Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Ethics 301 Guidelines

This forum is for Christians to discuss ethical issues within Christianity. Non-theists, non-christians, and unorthodox Christians should not post here without first getting permission from the area's moderators.

If you have a question about what's OK and what's not OK, please contact the moderators.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What should a married Christian do when not ready to have children?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mr.Kott
    replied
    The Biblical command is to "Be fruitful and multiply".

    Leave a comment:


  • theatricalA
    replied
    I would recommend using birth control. It's 99% accurate when used correctly. It also prevents abortions. One important reason to support it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
    Your own fault. You chose to focus on responding to him instead of to me, and all of TWeb knows I never get snarky or sarcastic or rude.
    You'll need to reply first otherwise you might as well not exist

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartacus
    replied
    Originally posted by Alsharad View Post
    Aaaaaaaaand we're done...

    I thought that I was addressing a Christian brother. As such, I have treated you with respect with a dash of playful banter. I guess I was wrong to do so. My apologies for expecting more from you. Your lack of civility has done nothing but end my part in this conversation. Thanks for reminding me why I quit posting in TWeb.
    Your own fault. You chose to focus on responding to him instead of to me, and all of TWeb knows I never get snarky or sarcastic or rude.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Alsharad View Post
    Snipe, retreat
    Have a great day.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alsharad
    replied
    Aaaaaaaaand we're done...

    I thought that I was addressing a Christian brother. As such, I have treated you with respect with a dash of playful banter. I guess I was wrong to do so. My apologies for expecting more from you. Your lack of civility has done nothing but end my part in this conversation. Thanks for reminding me why I quit posting in TWeb.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Alsharad View Post
    So a non-answer or a circular one at best. Gotcha.
    If you wish to ignore that sexual reproduction is biologically fundamental and important, that's your problem.

    We both agree that we live in a universe populated by more than just the biological. Sexual intimacy is not just physical. It is mental and spiritual. You are assuming that the biology takes primacy in determining the purpose of sexual intercourse.
    But of course. See above.

    Scripture in general, and Jesus in particular worried less about the physical and more about the heart.

    This should be great. Evidence, please?

    You were wrong, then, weren't you. ;)
    I could be, but signs still point to it being correct.

    Following the premise isn't legalistic. Your position is incapable of handling the realities of marriages or the human experience. You MUST declare that a marriage with children is fuller than one without. Other things must be secondary. That a father might be a lecherous, adulterous, abusive man to his spouse is irrelevant. That a husband might love and care for his crippled wife for 30 years is irrelevant. That a wife might sacrifice everything to follow her husband's dream is irrelevant. No matter what the relationship is like between the spouses (good or bad), your position demands that a relationship that produces children is "fuller". THAT is legalistic.
    You keep misusing that word 'legalistic'. And stop twisting my evaluation: it was with regards to length of marriage versus having children, ceteris paribus.

    Except that when we start discussing the primary purpose of marriage, we can completely reasonably disregard what the world has done with it.
    If you'd read carefully, that part was under 'observations', not 'logical argument for having children being the primary purpose'.

    If I make a vow or enter a contract, I make sure that the purpose of it is clear IN THE CONTRACT. This has been done for centuries and not just in the west. Where are children mentioned in most marriage ceremonies?

    People not being self-reflective about what marriage is meant for when they do it, or trying to make it all about themselves does not change its main purpose. As you said, "we can completely reasonably disregard what the world has done with it", so we will disregard what 'most marriage ceremonies' do with respect to this point.

    That reflects a cultural norm and cannot be held as a standard for all marriages everywhere without further support.
    No, dumbass, you were saying that God must have commanded strict punishment for trying not to have children if my position is true. My response was to demonstrate that such behaviour would have been very rare if it existed, and therefore your claimed necessity doesn't exist.

    Not having children can be (and in those times was almost always) due to infertility which is outside the responsibility of the couple involved. Which is why voluntary adultery is punished and involuntary infertility is not, dumbass.

