Problably going to regret posting this

[Ruthyankees]

haha I know isn’t it It fits well to considering most Protestants want a clear cut passage in the Bible that says things EXACTLY otherwise it is considered reading between the lines. They refuse to look at anything in context and miss out seeing all the beautiful connections between the Old Testament and the New Testament and how all the books relate to each other. The book of revelation has incredible insights into the mass and how Jesus fulfilled the new covenant. Protestants also either ignore or explain away the appearance of Mary in the book of revelation and how clearly it shows her position in Heaven i.e on top of the moon and crowned with 12 stars

call me crazy for wanting it clear cut, but when it comes to man’s interpretation is where things get muddy. men are flawed. G-d is not. therefore when we let men interpret what G-d is saying, beliefs/teachings are also flawed.

and you are the one taking the verses out of context… you only look at ONE verse in a whole chapter then “decide” what it means.

 

[Nate13]

i said baptism is scriptural, i said it isn’t scriptural that it is required for salvation, and NONE of the verses support that. and IF there was a verse that said baptism was required for salvation, then that would contradict other verses saying all you need is to believe.

and those verses don’t support confessing to a priest, they support repenting, (apologizing) and asking G-d for forgiveness. so again, i don’t see scriptural backup.

also i am not sure if your protestant comment was supposed to be directed at me, but i am not protestant, so doesn’t really apply.

also, i have always found it so intriguing how easy it is for Catholics to belittle others.

i disagree with a lot of catholic teachings, however, i respect your beliefs and will never mock you. i only wish you would have the same respect.

We aren’t mocking you. You should just know its frustrating for us to look at the Bible and see so much more than you do, just as its probably frustrating for you how we apparently conjure up so many of our beliefs from the Bible. No where in the Bible does it say “baptism is necessary for salvation” in that many words. We gain this belief by looking at the Bible as a whole and by looking for the purpose of baptism. We belief baptism wipes away the scar of original sin. You believe Jesus did this when he died on the cross. Show me the verse where it says that by Jesus dying on the cross, he wiped the stain of original sin clean?

 

[Ruthyankees]

To make it easier to respond in context, if you are not Protestant, what Church do you belong to - Catholic or Orthodox?

neither. I’m Jewish.

 

[PatriceA]

and this is according too…???
YOUR interpretation. my main point is, there is no scriptural backup for not using contraception.

and i do not see the connection of homosexuality and contraception. and again, that verse is talking about idolatry. read the chapter in its entirety and is suddenly takes a different meaning. it’s easy to piece together verses to make it defend one’s opinion.

Can you point me then to the scripture that supports contraception?

Many posters have already cited many links and scripture supporting the teachings of the Church on why contraception is wrong. But you have yet to cite any scripture that supports the use of contraception.

 

[Corki]

neither. I’m Jewish.

My mistake. Your profile says Jew for Jesus which is an evangelical Christian group aka Protestant. If you are Jewish, may I ask - Orthodox, Conservative or Reformed. There is quite a lot of informaton available, especially by Orthodox rabbis regarding contraception and its limited permissablilty based on rabinical interpretation of OT passages.

 

[Nate13]

and this is according too…???
YOUR interpretation. my main point is, there is no scriptural backup for not using contraception.

and i do not see the connection of homosexuality and contraception. and again, that verse is talking about idolatry. read the chapter in its entirety and is suddenly takes a different meaning. it’s easy to piece together verses to make it defend one’s opinion.

what makes YOUR interpretation better than mine? If we are going by diplomacy here, I have a few million people backing mine

Also why are you avoiding talking about Onan and the references to the differences in wording used that I pointed out?

