Fairly sexual question... but it's been playing on my mind.

[Jordan9]

I am ok with Natural Family Planning methods like the Rhythm Method, standard days method, etc. There are a lot of different non-chemical, non-barrier methods that couples can use in lieu of other "contraceptives."

Contraceptives more or less define children as "wanted" and "unwanted." I believe that there should always be a chance of procreation during sexuality. Divorcing sex from procreation robs sex of one of its chief purposes.

It's like if I loved the taste of a certain food, but it was fattening. So, I chewed it up for the flavour and spit it out.

It is kind of funny. Few realize that up until 1930ish, every Protestant denomination agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception, AFAIK.

[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him." - Martin Luther

"The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring." - John Calvin

"Be fruitful and multiply," - God

 

[QuestionTime]

[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him." - Martin Luther

Worse than Incest or Adultery? Yikes, I can't say I agree with Martin Luther there. I don't believe that God was angry with Onan for the specific act of "spilling his seed" on the ground, but rather because Onan was practicing deceit. He was pretending to fulfill his duty while not fulfilling it at all. He was attempting to lie to God, his father and his sister in law. He was as wicked as his brother for doing so, and therefore he shared the same fate as Ananias and Sapphira; who also thought they could fool God.

"The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring." - John Calvin

I am really shocked at how this verse can be misinterpreted like this! What happened to love and grace? How absurd too, when the male body eliminates semen of it's own accord on a regular basis.

Quest

 

[zeroturbulence]

Being fruitful and multiplying without contraception would be fine in olden times but today the cost of raising a child is huge. Factor in health care, clothing, food, transportation, education expenses, toys, cell phone accounts, their own laptops, etc...and you are talking several thousand dollars a year per child. If one were to only have sex with their spouse when they wanted to conceive they would only be having it once or twice a year at the most, unless u use the rythym method, but that is just a natural form of contraception.

 

[Matthew]

Ignorance is bliss.

I don't understand what point you're making with this, I won't comment on it until I'm sure about what you mean.....so please clarify.

 

[KingdomHeart]

WOW! That is a responsible mind set and that is a very great question. Of course before I give you my advice I will say first always pray, talk about it with your spouce, talk to your doctors with your spouse about all birth control options and if to use them or not. Also talk to your pastor or to a family in your church who has kids already who faced the same issues you are dealing with and get feed back from them. This is a very respectable question to press into with wisdom. I have know people who get pregnant against all odds being on some form of birth control of all kinds and then there are some who never took birth control and never got pregnant then there are some who adotped. I highly suggest that both you and your spouce only have kids when you are fully prepared and you know you marriage is strong and you both are complete in the time you have had together and want to finally grow in bring in new members to your family by having kids. I have found out with marriages who wait to have kids they know when they are ready when the two of them get the empty feeling inside that something is missing and that is when they have babies and it works out beautifully. Then there are families who had babies right away ready or not and it still works out but it gets so hectic and places so much strain on the marriage but it still works out in the end if both spouces are committed to the situation. I still suggest to wait and have kids after your marriage is strong and complete and you both long for having a baby and birth control helps make that possible but becareful when taking oral controceptives because sometimes a pill or two can be missed, so look into as many birth control options out there that work best for you guys then over time when you finally are ready and then you find yourself bring home a new bundle of joy you will know you did the right thing wheather it was planned or not.

 

[lightbliss]

I don't understand what point you're making with this, I won't comment on it until I'm sure about what you mean.....so please clarify.

You said something along the lines of: if someone asked their partner to get tested, then there must be no trust in their relationship.

I think that's bologna. I see it more as a health thing than a trust thing. It's more about knowing so you'll be prepared for you life with this other person than knowing so you can decide if you want to be with that person or not.

If a person asks their partner for their "status," they have already taken into consideration that the person they're with is the person they'll want to remain with. So why not know?

Some people are born with diseases because their parents had/have STDs, some people contract them. With this, I think it wouldn't be responsible to not be tested, even if you are a virgin.

