Elective Surgery

[fisharmor]

Inspired by Acala's thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...tomy-yes-or-no

Was surprised to see known Christians indifferent/supportive of it.

From a religious viewpoint.... please discuss. Let's range all over elective surgery - elective being the topic.

[Dr.3D]

Nothing says you have to have a hernia repaired, so I guess that would also be considered "elective" surgery.

[euphemia]

Yes, not all *elective* surgery is medically unnecessary. It's just not an emergency right this minute. The only elective procedure I can think of that might be a sin would be abortion.

[specsaregood]

Inspired by Acala's thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...tomy-yes-or-no

Was surprised to see known Christians indifferent/supportive of it.

From a religious viewpoint.... please discuss. Let's range all over elective surgery - elective being the topic.

I might not surprised to see Christians support it. If you believe that life begins at conception then a vasectomy would be a much better choice than other birth control methods and comparable to condoms. Last I checked most Christians weren't explicitly against condom usage -- but maybe I'm mistaken.

[fisharmor]

I'm pretty sure everyone understands that "elective" means a surgery which has no medical necessity.
Hernia surgery is not elective and is not referred to as such.
Rhinoplasty on the other hand is always called elective, with the possible exception of its use to repair trauma.

[Dr.3D]

I'm pretty sure everyone understands that "elective" means a surgery which has no medical necessity.
Hernia surgery is not elective and is not referred to as such.
Rhinoplasty on the other hand is always called elective, with the possible exception of its use to repair trauma.

I had a hernia for twelve years and finally elected to have it repaired. I could have lived with it for the rest of my life if I had wanted to, so it wasn't medically necessary.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

what exactly is necessary? I've had doctors tell me I need to get my meniscus repaired, but I didn't and a year later I was walking/running fine

[fisharmor]

I might not surprised to see Christians support it. If you believe that life begins at conception then a vasectomy would be a much better choice than other birth control methods and comparable to condoms. Last I checked most Christians weren't explicitly against condom usage -- but maybe I'm mistaken.

There are historical Christian arguments against it, which I'm hoping to uncover.

[fisharmor]

I'm pretty sure everyone understands that "elective" means a surgery which has no medical necessity.

Ok apparently I was mistaken and most surgeries are actually considered elective because they are scheduled.
So I guess I'm talking optional surgeries: surgeries for which (for the most part) there is not a medical reason.
Such as vasectomy, or facelifts.

[euphemia]

I'm pretty sure everyone understands that "elective" means a surgery which has no medical necessity.

Um, no. Not all elective surgeries are medically unnecessary. Surgery is often one of the choices given to a patient. Other choices would include 1) nothing, 2) drug therapy 3) other medical support.

[wizardwatson]

Ok apparently I was mistaken and most surgeries are actually considered elective because they are scheduled.
So I guess I'm talking optional surgeries: surgeries for which (for the most part) there is not a medical reason.
Such as vasectomy, or facelifts.

Earrings? Tattoos?

[Dianne]

Well, I am proud to say that BuddyRey was home schooled. No Tattoos. No elective surgeries. No body piercings. His 22 year old sister did get her ears pieced once, and threatened a tattoo when she turned 18. I put my foot down about that... No tattoos or body piercings while living in my house. Since then she has lost interest in either of those. Obviously, I have no tattoos, body piercings and have had no elective surgeries.

I have friends, however, that live in the doctor's office having elective surgeries; mostly face lifts, tummy tucks, botox, etc. More power to them, but I'll stay with the body God gave me.

[euphemia]

Sometimes elective surgeries are to repair/replace joints or correct heart defects. They are purely elective because they are not emergent.

[hells_unicorn]

My stance in a nutshell:

Cosmetic Surgery - Ambivalent, certain things such as micro-grafting or other methods of restoring one's outward appearance is not outwardly sinful, but it can lead to other things which might be.

Re-assignment and Contraceptive based surgery - Completely sinful. See Genesis 1:28; Genesis 9:7; Genesis 38:8-10; Psalm 127:3-5; Isaiah 47:9; 1 Corinthians 7:1-40; Galatians 5:19-21; among others. I think Jesus' own words on the cross in Luke 23:29 apply quite well to modern society. "For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck." Granted, in the biblical account (particularly Genesis 30:1), we have the famous words of Rachel "Give me children, or else I die", which are contrasted with the birth control movement which cries out to the heavens "Please lord, give us no more children or else we die".

[wizardwatson]

My stance in a nutshell:

Cosmetic Surgery - Ambivalent, certain things such as micro-grafting or other methods of restoring one's outward appearance is not outwardly sinful, but it can lead to other things which might be.

Re-assignment and Contraceptive based surgery - Completely sinful. See Genesis 1:28; Genesis 9:7; Genesis 38:8-10; Psalm 127:3-5; Isaiah 47:9; 1 Corinthians 7:1-40; Galatians 5:19-21; among others. I think Jesus' own words on the cross in Luke 23:29 apply quite well to modern society. "For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck." Granted, in the biblical account (particularly Genesis 30:1), we have the famous words of Rachel "Give me children, or else I die", which are contrasted with the birth control movement which cries out to the heavens "Please lord, give us no more children or else we die".

