Morality of Birth Control

[beth]

Christians Reexamine Morality of Birth Control


Is contraception a sin? The very suggestion made Bryan Hodge and his classmates at Chicago's Moody Bible Institute laugh.

As his friends scoffed and began rebutting the oddball idea, Hodge found himself on the other side, poking holes in their arguments. He finished a bachelor's degree in biblical theology at Moody and earned a master's degree at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Now, more than a decade later, he is trying to drive a hole the size of the ark through what has become conventional wisdom among many Christians: that contraception is perfectly moral.

His book, "The Christian Case Against Contraception," was published in November. Hodge, a former Presbyterian pastor who is now a layman in the conservative Orthodox Presbyterian Church, realizes his mission is quixotic.

In the 50 years since the birth-control pill hit the market, contraception in all its forms has become as ubiquitous as the minivan, and dramatically changed social mores as it opened the possibilities for women.

No less than other Americans, Christians were caught up in the cultural conflagration. In a nation where 77 percent of the population claims to be Christian, 98 percent of women who have ever had sexual intercourse say they've used at least one method of birth control.

The pill is the most preferred method, followed closely by female sterilization (usually tying off fallopian tubes).

"People are no longer ... thinking about it," says Hodge, 36, who had to agree with a Christian publisher who rejected his book on grounds that contraception is a nonstarter, a settled issue. "People don't even ask if there is anything possibly morally wrong about it."

For more than 19 centuries, every Christian church opposed contraception.

Under pressure from social reformers such as Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, the Anglican Communion (and its U.S. branch, the Episcopal Church) became the first to allow married couples with grave reasons to use birth control.

That decision cracked a door that, four decades later, was thrown wide open with the relatively safe, effective birth-control pill, which went on the market in this country in the summer of 1960. Virtually every Protestant denomination had lifted the ban by the mid-1960s.

Even evangelicals within mainline Protestant and nondenominational churches embraced the pill as a way that married couples could enjoy their God-given sexuality without fear of untimely pregnancy

"It was a reaction to that whole Victorian thing where sex was seen as dirty," says Hodge, who lives in Pennsylvania.

There remains one massive holdout among major Christian churches -- the Roman Catholic Church, which expressed its opposition in no uncertain terms in Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae.

To separate the two functions of marital intimacy -- the life-transmitting from the bonding -- is to reject God's design, Paul VI wrote.

/snip

www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/11635443/

[Erasmus]

Contraception over-rides God's choice as to whether to send a baby or not. A similar argument was used in the Dark Ages against medicine - God sent disease, it was not up to Man to interfere with His Will. Muslims and Jews held exactly the opposite approach, that God intended us to be healthy but Satan and his minions preferred otherwise, so medicine was using the intelligence God gave us to work His Will at the physical level where we exist and He does not.

Behind that lies the ascetic roots of Christianity born in rejection of Roman and Hellenistic hedonism where anything and anybody you wanted could be bought. And even beyond that lies the fact that as a much more brutal militaristic culture, Romans always had a prudish fear of unmanly sentiment and affection. Sex was sort of OK but better controlled, emotion for women and effeminates.

t compares very differently from modern attitudes that in the 1st century BCE, Catullus is writing this infamous poem because his enemies have accused him of effeminacy in his lurid on-off gush about 'Lesbia' - Claudia/Clodia Pulchra, sister of Julius Caesar's Mr Fixit and probable reason why "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion" (of gross sacrilege). He finds nothing unmanly in homosexual threats; it is affection for a woman that calls his manliness into question. In one poem he actually boasts of catching her with a man (probably his boyfriend) and making a sexual sandwich of him.

The Christian ideal went to extremes of ascetic world-rejection because nothing should distract from adoration of God. Since God had willed that we "Go forth and multiply", reproduction was beyond question but "Who enjoys his wife commits adultery" (St.Augustine or St. Paul?) and of course those evil Roman women who actually enjoyed sex with their slaves (their husbands were to busy enjoying it with their slaves!), Temptress Eve incarnate, if not Lilith Herself!

Somewhere along the line, the idea of sex as making love as an expression of affection instead of selfish lust lost out to physical pleasure as evil in itself because we should all be Yogins living up a pillar or down a hole in the Egyptian desert rejecting this world God created. The funny thing is that many of those (like myself) who believed Satan, not God the world's creator (whether literally in the Middle Ages or more likely symbolically in Roman times) were not as hostile to sex and sensuality as the official Church claiming that their God did it all "and it was good" They saw Love as the essence and sexual intimacy as a little taste in this physical existence of (literal) Heaven, even though some still believed in isolation from the opposite sex for fear of bringing more souls into physical incarnation through women's Satanic curse of spawning more physical life. The official Church believed exactly the opposite.

