Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

[mysta02]

This thread is about Protestants defending birth control. I’m not attacking the Catholic Church; I’m legitimately using real historical events (murder and blackmail, effectually) to prove a point that the Church DOES change its doctrine based on new findings.

I have broken no rules here.

Also, proselytizing (not prosletyising) is attempting to convert someone else to a particular opinion, and specifically, a religion. Since most of us are of the same religion (Christianity), I am not actively trying to convert anyone in this forum to my religion, though if a non-believer comes to Christ because of my words of truth, it doesn’t matter to me if they join your denomination, or mine. As long as they are seeking a relationship with God and learning to live his/her life as Jesus lived his, then it doesn’t matter the denomination he follows to that Way.
If you are using proselytizing to mean that I’m trying to bring someone to my opinion, then yes, and that can’t be against the rules here. The purpose of this forum as a whole is to ask questions about the Catholic faith and to discuss/debate the many tenets of it. The purpose of a discussion or a debate is to explain to others why your side makes sense (proselytizing), thus the purpose of this forum is to ask questions and proselytize. Therefore, it can’t be against the rules.

If I may, I would suggest that this thread be closed permanently, as it seems clear that anyone responding as a Protestant will be flamed and our words are meaningless to the Catholic responders…

It’s sad that Christians can’t work together toward a common goal rather than fighting (sometimes to the death [God be with Ireland]) about minor differences. We ALL believe in the One God, Jesus Christ His Son, and The Holy Spirit, and we ALL believe that we must live in as Christlike a manner as we, with God’s help, can attain.

If Catholic people want to believe in the Catholic Church’s rules, I’m ok with that. Protestantism simply offers another, equally holy way to live one’s life, and I’m happy to have found it.

 

[mysta02]

…and then please tell us who gives you the authority to correct God’s Church on theology…

God’s Church is every True Believer, every Child of God, and not specifically the Roman Catholic Church and Church Fathers. Protestant theologians are just as authoritative as theologians of the Catholic Church. We are all parts of the same religion, with differing opinions on various matters. But, ALL of the various matters are secondary to the primary beliefs of The Holy Trinity and following Christ’s example, and should not be cause for in-fighting, wars and bloodshed.

 

[samiam1611]

It has nothing to do with eliminating the possibility of children but the way in which that “eliminating of possibility” is accomplished.

I gotta hand it to you. That’s a good explanation.

Mysta02, your presence here is valuable as an alternative viewpoint. Hopefully things chill out so that you get to stick around

 

[Thoughtfulone]

As I have said before the text does not support that.
Besides, if conception was the only objective, then God could easily have made her conceive through Er.
Nope that is your interpretation that the text itself does not support. Jesus came from a sinful line because there was no other line to come from. What is so hard to understand about that?
The NT does not even hint at this. Not even remotely.
Revered has nothing to do with it. Your argument was that God did not want Jesus to come from a sinful line. Reality check. He did.
It doesn’t help your argument any because your simple argument was that God did not want Jesus to come from someone sinful and the line He came from was peppered with sinful people. So that debunks your argument.
Yes, He did. And there is nothing in the Bible that says that God wanted Him to come from a “not sinful” loin thus He struck Er dead. You are making things up and no exegete will support you on that. There is nothing in the OT and nothing in the NT that remotely hints at this.

Actually, yours is the one that is simplistic… No Church Father, no Catholic theologian will ever support your kind of reading. This is your own invention . Even geebob disagrees with you on that one.

It was a very serious sin. The Jews regarded it so and so the Church has always seen contraception as evil. Even Martin Luther and John Calvin regarded it as a very serious sin.
If you look at the original text, the word used was shakath – ruined. Onan ruined his seed.
No. That conclusion follows from your ludicrous premise. The most ludicrous ever presented on this thread.

It is only a matter of gradation.

Again, it has nothing to do with cutting him out of Jesus’ lineage. That is your fairy tale.

Not once did I say that God did not want Jesus to come from a sinful line, something you keep harping on. The Bible clearly states that Er was EVIL. There is quite a difference between sinful (as in, the average person) and Evil (as in Hitler) don’t you agree? God did not want Jesus to come from someone EVIL. It could also be looked at as a punishment for Er to be cut out of the line, or you could just see it as God being angry at Er and killing him before Tamar happened to become pregnant. I think it was probably a combination of the 3 - God was angry at Er and decided to cut him out of Jesus’ lineage as both a punishment and because He didn’t want His son to be descended from him.