Yeah, sorry, Luke 23:29 is Jesus saying "you'll be happy you don't have kids because the end days will bring even more hell and persecution upon those children", he's not saying "people will be so selfish in the end times that they won't even want children."

Contraception is a gray area to me. At most I'd say it's fornication, but that doesn't really apply in the same way for a marriage. Sex is not solely for baby making.

Judaism never viewed sex as solely for procreation:

http://www.mesacc.edu/~thoqh49081/St...Sexuality.html

The religion of Judaism takes a conservative but somewhat middle ground stance regarding the issue of human sexuality. Judaism regards sex as a "divine gift" from God, not solely for the purpose of procreation, as some Western religions might believe, but for the purpose of companionship and pleasure. Judaism does not believe that sexuality is evil, but rather a strong and chronic urge similar to hunger or thirst, that is apparent in healthy human beings (Rich 1).

And it isn't like God commanded anywhere that barren women shouldn't be having sex. Or that you should stop having sex at a certain age.

[hells_unicorn]

Judaism never viewed sex as solely for procreation:

So you're a Jew now? Pharisee or Sadducee if I may inquire? This would definitely explain your past problems with Paul and your lack of understanding of Trinitarian Doctrine. I suppose hoping for Christ to resurrect me and raise me up in the last days is also a lost cause and I should start worshiping the one, true, non-triune god, eh?

Yeah, sorry, Luke 23:29 is Jesus saying "you'll be happy you don't have kids because the end days will bring even more hell and persecution upon those children", he's not saying "people will be so selfish in the end times that they won't even want children."

Where did you get that, you're own imagination or some tract from a fellow independent thinker with no higher authority? And where is the refutation for the rest of the verses I cited for that matter? And do you think that people being selfish and not having children and spilling their seed willy-nilly is a good thing? Genesis 38 says something very different.

Contraception is a gray area to me. At most I'd say it's fornication, but that doesn't really apply in the same way for a marriage. Sex is not solely for baby making.

It's not a gray area in the bible, otherwise poor Onan was struck dead by an unjust God. And you view fornication as a gray area? The New Testament in general, and Paul in particular, have a very different take on it.

And it isn't like God commanded anywhere that barren women shouldn't be having sex. Or that you should stop having sex at a certain age.

The subject is not barren women abstaining from sex or old people laying off the Viagra (though they probably should for health reasons), the issue is fertile men and women mutilating their bodies to become barren. Genesis 1:28 couldn't be any clearer on this point.

[wizardwatson]

Boy, I can always tell when I've upset you. You start chopping up my posts in detail.

So you're a Jew now? Pharisee or Sadducee if I may inquire? This would definitely explain your past problems with Paul and your lack of understanding of Trinitarian Doctrine. I suppose hoping for Christ to resurrect me and raise me up in the last days is also a lost cause and I should start worshiping the one, true, non-triune god, eh?

I"m just saying that sexuality was never as puritanical in Judaism as some modern day Christians want to make it. I'm sure you are aware that Judaism was what Jesus practiced as a child and that he in fact celebrated Hannukah. I don't think he redefined the sexual rules of the universe when he preached the gospel.

Where did you get that, you're own imagination or some tract from a fellow independent thinker with no higher authority? And where is the refutation for the rest of the verses I cited for that matter? And do you think that people being selfish and not having children and spilling their seed willy-nilly is a good thing? Genesis 38 says something very different.

Come on, dude. Clearly sex is not just for baby making. It's ridiculous to think it is.

And Genesis 38 is a horrible example. That isn't an example of God slaying someone because they "willy-nilly" used the pull-out method. God slayed him because he was told by JUDAH, his father, to give her a child and he didn't out of envy. Judah is the line that Jesus came from. He isn't going to have a sense of humor about that $#@! maybe? Whatever you draw from it, it's certainly not a passage that says "always be open to having children, because if you pull out God might kill you". Nice try though.

Futhermore, this thing of marrying your dead brothers wife actually became a Mosaic Law. So it was also prophetic that it happened that way. There is no Mosaic law for the pull-out method, sorry.

It's not a gray area in the bible, otherwise poor Onan was struck dead by an unjust God. And you view fornication as a gray area? The New Testament in general, and Paul in particular, have a very different take on it.

Again, to say God slaying Onan removes all doubt about contraception methods as relates to sex is ridiculous. But I understand that's what you may have been taught. If that's the case, then I suppose a man and wife should be petrified at the thought of ever having sex without a child in mind, lest God smite them both for even trying the rhythm method. What a horrible paranoid world that must be! "Let's have sex honey. Ok, babe, wait..you're not wanting to because you know you can't at this time of the month are you? Do you know how dangerous that is! Genesis 38 ring a bell! Are you trying to get us killed!"

