What does the Bible say about contraception?

[Benedicta00]

Really? You surprise me.

• "And David said in his heart, "I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul; there is nothing better for me than that I should escape to the land of the Philistines; then Saul will despair of seeking me any longer within the borders of Israel, and I shall escape out of his hand." So David arose and went over, he and the six hundred men who were with him, to Achish the son of Maoch, king of Gath. And David dwelt with Achish at Gath, he and his men, every man with his household, and David with his two wives, Ahinoam of Jezreel, and Abigail of Carmel, Nabals widow. And when it was told Saul that David had fled to Gath, he sought for him no more. Then David said to Achish, "If I have found favor in your eyes, let a place be given me in one of the country towns, that I may dwell there; for why should your servant dwell in the royal city with you?" So that day Achish gave him Ziklag; therefore Ziklag has belonged to the kings of Judah to this day. And the number of the days that David dwelt in the country of the Philistines was a year and four months." (1 Samuel 27:1-7 RSV)

JESUS said:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”
“Put away the sword. All who draw the sword will die by the sword.”

Again- God himself gave meat to the Israelites and Jesus himself ate lamb at Passover and God has indeed commanded wars all through the Old Testament so your point contradicts you.

 

[DarkCloud]

Lust is a disordered passion (something we are all born with) that sees fellow human beings as objects for our pleasure.

How does using a condom as a means of birth control mean that we are objectifying our spouse?

Lust is a desire for just the sexual pleasure, not the procreative and uniting function it was designed for.

Okay, I think I am beginning to see your understanding. So basically, any sexual pleasure which is not open to procreating is a sin to you. Well can't say I agree with such thoughts.

Jesus said if a man looks at a women with lust in his heart he has committed adultery. Lust is a sin that falls under the commandment “Thou shall not commit adultery.” One can certainly commit this sin with their wife or husband.

Definition: adultery: Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse.

Therefore, you cannot commit adultury with your own spouse.

Healthy sexual desire for our spouse has it’s beginning in our nature but it’s end is in God, meaning we seek to give ourselves to our spouse and bond with them. This is holy. Lust is the opposite of that. Lust seeks only to gain something for itself using another human person as a tool or object to get what it wants.

This doesn't make sense. You are saying two married people, in love, but using birth control so they don't have a dozen kids, are somehow using and objectifying each other whenever they have sex? Nonsense.

The definition that we know today, of course but taking on a willing person to help with your land and home and repaying them with care is not. This is the slavery you accuse the Church of condoning.

How do you know the exact form of slavery being condoned?

Here are some Bible verses:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Again- God himself gave meat to the Israelites and Jesus himself ate lamb at Passover and God has indeed commanded wars all through the Old Testament so your point contradicts you.

Or maybe the Bible contradicts itself.

 

[TreesNTrees]

Considered in the context of it's practical application, wouldn't the practice of ...

Celibacy

...be birth control, itself?

Why practice or mention the word, unless trying to prevent something?

 

[She]

How does using a condom as a means of birth control mean that we are objectifying our spouse?

Okay, I think I am beginning to see your understanding. So basically, any sexual pleasure which is not open to procreating is a sin to you. Well can't say I agree with such thoughts.

Definition: adultery: Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse.

Therefore, you cannot commit adultury with your own spouse.

This doesn't make sense. You are saying two married people, in love, but using birth control so they don't have a dozen kids, are somehow using and objectifying each other whenever they have sex? Nonsense.

How do you know the exact form of slavery being condoned?

Here are some Bible verses:

Or maybe the Bible contradicts itself.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to DarkCloud again."

 

[Benedicta00]

How does using a condom as a means of birth control mean that we are objectifying our spouse?

Because you aren’t accepting her as God made her and are actually disrespecting her and you’re saying to her that you refuse to give all of yourself to her. Why? So you can have pleasure. How is she not objectifyed?

Let me let you in on a secret, women deep down do resent men for making them change themselves and not accepting them as they are, fertile sometimes and not fertile at others.

NFP respects the woman’s dignity and it tells her she is valued as she is, as God made her to be and it is willing to wait for a time to be with her instead of making her change herself so the man can have pleasure.

By having women take B/C pills, putting on condoms, etc and so fourth reduces them to just an object for their pleasure.

I don’t understand how you think it can’t. Look at the heartbreak of some (most) women’s situation. If they do not contracept artificially, their husbands will leave them.

