Preventing Pregnancy Displeases Thee Lord

[LysanderShapiro]

Would you consider a vasectomy as a contraceptive method? Contraception is a method or device used to prevent pregnancy. People who are either married or not use this to stop pregnancy. There are those who are gifted by God to abstain from getting married and having children, and then there are others who are chemically or physically castrated to prevent the same. Those who have decided to live like eunuchs have a gift from God to abstain. The Apostle Paul considered himself to be gifted in being able to be single. Those who are married are also gifted for that purpose. The Holy Spirit could be considered a means of contraception to those who are gifted by God to stay single.

1Co 7:7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
1Co 7:8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.

..... there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." Mark 19:12

I'll me try to answer each thing one at a time:
1) Vasectomies and tubal ligations are performed in order to restrict pregnancy while being able to have sex. It is a form of contraception.

2) Indeed, God has called for many to abstain from sex. But abstaining from sex is a different subject from contraception. Contraception is a means to have sex without the possibility of life being created.

There is nothing wrong with abstinence when it comes to those called to be abstinent. For those who aren't called to be abstinent, that means they are called to the vocation of marriage. And within that vocation, it means submitting to each other and both as one submitting their marriage to God.

 

[TezriLi]

Okay. Several of the answers here have been very helpful. I nearly started to ignore this thread a couple days ago, and now, I am glad I did not.

LysanderShapiro wrote, "There is a responsibility with sex, but it must be done with a Christian heart, not a lustful heart." Perhaps I need to learn the biblical definition of "lust," because sometimes I tease him with the word, and he grins. It's just that he looks awfully nice, I admit, for a 45-year-old, and he is 67. I don't believe I am disrespecting him, and I don't believe I am disrespecting G-d when I see my husband and desire him. I don't think. I am not a Bible scholar, just a Bible student.

Thought I'd add in a little thought. God's view of marriage is very sacred with very specific instructions which if practiced correctly, are designed to avoid issues and problems by obeying his word. Each aspect has a responsibility of each parter, for example wife submit and husbands love, the more the husband loves the more the wife submits and the more this continues it births true love, compromise and matual affection. The woman is not to deny the husband, the hisband is not to deny the wife this way, both have a responsibility to give to their spouse in all that they have. These practices may seem foreign at first but when we trust God fully in what he says and actually carry it out, you will experience what God truly means by marriage....hope this helps the conversation...

But as we age, there OFTEN comes a time when we have to say "not this time." Sometimes, we are worn out. I think we have to be understanding at those times. I don't THINK we are wrong at those times.

Lust has a connotation of strongy wanting something forbidden. In scripture is usually found in context of wanting something in a wrong way. Lusting for your husband could be wanting him to provide you something in a way that he would not normally do.
I think the more appropriate word would be to "desire" your husband, which has a meaning as having a "appetite" for.
When it comes to sex, lusting for your husband would probably only be possible if you wanted something for which you shouldn't expect him to give you.

Okay. I hadn't thought of that. We're just playful in action and word, so I thought it was fun to say that. I guess I need to change my language.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Okay. Several of the answers here have been very helpful. I nearly started to ignore this thread a couple days ago, and now, I am glad I did not.

LysanderShapiro wrote, "There is a responsibility with sex, but it must be done with a Christian heart, not a lustful heart." Perhaps I need to learn the biblical definition of "lust," because sometimes I tease him with the word, and he grins. It's just that he looks awfully nice, I admit, for a 45-year-old, and he is 67. I don't believe I am disrespecting him, and I don't believe I am disrespecting G-d when I see my husband and desire him. I don't think. I am not a Bible scholar, just a Bible student.

Looking into what it means in all its senses is a very good thing -- everyone should do this more...I should do this more. We're all imperfect after all.

It's good to be drawn to your spouse. It's good to find them attractive and sexy even. It's good to desire them. I'm drawn to my wife in the best sense of the word. But what draws me to her is my love for her. I don't love her because of what I get out of it, it's what I see in her. And surrounding our marital love is God's love which is even greater.
Song of Songs is one of the greatest illustrations of love between a man and a woman. And it touches on desire very vividly. But it's submersed in what has animated it, and that's the love of God.