    Arguments shouldn't be about correction, they should be about finding the truth. That is what I am trying to do. It is hard, however, when you just restate when asked for evidence and your logical reasoning is weak... at best.
    Nah, your objections are utter crap.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alsharad
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    See above, re: propagation of offspring.
    So a non-answer or a circular one at best. Gotcha.


    I'm not sure why we need Scripture to determine the main purposes of biological processes.
    We both agree that we live in a universe populated by more than just the biological. Sexual intimacy is not just physical. It is mental and spiritual. You are assuming that the biology takes primacy in determining the purpose of sexual intercourse. Scripture in general, and Jesus in particular worried less about the physical and more about the heart. I don't know why you would think that the rules are suddenly reversed for sexual intercourse.


    Most Western people do, so yes, I did assume that.
    You were wrong, then, weren't you. ;)


    Only some moron would claim that abiding by the premises one puts forth is being 'legalistic'. The 'fuller' marriage is one which has had children - which many people would agree given the obvious emphasis of heirs across times and cultures.
    Following the premise isn't legalistic. Your position is incapable of handling the realities of marriages or the human experience. You MUST declare that a marriage with children is fuller than one without. Other things must be secondary. That a father might be a lecherous, adulterous, abusive man to his spouse is irrelevant. That a husband might love and care for his crippled wife for 30 years is irrelevant. That a wife might sacrifice everything to follow her husband's dream is irrelevant. No matter what the relationship is like between the spouses (good or bad), your position demands that a relationship that produces children is "fuller". THAT is legalistic.

    It's a growing trend amongst Western Christians to marry divorcees even when their spouses are still alive - which is adultery. We should focus on Scripture, yes, but also note what else is going on in the world to trace cause and effect.
    Except that when we start discussing the primary purpose of marriage, we can completely reasonably disregard what the world has done with it. God created it and sanctified it and is not silent about it. His thoughts in the matter and the logical conclusions that we can draw from it are all that really matter. You have failed to provide adequate logical or Scriptural arguments for your position and yet you assert to other Christians that you are correct. This is vanity.


    Because children are only supposed to be produced afterwards.
    If I make a vow or enter a contract, I make sure that the purpose of it is clear IN THE CONTRACT. This has been done for centuries and not just in the west. Where are children mentioned in most marriage ceremonies? If you assert that it is implied, you will need to support your assertion.


    Yes, but note that such a punishment virtually wasn't needed because people desired children. Refer to all the grief when women were barren (Hannah, Elizabeth, Rachel) and the joy when they finally became pregnant; on the other hand adultery was (as it is always) a widespread temptation.
    That reflects a cultural norm and cannot be held as a standard for all marriages everywhere without further support. God was not upset with them for not having children. A thing is punished because it is wrong, not whether or not the person already feels bad about it (which is what you are arguing). People already felt bad so they didn't need to be punished? I suppose you could make an argument from God's mercy, but it would be a convoluted argument.


    There is no point in aiming to correct you, only blowing up your idiotic objections.
    Arguments shouldn't be about correction, they should be about finding the truth. That is what I am trying to do. It is hard, however, when you just restate when asked for evidence and your logical reasoning is weak... at best.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
    Or maybe I just have a life outside of tweb that involves motherhood being a wife and I don't debate on demand because I just don't have time. Like for example both children have the flu and I am getting it. Caring about a debate other than stating my personal position is not on my list at all. I believe I mentioned at one point that I am not into apologetics much either at the moment. Maybe some day when the kids are older and I have completed my foot surgery series. Also considering I am quite comfortable with my beliefs on marriage birth control and children I just don't find the need to make a huge deal of them. They quite well mirror the catechism and theology of the body.
    My comment was directed at Jedidiah. The problem your post had was sniping without actually understanding what was going on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Alsharad View Post
    Please explain how you derive that the main purpose of sexual intercourse is to produce offspring. It is still a bald assertion. It is clear that it serves many purposes. What makes offspring the primary purpose? What about it elevates it above improved intimacy and better health?
    See above, re: propagation of offspring.

    Where is any of your position found in Scripture? I cannot find it.
    I'm not sure why we need Scripture to determine the main purposes of biological processes.

    You seem to assume that I think that it is about marrying for love.
    Most Western people do, so yes, I did assume that.

    You're bound by your position to assert that a 15 year marriage has more depth and meaning than one of 50 years simply because children were present. The absurdity of your position is lost on you. My position asserts that, really, only God knows which marriage was deeper. Your legalism is showing. ;)
    Only some moron would claim that abiding by the premises one puts forth is being 'legalistic'. The 'fuller' marriage is one which has had children - which many people would agree given the obvious emphasis of heirs across times and cultures.

    Fixed it for you.
    Deny it all you like.

    I thought that we were in Biblical Ethics? We must keep the context of Scripture in mind, right? So regardless of what the world has done to marriage, Biblically, it is a sacred vow.
    It's a growing trend amongst Western Christians to marry divorcees even when their spouses are still alive - which is adultery. We should focus on Scripture, yes, but also note what else is going on in the world to trace cause and effect.

    Children do not even enter into the equation (or the contract).
    Because children are only supposed to be produced afterwards.

    Because God doesn't punish people for not having children... If people were violating the primary purpose for marriage by not having children, wouldn't that demand a greater punishment?
    Yes, but note that such a punishment virtually wasn't needed because people desired children. Refer to all the grief when women were barren (Hannah, Elizabeth, Rachel) and the joy when they finally became pregnant; on the other hand adultery was (as it is always) a widespread temptation.

    Not quite. My counter is "where is that in Scripture?" You haven't answered that one yet. Your other positions are raw assertions that you don't back up. You logic is flimsy. I have admitted that I might be misunderstanding your position, but even then, you refuse to correct me. Hardly what I would call being "demolished and destroyed".

    There is no point in aiming to correct you, only blowing up your idiotic objections.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alsharad
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    Fixed. And I've talked about the propagation of the species earlier, so you've no excuse.
    You didn't answer the challenge. Just off the top of the internet, here are some of the benefits of sexual intercourse:
    1. Sex relieves stress
    2. Sex boosts immunity
    3. Sex burns calories
    4. Sex improves cardiovascular health
    5. Sex boosts self-esteem
    6. Sex improves intimacy
    7. Sex reduces pain
    8. Sex reduces prostate cancer risk
    9. Sex strengthens pelvic floor muscles
    10. Sex helps you sleep better
    11. Acts as a natural antidepressant

    Please explain how you derive that the main purpose of sexual intercourse is to produce offspring. It is still a bald assertion. It is clear that it serves many purposes. What makes offspring the primary purpose? What about it elevates it above improved intimacy and better health? Where is any of your position found in Scripture? I cannot find it.

    But it does. Romantic thinking underlies most moderns' views of marriage. The idea that marriage is primarily for those getting married arose out of romantic thinking, ie widespread marrying for romantic love.
    You seem to assume that I think that it is about marrying for love. I assure you that I do NOT think that. In fact, I think that marrying for money is better than marrying for love. I also find no fault with arranged marriages. And yet, I still hold that marriage is primarily for the people that are involved. Children are a blessing, but the value of marriage is not diminished when there are no children.


    Yes indeed.
    You're bound by your position to assert that a 15 year marriage has more depth and meaning than one of 50 years simply because children were present. The absurdity of your position is lost on you. My position asserts that, really, only God knows which marriage was deeper. Your legalism is showing. ;)


    These are merely UNSUPPORTED observations, for those who have ears to hear.
    Fixed it for you.

    That's quite stupid, since marriage has become for many a conditional vow, in which both can back out if they both want to, and hardly sacred in many instances.
    I thought that we were in Biblical Ethics? We must keep the context of Scripture in mind, right? So regardless of what the world has done to marriage, Biblically, it is a sacred vow. That is reason enough to morally compel the spouses to keep their vows. Children do not even enter into the equation (or the contract). Marriage is for the people who enter into the contract because it is beneficial for each spouse. It doesn't have to be love, either. It could be personal safety and security, money, better political position, or even just honor. Once in the relationship, both spouses have a sacred duty to preserve it. That is all we need and that is all that is supported in Scripture. This is not a stupid idea, it is a Biblical one.

