BIRTH CONTROL OF ANY SORT TAKES LIFE

[SkyWriting]

There is the flaw in your thinking. Sex is NOT just purely for procreation. A woman is only fertile 5/6 days out of a month Which would mean if you are correct (your not ) then a husband and wife should ONLY being having sex during those 5/6 days a month.
The mere fact that a woman is only fertile out of ~6/30 days pretty clearly shows that G-d INTENDED a husband and wife to express their love and physical desire for each other through sexual intercourse and procreation is a by product of that love

Some Popes say that sex for pleasure is violating the purpose.

 

[Goatee]

God made us so he knows what we need / desire

 

[BukiRob]

Some Popes say that sex for pleasure is violating the purpose.

Well, since I don't view the Pope as having any more authority than any other person that doesn't mean a whole lot.
Scripture exhorts the individual believer to rightly divide the word.
Scripture warns us to not place mean between us and the Father.

8“But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9“Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10“Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11“But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12“Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

If one wants to know what the biblical view on sex between a husband and wife is like one should at least look at the Jewish view on the topic. They after all were entrusted with scripture and scripture in the OT does speak rather exhaustively about sex.

Judaism 101: Kosher Sex

Some of this is a bit tainted by traditions of man, but overall the view of sex between husband and wife rather clearly shows is sex for pleasure is completely appropriate and acceptable.

In fact, under Jewish custom (predating Messiah) Sex was the wife's RIGHT under marriage. To wit:
Sex is the woman's right, not the man's. A man has a duty to give his wife sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her. He is also obligated to watch for signs that his wife wants sex, and to offer it to her without her asking for it. The woman's right to sexual intercourse is referred to as onah, and it is one of a wife's three basic rights (the others are food and clothing), which a husband may not reduce. The Talmud specifies both the quantity and quality of sex that a man must give his wife. It specifies the frequency of sexual obligation based on the husband's occupation, although this obligation can be modified in the ketubah (marriage contract).

 

[Strong in Him]

If he was baptized as a child he is part of the Church. You only get baptized once.

No, you can get baptised more than once.
Some people who were baptised as babies, were baptised again, by immersion, as adults - when they became believers. I was one of them; so was my husband, actually, though I didn't know him then.
Some people get baptised if they join a cult like the Mormons. Even if they had been baptised as babies, the cult would very likely demand baptism as a sign of commitment. If the person later leaves the cult and becomes a Christian they may want to be baptised to show that Christ is their Lord and they have left the old life behind.
I have heard of people being baptised as babies but not gone to church, who then become Christians, attend certain churches and are told by their leaders that their infant baptism "didn't count" and they need to be baptised by immersion as Scripture says. Years ago, a girl in my youth group did this, and our vicar had a row with her church leader.
Then, of course, there is baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Having "his own reasons for not being baptized" sounds like an excuse for disobedience --"I know better than God" type of thing.

Not necessarily. He may be going to a church described in the answer above - where they insist that he be baptised by immersion, while he believes his infant baptism to be satisfactory.

I can't say that he will go to hell, but I CAN say that he is not part of the Church.

Well that's your view; I don't think I agree.

 

[Paidiske]

Traditionally, it's been argued that only your first valid baptism is the one that matters, because from that point God is active in that person's life in a new way. Any further baptism would then be redundant.

Of course churches argue about whether infant baptism is valid, and that's probably waaaay off topic to this thread.

LDS (or other non-Trinitarian) baptism is not regarded as valid by most Christians.

 

[Strong in Him]

Traditionally, it's been argued that only your first valid baptism is the one that matters, because from that point God is active in that person's life in a new way. Any further baptism would then be redundant.

Yes, and I think I'm beginning to come round to that way of thinking myself.
But I was still baptised twice. True, my vicar wasn't happy, but he still allowed me to be part of the church.
I'm not sure I would do it nowadays, nor promote it to other people. But it was still a moving experience and I certainly wasn't going to repent of it, as some suggested at the time.

Of course churches argue about whether infant baptism is valid, and that's probably waaaay off topic to this thread.

LDS (or other non-Trinitarian) baptism is not regarded as valid by most Christians.

Yes, I was just trying to make the point, in both cases, that some people get baptised more than once. Maybe not advisable, but it happens.

Someone once joined a church I belonged to, and was baptised and then confirmed into membership. He later had a row with another church member, went to another church and was baptised again. I told him that he didn't need to be, and in fact shouldn't, but his view was that baptism was a good thing and it didn't matter how many times you did it. He refused to budge from this, and went ahead with what was then his 4th baptism. (Baptised also by Mormons.)
That was wrong, and I told him so.
He was vulnerable after his wife died and we think he just liked the attention and feeling of belonging. But I still didn't think he was right to do it.

