Contraception

Okay Majola, first half:

Okay, back now. I’m going to deal with things in the OP, but at the same time I’m going pick up on a few statements made by others.

Mojoala, if I were a Jew before the resurrection of Christ, I might have to worry about numbers 1-15. Since Christ fulfilled the law, I no longer have to abide by it because I’m not trusting in the Law to save my soul. (Romans 8:1-4) Christ fulfilled the law and in doing so freed me from it. Now that doesn’t mean I should intentionally sin just because I know my sins are covered, but it also doesn’t mean I have to follow Jewish ceremonial laws that covered everything from diet to circumcision.

• As has already been said, mankind had followed this commandment quite well.

• The first two verses: see number 1. The last was a promise to Abraham and therefore the nation of Israel. This doesn’t apply to Gentiles.

• There is no number 3.

• Remember Isaac was passing the promise of God to Abraham on to his descendent and therefore this verse too applies only to the Israelites.

• As has already been said, Onan sin was one of selfishness and disobedience, not birth control.

• These verses too apply to men like Onan who are too selfish to raise a child to their brother’s name even though God directly commanded such in order for the Jewish race to multiply.

• These verses are rewards for following God’s leadership in taking over the promised land. (is this something we can do today?)

• Sorry, these verses are about sexual sins, not birth control. The act described is the sin apart from wasting sperm.

• This applies only to priest serving in the temple.

• This applies to synagogue worship.

• Notice that this specifies only a woman reaching out and grabbing something that wasn’t hers to grab. Doesn’t say anything about men do such in the course of battle.

• My quiver is full at 3. What about yours

I'll be back...........

 

Ready for the rest?


13. Sorry guy, but these verses are describing specific punishments for specific acts of a specific people. They cannot be construed as warnings against birth control.

14. This is a warning against divorce, not birth control.

15. See 14

16. See 14

17. Marriage represents Christ’s love for the church, these verses reflect such and are not about either childbearing or birth control.

18. Ananias and Sapphira died because they lied to the Holy Spirit. Not because the practiced birth control. Not even because they withheld part of the proceeds from the sale of their property.

19. This particular instruction is about, hmmm, how shall I say this politely, not withholding sex unless both (get that both) parties agree. This so abstaining doesn’t end up with one party being tempted to commit adultery.

20. I think Paul was instructing both husbands and wives not to be selfish with one another.

21. So I guess then that surgery to repair a heart valve or bypass a blocked artery could then be considered mutilation? I hope your heart is healthy. Here to you have snatched a verse out with no regard for context. The context of this verse is idol worship. All of it is bad, but Paul gave specific instructions that this practice not be brought into the Christian church. (along with instructions on not having sex as part of worship and quite a few other things as well)

22. Saved in childbearing….huh, just what does this have to do with birth control. Let’s see faith in God, charity toward others, expressing a holy life while not being drunk……doesn’t say anything about sex…….nope, you are out of context again.

23. Huh, you left out these two. Is it possible that even you knew they were non arguments? You know, if you copied this from another site you need to at least document where you got it from.

24.

25. Guess what, pharmakeia was used at the time to describe more things done in the worship of idols. Something like tripping on LSD in order to know the wishes of the god. Just because we have change the meaning throughout the last few centuries and it now means medication doesn’t make it the same sort of sorcery that Paul was warning about. (medication=balm of Gilead, sorcery=LSD) And if there is no difference you better throw out your bottle of aspirin. (man I hope you have a strong heart.

Do I have to summarize? Okay then, IT IS ALL OUT OF CONTEXT!!!!!

And what little isn't directly out of context simply doesn't apply to anyone who wasn't Jewish before Christ. We are no longer under the law. If we are I want to see you taking your brother's childless widow to wife and having a child with her. I bet you own wife would love that!

 

Back to Onan, not only was he disobedience but he also ill used Tamar. You know, he got his milk for free. If he hadn't used her, while not giving her a son, she could have followed the recourse set out in Deut.

Still, I'm not Jewish, therefore I don't need to build up the Jewish race. How again does this affect me?

 

The sin he was struck down for was, according to the context, his evil intent. This was an account of the lineage of Judah, not "life-giving meaning and the good of his potential offspring's life". Do you think God was striking down every single person who ever spilled seed? (and that church never seemed to realize that in every single pregnancy, it is only one single sperm that impregnates (or two in twins, etc), and the rest of the "seed" are "wasted", as are every unfertilized egg that comes out for the month).

Also, regarding pseudo-Barnabas, look at the context: "Moreover, he has
rightly detested the weasel. For he means, 'Thou shalt not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth, on account of their uncleanness; nor shall thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth. For this animal conceives by the mouth".

That's not talking about sex, as far as humans are concerned (I don't even know if they had heard of that practice at that time and place), but "wickedness with the mouth" always referred to evil speech. This is compared with the supposed sex act of the weasel, and right there, one wonders where this writer is coming from, because the weasel conceives like every other mammal. (probably one reason this book was recognized as not being Spirit-inspired scripture from the apostle Barnabas, even though it looks somewhat like it, and his basic premise on the purpose of the Levitical dietary laws was good)

"Sorcery" means "mind altering" drugs; not contraception, which probably didn't even exist back then. Sorcery involved altering of the conscience with the drugs, so the "magic" being done looked real. If you want to condemn something today with that, it would be getting high.

 

Yep, Christ did it for me so I wouldn't have to do for myself. Not that there was any possible way I could have done it for myself and still couldn't possibly do it for myself.

So Christ was sinless in my place and therefore I know longer must follow Jewish ceremonial law in order to get myself a right relation with God. He no longer sees me, but instead sees Christ standing in my place.

So if it were so that Jews were not allow contraceptions (and you have yet to show me directly relating scripture from the Old Testament) I as a Christian no longer have to abide by those laws. Christ abided by them for me!

 

In addition to giving us the ability to procreate, God also gave us a brain to think with...including the ability to think wisely about when to procreate and when not to procreate.

 

This statement concerns me. Why is this?

 

Quote from the OP

Ummm.....looks like you have been responding.
You are of course free to discuss all you want. I don't care, I was just wondering why you would say that you were done with this argument if you really weren't.

 

:type:

Hey Mo,

Your logic is flawed to the point of being funny. Cinsider this scripture:

1 Tim 5-8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.


So you advocate just to keep on having children because God said go be fruitful and multiply, but this scripture says, if you can't/won't take care of your own family God doesn't like that either

So what if you have so many kids that your family has to go on welfare, and food stamps and still can't feed all your kids and you have no insurance? The wife gets to the point where she can't stand it and leaves etc.

Your beautiful lofty ideas are great in theory, but God knows we live in the real world.

Yes God will provide, but why is it that sometimes, even though people are Christians and believe the word with all their heart, that the whole family suffers because there are so many kids and not enough of everything else.

Please ask your "God" what those people are supposed to do!

Selah,

Tam

 

:type:

Mo,

It says on your profile that you are considering leaving the Baptist church. What are you planning to become?

Tam

 

Majoala, I'm concerned and not because we disagree on birth control.

Why are you applying the writings of mere men as though they were scripture? Do you consider everything that comes down to us from "early church leaders" to be proof positive for your doctrine? Are you following the traditions of men rather than rather than the true inspired word of God?

Christ warned of this in Mark chapter 7:

Mr 7:1And there are gathered together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem,

Mr 7:2and had seen that some of his disciples ate their bread with defiled, that is, unwashen, hands.

Mr 7:3(For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands diligently, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders;

Mr 7:4and [when they come] from the market-place, except they bathe themselves, they eat not; and many other things there are, which they have received to hold, washings of cups, and pots, and brasen vessels.)

Mr 7:5And the Pharisees and the scribes ask him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands?

Mr 7:6And he said unto them, Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth me with their lips, But their heart is far from me.

Mr 7:7But in vain do they worship me, Teaching [as their] doctrines the precepts of men.Mr 7:8Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.

Paul warns of doing this in Colossians:

Col 2:8Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ:

There is a Reason why the writings of the early church leaders aren't considered scripture but only opinion. That is God placed His hand on His Word and preserved it. These same church leaders you are quoting understood and agreed that the Bible is the complete Word of God. Their writings are thier opinions and the Bible tells us what to do with the ideas of man:

1jo 4:1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

1jo 4:2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

1jo 4:3and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the [spirit] of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.


I say these things because this is directly in contradiction to scripture and a scripture that has already been quoted by you in this thread:

The part highlighted in brown is in direct contradiction to 1 Cor 7:5:

Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together again, that Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency.


Paul says not to abstain except for what? That you give yourself up for prayer for a season. That's the only reason Paul gave for abstaining. But remember, Paul isn't talking about birth control because that is a subject for man and wife and not the church. Paul is talking about not being tempted to commit adultry because man and wife aren't having sex. To use these verses to condone a certain type of birth control (ie abstinance) is to take them completely out of the context in which Paul was writing.

Now, who has the greater authority? The man who you quoted or Paul who was chosen by God himself?


Majoala, I don't know where you are getting your ideas, but you must test all the opinions of men by scripture. You can't build a firm foundation on the ideas of men. Those things sound good sometimes but they are a tool of Satan to bring us into spiritual bondage and we as Christians, covered by the blood of Jesus, have been freed from that! You must first study the Bible, the Holy, Inspired Word of God with all prayer and diligence. Only then will you be prepared to tell the difference between what sounds good and what IS good and the difference between the ideas of man and the ideas of God.

 

We already don;t keep much of the OT Law, because it has been fulfilled by Christ, and if you are becoming Catholic, the RCC brags quite a bit about changing the sabbath to Sunday, for example. Need we get the SDA's here started on that?

 

Some women are put on the pill less for contraception but more for health issues they may be having.