to contracept or not to contracept, that is the question

Says who?

How old was Sarah when she conceived?
And how many virgins have conceived?

You know I am not talking of miracle births. This is a discussion of normal everyday people, having normal everyday relations with their spouses.

How many 60 year old women do you think got pregnant today?
 
Thread starter #42

Madman

Senior Member
And I am not talking about the exception either. The discussion is Whether couples of child bearing age should use contraception. If anyone chooses to have a serious conversation, that, I believe Christians should have, and not go from the ridiculous to the sublime then so be it.

Holy Scripture in no way condones the use contraception, it calls children a blessing, is part of the natural law that God ordained when a man and woman come together.

The purpose of Holy Matrimony is to bind a man to a woman for the purpose of “raising Godly children”.

The Episcopal group approved contraception in 1930 and the rest of Protestantism followed suit.

I argue it is causing a lot of problems, many disagree.
 

Spotlite

Senior Member
And I am not talking about the exception either. The discussion is Whether couples of child bearing age should use contraception. If anyone chooses to have a serious conversation, that, I believe Christians should have, and not go from the ridiculous to the sublime then so be it.

Holy Scripture in no way condones the use contraception, it calls children a blessing, is part of the natural law that God ordained when a man and woman come together.

The purpose of Holy Matrimony is to bind a man to a woman for the purpose of “raising Godly children”.

The Episcopal group approved contraception in 1930 and the rest of Protestantism followed suit.

I argue it is causing a lot of problems, many disagree.
Holy Scripture in no way condones the use contraception, it calls children a blessing, is part of the natural law that God ordained when a man and woman come together.

The purpose of Holy Matrimony is to bind a man to a woman for the purpose of “raising Godly children”.
Scripture neither condones nor condemns the use of contraception. Onan isn’t about contraception, it’s about disobedience. No different than the disobedience of eating the fruit isn’t about eating fruit.

I agree that children are a blessing. But, raising children isn’t the sole purpose of holy matrimony - it isn’t good for man to be alone.

Abstinence is a form of contraception / birth control and the only form that’s 100% guaranteed to work. Do the Church couples work around the “fertility” period?

Medicinal and surgical contraception has it’s pros / cons / health risks - so does the use of Tylenol.
 
Thread starter #44

Madman

Senior Member
Scripture neither condones nor condemns the use of contraception. Onan isn’t about contraception, it’s about disobedience. No different than the disobedience of eating the fruit isn’t about eating fruit.
For nearly 2000 years no Christian denomination believed that, even titans of the reformation, Calvin and Luther, were anticontraception. Then along came the Episcopalians in 1930 and the free for all began.

I agree that children are a blessing. But, raising children isn’t the sole purpose of holy matrimony - it isn’t good for man to be alone.
Companionship and marriage are 2 different things.
Malachi 2:13-16 And this is the second thing you do: you cover the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping and crying; so He does not regard the offering anymore, nor receive it with goodwill from your hands. 14 Yet you say, "For what reason?" Because the LORD has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. 16 "For the LORD God of Israel says that He hates divorce, for it covers one's garment with violence," says the LORD of hosts. "Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously."


Medicinal and surgical contraception has it’s pros / cons / health risks - so does the use of Tylenol.
I never thought about Tylenol having a spiritual aspect, I will begin to consider that.
 

Spotlite

Senior Member
For nearly 2000 years no Christian denomination believed that, even titans of the reformation, Calvin and Luther, were anticontraception. Then along came the Episcopalians in 1930 and the free for all began.

Companionship and marriage are 2 different things.
Malachi 2:13-16 And this is the second thing you do: you cover the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping and crying; so He does not regard the offering anymore, nor receive it with goodwill from your hands. 14 Yet you say, "For what reason?" Because the LORD has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. 16 "For the LORD God of Israel says that He hates divorce, for it covers one's garment with violence," says the LORD of hosts. "Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously."



I never thought about Tylenol having a spiritual aspect, I will begin to consider that.
I’m not saying Tylenol has anything spiritual about it - I’m also asking what us spiritual about contraception?

He gave Eve to Adam……companionship. Man created the marriage ceremony.

I can’t help who thought what for years, it’s what’s in or not in scripture.
 
