PDA

View Full Version : Is Birth Control A Sin?



Pastor Vern
Jul 31st 2008, 02:24 AM
I know there are people on both sides of this issue. I am interested in hearing some of your bible based thoughts on this.

Firefighter
Jul 31st 2008, 02:28 AM
Abortive - Yes.

Non-Abortive - No.

ariel_jesus237
Jul 31st 2008, 03:17 AM
Abortive - Yes.

Non-Abortive - No.
bible basis? i don't know it's kind of tricky cuz it involves many things but above it all consult God.. He will convict you and give you the right answer and not just what you want to hear

Athanasius
Jul 31st 2008, 03:20 AM
I know there are people on both sides of this issue. I am interested in hearing some of your bible based thoughts on this.

Well as soon as someone gives their reasonings as to why they believe it's a sin, the rest of us can start replying.

calidog
Jul 31st 2008, 03:21 AM
We have freedom in Christ and birth prevention is a personal issue between you and God. I believe bring up children into the world pleases God and that it has eternal reward.

ariel_jesus237
Jul 31st 2008, 03:25 AM
well i personally don't think birth control comes from God since before AIDS n all that people had lots of kids and that is what you get from having sex.. period. but now in the age of STDs and AIDS and because people want the pleasure of sex without consequence, the modern world has turned to birth control... I personally don't think its necessary unless for whatever reason you or your partner have a disease or were very sexually active in the past.

Athanasius
Jul 31st 2008, 03:27 AM
well i personally don't think birth control comes from God since before AIDS n all that people had lots of kids and that is what you get from having sex.. period.

What is this trying to say, I don't follow you? 'Birth control' isn't a recent invention, just so you know.



but now in the age of STDs and AIDS and because people want the pleasure of sex without consequence, the modern world has turned to birth control... I personally don't think its necessary unless for whatever reason you or your partner have a disease or were very sexually active in the past.

Well then, you do think it's necessary ;) People can't afford to have tonnes of children, is there something wrong with that reason? What about people who have themselves 'fixed'--what of this form of birth control?

ariel_jesus237
Jul 31st 2008, 03:31 AM
hmm well like I said what I think doesnt matter lol i could be ok with it or not.. and birth control(conventional methods like condoms and the pill not the natural methods) is modern, if not why do u think people from a few decades ago had tons of children?

Athanasius
Jul 31st 2008, 03:39 AM
hmm well like I said what I think doesnt matter lol i could be ok with it or not.. and birth control(conventional methods like condoms and the pill not the natural methods) is modern, if not why do u think people from a few decades ago had tons of children?

Birth control was ineffective, doesn't mean it wasn't around. I'm sure there are a lot of men and women who are glad we aren't using cloth any more. That's how we got to the point where we are now, people were 'perfecting' the methods back then.

As for having tons of children, birth control doesn't mean you can't have tons of children now. No one's forcing anyone (or shouldn't be) to use it. People simply can't afford to raise ten or twenty children, in some cases. Sure, birth control can be abused, doesn't mean it's inherently sinful.

I mean, it's really nothing to say 'they had more children!'. They also had an astronomically high infant mortality rate.

calidog
Jul 31st 2008, 03:44 AM
Well then, you do think it's necessary ;) People can't afford to have tonnes of children, is there something wrong with that reason? What about people who have themselves 'fixed'--what of this form of birth control?
I was hoping someone would mention the financial aspect of having children. I am certain that God will provide for every child one brings into the world. Please don't bring up third world problems into this though. Leave that for another discussion.

Athanasius
Jul 31st 2008, 03:48 AM
I was hoping someone would mention the financial aspect of having children. I am certain that God will provide for every child one brings into the world. Please don't bring up third world problems into this though. Leave that for another discussion.

Not being able to financially support 'X' children is not exclusively a third world problem.

amazzin
Jul 31st 2008, 03:54 AM
I know there are people on both sides of this issue. I am interested in hearing some of your bible based thoughts on this.

Vern

Birth control, in my opinion, is not a sin. God created women with a cycle in order for them to conceive or not conceive. This means there are only certain times she can be inseminated by a man, usually a 3-5 day period. For a women to not conceive during this time period, by abstaining, means she is already, naturally, employing a birth control method.

If she now employs a pharmaceutical birth control method to make extra sure, she is still very much in control because she decides when it is time to conceive.

what I am trying to say is that the women is in control whether she takes a pill or not. Its God created in her to start.

calidog
Jul 31st 2008, 03:55 AM
Not being able to financially support 'X' children is not exclusively a third world problem.
I'm not saying raising children is'nt a financial burden, sacrifices have to be made, but provisions will come (from God). They belong to Him.

JoeChristian
Jul 31st 2008, 04:42 AM
I'm not saying raising children is'nt a financial burden, sacrifices have to be made, but provisions will come (from God). They belong to Him.

God wants us to be smart and wise with what he already gave us.

I know you don't want to discuss these "third world" problems here, but could you expound a bit on what you mean by that because some of their problems are likely suffered here (or wherever you are) as well. It then seems that if you think those third world cases are sufficient grounds to not have another child (extreme financial difficulties, disease, whatever) that reason should be just as valid for others.

What I mean to say is it seems an inconsistency to say that God will provide here but not there, if this is in fact what you mean, which, I don't know if it is, and is why I would like some further explanation.

calidog
Jul 31st 2008, 04:47 AM
I think the third world question would warrant a separate discussion from the OP but I could be wrong.

I agree that God desires us to use wisdom but I also believe we have freedom in Christ to have x number of children, no children, or the freedom to let God limit the number. In any case it is my belief He will provide for the children.

calidog
Jul 31st 2008, 04:51 AM
I know you don't want to discuss these "third world" problems here, but could you expound a bit on what you mean by that because some of their problems are likely suffered here (or wherever you are) as well. It then seems that if you think those third world cases are sufficient grounds to not have another child (extreme financial difficulties, disease, whatever) that reason should be just as valid for others.

What I mean to say is it seems an inconsistency to say that God will provide here but not there, if this is in fact what you mean, which, I don't know if it is, and is why I would like some further explanation.
People, adults and children alike, are starving and suffering in many third world countries, and how do we as christians attempt to justify God in this? It's a whole messy issue but we know it is God Who sets up governments and tears them down.

seamus414
Jul 31st 2008, 11:55 AM
I know there are people on both sides of this issue. I am interested in hearing some of your bible based thoughts on this.

(the below refers to non-abortive contraception, obviously abortive is a sin on its face)

All Christians believed it was a sin until approximately the 1920's when the Anglican Communion allowed it for the purposes of family planning, not prevention. Thereafter, Protestants followed to make it not a sin at all. So, one has to ask, where ALL Christians wrong until the 1920's? WHat do we know now that they did not for 1900 years?

My understanding of the sinfulness of contraception is the following. Two introductory points - First, we must agree - and I think we do - that the only place for sexual relations is between husband and wife and that place only. Second, something that is sinful can be described as something contrary to God's will.

With that in mind, we then have to think about why God instituted marriage and the purpose of marriage. God, a multitude of times in the Scriptures, commands us to be frutiful and multiply. The only forum for that is in marriage and the only way is sexual relations. Therefore, one of God's purposes of marriage is to have people be fruitful and multiply. Using contraception to prevent pregnancy impeeds one of God's purposes for marriage and is, therefore, potentially sinful and is its literally a roadblock to God's will for marriage and sexual relations.

seamus414
Jul 31st 2008, 12:29 PM
Vern

Birth control, in my opinion, is not a sin. God created women with a cycle in order for them to conceive or not conceive. This means there are only certain times she can be inseminated by a man, usually a 3-5 day period. For a women to not conceive during this time period, by abstaining, means she is already, naturally, employing a birth control method.

If she now employs a pharmaceutical birth control method to make extra sure, she is still very much in control because she decides when it is time to conceive.

what I am trying to say is that the women is in control whether she takes a pill or not. Its God created in her to start.

God is the one who decides how nature works (i.e.: the body) and the woman interfers with God's decision by using birth control. How is that a good thing?

MD101
Jul 31st 2008, 12:34 PM
God, a multitude of times in the Scriptures, commands us to be frutiful and multiply.

I want to ask "Is that really relevant to us today"? Buy I hate the thought that parts of the bible may only have relevance to the time of its creation.

As previous posts have mentioned, years ago there was a much higher infant mortality rate, and there was a smaller population. So perhaps it was good then to go forth and multiply.

Nowadays, our countries are over-populated and there's a much lower infant mortality rate, and people live to a great age.

Let's take china. China is extremely overpopulated, they have a population of about one billion. So if china did this, the population would explode to many billions. Where would all the extra space, food, shelter and water come from? It wouldnt be feasible.

Also, "Couples who have more than one child without authorization are fined about $1,000 - a steep price given the average annual income in China is $1,290, according to the World Bank". Quoted from: http://www.dailyherald.com/special/crossingchina/part4sidebarB.asp (http://www.dailyherald.com/special/crossingchina/part4sidebarB.asp) < This is an article entitled "In China, more than one child isn't a choice".

So to have more than one child would cost you nearly a year's wages.
Someone previously mentioned, on this thread I believe,(just checked it wasnt on this thread, unless someone deleted it) that governments are created by God. Going a little off track but I think it's appropriate considering the previous point. I would have to disagree. Hitler was in power, so is Mugabe at the moment, as well as many other dictators. Why would God put them in power?

Anyway, back to the point. A lot of countries are quite overpopulated anyway, and to multiply like that would cause a lot of problems.

I like the phrase family planning. It sounds good. Allowing you to have a children when you are completely ready.

Failing that, you could just not have sex if you are that way inclined!

Whispering Grace
Jul 31st 2008, 12:42 PM
People can't afford to have tonnes of children, is there something wrong with that reason?

If God gives the child, will He not provide for the child?

Buzzword
Jul 31st 2008, 12:43 PM
(the below refers to non-abortive contraception, obviously abortive is a sin on its face)

All Christians believed it was a sin until approximately the 1920's when the Anglican Communion allowed it for the purposes of family planning, not prevention. Thereafter, Protestants followed to make it not a sin at all. So, one has to ask, where ALL Christians wrong until the 1920's? WHat do we know now that they did not for 1900 years?


Women didn't have the cultural freedoms they do now for 1900 years.
Science hadn't advanced to the point where women could take control of their own bodies for 1900 years.



My understanding of the sinfulness of contraception is the following. Two introductory points - First, we must agree - and I think we do - that the only place for sexual relations is between husband and wife and that place only. Second, something that is sinful can be described as something contrary to God's will.

With that in mind, we then have to think about why God instituted marriage and the purpose of marriage. God, a multitude of times in the Scriptures, commands us to be frutiful and multiply. The only forum for that is in marriage and the only way is sexual relations. Therefore, one of God's purposes of marriage is to have people be fruitful and multiply. Using contraception to prevent pregnancy impeeds one of God's purposes for marriage and is, therefore, potentially sinful and is its literally a roadblock to God's will for marriage and sexual relations.

Two issues here.

Xel'Naga already mentioned the fact that many married couples can't afford to have children.
Would you intrude on their marriage bed and condemn them for having sex while taking steps to avoid conceiving?

Second, God did not create sex strictly for child conception.
The depth of emotional and spiritual connection that results from sexual intimacy doesn't exist anywhere else in the world, if your heart is truly in it and the focus is on your partner's pleasure instead of trivializing it and making it all about you.

God commanded ADAM and EVE, and NOAH to "be fruitful and multipy"...both were very specific for the purpose of populating/repopulating the planet.

The planet has ALREADY been populated.
The choice is OURS whether or not to have children, and still enjoy the intimacy of sex.

Whispering Grace
Jul 31st 2008, 12:43 PM
We have freedom in Christ and birth prevention is a personal issue between you and God. I believe bring up children into the world pleases God and that it has eternal reward.

Please explain how freedom in Christ equates to shutting off the means for God blessing us with more children.

Vhayes
Jul 31st 2008, 12:46 PM
Overweight people use drugs to interfere with their digestion processes - chemotherapy interferes with the way a body works - taking an aspirin for a headache changes the nerves and metabolism a bit. Why are these things accepted as medical advances and birth control is not?

How is it better for a family to have 8 children who they cannot take care of than it is for them to have two or three or four they CAN take care of?

I Timothy 5
8 - But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Whispering Grace
Jul 31st 2008, 12:50 PM
I like the phrase family planning. It sounds good. Allowing you to have a children when you are completely ready.

I'd say if you're not ready to have children, you're not ready to have sex!

Whispering Grace
Jul 31st 2008, 12:51 PM
How is it better for a family to have 8 children who they cannot take care of than it is for them to have two or three or four they CAN take care of?

If God can provide for 4 children, He can certainly provide for 8!

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 12:53 PM
Just food for thought...

What is the motive behind abortion? What is the motive behind birth control?

Maybe I'll ask more later.

Whispering Grace
Jul 31st 2008, 01:00 PM
Xel'Naga already mentioned the fact that many married couples can't afford to have children.

Yet they can no doubt afford numerous luxuries, dinners out in restaurants, all the latest modern technology, etc.


The Bible says children are a REWARD, and a heritage from the Lord. (Psalm 127).

It is so typical of our modern culture to look down upon such a tremendous blessing from God.

I bet you anything, no one would have a problem with God blessing them with more money! I don't see anyone shutting up their bank accounts so God can't bless them any more!

Jeanne D
Jul 31st 2008, 01:01 PM
I personally don't have a problem with using birth control, although I never took the pill because I didn't feel comfortable "taking" anything. My husband and I used other methods.


Jeanne

MD101
Jul 31st 2008, 01:12 PM
"Yet they can no doubt afford numerous luxuries, dinners out in restaurants, all the latest modern technology, etc"

Whispering Grace, this may be the case with some people, but there any many who cannot. If I gave the bible to an Ethiopian who barely has enough water to drink, and they took up Christianity. They wouldn't be able to afford anything you mentioned, nor, to raise a child. This is the same for when you stated that "I'd say if you're not ready to have children, you're not ready to have sex!". So if you're in a loving marriage, but aren't ready for children yet whether emotionally or otherwise, you aren't ready to have sex?

"If God can provide for 4 children, He can certainly provide for 8!"

Why then, do children die everywhere, all the time?

Vhayes
Jul 31st 2008, 01:19 PM
And it doesn't have to be a third world nation. Come to my 'hood sometime. People here struggle to survive. Many do without food for themselves so their children can eat. They have no internet, no computer and the last time they went out to eat was when they picked up supplies at the food pantry. Many make a choice between paying the electric bill or buying gasoline to get to and from work.

