Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Birth control Message-ID: Date: 7 Feb 90 08:23:27 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Lines: 55 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Dave Mielke writes: >[God] says, for example, that one who looks lustfully at another person has >already committed adultery within his heart whether or not he proceeds >to commit the actual physical act. A person who uses contraceptive >measures has, within his heart, already attempted to overrule an area >of decision making which God has reserved for Himself, whether or not >God chooses to make this behaviour ineffective. This rests upon an extremely flimsy analogy. God has given us a considerable degree of control over life and death-- particularly the latter-- and at times he has specifically demanded death as righteous. At other times he has utterly forbid it. I don't think that you can extend "be fruitful and multiply" into an unalterable law anymore than "you shall not murder" turns into an unalterable law against killing, at least in OT law. This whole line of argument is speculative in a way that very rapidly becomes absurd. For instance.... >> * for medical reasons, where the woman's health would be endangered >God knows the current state of the woman's health. If He did not want >her to conceive then He would not create the child within her womb no >matter how often she had intimate relations with her husband. I'm sorry, but I have to complain about this attitude. If you follow this through to its illogical end, one could conclude that if God didn't want anything to happen, he would stop it. That's patently absurd and utterly against scripture. The only reason (I think) that people are willing to tolerate this notion here is that conception is a small and hidden thing, where God can easily be hidden. But God does in fact allow lots of fatal pregnancies-- indeed, it would seem that the fruits of modern medicine have forced him to clean up his act considerably.... Also, this seems to be drifting into a very contradictory sort of predestinarian mode. At what level is an action NOT governed by God? How about the visit to the abortionist, for instance? At this level, there is no moral argument at all. It is not enough to argue that God has control, since he can always have it even lacking predestination. It must be conveyed to us that the action is evil. Dave's argument implies that the proper action for married couples is to go straight to bed and hump away vigorously, to menopause and beyond, spawning as abudantly as possible. Somehow, I also don't think that Dave would be against tipping the divine scales with vaccination or with operations to try and restore fertility. I think this attitude is silly, and I also think it is unloving, as are most fiats delivered into intimate situations such as this-- and I don't just mean sexual intimacy either. -- C. Wingate + "The peace of God, it is no peace, + but strife closed in the sod. mangoe@cs.umd.edu + Yet let us pray for but one thing-- mimsy!mangoe + the marv'lous peace of God."