Contraception

So far the only argument we have seen from Aron and Paul is that children are blessing, so you should have lots of them, therefore birth control is wrong.

It seems to me that they are straining to find on bit of evidence to show that birth control is wrong! Oh and they also calaim that they never said that it was wrong. Well it certainly has been implied over and over again that they beleive it is and that Christians who practice it are:

selfish
worldly minded
arrogant
not concerned about the will of God.

The only thing this discussion has proven is that there is NO biblical evidence to calaim that contraception is wrong or right. The Bible is silent, so therefore it is a matter between each idividual and God.

Case closed.

 

Not so good with Mendellian genetics, hmm?

Let's call a certain dominant gene A. The recessive gene is a. Each person has two copies of this gene. Most everyone is homozygous dominant--AA. Some people are carriers--Aa. They carry the recessive gene, but they don't know because it is masked by the dominant A.

If two heterozygous (Aa) parents marry, their children have a 25% chance of being noncarriers (AA), 50% chance of being carriers (Aa), and a 25% chance of expressing the recessive trait (aa).

So two people get married, go along all chipper and happy, and have a baby. After a year she is diagnosed with cystic fibrosis--she got the double-dose of the recessive trait. Thanks to modern medical treatment, she may live to 30 years. She will have respiratory and digestive problems for her entire life.

Now the parents know that they are carriers and that their future children will have a 25% chance of also having cystic fibrosis. They can either continue having kids without considering their children's health at all or decide to use contraception.

About one in twenty people is a carrier of cystic fibrosis--and most of them don't know it.

The other scenario is an autosomal dominant disease. In this case the normal phenotype is homozygous recessive (aa). A person who is heterozygous (Aa) has the disease. The dominant gene is typically so rare that homozygous dominants don't really occur (AA).

Normally with autosomal dominant diseases the person is either aware that they have the disease or is aware they may be a carrier. An example is Huntington's disease, in which a heterozygous person develops slowly worsening dementia with onset at 35-50 years. Sometimes heterozygous children develop the disease early, and it then has an accellerated timeline.

So if a man who is going to develop Huntington's in the next decade or so marries a woman with the normal genotype, their children have a 50% chance of being normal (aa) and a 50% chance of having Huntington's (Aa).

Why do you ask why they are marrying? Is it your position that people whose genotypes make child-bearing cruel and irresponsible or people who are sterile should never marry? That would be extreme!

I'll refresh your memory--we're talking about this not becaust 99% of Christians are in danger of having disabled children, but because you sidetracked us earlier by purposefully misinterpreting my earlier post to accuse me of being cold-hearted and hating disabled people. The sidetrack developed from there.

I'm about to propose a new Godwin's Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_rule) where the first person to accuse his opponent of

A. being pro-eugenics or pro-abortion or
B. being spiritually inferior

automatically loses the argument. I think it would make things so much more civil around here!

[ July 25, 2005, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: blackbird ]

 

FYI, blackbird's edit above was not to get rid of any mean comments directed towards anyone, but editing out a colloquialism he thought might be inappropriate. Just wanted to avoid any speculation!

 

You guys make me laugh!

You continue to miss the main point. The main point is to acknowledge that children are a blessing from God and to trust him in every area of life, including reproduction.

Therefore, the goal is not to have as many children as you can (man-centered), or to evaluate based on the world's understanding how many children one can afford emotionally or financially (man-centered), but instead to glorify God in the union of marriage and the joy of parenthood by faithful trust and obedience in a marriage committed to God.

Simply put. The main point is "trust" in God.

You have no idea if God will bless you with many or few! It's not your choice and it's not your concern. Trusting God faithully is our call in our life. It is that simple (Matthew 6:33).

 

I know ... I was that way on purpose to demonstrate the fallacy of your argument.

Really? Where?? That isn't in my Bible that I know of.

You're doing it again. You say my decision to have a child or not should be based on the amount of money I have.</font>[/QUOTE]Doing what again? I am not saying anything about your decision to have a child. Quite frankly, I don't care whether you have children or not. That is totally beside the point. The point I am making is that there are a number of factors to go into the decision about having children and when to have them, and how many to have. One of those factors is money. To deny that is very strange. I can't imagine how you can deny that.