The subject is not barren women abstaining from sex or old people laying off the Viagra (though they probably should for health reasons), the issue is fertile men and women mutilating their bodies to become barren. Genesis 1:28 couldn't be any clearer on this point.

Yeah, and I'm saying, grey area. Some people can't afford a zillion kids.

[phill4paul]

I had a hernia for twelve years and finally elected to have it repaired. I could have lived with it for the rest of my life if I had wanted to, so it wasn't medically necessary.

Had a triple, bi-inguinal and umbilical. My choice to keep working the way I do or not. Medically necessary, no. Economically necessary, yes. But, I understand what you are saying.

[hells_unicorn]

Boy, I can always tell when I've upset you. You start chopping up my posts in detail.

You would prefer I'd just answer one or two points you've made and not address the rest of them? Sorry, I take a different approach to debate than you do.

I"m just saying that sexuality was never as puritanical in Judaism as some modern day Christians want to make it. I'm sure you are aware that Judaism was what Jesus practiced as a child and that he in fact celebrated Hannukah. I don't think he redefined the sexual rules of the universe when he preached the gospel.

Most of the quotes I used are from the Torah, there is no "redefining" going on here, except for some of the more obnoxious parts of the Talmud which are antithetical to being a Christian, or a moral human being for that matter. Oh, and whether Jesus observed Hanukkah or not (it's an abrogated holy day regardless) is not material to the subject in question, unless you wish to argue that there was ritual sex going on before they lit the menorah.

Come on, dude. Clearly sex is not just for baby making. It's ridiculous to think it is.

Dude, like totally, like I'm all down with that free love stuff, because it's totally not depopulating Europe as we speak and making it ripe for conquest by those lovely, scimitar wielding monotheists from the line of Ishmael. (yes, that was sarcasm)

And Genesis 38 is a horrible example. That isn't an example of God slaying someone because they "willy-nilly" used the pull-out method. God slayed him because he was told by JUDAH, his father, to give her a child and he didn't out of envy. Judah is the line that Jesus came from. He isn't going to have a sense of humor about that $#@! maybe? Whatever you draw from it, it's certainly not a passage that says "always be open to having children, because if you pull out God might kill you". Nice try though.

We have a command from our father Yahweh right in Genesis 1:28, repeated in Genesis 9:7, to multiply and subdue the world. Are you arguing that Judah's individual command either nullifies God's decree from the beginning of creation or takes precedent over it? That's classic 1st degree idolatry there bud. And my point wasn't that God is going to kill every person who decides to pull out, but to further illustrate the state of mind that goes with said behavior, Onan was a self-absorbed, covetous wretch, as is any other person who practices such things. I think the distinction between you and me here is that I'm trying to work within God's word, while you're still stuck on some tangential conjecture about whether God has a sense of humor or not.

Futhermore, this thing of marrying your dead brothers wife actually became a Mosaic Law. So it was also prophetic that it happened that way. There is no Mosaic law for the pull-out method, sorry.

So because there is not a specific verse that states "Thou shalt not pull out and spread your semen to the 4 winds" we have a nice little loophole to get us out of our obligation from creation as clearly stated in Genesis 1:28 and repeated in Genesis 9:7 following the flood. You don't need to direct any apologies towards me, but you'll probably want to save a few for a few seconds after you stop breathing, and then you can find out first hand if God has a sense of humor.

Again, to say God slaying Onan removes all doubt about contraception methods as relates to sex is ridiculous. But I understand that's what you may have been taught. If that's the case, then I suppose a man and wife should be petrified at the thought of ever having sex without a child in mind, lest God smite them both for even trying the rhythm method. What a horrible paranoid world that must be! "Let's have sex honey. Ok, babe, wait..you're not wanting to because you know you can't at this time of the month are you? Do you know how dangerous that is! Genesis 38 ring a bell! Are you trying to get us killed!"

Wasn't taught any of this stuff as a kid, the Episcopal Church that I was raised in was actually a hot bed of feminism and idolatry, and I came to the position before I started seriously attending Covenanter meetings, though they were definitely reinforced once I began studying with them. You are essentially arguing with a straw man right now and I don't really see much point in addressing your extremely brutal attempts at ironic humor. However, it should be noted that my minister, who holds this view, has 8 well rounded children, 2 of them now married, one with 4 kids and the other expecting their first, and you had a gloriously failed attempt at the "Egalitarian, Let Freedom Ring, All American" approach to marriage with a polytheist. Gee, I wonder who I should listen to?

Yeah, and I'm saying, grey area. Some people can't afford a zillion kids.

Nope, it's 100% cut and dry, if you are able, you need to be working at it. If you feel you can't afford kids, maybe you can do without a 40 inch LED TV in every room of your house and all the other useless $#@! that goes with American materialism. It's amazing the things that happen when your priorities are actually in order, and if you're really ambitious, a nice one-fingered salute to the Malthusian and Materialist pagans trying to tell you otherwise is a nice little bonus.