Why? When all a husband as to do is abstain during the fertile times if it is dangerous or a serious hardship to have children? How does wife feels loved by her husband when he refuses to respect her dignity and uses her for sex?

Okay, I think I am beginning to see your understanding. So basically, any sexual pleasure which is not open to procreating is a sin to you. Well can't say I agree with such thoughts.

Of course...
Every act must be open to life. That doesn’t mean every act has to or will result in new life but the procreative aspect must remain. Where did God ever say that man can take His sacred act of sex and do what we want with for our own pleasure?

Where did he ever give us permission to alter the act?

Definition: adultery: Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse.

It's not limited to that. Jesus said that if a man looks at a woman with lust in his heart the man has already committed adultery.

If you wish to self interpret Jesus’ words yourself to suit what you think is right and wrong, by all means…

But interpreted properly we are not to look at anyone, our spouses included as tools and objects for sexual pleasure. If you think lusting after your wife is holy and loving her, thinking she is put here for your sexual pleasure only so you can alter her, youself or the act with ABC, then by all means…

but what St. Paul tells us love is contradicts that terribly.

Therefore, you cannot commit adultury with your own spouse.

Yes, you can... wanting a person sexually for sexual pleasure only is what lust is and lust is a sin.

This doesn't make sense. You are saying two married people, in love, but using birth control so they don't have a dozen kids, are somehow using and objectifying each other whenever they have sex? Nonsense.

How are they not? Aren't they just wanting each other for the pleasure they can derive from one another while they are rejecting everything else? How is it bonding and unifying to have sex just for pleasure?

Explain this to me please?

How do you know the exact form of slavery being condoned?

Here are some Bible verses:

Or maybe the Bible contradicts itself.

First, I’m not discussing slavery in a thread when the topic is contraception and what the bible says about it.

The Church has never supported any kind of slavery that was immoral or abusive. If she ever did I want to see it.

If you condemn the Church for supporting slavery in the days of old then condemn Moses and St. Paul as well.

Modern day slavery of Africans in America is what was being referenced and the universal Catholic Church has never supported it.

In fact the popes of that time did write pastoral letters to parishes condemning this kind of slavery and that just gave the Protestant churches in that day another reason to hate the Catholic Church.

So yes, indeed Protestant churches were wrong about slavery then and they are wrong about contraception now.

 

[DarkCloud]

Because you aren’t accepting her as God made her and are actually disrespecting her and you’re saying to her that you refuse to give all of yourself to her. Why? So you can have pleasure. How is she not objectifyed?

You are making stuff up now. In no way does using a condom imply that it any reasonable sense. First of all, presumably the use of a condom is mutual between the man and wife, as both don't want additional children at the moment. Just because two married people want to have sex for enjoyment does not turn sex into some sort of objectification or demean it.

Let me let you in on a secret, women deep down do resent men for making them change themselves and not accepting them as they are, fertile sometimes and not fertile at others.

Red herring. What does that have to do with husband and wife both agreeing to use birth control because she doesn't want to get pregnant and have dozens of kids.

NFP respects the woman’s dignity and it tells her she is valued as she is, as God made her to be and it is willing to wait for a time to be with her instead of making her change herself so the man can have pleasure.

NFP isn't anymore natural than a condom. Both serve the same purpose and NFP basically means a couple has to schedule sex instead of letting it happen naturally. "Oh dear, let's mark our calendar, we are allowed to have sex tomorrow!!" Also I don't follow your tangent about respect and how birth control is even related to respect. Again, both the man and wife agree to family planning by a birth control method. Moreover, presumably she also wants pleasure and to have sex??

By having women take B/C pills, putting on condoms, etc and so fourth reduces them to just an object for their pleasure.

This makes no sense. I'm having trouble following your deductions. If birth control objectifies, then so must NFP because it is a method of birth control. Think about it. Anyone who practices NFP is doing it simply to have sex while minimizing the chance of pregnanacy which means sex for only pleasure.

I don’t understand how you think it can’t. Look at the heartbreak of some (most) women’s situation. If they do not contracept artificially, their husbands will leave them.

Oh so now the husband is making them? Maybe we should have a poll asking how many women want to be pregnant 20 years straight.

Why? When all a husband as to do is abstain during the fertile times if it is dangerous or a serious hardship to have children? How does wife feels loved by her husband when he refuses to respect her dignity and uses her for sex?

