A Birth Control Quiz

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
"The rest of the populace is more wicked than even the heathen themselves. For most married people do not desire offspring. Indeed, they turn away from it and consider it better to live without children, because they are poor and do not have the means with which to support a household. But this is especially true of those who are devoted to idleness and laziness and shun the sweat and the toil of marriage. But the purpose of marriage is not to have pleasure and to be idle but to procreate and bring up children, to support a household. This, of course, is a huge burden full of great cares and toils. But you have been created by God to be a husband or a wife and that you may learn to bear these troubles. Those who have no love for children are swine, stocks, and logs unworthy of being called men or women; for they despise the blessing of God, the Creator and Author of marriage." Martin Luther

Is that where Luther says birth control is sodomy? That's quite a stretch.

 

[dianetavegia]

You need to read the verse in context:

Psalms 127: 1 - 5

1 Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the LORD guards the city, The watchman keeps awake in vain. 2 It is vain for you to rise up early, To retire late, To eat the bread of painful labors; For He gives to His beloved sleep. 3 Behold, children are a gift of the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward. 4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one's youth. 5 How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; They will not be ashamed When they speak with their enemies in the gate

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:


We've had the quiverfull discussion in the women's forum. A quiver is a 'small' pouch that holds only a few arrows and is not indicative of a family having 14 children when Dad can only afford to feed 3.

Diane, the next verse tells us how children are a blessing:

To meet the enemy at the gate.

When your children go to meet the enemy at the gate to defend you, would you be more blessed sending 3 or 14?

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
You need to read the verse in context:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Psalms 127: 1 - 5

1 Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the LORD guards the city, The watchman keeps awake in vain. 2 It is vain for you to rise up early, To retire late, To eat the bread of painful labors; For He gives to His beloved sleep. 3 Behold, children are a gift of the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward. 4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one's youth. 5 How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; They will not be ashamed When they speak with their enemies in the gate

</font>[/QUOTE]Diane,

I happen to be a bow hunter and my quiver holds at least a dozen.

Don't think any warrior in those days would have gone to battle with 2 or three arrows with a hoard of Philistines bearing down on him when he could have carried many more. I am well aware of the context and from my perspective it only strengthens my point. Let the Word of God convict you and repent if you are involved in this scourage on society. The gays have ways around Romans 1 also. Be careful.

God has the hairs on our heads numbered. He provides. I grew up in a family of 17. We weren't rich but we didn't starve or freeze and were not naked. Every single one of my brothers and sisters has been a blessing to me in one form or another. I see too many people with boats and snowmobiles saying I can't afford any more children. "Saying there are too many children is like saying there are too many flowers." Mother Teresa.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

By the way Diane, we get it all the time. "where does it say that in the Bible" so what's good for the goose.

Do you see anyone in the Bible limiting the size of their family? Abraham? Moses? Noah? Adam? Joseph? There is one. His name was Onan. I am sure you are familiar with him. Anywhere in the Bible that it says you can limit the size of your family for any reason? Surely you have one verse to support this practice? "Be fruitful and multiply" is God's command to YOU. I see nowhere in scripture that it says the command has expired.

Blessings (many of them)

 

[LaRae]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Christians who condone artificial birth control are engaging in objectively grave sin irregardless of whether they themselves are culpable of sin due to their lack of knowledge. This is a situation that must be remedied.

Preventing pregnancy by abstaining from relations or by having a permanent procedure (vasectomy) is NOT sin. There is NO scripture to support your stance!
(I am NOT including birth control pills or IUD type contraceptives in that remark as those cause abortions.)

Diane </font>[/QUOTE]By the same token you can't provide ANY scripture support that Vasectomy is approved by God.

Your stance is moot.


LaRae

 

[trying2understand]

I find it almost funny (almost funny because at the same time it is so sad) that some simultaneously believe that:

it is ok to mutilate their bodies with surgery to alter God given functions for the purpose of avoiding conceiving children....

But getting a tatoo is a sinful desecration of the temple of the Holy Spirit.

 

[thessalonian]

I have not yet heard a Baptist say cloning is okay. Yet the scriptural support for banning it is hardly easy to come by. Diane, what do you think? Cloning of humans okay? I even have seen where one group wants to clone Jesus Christ. They plan on getting DNA from the Shroud or one of the many authenticated relics, i.e. pieces of the cross, the crown of thornes, etc. etc. I am sure they have this all worked out as to how the second coming is going to come about. Anybody okay with this? Anyone willing to give it the thumbs up or say this is not sin?

Blessings

 

[Eladar]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
I find it almost funny (almost funny because at the same time it is so sad) that some simultaneously believe that:

it is ok to mutilate their bodies with surgery to alter God given functions for the purpose of avoiding conceiving children....

But getting a tatoo is a sinful desecration of the temple of the Holy Spirit.

How is having sex using conception any different from not having sex at all?

Isn't the net result the same?

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Eladar:
How is having sex using conception any different from not having sex at all?

Isn't the net result the same?

No, not at all.

Sex with conception = baby

No sex = no baby

Very different result.

 

[LaRae]

Originally posted by Eladar:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by trying2understand:
I find it almost funny (almost funny because at the same time it is so sad) that some simultaneously believe that:

it is ok to mutilate their bodies with surgery to alter God given functions for the purpose of avoiding conceiving children....

