contraception

[dj_dave]

Claire from

I do appreciate that you have researched the issue of contraceptive methods that prevent implantation or cause abortion and recognize that these are immoral since they can result in ending a life that has already begun. Many people don’t realize this.

Thank you for your viewpoints, while the word can be “ungodly” the reason we say “that there may be no fornicator nor anyone not appreciating sacred things, like E′sau” is because the Greek word is:

Original Word: βέβηλος
Transliteration: bebélos
Phonetic Spelling: (beb’-ay-los)
Short Definition: profane

one dictionary defines profane as :

pro⋅fane  /prəˈfeɪn, proʊ-/
–adjective 1. characterized by irreverence or contempt for God or sacred principles or things; irreligious.
2. not devoted to holy or religious purposes; unconsecrated; secular (opposed to sacred ).
3. unholy; heathen; pagan: profane rites.
4. not initiated into religious rites or mysteries, as persons.
5. common or vulgar.

–verb (used with object) 6. to misuse (anything that should be held in reverence or respect); defile; debase; employ basely or unworthily.
7. to treat (anything sacred) with irreverence or contempt; violate the sanctity of: to profane a shrine.

---

Origin:
1350–1400; (adj.) < L profānus lit., before (outside of) the temple; r. ME prophane < ML prophānus desecrated (see pro- 1 , fane ); (v.) < L profānāre, deriv. of profānus; r. ME prophanen < ML prophānāre to desecrate

Related forms:

pro⋅fane⋅ly, adverb
pro⋅fane⋅ness, noun
pro⋅fan⋅er, noun

Synonyms:

1. blasphemous, sacrilegious, impious, ungodly. 2. temporal. 3. unhallowed. 5. low, mean, base. 7. desecrate.

Antonyms:

1. sacred. 2. spiritual. 3. holy.

take care

 

[MrS]

dj:

Since the New World has changed a lot of wording from the Book of the Catholic Church, (exam: Jesus is “a” god, or Michael etc)

why do you try to use Christian reasoning to support the JW views. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christians.

.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Nowhere does the Bible discuss the use of contraceptives or birth control in marriage, nor does it say that Christians are obliged to produce children. .

DJ - you are mistaking this for a protestant board. It doesn’t have to be explicitly stated in the bible since we are bound by both the bible and sacred tradition. If you read the end of the gospel of St. John, you see very clearly that not everything was written down that Christ said - that you have been impossible, as the evangelist says. But it was passed down and forms the Magisterium of the church and has been taught by many Popes, the latest of whom was Paul VI.

So don;t waste your time trying to find a validation in the bible. You are guaranteed a proper interpretation by the Holy Catholic Church and his charge to His Vicar, Peter, whose pronouncements would be bound lawful in heaven.

End of story.

 

[dj_dave]

dj:

Since the new world has changed a lot of wording from the book of the catholic church, (exam: Jesus is “a” god, or michael etc)

why do you try to use christian reasoning to support the jw views. Jehovah’s witnesses are not christians.

.

How would you feel if someone told you you wern’t a Christian?

Question: If Christ was 100% human and 100% God…How could he have been made “a little lower than angels”? Heb 2:7,9

And who was Jesus talking about at Rev 3:12?

And why did he say his followers would be ‘hated’? John 15:21

 

[MrS]

How would you feel if someone told you you wern’t a Christian?

Question: If Christ was 100% human and 100% God…How could he have been made “a little lower than angels”? Heb 2:7,9

And who was Jesus talking about at Rev 3:12?

And why did he say his followers would be ‘hated’? John 15:21

I suppose that if they had my own beliefs that failed to acknowledge Jesus is fully God and fully man, they would have a point.

I suppose that if they pointed to my “version/translation” of the Bible that contradicted the beliefs of Christianity, they would have another point.

I suppose that if they claimed I used 2 magazines, and an ever changing theology to spread my beliefs, they would have point three.

and I suppose that if they pointed to my beliefs originating with a man from the 19th century, they would have sealed the case.

There is little doubt that Jehovah Witness, like the Mormans, are not Christians… in spite of claims otherwise.

A good Catholic commentary on our Scripture will answer your questions for you, and I encourage you to read and study. The differences will become more and more evident. Then it is simply up to you and your free will to choose.

God Bless you and thanks for your post.

.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Thank you for your viewpoints, while the word can be “ungodly” the reason we say "that there may be no fornicator nor anyone not appreciating sacred things, like E′sau" is because the Greek word is:

Original Word: βέβηλος
Transliteration: bebélos
Phonetic Spelling: (beb’-ay-los)
Short Definition: profane

one dictionary defines profane as :

pro⋅fane  /prəˈfeɪn, proʊ-/
–adjective 1. characterized by irreverence or contempt for God or sacred principles or things; irreligious.
2. not devoted to holy or religious purposes; unconsecrated; secular (opposed to sacred ).
3. unholy; heathen; pagan: profane rites.
4. not initiated into religious rites or mysteries, as persons.
5. common or vulgar.

