The only explicit blessings God gives related to sex, are for the kind that has all the begats.
It is an exceptionless norm in the Bible that childbearing = blessing. Nowhere are people blessed for blocking blessings.
In the one, sole, singular Biblical episode of intercourse where the guy alters it so that reproduction would not occur, the text says God hated what he did and struck him dead.
Regarding all the kinds of jiggery-pokery which cannot result in reproduction (Leviticus etc.) God calls all this intentionally sterile sex abominable.
Normal human marriage is identified as sacred (Ephesians etc.) At the very least --- talking moral minimalism here --- that should convey that you don't purposely suppress either one of the twofold blessed purposes for which the marriage act is blessed (procreation and pleasure bonding).
Let me point out that the specific objectionable acts don't have to be itemized on the page, if normal people through the centuries "get it".
For example, there are only a handful of verses that condemn homosexual conduct. None of them explicitly condemn specific homosexual acts, that is, oral or anal intercourse (and the many variations we'd be better off not knowing about.) But Gays today are claiming that God does not forbid anal intercourse, because the text doesn't mention it. God doesn't paint a picture of it and slap it with a big red circle-and-slash.
If you google Gay Christian commentary on Bible texts --- here, I'll do it for you: Gay Christian Bible texts (LINK) you get 8 million+ results. The 9 out of 10 top ones in the list are scholarly or semi-scholarly commentaries which claim that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.
Mostly because it does not use the actual word "homosexual" or the actual words "anal sex."
But Christians for 1900 years understood the Bible to be against active homosexual sex relations, just as all Christians for 1900 years understood related texts to weigh in against contraception.
Read some of this. At least the first sentences of the top Google results. You really need to.
Because then you'll see that pro-gay and pro-contraceptive Christians are relying on exactly the same form of argument: that if the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words don't actually say "plugs 'n' rubbers 'n' the hormonal patch or putting your semen in baggies or up the butt or down the hatch," it's not really talking about US.
And contraceptors likewise shrug off 400 years' worth of Protestant teaching highlighting the Biblical case against birth control, from Luther through 1930! (LINKS)
Because, as the Gay Christians say, that Biblical stuff is too obscure: it couldn't apply to us!.
Yes it does.
Check out Alan Carlson's book on Protestants and Birth Control (Amazon link)<.a<>> Used paperpack for about $11. --- or look the author up elsewhere on the internet.
God bless you.
You have posted no passages from Scripture to me, other than the Genesis passage you misused.
I will title your arguments against artificially controlling conception so we an analyze them easily.
Argument #1 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong because children are a blessing
“The only explicit blessings God gives related to sex, are for the kind that has all the begats. It is an exception-less norm in the Bible that childbearing = blessing.
…Here, we agree that children are a blessing. Childbearing is not a blessing, it is part of the curse :-)Argument #2 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong because “nowhere are people blessed for blocking blessings.”If your argument is true, then blocking children by any means is wrong. The are always a blessing. I find this argument unrelated to the discussion of artificial conception alone and it does not prove your point.
Again, if you avoid conception by any means, you are blocking a blessing. Scripture never distinguishes between methods of blocking conception. Because of this, I find your argument unpersuasive.Argument #3 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong there is one passage that indicates someone did a wrong thing by blocking conceptionIf you are going to be faithful in practice to your first two arguments, you must accept limitless children, from the time of marriage until the time later in life that you can no longer bear children. Did you do so? Do you advocate couples have limitless children?
“In the one, sole, singular Biblical episode of intercourse where the guy alters it so that reproduction would not occur, the text says God hated what he did and struck him dead.”
Because it was a violation of his duty under the covenant to raise up children to his deceased brother. Instead of doing so, which was his responsibility under the covenant, he routinely took advantage of the opportunity for sex, without being faithful to what God covenanted with Israel.
Glad you pointed out this was the “one, sole, singular Biblical episode” of conception control.There are no commands, no teaching to the church, no examples for the church.
Because of these two points, this passage does not serve as a command to Christians or Jews to avoid choosing not to have children.
This doesn’t carry the force you would need to prove the Scriptures condemn artificial conception control.
Argument #4 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong because God condemns perverted sexual practices.