We'll never truly clear it until we liberate ourselves from placing values on the external world and apply them to our internal attitudes to it. It's like people who will not touch alcohol because they believe it a drug able to seduce them into the grossest acts. For them, maybe it is. For a wine connoisseur and for many a sociable drunk, it is nothing of the sort. The fault lies not in the agencies we blame, but in ourselves for blaming them instead of taking responsibility for ourselves. (A sort of parallel misquote from King Lear)

Something we might ask from the other side though, is why it is always women in need of suppressing their fertility in order to suit a world structured around men with no family commitment instead of changing that emphasis on economic service to the exclusion of all else as was traditional to men, to recognize women's ability to give birth on an equal basis and even if men cannot do it, to accept that men are as entitled as women to personal and domestic commitment with a life of their own just like women, that employment serves, not that is to be suppressed in order to serve employment.

[biglin]

Look, contraception is NOT the same as abortion.

The Bishop of Rome and his heretical pravities bang on about the two as if they were the same.

They're not, Benny!

Abortion is the deliberate murder of an unborn child.

Contraception is - what it says on the tin.

It's like arguing that there's no difference between infanticide and birth control.

Benny is a clown as well as a hypocrite.

Still, what else can you expect from someone who's not just the head Teague but also a former member of the Hitler Youth?

[mouse]

Aug 5, 2010 9:47:41 GMT -5 @biglin said:

Still, what else can you expect from someone who's not just the head Teague but also a former member of the Hitler Youth?

not a great deal of option ....my friend was also a member of the hitler youth..and a wonderful lady she is,

[gabriel]

Aug 5, 2010 9:47:41 GMT -5 @biglin said:

Look, contraception is NOT the same as abortion.

The Bishop of Rome and his heretical pravities bang on about the two as if they were the same.

They're not, Benny!

Abortion is the deliberate murder of an unborn child.

Contraception is - what it says on the tin.

It's like arguing that there's no difference between infanticide and birth control.

Benny is a clown as well as a hypocrite.

Still, what else can you expect from someone who's not just the head Teague but also a former member of the Hitler Youth?

I actually find this post offensive. I don't have any problems with people who believe in a religion/spiritual belief besides Christianity. Or anyone who doesn't believe in religion. Got no probs.

I have a problem with bashing on one religion. lin, because you don't agree with something does not make the entire foundation rotten. That's your opinion and that's all it is. It is not fact. Perhaps you should start to say that it is your opinion.

Gabriel

[biglin]

Gabriel, I thought it was obvious it was my opinion. If I offended you I'm sorry.

I've seen quite a few offensive posts on here by people bashing ANYONE who believes in ANY kind of religion.

I've seen mysogynistic and racist posts on here too.

The history of the Catholic Church is a long and dismal record of oppression and corruption.

It's record is worse than any other Christian church.

I admit I'm prejudiced, though.

[mouse]

well dont be predudiced against my hitler youth friend...there was no option but to join..not joining affected the entire family

[beth]

(quoting Lin)
I've seen quite a few offensive posts on here by people bashing ANYONE who believes in ANY kind of religion.

I've seen mysogynistic and racist posts on here too.


... and, Lin, that is also your opinion. "IMO", is a handy little addition that clears up all kinds of possible misunderstandings.

There are posts that tread a fine line .. on all boards ... and others that can prick one readers soft spots and seem totally mid-road to every one else.

I try to be as flexible as possible and see nothing wrong with your posts on this thread, knowing they reflect your long held opinions, but an IMO doesn't hurt.

Carry on.

[Erasmus]

I'd question whether the Roman Church's record is worse than any others, mainly because it was the Church for more than a thousand years and we know sweet FA about the others, in fact had long forgotten their existence. Sure there's a schism between Roman and Greek rite a thousand years ago but it wasn't all that much of a schism at the time. For the only other churches outside of the Roman-Greek complex, we know nothing of their history.

I do see that Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria and All Africa has not yet seen fit to condemn the genital mutilation of girls under his jurisdiction, which is as much of an abuse as any, though his is one of the few expanding churches, including the subsidiary British Orthodox Church.

[biglin]

Aug 8, 2010 18:20:54 GMT -5 Erasmus said:

I'd question whether the Roman Church's record is worse than any others, mainly because it was the Church for more than a thousand years and we know sweet FA about the others, in fact had long forgotten their existence. Sure there's a schism between Roman and Greek rite a thousand years ago but it wasn't all that much of a schism at the time. For the only other churches outside of the Roman-Greek complex, we know nothing of their history.

I do see that Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria and All Africa has not yet seen fit to condemn the genital mutilation of girls under his jurisdiction, which is as much of an abuse as any, though his is one of the few expanding churches, including the subsidiary British Orthodox Church.

In the first place, Razzledazzle, the RC bunch were NOT 'the Church' but until Gregory the Great nothing more than a bunch of provincial backwaters.