Oh boy. Now married couples are using each other for sex. He doesn't respect her. You are writing from a very sexist standpoint. Again, from my perspective, both partners want to control the number of children, not just the man. I also presume women like to have sex. (I know, I'm a crazy liberal.)

Every act must be open to life. That doesn’t mean every act has to or will result in new life but the procreative aspect must remain. Where did God ever say that man can take His sacred act of sex and do what we want with for our own pleasure?

Where did he ever give us permission to alter the act?

Where did he define the act and all the rules that go about it in such detail down to the specifics of what method of birth control is accepted?

It's not limited to that. Jesus said that if a man looks at a woman with lust in his heart the man has already committed adultery.

If you wish to self interpret Jesus’ words yourself to suit what you think is right and wrong, by all means…

But interpreted properly we are not to look at anyone, our spouses included as tools and objects for sexual pleasure. If you think lusting after your wife is holy and loving her, thinking she is put here for your sexual pleasure only so you can alter her, youself or the act with ABC, then by all means…

but what St. Paul tells us love is contradicts that terribly.

Right, when I interpret it, it is wrong, but your interpretation must be the correct one. You equate lust to objectification, I equate it to sexual desire. And I don't think desiring to have sex with and thinking ones wife is beautiful is wrong. Just because I want to have sex and not have a new baby everytime does not mean I am objectifying my wife. Is that so hard to understand?

Yes, you can... wanting a person sexually for sexual pleasure only is what lust is and lust is a sin.

The dictionaries definition is: "Intense or unrestrained sexual craving." It does not follow that lust is objectification, and it does not follow that lust is using someone only for sexual pleasure. It just means a strong craving/desire. Why do you insist on redefining everyday words that have well defined usages?

How are they not? Aren't they just wanting each other for the pleasure they can derive from one another while they are rejecting everything else? How is it bonding and unifying to have sex just for pleasure?

Explain this to me please?

Rejecting what else? They aren't doing anything different from people practicing NFP. Both use a method to minimize pregnancy whilst still having sex. If what you say is the case, then people using NFP are also just using each other for sex and rejecting everything else, as they intentionally plan their sexual encounters according to some schedule to minimize pregnancy.

The Church has never supported any kind of slavery that was immoral or abusive.

Did you read the quotes?!?!?! Is turning a blind eye to child molestation a form of support of sex slavery?

 

[Benedicta00]

Dark Could.

Lust is a sin. You can be guilty of lusting after your spouse if you view her as a tool for your pleasure. Women can be just a guilty with their husbands. Both being mutually lustful is no less a sin, it doesn’t justify the lust that lives in their heart.

We are not to use our spouses for sex. Period.

Sex was not given to mankind to be used and abused for male or females self-gratification. It was designed for two becoming one and that two becoming one bears a fruit, the fruit is children, not [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

Contraception of all kinds including NFP can be abused and is when it makes the act self-gratifying and not unifying or open to life as God ordained it to be.

Are they situations when a couples can not or should have children? Yes, but if this is the case then the couple as an obligation to use a means that does not desecrate the act. I have no idea what is so hard to understand about this.

B/C pills, shots implants are not only immoral but are harmful as well and carry serious heath risks to women. Obviously they DO NOT come from God.

Condoms are immoral because it puts a barrier between the woman and man and the man is not giving all of himself to the women. Condoms are also very ineffective on their own because of malfunction and defects, so if a women’ situation is dire, then a man is just putting her at risk.

Real nice things for a women to be using and ingesting and real nice for a man to want, encourage or demand they use or not be interested enough to know what these contraceptives can do to their wife they are supposed to love.

NFP respects the human body. There is no debating this fact. NFP is safe, effective, and free. There is no debating this.

Why isn’t it the method of choice? Because it takes work. It takes self discipline, self control and self sacrificing. Men and women must sacrifice for one another and this is seen as a bad thing- no wonder divorce is what it is.

 

[She]

Dark Could.

Lust is a sin. You can be guilty of lusting after your spouse if you view her as a tool for your pleasure. Women can be just a guilty with their husbands. Both being mutually lustful is no less a sin, it doesn’t justify the lust that lives in their heart.

We are not to use our spouses for sex. Period.

