Rev.

Please understand up front that this post assumes a Christian worldview. I am not interested in discussing "Is the Bible true?" but will discuss "Does the Bible teach this truth." For those who do not accept the authority of the scripture, I hope this will bring some understanding on an issue that clearly puzzles people from the pro-choice side.

Most people don't understand why some Christians who oppose abortion also oppose birthcontrol.

After all, if everyone's goal is to reduce abortions (both pro-choice and pro-life advocates claim this is their ultimate goal) the prevention of pregnancy seems like the most logical solution. So why do so many pro-life people oppose birth control?

Many people (both pro-choice and pro-life) believe the objection to birth control is based primarily on the Christian's conviction that premarital sex is a sin. That handing out birth control removes the consequences and makes pre-marital sex more enticing. So the Christian position is seen as this illogical "keeping the condoms away from the kids will keep the kids from having sex" sentiment.

And while there is some truth to Christians not wanting to endorse "sinful behavior" by handing out condoms, there is another, greater truth that has gotten lost.

Many Christians don't realize that in ALL branches of Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic AND Protestant) birth control was opposed until about 1950. Martin Luther was against it. John Wesley taught that birth control was sodomy.

For the Christian, life is sacred, because all life proceeds from God. He opens and closes the womb. Therefore, what is the difference between ending a life and preventing one? Both reject life. And to oppose abortion but accept birth control is inconsistant.

Additionally, chemical birth controls are effective because they act as an abortificant. They cause abortion of a conceived child before pregnancy can be established. To use, or promote use, of something that causes abortion would be inconsistant with a pro-life stand.

__________________
Rev.

God doesn't send anyone to hell. We go to hell over His dead body.

Binary_Digit

If condoms reject life, then so does abstainance.

Rev.

You are absolutely right...and very perceptive! Interesting dilema for the Christian, don't you agree?

There is room in scripture for a period of abstainance for the parties to devote themselves to prayer. But this assumes the parties are married to one another. Teaching abstainance to unmarrieds wouldn't violate any Christian principals because the Bible assumes celibacy for singles already.

Ormblomma

Binary_Digit

Here's the only passage in the Bible that specifically deals with any form of birth control:

"Then Judah said to Onan, 'Go in to your brother's wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.' Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life" - Genesis 38:8-10

So, I guess God hates the pulling out method. Or maybe not. That's not the only thing Onan did that could be considered wrong. He also disobeyed Judah's order to continue his brother Er's seed. Maybe THAT'S what displeased God, not the pulling out part. Or it could be both. The only certainty here is that it is not conclusive.

That depends on how you interpret the Bible. The laws against pre-marital sex could be considered obselete, just like the laws against women teaching in church. How many other laws supposedly only applied to certain people at a certain time, and not necessarily to future generations?

Maybe the need for virginity before marriage was critical in the 1st century, when:
- There was no effective contraceptive methods to prevent pregnancy. Then as now, a child being brought up in a single parent home tends to be disadvantaged.
- A woman with a child could not survive without the support of a father or husband.
- There was no dependable method of avoiding STDs, and no effective treatments or cures.
- The average time interval between puberty and marriage was only a few years - perhaps even months.

But with the availability of good birth control methods, financial support programs, safe-sex practices, effective treatments for most STDs, maybe safe-sex between a committed, monogamous couple is no longer a sin. Since the time interval between puberty and marriage is now on the order of 15 years, it is impractical to expect most people to maintain their virginity until marriage.

We are punished by our sins, not for them.

Naughty Nurse

Are you for real?

__________________
For those of you who make sexist assumptions, Naughty is a male nurse (and much sweeter than Pez).

Proud to be Eurotrash

The Bauble (The Holy Word of Santa) - Florence: 1:1. Look after the sick and needy, or thou shalt receive nylon socks on December 25th.
_______________________________________________

Ormblomma

Relax. I am for real. No problem with me to be real. Hope not for you, as well.

What is your problem, by the way?

Ormblomma

Ormblomma

I have observed that you are a homosexual. That is perfectly all right with me. Do not be shy now. You can talk with Ormblomma freely here.

Telling you something; I have an profound experience of communicating with homosexuals, and to that, I am completely free of prejudices. Believe it or not.

Best Regards

Ormblomma

Naughty Nurse

But your attitude towards women is something else!

Ormblomma

Yes. My attitude towards women is something else, as I respect them deeply as carriers of mens semen and genes.