Should they stop having sex all together? Sex may very well be one of the things that holds them together.

calidog
Jul 31st 2008, 01:22 PM
Please explain how freedom in Christ equates to shutting off the means for God blessing us with more children.
is it illegal according to scripture and if so, are we under law? who are we to condemn those who use birth control?

MD101
Jul 31st 2008, 01:23 PM
Vhayes. I know that it isn't just third world nations, it's just the easiest way to put my point across.

Also I wasn't saying just stop having sex. I'm saying that's basically the only birth control if you aren't going to use contraceptives.

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 01:25 PM
Are children a blessing? Are they a curse?

Vhayes
Jul 31st 2008, 01:26 PM
Vhayes. I know that it isn't just third world nations, it's just the easiest way to put my point across.

Also I wasn't saying just stop having sex. I'm saying that's basically the only birth control if you aren't going to use contraceptives.

I really AM having trouble with getting my thoughts across. I was agreeing with you...:hug:
V

MD101
Jul 31st 2008, 01:27 PM
When you want a child, your completely able to care for it, and it's what you and your wife/husband both want. Generally, I would imagine that's a blessing.

However, if your extremely poor, ill, and your husband/wife leaves and your left on your own with the child, I bet that at that time, it may not seem so much of a blessing..perhaps.

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 01:34 PM
When you want a child, your completely able to care for it, and it's what you and your wife/husband both want. Generally, I would imagine that's a blessing.

However, if your extremely poor, ill, and your husband/wife leaves and your left on your own with the child, I bet that at that time, it may not seem so much of a blessing..perhaps.

Are children a gift from God? Or are they a burden to be born? What does scripture call them?

Just askin. ;)

Redeemed by Grace
Jul 31st 2008, 01:36 PM
Where does the sovereignty of God lie within this subject?

Psalm 139

Point is that whether by sin or control, planned by a husband and wife or even outside of marriage, every birth is by the hand of God... All life is by His Spirit of Life, All of mankind has and is being place by Him and for Him, according to His will, and not one person is a surprise to Him, nor an accident.


Each person must judge whether birth control is biblically OK or not, And if used outside of the marriage bed, then the answer is clear and firm -- NO --- period.

Within marriage, let each one worship the Lord with their decision and if control is used and God blesses with a child anyway, that child is His gift of life to the parents none-the-less, and the soveriegnty of God prevails!

Praise God!


But as stated elsewhere within this thread, abortion of any kind is sin, even the day-after pill is sin...

:2cents:

calidog
Jul 31st 2008, 01:39 PM
Are children a gift from God? Or are they a burden to be born? What does scripture call them?

Just askin. ;)
They are definately a blessing to us and to God and when/if we trust God we have as many as God gives us. We don't always trust Him in this and we take control. I don't believe God condemns us when we don't trust Him and we should'nt condemn ourselves.

Vhayes
Jul 31st 2008, 01:47 PM
I really do think this is something between God, a man and a wife.

My sister-in-law and her husband "trusted" that God would take care of them and their children. They had 7 and were very proud of that fact. they had been Blessed more than the other members of the family.

But hey, guess what? the REST of the family had to give them money every month of the world to meet their basic needs. Sometimes my children had to do without a needed pair of shoes so my neices and nephews would still have electricty or heat.

How can a person on one hand condemn birth control yet use medical procedures to prolong their lives? Isn't God in charge of both life and death?

Whispering Grace
Jul 31st 2008, 02:20 PM
The whole birth control issue is just another example of how we have drifted from being "God-centered" to being "Self-centered".

We pray "Lord, YOUR will be done." But then we impose our own wills and shut up our own wombs, instead of allowing God to have control over our child-bearing.

If we truly desire God's will in this, why not let HIM decide how many children we have? The Bible is clear that God opens and closes wombs.

God's Leading Lady
Jul 31st 2008, 02:27 PM
No, birth control is not a sin. I'm not referring to abortion: the killing of a fetus. But condoms, shots, pills, diaphrams, cervical caps, etc; These are preventive measures to pregnancy... Not the termination of one. Remember, there's preventing a pregnancy and there's terminating a pregnancy: two entirely different territories.

Vhayes
Jul 31st 2008, 02:31 PM
So if we all don't have as many children as possible we have drifted from God?

If you are diagnosed with a disease will you pray, "God, Your will be done" and refuse all treatments? Or will you impose your will on the situation and try to change that which God has allowed?

If you truly desire God's will in this why not allow Him to determine what happens to you with no medical intervention?

Not trying to be harsh, just asking you the same things you have asked.
V

calidog
Jul 31st 2008, 02:36 PM
"God, Your will be done" Ideally we would include this, and if we were flawless we would always include this in our prayers

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 02:42 PM
What does scripture say about the issue? We can see what scripture says about children and go from there. If we are trying to determine if birth control is a sin or not, let's go to the word.

First, when I read the scriptures children are referred to as a blessing. I can't find where they are not to be welcomed. I also see scripture calling them a gift, an arrow (a weapon against the enemy) etc. They impact our lives in big ways.

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 02:43 PM
So if we all don't have as many children as possible we have drifted from God?

If you are diagnosed with a disease will you pray, "God, Your will be done" and refuse all treatments? Or will you impose your will on the situation and try to change that which God has allowed?

If you truly desire God's will in this why not allow Him to determine what happens to you with no medical intervention?

Not trying to be harsh, just asking you the same things you have asked.
V

First, scripture calls sickness a curse and children a blessing. Shouldn't we always be on the side of blessing? So being healthy and using medicine, as Paul commanded Timothy would seem to be going after a blessing. While using medicine to prevent children would seem to be avoiding a blessing. So, IMO, the two are not the same.

Whispering Grace
Jul 31st 2008, 02:44 PM
So if we all don't have as many children as possible we have drifted from God?

Where did I say that?



If you are diagnosed with a disease will you pray, "God, Your will be done" and refuse all treatments? Or will you impose your will on the situation and try to change that which God has allowed?


You are equating a BLESSING AND REWARD with disease. You are talking about apples and oranges, so to speak.

MD101
Jul 31st 2008, 02:46 PM
If it's God's will, why do we still need to have intercourse for it to happen, then? If I'm going to put 100% responsibility on God I might as well go outside and lie down with my mouth open, and hope passing birds drop food into my mouth.

Vhayes
Jul 31st 2008, 02:49 PM
Where did I say that?

Post #40

The whole birth control issue is just another example of how we have drifted from being "God-centered" to being "Self-centered".
I may have misread it but that's how it came across to me.

crawfish
Jul 31st 2008, 02:55 PM
Please explain how freedom in Christ equates to shutting off the means for God blessing us with more children.

"Shutting off?"

I'm going to tell a story that borders on TMI. My wife and I were perfectly happy with our two boys. We weren't ready to make a permanent decision yet via surgery, but we were being careful. My third son was conceived using a condom during the off portion of her cycle. Point is, if God wants you to have a child, you're having a child. Don't think you can cut off God's influence.

Oh, and for the record, God did know best. Our third son has been a huge blessing in our lives and I can't imaging life without him.

Vhayes
Jul 31st 2008, 02:56 PM
Brother Mark and Whispering Grace -

While we may very well consider children to be a blessing (and rightly so) I would hate to be a parent of a hungry child and watch as they suffer.

As far as disease being a curse, are you saying God doesn't allow it? And if He allows it, then why would we try to change it rather than allow His will to be done?

Again, I'm not sure if I'm being able to get my thoughts across clearly, so forgive me if I am not making sense to you.
V

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 02:56 PM
If it's God's will, why do we still need to have intercourse for it to happen, then? If I'm going to put 100% responsibility on God I might as well go outside and lie down with my mouth open, and hope passing birds drop food into my mouth.

:lol: OK, you got me on that one. I chuckled at your sense of humor. But let me throw something out. We know it's God's will for all to be saved. Yet, still we are required to trust and repent. The blessings of God often come through acts of obedience.

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 03:02 PM
Brother Mark and Whispering Grace -

While we may very well consider children to be a blessing (and rightly so) I would hate to be a parent of a hungry child and watch as they suffer.

I would agree with you in this. Watching anyone suffer is very difficult. But we do know that all things work to good for those that are called and love God. Suffering is not good, but it is unavoidable in this life.


As far as disease being a curse, are you saying God doesn't allow it? And if He allows it, then why would we try to change it rather than allow His will to be done?

Well, we can go to scripture and get a guideline on that. Paul told Timothy to take alcohol for his stomach's sake. IOW, use medicine to avoid being ill. When we look at the overview of scripture concerning disease, we see many reasons for it. Sometimes God allows it. Other times he uses the enemy to put it on folks. Other times still, he uses it for testing. But in general, we see scripture refer to disease as a curse and something to be avoided. The testing is not prevented by using medicine for a cure. The disease is already there. It has already occurred. Using medicine is something that we know scripturally is encouraged, because Paul encouraged Timothy to do it.


Again, I'm not sure if I'm being able to get my thoughts across clearly, so forgive me if I am not making sense to you.
V

I hear what you are saying. I just think they are not the same. In one place we are using medicine as we have an example in scripture to do, to avoid remaining sick. It avoids a curse. In the other, we are using medicine to avoid a blessing and to prevent it from happening.

Just so you know, I am not 100% convinced birth control is wrong. But I do lean in that direction. So you won't find me making a hard case against it in this thread though I will throw some things out to think about.

For instance, what is the difference in the motive of preventing a pregnancy and ending a pregnancy?

Truthinlove
Jul 31st 2008, 03:09 PM
No, birth control is not a sin. I'm not referring to abortion: the killing of a fetus. But condoms, shots, pills, diaphrams, cervical caps, etc; These are preventive measures to pregnancy... Not the termination of one. Remember, there's preventing a pregnancy and there's terminating a pregnancy: two entirely different territories.

Condoms, diaphrams and cervical caps are preventive and never abortive. However.....the pill and ALL hormonal birth control are at times abortive.

There are 3 functions of a birth control pill

First it is to stop ovulation. However, if and when that method fails as it does many times then the 2nd method kicks in.

Second a bc pill thickens the cervical mucus making it much more difficult for the sperm to make it to the egg. If and when that method fails, the 3rd method kicks in.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 1st 2 functions of a bc pill. But the 3rd is abortifacient and is what makes it immoral.

Third if ovulation has happened and the sperm has made it through the mucus and conception has occured (a new life) then the next method of "birth control" is to alter the lining of the uterus making it hostile to the baby so that when it implants it will not be nourished and thus it will die.

MD101
Jul 31st 2008, 03:10 PM
Brother mark and Whispering Grace, if I may ask, how old are you, are you married, and do you have children? If so how many?

Whispering Grace
Jul 31st 2008, 03:12 PM
Brother mark and Whispering Grace, if I may ask, how old are you, are you married, and do you have children? If so how many?

I am not going to make this personal, if you don't mind. This is Bible Chat, not Whispering Grace Chat.

God's Leading Lady
Jul 31st 2008, 03:15 PM
This is Bible Chat, not Whispering Grace Chat.

Ha ha!! :lol: :lol: ::slaps high five:: I like your response, sistah, lol. Cunning and smart-witted. ;)

God's Leading Lady
Jul 31st 2008, 03:18 PM
Condoms, diaphrams and cervical caps are preventive and never abortive. However.....the pill and ALL hormonal birth control are at times abortive.

There are 3 functions of a birth control pill

First it is to stop ovulation. However, if and when that method fails as it does many times then the 2nd method kicks in.

Second a bc pill thickens the cervical mucus making it much more difficult for the sperm to make it to the egg. If and when that method fails, the 3rd method kicks in.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 1st 2 functions of a bc pill. But the 3rd is abortifacient and is what makes it immoral.

Third if ovulation has happened and the sperm has made it through the mucus and conception has occured (a new life) then the next method of "birth control" is to alter the lining of the uterus making it hostile to the baby so that when it implants it will not be nourished and thus it will die.

Yes, thank you, I appreciate the "biology lesson". And yes, I am well aware of all of the functions and purposes of the birth control pill.::winks::

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 03:19 PM
Brother mark and Whispering Grace, if I may ask, how old are you, are you married, and do you have children? If so how many?

See WG's response above. ;)

Do the answer to those questions really matter? I can answer them but I am not sure what bearing they have on the subject.

Truthinlove
Jul 31st 2008, 03:22 PM
Yes, thank you, I appreciate the "biology lesson". And yes, I am well aware of all of the functions and purposes of the birth control pill.::winks::

Ok, well it's just that you lumped bc pills in the "preventive" class and ones that don't terminates a pregnancy and I just wanted to clear up that it is not always preventative, it sometimes does terminate the life of an unborn child.

Many people are not aware of the pills other functions. They just think it prevents pregnancy. I like to make people of aware of this, just something I am passionate about.

Vhayes
Jul 31st 2008, 03:22 PM
Brother Mark -

Thank you for the response. I was very serious when I said i think this is an issue for each couple to take to the Lord. I think God allows us to "use" modern medicine for our benefit and His glory. Can it be "abused"? Certainly. But that doesn't mean it can't ever be used.

To condemn someone for using birth control is just as wrong as condemning someone for having 15 children. It's between God and the couple.

Thanks again -
V

Firefighter
Jul 31st 2008, 03:29 PM
God is the one who decides how nature works (i.e.: the body) and the woman interfers with God's decision by using birth control. How is that a good thing?

So if we reverse this line of thought to something like fertility drugs or artificial insemination, that would be a sin too???:o

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 03:31 PM
Brother Mark -

Thank you for the response. I was very serious when I said i think this is an issue for each couple to take to the Lord. I think God allows us to "use" modern medicine for our benefit and His glory. Can it be "abused"? Certainly. But that doesn't mean it can't ever be used.

To condemn someone for using birth control is just as wrong as condemning someone for having 15 children. It's between God and the couple.

Thanks again -
V

Should not all things walking with God be between God and that person? Only a few can we actually govern (i.e. murder and theft). Yet, even so, we do preach other things.

But I do like your way of thinking. We can use modern medicine to glorify God. No doubt about that! But what does it mean to glorify Him? To me, it means to reveal his character. When God revealed his glory to Moses, he revealed his goodness (character) to him. We see this throughout scripture.

So in glorifying God, we show what he is like. In using medicine to cure the sick, we are glorifying God because he is a healer. Paul instructed Timothy to do so thus revealing the desire of God to heal Timothy, i.e. glorifying God.

How does this apply to birth control? What does scripture say about birth and about children? What is God's character and desire when it comes to these issues?

Those are questions worthy of exploration! And I do agree with you in this... each one of us needs to be convinced in our own mind and heart and live unto the Lord. Yet, I will add one qualification... let's use scripture as a plumb line if possible.

One of my favorite passages...

