Posted on 07/11/2013 1:20:45 PM PDT by dangus
No, I think hubris on a grand scale is fallible, sinful men presuming to dictate to a husband and wife what they should and shouldn't do in the context of their marriage before God. In 1930 - BEFORE the birth control pill existed I might add - people were only beginning to understand human reproduction and genetics. My point is that you can't go by what some guy in the sixth century thought about reproduction and base a whole doctrine around it. They were WRONG in many of the things they thought. I disagree that Scripture teaches that ALL methods of "contraception" are sinful.
The example of Onan is easily shown to NOT be about the withdrawal method but with Onan's disobedience to marry his dead brother's wife and conceive a child FOR him - which was God's command. I think it is a grasping at straws to try to make the Bible say ANY way a husband and wife use to prayerfully and responsibly bring children into the world is sinful on its face. That the Catholic Church DOES sanction some form of that demonstrates a hypocrisy that far too few Catholics recognize - though even the non-Christians notice it.
We know that we should not murder - so that, to me, outlaws any method of BC that causes the death of the baby. This includes oral contraceptives, the IUD, implanted hormonal devices and, of course, abortion - at ANY stage. Where I draw the line - and again it is between a husband and wife - is with the so-called "barrier" methods. These work to prevent fertilization so NO baby is created and, if the method still results in pregnancy, then the couple accepts this child as from the Lord - because it is God that "opens and closes the womb". I believe all sexual activity outside of marriage IS sinful. So, I don't see where my view is in opposition to the Bible.
(JFTR...this issue is moot for me, personally, because of both age and an early hysterectomy. I praise the Lord that He gave me a wonderful husband that loved me and that was not a problem with him.)
I agree with Mother Teresa 100% on this point!
On the contrary, later in scripture we see the punishment for refusing to fulfill the Levirate Law:
Levirate Marriage. 5c When brothers live together* and one of them dies without a son, the widow of the deceased shall not marry anyone outside the family; but her husband’s brother shall come to her, marrying her and performing the duty of a brother-in-law.d 6The firstborn son she bears shall continue the name of the deceased brother, that his name may not be blotted out from Israel. 7But if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go up to the elders at the gate and say, “My brother-in-law refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel and does not intend to perform his duty toward me.” 8Thereupon the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” 9* his sister-in-law, in the presence of the elders, shall go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, declaring, “This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother’s family!” 10And his name shall be called in Israel, “the house of the man stripped of his sandal.”
So the punishment for Onan's disobedience to marry his dead brother's wife and conceive a child FOR him - which was God's command, would simply have been public disgrace.
No, Onan's life was taken because of the clear meaning of Genesis 38:
6Now Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar.7But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was evil in the sight of the LORD, so the LORD took his life.8Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.”9Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother.10But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.Any spirit that leads you to believe otherwise is not a holy spirit.
I honestly doubt it.
I honestly believe Christianity caving on contraception was the first major event of the Great Apostasy foretold in Scripture, and the societal embrace of contraception the cornerstone of the culture of death and the root cause of legalized abortion. The only way to stop abortion is to strike the weed at its roots, which is the contraceptive mentality.
To me opposition to the contraceptive mentality is inseparable from the pro-life movement, and I bristle at ANYONE who calls Catholics hypocrites or Catholicism a false religion who out the other side of their mouth condones contraception.
Its the height of hubris and self deception.
You complain that “the mainstream medical media” have an agenda and quote The Lancet if it seems to support your contentions. Remember? That was the question I asked.
But never mind, maybe the mods will remove your comments, I know I'll ignore them.
:0)
Still hunting or do you have nothing to say?
Do you know what the difference is between a web based mainstream medical media outlet like WedMD and a medical journal like the Lancet?
Placemark for pingout.
Did you skip right past, "he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother" (even though you bolded it)? He went and had sexual intercourse with his dead brother's wife - in essence agreeing to marry her, else the sex was a sin - but then pulling out to ejaculate because he didn't want to have a child and it be considered his brother's! If we read this the way those such as you do, would that mean a man or boy who has "wet dreams" is committing a sin? Is EVERY instance of semen being some place it isn't supposed to be a sin? Are you actually telling a husband and wife that their act of mutual masturbation is a sin? That they can never have "oral sex" because they will go to hell?!