[wizardwatson]

You would prefer I'd just answer one or two points you've made and not address the rest of them? Sorry, I take a different approach to debate than you do.

I get it. You are a man of many words. It's just if I'm going to respond in depth all the time, I feel like maybe you should be paying me. I feel like I'm getting less out of it than you are.

Most of the quotes I used are from the Torah, there is no "redefining" going on here, except for some of the more obnoxious parts of the Talmud which are antithetical to being a Christian, or a moral human being for that matter. Oh, and whether Jesus observed Hanukkah or not (it's an abrogated holy day regardless) is not material to the subject in question, unless you wish to argue that there was ritual sex going on before they lit the menorah.

So Jesus abrogated all Jewish feasts and holidays did he? I have no idea how you made a ritual sex reference but ok.

Dude, like totally, like I'm all down with that free love stuff, because it's totally not depopulating Europe as we speak and making it ripe for conquest by those lovely, scimitar wielding monotheists from the line of Ishmael. (yes, that was sarcasm)

So contraception is the reason for the Islamic caliphate? I'm confused whether THAT was the sarcasm or the you being down with free love part.

We have a command from our father Yahweh right in Genesis 1:28, repeated in Genesis 9:7, to multiply and subdue the world. Are you arguing that Judah's individual command either nullifies God's decree from the beginning of creation or takes precedent over it? That's classic 1st degree idolatry there bud. And my point wasn't that God is going to kill every person who decides to pull out, but to further illustrate the state of mind that goes with said behavior, Onan was a self-absorbed, covetous wretch, as is any other person who practices such things. I think the distinction between you and me here is that I'm trying to work within God's word, while you're still stuck on some tangential conjecture about whether God has a sense of humor or not.

No, I'm simply saying that as long as a married couples marriage bed remains honorable, God gives leeway with how they conduct their sex life. It's a very simple concept to grasp if you would look at the situation rationally and interpret the scripture rationally. If a family has five kids and decides that's enough I think there's a "grey area" with whether or not a vasectomy is a big deal. Especially considering it's mostly reversible if they DO decide to have more children. Trying to claim that the bible teaches some "laws" about contraception that a government or minister should enforce is precisely the Scimitar wielding Islamic caliphate crap you allude to in paragraph 3.

Your church fathers love that puritanical across the board "this is the only way" crap because it's easy to teach. It's rigid and unbending and can stand the test of time. It doesn't require you to THINK when you teach. It just requires you to repeat like a parrot.

There is no scripture...

anywhere...

that says...

every sexual encounter with your wife....

must allow for the possibility of conception.

The commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" doesn't mean that you keep $#@!ing as long as your bodies will produce children. The married couple can make rational decisions based on the economics of the situation. You are not bacteria.

Genesis 38 and the sad tale of Onan is a prophetic revelation related to the Mosaic law written in Deuteronomy 25:5 and again referenced to Jesus in Matthew 22:24. Genesis 38 is not a law #1, and #2 only a puritanical straw-grasper would consider that a blanket scripture outlawing contraception or contraceptive sexual practices with your wife or husband.

So because there is not a specific verse that states "Thou shalt not pull out and spread your semen to the 4 winds" we have a nice little loophole to get us out of our obligation from creation as clearly stated in Genesis 1:28 and repeated in Genesis 9:7 following the flood. You don't need to direct any apologies towards me, but you'll probably want to save a few for a few seconds after you stop breathing, and then you can find out first hand if God has a sense of humor.

Ditto.

Wasn't taught any of this stuff as a kid, the Episcopal Church that I was raised in was actually a hot bed of feminism and idolatry, and I came to the position before I started seriously attending Covenanter meetings, though they were definitely reinforced once I began studying with them. You are essentially arguing with a straw man right now and I don't really see much point in addressing your extremely brutal attempts at ironic humor. However, it should be noted that my minister, who holds this view, has 8 well rounded children, 2 of them now married, one with 4 kids and the other expecting their first, and you had a gloriously failed attempt at the "Egalitarian, Let Freedom Ring, All American" approach to marriage with a polytheist. Gee, I wonder who I should listen to?

You don't have to address my ironic humor. It works regardless, and it's for everyone, not just you.

Polytheist? Is that me?

Nope, it's 100% cut and dry, if you are able, you need to be working at it. If you feel you can't afford kids, maybe you can do without a 40 inch LED TV in every room of your house and all the other useless $#@! that goes with American materialism. It's amazing the things that happen when your priorities are actually in order, and if you're really ambitious, a nice one-fingered salute to the Malthusian and Materialist pagans trying to tell you otherwise is a nice little bonus.

How come God only had one kid then?

[hells_unicorn]

I get it. You are a man of many words. It's just if I'm going to respond in depth all the time, I feel like maybe you should be paying me. I feel like I'm getting less out of it than you are.