 

[TezriLi]

Looking into what it means in all its senses is a very good thing -- everyone should do this more...I should do this more. We're all imperfect after all.

It's good to be drawn to your spouse. It's good to find them attractive and sexy even. It's good to desire them. I'm drawn to my wife in the best sense of the word. But what draws me to her is my love for her. I don't love her because of what I get out of it, it's what I see in her. And surrounding our marital love is God's love which is even greater.
Song of Songs is one of the greatest illustrations of love between a man and a woman. And it touches on desire very vividly. But it's submersed in what has animated it, and that's the love of God.

Okay. I will CERTAINLY study the word. Here's the thing: (how do I write this?) I have such a desire for him and him alone. I am So Not desirous of other people. Ick. Maybe that's enough written.

 

[ASUK]

ASUK, it's not a strawman argument -- it's grounded in principle. Attacking my character doesn't give reason to why contraception is OK.

I'm not attacking your character, I am pointing out you fallacious logic.

I am sure you have good character I just don't agree with you.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Okay. I will CERTAINLY study the word. Here's the thing: (how do I write this?) I have such a desire for him and him alone. I am So Not desirous of other people. Ick. Maybe that's enough written.

I'm not confused about what you're saying. You're talking about a sexual attraction to him. I'm talking about that too.

We SHOULD like sex. We should love sex in fact, provided it is totally within the confines of a sincerely holy union. I honestly believe that the husband has a responsibility to bring his wife to orgasm so that their love can be a full gift to one another. I don't say this in the hedonistic sense, but in the altruistic sense.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

I'm not attacking your character, I am pointing out you fallacious logic.

I am sure you have good character I just don't agree with you.

Fair enough. Nevertheless, it remains an argument of principle. We can dismiss that case too if you'd like. But the subject still remains as to why contraception is wrong.

 

[SergioL]

I haven't fussed against that. There's a difference between thinking practically and thinking disobediently. I'm not suggesting you're a bad guy or that you don't love God or that I'm better than you in any way. But I am trying to bring forward the case of why birth control always has been regarded as a sin.

Love within a marriage, pure love, does not turn to self -- it turns to the spouse. This is the idea of NFP -- it doesn't rob the family of being responsible, but while doing that, doesn't rob the marriage of its holy dignity.

I think when people here a 5 second explanation of what NFP is, they think it's just the rhythm method. There's much more to it, and it's the motive behind it that especially offers reason to why it's not contraception, but a means to welcome dignity back into the family.

But if we decide contraception isn't wrong, what good is arguing why gay marriage is wrong? Gay marriage is wrong for the same reason contraception is wrong. It interjects God's authority of what marriage literally is.

Hi brother. I think I understand your point of view. As far as I understand what you are saying, you believe that the sole purpose of sex should be that of procreation. Am I right in this? I have come across this point of view several times in life. The problem with this point of view is that it ignores that the Bible teaches that sex has other purposes in addition to that of procreation. For example, 1 Corinthians 7:4-5 tells us that sex has the purpose of avoiding extramarital temptations by satisfying the needs of our flesh. In other words, Paul is saying here that marital sex is necessary to avoid extramarital sex. So, even if both husband and wife were sterile, having sex with each other would make perfect sense. Also, there are sexual practices, like foreplay, that are not conducive to procreation, but are nonetheless required for emotional and physiological reasons. So, in conclusion, the purpose of marital sex is varied and not restricted to procreation.

 

[calvin]

Would you please elaborate as to what you mean by this?




Because from the read of that first part of your observation this part appears to be contradictory:

Sure well I'll try anyway.
What I said was

I don't think a wife has the right to refuse sex (with her husband) to the same degree as a husband has the right to demand sex with his wife.
Neither demanding nor refusing is something that has a place in marriage.
Where there is love, there will be understanding.
Where there is love there will be compromise.
Where there is love, there will be agreement.

