Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

[mark_a]

Could be, and I’m just guessing here, that they were reading what wasn’t there and then its possible that God opened their eyes so they could see it in a differen way.

Who was doing the reading for Judah, Onan, and Tamar? And I’m guessing here too- that no one was reading anything because this story is in Genesis, normally attributed to Moses. This is a case where tradition predates the written Word, which helps greatly when trying to interpret the written Word.

After investigating or looking into what was considered wrong they found out that contraception is not wrong.

Who did this investigating? Was there a council? On whose authority? touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f .

It seems that all the other “problems” with Catholic teaching are pretty well documented. Why not w/ contraception?

Now abortion is another thing, its killing not preventing.

It is also failure to fulfill an obligation.

Now I don’t always agree with what they say just like I don’t agree with everything anyone says.

Good, although I would like to point out that the SBC is not a person.

Now as far as abortion if you would have read my posts you will know my stance on the subject of abortion. I don’t condone abortion no matter what my faith tradition says.

However, you’ve been here on these forums long enough to know what the pill does. If you preached a sermon about the pill being an abortifacient, would you fear for your job?

 

[mark_a]

“dumb” enough this time?

Almost.

 

[benedictus2]

Look if this is the only passage you have to demonstrate contraception in the Bible then you prove you have no case. god was ticked because the man was disobeying the command to give an heir on behalf of his brother and you are focusing on the means to which the man disobeyed god,

You obviously have not read the other explanations I gave.

God was NOT ticked because he was disobeying the command about giving an heir to his brother.

God made prescrptions for that and the punishment is public shaming. Furthermore, the punishment is metted out by the Jews.

But why did God make an exception on this case? I mean He personally intervened and did not just let the Jews shame Onan publicly?

Because it is VERY CLEAR IN THE BIBLE THAT THE SIN WAS THE SPILLING OF THE SEED.

Look, read your KJV. It is quite clear about it. It was** NOT what** ONAN DID NOT DO, but WHAT ONAN DID DO **(the thing that he did) **THAT GOD struck him dead for. Quite a severe punishment don’t you think?

Whatever Bible Rev Kevin is using is a distorted and corrupted Bible. Not the Word of God at all.

So yes, we have a very good case for Biblical support.

Another thing. There was only 1 command that God gave re pro-creation and that is to “go out and multiply” and when Onan disobeyed this by spilling his seed, God struck him dead. End of story.

 

[benedictus2]

As I said originally, if your religion teaches that contraception is a sin, then you should not use contraception for the Bible neither affirms or condemns the planning of a family.

And as I said originally, you are one of those who have bought into the evils of relativism. If your religion teaches you that it is okay to have sex with children, why go ahead, it is okay because that is what your religion teaches you.

If your religion teaches you that it is okay to poison your entire congregation so that they can go to heaven straight away, why that is okay because that is what your religion teaches you.

If your religion teaches you that it is okay to strap a bomb into your body and blow yourself up in a crowded market, go ahead and do it because your religion teaches you to.

 

[larkin31]

… However, you’ve been here on these forums long enough to know what the pill does. If you preached a sermon about the pill being an abortifacient, would you fear for your job?

Which pill? And how so?

 

[rev_kevin]

Who was doing the reading for Judah, Onan, and Tamar? And I’m guessing here too- that no one was reading anything because this story is in Genesis, normally attributed to Moses. This is a case where tradition predates the written Word, which helps greatly when trying to interpret the written Word. Who did this investigating? Was there a council? On whose authority? touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f .

It seems that all the other “problems” with Catholic teaching are pretty well documented. Why not w/ contraception?

It is also failure to fulfill an obligation.

Good, although I would like to point out that the SBC is not a person.

However, you’ve been here on these forums long enough to know what the pill does. If you preached a sermon about the pill being an abortifacient, would you fear for your job?

Your first statement here makes no sense at all. If you read what you posted you will see this. You posted, “How did the Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox, and 400 years of Protestantism get it wrong.” I answered it according to the way you put the question. Then you ask who was doing the reading for Judah, Onan, and Tamar? I find this question quit silly.

Who did the investigation you ask. Well the Bishops, Albert Rehwinkel and probably others. The Bishops must have done some king of investigation because it was approved by a vote of 193 to 67 where the Bishops approved a resolution. (You can read it in the web site you gave me)

Now what obligation are you talking about? The one that God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply? Well if thats the one you are talking about keep in mind that they were the only 2 on earth and God wanted them to populate the earth. That statement was for them. Where else do you see this statement in the Bible?

I didn’t say the SBC was a person. Read what I wrote. “I do not always agree with what they (SBC) say. Just like I don’t agree with everything anyone says.” No how in the world did you come up with the SBC is not a person here?

