Problably going to regret posting this

[Nate13]

Exactly!! I’m not saying that they are sins, but IF one of them is, they both are.

Thank you Nate13, I will keep up with this thread and hopefully learn something new that is biblical

Did you check into the link I posted in an earlier post? That is about as good as it gets. I could add on thousands of quotes from Christian leaders from the time of Jesus to now in relation to the passage of Onan if you would like

See past threads on NFP vs Contraception to see the arguments why they are different or find the book “Good News about Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West, “Open Embrace” written by a Protestant couple, and the writings of Pope John Paul II on the Theology of the Body.

 

[mark_a]

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?

How and when Protestantism abandoned the 1900 year teaching of Christianity concerning contraception: rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

The Jewish roots of the historical Christian teachings about contraception: touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f

 

[Corki]

Exactly!! I’m not saying that they are sins, but IF one of them is, they both are. Edit- technically speaking the bible tells us to only abstain for a time, so our option would just be no family planning, not permanent abstinence.

Thank you Nate13, I will keep up with this thread and hopefully learn something new that is biblical

Yes, but that “time” could be until it is physically safe to get pregnant again or until the woman is no longer fertile. Total abstinence =/= permanent abstince.

 

[Ruthyankees]

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?

 

[Nate13]

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?

I don’t disregard anything in the Old Testament. Everything in the New Testament just builds on what was already in the Old Testament.

Desire is not why contraception is bad and NFP is not. Both could be used with sinful desires. The argument is that using contraception in an of itself is wrong as a means to prevent childbirth while NFP is an acceptable means to achieve this if serious reasons are present for doing so. You have to understand the Church’s view on marriage and love to understand why there is a difference though.

Tell me a core, required belief we have that is not scriptural. I don’t believe there are any.

 

[Ruthyankees]

TO PRETEND that OT TEACHINGS are some how volided or invalid; is seriously dangerous to ones POSSIBLE Salvation.

God Bless,
Pat

i really don’t appreciate being told what my “possible” salvation is, i know my relationship with my Lord, very well. and i believe in scripture, not man. John 14:6
i believe in Jesus, i believe in G-d, and i believe my sins have been washed away by His blood, as the Bible has taught me. Man have/can/will say anything for power, and i don’t believe questioning the church’s views is enough to damn me, my G-d is much more merciful than that. He gave me a mind, i believe he gave my logic to be able to see through man’s errors and find salvation in Him, and Him alone.

 

[Ruthyankees]

I don’t disregard anything in the Old Testament. Everything in the New Testament just builds on what was already in the Old Testament.

Desire is not why contraception is bad and NFP is not. Both could be used with sinful desires. The argument is that using contraception in an of itself is wrong as a means to prevent childbirth while NFP is an acceptable means to achieve this if serious reasons are present for doing so. You have to understand the Church’s view on marriage and love to understand why there is a difference though.

Tell me a core, required belief we have that is not scriptural. I don’t believe there are any.

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.

 

[PatriceA]

scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html

This link might help.

 

[Ruthyankees]

TO PRETEND that OT TEACHINGS are some how volided or invalid; is seriously dangerous to ones POSSIBLE Salvation.

God Bless,
Pat

also, i never said they were void, i was raised Jewish, i follow more OT law than most.
however, i don’t follow them for salvation, because G-d said all i need is to believe. John 3:16 not to say that we have a license to sin, for, a healthy tree will bare fruit. however, deeds will not get me to heaven.

 

[EternalJade]

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.

I don’t know any pre- marital sex verses right offhand, but I know it’s spoken about in a negative way in the bible. baptism and confession are definitely scriptural.

Baptism scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html

Confession openbible.info/topics/confession_of_sin

It’s so puzzling to me, everything the church teaches, and I mean everything- besides contraception-is definitely logical and scriptural. I’m not sure how Protestants can read the bible and not feel like they are missing out on SO much.

 

[Nate13]

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.

1. The story of Onan as well as all the text that shows that children are a blessing. You may not agree on Onan but there is the scripture behind our belief. You can also look at the wording and how the bible sometimes talks about a person while they were “still in their father’s loins”. This obviously shows that God at least has a lot of respect for the building blocks of life.
2. Premarital sex is in the New Testament especially in the writings of St. Paul. However the most important evidence is in Genesis in my opinion.
3. Confession- Check past CAF threads. I’m not well enough versed to point you to the verses directly. I’m sure you will find plenty of explanations in other threads though. Jesus repeatedly showed his power to forgive sins though, and he gave this power to his apostles when he sent them out. They could exorcise demons, heal the sick, and speak in tongues, so why is forgiving sins so far out there?
4. Baptism - Incredibly scriptural based. If you want in depth biblical reasoning for the Church’s beliefs check out audio tapes from Scott Hahn. Ask yourself why did Jesus get baptized?

Lastly have you went through the link I put up for the Onan scripture or have you already written off those verses. Go back through my posts and tell me where I’m wrong. You cannot deny the language in that verse.

 

[Nate13]

I don’t know any pre- marital sex verses right offhand, but I know it’s spoken about in a negative way in the bible. baptism and confession are definitely scriptural.

Baptism scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html

Confession openbible.info/topics/confession_of_sin

It’s so puzzling to me, everything the church teaches, and I mean everything- besides contraception-is definitely logical and scriptural. I’m not sure how Protestants can read the bible and not feel like they are missing out on SO much.

