contraception

False. Being unable to produce life and being not open to life are two entirely different things. I'm appalled of how you associate the two as equal. Please give me a basis for this equation, Pastor Larry.

 

Hi Clint,

You wrote, "I would like to see this documentation. There may be nations with negative population growths but they are WIDELY off set by nations such as India."

"Anna Diamantopoulou, social affairs commissioner for the European Union, told delegates to the U.N. Second World Assembly on Ageing in Madrid that a higher birth rate would be needed to counter an 'alarming' rise in the proportion of elderly people.

"'The first problem is that we are not replacing our populations, with low birth rates causing a growing distortion in our demographic structures,' she said. 'The second problem is that we are allowing, even encouraging, people to have shorter working lives, just at a time when they are fit and able to work even longer.'"

More at: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=\ForeignBureaus\archive\ 200204\FOR20020409h.html

Before 1930, all Christians opposed the use of contraception, and while most of Christianity has followed in line w/ the sexual revolution and changed doctrine on this serious point of morality, the Catholic Church has retained her teaching steadfast.

At the 1930 Lambeth conference the Anglican church approved the use of contraception in some circumstances; this was quickly broadened to all circumstances and infected all other Protestant denominations. Today none of them maintain the historic Christian faith on this point.

Catholic Answers carries a Protestant book called The Bible and Birth Control by Charles Provan, and the back half of it is a catalogue of quotes from Protestant sources prior to 1930 documenting that they too shared the historic Christian position on the evil of artificial birth control -- until 1930. Among those condemning contraception are Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, and Ulrich Zwingli, and dozens of others.

God bless,

Carson

[ April 14, 2002, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

False. Being unable to produce life and being not open to life are two entirely different things. I'm appalled of how you associate the two as equal. Please give me a basis for this equation, Pastor Larry.</font>[/QUOTE]You cannot be "open to life" when it is impossible to conceive. Sex is then part of what it was intended to be ... a very personal demonstration of love between a man and his wife.

 

Hi cor_unam,

I wrote, "most of Christianity" and did not state "all Protestants".

Would you mind giving a case example of a Protestant denomination that has held to the traditional Christian teaching?

Hi Larry,

I believe "open to life" in the context of the conversation presupposes the negation of a present power/ability. The absence of the ability and the voluntary restriction and separation of the fruitfulness from the marital act are two separate matters. "Open to life" is a positive statement of avoiding the latter. It is not an absolute.

God bless,

Carson

[ April 14, 2002, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

cor_unam:
I think it all started with the Epispocal church changing the teaching so they could be trendy and politically correct. Then, as far as I can remember, most of the others in their "conferences" decided to do the same.

As for the members in the pew, I don't remember it EVER being mentioned as an issue. I attended Sunday School classes in a SB church for many years and never ONCE head the subject even mentioned.

I believe the change came about among the "leaders" in their national conventions. Kind of like the idea of women preachers, abortion, gay ministers, etc. None of those idiotic decisions came from the average member in the pew. They, in most cases, were "informed" after the fact.

But as for contraception, like I said, I NEVER once ever remember it even being mentioned as an issue.
As for the topic in general, tho, as long as a person is not using something that destroys the fertilized egg, I think when a married couple has sex is their business completely and totally. To be "open" to life is nothing but man-made legalism.

I am as much against ABORTION as anyone can be. But let's keep sex between a married man and women (even disgusting that it has to be defined these days) a private matter. Show me even one place in scripture that says EVERY TIME a married couple has sex, they have to be "open" to life, have to keep the possibility open to have a baby, whether they want it or not. I find the whole idea absurd, legalistic, an invasion of the privacy of the married couple, and no one's business, especially the "leaders" of some church, who totally ignore the whole thing in their own lives. I don't mean to be harsh, but what a married couple do in the bedroom is between them. I guess my point is that sex for it's own sake, between a married couple is, and can be an end in itself. This whole idea that it has to be "open" to life seems to imply that sex is bad or evil, or should just be "tolerated" and hidden under the covers. But, the argument seems to go, if you are going to engage in this rather cude behavior, then you have to do it with the sole idea that the activity is for the purpose of procreation. Now, it is for procreation, but come on, sex is a gift and can and should be engaged in for it's own sake.

[ April 15, 2002, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

James,

Don't you think the whole attitude of "what they do behind closed doors" is none of our business has caused a lot of trouble?

My whole point is that God didn't create sex for the sole purpose of making people happy. I've been in a relationship for two years with a girl, and we don't have sex. We WILL NOT have sex unless marriage comes into the picture. My point? A relationship can thrive without sex. It is a most special gift indeed, but it is not the driving force behind marriage; love is.

Now, what does sex produece? Children. What is a primary goal of marriage? To bear children.

Sex = children. Marriage = allowed to have sex.

