Urologists offer pizza with a vasectomy

SANDWHICH, Mass.,-- A Cape Cod, Mass., urologist is offering a free pizza to men who are seeking vasectomies in March, officials said.

The Urology Associates of Cape Cod is running TV commercials offering a free pizza with a vasectomy, the Cape Cod (Mass.) Times reported Thursday.

March Madness is also tied into the deal as a way of enticing men to undergo the procedure, which requires men to sit on the couch and rest for a few days.

The ads feature an attractive woman playing with a basketball and a voice over that asks: "Hey guys! Want to watch the college basketball tournament guilt-free?"

Then, the free pizza with a vasectomy offer is presented. "You know you've been thinking about a vasectomy, anyway. Now's the time to get it done," the voice over says.

Urology Associates of Cape Cod administrator Evan Cohen said March is the busiest time of year for vasectomies for his practice, with perhaps 45 to 60 being performed.

He said he hopes the pizza promotion -- a free one-topping pizza from Surf's Up Pizza and Seafood in Sandwich -- drums up some extra business.

"It does actually come with one topping. Maybe you can put some meatballs on it," joked Cohen.

1. Gen. 38:9–10, Deut. 23:1
Also from NT:
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 ESV

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

Philippians 3:2 ESV

Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh.

2. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/contraception-and-sterilization
Lists what many early Christians said of the practice.

3. Also check the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Since you may be a sola scriptura believer then you can refer to 1.

Sorry, none of the verses you mentioned refer to vasectomies. Let me illustrate.

Gen 38:9-10 is talking about Onan refusing to fulfill his brotherly duty. That was the wickedness, not spilling seed. Do a word study on the idea of spilling seed and you will find that it is not a sin whether intentional or not. Not in the Old Testament, not in the New. Onan did not wish to bear his brother a child (selfishness) nor did he want to be referred to as the line of the unsandaled (pride). His wickedness was his selfishness and pride, not spilling seed.

Deut 23:1 states that those that have lost testes are prohibited from fellowship. Nothing about vasectomies. Elsewhere, there are restrictions for priests that are disabled. They were prevented from entering God’s presence. However, Jesus reinstates these into fellowship with the following:

Matt 19:12
For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have made themselves eunuchs because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

No longer are the disabled or physically altered prevented from fellowship through Christ Jesus. No longer are illigitimate children prevented from the assembly (Deut 23:2).

1 Corinthians 6:19-20 is speaking about a christian having sexual relations with a prostitute. Nothing about ejaculations nor vasectomies.

Philippians 3:2 is speaking about physical circumcision specifically and reliance on adherence to the law in general, for salvation, not vasectomies.

If the early Christians or the Pope believe things that are contrary to what Scripture teaches, they are wrong and God’s Word is correct. Satan misused God’s Word and has been doing so quite effectively for millenia. Christ even rebuked Peter because what he said was contrary to not only God’s Word, but God’s will. What man says, or angels or demons say, is secondary to what Scripture says: Gal 1:8.

Finally, Deut 4:2 “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.”

The Pharisees fell into the trap of adding to God’s Word - and killed Christ to protect their beliefs. Many throughout church history have followed this path of adding to God’s Word and killing to protect that belief. Including the catholic church. And the protestant church.

Scripture verse that mandates Scripture references, please?

Deut 4:2 “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.”

Gal 1:8 "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!"

Scripture forbids adding to or subtracting from what God states. Scripture also says that what differs from scripture is condemnable. Your claim of God abhoring the practice must therefore be in scripture if you are not adding to what He commands. I'm asking you to provide that reference so that I may learn more of God's ways. If, however, it is not contained in scripture then someone has added to what He commanded and is therefore in violation of God's commands.

Regardless, do you think God favors mutilation?

Jesus spoke this in Mat 19:12 "For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have made themselves eunuchs because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Finally, I think God looks on the heart, but man, as usual, looks on the outward appearance (1 Sam 16:7).

Scripture is in line with Natural Law. Self-mutilation is against natural law, especially if it is to engage in sexual gratification without the consequence of pregnancy.

