Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Washington Post on the evil of contraception
The Washington Post | March 22, 1931 | Editors

Posted on 10/23/2010 1:50:52 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM

Until the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930 no Christian denomination had ever said that contraception could ever be objectively right. The Washington Post, in an editorial on March 22, 1931, said of the Federal Council of Churches' endorsement of Lambeth:

“It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of or suppression of human life. The Church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the ‘ scientific’ production of human souls.

Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report, if carried into effect, would sound the death knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be ‘ careful and restrained’ is preposterous.”



TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: 1930; 1931; abortion; abortions; birthcontrol; calvin; contraception; family; fornication; homosexualagenda; johncalvin; lambeth; lambethconference; luther; margaretsanger; martinluther; moralabsolutes; prolife; sexpositiveagenda; washingtonpost
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-197 next last
To: verdugo
What they call Judaism today is like Protestantism, all divided, no hierarchy, no creeds, no priesthood lineage.

This is an apple.

The only faith in the world with lineage of priesthood, and unity of hierarchy, and continously kept creeds, doctrines, and history, is the Catholic Church".

This is an orange. (Assuming this is even true)

Wanna see what it might look like if you compared apples to apples?

What they call Judaism today is like Protestantism, all divided, no hierarchy, no creeds, no priesthood lineage.

This is an apple.

What they call Christianity today is like Judaism, all divided, no hierarchy, differing creeds, no priesthood lineage.

This is apple.

You're right. We are on different pages. I believe in logical integrity, and you (who I will remind you, writes for Catholics), are willing to forego that.

101 posted on 10/25/2010 12:10:05 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Religion Moderator

You ASSume too much.

This is the Religion Forum. Reading the minds of other posters is highly frowned upon, and misrepresenting their opinion based on your mind reading is verboten.


102 posted on 10/25/2010 12:12:43 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM (Liberalism is infecund.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Both arguments seem to be advanced.

That the government HAS the authority (at either the State or Federal level), and that the decisions striking down laws against birth control were poorly decided (and thus, using logic, that they should still be illegal).

What does the Commerce Clause cover? The regulation of Interstate commerce, not the regulation of every act or non-action that could conceivable have any influence at all upon interstate commerce. Notice the difference?

I don't believe the State has any authority to abridge amend or fail to recognize the natural rights of man. That which is forbidden to the Federal Government in recognition of our natural rights, is similarly forbidden to the State Government.

Do you think a State law could abridge your freedom of speech? Keep in mind that the 1st Amendment says “Congress shall make no law....”. Do you think that a State law abridging your freedom of speech would be compatible with a Government of limited and enumerated powers that recognizes the natural rights of man?

103 posted on 10/25/2010 12:14:11 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Let me guess ... you're a Libertarian right?


104 posted on 10/25/2010 12:19:05 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM (Liberalism is infecund.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
It doesn't take any mind reading to conclude from someone arguing against “Kelo vs New London” that they think such is a bad decision and that it should be changed.

It doesn't take any mind reading to conclude from someone arguing against “Roe vs Wade” that they think such is a bad decision and it should be changed.

But you argue against the decisions striking down laws against birth control, and suddenly I am reading your mind to conclude that you think it is a bad decision and (ideally) should be changed?

Sorry but your ASSumtion of the necessity for mind-reading is preposterous.

But please, let me know that you are arguing AGAINST the decision, but do not support any repeal of the decision. That would clarify things if in fact my argument was not sound.

105 posted on 10/25/2010 12:20:37 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

The only argument I have advanced is that birth control has always been seen among Christians as sinful, and that the societal acceptance of the contraceptive mentality is philosophically and in jurisprudence linked to the legalization and societal acceptance of abortion.

Any other conclusion comes solely from your imagination, not in anything I have posted on this thread.


106 posted on 10/25/2010 12:23:11 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM (Liberalism is infecund.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
Wrong. Your attempt to mind read me was unsuccessful, as are your dodges around why your arguments against the law as it stands were not arguments that the law should be changed.
107 posted on 10/25/2010 12:23:18 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
So you are arguing AGAINST the law as it stands (with an appeal to consequences), and yet NOT arguing that the law should be changed. Interesting.

Any other laws out there that you disagree with and yet are not interested in seeing changed?

