FollowingHim said:
What does 1 Timothy 2:15 mean?
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
A Positive Framework for my "No Birth Control" Position
- Thread starter ylop
- Start date
What does 1 Timothy 2:15 mean?
My sis in law had a c section with her first, who happened to be breech. With the second they had to choose between another hospital birth, or (thanks to the "laws" in AZ preventing midwives from delivering v bacs) a home birth without a midwife. She got pregnant when the baby was ten months old, and the Dr had told the husband if she got pregnant too soon he could "consider his wife dead." They opted for staying home, and had a perfectly uncomplicated delivery. She has since had another three, blessed home births.
I am inclined to agree with Sarah, that no Dr knows for sure what God has in mind for your life and health, or how fast your body heals.
Just my two cents worth.
Jolene
I am inclined to agree with Sarah, that no Dr knows for sure what God has in mind for your life and health, or how fast your body heals.
Just my two cents worth.
Jolene
DTT, that would have to be one of the most debatable verses in the Bible. I have no idea what it means, except that it shows childbirth is "good" in some way. It says nothing about whether a woman must have only one or many children to be "saved", whatever that refers to, so I see little relevance to this discussion.
What do YOU think it means?
If you want to study this verse in detail, check out https://bible.org/series/if-they-remain-analysis-approaches-1-timothy-215
What do YOU think it means?
If you want to study this verse in detail, check out https://bible.org/series/if-they-remain-analysis-approaches-1-timothy-215
Almost every form of female birth control has lasting health consequences (even and especially abortion)
I would wager (that much as death happened for spilling seed) there are unknown consequences for men who choose to prevent pregnancy. Maybe it effects other areas, but God clearly doesn't want us to mess with His design in this area.
I would wager (that much as death happened for spilling seed) there are unknown consequences for men who choose to prevent pregnancy. Maybe it effects other areas, but God clearly doesn't want us to mess with His design in this area.
Oreslag
Member
To the emboldened, God is sovereign over the womb and healing. Who are you or I to claim that God's design in a particular situation was not to achieve complete healing following a C-Section (for example) by adhering to medical protocol; which includes one or more optional methods of preventing pregnancy until healing is complete? Are you claiming that we need always rely on miraculous events; thereby emptying His common grace of the powerful testimony of His love, compassion, and righteousness that it provides?captainjonathan said:
It seems pretty clear from the example you cited (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 38:8-10&version=ESV) that spilling of the seed was in direct contradiction to God's will in that particular situation. Applying Onan's fate to everyone else regardless of situation and underlying motivation seems a somewhat dangerous extrapolation to make.
Oh wow, didn't think I would open a can of worms. Sometimes I am too brief. However, as I opened that one up. A couple of things come to mind. John 1:13 (referring to children born of a husband's will) so our desire has something to do with the process to make babies. AND the verse about denying each other but for a short time of prayer.
If my wife is recovering from a medical issue (especially c section ) where the strains of 1st trimester pregnancy could mess up her recovery, most likely the stains of sex would be too much as well. I hope to not need to go into the physiology here.
So the medical profession would most likely recommend abstinence. During which time I would be earnestly praying for my wife's recovery :lol: because I would want our time of prayer to be over so we could become on flesh again.
I know the example I cited was a one time scenario. However the medical evidence (more easily tracked in women) suggests that most attempts to interfere with this process have lasting consequences. Especially ones that allow fertilization. Most (if not all) non barrier types of contraception allow for fertilization to occur but inhibit the viable life from attaching to the uterine walls thus allowing the mother's body to abort or miscarry. Barrier style contraception is (normally) the man's option (condoms) though there exist a couple of options for the female. These don't seem to carry the same physical side effects and are why I mentioned the unknown consequences.
Perhaps it is that God considers life to start at conception (I pray this is the case for many mom's who have miscarried after having loved the baby in their womb) and this is why the very negative effects of non barrier style contraception.
If my wife is recovering from a medical issue (especially c section ) where the strains of 1st trimester pregnancy could mess up her recovery, most likely the stains of sex would be too much as well. I hope to not need to go into the physiology here.
