Posted on 01/03/2014 8:59:21 PM PST by matthewrobertolson
Protestants opposed contraception until the 1930 Lambeth Conference. After this, positions changed. So, did the Bible change, or did they?
No ... that is not what I’m saying. Read it again.
It’s a useless argument. There are pro-lifers and pro-choicers in every church. When my fellow parishoners and I stand in prayer outside of abortion mills, we do so along side Baptists, Methodists, Jews, etc. When my K of C assembly leads the march from the cathedral in Dallas to the Earl Cabell building later this month to mark the anniversary of Roe v Wade, we will be marching with Christians of all flavors.
This is a fight in which we need to band together.
But the bible says.....
“Baptists, Evangelicals and non-denomination Christians ...are rabidly pro life...”
No. I already documented that the Baptists are not pro-life according to their own statements. They oppose most abortions. That isn’t pro-life. That’s pro selective use of abortion. Read the thread. Look at the SBC’s own statements as I posted them with links no less.
Thankyou...I appreciate that...I currently have a daughter home on leave from Bagram (3rd tour of the ME)...
Probably one of two places...But I wouldn't put my money on God...
Iscool, that means nothing. What did Christ say on the Cross?
You were not making the generalizations some were making here about non- Catholic Christians. So thank you for talking sense.
Look at the remainder of my post. It is results based. Red state heavily Non-Catholic Christians votes for pro-life candidates and propositions.
Blue state and urban populations heavily Roman Catholic vote in leftist democrats who are pro abortion.
Sounds like FR Roman Catholics need to have a caucus with the remainder of American Roman Catholics. Please talk amongst yourselves, the subject is voting as you preach.
>> That’s a silly statement...
A “silly statement” that you proceed to explain however derisively.
What you posted doesn’t matter. As I already documented - the SBC is pro selective abortion. The SBC is a Protestant sect. That proves my point. Nothing you posted goes against my point.
You seem to want to keep assuming things you can't know. I am FULLY cognizant and accepting that God does ALL things according to His will and that man - no matter how much control he thinks he has - cannot thwart that plan. God did a miracle with Abraham and Sarah just as He has many other times in human history. I had a friend that got pregnant TWICE while she was faithfully taking the pill and she gave birth to the two sons that are the lights of her's and her husband's lives. That was a miracle, too.
Why do you presume that I "see sin where there is none"? Is it that I point out the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church in matters that, other than basic moral guidelines that respect life, intrudes into the personal affairs of a married couple with her rules, ordinances and strictures based upon her own developed view of all things? Yes, I see that there IS a disconnect between what the Catholic Church teaches and the reasonings behind it and what she effectually permits. I point out the disconnect in the way Catholic Freepers defend those teachings and the contortions they must put themselves through to make sense of and explain for others. Catholics are commanded to accept whatever they are told is a settled matter regarding faith and morals that their magesterium has determined - even though in many areas the "rules" HAVE been changed over time. I was raised as a Catholic, I'm not coming at this from a place of ignorance even though that is the excuse many Catholics here have to rely upon when criticisms of their church are made. Faint comfort, indeed.
Perhaps you should direct your prayers towards those within your own faith tradition who blatantly ignore ALL the teachings on pro-life issues rather than assume those of us who are every bit as respectful of life as your church claims to be need it. We don't. The Holy Spirit's work has already opened our eyes, minds and hearts to the truth of the gospel as well as the areas that God deems essential to living a holy and righteous life through faith in Christ.
Ok, understand you have no answer why all those Baptists seem to ignore what a piece of paper says and vote their conscience for pro life candidates to end abortion. And this shows in state laws and propositions supporting life and traditional marriage.
Whereas, in Roman Catholic strongholds blue states and big cities we see the most liberal abortion measures legal, homosexual “marriage” voted in as legal and leftist Marxist pro death and pro Obamacare politicians re-elected over and over.
How can you cast stones with these measurable facts presented?
There is a word for groups of people passing judgment on others where their own hands are not clean. Hypocrites.
You are aware that prior to 1930 there were no contraceptives such as the pill, the IUD, the diaprahm, the hormonal implant and such like, right?
I am not disagreeing with you at all. I always vote pro-life. This means that in over 30 years of voting I have voted for exactly 1 democrat.
Thank you for documenting that you are in no way a Christian. BTW I am sorry for your loss, but grateful that he and others are willing to make that sacrifice.
Because you appear to go through the exact same mental contortions you accuse Catholics of to ignore the simple truth that NFP is not contraception the way you want to portray it.
You and others in your "club" appear to use every opportunity to take shots at the Catholic Church. I for one would like you to publically say just one nice thing about either Catholics or the Catholic Church.
-— You are aware that prior to 1930 there were no contraceptives such as the pill, the IUD, the diaprahm, the hormonal implant and such like, right? -—
Yes. Are you aware that there were many other means available, even in the 19th century?
So did the Bible change in 1930, or did Protestantism?
“Mechanical means were the most common birth control methods in the 19th century. These included: withdrawal by the male; melting suppositories designed to form an impenetrable coating over the cervix; diaphragms, caps, or other devices that were inserted into the vagina over the cervix and withdrawn after intercourse; douching after intercourse designed to kill or drive out the sperm; condoms,”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.