What is the correct way to interpret the Bible?

[Justin108]

those that interpret the bible correctly will never find any of its statements contradict proven scientific fact.

What is the "correct" way to interpret the Bible? Is there an objective "correct" way to interpret the Bible? If so, what methods should one employ to interpret the Bible "correctly"?

Let's use Genesis 1 as an example. What is the correct interpretation of Genesis 1 and what method did you employ to conclude your interpretation?

Specifically...

1. Is Genesis 1 literal or metaphorical? (what method did you use to reach this conclusion?)

2. If it is metaphorical, what is it a metaphor for? (what method did you use to reach this conclusion?)

3. What is your explanation for the Genesis 1 claim that God created plants before he created the sun? (and again, what method did you use to reach this conclusion?)

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 79 by tam]

The "correct" way to interpret the bible would be to look at it through the light that is Christ. Keep Him in mind - His word, the truth He teaches - when it comes to everything written in it.


And we should ASK to know the truth. Even the apostles needed the scriptures to be opened to them. But they looked to CHRIST to know the truth; tested things against Him (the Light, the Truth). That is what we are supposed to do as well.

Some people talk about a 'key' to understanding the bible, and they are using codes and numerology, and such things, etc. But sister of mine once stated the truth on this so simply:

Christ IS that key. Obviously! He is the one who opens (unlocks) the scriptures.



One does not need to look to a religious group to tell them the meaning of what is written. One need to look to (and listen to) Christ.

Except what do people do when they discover Christ told them to listen to His Church?

Christ said,

The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.

"Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."

I won't claim to understand everything. But I asked my Lord about this because of your thread, and He reminded me that He is the Light, and He helped me to see some of the things that I shared above.

And what do you say to those sincere truth seeking Christians who say Christ revealed something different to them?

[tam]

Peace to you RR,

[Replying to post 79 by tam]

The "correct" way to interpret the bible would be to look at it through the light that is Christ. Keep Him in mind - His word, the truth He teaches - when it comes to everything written in it.


And we should ASK to know the truth. Even the apostles needed the scriptures to be opened to them. But they looked to CHRIST to know the truth; tested things against Him (the Light, the Truth). That is what we are supposed to do as well.

Some people talk about a 'key' to understanding the bible, and they are using codes and numerology, and such things, etc. But sister of mine once stated the truth on this so simply:

Christ IS that key. Obviously! He is the one who opens (unlocks) the scriptures.



One does not need to look to a religious group to tell them the meaning of what is written. One need to look to (and listen to) Christ.

Except what do people do when they discover Christ told them to listen to His Church?

Christ said,

The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.

"Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."

You will note that in each of your quotes, Christ did not tell people to listen to His Church. He is simply stating that those who listen to them (whom He sent) are listening to Him, and those who are rejecting them (whom He sent) are rejecting Him.

Those He sends are not to take credit for what He has given them because they are merely sharing what they have been given by Him (what you have received for free; give for free); and they should not be taking any rejection personally, because it is not them being rejected, but rather HIM who is being rejected.

His words are certainly not to be used as a 'weapon' by men, to make people listen to and obey them; or to gain followers after themselves.

We who belong to Him are to bear witness to Christ , to point to Him, to tell others to follow and obey Him. Not us.


(He certainly is not telling anyone to listen to men who claim to be His 'church', especially not those men who would teach and/or command others to do and believe things that are not what He taught. He did warn us about false christs and false prophets, after all)

I won't claim to understand everything. But I asked my Lord about this because of your thread, and He reminded me that He is the Light, and He helped me to see some of the things that I shared above.

And what do you say to those sincere truth seeking Christians who say Christ revealed something different to them?

I cannot recall any Christian ever stating that He revealed to them that He was not the light or the life or that we have life through Him. If anyone ever did profess that, well, it would be a simple enough matter to quote what He said about the matter.

So test the inspired expression... against Christ, against love, against what is written (beginning with what Christ taught). Hold all things up against the Light that is Christ. He is the Truth, yes? Not men, not religion, not religious leaders. Right?


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

The story of Onan is the perfect example of the law against contraception. It is what all the first Christians, the Early Church and even our Jewish brothers and sisters knew and understood the story of Onan in Scripture to mean and what they all taught and believed.

