Is contraception use a sin?

[Justin108]

Catholics believe that contraception use is a sin. Leviticus goes in depth about how to prepare an animal sacrifice. There are countless laws and prohibitions throughout the Bible, from what not to eat to what not to wear and not a single mention in the law that prohibits any form of contraceptive.

If contraception is a sin, why is there not a single commandment against it in the entire Bible? God felt the need to tell us to not eat bacon and to not mix fabrics but he never said a single thing about contraception. So why do Catholics believe it's a sin?

A defense Catholics often use is to bring up Onan who was killed by God for "spilling the seed". This, however, can clearly be explained away by the fact that Onan disobeyed a direct order from God to impregnate Tamar. This is similar to Lot's wife being punished for disobeying a direct order from God to not look around. But just as turning around isn't a sin in itself, "spilling the seed" can't be considered a sin either.

Is contraception use a sin? Is there any Biblical support for this belief?

[Justin108]

[Replying to onewithhim]

It is one of the Church's biggest errors in teaching. I think it was forbidden by them because they wanted lots and lots of Catholics born, to possibly outnumber everybody else.

This is an ignorant comment. The Catholic Church has never been alone in her understanding of this beautiful truth. She just however, happens to be one of the only ones left who hasn’t caved or changed her position. Truth doesn’t change.

There is Scriptural evidence demonstrating the immorality of contraception. I’ve discussed it in other threads. The immorality of contraception is also something every Christian religion, as well as Jewish religions taught until around the 1930’s. I would think my fellow Christians would find that fascinating and telling and I would ask my fellow Christians to tell me what changed in 1930 to suddenly cause many denominations to now change their previous teachings regarding the immorality of contraception. Did Scripture change? Has there been new revelation?

- Appeal to tradition
- Appeal to popularity
- Appeal to authority

I would also ask how could the giver of life be against life? It is contrary to the very nature of God to be pro contraception.

Conjecture. This exact argument can be used against abstinence. Why would God be pro abstinence when abstinence hinders reproduction?

God designed us male and female and gave us the gift of sex. Inherent in this gift is a unitive nature. The fact that when a man and a woman have sex in the nature of that act, there exists the potential for children. That is God’s design. Did he mess up?

Did God mess up when he gave men foreskins? No? Then why did he tell us to start cutting them off. Did God mess up when he did not give us fur? Then why do we take the fur and wool of other animals to keep us warm. Did God mess up when he made disease? Then why do we use medicine to counter disease? Man has always tampered with nature. It has never been immoral in itself before, so why is it immoral now?

Do my fellow Christians believe God’s design can be improved?

We "improve" on God's design all the time through technology. Do you think us communicating with each other thousands of miles apart is part of God's design? Is the internet part of God's design? Is the internet immoral now?

If you aren’t open to the possibility of what the marital act can bring about, then you shouldn’t be engaging in it.

If you aren't open to the possibility that the sun can cause skin cancer, you should never go outside.

Anyway, just as before, your entire argument relies on logical fallacies and conjecture. There is not a single Biblical verse in your argument.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Justin108]

- Appeal to tradition
- Appeal to popularity
- Appeal to authority

Of course. You are asking on a site discussing Christianity if contraception is a sin. Christians are expected to see Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as their authority. You ask for evidence from Scripture as to the sin on contraception. This presumes you are willing to accept Scripture as evidence. Therefore, I pointed out evidence from Scripture. Included in this evidence from Scripture, I reference that Scripture tells us to listen to the Church. And what does the Church say? All of Christendom, every denomination believed and taught from the beginning the immorality of contraception.

My argument is not based on fallacies, rather exactly what you are willing to accept in your initial post and inquiry. If you now are not willing to accept the Christian acceptance of Scripture and the Church as authoritative, then rephrase your question and we could perhaps discuss the immorality of contraception based on secular natural law reasons.

Conjecture. This exact argument can be used against abstinence. Why would God be pro abstinence when abstinence hinders reproduction?

Because one wouldn’t be engaging in the marital act. It is the marital act that God designed with a unitive nature. If you don’t engage in the act (like many chaste, single, religious, nuns, brothers, priests, celibates, widows, etc) then you aren’t guilty of thwarting His design/act.

Did God mess up when he gave men foreskins? No?

No. And circumcision does not stop/block/thwart the design/purpose of the penis. The body can still do what it does naturally (urinate, gprocreate)

Then why do we take the fur and wool of other animals to keep us warm. Did God mess up when he made disease? Then why do we use medicine to counter disease?

These things help the body continue to carry out their function/purpose.

Man has always tampered with nature. It has never been immoral in itself before, so why is it immoral now?

It has. There is nothing immoral or sinful or unnatural about wearing contact lenses because man/the body was intended to see. We know this via observation and reason. It is good for man to see. When humans can’t see, we know that the body is not functioning as well as it could, and we can take corrective measures to allow the body to do as it was designed.

On the contrary, there is nothing wrong with man’s fertility. In fact, back to the original inquiry and topic of the post, in Scripture to not be able to conceive is actually a curse. Children are always referred to as blessings in the Bible. Contraception isn’t helping the body function as it was designed/intended. The very opposite occurs.

We "improve" on God's design all the time through technology. Do you think us communicating with each other thousands of miles apart is part of God's design? Is the internet part of God's design? Is the internet immoral now?

Asked and answered. It isn’t about something being natural in the sense of artificial or man made. We can know what is right and good via observation of the world we live via reason and logic. Some people are “naturally� born without limbs. This doesn’t mean we as human beings can know that we wee intended to have arms and legs and that helping a person get back their arms or legs (artificial limbs) would be right and good.

If you aren't open to the possibility that the sun can cause skin cancer, you should never go outside.

On the contrary, sunlight is good for you. It helps the body produce vitamin D – something necessary and good. What would be wrong and disordered would be to do something to your body that prevents/blocks all sunlight from getting to the body – that would be harmful and not allowing the body to function as it is intended.

Anyway, just as before, your entire argument relies on logical fallacies and conjecture. There is not a single Biblical verse in your argument.

Because I already had this exact conversation with you else where, where it was included. Here it is again and even more . . .



“Psalm 127:3-5 Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them�



Psalm 127:4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth



John 16:20b-22 You will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy. 21A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world. 22So with you: Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy.



Psalm 127:5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them.



Deuteronomy 30:19 Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live.