 

[Meowzltov]

I don't believe that the Catholic Church is the complete expression of the catholic church.

Then why did you just a post or so ago say that you agreed the catholic church and the Catholic Church were interchangeable. Some kind of misunderstanding is going on.

 

[Meowzltov]

Am I? are you sure? Do you understand what Anglican's believe about the Holy Eucharist? Or are you simply hung up on a word?

I know Anglican accept Real Presence but they do not accept Transubstantiation. Now if you personally accept Transubstantiation, all you have to do is tell me.

 

[Meowzltov]

PS: I don't believe the beginning of the Anglican Church is in the 16th century.

Oh brother! LOL that's an egregious re-write of history. I doubt we are going to see eye to eye on much. Well I do have an extraordinary appreciation for Anglican liturgy (I used to be the minister of music at an Episcopal church), and my hero CS Lewis was an Anglo-Catholic.

 

[Philip_B]

Then why did you just a post or so ago say that you agreed the catholic church and the Catholic Church were interchangeable. Some kind of misunderstanding is going on.

I never for one moment suggested that the catholic church and the Catholic Church are interchangeable. I do believe that the Catholic Church is part of the catholic church, what I don't believe is that the Catholic Church is the whole expression of the catholic church.

I know Anglican accept Real Presence but they do not accept Transubstantiation. Now if you personally accept Transubstantiation, all you have to do is tell me.

There are many who will make this to be a huge difference. I believe the Anglican position is much closer to the EO and OO here, and for my understanding I believe that the table is set in this world and the next. The priest says to me take eat, the body of the Lord, and I say Amen. What do you think I mean.

Oh brother! LOL I doubt we are going to see eye to eye on much. Well I do have an extraordinary appreciation for Anglican liturgy, and my hero CS Lewis was an Anglo-Catholic.

I like CS Lewis as well.

 

[Meowzltov]

No, you can get baptised more than once.
Some people who were baptised as babies, were baptised again, by immersion, as adults - when they became believers. I was one of them; so was my husband, actually, though I didn't know him then.
Some people get baptised if they join a cult like the Mormons. Even if they had been baptised as babies, the cult would very likely demand baptism as a sign of commitment. If the person later leaves the cult and becomes a Christian they may want to be baptised to show that Christ is their Lord and they have left the old life behind.
I have heard of people being baptised as babies but not gone to church, who then become Christians, attend certain churches and are told by their leaders that their infant baptism "didn't count" and they need to be baptised by immersion as Scripture says. Years ago, a girl in my youth group did this, and our vicar had a row with her church leader.

Just because people technically CAN do something, doesn't mean it's right for them to do so. "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" Ephesians 4:5.

Let's not complicate things by bringing in Mormon baptisms and stuff that don't count. I'm talking about having only one Trinitarian CHRISTIAN baptism.

And infant baptisms are Christian Trinitarian baptisms. If someone doesn't go to church and rediscovers Christ as an adult by he power of the Holy Spirit within them, they do not need to get re-baptized.

If a baptized Christian apostatizes and joins another religion, and later returns to Christ, they are NOT to get re-baptized. That is an unbliblical doctrine, and we can't just go around doing unbiblical things just because they "feel right". They need a good long talk and confession with their pastor/priest, which will include a lot of tears, I'm sure, and once they've confessed and reconciled with Christ, they need to receive communion.

A lot of this stuff is going on because the churches are not teaching the biblical doctrine of one baptism, or they are not accepting all Christian baptisms.

I know personally what this is like. My parents took me to a Friends (Quaker) church which believes water baptism is wrong and should be avoided. They totally brainwashed me: I thought baptism was stupid, worthless, and even dangerous to a person's spiritual walk. It took several years of being out of that church, just going through my Christian life not even thinking about baptism, before I realized I needed to just obey God even though I didn't understand why he commanded it.

 

[Meowzltov]

There are many who will make this to be a huge difference. I believe the Anglican position is much closer to the EO and OO here, and for my understanding I believe that the table is set in this world and the next. The priest says to me take eat, the body of the Lord, and I say Amen. What do you think I mean.

For what it's worth, I think we will see in our life time all those who accept Real Presence being allowed to receive Eucharist in the Catholic Church. It's just that the CC is so monolithic that it moves at glacier pace.

 

[Philip_B]

For what it's worth, I think we will see in our life time all those who accept Real Presence being allowed to receive Eucharist in the Catholic Church. It's just that the CC is so monolithic that it moves at glacier pace.