 

[EternalJade]

i said baptism is scriptural, i said it isn’t scriptural that it is required for salvation, and NONE of the verses support that. and IF there was a verse that said baptism was required for salvation, then that would contradict other verses saying all you need is to believe.

and those verses don’t support confessing to a priest, they support repenting, (apologizing) and asking G-d for forgiveness. so again, i don’t see scriptural backup.

also i am not sure if your protestant comment was supposed to be directed at me, but i am not protestant, so doesn’t really apply.

also, i have always found it so intriguing how easy it is for Catholics to belittle others.

i disagree with a lot of catholic teachings, however, i respect your beliefs and will never mock you. i only wish you would have the same respect.

But it is scriptural that it is related to salvation. Read John 3:3,5. Also, Acts 2:38 states that when you are baptized you receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. You can’t have salvation without that!

 

[Ruthyankees]

We aren’t mocking you. You should just know its frustrating for us to look at the Bible and see so much more than you do, just as its probably frustrating for you how we apparently conjure up so many of our beliefs from the Bible. No where in the Bible does it say “baptism is necessary for salvation” in that many words. We gain this belief by looking at the Bible as a whole and by looking for the purpose of baptism. We belief baptism wipes away the scar of original sin. You believe Jesus did this when he died on the cross. Show me the verse where it says that by Jesus dying on the cross, he wiped the stain of original sin clean?

so, you can look into the Bible and just “see” whatever you want, in theory, and, by that theory, i too could do that. you can justify anything with that logic.

Hebrews 10:10-14 states exactly that. also. i stated john 14:6 and the ever classic John 3:16, which says, “For G-d so loved the world that whosoever believes in Him, shall not perish, but have ever lasting life.” and from that verse, i gathered, that G-d loves me, and that if i believe in Him, i will have everlasting life.

OR Romans 6:23
Ephesians 2:8

granted the last 2 are not verbatim, but hebrews 10:10 is.

 

[Corki]

then what is the difference then?
and please explain what i don’t understand.

and there are several things in several churches that aren’t scriptural. too name a few:

1. contraception (yet to see the verse that backs it up)
2. premarital sex (scripture speaks of sexual immorality but lack detail of what that is, the only mention of premarital sex is OT)
3. Confession/forgiveness (scripture does not say we have to confess to a priest for forgiveness)
4. Baptism (i understand that this is Biblical, however scripture does not say this is required for salvation)

and i really feared this would turn into a back and forth debate, hence the name of this thread, i honestly just wanted to know the scriptural back up of contraception, which i have still yet to see.

Ok, I realize that as a Jew, you don’t follow NT teaching. But this is not the non-Catholic forum so what we believe is rooted in the whole of scripture.

1. Biblical teaching on contraception.

scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html

1. Premarital sex

Matthew 15:19, Revelation 21:8, Colosians 3:5

1. Confession to a priest

John 20:22-23, 2Corionthians 5:18-20

1. Baptism

John 3:5

 

[EternalJade]

Oh, and I definitely wasn’t referring to you with my missing out comment! A paragraph break probably would have been good there, I’m sorry!

With my comment I was mainly referring to the total disregard for Mary and her role, and also to the Communion of Saints and purgatory. Huge things like that that are spoken of plainly in the bible but ignored by many.

 

[Ruthyankees]

what makes YOUR interpretation better than mine? If we are going by diplomacy here, I have a few million people backing mine

Also why are you avoiding talking about Onan and the references to the differences in wording used that I pointed out?

i never said i was better, i was simply asking why the church has the authority to interpret how they see fit. i am not “interpreting” them, i am reading them for what they say. when G-d says “whosoever believes in me shall not perish but have everlasting life” i believe, whosoever believes in G-d will not perish but have everlasting life not, “whosoever believes in G-d will not perish but have everlasting life unless you don’t confess, have sex and use condoms”

Onan is OT. so, that would loop back to a prior argument. why that ot belief but not others?

and also, as a jew, i am pretty sure i have a history of a few more million people backing me.
so, i don’t see the validity of numbers.