You get out of it what you put into it.

So Jesus abrogated all Jewish feasts and holidays did he? I have no idea how you made a ritual sex reference but ok.

Yep, every single one of them. The Jewish feasts were all typical forms of worship pointing to the incarnation. Like all of the ceremonial laws, they cease to have a purpose when The Word became incarnate. As to the ritual sex part, you brought Hanukkah into a discussion about whether a vasectomy was lawful for a Christian, ergo my initial post was about lawful sexual behavior. The only logical reason for bringing Hanukkah into such a discussion is if there was some sex involved, but I've come to expect a fair amount of non-logical arguments out of you. It was a hyperbolic quip, and it was most definitely warranted.

So contraception is the reason for the Islamic caliphate? I'm confused whether THAT was the sarcasm or the you being down with free love part.

That was a very serious assertion. Read up on the conquest of Babylon by the Medo-Persian Empire in the Book of Daniel, that should help you fill in the blanks on what I'm talking about. Ever watch the news about what is going on in France, The Netherlands and Sweden lately? When you have the rule of sexual depravity, feminism and a sterile population, you have a country begging to be conquered. Islam is simply the logical conqueror since they are the most ambitious.

No, I'm simply saying that as long as a married couples marriage bed remains honorable, God gives leeway with how they conduct their sex life. It's a very simple concept to grasp if you would look at the situation rationally and interpret the scripture rationally. If a family has five kids and decides that's enough I think there's a "grey area" with whether or not a vasectomy is a big deal. Especially considering it's mostly reversible if they DO decide to have more children. Trying to claim that the bible teaches some "laws" about contraception that a government or minister should enforce is precisely the Scimitar wielding Islamic caliphate crap you allude to in paragraph 3.

So mutilating your own body in order to indulge in fruitless pleasure is okay provided that it occurs under the guise of a marriage? I fail to see how that keeps the bed honorable. Is it also keeping the bed honorable if you decide to sodomize your wife every now and then and put her at greater risk of a prolapsed rectum later in life? Where does this leeway that you are talking about actually come from and how far does it extend exactly? Islam allows for taking up to 4 wives and an indefinite number of concubines if one has the ability and power to do so, and the man can be as unconventional as he wants with little possibility of reproach. That's nowhere near the faithful, monogamous standard set forth in Genesis 2.

Your church fathers love that puritanical across the board "this is the only way" crap because it's easy to teach. It's rigid and unbending and can stand the test of time. It doesn't require you to THINK when you teach. It just requires you to repeat like a parrot.

Actually it requires a good deal of thought, just not as much rationalization as the more "liberal" approaches to marriage. Raising up a godly seed and instructing them in manners of discipline is a good bit more involved than the whole "As long as your partner consents, feel free to run wild" approach of modern society. You shouldn't knock those church fathers, they were far more thoughtful and intellectually curious than the drivel that I've heard out of you thus far.

There is no scripture...

anywhere...

that says...

every sexual encounter with your wife....

must allow for the possibility of conception.

There is no scripture condoning vasectomies, condom use, or "the monthly rhythm" approach, but that isn't stopping you and the rest of the hedonists from going jolly about the place and fancying yourselves as Christians. When scripture refers to children as "a gift from God (Genesis 4:1; Genesis 33:5), a heritage from the Lord (Psalm 127:3-5), a blessing from God (Luke 1:42), and a crown to the aged (Proverbs 17:6)", what does it say about people who think it is their prerogative to dictate the terms of God's gifts? Is God in charge, or is man?

The commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" doesn't mean that you keep $#@!ing as long as your bodies will produce children. The married couple can make rational decisions based on the economics of the situation. You are not bacteria.

It most assuredly does mean that, and that is what every single creature in creation does with the exception of man, who is too busy thinking he is wiser than both God and nature to do what he ought. Granted, there are accidental events of infanticide and cannibalism rampant in nature since The Fall (a result of man thinking himself wiser than God), but the normal order of things even within a cursed world is for creatures to procreate as long as they are able, thus insuring the continued existence of their kind. Man has a peculiar place in creation, but he is still created, and thus is subject to the same decrees as the creatures beneath him.

Furthermore, having as many children as one is able does not preclude financial planning in order to raise them up in an effective fashion, though it does involve forgoing some of the personal amusements that voluntarily sterile partners in a marriage cleave to before they go through that glorious American tradition of no fault divorce.

Genesis 38 and the sad tale of Onan is a prophetic revelation related to the Mosaic law written in Deuteronomy 25:5 and again referenced to Jesus in Matthew 22:24. Genesis 38 is not a law #1, and #2 only a puritanical straw-grasper would consider that a blanket scripture outlawing contraception or contraceptive sexual practices with your wife or husband.

Genesis 38 is the only instance of contraception mentioned in scripture. It requires making inferences in order to apply it to all modes of contraception, especially given the sacrosanct status that birth control has in modern society, but it isn't the massive stretch that you think it is. Naturally I won't convince you of anything regarding this point, but it's no coincidence that the divorce rate in America began to skyrocket once contraception became the norm.