So the medical profession would most likely recommend abstinence. During which time I would be earnestly praying for my wife's recovery :lol: because I would want our time of prayer to be over so we could become on flesh again.
I know the example I cited was a one time scenario. However the medical evidence (more easily tracked in women) suggests that most attempts to interfere with this process have lasting consequences. Especially ones that allow fertilization. Most (if not all) non barrier types of contraception allow for fertilization to occur but inhibit the viable life from attaching to the uterine walls thus allowing the mother's body to abort or miscarry. Barrier style contraception is (normally) the man's option (condoms) though there exist a couple of options for the female. These don't seem to carry the same physical side effects and are why I mentioned the unknown consequences.
Perhaps it is that God considers life to start at conception (I pray this is the case for many mom's who have miscarried after having loved the baby in their womb) and this is why the very negative effects of non barrier style contraception.
captainjonathan said:
This is not the issue, early pregnancy makes no difference, it is later pregnancy which is liable to be dangerous, not merely 'messing with recovery' and sex has nothing to do with it. Once a woman heals and she has the energy she can enjoy sex again, that varies from woman to woman of course.
. Not sure what kind of Doctors you know?
Please site medical evidence.
Ditto, please site medical evidence for this considering that even the IUD now has hormones or copper in it to inhibit fertilisation which now leaves the 'mini' or progesterone only pill as the only form of hormonal contraception left which does not (always) inhibit fertilisation, it is also the least favoured type of pill so, but of course any type of medication has side effects and there is a risk, but the risks are not any more higher than much other type of medication so...take from that what you will.
B
IUDs etc: This is an emotive issue that has caused disputes here in the past, so I will give a quick summary of IUDs from a Christian and scientific perspective for the benefit of readers, then let's leave the discussion at that, remembering this discussion is a "positive framework" for a no birth control position, not a debate about birth control per se. This post is purely to get readers thinking I would encourage you to look elsewhere for further answers if you are interested in this issue.
What everyone agrees on
IUDs work in multiple ways:
- By reducing the likelihood of conception
- By preventing implantation where implantation does occur
What is debated
The relative proportion of the time that it prevents conception or prevents implantation. Proponents of IUDs (e.g. manufacturers) stress the prevention of conception. Opponents of abortion and contraception (pro-life groups, the Catholic church etc) stress the preventation of implantation. The science is unclear on the actual answer here, and it will differ between devices also because there are different types.
How we should respond to that
We don't know when life begins. The most likely point scientifically is at conception (as that is the point where biologically and genetically a new organism is formed), however the Bible does not address this issue theologically. If life begins at conception, we don't know how often an IUD will cause death of that life (ie an early abortion), as opposed to preventing conception.
So, in the lack of perfect information, we should be very cautious. When using a gun, you are taught to "identify your target", ie don't fire unless you can positively identify that what you are shooting is not a human. The embryo may be a person, so we must not kill it. In the same way, even though we cannot be sure how often an IUD may cause death of an embryo, we know that it will do so at least occasionally. Even one death is too many, so we must avoid IUDs.
Similar issues apply to other non-barrier forms of contraception, such as pills and implants, all of which like IUDs work by both reducing the likelihood of conception (through inhibiting ovulation and sperm movement) and by inhibiting implantantation, to different degrees. These are more debated medically than the IUD, however a risk-averse decision will be the same.
Since there are other forms of contraception available (e.g. barrier methods and natural family planning) that do not have the risks to children associated with the IUD, there is no need for anyone to run this risk even if they do choose to control their family size.
For a more detailed and referenced discussion of IUDs, check out http://www.ewtn.com/library/marriage/ccliud.txt. It is also interesting to look at manufacturer data sheets for contraceptives such as this, to see what modes of action are either explicitly admitted or hinted at between the lines even by the manufacturer - this way you know you're not just being influenced by the opinion of someone with strong religious views, but are actually reading the science (note however that the manufacturer is biased in the other direction, as they have a product to sell). For instance, http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/datasheet/m/Multiloadiud.pdf
Now, lets get back to discussing "A positive framework for a "No Birth Control" position". This thread is supposed to be discussing the good things about leaving family size in God's hands, not the bad things about birth control. If you want to discuss IUDs or other forms of contraception further, send me a private message.
