djo@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (01/07/90)
Tom Albrecht's article on the Matter of Sterilization provides a perfect example of what I meant about needing to think for yourself when dealing with Scripture. His arguments, which demonstrate not-thinking-for-yourself through their continual appeals to one authority after another (other than Scripture, I mean) boil down -- in his own words -- to three things: > Conclusion > > We need to acknowledge three essential facts from Scripture in order to > resolve the problem of the use of birth control. First, man was commanded > by God to "be fruitful and multiply". This command was repeated three > times and has never been rescinded. Second, that children are a blessing > from the Lord and evidence of His promise to bless a faithful couple. And, > third, that God is sovereign and in control of all the event of our lives; > including the giving and withholding of children (see Gen. 29:31ff for one > of the clearest statements on this fact). He has promised to provide all > our needs when we seek to be faithful to His revealed will. This provision > extends to our covenant children as well. "I was young and now I am old, > yet I have never seen the righteous forsaken or their children begging > bread." (Ps. 37:25). The first argument is the most evidential of accepting without thinking. The full command is to be fruitful and multiply AND FILL THE EARTH. Anyone looking around us today with both eyes open can see that we've pretty much filled the earth; to keep being fruitful and multiplying is to condemn our children to short unhappy lives of malnutrition and plague. God may intercede if we do this, but there is no case in the Bible of God passing a miracle to help those who got into trouble through their own plain lack of common sense. Anyone who thinks beyond the immediate will see quite clearly that the second citation is *not* intended to be taken literally, or at least not in an exclusive sense; if children are to be defined as "evidence of [God's] promise to bless a faithful couple," then someone had better explain to me how all those pagans, agnostics, atheists, etc., etc., are being blessed as faithful couples -- or, if "faithful" is to be taken as "faithful in marriage," then somebody had better explain all the children born out of wedlock. Finally, while God is certainly to be the master of all the events of our lives, we've also been given this fascinating thing called _free_will_. (At least, most Christians think so; for one thing, it's a lot easier to reconcile with a God of love and mercy. Calvinists need not agree with me on this point.) God definitely *does* give us a choice in the having or not-having of children: for example, we are free to refrain from sexual intercourse entirely. Only once in history has God blessed a couple with a child (actually, a bastard by technical definitions) sans sex; and we can be reasonably certain that that particular miracle is not about to be repeated. So the only question that remains, is what amount of control we are permitted to exercise over childbearing. Is it permitted to have sex only during the woman's fertile week? That would be the logical conclusion of the "sex only for procreation" position. Yet I have never heard anyone suggest it. Nor have I ever heard anyone suggest the opposite, that the practice of "the rhythm method" (formerly known as "Vatican roulette") was immoral. So *some* forms of control are acceptible. Would you suggest, then, that God has assigned something as being, not right or wrong, but only right or wrong depending on to what degree it is done? Well, perhaps; but there's nothing in the Bible to suggest that degree "x" of fertility control is acceptible but degree "y" is not. No. I'm afraid that the anti-birth-control position is arrived at by examining Scripture, not with the idea of puzzling it out to see what it really means, but by coming to it with the preconceived notion that birth control is wrong (probably because it leads to -- GASP! -- sexual freedom) and seeking out quotes that can be made to mean what one already believes. Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
@sun.acs.udel.edu:correll@sun.acs.udel.edu (correll) (01/18/90)
In article <Jan.6.21.11.33.1990.6727@athos.rutgers.edu> djo@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: > No. I'm afraid that the anti-birth-control position is arrived at >by examining Scripture, not with the idea of puzzling it out to see what it >really means, but by coming to it with the preconceived notion that birth >control is wrong (probably because it leads to -- GASP! -- sexual freedom) >and seeking out quotes that can be made to mean what one already believes. > >Dan'l Danehy-Oakes I hope the point of this paragraph was not to imply that "sexual freedom" is a benefit of contraception. I see nothing in Scripture that would indicate that "sexual freedom" as the term is used by the world today is pleasing to God, quite to the contrary. Even married couples are not entitled to "sexual freedom" in the sense that they have autonomous control over their sexual behavior. For instance, I Cor. 7 couples are commanded to engage in intercourse regularly as a deterrent to immorality. There really cannot be any such thing as sexual freedom in the sense of being able to be involved in sexual activity without experiencing the consequences. This idea violates the principle of Gal. 6:7 that says, "Be not deceived; God is not mocked; whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap." The further we deviate from God's ideal, whether in homosexualiy, adultery, premarital sex, or whatever, the more dire the consequences. If even contraception is really displeasing to God, there will be consequences for those who use it. For instance, I believe it is Mary Pride who says that the reason Christians have not been terribly effective in combating the practice of abortion is that they have adopted worldly attitudes toward children, the family, and sexuality. Maybe she has a point. -- ---\ Sharon Correll \--------------- ----\ University of Delaware \-------------- -----\ Academic Computing and Instructional Technology \------------- ------\ Research and Development \------------