108 posted on 10/25/2010 12:25:38 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Dr. Brian Kopp
Both arguments seem to be advanced.

Is this an impression or has someone on this thread actually suggested that such laws be returned?

That the government HAS the authority (at either the State or Federal level), and that the decisions striking down laws against birth control were poorly decided (and thus, using logic, that they should still be illegal).

Are you actually trying to make a point here?

What does the Commerce Clause cover? The regulation of Interstate commerce, not the regulation of every act or non-action that could conceivable have any influence at all upon interstate commerce. Notice the difference?

Fine, so what SPECIFICALLY do you think it covers?

I don't believe the State has any authority to abridge amend or fail to recognize the natural rights of man. That which is forbidden to the Federal Government in recognition of our natural rights, is similarly forbidden to the State Government.

So, what do you think should happen to Roe v. Wade?

Also, where did extra-marital sex, contraception and sodomy become a "natural right"? Where do "natural rights" come from?

Do you think a State law could abridge your freedom of speech? Keep in mind that the 1st Amendment says “Congress shall make no law....”. Do you think that a State law abridging your freedom of speech would be compatible with a Government of limited and enumerated powers that recognizes the natural rights of man?

This has nothing to do with the topic.

109 posted on 10/25/2010 12:26:16 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

This thread is not about law, its about morality.


110 posted on 10/25/2010 12:26:54 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM (Liberalism is infecund.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
This thread is not about law, its about morality.

Which is essentially libertarian kryptonite.

111 posted on 10/25/2010 12:30:07 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
This is the Religion Forum. This is a religious discussion, not a political or legal discussion.

If you would like to argue that from a Christian perspective, contraception is morally licit, please do so.

112 posted on 10/25/2010 12:30:44 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM (Liberalism is infecund.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Dr. Brian Kopp; Religion Moderator; trisham; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; mlizzy; ...
Your attempt to mind read me was unsuccessful,

It is effectively IMPOSSIBLE for a question to be mind reading.

as are your dodges around why your arguments against the law as it stands were not arguments that the law should be changed.

Do you think that morality is somehow determined by whether or not something is permissible or how many people are doing it?

113 posted on 10/25/2010 12:38:33 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Yes, you concluded right, your “apples” are the same, that’s because they are both false religions all divided, no hierarchy, no creeds, no priesthood lineage. Just like all the other false religions of the world. There is only one true religion, the Catholic faith.

CHRISTIAN. A name first given to the followers of our Lord at Antioch (Acts xi, 26). Since the rise of Protestantism the name has been used in so many different senses as to have become almost meaningless: it may indicate a Catholic or a Unitarian, or even be applied to an infidel who displays some virtue which is associated with Christ. It may reasonably be applied to the members of all the ancient churches whether in communion with the Holy See or not, and to those Protestants who profess, explicitly -or implicitly, the Nicean creed in its traditional Interpretation. The Church puts no definite official rneaning on the word, as she does on Catholic. (Catholic Dictionary, Donald Attwater, 1958, TAN Books)


114 posted on 10/25/2010 12:39:38 PM PDT by verdugo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: verdugo

The midwife’s story does not change the facts of my sister’s diagnosis or the real threat that she has lived under for her entire life. The brush you paint with is very broad and I don’t believe you understand the medical implications that I brought up.

Have a good day.


115 posted on 10/25/2010 12:42:34 PM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife (Utopia is being foisted on Americans for their own good.-- J. Robert Smith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
To argue that a legal decision is in error, and to argue with an appeal to the consequences of that decision, is (to me) an argument that the law should be changed.

Mileage my vary, but I have yet to hear someone make an argument against a legal decision and not have that person also advance the argument that the law should be different. Most people seem to think the law should be correct - and thus if they are arguing that a law is in error- they argue that this error should be corrected.

Is anyone here making an argument for the preservation of incorrectly decided law? Would such an argument be logical?

Specifically it covers interstate commerce - such that Congress can (and should) pass laws to regulate if Tennessee Whiskey should be taxed, fined, forbidden under Virginia law.

Roe v Wade should be repealed. Natural rights come from our Creator.

The principle of a State outlawing free speech has EVERYTHING to do with the subject, and you have repeatedly brought up State law.

So State law is on topic when you mention it, but off topic when I mention it and you are unable or unwilling to answer a simple question about Constitutional jurisprudence?

