Would it be sin?!?

[Benedicta00]

Thank you for openly admitting that you are NOT going by what the Bible says!

Another way of saying that you follow man-made teaching instead of the Bible.

And here we have the bottom line: You follow the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, not of the Bible.

Thank you.

and so does the 5 non catholics in this thread.

Why are you ignoring their contributions to this thread?

The believe the Church's teaching comes from scripture. NOt man.

And it is atheism and secularism that tell us, it's okay to use ABC and sterilization .

You yourself admit that scripture does not speak of it being okay.

 

[Benedicta00]

correct. Neither is their license to sleep in satin sheets. Neither is their license to eat pesto. Neither is their license to photograph birds. neither is their license to use a desk fan.

Your brand of biblical use would have us do absolutely nothing. It's as absurd as my examples.

the atheist and secularist say that too,. Don't you know this is one of the reasons why they disbelieve in God? Because the bible is inconsistent

 

[KJVisTruth]

When God said to be "fruitful and multiply," who was He talking to? That is not even one of the commandments, especially not in the New Testament. He had His reasons for saying that, in Genesis and Leviticus.... if it was especially important, He would have repeated it especially in NT, where that concerns us the most.

 

[Benedicta00]

And I have no idea what you're referring to when you're talking about "The Duggars."

the non Catholic bible believing family who has 16 kids, maybe 17 by now...

They do not practice ABC because Rome said to.

 

[Benedicta00]

When God said to be "fruitful and multiply," who was He talking to? That is not even one of the commandments, especially not in the New Testament. He had His reasons for saying that, in Genesis and Leviticus.... if it was especially important, He would have repeated it especially in NT, where that concerns us the most.

and as therese asked, when did he rescind?

 

[thereselittleflower]

The Trinity is in the bible.

That is for UB to prove with plain statements from scripture, which he has not done.

I only ask for one element of the Trinity doctrine to be shown to be plainly stated in the bible . .

that the Holy Spirit is:

1. Co-Equal with the Father and the Son
2. Co-Eternal with the Father and the Son
3. Co-Eternally Pre-existing with the Father and the Son

UB can claim all he wants it is there .. . proving it is an entirely different story.

Until UB can PROVE that these three things are plainly stated in the scriptures, all his argumentatation requiring that our beliefs be plainly stated in scripture are nothing but logically fallacious arguments.

They are as logically empty as an empty glass that should hold water . ..

Commands concerning contraception are not.

Next?

Again, we see this logically fallacious form of argumentation in action . . requiring plain statements in scripture regarding commands against contraception when UB cannot provide plain statements from scripture that state the Holy Spirit is:

1. Co-Equal with the Father and the Son
2. Co-Eternal with the Father and the Son
3. Co-Eternally Pre-existing with the Father and the Son

Logical fallacy . . specifically Double Standard.


.

 

[KJVisTruth]

Well, who was HE talking to, in Genesis and Leviticus? Not us, it was their commandment to repopulate the earth... for obvious reasons.

 

[thereselittleflower]

When God said to be "fruitful and multiply," who was He talking to? That is not even one of the commandments, especially not in the New Testament. He had His reasons for saying that, in Genesis and Leviticus.... if it was especially important, He would have repeated it especially in NT, where that concerns us the most.

It is the FIRST command ever given to man by God.


When did God ever rescind that command?


.

 

[Uphill Battle]

One has to wonder how UB knows this . . .

One can understand why someone would not want there to be anything wrong with artificial contraception, but simply wanting something to be true does not make it true . . .

So, one has to wonder how UB difinitively knows this, which puts his "knowing" in direct opposition to the unanimous teaching of ALL of Christianity for 1900 years . . . a teaching that has since changed in all Christian groups as they caved in, one by one, to the pressures of modernism and humanistic culture and thought . . .

All except one that is . . the Catholic Church.



We are all quite aware of this fact . . . .

How does that make artificial contraception NOT sin, contrary to the unamimous teaching of all christian churches up until 1930 when they began to cave to the pressures of humanism and modernism?




The full sharing of each other between spouses is fulfill the image of God in which we are created . .. which is to be life giving and creative.

If man and women join themselves together without any intention to have the possiblity of that union being life giving and creating, then this is an abuse of the very Image of God we are created in, which has its full expression in this life giving act of man and woman together.


.

From the website I provided you before.

Appeal to authority

An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an otherwise unsupported assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam

Argumentum ad populum



An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."

Appeal to tradition

Appeal to tradition, also known as appeal to common practice or argumentum ad antiquitatem or false induction is a common logical fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it has a long standing tradition behind. Essentially: "This is right because we've always done it this way."
This argument makes basically two assumptions:

• The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced. This might be actually false: the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds.

• The reasons to prove the old way of thinking in the past are still valid today. If circumstances have changed, this may be false.

Also, the argument takes for granted that status quo is desired, which may or may not be correct.