What everyone agrees on
IUDs work in multiple ways:
- By reducing the likelihood of conception
- By preventing implantation where implantation does occur
What is debated
The relative proportion of the time that it prevents conception or prevents implantation. Proponents of IUDs (e.g. manufacturers) stress the prevention of conception. Opponents of abortion and contraception (pro-life groups, the Catholic church etc) stress the preventation of implantation. The science is unclear on the actual answer here, and it will differ between devices also because there are different types.
How we should respond to that
We don't know when life begins. The most likely point scientifically is at conception (as that is the point where biologically and genetically a new organism is formed), however the Bible does not address this issue theologically. If life begins at conception, we don't know how often an IUD will cause death of that life (ie an early abortion), as opposed to preventing conception.
So, in the lack of perfect information, we should be very cautious. When using a gun, you are taught to "identify your target", ie don't fire unless you can positively identify that what you are shooting is not a human. The embryo may be a person, so we must not kill it. In the same way, even though we cannot be sure how often an IUD may cause death of an embryo, we know that it will do so at least occasionally. Even one death is too many, so we must avoid IUDs.
Similar issues apply to other non-barrier forms of contraception, such as pills and implants, all of which like IUDs work by both reducing the likelihood of conception (through inhibiting ovulation and sperm movement) and by inhibiting implantantation, to different degrees. These are more debated medically than the IUD, however a risk-averse decision will be the same.
Since there are other forms of contraception available (e.g. barrier methods and natural family planning) that do not have the risks to children associated with the IUD, there is no need for anyone to run this risk even if they do choose to control their family size.
For a more detailed and referenced discussion of IUDs, check out http://www.ewtn.com/library/marriage/ccliud.txt. It is also interesting to look at manufacturer data sheets for contraceptives such as this, to see what modes of action are either explicitly admitted or hinted at between the lines even by the manufacturer - this way you know you're not just being influenced by the opinion of someone with strong religious views, but are actually reading the science (note however that the manufacturer is biased in the other direction, as they have a product to sell). For instance, http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/datasheet/m/Multiloadiud.pdf
Now, lets get back to discussing "A positive framework for a "No Birth Control" position". This thread is supposed to be discussing the good things about leaving family size in God's hands, not the bad things about birth control. If you want to discuss IUDs or other forms of contraception further, send me a private message.
How about we end this one on a positive note?
Imagine a loving family full of children, where the women are treated with honour, respect and care for their welfare regardless of age or physical beauty.
Something like that would do much more for a "No Birth Control" position than a mountain of theological and scientific arguments.
All the best,
ylop
Imagine a loving family full of children, where the women are treated with honour, respect and care for their welfare regardless of age or physical beauty.
Something like that would do much more for a "No Birth Control" position than a mountain of theological and scientific arguments.
All the best,
ylop
I am new to the forum ( I have posted an introduction ) so I have only just read the discussions on this topic .
As a young single woman interested in joining a family where I would be a second ( or subsequent ) wife , this an issue which concerns me as I would like to have children . I do wonder how many first wives would welcome a second wife with the foreknowledge that she would be bearing children by her husband , even in those families opposed to birth control on personal or religious grounds ? I realise that talking to wives is as important as talking to husbands and I do believe in full disclosure and honesty upfront.
I was in a poly relationship some years ago but it was made clear to me that having a child was not an option and I used an IUD . I was young at the time and at college so it was not as big an issue then but I would like to have had the option .
Perhaps I am too young to be old-fashioned but I do believe it is God's will for marriage to bring forth chidren and it is what my body is designed to do. I love the original post here and am encouraged by the replies .
