Pastorway's (and others) Argument Against Birth Control and Logical Consistency

Status
Not open for further replies.
tellville

tellville

Puritan Board Junior
This may have been discussed in the many other Birth Control threads and if it has, please point me to where this discussion may be found.

I think Pastorway has best summed up why one should not use Birth Control the best. His argument goes as follows:

Is God actively involved in the conception of every child? YES.

Who are we really trying to prevent from acting when we use BC? GOD.

Is anyone conceived that is expendable? NO.

If God states clearly that children are a blessing, and only He can open the womb, then to say that too many children is like too much rain is to say that GOD MAKES MISTAKES.

We should welcome the blessing of God and not try to actively prevent it, as if we could stop God or as if we know better than He.

Now, I was wondering how consistent this argument is applied to all areas of life. For example, what if I were to construe the argument as such:

Is God actively involved in the death of every individual? YES.

Who are we really trying to prevent from acting when we try to save the person with heart failure? GOD.

Does anyone die that isn´t ordained to die because of God? NO.

If God states clearly that he is sovereign over all, and only He can declare the death of someone, then to say that we should help the man who has a heart attack is to say GOD MAKES MISTAKES.

We should welcome the judgment (or blessing if this man is a Christian) of God and not try to actively prevent it, as if we could stop God or as if we know better than He.

How about we make this example personal. I use glasses. I have astigmatism that is slowly making my eyes worse and worse. It is clear that it is God´s Will for me to have my eyesight grow worse as time goes on. Thus, is my using glasses going against His clear Will that I should not be able to see well?

How about suffering in child birth. God has clearly stated that women will forever suffer in child birth. Does this mean we are going against His will by using medicine to ease the pain on women?

I´m not asking these questions out of malice. I find Pastroway´s arguments very compelling and Biblical. However, I find other people´s arguments very compelling and Biblical as well. So, I am now left with seeing what are the logical conclusions of each position, if they produce Biblical conclusions, and I wonder if any who take Pastorway´s position are consistent with this position in every area of their life? At the very least, it appears Pastorway doesn´t view wearing glasses as violating God´s Will, because I can see him wearing them in his picture! But why do glasses not apply? God has said it is He who makes people blind.

Anyway, these are some of my thoughts and questions.
 
"Birth control is the suicide pill of the West."
-Pat Buchanan

The Third World may have an overpopulation problem, but the West has an underpopulation problem. Birth control is the suicide pill of the West!!! It's destroying us! We're losing our country, and being replaced. That is something else wrong with it---

I just look to the kind hand of providence to bless me with a lot of children in his perfect timing.
 
Actually ALOT of women opt out on meds...more and more so. (oh, and anyone who tells you the meds relieve some of the pain is a liar :lol: )

BTW, I think we've beaten this horse to death in the past.

[Edited on 3-9-2006 by LadyFlynt]
 
That's why I am also asking to be pointed to where this particular point was addressed and discussed so I can read it! ;)
 
Here is a question for birth control advocates - should Christians be training our children up to be manufacturers of prophylactics? This is the implication of the view that advocates the place of prophylactics in Christian marriages.

I wonder what kind of reception my son would get if I trained him to do that and he visited a church and discussed his line of work. I can see it now. "œHello Mr. Degenhart, its nice to meet you. We´re glad you joined us for worship today. What do you do for a living?" And he would answer, "œThank you, Reverend, I´m a researcher for birth control devices such as prophylactics. My job is to figure out what sizes we need and to perform testing on the fit and durability of our products. Because I´m a Christian, I believe in excellence!" Yeah - you´d be thinking that he was definitely elder material, right?

As we move forward towards total Christian dominion over all the earth, I simply don´t see a world where Christians develop and market birth control products or fertility drugs. Growing mandrakes, maybe. :) But I for one won't be raising up my own children and grandchildren to make birth-control devices and paraphenalia.
 
I've used the search engine. I posted this topic because I was having trouble finding information on this particular issue. I admit, I did not read every single post of every single thread that dealt with the issue, but there is a lot of overlap in the threads.

I'm looking for an answer to this particular question. I appreciate those who have responsed (I really do!), but only LadyFlynt sort of (not really) addressed one part of my actual question. I'm not looking for another debate on birth control, but rather on the issues I raised in my original question.

Thank you guys for your time!
 
Actually ALOT of women opt out on meds...more and more so. (oh, and anyone who tells you the meds relieve some of the pain is a liar )
Click to expand...