Sure they do. God's will about the house you buy is a will that involves money. God's will about the car you buy, or the college you attend, is a will that involves money. If your financial state doesn't enter into your decision making in the will of God, then you are crazy. My bet is that your financial state does enter in and you just don't want to admit it.

That is indeed the question, and it doesn't always have the same answer.

No it's not. It is part of the answer.

Yes, once his will has been determined. But you have tried to assert your conclusion without proving it. You assert that it is God's will that we not use contraception. Yet you skip right over the fact that God didn't say that. God's will for someone might be that they use contraception, and you can be assured that he will provide.

That's dishonest. I have offered a scriptural argument for it. You can disagree with the argument, but you cannot say that "not one scriptural argument has been offered."

Yes, to His will, not to yours or anyone else's.

Wrong and wrong. I am using Scripture, and specifically noting your lack of it along the way, and am not using money, but rightly asserting that money is a part of the decision.

That has been your point through the whole thread, where you have taken a wierd approach of changing the name to "blessing control" as if that makes it better. YOu have blasted me and others for saying taht birth control can be right for a couple. For you to turn around and say you aren't saying BC is wrong is disingenous.

That's a fine way to carry on a debate.

No, its not.

My wife is a blessing, but I don't want another one. My job at the church is a blessing, but I don't want another one. There are many blessings with which I am satisfied.

Again, Aaron, you are arguing from such a weak position with weak support. It is hard to maintain that position.

 

If you can't afford children, don't get married.

But really, the truth is, it's all about priorities.

 

There is nothing in this that I disagree with. And there is certainly nothing that precludes the use of birth control. I think your statement here is exactly right.

 

The Scriptures teach that a "wife" (singular) is a blessing.

The Scriptures teach that "children" (plural) are a blessing.

Your misuse of Scripture rivals anything that Warren pulled!

And your verse concerning a man who is responsible for taking care of his family, meaning his widowed mother, was so taken out of context it didn't deserve a response.

Neither Aaron or I are arguing that birth control per se is a sin. We are arguing that the Bible teaches that children are a blessing, God is sovereign, we are to called to faith and trust, and we know that God will provide our needs if we seek him first!

 

So what do you think of the cases where a couple are likely (25-50%) to have a child with a debilitating and ultimately fatal disease?

 

Paul,
Could you then summarize it a little more clearly for me then?

You don't believe that birth control per se is a sin. People such as Pastor Larry and I would agree with your last paragraph, including that birth control per se is not a sin.

Does it boil down to that if Christians have only 2-4 kids, and they have more material possessions than you that they show that they are selfish somehow?
I honestly am not following you when you say bc is not sin per se, yet you use loaded language like selfish.
You simply don't know the reasons that many Christians use bc. There are life-threatening situations for women, still. Yes, they trust God. But they also go to the doctor. That is part of trusting God. He made provision for the doctor.
Also, when I look around me at church, I see many people who have more than the 2-3 apparent children. Miscarriage and SIDS, for example, still goes on. There are many people who tried to have more kids than they actually had.

You present your family as a good example of your beliefs. And that is great. But that things worked out well for you does not necessarily mean it shows that raising 8 kids on what you consider "proper food" is THE Biblical pattern. It is an anecdote. Of which we all have a great many.
I have had relatives with a great many more children than eight. Why are you not actively pursuing having more? I don't see Biblically where this one area of life is the one in which we must be passive completely, accepting whatever happens, period. By that rationale, I would never have had 3 children. Because I was infertile and it took medical intervention. (We did not use methods we had a problem with, such as in vitro.) But once it worked 3 times, did I have a duty to try to have more, since the doctors said I would very likely die from pregnancy complications?

My husband and I long ago, with our family and church, prayerfully came to conclusions. But since you are a pastor, I am concerned for the burdens you are placing on your congregation.
You are taking general principles and extrapolating them to ASSUME, you do not actually know, that most current Christians have acted thoughtlessly and selfishly.

Karen

[ July 25, 2005, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Karen ]

 

Yes, in order to show the absurdity of your position, which you now appear to be backing away from. Smart move ...

BTW, while the Bible says taht children are a blessing, it does not require every couple to have children, to have multiple children, or to not use contraception. You misused Scripture, and I showed the absurdity of it.

