C
CopticChristian
Guest
Happy,
You have not answered any of my questions. Your frustration in my not being specific should be understood. I don’t believe in the Bible alone, you do. I gave you my answer.
- Status
You have not answered any of my questions. Your frustration in my not being specific should be understood. I don’t believe in the Bible alone, you do. I gave you my answer.
P
Porknpie
Guest
Hi Happy,
Where do you stand on contraception? I’m not clear in reading your post. Up until 1930 every major Protestant denomination believed contraception was immoral. The morality of birth control suddenly changed beginning in 1930. Why?
We have common ground : this is a big sola scriptura question!
S
stewstew03
Guest
You could go back further. Up until the 16th century Happy’s “denomination” (if it had roots in Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Simons, or Bucer) was Catholic!Hi Happy,
Where do you stand on contraception? I’m not clear in reading your post. Up until 1930 every major Protestant denomination believed contraception was immoral. The morality of birth control suddenly changed beginning in 1930. Why?
We have common ground : this is a big sola scriptura question!
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Stew,
If you read all of Happy’s posts, Happy is not a Protestant?
Happy declares herself to be a Messianic Jew not realizing that this is Protestant in nature. Jews of today are descendants of the Pharisees and are not Jews of the Old Testament. Happy believes that she is “Christian” and neither Protestant or any other such group, yet accepts Protestant theology.
Happy rallys against Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Calvinists, 7th Day Adventists and Jews.
Happy descended on these posts as a “Messianic Jew” or Protestant with Jewish roots, not realizing that this group has embraced Evangelical Protestant thought. Happy changed her monikor to “Christian” when the notion was brought to her attention.
Happy answers no questions. Happy does not realize that the real world accepts and defines Christian as:
Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant. Jehovah Witness, Mormon are not truly Christian and it is difficult to get a handle on what Happy thinks or believes.
Happy has no clue where the Bible came from. Happy reads the NIV and NAB and has little knowledge or understanding of the History of the English Bible translations. Happy believes that books were added to the Bible, the usual Protestant propaganda and Happy has no clue that she is Protestant.
Happy has a notion that answering questions is debating?
Happy is not Orthodox, not Catholic, not Protestant…so where does that leave you in a discussion with someone claiming to be Christian?
E
englishredrose
Guest
If people are immature enough to have sex just when they want it then it cleaner for each individual to use contraception plus it cuts down the number of very unwanted babies.Hi Happy,
Where do you stand on contraception? I’m not clear in reading your post. Up until 1930 every major Protestant denomination believed contraception was immoral. The morality of birth control suddenly changed beginning in 1930. Why?
We have common ground : this is a big sola scriptura question!
People do sleep around and are not held fast by Catholic teachings so if they are going to do this to themselves then they might as well be half mature about it. The cost of a baby is enormous and yeh we should think about babies in financial terms because many mothers live of state welfare for each child they have and cost you lots in tax where as simple birth control cuts down that cost and cuts down the hurt in unwanted babies that grow into mixed up adults. If everybody wanted every child they had then there would be no need for birth control but life isn’t a bowl of roses. But we can do our best to try and make life less painful.
I haven’t a clue about sola scripture that you are so big on:shrug:
H
happy_88
Guest
Coptic
If we are to continue, you are going to have to control your words towards me. I dont know how old you are, but if you are an adult you are going to have to start acting like one. I also want an apology, you have tried to undermine my character and imply things that have not even been discussed. Would you want your sister,daughter,wife or mother spoken to in the same contempt you have for me?
If I really don’t know what I am talking about and I am so foolish…then my answers should not matter to you, so cease asking my opinion.
For the rest of you, I hope that you will note that it is impossible to answer all these questions, I would have an easier time writing my PHD in the time between posts. Just in the last three posts I would have to defend my character,and answer questions that were not even on the radar.
