Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

[rev_kevin]

No he isn’t. There was no prescription for spilling one’s said so He stepped in.

No, you are grasping at straws. That is why you have resorted to distorting the word of God, you were adding words to scripture that was not there.

Nope I am not.

You said something I took it to its logical conclusion. Start thinking clearer and more logically so you don’t fall into this kind of quandary.

It’s a good advice. You seem to fire shots without thinking where it will lead.

I added nothing to scripture that isn’t there. I quoted word for word what scripture said. Read what it says. I have given you the key words in bold letters, in capital letters and you still can’t see. So here it is again. " But Onan was not willing to have a child who would not be his own heir. So whenever he had intercourse wit Tamar, he spilled the semen of the ground to keep her from having a baby who would belong to his brother. But the Lord considered it a wicked thing for Onan to deny a child to his dead brother."

Key words: NOT WILLING, WOULD NOT, KEEP HER FROM, WOULD, FOR, DENY.
What did the Lord find wicked. FOR Onan to DENY a child to his dead brother.
What didn’t the Lord find wicked. The spilling of his semen.
Look clearly at the words and you will see it was for denying a child to his dead brother. Its clear as the nose on your face. Your putting in something that isn’t there, not me.

You take it to the logical extreme conclusion. Something way out in left field.
I’m know where my shots will lead, its you who just can’t see the target.

 

[larkin31]

Why not just look at Scripture for what it says in context of what it says. He ticked God off because He spilled His seed in order to to disobey a command given by God to prduce a child for his dead brother. That passage is not even complicated and has ZERO to do with contraception unless one finds themselves guilty of twisting the Scripture to fit a man-made tradition that is neither affirmed nor condemned by Scripture. If your religion says not to do it, then do not do it according to your religion and vice versa; as long as the method is not murder.

Sound advice!

 

[TracyR]

I was replying to a polite request of me by someone else. What are you barking about? None of this reply had to do with you.

And you sentence above that I have enlarged is just comically false. I have never said ANY SUCH THING. As I noted, you seem to be taking this all rather personally, despite the fact that you said you would not debate with me. Interestingly, you suggest that as an agnostic (and former Protestant minster’s son) that my view is not legitimate, yet all you have is also a former Protestant’s experience too–which, please note, I have not said is not legitimate. Protestants come in many stripes. No one denies this. So do Catholics, Muslims, and atheists.

I can’t even remember what your beef is except now to take shots at me. If you want to make this personal and nasty, have at it. I will simply report you and then ignore you.

Do what you need to do. I’m not being mean. I’m asking you to give proof of the question at hand. If that gets me thrown off the board then so be it.
You told me I misrepresent the Protestant view on ABC. So prove it otherwise then.

The last I knew I haven’t said anything mean or wrong to you. But you’ve called me a bigot( which I am not) and you say I misrepresent. To misrepresent means you lie. I will pray for you and hope some day that the Lord will show you the way.

Westminister Catechism:
reformed.org/documents/WSC.html

What it does seem is you get agitated being challenged. There is really no stance. Protestants either use it or they don’t but there isn’t anything that is taught saying its wrong. Its personal preference not considered a sin in the Protestant faith.

 

[larkin31]

Do what you need to do. I’m not being mean. I’m asking you to give proof of the question at hand. If that gets me thrown off the board then so be it.
You told me I misrepresent the Protestant view on ABC. So prove it otherwise then.

The last I knew I haven’t said anything mean or wrong to you. But you’ve called me a bigot( which I am not) and you say I misrepresent. To misrepresent means you lie. I will pray for you and hope some day that the Lord will show you the way.

Westminister Catechism:
reformed.org/documents/WSC.html

What it does seem is you get agitated being challenged. There is really no stance. Protestants either use it or they don’t but there isn’t anything that is taught saying its wrong. Its personal preference not considered a sin in the Protestant faith.

I don’t question the Westminster catechism. I questioned your sweeping condemnation of Protestantism as a collection of faiths based on “me, myself, and I.” I won’t in other ways dignify your post by quoting it further. Your reply in this regard is bigoted because you are generalizing from a misguided stereotype and a misapplication of the history of Protestantism in order to smear them all as selfish. Even your saying that you know selfish Protestants (so do I) does not justify the kind of uncharitable smear you wrote. I would never, for example, accuse Catholics of being “kowtowing robots who follow an old man.” Other bigots write this kind of thing, but I do not. I recognize and acknowledge the full spectrum of good thinking and independent-minded Catholics out there in the world.

