Contraception

[MrPolo]

Solomon was the wisest of the Old Testament age .

Ecclesiastes 4:2-3

2Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive.
3Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the sun.

so let's move on to the NT stuff .

I'm not following the relevancy of this to the subject?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I'm not following the relevancy of this to the subject?

Well Solomon was saying that those who are dead are better than those who are living . but those who have not yet been are even better off than the first two because they haven't seen the evil that goes on, on this planet daily.

so those who never were born are better off the scripture is saying . it relates to contraception does it not?

so i suggested moving on to New Testament passages . as OT seems to come to that conclusion .

 

[Ishraqiyun]

They were quite criticized

Criticized? Heck, they had a knack for being burned at the stake.

http://www.cathar.info/1209_inquisition.htm

 

[Vendetta]

Well Solomon was saying that those who are dead are better than those who are living . but those who have not yet been are even better off than the first two because they haven't seen the evil that goes on, on this planet daily.

so those who never were born are better off the scripture is saying . it relates to contraception does it not?

What utterly poor exegesis. Jeremiah cursed the day he was born, and Jesus told Judas it would have been better if he had never lived. Was it God's will, then, that Jeremiah and Judas never lived? Clearly not. You're reaching for a conclusion not implied by the text. It's inexcusably out of context.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

What utterly poor exegesis. Jeremiah cursed the day he was born, and Jesus told Judas it would have been better if he had never lived. Was it God's will, then, that Jeremiah and Judas never lived? Clearly not. You're reaching for a conclusion not implied by the text. It's inexcusably out of context.

No it's not . Solomon's sermon in this book seems to follow the same cynical tone . it is very in context .

but Solomon lacked something . which is why i suggested to look past the cracked lense of the Old Testament people to those looking through a glass darkly of the New Covenant . perhaps, it would shed more light .

 

[JacktheCatholic]

No, i see it as a "blood covenant" and something that no MAN can call "null".

Only if there is an agreement between all three parties; husband, wife and of course God. If husband or wife had not intention of being in this covenant then it is null/void. That one will have to answer to God for their lie.

 

[sunlover1]

Only if there is an agreement between all three parties; husband, wife and of course God. If husband or wife had not intention of being in this covenant then it is null/void. That one will have to answer to God for their lie.

And the guy in prison had no intention of killing the pedestrian he hit
while intoxicated.. in fact he had no intention of getting drunk..
I had no intention of hurting someone's feelings when I said that
unthoughtful thing I said and I had NO intention of being a glutton
when I made that cheesecake ...
The bible warns us about being foolish, it doesnt say that if you're foolish
you get a do over.
IMO it's a manmade wiggle room "loophole" and it's intellectually dishonest.
BLOOD COVENANT baby!
I understand that you would agree with what your church teaches.
And of course we both have our own opinions and maybe one of us is right LOL
...
And that's my final answer....
You hope

 

[JacktheCatholic]

If I intentionally sign a contract without my name and with no intention of going into agreement with that contract then how can anyone hold me to it?

You write Pinochio as your name on the contract and is it going to be taken as a John Hancock? I think not, even if this is not discovered right away. The one is a liar and the other may be a fool but God knows from the start and so no Covenant takes place. Such is the way with evil and men/women that act in such a way. Lies and deceit have always been the devils ways and God has always been truth. So, God will not uphold a lie because God upholds the Truth alone.

* how do we say truth alone because it may be another protestanism...

 

[sunlover1]

If I intentionally sign a contract without my name and with no intention of going into agreement with that contract then how can anyone hold me to it?

You write Pinochio as your name on the contract and is it going to be taken as a John Hancock? I think not, even if this is not discovered right away. The one is a liar and the other may be a fool but God knows from the start and so Covenant takes place. Such is the way with evil and men/women that act in such a way. Lies and deceit have always been the devils ways and God has always been truth. So, God will not uphold a lie because God upholds the Truth alone.

* how do we say truth alone because it may be another protestanism...

I understand your position Jack .. I still disagree and I am more sorry than
you can know that there are evil men and women out there who hurt
nice men and women..
Sad state of affairs indeed!

And I also believe that God is able to sustain them by His grace.
Didja see what Jacob did to his wife Leah???
And God was her refuge...

God is good

 

[patricius79]

They were quite criticized even at that time by the East and West for their methods of self-mutilation..... Link

right. referencing the Manichaeans as a source of doctrine is not a good thing. they saw the body as evil

contraception seems to indicate that fertility is evil

 

[Vendetta]

No it's not . Solomon's sermon in this book seems to follow the same cynical tone . it is very in context .

but Solomon lacked something . which is why i suggested to look past the cracked lense of the Old Testament people to those looking through a glass darkly of the New Covenant . perhaps, it would shed more light .

Your response to me is
1. To say the equivalent of, "no, you're wrong," and then fail to establish what in the world you're talking about. What is the cynical tone, and what does it have to do with your larger point in relation to your respone to Polo?
2. To avoid my examples of Jeremiah and Judas, which carry enough weight to refute your argument.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Your response to me is
1. To say the equivalent of, "no, you're wrong," and then fail to establish what in the world you're talking about. What is the cynical tone, and what does it have to do with your larger point in relation to your respone to Polo?
2. To avoid my examples of Jeremiah and Judas, which carry enough weight to refute your argument.

I dunno, i sense a lot of bitterness in your words . in other words you're wrong even if you're right . (James 3:12-18)

 

[sunlover1]

right. referencing the Manichaeans as a source of doctrine is not a good thing. they saw the body as evil

contraception seems to indicate that fertility is evil

Only in the same way as me abstaining from cheesecake
indicates that dessert is evil.
We get to make some choices.
God made sex very very enjoyable and sought after otherwise
His creation would not necessarily continue..
Just as He made food very very enjoyable and sought after so
that we'd put fuel in our bod!lol
If it all tasted like dirt, we might die.
Have you ever seen anyone forget to eat and die?
No
But we see folks run out of gas in their car all the time
why?
Because it doesnt "feel good" or "taste good" to get gas.

