Contraception is against human life

[Francis Drake]

Hardly what I would consider a "balanced" viewpoint.

We live in a fallen world, this is not how God ever intended. Are women to be merely incubators? Is it responsible to bring children into the world if a family cannot care for them financially? This is a personal decision for parents, or would be parents to make that includes many considerations.

Saying that contraception somehow rejects God is an incredible reach. Extreme guilt tripping, with a dose of clumsy hermeneutics.

Comparing abortion with contraception is intellectually lazy, and illogical.

Thank you Barabbas, thank you for some sense. I am getting tired trying to make this point here.

 

[Fragrant Grace]

Hardly what I would consider a "balanced" viewpoint.

We live in a fallen world, this is not how God ever intended. Are women to be merely incubators? Is it responsible to bring children into the world if a family cannot care for them financially? This is a personal decision for parents, or would be parents to make that includes many considerations.

Saying that contraception somehow rejects God is an incredible reach. Extreme guilt tripping, with a dose of clumsy hermeneutics.

Comparing abortion with contraception is intellectually lazy, and illogical.

Where does it say this Barabbas?

 

[Francis Drake]

Oh dear oh dear. The big guns have now come out.
5 pages of proof that Francis Drake has got it wrong. The same 5 pages posted by two good and honourable members.
I am being bombarded as if I am in the employ of the contraceptive manufacturers.

All the carnal results described in the articles are not the result of contraceptives, any more than a smoking gun commits murder. It is the carnal heart of man, for Christian and non-christian alike. And just because my wife and I chose to use contraceptives doesn't mean we reject biblical truth. We are bible based God lovers who seek the Lord for our answers.

One of the first principles of scripture is that the measure we judge with, shall be used against us. If those scriptures in this article attacking contraception were upheld with honesty rather than a partisan attitude, then I would expect its supporters to never ever need a doctor or hospital, even for the birth of their children! I would expect them never ever to show the slightest financial need. I could go on, but shall leave it to your imagination. The definition of hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another! This article uses scripture in one area and ignores the same scripture in other areas. Double standards indeed.

Here is a taste of the biased nonsense from just one paragraph in this deeply flawed, and in many ways contemptible article.
Birth control is Pagan.
Really? Why is birth control pagan. I am sure that making statements like this is done to frighten and reinforce their argument, but it only works with the weak minded who can't be bothered to look any further than their noses. If these same Christian writers refused everything else that had been invented by pagans, I might have sympathy with their argument!

"Sexual intimacy becomes a simple physical act?"
Stupid ignorance. I am incensed that anyone claiming intelligence should imply my sexual intimacy with my wife was a mere physical act.

"Extra marital affairs increased?"
Does not simple logic tell you that any carnal man is far more likely to search for sex outside his marriage if his wife refused sex because she feared pregnancy. One of the reasons for infidelity, polygamy and even concubines was because it enabled sex without the responsibility of children.

"But the bible does not say that God expects - or wants - us to use our own logic or "common sense". (regarding birth control)
I don't wish to enter debate about the veracity of this actual statement, only to make it abundantly clear that if it is applied to sexual intercourse, then it should also be applied to every other area of life. This laughable statement disallows us from any and every decision. Take moving house for instance. If we trust God like they advocate with sex, then we should just try and buy every house they see and wait till God makes one happen. Changing jobs, we should constantly change jobs and see which ones God lets us keep.
Bunkum!

There are many good points in the article, but overall it is a shallow attempt at controlling Christians through guilt with badly constructed and false arguments. Please read it thoroughly and then check every quote, from whatever source, and you will see that in many cases they can equally be applied to the reverse viewpoint. Check out the biblical context of the verses also. Check whether you would be equally willing to apply those same scriptures with the same methodology elsewhere in your life, as I demonstrate above.

As far as I am concerned, despite some good points, the article brings discredit to their argument.

Returning to my previous comments, the purpose of which everyone seems to ignore completely
I am not promoting contraceptives!
My whole point, repeated ad nauseum was that the original post was totally wrong. I am not trying to defend contraceptives. I am commenting here to defend truth and to oppose false legalistic doctrines. I am only commenting in order to defend freewill against condemnation.
Much condemnation of the use of contraceptives is based on falsehood. Those here who are against their use, are still avoiding their responsibility by permitting these falsehoods alongside their own very real truths. This is like being happy with leaven in the midst. Shame on you for your shallow theology! You need to separate yourselves from the statements of some of your fellow travelers.

 

[Barabbas]

Where does it say this Barabbas?

While the bible is "silent" on birth control - there isn't a commandment that says "Thou shall not use birth control" - neither is there a commandment forbidding abortion, yet we can clearly see in scripture the case against it. In the same way, we can see God's heart on birth control if we're willing to look.

but there are other differences that are more easily rejected or suppressed - consciously or subconsciously - and by doing so, the "image of God" in that man or woman is also being rejected or suppressed. When it comes to matters of hormonal methods of birth control,

Right there.
Co-joining birth control with abortion, and insinuating that contraception somehow rejects God (as in drawing a correlation between contraception suppressing the image of God).

Of course even if true (which it is not) contraception would not be suppressing the image of God in the case of women would it now?
1 Cor 11:7....

 

[amanda123]

Right there.
Co-joining birth control with abortion, and insinuating that contraception somehow rejects God (as in drawing a correlation between contraception suppressing the image of God).