So that principle applies to a widowed mother but not to children? Surely you don't expect us to believe that, do you?

 

Karen, thanks for your post.

Each couple must decide for themselve what is selfish and what isn't. Each couple must also decide for themselves what is faith and trust and what is fear, disobedience, or lack of faith.

I can't answer any of those questions for others.

I can teach the biblical principle that "children are a blessing." I can teach the biblical principle that "God wants us to seek him above all else." I can teach the biblical principle that "We need to trust God in every area of life."

How others than apply those principles is up to them.

I don't judge anyone in my congregation regarding how many children they have.

Neither do I judge them for being divorced and remarried, though I preach that God hates divorce, that divorce is a result of sin, and that selfishness play a large role in divorce.

My point or contention in the birth control issue is to consider the whole biblical record before acting. Many don't think about it. They simply go along with it without thinking about it biblically.

I've already gone on record indicating that I don't think barrier methods of birth control are sinful. But like anything, our attitude and motivations behind its use, may be sinful.

Surely you can figure that out. I don't think swimming at a public beach is sinful. But if I go there to "oogle" women, then it is.

I hope this alleviates your fears concerning my ministry. Thanks for caring.

 

Yes, in order to show the absurdity of your position, which you now appear to be backing away from. Smart move ...

BTW, while the Bible says taht children are a blessing, it does not require every couple to have children, to have multiple children, or to not use contraception. You misused Scripture, and I showed the absurdity of it.

So that principle applies to a widowed mother but not to children? Surely you don't expect us to believe that, do you?

I will respectfully disagree.

I'm not backing away from anything. I don't think I've misused Scripture. I haven't said that God requires couples to have as many children as they can! That's your assessment of my belief that God is sovereign and that children are a blessing from God in marriage.

I believe that God will give us as many children as he wants.

You seem to equate "not using birth control" with trying to have as many children as possible.

Couples all across America will tell you that not using birth control does not correlate with having as many kids as possible.

As to Scripture, caring for one's family in the context of a widowed mother is not the same thing as "Let me see, now, if I have another child, will I be able to care for him or her?"

Even you know that!

 

Ive heard this argument time and time again but the bottem line is, birth control is a sin, the bible commands us not to murder any one(including people to small to speak for themselves) Fertilization is were life starts, it can't start at conception because the only thing that happens during conception is the child bonds to his or her mothers womb for food and shelter preventing that from happening is the same a if you refused to feed your already born children. It can't start when the childs body is perfectly formed because if that's the standards for some one to be human then all deformed children are not human, hey all you people out there who are missing a body part as if you aren't already being discriminated enough against, according to this belief your not human. And we know there is no way life can begin at birth because a few layers of flesh protecting you should not and cannot determain human from non human, if that were the standared any one who ever dared to get a body gaurd is not human, because they are being protected by a few layers of someone elses flesh, if you don't want to have kids move to barrier protection, because the second "the seed hit the soil" (as I like to say) that seed is a plant. May I suggest that any one who commited this sin knowingly or unknowingly (most likely unknowingly) imediatly, ask God for his forgivness and never commit it again! God will gladey forgive you sins.

First and Final post.

Your servant
Fishnbread

 

Scriptural support?

While I see where you're coming from, there is no scipurtal support for that either.

But your contention is that human life starts before conception. If that's the case, then a man is committing murder when he has nocturnal emissions. Sounds rather silly, doesn't it?

Well, I'll give you points for knowing the difference between conception and fertilization. Generally, conception involves implantation.

 

In the terms we've been using, fertilization and conception are the same thing. Implantation is when the zygote attaches to the uterine wall.

No one here wants to prevent implantation. Those of us who believe contraception is not inherently sinful are talking about preventing fertilization by either preventing ovulation or by blocking sperm from reaching the egg.

 

Agreed.

 

Fishnbread said:

Where is the biblical evidence of this. If you have some post it. So far nobody has met that challenge.

 

Marriage is much more than just having children. There are many other reasons for a couple to marry.

1 Corinthians 7:9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (NKJV)

 

Aaron -

If a man believes he has the right to engage in sex whenever he feels aroused, and he also feels it is sinful for his wife to use a birth control method of any form, then the man is advocating numerous pregnancies with disregard for the health of the mother or the children.