A little background: The ancient rabbis saw spilling of one’s seed as wasteful (the punishment for which was a mere ritual washing), but not gravely sinful, and interpreted this passage in strictly legal terms. The early Christians saw it as gravely sinful simply because they thought that actual life was contained within the semen, hence, the early Catholic interpretation of this passage. Both of these interpretations lack any real depth or insight into the Bible as a whole, although the Hebrew interpretation would almost assuredly be the most likely of the 2…both however, remain insufficient to explain the death penalty given to Onan.

 

[copperblade]

It turns out that NFP is just as effective as the pill. In other words ABC, with the pill in particular doesn’t remove the possibility nor the probability for it when compared to NFP.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm

So why use the pill at all? Because couple may want to have sex more often than NFP permits.

Except the pill also has a tiny chance to prevent implantation when its primary method of action doesn’t work. Are Protestants really ok with that?

 

[geebob]

I didn’t know about that. I am against aborting babies. But I don’t know when personhood begins. If this is true, then perhaps the pill is immoral to use. But for that matter, considering breastfeeding causes the same effect, may also prevent implantation. So then, should all mothers use formula and skip breast feeding to prevent the failure of implantation? One could say that given God’s design, it is in his hands. But it’s not as if artificial means weren’t in his hands however. The breastfeeding NFP is even promoted by cathollics.

My point remains though even if the pill is unacceptable. I assume other methods are very comparable to NFP, thus removing the possibility for life just isn’t in sight though reducing the probability is.

Protestants are just like catholics in this regard: they are nor homogenous.

 

[benedictus2]

That’s COMPLETELY missed the point. The point is that if the Bible says that reducing the possibility of sex is sinful (which the Church says it is),

When did the Church say that reducing the possibility of sex is sinful?

than EITHER WAY of reducing (NFP or ABC) is sinful.

As I have said before, it is not the “reducing the possiblity” that is sinful but the manner by which we “reduce the possibilty” because God Himself has provided us with a way by which we can do that. He has already built infertility into the cycle of women.

Personally, I don’t think the Bible says that it is sinful.

Yes it does if done artificially

And, I plan on multiplying one day, so I will fulfill God’s plan, and can live in peace with God on that point.

Hah! So therefore you recognize that one can’t live in peace with God if one willfully refuses to procreate.

But, if your personal moral compass doesn’t let you have sex for pleasure,

Who says one is not supposed to have sex for pleasure? What we are saying is, if you are going to have sex for pleasure then you must accept the possibility of conception, should God so desire bring life out of your enjoyment.

and that every act must be fully aimed at making children, then NFP is JUST as sinful as ABC.

You really are not understanding this. Who said that every act must be fully aimed at making children? No one ever said that it should be so.

So therefore NFP is not as sinful as ABC. It is because of your misstatement and your failure to comprehend what we were saying that you came up with this conclusion.

@Everyone who calls me Pope:

I’m not the Pope, but that also doesn’t mean that I’m wrong.

Too right you’re not but you speak as if you are.

And what makes you think that you are not wrong? We have proven you wrong.

The Church spent several hundred years MURDERING people and charging money for their sins to be forgiven!!

What has that got to do with contraception?

Stay on topic please.

But for the record, the protestant reformation murdered and massacred many more people in a short time than all of the history of the Church put together.

Does that mean that they were right??? That tradition made it so?!?

Huh! Where is the logic in that statement? You are not making any sense.

Of course not! What I’m saying is that the passages Catholics are using to allow NFP and denounce ABC are being misread.

Considering that no one has been able to prove that we are misreading it, then the onus on you is to prove that it is so. So far you have not given any.

If you go back through the exchange in this thread, you will see that it is actually the pro contraception that have been misinterpreting the passages.

Neither am I infallible, nor am I arrogant.

Too right you not infallible but yes you are arrogant to think that you have the right to dictate to the Church what she should and should not do. That is arrogance considering that you do not even know the whole background to what the Church teaches.

You presume to know more than the doctors and saints and the 2000 year old tradition of Christ’s Church. That is a arrogance.

God wrote the Bible through men for people to interpret.

Correction. For His Church to interpret. The one with the authority to interpret it is the Church that Christ established.