116 posted on 10/25/2010 12:46:38 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Dr. Brian Kopp; trisham; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; mlizzy; Coleus; narses; ...
To argue that a legal decision is in error, and to argue with an appeal to the consequences of that decision, is (to me) an argument that the law should be changed.

Okay.

Specifically it covers interstate commerce - such that Congress can (and should) pass laws to regulate if Tennessee Whiskey should be taxed, fined, forbidden under Virginia law.

So, they can regulate alcohol, but not drugs?

Roe v Wade should be repealed. Natural rights come from our Creator.

And what should happen then? Please be specific, should abortion be abolished nationwide or should the states get to decide?

The principle of a State outlawing free speech has EVERYTHING to do with the subject, and you have repeatedly brought up State law.

I brought up state laws to illustrate the FACT that ALL states had morality laws two centuries ago and NOBODY questioned them. Libertarians seem to think that the Founding Fathers would have been aghast by morality laws and that is simply false.

117 posted on 10/25/2010 12:57:19 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Not being under the Law of Moses we are not required to marry our dead brother’s wife.

And Jesus’ words about allowable grounds for divorce didn’t have anything to do with contraception.


118 posted on 10/25/2010 1:05:23 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
“Okay.”? So you agree that to argue against a legal decision is tantamount to arguing that the law should be changed? Wow. Progress!

Who said they could not regulate drugs? Buying into your own “mindreading” about me being a supposed libertarian so much now that you are basing your arguments (twice) upon such a delusion?

And I brought up the 1st Amendment to illustrate the FACT that our right to free speech means nothing if State law is under no requirement to recognize that right.

So far from being off topic, it was exactly ON topic.

Two centuries ago people thought that State laws outlawing interracial marriage was compatible with a Government of limited and enumerated powers that recognizes the natural rights of mankind. That thinking carried on for a long time until quite recently actually when it was found to be Unconstitutional - do you think their finding was in error, and do you think it should be a matter for States rights?

119 posted on 10/25/2010 1:05:30 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: verdugo
Yes, you concluded right, your “apples” are the same, that’s because they are both false religions all divided, no hierarchy, no creeds, no priesthood lineage. Just like all the other false religions of the world. There is only one true religion, the Catholic faith.

Yeah, we are on different pages. I would actually say, planets. Islamics say the same thing. Y'all look crazy as he(ck) to me.

We can stop conversing right about here.

120 posted on 10/25/2010 1:10:26 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife
The midwife’s story does not change the facts of my sister’s diagnosis or the real threat that she has lived under for her entire life. The brush you paint with is very broad and I don’t believe you understand the medical implications that I brought up.

Dude is a Christian version of a Muslim. Don't let it bug ya.

121 posted on 10/25/2010 1:11:26 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

“Is anyone going to argue that this is permitted by the Bible even though it’s widespread?”

No one has, have they?


122 posted on 10/25/2010 1:16:12 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Dr. Brian Kopp; trisham; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; mlizzy; Coleus; narses; ...
So you agree that to argue against a legal decision is tantamount to arguing that the law should be changed? Wow.

Actually, I haven't said that.

Who said they could not regulate drugs? Buying into your own “mindreading” about me being a supposed libertarian so much now that you are basing your arguments (twice) upon such a delusion?

If you are going to fling a mind-reading accusation, at least learn what it means. As I said earlier, a question CANNOT be mind-reading.

And I brought up the 1st Amendment to illustrate the FACT that our right to free speech means nothing if State law is under no requirement to recognize that right.

Of course, that's covered by the 14th Amendment.

Two centuries ago people thought that State laws outlawing interracial marriage was compatible with a Government of limited and enumerated powers that recognizes the natural rights of mankind. That thinking carried on for a long time until quite recently actually when it was found to be Unconstitutional - do you think their finding was in error, and do you think it should be a matter for States rights?

Of course I disagree with such laws.

Are you avoiding answering my question about what should happen when Roe v. Wade is overturned?

123 posted on 10/25/2010 1:20:11 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
OK then, can you think of any conceivable consistent logical argument that a law is in error but should not be changed?