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this or not, but:


Then Judah said to Onan, Sleep with your brothers wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother. But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brothers wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the Lords sight; so the Lord put him to death also. Genesis 38:8-10


Onan's sin was that he refused to fulfill the lawful duty of a brother-in-law to his brother's wife (widow), when that brother died without having children. He was supposed to build up offspring for his brother, but refused to do so, and showed no love for his brother in the process.


This was not a command against contraception.


(Did he not also lie about it, allowing others to think he was fulfilling his duty; all the while not doing so?)

Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

What is the "correct" way to interpret the Bible? Is there an objective "correct" way to interpret the Bible? If so, what methods should one employ to interpret the Bible "correctly"?

The "correct" way to interpret the bible would be to look at it through the light that is Christ. Keep Him in mind - His word, the truth He teaches - when it comes to everything written in it.

Ok so the correct way to interpret the Bible is to assume from the start that everything it says is true?

Suppose a Christian came to a different interpretation than you. Would that mean that they failed to interpret the text "through the light of Christ"?

[Justin108]

Genesis 1. Give me a quick rundown of its actual meaning. Is it literal? Did God make the universe in 6 literal days? Did he make plant life before he made the sun and stars?

Parts of Scripture are to be taken literally and parts figuratively or even as an allegory " usually the case for Genesis. Just like in life, I sometimes will speak literally " We will be eating at 6pm. And sometimes I speak figuratively, Wow! Its raining cats and dogs today. Most people familiar with the English language and applying the context to my words can understand when I am speaking literally and when I am not and know what I am saying.

The same is true for Scripture. Of course, it is important to be familiar with the original language used in Scripture, the audience, and the context of a single passage and how it relates to other passages in order to be sure one is reading something correctly. I guess someone from a different culture who speaks a different language might find my, Its raining cats and dogs comment to be confusing, but even they with a little inquiry would be able to determine what I actually meant.

Ok so Genesis 1 is metaphorical. What is Genesis 1 a metaphor for? Specifically, when Genesis 1 said God made the plants on day 3 and the sun, moon and stars on day 4, what does it actually mean? What is the latent meaning?

only those entrusted with the authority to interpret Scripture should.

And who holds this authority? Your priests?

Christs established Church. He who hears you, hears me. Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven

Is this an evasive way of saying "yes, Catholic priests"?

So Catholic priests interpreted the text to conclude that only Catholic priests are allowed to interpret the text... You don't need to be a genius to find the problem here.

Does that distinction matter?

Yes, one needs to ask why JWs change Scripture and emphasize the importance of calling God Jehova.

So why do the Jehovahs Witnesses say Gods only personal name is Jehovah? One reason is it gives them the air they are the only true religion that properly worships God. It sets them apart.

Kind of like how the Catholic church calls themselves the "universal" church? Unless you deny the fact that "Jehovah" and "Lord" refer to the same being, you complaining about it is just nitpicking.

The other reason is by pointing to Jehovah as the one personal name, they can attack the doctrine of the Trinity.

What doctrine of the trinity? The word "trinity" never appears in the Bible, nor is there enough to suggest the trinity even exists. But let's not get into that now.

I don't care. . . .I don't care if people used to believe it was immoral. My question is does the Bible say it is immoral?

Thats my point! Obviously, the first Christians felt pretty strongly...

The first Christians? I thought we were talking about the Christians of 1930. How do you know that the first Christians were averse to using contraceptions? The fact that they taught it for a long period before 1930 does not mean that the first Christians believed it. We don't know how far back this anti-contraception mentality went.

They certainly considered the issue, read Scripture, and came to the conclusion to teach its immorality.

So because other people interpret it a certain way, we should also interpret it this way? Because no one ever misinterpreted the Bible?

So, maybe you should care that those who were actually alive when Jesus walked the earth and the first Christians all thought and believed the use of contraception was immoral.

Can you give me any reason to believe that the very first Christians, those who were alive the same time as Jesus, believed that contraception was immoral? Or are you just assuming that, because people in the 30's believed this, surely people in the first century believed this as well?

