Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Birth control reconsidered: Protestant film questions contraception, rediscovers Reformation beliefs
TheChristians.com ^ | Jun 11, 2013 | Celeste McGovern

Posted on 02/17/2014 9:40:55 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM

Birth control reconsidered

A Protestant film questions contraception, and rediscovers Reformation beliefs

By Celeste McGovern Jun 11, 2013

The contraception mentality: Despite half a century of contrary evidence, many still believe this.
The contraception mentality: Despite half a century of contrary evidence, many still believe this.

For anyone under 60, birth control is just a fact of life. Those under 50 won’t recall that it was ever controversial. The pharmaceutical separation of sex from babies has been so thoroughly accepted by Western society that any holdouts are seen as fringers: “orthodox” Catholics, Mormons, and health hippies.

But questions about contraception are arising from unlikely sources lately: not enough to call it a trend, but significant enough to notice.

For example, the film, Birth Control: How Did We Get Here? Its Protestant director, Brian Peeples of Huntersville, North Carolina, said he got the idea after he and his wife changed their minds about birth control at a Baby Conference in 2010. It’s more of a movement than a movie, however, with a second film expected later this year, and a series of books and study guides to “communicate the Biblical position on birth control and its impact on the church, marriage and family.”

The birth control movie was “born from a desire to communicate the truth about birth control and family from the Word of God to other believers,” explains its website; this in a culture where there is little if any difference between Christians and non-believers when it comes to preventing children.

It’s the sort of ideology that’s expected from Catholic clergy and the more serious Catholic laity, but this film features mostly Protestant evangelicals: high profile Calvinist minister R.C. Sproul Jr., author George Grant, and Geoffrey Botkin of the Western Conservatory of the Arts and Sciences.

It retells the history of birth control from an evangelical perspective, recounting how in little more than a century, Protestant churches turned away from ages-old teachings on sexuality and marriage. In a flurry of European eugenics and overpopulation “science” they began to view children as inconvenient. Their teachings and birth control practices were before long indistinguishable from nonbelievers’.

Yet before that, one commenter in the film observed, “Every single church affirmed that children are a blessing and that we have no business saying no to God’s blessings.”

The film recounts the eugenic roots of the birth control movement and its rabidly anti-Christian, racist, hedonist founder Margaret Sanger, who seized on then-persuasive Malthusian overpopulation theories. Opposing her were protestants like Anthony Comstock, a 19th century Puritan-tradition crusader who saw birth control as the devil’s particular attack on the young, and as being inextricably wed to pornography and abortion – all “born of the same mindset ,” according to the film, “the corruption of the sexual impulse… [and] contrary to scripture”

With the fall of contraceptive laws in the mid-20th century, first pornography and then abortion were rapidly legalized; so, like him or not, Comstock is vindicated.

So is the Catholic Church, which the movie notes was the sole voice – given that the Protestants had collapsed – to weigh in,  with Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life) encyclical, affirming everything Christianity had taught about birth control for the millennia previously.

In a way the movie seems a bit of a mea culpa for mainstream Protestantism missing the boat. “Opposition to birth control was seen as a Catholic thing,” one commentator says. “Protestants were for liberty.”

One of the great tragedies of the last century, says another, is how willingly Christians co-operated with the anti-baby, pro-eugenics, agenda, compelled by “science,” a sense of duty, a desire to be modern, and for “deliverance from  responsibilities of children while having all the pleasures of adulthood,” as one commentator put it.

Some saw birth control as a means of preventing abortion. However, 50 years and 50 million American abortions later, that is a harder argument to sustain.

The difficulty in defending marriage today derives in large part from the legal arguments for the new “right to privacy” that brought birth control to the West. It began with “privacy in marriage, which soon gave way to privacy for the unmarried, this in turn gave way to privacy for homosexuals,” the film narrator remarks.  “Now that sterility is universally accepted, marriage has lost its fundamental purpose; procreation. Marriage, disconnected from its purposes, loses its meaning and the historical definition of marriage hangs in the balance.”

It is this half-century years of hindsight since the birth control pill was first marketed in North America in 1960 that is beginning to spur the sexual counter-revolutionists.

“I think we’re seeing the fruits of the whole contraceptive revolution and quite honestly the fruit is rancid,” Julie Roys, host of the radio show Up for Debate on Moody Radio, says in the film. She notes that since the pill’s arrival, the marriage rate has declined by a third, divorce has almost doubled, the proportion of children born in single parent families has more than tripled “and now we’re seeing the hookup culture.”

In that respect, the film is not alone. Mary Eberstadt’s 2012 book Adam and Eve After the Pill: Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution recounts in detail the harm done by sexualization of the West, from rising divorce, increasing promiscuity, juvenile delinquency, neglect of children, abuse and objectification of girls and more.

