Problably going to regret posting this

[Credo_in_Deum]

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. .

Isn’t this what you’re doing? Explain how you’re exempt from doing this? Explain why your interpretations are correct? Without a point of Authority this argument is going to continue to go in circles.

But lets use some of your same logic Ruth. Please show me the Scriptural verses that support contraception.

Maybe after you realize there are none you will appreciate why we Catholics hold the logical belief that the Bible does not contain everything we need to know and why the foundation of your original argument is very weak.

 

[StevenFrancis]

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

This is really an entirely different topic. I believe you’ll find hundreds of threads discussing and refuting sola scritura if you use the CA search engine. In a nutshell, the fullness of knowledge and teaching for the Church, (or for Judaism, for that matter), is not to be found in scripture alone. They are a wonderful compendium of Judeo Christian thought, and provide most of the basics of the relationship of God and man, but at a minimum, the NT was compiled for an audience already quite aware of the teachings through the ages, passed on from generation to generation. The NT makes many assumptions about pretext and it’s audience. The only time one would even HEAR scripture was in the synagogue, (and later the Christian liturgical assembly). Trying to use the Bible without the magesterium of the Church is an incomplete practice, and leaves interpretation open to a broad spectrum of possible heretical thoughts and practices based on personal interpretation, too much emphasis on some ideas, not enough emphasis on others. It promotes the practice of proof-texting, to use passages to support or refute an idea which may or may not be heretical without considering the entirety of the scriptures as a whole. The scriptures themselves are all dependent upon one another, and each new reveleation in the scriptures, both NT and OT are all dependent upon what came before, and what may come later. It is an interdependent set of books compiled by the Church to be read in the context of Church liturgy. It provides support for Judaism and Christianity, in that it supports the traditional teachings of the Jews, and later, Yeshua (Jesus), The Holy Christ of God. Many of the NT scriptures were NEVER read by many of Christianity’s most beloved and important founders and eventual martyrs for what would turn out to be “mere oral traditions”. It is not, nor has it ever been intended to be, the full deposit of the faith. If a modern man, who had a bible, also had a copy of the de fide dogmas of the Church, or an interpretation of the scriptures by the Fathers or a Catechism of the Catholic Church to go along with them, and they were left alone with those documents to begin a new civilization after a nuclear war or some such thing, they could do a very good job. If they were left with ONLY the bible, and no one to help them to undertand it, or interpret it, you could end up going off in all sorts of screwy directions. Each person allowed to read just the bible would be a religion unto them selves. They would share only monotheism, and possibly not even that, because the concept of trinity, (which is never explicitly explained in scripture, nor named, thereby cutting out literalists and nominalists), would not be understood, and someone may easily think there were at least two or three Gods.

You get the idea. It’s a book about a Church and it’s people, who pre-existed scripture. It’s not a Church and a people based on a book.

Anyway, nearly everybody at this site is a far superior apologist to myself, and for some great insight into the falacies of Sola Scriptura, you won’t have to wander far at all. Just have a gander around this place and read some of the terrific apologetics available here on this, and so many other topics.

Blessings my friend,

Steven

 

[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 R-yankees,
what verses??? haven’t seen any.

Ever hear of Mid-rash? Talmud [Jewish discussions on Oral Law (not written)] mishnah ? gleanings? (not biblical) but authoritative commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures?

Even John wrote:
Jhn 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen"

2 Macc 15:38
If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do.
39
Just as it is harmful to drink wine alone or water alone, whereas mixing wine with water makes a more pleasant drink that increases delight, so a skillfully composed story delights the ears of those who read the work. Let this, then, be the end.

Judaism Like Catholicism will never be a religion of the book, We are religions of God’s Living Word.

