Last edited by a moderator:
Bob debates Birth Control
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
You just now posted the link to this 'episode'?
I thought you were only going to be on for five minutes?
Any way, is Bob for, or against, BC?
Any way, is Bob for, or against, BC?
Christine
New member
I would guess by the views espoused by some TOL'ers that Bob would be against, due to the fact that a birth control pill can destroy an already fertilized egg. Although it normally only destroys an unfertilized egg, the idea of destroying a fertilized one (one that is already developing into a baby) is a scary thought for many believers, including myself.
Sorry if I gave the impression, I knew that.
philosophizer
New member
Who was he debating?
He debated Robert Cetrulo of http://nkyrtl.org
Darn! I thought he was debating Sozo. :chuckle:
Bob's argument actually fails. I know for certain there is a passage in the Old Testament that I am trying to find.
Basically it says that a man "shook off his seed" so as to have sex with his brother's wives. God saw this as an evil act and the man died.
The act of shaking off the seed was a sin.
Basically it says that a man "shook off his seed" so as to have sex with his brother's wives. God saw this as an evil act and the man died.
The act of shaking off the seed was a sin.
Justin
New member
Historically, Christians did not allow birth control. This was never a very popular position (even among Christians), but Christianity has never been about what is popular. It was only a couple generations ago that Christian Churches began allowing the use of birth control. Unfortunately, things have gone downhill from there, so that even the most conservative groups now generally consider birth control acceptable. At some times in the Church, using birth control could result in excommunication until one's death bed. I don't say that because I think we should apply that canon today, but only because it illustrates the seriousness with which early Christians took the issue.
I might also add--as a note to my Catholic friends here--that I believe that Catholics (and conservative Orthodox) also use birth control. You call it NFP, though that is really nothing more than a term used for the 21st century version of the the rhythm (or timing) method. Whatever you might call it, though (and whatever distinctions you might try to make about it being "passive" or "natural"--distinctions the Fathers didn't make) NFP uses the same principles and practices as already-condemned birth control measures. Which is really besides the point, since the Fathers condemned different methods of birth control only secondarily; their main point was that it was wrong to have sex while intending to (and taking steps to) avoid children. Interestingly, even though every Catholic apologist quotes Noonan's book on Contraception to defend the Catholic position, Noonan himself admits that the Fathers condemned NFP (though of course they didn't call it that). Quotes can be supplied if needed.
I might also add--as a note to my Catholic friends here--that I believe that Catholics (and conservative Orthodox) also use birth control. You call it NFP, though that is really nothing more than a term used for the 21st century version of the the rhythm (or timing) method. Whatever you might call it, though (and whatever distinctions you might try to make about it being "passive" or "natural"--distinctions the Fathers didn't make) NFP uses the same principles and practices as already-condemned birth control measures. Which is really besides the point, since the Fathers condemned different methods of birth control only secondarily; their main point was that it was wrong to have sex while intending to (and taking steps to) avoid children. Interestingly, even though every Catholic apologist quotes Noonan's book on Contraception to defend the Catholic position, Noonan himself admits that the Fathers condemned NFP (though of course they didn't call it that). Quotes can be supplied if needed.
Well I listened to it in its entirety and Bob sure fumbled around with that one.
Bob answered correctly in an indirect way when he said Onan was using the woman as a sex object and took God out of the act of reproduction.
It had nothing to do with legalism. Legalism is the principle of you have to ensure your your brother has children.
Funny how Bob puts aside all these great thinkers of history Protestant and Catholic and places his own weak subjectivity on the issue.
By the way, what was he talking about the the spilling of seed was not artificial contraception method.
John Wesley, Luther, Calvin and the Catholic thinkers obviously didn't have condoms back in their time. That was what they were referring to in their writings.
Bob answered correctly in an indirect way when he said Onan was using the woman as a sex object and took God out of the act of reproduction.
It had nothing to do with legalism. Legalism is the principle of you have to ensure your your brother has children.
Funny how Bob puts aside all these great thinkers of history Protestant and Catholic and places his own weak subjectivity on the issue.
By the way, what was he talking about the the spilling of seed was not artificial contraception method.
John Wesley, Luther, Calvin and the Catholic thinkers obviously didn't have condoms back in their time. That was what they were referring to in their writings.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Onan had sex with his brothers' wife, and pulled out...because he was greedy. The sin was his greed. He wanted his brothers' land to himself. If he had done what remains unspoken here on TOL, then he could have still slept with his brothers' wife after a couple of hours. What he did was sleep with her, and then pull out to spill his seed on the ground. And his sin was greed.
Spilling seed is not a "sexual" act. Onan was commanded, by God, to have sex with his brothers' wife, so that an heir could be produced [because his brither had not had children] and Onan pulled out, and spilled his seed, because he wanted his brothers' possesssions for himself. That was greedy, and in direct disobedience of God's command to produce an heir for a brother who did not have one. It wasn't about the spilling of the seed itself.
- Status