What pill are you talking about? Birth control pill? The morning after pill? Just what pill do you mean?

Would I fear for my Job if I had a sermon about the pill being a abortifancient you ask. No I wouldn’t. It depends on pill ltself and what is being said. Now if the pill kills the baby, that would be wrong. If the pill prevents getting pregnant, I see nothing wrong with it. Your not killing a baby, you are preventing not killing. Big difference.

 

[benedictus2]

Could be, and I’m just guessing here, that they were reading what wasn’t there and then its possible that God opened their eyes so they could see it in a differen way.
After investigating or looking into what was considered wrong they found out that contraception is not wrong. Your not killing anything, just preventing and prevention is not a bad thing.

Well not quite.

For one thing it is you who got it wrong.
Here’s how Protestants ended up embracing something that they have always thought evil. Even the Synod of Dordt equated it to abortion.

I hope you will take the time to read the link.

Children of the Reformation * A Short & Surprising History of Protestantism & Contraception*

What happened with protestants is that they changed their doctrine to their practice rather than keeping their practice according to their doctrine.

What happened was something like: Since everyone is finding it difficult to remain faithful to their spouse, they declared that adultery is permissible. That is why Protestants ended up embracing something they considered evil before.

Now abortion is another thing, its killing not preventing.

Same difference.

To prevent life and to snuff out life amounts to the same thing: NO LIFE.

In both cases, you are playing God. You are saying it is you who will decide who lives and who dies.

That is why when you (I think it was you) asked me what commandment was there regarding contraception I gave you the first commandment: I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have not other Gods before me.

Contraception boils down to idolatry: Idolatry of sex, Idolatry of the self.

 

[benedictus2]

Your first statement here makes no sense at all. If you read what you posted you will see this. You posted, “How did the Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox, and 400 years of Protestantism get it wrong.” I answered it according to the way you put the question. Then you ask who was doing the reading for Judah, Onan, and Tamar? I find this question quit silly.

Rev Kevin, what sort of Bible do you read?

The quotes you cited regarding Onan is not found in any well translated Bible. You are reading a corrupted Bible. A Bible that has been translated according to the whims of the translator.

So ask yourself, why did the translators of your Bible thought it necessary to add to the Word of God. Do they think they are better than the Word of God?

If you don’t believe me, go read what most protestants read : the King James Bible.

The kind of Bible you are reading ought to be burned for false teaching.

 

[catholicboy123]

All contraceptives prevent or kill life in one way or another and I believe shall be avoided.

 

[annecatherined]

Here’s the explanation for the “supposedly Christian” bit.
If you look through that post, it cites not only Catholics but also Protestants (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) and all these agree on the Catholic point regarding contraception.

So where did it all go wrong that all of a sudden, the “supposedly Christian” followers of these men (who protestants hold in high esteem) have done a 180 on even their teaching?

But this 180 degree turn of the later followers of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli is inevitable since that is to be expected of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura , the bedrock of the current trend of the idolatry of the self.

As to the question about being saved, what has that got to do with the topic at hand?

The question about being saved is related to you saying that those who disagree with you on ABC are “supposedly Christian” (so not Christian then?). As we know only Christians are saved, you are saying that those people aren’t saved. If that is not what you are saying, then you shouldn’t call people “supposed Christians.”

 

[benedictus2]

The question about being saved is related to you saying that those who disagree with you on ABC are “supposedly Christian” (so not Christian then?). As we know only Christians are saved, you are saying that those people aren’t saved. If that is not what you are saying, then you shouldn’t call people “supposed Christians.”

Oh for goodness sake. Did I not just explain the reason for the “supposedly Christian comment” in the post you replied to or did you not read that bit?

Here it is again.

**Here’s the explanation for the “supposedly Christian” bit.
If you look through that post, it cites not only Catholics but also Protestants (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) and all these agree on the Catholic point regarding contraception.

So where did it all go wrong that all of a sudden, the “supposedly Christian” followers of these men (who protestants hold in high esteem) have done a 180 on even their teaching?**

 

[Sonny69]

You obviously have not read the other explanations I gave.

God was NOT ticked because he was disobeying the command about giving an heir to his brother.

God made prescrptions for that and the punishment is public shaming. Furthermore, the punishment is metted out by the Jews.

But why did God make an exception on this case? I mean He personally intervened and did not just let the Jews shame Onan publicly?

Because it is VERY CLEAR IN THE BIBLE THAT THE SIN WAS THE SPILLING OF THE SEED.

Look, read your KJV. It is quite clear about it. It was** NOT what** ONAN DID NOT DO, but WHAT ONAN DID DO **(the thing that he did) **THAT GOD struck him dead for. Quite a severe punishment don’t you think?