Your analysis of Genesis is a little flawed. This is one of the critical verses Catholics rely on to show that God does not want contraception. Why was Onan killed for his “selfishness” by God? God already proscribed a punishment for failing to want to give your brother an hei,r if he has died - public humiliation (Deut. 25:7–10). Why would God impose the particularly harsh punishment of death for Onan for this crime? The answer is simple - Onan did more than refuse an heir to his brother - he used his wife sexually outside of natural law. He “pulled out”.

1 Corinthians 6:19-2 definitely applies. Your body is a temple for the Holy Spirit and it shouldn’t be mutilated or used immorally.

Perhaps some of the other verses are red herrings, as it relates to this topic.

Also, there are numerous mentions of sorcerers not inheriting the Kingdom of God. What do you think a sorcerer is? My understanding is that a sorcerer was commonly considered one who provided abortions and contraception.

Deut 4:2 “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.”

Well the New Testament right through to the book of Acts is a demonstration of God giving commands. One of the commands He gave was in Matthew 16:18-20. Herein the papacy of the Church was founded - His hierarchy was established. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against His Church.

God bless.

I understand the story of Onan is foundational for Catholic doctrine. I understand Jesus speaking to Peter is also foundational for Catholic doctrine.

However, an in-depth study on the words and phrases used in both instances will flush out the truth of the matter. As is the case for all doctrine - whether or not it is consistant with Scripture.

In Onan’s case, punishment for spilling seed is not consistent with God’s commands elsewhere in the Levitical law dealing with such matters (to wash himself and be unclean till evening). Therefore, Onan’s instant death was for some other infraction. Pride contained in his heart for not wanting to be called unsandaled was the smoking gun.

Onan died because of his pride. The same pride that caused Satan to be cast out of heaven. The same pride that caused Herod to fall down dead for not acknowledging God. Instant punishment from God. Consistent with what God has stated regarding pride throughout scripture (He hates pride).

Jesus spoke regarding eunuchs in Matt 19:12: “For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have made themselves eunuchs because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Therefore, regardless of Natural Law, vasectomies are not counter to what Scripture teaches.

As for sorcery, scriptural context demonstrates it is the association with death, demon worship and the dark magic arts that is forbidden. God forbade them from cutting themselves for the dead. Nothing about preventing pregnancies.

Deut 4:2 “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.”

This refers to the Ten Commandments, or the Pentateuch, at most. Regardless, where does this say that we can ONLY justify our beliefs through Scripture references?

Gal 1:8 "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!"

Citing this verse is a more than a tad ironic, since it's talking about preaching the Gospel, not Written Tradition. Sacred Oral Tradition! E-gad! Again, regardless, where does this passage say that we can only justify our beliefs through Scripture references?

The fact is that sola-scripture-reference is a Protestant tradition, begun by Luther. It's also un-biblical, since we are commanded in Scripture to hold fast to the traditions passed down to us by the Apostles, whether by word of mouth or by letter. "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thes 2:15

I'm glad that you accept the validity of celibacy "for the kingdom of heaven." Most Protestants don't.

Finally, I think God looks on the heart, but man, as usual, looks on the outward appearance (1 Sam 16:7).

Meaning... what?

Can you provide scripture (or non-scripture) references that this is so?

Leviticus 15:16 "When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening"

Nobody else is present. As opposed to the distinction when a female is present two verses later.

Leviticus 15:18 "When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening."

Emission of semen is different in this chapter than that referred to in Deut 23:10 as merely a nocturnal emission.

Deuteronomy 23:10 "If one of your men is unclean because of a nocturnal emission, he is to go outside the camp and stay there."

Therefore I conclude that these verses refer to 3 different types of emissions. That which one has with a woman (Lev 15:18), that which one has during the course of sleep (Deut 23:10) and that which one has that is self-generated (Lev 15:16).

You touched on many things in your post so this is lengthy. Please forgive.

Regardless, where does this say that we can ONLY justify our beliefs through Scripture references?

I have demonstrated where we are not to add to what God has commanded as you requested. You have yet to demonstrate that God abhors vasectomies as you claimed. You, or any other, can claim God hates various things. But if God has not stated that He does, it is an emply claim and this is exactly what Christ condemned in the Pharisees when He stated in Mat 15:3 "Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?". The Pharisees claimed washing hands was of utmost concern, the Catholic church claims no vasectomies. Both are based on tradition and not on a true understanding of God's Word.