Anyway, I'm very saddened that many of you feel morals have to be explicitely outlined in Scriptures before you adhere to them. Every form of sin is not outlined in the Bible.

Plus, the whole notion that for centuries it was considered a sin and in modern times, when we can see what the sex industry has done to our world, we dismiss a past sin as something that is "okay" or "not our business" as long as "it doesn't lead to other sins" or "hurts no one" then it must be okay.

This is sad, sad, sad.

 

Since when?

Joshua

 

Umm, since always.

What if a few decendants after Abraham decided to not have children?

You're trying to tell me that the bearing of offsrping is not one of the most important aspect of marriage?

 

Hi all,

Pastor Larry, you wrote:

I totally agree that Scripture answers the question for us. Onan was not fulfilling his duty by the Levitical law clearly recorded in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. But, if you read this passage, you'll find that the penalty later instituted for breaking this law was public humiliation, not death.

It is Scripturally evident that Onan's crime was more than just his refusal to fulfill his duty as a brother-in-law. Onan was killed by God for his crime. Why? Well, according to the historic Christian (and Jewish) interpretation, it was because he violated God's Natural Law by "spilling his seed."

This has been the Christian view evident in virtually every orthodox Christian writing available prior to the 20th Century. At that time, some theologians began to reexamine the issue in the light of "modern" views on sexuality and worries of over-population and under the influence and social pressures of individuals such as Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

There is no argument to the fact that before about 1900, there was a general consensus that artificial contraceptives were considered to be evil and sinful by all orthodox Christian writers and theologians. If you (or anyone else) can produce an orthodox Christian writing from before 1900 that supports artificial birth control, please post it.

God Bless.

In Officio Agnus,
Deacon's Son

 

I guess that's my point. Number one when I say behind closed doors I qualified it by saying that refers to a husband and wife, with each other.

As far as "open" somehow referring to bad, that is not what I meant or said. I said that saying sex HAS TO BE "open" for babies before it can be engaged in and not considered wrong, is absurd.
Aren't we all agreed that sex between a husband and wife is moral? Further, I didn't say that sex was ONLY to make a husband and wife happy. Not that anything is wrong, or immoral or indecent, or dirty with that. I am saying that if a husband and wife want to have sex and NOT have children at that moment, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. If they want to have sex 50 times a day, so be it. It is utter nonsense to connect the two absolutely. That is the figment of someone's imagination!! The bible does not require it, nor suggest it, nor hint at it and neither does commonsense.

What on earth is the hang up on all this? My one qualification is what I already stated. If you do something to destroy an all ready fertilized egg, then that is immoral. But sex for the fun of it is not wrong. Period!!! I think far too many people are made to feel guilty about the whole thing. I personally think the whole subject is way blown out of proportion.
And, gracesaves, there is nothing sad about it!!! If you are married, and as husband and wife you engage in sex, it is not dirty, or sordid, or immoral, or shameful in anyway whatsoever.

And, Gracesaves, children ARE one of the important functions of marriage. But not THE ONLY ONE!!! Besides, God is in control and Sovereign and if a baby is suppose to be born the baby will be born. The couple will have THAT baby. A lot of this discussion seems to imply that man is in control and sovereign and God somehow doesn't know what is going on.
Cor_unam: I said people seem to be implying that sex between married couples, if IT IS NOT OPEN to life, is somehow immoral. I mean, people can believe what they want, but just because that particular time, it is not open to life doesn't mean that time it is immoral. Read Romans, or the entire bible for that matter, and you see no such thing implied, referred to or meant. And the reason is because sex for fun is NOT immoral, or wrong.
And other thing. So someone is in a "relationship" but not married so they are not engaging in sex. Of course, not. They are not married. I thought that was beyond question. Really, now!!! I don't think anyone here questions that sex is ONLY ONE of the things that goes with marriage and that love is the main thing. I'm assuming that if someone is married they are in love, at least for the discussiuon here. Obviously, people this day and age marry for alot of reasons that have nothing to do with love or I don't think there would be so many divorces. Aside from people being more and more self-centered, and immature these days (oh no, that may raise some protest, but it seems to be a rather objective observation). Maybe that comes from all the brain-washing in the school system that keeps telling a kid that he is the center of the universe and the entire world revolves around his desires.

[ April 15, 2002, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

I'm telling you that biblically it's not even part of the equation. Paul makes it very clear in I Corinthians 7 that the best thing would be for people to not marry at all (nor have sex) because Jesus is coming soon and we have better things to do with our time. Paul is obviously not at all concerned about the furtherance of the human race, just the salvation of those who are already here.

He does tell people that if they are so aroused by each other that they cannot restrain themselves, they should marry; but he makes no mention of children in the chapter. He only speaks of desire.

Joshua

 

Hi Joshua,

Is divorce ever permissible?

God bless,

Carson