Protestants: please stop using the label "Bible-believing"

[erikd]

Except for this verse, I’ve never heard of a man using contraception being killed by God. Have you?

How many verses would it take to convince you? Do you think, just speaking hypothetically, that if this is the only verse that supports a view of God’s disdain for contraception, that the likelihood of this verse being a representative of that is somehow diminished by the lack of other verses? Do you think that God needs to repeat Himself to get the point across? Just wondering.

 

[Bengoshi]

Funny how you should mention the 2nd Epistle of St Peter…20 "Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. "

There should no presonal interpretation of scripture…What say the “Bible Believers” about this one? Are you Bible believers with this scripture or Bible ignorers?

That verse you quoted does not talk about how to read and interpret the Bible. Look at the context closely. It speaks of how Scripture came to be. Meaning, what were written there were not just mere inventions of man but oracles of God. As John Wesley has said: “Ye do well, as knowing this, that no scripture prophecy is of private interpretation - It is not any man’s own word. It is God, not the prophet himself, who thereby interprets things till then unknown.”

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:

“Greek, not the simple verb, to be, but to begin to be, “proves to be,” “becometh.” No prophecy is found to be the result of “private (the mere individual writer’s uninspired) interpretation” (solution), and so origination. The Greek noun epilusis, does not mean in itself origination; but that which the sacred writer could not always fully interpret, though being the speaker or writer (as 1Pe 1:10-12 implies), was plainly not of his own, but of God’s disclosure, origination, and inspiration, as Peter proceeds to add, “But holy men . spake (and afterwards wrote) . moved by the Holy Ghost”: a reason why ye should “give” all “heed” to it. The parallelism to 2Pe 1:16 shows that “private interpretation,” contrasted with “moved by the Holy Ghost,” here answers to “fables devised by (human) wisdom,” contrasted with “we were eye-witnesses of His majesty,” as attested by the “voice from God.” The words of the prophetical (and so of all) Scripture writers were not mere words of the individuals, and therefore to be interpreted by them, but of “the Holy Ghost” by whom they were “moved.” “Private” is explained, 2Pe 1:21, “by the will of man” (namely, the individual writer).”

 

[Bengoshi]

Exactly. God told them to be fruitful and multiply. Contraception is against that multiplication command. Nowhere did God say, be fruitfull and multipliy but if you feel you don’t want children then by all means, contracept.

Contraception is the supreme selfish choice to have sexual pleasure without the responsiblity that goes with. Contraception is self centred and therefore not God centred.

That is your point of view not God’s. You will not find your point of view in the Bible. Quite the contrary.

You’re right. Only an idiot would think that God commanded us to replenish the Church and no Catholic ever claimed it to be so.

True. But sex must be open to life. If the Lord God is indeed the Lord of your life, He and He alone has a say of when children will be conceived. Not you. If you do not want to have children. Don’t have sex. The natural consequence of sex if God so wills is children. Contracepting is telling God no I do not want the children that you want to give me. This is embracing the culture of death. The Bible says CHOSE LIFE.

So either the Lord is indeed the Lord of your Life or the Lord of your life is the one looking at you in the mirror.

And who are these people and what teachings are they?

For the simple reason that what Christ did was to leave us the Church. He did not leave us a book, He left us a Church. And from that Church came the Bible. You cannot divorce the Bible from the Church that Christ founded and from whom the Bible came.

“The Bible Only” is a lie of the devil because it plays on your ego. I alone will interpret, I alone will decide. This is how the devil always gets us, through our ego. This is how it got Adam and Eve. The Bible Only is Sola Ego. I / Me / Myself with a total disregard for what God willed. That is why you think contraception is okay.

Just goes to show how firmly the lie has got you in its grip.

I am just stating a fact here. And I have explained why it is so. I can go into a more detailed explanation.

Let me know if you me to explain further.

No, it is not the pot calling the kettle black. God founded His Church. His Church cannot be of the devil because He gave a solemn promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

And it is not about judging. It is calling a spade a dirty shovel.