 

[Nate13]

@Ruthyankees

Alright I think I have a way of looking at contraception that might help you see it through our eyes. Think of it like this:

Using contraception you jumped on an altar in front of God and had sex. You had the audacity to jump on the altar in front of God and deny the nature of how he made us. You got on the altar not prepared to give yourself completely. Now think of the same situation for NFP. Everytime that couple jumps on that altar and gets busy they give themselves completely to each other and show appreciation for the way God made them. In times of abstinence they don’t even get on the altar and thus don’t disrespect God. This is how they show respect for God, because they realize that they shouldn’t get on the altar unless they are prepared to give themselves completely. Unless you want to argue that not getting on the altar with mutual consent is wrong, I don’t see how you can say NFP is wrong.

 

[Nate13]

i never said i was better, i was simply asking why the church has the authority to interpret how they see fit. i am not “interpreting” them, i am reading them for what they say. when G-d says “whosoever believes in me shall not perish but have everlasting life” i believe, whosoever believes in G-d will not perish but have everlasting life not, “whosoever believes in G-d will not perish but have everlasting life unless you don’t confess, have sex and use condoms”

Onan is OT. so, that would loop back to a prior argument. why that ot belief but not others?

and also, as a jew, i am pretty sure i have a history of a few more million people backing me.
so, i don’t see the validity of numbers.

haha can you show me the proof that the Jewish people of old saw contraception as being acceptable? I have yet to see anything that speaks towards this.

 

[StevenFrancis]

i am sure this has been explained, but. i see lots of arguments against contraception, one argument in particular read something along the lines of, condoms are wrong, Jesus preached about it.
i am curious as too what the Biblical backup of this is.
i understand thou shalt not kill. but why is preventing so wrong?

Catholic Answers - catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
Catechism of the Catholic Church - vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P86.HTM
2366 - 2379
Encyclical “Humanaa Vitae” - vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Hope this material helps you understand, whether or not you agree.

Blessings,

Steven

 

[Nate13]

Catholic Answers - catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
Catechism of the Catholic Church - vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P86.HTM
2366 - 2379
Encyclical “Humanaa Vitae” - vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Hope this material helps you understand, whether or not you agree.

Blessings,

Steven

Amen Steven haha.
Leave the explanations to the professionals who know them best I know I usually fail miserably, although I sometime feel I have a spark of wisdom at times.

 

[John_oxios]

What you state is indeed the Jewish interpretation of Onan’s punishment. Torah Judaism permits certain forms of contraception but not others.

I agree with your Onan statement, what he did was against the Law,

http://www.blb.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&c=25#5

Onan refused to take this responsibility seriously. He was more than happy to use Tamar for his sexual gratification, but he did not want to give Tamar a son he had to support but would be considered to be the son of Er.

But could you list a few of the approved forms under Torah? ? a blanket statement with no references?

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

hmmmm, then i guess i will ask this, why believe something that is not Biblical?

and the verses that i have been shown are all old testament, which would be Jewish law, not modern.

Hello,

You shown no biblical versus period… (up toPost #10), the above statement was Post #15.
What is the difference in Jewish Law/ Torah today, and modern law today? I take it modern law is man made vs. God law?

You don’t have to be Jewish to read Torah,
Form the Chumash:
The Torah states “That Er and Onan died because of their wickedness and the nature of their sin given in vs. http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=38&t=RSV#comm/9 Tamar was a beautiful woman and Er and Onan did not want her beauty marred by pregnancy, so they wasted their seed. For this grave sin - which God considered to be more serious because they were grandsons of Jacob, and the sons of judah- they suffered death.”

Tama had twins, Zerah and Perez; Perez is listed in Jesus’ genealogy.

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

Are the ten commandments Jewish law and therefore void? People make the mistake of thinking that the New Testament makes the Old Testament null and void. Rather the New Testament FULFILLS the Old Testament. The story of Onan brings to the forefront the attitude that was common place throughout the Bible towards children and sex. Also Onan was killed by God not just punished. Here is a decent breakdown of the passage done by a Protestant actually.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/birthcontrol.html

Also the word ‘shachath’ is used is the original context which means 'to waste, corrupt, destroy, devastate. In the other places in the bible where the emission of semen is talked about a different word is used. The word ‘shachath’ is also found in many other places in the Bible used to mean “killed” or “destroyed” in passages such as Gen. 6:17, 9:15 and Judges 20:21. The meaning of this passage is clear.