Annette
As a young single woman interested in joining a family where I would be a second ( or subsequent ) wife , this an issue which concerns me as I would like to have children . I do wonder how many first wives would welcome a second wife with the foreknowledge that she would be bearing children by her husband , even in those families opposed to birth control on personal or religious grounds ? I realise that talking to wives is as important as talking to husbands and I do believe in full disclosure and honesty upfront.
I was in a poly relationship some years ago but it was made clear to me that having a child was not an option and I used an IUD . I was young at the time and at college so it was not as big an issue then but I would like to have had the option .
Perhaps I am too young to be old-fashioned but I do believe it is God's will for marriage to bring forth chidren and it is what my body is designed to do. I love the original post here and am encouraged by the replies .
Annette
I sure can't speak for how many wives would welcome a sisterwife who wanted to have children, but I'm sure there are many.
That was one of the aspects that appealed to me, being able to share all the wonder of motherhood with a co-wife.
It is very nice to see there are still family minded, old fashioned gals in the world.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Jolene
That was one of the aspects that appealed to me, being able to share all the wonder of motherhood with a co-wife.
It is very nice to see there are still family minded, old fashioned gals in the world.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Jolene
Wow. I have to admit that I was quite surprised to see that even come into question. Maybe it's just me, but I would just naturally expect the "host" family to assume that any subsequent wife joining the family would be "allowed" to have her own. Annette,I think the situation you found yourself in before is more the exception than the norm. Again, this could be my own biased view.
And you are never too young to be old-fashioned. In fact, I believe the term is a misnomer. Kind of like how some people confuse "traditional" family values with "biblical" family values. Please continue to be old-fashioned. Encourage others to be old-fashioned. And if/when God blesses you with your own children, raise them to be old-fashioned.
And you are never too young to be old-fashioned. In fact, I believe the term is a misnomer. Kind of like how some people confuse "traditional" family values with "biblical" family values. Please continue to be old-fashioned. Encourage others to be old-fashioned. And if/when God blesses you with your own children, raise them to be old-fashioned.
Hi Annette.
Thanks for posting on this thread and relating your experiences.
I will be fairly blunt about the previous poly relationship that you were part of. For a man to take on a woman, but to tell her that having a child is not an option, and accept the use of birth control to facilitate that edict, is not biblical marriage.
God is about new life, abundance and fresh starts.
Welcome to Biblical Families.
Regards,
ylop
Thanks for posting on this thread and relating your experiences.
I will be fairly blunt about the previous poly relationship that you were part of. For a man to take on a woman, but to tell her that having a child is not an option, and accept the use of birth control to facilitate that edict, is not biblical marriage.
God is about new life, abundance and fresh starts.
Welcome to Biblical Families.
Regards,
ylop
My initial response to ylop's 1st post is in full agreement regarding the communication with a potential wife.
I also concurred at first with ylop's most recent post. However, we don't know the specifics of Annette's experience and I don't expect them to be shared here. Sometimes a family just isn't prepared for another child, and that brings us back to the main topic. Ylop, for your situation I think you are spot on! For other situations...
I've seen war torn lands and areas of famine where some families were desperate to have children and others were desperate to avoid conception. More relevant to most of us are the times in our lives where circumstance brought fear or worry to the potential for a larger family. I also believe that people are generally more fearful in these times. The loss of a job, limb, or child through birth, sickness, or accident was much more common in the past. Yet the current generations could almost give up given the same circumstances.
I have no question that children are a blessing to both men (Psalm 127:3-5) and women (John 16:21). Regarding methods of contraception (whether by timing, medication/device, or alternative activity), I have little to offer. My views are shared with my wife and remain between us. If God is put first and a man and wife care for their children as the heritage they are... If the parents are excellent stewards and the children are more important than all but the parents' relationship with God and one another... then the framework is a house built by the Lord for many children. But when ANYTHING becomes more important than those children besides God and the marriage relationship, I don't see the children become "good fruit" nearly as often. I know of families where the husband, and sometimes the wife, put more emphasis on other interests. I'll be the first to say that I've been reprimanded by our Father for chasing my version of success instead of looking for His. Proverbs 17:6 says "...the glory of children are their fathers". Psalm 37:4 says "Delight yourself in the Lord and he will give you the desires of your heart". So, I believe that if children are the main desire by a couple they will be given to you. However, if your focus is elsewhere, you'll have to sacrifice something. What if you had to sell your estate and move to a 100 acre farming community and grow your own food just to make do. Now you have one truck, one bus, one tractor, 4 wives, 25 children, no cell phone because there isn't service out there, but there's always the CB radio... I don't think this is required at all, but it's about as far from comfortable from what most folks desire. The question is, what do you REALLY desire?