 

[TracyR]

Just the other night I saw an episode of 19 kids and counting. I’d never seen it before. They are a Protestant couple and the mother gave birth to all 19 kids! On the episode I saw, they were asked to speak to a Protestant church where over 4,000 Protestants came to hear them speak and they said the message they wanted to get across was “Be fruitful and multiple”.

Maybe not all Protestants adhere to their believe in Artificial Birth Control after all? This couple didn’t and they were out promoting their lifestyle of a large family.

I’ve not heard about a Catholic couple with so many children. If that Protestant couple’s promotion catches on, we may become out numbered.

I doubt it will ever catch on. I love to watch 19 and counting. They are an awesome family that’s for sure.
What they participate in is the Quiverfull movement. Which is seen as ‘crazy’ by most people. So I doubt it would catch on. There are some in the Protestant faith who do not believe in using birth control. They are few and far between though. In the Protestant church I attended previously there was one other family that had 7 children. We were next in line with 4. That is the largest family I know at the current time in our area.
When I tell most people I have four daughters they look at me like I just said I had 20 kids. LOL.
I guess it just all depends on what you want as a family. I know some Catholic families that have 2.

 

[TracyR]

You know what? I went back to my posts to see where this all got started and one of my posts was a blend of of another if that makes any sense. I was responding to two different people.

So it wasn’t you who called me bigoted. It was someone else. And for that I am sorry.
I was wrong there. But I don’t misrepresent the Protestant faith. I grew up in it all my life.

Other than that I know that the Protestant faith does not preach about ABC as being any type of sin, nor does it state in the Westminister Catechism as being a sin either.
Its all of personal preferene. Its not considered a sin within the Protestant faith.

So its basically a matter of preference. Some chose to use it and some don’t. Without fear of it ever being a sin.

 

[benedictus2]

Thanks for your suggestion, I have read that post thoroughly. I still do not understand the “supposedly Christian” bit and was hoping you could answer my question directly, as it was a fair and politely posed question. Do you think that Christians who hold different views to you on ABC cannot be saved?

Thanks and God bless.

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?

 

[benedictus2]

There are Jews on this forum, who are learned in teh Law and know Hebrew.

Where are they?!

Jews who are fluent in OT Hebrew, the Law and the context are the only ones I would trust on this passage.

Give it a rest, Benedictus.

What;s the problem 1234, afraid of the Truth?

I thought so.

You could easily google the answer, you know, if you really wish to know the truth.

But heaven forbid that you should be confronted by it ! Why it will really cramp your style won’t it?

 

[benedictus2]

I added nothing to scripture that isn’t there. I quoted word for word what scripture said. Read what it says.

Oh Rev Kevin, what is happening with you, you are out and out lying.

Go back to your post and look at the text that you enclosed in quotes.

Seriously, I can’t believe you would stoop to this just so you can defend a morally unacceptable position.

I have given you the key words in bold letters, in capital letters and you still can’t see. So here it is again. " But Onan was not willing to have a child who would not be his own heir. So whenever he had intercourse wit Tamar, he spilled the semen of the ground to keep her from having a baby who would belong to his brother. But the Lord considered it a wicked thing for Onan to deny a child to his dead brother."

Key words: NOT WILLING, WOULD NOT, KEEP HER FROM, WOULD, FOR, DENY.
What did the Lord find wicked. FOR Onan to DENY a child to his dead brother.
What didn’t the Lord find wicked. The spilling of his semen.

Listen, I don’t know what sort of Bible you are reading, but the 3 kinds of Bible I cited don’t say that at all. And it is not in the original Hebrew either.

As a matter of fact, the King James Version has the most striking rendering:

So let me highlight the relevant words.

Verse 11: And the THING WHICH HE DID displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

The words you highlighted were the wrong words.

I gave you 3 different renditions of the Bible. In all of them, Onan was punished for FOR WHAT HE DID, NOT FOR WHAT HE DID NOT DO.

All you have done, is hash and re-hash your argument line someone who covers their ears and go lalalalaa, to drown out what the other was saying.

You have not addressed any of the points I raised.

Look clearly at the words and you will see it was for denying a child to his dead brother. Its clear as the nose on your face. Your putting in something that isn’t there, not me.

Oh but I have looked at the words. I did more than that, I gave you 3 different versions from 3 different Bibles.

The New King James Bible was even quite explicit. Onan was punished for THIS THING THAT HE DID. What was the THING THAT ONAN DID? **
**

You take it to the logical extreme conclusion. Something way out in left field.
I’m know where my shots will lead, its you who just can’t see the target.

No I don’t. One cannot take anything to the logical extreme because there is no such thing as a logical extreme.