Ohh boy my memory I think you were referring to the red emphasized bit??
Neither my wife nor I should ask for what the other is not comfortable with.
So I don't ask....she doesn't say noway
She doesn't ask so I don't say noway
Because we love each other, we discuss issues and agree on what is best for us as a couple.
If that means either one of us forgoing something, that is in part what marriage is about.
Marriage is about two people of the opposite gender becoming one new entity (flesh).
That is the Lord's will for us.
Hope this is a little bit clearer

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Hi brother. I think I understand your point of view. As far as I understand what you are saying, you believe that the sole purpose of sex should be that of procreation. Am I right in this? I have come across this point of view several times in life. The problem with this point of view is that it ignores that the Bible teaches that sex has other purposes in addition to that of procreation. For example, 1 Corinthians 7:4-5 tells us that sex has the purpose of avoiding extramarital temptations by satisfying the needs of our flesh. In other words, Paul is saying here that marital sex is necessary to avoid extramarital sex. So, even if both husband and wife were sterile, having sex with each other would make perfect sense. Also, there are sexual practices, like foreplay, that are not conducive to procreation, but are nonetheless required for emotional and physiological reasons. So, in conclusion, the purpose of marital sex is varied and not restricted to procreation.

I agree with you that sex isn't restricted to procreation. In fact, I made many points as to why it isn't. I even made a distinction between oral sex and oral stimulation. The point isn't strictly procreation. You're right about sterile couples in that sex is still a gift to them. I even made a statement in regards to the husbands responsibility in bringing his wife to orgasm.

 

[TezriLi]

Okay. Maybe I'm old or something, but my face is pink. I'm a bit embarrassed. I love you people, but I think I need to leave this thread alone. I admit that I am a bit of a prude.

 

[Scripture Bird]

Sure well I'll try anyway.
What I said was
Ohh boy my memory I think you were referring to the red emphasized bit??
Neither my wife nor I should ask for what the other is not comfortable with.
So I don't ask....she doesn't say noway
She doesn't ask so I don't say noway
Because we love each other, we discuss issues and agree on what is best for us as a couple.
If that means either one of us forgoing something, that is in part what marriage is about.
Marriage is about two people of the opposite gender becoming one new entity (flesh).
That is the Lord's will for us.
Hope this is a little bit clearer

That certainly did help in clearing things up. Thank you for taking the time.

 

[Where is the Messiah]

I agree with you that sex isn't restricted to procreation. In fact, I made many points as to why it isn't. I even made a distinction between oral sex and oral stimulation. The point isn't strictly procreation. You're right about sterile couples in that sex is still a gift to them. I even made a statement in regards to the husbands responsibility in bringing his wife to orgasm.

Very true.

 

[Cosmicwaffle]

I apologize for arguing earlier. But I thought I'd just give my opinion on the subject.

Preventing pregnancy is okay.

Destroying an existing pregnancy is not.

Now I don't really know enough about birth control to know if it works before or after conception, but I think condoms and such are not sin.

 

[CCW95A]

Maybe if we look at this topic from a different point of view. When the Lord God gave Adam dominion over the earth, he did not tell him to just let the natural course of action to be how things are suppose to go. He told him to take dominion over all living things. That means Adam had a responsibility to do something to take that dominion, it just does not happen on its own.

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

We called to be "stewards" of the things of God. A steward is someone who takes care of the belongings of another person. Since children are gifts from God to married couples, yet this responsibility to take care of them is extremely important as it tells us here in this scripture.

1Ti 5:8 But if someone does not provide for his own, especially his own family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Would it be responsible to have children we are not able to take care of? Does a farmer plant an area so big that he is not able to process it when the harvest time comes? What would happen if this farmer decided to let "nature" take it's course and what ever the wind blows in as seed that is what he will grow. We are not to just let "nature" control our lives as we are responsible to God what we have.
Those who use contraception or not are still being under God's control. There is no condemnation to those who do use contraception, it is being responsible and taking dominion over what we were told do so things don,t get out of hand.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Maybe if we look at this topic from a different point of view. When the Lord God gave Adam dominion over the earth, he did not tell him to just let the natural course of action to be how things are suppose to go. He told him to take dominion over all living things. That means Adam had a responsibility to do something to take that dominion, it just does not happen on its own.