Again, regardless, where does this passage say that we can only justify our beliefs through Scripture references?

The passage in Galatians is to illustrate that if it is counter to God's Word, it is NOT of God and the person is to be eternally condemned. Including a Pope. Do you recall Philip and the Ethiopian? Acts 8:35 "Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus." The good news IS the gospel - and ALL of Scripture contains the good news as Philip showed the Ethiopian. Further illustrated in Acts 28:23 "From morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets." Therefore, this passage in Galatians illustrates that any doctrine that runs counter to God's Word, in its entirety, is to be condemned.

The fact is that sola-scripture-reference is a Protestant tradition, begun by Luther.

Luther realized that the Catholic tradition of only the priesthood having access to God's Word (via Latin) was a recipe for control of the masses. He rebelled against that and wished all men could have equal access. Many died after Luther providing the common man the ability to read God's Word in their language. Not unlike the Pharisees killing Jesus for disagreeing with their traditions. Since the translation of the Scriptures into various languages and the ability of the common man to study about God himself and not needing to rely on what others tell him of God, we have subsequently discovered that some oral tradtitions of the Church are based on human tradition, not on Christ.

It's also un-biblical

Not exactly and therefore, we must examine "oral tradition" more closely.

Col 2:8 "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."

I'm glad that you accept the validity of celibacy

You missed the entire point of Matt 19:12. Some are eunuchs by the hand of men, some of themselves. Therefore, your claim that God hates vasectomies, or mutilation as you referred to it, is not based on any scripture but human tradition, which Christ demonstrated is secondary to the actual commands of God.

Forbidding people to marry is what is counter to God's word not celibacy in and of itself: 1 Timothy 4:3 "They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth." If a person is called to marry, or not marry, it is no nevermind to me. Just like what Paul stated elsewhere. But to command someone they must be unmarried to enter God's work is unbiblical.

Meaning... what?

Finally, again, God looks on the heart, meaning He does not care whether someone is physically deformed or not. Your previous post asked if I thought God preferred mutilated flesh. My answer was God prefers a humble and contrite heart but man pays attention to the external to determine acceptability. He does not prefer mutilated over unmutilated nor does He prefer unmutilated over mutilated. Those are important to man but not to God.

Are you proposing that God specified a cleansing routine for masturbation even though it would be followed by an execution (if the assertion that it is wicked holds)?

I have listed below the reasons why the claim that God abhors vasectomies cannot be validated with Scripture. Church doctrine is addressed below this list.

1. Cleansing routines for all alone emissions (as opposed to with a woman or night-time emissions). Is masturbation (or spilling seed) really forbidden then? There is no Law forbidding it.
2. No cleansing routines for forbidden practices (ie, homosexuality or beastiality). Combine 1 and 2 and conclude that masturbation (spilling seed) isn’t a forbidden encounter.
3. Reuben and Lot’s daughters were not destroyed by God even though they violated what would later become Law. Was Onan’s sin therefore the spilled seed of which there is no law? Why did God destroy him when He didn’t ever specify a rule against it yet He did condemn sleeping with father’s wife and sleeping with daughters and didn’t destroy Reuben or Lot’s daughters?
4. There are myriad examples of God dealing harshly and immediately with individual pride (Aaron and Miriam opposing Moses, Korah opposing Moses, Satan falling from heaven, Herod not glorifying God). As opposed to a distinct lack of God dealing harshly and immediately with individual sins of a sexual nature culminating with Jesus’ merciful treatment of the woman adulteress (neither do I condemn you - go and sin no more). He also prevented sexual encounters with Sarah and Rebekah at various times. Therefore the conclusion that Onan was guilty of the sin of Pride rather than a sin of a sexual nature.
5. Emasculation (eunuchs and the mutilated) became admissable in the assembly with Jesus’ declaration echoed by Paul.
6. Mutilators of the flesh were those that relied on overly strict observance of the Law for salvation. Thus Paul’s recitation of his previous strict moral code and how utterly useless it was for access to grace by faith. The context is about grace vs. observance of Law, not sins of a sexual nature.
7. Body as the temple of HS not to be united with prostitutes - based on context it is not a reference to vasectomies, masterbation, emasculation or eunuchs.