Sex was not given to mankind to be used and abused for male or females self-gratification. It was designed for two becoming one and that two becoming one bears a fruit, the fruit is children, not [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

Contraception of all kinds including NFP can be abused and is when it makes the act self-gratifying and not unifying or open to life as God ordained it to be.

Are they situations when a couples can not or should have children? Yes, but if this is the case then the couple as an obligation to use a means that does not desecrate the act. I have no idea what is so hard to understand about this.

B/C pills, shots implants are not only immoral but are harmful as well and carry serious heath risks to women. Obviously they DO NOT come from God.

Condoms are immoral because it puts a barrier between the woman and man and the man is not giving all of himself to the women. Condoms are also very ineffective on their own because of malfunction and defects, so if a women’ situation is dire, then a man is just putting her at risk.

Real nice things for a women to be using and ingesting and real nice for a man to want, encourage or demand they use or not be interested enough to know what these contraceptives can do to their wife they are supposed to love.

NFP respects the human body. There is no debating this fact. NFP is safe, effective, and free. There is no debating this.

Why isn’t it the method of choice? Because it takes work. It takes self discipline, self control and self sacrificing. Men and women must sacrifice for one another and this is seen as a bad thing- no wonder divorce is what it is.

We are going round and round in circles here. Your arguments are quite sickening. I pity any couple which takes all this too seriously (like my sister and her husband who are getting divorced because they cannot live up to these high expectations).

The side effects of some contraceptives are undesirable but I really do not believe that it is up to someone's religious denomination to interfere in their choice of medication. I do not see that it is their place to do so. Do they interfere with people's choices regarding other medications?

As far as condoms being a barrier or a risk, surely that is between the man and woman concerned. What on earth does religion have to do with their intimate marital relationship?

Keep religion out of the bedroom and we'll all be much happier.

Abortion is an issue where religion must have its say. But contraception? No.

Has anyone else got anything more constructive to say on this topic?

 

[ScottBot]

It's the CATHOLIC Church's teaching that ABC and sterilization is "morally offensive". Not everyone is Catholic.

If self sacrificing means having children one can't afford then you are correct people don't want to do that anymore.

No, the bible teaches that Onan's sin caused his death. His sin was practicing contraception. You and your bible need to have it out, this has nothing to do with the Catholic Church.

 

[Iollain]

If that was the case we would have people dead all over the place, sterilization is a route many couples go when they have made the decision for one reason or another that they are done having kids.

 

[QuantaCura]

If that was the case we would have people dead all over the place, sterilization is a route many couples go when they have made the decision for one reason or another that they are done having kids.

God doesn't use temporal death as a punishment for sins anymore--it was a figure for the true, greater, spiritual consequence of sin revealed fully by Christ--the eternal death of Hell.

I'm not saying all who contracept go to Hell--God will judge--but objectively it is a grave offense against God.

 

[Fantine]

Pope Paul VI predicted grave consequences that would arise from the widespread and unrestrained use of contraception.. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion" (HV 17).

I agree that sexual licentiousness and pornography can decrease respect for women, but.....and this is a big but.....were women respected any more in other historical periods? In many places they were (and still are) treated as no better than slaves. In parts of Africa sexual mutilation is still carried on so that they can never enjoy sex and will, presumably, never be unfaithful. In parts of Africa, women are stoned for adultery (while the men walk free.) In parts of Africa, reports have been issued indicating that priests raping nuns is a significant problem.

Women were considered property in many parts of the world for many years. Fathers would 'sell' their daughters to strangers for a few head of cattle....

All of these terrible abuses of women's dignity occurred (and, in some parts of the world, are still occurring) that have nothing to do with contraception, and within cultures that don't contracept.

And let's not forget that King Henry VIII beheaded the wives that couldn't conceive, or, more specifically, couldn't conceive a son.

Just like Abraham, who got a slave girl pregnant because Sarah couldn't conceive.....

That surely shows how the anti-contraceptive mentality has more respect for women, doesn't it?

Women should be respected in societies that practice contraception and societies that don't. They should be respected whether single, married, young, old, parent or non-parent.

If the Pope really wants to see greater respect for women in this world, he needs to look at more than just contraception.

Perhaps he should even look at how his church respects women and their abilities....

 

[DarkCloud]

Lust is a sin. You can be guilty of lusting after your spouse if you view her as a tool for your pleasure. Women can be just a guilty with their husbands. Both being mutually lustful is no less a sin, it doesn’t justify the lust that lives in their heart.