A question can be an attempt at “mindreading” quite easily. The question mark at the end doesn't change it. If I read your posts and then say “are you a Communists?”, I am attempting to read your philosophy from your comments and conclude that you are a Communist. Moreover you seem to have jumped right over my answer to that question in the negative, and based your arguments on the assumption that I am in fact a libertarian - to the extent that you further attempted to mindread me and assumed I was against the Federal regulation of drugs.

Covered by the 14th, of course, but in existence long before that under the concept of the natural rights of man. The 14th didn't CREATE the obligation for a non-tyrannous State government to observe our natural rights, it RECOGNIZED the obligation.

If you disagree with such laws, then clearly basing what is and is not consistent with a Government of limited and enumerated powers that recognizes the natural rights of man has little to do with what laws were in place in the past - and the argument must stand or fall upon its own merits.

124 posted on 10/25/2010 1:31:38 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Not avoiding it at all, I thought the answer was obvious.

If Roe v Wade were overturned, the issue would be up to the States.

Women crossing state lines to get an abortion performed would then have an effect upon interstate commerce! ;)

125 posted on 10/25/2010 1:33:44 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Love reply #2. I also have made passing remarks at people with children...usually is with small babies telling the parents how beautiful their child is....It brings ear to ear smiles on their faces....recently in Krogers there was a man alone shopping with infant twins....this big burly man with arms full of tattoos. We talked for a few minutes and told him how lucky he was to have twins, and his face beamed...but at no time have I ever discussed BC with a stranger...thats a good way to get a smashed face....

When I was raising my kids, one of my girlfriends had 9 another close neighbor also had 5 like me and she was baptist. Years later we laughed about that when I told her that I told my priest that I knew she was catholic cause she had 5 kids..... I think casual conversation as you talk about is quite different than a in depth discussion on why you don't use BC with a stranger.. Its still no one's business except the 2 involved...

For me just the though of discussing someones BC without an invitation to discuss it is stupid. It also is not for me to judge if they do or don't....

Your answer has no judgmental aspects to it...and was a delight to read....7 makes you more experienced than me with only 5. They are all in their late 40's to early 50's and have given me 13 most excellent grandchildren....

PS If any one made a comment to me like your #1, they'd get a not so pleasant ear-full...

126 posted on 10/25/2010 1:39:44 PM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Dr. Brian Kopp; trisham; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; mlizzy; Coleus; narses; ...
If Roe v Wade were overturned, the issue would be up to the States.

That's odd, in post #103 you wrote:

I don't believe the State has any authority to abridge amend or fail to recognize the natural rights of man. That which is forbidden to the Federal Government in recognition of our natural rights, is similarly forbidden to the State Government.

Then in post #124 you wrote:

Covered by the 14th, of course, but in existence long before that under the concept of the natural rights of man. The 14th didn't CREATE the obligation for a non-tyrannous State government to observe our natural rights, it RECOGNIZED the obligation.

Tell me, do you consider contracteption and sodomy to be "natural rights," but not life? Why would someone support pro-choice by state if they believe in natural rights?

127 posted on 10/25/2010 1:52:55 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Religion Moderator
A question can be an attempt at “mindreading” quite easily. The question mark at the end doesn't change it.

Nonsense, it is asking a question.

The question mark at the end doesn't change it. If I read your posts and then say “are you a Communists?”, I am attempting to read your philosophy from your comments and conclude that you are a Communist.

If I had made comments that were somehow consistent with communist ideology you would be justified. The reality is that you HAVE made many comments on this thread that are typical of libertarians, so it makes perfect sense that someone would ask.

Moreover you seem to have jumped right over my answer to that question in the negative, and based your arguments on the assumption that I am in fact a libertarian - to the extent that you further attempted to mindread me and assumed I was against the Federal regulation of drugs.

Perhaps I wasn't clear on drugs in that statement, I was referring to birth control pills.

128 posted on 10/25/2010 1:56:29 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: goat granny; Dr. Brian Kopp; trisham; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; mlizzy; Coleus; narses; ...
For me just the though of discussing someones BC without an invitation to discuss it is stupid. It also is not for me to judge if they do or don't....

So, you believe that America's adoption of non-judgemental permissiveness over the last several decades has been a positive development?

129 posted on 10/25/2010 1:58:39 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Odd only if you think an abortion is a natural right.

Do you? I do not.