Ps 127:4
4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
So are the children of one's youth.
NASB

When I look at scripture I see that Joseph was child number 11 out of 12. What a great arrow Joseph was for the Lord and for his family. How he delivered his family from the enemy!

calidog
Jul 31st 2008, 03:34 PM
I might as well go outside and lie down with my mouth open, and hope passing birds drop food into my mouth.
I would'nt do that:lol:

MD101
Jul 31st 2008, 03:40 PM
Okay, Whispering Grace, if you don't want to discuss your personal life on here that's fine. I just wanted to know if you are married, if you are employing what you say.

So it seems we have a few routes and variations.

Go forth and multiply. Have lots of children.
Not always feasible. You may not be able to look after all the children, or even want that many children. As I say in my previous post, too, a second child in urban china can mean almost a year's salary in a fine. This is because china is so over-populated. Let's look at it this way, if we did this, and continued for a while, we would literally run out of space.

Also, I, for example am/have been on a medicine which effects my sperm, so if I was married at the moment, and had this opinion, and tried to have children thinking this is God's will, I would end up with deformed children. Same goes if I think, Well, maybe I'm not trying to go forth and multiply, but I'l have sex and if God wants me to children, it'll happen. Same goes for both cases if, for instance, one of the couple has a disease such as AIDS, which could be passed on to the other person, as well as the child.

If you don't want children at all, but disagree with birth control, the only resolution is just to not have sex.

Other than that, we can use birth control, this way we can have children when it is right for us.

I would say, that not everything that ever happens is the Will of God, as some may believe. We have responsibility, we aren't God's puppets, we have free will and the ability to make decisions and choices, sure God may intervene sometimes, but it doesn't mean everything that happens is because of his choice. That would mean the holocaust was God's will! And it would also mean I could say "I don't need to do anything in life, I'll sit here on my sofa and God will show me what to do". This would also mean we can't be judged because everything we do is the will of God.

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 03:56 PM
Okay, Whispering Grace, if you don't want to discuss your personal life on here that's fine. I just wanted to know if you are married, if you are employing what you say.

Ah, many of us are hypocrites if that is what you were wondering. Yet, even hypocrites can be truthful concerning doctrine at times. ;)


So it seems we have a few routes and variations.

Go forth and multiply. Have lots of children.
Not always feasible. You may not be able to look after all the children, or even want that many children. As I say in my previous post, too, a second child in urban china can mean almost a year's salary in a fine. This is because china is so over-populated. Let's look at it this way, if we did this, and continued for a while, we would literally run out of space.

Is overpopulation a reason for abortion too? (Having asked that question, I really don't want to go into the overpopulation debate but I will say, I don't believe we are overpopulated.)


Also, I, for example am/have been on a medicine which effects my sperm, so if I was married at the moment, and had this opinion, and tried to have children thinking this is God's will, I would end up with deformed children. Same goes if I think, Well, maybe I'm not trying to go forth and multiply, but I'l have sex and if God wants me to children, it'll happen. Same goes for both cases if, for instance, one of the couple has a disease such as AIDS, which could be passed on to the other person, as well as the child.

If you don't want children at all, but disagree with birth control, the only resolution is just to not have sex.

That's an interesting situation that certainly deserves thought.


Other than that, we can use birth control, this way we can have children when it is right for us.

Doesn't that statement make it more self centered than God centered though?


I would say, that not everything that ever happens is the Will of God, as some may believe. We have responsibility, we aren't God's puppets, we have free will and the ability to make decisions and choices, sure God may intervene sometimes, but it doesn't mean everything that happens is because of his choice. That would mean the holocaust was God's will! And it would also mean I could say "I don't need to do anything in life, I'll sit here on my sofa and God will show me what to do". This would also mean we can't be judged because everything we do is the will of God.

God intervenes and is constantly active. But we can and do go against Him often.

seamus414
Jul 31st 2008, 04:02 PM
So if we reverse this line of thought to something like fertility drugs or artificial insemination, that would be a sin too???:o

I don't think so because I think God's consistent testimony in Scripture is the command to be fruitful and multiply. God wants life not prevention of life.

Vhayes
Jul 31st 2008, 04:05 PM
Should not all things walking with God be between God and that person? Only a few can we actually govern (i.e. murder and theft). Yet, even so, we do preach other things.

But I do like your way of thinking. We can use modern medicine to glorify God. No doubt about that! But what does it mean to glorify Him? To me, it means to reveal his character. When God revealed his glory to Moses, he revealed his goodness (character) to him. We see this throughout scripture.

So in glorifying God, we show what he is like. In using medicine to cure the sick, we are glorifying God because he is a healer. Paul instructed Timothy to do so thus revealing the desire of God to heal Timothy, i.e. glorifying God.

How does this apply to birth control? What does scripture say about birth and about children? What is God's character and desire when it comes to these issues?

Those are questions worthy of exploration! And I do agree with you in this... each one of us needs to be convinced in our own mind and heart and live unto the Lord. Yet, I will add one qualification... let's use scripture as a plumb line if possible.

One of my favorite passages...

Ps 127:4
4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
So are the children of one's youth.
NASB

When I look at scripture I see that Joseph was child number 11 out of 12. What a great arrow Joseph was for the Lord and for his family. How he delivered his family from the enemy!

Hi again, Brother mark -
I'm not arguing against scripture, or at least I don't think I am. Modern medicine was obviously not available in either Old or New Testament eras. Infant mortality was sky high and people had many children knowing that in all likelihood all would not live into adulthood. I'm not saying that about Joseph, just as a general statement.

Perhaps using birth control would glorify God if a couple had 8 children already. The doctor tells the woman if she has any more children she will probably die and their only recourse was to not have sex. The man strays, the wife takes him back, they have sex, she concieves and dies in child birth. The husband is left with 9 children and no wife. (And yes, this has happened more times than I can count).

Better by far (at least in my opinion) if they had a bit of freedom to express their love to and for each other without the fear of pregnancy. While children may be a blessing they are also a huge responsibility. It's not just money, it's time and being able to "know" your children and what they each need because each and every child is different.

Again, no condemnation to either side as long as they don't try to force their views on others. I know families who have 6 children and they are blessed with all the resources they need to be great parents. I also know people who have 6 children who struggle each and every day to put food on the table. While they love their children, they find it very, very hard to provide. I've heard both men and women express the emotion that while they would never "give back" one of their children, they feel they could have been better, more effective parents had they not had as many children.
V

MD101
Jul 31st 2008, 04:07 PM
I don't want people to ever have to come to the point where they have to decide whether to abort or not. I do not agree with it, however people who are not religious may do, or may be apathetic about the situation, but likely it will still cause them distress. I wouldn't want them to have to go through this, nor do I want people Christian or otherwise to have the distress of a child they cannot look after. Birth control prevents both of these situations.

As a world, perhaps we are not overpopulated, but certain countries are, like I say China, is, and like I say, a huge fine for a second child. The United States I guess isn't overpopulated. But whichever way you look at it, we would become overpopulated and run out of space, food etc. The population of the world at the moment is six billion roughly, if they 'went forth and multiplyed, and had 10 kids each. We'd have more than sixty billion people on earth. I think then we may very well be overpopulated my most standards then.

Why are we being self centered just because we make a sensible choice when to have children. Perhaps we're being more self centered to just have a dozen children and say "Okay, God, give me everything we need"! I'm a bit confused by this argument, are we ment to never think of ourselves? God wants us to help each other doesn't he? So surely he wouldn't want us to bring a child into the world when it's not appropriate, and have that child suffer from lack of food.

I'm not saying God doesn't intervene at all. I'm saying we're not just conciousness in bodies that are just vessels, which are basically in one long film that everything is set out exactly, like fate, which God has planned out for us. If this was the case we wouldn't have free will, and God wouldn't be judging us because everything we do is what he's made us do, like we're just following a path.

seamus414
Jul 31st 2008, 04:08 PM
I think this conversation is missing a crucial point: what is the divine purpose for sexual relations? Can we answer that question?

Vhayes
Jul 31st 2008, 04:10 PM
I think this conversation is missing a crucial point: what is the divine purpose for sexual relations? Can we answer that question?
Are you really gonna say it's solely to procreate?

crawfish
Jul 31st 2008, 04:14 PM
I think this conversation is missing a crucial point: what is the divine purpose for sexual relations? Can we answer that question?

If it was solely for procreation, then wouldn't our sexual desire would diminish or disappear when we could no longer have children?

Vhayes
Jul 31st 2008, 04:22 PM
If it was solely for procreation, then wouldn't our sexual desire would diminish or disappear when we could no longer have children?
And wouldn't prgnany occur with every occurance of sex?

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 04:22 PM
Hi again, Brother mark -
I'm not arguing against scripture, or at least I don't think I am. Modern medicine was obviously not available in either Old or New Testament eras. Infant mortality was sky high and people had many children knowing that in all likelihood all would not live into adulthood. I'm not saying that about Joseph, just as a general statement.

Oh, many things modern aren't in scripture. That's why it's important to find the principles. We do see where folks practiced medicine in scripture though. That's why I brought up the thing about Timothy and Paul.


Perhaps using birth control would glorify God if a couple had 8 children already. The doctor tells the woman if she has any more children she will probably die and their only recourse was to not have sex. The man strays, the wife takes him back, they have sex, she concieves and dies in child birth. The husband is left with 9 children and no wife. (And yes, this has happened more times than I can count).

That would be worthy of study wouldn't it. But it might be the exception. What about a more common thing like she's perfectly healthy and she won't die. Would it be glorifying to God use birth control then?



Better by far (at least in my opinion) if they had a bit of freedom to express their love to and for each other without the fear of pregnancy. While children may be a blessing they are also a huge responsibility. It's not just money, it's time and being able to "know" your children and what they each need because each and every child is different.

Each child is different. And certainly, God as the ultimate parent desires to know his children intimately. But are these reasons not to have "more blessings"?


Again, no condemnation to either side as long as they don't try to force their views on others. I know families who have 6 children and they are blessed with all the resources they need to be great parents. I also know people who have 6 children who struggle each and every day to put food on the table. While they love their children, they find it very, very hard to provide. I've heard both men and women express the emotion that while they would never "give back" one of their children, they feel they could have been better, more effective parents had they not had as many children.
V


Life is always easier with less responsibility. Does God not promise to provide? Often he does so through friends and family and work. It is very hard to raise a big family in todays society. No doubt about that. Are we encouraged by God to find the way of least resistance? Sometimes. But where in scripture does he encourage us to limit the number of children we have? Does he himself practice birth control or does he desire as many children as he can have?

Just having conversation V. I have personal experience in the issues you have raised and would not tell anyone they HAVE to go that route. But I do think it worth looking at examples we have in scripture. Now some might say "well they didn't have birth control back then". I would agree to an extent. But they knew a few methods and we even have examples in scripture where God showed great displeasure for birth control but in context, it can't be broadly applied.

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 04:23 PM
If it was solely for procreation, then wouldn't our sexual desire would diminish or disappear when we could no longer have children?

I don't believe sex is meant solely for pro-creation. Just wanted to clear that up. It is also meant to protect us from temptation as mentioned in 1 Cor. 7. I personally believe it has many other purposes too.

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 04:24 PM
Here's a question to throw out for consideration...

Can anyone show me any scripture where God says limiting the number of children we have is a good thing?

There are many scriptures that show having children is a good thing. Is there a verse or passage that shows having another one would not be good?

seamus414
Jul 31st 2008, 04:25 PM
Buzzword
Women didn't have the cultural freedoms they do now for 1900 years.
Science hadn't advanced to the point where women could take control of their own bodies for 1900 years.

I do not think it is appropriate to review and/or change theology on the basis of "cultural freedoms". Cultural norms should have no affect on what God expects his norms to be. Also, women do not have "control of their own bodies" God has control over them. I think the suggestion that a "woman's choice" should change Christian teaching is a mistake. Contraception has existed for centuries, maybe even millenia, so the suggestion that this issue is somehow new is in error. The only difference between now and then is that it is much easier to do. That science can make commiting a potential sin easier does not make it any less sinful.


Two issues here.

Xel'Naga already mentioned the fact that many married couples can't afford to have children.
Would you intrude on their marriage bed and condemn them for having sex while taking steps to avoid conceiving?

Sex is a privledge and a gift which can be abused. If they do not believe that can have children while married, I question whether the marriage was appropriate. The primary reason for God's establishment of marriage is to have children. Frustrating God's purposes is not a virtue and ought not be encouraged. If someone cannot take on the responsibility of marriage and all that that responsibility entails (i.e.: children) then perhaps it is unwise and unadvisable for that couple to have gotten married in the first place.

Second, God did not create sex strictly for child conception.
The depth of emotional and spiritual connection that results from sexual intimacy doesn't exist anywhere else in the world, if your heart is truly in it and the focus is on your partner's pleasure instead of trivializing it and making it all about you.

I did not suggest that conception was the only reason for sex and marriage, but it is certainly the primary reason.

God commanded ADAM and EVE, and NOAH to "be fruitful and multipy"...both were very specific for the purpose of populating/repopulating the planet.

He also commanded that to other folks too in the Bible. The point is, God created the marriage covenant to propogate human beings.

The planet has ALREADY been populated.
The choice is OURS whether or not to have children, and still enjoy the intimacy of sex.

The choice is always yours - that was never at issue - the question is whether that choice is virtue or vice. It is God and God alone who ordains the conception of a child not human beings.

seamus414
Jul 31st 2008, 04:27 PM
Are you really gonna say it's solely to procreate?

I am not going to say "solely" but I will say that is the main reason followed by others of which I am sure you can think. They fact that it is the main reason ought to give us pause in how we approach contraception.

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 04:27 PM
I did not suggest that conception was the only reason for sex and marriage, but it is certainly the primary reason.

Why would you say it is the primary reason?

A820djd
Jul 31st 2008, 04:30 PM
Nope, I know that a lot of girls take it to regulate hormones and not just to prevent from getting pregnant.

seamus414
Jul 31st 2008, 04:31 PM
Why would you say it is the primary reason?

WHen God joined Adam and Eve in the first marriage his command to them was to "be fruitful and multiply" (i.e. have sex kids!). God did not say "be emotionally, phyisically, and spiritually intimate" or anything like that. I am not suggesting that those things are not an aspect of sex, but I will say that if they were as important as child conception, God would have mentioned it.

Also, sex can be looked upon in a natrualistic sort of way - what does it accomplish? CHild conception. Period. WHy does it feel good? From a naturalistic point of view, because if it felt bad people would not do it and not doing it would frustrate the purpose of sex: child conception.

As my old psychology prof once said: why do amoebas divide? Because it feels good!

Vhayes
Jul 31st 2008, 04:33 PM
Life is always easier with less responsibility. Does God not promise to provide? Often he does so through friends and family and work. It is very hard to raise a big family in todays society. No doubt about that. Are we encouraged by God to find the way of least resistance? Sometimes. But where in scripture does he encourage us to limit the number of children we have? Does he himself practice birth control or does he desire as many children as he can have?

