1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Contraception

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Born Again Catholic, Dec 24, 2005.

  1. TaterTot

    TaterTot Guest

    Thats a nice illustration, BAC, but it misses the mark with me.

    Why do you need self control within a marriage? As long as both are willing...go for it. There are all kinds of ways to get around getting pregnant without using "abortifacients".

    In your eating example, David eats then throws up. He partakes out of selfishness and throws it up because he doesnt want to deal with the possible consequences. No one in my question on the contraception issue is self indulging and throwing anything out. Choosing not to partake isnt a sin.

    If you want to follow the OT law, then do you wear clothing of mixed fabric?
     
  2. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303 Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    1
    Surely you jest? :eek:
     
  3. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yeah, I was floored by that one, too.

    My wife and I have had three children. The first miscarried The second is our 17 year old daughter. The third was our son, Daniel, who was born three months early and lived three days.

    My wife almost dies in the last pregnancy, and we chose voluntary sterilization.

    So, according to the statemant by Born Again Catholic above, my wife and I are now consenting homosexuals. Pardon me while I laugh hysterically.

    God gives us children as blessings. But God also expects us to take care of our families (Now if anyone does not provide for his own relatives, and especially for his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
    (1Ti 5:8 HCSB)).

    So, for a man and wife to continue to bring forth children when they know that they cannot provide for them is sin. Yet, many here try to say that NOT bringing forth children, no matter the circumstances, is a sin. Sorts like Danged if you do, danged if you don't, huh?

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  4. Priscilla Ann

    Priscilla Ann Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trotter:

    I couldn't agree with you more. "God gives us chilren as blessings. But God also expects us to take care of our families."

    My husband and I were also in a position where we chose voluntary sterilization. In our situation, I had 12 years of health problems before I was properly diagnosed and put on medication that I will take for the rest of my life. I was advised not to become pregnant if I chose this medication. Since we had one child, we opted for voluntary sterilization. That was about ten years ago, and it was definitely the best decision for our family.

    According to the view of Born Again Catholic, I guess I would have been a better Christian if I had gambled with my health.

    PA
     
  5. Born Again Catholic

    Born Again Catholic New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not only homosexuality but others well known theologians compare it to adultery, harlotry and murder. This is not only my view but the unanimous view of all Christianitian denomininations without exception for the first 1900 years of Christianity. (Including Baptists, Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc)&gt; Secular thought has so invaded most christian churches on the subject of sexuality it is difficult for most to even relate how abhorrent all christians viewed this practice as murder before the fact were as abortion is murder after the fact.

    The first Christian Church to teach differently were the Anglicans in the 1930's, and it wa further promoted by secular groups such as Planned Parenthood (then known as the Birth Control League). In this case Churches began abandoning the will of God before the courts, Contraception was illegal in some states as late as the 1950's, as the law up until that time still understood the concept of natural law which paul discussed in Romans 2 (i.e. to preform acts against the natural order in which God made them was illegal ie homosexuality, murder, contraception) Then in Griswald vs Conneticut the Supreme Court declared contraception legal based on a made up constitutioal right of privacy. Twenty years later using that same right of privacy they made abortion legal in Roe v Wade.

    Here are a variety of quotes from various theologians and authors discussing various acts of contraception again comparing it to sodomy, adultery ,murder, and harlotry

    As regards contraceptives, there is a paradoxical, negative sense in which all possible future generations are the patients or subjects of a power wielded by those already alive. By contraception simply, they are denied existence; by contraception used as a means of selective breeding, they are, without their concurring voice, made to be what one generation, for its own reasons, may choose to prefer. From this point of view, what we call Man's power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument.

    {C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, NY: Macmillan, 1947, pp. 68-69}

    We will go one better, and state that we have not found one orthodox 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, all the way back to the very beginning of the Reformation.1

    1 Charles Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, (Monongahela, PA: Zimmer Printing, 1989), 63.

    The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring. This impiety is especially condemned, now by the Spirit through Moses mouth, that Onan, as it where, by a violent abortion, no less cruelly than filthily cast upon the ground the offspring of his brother, torn from the maternal womb. Besides, in this way he tried, as far as he was able, to wipe out part of the human race.3

    Calvins Latin Commentary on Genesis 38:10.

    [T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to 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. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him.2

    Martin Luther, Commentary on Genesis.

    Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord--And it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.6

    6 John Wesley, Commentary on Genesis.

    It has been left to the last Christians, or rather to the first Christians fully committed to blaspheming and denying Christianity, to invent a new kind of worship of Sex, which is not even a worship of Life. It has been left to the very latest Modernists to proclaim an erotic religion which at once exalts lust and forbids fertility . . . The new priests abolish the fatherhood and keep the feast - to themselves.