You reasoning is completely devoid of logic.

And you know what? **I know that deep inside you, you know I am right too **because you have not been able to come up with one reasonable rebuttal against any of my arguments.

And that is the sad thing. You would rather twist the word of God so that you can keep doing something that you know is evil in his eyes.

 

[benedictus2]

Why not just look at Scripture for what it says in context of what it says. He ticked God off because He spilled His seed in order to to disobey a command given by God to prduce a child for his dead brother. That passage is not even complicated and has ZERO to do with contraception

Zero to do with contraception. It has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH CONTRACEPTION because Onan was contracepting. This method was even given the name Onanism.

unless one finds themselves guilty of twisting the Scripture to fit a man-made tradition that is neither affirmed nor condemned by Scripture. If your religion says not to do it, then do not do it according to your religion and vice versa; as long as the method is not murder.

Aaah yes, another relativist. If you say it is black it is black and iif someone else says it is white it is white. A whole stinking heap load of rubbish and you don’t even realize that it is rubbish. Sad.

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t question the Westminster catechism. I questioned your sweeping condemnation of Protestantism as a collection of faiths based on “me, myself, and I.” I won’t in other ways dignify your post by quoting it further. Your reply in this regard is bigoted because you are generalizing from a misguided stereotype and a misapplication of the history of Protestantism in order to smear them all as selfish. Even your saying that you know selfish Protestants (so do I) does not justify the kind of uncharitable smear you wrote. I would never, for example, accuse Catholics of being “kowtowing robots who follow an old man.” Other bigots write this kind of thing, but I do not. I recognize and acknowledge the full spectrum of good thinking and independent-minded Catholics out there in the world.

And Tracy is right. With every post you make you prove her right.

But Luther and Calvin proved her right long before you did.

 

[mark_a]

Its clear as the nose on your face. Your putting in something that isn’t there, not me.

You take it to the logical extreme conclusion. Something way out in left field.
I’m know where my shots will lead, its you who just can’t see the target.

Rev:

How did the Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox, and 400 years of Protestantism get it wrong?

Maybe you should dig a little deeper into the morals teachings of your own faith tradition. Understanding where you own faith tradition ran off the tracks, even on such no brainers as abortion, could be enlightening for you:

**
Resolution On Abortion, adopted at the SBC convention, June 1971:
. . . . . . .Be it further RESOLVED, That we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother
**

Snipped from: johnstonsarchive.net/baptist/sbcabres.html

 

[larkin31]

Rev:

How did the Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox, and 400 years of Protestantism get it wrong?

A long western neurotic tradition of over-emphasis on the spirit-body duality and the the conflation of food-sex-body purity laws in absolute terms.

And likely many many persons never swallowed the dogma even though it was disseminated.

You are not arguing that these faiths don’t ever get anything wrong, are you?

 

[Sonny69]

Zero to do with contraception. It has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH CONTRACEPTION because Onan was contracepting. This method was even given the name Onanism.

Aaah yes, another relativist. If you say it is black it is black and iif someone else says it is white it is white. A whole stinking heap load of rubbish and you don’t even realize that it is rubbish. Sad.

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, thus you are not looking at the sin, but rather the means of committing that sin. So you distract from the context of the Scripture to fit you ideology of contraception. That is very dangerous thing to do because you and I will give an account for everything we taught concerning His word.

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. I could provide a strong argument that God gave us reason to make choices that make sense. It wouldn’t make sense for two people on disability, no fault of there own, but able to conceive and to have 10 children and no possible means to provide w/out further assistence or burden on others. Would the Lord provide? He might if He so choose to. But if they went on with the attitude that we will keep having children because the Lord will continue to provide would be putting God to the test and that is a sin.

The thread topic is a misnomer in a sense because the assumption is there is a biblical context and one is asking to prove both a negative and somethng that God is silent on.

So I do not have anything to say for or against the Catholic position because it is your conviction, but don’t try to push you religious beliefs onto the word of God; that is a sin by God’s holy standard. If by doing so you cause one of His children to stumble; it would be better for a millstone to be tied around your neck and dropped into the deepest ocean than to cause one of His children to stumble based on your eisogesis. The fear of God is the begininning, only the beginning, of wisdom and understanding.

I have said enough on this topic between us and I do not mean any disrepect toward you because I see you passionate about your position and I understand that; it is what your religion teaches you. Just don’t push it on others; Jesus didn’t. May God bless you. S69

 

[mark_a]

A long western neurotic tradition of over-emphasis on the spirit-body duality and the the conflation of food-sex-body purity laws in absolute terms.