Thread starter #46

Madman

Senior Member
I’m not saying Tylenol has anything spiritual about it - I’m also asking what us spiritual about contraception?
Historically condoms were used by men when they were with prostitutes'. Most chemical contraceptives have the possibility of being abortifacient.
What happens when they fail, which happens very often. To prevent an "unwanted" child do you go to an abortionist? When men and women have intercourse there should be the knowledge of the possibility of a child, as God, in the natural law designed.
To remove the true coming together of a husband and wife, without the possibility, even remotely, of producing children removes the concept of "becoming one flesh".

These are just my views on the topic as have been formed by Holy Scripture and the Church. To each his own, but the last group I would look to for theological interpretation are the Episcopalians.

He gave Eve to Adam……companionship. Man created the marriage ceremony.
Really? Don't see much discussion about men and women being companions, but I do see a lot of language about husband and wife in Scripture. Maybe God instituted Holy Matrimony.

I can’t help who thought what for years, it’s what’s in or not in scripture.
If I believed something new about a religion as old as Christianity, I might reconsider my beliefs. All I am saying is for 2000+ years Holy Scripture has been interpreted, by everyone, a certain way, in 1930 a very liberal wing of Christianity decided to approve contraception for its members.
 

Spotlite

Senior Member
Historically condoms were used by men when they were with prostitutes'. Most chemical contraceptives have the possibility of being abortifacient.
What happens when they fail, which happens very often. To prevent an "unwanted" child do you go to an abortionist? When men and women have intercourse there should be the knowledge of the possibility of a child, as God, in the natural law designed.
To remove the true coming together of a husband and wife, without the possibility, even remotely, of producing children removes the concept of "becoming one flesh".

These are just my views on the topic as have been formed by Holy Scripture and the Church. To each his own, but the last group I would look to for theological interpretation are the Episcopalians.


Really? Don't see much discussion about men and women being companions, but I do see a lot of language about husband and wife in Scripture. Maybe God instituted Holy Matrimony.


If I believed something new about a religion as old as Christianity, I might reconsider my beliefs. All I am saying is for 2000+ years Holy Scripture has been interpreted, by everyone, a certain way, in 1930 a very liberal wing of Christianity decided to approve contraception for its members.
I’m hanging my hat on there’s absolutely nothing scriptural that condemns nor condones contraception, regardless of the denomination teaching it. If you got something besides what the Pope commands, be a good time to hang yours on scripture, too.

It wasn’t good for man to be alone is the same thing as companionship. You mentioned using woman as machines - your idea of only for purpose of raising children questions your stance against them being a machine.

Man and woman could take each other to be husband and wife (companion) for life just as with Adam and Eve - man came along requiring paperwork. I think we’re saying the same thing - it’s still instituted by God. Man requires documentation.
 
When men and women have intercourse there should be the knowledge of the possibility of a child, as God, in the natural law designed.
To remove the true coming together of a husband and wife, without the possibility, even remotely, of producing children removes the concept of "becoming one flesh".
I guess my wife and I will have to answer to God for her having a tubal ligation after the birth of our 3rd child. She almost died with the 1st, had a terrible time delivering the 2nd, and couldn't deliver the 3rd, and had to have a c-section.

I guess we are caught in another sin for having that tubal to keep her from possibly dying delivering another child.
 
Faith at its finest. Splitting hairs down to the microscopic detail to determine what's right or wrong. God didn't intend it to be that way. Whatever you chose, you can be forgiven, anyway.
 
For nearly 2000 years no Christian denomination believed that, even titans of the reformation, Calvin and Luther, were anticontraception. Then along came the Episcopalians in 1930 and the free for all began.

Companionship and marriage are 2 different things.
Malachi 2:13-16 And this is the second thing you do: you cover the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping and crying; so He does not regard the offering anymore, nor receive it with goodwill from your hands. 14 Yet you say, "For what reason?" Because the LORD has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. 16 "For the LORD God of Israel says that He hates divorce, for it covers one's garment with violence," says the LORD of hosts. "Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously."



I never thought about Tylenol having a spiritual aspect, I will begin to consider that.
Maybe since two men in companionship can't have children it's somehow connected to this topic. Both homosexuality and birth control are not natural when it comes to marriage.
 
