Posted on 05/15/2018 7:28:18 AM PDT by Salvation
The first reading from Tuesday’s Mass is Paul’s farewell speech to the presbyters (priests) of the early Church. Here is a skilled bishop and pastor exhorting others who have pastoral roles within the Church. Let’s examine this text and apply its wisdom to bishops and priests as well as to parents and other leaders in the Church.
Paul’s Farewell Sermon – The scene is Miletus, a town in Asia Minor on the coast not far from Ephesus. Paul, who is about to depart for Jerusalem, summons the presbyters of the early Church at Ephesus. He has ministered there for three years and now summons the priests for this final exhortation. In the sermon, St. Paul cites his own example of having been a zealous teacher of the faith who did not fail to preach the “whole counsel of God.” He did not merely preach what suited him or made him popular; he preached it all. To these early priests, Paul leaves this legacy and would have them follow in his footsteps. Let’s look at some excerpts from this final exhortation.
From Miletus Paul had the presbyters of the Church at Ephesus summoned. When they came to him, he addressed them, “You know how I lived among you the whole time from the day I first came to the province of Asia. I served the Lord with all humility and with the tears and trials that came to me … and I did not at all shrink from telling you what was for your benefit, or from teaching you in public or in your homes. I earnestly bore witness for both Jews and Greeks to repentance before God and to faith in our Lord Jesus … But now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem … But now I know that none of you to whom I preached the kingdom during my travels will ever see my face again. And so I solemnly declare to you this day that I am not responsible for the blood of any of you, for I did not shrink from proclaiming to you the entire plan of God … (Acts 20:17-27 selected).
Here, then, is the prescription for every bishop, priest, deacon, catechist, parent, and Catholic: we should preach the whole counsel, the entire plan of God. It is too easy for us to emphasize only that which pleases us, or makes sense to us, or fits in with our world view. There are some who love the Lord’s sermons on love but cannot abide his teachings on death, judgment, Heaven, and Hell. Some love to discuss liturgy and ceremony, but the care of the poor is far from them. Others point to His compassion but neglect His call to repentance. Some love the way He dispatches the Pharisees and other leaders of the day but suddenly become deaf when the Lord warns against fornication or insists that we love our spouse, neighbor, and enemy. Some love to focus inwardly and debate doctrine but neglect the outward focus of true evangelization to which we are commanded (cf Mat 28:19).
In the Church today, we too easily divide out rather predictably along certain lines and emphases: life issues here and social justice over there, strong moral preaching here and compassionate inclusiveness over there. When one side speaks, the other side says, “There they go again!”
We must be able to say, like St. Paul, that we did not shrink from proclaiming the whole counsel of God. While this is especially incumbent on the clergy, it is also the responsibility of parents and all who attain any leadership in the Church. All the issues above are important and must have their proper places in the preaching and witness of every Catholic, both clergy and lay. While we may have particular gifts to work in certain areas, we should learn to appreciate the whole counsel and the fact that others in the Church may be needed to balance and complete our work. While we must exclude notions that stray from revealed doctrine, within doctrine’s protective walls it is necessary that we not shrink from proclaiming and appreciating the whole counsel of God.
If we do this, we will suffer. Paul speaks above of tears and trials. In preaching the whole counsel of God (not just your favorite passages or politically correct, “safe” themes), expect to suffer. Expect to not quite fit in with people’s expectations. Jesus got into trouble with just about everyone. He didn’t offend just the elite and powerful. For example, even His own disciples puzzled over His teachings on divorce, saying, “If that is the case of man not being able to divorce his wife it is better never to marry!” (Matt 19) As a result of Jesus’ teaching on the Eucharist, many left Him and would no longer walk in His company (John 6). When Jesus spoke of His divine origins, many took up stones with which to stone Him, but He passed through their midst unharmed (Jn 8). In addition, Jesus spoke of taking up crosses, forgiving one’s enemies, and preferring nothing to Him. He forbade even lustful thoughts, let alone fornication, and insisted we learn to curb our unrighteous anger. Yes, preaching the whole counsel of God is guaranteed to earn us the wrath of many.
Sadly, over my years as a priest, I have had to bid farewell to many congregations. This farewell speech of Paul is a critical one I use to examine my ministry. Did I preach even the difficult things? Was I willing to suffer for the truth? Did my people hear from me the whole counsel of God or just what was “safe”?