Martin Luther was against ‘sola scriptura’ teaching without the sound knowledge of the Tradition of the the teachings of the Church (Sacred Tradition), he stated, “Without it, I could easily prove beer is better than wine”

• and that is not what Scripture is to be used for*

‘The Daily Bible Study Series’ John L. Gibson:
Gen vol 2, pg 242 “…the term Onanism has passed into our `as a euphemism for masturbation, but it is in the context much more likely that the means used by Onan to evade his responsibilities was what is now known as c’coitus interruptus’ or withdrawal before completion of the sexual act. That those in previous generations who coined the English term did not realize this is a revealing commentary both on the ignorance of sexual matters and their view on sexual deviations. It does not call for much effort to imagine the fears aroused in the minds of adolescent boys who were referred to this chapter of genesis by over zealous parents or teachers.”

'The New Jerome Biblical Commentary" Raymond E. Brown Editor, Nil Obstat and Imprimatur (1988)
Gen 38;9,10
commentary:
"…Onan’s offense is obvious, he selfishly refuses the responsibility of fulfilling his duty to his brother, as the law provided. That is the point of his offense (not what is popularly called ‘onanism’ today)

God bless,
John

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

test

 

[mark_a]

and i do not see the connection of homosexuality and contraception.

The connection is that contraception and homosexuality both thwart God’s design by separating the unitive and procreative components of sex. Just like beastiality. Just like rape.

 

[Nate13]

The connection is that contraception and homosexuality both thwart God’s design by separating the unitive and procreative components of sex. Just like beastiality. Just like rape.

They would say rape is wrong because you are impinging on the rights of the other person. Bestiality may be a decent example though. Why would God say bestiality is wrong if it wasn’t wrong to separate the unitive and procreative purposes of sex? God gave us dominion over the animals so we should be able to do as we wish no?

 

[mark_a]

They would say rape is wrong because you are impinging on the rights of the other person. Bestiality may be a decent example though. Why would God say bestiality is wrong if it wasn’t wrong to separate the unitive and procreative purposes of sex? God gave us dominion over the animals so we should be able to do as we wish no?

Right, the rape example illustrates (maybe poorly) the thwarting of the unitive dimension, the other side of the coin so-to-speak.

 

[Nate13]

Right, the rape example illustrates (maybe poorly) the thwarting of the unitive dimension, the other side of the coin so-to-speak.

They probably would argue as well that the bestiality example ignores both aspects and that is why its wrong. I guess if a couple was doing it together you could argue it was still unitive? I’m not sure if its worth going there to make a point haha.

 

[DemetriusB]

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

I must agree that is a great analogy.

Part of the problem is is that so many members of this board question the Catholic faith but then they do not permit themselves to understand the arguments in support of it. Their first reaction to the beliefs presented is an evaluation or judgment, rather than an understanding of it. So they never move past the initial tendency of thinking “that’s stupid” or “that’s unreasonable”; as a result they don’t allow themselves to understand the meaning of statements from our point of view, what the beliefs mean to us Catholics. That is why there are so many debates with the same arguments presented indefinitely because they are not given a chance.

And I’m not pointing the finger at anyone because what I have described is just natural human behavior. But I think it would be rude if someone were to visit a neighbor’s house, ask their neighbor’s opinion on a subject, and then accuse that neighbor of being wrong and narrow minded. Just my :twocents:

 

[LaSainte]

Have you really looked into the story of Onan?

matt1618.freeyellow.com/birthcontrol.html

Whether you think in the end he was killed only for disobedience or more directly for the act he committed itself, the biblical language used to describe the act committed tells the story in and of itself.

Read meltzerboy’s post on the first page. He is Jewish and gives the Jewish interpretation of the story of Onan. Hint: it’s not about contraception!

 

[Debora123]

Read meltzerboy’s post on the first page. He is Jewish and gives the Jewish interpretation of the story of Onan. Hint: it’s not about contraception!

Very true. If he had used NFP to avoid conceiving a son for his brother, he would have been punished just the same.

…Meaning it had nothing to do with contraception, and everything to do with the fact that he broke the law, was disobedient, and refused to fulfill his duties as a brother.

