Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

[rev_kevin]

Thanks for the link.

The link is problematic for me though, because as I moved backwards through the links, I see that the websites are sponsored by abortion facilities. The linking of the doctrines of papal infallibility and Immaculate Conception with the issue of life beginning at conception sure seem to put a dividing line between Catholicism and Protestantism on these issues. The jab at Priests for life arouses my suspicion also.

All in all, the website takes the “Nancy Pelosi” position to the “is abortion evil?” question by answering with “we don’t know when life begins.”

“If we fail to uphold life from the moment of conception to natural death, then the rest of our pro-life stance lacks intergrity.” -Archbishop-elect Peter Sartain.

Yes I understand the Catholic possition on contraception. But you know where I stand on when life begins. For the record I am against abortion.

 

[mark_a]

Yes I understand the Catholic possition on contraception. But you know where I stand on when life begins. For the record I am against abortion.

Thanks Rev Kev.

And can you see that, even if you disagree with our logic, the Catholic point of view that taking pills that cause a failure of implantation of a fertilized egg such as morning-after pills and even daily hormonal contraceptives, is against God’s design for our lives and the lives we in cooperation with God are creating?

I guess we’ve beat this thread to death.

Best wishes to you.

 

[rev_kevin]

Thanks Rev Kev.

And can you see that, even if you disagree with our logic, the Catholic point of view that taking pills that cause a failure of implantation of a fertilized egg such as morning-after pills and even daily hormonal contraceptives, is against God’s design for our lives and the lives we in cooperation with God are creating?

I guess we’ve beat this thread to death.

Best wishes to you.

Just because I see your point of view don’t mean that I necessarly agree with it. I understand your stance on it as well as I hope you understand my stance on it.

Ya your right we have beaten this thread to death

God bless you.

 

[BlueShadow123]

It would have been nice if the bible actually said something about this.

Like ‘thou shalt not use birth control’. He could of laid it out as if it was a prophecy so that the people back then would understand.

 

[rev_kevin]

It would have been nice if the bible actually said something about this.

Like ‘thou shalt not use birth control’.

Ya your are correct. But it don’t, So its up to us to decide if it is right or wrong, and I know everyone here knows what I think.

 

[BlueShadow123]

Ya your are correct. But it don’t, So its up to us to decide if it is right or wrong, and I know everyone here knows what I think.

From what I remember you see nothing wrong with it. Neither do I. I think Its called being responsible if you don’t want a kid.

and yes, I already know exactly what the catholics think of it.

 

[benedictus2]

From what I remember you see nothing wrong with it. Neither do I. I think Its called being responsible if you don’t want a kid.

and yes, I already know exactly what the catholics think of it.

No it’s called disobeying God if you do not want a kid. Say No to God if your do not want a kid.

It’s “I am God” if you do not want a kid.

Fancy saying it is a responsible thing to go against God’s will. If such is the case, then I think irresponsibility is a good option.

Aaah the hegemony of the Self. It’s not as blissful as you may think.

 

[benedictus2]

It would have been nice if the bible actually said something about this.

Like ‘thou shalt not use birth control’. He could of laid it out as if it was a prophecy so that the people back then would understand.

It does. We have written so much about it. But you prefer to wear eye patches so you won’t see them.

 

[rev_kevin]

It does. We have written so much about it. But you prefer to wear eye patches so you won’t see them.

Where is it in the Bible other than Onan and be fruitful and multiply because these do not have to do with contraception.

 

[benedictus2]

Where is it in the Bible other than Onan and be fruitful and multiply because these do not have to do with contraception.

Why do you need “other than”? Both are very clear.

Does it have to be written several times to be so? The Bible says so. Should that not be enough?

I think you know deep in your soul that we are right.

So I leave you to sort that out with God whether you want to keep saying no to him because of the primacy of your self or whether perhaps you will finally say yes to Him and surrender that part ( that creative part of your self) to Him and His Will. As I said before. God will never be outdone in generosity.

That’s all I have to say on the matter. So ciao.

 

[rev_kevin]

Why do you need “other than”? Both are very clear.

