(raises hand) I didn't. As a general rule I don't read 3rd party commentaries on Scripture. More than capable of doing that for myself. Nothing against you Luddly, or the subject, it's just my wish not to muddy theological waters with non-Scripture.
I read it. I wasn't very impressed with the pro contraception argument. I don't consider Songs of Solomon as terribly inspired and I think the interpretation of the passages to mean contraception is allowable was a bit forced.
The discussion of the Ester passages had a similiar problem. Simply because historically Persian Kings had their wives use contraception (something not even mentioned in the scriptures) it's evidence that God allows it? It's a bit of a stretch.
And the gloss over of Onan and the command to multiply and replenish the earth didn't bolster my impression of the interpretations. At best I think it's clear that the Bible doesn't address contraception at all thought it looks like there are arguments pro and con.
Personally, I think it's up to the couple to figure out with the Lord whether it's appropriate or not. The Catholic Church is completely fine by preaching against it because they don't base their religion on the Bible alone. Nor do I. Which is precisely why I think we should seek the answer from the Lord on our own.
Regardless of whether the Bible says anything about contraception, not all religions follow the Bible. Not every religious practice is in the Bible. So why should the fact that lud can produce someone who interprets the Bible to be favorable towards contraception allow the government to force those whose religious beliefs are against contraception to pay for contraception for others?