He doesn’t give insight to a small number of people (ie: Pope, Bishops, Cardinals, etc), but to EVERYONE.

Well, use a little bit of logic. If God gives insight to everyone and everyone’s insight disagrees on a particular verse, which of these would you say, was given by God? Would God contradict Himself, telling someone that A means B, and another that A means C, and another that A means D and so forth?

And, I am part of that everyone.

And so is the Church. So which one is correct? You. All of one of you is better informed and more enlightened than the Doctors, Saints, Popes, theologians, bishops of the Church?
Just because my interpretation doesn’t fall inside the Church’s doesn’t make it wrong.

@Jharek: It is everyone’s business to steer people who have been misled toward the True path

And that is exactly what we have been trying to do for you but you insist on going down the wrong one.

I suggest you read Humanae Vitae so that you will be better informed on what you are trying to debunk.

and to attempt to make changes that have no Biblical grounding.

Yes, that is what we are trying to explain to you as well. That the changes you are trying to attempt have no Biblical grounding.

 

[benedictus2]

I didn’t know about that. I am against aborting babies…

If you are against aborting babies, what will you do should it happens that despite all your effort at contraception, your wife conceives every single time? Will you keep all of say 10 children that may come to life?

 

[jdarc]

If you are against aborting babies, what will you do should it happens that despite all your effort at contraception, your wife conceives every single time? Will you keep all of say 10 children that may come to life?

---

If you are against aborting babies
Keep your pants zipped

 

[benedictus2]

Not once did I say that God did not want Jesus to come from a sinful line, something you keep harping on. The Bible clearly states that Er was EVIL.

And as I have said before it is just a matter of gradation. Sinful and evil are the same.

There is quite a difference between sinful (as in, the average person) and Evil (as in Hitler) don’t you agree? God did not want Jesus to come from someone EVIL.

It doesn’t make a difference because the whatever EVIL Er did stemmed from the evil that Adam and Eve did. And Adam and Eve are in Jesus’ genealogy.

Besides, as I have said over and over again, this line of reasoning is not supported by the text.

It could also be looked at as a punishment for Er to be cut out of the line,

Which is just a major assumption that you are making. A fairy tale you are weaving. Neither NT not OT provides support for this.

or you could just see it as God being angry at Er and killing him before Tamar happened to become pregnant.

You could make all these conjectures but in the end they are all just assumptions that have no basis in either NT or OT.

I think it was probably a combination of the 3 - God was angry at Er and decided to cut him out of Jesus’ lineage as both a punishment and because He didn’t want His son to be descended from him.

All conjecture that has not Biblical basis.

A little background: The ancient rabbis saw spilling of one’s seed as wasteful (the punishment for which was a mere ritual washing),

And the punishment for not providing seed to your brother was just public humiliation.

Read the text. Verse 10 : **And the thing which he did **displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

What was the thing which he did? What was the things which he did before the Lord struck Him down?

but not gravely sinful,

Well according to God it is.

and interpreted this passage in strictly legal terms.

The Israelites considered contraception sinful

Go back a few pages on this thread. Someone gave the Jewish interpretation.

The early Christians saw it as gravely sinful simply because they thought that actual life was contained within the semen, hence, the early Catholic interpretation of this passage. Both of these interpretations lack any real depth or insight into the Bible as a whole, although the Hebrew interpretation would almost assuredly be the most likely of the 2…both however, remain insufficient to explain the death penalty given to Onan.

Nope. The Jews and early Christian understood it for what it is.

And by the way, it was not just the early Christians who interpreted it this way. Martin Luther and the reformers did so as well. It was only quite late, (1930) that contraception was given the okay by the Anglican Church and every Christian denomination followed suit.

But guess what, even protestant denominations are re-thinking this and are actually realizing that the Church is the only one that has held fast to the truth regarding this teaching.

 

[benedictus2]

---

If you are against aborting babies
Keep your pants zipped

 

[benedictus2]

benedictus2, I’m not sure what to make of this… mysta02 must be the first pope to demand sola scriptura!

Actually not, when you consider that in accepting the rule of private interpretation you have a few million popes running around making their pronouncements

 

[benedictus2]

This thread is about Protestants defending birth control. I’m not attacking the Catholic Church; I’m legitimately using real historical events (murder and blackmail, effectually) to prove a point that the Church DOES change its doctrine based on new findings.