God gave us brains to think. When God told Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply, there were only two of them in the whole world! The Earth is not getting any bigger but our population is. Check this out: worldometers.info/

The Bible did not expressly prohibit artificial contraception. The Catholic Church is narrow-minded on this issue. Povert is on the rise. Families who are very poor and that have many children are irresponsible. Just look at the poor countries in Asia!

 

[Bengoshi]

There are a great many things being done today that the people of the Old Testament would have been punished for. Just because we’re not punished in this lifetime doesn’t mean we won’t be punished in the next. The Old Testament really teaches what is and is not pleasing in the sight of God. It is up to us to obey His commands or disobey and risk the punishment of the eternal lake of fire.

As for Genesis 38, you’re absolutely right. God is addressing one specific person and punishing him for one specific act. Are you saying that others may act this way without the fear of punishment? The burden of proof would be on you to prove that philosophy.

What Onan did was detestable not because of the act of withdrawal per se, but because he disobeyed the Jewish custom that he should sire a child for his deceased brother, which was his responsibility. Sex is an expression of love between spouses and it would be totally irresponsible of parents to keep on producing children when their financial capability to raise them up is insufficient. Children are a blessing, that is true, but the parents will not be a blessing to the children if they could not provide for them. God gave us science to understand the natural world around us, and science observes that there are places on the earth that are heavily populated. So in these areas, there should be population control.

 

[Bengoshi]

Then why did you invoke scripture to support your comments about contraception
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5693932&postcount=638

I knew you would try and duck the question.

The Greek in that passage is

“touch” haptomai
definition
1) to fasten one’s self to, adhere to, cling to
a) to touch
b) of carnal intercourse with a women or cohabitation
c) of levitical practice of having no fellowship with heathen practices. Things not to be touched appear to be both women and certain kinds of food, so celibacy and abstinence of certain kinds of food and drink are recommended.
d) to touch, assail anyone
Now in context, what is Paul saying about not “touch” in this passage.

it could be

• (c) If it is in the Levitical context, i.e. if the priesthood, then celibacy is good
• (b) If it is in the unmarried context, then since sexual activity among unmarried people is fornication, which is a grievous sin, then this restriction of touch is to avoid serious sin. Obviously not a restriction meant for married life between husband and wife.

avoiding sexual Immorality is the context. Enough said…

Note: In the priestly gift, mentioned above, it is perfectly appropriate to remain celibate.

There is NOTHING here that talks of contraception. Why are you trying to make it so?

No, it is about avoiding sexual misconduct.

Try again

Again, the passages does not speak of contraception. Yes, it is for avoiding sexual misconduct because if one is to marry then haveing sex with one’s spouse is no longer considered sexual misconduct. So Paul says that if you really can’t restrain yourself from having sex, then might as well get married so you can have all the sex you want with your spouse! Nowhere did it mention anything about the need to be open to having children. For as long as the couple is married, then they can have all the consensual sex that they want with each other. It DOES NOT promote a culture of death because nobody is dying in the first place! Such arguments from the RCC is non sequitur.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Again, the passages does not speak of contraception. Yes, it is for avoiding sexual misconduct because if one is to marry then haveing sex with one’s spouse is no longer considered sexual misconduct. So Paul says that if you really can’t restrain yourself from having sex, then might as well get married so you can have all the sex you want with your spouse! Nowhere did it mention anything about the need to be open to having children. For as long as the couple is married, then they can have all the consensual sex that they want with each other. It DOES NOT promote a culture of death because nobody is dying in the first place! Such arguments from the RCC is non sequitur.

Hopefully you could phrase your comment a lot better…surely what you have written is not what you intend. It reads hedonistic / narcisistic ego-driven rhetoric (“might as well get married so you can have all the sex you want with your spouse!”)
The sacrament of marriage is a communal activity, a societal event.
What is dying if the couple fail to consider being part of society in the marriage’s consummation through sex is “the need to belong.” This IS a promotion of the cult of death. Giving life or the possibility of life is life-affirming.

 

[mmmcounts]

The Bible establishes Peter as the head of the true Church.