Brother Mark, I think God gives us the ability to KNOW when we are about to embark on something that is right for us at a given time. I'm not sure if that makes sense or not...

I DO think it is incredibly selfish of a couple to happily announce the imminent birth of their 7th child while they are expecting the remaining members of the extended family to help support them. We are called to be responsible, to be good stewards.

How is it less selfish for a couple to continually have children and expect others to take the brunt of the responsibility than for a couple to practice birth control?

As you said, just conversation - and it's interesting to say the least!
V

Friend of I AM
Jul 31st 2008, 04:38 PM
I am not going to say "solely" but I will say that is the main reason followed by others of which I am sure you can think. They fact that it is the main reason ought to give us pause in how we approach contraception.

That makes some sense. I think it is interesting though that in Paul's Epistles he does go on to state the obligation married couples have to one another to please each other. I don't think this means that the act of sex unto itself without conception is entirely procrative. I think it is a form of expressing love that God has given to a married couple. Two becoming one in Christ, emotionally, physically, spiritually etc.

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 04:38 PM
WHen God joined Adam and Eve in the first marriage his command to them was to "be fruitful and multiply" (i.e. have sex kids!). God did not say "be emotionally, phyisically, and spiritually intimate" or anything like that. I am not suggesting that those things are not an aspect of sex, but I will say that if they were as important as child conception, God would have mentioned it.

It was mentioned by Adam and proven by God. God brought forth all the animals but a help was not found for him. When God gave Eve to Adam, Adam said "this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" and two shall become one.

IMO, the primary purpose of sex is two becoming one. Child birth is secondary.

Gen 2:23-25
23 And the man said,

"This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man."

24 For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
NASB

Nothing in that passage about child birth. However, I am not nullifying the command "be fruitful and multiply". IMO, the oneness issue is of far greater purpose than childbirth. We see this even more when we look at marriage in the NT as Christ and the church. Childbirth is ultimately very important. But not as important as oneness.

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 04:41 PM
Brother Mark, I think God gives us the ability to KNOW when we are about to embark on something that is right for us at a given time. I'm not sure if that makes sense or not...

I DO think it is incredibly selfish of a couple to happily announce the imminent birth of their 7th child while they are expecting the remaining members of the extended family to help support them. We are called to be responsible, to be good stewards.

How is it less selfish for a couple to continually have children and expect others to take the brunt of the responsibility than for a couple to practice birth control?

As you said, just conversation - and it's interesting to say the least!
V

Expectations are sinful. Why should I expect anyone to give to me? But childbirth, is it ever in anyway in scripture referred to as sinful?

Is it being a good steward to say not to a blessing?

Does God ever call child birth selfish?

Expectations, sure. They are selfish. Why do we hope in man? That too is sinful. Our hope and trust is in God not man. So if I have children and place the burden of caring for them on others, is that really faith in God? Nope.

Vhayes
Jul 31st 2008, 04:56 PM
By reading these verses:
Matthew 6

27 - "And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life?
28 - "And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, 29 - yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these.

I COULD tell you that Jesus didn't say anything about working, therefore we should NOT work but rather depend on God to provide. But I don't think that's what He meant.

In the same way, I believe God gave us the ability to only have as many children as we are able to provide for - He gave us the brains to figure out budgets, He gave us contraceptives and I also believe He knew we would end up in an over populated world with children who are cast aside like yesterdays papers.

Once again, each couple must decide what God is telling them in this area. It just ain't my place.
V

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 05:07 PM
By reading these verses:
Matthew 6

27 - "And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life?
28 - "And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, 29 - yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these.

I COULD tell you that Jesus didn't say anything about working, therefore we should NOT work but rather depend on God to provide. But I don't think that's what He meant.

That's because we have other scriptures to teach us about work. ;)


In the same way, I believe God gave us the ability to only have as many children as we are able to provide for - He gave us the brains to figure out budgets, He gave us contraceptives and I also believe He knew we would end up in an over populated world with children who are cast aside like yesterdays papers.

Once again, each couple must decide what God is telling them in this area. It just ain't my place.
V

But the problem is that scripture keeps repeating over and over again that children are a blessing. It doesn't say that only so many are a blessing.

Here's the problem I have with this way of thinking... we are now relying only on our wisdom. The verse you quoted above says that God will provide for us. Does that mean his children never experience famine? On the contrary! Often he leads us into deserts where there is no water or food! But in the end, we eat and drink.

Anyway, when I read scriptures with an open mind, I see over and over again God speaking of children in a good way. I can't find any verse in the totality of scripture where God ever tells us or even indicates that one can have too many children. But I can find many scriptures where God tells us to have children.

Here's a question to throw out... since we are speaking of how many children, would it be sinful for a couple to have no children? What if they had the financial means to support them?

Vhayes
Jul 31st 2008, 05:13 PM
Here's a question to throw out... since we are speaking of how many children, would it be sinful for a couple to have no children? What if they had the financial means to support them?
Again, I see it as each couples decision. Perhaps this couple will end up taking care of parents as they age or a siblings children. Maybe they will become foster parents and care for damaged children. Who knows?

If the couple has asked God for guidance and they feel it is ok to not have children, then I would let them live with their decision and be at peace.

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 05:21 PM
Again, I see it as each couples decision. Perhaps this couple will end up taking care of parents as they age or a siblings children. Maybe they will become foster parents and care for damaged children. Who knows?

If the couple has asked God for guidance and they feel it is ok to not have children, then I would let them live with their decision and be at peace.

In your opinion, scripture doesn't address the issue and it's about other things? Can we find guidance in the word?

Let me ask it this way, would you encourage someone that was in battle to leave arrows at home or to take arrows into the battle? We know that children are arrows. Enoch walked with God after having children.

Let me ask a loaded question...

Is there any other blessing in scripture we would think it wise to avoid?

Vhayes
Jul 31st 2008, 05:23 PM
In your opinion, scripture doesn't address the issue and it's about other things? Can we find guidance in the word?

Let me ask it this way, would you encourage someone that was in battle to leave arrows at home or to take arrows into the battle? We know that children are arrows. Enoch walked with God after having children.

Let me ask a loaded question...

Is there any other blessing in scripture we would think it wise to avoid?
Blessed are the poor - :D

seamus414
Jul 31st 2008, 05:23 PM
It was mentioned by Adam and proven by God. God brought forth all the animals but a help was not found for him. When God gave Eve to Adam, Adam said "this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" and two shall become one.

IMO, the primary purpose of sex is two becoming one. Child birth is secondary.

Gen 2:23-25
23 And the man said,

"This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man."

24 For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
NASB

Nothing in that passage about child birth. However, I am not nullifying the command "be fruitful and multiply". IMO, the oneness issue is of far greater purpose than childbirth. We see this even more when we look at marriage in the NT as Christ and the church. Childbirth is ultimately very important. But not as important as oneness.


Even if I grant you that procreation is secondary to oneness or any other reason for sexual relations, the fact remians that one of God's purposes for sexual relations is procreation. Given that procreation is a divinely ordained purpose for sexual relations, one should not make an effort to impede that purpose unadvisedly. To that end, IMO, engaging in sexual relations and never allowing God's procreative purpose to occur is a sin.

Vhayes
Jul 31st 2008, 05:27 PM
Even if I grant you that procreation is secondary to oneness or any other reason for sexual relations, the fact remians that one of God's purposes for sexual relations is procreation. Given that procreation is a divinely ordained purpose for sexual relations, one should not make an effort to impede that purpose unadvisedly. To that end, IMO, engaging in sexual relations and never allowing God's procreative purpose to occur is a sin.
And again - if illness is allowed by God and sometimes used By God as a corrective measure, is it a sin to follow modern medicine?

Why allow one and not the other?

MD101
Jul 31st 2008, 05:34 PM
[/color]




Often he leads us into deserts where there is no water or food! But in the end, we eat and drink.

Anyway, when I read scriptures with an open mind, I see over and over again God speaking of children in a good way. I can't find any verse in the totality of scripture where God ever tells us or even indicates that one can have too many children.

Here's a question to throw out... since we are speaking of how many children, would it be sinful for a couple to have no children? What if they had the financial means to support them?

Brother Mark. You say in the end, we at and drink. Well, that's not always the case. People do still die from lack of essentials.

And God may not mention having too many as being bad, but what do you think would happen if we had many children, this would take up space for houses etc, that would also reduce room for Crops. We'd end up with not enough food, and eventually room at all.

As for your question. I don't think it would be sinful, surely it would be worse to have a child when you don't really want one, and because of that not give the child the attention and love it deserves, and maybe end up persecuting it because you did not really want it. Perhaps if they have the financial means to support them, they could give some or all of that to charity, perhaps specifically ones that help poor families!

seamus414
Jul 31st 2008, 05:40 PM
And again - if illness is allowed by God and sometimes used By God as a corrective measure, is it a sin to follow modern medicine?

Why allow one and not the other?


The analogy does not fit. Marriage/intercourse is a divinely ordained institution and includes with it the divinely established purpose of procreation for it/them. Someone voluntarily enters into marriage and intercoure and the responsibilities of God's purpose for them (i.e.: procreation).

An illness does not, by definition, have a divine purpose, nor is there a responsibility one undertakes when one is striken with an illness.

Vhayes
Jul 31st 2008, 05:43 PM
The analogy does not fit. Marriage/intercourse is a divinely ordained institution and includes with it the divinely established purpose of procreation for it/them. Someone voluntarily enters into marriage and intercoure and the responsibilities of God's purpose for them (i.e.: procreation).

An illness does not, by definition, have a divine purpose, nor is there a responsibility one undertakes when one is striken with an illness.
If that is God's purpose for marriage, then why do some never have children?

MD101
Jul 31st 2008, 05:44 PM
If they do not believe that can have children while married, I question whether the marriage was appropriate.

What if they got married when children were feasible, but after being married something happened, one of them became ill and thus not able to look after the child, or they lost all their money.

Friend of I AM
Jul 31st 2008, 05:48 PM
Even if I grant you that procreation is secondary to oneness or any other reason for sexual relations, the fact remians that one of God's purposes for sexual relations is procreation. Given that procreation is a divinely ordained purpose for sexual relations, one should not make an effort to impede that purpose unadvisedly. To that end, IMO, engaging in sexual relations and never allowing God's procreative purpose to occur is a sin.

I don't think that's the case. I do think that many times though people do make the argument that sexual relations between those of the same sex are sinful based on them being non-procreative, and I think that when one makes such an assumption they are accurately describing one way in which these relationships are inherently defined as sinful by God. Sometimes those who are pro-homosexual agendas, innaccurately use this reasoning to justify why the "non-procreative" argument should be used to define why sexual relationships between a husband and a wife should be considered sinful as well...Back to the original subject matter though....

I think it's okay to impede reproduction from a biblical standard, so long as there isn't conception involved. I think at the point of conception, that's when one needs to be concerned about what they're doing in God's eyes. Here's a psalm from David that would support this...

Psalm 139
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.

I've seen people make the argument that sperm and eggs unto themselves constitute life, but I don't think God views them as this. Men often times ejaculate sperm in their sleep through nocturnal emissions, and women shed eggs regulary through natural processes so if one were to go with that argument, they would have to accuse just about every woman and every man on the planet at some point of commiting manslaughter/murder in God's eyes unintentionally.

MD101
Jul 31st 2008, 05:52 PM
I've seen people make the argument that sperm and eggs unto themselves constitute life, but I don't think God views them as this. Men often times ejaculate sperm in their sleep through nocturnal emissions, and women shed eggs regulary through natural processes so if one were to go with that argument, they would have to accuse just about every woman and every man on the planet at some point of commiting manslaughter/murder in God's eyes unintentionally.

Sperm also break down after five says I heard.

Bethany67
Jul 31st 2008, 05:52 PM
I am infertile (and happily so) - should I have stayed single? Is it wrong for two people in their fifties or sixties to marry, knowing they won't have children?

As someone else has said on this thread, it's a matter for the couple and God. No-one else's business.

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 05:56 PM
Brother Mark. You say in the end, we at and drink. Well, that's not always the case. People do still die from lack of essentials.

True. Some, as Hebrews mentioned, are cut in two. But the suffering we may face, is that a reason to do something different?


And God may not mention having too many as being bad, but what do you think would happen if we had many children, this would take up space for houses etc, that would also reduce room for Crops. We'd end up with not enough food, and eventually room at all.

I am not convinced we can have too many children. But that would be another thread.


As for your question. I don't think it would be sinful, surely it would be worse to have a child when you don't really want one, and because of that not give the child the attention and love it deserves, and maybe end up persecuting it because you did not really want it. Perhaps if they have the financial means to support them, they could give some or all of that to charity, perhaps specifically ones that help poor families!

Sin is always bad whether it is killing an unwanted child through abortion or resenting a child because he was born.

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 05:57 PM
If that is God's purpose for marriage, then why do some never have children?

Scripture says that God opens and closes the wombs. So he decided that couple was not to have children.

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 05:59 PM
And again - if illness is allowed by God and sometimes used By God as a corrective measure, is it a sin to follow modern medicine?

Why allow one and not the other?

That's already been addressed. One is to avoid a curse the other is to avoid a blessing. They are not the same, unless one considers additional children a curse. ;)

MD101
Jul 31st 2008, 06:00 PM
Does the Bible actually say not having children, or not having lots of children is a Sin though?

No one's really replied to it yet. But China IS overpopulated. But even if you don't believe that, its a year's (nearly) fine if you have more than one child. What do you think of that, Brother Mark? Most wouldn't be able to afford it!

Vhayes
Jul 31st 2008, 06:01 PM
Scripture says that God opens and closes the wombs. So he decided that couple was not to have children.
I was responding to a poster who seemed to be saying the reason for marriage was procreation. If I follow that logic, then people who cannot have children should never get married at all. There are tests that can be done to discover fertility so according to the logic behind that thought, infertile people should not be permitted to marry.

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 06:04 PM
Does the Bible actually say not having children, or not having lots of children is a Sin though?

No one's really replied to it yet. But China IS overpopulated. But even if you don't believe that, its a year's (nearly) fine if you have more than one child. What do you think of that, Brother Mark? Most wouldn't be able to afford it!

We can speak of money all day long. But what does God say about money and affording things?

I do know this... scripture calls children a gift from God. It also calls them a blessing. Will God give someone a gift that is going to hurt them? Or will he give a curse instead of a blessing? If children are indeed a gift from God and a blessing, then are they not good to have as God wills?

