L
LilyM
Guest
I re-edited to quote the whole thing for ya, but it’s #501
- Status
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Ah, your creative re-editing. I had asked you for a Gospel citation to show that Jesus disapproved of artificial contraception, which you neglected to provide. I said nothing about John’s Gospel not being a real gospel – you lied about that one.
L
LilyM
Guest
Nuh-uh. Post #496 (totally unedited, as was my quote of post #501):
reggieM:
drpmjhess:
I’m charitable enough to presume that perhaps you’ve forgotten what was posted, or possibly that I’ve missed something from a previous post to that one, and thus will NOT presume you’re deliberately lying about what you were asking.
I’d appreciate it if you extended the same courtesy to me in future
You were asking, it seems, for a Gospel cite for reggieM’s assertion that not everything Jesus said or did was recorded, and NOT for one about artificial contraception.
I’m charitable enough to presume that perhaps you’ve forgotten what was posted, or possibly that I’ve missed something from a previous post to that one, and thus will NOT presume you’re deliberately lying about what you were asking.
I’d appreciate it if you extended the same courtesy to me in future
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Nope – I was asking you to provide a gospel citation for your claim that Jesus spoke out against so-called “artificial” contraception, which he never did.
L
LilyM
Guest
So you asked ME (?) to provide Gospel cites by quoting reggieM’s post - and NOT his/her post about artificial contraception even, but a different post entirely … and NOT my post on the subject of artificial contraception?
We’re not in Kansas any more, Toto … :whacky: :hypno:
D
drpmjhess
Guest
True – I’m not!
L
LilyM
Guest
Well, you’re off in the Merry old Land of Oz, clearly, since you seem to have expected me (or else poor reggieM) to telepathically know that you actually wanted cites for an entirely different post to the one you quoted …
:whacky:
D
drpmjhess
Guest
9Choirs said:Well, you’re off in the Merry old Land of Oz, clearly, since you seem to have expected me (or else poor reggieM) to telepathically know that you actually wanted cites for an entirely different post to the one you quoted …
“Stop looking at the picture through the worlds eyes (which is very easy to do as it comes naturally) and attempt to see things through Gods eyes.”
drpmjhess said:
“Except that Jesus (who is God) never said anything about “artificial” contraception.”
reggieM said:
“I think we can be fairly sure that you don’t know everything that Jesus has said – either prior to His ascension or since then.”
drpmjhess said:
“Gospel citation, please.”
I’m still waiting for the Gospel citation showing that Jesus spoke out against “artificial” contraception. Any time you’re ready to provide it…But if you can’t provide a citation, I’m willing to drop this topic.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Well really, the church is so full of dissenters with opinions like yours that, yes, we really think they might not have heard the truth. All sorts of Catholics have never learned the most basic rules that are required to avoid mortal sin and hell. Thanks to liberals posing as catholic and mis-teaching them.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
It’s in the catechisms and dozens of encyclicals and books about the faith. No one here is making up these rules. Sins of lust are always grave sins.
A
Auntie_M
Guest
Just passing thru but maybe I can help on this issue of “artificial contraception”
Jesus never actually said the words “artificial contraception” as there were no such words back then. But there are surely enough passages in the whole Bible to decern what He intended about it.
Ex: parable of the fruitless fig tree Mt. 21:19 and Mark 11:14
Jesus cursed the tree that didn’t bear fruit.
NT Rom 1:25-27 natural function of women
1 Tim 2:11-15 women saved thru the bearing of children
Act 5"1-11 Ananias/Saphira slain-withholding part of gift
Gal 6-7 God be not mocked-accepting pleasure, denying fruit
(artificial contraception…accepting pleasure while denying the fruit of the love between man and woman)
If you need more let me know…
I shall leave you with two VERY good verses…
Gal 5;14-15 For the whole law if fulfilled in one statement, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself: but if you go on biting and devouring one another beware that you are not consumed by one another.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Five randomly selected scripture passages–that individually and together have nothing to do with artificial contraception–are supposed to tell us what?
9
9Choirs
Guest
Really? It looks like the institution that taught Drpmjhess theology needs to be thoroughly inspected seeing she has left the institution believing that the book of John is not one of the four Gospels. I think she has since seen the error of her ways and has tried backtracking however.