Psalm 133:1-2 “How good it is, how pleasant, where the brothers dwell as one!�



Proverbs 17:6 Grandchildren are the crown of the aged



Psalm 128:3-4 Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table. Behold, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the LORD


How we can know God is not cool with contraception . . .

*********************


Jesus sacrificed His life that we might share eternal life with him, and
throughout the Gospel, Jesus teaches us that love is not always easy. He
teaches that in married love man and wife are called to love each other
until death. He shocked his listeners by declaring that divorce and
remarriage constitute adultery (Mk 10:1-12), and at the Last Supper He
gave us the new commandment, one that most of us find quite difficult:
"Love one another as I have loved you" (Jn 13:35).


On the other hand, Jesus promised not only eternal happiness to those who
follow Him on the narrow way (Mt 7:14); He also promised a special peace
and joy to those who really accept Him and His way. "He who seeks his life
will lose it, he who loses his life for my sake will find it" (Lk 9.24).


It is in the context of the full teaching of Jesus about discipleship and
love that Christians must seek to understand the truth about married love
that has been taught by Christ in and through His Church throughout the
centuries.




Marriage is a permanent relationship created by God and entered into by
the free consent of man and woman. It is a relationship of love and
service, and it is a Christian sacrament.


"The intimate partnership of married life and love has been established by
the Creator and qualified by His laws. It is rooted in the conjugal
covenant of irrevocable personal consent.. .


"By that human act whereby spouses mutually bestow and accept each other,
a relationship arises which by divine will and in the eyes of society too
is a lasting one . . . A man and a woman, who by the marriage convenant of
conjugal love 'are no longer two, but one flesh' (Mt 19:6), render mutual
help and service to each other through an intimate union of their persons
and of their actions



"Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the
begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift
of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their
parents. The God Himself who said, 'It is not good for man to be alone'
(Gen. 2:18) and 'who made man from the beginning male and female' (Mt.
19:4), wished to share with man a certain special participation in His own
creative work. Thus He blessed male and female, saying: 'Increase and
multiply' (Gen. 1:28).


"Hence, while not making the other purposes of matrimony of less account,
the true practice of conjugal love, and the whole meaning of the family
life which results from it, have this aim: that the couple be ready with
stout hearts to cooperate with the love of the Creator and the Savior, who
through them will enlarge and enrich His own family day by day.


"Parents should regard as their proper mission the task of transmitting
human life and educating those to whom it has been transmitted. They
should realize that they are thereby cooperators with the love of God the
Creator, and are, so to speak, the interpreters of that love" (Gaudium et
Spes, 50).



"When there is a question of harmonizing conjugal love with the
responsible transmission of life, the moral aspect of any procedure does
not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. It
must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of
the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual
self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal
cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely
practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not
undertake methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy by
the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law"
(Gaudium et Spes, 51).



"Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the
conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its
natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render
procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae, 14). Such unnatural forms include
the Pill, the intrauterine device, foams, diaphragms, condoms, withdrawal,
mutual or solitary masturbation and sodomistic practices.



SINCE BOTH THE NATURAL AND THE UNNATURAL METHODS OF BIRTH CONTROL HAVE THE
PURPOSE OF LIMITING FAMILY SIZE, AREN'T THEY MORALLY THE SAME?


Not at all. The end does not justify the means; a common purpose does not
make morally equal all the possible means of achieving that purpose. "It
is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may
follow therefrom" (Humanae Vitae, 14). A prime purpose of the Ten
Commandments is to teach us that we may not act against our created human
nature in pursuing some purpose or pleasure. Thus, we may not kill or
steal or commit adultery to advance ourselves. The Church affirms that
efforts at birth regulation "must be done with respect for the order
established by God" (Humanae Vitae, 16).


WHY IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OPPOSED TO UNNATURAL BIRTH CONTROL?


The basic reason for the Church's opposition to any sort of sinful action
is that such actions are contrary to the nature God has given us. Jesus
said about marriage, "Let no one take apart what God has put together" (Mk
10:9). This can also be applied to the act of sexual intercourse which has
been called "the marriage act" for centuries of Christian history.


In the natural act of completed marital sexual intercourse, there is a
symbolic bodily unity of man and wife. However, in every form of unnatural
birth control, there is a positive effort to destroy the procreative
potential of an act that God has given us as a unique sign of married
love.


Looked at in another way, the sex act is meant by God to be a symbolic way
in which a couple are called to renew, at least implicitly, their marriage
covenant. In this bodily union, they are called to affirm anew their
original promises of married love, to take each other for better or for
worse, to be as one until death.


Unnatural birth control contradicts the symbolic renewal of the marriage
covenant. Instead, it says, "I take you for better but not for the
imagined worse of parenthood."


IS THERE A BIBLICAL BASIS FOR THE CHURCH'S TEACHING AGAINST CONTRACEPTION?


Yes. The 38th chapter of Genesis tells the story of Judah, his sons, and
Tamar. One of the sons, Onan, practiced the sin of
contraception--withdrawal in this case--with Tamar, and the Bible tells us
that God slew him because he had done an abominable thing (Gen. 38:10).


It is recognized today that Judah, Onan, and another brother were all
guilty of violating an ancient Eastern brotherhood law called the law of
the Levirate. However, the punishment for violating that law was very mild
and is spelled out in Deuteronomy 25:5- 10. Judah himself admitted his
guilt (Gen. 38:26). It is therefore clear that the special punishment
meted out to Onan was not just for the violation of the Levirate but
rather for the way in which only he had sinned--his contraceptive behavior
of going through the motions of the covenantal act and then "spilling his
seed" (Gen. 38:9).


This interpretation is backed up by the only incident in the New Testament
where immediate death is the punishment for sin--the deaths of Ananias and
Saphira who went through the motions of a giving act but defrauded it of
its meaning (Acts 5:1-11).



DOES THE BIBLE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT HUMAN LOVE AND SEXUALITY?


Yes. There is simply no doubt that the entire biblical notion of human
love points to the fact that man is called to subordinate "eros," erotic
love, to "agape," self-giving love. While not referring specifically to
the issue of birth control, St. Paul's most famous discourse on love is
still applicable to this discussion. It is noteworthy that he begins and
ends on the two aspects of love that are needed for the happy practice of
natural family planning. "Love is always patient and kind; . . . it is
always ready . . . to endure whatever comes" (1 Cor. 13:4, 7). Christian
husbands are also told to love their wives as Christ loved the Church and
sacrificed himself for her (Eph. 5:25). All Christians were told by Christ
on the night before His death to love one another as He loved them, a
statement that has obvious overtones about self- giving love (Jn 15:12).
St. Paul also tells his listeners that the fruits of the Spirit are "love,
joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness, and
self-control." He reminds them that they cannot really belong to Christ
unless they "crucify all self-indulgent passions and desires" (Gal. 5:22,
24).