Uh " no. Everyone prior to the 30s believed and taught this. It was common knowledge for any Christian prior to 1930. It IS what Christs established Church taught!!! Thats the gist of my argument.

And by "Christ's established church" you of course mean your church? So your argument boils down to "it's wrong because my church says it's wrong".

The rhythm method was when every women looked at a womans fertility based on a 28 day cycle, with a woman ovulating on cycle day 14. Women were told they ovulate half way thru their cycle or on day 14. This is sooooooooooo inaccurate.

That's not the point... The point is, if you use a woman's fertility cycle as a means to have sex while still not falling pregnant, then it is contraception. I don't care what you call it, whether it's the rhythm method or NFP. It's a natural means of contraception. You are having sex while still actively trying to not fall pregnant.

The rhythm method was even worse than the 10-17 day guideline. Like I said it pretty much assumed every woman ovulated on the 14th. NFP does not rely on such primitive guesswork.

NFP teaches women to observe their body cues to determine when they ovulate. Women check for fertile mucus and are taught to observe the different types of mucus, position of their cervix, and take their basal body temperature. The rhythm method did none of that.

Basically what you're telling me is that the NFP is a more effective method of contraception. Good to know. It's still a method of contraception.

If not having sex is included in doing something to prevent pregnancy, then yes my 6 year old and my 80 year old mother would by your terms be contracepting.

Ok try to focus. This is not about when you don't have sex, this is about when you have sex. If you specifically, consciously and deliberately have sex on infertile days, then you are having sex while still actively trying to avoid pregnancy. This is called contraception.

Let me try to make this very clear for you
not having sex = abstinence
deliberately having sex on infertile days to avoid pregnancy = contraception

Is that clear? Do you understand now?

If you dont engage in the sexual act, there is no consequence that would result from the sexual act.

You DO engage in sex! On infertile days! Specifically on infertile days! Look, if you still don't grasp how this is contraception then you're either in denial or you're delusional. My guess is you're using this exact method but because you don't want to be a hypocrite, you pretend it isn't contraception despite the fact that it is.

So a contraception is
- a deliberate use of a method
- to prevent pregnancy
- as a consequence of sexual intercourse

Yep. as a consequence of THAT act

Let's see...

contraception
kntrsp()n/
noun
the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse.

Nope. No mention of "that act" anywhere. It just says sexual intercourse. If you have sex but actively attempt to avoid pregnancy, it is contraception. By definition. If you time your intercourse to deliberately avoid pregnancy while still having sex, it is contraction. By definition.

If there were absolutely no health issues with bulimia, no one would object to it. They would probably just think it's gross.

Whats wrong with being gross?

Nothing. I never said there's anything wrong with it. I said that that would be the only issue people take with it. If bulimia had no health issues, I would not care if people I know were practicing bulimia.

So, if we came up with something that would help bulimics prevent tooth decay, would we then have no problem with it?

No because tooth decay is just one of many problems with bulimia.

Observing the world, I see that all animals are naked. Should I conclude then that humans should be naked as well? Observing the world, I see that very few animals are monogamous and no other animal ever marries. Should I stop being monogamous?

I thought we covered this already. Human beings are not held to the same standards as animals. Anyone who observes the world would recognize this.

Then what is it we need to "observe" to conclude that contraception is immoral?

There is no mention of contraceptives being against one of these laws. The Bible is notoriously specific about its laws, practices and rituals. Leviticus goes in depth about how to prepare an animal sacrifice. There are countless laws and prohibitions throughout the Bible, from what not to eat to what not to wear and not a single mention in the law that prohibits any form of contraceptive. Can you explain that? If contraception was wrong, why is there no law against it in the Bible?

I already explained all this. Like I said " this is getting boring. The story of Onan is the perfect example...

...of Onan disobeying God. There's a difference between God telling someone to do something in one instance, and God making a universal law. God told Onan to impregnate Tamar. Onan disobeyed God. That is why Onan was punished... for disobeying God's order to impregnate Tamar. This is similar to God telling Lot's family to not look back. When Lot's wife looked back, she disobeyed God and was punished. Is it now a sin to look back? Did Lot's wife break an existing law? Or did she just disobey God's direct orders? Onan (like Lot's wife) was punished not for breaking a law, but for disobeying God. But just as it is not a sin to look behind you (as Lot's wife did), it is also not a sin to use contraception (as Onan did).

