| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 12/18/2019 7:59:03 PM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Off topic flame wars. |
Posted on 12/06/2019 1:01:35 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
Like most of my colleagues, I intended to have two, maybe three kids. And like them, I thought the Catholic view of sex and contraception was ridiculous.
That was about 25 years ago.
Since then, I’ve discovered Theology of the Body (TOB) — Pope John Paul II’s biblical analysis of what it means to be human. This radically transformed my view of the body, human sexuality — and in turn, birth control. And now, I don’t think the Catholic view is ridiculous. I think it’s biblical. And though I’m not dogmatic about it, I, like a growing number of evangelicals, no longer feel comfortable with contraception.
John Paul argued that contraception profoundly distorts the marriage analogy. Christopher West explains:
Christ did not sterilize His love. When we sterilize our love, we are changing what is happening in the sexual act itself to the point that we are no longer imaging Christ’s love for the church. We are no longer imaging the Trinity. In fact, it becomes a counter-image … of Christ and the church.
Rejecting contraception does not mean couples must have as many children as possible. There are valid reasons to avoid pregnancy. And there is a way to do that without violating the spiritual significance of marital intimacy. It’s called natural family planning (NFP).
NFP works with our God-given body, rather than against it.
(Excerpt) Read more at stream.org ...
But my question about whether Protestants were wrong on the subject of birth control for the four centuries between Luther and the 1930 Lambeth Conference remains unanswered (untouched, actually), as I predicted it would be.
No. Your false assertion was based on Anglicans. Get your story straight.
And the Anglicans accepted it for the first time in 1930.
You continue to make these unfounded claims.
Show me any writing from any Christian of any denomination that espoused (or even allowed) birth control prior to 1930.
Dude. Give it up. You’ve shifted your argument so many times and been wrong so many times. It’s like trying to nail jello to the wall.
What I don’t understand is how Catholics feel they must be correct in interpreting the Bible when as here, they must often force it to support what they want it to say.
For while, based upon Biblical principles, I believe preventing conception is wrong, yet the condemnation that this text describes is due to whose child this would be, rather than simply preventing conception.
And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. (Genesis 38:9)
That utterly selfishly-motivated act got him executed, while nowhere is simply preventing conception explicitly condemns, let alone as a capital; offense.
Instead, the basis for preventing conception being wrong flows from design and the blessed primary (but not exclusive) purpose of sexual union, that of producing children. Which also is part of the reason why homosexual unions are wrong. We are not to seek to prevent children as if was an evil or abnormal thing as cancer.
And asserting "When I pointed out the biblical condemnation of birth control, they all disappeared; only the crickets could be heard" simply testifies to their and your ignorance. But I see you have only been here less than 2 months.
However, if you and they has cared to even read classic commentaries, you could see responses deal with this text (even possibly leading some support to your extrapolation), such as,
Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet, to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife that he had married, and of the memory of his brother that was gone, he refused to raise up seed unto his brother, as he was in duty bound. This was so much the worse because the Messiah was to descend from Judah, and, had he not been guilty of this wickedness, he might have had the honour of being one of his ancestors. (Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible Published in 1708-1714)
The God of covenant is obliged to cut off Er for his wickedness in the prime of life. We are not made acquainted with his crime; but it could scarcely be more vile and unnatural than that for which his brother Onan is also visited with death. “And be a husband to her.” The original word means to act as a husband to the widow of a deceased brother who has left no issue. Onan seems to have been prompted to commit his crime by the low motive of turning the whole inheritance to his own house. (Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible Albert Barnes: 1798-1870)
Wherefore he slew him also - The sin of Onan has generally been supposed to be self-pollution; but this is certainly a mistake; his crime was his refusal to raise up seed to his brother, and rather than do it, by the act mentioned above, he rendered himself incapable of it. Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible Adam Clarke, LL.D., F.S.A.:1715-1832)
In addition, you apparently are also ignorant of the testimony that evangelicals have as many or more children than Catholics , and use conception likewise , while your church shows how to understand its teachings by what its leadership does. Including by manifestly counting even proabortion, prosodomite pils as members in life and in death.
Your Catholic body is overall sick, from its earthly head down, and her distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. and which best shows how the NT church understood the OT and gospels).
Non-Catholic Christians have taken it upon themselves since 1930 to use birth control, and claim to find support in Scripture for the practice, something no other non-Catholic Christian could find from the time of Martin Luther’s rebellion to the 1930 Anglican Lambeth Conference. When asked to explain how the non-Catholic Christians saw a sin in the practice for four centuries while today’s non-Catholic Christians don’t, they simply dodge the question.
This grows weary.
Then let’s quote all of Genesis 38, and not stop simply where you find it convenient.
There were TWO men who were disobedient; one was Onan, and the other was Judah himself, who did not give his son Shelah to his daughter-in-law Tamar (and who ended up disguising herself like a harlot because Shelah had not been given to her).
But only Onan was killed; Judah was not.
If Onan’s only offense was disobedience, as you and others here claim, then why was Judah not put to death for his sin of disobedience?
In fairness, I do give you credit for consistently dodging my question.
Your question has been answered.
I'll break it to you again....Roman Catholics use contraception through NFP.
If that makes you feel better, knock yourself out.....but your denomination is using birth control.
If Onan’s only offense was disobedience, as you and others here claim, then why was Judah not put to death for his sin of disobedience?
Can't answer that and neither can you.
Considering that you choose to use the word ‘rebellion’ I wonder whether or not you even care about a genuine discussion instead of just loudly asserting Catholicism.
It would be like me calling Catholicism the Whore of Babylon every time I bring it up.
So why should anyone care to discuss anything with you?
Because the Lord had already chosen Judah to be the ancestor of Christ.
So therefore he had to be born sinless </s>
I’m not the one banking my eternity on the idea that Onan was slain for nothing more than his disobedience; you are.
(You might want to find the answer before Someone Else asks the question.)
Hint: It wasn’t disobedience that he was slain for.
dude...you’ve lost the argument. just. stop.
My efforts here are not to antagonize but to show the Catholic position on the non-Catholics’ terms (the Bible).
If at the end of the day nobody listens, then I am remiss. I will choose my words more carefully.
However, and I will state again, NFP is contraception just by another name.
Because Rome has said it's "ok" you think it is somehow different.
You keep thinking that.
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.