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 06:05 PM
I was responding to a poster who seemed to be saying the reason for marriage was procreation. If I follow that logic, then people who cannot have children should never get married at all. There are tests that can be done to discover fertility so according to the logic behind that thought, infertile people should not be permitted to marry.

Got it. I don't think the primary reason for marriage or sex is pro-creation.

Friend of I AM
Jul 31st 2008, 06:05 PM
Scripture says that God opens and closes the wombs. So he decided that couple was not to have children.

Sometimes it's God, sometimes it's other natural reasons. I say this because I don't think this precludes a couple from seeking some sort fertilization through scientific means, and I don't think a couple should automatically say to themselves "God doesn't want me to have children" just because they can't conceive naturally. We're given knowledge by God to do these things for a reason. I'm not justifying all scientific means of conception, I do think there are some ethical things that come into play when doing things like this, I think we need to be careful to label someone who wants to conceive in this way as inherently sinning against God.

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 06:07 PM
Even if I grant you that procreation is secondary to oneness or any other reason for sexual relations, the fact remians that one of God's purposes for sexual relations is procreation. Given that procreation is a divinely ordained purpose for sexual relations, one should not make an effort to impede that purpose unadvisedly. To that end, IMO, engaging in sexual relations and never allowing God's procreative purpose to occur is a sin.

OK. I can go along with that. Obviously one of the purposes for sex is pro-creation. I just don't think it is THE primary reason from scripture.

MD101
Jul 31st 2008, 06:13 PM
God says he will provide, but it many cases people don't get what they need. So there must be more to it than that.

How about the AIDS argument, again? If say a woman has AIDS, to procreate risks giving her husband AIDS, and bringing a human into the world who they know will have to endure a lot of suffering.

I was watching a documentary about a man who had been born with a horrible disease. There are tests for diseases like this I think, to see if 2 people will produce as child like this. If they know that their child will get this disease, should they go ahead and have 10 children, each with an awful disease they must endure their whole lives? Also I think 1 or 2 would be difficult to cope with due to the constant care, let alone 10.

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 06:15 PM
God says he will provide, but it many cases people don't get what they need. So there must be more to it than that.

Sure there's more to it than that. He let Israel go without food and water. He always tests us. It's really always about eternity. We can make all kinds of arguments about how to avoid pain and suffering. My question is, in light of eternity, are they scriptural and valid arguments?

Vhayes
Jul 31st 2008, 06:19 PM
Sure there's more to it than that. He let Israel go without food and water. He always tests us. It's really always about eternity. We can make all kinds of arguments about how to avoid pain and suffering. My question is, in light of eternity, are they scriptural and valid arguments?
Brother Mark, you are using an argument that I can't follow.

You say God allowed Israel to go without food or water and that He always tests us. Do you believe children are a test or a blessing?

Friend of I AM
Jul 31st 2008, 06:19 PM
God says he will provide, but it many cases people don't get what they need. So there must be more to it than that.

How about the AIDS argument, again? If say a woman has AIDS, to procreate risks giving her husband AIDS, and bringing a human into the world who they know will have to endure a lot of suffering.

I was watching a documentary about a man who had been born with a horrible disease. There are tests for diseases like this I think, to see if 2 people will produce as child like this. If they know that their child will get this disease, should they go ahead and have 10 children, each with an awful disease they must endure their whole lives? Also I think 1 or 2 would be difficult to cope with due to the constant care, let alone 10.

That's a tough one. I can't say there's anything inherently sinful about them trying though...particulary if they are praying for God to give them a healthy baby. Think of Abraham and Sarah, both of them were old and I'm sure Sarah being the age she was was having doubts not only about her own health during childbirth, but that of her child. Yet even knowing this they still had faith in God bringing them a healthy baby....to increase Abraham's line and bless the earth. Now if Abraham had disobeyed, or lacked faith - then who knows what could have happened to mankind. God could have stopped and rendered his judgement on man starting with Abraham....

MD101
Jul 31st 2008, 06:25 PM
I wasn't saying is it sinful to do that, rather surely that might stop us from going forth and multiplying.

But that is a good point. It's a sin to cause suffering to other people? That means you shouldn't have unprocted sex with AIDS because you may cause them suffering?

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 06:28 PM
Brother Mark, you are using an argument that I can't follow.

You say God allowed Israel to go without food or water and that He always tests us. Do you believe children are a test or a blessing?

Children are a blessing. Hardships are tests. Many are using the argument "What about all the hardships that may come". It's not will hardships come, they are coming with or without children. Children are a blessing. Perhaps some difficulties can be avoided without the kids but is that what we are to do? Do we look at difficulties to make our decisions? Perhaps we should at times. But what of scripture? Should we not search it to see what the heart of God is on a matter?

Friend of I AM
Jul 31st 2008, 06:32 PM
I wasn't saying is it sinful to do that, rather surely that might stop us from going forth and multiplying.

But that is a good point. It's a sin to cause suffering to other people? That means you shouldn't have unprocted sex with AIDS because you may cause them suffering?

Oh okay, sorry I didn't mean to insinuate you did. To answer your first question, I would say no - it's not a sin to cause sufferring, if one is doing it for the right reasons.

Regarding your second question - If two people are going out together, and know of their medical conditions before hand - they probably need to pray to God and ask him if he wants them to proceed with the union despite the medical condition which could cause issues for the other partner.

MD101
Jul 31st 2008, 06:34 PM
What are the correct reasons to cause someone suffering (in this case extreme suffering).

So a person with AIDS perhaps should never get married because they cannot very well procreate?

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 06:41 PM
What are the correct reasons to cause someone suffering (in this case extreme suffering).

So a person with AIDS perhaps should never get married because they cannot very well procreate?

Does God ever cause me to suffer? Or you to suffer? Now, I would not say I should cause suffering but rather relieve it, if possible. Yet, suffering has it's purpose.

But again, this thread is about birth control. Why not stick to a more reasonable example, 2 folks that can afford to have children but practice birth control to avoid it.

As for extreme examples, we can see where David ate the shewbread. In normal circumstances, that would have been sinful. But in his extreme case, it was not considered sinful. So with that scriptural example in mind, I would say there are exceptions to commands in scripture.

Vhayes
Jul 31st 2008, 06:58 PM
Now how is this for timing?

I just got off the phone with a dear friend who is my spiritual son in many ways. He is a pastor of a church dedicated to the homeless. He called asking for prayer and advice about an 11 or 12 year old in the community. The father of this child sends the child several blocks away from the project house in which they live, through neighborhoods where gang activity is a common occurence, across a very, very busy highway, so this child can dumpster dive for food for the family.

This child needs a home – he needs someone to show him he IS indeed a blessing and not a burden. We can talk all day about how many children we should have but how many of us are willing to step up and give this child a home?

Dear God, this made me cry.

MD101
Jul 31st 2008, 07:00 PM
Good point. :| Hadn't really thought of that. We could go ahead and multiply, but there are tens of thousands or more children who have no family but need one!

Friend of I AM
Jul 31st 2008, 07:17 PM
What are the correct reasons to cause someone suffering (in this case extreme suffering).


Sufferring to perfect a believer to the likeness of Christ, or specifically to bring about patience, perserverence, and character.



So a person with AIDS perhaps should never get married because they cannot very well procreate?


No..never insinuated that. Just stated that they should pray to God on it, and make sure that it is of his will. Whose to say that it's not of his will for them to procreate? I think it's really just an issue between those two individuals and God.

seamus414
Jul 31st 2008, 07:23 PM
One other question that has not been answered: until the 1920s ALL Christians were opposed to birth control. Please may think opposigion to contraception is exclusively a Roman Catholic thing. Not the case. All Protestants were opposed to it too until the 1920s. Are we now saying that we, today, are wiser than 19 centuries of Christians to now "change the rules" as it were?

As a side note: orthodox Jews are also opposed to all forms of contraception except those that prevent ovulation. So, the opposition to contraception is a long standing teaching.

Vhayes
Jul 31st 2008, 07:28 PM
One other question that has not been answered: until the 1920s ALL Christians were opposed to birth control. Please may think opposigion to contraception is exclusively a Roman Catholic thing. Not the case. All Protestants were opposed to it too until the 1920s. Are we now saying that we, today, are wiser than 19 centuries of Christians to now "change the rules" as it were?

As a side note: orthodox Jews are also opposed to all forms of contraception except those that prevent ovulation. So, the opposition to contraception is a long standing teaching.
What were/was the birth control method(s) most common prior to 1920?

seamus414
Jul 31st 2008, 07:37 PM
What were/was the birth control method(s) most common prior to 1920?

A number of methods:
1. withdrawal;
2. pessary;
3. cervical cap;
4. beeswax;
5. condoms;
6. various abortifacients such as silphium, mercury, arsneic, various herbs;
7. rhythm method.

This is just what I can think of at the moment.

Vhayes
Jul 31st 2008, 07:40 PM
A number of methods:
1. withdrawal;
2. pessary;
3. cervical cap;
4. beeswax;
5. condoms;
6. various abortifacients such as silphium, mercury, arsneic, various herbs;
7. rhythm method.

This is just what I can think of at the moment.
Thanks, Seamus. I truly didn't know. I appreciate the answer(s).
V

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 07:48 PM
Now how is this for timing?

I just got off the phone with a dear friend who is my spiritual son in many ways. He is a pastor of a church dedicated to the homeless. He called asking for prayer and advice about an 11 or 12 year old in the community. The father of this child sends the child several blocks away from the project house in which they live, through neighborhoods where gang activity is a common occurence, across a very, very busy highway, so this child can dumpster dive for food for the family.

This child needs a home – he needs someone to show him he IS indeed a blessing and not a burden. We can talk all day about how many children we should have but how many of us are willing to step up and give this child a home?

Dear God, this made me cry.

A sad situation indeed. May God move the hearts of many believers to intervene.

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 07:51 PM
Good point. :| Hadn't really thought of that. We could go ahead and multiply, but there are tens of thousands or more children who have no family but need one!

Indeed! Would to God that more believers would feel the burden of the Lord concerning children in need!!!!

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 07:52 PM
Thanks, Seamus. I truly didn't know. I appreciate the answer(s).
V

God killed a man for using withdrawal in scripture. Though I think it won't fit the context of this discussion as it had to do with the law of moses. But it still interesting to see how God felt about it at the time.

MD101
Jul 31st 2008, 07:55 PM
God killed a man for using withdrawal in scripture. Though I think it won't fit the context of this discussion as it had to do with the law of moses. But it still interesting to see how God felt about it at the time.

Brother Mark, is this the the phrase about spilling on the wrong ground? I thought this because he was having sex with somebody elses wife? Or something. My knowledge of scripture isn't good.

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 08:05 PM
Brother Mark, is this the the phrase about spilling on the wrong ground? I thought this because he was having sex with somebody elses wife? Or something. My knowledge of scripture isn't good.

Some use it that way but the phrase you are referring to (if it's what I think it is) is not scriptural. The passage I am referring to is where a man died and left his wife a widow. The widow had no children so she was supposed to marry her deceased husband's brother. She did and when he slept with her, he pulled out to prevent her from having a child. God struck him dead for doing so.

Steve M
Jul 31st 2008, 08:13 PM
God killed a man for using withdrawal in scripture. Though I think it won't fit the context of this discussion as it had to do with the law of moses. But it still interesting to see how God felt about it at the time.
*ahem!*

That's Pre-Law of Moses, actually. Onan, Judah, Tamar... Moses wouldn't be around for quite a bit after that...

And by denying his brother an heir he was cutting off his brother's seedline and stealing the inheritance for himself. Not just non-procreation, but spiteful non-procreation.

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 08:15 PM
*ahem!*

That's Pre-Law of Moses, actually. Onan, Judah, Tamar... Moses wouldn't be around for quite a bit after that...

And by denying his brother an heir he was cutting off his brother's seedline and stealing the inheritance for himself. Not just non-procreation, but spiteful non-procreation.

Your right. My mistake. Jacob withheld the third brother and ended up being the father of Perez through Tamar. Not law of Moses. But something God took serious enough.

Steve M
Jul 31st 2008, 08:16 PM
Your right. My mistake. Jacob withheld the third brother and ended up being the father of Perez through Tamar. Not law of Moses. But something God took serious enough.
True 'nough. I'm just a stickler about timelimes. :)

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 08:17 PM
True 'nough. I'm just a stickler about timelimes. :)

I appreciate you pointing that out. The fact it was pre-law makes it a stronger witness, so to speak. I still don't think it is makes a strong case against birth control, but it might be something to consider.

MD101
Jul 31st 2008, 08:21 PM
No that is the one I mean. I've heard it used in anti-masturbation arguments. But then heard that it was because it was of the situation that it was a widow with her deads husband brother that it was a bad thing.

Friend of I am. Those are some interesting/good views on suffering.

If you feel like replying to my thread here: http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=132723 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=132723) I'd be interested what you'd have to say. The afforementioned link is to a thread in the apologestics and evangelism forum about Suffering before death and mental illness.

Firefighter
Jul 31st 2008, 09:28 PM
seamus414, the church for 1500 years thought we were too stupid to have our own Bibles. Are you saying that we are wiser than they and you are going to go turn in your bible??

Just because the church did it doesn't make it right. Our basis for morals should be the Bible, not the church.

Brother Mark
Jul 31st 2008, 09:36 PM
seamus414, the church for 1500 years thought we were too stupid to have our own Bibles. Are you saying that we are wiser than they and you are going to go turn in your bible??

Just because the church did it doesn't make it right. Our basis for morals should be the Bible, not the church.

OK. So what does scripture say about the topic at hand?

Firefighter
Jul 31st 2008, 09:41 PM
Psalms 139 says that God literally builds the baby around his soul at the embryonic stage, so abortive techniques would be taking a life, and hence wrong. The Bible is silent concerning non-abortive methods, so too should the church be.

seamus414
Jul 31st 2008, 09:43 PM
seamus414, the church for 1500 years thought we were too stupid to have our own Bibles. Are you saying that we are wiser than they and you are going to go turn in your bible??

Just because the church did it doesn't make it right. Our basis for morals should be the Bible, not the church.


Well, the church never thought "we were too stupid to have our own BIbles" so I am not sure if the analogy applies.

What I can say is that the wisdom of Christians throughout the ages ought to be a significant factor in how we understand the Bible and the fact is every CHristian denomination until the 1920s prohibited contraception and that includes all Protestants. Are you suggesting that Christians today are wiser than almost the entirety of Christian history?

seamus414
Jul 31st 2008, 09:49 PM
Psalms 139 says that God literally builds the baby around his soul at the embryonic stage, so abortive techniques would be taking a life, and hence wrong. The Bible is silent concerning non-abortive methods, so too should the church be.


While I agree that abortion is a sin, the Psalms are anything but "literal" and ought not to be interpreted as such. The Psalms are artistic poetry.