No it doesn’t. Even if you persist in believing Matthew 16 establishes him in this position, it’s pretty obvious that he neither possessed nor wielded any such authority during his life. So are you making Jesus out to be a liar, or are you saying He was really slow?

The Popes are the modern-day Peters.

Wrong. The Popes of the modern day are guys who wear funny costumes and live in a tiny Catholic city-nation where close to 100% of the inhabitants think they’re standing in place of Christ himself. Peter, in comparison to Paul and Apollos, was almost an afterthought- though he was named as one of three pillars of the Church. He was a missionary to a variety of places where no one knew who Jesus was and many were hostile to him. He was finally killed in Rome at a point in time where Christianity was illegal there. If you are going to compare anyone to Peter from our modern day, any Pope should be pretty far down the list. The Rome of Peter’s day was the China of today, and you could make a pretty good argument for Brother Yun (aka Liu Zhenying) as the best candidate for the Peter of our day.

Please explain how you can deny this truth and still say you are “Bible-believing”.

I just did, but you won’t accept it because you’re a disingenuous sort of person who asks questions, pretends he wants answers, and then refuses to listen to them. I hope that’s working out for you. I doubt it, though, because your attitude is causing me to assess you as a person who isn’t worthy of a second glance or a completely serious answer.

 

[benedictus2]

God gave us brains to think. When God told Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply, there were only two of them in the whole world! The Earth is not getting any bigger but our population is. Check this out: worldometers.info/

And God who is omniscient already knew what will happen and yet He did not put any qualifiers on the command. In the Bible children as seen as God’s gift not an inconvenience.

Contraception is evil and self-centred and people want to use poverty as an excuse so they can commit sin and feel good about it. It is not about having brains to think. If you really want to not have children, abstain from sex. But no, you want to have your cake and eat it to.

Yes, you have certainly bought the lies that the father of lies have been peddling on this world.

So either the Lord is the Lord of Begoshi’s life or Bengoshi is the Lord of Bengoshi’s life

The Bible did not expressly prohibit artificial contraception.

Yes it does.

BIBLICAL BASIS:
God is Sovereign in birth. He opens & shuts the womb; He blesses with children. (The following verses are NOT an exhaustive list.)
http://home.att.net/~nathan.wilson/Bullet6.gif It is GOD Who opens and shuts the womb: Genesis 20:17-18; 29:31-33; 30:1-2,6,17-18, 20, 22, 23; I Samuel 1:6, 11, 19, 20;
http://home.att.net/~nathan.wilson/Bullet6.gif God helps and participates in the process of bringing forth children: Genesis 4:1, 25; 21:1-2; Ruth 4:13; I Samuel 2:20-21; Psalm 139:13, 16; Luke 1:21-25, 57-58
http://home.att.net/~nathan.wilson/Bullet6.gif Procreation is part of God’s design and was commanded by God at the creation: Gen. 1:27-28
http://home.att.net/~nathan.wilson/Bullet6.gif God multiplies children: Genesis 16:10; 17: 2,20; 22:17; 26:4, 24; 28:3; 41:52; 48:4; Exodus 32:13; Deuteronomy 1:10,11; 28:63; 30:5, Joshua 24:3; I Chronicles 27: 23; Psalm 105:24; 107:38; Isaiah 26:15; 51:2; Jeremiah 30: 19; 33:22; Ezra 36:10-11, 37; 37:26

(from this website http://home.att.net/~nathan.wilson/brthcntl.htm which is very much worth a visit)

The Catholic Church is narrow-minded on this issue.

Nope, on the contrary, the Catholic Church is the only one who has upheld the Word of God on this issue. Prior to the 1930 Lambeth Conference, every single Christian denomination considered conctraception sinful. Now why would something that has been considered sinful for 2000 years be all of a sudden be permissible.

Only becuase people have become self-centred not God centred.

Povert is on the rise. Families who are very poor and that have many children are irresponsible. Just look at the poor countries in Asia!

