Verified answer

Although I am Buddhist, I studied Christianity as well. I also studied with Jehovah's Witnesses as well.

I think the JW, LDS, and the Catholic Church are over-interpreting their "rulebook".

I will use Buddhism as an example: The forth percent of Buddhism is "Do not abuse sex". How do you interpret that? In the East most people think it means only have sex with your lawfully wedded partner. In the West we usually follow the more liberal interpretation.... Only have sex with one designated partner, of the opposite sex, and do it only for pleasure or for making babies. I think even non-Buddhist can get behind that! :)

I can only think of one reason why Christianity is so down on vasectomies; they want more future bodies to join their religion. Christian doctrine requires that the children or Christians also be Christian.

Buddhist are not so strict because there is also no rule that your children are required to be Buddhist. That is why there is no rule stopping Buddhist from sterilizing themselves.

Note: Sometimes I think some folks should ask themselves how GOD feels about them making more children than they can support or look after emotionally. When you look at it that way, perhaps getting a vasectomy is not so bad.

I think it’s all a matter of degree here.

Having a vasectomy is only a small mutilation of the male member. That text in Deuteronomy was talking about much serious injuries. Therefore, the penalty for having a vasectomy will be proportionally lower than suffering from castration. Anyway, losing “congregational privileges” is not a huge thing. It’s a small price to pay for a married man, with five or six kids, who simply wishes to put an end to any further increases in family size.

We know that Christians are not under Israel’s Law, so the regulation at Deuteronomy 25:11, 12 is not binding on them. Jesus neither ordered nor implied that his disciples must marry and have as many children as possible, which many couples have considered when deciding on whether to use some method of birth control. (Matthew 19:10-12) The apostle Paul did encourage passionate ‘younger widows to marry and bear children.’ (1 Timothy 5:11-14) He did not bring up the permanent sterilization of Christians—their voluntarily sacrificing their reproductive potential to bear children.

Christians do well to weigh such indications that God esteems their reproductive ability. Each couple must determine if and when they will employ appropriate methods of family planning. Granted, their decision would be particularly telling if there were confirmed medical assurances that mother or child faced grave medical risks, even a probability of death, with a future pregnancy. Some in that situation have reluctantly submitted to a sterilization procedure as described earlier to make sure that no pregnancy would threaten the life of the mother (who may already have other children) or that of a child who might later be born with a life-threatening health problem.

LOL_-being somebody in my family contributors is pondering this (Catholic). i got here across the question interesting. I referred to as and located the respond.I try this once i choose for solutions i do no longer understand and that i will ask. They emailed it. LOL. you have distorted and twisted the reality some. Why? Did you examine the item or purely copied that off the internet? The question presented became on sterilization. They answer given became to apply soundness of ideas. As reversal isn't an selection. whether new scientific care approximately 60 to 80 % might succeed. some took it to intend it became continuously reversible. And regretted it. So this became a warning. and to no longer take care of it gently. Than it stated why we've reproductive organs. God's making of them. It additionally point out Jesus by no capacity ordered that his Apostles marry and characteristic has many toddlers as accessible.. and each couple might desire to make certain what's desirable for them (no longer being abortion of course) They pronounced there is not any punishment for that. the place do you get that from? in view that your post is slightly twisted, lacking info and leaving out lots this is critical of the entire article, undecided in the adventure that your being common or no longer i will have an interest interior the solutions

Jehovah's Witness's doctrine is always changing around. Most current JW's don't even know what is prohibited and what is allowed.

A MAJOR doctrinal shift happened last year where the "Faithful and discreet slave" now means the Governing Body of Elders. Previously it had meant the 144,000, C.T. Russell, Jesus AND the 144,000, just the 144,000 again, AND now means just the Governing Body.

"The evidence points to the following conclusion: “The faithful and discreet slave” was appointed over Jesus’ domestics in 1919. That slave is the small, composite group of anointed brothers serving at world headquarters during Christ’s presence who are directly involved in preparing and dispensing spiritual food. When this group work together as the Governing Body, they act as “the faithful and discreet slave.”" jw.org 10th Nov 2012

How long will this new teaching last before it too is changed?

Who knows, the JW's are constantly changing and don't really have a solid doctrine.

Jeez...it's hard to keep a straight face reading this crap, isn't it?