Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

6 Reasons Why Contraception is Sinful and Contrary to God's Will
Canterbury Tales Blog ^ | February 15, 2012 | Dr. Taylor Marshall

Posted on 02/15/2012 6:49:17 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

6 Reasons Why Contraception is Sinful and Contrary to God's Will


Prior to 1930, all Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox held that contraception was sinful and contrary to God's will. Not only Catholics, but even dissenting voices such as Martin Luther and John Calvin agreed that contraception was against the natural law and the revealed will of God.

The unified consensus against contraception fell apart in 1930, when the Seventh Lambeth Conference of the Church of England, representing the Anglican Communion, issued a statement allowing birth control "when there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence." This highly controversial decision was gradually accepted by Protestants in general so that currently 90% or more (according to a Harris Interactive poll) practicing Evangelicals support the use of contraceptives and contraceptive behavior. Although the Duggars of "19 and Counting" fame are Protestant, they are certainly the exception.

It's been about 80 years since Protestants changed their position, so that hardly anyone living today remembers a time when all those claiming the title "Christian" opposed contraception. Even the Eastern Orthodox have caved in. The Eastern Orthodox, who claim to be stalwart defenders of their tradition, have reversed the tradition and allowed for contraception - contradicting the plain teaching of Saint John Chrysostom on this matter. The Eastern Orthodox Metropolitan Jonah here in the United States is leading the charge in this regard.

The only people defending the traditional view universally against contraception are Catholics. We're riding solo and it's a tough battle.

In the discussions regarding American health care and the HHS debate, many folks (even some Catholics) are confused as to why Catholics are so concerned about contraception. "Everybody is doing it," so it can't be wrong...right?

Well, just remember that "contraceiving Christians" is a new phenomenon. It was formerly believed to be gravely evil. Let us examine six reasons why contraception is sinful and contrary to God's will.

1. Contraception is contrary to natural law. The male and female procreative organs naturally come together to procreate a child. The word procreate includes the term "create" since a new life is made. In the case of humans, a new immortal soul is created by God when the father and mother come together and conceive a new person. As Peter Kreeft said, the most holy place on earth is the altar where the Eucharist is consecrated - the second most holy place is the woman's body since it form there that new immortal souls spring forth. The procreative organs naturally function for procreation. That is why God made them as they are. To frustrate the act (interruptus or barrier) is gravely sinful. To poison the body with hormones so as to inhibit the woman's natural cycle of fertility (birth control pill) is gravely sinful. To cut out or purposefully scar procreative organs (sterilization) is gravel sinful. These acts seek to destroy what is natural.

2. In the Bible, babies are always a blessing, never a curse.
Lo, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the sons of one’s youth.
Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate (Ps 126:3-5).
The Catholic Church has always agreed with the words of this Psalm: “children are a heritage from the Lord. Happy is the man who has a quiver full of them!” To this effect, Saint Paul teaches:
Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty (1 Tim 2:15).
Granted, this is an obscure passage, but it highlights the esteemed role that women have in bringing new souls into the world. The Christian wife is exhorted to possess “faith and love and holiness, with modesty” but her personal sacrifice of bearing children is esteemed as the greatest response to the grace of God in her life. Just as God the Father is always open to more and more children whom he loves, so also the Catholic parent remains open to this precious gift of life.

The emphasis on the gift of life and the rules and norms for protecting it are essential to Catholic moral teaching. The sexual abuses condemned by the Apostle Paul can be summed up as an abuse of one of the greatest gifts given to humanity—the ability to cooperate with God’s creative power. God could have continued to create human beings just like he created Adam; instead He chose to bring about new persons through the institution of marriage and the family.

3. The case of Onan. Catholics (and pre-1930 Protestants) condemn both masturbation and contraception by appealing to the case of Onan who "spilled his seed on the ground":

He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, he spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name. And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing. (Genesis 38:9–10, D-R)
Here, God directly kills Onan for performing coitus interruptus. Onan's crime included gaining the pleasure of sexual relations with Tamar but the refusal to see the act through as a natural act intended for procreation. Hence, intentional spilling of seed, either in the form of masturbation or contraception is gravely sinful - so much so that God killed a man for it.