I beg to differ. The TLM’s are frequented by much of the youth. The backlash of tradition is occurring mainly due to the heresy dissidents such as yourself have been spreading for the last 40 years. The young have seen the damage and don’t want your watered down version of Catholicism but the real thing. Polls confirm this and polls also confirm that lapsed/ non practicing Catholics are ceasing to call themselves ‘Catholics’ and so are now being honest with themselves and others.
The excuses that pour freely from your mouth are endless. Yes, one rule for you and another rule for others
That must explain why few Catholics and non Catholics take you serious on this site and have left it to God to humble you and accept the teachings of the Church. A ‘Catholic’ who pretty much denies all tenets of the Catholic faith? That is comical indeed. What next, someone who purports to be a practicing doctor yet doesn’t adhere to any principles defined in the practice of medicine?
:Yawn: Refuted numerous times by posters on this thread already. Try picking out another soundbite from your dissident Catholic collection.
Ave Maria
M
MIZER
Guest
Hello everyone,
A word to the wise. You would all do well to review the rules of posting and try to keep in mind that the written text is flawed as there is no intonation. I don’t think spirit meadow or any of you intends to be rude, arrogant or whatever, and yet many of you tend to lapse into this accusatory language. What will happen as a result of this is the moderator will shut down the thread.
I’m finding that these long thread’s get to a point that the original debate is lost and the many sub-debates become fruitless as we all seem to simply go in circles as none of us is willing to see our own set of beliefs as being faulty in anyway and the questions that other’s ask of us, as a way to get us to open ourselves up to that possibility, go unanswered.
For example. (I don’t mean to pick on you spiritmt meadow, but you are on the defense, according to the OP so you are a case in point) Ave Maria asked spririt meadow this question. Actually it’s not a question but it’s a comment that Ave Maria made to defend herself from Spirit Meadow’s attack, but it begs the question many of us are looking for the answer to which happens to be the original question posed by the OP. Here’s Ave Maria’s quote with my emphasis:
If you will notice, Spirit meadow, whenever someone backs you up against a wall, instead of addressing that which has put you in that position, you simply state that you don’t think Christ intended to build a church and with that you squirm your way out from against the wall and make some defensive comment or you further attack the poster who put you there, and the circle continues and the thread gets longer and the nastiness increases and eventually the moderator will put a stop to it.
So, Spirit Meadow, the question is, why do you stay in the Catholic church if you don’t accept so many of her teachings? This is the question in the back of Ave Maria’s mind when she says what she says in the quote above. The magesterium of the Catholic Church, is same body that made up the original Apostolic body you admit produced the Catholic Church as she exists today. It makes no sense to say that you stay Catholic because you believe the RCC is the natural outgrowth of Apostolic teaching because you don’t accept what that apostolic teaching is.
That is the point Ave Maria and the other posters are trying, albeit ineffectually, to make with you. One could just as easily say that all of the various protestant denominations are also a natural outgrowth of the earliest churches (and in fact many protestants and fundamentalists do say that) and you could easily find one that believes the way you do on these assundry issues. So why exactly do you remain (a dissenting) catholic? Why don’t you just go practice in a “christian” church that teaches what you think is the truth on all these issues?
A word to the wise. You would all do well to review the rules of posting and try to keep in mind that the written text is flawed as there is no intonation. I don’t think spirit meadow or any of you intends to be rude, arrogant or whatever, and yet many of you tend to lapse into this accusatory language. What will happen as a result of this is the moderator will shut down the thread.
I’m finding that these long thread’s get to a point that the original debate is lost and the many sub-debates become fruitless as we all seem to simply go in circles as none of us is willing to see our own set of beliefs as being faulty in anyway and the questions that other’s ask of us, as a way to get us to open ourselves up to that possibility, go unanswered.