Ditto.

Not really, I don't ascribe anthropomorphic characteristics to God the Father or The Holy Spirit as neither is human, and I'm far too interested in Christ's expiatory sacrifice for the sake of the elect to be bothered with making appeals to his sense of humor to get me off the hook for my moral failures.

You don't have to address my ironic humor. It works regardless, and it's for everyone, not just you.

Oh I absolutely do, because given the modernist inclinations of some of that "everyone" you speak of, your false wit will be a stumbling block for them. Nevertheless, it was so poorly put together that a simple description of it as being a straw man will suffice.

Polytheist? Is that me?

You've mentioned on several occasions that you took a Hindu wife and that the marriage didn't exactly succeed, that is what I was talking about. The jury is out on whether you are a monotheistic pagan, but I wouldn't call you a polytheist, unless you're thinking of becoming a Mormon that is.

How come God only had one kid then?

1. God is not a created being, so he is not subject to the decree of creation.
2. God wills freely, he had one son because he chose to do so. Unlike creatures subject to the laws of creation, his will is its own justification.
3. One mediator between The Father and Man is all that is required to undo sin, Christ partakes of the divine nature, so his power is infinitely sufficient, though per The Father's decree, limited in its efficiency to the elect.

If you are reduced to questioning God's decree in the incarnation of his only begotten son because you want to go outside the bounds of procreation in the bedroom, you are not in a good place, end of story.

[Christian Liberty]

I might not surprised to see Christians support it. If you believe that life begins at conception then a vasectomy would be a much better choice than other birth control methods and comparable to condoms. Last I checked most Christians weren't explicitly against condom usage -- but maybe I'm mistaken.

I'm not 100% on my stance yet, but historically all Christians (that we know of) were against all birth control until 1930. That historical precedent gives me pause.

[fisharmor]

I think I could get a little more worked up about lots of what has been said here so far.... if I wasn't still glowing from some fairly great unproductive sex. Anything that takes the edge off my constant irritation (and therefore makes me necessarily less sinful) can't be all bad.

However....

Is it also keeping the bed honorable if you decide to sodomize your wife every now and then and put her at greater risk of a prolapsed rectum later in life?

Listen, man, your phrasing here is horrible and you're dancing really close to saying something I'm assuming you don't mean to say.

Anyone who decides unilaterally to sodomize his wife is clearly outside the bounds of healthy marital sex. You see, not sure if you know this, but there's another person involved in that and she really ought to have a say in it.
I personally do not sodomize my wife, because she's practically tatooed a "no admittance" sign down there and since she's my wife I respect that.

If your vision of sodomy is that someone is forcibly inserting things into someone else's anus without permission, then yeah, that probably carries a risk of rectal prolapse.
If both people are into it and don't get carried away, the risk is about as great as the risk of getting a prolapse from pooping. 'Cause you know, like most guys I talk a big game, but the reality is it's easy for a particularly big turd to be larger than my penis.

So please stick to what you know, and cut out the rape talk.

[fisharmor]

I'm not 100% on my stance yet, but historically all Christians (that we know of) were against all birth control until 1930. That historical precedent gives me pause.

You're appealing to a historical view Christians had? That's pretty huge for you.

But that aside, do you know whether there were reliable historical methods apart from abortion? I've often heard it said that the sexual revolution was pretty much sparked by the invention of the birth control pill.

[hells_unicorn]

Listen, man, your phrasing here is horrible and you're dancing really close to saying something I'm assuming you don't mean to say.

Anyone who decides unilaterally to sodomize his wife is clearly outside the bounds of healthy marital sex. You see, not sure if you know this, but there's another person involved in that and she really ought to have a say in it. I personally do not sodomize my wife, because she's practically tatooed a "no admittance" sign down there and since she's my wife I respect that.

If your vision of sodomy is that someone is forcibly inserting things into someone else's anus without permission, then yeah, that probably carries a risk of rectal prolapse.
If both people are into it and don't get carried away, the risk is about as great as the risk of getting a prolapse from pooping. 'Cause you know, like most guys I talk a big game, but the reality is it's easy for a particularly big turd to be larger than my penis.

So please stick to what you know, and cut out the rape talk.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sodomy

Dictionaries are our friend chum, and I can't find a single definition of sodomy that involves force or anything resembling "unilateral", though some include oral and bestiality as part of the definition, while others don't. The fact that you retreated to the whole "you must be talking about rape" cop-out is pretty sad actually, because it was nowhere expressly stated in that particular comment.