No you’ve muddled the issue. And you weren’t citing real historical events because you failed to mention what historical events you were referring to. And be careful when you start throwing these things around because the Protestant reformation has a much much more bloodier history, which it seems have been conveniently hidden from the protestants.

I have broken no rules here.

No I don’t think you’ve broken any CAF rules. But plenty with regard the rules of rational thinking.

Also, proselytizing (not prosletyising) is attempting to convert someone else to a particular opinion, and specifically, a religion. Since most of us are of the same religion (Christianity), I am not actively trying to convert anyone in this forum to my religion, though if a non-believer comes to Christ because of my words of truth, it doesn’t matter to me if they join your denomination, or mine. As long as they are seeking a relationship with God and learning to live his/her life as Jesus lived his, then it doesn’t matter the denomination he follows to that Way.

And you are right again. You were not proselytizing. You were just going about in your dictator hat trying demand that the Catholic Church change her doctrines. Hey, you don’t even belong in the Catholic Church so what is it to you?

As the thread title says, just stick to defending your point of view on contraception.

So far you have not presented one single coherent argument.

Maybe you can start now.

If Catholic people want to believe in the Catholic Church’s rules, I’m ok with that. Protestantism simply offers another, equally holy way to live one’s life, and I’m happy to have found it.

A totally debatable point of view considering there are protestant denominations who teach that abortion is a-okay. Hardly a holy way to live one’s life.

 

[jdarc]

Abstinence - works every time it is tried - 100% success rate

 

[benedictus2]

God’s Church is every True Believer, every Child of God, and not specifically the Roman Catholic Church and Church Fathers.

Yes, I am sure you would like to convince yourself of that. But Christ established only one Church and it is a Church with visible unity.

Protestant theologians are just as authoritative as theologians of the Catholic Church.

You see, that’s where you got it wrong. Catholic Theologians are not authoritative. The Magisterium is but not the theologians.

We are all parts of the same religion, with differing opinions on various matters.

And there’s the catch. Which one of us is right on this “differing opinions” on the “various matters”?

But, ALL of the various matters are secondary to the primary beliefs of The Holy Trinity and following Christ’s example, and should not be cause for in-fighting, wars and bloodshed.

And The Holy Trinity happened to be something that the Catholic Church declared as doctrine.

 

[benedictus2]

It’s sad that Christians can’t work together toward a common goal rather than fighting (sometimes to the death

And I am supposed to believe the sincerity of this statement after you have just labeled the Catholic Church murderers and after you have demanded that she change her doctrine on contraception because she got it all wrong and you go it all right.

 

[jdarc]

And I am supposed to believe the sincerity of this statement after you have just labeled the Catholic Church murderers and after you have demanded that she change her doctrine on contraception because she got it all wrong and you go it all right.

The Historic Christian Teaching

Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception.
catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

 

[Thoughtfulone]

And as I have said before it is just a matter of gradation. Sinful and evil are the same.

Absolutely not true.

It doesn’t make a difference because the whatever EVIL Er did stemmed from the evil that Adam and Eve did. And Adam and Eve are in Jesus’ genealogy.

Actually at the time, not even this. This was the original Levirate marriage. The law did not exist then. There was no punishment for such because such did not exist at this time.

Read the text. Verse 10 : **And the thing which he did **

displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

Douay-Rheims says this:
[9] He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name. [10]And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

He certainly did. He specifically acted to NOT give Tamar children, a detestable thing indeed, but as we have seen above, neither ejaculating on the ground nor failing to give one’s brother children were worthy of capital punishment. So why then was Onan slain by God?

[/QUOTE]

 

[geebob]

what will you do should it happens that despite all your effort at contraception, your wife conceives every single time?

If such a thing happened I WOULD WRITE TO YOU A BIG FAT “I TOLD YOU SO.”

 

[geebob]

Thoughtful,

A little background: The ancient rabbis saw spilling of one’s seed as wasteful (the punishment for which was a mere ritual washing), but not gravely sinful, and interpreted this passage in strictly legal terms. The early Christians saw it as gravely sinful simply because they thought that actual life was contained within the semen, hence, the early Catholic interpretation of this passage. Both of these interpretations lack any real depth or insight into the Bible as a whole, although the Hebrew interpretation would almost assuredly be the most likely of the 2…both however, remain insufficient to explain the death penalty given to Onan.

Very helpful and interesting.