But getting a tatoo is a sinful desecration of the temple of the Holy Spirit.

How is having sex using conception any different from not having sex at all?

Isn't the net result the same? </font>[/QUOTE]So the ends justfies the means?

The Bible clearly says it is permissible to 'spend a time apart' from one's spouse and devot themselves to prayer.

The Bible does NOT say it's ok to use various artifical methods to prevent conception.


LaRae

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by Eladar:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by trying2understand:
I find it almost funny (almost funny because at the same time it is so sad) that some simultaneously believe that:

it is ok to mutilate their bodies with surgery to alter God given functions for the purpose of avoiding conceiving children....

But getting a tatoo is a sinful desecration of the temple of the Holy Spirit.

How is having sex using conception any different from not having sex at all?

Isn't the net result the same? </font>[/QUOTE]Only if you consider sex for pure animalistic function, i.e. procreation.

However sex between a husband and wife is a lot more than that -- it is a reflection of their whole relationship and an expression of closeness and trust that, in a Christian marriage, cannot be equaled by anything else. Perhaps that is why the Lord mentioned the two becoming one...

Also, this is not a thread to 'pick on Diane'. You guys ought to be ashamed of yourselves for stooping to attack a person when a subject of this import is being discussed.

I do not believe there are many women who, not using any birth control at all, conceive child after child after child. Some do, yes, but it is rather rare, actually. In the Bible, we see much more problem with conceiving than not conceiving, don't we? Even with four partners, Jacob only managed twelve sons and one recorded daughter (although there may have been more).

So yes, I am against birth control. But I am also against attacks on people who disagree with me. Discuss the subject, not the people, folks.

 

[GraceSaves]

A little analogy that always comes to mind for me:

God is the creator.
We are made in the image and likeness of God.
Because of this, we are allowed to pro-create, to assist in the creation of new people, and new children of God.
When God intends to create, there is nothing prohibiting it.
When we procreate, why should we, who are made in the likeness of God, not have the same intention? What if God used contraception when making your soul? (Yes, that is silly, but only because God would never do such a thing.)

 

[Eladar]

Because of this, we are allowed to pro-create, to assist in the creation of new people, and new children of God.
When God intends to create, there is nothing prohibiting it.
When we procreate, why should we, who are made in the likeness of God, not have the same intention?

If you are going to be consistant, you must believe that anyone who does not get married and procreates must be doing something evil.

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Eladar:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Because of this, we are allowed to pro-create, to assist in the creation of new people, and new children of God.
When God intends to create, there is nothing prohibiting it.
When we procreate, why should we, who are made in the likeness of God, not have the same intention?

If you are going to be consistant, you must believe that anyone who does not get married and procreates must be doing something evil. </font>[/QUOTE]You are equivicating an action with a non-action. In essence, Catholics are not against birth control; they are against contraception. Yes, being the unmarried virgin that I am, I am practicing "birth control" by not causing any babies to be born. But, that is only because babies come about from a specific act, procreation. If one procreates but contracepts, one kills the procreation act: it is counter-conception. My point is that every time a human life is being formed, God doesn't NOT put a soul in. We should have the same respect, and if we are going to "procreate," then we should be as open to the creation of the life as God is to the creation of the soul.

You are purposefully keeping God out of the sexual act by not allowing him to participate, because you are willfully denying the joining of the sperm and the egg, where when joined, God implants a new soul. Even if no new life results from the joining of the man and woman, without contraception, the action is open to the movement of God in creating a new life. With contraception, the act is closed to God's work by disallowing the joining of the sperm/egg to occur.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Pointing out the fact of one's fallibility has no bearing upon the dialogue, for all members partake in this same disease.

Which means that you and all your fellow Catholics from the Pope right on down suffer from fallibility.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
When we procreate, why should we, who are made in the likeness of God, not have the same intention? What if God used contraception when making your soul? (Yes, that is silly, but only because God would never do such a thing.)

God didn't make your soul. Your soul is the result of the natural procreative process. God stopped creating on the sixth day when it was all done and it was very good. This little analogy of yours has no similarity whatsoever. The only close connection would be to argue that God stopped creating but still enjoyed his creation. So we as humans can stop procreating but still enjoy the marital relationship.

 

[Eladar]

You are purposefully keeping God out of the sexual act by not allowing him to participate, because you are willfully denying the joining of the sperm and the egg, where when joined, God implants a new soul. Even if no new life results from the joining of the man and woman, without contraception, the action is open to the movement of God in creating a new life. With contraception, the act is closed to God's work by disallowing the joining of the sperm/egg to occur.

Do you really think that God can't overcome contraception if He wanted to?

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
God didn't make your soul. Your soul is the result of the natural procreative process. God stopped creating on the sixth day when it was all done and it was very good. This little analogy of yours has no similarity whatsoever. The only close connection would be to argue that God stopped creating but still enjoyed his creation. So we as humans can stop procreating but still enjoy the marital relationship.

If God didn't make my soul, who did? If the soul is a product of the natural union, then how am I expected to live past my natural life? Is the soul purley natural, or is it of supernatural substance?

As to "God overcoming contraception," why would you put the obstacle in his way in the first place?

 

[Eladar]

As to "God overcoming contraception," why would you put the obstacle in his way in the first place?

Because I don't believe what the RCC teaches on this matter.