(Though some people will refuse to believe this and hold on to their own interpretation for dear life as an anti contraception message in the bible, because it is the only thing in the entire bible that anyone can even attempt to twist into being anti contraception. )

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

(Though some people will refuse to believe this and hold on to their own interpretation for dear life as an anti contraception message in the bible, because it is the only thing in the entire bible that anyone can even attempt to twist into being anti contraception. )

Yeah like those uneducated apologists on CAF that write the stuff for the library section. catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

If you need help removing your foot from your mouth feel free to PM me. I know I’m not going to be much of a help since I can’t be physically present but I will do my best to give you clear directions via PM.

 

[Julia_Mae]

yes, I did read the link. It didn’t change my thinking though. This has been my one problem with the church and believe me I have tried to understand it. I actually took a 6 month break from converting just because of this problem. The problem is, if a barrier method is wrong, then NFP is too. You can’t focus on the inaction of one method and the action of the other while at the same time pretending the intentions aren’t the same and as an added bonus, attributing negative mindsets to the contracepting couple that are outright not true. Comparing them logically, they are the same morally.

I’m not going to read this whole thread but I will tell you what I think as a fellow convert. Well, in your case, not yet a convert.

The difference between NFP and barrier is that in NFP the couple together, in the life of their sacramental union, expresses their own wish by sacrificing some of their own desire. They use discipline and love and mutually help one another. But their intent is never to thwart the will of God, but to take actions available to them in faith to choose a future they think best for them and their family.

If a pregnancy ensues, they can welcome that child in joy knowing that that life is very much willed specifically by God.

Using barrier methods, of any kind, usually places the burden on one spouse, it is done for convenience, and if a pregnancy ensues, the most common reaction is something failed, or the spouse used the method incorrectly. The baby is a “mistake” instead of a gift the couple already decided to welcome if he or she came.

I don’t know how to make this clear unless you’ve actually BTDT, how different it is. One way is about faith and acceptance while asserting the choice you know you have not the Divine wisdom to be sure is correct in full cooperation with your partner. The other just turns out so much worse, it seems to be a way of dividing the couple, from one another and from God.

All of these “rules” are about promoting and furthering a profound relationship with God. And BTW, NFP has about the same rate of preventing pregnancy as any barrier method. It’s just so much better for the unity of the couple.

 

[LaSainte]

Yeah like those uneducated apologists on CAF that write the stuff for the library section. catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

If you need help removing your foot from your mouth feel free to PM me. I know I’m not going to be much of a help since I can’t be physically present but I will do my best to give you clear directions via PM.

Yep, once again, this is a strictly Christian interpretation of the story of Onan, which ignores the Jewish perspective. It then goes on to talk about how it must have been SOOO obvious that contraception was wrong that it did not need reiteration anywhere else in the Bible, Old or New Testament. Meanwhile, adultery and murder are mentioned A LOT. Are you telling me that people just KNEW that contraception was wrong and didn’t need to be told and were meanwhile going around thinking, “But I’m sure murder and adultery must be ok”.

That article is simply a reiteration of the same old arguments about contraception.

I think it would actually be better if the Church just said ,“Because we said so” in this case and moved on, because biblically, the argument is just too thin. I can’t imagine anyone actually reading the story of Onan without an agenda and taking it to mean a ban on all contraception for all time except for NFP.

Try to imagine reading this story for the first time, with no preconceptions, in a non-biblical book such as the Iliad and think about what your honest interpretation would be.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Yep, once again, this is a strictly Christian interpretation of the story of Onan, which ignores the Jewish perspective.

The traditional Jewish perspective, according to Talmudic discussion, the act of Onan was deemed as unnatural intercourse (see Yevamot 34b). Traditional rabbinic authorities comment that contraceptives, especially employed by the male (e.g. coitus interruptus, long term abstinence) is prohibited. Masturbation is also forbidden, with the prohibition being so strict that one passage in the Talmud states, “in the case of a man, the hand that reaches below the navel should be chopped off.” (see Niddah 13a). Furthermore, traditional Jewish law also prohibits the sterilization of a men.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

That article is simply a reiteration of the same old arguments about contraception.