Some may object: "Yes, but God killed him for not fulfilling Levirate duties - not for contraception." This objection is poor since Judah also failed in executing the Levirate obligations - but he was not killed by God. So then, it was the contraceptive act in particular that proved both sinful and mortal for Onan.

4. The New Testament condemns contraception, which it calls pharmakeia. As I detail in my book The Catholic Perspective on Paul, Saint Paul condemns contraception by the name of "pharmakeia," the word from which we derive our term "pharmacy."
Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery {pharmakeia}, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal 5:19-21).
Surely, Paul does not mean to condemn those who prescribe herbs for those suffering from gout. Looking back to Saint Paul’s list, we see that the sin of pharamakeia follows sexual sins and the sin of idolatry. These ancient witchdoctors or pharmacists were especially popular in idolatrous cultures, since pagan fertility rites often involved sexual orgies. Obviously, the women involved in these depraved rituals would not wish to bear children to strangers, and so they sought to become sterile or sought to relieve themselves of the responsibility of a child through abortion. The ancient Greek pharmacists could provide drugs to meet these goals.

The book of Revelation also condemns those who practice pharmakeia along with those who practice idolatry, murder, and sexual immorality (Rev 9:20-21). The grouping of pharmakeia with the three sins of idolatry, murder, and sexual immorality further confirms that pharmakeia is sin relating to killing and sexual impurity. The second-century physician Soranos of Ephesus, in his book Gynecology, uses the Greek term pharmakeia to refer to potions used for both contraception and abortion. In a similar manner, the third-century theologian Hippolytus condemned certain Christian women who employed “drugs {pharmakois} for producing sterility.”

5. The Church Fathers condemned contraception. This could be a post on its own. I'll just provide three quotes from the Church Fathers on this subject. The first is from the eminent Saint John Chrysostom (in AD 391):
"[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father’s old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live." John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 28:5 (A.D. 391).
The second is from Saint Jerome (in AD 393) and draws on the sin of Onan:
"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" Jerome, Against Jovinian 1:19 (A.D. 393).
And then third from Saint Augustine (in AD 419):
"I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility…Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife." Augustine, Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 (A.D. 419).
In this last quote, we see that Saint Augustine's concern that contraceptive acts turn a wife into a harlot since she is merely satisfying the lusts of her husband and not for the sake of matrimony - a word which means in Latin duty or gift of motherhood from matris (of a mother) and munus (gift, duty, office). This objectification of women brings us to our last reason...

6. Contemporary Observations and the so-called Sexual Revolution. The advent of contraception also accompanied the rise abortion, feminism, pornography, out of wedlock birth, and homosexuality. They all come and go together. If sexual pleasure is formally divorced from conceiving children, then why would pornography by sinful? Why would masturbation be sinful? And if a couple just wanted the pleasure and never intended to conceive a child with their act, then don't they have the "right" to terminate a pregnancy if a conception should happen "by accident"? And if sexual pleasure is for the sake of pleasure, then why would homosexuality be sinful? If God wanted people to experience these pleasures, then pleasure should be the measurement. But this is all ridiculous. The natural, God-appointed purpose of this act is to procreate children and this is why pornography, masturbation, homosexuality, and abortion are wrong. It is also the reason why contraception is gravely sinful.

Contraception is often an uncomfortable topic to discuss with family and friends - especially when they are amused or alarmed by large families that welcome new children. Let this post do some of the work for you. Please share this with your friends via Facebook and other means. People, especially women, don't really want to subject themselves to contraceptive practices. Let's prayerfully and humbly help others to be whole, healthy, and holy in this regard.