We are not to use our spouses for sex. Period.

What does that have to do with contraception. Contraception does not imply sexual objectification. If it did, then it would equally apply to NFP as well.

Sex was not given to mankind to be used and abused for male or females self-gratification. It was designed for two becoming one and that two becoming one bears a fruit, the fruit is children, not [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

Contraception of all kinds including NFP can be abused and is when it makes the act self-gratifying and not unifying or open to life as God ordained it to be.

Both condoms and NFP work to minimize the chance of pregnancy. Condoms can fail and NFP is not 100%. Thus, both are open to children, but simply work to minimize the probability.

B/C pills, shots implants are not only immoral but are harmful as well and carry serious heath risks to women. Obviously they DO NOT come from God.

Condoms are immoral because it puts a barrier between the woman and man and the man is not giving all of himself to the women. Condoms are also very ineffective on their own because of malfunction and defects, so if a women’ situation is dire, then a man is just putting her at risk.

Real nice things for a women to be using and ingesting and real nice for a man to want, encourage or demand they use or not be interested enough to know what these contraceptives can do to their wife they are supposed to love.

I don't see how the "condom barrier" has any moral significance. It simply stops sperm from passing into the women, which is how the method works. In NFP the sperm goes somewhere to, whether the female body destroys it or excretes it, it does not go into fertilizing the egg. So I don't see any difference, in essence.
Also why do you care if a condom breaks, I thought you wanted to be more open to children.

NFP respects the human body. There is no debating this fact. NFP is safe, effective, and free. There is no debating this.

Condoms respect the body; they are safe, effective, and mostly free. There is no debating this.

Why isn’t it the method of choice? Because it takes work. It takes self discipline, self control and self sacrificing. Men and women must sacrifice for one another and this is seen as a bad thing- no wonder divorce is what it is.

Because it is ridiculous to expect a loving couple to schedule sex--how unnatural is that.

 

[A. believer]

Of course your answer is the same as “you people.” ?? I assume you are referring to Catholics?

I'm referring to all those who advocate "natural family planning" as an appropriate form of limiting family size. There's nothing "natural" about this method. That was my point.

It is very unnatural to abstain during this time. God made a female actually desire her spouse more during this time.

But still, the misnomer "natural family planning."

But we are talking about what life might throw at us and how we can deal with it in a morally acceptable way. Not a sinful way that is offensive to God.

To abstain on purpose in order to reject the gift of children is sinful. I have never argued otherwise. NFP couples can certainly be guilty of this sin.

But to have to abstain from relations because one is not in a position to receive the gift of a child is not a sin.

There is no sin of one’s heart becuase their intent is pure, in fact it's a sacrifice and there is no sin of the body due to the fact there is no act to abuse. The couple is actually sacrificing.

That's not necessarily so. Refraining from sex with one's spouse certainly can be sinful. I frequently find Roman Catholic theology way too simplistic, I guess because of its tendency to minimize the depth of human depravity.

ABC’s are seen as evil. NFP is not for the reasons I already gave.

If you truly are not in a position to have children for how ever long, for what ever reason and you are not just being material, worldly, greedy, selfish, or anti baby then NFP is a morally acceptable means to use because it works with God’s own design and it does not thwart his design.

We, even if our intent is good simply can not use ABC, not even condomns because we can never use evil to achieve a good end.

ABC of all kind simply ought not be an option for a believer because of the tremendous gift of light and grace we have received from God, knowing what is true and what is deception.

I'm quite familiar with the arguments, but as I indicated, I find the whole premise extremely problematic. For the record, though, I definitely don't advocate the indiscriminate use of contraceptives. Some I consider inherently wrong, and those that aren't can still be abused within the marital relationship. But it seems to me that the sin, in that case, is not the use of the contraceptives per se, but deeper issues within the mindset of the people involved.

 

[A. believer]

No, the bible teaches that Onan's sin caused his death.

No dispute.

His sin was practicing contraception.

And what do you take away from the story of Ananias and Sapphira? That it's a sin not to give all the proceeds of the sale of one's property to the church?

 

[tulc]

I have no idea what is so hard to understand about this.

Uhmmm 2 points
1) You havn't offered any proof that what you believe is the only correct way of looking at this issue.
and
2) I don't see anyone else having a hard time about this.
tulc(just thought those needed to be pointed out)

 

[Defcon]

Thread closed per OP request.