I know exactly what mean about feeling like they are missing out. I feel like we are both looking at the same thing, yet they see it as a 1-dimensional square and we see it as a 3-dimensional cube.

 

[Ruthyankees]

scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html

This link might help.

most of these are OT. so, if we are to follow this how come we can eat pork and braid our hair?

also, i take up several issues with the NT verses. many of them are just one snippet of a whole verse. particularly the 2 Timothy one. the verses before 2:15 say women are to be submissive and quiet. and that our child bearing is to save women. what if i am infertile? will i go to hell simply because i cannot bare a child to “save” me?

also several verses “explain” how they are about contraception, when in all reality they could be about whatever someone wants to make it about. and do not mention contraception whatsoever. IE, Ephesians 5:25. using contraception means a man doesn’t love me? what if childbearing could kill me? what if a couple wants to raise a child in better conditions? for a man to force me not to take precaution would mean he lacks respect for me and my decision.
Romans 1:25 the verse before this one explains what this is about, this doesn’t mention contraception. whatsoever. This verse says, "worshiping the creature rather than the creator…then speaks of “unnatural.” however what is “unnatural” to you may be “natural” to me. also, this verse is about idolatry. and that because of idolatry it makes one do sinful things.

the verses that speak of mutilating the flesh, then says how this is about surgery to prevent conception… who gets to decide what that is about? and what about other mutilating of the flesh that Catholics condone? circumcision for example. why is that ok?

etc, etc.

most of these verses are looking at a drop of water out of the ocean, then they are twisted to “teach” or condemn something that the whole picture really isn’t about in the first place.

 

[Nate13]

@Ruthyankees
I suggest you start another thread about the idea of being saved by “faith-alone” as opposed to faith and works. Its hard to have a discussion on contraception outside of a biblical sense because of how different our other beliefs are.

 

[EternalJade]

I know exactly what mean about feeling like they are missing out. I feel like we are both looking at the same thing, yet they see it as a 1-dimensional square and we see it as a 3-dimensional cube.

The square-cube analogy is PERFECT! By disregarding so many important things people are missing out on so much richness in their spiritual lives.

 

[Nate13]

most of these are OT. so, if we are to follow this how come we can eat pork and braid our hair?

also, i take up several issues with the NT verses. many of them are just one snippet of a whole verse. particularly the 2 Timothy one. the verses before 2:15 say women are to be submissive and quiet. and that our child bearing is to save women. what if i am infertile? will i go to hell simply because i cannot bare a child to “save” me?

also several verses “explain” how they are about contraception, when in all reality they could be about whatever someone wants to make it about. and do not mention contraception whatsoever. IE, Ephesians 5:25. using contraception means a man doesn’t love me? what if childbearing could kill me? what if a couple wants to raise a child in better conditions? for a man to force me not to take precaution would mean he lacks respect for me and my decision.
Romans 1:25 the verse before this one explains what this is about, this doesn’t mention contraception. whatsoever. This verse says, "worshiping the creature rather than the creator…then speaks of “unnatural.” however what is “unnatural” to you may be “natural” to me. also, this verse is about idolatry. and that because of idolatry it makes one do sinful things.

the verses that speak of mutilating the flesh, then says how this is about surgery to prevent conception… who gets to decide what that is about? and what about other mutilating of the flesh that Catholics condone? circumcision for example. why is that ok?

etc, etc.

most of these verses are looking at a drop of water out of the ocean, then they are twisted to “teach” or condemn something that the whole picture really isn’t about in the first place.

Ephesians 5:25 - No, if the life of the woman is in trouble you abstain from sex or use NFP strictly. The ends of an act don’t justify the means you use to do it. Natural family planning is what we would say to use if you have just reasons for not having a child. There are other alternatives to contraception that are moral.

Romans 1:25 This verse establishes that there is such a thing as a “natural relations” between a man and a woman. For us this idea of what is “natural” is ambiguous but it doesn’t matter what we see as natural relations, but rather what Paul saw as natural relations. Obviously in this verse he is saying homosexual relations are not natural. The point of bringing this up though is that there is a “natural” way to have sex and whether its ambiguous to us or not it isn’t to God.

 

[Ruthyankees]

I don’t know any pre- marital sex verses right offhand, but I know it’s spoken about in a negative way in the bible. baptism and confession are definitely scriptural.

Baptism scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html

Confession openbible.info/topics/confession_of_sin

It’s so puzzling to me, everything the church teaches, and I mean everything- besides contraception-is definitely logical and scriptural. I’m not sure how Protestants can read the bible and not feel like they are missing out on SO much.

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.

 

[Nate13]

The square-cube analogy is PERFECT! By disregarding so many important things people are missing out on so much richness in their spiritual lives.

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

 

[Ruthyankees]

Ephesians 5:25 - No, if the life of the woman is in trouble you abstain from sex or use NFP strictly. The ends of an act don’t justify the means you use to do it. Natural family planning is what we would say to use if you have just reasons for not having a child. There are other alternatives to contraception that are moral.

Romans 1:25 This verse establishes that there is such a thing as a “natural relations” between a man and a woman. For us this idea of what is “natural” is ambiguous but it doesn’t matter what we see as natural relations, but rather what Paul saw as natural relations. Obviously in this verse he is saying homosexual relations are not natural. The point of bringing this up though is that there is a “natural” way to have sex and whether its ambiguous to us or not it isn’t to God.

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.

 

[Corki]

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.

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