“Behold the inheritance of the Lord are children: the reward, the fruit of the womb.” (Psalm 126:3, D-R)
Do you enjoy reading Canterbury Tales by Taylor Marshall? Make it easier to receive daily posts. It's free. Please click here to sign up by Feed or here to sign up by Email. Please also explore Taylor's books about Catholicism at amazon.com.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last

1 posted on 02/15/2012 6:49:22 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

I don’t God would have made it a pleasurable act, unless he £eant for it to be pleasurable in and of itself.

In regards to Onan, according to Rabbis, he wasn’t killed for making it only an act of pleasure, but because he was purposefully not completing his obligation to give his brother an heir.

It was an act to bind a married couple with the intent of creating children, but also an act of pleasure.


2 posted on 02/15/2012 6:57:35 PM PST by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Dimocrats are counting on us having this type of discussion, and they will use it to club us over the head and reelect the big 0.

We need to stay far, far away from the religious arguments, and stay with the unConstitutionality of the the whole thing.


3 posted on 02/15/2012 7:00:21 PM PST by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TeĆ³filo; Cronos; wagglebee; dsc; Deo volente; MarkBsnr; Mad Dawg; ArrogantBustard; ...
I don't think Obama realized what he was getting into when he launched this attack.

The media sensation created by the HHS mandate is causing many Christians of good will to honestly reexamine this issue, and it will bring about a conversion of many hearts, not only to renewed openness to God's Providence and new Life, but also to the Church.

Among those genuinely seeking the Truth and eager to do the Lord's Will, this subject has never been a "losing" battle.

It has brought many home to Christ's Church, and will bring many more, not thanks to the USCCB but, paradoxically, to Obama.

Please, continue to pray for the conversion or the confounding of the enemies of God and His Church.

QUAERITUR: Why pray to “confuse” enemies rather than “convert”?

From a reader:

Sometimes you write that we should pray for strength for the Pope but confusion for his enemies. Shouldn’t you pray for the conversion the his enemies?

Okay. Pray for conversion. By all means.

Perhaps I have read 19th century English novels, Patrick O’Brien, and both the King James and Douay versions of the Bible enough that some of turns of phrase stick in my head.

“Confusion to one’s enemies” is a constant prayer in the Scriptures and it is what God inflicts on those who are doing something in defiance of His will. It also came to be a standard expression in English, probably because of the KJV.

“Confusion” and the related “confound” are both from Latin, of course. Confundo means basically “to pour, mingle, or mix together”. By extension it means that, when things are poured together they become jumbled and confused, disordered. Thus there is a moral notion of dissaray, intellectual confusion, ineffectiveness. Someone who has been “confounded” has been thwarted in his scheme, has been demonstrated to be wrong.

This is what God did to the people who built the Tower of Babel: he confused them and their wicked goal by scrambling their speech. In English, “confound” concerns making someone confused or defeating them, or even refuting a bad argument.

In the Psalms we have myriad references to confusion and confounding.

Thus, in Psalms 70:13 in the older numbering we find: “Let them be confounded and come to nothing that detract my soul; let them be covered with confusion and blame that seek my hurt.”

In Jeremiah 8:12 we have this confounded confusion: “They are confounded, because they have committed abomination: yea rather they are not confounded with confusion, and they have not known how to blush: therefore shall they fall among them that fall; in the time of their visitation they shall fall, saith the Lord.”

In Acts 9:22 St. Paul gets to confuse people: “But Saul increased much more in strength and confounded the Jews who dwelt at Damascus, affirming that this is the Christ.”

And to the Corinthians Paul wrote (1 Cor 1:27): “But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise: and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the strong.”

In the Douay Bible you can find all sorts of uses of confound.

So, in sum, sometimes I use archaic language.

But by all means, pray that the Pope’s enemies, after being confounded, be converted as well.


4 posted on 02/15/2012 7:01:47 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

I was trying to think of a way to make this comment, but you said it perfectly SuzyQue.

The Obama team is desperately hoping that we make recent events a debate about birth control. Don’t get suckered into playing their game.