Now for my public service announcement: Some families may not be able to birth more children for a variety of reasons. Consider adoption! For those who can't adopt, consider your relationships and opportunities to be a testimony in the life of friends children. Finally, some of you may not have the local friends and family but recognize and yearn for the great joy of rearing a child in the ways of the Lord. Consider volunteering with local youth programs and schools!
I also concurred at first with ylop's most recent post. However, we don't know the specifics of Annette's experience and I don't expect them to be shared here. Sometimes a family just isn't prepared for another child, and that brings us back to the main topic. Ylop, for your situation I think you are spot on! For other situations...
I've seen war torn lands and areas of famine where some families were desperate to have children and others were desperate to avoid conception. More relevant to most of us are the times in our lives where circumstance brought fear or worry to the potential for a larger family. I also believe that people are generally more fearful in these times. The loss of a job, limb, or child through birth, sickness, or accident was much more common in the past. Yet the current generations could almost give up given the same circumstances.
I have no question that children are a blessing to both men (Psalm 127:3-5) and women (John 16:21). Regarding methods of contraception (whether by timing, medication/device, or alternative activity), I have little to offer. My views are shared with my wife and remain between us. If God is put first and a man and wife care for their children as the heritage they are... If the parents are excellent stewards and the children are more important than all but the parents' relationship with God and one another... then the framework is a house built by the Lord for many children. But when ANYTHING becomes more important than those children besides God and the marriage relationship, I don't see the children become "good fruit" nearly as often. I know of families where the husband, and sometimes the wife, put more emphasis on other interests. I'll be the first to say that I've been reprimanded by our Father for chasing my version of success instead of looking for His. Proverbs 17:6 says "...the glory of children are their fathers". Psalm 37:4 says "Delight yourself in the Lord and he will give you the desires of your heart". So, I believe that if children are the main desire by a couple they will be given to you. However, if your focus is elsewhere, you'll have to sacrifice something. What if you had to sell your estate and move to a 100 acre farming community and grow your own food just to make do. Now you have one truck, one bus, one tractor, 4 wives, 25 children, no cell phone because there isn't service out there, but there's always the CB radio... I don't think this is required at all, but it's about as far from comfortable from what most folks desire. The question is, what do you REALLY desire?
Now for my public service announcement: Some families may not be able to birth more children for a variety of reasons. Consider adoption! For those who can't adopt, consider your relationships and opportunities to be a testimony in the life of friends children. Finally, some of you may not have the local friends and family but recognize and yearn for the great joy of rearing a child in the ways of the Lord. Consider volunteering with local youth programs and schools!
Hi Courting4Life,
Thank you for not flying on assumption airlines and coming to conclusions about the actual, full circumstances this previous poly family may have had. Without talking to all involved, there is no way to know what the situation was, and even then, only the Father really knows what happened for sure. It is also not our place to put pressure on anyone (intentionally or unintentionally) to share the details of what someone's life experiences have been. Of course, we always enjoy, and are sometimes sad, shocked, or mourn with those who have shared them in their posts. Whatever the case, I know we all try to do our best to be there for one another whether new to BibFam or if they are an old timer in the poly world like me.
Great thought provoking scenerios, btw, and thank you for your little adoption and volunteer ditty at the end. Those were all good suggestions.
Blessings,
Deborah
Please consider this, if you will...because I'm fairly baffled.. :?