I have a newborn and I am newly pregnant…while this is a very happy time, my hands are full! I really think we can have a very healthy discussion…discussion is a good thing, but lets keep it cool!! Jesus is our common and most important thread, lets keep it so a non-believer can read this and not think Christians are a bunch of head cases!
Pork n Pie wrote:
Hi Happy,
**Where do you stand on contraception? I’m not clear in reading your post. Up until 1930 every major Protestant denomination believed contraception was immoral. The morality of birth control suddenly changed beginning in 1930. Why?
We have common ground : this is a big sola scriptura question!**
I am really sorry, this is not an attack on you personally (you seem level headed) but at this time I hope you understand, in this current atmosphere I am not willing to talk about such personal things.
If we are to continue, you are going to have to control your words towards me. I dont know how old you are, but if you are an adult you are going to have to start acting like one. I also want an apology, you have tried to undermine my character and imply things that have not even been discussed. Would you want your sister,daughter,wife or mother spoken to in the same contempt you have for me?
If I really don’t know what I am talking about and I am so foolish…then my answers should not matter to you, so cease asking my opinion.
For the rest of you, I hope that you will note that it is impossible to answer all these questions, I would have an easier time writing my PHD in the time between posts. Just in the last three posts I would have to defend my character,and answer questions that were not even on the radar.
I have a newborn and I am newly pregnant…while this is a very happy time, my hands are full! I really think we can have a very healthy discussion…discussion is a good thing, but lets keep it cool!! Jesus is our common and most important thread, lets keep it so a non-believer can read this and not think Christians are a bunch of head cases!
Pork n Pie wrote:
Hi Happy,
**Where do you stand on contraception? I’m not clear in reading your post. Up until 1930 every major Protestant denomination believed contraception was immoral. The morality of birth control suddenly changed beginning in 1930. Why?
We have common ground : this is a big sola scriptura question!**
I am really sorry, this is not an attack on you personally (you seem level headed) but at this time I hope you understand, in this current atmosphere I am not willing to talk about such personal things.
po18guy
Well-known member
To set the record straight, no Pope has ever declared anything in a vacuum - that is, apart from, or independent of a Church Council. From Acts 15 and onward. Peter spoke, which silenced the council, but still the remainder of the council participated in the first doctrine. To those who fear authority, no Pope in our lifetimes has ever declared anything ex cathedra. Not one. No council has participated in any such declaration. Not one.
With non-Catholic/non-Orthodox communities making wholesale changes in their doctrines (i.e. the sudden acceptance of contraception in 1930), a Pope and the College of Cardinals provides great comfort and assurance.
What should we be worried about? As I see it, it is the millions of self-appointed “bible popes” who make such declarations regularly, based on their private interpretation of scripture, driven by societal pressure.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Happy,
I just started a thread where a Protestant and Catholic are discussing opposing views based on the Bible…I started it after interacting with you. I invite you to observe, join if you wish. I believe you will find it informative. It is called "Believe on the Lord and be Baptized and…observe or participate your choice. You are the reason I started it.
H
happy_88
Guest
Coptic
I really don’t care about the thread right now. Right now what I want is for you to quit character bashing me and playing games. I want an assurance that these games will not continue and an apology is needed. You have made loud public announcements of what I believe and do not believe, in an attempt to start a quarrel.
I will not acknowledge you until you stop this.
I really don’t care about the thread right now. Right now what I want is for you to quit character bashing me and playing games. I want an assurance that these games will not continue and an apology is needed. You have made loud public announcements of what I believe and do not believe, in an attempt to start a quarrel.
I will not acknowledge you until you stop this.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Happy,
I have no time now however you may want to read all your postings. All I did was take the information from those postings. You posted it. I did not. There is no character bashing. You choose not to answer questions posed to you. You believe that you dictate the rules of dialogue and refuse to dialogue when asked a question. Do as you wish.
H
happy_88
Guest
Hi. It has been nice discussing a few things with everyone on here…it would be nice to continue. Let me know if you want to contine. I do not dictate the rules or dialogue on this site, however I think if you were in my shoes you would see how hard it is to continue being pestered by a certain member. This was noted by a previous poster.