5 posted on 02/15/2012 7:04:19 PM PST by elvis-lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

Ain’t gonna happen.


6 posted on 02/15/2012 7:05:15 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

An interesting article with many valid points. I was already much less accepting of contraception than the average Evangelical, but if the word translated “sorcery” actually refers to contraception, I may need to rethink my position.

I’ve always based my view on Paul’s instructions for couples to “come together for a time” - I’m paraphrasing here - and not let sexuality get in the way of spirituality, which ought to play a more significant part of the marriage. That, to me, suggested a limit, so I concluded that using contraceptives only on certain occasions wasn’t that bad.


8 posted on 02/15/2012 7:09:29 PM PST by Cato in PA (1/26/12: Bloody Thursday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

What “ain’t gonna happen”? That we keep our heads, keep the goal in sight and act deliberately and effectively?


9 posted on 02/15/2012 7:10:06 PM PST by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
The argument is really about UNIVERSAL health care. There no way under a UNIVERSAL health care system to exclude birth control. Liberals know this, and Ted Kennedy's life work was to get UNIVERSAL health care instilled into the fabric/fiber of this nation. I heard a priest last week being interview and right out of his mouth while being against the Obama proclamation was his demand for UNIVERSAL health care.
11 posted on 02/15/2012 7:12:12 PM PST by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
In regards to Onan, according to Rabbis, he wasn’t killed for making it only an act of pleasure, but because he was purposefully not completing his obligation to give his brother an heir.

Silly Rabbis. The penalty for that is in Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 25
[5] If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
[6] And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.
[7] And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.
[8] Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;
[9] Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.
[10] And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.

Obviously, Onan was not put to death because of refusing the obligation to give his brother an heir. He was put to death for the plain meaning of the scripture in question, and all of Christianity has understood it as such for 1930 years (at which time the separated brethren caved on this moral theology issue).

12 posted on 02/15/2012 7:13:24 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tzar

That is why I was having a hard time figuring out how to phrase my comment. Any and all matters of faith are a worthy topic for discussion, but in the context of recent events, this discussion, at this time, can be used as a wedge at a time when we need unity.


13 posted on 02/15/2012 7:14:33 PM PST by elvis-lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

The contraception issue is the issue of our age.

I posted why in this thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2836350/posts


14 posted on 02/15/2012 7:17:46 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
2. In the Bible, babies are always a blessing, never a curse.
Luke 21:23 "But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people.

15 posted on 02/15/2012 7:17:51 PM PST by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Silly Rabbis indeed.

If you read the actual passage where the act takes place, you will see why God killed Onan.

http://www.christianpatriot.com/onan.htm


16 posted on 02/15/2012 7:20:30 PM PST by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

The First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits Congress from making any law infringing on your right to the free exercise of your religion. That is the only rightful legal question.

As long as your practice does not infringe on the right to life, liberty or property of another - and in that order - then the rest of us must protect your rights.


17 posted on 02/15/2012 7:20:42 PM PST by hocndoc (WingRight.org: Have mustard seed & I'm not afraid to use it. 2 men inherited a Bush economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Nonsense. It may be one of the issues, but hardly THE issue. You can use it as a means to thwart a possible win in the upcoming election, but to do so is dead wrong, prideful and short-sighted, IMHO.


18 posted on 02/15/2012 7:20:57 PM PST by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Your family practice levirate marriage?


19 posted on 02/15/2012 7:25:53 PM PST by hocndoc (WingRight.org: Have mustard seed & I'm not afraid to use it. 2 men inherited a Bush economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: fso301
Luke 21:23 "But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people.

True, but since "of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone" we're supposed to Trust in Him and rely on His Providence and obey the continual teachings of 2000 years of Christianity until He comes again, lest we be lead astray in those days by men whispering the falsehoods of the Great Apostasy.

