"Contraception as bad as sodomy, abortion"

[olfie]

Furthermore, I think that contraception sometimes is allowed (even is a duty) for instance for the health of the woman. In the past (also in the times of the bible) baby's got 3 years breastfeeding. During that time the woman wouldn't get pregnant. Actually a natural kind of birth control. But birth control for economical reasons (or other selfish reasons) is against scripture.

Well, should we decide what's good for us?
Don't we have to believe that the Lord will take care of this all?

Or do we have to use birth control because of it's existence, and do we have to use something because in this case it is OUR responsibillity?

[Dathenum]

But of course, I am also strongly opposed to anticonception. Be a man and have no sex at all if you do not want a possible result of it.

so, sex is only a way of reproduction?

Not according to the bible.

Proverbs 5:15-19
15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well. 16 Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets. 17 Let them be only thine own, and not strangers' with thee. 18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

[refo]

In the past (also in the times of the bible) baby's got 3 years breastfeeding. During that time the woman wouldn't get pregnant.

The term of trhree years is not correct. This natural contraception is rather safe for only six months after the birth of the child.

[memento]

In the past (also in the times of the bible) baby's got 3 years breastfeeding. During that time the woman wouldn't get pregnant.

The term of trhree years is not correct. This natural contraception is rather safe for only six months after the birth of the child.

Well, one way or another, we don't read in our bible of lots of children with one mother....

[Dathenum]

Well, should we decide what's good for us?
Don't we have to believe that the Lord will take care of this all?

Or do we have to use birth control because of it's existence, and do we have to use something because in this case it is OUR responsibillity?

My opinion is that if we act irresponsible, we cannot expect the Lord to take care of those things. I think this question has a link to the vaccination controversy, where the question also is: should we use the means God has provided us (of course with prayerfull dependance on God), or should we without that just trust that God will make all things well?

[Pim]

Furthermore, I think that contraception sometimes is allowed (even is a duty) for instance for the health of the woman. In the past (also in the times of the bible) baby's got 3 years breastfeeding. During that time the woman wouldn't get pregnant. Actually a natural kind of birth control. But birth control for economical reasons (or other selfish reasons) is against scripture.

Well, should we decide what's good for us?
Don't we have to believe that the Lord will take care of this all?

Or do we have to use birth control because of it's existence, and do we have to use something because in this case it is OUR responsibillity?

We will always be called to keep in mind both responsibility and dependence. But we don't have to give up the responsibility only in the fact of birth-control. On several issues we take our responsibilities using every effort, why not on this issue?

In a prior topic on this forum I made a parable between children and food. At home I have enough food to eat the whole day. But mostly we use our brians and only eat on regular times. We pray for this food and thank God for the possibilities he gave us to eat and drink as much as we need to live en enjoy our live.
BUT we do not eat at much as possible, only for the reason that we have received the food from our Lord.
The same with the children we receive from the Lord. Not as much as possible and not in the point of view that the more children we have, the more blessed we are. Children are a blessing of the Lord and that doesn't automatically mean (in my opinion) much children are a great blessing of the Lord. There is no connection between the number of children and the greatness of the blessing.

[Miscanthus]

There is no connection between the number of children and the greatness of the blessing.

I think there is a difference between de age of the old testament and the age we live in. From a social and cultural point of view, it was a great blessing to get more (male) childeren. They could take care of you when you became old.
Today we have homes for the elderly...

[Vincent]

When masturbating -or even when undertaking no sexual activity whatever- someone could also use his semen in a 'better' way (from a Scholastic point of view). Does this point of view mean that someone has to intercourse very regularly, to prevent high "opportunity costs" from spilled semen?

Sounds strange, very strange :shock:

Masturbation is also to be opposed to, because when one looks at a women with a lustful eye, he already has commited adultry. Of course this doesn't apply to a "wet dream", which is an natural thing.

Furthermore, I think that contraception sometimes is allowed (even is a duty) for instance for the health of the woman. In the past (also in the times of the bible) baby's got 3 years breastfeeding. During that time the woman wouldn't get pregnant. Actually a natural kind of birth control. But birth control for economical reasons (or other selfish reasons) is against scripture.

I only used masturbation as an example; I didn't state that I don't see that as sin.

As for contraception I agree with Olfie.

[Vincent]

Be a man and have no sex at all if you do not want a possible result of it.