But if a person doesn't want to then they don't have to. But I mean, wouldn't you rather know before marriage or during marriage after a few "misfortunes" have happened? If not, then I guess you could say these things were meant to be. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Matthew]

You said something along the lines of: if someone asked their partner to get tested, then there must be no trust in their relationship.

I said I don't agree with it becoming a prerequisite to a marriage which is a view growing in popularity, I don't think there is anything wrong with getting tested as being safe and fully aware of your own status is a good thing, but I think making it a requirement could potentially indicate a lack of trust, it would of course depend on the unique factors present in each relationship which is why it must be taken on a case by case basis and there is no right or wrong way to go.

I don't see that ignorance plays any part if you choose not to get tested, any person(s) who are making the choice not to get tested are still aware of what has happened in the past and still know what things might happen in the future, so while there is a lack of specific knowledge it isn't ignorance if a couple has weighed the facts and taken an informed decision based on their histories not to get tested.

We could easily say it's just them trusting eachother and trusting God, on the flip side we could say they are failing to take precautions not avalaible to generations before and maybe that's foolish, I don't think there is any right or wrong, but as I said at the top I think it would be wrong if it became a standard which all people should meet as that does point to paranoia and people getting tested just because they can and because there are government posters of two teenagers kissing showing the slogan 'Anyone Could Have It' with CHLAMYDIA in big bold letters on every bus stop window across the land.

Not 'anyone' could have it, only people who behave in a casual and irresponsible manner and who choose to have sex frequently with multiple partners, obviously that then extends to others who are perhaps unfortuante to catch something, but in broad terms there is a level of worry around this issue and people should be careful not too overreact and get paranoid, good judgement takes care of most dangers.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Not 'anyone' could have it, only people who behave in a casual and irresponsible manner and who choose to have sex frequently with multiple partners,

You can get one or more forms of Hepatitis, simply by sharing a water bottle with a friend.

Also, I don't think it is much of a trust issue, to want to know if the other person has herpes. It's just simply wanting to know what you are getting into.


I seriously doubt you want herpes.

 

[Matthew]

You can get one or more forms of Hepatitis, simply by sharing a water bottle with a friend..

Like I said use good judgement, don't share your water.

Where did you hear about this water bottle issue? does that happen frequently or was it a 1 out of 10,000 type of thing? without providing specific information about a fact like that all it does is create paranoia, offer some substance to go along with your claims, if you don't there's not a lot I can say in response and I certainly won't believe it just because you say it.

 

[mrpower]

Apart from getting seriously off the topic i've heard the widest range of opinions. Cheers people!
hahaha seriously though, the Calvin and Luther quote backed up with Gen 1:28.. yeah.. ill leave that one alone.
Much love - D

 

[estrellas_bonitas]

umm...i think i just want to throw out there that pregancy pills are actually harmful for the woman to take. they have some really bad side effects. it takes awhile for them to come around, but if you take the pills long enough, they will come. so i would be careful when you are thinking about taking the pill.... just a thought.

 

[lightbliss]

Apart from getting seriously off the topic i've heard the widest range of opinions. Cheers people!
hahaha seriously though, the Calvin and Luther quote backed up with Gen 1:28.. yeah.. ill leave that one alone.
Much love - D

Oh and congratulations on finding your sweetie.

 

[QuestionTime]

You can get one or more forms of Hepatitis, simply by sharing a water bottle with a friend.

Our society has programmed us to live in continual fear of a wide variety of dangers (most of them irrational). We even have advertisements on TV for medications to "prevent" illnesses such as Meningitis or Hepatitis. But where is our faith in God?

Should we run out and get immunized for every little disease, or should we eat properly and trust our fate to God? The Bible says:

1 John 4:18
18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
KJV

That verse of scripture - above - enables me to quickly determine both who is, and who is not a Christian; despite external appearances of religion. Christians do not walk around in fear of diseases and terrorists, else the Bible has lied to us.

Ps 103:2-3
2 Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits:
3 Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases;
KJV

Ps 23:4
4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
KJV

Quest

 

[kiwi_OT]

I will repeat what I heard from a sermon. Family planning is not blasphemous - its good stewardship. But I agree with the others, there are levels of contraception. Barrier methods and abortive methods. Researchers (christian and secular alike) are still wondering which category to put the pill in. Most are putting it in with abortive as what it does to the uterus.
Its your choice buddy

 

[RoboOp]

I am ok with Natural Family Planning methods like the Rhythm Method, standard days method, etc. There are a lot of different non-chemical, non-barrier methods that couples can use in lieu of other "contraceptives."

