayer, to attend to someone who is ill is 'okay', then in both of these we are practicing self control.

Both sexual intimacy, and the putting aside of sexual intimacy should be mutual. Is continence is some way wrong ?

Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their
self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment
of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

.

Paul was addressing a manifestation or influence of gnosticism (it was rife in that area, just as sexual immorality was rife in Corinth). The focus in this case was wrong; when Peter states that we should learn to restrain sensual desire, was he wrong ?