For example. (I don’t mean to pick on you spiritmt meadow, but you are on the defense, according to the OP so you are a case in point) Ave Maria asked spririt meadow this question. Actually it’s not a question but it’s a comment that Ave Maria made to defend herself from Spirit Meadow’s attack, but it begs the question many of us are looking for the answer to which happens to be the original question posed by the OP. Here’s Ave Maria’s quote with my emphasis:
First, I would point out that just reading the flat words, it sounds a bit testy. She uses the word ignorant and SM may take offense at that, and the part I bolded sounds, short of patience and the last line sounds like it was written in frustration. Because it’s written and not spoken we have no way of knowing for sure what AM’s tone is but we would do best, rather than think ill of her to think the best of her and not take offense or be upset by reading it with some imagined negative tone. It would interest the rest of the poster’s if Spirit Meadow would actually address the comment directly and answer the implied question.
If you will notice, Spirit meadow, whenever someone backs you up against a wall, instead of addressing that which has put you in that position, you simply state that you don’t think Christ intended to build a church and with that you squirm your way out from against the wall and make some defensive comment or you further attack the poster who put you there, and the circle continues and the thread gets longer and the nastiness increases and eventually the moderator will put a stop to it.
So, Spirit Meadow, the question is, why do you stay in the Catholic church if you don’t accept so many of her teachings? This is the question in the back of Ave Maria’s mind when she says what she says in the quote above. The magesterium of the Catholic Church, is same body that made up the original Apostolic body you admit produced the Catholic Church as she exists today. It makes no sense to say that you stay Catholic because you believe the RCC is the natural outgrowth of Apostolic teaching because you don’t accept what that apostolic teaching is.
That is the point Ave Maria and the other posters are trying, albeit ineffectually, to make with you. One could just as easily say that all of the various protestant denominations are also a natural outgrowth of the earliest churches (and in fact many protestants and fundamentalists do say that) and you could easily find one that believes the way you do on these assundry issues. So why exactly do you remain (a dissenting) catholic? Why don’t you just go practice in a “christian” church that teaches what you think is the truth on all these issues?
M
MIZER
Guest
drpmijhess, this is what I’m talking about. No one has lied about anything. You are engaged in a written discourse. Mis-understandings are bound to occur as the written word is prone to misinterpretation. Please review the rules of posting. It doesn’t further the conversation for you to accuse another of lying. It just starts a war which shuts down dialogue. If the war of words escalates then the moderator will shut down the thread and everyone misses out.
A
Auntie_M
Guest
These “randomly selected passages” teach us that God 's plan/way is NO contraception at all. To **Not **deter the natural life plan of man +woman = love and children. If you don’t understand the passages when you read them, then you may not “get it”.
This is straight out of Catholic Apologetics. They are not MY passages, this is the teaching of the Catholic Church by the Bible.
As I said “artificial” contraception was not back in those days. The only thing that can slightly resemble it is the “spilling of the seed” as taught against in the bible.The Catholic Church has always taught against artificial contraception (the pill) . If you don’t know the history of the pill, it is quite scarey for the woman’s health.What I have found to be true is that whoever agrues against a teaching of the church is usually “quilty” of practicing it. Do you use artificial contraception.? Just to let you know neither myself nor the Church is against marital love, just the obstruction of the natural life plan, (pleasure without consequences) nice but not Catholic.
When “the pill” was first being studied it was first to be used by the man. Studies showed that ONE male had a “slight” shrinkage of the testicles, they stop the study. Then they turned to women using “the pill”, they had women dying but they only adjusted the dosages. I guess a woman’s life is not as important as not having a little “shrinkage.”
The Catholic church seems to want to protect women from “themselves”. In other words, if you use these, you may die.
It is NOT God’s way and it’s very dangerous to your health.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
All we ask is that the dissenters keep in mind that they are the ones with the dissent problem. Please keep your false ideas to yourself to avoid misleading other Catholics. Also it would be great if the clergy would remind us that dissenters are actually dissenters. Also, dissenters, please teach your children to respect the Catholics who try to follow the faith, and not to use peer pressure to try to lead them into the sins that you dissent on.
We all know that misery loves company, but please avoid trying to pressure us to join you on the path towards perdition. Some of us find it very difficult to follow God’s will for us, and the last thing we need is to be harassed and insulted by people from church because we try to avoid sin.
We all know that misery loves company, but please avoid trying to pressure us to join you on the path towards perdition. Some of us find it very difficult to follow God’s will for us, and the last thing we need is to be harassed and insulted by people from church because we try to avoid sin.