Contraceptives more or less define children as "wanted" and "unwanted." I believe that there should always be a chance of procreation during sexuality. Divorcing sex from procreation robs sex of one of its chief purposes.

- snip -

Just want to point out that you're totally contradicting yourself there. Using the Rhythm Method is attempting to "divorce sex from procreation" just as much as "contraceptives". Same intent, and same effect.. and pretty much the same efficacy as well.

I actually want to have as many children as God will give me. But there have been things that make that not very possible: three consecutive c-sections (and none by our choice). So be careful how/who you judge.

But anyway I just mainly wanted to point out that you're really contradicting yourself there.

Anyway, find you a wife who's willing to have 10-20 kids and procreate away. Just don't get into other people's bedrooms.

 

[Jordan9]

Just want to point out that you're totally contradicting yourself there. Using the Rhythm Method is attempting to "divorce sex from procreation" just as much as "contraceptives". Same intent, and same effect.. and pretty much the same efficacy as well.

I actually want to have as many children as God will give me. But there have been things that make that not very possible: three consecutive c-sections (and none by our choice). So be careful how/who you judge.

But anyway I just mainly wanted to point out that you're really contradicting yourself there.

Anyway, find you a wife who's willing to have 10-20 kids and procreate away. Just don't get into other people's bedrooms.

When do we stop "getting into peoples' bedrooms?" Why is getting into the bedroom of those that use contraceptives any more kosher than getting into the bedrooms of gays or hebephiles or what have you? On what basis does one toss out Onan, but accept the proscriptions against homosexuality? These are not rhetorical questions; I'm genuinely interested to hear responses, and not just from RoboOp

The rhythm method doesn't violate natural law; no barriers or chemicals are involved. There is no "onanism" involved and no chance of accidental abortion, as there is with many (all?) female oral contraceptives. That is why Christians can support it without any cognitive dissonance and historical revisionism, two things that are extremely necessary if you are ok with chemical and/or barrier contraceptives.

Was 1930 years of Christianity wrong about contraceptives? If "we" didn't get that right, what else didn't we?

Christians do not exist in a vacuum. We come from a long line of predeccesors; Doctors, Fathers, Saints, theologians, clergymen, priests, pastors. Why are they universally opposed to contraceptives? Again, none of these questions are rhetorical.

 

[Jordan9]

Worse than Incest or Adultery? Yikes, I can't say I agree with Martin Luther there. I don't believe that God was angry with Onan for the specific act of "spilling his seed" on the ground, but rather because Onan was practicing deceit. He was pretending to fulfill his duty while not fulfilling it at all. He was attempting to lie to God, his father and his sister in law. He was as wicked as his brother for doing so, and therefore he shared the same fate as Ananias and Sapphira; who also thought they could fool God.



I am really shocked at how this verse can be misinterpreted like this! What happened to love and grace? How absurd too, when the male body eliminates semen of it's own accord on a regular basis.

Quest

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. Why is this?

It is because his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

 

[OreoSoleil]

Both my children were born while on the pill : )

 

[QuestionTime]

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. Why is this?

It is because his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

I didn't say that his crime was failling to give his brother's widow children (though this was a crime). I said that his crime was "practicing deceit." Deceit was sufficient enough to put Ananias and Sapphira to death, and therefore it was adequate to put Onan to death.

But let's not forget that the Jews have historically been legalists and consequently have not known God's love and mercy. The Pharisees had no problem stoning people to death, but Jesus called them hypocrites.

As much as I respect and love the old saints - such as Wesley - I can't agree with certain things that many of them stood for, such as infant baptism and the idea of spilling semen being a crime. Semen comes out of men's bodies on a daily basis, and therefore to call spilling it on the ground a crime is - in my opinion - silly. Are you saying that a wife can't bring her husband to orgasm with her hand? This would be a crime?