–verb (used with object) 6. to misuse (anything that should be held in reverence or respect); defile; debase; employ basely or unworthily.
7. to treat (anything sacred) with irreverence or contempt; violate the sanctity of: to profane a shrine.

---

Origin:
1350–1400; (adj.) < L profānus lit., before (outside of) the temple; r. ME prophane < ML prophānus desecrated (see pro- 1 , fane ); (v.) < L profānāre, deriv. of profānus; r. ME prophanen < ML prophānāre to desecrate

Related forms:

pro⋅fane⋅ly, adverb
pro⋅fane⋅ness, noun
pro⋅fan⋅er, noun

Synonyms:

1. blasphemous, sacrilegious, impious, ungodly. 2. temporal. 3. unhallowed. 5. low, mean, base. 7. desecrate.

Antonyms:

1. sacred. 2. spiritual. 3. holy.

take care

It’s not clear to me what point you are trying to make. To me the point of the passage is that the Christians should hold fast to the faith, not give it up like Esau gave up his inheritance. The faith in Christ is the holy thing they need to treasure and not be willing to give it up in times of difficulty. In the old testament the image of fornication or adultery is used to describe the Jews when they go after other Gods instead of being faithful to the one Lord God.

In re-reading the passage, Paul may be talking about not actually fornicating or treating the holy (our sexuality?) in a profane way. But either way there doesn’t seem to be any approval of contraception in this passage. Is that what you are implying?

Either way, the passage seems to be against giving up something of value in return for a passing pleasure.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

How would you feel if someone told you you wern’t a Christian?

Question: If Christ was 100% human and 100% God…How could he have been made “a little lower than angels”? Heb 2:7,9

God the Son was one with the Father from all eternity. At a point in time he took on our human nature, that nature which is a little lower than the angels. What’s the problem? He suffered and died in this nature to redeem us. But he rose from the dead and his glorified body is a witness to us of what we can hope for if we abide in him.

And who was Jesus talking about at Rev 3:12?

He is talking about the members of the church in Philadelphia who remain faithful to him.

Revelation 3:7-13 (New International Version) **To the Church in Philadelphia **

7"To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:
These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 8I know your deeds. See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. 9I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you. 10Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth. 11I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. 12Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name. 13He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
New International Version (NIV) Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica

And why did he say his followers would be ‘hated’? John 15:21

Because Jesus was hated and so will his followers be.

 

[dj_dave]

Claire_from_DE:
“God the Son” is not in the Bible

I suppose that if they had my own beliefs that failed to acknowledge Jesus is fully God and fully man, they would have a point.

where does does the Bible ask us to do that?

I suppose that if they pointed to my “version/translation” of the Bible that contradicted the beliefs of Christianity, they would have another point.

We will use anyone’s Bible to teach them what we belive,

and I suppose that if they pointed to my beliefs originating with a man from the 19th century, they would have sealed the case.

Our beliefs are fully supported by the Bible, but , then your church demands you to believe doctrines outside of the Bible. Jehovah warned: “You must not add to the word that I am commanding you, neither must you take away from it.” But you do add to it, building up your religious tradition that supposedly explains and enriches it, yet actually contradicts it, as Jesus told them: “Why is it you also overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition? … You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.” Jesus added: “They teach commands of men as doctrines.” By accepting tradition that voids the Bible you actually reject God’s Word, with the foretold result: “They have rejected the word of Jehovah; and what manner of wisdom is in them?” Paul pointed out the divine rule: “Do not go beyond the things that are written.” (Deut. 4:2; Matt. 15:3, 6, 9, NW; Jer. 8:9, AS; Prov. 30:6, AT; 1 Cor. 4:6, NW)

When Paul spoke of holding “the Traditions” he meant up until that time–NOT AFTERWARDS THROUGHOUT HISTORY!

I have addressed your other comments elsewhere on this fourm. check my passed posts–they are a small “Bible study” in themselves.

 

[cides23]

“God the Son” is not in the Bible

**

where does does the Bible ask us to do that?

**

We will use anyone’s Bible to teach them what we belive,

Our beliefs are fully supported by the Bible, but , then your church demands you to believe doctrines outside of the Bible. Jehovah warned: “You must not add to the word that I am commanding you, neither must you take away from it.” But you do add to it, building up your religious tradition that supposedly explains and enriches it, yet actually contradicts it, as Jesus told them: “Why is it you also overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition? … You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.” Jesus added: “They teach commands of men as doctrines.” By accepting tradition that voids the Bible you actually reject God’s Word, with the foretold result: “They have rejected the word of Jehovah; and what manner of wisdom is in them?” Paul pointed out the divine rule: “Do not go beyond the things that are written.” (Deut. 4:2; Matt. 15:3, 6, 9, NW; Jer. 8:9, AS; Prov. 30:6, AT; 1 Cor. 4:6, NW)

When Paul spoke of holding “the Traditions” he meant up until that time–NOT AFTERWARDS THROUGHOUT HISTORY!

I have addressed your other comments elsewhere on this fourm. check my passed posts–they are a small “Bible study” in themselves.