What a lousy defense. Poverty is on the rise because of GREED. Because people who have will not share with those who have not.

Sorry but all you are doing is rationalizing your sin away.

 

[benedictus2]

Again, the passages does not speak of contraception. Yes, it is for avoiding sexual misconduct because if one is to marry then haveing sex with one’s spouse is no longer considered sexual misconduct. So Paul says that if you really can’t restrain yourself from having sex, then might as well get married so you can have all the sex you want with your spouse!

Sick. Kevin is right. You are hedonistic. Me, me, me that is what you are about.

Nowhere did it mention anything about the need to be open to having children. For as long as the couple is married, then they can have all the consensual sex that they want with each other.

Yes and the outcome of sex is children. If you do not want children. Don’t have sex.

It DOES NOT promote a culture of death because nobody is dying in the first place! Such arguments from the RCC is non sequitur.

Yes it does because all you are concerned about is your own pleasure. As I have said above, sick.

 

[Hater_free]

“Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that comes from human thinking and from the spiritual powers* of this world,rather than from Christ.For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body.*So you also are complete through your union with Christ,who is the head over every ruler and authority.” {Colossians 2:8-10}

"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi,he asked his disciples,“Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”* “Well,” they replied,“some say John the Baptist,some say Elijah,and some say Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.” Then he asked them,“But who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered,“You are the Messiah,the Son of the living God." Jesus replied,"You are blessed,Simon son of John, because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you.You did not learn this from any human being.Now I say to you that you are Peter(which means ‘rock’),* and upon this rock I will build my church,and all the powers of hell* will not conquer it.And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.Whatever you forbid* on earth will be forbidden in heaven,and whatever you permit* on earth will be permited in heaven.” {Matthew 16:13-19}

“Then I witnessed in heaven an event of great significance.I saw a woman clothed with the sun,with the moon beneath her feet,and a crown of twelve stars on her head.She was pregnant,and she cried out because of her labor pains and the agony of giving birth.She gave birth to a son who was to rule all nations with an iron rod.And her child was snatched away from the dragon and was caught up to God and to his throne.When the dragon realized that he had been thrown down to the earth,he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child.And the dragon was angry at the woman and declared war against the rest of her children-all who keep God’s commandments and maintain their testimony for Jesus.” {Revelation 12:1-2,5,13,17}

"But if an angel from heaven appears-a special messenger to intercede for a person and declare that he is upright-he will be gracious and say,‘Rescue him from the grave,for I have found a ransom for his life.’ " {Job 33:23-24}

“Don’t you realize that all of you together are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God lives in* you?God will destroy anyone who destroys this temple.For God’s temple is holy,and you are that temple.Stop deceiving yourselves.If you think you are wise by this world’s standards,you need to become a fool to be truly wise.For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God.As the scriptures say,“He traps the wise in the snare of their own cleverness.”*And again,“The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise;he knows they are worthless.”*So don’t boast about following a particular human leader.For everything belongs to you-whether Paul or Apollos or Peter,*or the world,or life and death,or the present and future.Everything belongs to you,and you belong to Christ,and Christ belongs to God.” {1 Corinthians 3:16-23}

“In view of all this,make every effort to respond to God’s promises.Supplement your faith with a generous provision of moral excellence,and moral excellence with knowledge,and knowledge with self- control,and self control with patient endurance,and patient endurance with godliness,and godliness with brotherly affection,and brotherly affection with love for everyone.” {2 Peter 1:5-7}

“May God,who gives this patience and encouragement,help you live in complete harmony with each other,as is fitting for followers of Christ Jesus.Then all of you can join together with one voice,giving praise and glory to God,the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.Therefore,accept each other just as Christ has accepted you so that God will be given glory.” {Romans 15:5-7}

Hope this clears things up. God bless and love & peace to all!!!:grouphug:

 

[Bengoshi]

Sick. Kevin is right. You are hedonistic. Me, me, me that is what you are about.

Yes and the outcome of sex is children. If you do not want children. Don’t have sex.

Yes it does because all you are concerned about is your own pleasure. As I have said above, sick.