LadyFlynt,

Are you saying there is something morally corrupt in using pain medication during childbirth, or this is just somthing women are doing for some other reason?

My wife just gave birth to our first daughter 3 weeks ago, and we were both very thankful for the epidural she recieved. Do yo think that was wrong?

Thanks,
Russ
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Actually ALOT of women opt out on meds...more and more so. (oh, and anyone who tells you the meds relieve some of the pain is a liar :lol: )

BTW, I think we've beaten this horse to death in the past.

[Edited on 3-9-2006 by LadyFlynt]
Click to expand...

In my case, I didn't have pain, labour or even regular childbirth since I had a scheduled C-section. However once the drugs wore off, there certainly was recovery pain.
 
Excellent questions Mark! I hope some people engage here instead of avoid or claim it's been discussed too much. Your points are excellent and we would all benefit to see them discussed in my opinion.
 
positive examples....

I follow your logic, but, all your examples are of things that sin has brought upon us, poor eyesight, death, sickness....so it would seem we are just attempting to make bad things right, but with children, they are a blessing before and after the fall. Do you have any examples that are positive blessings that would cause a problem with Pastor Way's thinking?
 
Originally posted by sosipater
Actually ALOT of women opt out on meds...more and more so. (oh, and anyone who tells you the meds relieve some of the pain is a liar )
Click to expand...

LadyFlynt,

Are you saying there is something morally corrupt in using pain medication during childbirth, or this is just somthing women are doing for some other reason?

My wife just gave birth to our first daughter 3 weeks ago, and we were both very thankful for the epidural she recieved. Do yo think that was wrong?

Thanks,
Russ
Click to expand...

No, I was just responding to the fact that he acted as though women in labour in general (normal, vaginal deliveries) NEED pain meds. They don't. However, to each their own. The second half of my comment was simply tongue in cheek...yes, epidurals do prevent some of the pain (though they come with their risks also, and I'm aware of the times when meds are absolutely necessary). Basically, I found his use of meds during childbirth to be a flawed counter example.
 
Thank you tdowns007 for your interesting observation. I will have to refelct more on that. However, I do have some immediate knee jerk responses that I want to say (whether there any good, discussion will see!).

I see your logic, but I don´t necessarily think just because having children is a blessing negates the other examples. For starters, you assume child rearing was a blessing of God before the Fall, and while that is probably true, we know almost nothing about what life was like before the Fall. Thus, to base an argument about what life was like before the Fall, a life that is impossible for us to know about and to achieve, I think is in error. We live in a fallen world now, and I am sure Pastorway´s arguments were assumed to be argued in the Fallen world, not the pre-fallen world.

In either situation, we are hypothetically going against God´s sovereignty in a situation. God has decreed that we should die. Is it not sinful then, going by Pastorway´s logic, to try and fight against God´s sovereign will to punish us for being sons of Adam? We are not to go out of our way and cause death, so why do we go out of our way to cause life if death is what God has decreed for our lives?

If you say "œwell because God has given us direct commandments to preserve life" I could then ask why birth control is wrong since there are no direct commandments saying it is wrong. There may be other reasons to be against birth control (why would someone not want a blessing?) but I am asking why, if we go against birth control for the reasons Pastorway has said, do we not then apply his logic to all areas of our lives?

Addition:
This is just a question: But where does Scripture teach that blindness happens because of the Fall? I know God says he causes blindness, but I don't think that verse says he does this because of the Fall. But I guess this all shows that I need to become more biblically literate!

LadyFlynt, I never suggested that I thought women needed to use meds for pain relief. I was just using them as an example of something that possibly goes against God's Will if we use Pastorway's logic.

Pastorway: I'm not trying to attack you! I think your great! I love your posts! I'm just really curious about the potential logical consequences of this particular statement of yours!

[Edited on 3-10-2006 by tellville]
 
I am inclined to agree with you, Mark. I think it is important to understand both truths:

(1) God is sovereign and there nothing happens outside of God's control.
(2) God is often pleased to use means to accomplish His ends.
 
Piper used the same logic in his piece on this subject.