In fact, in Jewish culture, the sin of contraception was known as Onanism. So, yeah, its Scriptural.

Then I guess the sin of looking behind you should be called... Lotism? Does Lot's wife have a name?

[RightReason]

[Replying to tam]

You will note that in each of your quotes, Christ did not tell people to listen to His Church. He is simply stating that those who listen to them (whom He sent) are listening to Him, and those who are rejecting them (whom He sent) are rejecting Him.

Hmmmm . . . IMO, it would be extremely difficult to suggest Christ was not establishing His Church. Scripture goes on to show the first Christians started and carried out Christs command to do exactly that. The first Church even had a hierarchical structure and people took their matters to the Church. And Scripture refers to the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth. The Church was even given the power to forgive sins.

It is amazing to me how Christ establishing the Church bothers so many people.

Lots of Scriptural support (see verses below) showing Christ established a Church, gave His Church power and authority, and commanded us to listen to her. Also, that IS exactly what the very first Christians did. So, Sacred Tradition supports this as common knowledge as well. Given all that, we really ought to take that into consideration when asked the OPs question, What is the correct way to interpret the Bible? We interpret the Bible with the help of the guidance of the Church who is guided by the Holy Spirit. Once again, nothing else makes sense. This would be the only assurance of unity of teaching and knowing we are getting it right. Your understanding that we simply interpret the Bible via the light of Christ has given us what we have today " thousands of splinter groups from Christs Church all teaching and believing different things.

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.


Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."


John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."


1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.


2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.


Matthew 16

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Those He sends are not to take credit for what He has given them

Unless the credit is to give glory to God . . .


17If anyone desires to do His will, he will know whether My teaching is from God or whether I speak on My own. 18He who speaks on his own authority seeks his ownglory, but He who seeks the glory of the One who sentHim is a man of truth; in Him there is no falsehood. 19Has not Moses given you the Law? Yet not one of you keeps it. John 7:18


John 8:50
I do not seek My own glory. There is One who seeks it, and He is the Judge.

His words are certainly not to be used as a 'weapon' by men

Arent they? We are in a spiritual battle. Scripture is clear on this. We are expected to fight the good fight.


"For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." 2 Cor. 10:3-5


Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you. Luke 10:19


"Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." Eph. 6:11-17


The Lord will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before you. They shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways. Deut. 28:7


,,,On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matt. 16:18


For You have girded me with strength for battle; You have subdued under me those who rose up against me. Ps. 18:39

(He certainly is not telling anyone to listen to men who claim to be His 'church', especially not those men who would teach and/or command others to do and believe things that are not what He taught.

Agree. So one must be able to know and identify His Church (I already discussed this earlier) and be wary of anyone coming on the scene later and teaching that which is contrary to Sacred Scripture and contrary to Sacred Tradition.

I cannot recall any Christian ever stating that He revealed to them that He was not the light or the life or that we have life through Him. If anyone ever did profess that, well, it would be a simple enough matter to quote what He said about the matter.

And if the light of Christ reveals to me infant baptism is the way to go and the light of Christ reveals to another sincere Christian that baptism ought to only occur at the age of reason, which one of us is getting it right? Which one of us is our Lord actually speaking to? If the light of Christ has revealed to me the True Presence in the Holy Eucharist, while another sincere Christian claims the light of Christ has revealed a mere symbolic meaning, which one of us is Christ speaking to?

So test the inspired expression... against Christ, against love, against what is written (beginning with what Christ taught). Hold all things up against the Light that is Christ

See my comment above. Sincere truth seeking Christians have tested what they feel is being revealed to them and found support/evidence in Scripture to support it. They have tested their belief against love, against Christ, and against what is written. They have held all things up to the Light of Christ and still come to very differing views. This is problematic. And why Christ did and would establish an authoritative Church " an earthly voice on earth " I think if you really think about it, you will admit that makes sense. In fact, the only thing that makes sense.

He is the Truth, yes? Not men, not religion, not religious leaders. Right?