What about you? Have you proclaimed the whole counsel of God? If you are a clergyman, when you move on; if you are a parent, when your child leaves for college; if you are a youth catechist, when the children are ready to be confirmed; if you teach in RCIA, when the time comes for Easter sacraments—can you say you preached it all? God warned Ezekiel that if he failed to warn the sinner, that sinner would surely die for his sins but that Ezekiel himself would be responsible for his death (Ez 3:17 ff). Paul can truthfully say that he is not responsible for the death (the blood) of any of them because he did not shrink from proclaiming the whole counsel of God. What about us?
We must proclaim the whole counsel of God, not just the safe or popular things, not just what agrees with our own politics or those of our friends. We must present the whole counsel, even the hard parts, even the things that are ridiculed. Yes, we must proclaim the whole counsel of God.
“My God does not forbid me to engage in moral thinking.
Sorry about yours.”
Sorry you have a god other than the one who inspired the Scriptures.
BTW, your “moral thinking “, results in your universal condemnation of the moral thinking and decision-making of all others Christians and Jews.
Very ironic! You’ve made your own authority into God, while denying His Word.
Yep, that’s a Roman thing.
"Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD." Isaiah 1:18
Reason.
It's one of His things.
Second falsehood:
"BTW, your “moral thinking “, results in your universal condemnation of the moral thinking and decision-making of all others Christians and Jews."
False and obstinately ignorant as well. You're the one that flicked off 2,000 years of moral reasoning as if it were a bit of lint.
I like amicable discussion. This conversation has turned quite pointless. I think we're finished.
“BTW, your “moral thinking “, results in your universal condemnation of the moral thinking and decision-making of all others Christians and Jews.”
You have judged all other opinions of contraception as immoral.
As such, since God never takes your view, you have set yourself in the position of God judging the views held by other Christians and Jews as immoral.
Perhaps you can’t see the logical result of your position.
I note for others to read that you never supported this view with Scripture.
This is particularly egregious because, although we have a disagreement which we could have engaged in respectfully, you won't even discuss moral reasoning, nor even --- as far as I can tell --- bother to engage in it.
That's why we're through.
I chose not to respond - and noted that you are again using pejorative language to falsely characterize - because moral reasoning, apart from God's Word is inadequate. Instead, I asked you repeatedly for chapter and verse from God's Word.
Sadly, you could not come up with this, which clearly points out that "moral reasoning" is an opinion that you use to judge everyone who does not agree with your condemnation of those who morally reason that contraception is OK.
As you point out, moral reasoning changes. God's Word is authoritative and never changes.
Moral reasoning not founded on God's Word is simply opinion.
Opinions are fine for your own choices.
It is not adequate to condemn Christians and Jews who disagree.
Have you found anything in God's Word regarding contraception??
All of Christian medical ethics is rooted in God's word, even if the particular procedures and choices are not found in the Bible. For instance, questions concerning blood transfusion, organ donation, artificial reproductive technologies, end-of-life protocols, mechanical ventilation, separating conjoined twins, assisted nutrition and hydration, deep sedation, etc. etc. -=-- these cannot be found in your Biblical lexicon, and neither are they discussed in any particular chapter=-and-verse: and yet all of Christian medical ethics derives directly from Biblical principles.
Do you see that?
Yes I did.
It is a terrible argument and false.
The Bible consists of words written in Hebrew and Greek and a bit of Aramaic, arranged into sentences, paragraphs and later divided into chapters and verses so we can refer to them and find them.
Each word and arrangement is inspired directly by the Holy Spirit, moving men to write.
It is the revealed, authoritative Word of God, cherished by Jews and Christians. It is there in black and white and in some bibles, the words of Jesus in red.
If someone tells you they are teaching God’s Word and can’t find their ideas in the Bible, they are blowing smoke.
If you accept that argument, that beliefs come from the Scripture, but you can’t ever point to where they are, you can believe anything. It is no longer based on Scripture, but on the feelings and opinions of the speaker.
Again, I note you have not found your argument in the Bible.
My feelings exactly! Thanks.