The above is incomplete but serves one limited purpose. It shows that it
is legitimate to state that the religious doctrine of marital
non-contraception has a basis in Scripture and that the practice of
natural family planning with its necessity of a certain amount of sexual
self-control fits well within the Christian biblical tradition.


WOULDN'T IT BE HELPFUL IF THE BIBLE CONTAINED CONDEMNATIONS OF
CONTRACEPTION THAT WERE MORE EXPLICIT AND MORE FREQUENT?


Not really. The lack of multiple references doesn't disturb the person who
has a sense of theological realism. Such a person is aware that the Bible
could hardly be more explicit in its condemnation of homosexual behavior
(e.g. Romans 1:26-32), but those who want to justify homosexual behavior
simply dismiss the biblical texts as not relevant to today or interpret
St. Paul to mean "promiscuous" sodomy although St. Paul makes no such
distinctions. Even if the Bible were filled with explicit condemnations of
abortion, sterilization, and contraception, the same approach would be
used on such texts by those who wished to justify such behavior as
compatible with biblical Christianity.


Thus it is the belief of the Roman Catholic faith and of many other
Christians that Jesus did not leave us with only a book subject to
everyone's personal and sometimes contradictory interpretations but also
established His Church as an authoritative teacher guided by the Holy
Spirit. The constant teaching by the Church on a matter of faith and
morals is called Tradition.



HOW DOES THE USE OF UNNATURAL BIRTH CONTROL AFFECT MARRIAGE?


In general, it has a negative effect. The growing use of unnatural birth
control since 1913 has been accompanied by an almost 500% rise in the
divorce rate. Among Catholics, the divorce rate formerly was much lower
than the national average, but the divorce rate has risen sharply since
the mid-1960s when Catholics began using unnatural birth control at about
the same rate as the rest of a culture that is no longer Christian.[15] Even
if other factors have contributed to the breakdown of family stability,
there are ample indicators that the use of unnatural birth control has
been a significant factor.


HOW DOES THE USE OF NFP AFFECT MARRIAGE?


The general effect is positive. Many couples who have left unnatural
methods of birth control have reported an improved marriage relationship
with NFP. This has been confirmed by scientific social studies[16][17]
and by informal surveys showing an extremely low divorce rate among
couples practicing NFP.[18]


Improved communication, absence of feelings of being used, development of
non-genital courtship, peace of conscience, and no fear of the dangerous
effects of some unnatural methods have all been mentioned as contributing
to the improved relationship. In addition, the practice of NFP helps to
develop the same character strengths that are necessary for marital
fidelity and life-long marriage.


Summary. God is love and the Author of life and human sexuality. Authentic
religion is concerned with sex because sex is concerned with love and with
life. God is truth, and it is Catholic belief that the Church is guided by
the Holy Spirit in teaching the truth about love--including sexual love.
"If you make my word your home you will indeed be my disciples you will
learn the truth, and the truth will make you free." Jn 8:31-32

https://www.ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/CCLBC.TXT

[onewithhim]

This is what the Bible says. We know that Catholics rely on tradition more than what the Bible says, but here is what it tells us anyway:

Nowhere does the Bible explicitly condemn birth control. NOWHERE.

Married couples are free to decide for themselves whether they will raise a family or not. They may also decide how many children they will have and when they will have them. If a husband and wife choose to use a nonabortive form of contraception to avoid pregnancy, that is their personal decision and responsibility. No one should judge them.


"Who are you to judge the servant of another? to his own master he stands or falls....You, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God....Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather this---not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way." (Romans 14:4,10,13, NASB)

What kind of judgment is the RCC rendering to the faithful? Anything based on the scriptures? If not, then it shouldn't be making rules and condemning those not following those erroneous rules.

[RightReason]

[Replying to onewithhim]

Nowhere does the Bible explicitly condemn birth control. NOWHERE.

I already showed the Scriptural support for this teaching. And it is what every Christian and Jewish religion believed and taught for 1000 years. Are you saying all of Christendom got it wrong until the 1930’s? clearly, they saw the Scriptural support. It really isn’t my problem if JW’s don’t.

"Who are you to judge the servant of another? to his own master he stands or falls....You, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God....Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather this---not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way." (Romans 14:4,10,13, NASB)

I could apply this to anything the JW’s teach. You believe blood transfusions are wrong? Who are you to judge?

What kind of judgment is the RCC rendering to the faithful?

The Catholic Church is offering truth which is freedom.

*************

Jesus promised not only eternal happiness to those who follow Him on the narrow way (Mt 7:14); He also promised a special peace and joy to those who really accept Him and His way. "He who seeks his life will lose it, he who loses his life for my sake will find it" (Lk 9.24).


God is love and the Author of life and human sexuality. Authentic
religion is concerned with sex because sex is concerned with love and with
life. God is truth, and it is Catholic belief that the Church is guided by
the Holy Spirit in teaching the truth about love--including sexual love.
"If you make my word your home you will indeed be my disciples you will
learn the truth, and the truth will make you free." Jn 8:31-32

https://www.ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/CCLBC.TXT

shouldn't be making rules and condemning those not following those erroneous rules.

Right back at ya with the blood transfusion thing, serving in the military, hold a political office, wear a cross necklace, serve on a jury, must go door to door, celebrate birthdays, etc.

[Justin108]

[Replying to Justin108]

- Appeal to tradition
- Appeal to popularity
- Appeal to authority

Of course. You are asking on a site discussing Christianity if contraception is a sin. Christians are expected to see Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as their authority.

Sacred Scripture, yes. Which is why I would gladly accept any scripture, explicitly condemning contraception.

Tradition? Not so much. The only tradition I would accept is tradition based on scripture. I acknowledge Passover because it is based on scripture. I acknowledge baptism because it is based on scripture. So before I acknowledge contraception as sin, I will need to see that it is based on scripture, not simply because "well Christians used to believe it for a whole bunch of years".

You ask for evidence from Scripture as to the sin on contraception. This presumes you are willing to accept Scripture as evidence. Therefore, I pointed out evidence from Scripture.

