Brag about attracting Catholics and others then claim that the huge growth in the membership of your cult is a rejection of your cult? That's incredibly lame for people who obviously can't comprehend what they read.
The increase in immorality exactly matches the growth of Evangelical, Fundamentalist, nondenominational, and other more recent flavors of the Protestant heresy of Core over the past fifty years. That is, recent as opposed to the older Protestants who already ordain women, queers, dogs, cats, and possums and are more than happy to marry any or all of those one to another.
There's no way around it, the primary appeal of Protestant cults in the US is their approval of putting more value on an unrestrained sex life than on the life of the children murdered in the womb thorugh contraception along with assurances that they're forgiven in advance for murdering their children.
As usual, the dogs return to their vomit.
'm still waiting for the Scripture that describes and approves of Christians using contraception..
You will not, nor will you find one that forbids ever preventing pregnancy by any means. But you will find sanction for using means to circumvent the normal course of nature. And outside of abortion, if doing so is wrong, then so are things from artificial sweeteners to antiperspirants to parachutes and more.
I am still waiting for even one Scripture out of multitudes of examples of prayer that describes and approves of Christians praying to someone else in Heaven but God, which only pagans are shown doing. RCs argue that there is no command that forbids that, and attempt to support it based on earthly communication, though only God is shown to be the immediate addressee of supplication to Heaven, and whom the believer has immediate access to, and need no intercessor in that realm the light of the sufficiency of Christ, and that ony God is shown to engage communication between the two realms of earth and heaven, without a personal visitation in either place.
Meanwhile those who support non-abortion contraception may justify it in principle based upon approval of means of preventing the normal course of nature from taking place, as salt does in preventing decay, while we also eliminate what nature does, such as the use of soap to kill bacteria.
However, if conception begins at fertilization, and contraceptives can abort that, then that would be taking a human. Moreover I see both things like artificial sweeteners to conception militating against the principle that with pleasure comes consequences requiring responsibility, thus requiring self discipline, and trying to circumvent them has their own consequences. This may not disallow all intervention against nature, which even taking Advil is in order to deal with pain due to a toothache as a consequence of eating to much sugar, but i think even this can have detrimental effects. But this would not warrant an ecclesiastical law against such.
While Scriptural affirmation of marital sexual relations goes beyond children, (Proverbs 5:18-19) sexual relations are supposed to result in children, and if you do not want multitudes and the responsibility that entails, then you need to exercise temperance (and which is to be exercised in all realms anyway). Even so, Susanna Wesley was the 25th of 25 children, and John and Charles Wesley were two of 19 children. Some couples are infertile so they would seem to have sexual pleasure with no effects, but they are also deprived of the blessing of having their own biological children, unless they had raised them prior.
Thus even apart from any abortifacient effect of contraceptives, i see the widespread use of contraceptives by both Catholics and Protestants as a error. While mainline Prot denoms are no longer Protestant in their view of Scripture, and evangelicals are not one entity, yet the latter has also been uncharacteristically liberal in this, and in contrast to its historical emphasis on temperance. However, this does not change the fact that what Rome characteristically fosters is liberalism, even in Biblical scholarship.
Note that Rome has not at least taken a stand on contraceptives and other things, but again, what she effectually conveys is salvation to the most nominal who die as a Catholic due to her power. Some also fault the perspicuity of the magisterium, and not only in Vatican Two. As one Catholic professor writes, “Though addressed not only to Roman Catholics but to "all men of goodwill," Humanae Vitae is both diffuse and elliptical; its premises are scattered and, to non-Catholics, obscure. Though the encyclical letter is magisterial in the sense of being lordly, it is not magisterial in the sense of teaching well. It seems to lack the sense, which any discussion of natural law requires, of what must be done to make the self-evident evident, to make the intuitive available to intuition, to make what is plain in itself plain to us. — http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/708736/posts
In addition, as history shows, theological development to new situations takes time. Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, stated,
“I think the contraceptive revolution caught Evangelicals by surprise.” “We bought into a mentality of human control. We welcomed the polio vaccine and penicillin and just received the Pill as one more great medical advance.”
“The Pill turned pregnancy — and thus children — into elective choices, rather than natural gifts of the marital union. But then again, the marital union was itself weakened by the Pill, because the avoidance of pregnancy facilitated adultery and other forms of non-marital sex. In some hands, the Pill became a human pesticide....
Christians must not join the contraceptive revolution as mere consumers of the Pill or other birth control methodologies. Finally, many evangelicals are joining the discussion about birth control and its meaning. Evangelicals arrived late to the issue of abortion, and we have arrived late to the issue of birth control, but we are here now.” — http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/04/26/the-pill-turns-50-time-considers-the-contraceptive-revolution/
While society moves further away from conservative Christian faith, and much of the church follows, there is a remnant that is resisting this declension,consistent with historical evangelical examples.
As concerns contraceptives, it is of note that the foremost apologetic against contraceptives due to them resulting in abortion is that of Randy Alcorn, a well know evangelical author, who wrote “Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?.”
The largest evangelical type denom, the Southern Baptists, do consider the use of contraceptives to be a moral decision married couples must make, but stipulate that a couple uses a form of contraception that prevents conception.
Richard Land, head of the SBC’s ethics-and-public-policy agency, stated,
“The Southern Baptist Convention is not opposed to the use of birth control within marriage as long as the methods used do not cause the fertilized egg to abort and as long as the methods used do not bar having children all together unless there’s a medical reason the couple should not have children.
And in support of that and more, in a controversial sermon in 2008, Thomas White, vice president for student services and communications and associate professor of systematic theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, said in a Oct. 7 seminary chapel sermon that using birth-control pills is “wrong,” “not correct according to Scripture” and, in some cases, “murder of a life.”
White said one of the three ways the pill functions is to prevent a fertilized ovum from implanting in the uterus seven days after conception.
“The seventh day is seven days too long, and it’s murder of a life,” he said. “When the egg and the sperm meet, you have life.
While apparently not forbidding any contraceptives, he said,
“I wanted kids, but I wanted kids in not God’s timing, but in my timing,” he said. “I didn’t want kids when I was in my M.Div. program, when I was going to have another mouth to feed, and it was going to inconvenience my ability to finish my course work and maybe move on and do a Ph.D. and all these type things. I wanted kids, but I wanted kids my way, my time, the way I wanted to do it, so I could plan my family out.”
“Folks, you are not in control of your destinies—God is,” he said.
“And the sooner we recognize that we are sinning when we say, ‘I am going to control every aspect of my family’ and we’re not giving control to God, we don’t trust him, we don’t believe that he knows better than we do—we think we know more than God does, and just like I did, some of you are involved in that exact same sin.”
http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8702&Itemid=53
The increase in immorality exactly matches the growth of Evangelical
Besides your characteristic failure to substantiation what you allege (exactly matches..), your sophistry here uses the classic Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. fallacy, and if you will use this then you can also assert that since the increase in the growth of socialism in the last few years corresponds to the growth of the Tea Party, or because Communist activity corresponded to anticommunist movements, then the latter is causative of the former, or facilitating or consenting to it, and which is as absurd as inferring this of Evangelical faith, which was a reaction against liberalism. And which resulted in the growth of (the once forbidden) lay Catholics debating them, but the latter did not cause the former.
And again, rather than blaming liberalism in mainline Prot denoms on SS, it is actually due to a departure from holding the Scriptures high as the supreme standard after the Reformation tradition. And in fact, the more Catholics take Scripture basically literal, unlike in much of her approved commentary (as in labeling historical narratives fables or folk tales), then the more conservative they are. But relative few do.
Rather than demonizing all which opposes Rome, as blind loyalty requires, a more objective analysis is warranted.