The Church has been given authority to make these sort of decisions and it should excersise it.

There is no requirement that every single issue be contianed in the Scriptures in order for Christians to determine morality from immorality on a particular issue. This is one of them (assuming there is no Scripture on point). Moral questions predate the Scriptures, were contemporanous with them, and, of course, currently exist. God has given his people, the Church, authority to employ the wisdom of the Holy SPirit to make these sorts of decisions. WHo knows why the Scripture is silent on the matter, we still, as Chrisitans, must deal with the matter in a God-guided sort of way.

cnw
Jul 31st 2008, 09:57 PM
Hey now this is a thread that I can relate too. My husband and I really oscilated from believing in bc to not. Him even having a "V" after 3 kids and then being convicted and having a reversal. This is what the Bible says about withholding children if you believe withholding is birth control.



Gen 30 1 And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die.

Here we see that Rachel was very upset because she could not have children and that she assumed Jacob could giver her children and had the ability to open her womb. Jacobs response is very intrigueing to me because of the way it is worded

2And Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel: and he said, Am I in God's stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb?
Jacob asks if he is in the place of God to withhold. Hmmm. Are we in the place of God to not have children?
different forms of bc say on the box that they are abortificients (cause abortions). most pills, the norplant, IUD's.

I think the question is do you believe God should open and close wombs, will he override you if you shut your own??? Why should he ot just let you chose to go against him?
having children has nothing to do with money...having a big enough house, oh there is sooo much more.

Firefighter
Jul 31st 2008, 10:04 PM
Well, the church never thought "we were too stupid to have our own BIbles" so I am not sure if the analogy applies.

What I can say is that the wisdom of Christians throughout the ages ought to be a significant factor in how we understand the Bible and the fact is every CHristian denomination until the 1920s prohibited contraception and that includes all Protestants. Are you suggesting that Christians today are wiser than almost the entirety of Christian history?

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: "That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary."

Rome's attempt to keep the Bible from men has continued to recent times. Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) denounced the Bible Society and expressed shock at the circulation of the Scriptures. Pius VII said, "It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit." Pope Leo XII called the Protestant Bible the "Gospel of the Devil" in an encyclical letter of 1824. Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) railed "against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue."

Pope Leo XII, in January 1850, condemned the Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has "long been condemned by the holy chair."

WonderWoman4Jesus
Jul 31st 2008, 10:22 PM
Let me say, this issue really bugs me quiet a bit. I believe children are a blessing from God and He does intend many couples to bring healthy children into the world. We all know we need good, solid Christian parents to bring up children in this world.

However, where does that leave people who want to be married and not have children? I would like to be married someday, but I'd like to use preventative measures such as an IUD to make sure I don't get pregnant. It's not because of money but because I'm not good with kids and dont' even like them, quite frankly.

Where does that leave me and people like me?

cnw
Jul 31st 2008, 11:17 PM
as stated wonder woman, the IUD does abort so your choice is one that stands out in Scripture as not a good one, Natural family planning is more for you.

There is a lot of fear here on this board. I read all (yes all 5 pages) and see that the what ifs, and look at this horrible situation, etc is all based on fear. There isn't much talk of Gods provision in our own lives and sadly we have neglected to recognize that all the "overpopulated" countries have rejected God so maybe they aren't permitted to have the blessings from God of children. Also those countries are so ungodly, they don't see children as a blessing and would cut off God's will. I see families that are provided for by others as a blessing from God...He looks after the sparrows too.

Matt 6:31-33 -God provides for our needs....If we seek him first. It is a promise with a condition. I think so few people seek God first.


Lets look at the US. As a midwife I have seen that the Us's goals (medical field) is to build the lie that BC is good and normal and the goal is to cut off children pushing permanent closure. It is the US that goes into 3rd world countries and forces sterilization. That is a goal for here too.

I think that having children is Godly and the more we become society driven we think like the world. The world looks down on "too many children" Goodness, even the church is doing that.

cnw
Jul 31st 2008, 11:21 PM
god loves intimacy!!! but he also has provided sex with the hopes that you would not be afraid of getting pg.
When I knew I was having a hyster. we abstained so I wouldn't get pg. It was a time of prayer and fasting and there are times we have to obstain.
If we know we are going to have a child that has a horrible disease....
oh wait, we don't know anything. We don't know anything about our children or our future. but god does.

pretty sure the womb is the most difficult part of the body for a woman to give to God...." here is my body Lord (well except the baby production part-thats MINE.)

WonderWoman4Jesus
Jul 31st 2008, 11:23 PM
I hate to burst your bubble, but the rythum method doesn't really work unless your periods are accurate 100% of the time. Withdrawl is also a bad idea because you can get pregnant from fluid excreted before ejaculation. I see many problems with diaphrams, mainly that if you gain and lose weight they have to be refitted and slip easily.

Ugh I am very upset and confused.

Whispering Grace
Jul 31st 2008, 11:25 PM
pretty sure the womb is the most difficult part of the body for a woman to give to God...." here is my body Lord...(well except the baby production part-thats MINE.)

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. Romans 12:1


:hmm:

cnw
Jul 31st 2008, 11:42 PM
wonder, lol, I am 100% against bc for any reason, even the woman dying, and yes I know all the pros and cons of bc. and I believe everyone of them is not 100% no matter how they are used. But I do know some I can suggest that are closer to natural. I know we have discussed this on your thread in the womans forum. God will lead you if you want him too and you will have great joy because of it.

crawfish
Aug 1st 2008, 12:00 AM
wonder, lol, I am 100% against bc for any reason, even the woman dying, and yes I know all the pros and cons of bc. and I believe everyone of them is not 100% no matter how they are used. But I do know some I can suggest that are closer to natural. I know we have discussed this on your thread in the womans forum. God will lead you if you want him too and you will have great joy because of it.

My wife had breast cancer 10 years ago. Even after it was cleared out, the chances that a pregnancy would cause it to recur was high. We opted for surgery - for both of us - to ensure that she would not get pregnant again.

So, I don't agree with you. We have three sons and we couldn't be happier. God was the one who led us to the decision to have surgery, and the one who saved my wife from her cancer.

cnw
Aug 1st 2008, 12:12 AM
but Craw that is contradictory. You wont have kids again, but your choice was led by fear due to cancer, yet God healed your wife. (I am glad she has been free of this)
oh and a "V" and a tubal aren't 100%, but together they sure make it pretty secure;)

I just heard about a lady in our hospital who had a hysterectomy but still had her overies. something was wrong with her and she went in for a check up. Ya she had a baby. imagine that.

crawfish
Aug 1st 2008, 12:18 AM
but Craw that is contradictory. You wont have kids again, but your choice was led by fear due to cancer, yet God healed your wife. (I am glad she has been free of this)
oh and a "V" and a tubal aren't 100%, but together they sure make it pretty secure;)

I just heard about a lady in our hospital who had a hysterectomy but still had her overies. something was wrong with her and she went in for a check up. Ya she had a baby. imagine that.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread...if God wants us to have another baby, there is nothing in the world that can prevent it. We only have methods of birth control because God set things up so they'd work. Most of the time. :)

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 04:12 AM
I hate to burst your bubble, but the rythum method doesn't really work unless your periods are accurate 100% of the time. Withdrawl is also a bad idea because you can get pregnant from fluid excreted before ejaculation. I see many problems with diaphrams, mainly that if you gain and lose weight they have to be refitted and slip easily.

Ugh I am very upset and confused.

Just a note here; withdrawal's obvious problem is timing. That pre-ejaculate can impregnate someone is a myth.

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 04:13 AM
but Craw that is contradictory. You wont have kids again, but your choice was led by fear due to cancer, yet God healed your wife. (I am glad she has been free of this)
oh and a "V" and a tubal aren't 100%, but together they sure make it pretty secure;)

I just heard about a lady in our hospital who had a hysterectomy but still had her overies. something was wrong with her and she went in for a check up. Ya she had a baby. imagine that.


I can also imagine a tremendous malpractice claim in court!

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 04:21 AM
The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: "That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary."

Rome's attempt to keep the Bible from men has continued to recent times. Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) denounced the Bible Society and expressed shock at the circulation of the Scriptures. Pius VII said, "It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit." Pope Leo XII called the Protestant Bible the "Gospel of the Devil" in an encyclical letter of 1824. Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) railed "against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue."

Pope Leo XII, in January 1850, condemned the Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has "long been condemned by the holy chair."


First an obvious point: a statement from Trent and a handful of 19th century statements are not the same as the church, for 1500 years, thinking "we were too stupid to have our own BIbles".

More to the point, these quotes do not say that anyone is "too stupid" to have Bibles. The point of the Roman Church here is to point out the Protestant (indeed, even Anglican at times) reality: when the Bible is in the hands of many, division and disunity in the Body of Christ, as well as the development of different and innovative doctrines follows. This cannot be denied as before 1513 there were 2 denominations divided by politics and not necessarily teaching. Following 1513 you have had the development of 30,000+ denominations with all kinds of diifferent teachings - all allegedly "Bible based". You cannot deny that this tremendous division and diversity of teaching among Christians is bad and you also cannot deny that this bad thing (division and diversity of teachings) exploded once Bibles were in the hands of many.

The point of the Roman Church is a good one, though, in my opinion, the benefit of such a point is outweight by its harm. Thanks be to God the Roman Church has finally come around to agree that the benefit of the Scriptures in the hands of many outweighs its harm.

Bethany67
Aug 1st 2008, 05:25 AM
Let me say, this issue really bugs me quiet a bit. I believe children are a blessing from God and He does intend many couples to bring healthy children into the world. We all know we need good, solid Christian parents to bring up children in this world.

However, where does that leave people who want to be married and not have children? I would like to be married someday, but I'd like to use preventative measures such as an IUD to make sure I don't get pregnant. It's not because of money but because I'm not good with kids and dont' even like them, quite frankly.

Where does that leave me and people like me?

Wonder, thank you for your honesty; I don't much like kids either. I too knew I wasn't meant to be a mother (apparently I told my mother at age 5 that I didn't want my own). I made it clear to DH on an early date that children would never be an option, so when I found out in my late thirties I was actually infertile, I wasn't at all surprised (in fact I was delighted).

We always used contraception (pill which I was on anyway for medical reasons, condoms - had no success the one time I tried to have an IUD); eventually DH had a vasectomy and then I had a hysterectomy for elective medical reasons. I am at peace with all of it; it's our decision in the same way that it will be your and your hubby's decision.

Firefighter
Aug 1st 2008, 11:39 AM
when circulated in the vulgar tongue


What does vulgar tongue mean???

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 11:53 AM
What does vulgar tongue mean???

In modern parlace vulgar means something dirty or profane. In traditional/historical use, the word vulgar merely means common or typical. So, the "vulgar tongue" means the common language of the common person. This is distinguished from the language of, say, the scholars or business or government.

(Side note, I find it interesting that you'd raise something as an argument without really being sure of what it means.)

Firefighter
Aug 1st 2008, 12:36 PM
I am well aware of what vulgar means...

So... to use your own words, The church forbid anyone who was not a "scholar" and was an uneducated "common person" to read the Bible...

Yep, sounds like they thought the common man that had not had a formal education in Latin was too stupid to read the Bible.

I am surprised you didn't see that one coming...

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 12:50 PM
I am well aware of what vulgar means...

So... to use your own words, The church forbid anyone who was not a "scholar" and was an uneducated "common person" to read the Bible...

Yep, sounds like they thought the common man that had not had a formal education in Latin was too stupid to read the Bible.

I am surprised you didn't see that one coming...

It is because that wasn't that point. The church did *not* "forbid anyone who was not a 'scholar' ... to read the Bible" - and those were not my "own words" by any stretch. The church made no distinction between the scholar and the average person. The church merely used the lack of literacy in latin among the common person to its advantage in order to advance is actual goal of slowing/stopping schism. This has nothing to do with stupidity.

Firefighter
Aug 1st 2008, 12:56 PM
The church merely used the lack of literacy in latin among the common person to its advantage


I agree with everything above...

How did they use it to their advantage? By keeping the uneducated common man from reading scriptures. If they read the scriptures for themselves, there would surely be a split.

You may have a point though. it may have been that the RCC realized that the common man would be too SMART to keep believing what they were preaching. Yep! That must be it! You win. I concede.

Firefighter
Aug 1st 2008, 01:01 PM
The church did *not* "forbid anyone who was not a 'scholar' ... to read the Bible"


THE COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE (1229)
"We prohibit the permission of the books of the Old and New Testament to laymen, except perhaps they might desire to have the Psalter, or some Breviary for the divine service, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin Mary, for devotion; expressly forbidding their having the other parts of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue"

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 01:09 PM
THE COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE (1229)
"We prohibit the permission of the books of the Old and New Testament to laymen, except perhaps they might desire to have the Psalter, or some Breviary for the divine service, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin Mary, for devotion; expressly forbidding their having the other parts of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue"

A laymen may or may not be a scholar. I am not sure why you are focusing on intelligence level - it had nothing to do with that. It had to ensuring fidelity to the church.

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 01:10 PM
I agree with everything above...

How did they use it to their advantage? By keeping the uneducated common man from reading scriptures. If they read the scriptures for themselves, there would surely be a split.

You may have a point though. it may have been that the RCC realized that the common man would be too SMART to keep believing what they were preaching. Yep! That must be it! You win. I concede.


As I said in another post, it has nothing to do with intelligence level. I am not sure why you are hung up on that.

Vhayes
Aug 1st 2008, 01:11 PM
A laymen may or may not be a scholar. I am not sure why you are focusing on intelligence level - it had nothing to do with that. It had to ensuring fidelity to the church.
I think that's exactly the problem that is being pointed out. If you let everyone read the scriptures, they would no longer have fidelity to the church, they would have fidelity to Christ.

What a novel concept.

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 01:20 PM
I think that's exactly the problem that is being pointed out. If you let everyone read the scriptures, they would no longer have fidelity to the church, they would have fidelity to Christ.
What a novel concept.

Unfortunately the opposite has occured. CHrist specifically prayed for and commanded unity. The opposite times 30,000 has occured - and only occured when people started reading the Bible independently. People have used and abused the Bible to create a multitude of different religious groups and innovative teachings. When it comes right down to it, people are sinful and corrupt and the Bible is powerful and is a power that can be and has been used sinfully and corruptly.

What you seem to reject is fidelity to the church is fidelity to Christ as the church is Christ's own body. There is no difference.

This may sound like splitting hairs, but the distinction is crucial. The problem is that the Bible can (and should) be read by the individual. The Bible SHOULD NOT be read individually. In other words, someone should not read the Bible individually to "see what it says to him/her" and then harden "what it says" into a doctrine. That is how the 30,000+ denominations started. The Bible ought to be read by the individual consistenly with established CHristian teachings.

