• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Comments on "Christians and Birth Control"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

ylop

Member
Real Person*
Hi there.

I have started this new topic as I am unable to reply to the original article.

DocInKorea, I often like your articles, however this is not one of them.

You have presented your opinions on birth control as the settled biblical truth, whereas in fact they are one man's opinion.

Many others hold that the philosphy of the Bible towards family, marriage and children is the complete opposite of what you have written.

For example, the command to go forth and multiply is issued right at the start of Genesis and then repeated after the flood.

Regarding Onan, many see that as a clear condemnation of birth control. In a nutshell, Onan wanted to have sex with Tamar without conceiving a child. He didn't have to have sex with her at all, but he did. That is the birth control mentality.

No mention is made about the continuum between birth control and abortion. It is a matter of degree, not principal, once you have accepted birth control. Many birth control methods are abortive.

And entertaining the possibility that Christians may permanently use birth control? I do not see that as a Christian marriage. That is a sex partnership, not a fruitful Christian union.

A missionary couple using birth control? I think the wrong example would be set to the people they are on a mission to. Christians should be about relationships and family, not couples.

Let the little children come, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.

Regards,

ylop
 
Yay, I'm going to pick at that article too. Just, kind of in the opposite way.

The only new kind of birth control are the hormone regulation type methods. 'The pill' and 'the needle' which prevent ovulation. There are even allusions to that method in Jasher if you take such a thing seriously, though I tend not too. Pretty well everything else has been around in one form or another since antiquity. Wool, dung, or linen diaphragms where all used depending on the culture (Africans used the dung, sadly, ick, Jew's where known for the wool ones, Egyptians for the linen IIRC) Classical Mesopotamia had a beeswax\something (my memory is bad on this one) combination that melted at body temperature to form a very effective cervical cap. Rome even had a strain of a plant in the fennel family that would function like a 'morning after pill'.

I guess the 'rythem method' is fairly new, as the exacts of conception where not accurately pinned down until recently. Classical thought of a woman's time to conceive would put a couple together at her most fertile time and avoid intercourse when she was not very likely to conceive...

Even in the unlikely case that there was no effective contraception in Moses day, there where plenty in Jesus. If it was a big deal he had time to talk about it.

Jair
 
I agree with the general sentiment in DocInKorea's post, that scripture does not directly condemn contraception, and it is thus down to the conscience of individuals, who should not be judged by others on it.

However a very important isssue which Ylop has raised is the fact that many contraceptive methods do cause abortion, at least some of the time. Any contraceptive method that has the slightest risk of causing abortion (ie allowing conception but then preventing the survival of the embryo) is completely unacceptable to Christians. Most people don't look into the issue hard enough to work out how the contraceptive methods they are using actually work, and they are shocked to find out - I preached on this a while ago and the reactions were very telling...

Contraceptive methods that are primarily abortive:
The "morning after pill".
An IUD (intra-uterine device).

Contraceptive methods that are partially abortive:
All hormonal methods - "the pill" (any type), long-acting injections (depo-provera), injected capsules etc.

Contraceptive methods that do not risk abortion & could be considered by a Christian:
Condoms.
Diaphragms.
Natural family planning (NOT the "rhythm" method, it's useless, but decent scientifically-based methods such as Billings are as effective as the pill).

If a Christian truly believes that contraception is right for their lives, there are methods they can use which do not risk killing their children. But none are quite as easy as just popping a pill. Once a Christian starts to seriously think about this issue they often realise that children are blessings from God, and we can have faith that He will give us the number He has planned for us. Then they may move towards the "quiver-full" philosophy of trusting God with your family size, which is where we have ended up. However we do not judge other Christians for using contraception if they like, provided they are using a safe method that does not risk killing their children.

Tlaloc, just because people did somethig in Biblical times doesn't mean it was ok. We now know enough about science to determine which methods are moral and which are not, we should use this knowledge.

