Is it a sin to use contraception?

[Cristo Rei]

It's not a popular topic on this board because most Christians are guilty of overusing it. There was no widespread use of contraception when the Bible was written; that is why there is not much about it in the Bible. But there is some, and there are moral principles that must be considered. Contraception and abortion are twin evils of the same root and it takes serious study and prayer to find out why the Church is so strongly opposed to both. Bottom line: they generally undermine the sacred bond of the family, and contribute to the destruction of society. Further moral decay from these twin evils has led to euthanasia, or doctor assisted suicide because human life is not considered sacred in a growing number of countries.

Attacks on marriage, properly understood, are commonplace. So are efforts to protect the sanctity of life de novo. Campaigns against genetic engineering are similarly condemned. Benedict sees this as the work of the “spiritual power of the Anti-Christ.”​

POPE EMERITUS BENEDICT XVI SOUNDS OFF

Hi. Uv made some excellent points.

It isn't a popular subject cos i think we've probably all done it and that experience makes us too subjective to honestly interpret things

U referred to The Church and im guessing it's the RCC. One of the best things about being with the RCC is the CCC
Whenever i have this type of question i refer to the Catechism. I don't know if Protestant churches have Catechisms?

The Catechism gives us the interpretation of scripture. It puts everyone on the same page which prevents schisms
It addresses topics that the bible has no answer to. And it prevents people being blinded by their subjectivism to incorrectly interpret scripture

Both contraception and abortion promote promiscuity. It takes the responsibility away from the people having sex
Before you had to be careful cos of the risk of pregnancy.

Women were much more conservative cos they had to be sure they were picking a good man.
And so when man and woman united it was something much more precious, it was deeper, it had more meaning

Now sex is cheap. Both sexes sleep around which lowers our pair bonding abilities.
The more people someone sleeps with the harder it will be for them to sustain a relationship. High divorce rates are evidence of this

So contraception and abortion in society has only served to destroy the family unit

 

[farouk]

She's not, she's open to receive seed

We're back talking about the OT passage, and I see what you mean.

In 1 Cor. 7, the words used are 'defraud not...'.

In other words, in the language of Paul, Onan was defrauding his brother's wife.

But the New Testament analogy cannot be too close, because the custom involved - impregnating one's dead brother's wife to preserve the name in Israel - is not (to say the least...) a custom which has been carried over into the New Testament church.

 

[Waiting on him]

We're back talking about the OT passage, and I see what you mean.

In 1 Cor. 7, the words used are 'defraud not...'.

In other words, in the language of Paul, Onan was defrauding his brother's wife.

But the New Testament analogy cannot be too close, because the custom involved - impregnating one's dead brother's wife to preserve the name in Israel - is not (to say the least...) a custom which has been carried over into the New Testament church.

Awesome.

 

[farouk]

Awesome.

Today it would be unthinkable for a preacher to announce: "Today Brother so-and-so has been excommunicated because he used a condom with his brother's widow."

But those who wish to force the church to be viewed as Old Testament Israel would logically - if not in actual fact - be promoting this kind of weird scenario.

 

[Huperetes]

The scripture says that :Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood...
Any contraception method that takes place before blood cells develop is not sin.
(Hey, you said to use scripture and logic)

 

[Stan B]

The scripture says that :Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood...
Any contraception method that takes place before blood cells develop is not sin.
(Hey, you said to use scripture and logic)

That is REALLY bad!

 

[Huperetes]

That is REALLY bad!

Why is it bad Stan? Do you have a scriptural basis for this opinion?

 

[farouk]

The scripture says that :Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood...
Any contraception method that takes place before blood cells develop is not sin.
(Hey, you said to use scripture and logic)

A lot of Christians would agree that for bc condoms would be among the least problematic.

 

[Sabertooth]

The previous paragraph we see God take Er's life but we aren't told why... There might be something in that

All we do have is

"But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord killed him." Genesis 38:7 NKJV

 

[Huperetes]

A lot of Christians would agree that for bc condoms would be among the least problematic.

I agree, I am not condoning the "RU484" method. I was just showing from scripture where life is actually considered to begin. Is there any scriptural justification for claiming that life begins at conception?

 

[farouk]

I agree, I am not condoning the "RU484" method. I was just showing from scripture where life is actually considered to begin. Is there any scriptural justification for claiming that life begins at conception?

There is Scripture for the breath of life, I think. Since many fertilizations occur which never become implanted in the lining of the womb and thus grow to become a foetus, it's hard to call it an abortion. I'm not necessarily arguing in favour of condoms; but it's hard to argue against them on supposed grounds of hostility to abortion.

 

[Sabertooth]

...it's hard to call it an abortion.

It is still an [unintentional] miscarriage of sorts, if no abortifacients were present.

 

[farouk]

It is still an [unintentional] miscarriage of sorts, if no abortifacients were present.

In the Anglican prayer book, there is even a form of service, if desired, for women who have had miscarriages.

I do think it would be stretching definitions - and an unnecessary psychological burden on women - for anyone to try to argue that the microscopic failure of a fertilization to become implanted in the lining of the womb is somehow to be classified as a miscarriage: this would be a worry to some women that would be quite unnecessary.

It's almost like the idea of Mormons being 'baptised for the dead' in unusual ceremonies that have no base in Scripture.

 

[Sabertooth]

I do think it would be stretching definitions - and an unnecessary psychological burden on women - for anyone to try to argue that the microscopic failure of a fertilization to become implanted in the lining of the womb is somehow to be classified as a miscarriage: this would be a worry to some women that would be quite unnecessary.

Being unknown, it is a moot point, but they are ethically the same.

We had a known miscarriage. We even named her.

 

[farouk]

Being unknown, it is a moot point, but they are ethically the same.

A lot of Christians would find this hard to follow. Not by any means all of the eggs fertilized will actually become implanted and grow to a foetus.

(Maybe we won't agree on this one.)

 

[farouk]

I agree, I am not condoning the "RU484" method.

You mean, the morning after pill?

 

[Sabertooth]

A lot of Christians would find this hard to follow. Not by any means all of the eggs fertilized will actually become implanted and grow to a foetus.

As long as they didn't take any deliberate steps to make her uterus inhospitable, they are fine.

 

[Waiting on him]

In the Anglican prayer book, there is even a form of service, if desired, for women who have had miscarriages.

I do think it would be stretching definitions - and an unnecessary psychological burden on women - for anyone to try to argue that the microscopic failure of a fertilization to become implanted in the lining of the womb is somehow to be classified as a miscarriage: this would be a worry to some women that would be quite unnecessary.

It's almost like the idea of Mormons being 'baptised for the dead' in unusual ceremonies that have no base in Scripture.

The barren rejoice for they shall have more children than the married woman in the house. This is what God has promised, as my wife has said to me.. . Children.

 

[farouk]

As long as they didn't take any deliberate steps to make her uterus inhospitable, they are fine.

...but the uterus is inhospitable at very regular intervals anyway...

And sometimes the woman has period and womb tissue irregularities which, if left untreated, can cause years of suffering.

 

[Sabertooth]

...but the uterus is inhospitable at very regular intervals anyway...

And sometimes the woman has period and womb tissue irregularities which, if left untreated, can cause years of suffering.

Are you proposing that that somehow justifies a deliberate effort on top of that?
Or that a deliberate effort is just as innocent as a physiological malfunction?