The point I've made regarding rectal prolapse is not so much what I know as what I've read from others who do know, and for everyone's better education, here is a sampler from a doctor who isn't subject to American or European censorship by the gay mafia:

As a medical expert, I would like to enlighten the readers about some medical facts related to anal sex. Medical science regards anal sex as ‘high-risk behaviour’. Physiologically, the anus is not designed for penetration by any hard object. As a protective reflex action, the anal sphincter tightens ordinarily if stimulated. Any attempt at penile insertion can be distressing, even if done slowly and gradually. If the penis is forced into the anus, injury is possible. The lining [mucus membrane] of the rectum is very thin, tears easily, does not heal fast and therefore is vulnerable to infections. Also, the tears can enlarge to a fissure or a crack. These are painful and slow to heal. There is also a possibility that a fistula could open up, allowing faeces to re-route into the abdominal cavity or into the vagina. This can cause serious surgical complications. One may lose control over the anal sphincter causing continuous involuntary leakage of faecal matter. There is also the increased risk of haemorrhoids, which are quite uncomfortable. Rectal prolapse—wherein the walls of the rectum protrude through the anus and hence become visible outside the body—is another surgical emergency that is seen resulting out of anal intercourse.

The rest of this can be read at http://completewellbeing.com/article...orth-the-risk/

Any and all statements that I have made on this forum have been with the assumption of voluntary/elective activity, in keeping with the spirit of the OP. But hey, if you think violently ramming back in forth in another person's backside is no more risky than the call of nature, cool beans. And by all means, don't let the statistics regarding the average homosexual's life expectancy get in the way of people thinking that voluntarily swimming around in a sewer is healthy.

[wizardwatson]

You get out of it what you put into it.

Yep, every single one of them. The Jewish feasts were all typical forms of worship pointing to the incarnation. Like all of the ceremonial laws, they cease to have a purpose when The Word became incarnate. As to the ritual sex part, you brought Hanukkah into a discussion about whether a vasectomy was lawful for a Christian, ergo my initial post was about lawful sexual behavior. The only logical reason for bringing Hanukkah into such a discussion is if there was some sex involved, but I've come to expect a fair amount of non-logical arguments out of you. It was a hyperbolic quip, and it was most definitely warranted.

That was a very serious assertion. Read up on the conquest of Babylon by the Medo-Persian Empire in the Book of Daniel, that should help you fill in the blanks on what I'm talking about. Ever watch the news about what is going on in France, The Netherlands and Sweden lately? When you have the rule of sexual depravity, feminism and a sterile population, you have a country begging to be conquered. Islam is simply the logical conqueror since they are the most ambitious.

So mutilating your own body in order to indulge in fruitless pleasure is okay provided that it occurs under the guise of a marriage? I fail to see how that keeps the bed honorable. Is it also keeping the bed honorable if you decide to sodomize your wife every now and then and put her at greater risk of a prolapsed rectum later in life? Where does this leeway that you are talking about actually come from and how far does it extend exactly? Islam allows for taking up to 4 wives and an indefinite number of concubines if one has the ability and power to do so, and the man can be as unconventional as he wants with little possibility of reproach. That's nowhere near the faithful, monogamous standard set forth in Genesis 2.

Actually it requires a good deal of thought, just not as much rationalization as the more "liberal" approaches to marriage. Raising up a godly seed and instructing them in manners of discipline is a good bit more involved than the whole "As long as your partner consents, feel free to run wild" approach of modern society. You shouldn't knock those church fathers, they were far more thoughtful and intellectually curious than the drivel that I've heard out of you thus far.

There is no scripture condoning vasectomies, condom use, or "the monthly rhythm" approach, but that isn't stopping you and the rest of the hedonists from going jolly about the place and fancying yourselves as Christians. When scripture refers to children as "a gift from God (Genesis 4:1; Genesis 33:5), a heritage from the Lord (Psalm 127:3-5), a blessing from God (Luke 1:42), and a crown to the aged (Proverbs 17:6)", what does it say about people who think it is their prerogative to dictate the terms of God's gifts? Is God in charge, or is man?

It most assuredly does mean that, and that is what every single creature in creation does with the exception of man, who is too busy thinking he is wiser than both God and nature to do what he ought. Granted, there are accidental events of infanticide and cannibalism rampant in nature since The Fall (a result of man thinking himself wiser than God), but the normal order of things even within a cursed world is for creatures to procreate as long as they are able, thus insuring the continued existence of their kind. Man has a peculiar place in creation, but he is still created, and thus is subject to the same decrees as the creatures beneath him.

Furthermore, having as many children as one is able does not preclude financial planning in order to raise them up in an effective fashion, though it does involve forgoing some of the personal amusements that voluntarily sterile partners in a marriage cleave to before they go through that glorious American tradition of no fault divorce.

Genesis 38 is the only instance of contraception mentioned in scripture. It requires making inferences in order to apply it to all modes of contraception, especially given the sacrosanct status that birth control has in modern society, but it isn't the massive stretch that you think it is. Naturally I won't convince you of anything regarding this point, but it's no coincidence that the divorce rate in America began to skyrocket once contraception became the norm.