If you guys want to continue let me know, but I will not respond to Coptic or read his posts. If I am the problem I humbly apologise and hope the best for you
If you guys want to continue let me know, but I will not respond to Coptic or read his posts. If I am the problem I humbly apologise and hope the best for you
P
Porknpie
Guest
Happy - congratulations on the new born and being pregnant again. My question on contraception was just trying to clarify your earlier post because I wasn’t clear in reading it what you thought. And, I was asking if you understood why there was a change in protestantism on contraception in 1930 or so. Why was it immoral and now it is moral?
Don’t punish me because of Coptic by not amswering.
P
Porknpie
Guest
English - so why did contraception change from being immoral to moral on or about 1930 in mainstream protestantism? Specific to the post subject, did the interpretation of the bible change or is there a tradition of men that made it so or something else?
po18guy
Well-known member
It is obvious, at least to me, that no one can manage or nourish their faith by the bible alone. It is an incomplete record, and was never intended to be complete. John tells us that it cannot be complete, as the world will not hold the volumes that would be written. The Gospel message is a living word, that requires that God-given authority be behind that living word. The bible, aside from not being a sole rule of faith, is not a living authority which can explain the meaning of its words. In only two examples from scripture (Nehemiah 8:5-8 and Acts 8:26-35), we see that God always sends someone in His name - someone with the authority to give the sense of the scriptures and cause the people to understand them.
Again, from scripture (Acts 8:9-24, Acts 19:13-16), we see also the fates of those who send themselves, and who rely on their own authority.
The post-reformation employment of bible alone (thus, an incomplete Gospel) has lead, not to unity, but to ever increasing division. How can that doctrine be of God? It cannot! The Holy Spirit, always and everwhere, leads to humble submission and unity. The use of the bible alone demands an ego to interpret. The problem is that each ego then indulges itself rather than denying itself. Division inevitably follows. We are drowning in the proof of that.
It is impossible to form a faith or belief system without adding to the written record - especially if that written record is admittedly incomplete, and was never intended as a sole rule. The bible itself is a Tradition, having been handed on to us from prior generations. “Handed on” is the very definition of “tradition.” So, we see the term tradition constantly bad-mouthed, even though Paul admonished the Thessalonians to hold fast to both oral and written tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:14).
If you read the bible for entertainment, you may use it alone. If you seek to found your faith upon it, you will need to add your own content. The disagreement and disunity in all of protestantism comes from that added human content.
Again, from scripture (Acts 8:9-24, Acts 19:13-16), we see also the fates of those who send themselves, and who rely on their own authority.
The post-reformation employment of bible alone (thus, an incomplete Gospel) has lead, not to unity, but to ever increasing division. How can that doctrine be of God? It cannot! The Holy Spirit, always and everwhere, leads to humble submission and unity. The use of the bible alone demands an ego to interpret. The problem is that each ego then indulges itself rather than denying itself. Division inevitably follows. We are drowning in the proof of that.
It is impossible to form a faith or belief system without adding to the written record - especially if that written record is admittedly incomplete, and was never intended as a sole rule. The bible itself is a Tradition, having been handed on to us from prior generations. “Handed on” is the very definition of “tradition.” So, we see the term tradition constantly bad-mouthed, even though Paul admonished the Thessalonians to hold fast to both oral and written tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:14).
If you read the bible for entertainment, you may use it alone. If you seek to found your faith upon it, you will need to add your own content. The disagreement and disunity in all of protestantism comes from that added human content.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Po,
I agree with you. Roman Catholics should be able to explain and I know that the Orthodox do explain the use of Scripture. I have seen Orthodox explain that Scripture was never collected as a book, we call the Bible. Various parts of Scripture are in various parts of the Church for celebration and used accordingly.