Thread starter #51

Madman

Senior Member
I’m hanging my hat on there’s absolutely nothing scriptural that condemns nor condones contraception, regardless of the denomination teaching it. If you got something besides what the Pope commands, be a good time to hang yours on scripture, too.
Don't know anything about the pope, I'm not Roman. You can read what all the Church fathers have to say, what the Orthodox, the Coptics, the Ethiopian Christian Church, etc. have to say on the topic. There really is more to the faith than Sola Scriptura. Even Holy Scripture says there is.

I am not here to change change minds, only present a case. An ancient case that contraceptives bring a lot of bad things, ideas, beliefs and practices into the marital bedroom. Secular therapies and medicine are revealing those things also.

It wasn’t good for man to be alone is the same thing as companionship. You mentioned using woman as machines - your idea of only for purpose of raising children questions your stance against them being a machine.
Didn't say women were only for raising children, Scripture says the purpose of matrimony is for raising raising Godly children. That takes man and woman.

Man and woman could take each other to be husband and wife (companion) for life just as with Adam and Eve - man came along requiring paperwork. I think we’re saying the same thing - it’s still instituted by God. Man requires documentation.
No argument. Man messes up most things. I got my documents, that way if anything happens my wife gets half.
 
Thread starter #52

Madman

Senior Member
Faith at its finest. Splitting hairs down to the microscopic detail to determine what's right or wrong.
Just talking about ways of life my friend. Nothing but opinions based on what little we know. You are in this forum so it appears you like to throw out your opinion also.

God didn't intend it to be that way.
Really? What makes you say that?

Whatever you chose, you can be forgiven, anyway.
Yep. It is always easier to ask for forgiveness than for direction.
 
Thread starter #53

Madman

Senior Member
Maybe since two men in companionship can't have children it's somehow connected to this topic. Both homosexuality and birth control are not natural when it comes to marriage.
But men can be companions to each other without it being sexual, they just cannot be married.
 
Christian acceptance of contraception is relatively new; all churches disapproved of artificial contraception until the start of the 20th century.

For most of the last 2000 years all Christian churches have been against artificial birth control.

This change came slowly - as late as 1908 the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church stated that birth control "cannot be spoken of without repugnance," and denounced it as "demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/contraception_1.shtml
 

northgeorgiasportsman

Moderator
Staff member
I don't generally delve into the spiritual forum, for good reason, but I will say my piece and see myself out.

As far as what "The Church" has to say about it.... "The Church" has a long history of changing its views on God's unchanging word. It wasn't that long ago that "The Church" was selling indulgences. I'm fully capable of reading God's word without "The Church" telling me what to think about it. So if your whole argument stands on what "The Church" says, your argument is invalid to me.

As far as contraception.... It passes the Holy Spirit test. As a Christian, the Holy Spirit dwells within me. It's my built-in barometer for sinful behavior. When I sin, I immediately know it and feel remorse. The Holy Spirit is letting me know that my sin is loathsome to God.
When I am with my wife (whom God gifted me) and we use contraception, I feel no sin guilt, because what we are doing isn't sinful.
 
Thread starter #57

Madman

Senior Member
Are you insinuating that asking for forgiveness is somehow less noble, or lesser in God's eyes than taking the harder route?
Nope just said it is easier. I ask for forgiveness several times a day.

It takes restraint and prayer and thought to stay on the better path.
 
Thread starter #58

Madman

Senior Member
NGSM,
Mind if I challenge some of those thoughts?

As far as what "The Church" has to say about it.... "The Church" has a long history of changing its views on God's unchanging word.
Really? What are some of those changes?

It wasn't that long ago that "The Church" was selling indulgences.
The Church sold nothing, there were some individuals, but the selling of indulgences was never indorsed by the Church.

I'm fully capable of reading God's word without "The Church" telling me what to think about it.
If you go to a church on and listen to a preacher, I'll bet he sways your opinion. I may be wrong, but I bet he does.

So if your whole argument stands on what "The Church" says, your argument is invalid to me.
I have put out my argument and you have put out yours. Thanks.
 
It does appear that the Holy Spirit lays it on us differently according to who our preacher is to what era in time we were born.
The New Covenant did somehow put the Law on our hearts. I'm not sure why it's different for every individual though. To me it's mostly more about love than sin.

We had a preacher years ago that told us it was a sin to eat out on Sunday so the whole Church quit eating out on Sunday. I'm sure if he had told us birth control was wrong, we would have believed so as well.
 
Top