Perhaps my mind has been tainted by modern society, but perhaps not. The Song of Songs seems to have a joyous view of sexual expression, not this terribly restrictive view.As well, I think that these people of old held sex and pro-creation as mysticism, rather than having the clearer perception that we have now; knowing that sex is just a normal biological function of the body.

I would caution us all to stay away from vain religiosity that will not save the soul, and instead focus on the love and goodness of God, which will motivate us to love Him back.

John Wesley:
Observe well: This is religion, and this alone; this alone is true Christian religion; not this or that opinion, or system of opinions, be they ever so true, ever so scriptural. It is true, this is commonly called faith. But those who suppose it to be religion are given up to a strong delusion to believe a lie, and if they suppose it to be a sure passport to heaven are in the high road to hell. Observe well: Religion is not harmlessness; which a careful observer of mankind properly terms hellish harmlessness, as it sends thousands to the bottomless pit. It is not morality; excellent as that is, when it is built on a right foundation, -- loving faith; but when otherwise, it is of no value in the sight of God. It is not formality, -- the most exact observance of all the ordinances of God. This, too, unless it be built on the right foundation, is no more pleasing to God, than "the cutting off a dog's neck." No: Religion is no less than living in eternity, and walking in eternity; and hereby walking in the love of God and man, in lowliness, meekness, and resignation. This, and this alone, is that "life which is hid with Christ in God." He alone who experiences this "dwells in God, and God in him." This alone is setting the crown upon Christ's head, and doing his "will on earth as it is done in heaven."

Quest

 

[Jordan9]

I don't recall Song of Songs ever saying, "O, my lover, let us procure the liver of a sheep so that your seed may not fill me," or "My darling, let us travel to the bog witch's hut so that she may brew you a potion to prevent my seed from quickening in your womb." Perhaps I missed those lines in my readings?

The view of sexuality that I espouse, passed down from John Paul II, from popes before him like Paul VI, yes, even from reformers like Wesley and Calvin and Luther (who some people are all too eager to pick and choose from...) This view goes even further back, to Augustine and others. To Clement of Alexandria who wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be waste and further still, to Christ and to God who commanded (not suggested, admonished, cajoled, or urged) us to "be fruitful and multiply." To God, who killed Onan for spilling his seed.

Indeed, Genesis 38:9 says that Onan spilled his seed. Gen. 38:10, the very next verse, states, "What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also." Or, from the KJV "And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also." Where are you getting it was his "deceit?"

As for natural nocturnal emissions or spontaneous, involuntary orgasms... Don't be so foolish. That is like saying that miscarriages justify abortions, that accidental death vindicates murder, that forgetfulness permits one to deliberately lie. Come on.

I don't view the traditional, apostolic, viewpoint of contraception to be sexual restrictive anymore than chastity, celibacy, purity, and virginity are. It is liberating, we aren't "free" we are "free in Christ." The sexual freedom of post-1930 mainstream protestantism (and others, but that is the primary source) isn't the sexual freedom of the Gospels, it is the sexual freedom of the world, wherein genital contact is the only aspect of sexuality.

It's astonishing, some of you guys sound like the atheists and skeptics who scratch their heads at the Christian sacredness of virginity. The same arguments, the same blasé attitude to the topic at hand. I don't mean this rudely or pejoratively, but it is the vibe I'm getting. As some of you might know, as a recent Christian convert I have a lot of atheist friends, and when I discuss chastity with them, their arguments sound a lot like some I'm reading on here. "But it's so restrictive!"

At any rate, I knew full well that when I shared my opinion I'd get this reaction. As I originally stated, it isn't a very popular opinion. But again, it should be noted that it was not until 1930 that any mainstream Christian group officially endorsed the use of contraceptives. The Christian world had been universally opposed to the use of contraceptives until that time. Amazing how 1930 years of Christianity could be wrong, eh?

Unless, and I realize this is a long-shot, maybe the Lambeth Conference of 1930 AD was wrong, and everyone else (the aforementioned Clement, Calvin, Luther, John Paul, Paul VI, etc.) was right? Hmmm.... Nah, that's too obvious