Posted on 07/01/2012 1:18:00 AM PDT by stpio
“Contraception is a grave mortal sin”
That’s ridiculous! Provide the evidence!
“It’s very simple.
Contraception interferes with The God’s plan for the use of that which He has designed.
As does Sodomy, Onanism, and other unmentionable perversions.
Contraception and abortifacient schemes also remove some practical barriers to adultery and the like.
All useful to those serving the god of this world.
Appears to me ridiculous that folks of a normal intelligence cannot seem to grasp that -—”
~ ~ ~
imardmd1,
If you could write about the most Holy Eucharist like
you just did here explaining the sin of Birth Control.
Thanks!!!
Pray, ask Our Lord if He is truly present in the Eucharist.
You spoke of St. Ignatius, he believes.
“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”
“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.
So since the RCC position is that life begins with conception, men instead of God decide when the soul is created? Traducianism also is inconsistent with God’s Sovereignty in creation of human souls.
“So since the RCC position is that life begins with conception, men instead of God decide when the soul is created?”...
~ ~ ~
God has revealed it, we can know when life begins, God creates the body and soul, at conception. And modern technology, if you don’t believe shows life begins at conception.
Psalm 51 in most Bibles and Psalm 50:7 in the Douay-Rheims Bible. This verse shows you receive your soul at conception.
Psalm 51:7
For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me.
God bless you,
Thanks for your post, I always enjoy reading Baptist points of view (and by the way am a big fan and admirer of Albert Mohler..)
Your assertion about the Catholic Church not existing before the Nicene Council is, however, factually poorly resourced. It seems to show unfamiliarity with the outstanding Catholic leaders of the Church even earlier than thar, including
Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian (all 2 or more centuries before the Council of Nicaea, and all commemorated liturgically in the Roman Canon for nearly 1900 years).
To make a start in researching this, a good fellow to be aware of is Clement of Rome, an early pope who died in 98 AD, that is, before the end pof the first Christian century.
OK, so you've got Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hermas, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Hippolytus; Caius; Novatian; Gregory Thaumaturgus; Dinoysius the Great; Julius Africanus; Anatolius; Methodius; Arnobius, Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius...
And many other pre-Constantinian sources of Catholic Teaching and Constitutions, Homily, Liturgies.
A great deal of the documentation is now available online, at: Christian Calssics Ethereal Library.
If you come across any Baptists of the same period, I would appreciate a ping. I would read anything you have with interest.
“DON’T read Chesterton if you would hate being Catholic - his works convert countless many.”
~ ~ ~
I can’t pick a favorite Chesterton quote. Here’s one on Confession (John 20:23).
When a Catholic comes from confession, he does truly, by definition, step out into that dawn of his own beginning... in that brief ritual God has really remade him in His own image. He may be grey and gouty; but he is only five minutes old.
I asked for evidence, not heresay.
"Contraception and abortifacient schemes also remove some practical barriers to adultery and the like."
So do automobiles, cell phones and easy off pants.
hearsay...
Let me first ask you:
-- Is His Incorruptible Blood a constituent of the Eucharist?
-- Is His current Spiritual, Indestructible Body a constituent of the Eucharist?
-- If so, what happens to these if they are physical, material Presences and if they are consumed, passing into the human ailmentary canal?
Judas of Kerioth ate and drank of both.
-- How did that affect him, if the pronouncement of The Master is to be taken as literal language, and not figurative-literal language nor allegorical metaphor?
-- Your answer in 100 words or less is - what?
(No external authorities other than The Holy Scriptures, Koine and/or a literal equivalence translation)
“methods that prevent fertilization from happening in the first place are NOT the same”, “does not carry the moral equivalence to the other kinds of BC.”
True, as in IUDs, and if those are wrong then artificial sweeteners or things like Olestra, which also by unnatural means allow pleasure without unwanted effects, would be wrong as well.
But i do believe God has created us so that with pleasure comes effects which require responsibility, and attempts to have all the cake we want without cavities or gaining weight, or the like, have their own negative consequences.
God has designed it so that sexual relations normally result in children, which require sacrifice and responsibility, and which also provide joy, and if a couple are sterile then they lose the joy of at least having reproduced their own.
The difference btwn NFP and a IUD is that the former requires temperance, which is a necessary virtue, while contraceptives and UIDs, etc. allow the hedonistic pursuit of pleasure without temperance and effects which require responsibility and sacrifice.
But as regards religions telling a married couple what they can and cannot do in the marriage bed, there is a limit, but in this context we are basically dealing with a valid Scriptural moral questions which in principle extends beyond the bedroom.
But those so-called church “father’s” which held such beliefs as that marriage is the lesser of two evils, and is no other than a species of fornication, and that all sexual martial intercourse is unclean, and cannot be effected without the ardour of lust, though it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate, were extreme.
As an interesting aside, I know a woman who helps couples who haven't been able to have children and want to.
The first thing she does is teach them NFP because she says it's the best way to get them used to being focused on the times when the woman is fertile. I was surprised by that a few years back when she was talking about it because I had no idea that NFP was as accurate as she said it is and at the time thought only Catholics even paid any attention to NFP.
Both Catholic and non-Catholic Christians need to wake up and realize how important children and numbers are in a democracy, especially in one where sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll, teach so many people their morals and values. It may be a wonderful game of distraction for someone to play arguing that two million people from whatever group they disagree with are the reason elections are won or lost, but which group of Christians doesn't have at least two million fewer members than it would have had without the wholesale acceptance of contraception by Christians?
There are nearly twenty five million fewer black folks than the trends of the early seventies projected because those projections didn't factor in abortion and contraception. How many fewer Christians there are due to those same things has to at least equal that number and is probably a good bit higher. Remember, it's not just the fifty million fewer folks due to infants being murdered at abortion clinics by physical means, it's also the ones who were chemically murdered in the womb by a wink and a nod.
Correction: “....sitting in a garage makes him a car.”
obviously; when I determined it was full .also i am not adam. remember the flood?GOD tht the earth was full enuf then.
I’ve always found it interesting that freedom flourished under non-romanists here in the US. Look at what there is in the rest of the western hemisphere where ‘catholics’ settled. Maybe there is something to be said for SELF responsibility.Each accountable to GOD for his actions; not some man
Unfortunately, being liberal is not criminal behavior.
It is however tacky and can become flame-baiting to accuse groups of Freepers of being liberal. This is happening right now in News/Activism - the target being those who are voting "for" Romney because "ABO" - anything is better than Obama.
So whereas it is not prohibited by the RF guidelines to accuse Catholics of being liberal, ansel12 - dial it down so it doesn't become flame-bait.
From the Religion Forum guidelines::
Also do not compare another Freeper to a Nazi or a Westboro member or an Islamic Fundamentalist. That's flame baiting and a personal attack and may affect your posting privileges.
It is within the bounds of “open” Religion Forum town square style debate for a Freeper to express his hatred of a belief. But such posts are never allowed on RF threads labeled “prayer” “devotional” “caucus” or “ecumenical.”
It is never within the bounds on the Religion Forum for a Freeper to express his hatred of people who hold a particular belief when any Freeper is part of the belief group.
For example:
It is ok to express hatred towards CatholicISM on “open” Religion Forum threads. It is never ok to express hatred towards Catholics because some Freepers are Catholic.
It is ok to express hatred towards ProtestantISM on “open” Religion Forum threads. It is never ok to express hatred towards Protestants because some Freepers are Protestant.
It is ok to express hatred towards SatanISM and Satanists both because no Freeper is Satanist.
Whereas posters may argue vigorously for and against beliefs on “open” Religion Forum threads it is never tolerable to use ad hominems in religious debate because they invariably lead to flame wars when the subject is one’s deeply held religious beliefs.
For something to be "making it personal" it must be speaking to another Freeper, personally.
"Protestants are heretics" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal. "Catholics worship Mary" is not making it personal. "You worship Mary" is making it personal. "Mormons worship many gods" is not making it personal. "You worship many gods" is making it personal.
However, when a poster paints with a brush that accuses an entire religion of criminal behavior - his post will be pulled as flame bait. For example, posts that say "Protestants kill babies" or "Catholics molest children" or "Mormons kill non-Mormons" will be pulled. However, if the post is specific about a non-Freeper, I will not pull it. For example "Rev. Doe says abortion and infanticide are not sin" or "Father Doe was convicted for molesting those kids" or "Mormons killed non-Mormons at Mountain Meadows" would not be pulled.
Statements formed as questions are rarely "making it personal."
"Are you a heretic" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal.
Forms of "making it personal" include mind reading, attributing motive, accusing another Freeper of telling a lie (because it attributes motive, the intent to deceive) - making the thread "about" individual Freeper(s), following a Freeper from thread to thread and badgering a Freeper over-and-again with the same question.
The words "prevarication" "dishonesty" "slander" "deceit" "calumny" and "subterfuge" are synonymous with "lie" because they entail intent.
Words such as "false" "error" "wrong" "inaccurate" "misstatement" do not attribute motive and are not "making it personal."
Other words push the envelope of motive but are not synonymous with "lie" for purposes of modding the RF. However, they can be "making it personal" if applied to another Freeper, personally, in such a way the discussion becomes "about" the individual Freeper instead of the issues. Those words include "misrepresentation" "detraction" "disinformation" "distortion" "hyperbole" and "doublespeak."
Another example, calling a group of Freepers "anti-Mormon" attributes motive to them as a group which is not technically "making it personal" - but saying that another Freeper, personally, is anti-Mormon instead of anti-MormonISM is an ad hominem. It is "making it personal."
Another example, a poster may say on an “open” RF thread that a particular belief, diety, religious authority, etc. is "Satanic." But he must not say "You are Satanic." That would be "making it personal." The Bible is always a legitimate source on the Religion Forum, so a poster might quote the Bible where Jesus called Peter "Satan." If a post serves no debate purpose (flame bait or 'making it personal' by devious means) - it would be pulled.
When in doubt, avoid the use of the pronoun "you" and Freeper's names - or put yourself in the other guy's shoes.
I will not decree what is or is not truth. The poster who claims "Catholics worship Mary" may believe with his whole heart that is the absolute truth whereas another poster with his whole heart may believe that very statement is an abominable lie. Both sides should argue those beliefs on "open" Religion Forum threads but never resort to ad hominems.
I cannot and would not “settle” matters of dogma, doctrine, tradition or meanings of words.
Whereas I diligently try to read all of your posts, I am not here 24/7 and cannot remember all of the slights and parties involved on every single sidebar much less when posters carry grudges between threads. So if you are wondering why I singled one guy out and not the other involved in a dispute, often it is because I either did not see a previous post or did not remember it as part of the sidebar.
If the other guy in the dispute was given a warning, consider yourself warned as well.
If the other guy is throwing spitwads at you on an “open” thread it probably means he has run out of ammunition. Take it as a backhanded compliment. You won, walk away.
Spiritual maturity is not a prerequisite for posting on the Religion Forum. If the other guy is being childish, be patient with him.
Abusive spammers contribute nothing other than their spam and they don’t last long on Free Republic.
When posting in a foreign language, unless the statement is very common, e.g. adios, always include the English translation of it.
When quoting a source, e.g. a website, article or book – be sure to include sufficient source information for the moderators to enforce copyright restrictions.
When another Freeper asks you not to link to his hosting service, e.g. to use a public domain image hosted there, cooperate with his request. In such cases, you may wish to put a copy of the image on your own hosting service.
The biggest news in Christendom since Pentecost, and contracption is the topic? This is huge, got to say goodbye to the Dispensationalist FReepers, at least the pre-Tribs.
This type of news must surely be from one of the major prophets then, since the Day of the Lord could be divined from the start of the Tribulation.
I think the old YOPIOS cereal box reference needs updating, now that the Vatican has jumped on board the 2012 Trib train. YOPIORevelation, YOPIOProphecy, YOPIOTribulation. They all have something in common, but I just can't make it out.
Is this announcement come with an Imprimatur/Nihil Obstat from Rome, or is it more YOPIOP?
I asked for evidence, not heresay.
You mean hearsay. For me to quote Scripture to you is hearsay. I expect you to validate it and do your own checkout. Plenish (Gen. 1;28), replenish (Gen. 9:1), multiply, raise more godly generations in a faithful flesh-of-my-flesh and bone-of-my-bones conjugation of mind and heart.
Produce The Messiah and a host of citizens to rule(Gen. 25:4 cp. Gal. 3:16, 19).
"Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD. and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man, so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate" (Ps. 127).
(Many Scriptures about how not to use ones body, TNTC at this moment -- look them up yourself)
"Contraception and abortifacient schemes also remove some practical barriers to adultery and the like." So do automobiles, cell phones and easy off pants.
Automobiles do not impregnate human females. Neither do cell phones, zipper flies, nor hot bed motels. Adult males do. Other women do not, at least, not yet for parthenogenesis.
Your point?
Birth control doesn't prevent, or interfere with this.
"Produce The Messiah and a host of citizens to rule(Gen. 25:4 cp. Gal. 3:16, 19).
Just so you know, the Messiah wasn't concieved by way of intercourse. A host of citizens to rule? They're not yours, or anybody elses to rule.
"Many Scriptures about how not to use ones body,"
I want just one, spoken by God Himself that says birth control is wrong. Otherwise, man was given the gift of freewill to decide when to procreate and when not to. Notice, that it is to be decided by the couple, not those who wish to userp their will for reasons of their own wickedness.
"Automobiles do not impregnate human females."
Neither does birth control.
Please post your sources/links. I wish to share them with others.
Birth control doesn't prevent, or interfere with this.
Utterly wrong, for employing effective artificial methods changes the future for a whole nation. By changing the population growth exponential coefficient, one can see a whole society wiped out. Birth control as an accommodation of personal convenience, declining family commitment, and promoting lasciviousness isn't working well. It subverts, inverts, diverts, reverts, and perverts The God's command to multiply and replenish.
Just on the United States, our Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund cannot support itself because the base of wage-earning workers has been so diminished by birth control/abortion (they are the same) that it will topple when baby-boomers are busted. On the other hand, with the prevalece of BC down to prepubescents, our nation is so f***ing itself to death that all moral strictures against lustful immorality have been pretty much wiped out, and ignoring The God's ordinances against covetousness in every area has resulted in antisocial chaos.
** "Produce The Messiah and a host of citizens to rule(Gen. 25:4 cp. Gal. 3:16, 19).
Just so you know, the Messiah wasn't concieved by way of intercourse. A host of citizens to rule? They're not yours, or anybody elses to rule.
You mean conceive. This trivial criticism is almost worthy of ignoring. If a woman's body was not capable of hosting the pure, perfect, incorruptible, Sin-free, completely preconceived cell capable of developing both the flesh, blood, and bone, there would have been no birth of that God-invested Seed. Furthermore, did that old Liar, the Devil, not have a plan in process to try to prevent the creation of a population segment of consecrated humans to reign with the Coming Messiah over the remaining segment of Christ-despisers, who need to be ruled with a firm hand, post-tribulation?
God is still in charge, and He rules.
"Wherefore The God also hath hihly exalted Him, and given Him a Name whic is above every name: That at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father?" (Phil. 2:9-11)
"And Thou hast made them to be a kingdom and priests to Our God, and they will reign upon the earth" (Rev. 5:10)
If we suffer, we shall also reign with him ..." (2 Tim. 2:12a).
"His lord said unto him,'Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of the Lord.' " (Mt. 25:22) "And he said unto him, 'Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.' " (Lk. 19:17).
"Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?" (1 Cor. 6:3).
**"Many Scriptures about how not to use ones body,"
I want just one, spoken by God Himself that says birth control is wrong. Otherwise, man was given the gift of freewill to decide when to procreate and when not to. Notice, that it is to be decided by the couple, not those who wish to userp their will for reasons of their own wickedness.
I don't see anywhere in the Bible that it says "Don't smoke!" or "Don't fill yourself with trans fats," etc. Can you figure this out for yourself?
Adam had freedom of will to eat or not eat of the forbidden tree. You (and your marriage partner) have freedom of will to procreate or not, but it is far more wise to cease being oppositional about this issue and seek the counsel of your Bible, trained pastor or an Orthodox or Chasidic rabbi (who will be very expert in this); or a family internist. Do that assuming you are not counting on causing another person, say, you or the one you "love" to fill the body with progesterone or the like so you can avoid the extra responsibility of figuring out how many days there are in a month.
God has already set his timing on this. It is called "the menstrual cycle." In his plan, there is a time commanded to abstain from intimate relationships. There is a time when normal consensual sharing is that of mutual judgment and preference. A scrutiny of Leviticus can get you starten on the "yes/no" factor. On "when/maybe" is up to you, deciding your responsibility with common sense.
Also, the complementary cycle is matched by self-denial, postponement of gratification, anticipating a coming satisfaction -- a general revival of interest through denied access, planning for a boquet or a date out, etc. Don't exhaust the joys of a potential life commitment in a few months/years of finally unpalatable surfeit.
If you want to use chemical or mechanical means to override The God's provided cycle, you will be in trouble, because now the underlying lust and covetousness and lack of self-control are masked by employing the artificial methods to sideline constraints. This might not seem sinful, but if applied across the whole secular society sums up into moral failure -- the error of ungovernable children who need a parent, because they are not Spirit-controlled or even consciously temperate.
***"Automobiles do not impregnate human females."
Neither does birth control.
No, it just frees you to do anything you want, any time you want, with whomever you want, at any rate you want, by negating the potential natural consequences. But what we have found is that we are faced now with unplanned consequences that are now coming due, despite initial expectations. Do you know where your wife/husband is this evening?
Enjoy it, if you can.
I'm done on this for a while.
Psa 51:5
(5) Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Good verses regarding the genetic old sin nature in the body of man.
Still doesn’t address the creation of the soul.
Previous doctrines definitely asserted God places the soul in man at birth, which also nicely explains why stillbirth may be lamentable regarding the body, but the soul may have never been placed in the body even after separation from the mother.
Part of our responsibilities in bearing children is making sure we have the means to FEED those children as well as provide for their needs. If a family such as the Duggars can afford twenty kids, more power to them. But, when I see the terrible squalor some third-world children live in, dying of hunger, being abused and neglected (though it also happens in modern societies, too), it only becomes more clear that God did not intend for our world to be this way.
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.