“Society is losing its mooring and all of us are beginning to ask, ‘Where is all this heading?’” Roys says in the film. She finds that many young people particularly want a deeper understanding of male and female sexuality, and and its deeper meaning.

In any case, the first rumblings about birth control have not been missed by pro-abortion advocates. Robin Marty, a columnist at rhrealitycheck.org, a sexual and reproductive health news site, has launched an ongoing series of commentaries under the title “They’re Coming for Your Birth Control.” And one atheist blogger calls it a “freaking creepy” trend.



TOPICS: Ecumenism; Mainline Protestant; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: contraception; protestant
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-122 next last

Our follow up documentary to How Did We Get Here? was created to train Christian audiences to apply sound biblical doctrine to the area of family planning with a true gospel-centered attitude towards children and a desire for multi-generational legacy. The title question of the film seeks its answer by studying God’s sovereignty, reviewing our response to God’s revealed will, and defines the God-given avenues for obedience, sanctification, and proper stewardship.

Modern Christians desire relevancy, yet an overwhelming majority have never heard a practical message on the topic of birth control.  In our first film, we showed how the culture slowly transformed the church into accepting birth control as biblical theology.  Now, that we have gone the way of the world, leaning on our own understanding instead of fearing God, we must rediscover what the Scriptures say and what our forefathers knew before us.

In this film, we will cover six core arguments, presenting the Biblical evidence FOR Christian living with as many children as God might provide; and AGAINST birth control, contraception, and all forms of “family planning”, while answering the most common objections along the way.  

Starting with The Sufficiency of Scripture, we will establish how the Bible speaks to this issue.  We’ll look to The Gospel Picture in Marriage to determine the relationship of procreation & unity – of life and love.  The Dominion Mandate will be defined and examined to see whether or not it still applies today.  We will consider the purpose of The Natural Process in God’s unique design of the female body.  We will see Children as God’s Blessing from His hand and the proper place for wisdom in family.  Finally, we’ll end with a review of how Parenthood affects our understanding of God, our sanctification, and our Evangelism.

This film is for Christians as an aid to help us recover the gospel in family life.  The best witness before a lost and dying world, is an obedient life, surrendered to Christ, the Creator and Sustainer of all life.  May we preach the gospel with our lips and with our lives.

1 posted on 02/17/2014 9:40:55 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Brian Kopp DPM

 

The fruit of our contraceptive culture is rancid and many voices are calling for a restoration of the church. In order to effectively communicate the truth about birth control and it’s impact on the church, marriage, and family, we begin by asking two questions: How Did We Get Here, and Is It Up to Us?

Thus The BIRTH CONTROL MOVIE Project, was born out of a desire to communicate the truth about birth control from the Word of God.

Our first award-winning documentary, BIRTH CONTROL: How Did We Get Here?, was created to educate audiences on the history of birth control and its impact on the church, marriage, and family.

Our feature documentary BIRTH CONTROL: Is It Up to Us?, was created to train Christian audiences to apply sound biblical doctrine to the area of family planning with a true gospel-centered attitude towards children and a desire for multi-generational legacy.

The first of two films focuses on the history of birth control and it’s impact on the church, marriage, and family.


This engagingly fast-paced documentary takes a historic look at the modern church’s public embrace and overwhelming acceptance of child prevention as biblical theology. The reinterpretation of Scripture and rejection of our church history in the mid twentieth century allowed for responsible planned procreation.

Read more about the film...

No longer was the raising of godly seed seen as the primary purpose of marriage; but now marriage was redefined as a union “intended for companionship and mutual spiritual aid”. This new view, brought on by the European spread of eugenics, brought rise to a departure from centuries of universal agreement among all branches of the church. In essence, the church was complicit in championing “privacy in marriage” to allow the liberty of responsible planned parenthood, heedless of scriptural authority or precedence.

 “In answering How Did We Get Here? we will be one step closer to a return to the Church’s historic and Biblical view of marriage and a resurgence of desire for godly offspring.”

Director Kevin Peeples’ desire to create a film on birth control was founded on his own personal journey to answer the question posed by the upcoming film BIRTH CONTROL: Is It Up to Us?, but once the project was started he and his fellow producers, Scott Dix and Nathan Nicholson, discovered that before answering that question, a look into the history of the church was in order. How Did We Get Here?  took the team around the United States capturing captivating interviews with authors, historians, theologians, radio talk show hosts and others, such as Dr. George Grant, Dr. Allan Carlson, Geoffrey Botkin, Dr. R.C. Sproul Jr., Lila Rose, Kevin Swanson, and Julie Roys.

Starting with creation and ending in the late 20th Century, this film will look at how the Church’s voice changed radically in the 20th century due to overwhelming social pressure. Before we can discuss the desperate need to return to Scripture and to the Church’s historic position on marriage and family, a need arose to present where we came from and how we got here. How Did We Get Here? sets the stage for Is It Up to Us?.

 

 

 

The title question of the film seeks its answer by studying God’s sovereignty, reviewing our response to God’s revealed will, and defines the God-given avenues for obedience, sanctification, and proper stewardship.

Children bring maturity, obedience, sanctification, and strength in facing difficult circumstances. And when you study what the scriptures say, we realize that birth control can have no part of our lives. Controlling and preventing children is contrary to creating lasting legacy through fruitful and obedient marriages.

This film is currently in production and will be available soon! 

 

 

 

“Fear thou not; for I am with thee.  No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper.”   Isaiah 41:10; 54: 17

One man fought the battle for national purity… and won. By the 1870’s, a young Anthony Comstock arrived in New York City in the middle of the Second Industrial Revolution.  America was changing.  As the world’s first billion dollar company was being formed, rural families flocked to the city and immigration exploded.  New technologies coupled with metropolitan anonymity enabled the rapid spread of obscenity, contraception, and abortion.  Insufficient laws had not caught up to new challenges and Comstock saw how these vices would have a detrimental effect on the family and American culture if not properly checked.  By age 28, he made an unconditional surrender of his life to the will of God; he gave up his personal ambitions and took God’s will for himself, no matter what might be the cost.  He entered the fight.

He began by making citizen’s arrests and incredibly within a year he found himself in Washington, DC meeting with congressmen and drafting the Postal Act of 1873.  The Comstock Act, as it soon came to be known, passed in dramatic fashion during the final hours of the 42nd Congress and Comstock himself was shortly thereafter surprised with an appointment to be its chief enforcer with the newly created office of U.S. Post Office Special Agent.  Thus, Comstock embarked on the life work in which he would serve for the next 42 years.  This book tells the story of how Anthony Comstock almost single-handedly fought the battle for national purity and won. 

2 posted on 02/17/2014 9:43:07 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian Kopp DPM

Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae... prescient.


3 posted on 02/17/2014 9:44:11 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

At least some of our separated brethren are waking up, as evidenced by these movies. Now if we could just get the Catholic bishops to wake up.


4 posted on 02/17/2014 9:47:20 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: Brian Kopp DPM

bookmark


6 posted on 02/17/2014 10:33:16 PM PST by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

Truth will set you free.


7 posted on 02/17/2014 11:39:47 PM PST by If You Want It Fixed - Fix It
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Brian Kopp DPM

It is hard to see, but I believe this pendulum will swing back.


8 posted on 02/18/2014 1:52:10 AM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian Kopp DPM; Gamecock; daniel1212; metmom

ping


9 posted on 02/18/2014 5:15:44 AM PST by Cronos (Obama’s dislike of Assad is not based on Assad’s brutality but that he isn't a jihadi Moslem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Brian Kopp DPM

Wow.


10 posted on 02/18/2014 5:16:42 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

The pendulum will certainly swing back. Truth always prevails. Sometimes it takes fire from the sky to make it happen though as in the Old Testament.


11 posted on 02/18/2014 5:41:31 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

R.C. Sproul was involved in this project. I know he is highly regarded among some FReepers. Hopefully this will open some minds and hearts to these Truths.


12 posted on 02/18/2014 5:46:38 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

This country rapid slide into Sodom and Gomorrah, from abortion, to homosexual “marriage”, started with birth control “free sex with no conditions” outside marriage. It has destroyed the sacrament of marriage.


13 posted on 02/18/2014 6:02:29 AM PST by NKP_Vet ("I got a good Christian raisin', and 8th grade education, aint no need ya'll treatin' me this way")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Thanks for the ping.

In a way the movie seems a bit of a mea culpa for mainstream Protestantism missing the boat. “Opposition to birth control was seen as a Catholic thing,” one commentator says. “Protestants were for liberty.”

Having worshiped in conservative Reformed churches for the last 20 or so years I will say that each of them puts great value on large families and are against oral contraception. So my data point is 3 PCA churches, a United Reformed Church of North America congregation and an ARP church.

14 posted on 02/18/2014 6:10:07 AM PST by Gamecock (Grace is not opposed to human activity. It's opposed to human merit. MSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

It has helped destroyed the state’s reasons for and definition of civil marriage. Can’t destroy a Sacrament.

The modern state defining/redefining marriage + acceptance of bc has done a lot to harm our culture for sure.

FReegards


15 posted on 02/18/2014 6:10:33 AM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Brian Kopp DPM

“A Protestant film questions contraception, and rediscovers Reformation beliefs”

“Protestant” does not represent a monolithic block that can be extrapolated into anything meaningful.

I wouldn’t read too much into this - good or bad.


16 posted on 02/18/2014 6:15:34 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Martin Luther called contraception “marital sodomy.” Calvin called it an “unforgivable sin.” How Protestantism got to where it is today on this subject is worthy of extensive study and reflection.

That some Protestants are seeing the light on this issue and actually investing serious time and money in trying to teach others these Truths is a true sign of hope.


17 posted on 02/18/2014 6:27:01 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Brian Kopp DPM
R.C. Sproul was involved in this project. I know he is highly regarded among some FReepers. Hopefully this will open some minds and hearts to these Truths.

If Reformed folk had a pope, RC might just be the one sitting in a big chair in Geneva.

18 posted on 02/18/2014 6:40:28 AM PST by Gamecock (Grace is not opposed to human activity. It's opposed to human merit. MSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Brian Kopp DPM

News flash. Lots of Catholics use birth control.

It’s not really an exclusive “Protestant” or “Catholic” issue.

It’s more a third world, vs. first world issue.


19 posted on 02/18/2014 6:46:52 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

News flash. Catholics who practice birth control do so knowing its against their Church’s teaching. Protestants who practice birth control do it with their church’s blessing. There’s a real difference there.

It’s not a first world vs third world thing. It’s a sinful vs non sinful thing.


20 posted on 02/18/2014 6:53:15 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

I was just reading more about this effort. The RC Sproul in this movie is RC Sproul Jr., not his dad. I don’t know where the ‘Reformed pope’ actually stands on this subject.


21 posted on 02/18/2014 7:08:36 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
This country rapid slide into Sodom and Gomorrah, from abortion, to homosexual “marriage”, started with birth control “free sex with no conditions” outside marriage. It has destroyed the sacrament of marriage.

The slide began before birth control.

Correlation is not causation.

For all the touting of birth control being the cause of the moral decline in this country, what people don't realize is that any evil is not going to get a foothold unless the heart is there first. Sin begins in the heart before it is born in the actions.

Birth control didn't cause the moral decline.

It's a symptom, not the cause.

If people want to blame anything, we could point out that Vatican 2 came before birth control and it'd be just as easy to claim that is the cause of the moral decline in this society.

22 posted on 02/18/2014 7:19:58 AM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Brian Kopp DPM; Gamecock

Can Catholics ever unwrap their minds from around the concept that not everyone else follows a man like they do?

Honestly, they have been so conditioned to follow a human leader, it’s clear that it’s beyond the comprehension of virtually any Catholic I’ve ever met that not everyone else follows a *pope*.


23 posted on 02/18/2014 7:22:16 AM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Christianity universally taught that contraception was sinful for 1930 years. For the last 80 years some Christians have changed this universal historical moral teaching of Christianity to suit the modern world. If you think we are living in an age of Christian enlightenment you are deceived. We are living in an age of great apostasy and caving on contraception is part of that apostasy. Some folks are so blinded by their hatred of what they think Catholicism is that they are willing to defend drinking the contraceptive Kool Aid just to prop up their anti Catholic monomania.


24 posted on 02/18/2014 7:29:48 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Vatican 2 came before birth control

Vatican II took place in the 1960s. Birth control has been around since Onan. "And for this The Lord took his life."

25 posted on 02/18/2014 7:50:55 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Brian Kopp DPM

A loose translation and Scripture gives another reason for Onan losing his life.

The fact that he would not fulfill his obligation to his dead brother and raise up children for him.

So the only verse in all of Scripture that the Catholic church and others who oppose contraception hangs its hat on has another, better, interpretation.

Cherry picking verses to make blanket doctrine on is foolish at best. Building on sand.

If someone is looking to condemn contraception, there are better verses to be used.


26 posted on 02/18/2014 7:57:39 AM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: metmom
So the only verse in all of Scripture that the Catholic church and others who oppose contraception hangs its hat on has another, better, interpretation.

The entire history of Christianity, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholics, universally without exception interpreted that verse one way for 1930 years. Now you come along with a new novel interpretation of that verse, one never advanced in the history of Christian thought until this evil, apostate age, and you want us to believe the entire unanimous history of Christian thought on the subject is wrong ... and you're right.

You do realize just how ridiculous that is, don't you? How much it begs the question, what is it you're really afraid of? That if the Church is right on this and you (most obviously) are wrong, maybe the Church is right on a lot more things than you're willing to admit. And admitting being in error is the one thing many people can't do, even if it jeopardizes their eternal salvation.

I'm sure that terrifies many folks. But have courage and pray, there's still hope. Truth will prevail.

27 posted on 02/18/2014 8:15:46 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: metmom
So the only verse in all of Scripture that the Catholic church and others who oppose contraception hangs its hat on has another, better, interpretation.

By the way, you do realize who was responsible for popularizing this "other, better interpretation," right?

It was Margaret Sanger. Ironically, she was a fallen away Catholic. She knew the Church would never cave on this issue, so she deliberately set out to drive a wedge between Protestants and Catholics, to get Protestants to embrace this new, "better interpretation" of the Onan incident.

So you follow the lead of the founder of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the USA, and consider that interpretation as authoritative over and against that of historical Christianity. Good luck with that. That must be horrifying to contemplate.

28 posted on 02/18/2014 8:36:02 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Brian Kopp DPM
"Can Catholics ever unwrap their minds from around the concept that not everyone else follows a man like they do?"

ROTFLOL !!!!

So now we're told being led by "Me, Myself, and I" isn't being led by a human.

Relying on Self and Self Alone is absolutely being led by a human.

No wonder so many people who claim to be Christian rationalize away little things like murdering their children in the womb. They're under such a strong delusion they can't tell the difference between being led by their very human Self and Self Alone and being led by the Holy Spirit.

Obviously, denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit by insisting the Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect Scripture from the inclusion of error inevitability leads to elevating ones own, Most High and Holy Self into the Trinity after booting the Holy Spirit out of it.

29 posted on 02/18/2014 8:51:37 AM PST by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Brian Kopp DPM
How much it begs the question, what is it you're really afraid of? That if the Church is right on this and you (most obviously) are wrong, maybe the Church is right on a lot more things than you're willing to admit. And admitting being in error is the one thing many people can't do, even if it jeopardizes their eternal salvation.

BWAHAHA!!!

I'm not afraid at all to admit that the Catholic church has been right about some things. Which is far more than most Catholics can do with Protestantism.

The same question could be asked of you and other Catholics who demonstrate an even greater reluctance to admit that ANYTHING a non-Catholic says or believes could be true..

And, no, my eternal salvation is not jeopardized by disagreement with any one denominations interpretation of Scripture, unlike Catholicism teaches if you disagree with it.

30 posted on 02/18/2014 8:56:22 AM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Brian Kopp DPM
"Cherry picking verses to make blanket doctrine on is foolish at best. Building on sand."

Riiiight.

God spelled out a punishment for refusing to carry on your brothers line and it wasn't the death penalty.

But, when it suits someones preconceptions, it's all right to claim that Onan was a case of God Almighty contradicting what God Almighty spelled out as the correct punishment?

So much for God being the same yesterday, today, and forever as well as the marketing canard of, "Scripture interprets Scripture".

31 posted on 02/18/2014 8:56:41 AM PST by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: metmom

So ... are you going to keep following Margaret Sanger’s interpretation of Scripture, or are you going to start believing and defending the Christian interpretation?


32 posted on 02/18/2014 8:58:15 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Brian Kopp DPM

“There’s a real difference there.”

No, not really. The standard is the same for Catholics using Birth Control, and Protestants using Birth Control - no matter which side of the fence you happen to be looking.

It really is a first world thing - where birth control is in wide use and correlates little with religion - as compared to a third world thing where birth control is not in as wide use and also doesn’t correlate much with religion.

It makes no (apparent) difference to those of any particular religion what that religion says they must do when it comes to birth control.

That’s why this film is of little consequence - because it attempts to assign relevance to a larger group because some of them are Protestant.


33 posted on 02/18/2014 9:08:51 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“it’d be just as easy to claim that is the cause of the moral decline in this society”

Birth control and the bra burning women feminists in the 60s started it all, whether you want to believe it or not. The throw-away culture of not caring one way or the other what is moral and what’s not. And the teachings of the Catholic Church has stayed firm while the rest of society has went to hell in a hand-basket. And don’t give me any statistics that say the majority of “Catholics” practice birth control. They go against the teachings of their church and have let protestantism/modernism take over their lives.


34 posted on 02/18/2014 9:10:19 AM PST by NKP_Vet ("I got a good Christian raisin', and 8th grade education, aint no need ya'll treatin' me this way")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: metmom

God’s commandment, not the pope’s. Try again.

“I am God Almighty; Be fruitful and multiply” ~ Genesis 35:11

NOTE: No where in the Bible does it say to pop a pill and not get pregnant. Artificial birth control is as evil as abortion.


35 posted on 02/18/2014 9:15:58 AM PST by NKP_Vet ("I got a good Christian raisin', and 8th grade education, aint no need ya'll treatin' me this way")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Now here you are, on the RF trying to make a little sense.

You won’t get very far. Many of us have tried already.


36 posted on 02/18/2014 9:17:34 AM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Defending Margaret Sanger’s interpretation of the Onan incident is your idea of making sense? What a strange little world you must live in.


37 posted on 02/18/2014 9:22:19 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Brian Kopp DPM
How Protestantism got to where it is today on this subject is worthy of extensive study and reflection.

Considering the position that most Catholics hold on BC, maybe you ought to start asking your fellow parishioners.

Because while the *official* position of the Catholic church on birth control is well established, there's a huge disparity between what it claims and what is actually being taught (or NOT taught) and what is being practiced.

*Official* teachings and doctrine don't mean a hill of beans if it's not being taught by the hierarchy and ENFORCED.

If the Catholic church refuses to address it's constituents when this stuff is being practiced, then it has no one to blame but itself for the direction most of its members and priests are moving in.

38 posted on 02/18/2014 9:23:54 AM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Brian Kopp DPM; metmom

“Now you come along with a new novel interpretation of that verse”

The Nancy Pelosi interpretation.

NOTE: Margaret Sanger was against abortion. She was also an athiest, who might have been baptised as Catholic, but never practiced the faith. Her father was a big time athiest.


39 posted on 02/18/2014 9:29:26 AM PST by NKP_Vet ("I got a good Christian raisin', and 8th grade education, aint no need ya'll treatin' me this way")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“and priests are moving in”

Please provide links that say “most” Catholic priests are moving toward birth control. You can’t, because it is falsehood made up by you.


40 posted on 02/18/2014 9:34:29 AM PST by NKP_Vet ("I got a good Christian raisin', and 8th grade education, aint no need ya'll treatin' me this way")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: metmom
we could point out that Vatican 2 came before birth control

Huh? The Protestant approval of contraception started with the 1930 Anglican Lambeth Conference. That's not after Vatican 2 in anybody's math.

41 posted on 02/18/2014 10:04:49 AM PST by Campion ("Social justice" begins in the womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: metmom
The fact that he would not fulfill his obligation to his dead brother and raise up children for him.

The penalty for that in the Mosaic Law is public humiliation, not death. Look it up.

42 posted on 02/18/2014 10:07:13 AM PST by Campion ("Social justice" begins in the womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: metmom
This thread is about a Protestant movie regarding the Protestant position on birth control. I notice you like to change the subject when the debate doesn't go the way you prefer.

So ... are you going to keep following Margaret Sanger’s interpretation of Scripture, or are you going to start believing and defending the Christian interpretation?

43 posted on 02/18/2014 10:38:12 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
It really is a first world thing - where birth control is in wide use and correlates little with religion - as compared to a third world thing where birth control is not in as wide use and also doesn’t correlate much with religion.

You're obviously not paying much attention to third world demographic trends. Even third world fertility rates have collapsed in the last two decades including Muslim cultures.

So your third world vs first world distinctions do not reflect reality (or common sense.) This is a global trend.

44 posted on 02/18/2014 11:09:38 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Brian Kopp DPM; metmom; Gamecock; Mrs. Don-o

Not really...since even the word "contraception" had to be invented to describe the process. Until fairly recently in the history of man, there was little to no latex, and no pills prescribed by physicians. Earlier uses of "Onan" to disapprove of male sexual discharges in any other than martial relation necessarily involving coitus directly, and that alone --- though possibly used as attempt to make argument for particular position by way of scripture, held the same flaws all along. Ask the Jews -- it's their scripture, and has depth of meaning which they are the very ones having the best description of those portions. That many have wrested those passages to some ends which may otherwise have justification, does not equal those passages having had proper or best interpretations among 'Christians' down through the centuries.

Other than after-the-fact home remedy sort of abortion treatments, to force miscarriage, there wasn't much in the way of birth control to talk about until fairly recent.

As I understand it, the interpretation is actually a Hebrew or Jewish interpretation and application of those passages truer meanings. If "never advanced in history of Christian thought", again, it was as much for reason the issue or idea of contraception, itself, wasn't all that much of an issue, and using Onan in this sense --- is among those 'close--but no cigar' sort of things, for lack of proper fit.

I'm continually taken a-back by just how casually Jewish Targum and Midrash are so thoroughly set aside by those who would seek instead to replace conceptualizations found there, with some version of "Christian" equivalent --- in taking some product of derived interpretation to stand in place of scripture itself --- which most of Judaism does acknowledge there need be bulwark against doing, showing an ongoing understanding there, or at least tacit acknowledgement of principle of sola scriptura...

Getting back more to the subject matter here more narrowly;
If man were to be laying with a woman --- well --- we all, cultures worldwide, know what the result can be -- pregnancy.

Other than some bawdy mention of "English riding coats" made by some upper-class wealthy Lothario -- is there much concerning idea of contraception, in literature from say 17th thru 19th centuries? How common was the practice (at all)? Though there is some evidence of something akin to modern condoms being put to use, it was all but a non-issue (no pun intended) in regards to married persons engaging in otherwise legitimate acts of procreation.