Therefore, the only argument left is based on traditional Church doctrine. Is this a biblically acceptable practrice (maintaining doctrine that is extra-Biblical)?

Probably most important is the example of the Pharisees who were masters at using the Law and the Prophets to fit their notion of righteousness. Because they were in the position of spiritual leaders, they controlled access to God and were harshly condemned by Christ for this practice. The practice of creating rules and regulations based on human tradition rather than on God’s Word which resulted in preventing access to God by the common man (Mark 7:6-8). They killed Him for pointing this out. Paul warned the Colossians about arguments based on human traditions (Col 2:8).

My conclusion is therefore that the claim of God abhoring vasectomies is not based on scripture but on doctrine passed down as tradition. This practice is not sound Biblically and is in danger of being condemned as harshly as the similar practice of the Pharisees.

1 AND 2 The Catholic view that I have read is that Lev 15:16 and the Deut. verse are not a situation of one meaning nocturnal emissions and one being self-induced. BOTH relate to nocturnal emissions. Your logic is that since there are different cleansing rituals then they must be different “offences”. Both cleansing rituals may apply to the same “offence”.

3 Our God is a merciful God.

4 What about Sodom and Gomorrah? What about the last verse in revelation identifying homosexuals as not going to Heaven?

5 and 6 “For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this let him receive it” (Mt 19:12). The first two cases mentioned are becoming a eunuch due to factors outside their power. The third case refers to celibacy, not self-mutilation.

7 This refers to anything that defiles the body - not just one type of defilement.

1 AND 2 The Catholic view

The Hebrew uses different words for the two situations. Leviticus is translated seed of copulation while Deut is translated uncleanness that chanceth him at night. Very clear to me that these are distinctly different situations where a man must cleanse himself (clearly no other person involved). At the most conservative, it is an awfully unclear and gray situation upon which to create such a staunch doctrine. Stating God abhors it when it is so unclear at best is very poor doctrinal practice.

What about Sodom and Gomorrah? What about the last verse in revelation identifying homosexuals as not going to Heaven?

No doubt about these. However, my point was that God punished individuals for their sin of pride almost immediately. Whereas Sodom and Gomorrah as well as at the last judgment (and at the flood and the Caananites), sins of a sexual nature are punished corporately as well as far after the fact. Onan's death would be a huge aberration if it were for spilling seed. Nowhere is it absolutely clear that this is even a concern, whereas homosexuality (and pride) is abuntantly clear.

The third case refers to celibacy, not self-mutilation

How do you know? The same word is used in all three cases but we must assume the third time means something non-physical to comply with doctrine? Regardless, eunuchs made by the hand of men can refer to modern day vasectomies, which was why I started this discussion. Again, Jesus' statement demonstrates that this practice is NOT abhorant to Him, whether a birth defect, performed by another human or self-generated (physical or just a mental decision).

This refers to anything that defiles the body - not just one type of defilement.

Vasectomies and masturbation are assumed to be a defilement but nowhere are either listed as being so. Not in the OT, not in the NT. One cannot use this verse and broad brush any act as being a defilement - it must be listed somewhere - else we are in danger of adding to God's commands. The context is speaking about uniting with a prostitute - becoming one with her - not one with oneself.

Sexual immorality is defined in Levitical law - extensively and specifically. The NT reiterates that these practices are not ok. Assuming something to be on the list is what God condemns as "adding" to His commands. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for this practice as well - adding to what God commanded. He called it their traditions.

The example in Matthew and Mark, Jesus condemned the Pharisees because they listed as sinful not washing prior to eating. The OT had rules regarding washing hands but the Pharisees took it beyond what was specified. Likewise God has rules in place regarding sexual encounters. Adding to those rules and making doctrine of it, even if originally motivated by purity, is prohibited.

