I respectfully disagree with you.
With that said, I am not convicted in regards to birth control, nor is my wife.
Preventing Pregnancy Displeases Thee Lord
- Thread starter Where is the Messiah
- Start date
- Status
I respectfully disagree with you.
With that said, I am not convicted in regards to birth control, nor is my wife.
That's the common refusal for NFP; "I didn't see where the Bible talks about NFP." This is bad criteria because likewise, the Bible never rejects this means, but it does reject means of contraception.
Every single reasoning I offered behind the divide between contraception and NFP because they are indeed different seems to be falling by the wayside out of convenience. If we are going to go into the argument of Sola Scriptura, all of the reformers spoke out heavily against contraception as well. In fact, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, they all spoke more venomous against contraception than even many Catholic heroes have. But they were all on the same page and all rightfully rejected it.
So either all of the Christians before the 20th century were wrong when explicitly condemning it or Christians today have fallen for the secular narrative in condoning it. It can be one or the other but it cannot be both.
Last edited:
Hmm. Very interesting. The fact that all of the reformers were all in agreement with the matter, makes an even more of a stronger case.
In all fairness, I don't know if that should be considered to make the case stronger.. If someone is going to pull Bible verses out and put it on the table, that would make the case stronger.. Especially when the verses are "in context". We are dealing with a topic (though sensitive), which is not explicitly described in Bible.. So we have to go by the moral standards defined in the Bible.. And man has a problem of defining his own moral standards
In all fairness, I don't know if that should be considered to make the case stronger.. If someone is going to pull Bible verses out and put it on the table, that would make the case stronger.. Especially when the verses are "in context". We are dealing with a topic (though sensitive), which is not explicitly described in Bible.. So we have to go by the moral standards defined in the Bible.. And man has a problem of defining his own moral standards
I agree 100% that biblical evidence is going to make the strongest case. I just find it interesting though, that these respected reformers were all in agreement about the matter. Nonetheless, whether it be the reformers, or any person, all things should be tested by scripture.
In all fairness, I don't know if that should be considered to make the case stronger.. If someone is going to pull Bible verses out and put it on the table, that would make the case stronger.. Especially when the verses are "in context". We are dealing with a topic (though sensitive), which is not explicitly described in Bible.. So we have to go by the moral standards defined in the Bible.. And man has a problem of defining his own moral standards
This is why Christians have become increasingly more OK with contraception and gay marriage -- because the Bible has never explicitly said "thou shalt not marry of the same sex" nor does it say "thou shalt not contracept." Instead, we have verses that back up the principle of each of these things.
We know that marriage between two people of the same gender is wrong because we know what marriage literally is and its criteria. Plenty of Christians use Scripture to try and support gay marriage by showing that the Bible doesn't talk directly to it; for instance, many Christians (including one of my sisters actually) believe that Sodom and Gomorrah's sin had nothing to do with homosexuality, but about abuse and not being hospitable. Many twist verses like Leviticus 20:13 as talking about lust, but not homosexuality itself.
Of course I disagree with them because we do know that acting upon homosexuality, even if the couple tries to approach it as Christian as they possibly can, it still acts outside of God's framework and criteria.
Likewise, I view contraception as almost the straight man's version of this. It is much easier to suggest it is OK because 1) it is convenient, 2) the Bible doesn't make explicitly direct statements on contraception, and 3) it's convenient.
But like gay marriage, contraception acts outside of God's framework and criteria of marriage. Sex is meant to be the holy vocation made flesh where the two become one, and each giving of themselves entirely. Contraception restricts part of the giving process and interjects what God intended.
God wants married couples to have children.
Couple A hear the word of God, have intercourse whenever they feel the calling and have many children. God is pleased.
Couple B and couple C do not want to have children spontaneously.
Couple B uses condoms and has children when they choose. God is angry at there disobedience.
Couple C practices NFC and has children when they choose. God is pleased that they found a way around his wishes.
Confusing.
Couple A hear the word of God, have intercourse whenever they feel the calling and have many children. God is pleased.
Couple B and couple C do not want to have children spontaneously.
Couple B uses condoms and has children when they choose. God is angry at there disobedience.
Couple C practices NFC and has children when they choose. God is pleased that they found a way around his wishes.
Confusing.
I think people claiming Bible does not condemn homosexuality is like saying black is white and white is black.. Either they don't know English (while reading an English bible) or have to be blind..
I will be on your side (for the purpose of arguments), if you are going to say every form of contraception is wrong.. Why contraception based on dates alone is right? That is also deliberate..
If you think that's what that means, then you still don't know what NFP is and are too focused on the defense for contraception than you are on the reasoning of why it's wrong.
I'm not even making the defense for NFP half as much as I am making the argument against contraception. Because if, for argument's sake, that NFP is indeed just as wrong as contraception, then it means I'm also very guilty of the sin. But contraception remains a grievous sin.
Since I am being forced more and more to defend NFP (which isn't even the main subject -- I don't know why this is now about me), I'll do it once again.
NFP doesn't separate sex from responsibility. In using birth control, however, they attack the meaning of the act -- they do the action of intercourse and then undo part of it. In NFP, instead, they simply choose at times not to do the action in the first place respecting the dignity of sex. This is why I'm not dismissing the prudence of planning a family one bit, but I am defending the sanctity of marriage and when it is made flesh through the act of sex. Contraception is a means of taking but not entirely giving. NFP is about giving entirely and its virtue.
It is not a sin. You only assumed that it is one from one event.
What do you mean I assume that from one event?
edit:
Oh, from the Scriptures? Well, I think the Scriptures offers sound reasoning, that's for sure. Onan did indeed practice birth control, and it was his wrong-doing. Birth control isn't miscellaneous, it's what it is used for as to why it is wrong. It is its definition that makes it a sin.
I responded.
Onan is a clear example as to why birth control is indeed a sin, but its own reasoning and definition describes why it is a sin. It is a means to downgrade what sex is. It is a means to act out the activity and then taking back part of it. It is taking the vows of marriage and contradicting them as we promised our spouses to accept them 100%, not 90%.
Sex is an important part of marriage, but it's not the only part of it. And going further, sex isn't just about how it feels, but what it represents...in fact, what it represents is far more important than how it feels.
Actually, the Bible is very specific about homosexuality.
Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:24-27
There are not verses that clearly spell out whether of not birth control is wrong. I believe you are going to hurt the case against homosexuality by adding birth control into your argument.
Last edited:
I don't get the same meaning from the story of Onan. Why doe God kill everyone that has performed coitus interruptus.
This just sounds like a lot of fancy wording to justify your stance. I'm not saying you are wrong to say birth control is not what God wants. I think you are wrong in saying Natural Family Planning is not birth control. Would you and your wife have "unprotected" sex on her most fertile day if both of you had the desire?
My point is that people do take Scripture and twist them to their convenience. People will gladly twist scripture to promote homosexuality as they will with birth control.
We can divide the two, either way because they are each different subjects, but they both do pertain to marriage, and the principle still remains. I don't think it hurts the argument -- at the least, we can just conclude for argument's sake that it holds not argument for or against.
- Status