I think people have a natural right to be free from unreasonable government interference, in other words, that there needs to be a compelling government interest in regulation of something, that the regulation needs to be under an enumerated power, and that the regulation be consistent with a limited government that recognizes the natural rights of man.

If you think that a Government that outlaws contraception is consistent with a Government of limited and enumerated powers that recognizes the natural rights of man, just say so.

130 posted on 10/25/2010 1:59:19 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Dr. Brian Kopp; trisham; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; mlizzy; Coleus; narses; ...
Odd only if you think an abortion is a natural right.

Huh? You said that abortion should be returned to the states. That means that each state would get to decide whether or not to kill babies and that IS NOT protecting natural rights.

I think people have a natural right to be free from unreasonable government interference, in other words, that there needs to be a compelling government interest in regulation of something, that the regulation needs to be under an enumerated power, and that the regulation be consistent with a limited government that recognizes the natural rights of man.

Oh? Do you consider protecting innocent life to be "unreasonable government interference"? Because I certainly HAVE heard libertarians advance that argument before.

If you think that a Government that outlaws contraception is consistent with a Government of limited and enumerated powers that recognizes the natural rights of man, just say so.

I have yet to see where it has been established that man has a natural right to contraception.

131 posted on 10/25/2010 2:04:40 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

bookmark


132 posted on 10/25/2010 2:12:48 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
No, I do not, and your attempt to “mind-read” me into a libertarian is idiotic.

Man need not have a natural right to contraception for the Government outlawing of contraception to be an abridgment of natural rights and inconsistent with a Government of limited and enumerated powers.

But I find it amusing that amid the HUE and CRY about me daring to suggest that anyone here was FOR laws against contraception - we find those who argue against the decisions that struck down laws against contraception - and you arguing that such a law would not be an abridgment of our natural rights.

But how DARE I suggest that you might actually be for laws against contraception! Just because you find them compatible with recognition of our natural rights, and others argue with appeal to consequences about how the decisions to strike down such laws were wrong!

Where could I possibly come up with such an outlandish idea?

Amusing!!!!

Good luck convincing 75% of Americans that what they do in their bedroom is “evil” and subject to Government regulation! If you can make that argument while simultaneously arguing for a limited Government of enumerated powers that respects the natural rights of man I would be REALLY impressed.

133 posted on 10/25/2010 2:13:09 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter
There are some things that should remain personal...this generation is a *let it all hang out* generation and think they have the right to know what others are doing....started in the 70's. People use to mind their own business. Now everyone thinks that they have the right to know every others persons personal life....polite is a good thing, not something to scorn...

Rude comments deserve rude replies,* like mind your own damn business idiot*...:O) and keep on walkin.....

134 posted on 10/25/2010 2:16:37 PM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Right, since I know of no one that can be a mind reader of Gods mind, its above all our pay grades...


135 posted on 10/25/2010 2:20:43 PM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; goat granny
"For me just the though of discussing someones BC without an invitation to discuss it is stupid. It also is not for me to judge if they do or don't...."

So, you believe that America's adoption of non-judgemental permissiveness over the last several decades has been a positive development?

**************************************

For what it's worth, I agree with goat granny's first statement. Imho, it is the height of boorishness to inquire into another's private life.

However, also imho, we had better begin deciding whether certain behaviour is right or wrong, or our society will continue on its downward path.

136 posted on 10/25/2010 2:31:27 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; wagglebee

So you’ve changed your position on the level of interference that government has in our lives?

Seems that I recall several topics where you advocate very strongly for big government control in several areas.


137 posted on 10/25/2010 2:32:40 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
The catholic church has used that part of scripture to defend their no contraceptive stand. We know today that for a man to withdraw before ejaculation does not prevent a pregnancy, because semen it secreted into the vagina before the actual ejaculation and can cause pregnancy...the chances are slim but it could happen if God so desired...

perhaps the writers of the old testament and early christian writers did not have access to that recent discovery....To use an obscure writing like that to extend to the idea of contraception is wrong is quite a stretch...and to quote other human. ie: Catholic saints is also not valid, they may have been greatly spiritual, but still speak with a fallible human voice, just as any philosopher does...

138 posted on 10/25/2010 2:44:09 PM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Please give specific examples where I have strongly advocated for big government control if you can, an accusation without example is also without merit.