If He is the truth, listen to what He says!!!

Do not put your faith in men, put your faith in God, and when you do you hear these words . . .


So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. "Matthew 23:3

So practice and obey whatever they tell you, but don't follow their example. For they don't practice what they teach. "Matthew 23:3

^ In your Bible? Yes?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 83 by tam]

Onan's sin was that he refused to fulfill the lawful duty of a brother-in-law to his brother's wife (widow), when that brother died without having children. He was supposed to build up offspring for his brother, but refused to do so, and showed no love for his brother in the process.

Not sure if you read my post, but it explained this and why the first Church and even the Jewish religion all knew and understood Onans sin to be engaging in coitus interruptus (spilling his seed/contraception).

The biblical penalty for not giving your brothers 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.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/birth-control

[Justin108]

The biblical penalty for not giving your brothers 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.

Yes, his crime was disobeying a direct order from God.

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.

Are you suggesting that the penalty for contraception is death? If that is the case, there would most definitely have been a very clear law in the Bible, stipulating this. There is none because contraception was never against the law.

[tam]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

What is the "correct" way to interpret the Bible? Is there an objective "correct" way to interpret the Bible? If so, what methods should one employ to interpret the Bible "correctly"?

The "correct" way to interpret the bible would be to look at it through the light that is Christ. Keep Him in mind - His word, the truth He teaches - when it comes to everything written in it.

Ok so the correct way to interpret the Bible is to assume from the start that everything it says is true?

I never said that.

Suppose a Christian came to a different interpretation than you. Would that mean that they failed to interpret the text "through the light of Christ"?

*through the light that IS Christ

The point is that when you hold something up against a light, you can see it more clearly (rather than trying to see it in the dark).


And it could mean what you said, yes; it could mean that they went ahead and interpreted according to their own understanding, rather than waiting for HIS understanding. Or it could mean that I did this; or even that both of us did this.

One more reason to listen to Christ and not to man, if one wishes to know what is true.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[RightReason]

[Replying to Justin108]

The first Christians? I thought we were talking about the Christians of 1930. How do you know that the first Christians were averse to using contraceptions?

The fact that there is record of the teaching being in the books of every Christian religion prior to the 1930s and that it wasnt until the 1930s when they all started to drop this particular teaching. Much like how now several Christian denominations changed their teaching regarding same sex relationships. It was something all condemned, but now some choose to drop this particular Biblical teaching. Does truth succumb to the fashions of the day?

The fact that they taught it for a long period before 1930 does not mean that the first Christians believed it.

Huh? Thats kind of like saying, just because the U.S. government teaches women have the right to vote does not mean they believe it.

So because other people interpret it a certain way, we should also interpret it this way? Because no one ever misinterpreted the Bible?

We should interpret it that way because those who actually saw and spoke to Jesus Himself concluded that is what Christ meant. We should interpret it that way because we have historical records that that is how the early Church interpreted it and we were instructed, He who hears you, hears me. We should interpret it that way because even those Christian denominations that broke off from Christs original Church taught for 1000 years that as well because they saw the reason and logic and Scriptural support for the teaching.

And yes, people misinterpret the Bible all the time " which is always why I point out the logic and reason in understanding that Christ would not leave us on our own, but rather left us a visible, earthly, authoritative Church to know we are getting it right.

Can you give me any reason to believe that the very first Christians, those who were alive the same time as Jesus, believed that contraception was immoral? Or are you just assuming that, because people in the 30's believed this, surely people in the first century believed this as well?

Nothing a quick google search cant answer.

Prior to the 20th century, contraception was generally condemned by all three major branches of Christianity (Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism),[1] including the leading Protestant reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin.[2] Among Christian denominations today, however, there is a large variety of positions towards contraception.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian ... traception

And by "Christ's established church" you of course mean your church?

If the shoe fits? I would be open to hear out any church that can trace its roots back with an unbroken line of Apostolic succession to Peter and Christ Himself.

That's not the point... The point is, if you use a woman's fertility cycle as a means to have sex while still not falling pregnant, then it is contraception. I don't care what you call it, whether it's the rhythm method or NFP. It's a natural means of contraception. You are having sex while still actively trying to not fall pregnant.