The idea that the State provides for us, and therefore must limit us (which is what this HHS mandate is all about, not "freedom" but population control/the control of populations), and that God no longer Provides for His children, and we must provide for ourselves and limit our children - for lack of trusting in and believing in His Providence - is, IMHO, the harbinger of the Great Apostasy.

20 posted on 02/15/2012 7:26:25 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

Wow, that’s the worst piece of spin regarding the Onan incident I’ve yet witnessed. I thought I’d seen them all. Pathetic piece, not at all in line with the universal 2000 year Christian teaching regarding that scripture. Blatant attempt to justify sin.


21 posted on 02/15/2012 7:29:43 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

Demography is destiny. We ignore it at our peril.


22 posted on 02/15/2012 7:32:29 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

Universal healthcare will allow them a say in:

1. What you eat.
2. How much you weigh.
3. Whether you own a gun.
4. What kind of car you drive.
5. An automatic excuse to raise your taxes.
6. The Sex Education of your children.

All of the above can be reframed as health care issues. Probably a few more that I haven’t thought of.


23 posted on 02/15/2012 7:35:58 PM PST by desertfreedom765
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

If you are referring to me, good doctor. :)

I don’t think my position is incorrect. Sexual relations are allowed between a man and woman who are joined by holy matrimony, but not unmarried men and women.

If it was only meant to bring forth children and, not be pleasurable, it wouldn’t have a pleasurable component to it. I do believe God is quite capable of creating acts that are just utilitarian in nature and feel utilitarian, in nature. Or is an orgasm an accidental by-product of a utilitarian act?

I don’t believe that acts of God are evr accidental, but you’re welcome to take that position if you wish.


25 posted on 02/15/2012 7:38:21 PM PST by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tzar

Agreed. Good approach.


26 posted on 02/15/2012 7:40:20 PM PST by elvis-lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Great article and timely. Thanks. I found the Church fathers right on point.


27 posted on 02/15/2012 7:40:57 PM PST by STJPII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

You are very wise.

The first rule of battle is to pick the time and place of the battle. This is the discussion they want to have at this time and place under their terms.


28 posted on 02/15/2012 7:42:38 PM PST by desertfreedom765
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: desertfreedom765
Universal healthcare will allow them a say in: 1. What you eat. 2. How much you weigh. 3. Whether you own a gun. 4. What kind of car you drive. 5. An automatic excuse to raise your taxes. 6. The Sex Education of your children. All of the above can be reframed as health care issues. Probably a few more that I haven’t thought of.

Some of this is already occurring. UNIVERSAL means what it means and IF the Catholic church is demanding UNIVERSAL health care then they will have to provide birth control among a few other requirements. Teddy Kennedy spent his political career pushing UNIVERSAL health care and the Church buried him in good standing.

29 posted on 02/15/2012 7:44:27 PM PST by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

Well, if you’re the author of it, I sincerely feel sorry for you.


30 posted on 02/15/2012 7:45:36 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

And, that has what to do with the constitutionality of a federally mandated health care plan?


31 posted on 02/15/2012 7:45:52 PM PST by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

You’ll have to excuse me, but what am I supposed to be the author of?


32 posted on 02/15/2012 7:48:54 PM PST by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: desertfreedom765; SuzyQue

1) This is the Religion Forum. We can have any discussion of moral theology any time we want on this forum.

2) In God’s Providence, He is confounding the Obama administration, and using them to call His children back to a teaching that was the universal norm of Christianity for 1,930 years. He is using His enemies to wake up His children to a constant teaching they have spurned. Think of it as a test. If we ignore this issue, we do so at our own peril.

If you really think God’s hand is not in this, you are sadly mistaken.


