When many Christians, particularly Catholics, talk about the 'Biblical Prohibitions' against masturbation and birth control, they all seem to refer to a single story in the Old Testament. Interestingly, none of these people seem to know what the verses are referring to.
Genesis 38:7-10 New International Version (NIV)
7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death. 8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.
Catholic.com Entry: (Source: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control)
"The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. C…
So let me see if I understand this correctly… Modern Christianity believes that a particular group of bronze-age sheep herders were right about the biggest, most complex, and most important questions that humanity has ever asked. They were right about life, the universe, and everything, right? So why is it that these same people think that that same exact group of bronze-age sheep herders were wrong about pretty much everything else? Why do they trust them implicitly for the big important questions, but not the smaller, day-to-day life questions with real-world consequences? Let’s take a look at just a handful of some of the things that the authors of the Bible believed: They believed that slavery was acceptable and practiced it regularly, including being able to sell your own children (Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6, Exodus 21:7-11, etcetera and ad nauseum). They believed that women should have to marry their rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). They believed that a woman should be comple…
I wrote this some time ago and never published it. It's pretty simple but I hope that it helps to get the point across.
How We Evaluate Claims
When we are presented with a particular claim, regardless of the content, we go through a process to determine whether or not the claim is true.
If we can find nothing with which to justify the claim, we can simply stop there. There is no need to accept a claim which has not been positively justified.
We certainly can go on to search for disconfirming evidence, something which would show that the claim is not true; however by this point it isn’t necessary to do so in order to reject the claim’s truthfulness.
However, time and time again, we see and hear people making the argument that ‘you can’t prove that it’s NOT true’. We don’t have to. It is never reasonable to accept a claim based on the non-existence of disconfirming evidence alone. Bertrand Russell demonstrates why this is so with his teapot analogy.