I don’t want to misunderstand you. Can you really not see how Biblical principles inform Christian ethics (let’s say sexual ethics, medical ethics, business ethics, any kind of ethics) if the particular issues are not to be found in the Biblical text?
“I don’t want to misunderstand you. Can you really not see how Biblical principles inform Christian ethics (let’s say sexual ethics, medical ethics, business ethics, any kind of ethics) if the particular issues are not to be found in the Biblical text?”
Sure, but if the Bible is really the source, you should be able to point to where these principles are derived from Scripture, or it is your opinion only that you are asserting.
(I’ve asked you to do this from the beginning, but I still am waiting)
If you cannot point to the source of your claim, you are asserting your feelings and or opinions and have become your own pope, making decrees that condemn those who disagree.
This is how Rome went off the rails. Luther asked to be shown where the Scriptures contradicted what he wrote and said if this was done, he’d be the first to recant and throw his many books on the fire. Rome wanted to assert truth with no basis in Scripture, so they refused.
And how are your feelings and opinions any different than the cults, who believe based on vague feelings about the Scriptures? They could and do easily make the same basis of claim you have made on this thread.
Without truth anchored in the Scriptures, there is no truth. If you cannot show where these specific “ethics” are derived, you are making them up to support a view not found in Scripture.
So far, you’ve taken hundreds of words - or thousands - and haven’t done this. There is a lesson there.
Best
The only explicit blessings God gives related to sex, are for the kind that has all the begats.
It is an exceptionless norm in the Bible that childbearing = blessing. Nowhere are people blessed for blocking blessings.
In the one, sole, singular Biblical episode of intercourse where the guy alters it so that reproduction would not occur, the text says God hated what he did and struck him dead.
Regarding all the kinds of jiggery-pokery which cannot result in reproduction (Leviticus etc.) God calls all this intentionally sterile sex abominable.
Normal human marriage is identified as sacred (Ephesians etc.) At the very least --- talking moral minimalism here --- that should convey that you don't purposely suppress either one of the twofold blessed purposes for which the marriage act is blessed (procreation and pleasure bonding).
Let me point out that the specific objectionable acts don't have to be itemized on the page, if normal people through the centuries "get it".
For example, there are only a handful of verses that condemn homosexual conduct. None of them explicitly condemn specific homosexual acts, that is, oral or anal intercourse (and the many variations we'd be better off not knowing about.) But Gays today are claiming that God does not forbid anal intercourse, because the text doesn't mention it. God doesn't paint a picture of it and slap it with a big red circle-and-slash.
If you google Gay Christian commentary on Bible texts --- here, I'll do it for you: Gay Christian Bible texts (LINK) you get 8 million+ results. The 9 out of 10 top ones in the list are scholarly or semi-scholarly commentaries which claim that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.
Mostly because it does not use the actual word "homosexual" or the actual words "anal sex."
But Christians for 1900 years understood the Bible to be against active homosexual sex relations, just as all Christians for 1900 years understood related texts to weigh in against contraception.
Read some of this. At least the first sentences of the top Google results. You really need to.
Because then you'll see that pro-gay and pro-contraceptive Christians are relying on exactly the same form of argument: that if the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words don't actually say "plugs 'n' rubbers 'n' the hormonal patch or putting your semen in baggies or up the butt or down the hatch," it's not really talking about US.
And contraceptors likewise shrug off 400 years' worth of Protestant teaching highlighting the Biblical case against birth control, from Luther through 1930! (LINKS)
Because, as the Gay Christians say, that Biblical stuff is too obscure: it couldn't apply to us!.
Yes it does.
Check out Alan Carlson's book on Protestants and Birth Control (Amazon link)<.a<>> Used paperpack for about $11. --- or look the author up elsewhere on the internet.
God bless you.
You have posted no passages from Scripture to me, other than the Genesis passage you misused.
I will title your arguments against artificially controlling conception so we an analyze them easily.
Argument #1 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong because children are a blessing
“The only explicit blessings God gives related to sex, are for the kind that has all the begats. It is an exception-less norm in the Bible that childbearing = blessing.
…Here, we agree that children are a blessing. Childbearing is not a blessing, it is part of the curse :-)Argument #2 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong because “nowhere are people blessed for blocking blessings.”If your argument is true, then blocking children by any means is wrong. The are always a blessing. I find this argument unrelated to the discussion of artificial conception alone and it does not prove your point.