    {G.K. Chesterton, The Well and the Shallows, NY: Sheed & Ward, 1935, p. 233}

    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 [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.7

    Augustine, Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17, A.D. 419.
     
  6. TaterTot

    TaterTot Guest

    Just because Augustine didnt believe that sex could be for recreation doesnt mean he was correct. Obviously the writer of Song of Solomon did.

    BAC, if "Seed spilling" (coitus interruptus)is a sin according to the Law and you are going to obseve that, do you wear clothing of mixed materials?

    (I am not arguing that "seed spilling" is ok, just an observation. There are other ways of not becoming pregnant)
     
  7. Born Again Catholic

    Born Again Catholic New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    TaterTot

    I am not sure you read what I write but I will try to answer you again. Although you certainly are not bound by jewish ceremonial or dietary laws, you are in no way excused from moral laws, otherwise based on your logic you could murder or commit adultery etc and claim I choose not to follow that moral law just because I am bound by grace not the law.

    Paul makes the argument in Romans that from natural order of how God created things man, whether they have access to scripture or not, man should understand God and the very nature of how he should conduct himself, so men are without excuse.

    Later in arguing agaist gay relations he argues agaist it because they have exchange "natural relations for unnatural ones" this is what people who contracept do they exchange their natural relationship with their wife for an unnatural relationship whose goal is completely cut off from the natural purpose of the act.. Just like gay relations/contraceptive relations are an unatural act whose goal is not to serve God but to satiate lust and treat another person as an object, it serves no godly purpose and thus homosexuality and and contraceptive sex are an offense against God.

    And as far as Augustine and all these other Catholic and Protestant theologians I have quoted, they cedrtainly expected people to enjoy sex, but just not to purposefully destroy its life giving potential.
     
  8. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trotter,

    I am glad you quoted the HCSB - I now know that I will not be buying it . . . Of course, it could be that you only quoted the one verse, but that passage is not talking about children. That passage is talking about widows.

    God bless

    Wayne
     
  9. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    8,119
    Likes Received:
    659
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We don't take our orders for Augustine, Luther, Calvin, or Wesley. But the fact that we are differing with the fairly consistent opinion of 1900 years of Christians of all stripes ought to at least give pause.
     
  10. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    33,467
    Likes Received:
    101
    Faith:
    Baptist
    My wife and I no longer needed contraception after I had a vasectomy. [​IMG]
     
  11. padredurand

    padredurand Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,513
    Likes Received:
    92
    Faith:
    Baptist
    ...now that we've all had our lesson on Humanae Vitae...

    Genesis 38:8-10 KJV
    (8) And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
    (9) And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
    (10) And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.


    Did the Lord slay Onan because of the physical act or because of how he dishonored his brother?

    I believe I'll stick with the Song of Solomon.....

    How fair and how pleasant art thou, O love, for delights! This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes. I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples; And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak. I am my beloved's, and his desire is toward me. Come, my beloved, let us go forth into the field; let us lodge in the villages. Let us get up early to the vineyards; let us see if the vine flourish, whether the tender grape appear, and the pomegranates bud forth: there will I give thee my loves.
    (Song of Solomon 7:6-12 KJV)

    [ December 26, 2005, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: padredurand ]
     
  12. TaterTot

    TaterTot Guest

    BAC, your parallel of homosexuality and contraception is just plain wrong. A couples desire for each other is the same, and NATURAL, whether or not they are concieving.

    I agree that OT moral law is helpful today as well, but I dont believe we are to be legalistic about it, and I just cant see your argument as being correct from what you have said.

    When you cite the Romans passage (exchanging natural for unnatural) you really should take into consideration the genre and flow of that passage before you slap it down on your argument as an affirmation.

    Peace to ya [​IMG]
     
  13. Born Again Catholic

    Born Again Catholic New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your are giving me too much credit its not my parallel it the teaching of all denominations includng Baptists for the first 48 generations of Christianity, it is only the last ~1.5 generations that have promoted this carnal exaltation of non fruitful relations.

    I agree what is unnatural is that instead of embracing one of the primary puposes of our sexuality as designed by God they destroy our God given fertility. For two people who are "one flesh" they commit a lie with their bodies, "yes I am one flesh with you except your fertility and I want that destroyed"

    Ephesians 5
    28So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; ….29For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.

    Our relations with our wife is a model of our relationship with Jesus, can you imagine us asking Jesus to destroy a part of himself so that we may bypass the natural fruit of our union with Him in order to receive carnal pleasure, it would be inconceivable. This is what was so inconceivable to those first 48 generations of christians regarding your position

    This is really a throw away argument related to acts of morality, it is exactly what liberals theologians use to defend abortion and homosexual acts by christians. Do you believe we are being to legalistic by saying abortion and homosexuality are wrong.