Not really, I don't ascribe anthropomorphic characteristics to God the Father or The Holy Spirit as neither is human, and I'm far too interested in Christ's expiatory sacrifice for the sake of the elect to be bothered with making appeals to his sense of humor to get me off the hook for my moral failures.

Oh I absolutely do, because given the modernist inclinations of some of that "everyone" you speak of, your false wit will be a stumbling block for them. Nevertheless, it was so poorly put together that a simple description of it as being a straw man will suffice.

You've mentioned on several occasions that you took a Hindu wife and that the marriage didn't exactly succeed, that is what I was talking about. The jury is out on whether you are a monotheistic pagan, but I wouldn't call you a polytheist, unless you're thinking of becoming a Mormon that is.

1. God is not a created being, so he is not subject to the decree of creation.
2. God wills freely, he had one son because he chose to do so. Unlike creatures subject to the laws of creation, his will is its own justification.
3. One mediator between The Father and Man is all that is required to undo sin, Christ partakes of the divine nature, so his power is infinitely sufficient, though per The Father's decree, limited in its efficiency to the elect.

If you are reduced to questioning God's decree in the incarnation of his only begotten son because you want to go outside the bounds of procreation in the bedroom, you are not in a good place, end of story.

I know you like to get right down to the business of proving I'm a false Christian/heathen/idolater and that you are a wise and scholarly mouthpiece of God but let's try to get back on topic.

Here's my point restated for you:

1. Sexuality in a marriage is about the loving bond between the couple and not simply about child-rearing. In fact the marriage bond supercedes the bond between parent and child in many ways. If it didn't, no one would ever leave their house to get married. And it isn't about merely copulation, there's hugging, kissing, spooning and all that stuff. Making babies is the INDIRECT act of sex, the DIRECT act is loving your spouse.

2. I light of the fact that sexuality in a marriage is direct and immediate and primal, I'd say there's a grey area regarding expressing sexuality but limiting possibilities for children. Clearly, it was understood (and is still understood) that people have sex when a woman is pregnant or else Joseph wouldn't have had to be given special instruction NOT to have sex with Mary when she was pregnant with Jesus. There are numerous things which highlight this grey area. It is not cut and dry. You clearly think it is cut and dry.

Now the fact that I've married a Hindu and am divorced, I don't think really negates my ability to reason about these things. It does kind of make you an $#@! for bringing it up all the time though as if you're trying to give me a scarlet letter.

Also, saying that God the Father has no anthropomorphic characteristics is probably the biggest indicator for me for your lack of scriptural understanding. I see the false trinity doctrines that deny the Father is a separate "humanoid" entity and the Calvinistic judgement/predertiministic doctrines as the two biggest poisons and blights on the Word. You are clearly clinging to the former. Now I'm in the minority in this so don't fear that this poses any threat to your worldly status as a man of God.

[fisharmor]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sodomy

Dictionaries are our friend chum, and I can't find a single definition of sodomy that involves force or anything resembling "unilateral", though some include oral and bestiality as part of the definition, while others don't.

WW, you guys seem to have more history... does he often obviously not make an attempt to read and understand other people's posts?

[Christian Liberty]

You're appealing to a historical view Christians had? That's pretty huge for you.

It doesn't 100% settle the issue for me, but it matters. Especially if the "new idea" came about around the time of liberalism coming into being rather than around the time of the printing press. Protestantism was a result of people being able to read the Bible for themselves and realizing that the Church was lying to them (I do not, however, believe that the first "Protestants" were that late.) By contrast, if something didn't come into being even during the time of the Reformation, but only after the enlightenment or even worse during the 20th century I start getting skeptical of where its coming from. Maybe I'll still accept it if you make an airtight case from scripture that the historical men were wrong, but its going to be tough.

But that aside, do you know whether there were reliable historical methods apart from abortion? I've often heard it said that the sexual revolution was pretty much sparked by the invention of the birth control pill.

I don't know. I know that there was withdrawal (Onanism.) Exegetically I think its possible that he was condemned not for the birth control but because he denied his brother an heir. I don't think that's the historic view though.

[Christian Liberty]

@hells_unicorn-

Is it to any degree true that the church fathers thought that birth control was a sin because they thought that sex was "icky" and really not ideal even in the best of circumstances? I know from reading Augustine that he had some serious hangups about sex though I don't know if it was only him.

[wizardwatson]

WW, you guys seem to have more history... does he often obviously not make an attempt to read and understand other people's posts?

Well, in the "6 diseases of the mind":

1 The desire for victory.
2 The desire to resort to technical cunning.
3 The desire to display all that you have learned.
4 The desire to overawe the enemy.
5 The desire to play a passive role.
6 The desire to get rid of whatever disease you are likely to be infected with.

...Hells_Unicorn suffers the most from #3. So yeah, he does seem overly fond of displaying knowledge based superiority which often takes precedence over engaging what's really at issue, which manifests as lack of reading comprehension. If you want to discuss with him, it's probably best to summarize and recap at the beginning of each post to keep him focused.