That’s way too many big words for me to decipher. Dumb it down please.

And likely many many persons never swallowed the dogma even though it was disseminated.

Including most Catholics. But what does that have to do with milking ducks?

You are not arguing that these faiths don’t ever get anything wrong, are you?

Absolutely not. You aren’t arguing that the Church’s contraception teachings are wrong because they have Jewish roots, are you?

 

[rev_kevin]

Rev:

How did the Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox, and 400 years of Protestantism get it wrong?

Maybe you should dig a little deeper into the morals teachings of your own faith tradition. Understanding where you own faith tradition ran off the tracks, even on such no brainers as abortion, could be enlightening for you:

**

Snipped from: johnstonsarchive.net/baptist/sbcabres.html**

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. Now abortion is another thing, its killing not preventing.

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

 

[rev_kevin]

Oh Rev Kevin, what is happening with you, you are out and out lying.

Go back to your post and look at the text that you enclosed in quotes.

Seriously, I can’t believe you would stoop to this just so you can defend a morally unacceptable position.

Listen, I don’t know what sort of Bible you are reading, but the 3 kinds of Bible I cited don’t say that at all. And it is not in the original Hebrew either.

As a matter of fact, the King James Version has the most striking rendering:

So let me highlight the relevant words.

Verse 11: And the THING WHICH HE DID displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

The words you highlighted were the wrong words.

I gave you 3 different renditions of the Bible. In all of them, Onan was punished for FOR WHAT HE DID, NOT FOR WHAT HE DID NOT DO.

All you have done, is hash and re-hash your argument line someone who covers their ears and go lalalalaa, to drown out what the other was saying.

You have not addressed any of the points I raised.

Oh but I have looked at the words. I did more than that, I gave you 3 different versions from 3 different Bibles.

The New King James Bible was even quite explicit. Onan was punished for THIS THING THAT HE DID. What was the THING THAT ONAN DID? **
**
No I don’t. One cannot take anything to the logical extreme because there is no such thing as a logical extreme.

You reasoning is completely devoid of logic.

And you know what? **I know that deep inside you, you know I am right too **because you have not been able to come up with one reasonable rebuttal against any of my arguments.

And that is the sad thing. You would rather twist the word of God so that you can keep doing something that you know is evil in his eyes.

You have got to be kidding me if you think me putting something in quotes to make a point is some how adding to scripture. It was put in quotes to make a point.

Lets see, what did Onan do. What he did was not give his brother a child. Thats what he did.

Well if I hash and rehash then give me something else in the Bible that backs up what you are saying. Give me something else in the Bible besides the story of Onan that would support what you are saying.

Not one thing you say. I have given you several but you don’t want to see them. You are so caught up with your belief that you refuse to see the other side. I’m not going to even touch the logic to the extreme thing, but keep in mind there are others that feel the same way.

I have looked at other Bibles also and the meaning is still the same, just in different words.

As far as the Hebrew Bible you are so caught up on, use it instead of the Bibles you say are incorrect.

 

[larkin31]

That’s way too many big words for me to decipher. Dumb it down please.

The religious fathers were too fixated on soul-body duality.

They were also fixated on OT purity rules for food, body cleansing, and sexuality.

These fixations have produced a legacy of neurotic warping of attitudes toward purity and sexuality. This warping resulted in much extremism and absolutism.

This legacy became coupled with the idea of the infallibility of church teachings (more absolutism).

Some people today still can’t get past that original mistaken absolutism.

QED

“dumb” enough this time?

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

Every protestant Christian on this thread would have taken it as a no-brainer that contraception is a sin if they lived 100 years ago. Only when modern times came about and we have the means of mass producing contraception do we suddenly decide to change the teaching on contraception. Does this not seem suspicious to anyone? Now, only now after 1900 years of Christianity and many more years of Judaism did we now FINALLY understand the act of Onan correctly. I simply don’t buy it.

We have demonstrated that ancient Judaism, The early church up to today, and the protestant reformers all understood the passage of Onan to be a condemnation of birth control. How is it that all of these millions and millions of Christians and Jews had misunderstood this passage and didn’t get it right until 1930, when contraception was more available?

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

How about C.S. Lewis? Lewis was not Catholic. In his book “Mere Christianity” he points out that the large degree of sexual promiscuity in modern times could only have come about as a result of the acceptance of birth control.

Also in his book “The Abolition of Man” he argues that contraception will be the means by which man chooses who lives and who doesn’t live, instead of God.

All of my protestant Christian friends who pursue an intellectual life hold C.S. Lewis in very high regard. For some reason he’s simply wrong on this issue.