Again, if you avoid conception by any means, you are blocking a blessing. Scripture never distinguishes between methods of blocking conception. Because of this, I find your argument unpersuasive.Argument #3 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong there is one passage that indicates someone did a wrong thing by blocking conceptionIf you are going to be faithful in practice to your first two arguments, you must accept limitless children, from the time of marriage until the time later in life that you can no longer bear children. Did you do so? Do you advocate couples have limitless children?
“In the one, sole, singular Biblical episode of intercourse where the guy alters it so that reproduction would not occur, the text says God hated what he did and struck him dead.”
Because it was a violation of his duty under the covenant to raise up children to his deceased brother. Instead of doing so, which was his responsibility under the covenant, he routinely took advantage of the opportunity for sex, without being faithful to what God covenanted with Israel.
Glad you pointed out this was the “one, sole, singular Biblical episode” of conception control.There are no commands, no teaching to the church, no examples for the church.
Because of these two points, this passage does not serve as a command to Christians or Jews to avoid choosing not to have children.
This doesn’t carry the force you would need to prove the Scriptures condemn artificial conception control.
Argument #4 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong because God condemns perverted sexual practices.
“Regarding all the kinds of jiggery-pokery which cannot result in reproduction (Leviticus etc.) God calls all this intentionally sterile sex abominable.
We agree, but this has nothing to do with artificial conception. It is a perversion of man-woman sex, as God created it.
Argument #5 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong because marriage is sacred so you should not suppress either of the twofold blessings - children or pleasure.
“Normal human marriage is identified as sacred (Ephesians etc.) At the very least --- talking moral minimalism here --- that should convey that you don't purposely suppress either one of the twofold blessed purposes for which the marriage act is blessed (procreation and pleasure bonding).
We agree that marriage is sacred. But I find this unpersuasive because the number of children you have does not make it less sacred, nor each child you have less of a blessing, nor sex less pleasurable.And again, the discussion revolves around purposefully suppressing conception. There is no distinction in this argument that will win your point. In fact, this argument could as easily be used to point out the any purposeful choosing not to have children is not fulfilling the purpose of marriage.
You’ve not provided a Biblical basis against artificial birth control, nor a basis to not have limitless children. As such, I do not accept it as a strong argument against birth control.
Argument #6 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong because gays make claims to justify their practices, so birth control is wrong.
“Let me point out that the specific objectionable acts don't have to be itemized on the page, if normal people through the centuries "get it".
“For example, there are only a handful of verses that condemn homosexual conduct. None of them explicitly condemn specific homosexual acts, that is, oral or anal intercourse (and the many variations we'd be better off not knowing about.) But Gays today are claiming that God does not forbid anal intercourse, because the text doesn't mention it. God doesn't paint a picture of it and slap it with a big red circle-and-slash.
God condemns homosexuality in many passages. Gays who make this argument are simply ignorant of Scripture.And it sounds a lot like your general argument of ethics derived from the Bible without a specific place they are derived from. :-)
This also has nothing to do with birth control being chosen by a married man and woman. God plans for men and women to have sex and if they conceive, it is a blessing from him.
Argument #7 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong because gays argue that the Biblical texts do not use specific words
“If you google Gay Christian commentary on Bible texts --- here, I'll do it for you: Gay Christian Bible texts (LINK) you get 8 million+ results. The 9 out of 10 top ones in the list are scholarly or semi-scholarly commentaries which claim that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Mostly because it does not use the actual word "homosexual" or the actual words "anal sex."
Again, Biblical ignorance. The Scriptures do not use many popular expressions, but they are clear. This is why we must be anchored in the Scriptures and not making up crap and pretending it is truth.
Argument #8 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong because Christians used to believe it was wrong.
“But Christians for 1900 years understood the Bible to be against active homosexual sex relations, just as all Christians for 1900 years understood related texts to weigh in against contraception.”
Which you have not posted to me.
Argument #9 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong because pro-gay and pro-contraceptive Christians use the same type of arguments to justify their choices.