Does it have to be written several times to be so? The Bible says so. Should that not be enough?

As I stated they don’t have anything to do with contraception. Can you give othere examples?

 

[Irish_Polock]

It would have been nice if the bible actually said something about this.

Like ‘thou shalt not use birth control’. He could of laid it out as if it was a prophecy so that the people back then would understand.

The Catholic position is taken from Sacred Scripture, now I realize there is there is no reference to any particular form of birth control, but there are several verses that speak of "any use of the marriage act, in the exercise of which it is designedly deprived of it natural power of procreating life, infringes on the law of God and of nature, and those who have committed any such act are stained with the guilt of serious sin. (casti-connubii)

One of the more detailed teachings against contraception comes from the encyclical Costi Connubii, written by Pius XI in 1930.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

 

[rev_kevin]

The Catholic position is taken from Sacred Scripture, now I realize there is there is no reference to any particular form of birth control, but there are several verses that speak of "any use of the marriage act, in the exercise of which it is designedly deprived of it natural power of procreating life, infringes on the law of God and of nature, and those who have committed any such act are stained with the guilt of serious sin. (casti-connubii)

One of the more detailed teachings against contraception comes from the encyclical Costi Connubii, written by Pius XI in 1930.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

Show Scripture please.

 

[benedictus2]

As I stated they don’t have anything to do with contraception. Can you give othere examples?

You know they do. Or else you would have been able to debunk my arguments instead of using a faulty Bible and just saying the same thing over and over again.

**I know that you know deep in your soul that they do.

But as I said before, I leave you to sort that out with God: whether to obey or disobey Him.
**

 

[rev_kevin]

You know they do. Or else you would have been able to debunk my arguments instead of using a faulty Bible and just saying the same thing over and over again.

**I know that you know deep in your soul that they do.

But as I said before, I leave you to sort that out with God: whether to obey or disobey Him.
**

Oh so you can’t. And you have not debunked anything and I’m not using a “faulty” Bible. Besides you are saying the same thing over and over again but you won’t answer the question.

 

[benedictus2]

Oh so you can’t. And you have not debunked anything and I’m not using a “faulty” Bible. Besides you are saying the same thing over and over again but you won’t answer the question.

Nope. NOT I can’t because I already have.

Yes, I have debunked your arguments.

Yes, you are using a faulty Bible. If not, why don’t you use the translation that most protestants use and use the King James Bible.

By the way, what is the name of the Bible you use?

Also, if you really are sure of your defense then refute my posts instead of just quoting the from your faulty Bible over and over again.

Explain why God punished Onan with death instead of a public shaming.

Explain why Onan was punished for the thing HE DID and NOT for the thing HE DID NOT DO.

Balls in your court.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Show Scripture please.

Alright, understood in the context of which it was written 1 Co. 7:4-5, would be an example. It reads:

4 For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. (1Corinthians (RSV) 7)

Do you remember the story of Onan? It reads:

6 And Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name was Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah’s first-born, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. 8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. 10 And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also. (Genesis (RSV) 38)

 

[rev_kevin]

Nope. NOT I can’t because I already have.

Yes, I have debunked your arguments.

Yes, you are using a faulty Bible. If not, why don’t you use the translation that most protestants use and use the King James Bible.

By the way, what is the name of the Bible you use?

Also, if you really are sure of your defense then refute my posts instead of just quoting the from your faulty Bible over and over again.

Explain why God punished Onan with death instead of a public shaming.

Explain why Onan was punished for the thing HE DID and NOT for the thing HE DID NOT DO.

Balls in your court.

I use different Bibles, I use the King James, NIV, Life application study Bible new living translation, The complete Bible that has more books in it then the Catholic Bible.
I don’t like all the the’s and thou’s I like plane words.