No, it is not sick at all. That is in effect what the Apostle Paul was saying. Don’t be hypocritical about it. Sex between married couples can be considered as a two-person worship service (Joshua Harris). Most people see sex as something sick and dirty because our society has corrupted its meaning. There is absolutely nothing immoral, taboo, or wrong with sex between two married individuals (married to each other of course)! Sex within marriage is 100% godly! God invented sex! It is a God-given gift for us to enjoy. Yes, we cooperate in God’s creative act but that does not mean that we should be forced into having children just because we want to enjoy sex with our spouse. God gave us the ability to exercise our wills within certain parameters, and where the Scripture is silent, it means that we have ample freedom in that area.

You said it right, only the Roman Catholic Church is against artificial contraception, and that is because it is narrow-minded and stganted in its thinking. What is the logical and essential difference between NFP and artificial means of contraception? There is essentially none! Couples can still have sex without procreating when they practice NFP. The only difference is the means employed, but the end is the same: To be able to enjoy sex without the possibility of getting pregnant.

 

[erikd]

What Onan did was detestable not because of the act of withdrawal per se, but because he disobeyed the Jewish custom that he should sire a child for his deceased brother, which was his responsibility. Sex is an expression of love between spouses and it would be totally irresponsible of parents to keep on producing children when their financial capability to raise them up is insufficient. Children are a blessing, that is true, but the parents will not be a blessing to the children if they could not provide for them. God gave us science to understand the natural world around us, and science observes that there are places on the earth that are heavily populated. So in these areas, there should be population control.

I see your description says that you’re an Evangelical Christian. That would mean that, forgive me for being so presumptious, you more than likely believe in Sola Scriptura. If that’s so, than can you point me to the verses in the Bible which speak of population control for the sake of population control? In other words can you give me Biblical evidence that your interpretation is correct when stacked up to the Bible?

 

[greggy53]

That verse you quoted does not talk about how to read and interpret the Bible. Look at the context closely. It speaks of how Scripture came to be. Meaning, what were written there were not just mere inventions of man but oracles of God. As John Wesley has said: “Ye do well, as knowing this, that no scripture prophecy is of private interpretation - It is not any man’s own word. It is God, not the prophet himself, who thereby interprets things till then unknown.”

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:

“Greek, not the simple verb, to be, but to begin to be, “proves to be,” “becometh.” No prophecy is found to be the result of “private (the mere individual writer’s uninspired) interpretation” (solution), and so origination. The Greek noun epilusis, does not mean in itself origination; but that which the sacred writer could not always fully interpret, though being the speaker or writer (as 1Pe 1:10-12 implies), was plainly not of his own, but of God’s disclosure, origination, and inspiration, as Peter proceeds to add, “But holy men . spake (and afterwards wrote) . moved by the Holy Ghost”: a reason why ye should “give” all “heed” to it. The parallelism to 2Pe 1:16 shows that “private interpretation,” contrasted with “moved by the Holy Ghost,” here answers to “fables devised by (human) wisdom,” contrasted with “we were eye-witnesses of His majesty,” as attested by the “voice from God.” The words of the prophetical (and so of all) Scripture writers were not mere words of the individuals, and therefore to be interpreted by them, but of “the Holy Ghost” by whom they were “moved.” “Private” is explained, 2Pe 1:21, “by the will of man” (namely, the individual writer).”

Commentary from Douay-Rheims Bible concerning 2nd Peter verse 20:

20 “No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation”… This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

No, it is not sick at all. That is in effect what the Apostle Paul was saying. Don’t be hypocritical about it. Sex between married couples can be considered as a two-person worship service (Joshua Harris). Most people see sex as something sick and dirty because our society has corrupted its meaning. There is absolutely nothing immoral, taboo, or wrong with sex between two married individuals (married to each other of course)! Sex within marriage is 100% godly! God invented sex! It is a God-given gift for us to enjoy. Yes, we cooperate in God’s creative act but that does not mean that we should be forced into having children just because we want to enjoy sex with our spouse. God gave us the ability to exercise our wills within certain parameters, and where the Scripture is silent, it means that we have ample freedom in that area.