Nice that you acknowledge that here at least I am arguing consistently for a small government of limited and enumerated powers consistent with the natural rights of man - presumably while others are not.

Thanks!

139 posted on 10/25/2010 3:03:36 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife

If you ddin’t understand what I wrote, go back and read it again.

The medical implications for your sister is having a miscarriage, or a physically and/or mentally handicapped child.

The medical implications of my wife having a child would be death to her and maybe reath to her and the child.


140 posted on 10/25/2010 3:19:18 PM PDT by verdugo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife

If you ddin’t understand what I wrote, go back and read it again.

The medical implications for your sister is having a miscarriage, or a physically and/or mentally handicapped child.

The medical implications of my wife having a child would be death to her and maybe death to her and the child.


141 posted on 10/25/2010 3:20:03 PM PDT by verdugo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
I think I have made my opinion clean in my answers. If you cannot comprehend what I said, answering more of your questions would not give you the answer you want..

As far a judging anyones status before God, those that do it are putting themselves into the category of reading Gods mind....that is something I would never do and I wonder if Jesus likes us to judge others before he does..

Severe judgment of men lead to burning at the stake and killing those that are different than us...so I would say YES being non judgment as to one's status before God is a good think..

Just as I think that Islam cutting off heads of non believers is evil, so is it for human's to put people in hell before they even die because they think different than you...no human sits in the judgment seat except Jesus and if your not him, pray for those that you think are sinning and keep your mouth shut about it...

Your prayer should have a greater effect on the sinner than a nasty tongue..if you believe that God hears your prayers...

The new testament says rebuke the sinner, that was for those within a specific church that sinned IN PUBLIC. It was not intended for people to go around & condemn others not of your church..

I don't believe there is only one true church....in Revelation, Christ wrote to 7 churches and he never called them one holy church.. The 7 churches stood as lamps before the throne. One could be removed if they didn't heed his warnings to them in Revelation..

So I do not believe there is only 1 true church..there are many mansions in his fathers kingdom...not just one..

142 posted on 10/25/2010 3:22:54 PM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: verdugo

Well, I’m so glad that we’ve established that your situation transcends everyone else’s.


143 posted on 10/25/2010 3:29:04 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: trisham
I think in today world, morals follow politics and the laws made and what the culture tolerates is what is causing the downward spiral.

I think the best way to change that is to raise our children to know right from wrong and quit dressing our little girls like sluts and demanding our teens dress modestly.

it also means to teach our boys about morals at home and let them take those beliefs out into the world....its a slow way to do it, but if the stupid government would stop making laws that allow filth to flurish it would also help..

144 posted on 10/25/2010 3:43:27 PM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: trisham
re: I’m so glad that we’ve established that your situation transcends everyone else’s.

I didn't say it transcends anyones situation, you said it. All I did was show you that I understood your sisters situation, and I wanted you to clearly understand my wife's situation. I consider them similar situations.

145 posted on 10/25/2010 3:47:06 PM PDT by verdugo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: goat granny
I don't agree with everything you've said, for example, I think that politics follow morals, but I do agree with most. We must stand up for morality, as individuals, as parents, as members of society, as citizens of this country, or we are lost.

I have come to believe more and more that we must also be more compassionate toward our neighbors. Imho, much is lacking in today's world. We are too removed and unconnected from each other.

146 posted on 10/25/2010 3:52:25 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: verdugo

I realize that I said it. You might make note of the fact that it is not my sister who is at issue, however. Imho, your posts do not indicate compassion toward others.


147 posted on 10/25/2010 3:54:54 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
verdugo wrote: "they are both false religions all divided, no hierarchy, no creeds, no priesthood lineage. Just like all the other false religions of the world. There is only one true religion, the Catholic faith."

Laza wrote: Islamics say the same thing.

Verdugo responds: The muslim can't say "the same thing" because they don't have the same thing: "unity, hierarchy, creeds, or priestly lineage".

148 posted on 10/25/2010 4:01:09 PM PDT by verdugo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: trisham

My husband didn’t agree with everything I said either, but we had a 33 year marriage before he passed....:o)


149 posted on 10/25/2010 4:01:17 PM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: goat granny

Heh. :)


150 posted on 10/25/2010 4:16:45 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-197 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson