Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: metmom
Still waiting on you to admit that I was correct: Began by the COE at the Lambeth conference in 1929 and EVERY single protestant faith followed suit shortly there after. Documentation please. From a real source. How many Protestant churches support Gay marriages? None that I've ever been in. 510 posted on 06/01/2013 5:46:04 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 491 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: metmom http://anglicanhistory.org/gore/contra1930.html Resolution 15 opens the door This is the part where you say Verga you are correct. I highly doubt that you will, but if you have even the least bit of Christian dignity you will. Project Canterbury Lambeth on Contraceptives By Charles Gore, D.D., D.C.L., LL. D. Bishop of Oxford London: Mowbray, 1930, 30 pp -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- § I The Resolution 15 of the Lambeth Conference SOME years ago I published a pamphlet on The Prevention of Conception, which has been quite recently reprinted. I had hoped that I might now remain silent on the subject, but the recent action of the Lambeth Conference, giving a restricted sanction to the use of preventives of conception, constrains me to publish a reasoned protest against what seems to me to be a disastrous abandonment of the position that the Conference of 1920 took up. I quote the Resolution (68) of 1920:

The Conference, while declining to lay down rules which will meet the needs of every abnormal case, regards with grave concern the spread in modern society of theories and practices hostile to the family.

We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers—physical, moral, and religious—thereby incurred, and against the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race.

In opposition to the teaching which, under the name of science and religion, encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of sexual union as an end in itself, we steadfastly uphold what must always be regarded as the governing considerations of Christian marriage.

One is the primary purpose for which marriage exists—namely the continuation of the race through the gift and heritage of children; the other is the paramount importance in married life of deliberate and thoughtful self-control.

We desire solemnly to commend what we have said to Christian people and to all who will hear. Here we have a refusal to go into detail about abnormal 'hard cases,' but a quite general condemnation of contraceptive methods.

The recent Conference, on the contrary, has given a restricted approval of them. To be quite fair we will analyse the Resolutions 13—18. Resolutions 13 and 14 are on the lines of the latter part of the pronouncement of the earlier Conference, emphasizing the dignity and glory of parenthood and the necessity of self-control within marriage. Resolution 16 expresses abhorrence of the crime of abortion. Resolution 17 repudiates the idea that unsatisfactory economic and social conditions can be met by the control of conception. Resolution 18 condemns fornication accompanied by the use of some contraceptive as no less sinful than without such accompaniment. It also demands legislation forbidding the exposure for sale and advertisement of contraceptives. But Resolution 15 (carried, it is noted, by a majority of 193 votes over 67, which would seem to imply that there must have been some forty bishops who did not vote), which contemplates cases where 'there is a clearly felt obligation to limit or avoid parenthood,' while giving the preference to the self-discipline and self-control which makes abstinence from intercourse possible, and recording the 'strong condemnation' by the Conference 'of the use of methods of conception-control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience,' yet admits the legitimacy of these methods 'where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence.'

Now put on your big girl shoes and say "Verga you are correct once again."

814 posted on 06/01/2013 5:52:51 PM PDT by verga (A nation divided by Zero!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 640 | View Replies ]


To: verga

FOTFLOL!!!!!!!!


819 posted on 06/01/2013 6:17:18 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 814 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson