[
Replying to Justin108]
No but it's a defense you keep repeating. You keep appealing to "Christians used to believe this". If you would be so kind as to stop using this argument as I have adequately dismissed it as invalid.
The argument isnt Christians used to believe this The argument is what the early Church thought, believed, and taught IS significant. They themselves might have lived when Christ lived. Or at least were getting a more first hand testimony of Christs teachings. The fact that the early Church, Biblical scholars, historians, and all of Christendom believed and taught the immorality of contraception up until the 1930s IS significant. Im not saying just because some used to believe something then it must be true. Im saying those closer to eye witness accounts and testimony of Christ Himself and the first Christians are more likely to get the message correct. Im also showing that all of Christendom who were privy to the same public revelation and Sacred Scripture that we are today all concluded that Scripture condemned contraception.
Now what I would like to know is what changed? What changed in 1930 to cause some Christian denominations to change their teachings that had been in the books for over 1000 years? Was there new Revelation from God? Was there some new Scripture that previously had been missing? Was there some addendum I am unaware of? What new insight did those after 1930 have that those before didnt? Otherwise your argument amounts to nothing more then most Christians today dont think contraception is immoral, therefore contraception isnt immoral.
The early Church, even Jewish scholars, taught the story of Onan in Scripture referred to the sin of contraception. So, why in 1930 did it no longer?
Your demonstration relies on very selective interpretation
Ha, ha, ha . . . I could say the same about yours.
I keep asking for specific laws, not selective interpretations, that outright condemn contraceptions.
But that isnt how one is to read Scripture. I keep telling you Scripture is to be read as a whole and since Scripture itself tells us that Christ said there was much more He wanted to tell us, we can conclude Scripture is not the whole picture. This is also why I continue to argue why Christ left us His Church and told us to listen to her. If there is uncertainty about something, we are to take it to the Church. Paul told us to heed to what has been passed onto us, whether what is written down or by word of mouth. This shows there is no need for Scripture to spell out some specific law to know whether contraception is moral or immoral. Remember too, Scripture did not come first " the Church came first. So, am I to believe stealing and murder were not wrong until the Church compiled the Bible? Or am I to believe a person could not know the wrongness of stealing and murder without prior to or without Scripture?
Using contraception in no way makes family or children any less significant.
This is your opinion. There are arguments to be made to the contrary. Like it or not, contraception says something about a relationship. It says at least one of the spouses does not want all that the other has to offer. Whether they realize it or not, this can affect how spouses treat one another. There are studies that show couples that use contraception are less likely to take responsibility when the contraception fails. They can fall back on the notion that they did not want children or plan children and did what they could so this is not their fault. Using contraception can affect how we see children. A contracepting society sees children as a liability, burdens, mistakes, and problems that need to be controlled. This overall worldview reaches into all aspects of life with an overall devaluing of human life. If the contraception fails, then why not abortion since weve already convinced ourselves having a child right now is a bad idea. The argument can be made when people in general are not valued, this leads to other bad and immoral societal decisions " abortion, pornography, oppression, eugenics, euthanasia, etc.
"Be fruitful and multiply" simply means "have children".
Really? Is that what it means. And children? Not child? So, everyone should have at least 2 children to fulfill Gods command?
With your line of reasoning, wouldnt God have specifically commanded, All married couples should have at two children Is that the kind of specific command you are looking for in Scripture?
It does not mean every single instance of sex should be an attempt to have children.
Again, I never said this and yet you keep repeating it. No one has to
attempt anything. If you engage in the marital act, just dont do anything to stop/block the consequences of the act.
Parents who use contraception continue to believe that the children they have are blessings. The use of contraception does not change this. The desire to not want more children in no way suggests that children are not a blessing. Once more, your point is moot.
If a couple truly saw children as a blessing, who wouldnt want more blessings? One can never have too many blessings.
I refuted the story of Onan.
You did no such thing.
Did you bother reading my response?
Did you read mine? I demonstrated evidence from Scripture that Onans sin was not simply disobedience and that we could know that for a number of reasons. And every Christian denomination as well as our Jewish brothers and sisters agrees with my interpretation. That was until 1930, when some created their new revisionist theology to better justify their new lifestyle choices. Hmmm . . . sounds a little sketch.
This is irrelevant. These Biblical scholars are not beyond question. If you suggest that contraception is a sin because Biblical scholars say so, then you are committing the fallacy of appealing to authority. "This is true because this person says so" is never a good argument.
Im appealing to the fact that all the experts in the field, those who knew Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and were familiar with expression and language of the period in which it was spoke, and spent their entire lives studying the Bible and co existing historical records, and early writings all unanimously agreed upon that one could conclude from Scripture that the use of contraception was immoral. In a court of law, we bring in the expert witnesses. Their testimony has greater weight than that of a lay person. I wouldnt call that irrelevant.
RightReason wrote:
I also mentioned how we can know something is right/wrong via natural law.
As with the Onan story, I also refuted this argument. You cannot claim that something is immoral simply because it is unnatural as people enjoy unnatural things on a daily basis. Clothes are unnatural, electronics are unnatural, motor vehicles are unnatural... Are all of these things sin?
I continue trying to explain to you that the unnatural you are referring to is not the natural in natural law. Please do yourself a favor and learn the difference.
**********************
What Is Consistent with the Natural Law Is Right and What Is not in keeping with the Natural Law Is Wrong .
NOTE: This is NOT what is natural is morally correct and what is unnatural is morally wrong. The focus is on the natural LAWS and not simply natural acts. Natural Law Theory supports doing unnatural deeds such as surgery for the sake of realizing a restoration of health and the prolongation of human life which are each consistent with the natural drives of organisms: survival.
In this view humans have reasoning and the Laws of Nature are discernable by human reason. Thus, humans are morally obliged to use their reasoning to discern what the laws are and then to act in conformity with them.
Humans have a natural drive to eat, drink, sleep and procreate. These actions are in accord with a natural law for species to survive and procreate. Thus activities in conformity with such a law are morally good. Activities that work against that law are morally wrong.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCC ... Theory.htm
A natural law or precept, accordingly, signifies what is necessary or expedient for one of our natural ends. What are the natural ends of human beings? They are the goods that perfect our nature, the goods we are made for, the goods our nature craves even before we make particular choices: goods such as life, family, education, friendship, political community, truth.
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2015/0 ... tural-law/
Anyway, my argument against contraception is based on Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, natural law, and logic and reason.
I refuted every single one of your arguments.
Ha, ha, ha . . . sorry just choked a little on my diet Dr. Pepper.
Quote:
The difference, of course, is that the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality.
You realize there are Christian denominations that would disagree with you.
I don't care
Ok, but why should we accept your interpretation of Scripture? They have come to a different conclusion. Yet another example of Tams holding something to the light of Christ can be a bit confusing and problematic.
RightReason wrote:
They would claim homosexuality and sodomy were condemned, but not committed same sex relationships.
Leviticus directly condemns homosexuality.
You believe this and even I believe this, but believe it or not, (as I have had this very argument with fellow Christians) they claim it was not faithful same sex relationships that Leviticus was condemning. Some even try to argue the word for homosexuality in Scripture did not refer to same sex relations, rather the term then meant man-boy or pederasty and that Scripture then was forbidden things like pedophilia and male prostitution.
So, like I said, not all agree with what you think as very clear. Bummer, huh?
RightReason wrote:
Quote:
The same cannot be said for contraception. So it's a poor comparison. I can quote several passages, directly condemning homosexual acts. Can you do the same for contraception?
I provided more than that, because understanding Scripture isnt about quote mining. Its reading Scripture as a whole, understanding who God is, understanding this world we live in, mans relationship with God and this world we live in.
I'll take that as an admission of your inability to provide the requested scripture.
You take it wrong then. I question your way to understand and interpret Scripture, because not only did I provide lots of Scripture to support my belief, I also demonstrated non Scriptural support. And I demonstrated logic and reason " always a good thing.
I am not interested in their opinion, I am interested in what the Bible says.
Ok, but any good Biblical scholar or those trying to fully understand Scripture refer to other writings and historical evidence. We cant know what the Bible says if we dont also have knowledge of the time, the culture, the language, the expression. Also, the Bible doesnt speak. As G.K. Chesterton said, you cant put the Bible on the witness stand.
And I am skipping all your comments about the early Church writings I included indicating evidence that the first Christians believed in the immorality of contraception because you fail to understand these writings can show evidence that the early Church did believe exactly that. And 100 and 200 A.D. are actually still pretty close to when Christ lived and they certainly should still be considered the first Christians and early Church. And Im not asking you to accept these things as the word of God. I am simply showing you that there is record and evidence for the teaching and belief, which I recall is what you asked (you asked if there is any evidence that the first Christians believed contraception was immoral). And I gave you historical accounts.
What is the form, function and purpose of sand? Is it immoral to disregard this form, function and purpose when we use it to make glass?
No, because sand, like wood, is a natural resource and as observed in the world can be used for a variety of purposes. But again you seem to misunderstand what is meant by natural law. Pleas, please educate your self.
Yet people do not recognize contraception as disordered... well except for Catholics.
Really? Try all of Christendom and Judaism until 1930. Ill ask you again " what changed?
Regardless of whether it works better, no one is going to claim that it is a sin to use a screwdriver to pound in a nail. You might argue that it makes more sense to use sex for children, but that doesn't mean that it is a sin to use sex for other purposes.
Actually, man in his wisdom recognizes what is right and good based on what makes the most sense. That actually is what is meant by natural law. There is an old saying . . .
God always forgives.
Man sometimes forgives.
Nature never forgives.
When we violate natural law, there are consequences. It isnt a punishment from God. It is simply the way the world works. It is in mans best interest to live in accordance with natural law.
So you agree that it is ok to have sex even if your purpose is not to have children? If it is acceptable to take steps to prevent the sperm from fertilizing an egg (such as only having sex on infertile days), why is it not ok to take steps to prevent the sperm from entering the woman?
Because you arent stopping/blocking the sperm from fertilizing the egg in abstinence. You arent having sex! If you do engage in the marital act " then dont do anything to stop/block the natural end of the act you just engaged in!!!
And sometimes, man takes a few steps to help nature out.
Yes, medicine is good to help the body get back on track to doing what it is suppose to be doing. Contraception on the other hand stops the body from doing what it is suppose to be doing!
Why is one pill/injection ok but the other isn't? Both are equally unnatural.
Gaaaaaaaah! It isnt whether something is
unnatural as in man made or artificial. Please look up natural law.
RightReason wrote:
Quote:
It's pretty cold outside. If I stepped outside, I would have to face the "natural consequences" of the cold. However, if I were to put on a jacket, I can counter these natural consequences. Putting on a jacket is certainly not natural.
Actually, it is natural that man take care of and protect his body so that it can function like it is supposed to. Putting on a coat then would be in keeping with what proper use of the body.
How do you determine what is natural for a tiger? By observing a tiger. How do you determine what is natural for man? By observing man. There are countless examples of man throughout history using contraception. Ergo, it is natural for man to use contraception.
With your own line of reasoning then you cant say same sex relations are a sin. There exist practicing homosexuals in the world, therefore same sex relations are ok?
There exists pedophiles, therefore pedophilia is moral?
Yeah, no.
RightReason wrote:
Putting on a condom blocks the natural function of the body.
As does circumcision, yet I doubt you have a problem with that?
How does circumcision block the natural function of the body? Can the man still pee? Can he still have an erection? No natural function blocked. That said, I think circumcision completely unnecessary and there is no medical reason for doing so. Neither my husband nor any of my sons are circumcised.
