I had issues with my pms for a couple of months after I got the vaccine, so did my family member. However, prior to getting it I researched all of the known side effects at the time, and that was one, I haven't had any other issues since and it's been awhile. My friend/neighbor who works for the alternative doctor I see now, swears the vaccine caused her one daughter to have all sorts of issues though.
-
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.
What is the biblical basis for contraception?
- Thread starter PilgrimJustPassingThru
- Start date
I strongly disagree with abortion and truly dislike when it's mocked in such a manner, like many of the leftist like to do. That's why your comment about taking birth control equating to child murder is so incredibly offensive.
Last edited:
Our Maker said, "be fruitful and multiply". He said it to more than Adam and Eve; if you read the Bible, He says it to you.
And they blessed Rebekah and said to her, “Our sister, may you become the mother of thousands upon thousands. May your offspring possess the gates of their enemies.”
Gen 24:60
And they blessed Rebekah and said to her, “Our sister, may you become the mother of thousands upon thousands. May your offspring possess the gates of their enemies.”
Gen 24:60
If be fruitful and multiply is a universal command that applies to everyone, at what point does someone cross the line into being sinful and rebellious? Is it because they choose to not have children immediately when they can? At the moment they reach puberty? Paul tells widows that they are free to remain single, what if they never had children? Is she living in sinful rebellion? Was the apostle Paul? Were the people he wishes would remain single like him? I'm always so confused by people who insist on this because having such an opinion requires you personally deciding when other people are living in rebellion or being sinful, and at what point in their lives this begins and ends.
I think the Holy Scriptures demonstrate that the man who finds a wife finds a good thing. What I had in view in posting this doesn’t have a lot to do with those with the gift of chastity, or young people, etc.
Rather, the spirit of what I was asking about has more to do with whether it’s right for couples to say “Nay Lord,” and decouple what is unitive from what is procreative in the pursuit of pleasure, or at the unction of unbelief.
That's not what I said at all. I'm talking about meeting their basic needs and being able to properly care for them, like being able to keep toddlers from killing themselves and things like that. I'm talking about neglect.
My comment was meant to be understood generally, not for you personally. Sorry. Shalom
No, He does not say it to us because we're reading it. He was speaking to two specific people. There's no biblical basis for the idea that we should have as many children as physically possible, even if you believe those words were targeted at all people. You can bear the fruit of four children and still be multiplying by 2x.
If we're commanded to have as many children as humanly possible, why would Paul say that it's good to remain single? If our primary job is to have children, that doesn't sound like a good thing.
Giving birth is only the beginning of our responsibilities as parents. Men have to provide for them and women have to be able to care for them. If you're unable to do those basic things, it's not responsible behavior to keep having more once you've demonstrated that you can't care for the ones you have.
But I also think that this is one of the reasons polygyny is part of God's design for marriage. Our society places an enormous burden on women. I think it's much healthier to have more than one tending to the family, especially as you start having more children.
It's always so weird to me to see how many people here defend polygyny against others who label it rebellious and sinful, by pointing out the scripture never blatantly condemns it, only to turn around and make up their own rules and laws for rebellion, sin and the condemnation of things that aren't even scripturally condemned.
They were breasfeeding longer.
If you breastfeeding for more time you get less periods. Also, in modern times baby gets introduced to solid food at 6 months which reduces "caloric pressure" on mother. When that pressure lowers enough, period returns too.
After all, period is signal that female has enough reserves to carry baby to term.
Watched YouTube video saying that average prehistoric woman had 5 children.
Yes, women these days also have access to more nutrition and healthcare. I remember my grandmothers, great grandmothers and even my own mother telling me they didn't get periods regularly at all, they also all lost their teeth and had other health issues due to pregnancies because they didn't have adequate access to nutrition/food or healthcare. People these days take it too far by being unhealthy with food/fast food etc, but the alternative to how it was for the women before us was not always good either. Women having periods and having periods for longer in life can be a sign of good health.
Last edited:
Breastfeeding is natural contraceptive. That's my point. They also had culture where that contraceptive was effective for longer time that today.
And YouTube documentary was about prehistoric women who were in better health than civilized women. Sad, but truth is that formation of states and sedentary life have destroyed population's health.