This has nothing to do with 'be a man'. This is just a point of view.

In my opinion married couples do not only have sex to get children, but sex is a part of their married life. A part of the relationship between a man and a woman.

Okay, that's true, but not willing to have possiblle side-effects of the relationships between a man and woman is rather weak. And that was the point I made.

From a biblical point of view, procreation and recreation may not be seperated -at least not completely.

[Miscanthus]

But birth control for economical reasons (or other selfish reasons) is against scripture.

where says the scripture so?

[Pim]

Be a man and have no sex at all if you do not want a possible result of it.

This has nothing to do with 'be a man'. This is just a point of view.

In my opinion married couples do not only have sex to get children, but sex is a part of their married life. A part of the relationship between a man and a woman.

Okay, that's true, but not willing to have possiblle side-effects of the relationships between a man and woman is rather weak. And that was the point I made.

From a biblical point of view, procreation and recreation may not be seperated -at least not completely.

A child is not 'a possible side-effect'. A child has a soul and needs a lot of love, care and so on. This love and care for children may not be(?) at the cost of the couple's love and care. And maybe someone is able to bring up and care for five or more children, but please do never force (which you do, if you are against birth-control) a couple to receive these 5 children in 8 year......

Think also about the spiritual live from man and woman. Can a lot of children be combined with enough time and energy to invest in spiritual live for themselves and their children?

Truly not an easy question to settle with a one-liner or simple statement.

[olfie]

A child is not 'a possible side-effect'. A child has a soul and needs a lot of love, care and so on. This love and care for children may not be(?) at the cost of the couple's love and care. And maybe someone is able to bring up and care for five or more children, but please do never force (which you do, if you are against birth-control) a couple to receive these 5 children in 8 year......

Think also about the spiritual live from man and woman. Can a lot of children be combined with enough time and energy to invest in spiritual live for themselves and their children?

Truly not an easy question to settle with a one-liner or simple statement.

I thinq, that was also a way of thinqin, like Abraham and Sarah thought when there was no child coming in years. And Abraham started a affair with Hagar.
Because God might give us too much children to handle .
I don't think that WE have to decide what might be good for us. There's so much (on the basis of own experience), that we think we can't handle... Well God will give us the powers to handle! He will give the shoulders to carry the burden. We are not allowed to decide what we can handle, en what we can't handle.

But, as you say. It is not a that 'black-white' question.

[Unionist]

God gave sexuality also to enjoy each other. How can you enjoy sexuality when you are always afraid of the results?

There are situations when it is not wise to get children. Should one burn in such situations? Is it healthy to have sex and always think: Oh, I hope nothing will come from it? I guess that will be the end of pleasure. Image you eating french fries while continually being afraid of becoming fat. Will you enjoy your meal?

I think Pim's camparison with food is very good. We eat to live, but also for the taste and pleasure of it. That's why food has flavours.

[Miscanthus]

We are not allowed to decide what we can handle, en what we can't handle.

But, as you say. It is not a that 'black-white' question.

But where is our responsability as we make love without thinking of the consequences? Such as: : I make love as much as I want without contraceptives and God will care?
The difference between animals and humans is that humans have brains. We got brains to use them, in dependence of God.

indeed, it's not black-white, but different from your opinion

[Unionist]

A child is not 'a possible side-effect'. A child has a soul and needs a lot of love, care and so on. This love and care for children may not be(?) at the cost of the couple's love and care. And maybe someone is able to bring up and care for five or more children, but please do never force (which you do, if you are against birth-control) a couple to receive these 5 children in 8 year......

Think also about the spiritual live from man and woman. Can a lot of children be combined with enough time and energy to invest in spiritual live for themselves and their children?

Truly not an easy question to settle with a one-liner or simple statement.

I thinq, that was also a way of thinqin, like Abraham and Sarah thought when there was no child coming in years. And Abraham started a affair with Hagar.
Because God might give us too much children to handle .
I don't think that WE have to decide what might be good for us. There's so much (on the basis of own experience), that we think we can't handle... Well God will give us the powers to handle! He will give the shoulders to carry the burden. We are not allowed to decide what we can handle, en what we can't handle.

But, as you say. It is not a that 'black-white' question.

Maybe God gave us the brains to use. I know many many people who have a lot of children and can't handle. Was that God's mistake of their own?