DocInKorea, the two big unspoken issues around marriage in the church today are polygamy and contraception. We must take a solidly logic- and bible-based approach to both, even if the conclusions aren't very comfortable for some. The reality is that many Christians have used hormonal contraception in the past, and the thought that they may have unwittingly caused the death of children through this is too much for them to take, so they wish to push society's line that all contraception is ok, it's just down to the individual conscience. But science clearly says otherwise, and we must be willing to speak the truth so Christians don't continue to make the same mistakes in future. The rates of childbirth, divorce, and probably abortion, are the same in the church as in the secular world, simply because most Christians are unwilling to address marriage-related issues and so allow young Christian couples to be taught by the secular world on these issues instead of by the Church.
 
I should say, I am aware that this topic has been done to death several times before.

The point I was attempting to bring out with my original post here, is to not present as the settled truth, a topic that has a wide range of opinions, all sides claiming biblical support.

(although of course my perspective is the correct interpretation :lol: )

ylop
 
Hey everyone,

The post wasn't a 'thus saith the Lord'. The point of the article was simply to address that the issues surrounding birth control were to be a matter of conscience, settled on a family by family basis.

Those that know me also know that I would in no way endorse any type of birth control that ceases life to function AFTER conception. I believe life begins at that very moment.

For me personally, my views have shifted from pre-BF days of limited birth control, to my present position of NO birth control. In fact, I can say that my current views regarding the issue of birth control are a direct result of a deeper understanding of plural marriage and God's mandate from dominion. However, that is my view only, and I would in no way seek to try to force that on someone else or to say that was the official position of Biblical Families.

I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

Blessings,

Doc
 
The issue is not that there is anything wrong with your views. The issue is that the faq post as currently written misses half of the question. I am glad you personally oppose contraceptive methods that can cause abortion, but the post you have written reads like everything is ok.

This is a very serious issue and needs to be mentioned, even if only briefly. Too many couples (including ourselves once) make very bad contraceptive choices simply because nobody ever tells them otherwise. The faq at present perpetuates this issue.
 
You know, you're right. I will make some changes to the post.

Thanks!

Doc
 
Thanks Doc, that's a good little edit that points out there is more to consider without detracting from your primary point.Glad to be able to help.
 
Tlaloc, just because people did somethig in Biblical times doesn't mean it was ok.
Click to expand...

Hasn't being poly taught you to adjust your hermeneutics to avoid this kind of statement?

Anyway, it's not that it was done that makes it ok, its the fact that it is not a new thing and so could have been covered way back in Moses day that eliminates your next line of thought from valid argumentation.

We now know enough about science to determine which methods are moral and which are not, we should use this knowledge.
Click to expand...

You just said you now know enough about knowing things to make your own moral judgments. I'm very pragmatic in my theory of ethics, but even for me that statement is a sticky mess of subjective ethics and an open door for personal prejudices to taint views of right and wrong.

I get that technical knowledge can help make better choices, but its not the foundation of ethics. For someone telling doc to take the bible-based approach you just threw the bible out the window in favor of a misguided view of 'modern scientific knowledge'.
 
Tlaloc said:
Tlaloc, just because people did somethig in Biblical times doesn't mean it was ok.
Click to expand...
Hasn't being poly taught you to adjust your hermeneutics to avoid this kind of statement?
Click to expand...
Polygamy isn't ok because it happened and the Bible never mentioned it, it's ok because the Bible repeatedly mentions it and show it is acceptable in many ways. This is completely different from contraception, which is never discussed (that I am aware of).

The Bible never mentions polyandry either, but that doesn't mean it's ok - we can determine from clear scriptural principles that it is not. That is the way we should approach contraceptive methods also, just because the Bible doesn't directly mention them does not mean that it doesn't have something to say about them.
Tlaloc said:
We now know enough about science to determine which methods are moral and which are not, we should use this knowledge.
Click to expand...

You just said you now know enough about knowing things to make your own moral judgments. I'm very pragmatic in my theory of ethics, but even for me that statement is a sticky mess of subjective ethics and an open door for personal prejudices to taint views of right and wrong.

I get that technical knowledge can help make better choices, but its not the foundation of ethics. For someone telling doc to take the bible-based approach you just threw the bible out the window in favor of a misguided view of 'modern scientific knowledge'.
Click to expand...
All morality and ethics must be based in scripture. I would never throw the bible out of the window. Science helps us to understand where to apply scripture, that is all. As God created everything, there is never any disagreement between science and theology, the two complement each other well.

A brief summary of my logic here:

1) When does life begin? Does the Bible say? No. Does science say? Yes, science is very clear that the only point where you can clearly say a new organism comes into being is conception. Therefore life starts at conception.

2) Is it ok to kill human life? Does the Bible say? Yes - "Thou shalt not kill" (apart from in some particular circumstances such as well-deserved capital punishment, but that's a discussion for another day). Scripture gives no exception for the unborn child. No need to consult science here as we have a clear ruling on the matter from scripture.

3) Therefore, unless scientific or theological evidence emerges to contradict (1), our best understanding of how to apply scripture is that it is sinful to kill an unborn child from the moment of conception onwards. This rules out a number of contraceptive methods as unscriptural, while leaving others as acceptable.

Our scientific understanding could change over time, but this particular area of science is pretty solidly based (unlike many others), and we should not use the notion that there's a slim chance something might be wrong as an excuse to ignore it.
 
I feel there are a whole lot of cultural interpretation in the above statement.

B
 
The thing is the Bible doesn't have to show any particular thing is acceptable for it to be good. The overwhelming majority of potential human actions are acceptable. The nature of Gods Law is just that, a law. It shows what one cannot do and give freedom for anything else. You could try to say 'Gods law didn't deal with birth control because it didn't exist then' and have a decent case for a new moral law, that is what I was addressing. The statement 'just because people did it in bible times doesn't make it ok' is an almost nonsense statement to me. It was either against Gods Law then or not. In this case its not.
1) When does life begin? Does the Bible say? No. Does science say? Yes, science is very clear that the only point where you can clearly say a new organism comes into being is conception. Therefore life starts at conception.
Click to expand...

Modern science has a very hard time specifically defining life period. There is no unequivocal definition of life from a scientific perspective. Even the modern 'big 7' can apply to fire in one way or another, and are not normally considered decisive. The older three criteria for life applied to many things most people would not consider 'alive'. Mostly defining life is in the field of the philosophers, and they don't fare much better, though they are more eloquent about it. You're leaning very hard on science for something that isn't very much in sciences scope.

Worse, even granting that most birth control methods are non-abortive. Properly regulated hormonal pills mean no ovulation therefore no conception. At best you have a case against the 'morning after pill', which isn't much a case against contraceptives in general.
 
Tlaloc said:
Worse, even granting that most birth control methods are non-abortive. Properly regulated hormonal pills mean no ovulation therefore no conception. At best you have a case against the 'morning after pill', which isn't much a case against contraceptives in general.
Click to expand...
All hormonal contraceptives can cause abortion at least some of the time. This is because they act in three ways:
1) Attempt to prevent ovulation
2) When ovulation still occurs, attempt to prevent conception by thickening the mucus in the cervix to make it harder for sperm to enter.
3) When conception still occurs, attempt to prevent implantation by changing the lining of the uterus so the embryo is unable to attach to it, and dies.

All of these methods are used, as all are necessary - in fact, all three can fail, as everyone who has had a baby while on the pill can confirm. At least some of the time, ovulation will occur (it can never be prevented 100%), conception will occur, but the embryo will be killed due to the changes made to the uterus.

That hormonal contraceptives can cause abortion is established medical fact, not just me being some puritanical nutcase. There are plenty of references for how hormonal contraceptives work if you do a quick internet search. A few quotes from doctors confirming this fact are here:
http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html
 
Please go to a website confirming my worldview for confirmation my worldview is correct??? :x

The main function of the 'combined pill' is to prevent ovulation, most women on the pill do not ovulate. Ovulation can occur if a woman forgets to take it so that is when the back up function kicks in but it is a less effective function since the back up function relies on continuance, if a woman forgets to take it, the back up function fails, so your anti pill argument actually does not stand up to science in situ, but only science in theory.


And I always thought you lot were against scientific theory ;)

B

BTW, I don't take hormones myself, I don't like artificial stuff but I really do not see the point in hysteria based on bad science and pre-formed opinion backed up by biased sources.
 
As this discussion regarding this issue points out so clearly, there are a lot of views regarding this issue. Once again, families are encouraged to investigate individual options for themselves, and to live according to their conscience without condemnation.

Locking the thread.

Blessings to all,

Doc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top