I think this is a good example of why the "church" should stay out of the marriage bed of its members. Teaching them what Scripture says about marriage and the responsibilities they each have to the other, what God's laws are concerning sex outside of marriage, even going into talking about bringing children into the world and their job to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, all that's fine. I think also a pastor should address social issues of the day and how Christians are to see the world through the eyes of the Lord and it would include abortion and the need for Christians to stand up against the moral evils of the day. But, seriously? Your priest sitting you down and giving you a list of what a man and wife can and cannot do in their own bedroom? That's too much and it only proves that a church oversteps its bounds when it tries to do this because of the very fact that few church members OBEY them.
You can think whatever you want about what "spirit" leads me, it doesn't matter because I know who my redeemer is and His Holy Spirit lives within me convicting me when I sin and leading me on the paths of righteousness for His name's sake. I would NEVER presume to tell you what spirit you follow, why do you imagine you can tell me or judge that I don't follow the Holy Spirit? Has this power trip of dictating to couples what they can do in the privacy of their bedroom gone to your head???
Not an answer to #189.
I just showed you what the punishment was for refusing offspring to the dead brother's wife. Its public humiliation. See Deuteronomy 25:5.
Therefore, taking Onan's life was not because he refused to fulfill the Levirate law. For that he would have simply been publicly humiliated.
No, taking Onan's life was for coitus interuptus, and EVERY Christian until 1930 agreed that was the case.
Since all of Christianity has been unanimous up till now about the immorality of contraception, the onus is on the innovators, those preaching this new gospel, to somehow PROVE that all Christians up till 1930 were incorrect in their interpretation of the Onan incident. That you have not done because it cannot be done.
If you knew the difference between a web based mainstream medical media outlet like WedMD and a medical journal like the Lancet, you’d have your answer already.
That wasn’t the question I was referring to, was it? Anything you have to say to me you can say in an open forum.
Well then - you don’t have much need of the condom if you know when the fertile periods are.
On January 9, 2012, I e-mailed the following question to Dr. Kuhar: “Would you write for me the expected (average?) abortion rate for an individual who uses any of these drugs or any of these devices? This information will personalize/individualize the data for an individual using or considering using them.”
Dr. Kuhar’s answer came later in the day:The estimate we developed when writing the original piece in the 1990s was approximately 0.8 chemical/mechanical abortions per year per female user, [which,] rounded up, means approximately 1/abortion/year/user It is only an estimate [emphasis added]. I hope that helps.Let me reiterate: There is approximately one contraceptive or IUD-induced abortion each year among those who use these abortifacient contraceptives or IUDs. There could be more or fewer for each user, depending on the chemicals or devices used, and other factors such as hormonal variations, disease states, nutrition, and use of other drugs.
Progesterone only products such as the mini pill, Norplant and DepoProvera rarely prevent ovulation. They are almost 100% abortifacients.
The medical dictionaries and texts and journals have redefined “conception” as implantation over the last two decades. Therefore they can continue to call any technology that prevents implantation of a fertilized ovum a “contraceptive” because according to their new arbitrary definition conception has not yet occurred.
All the latest contraceptive technologies target the baby at its most vulnerable point, i.e., before implantation but after conception (as traditionally defined.)
If “conception” is not redefined, medicine must admit that these new technologies are indeed abortifacient. Then comes the whole problem of informed consent, conscience clauses, and a refocus of pro-life activity exactly where medicine does NOT want it: At that distinct line between conception and implantation, a line already crossed by hormonal contraception, the morning after pill, Norplant, Depo-Provera, IUD’s, cloning, stem cell research, and many other emerging technologies.
We are witnessing the Death of the West because of selfish, neotenic, materialistic people who place their personal pleasure ahead of the idea of passing anything on to their progeny.
People who are so possessed of their self-importance they never learned to give, to love, or the concept of self-sacrifice, who have been sidetracked by their own worship of self rather than the Almighty, and who view children as "punishment" rather than a joy.
Our culture has taken its own life while trying to 'improve' it with trinkets which won't matter for dimes on the dollar when they are dead.
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.