UNfortunately the Church of Rome did not trust people to read the Bible as an individual and not individually - and who can blame them as the result was as expected - schism into thousands of small fragments! However, also unfortunately, the Church of Rome thought the danger of schism outweight the benefit of reading the Bible. Thankfully, the Church of Rome has recognized the error of that philosophy.

Vhayes
Aug 1st 2008, 01:29 PM
UNfortunately the Church of Rome did not trust people to read the Bible as an individual and not individually - and who can blame them as the result was as expected - schism into thousands of small fragments! However, also unfortunately, the Church of Rome thought the danger of schism outweight the benefit of reading the Bible. Thankfully, the Church of Rome has recognized the error of that philosophy.
I think Christ Himself can blame them for holding people in a form of slavery to their teachings, may of which I believe to be false.

Do you really think the Roman Catholic church would have recognized "the error of that philosophy" if their hand hadn't been forced?

Firefighter
Aug 1st 2008, 01:29 PM
The church in Rome did not trust people with the Bible because they were pimping out indulgences to build great cathedrals and didn't want the common man who was footing the bill by nothing less than blackmail to find out how far away from scripture the church had gotten.

Vhayes
Aug 1st 2008, 01:42 PM
[/quote=seamus414;1732265]
What you seem to reject is fidelity to the church is fidelity to Christ as the church is Christ's own body. There is no difference.

This may sound like splitting hairs, but the distinction is crucial. The problem is that the Bible can (and should) be read by the individual. The Bible SHOULD NOT be read individually. In other words, someone should not read the Bible individually to "see what it says to him/her" and then harden "what it says" into a doctrine. That is how the 30,000+ denominations started. The Bible ought to be read by the individual consistenly with established CHristian teachings.[/quote]
The "church" is not a denomination. The Church is the corporate body of believers - all who have ever lived. At least that's what I believe. I think God looks at hearts and their motives. If a person is a (Methodist, Baptist, Roman Catholic, Pentecostal) and has a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ he is a building block of the true church.

Our "unity" comes from our love for each other as well as the lost (in theory). Even Paul was dealing with schism way back in his epistles. Read Galatians - Paul himself started a schism from the original "Jewish" fellowships. If schism is wrong, Paul AND Peter stand condemned.

Unity at the price of accepting false teaching is not what Jesus had in mind. Not at all.

Just my thoughts.

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 01:45 PM
I think Christ Himself can blame them for holding people in a form of slavery to their teachings, may of which I believe to be false. Do you really think the Roman Catholic church would have recognized "the error of that philosophy" if their hand hadn't been forced?

Interesting issues. According to some on this board, one would think that the RCC held people in "slavery" for 1500 years? Do you think Christ would allow his people to not have the gospel for that long or be in "slavery" for that long with no viable alternative? I doubt it. Besides, the sins of the RCC do not somehow alleviate or justify the sins of the Christians who used the Bible to breakup the Body of Christ into thousands of splinters.

No, I do not think the RCC would have recognized its error - but most people or institutions do not recognize error until he/it is presented with it in his/its face.

Also, as a practical matter, literacy was virtually non-existant among the common folk until the 19th century (and even then not that much). So, when it came right down to it, it does not matter what language the Bible was in, no one could read it anyway. The decision of the RCC to restrict vernacular Bibles would not affect many people until only relatively very recently.

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 01:48 PM
[/quote=seamus414;1732265]
What you seem to reject is fidelity to the church is fidelity to Christ as the church is Christ's own body. There is no difference.

This may sound like splitting hairs, but the distinction is crucial. The problem is that the Bible can (and should) be read by the individual. The Bible SHOULD NOT be read individually. In other words, someone should not read the Bible individually to "see what it says to him/her" and then harden "what it says" into a doctrine. That is how the 30,000+ denominations started. The Bible ought to be read by the individual consistenly with established CHristian teachings.
The "church" is not a denomination. The Church is the corporate body of believers - all who have ever lived. At least that's what I believe. I think God looks at hearts and their motives. If a person is a (Methodist, Baptist, Roman Catholic, Pentecostal) and has a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ he is a building block of the true church.

Our "unity" comes from our love for each other as well as the lost (in theory). Even Paul was dealing with schism way back in his epistles. Read Galatians - Paul himself started a schism from the original "Jewish" fellowships. If schism is wrong, Paul AND Peter stand condemned.

Unity at the price of accepting false teaching is not what Jesus had in mind. Not at all.

Just my thoughts.[/quote]

Peter and Paul did NOT engage in schism. They engaged in the prototype mechanism to resolve schism which served the church for 1000 years. When prelates, like Paul and Peter, had a major disagreement, the church met in a council, prayed, read what Scriptures they had, and debated the issue and rendered a decision. The church followed this pattern as a unified body for 1000 years until the Church of Rome thought it could render a doctrinal decision without anyone else's input.

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 01:49 PM
The church in Rome did not trust people with the Bible because they were pimping out indulgences to build great cathedrals and didn't want the common man who was footing the bill by nothing less than blackmail to find out how far away from scripture the church had gotten.

First, please remember that many medeival abuses were never codified into the church's catachism.

Second, the common man could not read his own language let alone latin in those days.

Vhayes
Aug 1st 2008, 01:50 PM
Interesting issues. According to some on this board, one would think that the RCC held people in "slavery" for 1500 years? Do you think Christ would allow his people to not have the gospel for that long or be in "slavery" for that long with no viable alternative? I doubt it. Besides, the sins of the RCC do not somehow alleviate or justify the sins of the Christians who used the Bible to breakup the Body of Christ into thousands of splinters.

he allowed the Hebrew people (His chosen people) to be held as slaves in Egypt AND to be led away as captive many times. So yes, I believe He would allow time for the "Church" to get their act together.

Also, I define the Body of Christ as each believer making up the whole and NOT as a denomination.

Vhayes
Aug 1st 2008, 01:52 PM
First, please remember that many medeival abuses were never codified into the church's catachism.

Second, the common man could not read his own language let alone latin in those days.
Are you really saying that becuase they weren't "codified" it was ok?

Masses were in Latin also - the average Joe had NO idea what was going on. IF and I say IF they had been in the common language, maybe someone could have followed along.

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 01:58 PM
Are you really saying that becuase they weren't "codified" it was ok?

Masses were in Latin also - the average Joe had NO idea what was going on. IF and I say IF they had been in the common language, maybe someone could have followed along.

Not saying it was okay, just saying that it was never made a teaching of the CHurch. When a church has (today) 1,000,000,000 members, it is difficult to ensure everyone is on the same exact page. You have to look at the official teachings to know what the official teachings are. The rest are abuses. That is all I am saying.

The latin mass has long been said to have saved the church from abject heresey as no one changed its language which was set in ancient times.

Firefighter
Aug 1st 2008, 01:58 PM
First, please remember that many medeival abuses were never codified into the church's catachism.

Second, the common man could not read his own language let alone latin in those days.

Skubalon. Then why forbid reading the Bible in the "vulgar tongue"?

Firefighter
Aug 1st 2008, 02:00 PM
The latin mass has long been said to have saved the church from abject heresey as no one changed its language which was set in ancient times.

Obviously not. Pimping out indulgences is a heresy. So is salvation by works or membership in a particular church, but I won't go there...

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 02:03 PM
Obviously not. Pimping out indulgences is a heresy. So is salvation by works or membership in a particular church, but I won't go there...

Again, while these abuses occured, it was never formally accepted by the church.

Vhayes
Aug 1st 2008, 02:03 PM
Not saying it was okay, just saying that it was never made a teaching of the CHurch. When a church has (today) 1,000,000,000 members, it is difficult to ensure everyone is on the same exact page. You have to look at the official teachings to know what the official teachings are. The rest are abuses. That is all I am saying.

The latin mass has long been said to have saved the church from abject heresey as no one changed its language which was set in ancient times.
It was taught but it wasn't official, therefore no one is at fault. That's a nifty trick!

The written scriptures remained, so HOW could preaching in the common tongue have changed the scriptures?

Skubalon AND poppycock.

Firefighter
Aug 1st 2008, 02:04 PM
When prelates, like Paul and Peter, had a major disagreement, the church met in a council, prayed, read what Scriptures they had, and debated the issue and rendered a decision. The church followed this pattern as a unified body for 1000 years until the Church of Rome thought it could render a doctrinal decision without anyone else's input.


Now that is creative interpretation...

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 02:35 PM
Now that is creative interpretation...

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

That was Paul's opinion and it won the day at the Council of Jerusalem and Peter, in humility, assented to it. There is no dispute over this.

ProjectPeter
Aug 1st 2008, 02:40 PM
This has gotten a bit on the Catholic side to the point where deleting post would make a mess... so moving it to world religions.

Vhayes
Aug 1st 2008, 02:42 PM
This has gotten a bit on the Catholic side to the point where deleting post would make a mess... so moving it to world religions.
Thank you! I had thought to suggest that but didn't know how other than within the thread.
V

Firefighter
Aug 1st 2008, 02:48 PM
Again, while these abuses occured, it was never formally accepted by the church.

In 1517, Pope Leo X offered indulgences for those who gave alms to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. The Pope himself did it, how is that not official?!?!? Please spare me the ex-catherdra line...

Firefighter
Aug 1st 2008, 02:49 PM
That was Paul's opinion and it won the day at the Council of Jerusalem and Peter, in humility, assented to it. There is no dispute over this.

Then it must have been more than Paul's opinion huh???

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 02:55 PM
Then it must have been more than Paul's opinion huh???

Well no. It was Paul's opinion which then became hardened into dogma. But it only started as his opinion.

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 02:56 PM
In 1517, Pope Leo X offered indulgences for those who gave alms to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. The Pope himself did it, how is that not official?!?!? Please spare me the ex-catherdra line...


So, if the President of the US does something illegal we can draw the conclusion that those illegal acts are sanctioned by the nation and officially on the books and/or in the Constitution?

Firefighter
Aug 1st 2008, 03:03 PM
Laws OFTEN get signed into law that violate the constitution...

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 03:14 PM
Laws OFTEN get signed into law that violate the constitution...

That is not the point. The point is, just because someone in an official position does something does not mean the institution s/he represents officially permits it.

Firefighter
Aug 1st 2008, 03:18 PM
Ummm... If it was not church wide, then how did St. Peter's get built??? The Pope authorized it and the church carried out without thinking as always... To deny that is to deny reality and history.

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 03:22 PM
Ummm... If it was not church wide, then how did St. Peter's get built??? The Pope authorized it and the church carried out without thinking as always... To deny that is to deny reality and history.

"..the church carried [it] out without thinking..." - that is the root of it. The church did not formally or officially authorize it.

That someone absues an institution does not necessarily make the institution itself blameworthy.

There was never any additions/subtractions from the catechism to recognize these actions. Nor was there a council that codefied them. In fact the Council of Trent acknowledged things like this as an abuse.

Vhayes
Aug 1st 2008, 03:24 PM
"..the church carried [it] out without thinking..." - that is the root of it. The church did not formally or officially authorize it.

That someone absues an institution does not necessarily make the institution itself blameworthy.

There was never any additions/subtractions from the catechism to recognize these actions. Nor was there a council that codefied them. In fact the Council of Trent acknowledged things like this as an abuse.
I have a question that I really don't know the answer to - does the Roman Catholic church still sell, allow, permit, whatever - indulgences?

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 03:27 PM
I have a question that I really don't know the answer to - does the Roman Catholic church still sell, allow, permit, whatever - indulgences?


Yes. Although they are markedly different from their medieval predecessors.

Vhayes
Aug 1st 2008, 03:29 PM
Yes. Although they are markedly different from their medieval predecessors.
Thanks for your honesty - you could have said no and I would never have known the difference.

In what way are they markedly different?

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 03:38 PM
Thanks for your honesty - you could have said no and I would never have known the difference.

In what way are they markedly different?

Medeival indulgences were "sold" for a price and were often used as kickbacks by those selling them. These indulgences did not include any sort of repentance or conversion or any sort of spiritual advancement. It also was very mathematical in nature. Back then, whoever wanted one just had to pay whatever fee was being charged with the false promise that that payment did something spiritual.

The practice today requires true reprentance and is designed to help spiritual advancement and are not "sold" for a price as in the past.

Vhayes
Aug 1st 2008, 03:41 PM
Medeival indulgences were "sold" for a price and were often used as kickbacks by those selling them. These indulgences did not include any sort of repentance or conversion or any sort of spiritual advancement. It also was very mathematical in nature. Back then, whoever wanted one just had to pay whatever fee was being charged with the false promise that that payment did something spiritual.

The practice today requires true reprentance and is designed to help spiritual advancement and are not "sold" for a price as in the past.
Are they still "sold"? I guess I'm not even certain of what an indulgence IS - does it mean you will be indulged for a future sin or that you are doing penance for a past sin?

Brother Mark
Aug 1st 2008, 03:42 PM
Medeival indulgences were "sold" for a price and were often used as kickbacks by those selling them. These indulgences did not include any sort of repentance or conversion or any sort of spiritual advancement. It also was very mathematical in nature. Back then, whoever wanted one just had to pay whatever fee was being charged with the false promise that that payment did something spiritual.

The practice today requires true reprentance and is designed to help spiritual advancement and are not "sold" for a price as in the past.

Then how is it called an "indulgence"? For the thought, as I understood it, was to allow one to revel without penalty and thus indulge his flesh. We see something similar with Mardi Gras. The whole concept is to fill the lust of the flesh prior to lent.

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 03:49 PM
Are they still "sold"? I guess I'm not even certain of what an indulgence IS - does it mean you will be indulged for a future sin or that you are doing penance for a past sin?

An indulgence is part if a much larger theological framework. The theological issues are: a person's justification is 100% complete upon receiving Christ but the person's sanctification is ongoing. Therefore, while the person is saved, they still sin and the desire to sin. If the sanctification process is not complete at the time of death, it is completed between death and the next life as the desire to sin or sin of any kind cannot be in the nex life. The Roman Church has created an almost mathematical system of "merit" as a result. Therefore, an indulgence can lessen one's time between death and the next life as it advances one's sanctification here on Earth.

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 03:50 PM
Then how is it called an "indulgence"? For the thought, as I understood it, was to allow one to revel without penalty and thus indulge his flesh. We see something similar with Mardi Gras. The whole concept is to fill the lust of the flesh prior to lent.

This sort of concept is an abuse and was corrected by the RCC even as late as teh Second Vatican Council.

Brother Mark
Aug 1st 2008, 03:52 PM
This sort of concept is an abuse and was corrected by the RCC even as late as teh Second Vatican Council.

Then what is being "indulged" with an indulgence?