So we eat because it tastes good...not because we need fuel.
imo

 

[Heavens]

What utterly poor exegesis. Jeremiah cursed the day he was born, and Jesus told Judas it would have been better if he had never lived. Was it God's will, then, that Jeremiah and Judas never lived? Clearly not. You're reaching for a conclusion not implied by the text. It's inexcusably out of context.

For sure.

 

[MrPolo]

so those who never were born are better off the scripture is saying . it relates to contraception does it not?

Ecclesiastes is the lament of a human-only perspective. It is a view of reality by only looking "under the sun" as opposed to looking at reality with the help of divine revelation which is a view over the sun. That's why the book starts out "all is vanity!" From a human perspective, the dead are better off than in the misery of this world. The book talks about how man is no better than an animal because they share the same fate. Or how there is no justice. And on and on and on about how things suck in this world. It is basically "the bad news" that one sees when only utilizing a human perspective. Only in Christ does what appears disastrous become a realm that has hope. So the OT does not assert what you say. Earlier, I posted numerous OT passages speaking of fertility as God's gift, starting with "be fruitful."

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Ecclesiastes is the lament of a human-only perspective. It is a view of reality by only looking "under the sun" as opposed to looking at reality with the help of divine revelation which is a view over the sun. That's why the book starts out "all is vanity!" From a human perspective, the dead are better off than in the misery of this world. The book talks about how man is no better than an animal because they share the same fate. Or how there is no justice. And on and on and on about how things suck in this world. It is basically "the bad news" that one sees when only utilizing a human perspective. Only in Christ does what appears disastrous become a realm that has hope. So the OT does not assert what you say. Earlier, I posted numerous OT passages speaking of fertility as God's gift, starting with "be fruitful."

Well according to Colossians the OT is based on a human perspective too . which is why the NT writngs are better for this kind of thing .

 

[Heavens]

Ecclesiastes is the lament of a human-only perspective. It is a view of reality by only looking "under the sun" as opposed to looking at reality with the help of divine revelation which is a view over the sun. That's why the book starts out "all is vanity!" From a human perspective, the dead are better off than in the misery of this world. The book talks about how man is no better than an animal because they share the same fate. Or how there is no justice. And on and on and on about how things suck in this world. It is basically "the bad news" that one sees when only utilizing a human perspective. Only in Christ does what appears disastrous become a realm that has hope. So the OT does not assert what you say. Earlier, I posted numerous OT passages speaking of fertility as God's gift, starting with "be fruitful."

Wow, what a statement.

Regardless as to how this fact reflects on this thread, Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon, who wrote of the highest order of wisdom available to a man from God in the Old Covenant days.
If that isn't understood, it isn't because Solomon was speaking foolishly or as an unenlightened man.

(1Ki 5:7) And it came to pass, when Hiram heard the words of Solomon, that he rejoiced greatly, and said, Blessed be the LORD this day, which hath given unto David a wise son over this great people.

(1Ki 3:10) And the speech pleased the Lord, that Solomon had asked this thing.
(1Ki 3:11) And God said unto him, Because thou hast asked this thing, and hast not asked for thyself long life; neither hast asked riches for thyself, nor hast asked the life of thine enemies; but hast asked for thyself understanding to discern judgment;
(1Ki 3:12) Behold, I have done according to thy words: lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee.

So also did Jesus affirm Solomon's Wisdom. The only person wiser than Solomon was Jesus;

(Luk 11:31) The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

To put down Solomon's word of God in Ecclesiastes is to be the opposite of His Wisdom from God. Bad form for sure.

 

[max1120]

No, I disagree with the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on contraception. I believe family planing is a moral and ethical obligation to insure to ensure that all children are loved and wanted from the moment of birth. The best way to attempt to do this is to allow women and men to decide when and if they wish to bring a child into the world.

I see no (direct) link between birth control & divorce. I see people who have used birth control who have wonerful marriages and have never divorced. However, I do see a link between marital satisfaction and number of children. In fmailies where the number of children are able to be controlled and planned for, it appears that those couples enjoy greater marital satisfaction. Divorce occurrs becaue of problems that go much deeper than simply do you use BC or not.

Onan's sin was greed!!! Not Masturbaton or lust. He disobayed god because he wanted his brother's property and did not want his brother's widdow to have a child which would have permitted her to have a share of his estate. So this story has nothing to do with masturabation or birth control, both of which I think are healthy and acceptable.

 

[Heavens]

No, I disagree with the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on contraception. I believe family planing is a moral and ethical obligation to insure to ensure that all children are loved and wanted from the moment of birth. The best way to attempt to do this is to allow women and men to decide when and if they wish to bring a child into the world.

I see no (direct) link between birth control & divorce. I see people who have used birth control who have wonerful marriages and have never divorced. However, I do see a link between marital satisfaction and number of children. In fmailies where the number of children are able to be controlled and planned for, it appears that those couples enjoy greater marital satisfaction. Divorce occurrs becaue of problems that go much deeper than simply do you use BC or not.

Onan's sin was greed!!! Not Masturbaton or lust. He disobayed god because he wanted his brother's property and did not want his brother's widdow to have a child which would have permitted her to have a share of his estate. So this story has nothing to do with masturabation or birth control, both of which I think are healthy and acceptable.

Amen.

 

[sunlover1]

I assure you, ensure and insure are surely a pane in the but