You pointed out your own conjecture. I then pointed out the flaws in your conjecture. I want a clear verse, explicitly stating "do not practice contraception"

Included in this evidence from Scripture, I reference that Scripture tells us to listen to the Church.

Which church?

My argument is not based on fallacies

Yes it is

Conjecture. This exact argument can be used against abstinence. Why would God be pro abstinence when abstinence hinders reproduction?

Because one wouldn’t be engaging in the marital act.

So what? Your "evidence" for why contraception is a sin is because "I would also ask how could the giver of life be against life?". If the giver of life is pro life and therefore frowns upon contraception, then the giver of life will also frown upon abstinence. Both abstinence and contraception are equally anti-life. So why would the creator of life accept one but not the other? They are both anti-life.

Did God mess up when he gave men foreskins? No?

No. And circumcision does not stop/block/thwart the design/purpose of the penis. The body can still do what it does naturally (urinate, gprocreate)

Again, that's beside the point. Your initial argument was "That is God’s design" and that we should not mess with God's design. Cutting off foreskins is messing with God's design.

Then why do we take the fur and wool of other animals to keep us warm. Did God mess up when he made disease? Then why do we use medicine to counter disease?

These things help the body continue to carry out their function/purpose.

Pain killers directly inhibit the body's function/purpose of feeling pain. Are pain killers immoral too?

Man has always tampered with nature. It has never been immoral in itself before, so why is it immoral now?

It has. There is nothing immoral or sinful or unnatural about wearing contact lenses because man/the body was intended to see.

If the body was intended to see, then why do people get poor eyesight? Did God mess up his own design?

We know this via observation and reason. It is good for man to see.

It is good for man to not have children if they are not ready to. It is good for man to not have more children if they are satisfied with the number of children they already have. Therefore, contraception is good.

On the contrary, there is nothing wrong with man’s fertility.

There is if we don't want children.

In fact, back to the original inquiry and topic of the post, in Scripture to not be able to conceive is actually a curse. Children are always referred to as blessings in the Bible

Then why do people ever practice abstinence?

We can know what is right and good via observation of the world we live via reason and logic.

I observe the world. Using reason and logic, I see nothing wrong with contraception.

If you aren't open to the possibility that the sun can cause skin cancer, you should never go outside.

On the contrary, sunlight is good for you. It helps the body produce vitamin D – something necessary and good.

Contraception is good for you. It prevents unwanted pregnancy.

Anyway, just as before, your entire argument relies on logical fallacies and conjecture. There is not a single Biblical verse in your argument.

Because I already had this exact conversation with you else where, where it was included. Here it is again and even more . . .

Yes. And then after being unable to refute my points, you eventually abandoned the debate.

“Psalm 127:3-5 Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them�



Psalm 127:4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth



John 16:20b-22 You will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy. 21A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world. 22So with you: Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy.



Psalm 127:5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them.



Deuteronomy 30:19 Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live.



Psalm 133:1-2 “How good it is, how pleasant, where the brothers dwell as one!�



Proverbs 17:6 Grandchildren are the crown of the aged



Psalm 128:3-4 Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table. Behold, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the LORD

All of these verses can be used to condemn abstinence.

How we can know God is not cool with contraception . . .

*********************


Jesus sacrificed His life that we might share eternal life with him, and
throughout the Gospel, Jesus teaches us that love is not always easy. He
teaches that in married love man and wife are called to love each other
until death. He shocked his listeners by declaring that divorce and
remarriage constitute adultery (Mk 10:1-12), and at the Last Supper He
gave us the new commandment, one that most of us find quite difficult:
"Love one another as I have loved you" (Jn 13:35).


On the other hand, Jesus promised not only eternal happiness to those who
follow Him on the narrow way (Mt 7:14); He also promised a special peace
and joy to those who really accept Him and His way. "He who seeks his life
will lose it, he who loses his life for my sake will find it" (Lk 9.24).


It is in the context of the full teaching of Jesus about discipleship and
love that Christians must seek to understand the truth about married love
that has been taught by Christ in and through His Church throughout the
centuries.




Marriage is a permanent relationship created by God and entered into by
the free consent of man and woman. It is a relationship of love and
service, and it is a Christian sacrament.


"The intimate partnership of married life and love has been established by
the Creator and qualified by His laws. It is rooted in the conjugal
covenant of irrevocable personal consent.. .


"By that human act whereby spouses mutually bestow and accept each other,
a relationship arises which by divine will and in the eyes of society too
is a lasting one . . . A man and a woman, who by the marriage convenant of
conjugal love 'are no longer two, but one flesh' (Mt 19:6), render mutual
help and service to each other through an intimate union of their persons
and of their actions

Hopefully, you'll be making a point soon...

"Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the
begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift
of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their
parents. The God Himself who said, 'It is not good for man to be alone'
(Gen. 2:18) and 'who made man from the beginning male and female' (Mt.
19:4), wished to share with man a certain special participation in His own
creative work. Thus He blessed male and female, saying: 'Increase and
multiply' (Gen. 1:28).

Again, this exact same reasoning can be used to condemn abstinence.

God: be fruitful and multiply
Me: I'd rather use contraception

God: be fruitful and multiply
You: I'd rather practice abstinence

What is the difference...? "One is natural and other isn't". Please don't... we've been over that already.

"Hence, while not making the other purposes of matrimony of less account,
the true practice of conjugal love, and the whole meaning of the family
life which results from it, have this aim: that the couple be ready with
stout hearts to cooperate with the love of the Creator and the Savior, who
through them will enlarge and enrich His own family day by day.


"Parents should regard as their proper mission the task of transmitting
human life and educating those to whom it has been transmitted. They
should realize that they are thereby cooperators with the love of God the
Creator, and are, so to speak, the interpreters of that love" (Gaudium et
Spes, 50).

Same argument can be used against abstinence...

SINCE BOTH THE NATURAL AND THE UNNATURAL METHODS OF BIRTH CONTROL HAVE THE
PURPOSE OF LIMITING FAMILY SIZE, AREN'T THEY MORALLY THE SAME?

Not at all. The end does not justify the means

So far, all you've done is criticize he ends (not having children). The Psalms you listed, God's command to multiply, etc. all tell us that what is important are the ends, namely, having children. Yet for some reason, you care more about the means than the ends. Both contraception and abstinence are means to avoid having children, yet you only take issue with contraception.

make morally equal all the possible means of achieving that purpose. "It
is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may
follow therefrom" (Humanae Vitae, 14).