I think if you read contemporary Catholic theologians you may find many Anglicans think more highly of the Eucharist, or at least as highly, and they often seem to navigate around the T would so significantly that it sounds more like Real Presence.

Don't know if you caught up with this little article. PS the image here is a photo I took across the Tiber.
Anglican Evensong to be Celebrated at St. Peter's Basilica for the First Time

 

[Founder]

I am not completely certain what the argument is here. It seems to be suggesting that abstinence, using prophylactics, taking a contraceptive pill, or using a number of other preconception devices, is implicitly the same as post-conception therapies such as the morning-after pill or indeed a medical pregnancy termination.

Logically I am not sure I can equate all these options in the sense I think the OP is suggesting.

What is to be confused about here. I said what I mean and mean what I said. Deal with it as you wish. A child is just as dead if the parents kill the child one second before it can be conceived or one second after it was conceived. "LIFE DOES NOT BEGIN AT CONCEPTION, PERIOD BUT SOMETIME BEFORE."

 

[Founder]

I don't think that is true. Abortion takes like, other forms of birth control stop life from happening. There is a big difference. There would be a lot of unwanted children and more abject poverty if we didn't have some form of birth control.

So your proposal is in order to fight poverty and eliminate "Unwanted" Children we should kill some with some form of Birth Control? Right?

 

[Founder]

Pregnancy, the normal way, includes a lot of sperm racing for the female's egg. Do you know which one God wants to win the race? Or do you know God's will after you see what has happened? If the latter, then how would you know that God has ordained any of them to reach the egg at all, because LOTS of times none of them do?

Human beings are in partnership with God. They have certain responsibilities and God has other responsibilities. God did not make every individual sperm to find an egg, which means MANY sperm die according to the biology that God gave us. If a sperm can die without moral fault, then cells can die without moral fault. Our responsibility changes when the cells transform into a human, in part due to the fact that a human can survive and grow. But an individual sperm or egg cannot.

What constitutes a fact, like everything else, is open to interpretation. Labeling your interpretation as the correct one means nothing (John 5:31). God does not subscribe to any human's beliefs—we are stuck with only communicating what we believe, even if God gave you a revelation of the truth.

(I've addressed only the biology, and have not addressed the situation of sex with the intention of not producing a child. We can sin all kinds of ways with our intentions even without doing anything at all.)

 

[Founder]

Jesus said, "Woe must come unto the world, but woe unto him who brings that woe." Yes, babies die from all kinds of causes before and after conception or birth, but woe unto he who kills them.

 

[Founder]

Some Popes say that sex for pleasure is violating the purpose.

Nothing wrong with sex, morning, noon, or night, BUT if you follow the Bible, it says that you are not to "go in unto" your wife during the entire days of her fertility which by Leviticus is roughly 15 days of the month. This kind of abstinence has many benefits and does not intentionally kill children, and is God's law. The problem is all in the INTENTIONS. If the intention is to kill a possible child then that is the same as killing a child. INTENTION TO KILL IN GOD'S EYES, AND IN THE EYES OF A WORLDLY COURT IS TANTAMOUNT TO SOME LEVEL OF GUILT. Stop looking for loopholes. FounderChurch@Gmail.Com

 

[Founder]

ANY type, form, practice or method of Birth Control TAKES LIFE
No matter what religion or no religion you follow.
It is just that simple, so stop looking for loopholes....

This is not to say whether taking that life is good or bad, or contrary to God's Will. It is just to state a simple fact that Any sort of premeditated interference with a child being born is taking a child's life.

This is true Biblically, Scientifically, Legally, and in the Common Sense Business environment. This is not to say anything else.

Of Course, "Whom God set free is free indeed" so people have the right to be wrong, but they must pay the price whether worldly, or other worldly.

The idea here is to get people to face facts first, and then make whatever judgment they want about those facts. Everyone has the right to their own opinion, but no one has a right to their own facts.

The answer for Believers is to face the facts and repent appropriately their wrongdoing, and all is well with God. That is what I do. "FounderChurch"

COULD WE PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC ON THIS THREAD?

 

[SPF]

Founder, I have a few questions for you.

First, you believe that any action that intentionally prevents pregnancy is tantamount to murder. So what happens if while my wife is ovulating I choose not to have sex with her because we do not want to have another child. Is that murder? I don't see a difference between choosing to not have sex with my wife while she's ovulating and using a condom, would you agree?

Secondly, you pointed towards a particular law in Leviticus as still applicable to us today. Does this mean you also believe that the entirety of the OT law is still applicable to us today?