The "trust God, therefore don't use birth control" thinking is based upon the incorrect assumption that what happens "naturally" reflects "God's best" for our lives, but that what happens through human means does not. Why should we conclude that the way to let God decide the size of our family is to get out of the way and just let nature take its course? We certainly don't think that way in other areas of life. We don't reason, for example, that we should never get haircuts so that "God can decide" the length of our hair. Farmers don't just let the wind plant their crops in the fear that actively regulating what is grown on their land somehow interferes with the provision God wants to give them. And a family doesn't just trust God to provide food for by waiting for it to drop from the sky, but instead goes to the store to buys it. God ultimately determines everything that will happen, both in nature and in human decisions, and He brings His will to pass through means. Human activity does not therefore interfere with his plans, but is instead itself governed by Him as the means to bring to pass His will. Hence, we should not conclude that what happens apart from our planning is "better" and more reflective of God's desires for us than what happens through our planning. God very often causes us to plan as the means towards improving our lives and advancing His kingdom purposes.
Click to expand...

I've yet to see a sastifactory responce to this argument.
The main responce I have gotten when I bring it up is reproduction is part of the design of sex, so using birth control circumvents God's design for sex...which isn't answering the question but instead brining in a whole other line of reasoning.

Bryan
SDG
 
The best I could possibly say is that we are always to err on the side of life. Preventing a death does that...welcoming any possibilities of God's blessings through children also does that.
 
Originally posted by tellville

How about we make this example personal. I use glasses. I have astigmatism that is slowly making my eyes worse and worse. It is clear that it is God´s Will for me to have my eyesight grow worse as time goes on. Thus, is my using glasses going against His clear Will that I should not be able to see well?

How about suffering in child birth. God has clearly stated that women will forever suffer in child birth. Does this mean we are going against His will by using medicine to ease the pain on women?
Click to expand...

Dear brother,

The problem with your analogy above is the first example is a comparison between sickness(a result of sin) and children which are a blessing from God. I have 7 of my own to prove that. :) This would mean the analogy does not follow (Non Sequitur). It's apples and oranges.

Secondly, Genesis 3 says, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children". This means that any pain is a multiplication of pain (No amount stipulated). My wife has had 7 children and each birth has less pain. But pain is pain wherever it is found. I know of no women who have "no pain" in carrying and delivering, so as I see it, pain is unavoidable.

I hope this helps a bit brother.

Every blessing.
 
The "trust God, therefore don't use birth control" thinking is based upon the incorrect assumption that what happens "naturally" reflects "God's best" for our lives, but that what happens through human means does not. Why should we conclude that the way to let God decide the size of our family is to get out of the way and just let nature take its course? We certainly don't think that way in other areas of life. We don't reason, for example, that we should never get haircuts so that "God can decide" the length of our hair. Farmers don't just let the wind plant their crops in the fear that actively regulating what is grown on their land somehow interferes with the provision God wants to give them. And a family doesn't just trust God to provide food for by waiting for it to drop from the sky, but instead goes to the store to buys it. God ultimately determines everything that will happen, both in nature and in human decisions, and He brings His will to pass through means. Human activity does not therefore interfere with his plans, but is instead itself governed by Him as the means to bring to pass His will. Hence, we should not conclude that what happens apart from our planning is "better" and more reflective of God's desires for us than what happens through our planning. God very often causes us to plan as the means towards improving our lives and advancing His kingdom purposes.
Click to expand...

Before I enter this delicate situation I must admit that I myself had a change of heart on this and was convicted and thus repented. I don´t want to appear holier than thou on an issue that I myself struggled with. That being said, humbly I submit for thought:

First, the entire argument presumes that having children at some times falls into the category of a hindrance rather than a blessing, contra Scripture. This argument is against what God explicitly says and that children are a blessing and not a "œhinderance". Though the argument never explicitly states the negative assumption it is there implicitly because that"˜s the only way the crop example can work. From that basis it lays itself out.

Second, it confuses what God does and what human agency does all over the place.

For example Scripture explicitly states that God alone opens and closes the womb but this argument would assert a rationalism that "œit just somehow happens naturally". A married couple do take an action but the actual opening and closing of the womb is God´s alone. There is no other agency that acts in opening and closing the womb to assert so would be to directly wage war against explicit Scripture and even introduce the superstition of evolution via "œnature"œ. Finally, to imply that man opens and closes the womb would be down right satanic (which I don"˜t think is meant here).