When a man and woman make a covenant before the Lord in marriage and consummate that union, with what grounds does a woman have a right to leave that marriage? Other than abuse (in the true sense of the word), from what I can see in the Word of God, not being able to have children is not on the list of "if's, such as seen in Ex. 21:10, 11 and in the case of adultry. The NT refers to not withholding yourself from your spounse as seen in 1 Cor. 7, but again, not being "allowed" to have children, in my understanding, is not grounds to leave a poly marriage and go find another, younger husband and family who will.
No offense intended toward Annette here, but it just seems to me that there must be a piece of this puzzle that is missing for her prior "loving" plural marriage to have dissolved. There are very few Biblical justifications for ending a marriage in monogomy or polygamy.
This thread's tenor appears to me to be reasonably justifying a woman moving on into another poly marriage to meet a need/desire to have children without addressing a pretty big issue. :shock:
I totally understand a woman's desire to have children. I want to have another child, and that desire is very strong. In my case, we have left it up to the Lord's will. If He so choses to bless us with a child, we would be ecstatic! If not, we know there is a reason and we hold onto that. Our circumstances are very different than that which Annette shared. My point is though, I strongly desire children, and even if I were much younger and my husband made the decision that I could not have a child with him, I would not leave my marriage to go find someone who would. Our relationship and commitment to the Lord is much more solid than that.
So, I don't know if it is just me, but I really do not understand what constitutes a decision to seek out a different husband who will provide children because they were not able to do so in a previous poly family. I would hope there was Biblical grounds to justify this new situation. Don't get me wrong here. That reason(s), of course, is no one's business, and Annette does not have to share that if she doesn't want to. I'm just a bit baffled by the band wagon going on as if not being able to bear children is sufficient reason to divorce and move into another poly family.
:shock:
So, there's my two cents worth. I am just wondering if anyone else has stepped back and looked at this and has also seen the obvious, missing, Biblical justification to seek another family who will bear a woman children...that is, IF :?: that is why she moved on.
Just ah wonderin',
Deborah
When a man and woman make a covenant before the Lord in marriage and consummate that union, with what grounds does a woman have a right to leave that marriage? Other than abuse (in the true sense of the word), from what I can see in the Word of God, not being able to have children is not on the list of "if's, such as seen in Ex. 21:10, 11 and in the case of adultry. The NT refers to not withholding yourself from your spounse as seen in 1 Cor. 7, but again, not being "allowed" to have children, in my understanding, is not grounds to leave a poly marriage and go find another, younger husband and family who will.
No offense intended toward Annette here, but it just seems to me that there must be a piece of this puzzle that is missing for her prior "loving" plural marriage to have dissolved. There are very few Biblical justifications for ending a marriage in monogomy or polygamy.
This thread's tenor appears to me to be reasonably justifying a woman moving on into another poly marriage to meet a need/desire to have children without addressing a pretty big issue. :shock:
I totally understand a woman's desire to have children. I want to have another child, and that desire is very strong. In my case, we have left it up to the Lord's will. If He so choses to bless us with a child, we would be ecstatic! If not, we know there is a reason and we hold onto that. Our circumstances are very different than that which Annette shared. My point is though, I strongly desire children, and even if I were much younger and my husband made the decision that I could not have a child with him, I would not leave my marriage to go find someone who would. Our relationship and commitment to the Lord is much more solid than that.
So, I don't know if it is just me, but I really do not understand what constitutes a decision to seek out a different husband who will provide children because they were not able to do so in a previous poly family. I would hope there was Biblical grounds to justify this new situation. Don't get me wrong here. That reason(s), of course, is no one's business, and Annette does not have to share that if she doesn't want to. I'm just a bit baffled by the band wagon going on as if not being able to bear children is sufficient reason to divorce and move into another poly family.
:shock: So, there's my two cents worth. I am just wondering if anyone else has stepped back and looked at this and has also seen the obvious, missing, Biblical justification to seek another family who will bear a woman children...that is, IF :?: that is why she moved on.
Just ah wonderin',
Deborah
Deborah, Annette never said that she left the marriage as she wasn't allowed to have children, and I don't think anyone else has presumed that either or said it would be a justifiable reason for divorce. Assumption Airlines strikes again! 