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!