Regardless of which "side" of things one is on, again, the issue of 'contraception' (preventing pregnancy while still engaging in sexual intercourse) wasn't much of an issue, since there really wasn't much of any way to prevent pregnancy from potentially occurring (there wasn't much of anything in the way of 'contra'- conception, other than don't have sex) leaving remedy for the condition to be a thing of potions and poisons, or uterine intrusion/scraping horror. Now those things one could find mentions of being preached against, although I cannot provide specific examples.

As to opposition to use of primitive condoms -- is there any evidence that opposition to the use of those on moral grounds, were not also coupled with (no pun intended!) illicit sex outside of marriage? For that is the fundamental & real issue -- not forms of contraception or pregnancy avoidance strategies themselves.

As to such as;

what is obvious enough, is that this issue of contraception is being now conflated into becoming something it's not, trying to use scripture passages concerning Onan as some proof, leaving it possible a thing the [Roman] Catholic church may be correct enough about (even if citing Onan be not the way to go about it) but does not make the RCC right about much of anything else --- other issues needing stand or fall upon their own merits, available evidence, facts, and truth.

But I do see this issue having been much used by Roman Catholic 'faithful' as a club to bash all others around here over the head with.

I would suggest that trying to squeeze mileage out of Onan in this regard, is falling rather flat and useless on the ground.

Among those not Christian much at all (other than possible adoption & acceptance of some cultural mindset of justice being tempered by mercy, and that doing right, even doing good to others when there is not only no gain for oneself-- but actual costs --- is still nonetheless worthwhile) the Onan argument, and the way it presented also (as has been seen on these pages in the last few days) is not gaining much of anything for the RCC, but rather (i assume) is driving them even further away.

Try approaching the issue from the other direction, as in Pro-Life (pro or being for human life, and more of it) rather than all this effort of trying to chide or shame -- adding in the "the [Roman Catholic] church is right! ANd YOU are wrong!!! sort of hatefulness, continuing justification for ever more bashing hatefulness for any who dare utter more than a few peeps of criticism of Rome.

Stop blending and blurring. If there is truth, just stand for that. Starting off out of the gate with additional agenda --- sullies the name of truth, leaving masses to just turn away from --- how yourself and other have been presenting the arguments.

There is something still in the Hebrew discussions concerning Onan -- the raising up of seed unto one's own brother -- which can hold universal value.

By which I mean, we all together, as persons and nations, due a duty and service by orderly and responsibly bringing about new life "replacement" and continuances of our own bodily life form. Procreation can very much include, yea need well include the sacredness of human life itself, if only for it's potential for greater sacredness, value, true and abiding worth. We were created in His image, albeit that now we (mankind generally) are in a fallen state, fallen away from that original state of innocence and grace, having eaten of the tree of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil.

Abortion --- and possibly even contraception itself (but what of [Roman] Catholic "family planning"?) isn't the simplest place to begin, when looking towards what has developed since that first eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good, and evil--- but I see some continuation there too. Or at least think I do.

Among those Christian, better perhaps than attempting to wring Onan for all he was not worth, could be to go about the argument, the Pro-Life argument as it were, to much more begin in such as Romans 12:1

perhaps continuing on also in that chapter and the like, in context.

This sort of approach is more from the positive side of things, rather than the bashing -- do what we say or else -- sort of imposition.

Present our bodies as living sacrifice to whom? To God, not to the brow-beatings of those who wrap themselves in some sort of mantle of fuzzy infallibility...

It stands to reason that we should all (those who are Christian, and acquainted with His Spirit) check ourselves in our own approaches to subject matter, and discussions.

Now I (my polemical self) am going to suit up in the asbestos (wishing to preserve my life for a time, this not being my place of final sacrifice if that be among my own eventual lot in life -- I dunno) for I'm sure the [rhetorical] flames will be coming my way...for I doubt that those who have picked up the torch on this issue, having massaged it into being one of those things perceived to be advantageous to [Roman] Catholic image and continuing self justifications of the "image" they wish to present to the world (they alone right in any things to do with God so there!) will be persuaded to tone it down any more than Jake the dog can be persuaded to give up the rib bones that were just tossed his way.

That dog Jake, will bite the hand that just provided the bone, if that same hand reach to take it from him...

45 posted on 02/18/2014 11:22:20 AM PST by BlueDragon (oh holy simplicity. just go ahead and light that fire and be done with it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon
Regardless of which "side" of things one is on, again, the issue of 'contraception' (preventing pregnancy while still engaging in sexual intercourse) wasn't much of an issue, since there really wasn't much of any way to prevent pregnancy from potentially occurring (there wasn't much of anything in the way of 'contra'- conception, other than don't have sex) leaving remedy for the condition to be a thing of potions and poisons, or uterine intrusion/scraping horror. Now those things one could find mentions of being preached against, although I cannot provide specific examples.