I dont really care what you call it either " the terminology is your choice, but again the action/behavior is night and day and therefore NOT the same. Again, the difference is skipping dessert vs. vomiting it up. One is a violation of the moral order, the other is not.

If you specifically, consciously and deliberately have sex on infertile days, then you are having sex while still actively trying to avoid pregnancy.

Human beings can choose to engage in Gods gift of the marital act. If they choose not to engage in the marital act, they arent guilty of mis using His gift. Like I said, otherwise my 6 year old and my 80 year old mother would be guilty of mis using Gods gift of the marital act by not engaging in the marital act. Nonsense.

This is called contraception.

Let me try to make this very clear for you
not having sex = abstinence
deliberately having sex on infertile days to avoid pregnancy = contraception

Is that clear? Do you understand now?

Why? Is the person not allowing the natural consequences of the sexual act to occur? Seems to me, they are not doing anything to stop/block or alter the sexual act they engage in. You cant be guilty of altering the sexual act when you dont do anything to alter the sexual act!!!!

RightReason wrote:


If you dont engage in the sexual act, there is no consequence that would result from the sexual act.

You DO engage in sex! On infertile days!

Spendid! Ill bet I enjoyed that. And Ill bet I didnt actively do anything to not allow for the natural consequences of that act. Did I?

My guess is you're using this exact method but because you don't want to be a hypocrite, you pretend it isn't contraception despite the fact that it is.

You would guess wrong. Like I said, I just love my husband and trust God. There were times God blessed us with a child when I wasnt all that excited to find myself expecting and there were times when I was praying He would bless us with another child. But Im sure glad it ultimately wasnt up to me " kinda awesome and freeing like that.


I have never had serious reason to avoid pregnancy, but I have known those who have. And the Church in her wisdom does not expect a couple to have a child if they have serious reason why they couldnt. In those situations the couple is advised to still never under any circumstances engage in the sin of contraception, as just like bulimia, it is intrinsically disordered. The Church would advise the couple to practice abstinence when necessary. Again, given the natural design of a womans cycle, this would only require a couple sacrifice or abstain for a few days out of the month. This allows them to honor Gods gift of sex to us.

Nothing. I never said there's anything wrong with it. I said that that would be the only issue people take with it. If bulimia had no health issues, I would not care if people I know were practicing bulimia.

Riiiiiiight . . . The health consequences are minimal. And there are health consequences to being obese. Bulimia would prevent obesity. Most rational people recognize the behavior of bulimia is disordered thats why we label it as such.

Then what is it we need to "observe" to conclude that contraception is immoral?

Seriously? We can observe from the world we live in what somethings purpose/function is. We can tell things like this from form/shape. We can tell a function of the body is to take in food, allow the body to digest the food and convert that food into energy to nourish the body. When someone chooses rather to eat food and then vomit it back up, we can rightly conclude that is disordered behavior.

We can know via observation males produce sperm and women ovulate once a month and we can observe how the penis fits into the vagina and the mans sperm can fertilize an egg and bring about new life. From this we could conclude there are consequences inherent to the sexual act. Just like man is not intended to vomit his food so that he can enjoy the pleasure of eating, but not have to deal with consequences, we can know the sexual act has a unitive nature and man was not intended to engage in the pleasure of the sexual act, while not allowing for the natural consequences of said act.

...of Onan disobeying God. There's a difference between God telling someone to do something in one instance, and God making a universal law. God told Onan to impregnate Tamar. Onan disobeyed God. That is why Onan was punished... for disobeying God's order to impregnate Tamar.

Nope. The Scripture evidence is specific about mentioning Onan spilling his seed. Kind of a graphic detail to include if his sin was simply to be disobedience. Scripture could have said, he refused to sleep with Tamar, but it said he did sleep with her but pulled out. God struck him dead to show his displeasure. And like I said, it is what everyone believed until recently. Am I to believe we are living in the most enlightened period in history?

Yes, his crime was disobeying a direct order from God.


RightReason wrote:


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.

Are you suggesting that the penalty for contraception is death?

God was using Onan as an example to make a point about the seriousness of his behavior in using contraception and thwarting His gift of the sexual act.