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

[Dokimas]

FBI, I study for myself. QUOTE]​

oops: should be FYI.

 

[Dokimas]

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.

Surely not that verse. It’s not about contraception; it’s about a man refusing to father a child with the wife of his dead brother which was being disobedient to God’s law when a brother dies without an heir.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

It must be fun being a Protestant: Protestants can make the Bible say what they want it to say; mean what they want it to mean. If a passage is not to their liking, if it does not fit their argument, then they find another, there’s plenty to choose from. If it still doesn’t fit, then get another translation… Having Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland as a guide is a brilliant idea:thumbsup:

 

[Dokimas]

Bengoshi,

I commend you for your level headedness on these subjects. You’ve been kind and shown you understanding.​

Sorry you’ve been attacked and those answering you have not given you the kindness you’ve given them, to their shame.

 

[Dokimas]

It must be fun being a Protestant: Protestants can make the Bible say what they want it to say; mean what they want it to mean. If a passage is not to their liking, if it does not fit their argument, then they find another, there’s plenty to choose from. If it still doesn’t fit, then get another translation… Having Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland as a guide is a brilliant idea:thumbsup:

Time to stop being silly.

 

[Dokimas]

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

Trying to be hurtful by bringing a an analogy that is way off base. Careful, friend.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Time to stop being silly.

Dokimas, the Catholic Church welcomes you.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I wonder how many women died giving birth when their bodies weren’t able to carry another child, just to obey the RCC.

A couple of things. First; do you also wonder how many women have been told they were physically capable of carrying a child and then died carrying a child? Have you ever wondered how many women have been told that they weren’t physically capable of carrying a child and then went on to be blessed with a child?

Also there are both men and women who see this as a moral issue and they have done research, sought discernment and prayed about it. So lets not spit in their face and do a complete disservice to their position by claiming their position against using contraception is to just, “obey the RCC”. Would I be correct in thinking that a Christian who uses contraception is basically saying, “God, your will be done in my life… except in this area. I will take care of this myself”? Or is this just as under handed as your comment about those who decide not to use contraception?

Lets start showing some of that, “level headedness” and “understanding” that you complimented Bengoshi on.

God bless you

 

[bene_vale]

this is a response to the posts on the first page - sorry I won’t have a chance to read every single post so I apologize if I repeat someone.

Someone on the first page implied that the Bible did not say specifically that St. Peter would have a successor but Christ’s words “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” make it clear that he is referring to all time until the end of time - so there will be a successor to St. Peter until the end of time.

 

[Bengoshi]

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?

Yes, I do adhere to Sola Scriptura. No, there is no scriptural reference to population control nor there is any direct prohibition against artificial means of contraception. Evangelicals do not absolutely reject all forms of tradition and scientific inferences, it is just that we consider the Bible to be the ONLY infallible, inerrant, and authoritative word of God, but that doesn’t mean that tradition has no place for us. It does. It just cannot be equal or superior to Sacred Scripture.

 

[Bengoshi]

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.

Such an understanding of the verse is merely secondary and is not really what the passage intends to say using correct exegesis. However, I do agree that the reading of Scripture must be guided by the Holy Spirit whom Jesus and God the Father gave to ALL disciples (John 14:26).

 

[Bengoshi]

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.

The quote from John Chrysostom doesn’t say anything about having children. Marriage doesn’t necessarily mean that the couple has to have children. To force couples to have children just because they want to enjoy each other in sexual union is a violation of human rights and freedom. Not only that, it is also unbiblical.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

The quote from John Chrysostom doesn’t say anything about having children. Marriage doesn’t necessarily mean that the couple has to have children. To force couples to have children just because they want to enjoy each other in sexual union is a violation of human rights and freedom. Not only that, it is also unbiblical.

Here you have (at least) 2 thoughts, essentially different, and unrelated: I commend you on being very emotive. In my argument I have nothing about “forcing anyone” to do anything. There are periods in female reproductive cycle when there is less possibility of becoming pregnant. The Church suggests there is reason in this. The Church recommends a life of chastity as beneficial.

 

[Bengoshi]

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

Obviously that is different. Abortion is murder and hence prohibited by God. You cannot equate contraception to abortion for there is no union between the egg and the sperm yet. I think this should be common sense.

 

[Bengoshi]

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

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.

I think his point was to prove that the purpose of marriage is not only for procreation but as an expression of love. And by the way, I do not have a low view of marriage, in fact, it is you who may have a low view on it since you only see it as a means to propagate the species and not as an expression of love and affection between two consenting married adults. Moreover, what I glean from your post above is that you seem to be of the understanding that only men experience sexual desire. Remember, women feel that too! So it goes to say for both genders.

Lastly, science has proven that women are more desirous of sex when they are fertile than when they are not. So the Catholic Church would only limit sex between married couples who do not want to have children during the infertile times which are not as enjoyable to the woman as when she is fertile. Now that, is selfish!

 

[Bengoshi]

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!

And yet, another ad hominem attack from Catholics…

 

[Bengoshi]

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.​

Hi there! I agree with you. In fact, last month, the young wife of one of our city councillors died of childbirth. She was only 29 and quite beautiful. She was having their fourth child, the last one was only a year old. Her body wasn’t able to fully recover before getting pregnant again, so she died of complications. They were devout Roman Catholics who were pro-life. So what was the result? Death, not life. What a waste!

 

[Bengoshi]

Bengoshi,

I commend you for your level headedness on these subjects. You’ve been kind and shown you understanding.​

Sorry you’ve been attacked and those answering you have not given you the kindness you’ve given them, to their shame.

Thank you for your kind words brother! It’s like a breath of fresh air! Don’t worry, being a lwayer, I’m used to it already! Godbless you!

P.S. We have a pending bill on Reproductive Health which is very controversial here in our country due to the large and dominant Catholic population. The said bill would be the subject of my thesis/policy paper for my masters in public admistration which I am currently taking.

 

[Bengoshi]

It must be fun being a Protestant: Protestants can make the Bible say what they want it to say; mean what they want it to mean. If a passage is not to their liking, if it does not fit their argument, then they find another, there’s plenty to choose from. If it still doesn’t fit, then get another translation… Having Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland as a guide is a brilliant idea:thumbsup:

Another sarcastic ad hominem polemic by a Catholic…

 

[Bengoshi]

Here you have (at least) 2 thoughts, essentially different, and unrelated: I commend you on being very emotive. In my argument I have nothing about “forcing anyone” to do anything. There are periods in female reproductive cycle when there is less possibility of becoming pregnant. The Church suggests there is reason in this. The Church recommends a life of chastity as beneficial.

I was not being emotive. Prohibiting artificial means of contraception is tantamount to “forcing” copulating couples to be open to and careless in having babies, even though at the time, it is unwanted. See post # 710 regarding the female cycle.