Is contraception/birth control a sin?

[Saeph]

Is contraception/birth control a sin?

I'm asking because my family is very devout, especially my grandmother. I didn't notice the whole extent of all that until last Friday. My mother always kept telling me that if I had a long-time relationship I should ask her for the birth control pill (as far as I know you only get it on prescription when your parents agree). Well, I asked her and the achievment was that she involved my whole family in this issue. At the end she wanted me to dump my boyfriend, because she couldn't accept me taking any contraceptives...

So, please tell me if birth control is a sin in the christian sense.

 

[Theogonia]

Definitely not.

 

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

'friad so.

The use of contraception seeks to divorce the procreative aspect from the unitive aspect of the marital act. As such it goes against the natural law that God has created as the procreative aspect is designed to go hand in hand with the unitive aspect and one cannot truly be obtained without the other.

Of course the theology goes much deeper.

If you don't "get" this, then there are some books out there that go into detail on the matter. Maybe you could talk about it with your family more, too.

 

[traversinginfinity]

'friad so.

The use of contraception seeks to divorce the procreative aspect from the unitive aspect of the marital act. As such it goes against the natural law that God has created as the procreative aspect is designed to go hand in hand with the unitive aspect and one cannot truly be obtained without the other.

Of course the theology goes much deeper.

If you don't "get" this, then there are some books out there that go into detail on the matter. Maybe you could talk about it with your family more, too.

I have to agree with Da_Funkey. It's a perversion of the natural sex act the way God intended it to be.

But hey, I'm not judging you! I'm struggling with a sex-related vice as well. Hop on over to the "I'm gay! What do I do?" thread.

 

[Theogonia]

'friad so.

The use of contraception seeks to divorce the procreative aspect from the unitive aspect of the marital act. As such it goes against the natural law that God has created as the procreative aspect is designed to go hand in hand with the unitive aspect and one cannot truly be obtained without the other.

Of course the theology goes much deeper.

If you don't "get" this, then there are some books out there that go into detail on the matter. Maybe you could talk about it with your family more, too.

You know, I'm always being asked to prove my beliefs using the bible.

So now I challenge you, prove to me using the bible that it is a sin to stop the procreative aspect from occuring.

I see nothing wrong with it.

I'd like to be able to control the amount of children I have thanks very much.

 

[traversinginfinity]

You know, I'm always being asked to prove my beliefs using the bible.

So now I challenge you, prove to me using the bible that it is a sin to stop the procreative aspect from occuring.

I see nothing wrong with it.

I'd like to be able to control the amount of children I have thanks very much.

Genesis 38
8: Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother."
9: But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled the sperm on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother.
10: And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.

God killed Onan for practicing artificial contraception. "Pulling out" is just one form of artificial contraception. If one form is wrong, then I must assume that all forms are wrong. It would have been no different if Onan had used a condom, if condoms had been available then.

I challenge you to show, in Scripture, where contraception is NOT a sin. We already know that "pulling out" is a sin, and since the effect of this is the same as any other form of artificial contraception, I think it's safe to say that all forms of artificial contraception are equally sinful.

 

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

Absolutly, scripture does not cover everything, sometimes we have to infer a truth only hinted at from scripture.

For example, where did you get the idea that it HAD to be in the bible. That is not contained in the bible at all. You got that through your tradition didn't you?

 

[Theogonia]

Genesis 38
8: Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother."
9: But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled the sperm on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother.
10: And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.

God killed Onan for practicing artificial contraception. "Pulling out" is just one form of artificial contraception. If one form is wrong, then I must assume that all forms are wrong. It would have been no different if Onan had used a condom, if condoms had been available then.

I challenge you to show, in Scripture, where contraception is NOT a sin. We already know that "pulling out" is a sin, and since the effect of this is the same as any other form of artificial contraception, I think it's safe to say that all forms of artificial contraception are equally sinful.

Talk about taking things out of context.

Onan had a duty to perform. God killed him for refusing to do his duty

"Go in to your brother's wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her"

It had nothing to do with the contraceptive.

 

[traversinginfinity]

Talk about taking things out of context.

Onan had a duty to perform. God killed him for refusing to do his duty

"Go in to your brother's wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her"

It had nothing to do with the contraceptive.

Sure, it has everything to do with contraception.

Do you know what the penalty was for not performing that duty?

