Is contraception use a sin?

[Justin108]

Catholics believe that contraception use is a sin. Leviticus goes in depth about how to prepare an animal sacrifice. There are countless laws and prohibitions throughout the Bible, from what not to eat to what not to wear and not a single mention in the law that prohibits any form of contraceptive.

If contraception is a sin, why is there not a single commandment against it in the entire Bible? God felt the need to tell us to not eat bacon and to not mix fabrics but he never said a single thing about contraception. So why do Catholics believe it's a sin?

A defense Catholics often use is to bring up Onan who was killed by God for "spilling the seed". This, however, can clearly be explained away by the fact that Onan disobeyed a direct order from God to impregnate Tamar. This is similar to Lot's wife being punished for disobeying a direct order from God to not look around. But just as turning around isn't a sin in itself, "spilling the seed" can't be considered a sin either.

Is contraception use a sin? Is there any Biblical support for this belief?

[Justin108]

I didn't say "only accept scripture".

What? Yes, you did. You made some previous comment about all Christians saying they only accept the authority of Scripture " which is bogus.

Whenever you claimed another source has authority, I asked you to demonstrate its authority. I will gladly accept non-scriptural authority as long as you can demonstrate why it holds authority.

If you want to appeal to tradition as authority, you have to give me a good reason for why I should accept tradition as authority.

I have so many times now. Number one, because Scripture tells us so.

Where?

Beyond that, just like belief in the Resurrection itself, believing that we are to listen to Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition is a matter of faith.

When all else fails, appeal to faith. "I can't prove that contraception is a sin, but I have faith that it is, so you'll just have to take my word for it". I know you're new here, but "because faith" is not a viable defense.

How do you know "his church" is "the first and original church"?

Weve been through this. She meets the four marks that Scripture itself tells us on how to identify Christs Church.

I already dealt with your four marks. Anything else? Or are you just going to rehash already debunked claims?

How do you know he could not be for contraception?

Because of what we can know from Scripture, from the world He designed and created, and from what His Church tells us.

Any new verses you haven't mentioned yet? Or are you still on the verses I've already addressed?

How is chastity pro-life when chastity hinders reproduction?

Contrary to popular belief, chastity is more than just abstinence. It's choosing NOT to have sex because you recognize the value of your own sexuality.

It might not be "just abstinence", but it does include abstinence, and abstinence hinders reproduction.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chastity

Oh my God, did you just reference urban dictionary as your source?

What if they have three children already and are avoiding having a fourth because they cannot afford one? What if a couple is newly married and are not yet financially stable enough to bring a child into the world?

These are typically false emergencies. Many couples think they cant afford more children, but it is based more on fear and pressure and what theyve bought into. And for a Christian it shows a lack of trust in God. But sure, if they feel they temporarily need to not get pregnant this month, they can exercise sacrifice, discipline, and the virtue of chastity. Again, just like skipping dessert is right/good/disciplined, but eating dessert and then vomiting it up is wrong and gluttonous/selfish.

Plus, I already explained all this . . .

for a married couple to purposely be closed off to Gods gift and blessing of children would be wrong. And Ive explained this before, but you still arent getting it -- if a couple, even if not contracepting, but practicing NFP, were doing so with the intention of not being open to children/trying to avoid any children, they would be guilty of offending God. They would not be guilty of the intrinsically disordered act of contraception, but they would be guilty of selfishness, lack of trust in God, using one another, putting money or career above God, etc.

So just to be absolutely clear... unless your health is at stake, it is a sin to use abstinence to avoid pregnancy?

Did people used to stone people for contraception?

They probably would have, were they to know about it. How exactly do you think someone would find out if someone were using contraception?

If there was such a law, why is there no mention of it in Leviticus? Or are you saying there is no such law because "how would they find out"?

They believed it is a teaching of Jesus Christ.

Can you quote Jesus teaching this?

[tam]

[Replying to post 21 by Justin108]

There must be a problem in your quote or tags or something. When I quote one of your blank posts, your post shows up in my reply box.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 24 by tam]
Thanks. You were right

[RightReason]

[Replying to onewithhim]

What a trifling-away of space and time, to go on and on trying to reason with a completely blind person who is satisfied with their precarious position on slippery ground in relation to the truth. It's exasperating and futile. Why encourage them to keep spewing forth their erroneous theology?

Admit it " someone posted this about you once, right? And you just copy and pasted it to me?

Has there been presented any scriptural support for the forbidding of contraception?

Scriptural support was provided. And nowhere does Scripture say we are only to listen to direct and specific commands in the Bible. In fact, Scripture tells us " there was much more we are to know and that we are to listen to Christs Church.

Fascinating that all of Christendom held this erroneous theology until the 1930s, but Im sure we are living in one of the Godliest eras of all time and it took Charles Taze Russell to set us all straight.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 23 by Justin108]

You continue to fail to get the Churchs teaching regarding contraception correct. And you continue to attempt to show it is unscriptural, even though I have demonstrated the teaching is supported in Scripture. You also continue to fail to acknowledge Scripture alone is not the authority of Christians. Accept this beautiful Christian teaching or dont. But you have failed in every attempt to suggest it is unscriptural, unreasonable, and not something believed and taught in Christianity.

Love these words just written yesterday, August 31st by Cardinal Robert Sarah:


To love someone as Christ loves us means to love that person in the truth. For this I was born, Jesus told Pontius Pilate, to bear witness to the truth. The Catechism of the Catholic Church reflects this insistence on honesty, stating that the churchs message to the world must reveal in all clarity the joy and demands of the way of Christ.