All of your arguments above suggest that not having children is the evil. If that was so, then abstinence would just be as evil as contraception.

A prime purpose of the Ten
Commandments is to teach us that we may not act against our created human
nature in pursuing some purpose or pleasure. Thus, we may not kill or
steal or commit adultery to advance ourselves.

No mention of contraception.

WHY IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OPPOSED TO UNNATURAL BIRTH CONTROL?

The basic reason for the Church's opposition to any sort of sinful action
is that such actions are contrary to the nature God has given us. Jesus
said about marriage, "Let no one take apart what God has put together" (Mk
10:9).

So... surgery is bad too?

This can also be applied to the act of sexual intercourse which has
been called "the marriage act" for centuries of Christian history.

Conjecture.

In the natural act of completed marital sexual intercourse, there is a
symbolic bodily unity of man and wife. However, in every form of unnatural
birth control, there is a positive effort to destroy the procreative
potential of an act that God has given us as a unique sign of married
love.

Looked at in another way, the sex act is meant by God to be a symbolic way
in which a couple are called to renew, at least implicitly, their marriage
covenant. In this bodily union, they are called to affirm anew their
original promises of married love, to take each other for better or for
worse, to be as one until death.


Unnatural birth control contradicts the symbolic renewal of the marriage
covenant. Instead, it says, "I take you for better but not for the
imagined worse of parenthood."

More conjecture.

IS THERE A BIBLICAL BASIS FOR THE CHURCH'S TEACHING AGAINST CONTRACEPTION?


Yes. The 38th chapter of Genesis tells the story of Judah, his sons, and
Tamar. One of the sons, Onan, practiced the sin of
contraception--withdrawal in this case--with Tamar, and the Bible tells us
that God slew him because he had done an abominable thing (Gen. 38:10).

It is recognized today that Judah, Onan, and another brother were all
guilty of violating an ancient Eastern brotherhood law called the law of
the Levirate. However, the punishment for violating that law was very mild
and is spelled out in Deuteronomy 25:5- 10. Judah himself admitted his
guilt (Gen. 38:26). It is therefore clear that the special punishment
meted out to Onan was not just for the violation of the Levirate but
rather for the way in which only he had sinned--his contraceptive behavior
of going through the motions of the covenantal act and then "spilling his
seed" (Gen. 38:9).

I've asked this so many times and every time you dodge the question. Is contraception a sin punishable by death?

DOES THE BIBLE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT HUMAN LOVE AND SEXUALITY?


Yes. There is simply no doubt that the entire biblical notion of human
love points to the fact that man is called to subordinate "eros," erotic
love, to "agape," self-giving love. While not referring specifically to
the issue of birth control, St. Paul's most famous discourse on love is
still applicable to this discussion. It is noteworthy that he begins and
ends on the two aspects of love that are needed for the happy practice of
natural family planning. "Love is always patient and kind; . . . it is
always ready . . . to endure whatever comes" (1 Cor. 13:4, 7). Christian
husbands are also told to love their wives as Christ loved the Church and
sacrificed himself for her (Eph. 5:25). All Christians were told by Christ
on the night before His death to love one another as He loved them, a
statement that has obvious overtones about self- giving love (Jn 15:12).
St. Paul also tells his listeners that the fruits of the Spirit are "love,
joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness, and
self-control." He reminds them that they cannot really belong to Christ
unless they "crucify all self-indulgent passions and desires" (Gal. 5:22,
24).


The above is incomplete but serves one limited purpose. It shows that it
is legitimate to state that the religious doctrine of marital
non-contraception has a basis in Scripture and that the practice of
natural family planning with its necessity of a certain amount of sexual
self-control fits well within the Christian biblical tradition.

Nothing to do with contraception. It's becoming pretty clear that you just copy/pasted the first thing that popped up when you googled "contraception is a sin". You can't debate me yourself and so you leave it up to the internet. That's ok, I'm almost doen anyway.

WOULDN'T IT BE HELPFUL IF THE BIBLE CONTAINED CONDEMNATIONS OF
CONTRACEPTION THAT WERE MORE EXPLICIT AND MORE FREQUENT?


Not really. The lack of multiple references doesn't disturb the person who
has a sense of theological realism.

Suggesting that only the Catholic Church has a "sense of theological realism"

Such a person is aware that the Bible
could hardly be more explicit in its condemnation of homosexual behavior
(e.g. Romans 1:26-32), but those who want to justify homosexual behavior
simply dismiss the biblical texts as not relevant to today or interpret
St. Paul to mean "promiscuous" sodomy although St. Paul makes no such
distinctions.

The Bible says nothing of contraception but those who want to justify contraception condemnation simply inject non-existent condemnations of contraception into the Bible and interpret "be fruitful and multiply" to mean "do not use contraception" although Genesis makes no such command.

HOW DOES THE USE OF UNNATURAL BIRTH CONTROL AFFECT MARRIAGE?

In general, it has a negative effect. The growing use of unnatural birth
control since 1913 has been accompanied by an almost 500% rise in the
divorce rate.

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

A fun little Latin phrase for you to look up.

Oh and here are some humorous graphs that might entertain as well
https://www.fastcodesign.com/3030529/hi ... -causation

HOW DOES THE USE OF NFP AFFECT MARRIAGE?


The general effect is positive. Many couples who have left unnatural
methods of birth control have reported an improved marriage relationship
with NFP. This has been confirmed by scientific social studies[16][17]
and by informal surveys showing an extremely low divorce rate among
couples practicing NFP.[18]


Improved communication, absence of feelings of being used, development of
non-genital courtship, peace of conscience, and no fear of the dangerous
effects of some unnatural methods have all been mentioned as contributing
to the improved relationship. In addition, the practice of NFP helps to
develop the same character strengths that are necessary for marital
fidelity and life-long marriage.

Yes, NFP is a pretty nifty method of contraception. But children are a blessing. Why are you using birth control? God told us to be fruitful and multiply. Why are you trying to avoid having children? Did all those Psalms you tried to drown me in mean nothing to you? tut tut

[RightReason]

[Replying to Justin108]

Sacred Scripture, yes. Which is why I would gladly accept any scripture, explicitly condemning contraception.

Tradition? Not so much.

Then you would be interpreting Scripture incorrectly. Scripture itself does not say to only accept Scripture, so your parameters are erroneous.

You pointed out your own conjecture. I then pointed out the flaws in your conjecture.

Right back at ya.

Which church?

His Church, Christ’s Church, the first and original Church, the only Church that can trace her roots back to Christ Himself, the Catholic Church.

So what? Your "evidence" for why contraception is a sin is because "I would also ask how could the giver of life be against life?". If the giver of life is pro life and therefore frowns upon contraception, then the giver of life will also frown upon abstinence

It isn’t either or, rather because the giver of life could not be for contraception, does not mean He is not also for abstinence. Both chastity and conjugal love are very pro life. How much more pro life can one be to recognize the marital act is intended for married couples only who recognize the nature of the sexual act and are open to life?

Since you are such a big fan of Scripture, I’m surprised you aren’t aware that Scripture tells us not all are called to marry . . .


“1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good to abstain from sexual relations. 2But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.…� 1 Corinthians 7:11


Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 7:7-8: “I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.�

Both abstinence and contraception are equally anti-life. So why would the creator of life accept one but not the other? They are both anti-life.

Sorry, this simply demonstrates your understanding of what it means to be pro-life and then of course your lack of understanding of God’s beautiful gift of the marital act.

Again, that's beside the point. Your initial argument was "That is God’s design" and that we should not mess with God's design. Cutting off foreskins is messing with God's design.

This isn’t exactly what I said. As I used contacts as example. As I keep saying there is nothing wrong with using knowledge and technology and even man made or artificial things to help or fix something to function as it was intended. It is not ok to do something to break or stop something to function as intended.

It is good for man to not have children if they are not ready to. It is good for man to not have more children if they are satisfied with the number of children they already have. Therefore, contraception is good

I would call this a very weak argument and your opinion and there is much that would counter this including God’s own comments in Scripture saying,


Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.�


So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.�.

there is nothing wrong with man’s fertility.

There is if we don't want children.

Scientifically, medically, and logically no, there isn’t. Your conclusion does not logically follow.

RightReason wrote:

In fact, back to the original inquiry and topic of the post, in Scripture to not be able to conceive is actually a curse. Children are always referred to as blessings in the Bible

Then why do people ever practice abstinence?

Mother’s life as stake, serious health concerns or issues for the father, mother, or child,

I observe the world. Using reason and logic, I see nothing wrong with contraception.

Many people make the same argument in regards to abortion or adultery or even theft. It doesn’t however negate my argument that what is right/wrong can be known via logic/reason and observation of the world we live in.

Contraception is good for you. It prevents unwanted pregnancy.

The end does not justify the means. Also, no contraception is 100%. Therefore, abstinence is the better, healthier, moral decision.

Yes. And then after being unable to refute my points, you eventually abandoned the debate.

Still here

All of these verses can be used to condemn abstinence.

Only if one is unfamiliar with Scripture as a whole.

RightReason wrote:


"Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the
begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift
of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their
parents. The God Himself who said, 'It is not good for man to be alone'
(Gen. 2:18) and 'who made man from the beginning male and female' (Mt.
19:4), wished to share with man a certain special participation in His own
creative work. Thus He blessed male and female, saying: 'Increase and
multiply' (Gen. 1:28).

Again, this exact same reasoning can be used to condemn abstinence.

Accept that abstinence is praised within Scripture and even considered the higher calling.

"Parents should regard as their proper mission the task of transmitting
human life and educating those to whom it has been transmitted. They
should realize that they are thereby cooperators with the love of God the
Creator, and are, so to speak, the interpreters of that love" (Gaudium et
Spes, 50).

Same argument can be used against abstinence...

You clearly misunderstand this beautiful teaching. God does desire that a married couple engage in the marital act.

All of your arguments above suggest that not having children is the evil. If that was so, then abstinence would just be as evil as contraception.

Yes, for a married couple to purposely be closed off to God’s gift and blessing of children would be wrong. And I’ve explained this before, but you still aren’t getting it -- if a couple, even if not contracepting, but practicing NFP, were doing so with the intention of not being open to children/trying to avoid any children, they would be guilty of offending God. They would not be guilty of the intrinsically disordered act of contraception, but they would be guilty of selfishness, lack of trust in God, using one another, putting money or career above God, etc.

I've asked this so many times and every time you dodge the question. Is contraception a sin punishable by death?

I didn’t dodge. I answered you the first time. God was making a point about the seriousness of Onan’s sin of contracepting. People use to stone people to death for adultery, but that is no longer the case. Of course, adultery is still considered immoral and a sin. A more barbaric people related to barbaric punishment.

RightReason wrote:


DOES THE BIBLE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT HUMAN LOVE AND SEXUALITY?


Yes. There is simply no doubt that the entire biblical notion of human
love points to the fact that man is called to subordinate "eros," erotic
love, to "agape," self-giving love. While not referring specifically to
the issue of birth control, St. Paul's most famous discourse on love is
still applicable to this discussion. It is noteworthy that he begins and
ends on the two aspects of love that are needed for the happy practice of
natural family planning. "Love is always patient and kind; . . . it is
always ready . . . to endure whatever comes" (1 Cor. 13:4, 7). Christian
husbands are also told to love their wives as Christ loved the Church and
sacrificed himself for her (Eph. 5:25). All Christians were told by Christ
on the night before His death to love one another as He loved them, a
statement that has obvious overtones about self- giving love (Jn 15:12).
St. Paul also tells his listeners that the fruits of the Spirit are "love,
joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness, and
self-control." He reminds them that they cannot really belong to Christ
unless they "crucify all self-indulgent passions and desires" (Gal. 5:22,
24).


The above is incomplete but serves one limited purpose. It shows that it
is legitimate to state that the religious doctrine of marital
non-contraception has a basis in Scripture and that the practice of
natural family planning with its necessity of a certain amount of sexual
self-control fits well within the Christian biblical tradition.

Nothing to do with contraception. It's becoming pretty clear that you just copy/pasted the first thing that popped up when you googled "contraception is a sin".

The above understanding of man, love, marriage, and family has been discussed by theologians and philosophers for thousands of years. It isn’t exactly random. But now I understand why the beauty of the Church’s teaching regarding contraception eludes you.

[Justin108]

Sacred Scripture, yes. Which is why I would gladly accept any scripture, explicitly condemning contraception.

Tradition? Not so much.

Then you would be interpreting Scripture incorrectly. Scripture itself does not say to only accept Scripture, so your parameters are erroneous.

I didn't say "only accept scripture". But just because other things can be accepted doesn't mean that everything should be accepted. If you want to appeal to tradition as authority, you have to give me a good reason for why I should accept tradition as authority.