You said it right, only the Roman Catholic Church is against artificial contraception, and that is because it is narrow-minded and stganted in its thinking. What is the logical and essential difference between NFP and artificial means of contraception? There is essentially none! Couples can still have sex without procreating when they practice NFP. The only difference is the means employed, but the end is the same: To be able to enjoy sex without the possibility of getting pregnant.

St John Chrysostom suggests that ‘young husbands should say to their wives: I have taken you in my arms, and I love you, and I prefer you to my life itself. For the present life is nothing, and my most ardent dream is to spend it with you in such a way that we may be assured of not being separated in the life reserved for us…I place your love above all things, and nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you’ *(St John Chrysostom, Hom. on Eph 20: 8) *
The Catholic Church which is on the side of life teaches that it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life; love and communion.
The Catholic Church sees marriage as a call to give life, sharing in the Love of God the Creator.

 

[greggy53]

God gave us science to understand the natural world around us, and science observes that there are places on the earth that are heavily populated. So in these areas, there should be population control.

Yes, Hitler thought so as well. He recommended abortions for the women of the “lesser breeds”

 

[steve_b]

Again, the passages does not speak of contraception. Yes, it is for avoiding sexual misconduct because if one is to marry then haveing sex with one’s spouse is no longer considered sexual misconduct.

Therefore that passage Dokimas used was totally inappropriate to use for a defense of contraception. Which was my point.

Ben:

So Paul says that if you really can’t restrain yourself from having sex, then might as well get married so you can have all the sex you want with your spouse! Nowhere did it mention anything about the need to be open to having children. For as long as the couple is married, then they can have all the consensual sex that they want with each other. It DOES NOT promote a culture of death because nobody is dying in the first place! Such arguments from the RCC is non sequitur.

I Can’t believe what a low view of the sacrament of marriage you have. And what does it say for your opinion of a wife.

You don’t understand at all what Paul is saying.

AND…Dokimas has still not answered the question.

 

[jake23]

I’ve never seen anything about contraception one way or the other. Your turn. Please tell us the verses where contraception is prohibited.​

You have an attitude because you asked me not to duck the question?

1 Corinthians 7:
1 ¶ Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.
8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am;
9 but if they cannot exercise self–control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.​

Before I ask you to interpret these verses for us, let me observe the reason Paul gives for marriage: needing sex (not to have children!!!1).

The church and its teachings existed before the Bible and the churches teachings are needed today! none of the holy churches teachings which is from Christ do not contradict the Bible! You just dont know how to read the Bible! Your writings show you have a great lack of education! stay out of the little bible studies from your protestant church and get a real education!

 

[Dokimas]

Then why did you invoke scripture to support your comments about contraception
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5693932&postcount=638

I knew you would try and duck the question.

The Greek in that passage is

“touch” haptomai
definition
1) to fasten one’s self to, adhere to, cling to
a) to touch
b) of carnal intercourse with a women or cohabitation
c) of levitical practice of having no fellowship with heathen practices. Things not to be touched appear to be both women and certain kinds of food, so celibacy and abstinence of certain kinds of food and drink are recommended.
d) to touch, assail anyone
Now in context, what is Paul saying about not “touch” in this passage.

it could be

• (c) If it is in the Levitical context, i.e. if the priesthood, then celibacy is good
• (b) If it is in the unmarried context, then since sexual activity among unmarried people is fornication, which is a grievous sin, then this restriction of touch is to avoid serious sin. Obviously not a restriction meant for married life between husband and wife.

avoiding sexual Immorality is the context. Enough said…

Note: In the priestly gift, mentioned above, it is perfectly appropriate to remain celibate.

There is NOTHING here that talks of contraception. Why are you trying to make it so?

No, it is about avoiding sexual misconduct.