Is it true JW’s believe Jesus body was destroyed by Jehovah after he died and was burried?

 

[MrS]

“God the Son” is not in the Bible

Jesus is called the Word… ref Genesis… and He was already the Word “…in the beginning…” Perhaps you think that is possible for one other than God.

“…this is my Son…”

Rather than contradict, they support each other.

where does does the Bible ask us to do that?

The Bible does not “ask” us to do that. What Scripture means is determined by the same Church which the Holy Spirit chose to use to give us the Scriptures… JW aint it !

We will use anyone’s Bible to teach them what we belive,

That is evident by the way you have created your own version… the New World… which any knowledgeable Christian rejects as full of man-made errors.

Glad to see you admit that you have your beliefs first, then try to teach them from you NW, and a couple of magazines.

Our beliefs are fully supported by the Bible, but , then your church demands you to believe doctrines outside of the Bible. Jehovah warned: “You must not add to the word that I am commanding you, neither must you take away from it.” But you do add to it, building up your religious tradition that supposedly explains and enriches it, yet actually contradicts it, as Jesus told them: “Why is it you also overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition? … You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.” Jesus added: “They teach commands of men as doctrines.” By accepting tradition that voids the Bible you actually reject God’s Word, with the foretold result: “They have rejected the word of Jehovah; and what manner of wisdom is in them?” Paul pointed out the divine rule: “Do not go beyond the things that are written.” (Deut. 4:2; Matt. 15:3, 6, 9, NW; Jer. 8:9, AS; Prov. 30:6, AT; 1 Cor. 4:6, NW)

When Paul spoke of holding “the Traditions” he meant up until that time–NOT AFTERWARDS THROUGHOUT HISTORY!

Okay… let’s say you are right… which of the books/letters written after St Paul said that will no longer be Scripture. Which of those written after his death?

I have addressed your other comments elsewhere on this fourm. check my passed posts–they are a small “Bible study” in themselves.

What is so dangerous (if not downright silly) is the stuff JWs try to peddle.
By the way, is anyone still around from 1914 who will make it to your version of heaven?

Jehovah’s Witness is a cult with no claim to Christianity other than in their own minds. You have rejected the true God, Jesus Christ, in favor of a word which is not even in the Bible… talk about changing the text.!!

.

 

[MrS]

DJ… is your Watch Tower infallible?

Among other things, the WTS predicted the following:

1889 "The ‘battle of the great day of God almighty’ (Rev 16:14) which will end in AD 1914 . . . " (Studies, Vol. 2, 1908 edition, 101).
1891 “With the end of AD 1914, what God calls Babylon, and what men call Christendom, will have passed away, as already shown from prophecy” (Studies, Vol. 3, 153).
1894 “The end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble” (WT Reprints, 1-1-1894, 1605 and 1677).
1897 “Our Lord is now present, since October 1874 AD” (Studies, Vol. 4, 1897 edition, 621).
1916 “The six great 1000 year days beginning with Adam are ended, and that the great 7th day, the 1000 years of Christ’s reign began in 1873” (Studies, Vol. 2, p. 2 of foreword).
1917 “Scriptures . . . prove that the Lord’s Second Advent occurred in the fall of 1874” (Studies, Vol. 7, 68).
1918 “Therefore, we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the faithful prophets of old” (Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 89).
1922 “The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the scriptures than 1914” (WT, 9-1-1922, 262).
1923 “1925 is definitely settled by the scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge” (WT, 4-1-1923, 106).
1925 “The year of 1925 is here. . . . Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire this year” (WT, 1-1-1925, 3).
1931 “There was a measure of disappointment on the part of Jehovah’s faithful ones on earth concerning the dates 1914, 1918, & 1925 . . . and they also learned to quit fixing dates” (Vindication, 388, 389).
1939 “The disaster of Armageddon is just ahead” (Salvation, 361).
1941 “Armageddon is surely near . . . soon . . . within a few years” (Children, 10).
1946 “Armageddon . . . should come sometime before 1972” (They Have Found a Faith, 44).
1966 “Six thousand years from man’s creation will end in 1975, and the seventh period of a thousand years of human history will begin in the fall of 1975 C.E” (Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God, 29).
1968 “The end of the six thousand years of man’s history in the fall of 1975 is not tentative, but is accepted as a certain date” (WT, 1-1-1968, 271

 

[MrS]

DJ:

can you show why I should accept the NW version as reliable?

The New World Translation (NWT), the JWs’ own Bible version, was created between 1950-61 in several parts, beginning with New Testament (NT). The translation was made by an "anonymous" committee, which transliterated and altered passages that were problematic for earlier JWs. Nathan Knorr, Fred Franz, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel were later identified as the men that created the text, which is used by no other sect. Franz studied non-biblical Greek for two years, and taught himself Hebrew. The rest had no formal training in any biblical language. The text of the NWT is more of a transliteration to fit theological presumptions than it is a true translation. This can be seen in key verses that the WTS changed in order to fit its doctrines.).

Now back to contraception… does a JW believe that contraception is okay?

.