You pointed out your own conjecture. I then pointed out the flaws in your conjecture.

Right back at ya.

Please quote where I am guilty of conjecture.

Which church?

His Church, Christ’s Church, the first and original Church, the only Church that can trace her roots back to Christ Himself, the Catholic Church.

How do you know "his church" is "the first and original church"? Oh and the East Orthodox church can also trace their roots back to Christ.

So what? Your "evidence" for why contraception is a sin is because "I would also ask how could the giver of life be against life?". If the giver of life is pro life and therefore frowns upon contraception, then the giver of life will also frown upon abstinence

It isn’t either or, rather because the giver of life could not be for contraception

How do you know he could not be for contraception?

Both chastity and conjugal love are very pro life. How much more pro life can one be to recognize the marital act is intended for married couples only who recognize the nature of the sexual act and are open to life?

How is chastity pro-life when chastity hinders reproduction?

Since you are such a big fan of Scripture, I’m surprised you aren’t aware that Scripture tells us not all are called to marry . . .

I'm not talking about marriage, I'm talking about abstinence. You realize it is possible to practice abstinence within marriage, right? Abstinence within marriage is just as anti-reproduction as contraception. More so, considering the fact that contraception is not 100% effective.

Both abstinence and contraception are equally anti-life. So why would the creator of life accept one but not the other? They are both anti-life.

Sorry, this simply demonstrates your understanding of what it means to be pro-life and then of course your lack of understanding of God’s beautiful gift of the marital act.

Ok other than "you clearly don't understand", do you have an actual argument...? Or..?

This isn’t exactly what I said. As I used contacts as example. As I keep saying there is nothing wrong with using knowledge and technology and even man made or artificial things to help or fix something to function as it was intended. It is not ok to do something to break or stop something to function as intended.

I already used this example, but I see you ignored it. Painkillers stop the body from functioning as intended. Are painkillers immoral?

It is good for man to not have children if they are not ready to. It is good for man to not have more children if they are satisfied with the number of children they already have. Therefore, contraception is good

I would call this a very weak argument and your opinion

Ironically, you calling my argument weak is itself an opinion.

...and there is much that would counter this including God’s own comments in Scripture saying,

Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.�

If a husband and a wife practice contraception during sex, then they are not alone... so what is the point of this verse? How does contraception = loneliness? On the contrary, the need for contraception depends on having an active sex life.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.�.

Are you just going to ignore everything I say and repeat the same arguments over and over? I've already addressed this. Several times.

There is if we don't want children.

Scientifically, medically, and logically no, there isn’t. Your conclusion does not logically follow.

- I do not want children
- I use contraception
- Contraception helps me not have children
- Therefore, contraception is good

What part of this logic confuses you?

Then why do people ever practice abstinence?

Mother’s life as stake, serious health concerns or issues for the father, mother, or child,

And those are the only reasons? Catholics are forbidden from practicing abstinence unless someone has serious health issues?

I observe the world. Using reason and logic, I see nothing wrong with contraception.

Many people make the same argument in regards to abortion or adultery or even theft.

At which point, one would point to the Biblical passages directly condemning these acts. Please be so kind as to point me to the Biblical passages directly condemning contraception. Please note the emphasis on the word "directly"

It doesn’t however negate my argument that what is right/wrong can be known via logic/reason and observation of the world we live in.

Yes it does. It shows that, at least within Christianity, our own objective reasoning is insufficient when it comes to reasoning about what is or is not immoral. So let's do away with all your "rational" arguments for why you personally think it is naughty to use contraception, and please kindly point to Biblical passages directly condemning contraception.

Contraception is good for you. It prevents unwanted pregnancy.

The end does not justify the means. Also, no contraception is 100%. Therefore, abstinence is the better, healthier, moral decision.

All your passages, your Psalms, your "be fruitful and multiply", say nothing about the means. The passages only apply to the ends, namely reproduction. So why are you so focused on the means when the actual issue is the ends?

If the ends (be fruitful and multiply) is all that matters, then anything that inhibits this, regardless of whether it is contraception or abstinence, should be equally immoral.

Yes. And then after being unable to refute my points, you eventually abandoned the debate.

Still here

I'm referring to the other debate you abandoned.
viewtopic.php?t=33039&postdays=0&postor ... &start=110

All of these verses can be used to condemn abstinence.

Only if one is unfamiliar with Scripture as a whole.

So you believe all non-Catholics are unfamiliar with scripture as a whole? Can you perhaps offer a more direct rebuttal than "you don't know scripture"? Can you perhaps quote verses where marital abstinence is ok but contraception is strictly forbidden?

Accept that abstinence is praised within Scripture and even considered the higher calling.

Abstinence within marriage?

Same argument can be used against abstinence...

You clearly misunderstand this beautiful teaching. God does desire that a married couple engage in the marital act.

Exactly. So abstinence within marriage is a sin because God desires that a married couple engage in sex.

And I’ve explained this before, but you still aren’t getting it -- if a couple, even if not contracepting, but practicing NFP, were doing so with the intention of not being open to children/trying to avoid any children, they would be guilty of offending God.

What if they have three children already and are avoiding having a fourth because they cannot afford one? What if a couple is newly married and are not yet financially stable enough to bring a child into the world?

I've asked this so many times and every time you dodge the question. Is contraception a sin punishable by death?

I didn’t dodge. I answered you the first time. God was making a point about the seriousness of Onan’s sin of contracepting. People use to stone people to death for adultery, but that is no longer the case. Of course, adultery is still considered immoral and a sin. A more barbaric people related to barbaric punishment.

Did people used to stone people for contraception?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 16 by Justin108]

I didn't say "only accept scripture".

What? Yes, you did. You made some previous comment about all Christians saying they only accept the authority of Scripture – which is bogus.

If you want to appeal to tradition as authority, you have to give me a good reason for why I should accept tradition as authority.

I have so many times now. Number one, because Scripture tells us so. Beyond that, just like belief in the Resurrection itself, believing that we are to listen to Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition is a matter of faith.

How do you know "his church" is "the first and original church"?

We’ve been through this. She meets the four marks that Scripture itself tells us on how to identify Christ’s Church.

Oh and the East Orthodox church can also trace their roots back to Christ

We’ve been thru this too – which Eastern Orthodox church? If there isn’t ONE, then the Eastern Orthodox are eliminated as failing to meet one of the four marks by failing to be ONE.