    How on earth is this relevant?
    Because God doesn't punish people for not having children. In the OT, He demanded DEATH for infidelity. Fidelity (and infidelity) deal with faithfulness. Faithfulness to your spouse and to God. It is about relationship. Again, God doesn't punish couples for not having children in the Bible. He DOES punish them for breaking their vows. Which one is more important to God, then? If people were violating the primary purpose for marriage by not having children, wouldn't that demand a greater punishment? The punishment should fit the crime, so violating the primary purpose should require a greater punishment than a lesser crime. We do not see punishment for not having children being DEATH, so it is clear that God detests infidelity more than not having children. It logically follows that God does not see the primary purpose of marriage as being about having children.

    You counter is basically "No, nope, no, I disagree, herp derp". And I don't care to convince you, only demolish and destroy your position in the sight of those who have eyes to see.
    Not quite. My counter is "where is that in Scripture?" You haven't answered that one yet. Your other positions are raw assertions that you don't back up. You logic is flimsy. I have admitted that I might be misunderstanding your position, but even then, you refuse to correct me. Hardly what I would call being "demolished and destroyed".

    Leave a comment:


  • Catholicity
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    It must be great having a habit of ignoring uncomfortable views.
    Or maybe I just have a life outside of tweb that involves motherhood being a wife and I don't debate on demand because I just don't have time. Like for example both children have the flu and I am getting it. Caring about a debate other than stating my personal position is not on my list at all. I believe I mentioned at one point that I am not into apologetics much either at the moment. Maybe some day when the kids are older and I have completed my foot surgery series. Also considering I am quite comfortable with my beliefs on marriage birth control and children I just don't find the need to make a huge deal of them. They quite well mirror the catechism and theology of the body.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Alsharad View Post
    The main purpose of sexual intimacy intercourse is reproduction? That's just bald assertion
    Fixed. And I've talked about the propagation of the species earlier, so you've no excuse.

    I don't think you understand my position. Romanticism has nothing to do with it.
    But it does. Romantic thinking underlies most moderns' views of marriage. The idea that marriage is primarily for those getting married arose out of romantic thinking, ie widespread marrying for romantic love.

    Not "naturally".
    Yes indeed.

    None of that quote is a biblical foundation for the idea that the primary purpose of marriage is to have children. It is a lot of assertions (some of which I agree with, BTW). It is, however, largely irrelevant to this discussion. You are putting the cart before the horse, at this point, and even seem to be arguing against a position that I have not asserted nor have I espoused it.
    These are merely observations, for those who have ears to hear.

    Your logic is not sound. It does not follow that simply because marriage is for the two people involved that they are permitted to disassociate out of convenience. The reason they cannot break it (even if they both consent) is because they took a sacred vow that they wouldn't.
    That's quite stupid, since marriage has become for many a conditional vow, in which both can back out if they both want to, and hardly sacred in many instances.

    You also haven't taken into account God's position on adultery. Is there is ever mention of children any time that adultery is discussed or condemned?
    How on earth is this relevant?

    Your position doesn't seem to have strong scriptural or logical support. If I have misunderstood your position, please forgive me and correct my understanding.
    You counter is basically "No, nope, no, I disagree, herp derp". And I don't care to convince you, only demolish and destroy your position in the sight of those who have eyes to see.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alsharad
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    It is rather obvious from the fact that Scripturally marriage is bound up in 'one flesh', and the main telos of sexual conjugation is reproduction.
    The main purpose of sexual intimacy is reproduction? That's just bald assertion. Sexual intercourse is so completely beneficial on so many levels I find it interesting that anyone would spotlight reproduction as its primary goal. At the very least, it is spiritually and emotionally satisfying and just a ton of fun. Without using circular reasoning, why is conception a greater end than the any other.

