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?

[marco]

OK, little kids, ignore me if you wish.

Moderator Comment

I think you know you are not addressing little kids, onewithhim. This is uncivil, and unlike you.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Justin108]

As I've said repeatedly, if you can demonstrate an external authority as authoritative, then I will acknowledge it.

If you will accept for the purposes of this thread, that from Scripture as authoritative, then you by default have accepted the authority of the Church. The Church gave us Scripture.

I don't need to prove it is unscriptural, you are one who needs to prove that it is scriptural.

And I have done so, but then you simply keep repeating you do not accept my proof. What is the standard of proving something is Scriptural?

[onewithhim]

If the Bible does not prohibit contraception then why should the church? What has this TRADITION gained for mankind? Only hardship. It's like what Jesus said of the Pharisees, that their traditions were BURDENS, and the ones who tried to enforce these traditions were bound for "hell" (Gehenna).

If the Bible does not forbid the celebration of birthdays and blood transfusions, why should the WTS?

Not celebrating b'days does not pose a burden for anyone. Even some of those who do celebrate complain about how tiresome it is & how the children EXPECT to be showered with presents (and most of the presents they don't like anyway). There are no comments about contraception in the Bible, but there are inferences connected to birthdays. The only two b'day celebrations that are mentioned were those of pagans and unhappy things happened at each. Jews didn't celebrate birthdays and neither did the early Christians.

Not allowing blood transfusions is also a positive, healthy thing and not a burden (except in brainwashed people's minds; blood substitutes are actually better for people). But you err. The avoidance of blood is spoken about in the Bible in both the O.T. and the N.T. Modern medicine has finally caught up with what Jehovah has said for thousands of years. It is better to use blood substitutes and leave actual blood alone. Blood transfusions are pushed because it's big bucks for the blood industry. Please don't start inundating me with objections until you do some research on it. I've provided links many times before.


www.noblood.org

www.digitaljournal.com/article/287219

www.hopkinsmedicine.org/bloodless_medicine_surgery

https://www.pennmedicine.org/for-patien ... e-medicine

[onewithhim]

OK, little kids, ignore me if you wish.

Moderator Comment

I think you know you are not addressing little kids, onewithhim. This is uncivil, and unlike you.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

My apologies. When I go on the forum early in the morning I'm not myself.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 35 by onewithhim]

If the Bible does not forbid the celebration of birthdays and blood transfusions, why should the WTS?

You didn’t really answer the question. Does the WTS have the right to make such pronouncements? The point is your church speaks about matters not clearly or specifically written about in Scripture, but you claim it is following the traditions of men when my Church interprets Sacred Scripture as she understands it to be.

And I would argue it is the contraceptive mentality that places a burden on human beings. You misunderstand this beautiful teaching, which is a shame.

[Justin108]

[Replying to Justin108]

As I've said repeatedly, if you can demonstrate an external authority as authoritative, then I will acknowledge it.

If you will accept for the purposes of this thread, that from Scripture as authoritative, then you by default have accepted the authority of the Church. The Church gave us Scripture.

Nope. The testimony of the prophets and apostles gave us scripture.

I don't need to prove it is unscriptural, you are one who needs to prove that it is scriptural.

And I have done so, but then you simply keep repeating you do not accept my proof. What is the standard of proving something is Scriptural?

Your interpretation is not "proof". The standard for proving something is scriptural is quite easy actually. Just quote the scripture. All you've been giving me is your own conjecture. I don't want conjecture, I want scripture. You know how there are several verses stating things like "thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not steal", etc. I want something like that, except with "thou shalt not use contraception". Think you can do that for me?

This is literally the only (supposed) law in the Bible that is not stipulated this way. Why? Why is the law against contraception hidden in interpretation whereas every other law is direct? What is so special about contraception that it should be a hidden law? Why is there not a single, direct verse stating "do not use contraception"? You've failed miserably in providing proof that it is a sin, so at the very least explain to me why, if it is a sin, it is not directly stipulated the way murder, theft, etc. are stipulated?

[Claire Evans]

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?

Perhaps they think of the scripture Genesis 9:7

As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it."

The thought that contraceptives dates back to the early Church Fathers.

Jerome
“I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder� (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).

The claim is that there is no mention in the Bible because not much was known about it at the time.

It's ridiculous to say that you can murder a child before it's even conceived. I think the disapproval comes in that the RCC believe that the world is being deprived of more Catholics when contraceptives are being used.

Today it is extremely irresponsible to bring a child into the world when one cannot afford it and the child lives in poverty. Yet they hold onto their archaic views.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Justin108]

If you will accept for the purposes of this thread, that from Scripture as authoritative, then you by default have accepted the authority of the Church. The Church gave us Scripture.

Nope. The testimony of the prophets and apostles gave us scripture.

And who decided what to include and what shouldn’t be included from all the testimony? Who compiled the Bible? It didn’t fall from the sky. And what did the early Church do prior to the Bible? What did they refer to? Where did they go for answers?

I’ll help you out – THE CHURCH!

Your interpretation is not "proof". The standard for proving something is scriptural is quite easy actually. Just quote the scripture.