Whatever Bible Rev Kevin is using is a distorted and corrupted Bible. Not the Word of God at all.

So yes, we have a very good case for Biblical support.

Another thing. There was only 1 command that God gave re pro-creation and that is to “go out and multiply” and when Onan disobeyed this by spilling his seed, God struck him dead. End of story.

I’m sure you are familar with exegesis; you are using eisogesis. The cultural expectation was known and that was the primary sin here and i will agree that the way he did it was also a sin, but not the issue and definitly not a case for pushing your religious beliefs onto the Bible to make a case for your religious beliefs concerning contraceptive use, which most Catholics ignore and even the “natural method” has the same “heart intent” before God.

Yes God said go and multiply; so are the infertile disobeying God? According to your standard yes. God regulalrly mentions closing the womb or opening the womb; so who is in control here? Back to go and multiply; when this was used it was when the population was almost nihl; so more of your eisogesis pushing onto others religious beliefs. Scripture and God are silent, neither affirms or denies family planning. To each according to their conscience on this issue and if you continue pushing onto the text and cause a Christian to stumble as a result of your interpretation, then it will be very bad for you according to God.

 

[Sonny69]

And as I said originally, you are one of those who have bought into the evils of relativism. If your religion teaches you that it is okay to have sex with children, why go ahead, it is okay because that is what your religion teaches you.

If your religion teaches you that it is okay to poison your entire congregation so that they can go to heaven straight away, why that is okay because that is what your religion teaches you.

If your religion teaches you that it is okay to strap a bomb into your body and blow yourself up in a crowded market, go ahead and do it because your religion teaches you to.

Are you suggesting that the Bible does not teach Christian freedom? That is a form of relativism and there are examples in the Bible concerning this and where Scripture is silent, then it becomes a matter of conscience. This is why Paul talks about if you are eating with a believer and non-believer and the non-believer wanted you to eat meat known to be dedicated to idolatry, even though it was okay to do so, as a brother you would decline for the sake of the other weaker brother whos conscience told him it was a sin.

That is all I have to say on the topic; it is not even an issue until one makes it an issue as some of you have. I respect that your religion teaches not to use contraception and i would sin if I told you otherwise because I cannot either prove or disprove from the word of God and therefore to be dogmatic and push my belief onto you is akin to pushing my belief onto God’s holy word. You should respect others beliefs on the subject least you are found guilty of causing one to stumble before God.

 

[mark_a]

What pill are you talking about? Birth control pill?

Yes. Hormonal pills can work in a variety of methods, including the prevention of implantation of a fertilized egg. Now y’all believe that life begins at conception don’t you?

Morning after pills are a no-brainer. I wasn’t referring to those.

 

[mark_a]

but not the issue and definitly not a case for pushing your religious beliefs onto the Bible to make a case for your religious beliefs concerning contraceptive use,

The teaching predates the bible. The bible verifies the teaching.

 

[larkin31]

Yes. Hormonal pills can work in a variety of methods, including the prevention of implantation of a fertilized egg. Now y’all believe that life begins at conception don’t you?

Morning after pills are a no-brainer. I wasn’t referring to those.

NFP also results in lost zygotes.

 

[mark_a]

NFP also results in lost zygotes.

Not necessarily nfp, but non-contraceptive sex. And from what I understand, many more than the pill.

But when I get to heaven (presumptuous I know) and I meet the souls of my kids that I, instead of God, had some responsibility for cutting short their earthly life (say a total of five) what will I tell them? Because it wasn’t God’s will that their earthly lives were cut short, it was my selfish will.

 

[1234]

NFP also results in lost zygotes.

Routine hormonal contraception prevents ovulation, not implantation. Women on oral contraception don’t ovulate This is why “the pill” is used to control menstrual pain and endometriosis. The so-called “Plan /b” which is a double-dose may prevent ovulation or implantation. It can be an abortifacient. Many believe that a zygote isn’t an embryo until it implants.

Women on ‘the pill’ aren’t going to ‘meet’ their unborn children in heaven. Their unused eggs, maybe, but not their children.

 

[annecatherined]

Oh for goodness sake. Did I not just explain the reason for the “supposedly Christian comment” in the post you replied to or did you not read that bit?

That last comment was not written in a tone of Christian love at all. Also, that is the second time you said I didn’t read what you wrote closely (I know how to read, I’m a lawyer). If you think my request for clarification was so stupid, then it was better not to reply than to be rude and then repeat in bold what was already said.

 

[larkin31]

Not necessarily nfp, but non-contraceptive sex. And from what I understand, many more than the pill.

Do you actually believe that you will talk to lost zygote souls in heaven? I have never heard anyone express such an idea before?