So to summarize:
- Leviticus and Deut. are unclear.
- we disagree about Sodom and Gomorrah
- looks like Saint Paul’s statement we can’t agree on either

So lets discuss defilement and I’ll give you another verse: Matthew 5:28 “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

In the context of Jesus statement, how can one engage in “self-pleasure” and not be sinning? A similar line of thought would apply to coitus interruptus as this is essentially mutual masturbation. Can you at least see how Catholic Doctrine would develop based on these verses? Remember no Christian denomination that I know of thought “pulling out” was NOT sinful until about 1800 or 1900 years after the life of Jesus. There is a reason for this.

Leviticus and Deut. are unclear.

Not for me they aren't. I was giving the benefit of the doubt to Catholic doctrine being based AT BEST on foggy interpretation.

we disagree about Sodom and Gomorrah

Not really. God destroyed an entire region of people based on their long period of violation of what would be clearly defined as the sin of homosexuality. We agree on this. What I am attempting to highlight is the contrast to Onan who was an individual, killed immediately, for something that was never defined as sin. Unless he was killed for his pride which fits extremely well with other scriptures. Thus my claim.

looks like Saint Paul’s statement we can’t agree on either

Quite possibly. I'm extremely hesitant to lump activities that are not defined to be sin into a general bucket of sin.

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Excellent verse. Which demonstrates that God looks on the heart to find the violation of sin, while man did and continues to look at the outward, regardless of what lies in the heart.

For instance, one can be married and masturbate or mutually masturbate sans lusting after another woman. Conversely, one can be married and lust after another woman, while in the act of making love to one's wife. Jesus defined the second instance as sin, not the first.

Can you at least see how Catholic Doctrine would develop based on these verses?

I absolutely can see how this doctrine came to be. However, Satan doesn't necessarily lie to us with an obvious lie. It is usually couched in very correct Scriptures - look at how he tempted both Eve and Jesus - with incorrect usage of what God said, God's Word if you will. Look at Peter's rebuke by Jesus - Peter's heart was to always have Jesus near to them and to save Him agony and death, but this was diametrically opposite to the will of God. Also, Peter's rebuke by Paul - Peter appeared to be for all to walk in purity and holiness, but it turned out to be for selfish reasons - he couldn't stand up to the Judaisers who couldn't bear to not adhere to the Law.

I would not have had an issue if the claim would have been "The Catholic church abhors vasectomies". But the claim was that "God abhors vasectomies" - and nowhere is this listed in scripture. Furthermore, to claim it is a command of God is a sin itself as Jesus demonstrated with His volumenous interactions with the Pharisees over what was considered "lawful".

Remember no Christian denomination that I know of thought “pulling out” was NOT sinful until about 1800 or 1900 years after the life of Jesus.

Latin was the only acceptable language in which to read scriptures according to the status quo until around the 1500's . Black skin was considered the "mark of Cain" or the result of the curse put on Caanan into the 1900's as well by a large number of Christians. Jesus demonstrated many times that long-held traditions held little value if they were not supported by God's Word. Many have died, including Jesus, for opposing long held traditions of the religious majority.

For most Catholic worshipers, they are comfortable with this doctrine and the myriad others. If one wishes to live in conformity with this standard of one's church, that is none of my business. It becomes my business when that standard reaches beyond the voluntary parishoners and is proclaimed to be God's standard, rather than the Church's standard. I understand why it is the Church's standard. I fail to see that it is God's standard.

I was really trying to debate on scripture alone, since that is what you believe. Additionally, I was trying to avoid debating things related to the authority of the Catholic Church. This also relates to the authority to interpret scripture, or in many cases, put bounds on acceptable interpretations.

Once the authority is accepted scripturally, then one can see how the church’s interpretation of various things MUST be accepted.

Additionally, once you believe that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church as God’s church then we are not just giving the church’s interpretation, we are really giving God’s interpretation.

Matthew 16:18-20 is of course a critical scripture. Its interpretation must be based on what the early church thought at the time. Just like when interpreting the US Constitution, conservative (strict constructionist) judges ask what the founders/framers thought at the time of the writing as opposed to just reading the words. Just reading the words is really a liberal view as the “meaning” of the words actually change over time.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.