M
MIZER
Guest
Auntie M, Auntie M…Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Auntie M. offers drpmijhess and very good laymen’s (laywomen’s, for those of you who don’t llike the use of the term men, even when it refer’s to mankind) interpretation of church teaching on contraception.
One might consider the fact that before the advent of the pill and it’s passing by the FDA articifial contraception was contrary to many state laws at the time, in addition to church law. This was precisely because of the inherrent risk to health and life. Long term use of even modern day chemical contraception, can cause a host of health problems (infertility being one of the lesser mentioned risks) and even death as a woman’s risk for heart attack is increased markedl, especially for those woman who smoke and who are over age 35. All of this is too easily ignored by woman who wish to maintain the convenience of their sexual relationships, many of which are in and of themselves contrary to church law.
Women, particularly Catholic women have a tendency to ignore the fact that every form of chemical contraception contains an abortifacient element as a back up to it’s primary function. If the primary method fails and conception takes place then the lining of the uterus is rendered hostile and the newly created life is unable to implant and an early abortion occurs. There is no way to know how often this occurs as it occurs in secret.
There is a great deal of information available that gives depth to the teaching of the Catholic Church on this issue, that most women in general and I would suspect, drpmijehess in particular, refuse to avail themselves of. If you would study the teaching and gather as much information (Start with John Paul ll, Evangelium Vitae and Humana Vitae and end with some of the wonderful books on Human Sexuality that have been written by Catholic authors, Try The Incredible Gift! The Truth About Love and Sex by Kieth and Tami Kiser, this is a great book geared toward older teens and young adults.) you will gain a whole new outlook on the subject of contraception. You may be conflicted to change your behaviors but isn’t that what growing in faith and love of Christ is all about?
Auntie M. offers drpmijhess and very good laymen’s (laywomen’s, for those of you who don’t llike the use of the term men, even when it refer’s to mankind) interpretation of church teaching on contraception.
I wonder if this will be enough for drpmifhess and other’s who persist in their dissention from church teaching, all the way to denying it’s truth. Something tells me it won’t change a single mind.
One might consider the fact that before the advent of the pill and it’s passing by the FDA articifial contraception was contrary to many state laws at the time, in addition to church law. This was precisely because of the inherrent risk to health and life. Long term use of even modern day chemical contraception, can cause a host of health problems (infertility being one of the lesser mentioned risks) and even death as a woman’s risk for heart attack is increased markedl, especially for those woman who smoke and who are over age 35. All of this is too easily ignored by woman who wish to maintain the convenience of their sexual relationships, many of which are in and of themselves contrary to church law.
Women, particularly Catholic women have a tendency to ignore the fact that every form of chemical contraception contains an abortifacient element as a back up to it’s primary function. If the primary method fails and conception takes place then the lining of the uterus is rendered hostile and the newly created life is unable to implant and an early abortion occurs. There is no way to know how often this occurs as it occurs in secret.
There is a great deal of information available that gives depth to the teaching of the Catholic Church on this issue, that most women in general and I would suspect, drpmijehess in particular, refuse to avail themselves of. If you would study the teaching and gather as much information (Start with John Paul ll, Evangelium Vitae and Humana Vitae and end with some of the wonderful books on Human Sexuality that have been written by Catholic authors, Try The Incredible Gift! The Truth About Love and Sex by Kieth and Tami Kiser, this is a great book geared toward older teens and young adults.) you will gain a whole new outlook on the subject of contraception. You may be conflicted to change your behaviors but isn’t that what growing in faith and love of Christ is all about?
F
Fitswimmer
Guest
Has there been any thought given to the reality that the Bible was written during a time of high infant mortality, when large families were necessary to man the fields and when a small group of Christians was trying to become larger?
I’m not saying “be fruitful and multiply” is wrong-if that’s what you’re called to. I’m just suggesting that we look at the historical context of the words we read as well.
Carry on…
I’m not saying “be fruitful and multiply” is wrong-if that’s what you’re called to. I’m just suggesting that we look at the historical context of the words we read as well.
Carry on…
C
Contarini
Guest
But as you noted above, Spiritmeadow is on the defensive in this thread. The whole thread is an attack on the authenticity of her faith. So I think it’s the folks attacking her who need to be extra careful about how they word their posts.
Edwin
- Status