The argument above actual refutes its self by its crop example. God doesn´t plant or not plant our crops but He does bring forth the increase or decrease therein planted (the fruit of the seed (God´s work) planted by human effort/agency), which is similar in thought to opening and closing the womb even though human action is taken as to that. Of course if I don´t plant a crop, we might call this "œcrop control" (analogous to birth control), then I should not expect any increase of fruit from this crop prophylactic. Neither should I expect the blessing of children if I don´t act upon that but seek to prevent it. But the fallacy of the argument above lies in, again, the implied negative for having children. It is rather scripturally odd to say that planting crops to yield fruit is good, yet copulating to have children is some how negative, especially when Scripture is point blank clear on that issue. To actually NOT plant the crop, crop control, is the negative or curse per se, as would be to exercise birth control.


Likewise, a doctor may operate, cut and give medicine but the actual and ultimate healing of the body is the work of God through these rather superficial actions. Again and likewise, the womb is opened and closed by God but the husband and wife of course exercise their marriage rights to which such happens.

The third flaw, "œGod very often causes us to plan as the means towards improving our lives and advancing His kingdom purposes", falsely assumes again that children are somehow at some point a hindrance rather than what Scripture calls them, a blessing and that our lives are improved without them at some point (actually to say this is more akin to rank hedonism and flat out laziness and sloth). And again for the Christian since God says explicitly they are a blessing, that He desires Godly seed and that such are the kingdom of heaven hardly hinders toward the advancing His kingdom purposes, especially God who in the first instance opens and closes the womb.

Blessings,


Ldh
 
I think there's an assumption that many people here are making:

Are we to assume that because Scripture says that children are a blessing from the Lord, that therefore it is in every case prudent to have a child?

Or to state it negatively: is there ever a situation in which it would be wiser to not have a child?

Or to present it a third way: if children are a blessing, then is it sinful to ever desire to not have a child?

And a hypothetical, since we live in a messy, sinful world:

A Christian couple marries immediately after high school, despite the counsel of their parents. They afterword realize that waiting a bit might have been more prudent, but desire to remain faithful to their wedding vows. Neither having a college education, they struggly to make ends meet on two incomes. Adding one person and subtracting one income would make things more difficult.

Is it sinful for them to desire to wait until a few years go by until they have children?

Is it wise for them to have a child immediately?
 
I hate to complicate things, but folks can take different approaches to the matter of "family planning." On the radical ends are 1) the unmarrieds who just breed, and 2) the aborters. Most of us fall in the middle, if this question is coming up "legitimately", even if its a hypothetical.

The closer some "method" is to the abortion end of the spectrum, isn't it true that it becomes suspect? And what about the mental attitude that says "YES!" to marriage/companionship/sex, but "NEVER!" to children, as an apriori? Is that justifiable? I admit, I question whether folks ought to get married who have the attitude going in...

Conversely, if parents want children without responsibility, that too is a deeply flawed attitude. Or what if they just don't care? If a couple is "gettin' it on" whenever, however, constantly, and pregancy is simply an afterthought--no sobriety, no forethought, no intent to work harder and longer when the bills come due for all that carefree fun--that too is plainly sinning on the opposite end of the spectrum.

So, I say plan. Educate yourself. Avoiding a pregnancy is a two-party affair, and is not the same thing as discouraging pregnancy (e.g. fostering implantation rejection, or following Onan's behavior) or willfully terminating pregnancy. There are rational approaches that do not involve abortifacients. Sometimes they involve a degree of self-control, but since when was that a bad thing? Fruit of the Spirit, anyone? And what if you get a surprise, despite your plans? Since when was hospitality a vice? Man proposes, God disposes--time for submission... and thanksgiving... and trust. 1 vote for natural methods here.

My wife has had 4 children in almost 6 years of marriage. Her way of childbirth is definitely not for everyone. We are not radicals who don't believe in medicine. Far from it. (She just never wanted drugs, and so chose the old-fashioned way). And we are not terribly concerned about getting pregnant again, in fact, we're looking forward to it, whenever.... We got married about 5-10 years later than most of our friends too. So, we thought, "Better not ask God to close the womb for now, and open it up later when we feel more like it."

If you see a Christian couple, who have a lot of children, and they are unhappy with their lot, or he is, or she is, don't blame the blessings. If the children are ungovernable wretches, you can't blame that on "poor family planning"! All that means is: its time to start training them they way they should have been going from the outset.

Oh, but what if they are "happy" but "hungry" too? Hungry by what standard? Poor by what standard? No cable TV? No internet? No Florida vacations? Or huddled in rags? Or scrounging for rats? Where is the church that's supposed to be exercising ministry toward this family?

Truth is, truly desperate poverty isn't even on most of our churches' radar screens. Our church has over a dozen families with children at home. The smallest of them have 2. And none of these families have anything close to a 6-figure income. The ones with the least materially are probably the largest physically. And as a pastor, I judge them to have the fewest worries, and just as many joys.