I think it would actually be better if the Church just said ,“Because we said so” in this case and moved on, because biblically, the argument is just too thin. I can’t imagine anyone actually reading the story of Onan without an agenda and taking it to mean a ban on all contraception for all time except for NFP.

You want to go by that logic? Fine please provide all of your scriptural verses that support contraception. When you realize there are none maybe you could tell me who’s oral teaching you follow? The one found in the Talmud or the one handed down from Christ’s apostles?

Anyone here that believes NFP is the same or equal to ABC needs think about a couple of things. 1. NFP is the use of the natural cycle that God has given us, 2. NFP does not exclude God out of the picture since you have to work with Him and practice some form of self-denial, 3. NFP does not remove the responsibilities sex comes with, 4. NFP is not intrinsically evil because while it can be used to reduce the chances of pregnancy it can also likewise be used to INCREASE the chances of pregnancy and when was the last time an ABC advertised that benefit?

God Bless

 

[Calliso]

Yep, once again, this is a strictly Christian interpretation of the story of Onan, which ignores the Jewish perspective. It then goes on to talk about how it must have been SOOO obvious that contraception was wrong that it did not need reiteration anywhere else in the Bible, Old or New Testament. Meanwhile, adultery and murder are mentioned A LOT. Are you telling me that people just KNEW that contraception was wrong and didn’t need to be told and were meanwhile going around thinking, “But I’m sure murder and adultery must be ok”.

That article is simply a reiteration of the same old arguments about contraception.

I think it would actually be better if the Church just said ,“Because we said so” in this case and moved on, because biblically, the argument is just too thin. I can’t imagine anyone actually reading the story of Onan without an agenda and taking it to mean a ban on all contraception for all time except for NFP.

Try to imagine reading this story for the first time, with no preconceptions, in a non-biblical book such as the Iliad and think about what your honest interpretation would be.

Yeah I mean most sins are laid out pretty clearly in the bible. Yet the sinfulness or not sinfulness of contraception is not laid out clearly in the bible. The closest thing to support for that seems to to be the Onan story but it still poor reasoning to apply that story to all contraception expect of course NFP,which of course presents another logical problem But yeah I think most just reading the Onan story on its own at best might interpret that to mean pulling out is wrong but I donlt think many would say oh this must be all contraception is wrong but except of course carefully charting your spouses fertile signs to make sure that you only have sex on days she is infertile!

 

[LaSainte]

You want to go by that logic? Fine please provide all of your scriptural verses that support contraception. When you realize there are none maybe you could tell me who’s oral teaching you follow? The one found in the Talmud or the one handed down from Christ’s apostles?

Anyone here that believes NFP is the same or equal to ABC needs think about a couple of things. 1. NFP is the use of the natural cycle that God has given us, 2. NFP does not exclude God out of the picture since you have to work with Him and practice some form of self-denial, 3. NFP does not remove the responsibilities sex comes with, 4. NFP is not intrinsically evil because while it can be used to reduce the chances of pregnancy it can also likewise be used to INCREASE the chances of pregnancy and when was the last time an ABC advertised that benefit?

God Bless

I don’t see any biblical sources either explicitly condemning or promoting contraception. It doesn’t seem to have been a very important issue.

 

[LaSainte]

Seriously, I would love for someone to read the Onan story with NO preconceived notions as if they were reading it in any classic in a literature class and give an honest, straightforward interpretation/impression of this story. I cannot imagine anyone reading it and assuming a universal ban on contraception.

 

[PatriceA]

scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html

Once again, for those of you that didn’t bother to read my previous post. Here’s a link providing scripture that the Catholic Church teaches about contraception and many teachings/traditions of Church leaders to support the teachings as well.