Onan was not put to death because he spilled his semen, He was put to death because he would not give his dead brother a child.
The complete Bible version: 10) What he did was sos displeasing to the Lord that he killed him too.
Life application study Bible: 10) But the Lord considered it a wicked thing for Onan to deny a child who would belong to his brother.
King James: 10) And the thing which he did displeased the Lord. wherefore he slew him also.
NIV: 10) But the Lord considered it evil for Onan to deny a child to his dead brother.
Seems they are all saying the same thing. Onan was killed because he denied a child to his dead brother. Now they all speak of giving a child to his dead brother. Both verses speak of denying a child, only once is it mentioned about him spilling his seed.
3 times it is mentioned about him denying a child but only once does it mention him spilling his seed. The think the Lord found wicked was him denying a child to his dead brother.
In the King James Bible under the Biblical Cyclopedic index: Onan- strong. Second son of Judah: slain for failure to consummaet union…Gen. 38:8-10
Well like I said before. God is not bound by man made law or by mosaic law. Now Tamar did not have time to publicly humiliate him by pulling off his sandles because God had killed him before that.

Onan was killed for not following instructions. Onan was not killed for the thing he did. He was killed for the thing he did not do. And that was to give his dead brother a child to be his heir. Its very plain that is why he was killed. Not because he spilled his semen on the ground.
Onan was killed because he refused to filfull his obligation to his brother and to Tamar.

 

[rev_kevin]

Alright, understood in the context of which it was written 1 Co. 7:4-5, would be an example. It reads:

4 For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. (1Corinthians (RSV) 7)

Do you remember the story of Onan? It reads:

6 And Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name was Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah’s first-born, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. 8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. 10 And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also. (Genesis (RSV) 38)

1 cor. 7:4-5 Spiritually our bodies belong to God when we become Christians because Jesus Christ bought us by paying the price to release us from sin. Physically our bodies belong to our spouses because God designed marriage so that , through the unino of husband and wife, the two become one. Paul stressed complete equality in sexual relationships. Sexual temptations are difficult to withstand because they appeal tothe normal desires that God has given us. Marriage provides God’s way to satisfy these natural sexual desires and to strengthen the partners against tempetation. Married couples have the responsibility to care for each other, therefore husbands and wives should not withhold themselves sexually from one another but should fulfill each other’s needss and desires.

Onan was killed because he did not fulfill his obligation by giving his dead brother a child and for not fulfilling his obligation to Tamar.

 

[benedictus2]

I use different Bibles, I use the King James, NIV, Life application study Bible new living translation, The complete Bible that has more books in it then the Catholic Bible.
I don’t like all the the’s and thou’s I like plane words.

Onan was not put to death because he spilled his semen, He was put to death because he would not give his dead brother a child.
The complete Bible version: 10) What he did was sos displeasing to the Lord that he killed him too.
Life application study Bible: 10) But the Lord considered it a wicked thing for Onan to deny a child who would belong to his brother.
King James: 10) And the thing which he did displeased the Lord. wherefore he slew him also.
NIV: 10) But the Lord considered it evil for Onan to deny a child to his dead brother.
Seems they are all saying the same thing. Onan was killed because he denied a child to his dead brother. Now they all speak of giving a child to his dead brother. Both verses speak of denying a child, only once is it mentioned about him spilling his seed.
3 times it is mentioned about him denying a child but only once does it mention him spilling his seed. The think the Lord found wicked was him denying a child to his dead brother.
In the King James Bible under the Biblical Cyclopedic index: Onan- strong. Second son of Judah: slain for failure to consummaet union…Gen. 38:8-10
Well like I said before. God is not bound by man made law or by mosaic law. Now Tamar did not have time to publicly humiliate him by pulling off his sandles because God had killed him before that.

But Rev Kevin, that is just a re-hash of what you had already written before.

That does not explain WHY God killed Onan when His own prescription for dealing with not giving your brother a son is public shaming.

You wrote a long post that did not answer my question. Why?

Onan was killed for not following instructions. **Onan was not killed for the thing he did. **

**
Sorry but you are very wrong. The King James Bible is very clear. It said **"WHAT HE DID was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also"

He was killed for the thing he did not do.

No he was not.

Here it is again. "WHAT HE DID was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also"

I hope that your next post will finally answer that.

You have made so many posts in reply to my question and still you have failed to answer my question.