What a load of nonsense and sophistry. If you do not know or care to know the long and ancient history of the practice of birth control, and the earliest Christian prohibitions against it, please refrain from pontificating on this thread. Effectiveness of the methods does not have anything to do with their universal and constant condemnation.

From http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Abortion_Euthanasia/Abortion_Euthanasia_004.htm

The Didache

As might be expected, Christians were faced from the beginning with the option of following the more difficult teaching of the Church or of conforming to their pagan environment.

While explicit and verbatim condemnation of contraception seems to have come toward the end of the second century, a passage in a first century document, the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (dated about 94 A.D.) has been interpreted as the first reaction of the Church to the prevalent non-Christian custom of destroying unwanted human life or preventing it by physical or magical means.

Aristotle is a prominent witness to the common Greek and Roman attitude toward contraception. Writing in the Historia Animalium, he explains that “Since conception is prevented if the parts be smooth, some anoint that part of the womb on which the seed falls with oil of cedar, or with ointment of lead or frankincense, commingled with olive oil” (Historia Animalium, III, 3, 583a).

As stated in the Didache, the Christian is reminded that there are two Ways, one of Life and one of Death, “and there is a great difference between the two Ways.”

For a Christian the first commandment is to love God with one’s whole heart and soul. It is in the second commandment, loving one’s neighbor, that the believer is told to respect human life, whether physically as already existing or sexually as in potentiality.

The operative words, to be quoted in context are: “Thou shalt not use magic (ou mageuseis); thou shalt not use drugs (ou pharmakeusis).” It is reasonable to conclude that the double prohibition refers to contraception and abortion because these terms (mageia) and (pharmaka) were understood to cover the use of magical rites and/or medical potions for both contraception and abortion. Moreover, the context in the Didache refers to sex activity and the right to life.

The second commandment of the teaching is this: “Thou shalt not commit murder; thou shalt not commit adultery.” Thou shalt not commit sodomy; thou shalt not commit fornication; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not use magic: thou shalt not use drugs; thou shalt not procure abortion, nor commit infanticide (Didache, II, 1-2).

Among other early condemnations of birth prevention are the first century Letter of Barnabas (X, 8) which denounces the practice of having intercourse while making conception impossible; and the mid-second century Apology of St. Justin the martyr who describes the marital problems of a young Christian convert. Her husband tried to satisfy his sex urge by copulating with her “against the law of nature and against what is right.” Her family prevailed on her to remain with the man for a while, but finally she could not tolerate his morals and left him. Justin praises her conduct in refusing to participate in the man’s “impious conduct” (Apologia II, 1).


46 posted on 02/18/2014 11:57:51 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Campion

GOD killed Onan, not the Israelites.


47 posted on 02/18/2014 12:00:39 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon
The Catholic teaching, based on comments on this and other threads, indicates that there is the mindset that sex for any other purpose but procreation, is sinful and leads to other sinful behavior, such as homosexuality.

Now, I do not get what the Catholic church's problem with sex is.

They hold virginity as a higher ideal to which to aspire than being married. They (now) demand it of their priests and nuns. They presume to tell married couples how to manage their sex life. They hypocritically push their church approved contraception under the guise of *Natural Family Planning*

Now clearly God didn't have any problem with humans having sex for enjoyment. After all, when He created Adam and Eve, he blessed their union and part of the curse was that God was going to greatly increase Eve's conception, meaning that if she wasn't that fertile then most of the sex Adam and Eve would have engaged in would have been for the fun of it. (Oh the HORROR!!!! ..../s)

Lest anyone think I'm exaggerating about the RCC stand on sex and virginity, here, from the Council of Trent.....

ON THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY.(anathemas)

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct24.html

CANON X. -If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.

48 posted on 02/18/2014 12:16:30 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon
Among those not Christian much at all (other than possible adoption & acceptance of some cultural mindset of justice being tempered by mercy, and that doing right, even doing good to others when there is not only no gain for oneself-- but actual costs --- is still nonetheless worthwhile) the Onan argument, and the way it presented also (as has been seen on these pages in the last few days) is not gaining much of anything for the RCC, but rather (i assume) is driving them even further away.

They're picking the wrong mountain to die on.

Telling people that contraception is evil will not convince people that they need Jesus.

That is dealing with the symptom, not the cause.

FWIW, the Holy Spirit in inspired Scripture tells us that the love of money is the root of all evil. I guess HE is wrong as well. Good thing the Catholic church is here to straighten Him out.

49 posted on 02/18/2014 12:20:21 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Brian Kopp DPM
I see. The "bashing" of those not falling entirely in line with your rhetorical approach, shall continue. And this, even as a perhaps better way was pointed towards...

Woof. nice doggy [pat-pat]

50 posted on 02/18/2014 12:23:34 PM PST by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-122 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