The Orthodox Church (until the time of Charlemagne) were more or less the head church.

In Ireland and Scotland the Celtic Church preserved the true spirit of Christianity from the pagan stuff that the Bishop of Rome's mob were introducing.

Let's not forget also the numerous 'heresies' from the Montanists, Nestorians (very big in China and India - probably the people who became known in India as 'Thomas Christians'), Docetists, Cathars, Waldenses, Lollards and Hussites, all of whom challenged the 'authority' of the Bishop of Rome.

It wasn't until the Byzantine Empire started to crumble and the Normans conquered England that Catholicism started to be imposed by force on the people of Europe. Even then, it took them a long time to do it and they had to murder an awful lot of 'heretics!'

[biglin]

Aug 8, 2010 14:04:41 GMT -5 beth said:

(quoting Lin)
I've seen quite a few offensive posts on here by people bashing ANYONE who believes in ANY kind of religion.

I've seen mysogynistic and racist posts on here too.


... and, Lin, that is also your opinion. "IMO", is a handy little addition that clears up all kinds of possible misunderstandings.

There are posts that tread a fine line .. on all boards ... and others that can prick one readers soft spots and seem totally mid-road to every one else.

I try to be as flexible as possible and see nothing wrong with your posts on this thread, knowing they reflect your long held opinions, but an IMO doesn't hurt.

Carry on.

For some reason other posters on this board are allowed to present their opinions as being facts.

Unlike them, I know the difference and I'm always quite plain about what I'm saying.

It is a FACT that certain posts on here HAVE crossed the line in terms of both misogyny and a racist word has been used as well.

It's also a fact that some people here are quite happy to demonise entire members of a religion and yet if I criticise aspects of a particular SECT of a religion that's apparently not allowed.

I know you and I would have taken a different position on the posts in question and at the end of the day I have to accept that you're the boss on this board, Beth, and I have to go along with it.

That doesn't stop me from expressing my disagreement or even my anger at individual posts.

I know what a fact is and what an opinion is.

If I kept putting IMO or IMHO every time I posted it would take up half the posts and make things boring and pointless.

Or is it that some posters here really can't tell the difference between facts and their opinions?

[gabriel]

Aug 9, 2010 7:21:41 GMT -5 @biglin said:

Aug 8, 2010 14:04:41 GMT -5 beth said:

(quoting Lin)
I've seen quite a few offensive posts on here by people bashing ANYONE who believes in ANY kind of religion.

I've seen mysogynistic and racist posts on here too.


... and, Lin, that is also your opinion. "IMO", is a handy little addition that clears up all kinds of possible misunderstandings.

There are posts that tread a fine line .. on all boards ... and others that can prick one readers soft spots and seem totally mid-road to every one else.

I try to be as flexible as possible and see nothing wrong with your posts on this thread, knowing they reflect your long held opinions, but an IMO doesn't hurt.

Carry on.

For some reason other posters on this board are allowed to present their opinions as being facts.

Unlike them, I know the difference and I'm always quite plain about what I'm saying.

It is a FACT that certain posts on here HAVE crossed the line in terms of both misogyny and a racist word has been used as well.

It's also a fact that some people here are quite happy to demonise entire members of a religion and yet if I criticise aspects of a particular SECT of a religion that's apparently not allowed.

I know you and I would have taken a different position on the posts in question and at the end of the day I have to accept that you're the boss on this board, Beth, and I have to go along with it.

That doesn't stop me from expressing my disagreement or even my anger at individual posts.

I know what a fact is and what an opinion is.

If I kept putting IMO or IMHO every time I posted it would take up half the posts and make things boring and pointless.

Or is it that some posters here really can't tell the difference between facts and their opinions?

Well, you're not talking about me posting misoygnistic and racist remarks and I know that for sure lin.
You've got your opinion and you're welcome to it. I have mine.

What's wrong with posting IMO? I often do. Particularly when it's on topics when it is MO.

You admit that you're prejudiced when it comes to the Catholic Church.

Look, you have problems with that church. OK. But don't post your opinions and expect everyone else to roll over and go yeah, that's great, whatever.

Cheers

[beth]

I'm all for diverse opinions. They help message boards thrive.

IMOs and JMOs are very helpful for allowing us to express our own views without coming across as dogmatic and contentious. It isn't necessary to pepper them throughout our posts - just add one at the end.

JMO

but a good one

[Jessiealan]

A lot of protestants used to harbor prejudice against catholics. They believed the ban against birth control was so catholics would multiply faster and take over the religious world.

[mouse]

as a child it was quite normal for shouts of proddy dog or catlick to be hurled as forms of abuse......was it any great problem...i dont think so...just words..
except these days we all have to pretend to be ultra polite and nod to the pc line that no one must be offended.....