Cafetiria Christianity

[I.M.Apologetics]

This isn't a light matter.
Contraception is inheritably evil, and it surely goes against Church teaching.

Do you think I agree 100% with all Marian devotion that goes in the Church? I am not bound to have devotion to Mary other than honor her and believe the dogmas about her, but nonetheless, Holy Church allows it and I am subect to Christ's Church, because Christ died for me and gave me His Church as Mother.

Do you think I don't want to go with the flow and "try" "new" things with my girlfriend, like everybody does in high school (middle school) and all other colleges and everywhere?
But Holy Church forbids this, and it is not just restraining my freedom, but keeping my freedom, because if before marriage I start doing these things, I know that it will go on a downward spiral to perdition... It happens all the time in this country, doesn't it?

Likewise, Holy Church's teaching on contraception is not just a stupid law that forbids us from using it just because the Pope said so. No! There are much, much, much and maaaaany more reasons for Contraception being sinful.

In the other thread I have posted many articles from Catholic theologians and commentators on why the Church chooses to not change her 2000 year-stance against contraception and why She teaches it to be evil.
I also posted Pope Paul VI's encyclycal Humanae Vitae.
I also posted medical and scientific reasons why the Pill is actually dangerous.

Have you read any of them?

[cradlecathlic27]

Sorry again, but there is nothing you can say to change my stance on BC.

[Cepha]

Birth control?

It's just plain wrong.

www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

The Historic Christian Teaching
Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception.

Evidence that contraception is in conflict with God’s laws comes from a variety of sources that will be examined in this tract.


Scripture
Is contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex).

The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. 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 an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.

Wishful Thinking
Ignoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to decide according to their "individual conscience." Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly.

There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided.

The so-called "individual conscience" argument amounts to "individual disobedience."

[Cepha]

Before the 19th century
Whether condoms were used in ancient civilizations is debated by archaeologists and historians.

In ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome, pregnancy prevention was generally seen as a woman's responsibility, and the only well-documented contraception methods were female-controlled devices.

In Asia prior to the fifteenth century, some use of glans condoms (devices covering only the head of the penis) is recorded. Condoms seem to have been used for birth control, and to have been known only by members of the upper classes.

In China, glans condoms may have been made of oiled silk paper, or of lamb intestines. In Japan, they were made of tortoise shell or animal horn.[8]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom#Before_the_19th_century

[teresahrc]

YUCK! That's all I have to say about that one Cepha.

teres

[Cepha]

LOL!

Well, at least it's proven that there was such a thing as birth control in the first century
(and thousands of years before it).

[Cepha]

Aug 6, 2008 22:57:35 GMT -5 watchman said:

You hypocrisy astounds me. Do you yourself not pick and choose what to believe?

Nope.

When Jesus says He is the only way to heaven, you say that is only to the christian He is speaking to.

Correction, I said also that He said this to those considering to follow Him.

Jesus' statement was unqualifying, it is to all peoples, races, or religions, there is no salvation with out confession of Christ as Lord and belief in His death and resurrection.

Where does it state that in The Bible?

Do not say what about those b4 Christ, they were saved by belief in the coming Messiah.

See what happens when you have unbiblical beliefs?

You have to begin to create "exceptions" for eveything to justify it with more unbiblical beliefs.

Now, show me in The Bible where it states that people were saved before Jesus "before" He came "just because" they believed in the coming of The Messiah?

Chapter and Verse please.

The thief on the cross did believe Jesus was Messiah.

What is your proof? He never said it literally. So how did you come to that belief that is "not" in The Bible?

He never confessed that Jesus was The Son of God.

There is no Biblical evidence for your belief.

Maybe you'll make an exception to try to justify this belief too?

[teresahrc]

Do not say what about those b4 Christ, they were saved by belief in the coming Messiah.

The thief on the cross did believe Jesus was Messiah.

What about Abraham? God hadn't revealed the plan of the Messiah to him. He had faith in God though.

21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[e] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. (James 2)

It says right there in the Bible that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. Unless you don't believe that the book of James is the word of God.

teresa

[Cepha]

Aug 7, 2008 8:38:35 GMT -5 @teresahrc said:

Do not say what about those b4 Christ, they were saved by belief in the coming Messiah.

The thief on the cross did believe Jesus was Messiah.

What about Abraham? God hadn't revealed the plan of the Messiah to him. He had faith in God though.

21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[e] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. (James 2)

It says right there in the Bible that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. Unless you don't believe that the book of James is the word of God.

teresa

That's an excellent point.

When exactly was the concept of The Messiah first revealed in scripture?

[Cepha]

Aug 7, 2008 10:59:06 GMT -5 watchman said:

Aug 6, 2008 12:28:32 GMT -5 Cepha said:

The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).

Are you suggesting that ''pulling out'' is a sin?

Onan was disobeying a direct command, that is what displeased God, not the act in it self.

The use of the gift of sex for purely self gratification is a sin. It is for the procreation of humanity, not to be misused for lust.

The discharge of a man's seed outside of natural procreation (between two members of the opposite sex) is considered to make one unclean (for example, masturbation, nocturnal emissions, etc...).

[Cepha]

Aug 7, 2008 11:19:33 GMT -5 watchman said:

Jesus says; I am the way, the truth and the life no man comes to the Father except through me John 14:6

That's not an accurate depiction of that verse. Jesus was addressing a direct response to one person. It says "Jesus said to him...", not "Jesus says;..."

That is only a fragment of the complete verse.

By the way, John 14 is a direct answer to one person. And...Jesus never said He was the "only" way the way some "claim" (of course, if I'm wrong, you can point out the scripture).


John 14
5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; how know we the way?

6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me.

7 If ye had known me, ye would have known my Father also: from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

And, it is God Who brings one to Christ. By the time one gets to Christ, God has already chosen them (Jesus receives them because God chose them first). God does the choosing. Jesus does the obeying.

Romans 2 states that non-Believers can get into Heaven too.
Also, Jesus said a non-Believer get's into Heaven as well.

Now the thief on the cross did confess Christ as Messiah.

Nope...even in your quote, he never calls him Messiah (only Lord). Lord and Messiah dont' automatically mean the same thing.

Also, the Jewish understanding of The Messiah had nothing to do with Him being The Son of God. To the Jews, The Messih was a military leader (not God's Own Son).

Assuming that the thief was a Jew, he would've known this.

"The Jewish Messiah must be a descendant of the original Messianic figure, King David of the Jews, who is shown depicted in an illuminated manuscript at left. It is interesting to note that the Messiah is expected to be a mortal person who, through his charisma, background and power, proves himself to be the actual redeemer."

www.conncoll.edu/academics/departments/relstudies/290/judaism/jewishmessiah.html

He did however recognize Jesus as Royalty (calling Heaven "His" Kingdom)...but never called Him or confessing Him The Messiah.

Luke 23:35-43
35 And the people stood by beholding, and the rulers also with them derided him,saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be the CHRIST, THE CHOSEN OF GOD.
36 And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar.
37 And saying, if thou be the King of the Jews, save thyself.
38 And a subscription also was writing over him in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying if thou be the CHRIST save thyself and us.
40 But the others answering rebuked him, saying, dost thou notfear God,seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we receive our due reward of our deeds but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42 And he said unto Jesus, LORD, remember me when you come into your KINGDOM
43 And Jesus said to him, Verily I say into you, today you will be with me in paradise.

First, kudos for taking a passage to prove a point! Well done!

And thank you for showing me where it was.

There is no question that he knew why Jesus was being crucified, ''for claiming to be Messiah, that Son of God'. Yet the thief did not deny Jesus' claim as Messiah and or Christ, but acknowledge that he believe it to be true, confessing Him as LORD. The thief did confess Christ b4 his death and that is why he was saved.

A) That is pure conjecture. He never confess Jesus Christ as his personal Lord & Savior. He asked Jesus to remember Him when He came into His Kingdom, but He never said that Jesus was The Messiah.

And...not all versions of The Bible have the word "Lord" there.
Most just have "Jesus".

But, neither was the thief baptized with water, nor did he eat Jesus' flesh and blood and he was a thief who never repented of his sins (at least in scripture).

So, all these prerequisites by Christ were not met.

How is it then that Jesus promised this man salvation without his meeting te other requirements?

This has to mean one thing...there is no "one" way of getting into Heaven. Otherwise, all those other things that Jesus said one must do to enter The Kingdom of Heaven were said in vane.

This is undeniable proof that there are several ways that contribute to one getting into Heaven. Faith, works and obedience among them.

Remember, Jesus doesn't accept all those who merely believe "in" Him and call Him Lord.

He condemned Believers to Hell while saying that a non-Believer did what it took to get into Heaven.

For you to be right, Jesus has to be lieing.

(By the way, this what Catholics call a "deathbed" conversion. I thought non-Catholics didn't believe in that? )

[Cepha]

Matthew 25
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 for I was hungry, and ye did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink;

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me.

According to you, these "Believers" should've been allowed in Heaven because they accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord & Savior, right?

But Jesus' own words prove you wrong...one is not saved through merely accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Lord & Savior.

Either you are wrong or Jesus is wrong because what you say directly contradicts scripture.

Know what? I think I'll play it safe and agree with Jesus and The Word of God.



Pax

[teresahrc]

Onan was disobeying a direct command, that is what displeased God, not the act in it self.

Does scripture give the interpretation here for which part of the act displeased God? If not, then who told you that? How do you know? Do you have a cross- reference for your interpretation? Can you prove from the Bible alone that God was not displeased with "the act in it self"?

teresa

[teresahrc]

I believe in salvation through faith and justification through works.

Watchman, what do you believe, is the difference between "salvation" and "justification"?

teresa

[Cepha]

Aug 8, 2008 14:42:21 GMT -5 watchman said:

Aug 7, 2008 12:06:43 GMT -5 Cepha said:

The use of the gift of sex for purely self gratification is a sin. It is for the procreation of humanity, not to be misused for lust.

The discharge of a man's seed outside of natural procreation (between two members of the opposite sex) is considered to make one unclean (for example, masturbation, nocturnal emissions, etc...).

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage in honorable in ALL, AND THE BED UNDEFILED: but the whoemonger and the adulterers God will judge.

There is nothing a married couple can do in the privacy of there own bedroom, outside of bringing in a 3rd party ''because that would be adultery'' that is sin.

Put down the cup and step away from the koolaid, man the catholic church does have you indoctrinated huh?

I fell sorry for your wife.

You sound like you'll enjoy this site: www.sexinchrist.com/

[teresahrc]

Put down the cup and step away from the koolaid, man the catholic church does have you indoctrinated huh?

I fell sorry for your wife.

What? I'm glad that I don't really know why you said that. And please, don't tell me because I don't want to know.

teresa

[Cepha]

I agree. But you seem to agree with them that anything is allowable under the banner of being married.

There is nothing a married couple can do in the privacy of there own bedroom...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but am I right to believe that you meant to say "nothing a married couple can't do"?

[Cepha]

Aug 8, 2008 15:28:47 GMT -5 watchman said:

Aug 8, 2008 14:48:50 GMT -5 Cepha said:

You sound like you'll enjoy this site: www.sexinchrist.com/

WOW!!!! That was perverse, I cannot believe you even knew about that site.

Let me make this clear any sex or variation there of b4 marriage is sin!!!

Yet you too believe that anal sex is "ok" in God's eyes under marriage?

[Cepha]

Aug 8, 2008 16:03:13 GMT -5 watchman said:

Aug 8, 2008 15:53:01 GMT -5 Cepha said:

I agree. But you seem to agree with them that anything is allowable under the banner of being married.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but am I right to believe that you meant to say "nothing a married couple can't do"?

No, I meant it as written, there is nothing a married couple does in the privacy of their own bedroom (except bringing a 3rd party in ''because that would be adultery'') that God would consider sinful.

Including anal intercourse?

Foot fetish?

Sado Masochism?

Toys?

[Cepha]

Aug 8, 2008 16:26:38 GMT -5 Cepha said:

Aug 8, 2008 16:20:31 GMT -5 watchman said:

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage in honorable in ALL, AND THE BED UNDEFILED: but the whoemonger and the adulterers God will judge.

That doesn't say that something designed for defecation can be used for sexual pleasure.

Is this what you believe?


Is that "honorable" according to scripture?