The Roman Catholic Church service sees/hears Psalms, OT readings, Epistles and Gospels that relate to each other at a Mass/Celebration. The Orthodox I understand it have use of Scripture for differing services and not a collection. Scripture was always intended to be part of Church celebration/Mass/Eucharistic celebration.
The Bible as a book taken out of that environment becomes a powerful tool for invention, creation of presumed organization, worship service, theology and other sundry elements of other than what it was intended for. The Bible when taken out of the Church as is used by many becomes secondary to from whence it came as is the cunundrum of denying the Church in lieu of a book that then dictates the Church that becomes the many elements we see today disunified stating beliefs on a book not a Church.
H
Hille
Guest
James Cardinal Gibbons, deceased archbishop of Baltimore, in his book “Faith of Our Fathers” states a clear truth:
“you may read the bible from Genesis to Revelation and you will not find one line authorizing Sunday. The bible everywhere sanctifies Saturday, a day which we never sanctify”
Non-Catholics who keep Sunday are just showing that they get their religion from Catholics. This includes Mormons. Amazingly, even the Book of Mormon says the seventh day is the Sabbath.
“you may read the bible from Genesis to Revelation and you will not find one line authorizing Sunday. The bible everywhere sanctifies Saturday, a day which we never sanctify”
Non-Catholics who keep Sunday are just showing that they get their religion from Catholics. This includes Mormons. Amazingly, even the Book of Mormon says the seventh day is the Sabbath.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
po18guy
Well-known member
Ever read Cardinal Gibbons’ bio? Pretty amazing. What he says is absolutely true. Yet, Jesus was Lord, also of the Sabbath, and rising and sending His Holy Spirit on the first day of the week made such an impression on the nascent Church, that the connection of new covenant to the Lord’s day was crystal clear to them. The catechism also has clarifying remarks regarding the Sabbath and the Lord’s day.
H
happy_88
Guest
Pork n Pie,
Thanks for the kind words!
I think that I am correct in stating that Judaism and Christianity were against contraception, and some still hold on to this in one form or another.
The beginning of the decline was from the Lambeth conference in 1930. It is actually not saying that it is OK just in light of “Christian charity” (paraphrase)
I think if we look at the date of 1930, the reason would be very clear…the great depression was in full effect. There was lots of grumbling leading up to this, but the depression would have seen lots of hardship.
Usually a person needs to follow the money trail/ and or politics.
So nothing really made it wrong and then right…just time! Slowly people would have began to use it more and more until it was expected to do so.
I think the rationality used is that it does not say it word for word in the bible. I see it clearly, but this is a powder keg subject.
Thanks for the kind words!
I think that I am correct in stating that Judaism and Christianity were against contraception, and some still hold on to this in one form or another.
The beginning of the decline was from the Lambeth conference in 1930. It is actually not saying that it is OK just in light of “Christian charity” (paraphrase)
I think if we look at the date of 1930, the reason would be very clear…the great depression was in full effect. There was lots of grumbling leading up to this, but the depression would have seen lots of hardship.
Usually a person needs to follow the money trail/ and or politics.
So nothing really made it wrong and then right…just time! Slowly people would have began to use it more and more until it was expected to do so.
I think the rationality used is that it does not say it word for word in the bible. I see it clearly, but this is a powder keg subject.
P
Porknpie
Guest
Hi Happy, the economic times, money trail, and politics all speak to a “tradition of men” that is at variant to that the bible and of Christianity since the time of Christ. At variant to Jewish thought as well as you mention. It’s a powder keg, for sure but why? Because it obstructs Gods command to be fruitful and multiply, and in the case of the pill, it can act as an abortificient, killing human life. It’s also a powder keg in another sense as it highlights in a clear way, what was the church established by Jesus and who has the authority to teach faith and morals? And what church has the ability to bind and loose on earth so that it will be bound and loose in heaven? Those are not questions that u need to answer but the traditions of men allowed contraception in 1930 as the bible did not change a moral teaching.
When’s the due date if I may ask? We’ll add you and your child to our prayers…Pork
- Status