33 posted on 02/15/2012 7:53:08 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

Re; your post #3. - “Deepen, exacerbate existing problems, crises, differences, and if they don’t exist, create them or convincingly claim that they exist, and then deepen, exacerbate them...and profit [politically, ideologically and even financially] the most from them in any way you can, and, in the resulting chaos, blame our enemies for the whole thing.” — Vladimir Ilich Ulianov (Lenin)


34 posted on 02/15/2012 7:53:34 PM PST by anglian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: desertfreedom765

Thanks, but rather than wise, I am very scared. The battle is laid out for those with eyes to see, and in an apparent act of mass attention deficit disorder, we conservatives appear to be determined to throw the race to the bad guys. We have to win this one. A world, for example, where the US has discarded up to 80% of what has been an unpresentedly stabilizing nuclear weaponry force is one that will allow for much evil. We ain’t seen nothing yet.


35 posted on 02/15/2012 7:54:21 PM PST by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

I assumed from your previous post you were the author of the link you had provided. My apologies if my assumption was incorrect, but I’ve seen many attempts to spin the Onan incident, and that was one of the worst I’ve see.


36 posted on 02/15/2012 7:55:43 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue; Dr. Brian Kopp

Yes, that is what they want for a public discussion (contraception alone), but what is going on is beyond that as you imply. So for the arguments against what is going on Rights are what needs to be stressed, but for the sake of learning this was and is a great post and I do appreciate it for educational purposes.


37 posted on 02/15/2012 7:57:52 PM PST by jafojeffsurf (Return to the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue; Dr. Brian Kopp
I humbly disagree. This is a vital discussion, and please note this paragraph:

6. Contemporary Observations and the so-called Sexual Revolution.

The advent of contraception also accompanied the rise abortion, feminism, pornography, out of wedlock birth, and homosexuality. They all come and go together. If sexual pleasure is formally divorced from conceiving children, then why would pornography by sinful? Why would masturbation be sinful? And if a couple just wanted the pleasure and never intended to conceive a child with their act, then don't they have the "right" to terminate a pregnancy if a conception should happen "by accident"? And if sexual pleasure is for the sake of pleasure, then why would homosexuality be sinful? If God wanted people to experience these pleasures, then pleasure should be the measurement. But this is all ridiculous. The natural, God-appointed purpose of this act is to procreate children and this is why pornography, masturbation, homosexuality, and abortion are wrong. It is also the reason why contraception is gravely sinful.

All of these personal and social ills or faults are now so grievous that the very fabric of our country is being torn apart. The family is in many communities, such as the black community, almost entirely missing. Children are being "raised" with no father in sight. That is, the children who survive the gauntlet and are not aborted. The "Sexual Revolution" is destroying our country. This doesn't mean that the topic of contraception should be debated in a political debate, but certainly pretending that our country is not falling apart because of these evils is to only further the descent into the abyss.

38 posted on 02/15/2012 8:00:12 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

No worries.

I just wanted to make sure that, if I was going to get dumped on, that it was for what I actually did and not what anybody thought I did.

I think my position on sexual relations is pretty orthodox.


39 posted on 02/15/2012 8:00:38 PM PST by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

Suzy, I haven’t run across you before. But so far I agree with everything you have said.

I too am scared. I do remember the early 1980’s and things also looked very bleak and we turned things around beautifully. (Thanks to Reagan, JP2 and MT).

I don’t see leaders of that caliber right now and the population is much dumber and less aware of what is really going on.

We live in interesting times...


40 posted on 02/15/2012 8:02:45 PM PST by desertfreedom765
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30; Dr. Brian Kopp
If it was only meant to bring forth children and, not be pleasurable, it wouldn’t have a pleasurable component to it.

False argument. You are saying that if the sex act is open to conception, it is not a pleasure. Or something like that. Obviously pleasure is inherent in the act, just as eating is inherently pleasurable, but also for nutrition. People who eat junk food, or too much, are ignoring (or overdoing!) the nutrition part. It is entirely possible to eat for health and pleasure; doesn't have to be on OR the other. Same thing with the marital act. It's not "either/or".

41 posted on 02/15/2012 8:06:24 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: desertfreedom765

Yes, we do. And, becoming more interesting every day...


42 posted on 02/15/2012 8:06:35 PM PST by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

I agree. Within the marriage relationship, it can be either/or or both. But outside that, it is not to be done.