You really need to be convinced in your own mind, but you do need to think about this biblically, and get on the same sheet of music with your spouse. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the "pill people" and "c0nd0m people" shut down or withering for lack of business. But I don't know that I can as boldly denounce a Christian's use of both equally, or absolutely, or the one, or the other, etc.

Pastorally, I think my main job is helping and encouraging members to make informed, considerate decisions, guided by the Bible, and so both wise and consciencious. This is an area where positive teaching will do much more in the long run than negative discipline.

And friend, once you've decided what you are going to do, don't try to make the choices you made the undisputed norm for everyone else, after you have respectfully asked them to consider your own point of view (if they differ). Don't reproach them, in other words, or shun them. Try praying that God will change their minds. If they are sinfully in error, they will have enough self-reproach on the Day of Judgment, if they don't repent. And then, you might needs repent yourself.
 
Originally posted by Larry Hughes
The "trust God, therefore don't use birth control" thinking is based upon the incorrect assumption that what happens "naturally" reflects "God's best" for our lives, but that what happens through human means does not. Why should we conclude that the way to let God decide the size of our family is to get out of the way and just let nature take its course? We certainly don't think that way in other areas of life. We don't reason, for example, that we should never get haircuts so that "God can decide" the length of our hair. Farmers don't just let the wind plant their crops in the fear that actively regulating what is grown on their land somehow interferes with the provision God wants to give them. And a family doesn't just trust God to provide food for by waiting for it to drop from the sky, but instead goes to the store to buys it. God ultimately determines everything that will happen, both in nature and in human decisions, and He brings His will to pass through means. Human activity does not therefore interfere with his plans, but is instead itself governed by Him as the means to bring to pass His will. Hence, we should not conclude that what happens apart from our planning is "better" and more reflective of God's desires for us than what happens through our planning. God very often causes us to plan as the means towards improving our lives and advancing His kingdom purposes.
Click to expand...

Before I enter this delicate situation I must admit that I myself had a change of heart on this and was convicted and thus repented. I don´t want to appear holier than thou on an issue that I myself struggled with. That being said, humbly I submit for thought:

First, the entire argument presumes that having children at some times falls into the category of a hindrance rather than a blessing, contra Scripture. This argument is against what God explicitly says and that children are a blessing and not a "œhinderance". Though the argument never explicitly states the negative assumption it is there implicitly because that"˜s the only way the crop example can work. From that basis it lays itself out.

Second, it confuses what God does and what human agency does all over the place.

For example Scripture explicitly states that God alone opens and closes the womb but this argument would assert a rationalism that "œit just somehow happens naturally". A married couple do take an action but the actual opening and closing of the womb is God´s alone. There is no other agency that acts in opening and closing the womb to assert so would be to directly wage war against explicit Scripture and even introduce the superstition of evolution via "œnature"œ. Finally, to imply that man opens and closes the womb would be down right satanic (which I don"˜t think is meant here).

The argument above actual refutes its self by its crop example. God doesn´t plant or not plant our crops but He does bring forth the increase or decrease therein planted (the fruit of the seed (God´s work) planted by human effort/agency), which is similar in thought to opening and closing the womb even though human action is taken as to that. Of course if I don´t plant a crop, we might call this "œcrop control" (analogous to birth control), then I should not expect any increase of fruit from this crop prophylactic. Neither should I expect the blessing of children if I don´t act upon that but seek to prevent it. But the fallacy of the argument above lies in, again, the implied negative for having children. It is rather scripturally odd to say that planting crops to yield fruit is good, yet copulating to have children is some how negative, especially when Scripture is point blank clear on that issue. To actually NOT plant the crop, crop control, is the negative or curse per se, as would be to exercise birth control.


Likewise, a doctor may operate, cut and give medicine but the actual and ultimate healing of the body is the work of God through these rather superficial actions. Again and likewise, the womb is opened and closed by God but the husband and wife of course exercise their marriage rights to which such happens.

The third flaw, "œGod very often causes us to plan as the means towards improving our lives and advancing His kingdom purposes", falsely assumes again that children are somehow at some point a hindrance rather than what Scripture calls them, a blessing and that our lives are improved without them at some point (actually to say this is more akin to rank hedonism and flat out laziness and sloth). And again for the Christian since God says explicitly they are a blessing, that He desires Godly seed and that such are the kingdom of heaven hardly hinders toward the advancing His kingdom purposes, especially God who in the first instance opens and closes the womb.