“Read some of this. At least the first sentences of the top Google results. You really need to. Because then you'll see that pro-gay and pro-contraceptive Christians are relying on exactly the same form of argument: that if the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words don't actually say "plugs 'n' rubbers 'n' the hormonal patch or putting your semen in baggies or up the butt or down the hatch," it's not really talking about US.
Again, this doesn’t trouble me in the least, because I am well grounded in the Scriptures. This is a logical fallacy. It does not need to use exact words… but you must be able to point to what it does say. I’ve repeatedly asked you to do exactly that.When you do not, you are also relying on this type of loose argument.
Argument #10 - Artificial birth control is wrong because Christians historically thought it was wrong.
“And contraceptors likewise shrug off 400 years' worth of Protestant teaching highlighting the Biblical case against birth control, from Luther through 1930! (LINKS) Because, as the Gay Christians say, that Biblical stuff is too obscure: it couldn't apply to us!.
(I’m being kind here. We covered this in your #7) Yes it does. “Contractors!” - you’ve got to make up a pejorative word for people who disagree with you??
We need not shrug off history. We must evaluate history by Scripture. It will either stand the test Scripture or it will not.
And you posted no Scripture.
Argument #11 - Here’s a book
“Check out Alan Carlson's book on Protestants and Birth Control (Amazon link)<.a<>> Used paperpack for about $11. --- or look the author up elsewhere on the internet.
:-) I have The Book.“God bless you.
And to you too.
" Argument #1 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong because children are a blessing."
" Argument #2 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong because “nowhere are people blessed for blocking blessings.”
If your argument is true, then blocking children by any means is wrong.... If you are going to be faithful in practice to your first two arguments, you must accept limitless children.
That doesn't follow.
There are limits to any analogy, but this might be useful: Fruitful flocks and fruitful vineyards are blessings, too --- and not only that, but if our bodies are not our own but are part of the "plantation of the Lord," then the Master does want us to be fruitful --- but not beyond reason. Fruitfulness being a blessing doesn't exclude a reasonable decision to limit your flocks and vineyards if you're really unable to care for them all.
So assuming there's a sound reason to limit your flocks and vineyards, there are good ways and bad ways to do this. A good way would be to refrain for a time from breeding your animals or planting your fields. (That would be periodic abstinence.) A disrespectful way ---considering that the Master really owns the land--- would be spreading poisons so nothing will sprout for a time, or forever (contraception/sterilization.) A really bad way would be burning the place down (abortion).
One mustn't carry this analogy too far (for instance, you could sell off or butcher your animals -----which you can't do to your wife & kids!!) but my point is that if there's a just cause (e.g. you can't survive another pregnancy or you can't reasonably care for more kids) there's a right way and a wrong way to limit fruitfulness. You can't conclude that any limitation on a blessing , by any means, is wrong.
Argument #3 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong there is one passage that indicates someone did a wrong thing by blocking conception
Because it was a violation of his duty under the covenant to raise up children to his deceased brother. ...There are no commands, no teaching to the church, no examples for the church.
Oh really? And here I thought "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16).
The punishment was not for the violation of the Levirate rule alone. Judah and Shelah would have been similarly obligated, but they didn't do it and ---though they were in the wrong --- the Lord didn't kill them. In fact, there was a set penalty for violating the Levirate rule by "not doing anything," and that was for the woman to shame the man and spit on him at the village gate. This is not the equivalent of the death penalty.
(Of course, Judah finally did comply later and impregnate Tamar, but it was not voluntarily: it was due to the blessed crafty deception by Tamar. Good girl!)
Simply not doing the Levirate thing by passively demurring was (in a manner of speaking) a misdemeanor. But actually "going through the motions" but evading the natural issue, was a felony. Tamar could have shamed Judah publicly for "what he did not do"; God slew Onan for "what he did": de-naturing intercourse to make it unfruitful.
Avoiding Tamar under the circumstances would be like not coming to a holy banquet (refraining.) Using her for sex but contemptuously wasting the seed would be like eating at the holy banquet and spitting out the food.
That kicked the offense up to a whole new level, because Scripture says that what he did greatly offended the Lord, and He slew him.
Argument #4 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong because God condemns perverted sexual practices.
[The various deviations described in Leviticus are] a perversion of man-woman sex, as God created it. We agree, but this has nothing to do with artificial conception.