We agree more than we disagree here.


43 posted on 02/15/2012 8:11:01 PM PST by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp; 185JHP; 230FMJ; AFA-Michigan; AKA Elena; APatientMan; Abathar; Absolutely Nobama; ..
Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

Pinging both lists, you'll see why if you read the wholte article. Very thought provoking and also interesting discussion on the thread.

44 posted on 02/15/2012 8:11:47 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jafojeffsurf; SuzyQue; Jonty30; little jeremiah
for the sake of learning this was and is a great post and I do appreciate it for educational purposes.

Thanks.

As Christian conservatives, we have to resist the temptation to look at this simply as a political issue (yes, rights are paramount, but...) because the connection between contraception and abortion is undeniable, and if we want to end abortion, we have to address its root causes:

The Connection between Contraception and Abortion

by JANET SMITH

EXCERPT

Many in the pro-life movement are reluctant to make a connection between contraception and abortion. They insist that these are two very different acts — that there is all the difference in the world between contraception, which prevents a life from coming to be and abortion, which takes a life that has already begun.

With some contraceptives there is not only a link with abortion there is an identity. Some contraceptives are abortifacients; they work by causing early term abortions. The IUD seems to prevent a fertilized egg — a new little human being — from implanting in the uterine wall. The pill does not always stop ovulation but sometimes prevents implantation of the growing embryo. And, of course, the new RU 486 pill works altogether by aborting a new fetus, a new baby. Although some in the pro-life movement occasional speak out against the contraceptives that are abortifacients most generally steer clear of the issue of contraception.

This seems to me to be a mistake. I think that we will not make good progress in creating a society where all new life can be safe, where we truly display a respect for life, where abortion is a terrible memory rather than a terrible reality until we see that there are many significant links between contraception and abortion and that we bravely speak this truth. We need to realize that a society in which contraceptives are widely used is going to have a very difficult time keeping free of abortions since the lifestyles and attitudes that contraception fosters create an alleged "need" for abortion.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the recent Supreme Court decision that confirmed Roe v. Wade, stated, "in some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception . . . . for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail."

The Supreme Court decision has made completely unnecessary any efforts to "expose" what is really behind the attachment of the modern age to abortion. As the Supreme Court candidly states, we need abortion so that we can continue our contraceptive lifestyles. It is not because contraceptives are ineffective that a million and half women a year seek abortions as back-ups to failed contraceptives. The "intimate relationships" facilitated by contraceptives are what make abortions "necessary". "Intimate" here is a euphemism and a misleading one at that. Here the word "intimate" means "sexual"; it does not mean "loving and close." Abortion is most often the result of sexual relationships in which there is little true intimacy and love, in which there is no room for a baby, the natural consequence of sexual intercourse. Contraception enables those who are not prepared to care for babies, to engage in sexual intercourse; when they become pregnant, they resent the unborn child for intruding itself upon their lives and they turn to the solution of abortion.


45 posted on 02/15/2012 8:12:34 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
Monty Python's take

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

47 posted on 02/15/2012 8:18:29 PM PST by chargers fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30; Dr. Brian Kopp
I don’t God would have made it a pleasurable act, unless he meant for it to be pleasurable in and of itself.

Again, the comparison to eating would be useful. If a person eats solely for taste, without taking into consideration nutrition, they will lose their health one way or another. That sex is pleasurable no one can deny (nor would sane person try), but still you seem to be wanting to separate the marital act from that potency which is inherent in it - procreation. Of course not every act of sex results in conception, and some people are sterile through no act of their won, or women past menopause obviously cannot conceive. But those conditions are entirely different from using volition to prevent conception.

48 posted on 02/15/2012 8:31:12 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #49 Removed by Moderator

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

“[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father’s old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 28:5 (A.D. 391).

AD 391 bump.
And we think we are more advanced now.


50 posted on 02/15/2012 8:36:29 PM PST by Apogee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 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