Of course even if true (which it is not) contraception would not be suppressing the image of God in the case of women would it now?
1 Cor 11:7....

I read the article.

You have pulled out two bits and changed the context.

It doesn't anywhere say that all contaception is wrong. It says some forms are wong. It says about how beautiful the intimacy of man and wife is. IIt suppoorts natural contraceptiion without all the chemicals and abortive methods like the iudm


Mostpeople on this thread have supportd that.

You and Francis Drake seem very angruy rude and opposed to everything.

Perhaps you should both share your thoughts and ideas if they differ so.

 

[Francis Drake]

I read the article.

You have pulled out two bits and changed the context.

It doesn't anywhere say that all contaception is wrong. It says some forms are wong. It says about how beautiful the intimacy of man and wife is. IIt suppoorts natural contraceptiion without all the chemicals and abortive methods like the iudm


Mostpeople on this thread have supportd that.

You and Francis Drake seem very angruy rude and opposed to everything.

Perhaps you should both share your thoughts and ideas if they differ so.

Amanda, why do you get so upset when someone has a different opinion to you. Neither Barabbas nor I have been rude. In fact if anyone is being personal it is you, and this is the second time you have given me a bad press!
Come to think about it, I did get personal about you on my last post, if you check back you will see that I referred to you as a "good and honourable member". If this has caused offense please accept my apologies!

As for accusing me and Barabbas of opposing everything, I could say, so what? Is that not what this forum is about, or do you want us just to meekly agree on every issue.
However I actually disagree with that statement. I am certainly not opposed to everything, just opposed to unbiblical nonsense doctrines. If people keep repeating the same nonsense, I will keep opposing it.

I am opposed to the general level of error presented to oppose contraception. Presenting 5 pages of external documentation overloads the thread and makes it difficult for anyone to respond properly. I chose a small sample of grossly bad logic. Barabbas chose other stuff. Sadly the article seems to have been excitedly presented as if to silence any opposition. It might have done if it had been better written.

My main concern which you never respond to is the totally false premise on which this thread was started.

 

[Barabbas]

I read the article.

You have pulled out two bits and changed the context.

It doesn't anywhere say that all contaception is wrong. It says some forms are wong. It says about how beautiful the intimacy of man and wife is. IIt suppoorts natural contraceptiion without all the chemicals and abortive methods like the iudm


Mostpeople on this thread have supportd that.

You and Francis Drake seem very angruy rude and opposed to everything.

Perhaps you should both share your thoughts and ideas if they differ so.

Dear sister, I have not changed any of the context in the examples I used. Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension can see that.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that IUDs primarily prevent fertilization, not implantation. Thus are not abortifacients.

I have not been rude to you, nor anyone else here. I present my case without emotion. I believe in facts.

It is you sister who have been very impolite on this, and the other thread that now has been locked. You accuse myself, and others of being "angry" "rude" "opposed to everything".

If someone disagreeing with you by presenting their case with facts seems "rude" then I would suggest you are taking this all too personally.

I do not write my reply to the person, but to the argument presented. I would ask you do the same instead of throwing out ad hominems at anyone not taking your side.

 

[ImDani]

I understand what you mean about contraceptives being used in a sense to prevent pregnancy if a person has sex outside of marriage. However, there is nothing wrong with the drug. There are many women across the spectrum with menstrual cycles that are literally hell. They are crippling and one way to ease the pains. Though the drug may also be used outside of marriage, and sex outside of marriage is sin, I would rather that than the sin of sex out of wedlock and a pregnancy turned abortion. You cannot post this as a thread with only one side of an argument. This makes you seem close minded and extremely religious, but that's just my opinion.

 

[SpiritLedEd]

You cannot post this as a thread with only one side of an argument. This makes you seem close minded and extremely religious, but that's just my opinion.

We do hew closely to the Bible, the Word of God. We do not condone discourteous posts, but, if you post something that is patently contrary to Scripture you can expect to be challenged.

Spirit Led Ed (SLE)

 

[ImDani]

I'm not sure where this is coming from. My point is completely and utterly valid. You cannot give one side of the argument regardless of what your beliefs are. I believe strongly in sex in wedlock, but if there is a chance that you do and you don't want to get pregnant birth control is perfectly fine. It's not killing a child. There is no conception, therefore life is not created, and as I said, there is no abortion of a living person.

There are people who are Christian that are on birth control, but it doesn't make them any less holy. It's a sin. It's what God wants, but we are human an we have faults. God knows this. It's not going to send us to hell.

 

[james1523]

God's general will...God is life. So anything against life is against God. An unborn baby is a life, so God is against its killing, unless God wants it to be killed which is His job not ours. . A ***** or ovary is not a life, so they can be killed without consequence. In fact God has designed both male and female bodies to produce far more excess of ***** and ovary than required, and the body is designed to kill them. So I do not see contraception as against life, therefore it is not against God and is not a sin.

I don't believe God is against manipulating nature, through contraception or otherwise. God has designed nature to manipulate itself through biological evolutionary processes.. and in Genesis 30:35 we have an example of natural selection.

Then there is God's specific will. If God wants you to have a baby and you don't.. it's a sin. If you have a baby and God doesn't want you to.. I guess that's a sin too.