No so. Natural sex --- man-woman sex as God created it --- is inherently designed around cyclic fertility. Rejecting normal structure and function for contraceptive purposes is like sex-reassignment: using hormones and/or surgery to suppress or impair your natural sex characteristics.
The Leviticus deviations are not natural sex. Contracepted sex is not natural sex. It wipes out the very thing that makes real sex "sex", and far more significant than hugs, back massages or foot-rubs: the recurring potential for procreation.
Argument #5 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong because marriage is sacred so you should not suppress either of the twofold blessings - children or pleasure.
We agree that marriage is sacred. But I find this unpersuasive because the number of children you have does not make it less sacred, nor each child you have less of a blessing, nor sex less pleasurable.
You are right in saying that the number of children you have [I think you mean "having less children"] does not make marriage less sacred. However, intentionally impairing the created nature of sex does make it less sacred. It is a belittling or trivialization of your own body.
The way the body is, is good. The way human bodies are, complete in every detail, is very good. Acting against that, is not morally neutral.
Our normal healthy powers are features, not glitches. It's as much a desecration to impair a person's fertility as if it were a bad thing, as it would be to impair their eyesight as if it were a bad thing. More so, inasmuch as for humans, sex is given for the incredibly exalted purpose of cooperating with the Creator in bringing persons into being.
Blocking the human body's inbuilt nature is treating it as something whose design is incidental, not providential; optional, not inbuilt; insignificant, not significant. It means what you are (for instance, a fertile female) can be changed as if you belonged to yourself. But we do not belong to ourselves.
We are the stewards, not the masters, of the sources of life.
Disabling or disconnecting functions which God inscribed into our bodies, pushes the body towards the category of "thing" rather than "person." It turns the marital embrace into pseude-sex, something we find gratifying, but with low sacredness, low significance and low consequence. It asserts a right that we really don't have: to redesign the human body as if our new design is better than God's.
Legitimate medical therapeutics involving drugs, devices and surgery are legitimate because they aim to restore the normal: to cure what is sick, to repair what is wounded, to re-form what was malformed, to strengthen what was weak. We have a right to do that.
Contraceptive technologies do the opposite: they disable or impair natural function. In this, they are like the contra-sexual technologies (I am speaking of transsexualism): to evade the consequences of the way your natural body was made.
Note that I am not saying that the medical use of hormones, devices, and surgery is wrong: the purpose of such use is to restore normal function. Contraceptive use of hormones, devices, and surgery, is the negation of this: its purpose is to suppress normal function.
This is broader than a critique of contraception as something simply "not natural." Periodic abstinence would be natural even if it required a computer; the Pill would be wrong even if it grew on trees. The larger ethical point is that "justice" in action toward the body is to work for, and not against, the Design. Working against the Design will strike you as impious if you think the Designer is sacred, and reflects Himself in some mysterious way in His image, His likeness, His Design.
None of this would be objectionable if you did it to your cats.
Argument #6 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong because gays make claims to justify their practices, so birth control is wrong.
Argument #7 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong because gays argue that the Biblical texts do not use specific words
Argument #9 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong because pro-gay and pro-contraceptive Christians use the same type of arguments to justify their choices.
God condemns homosexuality in many passages. Gays who make this argument are simply ignorant of Scripture.
Not so fast: the most painstaking ones say they "affirm Sola Scriptura and authentic Biblical Christianity" (link to "Gay Christian 101") and they demonstrate their claim by being hair-splitting, even pedantic pursuers of Biblical textual analysis.
They don't lack ways of mincing and tweezing the lexicon. What they do lack is the wisdom of discerning God's deeper intent as historic and traditional Christianity has always discerned it.
I'm going to explain what THEY say. Please note that I am not endorsing this, I am just summarizing the rapidly evolving LGBT "Christian" argument:
For instance: they highlight fact that neither Biblical Hebrew nor Biblical Greek uses any word that translates precisely as "homosexual" or "homosexuality".since the Bible does not classify people in different orientation categories. The Hebrew words Qadesh and Qedeshah are never used in the Bible to mean homosexual, and the O.T. contexts are all about cult-prostitution and shrine-prostitution.