Those who speak on behalf of the church must be faithful to the unchanging teachings of Christ, because only through living in harmony with Gods creative design do people find deep and lasting fulfillment. Jesus described his own message in these terms, saying in the Gospel of John: These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. Catholics believe that, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the church draws its teachings upon the truths of Christs message.

This might seem a high standard, especially today. Yet it would be contrary to the wisdom and goodness of Christ to require something that cannot be achieved. Jesus calls us to this virtue because he has made our hearts for purity, just as he has made our minds for truth. With Gods grace and our perseverance, chastity is not only possible, but it will also become the source for true freedom.

We do not need to look far to see the sad consequences of the rejection of Gods plan for human intimacy and love. The sexual liberation the world promotes does not deliver its promise. . . . As a mother, the church seeks to protect her children from the harm of sin, as an expression of her pastoral charity.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-cathol ... 1504221027

[onewithhim]

I thought I would come here on these forums and discuss things with people who have the capacity for meaningful interchange of viewpoints. But you guys just go on and on with vacuous chatter that ends up nowhere. Why???

The question has been answered. Contraception is NOT a sin, and anyone that says it is is harming spiritual babes that don't know what the Bible says or does not say about it.

What possible perceived good could come out of arguing with a blind, uncomprehending individual who is unwilling to perceive the glaring truth. You go on for pages and pages! Why is it necessary to argue endlessly when we know that the Bible says NOTHING against contraception?

CONTRACEPTION IS NOT A SIN.

[Justin108]

And you continue to attempt to show it is unscriptural

I do so quite successfully

even though I have demonstrated the teaching is supported in Scripture

All scripture says is that we should be fruitful and multiply and that it's nice to have children. It says nothing about contraception.

You also continue to fail to acknowledge Scripture alone is not the authority of Christians.

As I've said repeatedly, if you can demonstrate an external authority as authoritative, then I will acknowledge it.

Accept this beautiful Christian teaching or dont. But you have failed in every attempt to suggest it is unscriptural, unreasonable, and not something believed and taught in Christianity.

I don't need to prove it is unscriptural, you are one who needs to prove that it is scriptural. That's how the burden of proof works. And I know that it is taught by some sects in Christianity, just not that it is taught in the Bible.

[onewithhim]

And you continue to attempt to show it is unscriptural

I do so quite successfully

even though I have demonstrated the teaching is supported in Scripture

All scripture says is that we should be fruitful and multiply and that it's nice to have children. It says nothing about contraception.

You also continue to fail to acknowledge Scripture alone is not the authority of Christians.

As I've said repeatedly, if you can demonstrate an external authority as authoritative, then I will acknowledge it.

Accept this beautiful Christian teaching or dont. But you have failed in every attempt to suggest it is unscriptural, unreasonable, and not something believed and taught in Christianity.

I don't need to prove it is unscriptural, you are one who needs to prove that it is scriptural. That's how the burden of proof works. And I know that it is taught by some sects in Christianity, just not that it is taught in the Bible.

OK, little kids, ignore me if you wish. You continue to show that you just like to fuss at each other. The question has been answered. Someone wants to say that TRADITION has importance in this issue and dismisses the fact that the BIBLE does not forbid contraception. If the Bible does not prohibit contraception then why should the church? What has this TRADITION gained for mankind? Only hardship. It's like what Jesus said of the Pharisees, that their traditions were BURDENS, and the ones who tried to enforce these traditions were bound for "hell" (Gehenna).

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 30 by onewithhim]

The question has been answered. Contraception is NOT a sin, and anyone that says it is is harming spiritual babes that don't know what the Bible says or does not say about it.

Ha, ha, ha . . . you dont get to declare a conversation over. And your response is ironic on so many levels. First, you pretend the question is silly and answered and yet all of Christendom, including our Jewish brothers and sisters taught and believed the immorality of contraception for over 1000 years. Clearly, they saw contraception as a sin and derived this from Scripture!

Second, you criticize tradition, not fully understanding what is meant by tradition. I already spoke of this on a different thread, but Scripture does not condemn Tradition in the sense of Christs Church.

***************

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14"15).

The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).


This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).


This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6"8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative.

Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/scripture-and-tradition

CONTRACEPTION IS NOT A SIN.

Oh, well since you put it in bold . . . .


Where in Scripture does it say it is a sin to celebrate birthdays or receive a blood transfusion? And why does your church determine it is ok to now eat shell fish, but not receive a blood transfusion? The truth is those are teachings of your church that have certainly been determined/decided by your church and not explicit or specifically clear from Scripture. IOW, pot meet kettle.

You pretend saying contraception is a sin is crazy. Exactly what many Christian churches today say in regards to same sex relationships or even pre marital sex. Many good Christians can be in loving homosexual relationships and many good Christians have engaged in sex outside of marriage and many good Christians practice contraception. These are outdated sins of the past. Even though Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition reveal these were all taught and believed from the establishment of Christs Church from the beginning. So, what changed?

But most importantly why should we accept your (or should I say JW) understanding of this topic? LOL!

[Elijah John]

If the Bible does not prohibit contraception then why should the church? What has this TRADITION gained for mankind? Only hardship. It's like what Jesus said of the Pharisees, that their traditions were BURDENS, and the ones who tried to enforce these traditions were bound for "hell" (Gehenna).

If the Bible does not forbid the celebration of birthdays and blood transfusions, why should the WTS?