Try again

Is it difficult for someone as brilliant as you obviously are to communicate with someone as mentally challenged as I am?​

I believe you asked me to show you where the Bible speaks of contraception. I said it doesn’t. I said please show me where the Bible says it’s wrong. You said I ducked the question. I’m confused. Looks like I answered it. Now it’s your turn to prove me wrong. Remember, you’re the smart one here.​

Levites weren’t celebate, were they? If you think so, please provide Scripture referenses.​

The only way to avoid sexual immorality is to keep it inside marriage. My point was to show that sex is for oneness in marriage, even more than having children.​

Too bad the RCC misunderstood Paul. Paul would have let the church leaders have wives. If the RCC understood Paul’s teaching (inspired by the Holy Spirt) maybe there’d be less sexual problems in the priesthood. Maybe not, sinners are sinner and there are struggles with immorality in Protestant churches from time to time.​

Speaking of Paul’s teaching, he made it clear that church leaders (pastors and bishops) could have spouses (only one wife). He taught that through his letters to Timothy and Titus.​

I’m awaiting your verses against contraception.

 

[Dokimas]

The church and its teachings existed before the Bible and the churches teachings are needed today! none of the holy churches teachings which is from Christ do not contradict the Bible! You just dont know how to read the Bible! Your writings show you have a great lack of education! stay out of the little bible studies from your protestant church and get a real education!

FBI, I study for myself. What I believe I’ve studied for myself. Much of what I was taught I’ve found to be sound. Some of what I’ve been taught I now think differently. In short, the answers or comments I make here are my own uneducated comments, not anyone elses teachings.​

BTW, I hope you’re not trying to win me to the RCC church. Observing your ‘better than you’ attitude won’t win me. Rightly dividing the Word of God with humility has a better chance of winning me than your present tactic.

 

[Dokimas]

I’m not sure how you can say that. If the angel Gabriel said that to all women, we’d have a lot of Jesus’ walking the earth. I guess I’m missing your point. The example I gave was that of someone doing something against God’s will and being punished for it. That person, in particular, did something particularly wrong in the eyes of God, and he was therefore punished. If someone else did it, the consequences would probably be similar, though they could be expressed differently. Not all people who sin are punished immediately, some are punished at their particular judgement. Do you feel this is incorrect? As far as the punishment relating to more people other than the one being spoken of in the particular passage, the offense is just as bad for one man as it is for another. Granted, exceptions can and have been made, i.e. King David. However, for the most part, these stories illustrate the disdain God has for certain actions and the possible consequences of those actions. Also, I am not generalizing the fact that all people will be punished equally for equal offenses, because I don’t believe they will. I believe that God looks at each individual and his / her actions throughout their life and bases His judgement of that person on the whole life of that person. Therefore, if you commit the sin that the person in question committed, but you lived an absolutely holy life otherwise, God would look at the entire package of events that make up your whole life and base His judgement on everything. Hope that answers your question.​

The Old Testament is full of stories of people being punished for their sins. Sodom and Gomorrah were two cities full of inhabitants who were killed for the unjust ways (Genesis 19:24-25). In the New Testament all of the Catholic Inspired Writers tell us that we should avoid sin at all cost, as it is not pleasing in the Eyes of the Lord.​

I think you and I agree wholeheartedly on this.

Yes people are punished for sin. My point was that I don’t see anyone else in the Bible being punished for ‘contraception’.​

My point was that if a specific thing is said to one person and you say it’s to everyone, then why wasn’t what the angel said to Mary for every woman? If I read the verses correctly, God killed the man for being disobedient. Remember Moses did not enter the Promise Land because of being disobedient. What he did wasn’t bad in and of itself; it was disobedient.​

Back to the Gen 38 verses you use for contraception; the context is that a brother had died leaving his wife to his living brother. God’s rule was for the man to have a child with the wife of
brother so the child can be heir to the dead man’s stuff. Onan refused. The story isn’t about contraception at all but about not producing an heir for his brother – that was what Onan was diobedient about.​

To build a doctrine against contraception on the one verse that’s not even about contraception is dangerous. I wonder how many women died giving birth when their bodies weren’t able to carry another child, just to obey the RCC.​