N.T. uses arsenokoitai which refers to interspecies rape, Greek gods committing adultery, and pederasty, not homosexuality per se. Malakoi referred to a person wearing the attire of a harlot, sort of equivalent of talking about a person in shiny hotpants and a halter top, and referred again to temple prostitution or the persons who imitated their looks and their lifestyle.
(Again, please note that I am not endorsing this, I am just summarizing the LGBT "Christian" argument.)
Their point is that the Scriptures use expressions that do not map exactly onto our expressions (their "semantic field" is not identical with ours), and therefore they are NOT clear. This is why the Gau Christian propagandists reject a "hermeneutic of continuity" in discernment, which we call "tradition," and rely on bare text only.
We shouldn't do that. It results in rejecting the Holy Spirit, Who, as promised, never ceased guiding the saints; discernment of His Will through the centuries. Bare Text Only is how you end up in GayChristian101.
Argument #8 - Artificial Birth Control is Wrong because Christians used to believe it was wrong.
Argument #10 - Artificial birth control is wrong because Christians historically thought it was wrong.
(Actually, my argument is not that "Christians used to believe it is wrong," but that "Christians have always and still do believe it is wrong.")
“But Christians for 1900 years understood the Bible to be against active homosexual sex relations, just as all Christians for 1900 years understood related texts to weigh in against contraception.” Which you have not posted to me.
Yeah, but you say you've got Alan Carlson's book. From Didache to Lambeth --- and beyond!
“And contraceptors likewise shrug off 400 years' worth of Protestant teaching ..."
“Contractors!” - you’ve got to make up a pejorative word for people who disagree with you??
I didn't say "contractors," I said "contraceptors." This would be people who do contraception, just like "contractors" would mean "people who do contracts." It's not pejorative unless you think "contraception" has a negative connotation.
“God bless you.
`
And you too.
Good morning and thank you for taking time for this discussion.
At this point, I’ve addressed each of your arguments and they are interesting, but I find them certainly not sufficient to require all believers in Christ to not use artificial birth control.
I did say early on that any conception control that results in abortion is morally wrong, under the command not to murder.
That all said, I think we’ve reached a point after 8 requests for specific Scriptural support for your position, that as I knew when we started, it doesn’t exist.
Nor were you able to post any definitive Scripture-derived principles to make a definitive argument that applies to all Christians and Jews.
As such, I continue to support your right to use or not use birth control as you judge morally correct, based on your understanding of all the factors in your life.
I must now go bring my wife and 19 children (who are quite a blessing!) out for lunch. I’ve got the bus warming up right now. We have one unfilled seat and are just waiting to see if we get the full blessing! If twins, I’m gonna need a bigger bus.
Just kidding.
I have two bio kids and one adopted kid - all adults now and producing a new crop of humanity.
Best.
Bottom line, you fault me because there is --- you claim ---no explicit chapter-and-verse I can cite, which says "Thou shalt not contracept."
Yet Christian teachers for well over a millennium reasoned that the Onan chapter was, like the rest of Scripture, "inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness", and taught exactly that moral principle: don't engage in sex while trying to turn off its procreative power.
You can't really maintain that one Biblical condemnation equals zero Biblical condemnations. Note that the modern Anglican U-turn (the first historic instance of a denomination supporting contraception) was a non-Biblically sourced surrender to the secular culture's position. Why would anybody think that would be authoritative, or even persuasive?
Look, it's the Christian wisdom of the ages vs some Johnny-come-lately 20th century revisionism. Were the pro-contraception Anglicans in 1930, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition, more sound than everyone that came before? Really? They had the word from the Holy Spirit, and up to 1930 everybody else was wrong?
What are the odds?
Plus, it is a mistake to think that every situation subject to moral discernment is found explicitly in the Scriptural text. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide, chapter-and-verse, an exhaustive list of every kind of theft.
On these issues you have no refutation. And as for the analogy I brought up about medical ethics (e.g. deliberately impairing normal physiological function is unethical), you have had nothing to say.
No. I fault your argument for failing to be able to point at specific teachings derived from Scripture (that you can actually identify) that support your assertion.
Yet Christian teachers for well over a millennium reasoned that the Onan chapter was...and taught exactly that moral principle: don't engage in sex while trying to turn off its procreative power.