    Other than this, I don't intend to attempt to persuade someone who is so mired in the Romantic thinking of the past several centuries.
    I don't think you understand my position. Romanticism has nothing to do with it.


    The one who has children, naturally.
    Not "naturally".

    Some observations: here is made clear the utterly warped nature of the Modern individualistic view: no longer is having children considered the normal mode of life, with the transmission of the line considered important; the creative act and sacrifice for the future paramount to the continued health of society, is now greatly diminished. Now with contraception romance is unfettered; it is now standard for the love between husband and wife to be turned inwards and not outwards toward children. And as be expected, the cumulative individual selfishnesses result in great cost to society; the West is dying.
    None of that quote is a biblical foundation for the idea that the primary purpose of marriage is to have children. It is a lot of assertions (some of which I agree with, BTW). It is, however, largely irrelevant to this discussion. You are putting the cart before the horse, at this point, and even seem to be arguing against a position that I have not asserted nor have I espoused it.

    There is also a direct line to be drawn from devaluation of the centrality of reproduction in marriage and the idolisation of romance to rampant divorce and homosexual marriage: if marriage is mainly for the two people involved there is no reason why they shouldn't break it if they both consent; if marriage is primarily romantic in nature there is no reason why it should be between one man and one woman.
    Your logic is not sound. It does not follow that simply because marriage is for the two people involved that they are permitted to disassociate out of convenience. The reason they cannot break it (even if they both consent) is because they took a sacred vow that they wouldn't. That is all that is necessary to overturn your objection. It should be between one man and one woman because of the nature of the sexes and because God set it up that way. Again, romanticism doesn't even enter into the equation.

    You also haven't taken into account God's position on adultery. Is there is ever mention of children any time that adultery is discussed or condemned? God curses Isreal as an adulterous nation and required that it be punished by death in the OT. The punishment is the same whether there were children or not. If what you are postulating is true, then the punishment would be unjust since the one who committed adultery with no children committed a lesser sin (if your position is correct, anyway). If God hates adultery regardless of whether there are children in the marriage, how do you account for this?

    Your position doesn't seem to have strong scriptural or logical support. If I have misunderstood your position, please forgive me and correct my understanding.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Alsharad View Post
    I don't think that you have Biblical warrant for that position. And from where do you draw the backing for the idea that marriage finds its fullest expression in the family?
    It is rather obvious from the fact that Scripturally marriage is bound up in 'one flesh', and the main telos of sexual conjugation is reproduction.

    Other than this, I don't intend to attempt to persuade someone who is so mired in the Romantic thinking of the past several centuries.

    So, hypothetically, Couple A marries and has children, but one spouse dies after only 15 years; Couple B marries and has no children but remain happily married for over 50 years. All other things being equal, which couple had the "fuller" (your word) marriage in your opinion?
    The one who has children, naturally.

    Some observations: here is made clear the utterly warped nature of the Modern individualistic view: no longer is having children considered the normal mode of life, with the transmission of the line considered important; the creative act and sacrifice for the future paramount to the continued health of society, is now greatly diminished. Now with contraception romance is unfettered; it is now standard for the love between husband and wife to be turned inwards and not outwards toward children. And as be expected, the cumulative individual selfishnesses result in great cost to society; the West is dying.

    There is also a direct line to be drawn from devaluation of the centrality of reproduction in marriage and the idolisation of romance to rampant divorce and homosexual marriage: if marriage is mainly for the two people involved there is no reason why they shouldn't break it if they both consent; if marriage is primarily romantic in nature there is no reason why it should be between one man and one woman.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by myth, 08-07-2021, 03:38 PM
75 responses
476 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Started by Cow Poke, 07-27-2021, 08:50 PM
20 responses
191 views
0 likes
Last Post ReformedApologist  
Started by Christianbookworm, 01-22-2014, 05:42 PM
63 responses
21,151 views
0 likes
Last Post Rushing Jaws  
Working...
X