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

We called to be "stewards" of the things of God. A steward is someone who takes care of the belongings of another person. Since children are gifts from God to married couples, yet this responsibility to take care of them is extremely important as it tells us here in this scripture.

1Ti 5:8 But if someone does not provide for his own, especially his own family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Would it be responsible to have children we are not able to take care of? Does a farmer plant an area so big that he is not able to process it when the harvest time comes? What would happen if this farmer decided to let "nature" take it's course and what ever the wind blows in as seed that is what he will grow. We are not to just let "nature" control our lives as we are responsible to God what we have.
Those who use contraception or not are still being under God's control. There is no condemnation to those who do use contraception, it is being responsible and taking dominion over what we were told do so things don,t get out of hand.

That's a well thought out assessment, the idea of conception being purely nature, I can't go with that. There is a biological aspect to it, but the miracle of conception is the creation of a unique soul. That is one of the more grievous parts--that it expels (or is meant to expel) life including the creation of a soul. When we talk about conception of life, sometimes we tend to focus only on the biological and neglect the spiritual.

 

[CCW95A]

That's a well thought out assessment, the idea of conception being purely nature, I can't go with that. There is a biological aspect to it, but the miracle of conception is the creation of a unique soul. That is one of the more grievous parts--that it expels (or is meant to expel) life including the creation of a soul. When we talk about conception of life, sometimes we tend to focus only on the biological and neglect the spiritual.

I think the Lord gives man the decision to have a child or not. It would not be wise to think lets just see what the lord will do if we have unprotected sex. Are we not responsible to the Lord to take the dominion he has given us to make that choice? Taking our chances is not taking our dominion seriously.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

I think the Lord gives man the decision to have a child or not. It would not be wise to think lets just see what the lord will do if we have unprotected sex. Are we not responsible to the Lord to take the dominion he has given us to make that choice? Taking our chances is not taking our dominion seriously.

This was the statement made by the Anglican Church in the 1930s which was when the first Christian group came out in support of contraceptives. Every other Christian group rejected it because it recognized the difference of responsibility over dominion and claiming authority over God's blueprint.

 

[CCW95A]

This was the statement made by the Anglican Church in the 1930s which was when the first Christian group came out in support of contraceptives. Every other Christian group rejected it because it recognized the difference of responsibility over dominion and claiming authority over God's blueprint.

God never operates without man has his means of accomplishing his will on earth. That is why God gave man dominion over all the works of his hands. The Lord works through his body which is His Church. We are the ones to pray His Kingdom come. Without that responsibility and dominion by God it will never happen. God's blueprint has already been given unto man through the Holy Spirit, and what we see by faith is what will happen.

1Co 2:9 But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him"--
1Co 2:10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

God never operates without man has his means of accomplishing his will on earth. That is why God gave man dominion over all the works of his hands. The Lord works through his body which is His Church. We are the ones to pray His Kingdom come. Without that responsibility and dominion by God it will never happen. God's blueprint has already been given unto man through the Holy Spirit, and what we see by faith is what will happen.

1Co 2:9 But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him"--
1Co 2:10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.

Be sure not to twist it's meaning. God gave us free will and instruction to maintain goodness in earth, but he never gave us dominion over what we can do with life if it conflicts with Him.

We cannot pick and choose what dominion means. It has been self-evident for for 2000 years.

Birth control is explicitly intended to curb life according to one's own perspective. God gave of dominion over the works of His hands, but don't for a moment believe that tht means we can do what we want with His blessing.

The passage you provided, you know they aren't supporting birth control. However, you overlooked 1 Corinthians 2:14...be sure to read that as well.