How do you know he could not be for contraception?

Because of what we can know from Scripture, from the world He designed and created, and from what His Church tells us.

How is chastity pro-life when chastity hinders reproduction?

Do you even know what chastity means?

****************

Contrary to popular belief, chastity is more than just abstinence. It's choosing NOT to have sex because you recognize the value of your own sexuality.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chastity

Precisely because chastity might mean not engaging in the sexual act makes it absolutely pro-life. You can’t get much more pro-life than respecting someone else or respecting yourself. That’s what it means to be pro-life.

**************


Chastity is the virtue which excludes or moderates the indulgence of the sexual appetite. It is a form of the virtue of temperance, which controls according to right reason the desire for and use of those things which afford the greatest sensual pleasures.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03637d.htm


It’s a bit sad that you are asking the question you did. If you are truly in love, you want what is best for your partner. You always have their best interest in mind. To remain chaste means acknowledging your actions could lead to the creation of a human being and not something you selfishly engage in because it will bring you pleasure, but you are not ready or willing to take on the responsibility that comes with such behavior. To remain chaste means to value your life, your partner’s life, and potential life to come.

Abstinence within marriage is just as anti-reproduction as contraception.

It can be if abused, but chastity is a virtue because it values life – all lives involved. See above.

What if they have three children already and are avoiding having a fourth because they cannot afford one? What if a couple is newly married and are not yet financially stable enough to bring a child into the world?

These are typically false emergencies. Many couples think they can’t afford more children, but it is based more on fear and pressure and what they’ve bought into. And for a Christian it shows a lack of trust in God. But sure, if they feel they temporarily need to not get pregnant this month, they can exercise sacrifice, discipline, and the virtue of chastity. Again, just like skipping dessert is right/good/disciplined, but eating dessert and then vomiting it up is wrong and gluttonous/selfish.

Plus, I already explained all this . . .

for a married couple to purposely be closed off to God’s gift and blessing of children would be wrong. And I’ve explained this before, but you still aren’t getting it -- if a couple, even if not contracepting, but practicing NFP, were doing so with the intention of not being open to children/trying to avoid any children, they would be guilty of offending God. They would not be guilty of the intrinsically disordered act of contraception, but they would be guilty of selfishness, lack of trust in God, using one another, putting money or career above God, etc.

Did people used to stone people for contraception?

They probably would have, were they to know about it. How exactly do you think someone would find out if someone were using contraception? There weren’t exactly Walgreens on every corner. Like I said, the immorality of contraception was believed and taught by all of Christendom. They believed it is a teaching of Jesus Christ.


I wish you could see the beauty in this teaching. It seems you do not understand. All I can say is don’t knock it until you’ve tried it. Being free from the burden of contraception is pretty awesome. I’m still surprised that feminists aren’t all over the oppressiveness that contraception has had on women since its introduction. Even the founder of Planned Parenthood’s mission was to “weed out the feeble minded� with the birth control pill. There is quite an evil history to contraception and unfortunately still is.

[onewithhim]

What a trifling-away of space and time, to go on and on trying to reason with a completely blind person who is satisfied with their precarious position on slippery ground in relation to the truth. It's exasperating and futile. Why encourage them to keep spewing forth their erroneous theology?

Has there been presented any scriptural support for the forbidding of contraception? Or just "tradition," and, BTW, FAR from "sacred"???

What I said in post #12 should have been the final word on the subject. There is NOTHING in the Bible that forbids contraception. No one can find anything. That should end it.

[Justin108]

I didn't say "only accept scripture".

What? Yes, you did. You made some previous comment about all Christians saying they only accept the authority of Scripture – which is bogus.

Whenever you claimed another source has authority, I asked you to demonstrate its authority. I will gladly accept non-scriptural authority as long as you can demonstrate why it holds authority.

If you want to appeal to tradition as authority, you have to give me a good reason for why I should accept tradition as authority.

I have so many times now. Number one, because Scripture tells us so.

Where?

Beyond that, just like belief in the Resurrection itself, believing that we are to listen to Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition is a matter of faith.

When all else fails, appeal to faith. "I can't prove that contraception is a sin, but I have faith that it is, so you'll just have to take my word for it". I know you're new here, but "because faith" is not a viable defense.

How do you know "his church" is "the first and original church"?

We’ve been through this. She meets the four marks that Scripture itself tells us on how to identify Christ’s Church.

I already dealt with your four marks. Anything else? Or are you just going to rehash already debunked claims?

How do you know he could not be for contraception?

Because of what we can know from Scripture, from the world He designed and created, and from what His Church tells us.

Any new verses you haven't mentioned yet? Or are you still on the verses I've already addressed?

How is chastity pro-life when chastity hinders reproduction?

Contrary to popular belief, chastity is more than just abstinence. It's choosing NOT to have sex because you recognize the value of your own sexuality.

It might not be "just abstinence", but it does include abstinence, and abstinence hinders reproduction.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... =chastity

Oh my God, did you just reference urban dictionary as your source?

What if they have three children already and are avoiding having a fourth because they cannot afford one? What if a couple is newly married and are not yet financially stable enough to bring a child into the world?

These are typically false emergencies. Many couples think they can’t afford more children, but it is based more on fear and pressure and what they’ve bought into. And for a Christian it shows a lack of trust in God. But sure, if they feel they temporarily need to not get pregnant this month, they can exercise sacrifice, discipline, and the virtue of chastity. Again, just like skipping dessert is right/good/disciplined, but eating dessert and then vomiting it up is wrong and gluttonous/selfish.

Plus, I already explained all this . . .

for a married couple to purposely be closed off to God’s gift and blessing of children would be wrong. And I’ve explained this before, but you still aren’t getting it -- if a couple, even if not contracepting, but practicing NFP, were doing so with the intention of not being open to children/trying to avoid any children, they would be guilty of offending God. They would not be guilty of the intrinsically disordered act of contraception, but they would be guilty of selfishness, lack of trust in God, using one another, putting money or career above God, etc.

So just to be absolutely clear... unless your health is at stake, it is a sin to use abstinence to avoid pregnancy?

Did people used to stone people for contraception?

They probably would have, were they to know about it. How exactly do you think someone would find out if someone were using contraception?

If there was such a law, why is there no mention of it in Leviticus? Or are you saying there is no such law because "how would they find out"?

They believed it is a teaching of Jesus Christ.

Can you quote Jesus teaching this?