Deuteronomy 25:7-10
7: And if the man does not wish to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, `My husband's brother refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me.'
8: Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he persists, saying, `I do not wish to take her,'
9: then his brother's wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, `So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother's house.'
10: And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, The house of him that had his sandal pulled off.

Where do you see death anywhere in there? Nowhere. The punishment for not fulfilling that particular duty was public humiliation, not death.

There was more going on here than just not fulfilling a duty. If Onan had simply refused to take his brother's wife, then he would have only received public humiliation, as the law demands. But God killed Onan, and the reason he killed him was because Onan violated the natural law by preventing the child from being conceived. If this were just about duty, Onan would not have been killed, he would have been publicly humiliated, as the law demands.

If you're so worried about context... then please show me in context where contraception is condoned in Scripture. I believe I have just shown, in light of the context of the law in Deuteronomy 25, why there was more to what Onan did than just simply not fulfilling a duty.

 

[Randombitsofstring]

Genesis 38
8: Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother."
9: But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled the sperm on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother.
10: And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.

God killed Onan for practicing artificial contraception. "Pulling out" is just one form of artificial contraception. If one form is wrong, then I must assume that all forms are wrong. It would have been no different if Onan had used a condom, if condoms had been available then.

I challenge you to show, in Scripture, where contraception is NOT a sin. We already know that "pulling out" is a sin, and since the effect of this is the same as any other form of artificial contraception, I think it's safe to say that all forms of artificial contraception are equally sinful.

I was taught that God killed Onan not because he spilled his sperm on the ground, but because he was being rebellious. If God tells you to do something and you refuse then yes he will be angry—but does those few verse imply that God is telling all man kind that they can not practice birth control? This whole Onan thing seemed to be one specific event, if God wanted all people to not use B.C. then why didn’t he say in a manner that all Christians could agree on?

I think it’s much more dangerous to imply that you know what God is thinking and implying more to the bible than God set forth.

 

[BreadAlone]

A.) Yes (to the OP's question.), to a degree, but first I must address "B".

B.) The real question should be why are you in the need of these devices. If you are not married, you should not be having sex in the first place!! But, if you weremarried, I would see no problem with contraceptives.

Now, pills on the other hand, are a different story. If they are designed to prevent the union of a sperm and egg, I would probably not have a problem with their use in marrital bonds. But, if the pill was designed to terminate this union, then yes, I would think that it is wrong for it would be murder.

 

[Godslilgurlalways]

I depends while you are taking it if it's sex related issuse I would say yes, but some take it b/c it helps their ance and all

 

[traversinginfinity]

I was taught that God killed Onan not because he spilled his sperm on the ground, but because he was being rebellious. If God tells you to do something and you refuse then yes he will be angry—but does those few verse imply that God is telling all man kind that they can not practice birth control? This whole Onan thing seemed to be one specific event, if God wanted all people to not use B.C. then why didn’t he say in a manner that all Christians could agree on?

God didn't tell Onan to do it, Judah did.

God doesn't speak to Christians universally through the Bible, He speaks to Christians universally through the Church. But that's another discussion altogether.

I think it's clear from Scripture that the act of contraception is what was displeasing to the Lord. If it had just been the duty alone, then Onan would have received the punishment that hte Law demands in Deuteronomy 25.

I think it’s much more dangerous to imply that you know what God is thinking and implying more to the bible than God set forth.

That's works both ways. If someone says contraception is not sinful, are they not implying they know what God is thinking? Especially in light of the fact that God kills Onan for practicing contraception, and not simply for not fulfilling a duty. That's not something I would take lightly

 

[Theogonia]

Sure, it has everything to do with contraception.

Do you know what the penalty was for not performing that duty?

Deuteronomy 25:7-10
7: And if the man does not wish to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, `My husband's brother refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me.'
8: Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he persists, saying, `I do not wish to take her,'
9: then his brother's wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, `So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother's house.'
10: And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, The house of him that had his sandal pulled off.

Where do you see death anywhere in there? Nowhere. The punishment for not fulfilling that particular duty was public humiliation, not death.

There was more going on here than just not fulfilling a duty. If Onan had simply refused to take his brother's wife, then he would have only received public humiliation, as the law demands. But God killed Onan, and the reason he killed him was because Onan violated the natural law by preventing the child from being conceived. If this were just about duty, Onan would not have been killed, he would have been publicly humiliated, as the law demands.