Really? So, what do these passages mean . . .

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.� –John 6:53


“And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.� –Matthew 5:30


“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.� –Timothy 2:11




“thou art Peter and upon this rock I build my church�


"And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues." (Rev 17:15)

I want scripture.

All Scripture is interpreted, so it comes down to whose interpretation you accept.

It is extremely odd to me for you not to get that. Why exactly do you think forums like this even exist? Precisely because different people have different understandings with regard to Scripture and Christianity. It’s amusing for you to pretend your understanding of Scripture trumps all of Christendom’s understanding until around the 1930’s – LOL!

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 39 by Claire Evans]

The claim is that there is no mention in the Bible because not much was known about it at the time.

There is mention of it in the Bible as already discussed -- in the story of creation/Genesis, in the story of Onan, in the psalms and proverbs. Also, contraception is not new. It has been attempted since the beginning of creation. There are historical records of drugs/potions to prevent conception as well as the withdrawal method.

Also, Scripture itself tells us we are to listen to Christ’s Church and Christ’s Church has believed and taught the immorality of contraception since Christ first established His Church.

It's ridiculous to say that you can murder a child before it's even conceived.

Who said anything about murder?

I think the disapproval comes in that the RCC believe that the world is being deprived of more Catholics when contraceptives are being used.

That is quite the anti-Catholic ignorant statement. You show you do not know Catholic teaching. Catholicism does not teach that Catholics have to have as many children as they possibly can. And no, the Church isn’t out to get as many Catholics as she can. The Church is put in charge of teaching truth. She wants to help God’s children as best she can by standing firm in teaching what is right and good and to our benefit.

Today it is extremely irresponsible to bring a child into the world when one cannot afford it and the child lives in poverty.

Then wouldn’t it be extremely irresponsible to engage in sexual activity if one was not prepared to be a parent? No contraception is 100% effective. If you are having sex, you better realize you could be creating a new life – another human being.

What is irresponsible (not unlike bulimia) is to want the pleasure from engaging in some behavior, but not accept the natural consequences that occur from doing so.

Yet they hold onto their archaic views.

What is archaic about teaching the beauty and truth about love, marriage, sex, and family? Archaic thinking is to think a woman’s fertility is something that needs fixed. It’s archaic to think women ought to take a pill everyday that has side effects pages long. What’s archaic is to continually put the “responsibility� of parenthood on women, which historically is shown to be the case. What is archaic is to think we are all too ignorant to understand the human body and the way it works. It’s also archaic to think children are problems, mistakes, or liabilities. If I had a dime for every person I have met that confides in me they wish they would have had more children. It’s often too late for many to come to the realization of this beautiful truth and God’s plan for man. We need our children more than they need us. When it comes to children, you always get much more than you give. They are our greatest accomplishment and truly blessings. Gee, ya think God knew something we don’t?

[Justin108]

If you will accept for the purposes of this thread, that from Scripture as authoritative, then you by default have accepted the authority of the Church. The Church gave us Scripture.

Nope. The testimony of the prophets and apostles gave us scripture.

And who decided what to include and what shouldn’t be included from all the testimony?

Who compiled the Bible? It didn’t fall from the sky. And what did the early Church do prior to the Bible? What did they refer to? Where did they go for answers?

I’ll help you out – THE CHURCH!

And because of this, they have absolute authority? If the Church decided what goes in the Bible, did they do so based on their own understanding? Or did they use objective archaeological and historical analysis to determine which texts are indeed authentic? If so, then the Church at this point was nothing but a group of glorified historians. Why should they hold absolute authority on Christianity just because they compiled the documentation?

Either they constructed the Bible through historic analysis, in which case they're nothing but historians. Or they decided on their own biases how to construct the Bible, in which case you're admitting that the Church essentially made up Christianity. Which is it?

Your interpretation is not "proof". The standard for proving something is scriptural is quite easy actually. Just quote the scripture.

Really? So, what do these passages mean . . .

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.� –John 6:53

“And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.� –Matthew 5:30

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.� –Timothy 2:11

“thou art Peter and upon this rock I build my church�

"And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues." (Rev 17:15)

What do any of these verses have to do with contraception? None of these have anything to do with contraception or law in general. If your point is that "well some texts are vague" - true. But laws are never vague. So why is the law against contraception vague? Of all the laws in the Bible, the law against contraception (assuming such a law exists) is literally the only law not clearly stipulated. Why? I asked you this in my last post and you just skipped over it. Either explain to me why the law against contraception is indirect and hidden in interpretation, or give me an example of any other law that is equally as vague and indirect as contraception?

"Thou shalt not kill"
- Clear, precise, direct

"Thou shalt not steal"
- Clear, precise, direct

This is true for literally every single law in the Bible except for contraception. Why?

I want scripture.

All Scripture is interpreted, so it comes down to whose interpretation you accept.

Look at the scriptures you quoted above. You deliberately chose those because you know they are unclear and dependent on interpretation. Are you denying the fact that some verses in the Bible are clear and direct whereas others are vague? Or can we both agree that “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" is far more open to interpretation than "thou shalt not kill"?