They accepted the teaching of Rome. Later reexamined, as so much of Rome's assertions were, and revised and later forced to examine new technology in that context.
You can't really maintain that one Biblical condemnation equals zero Biblical condemnations.
When you understand the teaching of the passage, you understand it is not addressing contraception. Plus, it is a mistake to think that every situation subject to moral discernment is found explicitly in the Scriptural text.
Never said it was. You must be able to point to what Scripture teaches that supports your assertion. You can no simply make it up, as you have done.
Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible
And yet you can't do it once! I've asked 8-9 times. You ain't got it.
On these issues you have no refutation.
There is no need to refute a non-biblical argument, when it is used to condemn choices as immoral, while being not rooted in Scripture.
And as for the analogy I brought up about medical ethics (e.g. deliberately impairing normal physiological function is unethical), you have had nothing to say.
Is impairing normal physiological function unethical in every situation? Are you sure?
One example will suffice, but we could probably think of others.
I have a former neighbor. Wonderful Christian woman. Was such a blessing to my children. Struggled with her weight. Was very heavy. To me, she was just a wonderful woman.
We moved away. About 8 years later, I was visiting that state and decided to drive by the old home. I stopped to again thank her for being a blessing. The woman who answered the door weighed about 180 lbs less than before! Looked great. Turns out she had this new gastric bypass surgery, which you may have read about. It involves altering normal physiology to make the person feel full after eating much less and trick the body into absorbing less nutrients. It comes with a downside, of course, like all interventional medicine. Still, there are also dangers to carrying as much weight as she used to carry. It was a trade off.
Was it immoral or unethical for her to alter her normal physiological function? She did have other more natural choices. She could have eaten differently. She could have had her gut bacteria replaced, etc.
I do not judge her. She considered everything (and I don't know what all, but don't need to because it is her life before God) and chose to do it.
So I do not find your assertion about altering normal physiological function as ethical or moral to carry as much weight as you believe it does. No pun intended.
This is also a sideways attempt to claim "ethical" while failing to demonstrate it is rooted in Scripture.
If you don't have anything from God, please don't use the words moral and immoral. Morality is defined by God.
In the future, if you spend time studying Scripture, and find anything that clearly applies to this issue, you know how to find me!
You keep challenging me to refer to Scripture; I do; then you say that we can't learn anything from it, because there's no teaching in it. Really, this circular reasoning is unsatisfactory.
As for intentionally impairing a healthy physiological function, your example of bariatric surgery is not applicable. In a morbidly or malignantly obese person, the processes of appetite-digestion-absorption are already abnormal and unhealthy (pathological), and the stomach bypass is a step toward restoring, not destroying, healthy physiological function.
THe legitimacy of medical intervention rests of the intent of preserving, restoring, or at least approaching healthy function. If that involves the destruction or removal of an organ (e.g. hysterectomy for uterine cancer), it's a legitimate treatment for an actual pathology.
It's quite another thing to impair a healthy function precisely because you don't want it, as is done with that most-rejected and disparaged bodily power, fertility.
Therapies which produce sterility as a double-effect (for instance some chemo-radiation treatments) are licit because their motivation is not the desire to induce infertility, but rather to cure an actual disease.
“Want an X-acto knife to delete Genesis 38 from your Bible? ”
No, instead I honor God’s Word by rightly dividing it. And it offers no support to your assertions.
Unfortunately, it’s the closest thing in God’s Word you can point to - and the only thing.
I’m happy for you to hold this personal view, but it doesn’t come from God and apply to all Jews or Christians.
If it did, in ten posts into this, you’d have backed up your assertion from His Word.
Best.
Or unless you're right by "rightly dividing" Gen. 38 right out of the Bible.
Your comment that "There are no commands, no teaching to the church, no examples for the church" in this passage, is unsupported.
You could certainly prove me wrong if you could find someplace in Scripture where it says "Pay no attention to Gen. 38", or shows someone in practice using anti-fertility pharmakeia with Divine approval.
“Or unless you’re right by “rightly dividing” Gen. 38 right out of the Bible.
Sorry, but this passage has a context and a meaning different that your assertion. It remains Scripture and useful for teaching and reproof.
You can’t make it into what it isn’t.
You have not proven your truth claim. Not close.
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.