    Again this how people understood it for 1900 years it is your interpretation which is radically different than the christian norm. Infact our whole western legal system was founded upon natural law as described here in Romans and other parts of the Bible, that is why homosexuality, beastiality, adultery, abortion contraception etc were originally outlawed, they clearly went against the natural order as God created it .

    However once Christian church's started abandoning natural law themselves by allowing contraception in the 20th century is it no wonder the courts did to, you are seeing all these acts no legalized because without natural law there is no legal basis to outlaw these acts.

    Natural law has been replaced with tis radical humanism often promoted through this made up unbridled "right of privacy" which unwittingly through your arguments you are a proponent of.

    As I mentioned before the Supreme Court first recognized this "right to privacy in Griswald v Conneticut in 1950 which overturned a Conneticut law outlawing contraception, killing the concept of natural law for good in our legal system. The right to privacy argument was then used in 1972 Roe v Wade which legalized abortion, and then again used in the 1990's to overturn sodomy laws. So tater tot before you abandon natural law to promote contraception think of the destruction others have done before you following the same path.
     
  14. TaterTot

    TaterTot Guest

    I am not "promoting" contraception. It just bothers me when one claims that across the board, contraception is wrong. Contraception can simply be not participating when one is fertile if one in the couple wishes to abstain. I could have 15 kids easily now. And we'd be destitute in our current situation.

    We can argue history all day, and its really not going to matter, so I wont do it. I think that the NT is kinda silent on the issue, and its not gonna be one that keeps one in or out of heaven.

    Are you telling me that you and your wife never think/thought about whether conception may occur?
     
  15. Born Again Catholic

    Born Again Catholic New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you take the same stand on abortion or homosexuality is that sometimes right.

    Abstaining, simply is not contraception were did you get this notion. Thre root words of contraception literally mean "anti life" periods of abstinance are a natural part of married life due to travel, sickness, tiredness or wishing to delay the birth of a child, abstinance in no way upsets the natural order in which God create things, contraception does.

    So the OT is not valid based on this thinking we should promote abortion,beastiality and other sins as well, how the OT completely foreshadow the NT is a conversation we can save for another time, but as far as I know they haven't thrown out the OT from the Bible and Jesus used it considerably. The teachings of the OT are clearly well represented in Romas 1 & 2, as well as Ephesians 5, in addition pauls warns against the use of pharmekia commonly translated as potions. From the historical record we know in Pauls day the three most common potions in the Roman empire were for wealth, love and contraception . There were oral potions for contraception as well as ones that could be taken vaginally that literally poisoned the uterus so the fertilized egg could not implant. How do you know
    which of the three most commom potions paul was warning against if not all three.

    Does 48 generations of consitent christian teaching on the matter atleast give you reason to think that you may have gone off the correct path or did you honestly believe somehow you got it right and all the best christian thinkers of the previous 1900 years somehow misinterpreted scripture.
     
  16. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,516
    Likes Received:
    11
    Do you take the same stand on abortion or homosexuality is that sometimes right.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Why don't women wear hats any more in the Catholic Church? Did they change? Why?

    Why were Catholics told not to attend a protestant church? The later, why were they told they could only attend a protestant church if they attended a Catholic Church first. Did they change? Why?
     
  17. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,516
    Likes Received:
    11
    So are you saying the crusades honored God? Weren't they supposedly the best Christian thinkers?

    How is it that there have been popes who have had children? Wasn't he the primary leader of the Catholic Church supported by the supposedly best Christian thinkers of the time?

    What was Luther's beef with the supposedly best Christian thinkers of the time using the money from indulgences to build St. Peters basilica?
     
  18. James Flagg

    James Flagg Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    5
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why should any of us care about what some Catholic dogmatist thinks?
     
  19. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,516
    Likes Received:
    11
    My point was that he referred to them as the best Christian thinkers.
     
  20. TaterTot

    TaterTot Guest

    Yes, I believe some of the best "thinkers" could have been wrong.

    "...tiredness or wishing to delay the birth of a child, abstinance in no way upsets the natural order in which God create things"
    DELAY THE BIRTH OF A CHILD? I thought you had been arguing against that. (The natural order...I want you, not your fertility.)

    Of course, I believe that bestiality, abortion, etc is wrong across the board. That is definitely clear in Scripture. But you jus said that delaying the birth of a child is ok. That seems to be a contradiction of your earlier posts. If thats, OK, then whats wrong with delaying the birth of a child by the use of certain barrier methods? Are they not contraceptives as well?
     
Loading...