“Regarding all the kinds of jiggery-pokery which cannot result in reproduction (Leviticus etc.) God calls all this intentionally sterile sex abominable.
We agree, but this has nothing to do with artificial conception. It is a perversion of man-woman sex, as God created it.
Argument #5 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong because marriage is sacred so you should not suppress either of the twofold blessings - children or pleasure.
“Normal human marriage is identified as sacred (Ephesians etc.) At the very least --- talking moral minimalism here --- that should convey that you don't purposely suppress either one of the twofold blessed purposes for which the marriage act is blessed (procreation and pleasure bonding).
We agree that marriage is sacred. But I find this unpersuasive because the number of children you have does not make it less sacred, nor each child you have less of a blessing, nor sex less pleasurable.And again, the discussion revolves around purposefully suppressing conception. There is no distinction in this argument that will win your point. In fact, this argument could as easily be used to point out the any purposeful choosing not to have children is not fulfilling the purpose of marriage.
You’ve not provided a Biblical basis against artificial birth control, nor a basis to not have limitless children. As such, I do not accept it as a strong argument against birth control.
Argument #6 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong because gays make claims to justify their practices, so birth control is wrong.
“Let me point out that the specific objectionable acts don't have to be itemized on the page, if normal people through the centuries "get it".
“For example, there are only a handful of verses that condemn homosexual conduct. None of them explicitly condemn specific homosexual acts, that is, oral or anal intercourse (and the many variations we'd be better off not knowing about.) But Gays today are claiming that God does not forbid anal intercourse, because the text doesn't mention it. God doesn't paint a picture of it and slap it with a big red circle-and-slash.
God condemns homosexuality in many passages. Gays who make this argument are simply ignorant of Scripture.And it sounds a lot like your general argument of ethics derived from the Bible without a specific place they are derived from. :-)
This also has nothing to do with birth control being chosen by a married man and woman. God plans for men and women to have sex and if they conceive, it is a blessing from him.
Argument #7 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong because gays argue that the Biblical texts do not use specific words
“If you google Gay Christian commentary on Bible texts --- here, I'll do it for you: Gay Christian Bible texts (LINK) you get 8 million+ results. The 9 out of 10 top ones in the list are scholarly or semi-scholarly commentaries which claim that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Mostly because it does not use the actual word "homosexual" or the actual words "anal sex."
Again, Biblical ignorance. The Scriptures do not use many popular expressions, but they are clear. This is why we must be anchored in the Scriptures and not making up crap and pretending it is truth.
Argument #8 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong because Christians used to believe it was wrong.
“But Christians for 1900 years understood the Bible to be against active homosexual sex relations, just as all Christians for 1900 years understood related texts to weigh in against contraception.”
Which you have not posted to me.
Argument #9 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong because pro-gay and pro-contraceptive Christians use the same type of arguments to justify their choices.
“Read some of this. At least the first sentences of the top Google results. You really need to. Because then you'll see that pro-gay and pro-contraceptive Christians are relying on exactly the same form of argument: that if the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words don't actually say "plugs 'n' rubbers 'n' the hormonal patch or putting your semen in baggies or up the butt or down the hatch," it's not really talking about US.
Again, this doesn’t trouble me in the least, because I am well grounded in the Scriptures. This is a logical fallacy. It does not need to use exact words… but you must be able to point to what it does say. I’ve repeatedly asked you to do exactly that.When you do not, you are also relying on this type of loose argument.
Argument #10 - Artificial birth control is wrong because Christians historically thought it was wrong.
“And contraceptors likewise shrug off 400 years' worth of Protestant teaching highlighting the Biblical case against birth control, from Luther through 1930! (LINKS) Because, as the Gay Christians say, that Biblical stuff is too obscure: it couldn't apply to us!.
(I’m being kind here. We covered this in your #7) Yes it does. “Contractors!” - you’ve got to make up a pejorative word for people who disagree with you??
We need not shrug off history. We must evaluate history by Scripture. It will either stand the test Scripture or it will not.
And you posted no Scripture.
Argument #11 - Here’s a book
“Check out Alan Carlson's book on Protestants and Birth Control (Amazon link)<.a<>> Used paperpack for about $11. --- or look the author up elsewhere on the internet.
:-) I have The Book.“God bless you.
And to you too.