Blessings,


Ldh
Click to expand...

EXCELLENTLY put! :up:
 
It is not my intention to start more debate on this subject but since the two threads i recommended are apparently inaccessible to most i thought i would quote something i wrote there, just to present another prespective.

When those who argue BC is allowable talk about affording children, they generally are not talking about finance per se. The article in the OP gave a very good paragraph on how the christian life has many, many duties, and child rearing is only one of them. Too many children can stretch a couple's limits on all these other aspects of a godly life.

I know you responded to that passage in your first post in this thread, but i do not feel that your point is made. No one is saying children are not a blessing, but there are many things in scripture called blessings, take wine and riches for instance which, if pursued to excess, can cease to be blessings. You have not proven that children fall into a special category that is exempt.

Yes, God promises to look after us, but we are to use prudent means at our disposal to protect ourselves as well. When these means exist we are to try our best with them first before counting on the Lord. When Satan took Jesus to the top of the temple and challenged him to jump down, why didn't he do so and trust in God's promise? Because he knew that the stairs were put there for a reason! God has created the female body to have a (generally speaking) predictable reproductive cycle, allowing for family planning. People will always start to react here, saying such calculative reasoning should not be applied to children. But where does the bible state that children are a special category?

As far as the idea of refusing God's blessings goes, i repeat a point made on the previous thread. In 1 Cor 7 Paul says even marriage (surely one of the greatest blessings in the bible) can be refrained from (unless you need it for sex) either to devote yourself to the Lord or, because of the 'PRESENT DISTRESS' - great practical difficulty in the corinthians' lives. If this sort of reasoning can apply even to marriage, why not children?

Again, as far as i see it, the bible never condemns, or even addresses the idea of family planning. Hence it should be left to the liberty and conscience of each couple before God.
Click to expand...

When a conviction we draw from scripture leads to extreme or ridiculous results when logically applied, I think it is wise to reconsider if God intended those verses in the bible to be applied in that manner.

For instance, "˜Thou shall not commit adultery´ and "˜Thou shall have no other gods before me´. Did God intend those to be rigidly applied? From the bible we can conclude yes. Joseph ran from Potpitar´s wife and that even landed him in jail, but that was how serious he was about avoiding adultery. Daniel´s friends would rather be thrown into a burning furnace than bow to Nebuchchenezzar´s(sp?) statue. From these, and countless other verses we know that God intends those commands to be obeyed no matter what.

But not every verse in scripture is meant to have such an absolute, rigid application. Some are just general statements of principle.

What about these words from the Lord Jesus in Matthew 6?

25Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

31Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

Is he condemning any planning for our future? Or is he teaching a more general principle? We know it´s the second option from these are other verses;
Proverbs 6:6 Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: 7Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, 8Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.
Proverbs 27:33 Be thou diligent to know the state of thy flocks, and look well to thy herds.


And the above example could be multiplied many many times over.

In the specific example, the verses regarding children must be compared and taken in light of verses requiring prudence.

There is never a direct "˜thou shalt not..´ command against family planning in the bible. We now need to ask ourselves if all those indirect verses that those who condemn birth control use were meant to be applied rigidly or not. When God asked Adam and Noah (and not the New Testament church) to be fruitful and multiply, and when he said that children are a blessing, did he intend for those verses to be used to force a husband to put his wife´s life at risk? If the wife dies, are those verses going to give the husband, and the surviving children any comfort? (I am not being morbid, I am just examining the most extreme possibility of the anti-BC position.)

Or was God simply giving general principles that families should have children and that children are a good thing? Those verses might well rebuke a couple who decided to forgo children altogether to focus on career or lifestyle, but they say nothing, absolutely nothing against ... using birth control.
Click to expand...

[Edited on 3-13-2006 by satz]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Argument against annihilationism
Replies
0
Views
2K
cih1355
C
F
  • Locked
Logical order of Justification and Regeneration
Replies
2
Views
1K
moral necessity
moral necessity
SRoper
  • Locked
Was all birth control once considered abortifacient?
Replies
23
Views
4K
LadyFlynt
LadyFlynt
TryingToLearn
A question on an argument against images
Replies
11
Views
782
No Other Name
No Other Name
InSlaveryToChrist
  • Locked
I don't get this argument against Universalism
Replies
10
Views
3K
py3ak
py3ak
Back
Top