Contraception

[kimba1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Multi-Band_Excitation


huh??

[Amianthus]

huh??

AMBE

Adult Male Bovine Excrement

Adult Male Bovine -> Bull

Excrement -> Shit

[kimba1]

oh

that makes more sense than advance multi-band excitation

[sirs]

oh  that makes more sense than advance multi-band excitation

LOL.....yep, it does       

[Universe Prince]

I have never understand why this is construed as a message against masturbation.

I believe the basic idea is that masturbation is wasting semen, and since God was offended by Onan wasting his semen, therefore masturbation is a sin.

Which naturally makes me think of Monty Python's "Every Sperm Is Sacred" song from their movie, The Meaning of Life.

[The_Professor]

By that logic, UP, sex when there is no chance of procreation is a sin as well.

[Universe Prince]

Oh, but it is incorrect to assume that the theologians did not look to the duty of Onan to impregnate his brother's widow. Remember that Jewish teachers also taught (and a sect of Judaism still teaches) that contraception is wrong, especially in specific circumstances. Both Jerome and Augustine discuss Judah, Tamar, and Onan.

I'm sure that is all true. But I notice the question you're asking is about contraception being acceptable to some Christians, and not refusing to impregnate one's brother's childless widow being acceptable to some Christians. So obviously one aspect of the story has received a great deal more attention than the other.

Because Christ defined marriage as a sacrament from God (Matthew 19:5-6). Augustine made that clear when he addressed the Manichaens.

Not having read Augustine's writings regarding the Manichaens, I'm not sure what argument he used. The passage of scripture you mention is a response from Jesus in response to a question about divorce. Jesus quotes Genesis in His reply, so obviously He was not proposing a new concept. And it seems to have little bearing on the story of Onan. But possibly I am just missing whatever piece of information that links these together.

The problem in that question is that it assumes that the Church has not reviewed the issue either.

I'm not assuming that at all. I'm not saying there are not valid theological reasons against contraception. But I think culture has played a part in the focusing and forming of theological arguments, and therein lies the answer to your question. We're not as concerned about contraception for the same basic reason we're not concerned about making sure childless widows get pregnant, because we've decided it isn't culturally relevant. The whole widow thing is not even considered an issue any more because it has been culturally irrelevant for much longer.

More than that, it is vital to hold women to the highest regard. From Epiphanius and Augustine to Paul VI have come warnings that contraceptives will bring degredation and objectification of women.

Has that occurred in our society as a result of contraception becoming commonplace? Some might suggest it had had the opposite effect.

Western nations heavily prioritise constant economic growth and improvement of living standards (at least for segments of their population) and it has become accepted that population control is a part of this economic formula.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by population control. We do not, after all, have population control regulations in place. At least, none so far as I know.

[Universe Prince]

By that logic, UP, sex when there is no chance of procreation is a sin as well.

And arguments to that effect have been made in one form or another. Many of them in support of the theological objection to contraception. I have seen people make such an argument as a reason why homosexuality is a considered a sin. I'm not saying I agree. I'm just saying these arguments have been made.