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 03:55 PM
Then what is being "indulged" with an indulgence?

The explaination of what an indulgence is supposed to be is above in another post. Indulgences are for sins, of course, but the idea that it gives a free pass for sins was an abuse. An indulgence is designed to draw someone closer to Christ not a "get out of jail for free" card with no spiritual significance.

Vhayes
Aug 1st 2008, 03:55 PM
An indulgence is part if a much larger theological framework. The theological issues are: a person's justification is 100% complete upon receiving Christ but the person's sanctification is ongoing. Therefore, while the person is saved, they still sin and the desire to sin. If the sanctification process is not complete at the time of death, it is completed between death and the next life as the desire to sin or sin of any kind cannot be in the nex life. The Roman Church has created an almost mathematical system of "merit" as a result. Therefore, an indulgence can lessen one's time between death and the next life as it advances one's sanctification here on Earth.
Purgatory, right?

But are they still "sold" for money and are they sold to "pay" for sins commited in the past or are they sold to "pay" for potential future sins? And WHO determines whether or not someone is fully sanctified (whatever that means) when they die?

And thank you Seamus for remaining polite. While you have to know I disagree with most if not all of this, you are treating me like a thinking being.
V

Brother Mark
Aug 1st 2008, 04:01 PM
The explaination of what an indulgence is supposed to be is above in another post. Indulgences are for sins, of course, but the idea that it gives a free pass for sins was an abuse. An indulgence is designed to draw someone closer to Christ not a "get out of jail for free" card with no spiritual significance.

I saw the post. That's why I am asking, why name it an indulgence?

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 04:02 PM
Purgatory, right?

But are they still "sold" for money and are they sold to "pay" for sins commited in the past or are they sold to "pay" for potential future sins? And WHO determines whether or not someone is fully sanctified (whatever that means) when they die?

And thank you Seamus for remaining polite. While you have to know I disagree with most if not all of this, you are treating me like a thinking being.
V


Purgatory is the name the RCC has given the intermediate place, yes. I am not certain if they are sold for money, but I would not be shocked if making a charitable donation for something would not count as an act that is a sign of or contributes to sanctification. I hope, by my wording, you see the distinction, even if it is subtle. In medieval times, the indulgence was "pay me and you'll get merit!"; nowadays the indulgence is put in these terms: giving of money is a spiritual act with spiritual significance and must come from a spirit of charity and selfsacrifice that mirror's Christ's.

Only God knows how sanctified someone is when s/he dies. In theory, I suppose, the person can know to some degree too as s/he experience the life change over the course of his/her life.

I see no reason not to be polite.

Quite frankly, as an Anglican, my level of disagreement may not be as great as your own, I am not completely sold on all of this either.

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 04:04 PM
I saw the post. That's why I am asking, why name it an indulgence?

Geesh...I don't know. What I do know is that the term was translated from probably latin or something and I have no idea what the latin derivitive is.

Brother Mark
Aug 1st 2008, 04:04 PM
Just for clarity sake. Here's a general definition of indulgence.

n·dul·gence http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciationduhl[/B]-j[I]uhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -genced, -genc·ing. –noun
1.the act or practice of indulging; gratification of desire.
2.the state of being indulgent.
3.indulgent allowance or tolerance.
4.a catering to someone's mood or whim; humoring: The sick man demanded indulgence as his due.
5.something indulged in: Her favorite indulgence was candy.
6.Roman Catholic Church. a partial remission of the temporal punishment, esp. purgatorial atonement, that is still due for a sin or sins after absolution. Compare plenary indulgence (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=plenary%20indulgence).
7.English and Scottish History. (in the reigns of Charles II and James II) a grant by the king to Protestant dissenters and Roman Catholics freeing them from certain penalties imposed, by legislation, because of their religion.
8.Commerce. an extension, through favor, of time for payment or performance. –verb (used with object)
9.Roman Catholic Church. to provide with an indulgence: an indulgenced pilgrimage to Rome.

Firefighter
Aug 1st 2008, 04:27 PM
Giving of alms is STILL an accepted way of obtaining an indulgence in the RCC.

Until the church truly repents, they are corrupt. By repent, I mean fully repent, and make restitution for the criminal acts of taking money from the poor by means of said abuses. If they were truly sorry they would have tried to give the rewards of the abuse back. They didn't, nor will they. The RCC says "Oooops! My bad!" and then still reaps the benefits from the heretical and criminal abuses that were thrown upon the "common man".

I wouldn't want them reading the Bible either...

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 04:32 PM
Giving of alms is STILL an accepted way of obtaining an indulgence in the RCC.

Until the church truly repents, they are corrupt. By repent, I mean fully repent, and make restitution for the criminal acts of taking money from the poor by means of said abuses. If they were truly sorry they would have tried to give the rewards of the abuse back. They didn't, nor will they. The RCC says "Oooops! My bad!" and then still reaps the benefits from the heretical and criminal abuses that were thrown upon the "common man".

I wouldn't want them reading the Bible either...


EVERY Christian tradition is guilty of some sort of bad act. Will the Calvinists "repent" for what they did to "witches" or the RCs they killed in Switzerland? How about the Baptist support for slavery and Jim Crow? How about Anglican treatment of dissenters? What about all those evangelical "evangelists" who took people's life savings? Or the Protestant terrorists in Ireland? These are just what I can think of off the top of my head. The list is rather long and the RCC is not the only Christian Church with blood on its hands. If you think coming down in judgment is appropriate, you must be fair and even handed and come down in judgment on them all.

Firefighter
Aug 1st 2008, 04:36 PM
I do. It sure is a good thing I do not belong to any of those churches huh?

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 04:39 PM
I do. It sure is a good thing I do not belong to any of those churches huh?

No it's not. The reality is that there will always be a tare for every wheat - in the church and out.

Brother Mark
Aug 1st 2008, 04:39 PM
EVERY Christian tradition is guilty of some sort of bad act. Will the Calvinists "repent" for what they did to "witches" or the RCs they killed in Switzerland? How about the Baptist support for slavery and Jim Crow? How about Anglican treatment of dissenters? What about all those evangelical "evangelists" who took people's life savings? Or the Protestant terrorists in Ireland? These are just what I can think of off the top of my head. The list is rather long and the RCC is not the only Christian Church with blood on its hands. If you think coming down in judgment is appropriate, you must be fair and even handed and come down in judgment on them all.

The historical RCC and the historical Calvinist have blood on their hands concerning Christian martyrs. The RCC was pretty evil back in the day. They drank the blood of many a martyr. Of course, the crusades are nothing to ignore either. When politics and religion have become united, very bad things have happened.

IMO, the RCC still has a LOT of bad doctrine. The whole idea that only priest can speak to God and that the common man should not have scripture is asinine and completely ignores the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer. There was a HUGE need for reform in Martin Luther's day and it didn't happen. He first tried to reform but they wouldn't have it. It seems to me God pulled his Church out of the RCC a long time ago.

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 04:47 PM
The historical RCC and the historical Calvinist have blood on their hands concerning Christian martyrs. The RCC was pretty evil back in the day. They drank the blood of many a martyr. Of course, the crusades are nothing to ignore either. When politics and religion have become united, very bad things have happened.

IMO, the RCC still has a LOT of bad doctrine. The whole idea that only priest can speak to God and that the common man should not have scripture is asinine and completely ignores the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer. There was a HUGE need for reform in Martin Luther's day and it didn't happen. He first tried to reform but they wouldn't have it. It seems to me God pulled his Church out of the RCC a long time ago.

Not justifying it, but the RCC (united with the government of the day) went into defensive mode and tried to eliminate the competition as it were. It seemed like an act of desperation.

I don't think we can say the crusades were totally a bad thing.

As a point of clarity: (1) the RCC does not believe that "only a priest can speak to God"; (2) the Bible is now in the hands of the common man and it is sanctioned by Rome.

Obviously, I am not a RC but I do not have the dim view of it as you do.

Brother Mark
Aug 1st 2008, 04:53 PM
Not justifying it, but the RCC (united with the government of the day) went into defensive mode and tried to eliminate the competition as it were. It seemed like an act of desperation.

I don't think we can say the crusades were totally a bad thing.

As a point of clarity: (1) the RCC does not believe that "only a priest can speak to God"; (2) the Bible is now in the hands of the common man and it is sanctioned by Rome.

Obviously, I am not a RC but I do not have the dim view of it as you do.

Do you know how many people the RCC killed in order to keep the bible from getting into the hands of the common man?

Without great men willing to be martyred for God, the RCC would have kept many a man in darkness for ages to come. She sent many people to hell back in the day. Yet, she was supposed to be God's church. Thank God for men like Martin Luther that tried to reform her. It was only after she realized she could no longer control the masses she began her reform.

Yes, I still have a low view of her because of her present day doctrines and beliefs. But no other church has killed as many men of God and resisted Christ to the degree the RCC did. As for speaking to God, she still requires penance for sin and confession to a priest and many other things. Confession is good and is biblical. But not the way they do it. And of course, putting traditions on equal footing with scripture is always dangerous.

Vhayes
Aug 1st 2008, 05:01 PM
EVERY Christian tradition is guilty of some sort of bad act. Will the Calvinists "repent" for what they did to "witches" or the RCs they killed in Switzerland? How about the Baptist support for slavery and Jim Crow? How about Anglican treatment of dissenters? What about all those evangelical "evangelists" who took people's life savings? Or the Protestant terrorists in Ireland? These are just what I can think of off the top of my head. The list is rather long and the RCC is not the only Christian Church with blood on its hands. If you think coming down in judgment is appropriate, you must be fair and even handed and come down in judgment on them all.
Whoa. That's the same as saying, "Well, Jimmy jumped off the roof after i did." Just cause everyone else is doing it doesn't make it right.

seamus414
Aug 1st 2008, 05:31 PM
Do you know how many people the RCC killed in order to keep the bible from getting into the hands of the common man?

Without great men willing to be martyred for God, the RCC would have kept many a man in darkness for ages to come. She sent many people to hell back in the day. Yet, she was supposed to be God's church. Thank God for men like Martin Luther that tried to reform her. It was only after she realized she could no longer control the masses she began her reform.

Yes, I still have a low view of her because of her present day doctrines and beliefs. But no other church has killed as many men of God and resisted Christ to the degree the RCC did. As for speaking to God, she still requires penance for sin and confession to a priest and many other things. Confession is good and is biblical. But not the way they do it. And of course, putting traditions on equal footing with scripture is always dangerous.


Obviously I disagree with much of the above.

David Taylor
Aug 1st 2008, 05:52 PM
This thread has gotten way off from the OP of 'birth control'.

Get back on track folks, or start a new topic about the current rabbit-chases.

If this thread can't stay on OP, we'll just close it.

Jerome1
Aug 1st 2008, 06:10 PM
As a catholic, yes i think artifical birth control is wrong. One reason is that sex is just used to gratify one another. I believe the catholic church's position on artifical birth control is the correct one. The natural family planning method, means that married couples can still have sex using a natural method of conception.

If anyone agrees or disagrees with birth control, give your reasons why you agree or disagree with it.

Vhayes
Aug 1st 2008, 06:20 PM
As a catholic, yes i think artifical birth control is wrong. One reason is that sex is just used to gratify one another. I believe the catholic church's position on artifical birth control is the correct one. The natural family planning method, means that married couples can still have sex using a natural method of conception.

If anyone agrees or disagrees with birth control, give your reasons why you agree or disagree with it.
We are told to be good stewards - I think we should have as many children we we are able to care for or no children at all if that has been placed on our hearts.

Let me ask you - if you believe the natural method is approved, how is that any different than taking chemicals or using devices? I assume you mean that we are somehow denying God our willingness to have children if we use devices or chemicals. How is plotting out the days any different? It's still birth control.

Vhayes
Aug 1st 2008, 06:21 PM
This thread has gotten way off from the OP of 'birth control'.

Get back on track folks, or start a new topic about the current rabbit-chases.

If this thread can't stay on OP, we'll just close it.
Is there any way to split threads?

Whispering Grace
Aug 1st 2008, 06:27 PM
As a catholic, yes i think artifical birth control is wrong. One reason is that sex is just used to gratify one another.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a married couple having sex just to gratify one another!

Vhayes
Aug 1st 2008, 06:31 PM
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a married couple having sex just to gratify one another!
Yes!!!! I agree with you. If we were given sex strictly to procreate, then pregnancy would be the result of each and every act of intimacy. God knew what He was doing when He designed humans.

Firefighter
Aug 1st 2008, 07:05 PM
Abstaining for the sake of birth control is CLEARLY not Biblical. The only time it is ok is if it is a time set aside for prayer and fasting...

1 Corinthians 7:5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Jerome1
Aug 1st 2008, 07:08 PM
We are told to be good stewards - I think we should have as many children we we are able to care for or no children at all if that has been placed on our hearts.

Let me ask you - if you believe the natural method is approved, how is that any different than taking chemicals or using devices? I assume you mean that we are somehow denying God our willingness to have children if we use devices or chemicals. How is plotting out the days any different? It's still birth control.

Yes it's a form of birth control, but it is not closed to the possibility of procreation.

Jerome1
Aug 1st 2008, 07:09 PM
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a married couple having sex just to gratify one another!

Yes sex using natural birth control methods is permitted.

Firefighter
Aug 1st 2008, 07:13 PM
There is nothing natural about abstaining from sex in one of the females most "hormonal" times... That is great for the guys who created those rules but really bites for the women.

Vhayes
Aug 1st 2008, 10:44 PM
Yes it's a form of birth control, but it is not closed to the possibility of procreation.
Neither is anything else - nothing is 100% effective.

cnw
Aug 2nd 2008, 01:53 AM
I am going to post this again because it is Scripture on the subject.



This is what the Bible says about withholding children if you believe withholding is birth control.


Quote:
Gen 30 1 And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die.
Here we see that Rachel was very upset because she could not have children and that she assumed Jacob could giver her children and had the ability to open her womb. Jacobs response is very intrigueing to me because of the way it is worded

Quote:
2And Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel: and he said, Am I in God's stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb?
Jacob asks if he is in the place of God to withhold. Hmmm. Are we in the place of God to not have children?

cnw
Aug 2nd 2008, 01:55 AM
so are you going the whole RCC is against bc (well some have changed that) but the Christian church isn't?

David Taylor
Aug 2nd 2008, 12:54 PM
Is there any way to split threads?
Not really.
Just start a new one on the "new" topic.

Vhayes
Aug 2nd 2008, 02:36 PM
Not really.
Just start a new one on the "new" topic.
Thanks for the response. It looks as though there are already two or three active threads that are basically dealing with the same subject, so I don't think it would be necessary to start another thread, we should just jump in to those established conversations.

Again, thanks for the response.
V