If you're so worried about context... then please show me in context where contraception is condoned in Scripture. I believe I have just shown, in light of the context of the law in Deuteronomy 25, why there was more to what Onan did than just simply not fulfilling a duty.

Are you implying God can not do whatever he wants?

He was angry at Onan for being rebellious.

 

[BreadAlone]

I was taught that God killed Onan not because he spilled his sperm on the ground, but because he was being rebellious. If God tells you to do something and you refuse then yes he will be angry—but does those few verse imply that God is telling all man kind that they can not practice birth control? This whole Onan thing seemed to be one specific event, if God wanted all people to not use B.C. then why didn’t he say in a manner that all Christians could agree on?

I think it’s much more dangerous to imply that you know what God is thinking and implying more to the bible than God set forth.

That's a very good way at looking at that

It's kind of like the story of Jonah. God didn't punish Jonah because he was travelling to Tarshish, it was because he was not going to Nineveh.

 

[traversinginfinity]

Are you implying God can not do whatever he wants?

He was angry at Onan for being rebellious.

He was angry at Onan for preventing conception. We could go back and forth like this all night.

If you can offer some kind of Biblical support for your claim that contraception is morally acceptable, please do. If you can offer some kind of Biblical support for your claim that God only killed Onan because he was being rebellious, please do. There were many rebellious people in the Old Testament whom God did NOT kill.

And remember, it was Judah who told Onan to conceive the child. If Onan had simply been rebellious, and chosen not to do it, then he would have received the punishment that the Lord had prescribed throught he law in Deuteronomy 25. That's what the law is for. The context shows me that there was more to it than just rebelliousness and not fulfilling a duty, because God steps beyond the punishment he prescribed through the Law for such rebelliousness (see again Deut. 25:7-10), and He kills Onan for preventing the conception of the child during the sexual act.

Once again, if you would like to offer some biblical support for your claim, I'd love to see it.

 

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

This whole Onan thing seemed to be one specific event, if God wanted all people to not use B.C. then why didn’t he say in a manner that all Christians could agree on?

Christians don't agree on a huge number of issues, abortion, war, homosexual relations... Is there then no objective truth to these matters?

I think it’s much more dangerous to imply that you know what God is thinking and implying more to the bible than God set forth.

The irony of this, combined with the above, is that you are merely implying that you know more about God than I do! Everyone has a different private interpretation of scripture. What you think the bible "sets forth" in cases such as this is entirely your opinion I'm afraid. I'm not saying it's a bad or uninformed opinion mind, you seem intelligent, but it is an opinion nonetheless.

My interpretation is neither private or, really, my own though I guess it has become my own. 1000 blessings if you know why!

 

[BreadAlone]

That's works both ways. If someone says contraception is not sinful, are they not implying they know what God is thinking? Especially in light of the fact that God kills Onan for practicing contraception, and not simply for not fulfilling a duty. That's not something I would take lightly

I'm pretty sure that Randombitsofstring was referring to making implications based on your own opinion of God and not of the Bible.

 

[traversinginfinity]

That's a very good way at looking at that

It's kind of like the story of Jonah. God didn't punish Jonah because he was travelling to Tarshish, it was because he was not going to Nineveh.

There was already a set punishment for a man if he refused to conceive a child with his brother's wife. See Deuteronomy 25:7-10. That punishment was not death.

The fact that God gave a different, more severe punishment to Onan, means Onan must have committed a different, more severe sin.

 

[Theogonia]

He was angry at Onan for preventing conception. We could go back and forth like this all night.

If you can offer some kind of Biblical support for your claim that contraception is morally acceptable, please do. If you can offer some kind of Biblical support for your claim that God only killed Onan because he was being rebellious, please do. There were many rebellious people in the Old Testament whom God did NOT kill.

And remember, it was Judah who told Onan to conceive the child. If Onan had simply been rebellious, and chosen not to do it, then he would have received the punishment that the Lord had prescribed throught he law in Deuteronomy 25. That's what the law is for. The context shows me that there was more to it than just rebelliousness and not fulfilling a duty, because God steps beyond the punishment he prescribed through the Law for such rebelliousness (see again Deut. 25:7-10), and He kills Onan for preventing the conception of the child during the sexual act.

Once again, if you would like to offer some biblical support for your claim, I'd love to see it.

I'd love to see you offer some biblical support for your claim.

You do know that deuteronomy and leviticus hadn't even been written yet.

So there was no law to say what would happen to someone who was rebellious and refused to perform something they were almost obligated to do