Hi,

Not clear, Onan was punished because he gratified himself under the ruse of the law, without any intent of keeping it. The above URL is from a Lutheran perspective, and it focuses on Onan’s act without intentions, Onan’s sin is he never intended to for fill his responsibility to provide a son for his brothers widow, but she was a beautiful woman to gratify himself with.

Then again it doesn’t matter what the Protestants use to teach we all know they are for contraception since 1948.

God bless,
john

 

[John_oxios]

hmmmm, then i guess i will ask this, why believe something that is not Biblical?

and the verses that i have been shown are all old testament, which would be Jewish law, not modern.

picked this up from another URL not a Judaic one:

The Encyclopedia Judaica (Vol.4,p.1054, article “Birth Control”) states:
“Jewish tradition ascribed the practice of birth control to the depraved humanity before Noah (Gen. R. 23:2,4; Rashi to Gen. 4:19,23).” (For further confirmation of Jewish views on this point, cf. H. Hirsch Cohen, The Drunkenness of Noah [University of Alabama Press.].)
The Encyclopedia article adds that on the basis of Gen. 38:9-10, **“the Talmud sternly inveighs against ‘bringing forth the seed in vain’, considering it a cardinal sin (Nid. 13a). . . .Strictly Orthodox [Jews, . . . . for religious reasons, refuse to resort to birth control.” In the same Encyclopedia, under “Onanism” (Vol. 12, p.1495), it is stated that the act of Onan “is taken . . . by the Talmud (Yev. 34b) to refer either to unnatural intercourse or (cf. Nid. 13a) to masturbation.
The Zohar [a13th century work] expatiates on the evil of onanism in the second sense.” Other works by Jewish authors corroborating this tradition include D. Feldman, Marital Relations, Birth Control and Abortion in Jewish Law (NewYork: Schocken Books, 1974) and J. Cohen, Be Fertile, Increase, Fill the Earth and Mater It (Cornell University Press, 1989).

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

the 10 commandments are not void because they are all repeated in the new testament. so, i don’t really find validity in that argument. also, if they weren’t also in the new testament, why do people get to pick and choose what old law to follow? If we follow some, why not all?

and again, i have yet to see Biblical evidence that contraception is wrong. you can take stories and interpret them and bend them to say anything, including a message that contraception isn’t G-d’s will. but there is not verse stating we are not to prevent pregnancy.

also, how is NFP any better? sure you didn’t create a barrier, but you are still having sex in hopes to not get pregnant. you still have the DESIRE to not have a child. isn’t the morality of this subject your desire? and condoms and all other contraception isn’t 100% surefire. so there is still an “openness” to life, in technicality.

and i guess i still don’t understand why Catholicism follows things that aren’t scriptural. who gets to decide what the church is to teach/believe? Why isn’t whats in the Bible good enough?

Hello,
NFP would be a natural way, while tablets (which have their own side effects on health and sometimes contribute to infant deformities when stopped or the ability to have chidren over prolong use, a cousin of mine after ten yrs. of using whatever, married, and could no conceive) putting on a sheepskin is not natural even though It may be), it has lead to ‘free sex’ outside marriage. and then what since contraception in any form is not 100% effective, abortion has become a backdrop to failed contraception… one sin leads to another…and then your lying with the pigs.

"Sin keeps you longer than you want to stay
Sin takes you farther than you want to go,
Sin costs you more than your willing to pay’

You can’t allow one group to practice contraception i.e. married couples and forbid it for another. It always comes down too, their doing it!!

The Church has to be absolute on the subject, if its bad for one, it’s bad for all. No exceptions.

God bless,
John