As long as logical fallacy is your measure of things, here are three you just violated.

Beyond that, you have nothing more than assertion that this has "always been taught." Much like a large number of "always been taught" ideas.

 

[KJVisTruth]

It is the FIRST command ever given to man by God.


When did God ever rescind that command?


.

I wouldnt be so broad about that, it was specific as of whom He was speaking to.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Well, who was HE talking to, in Genesis and Leviticus? Not us, it was their commandment to repopulate the earth... for obvious reasons.

He gave the command to two people, Adam and Eve . .

Now, if we take what you said, and apply it, then we arrive at the totally nonsensical conclusion that Adam and Eve were to PERSONALLY fill the earth with their own offspring.

Obviously that is a nonsensical conclusion.

So, it is obvious that the command is not just to Adam and Eve, but to all their descendents as well . .

Are we descendents of Adam and Eve?


How does this FIRST command of God to man no longer apply to us then?



When did God rescind this FIRST Command?


.

 

[Benedicta00]

nothing is wrong with it at all. I am not the one pointing the finger on any of this and yelling SIN, SIN!

However, that is not the full sharing of each other between spouses... Sorry.

if both agree not to engage in relations, how is this so?

I don't think you understood me. During the act is what i was referring to as condoms interfering with the total self giving.

If you are on B/C and you turn your spouse down, you can be still guilt of the same thing, right?

That's not the issue, turning your spouse down. its choosing together when and when not to do it for the sake of a greater good.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I wouldnt be so broad about that, it was specific as of whom He was speaking to.

Please see above .. . such an argument is nonsensical.

Additionally and especially since the earth has never been filled as God commanded . . .


One has to wonder if there are those who believe God does not actually mean what He Commands?





.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

the non Catholic bible believing family who has 16 kids, maybe 17 by now...

They do not practice ABC because Rome said to.

So what? What does that prove?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.


The Bible does NOT condemn Birth Control. Furthermore, if it did, YOU are going to hell, because YOU practice Birth Control.

 

[Uphill Battle]

That is for UB to prove with plain statements from scripture, which he has not done.

I only ask for one element of the Trinity doctrine to be shown to be plainly stated in the bible . .

that the Holy Spirit is:

1. Co-Equal with the Father and the Son
2. Co-Eternal with the Father and the Son
3. Co-Eternally Pre-existing with the Father and the Son

UB can claim all he wants it is there .. . proving it is an entirely different story.

Until UB can PROVE that these three things are plainly stated in the scriptures, all his argumentatation requiring that our beliefs be plainly stated in scripture are nothing but logically fallacious arguments.

They are as logically empty as an empty glass that should hold water . ..



Again, we see this logically fallacious form of argumentation in action . . requiring plain statements in scripture regarding commands against contraception when UB cannot provide plain statements from scripture that state the Holy Spirit is:

1. Co-Equal with the Father and the Son
2. Co-Eternal with the Father and the Son
3. Co-Eternally Pre-existing with the Father and the Son

Logical fallacy . . specifically Double Standard.


.

there is no such thing as "Double Standard" logical fallacy.

 

[Uphill Battle]

He gave the command to two people, Adam and Eve . .

Now, if we take what you said, and apply it, then we arrive at the totally nonsensical conclusion that Adam and Eve were to PERSONALLY fill the earth with their own offspring.

Obviously that is a nonsensical conclusion.

So, it is obvious that the command is not just to Adam and Eve, but to all their descendents as well . .

Are we descendents of Adam and Eve?


How does this FIRST command of God to man no longer apply to us then?



When did God rescind this FIRST Command?


.

I got news for ya.

They did.

 

[thereselittleflower]

From the website I provided you before.

Appeal to authority

An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an otherwise unsupported assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam

Argumentum ad populum



An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."

Appeal to tradition

Appeal to tradition, also known as appeal to common practice or argumentum ad antiquitatem or false induction is a common logical fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it has a long standing tradition behind. Essentially: "This is right because we've always done it this way."
This argument makes basically two assumptions:

• The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced. This might be actually false: the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds.

• The reasons to prove the old way of thinking in the past are still valid today. If circumstances have changed, this may be false.

Also, the argument takes for granted that status quo is desired, which may or may not be correct.


As long as logical fallacy is your measure of things, here are three you just violated.

Beyond that, you have nothing more than assertion that this has "always been taught." Much like a large number of "always been taught" ideas.

Nothing but strawman and red herrings . . .logically false responses.

This response is in no way responsive to anything in my post it is attempting to respond to . . .

UB is being required to show that he is not engaging in a double standard, a logical fallacy, with his arguments requiring our beliefs be plainly stated in scripture when he believes that the Holy Spirit is:

1. Co-Equal with the Father and the Son
2. Co-Eternal with the Father and the Son
3. Co-Eternally Pre-existing with the Father and the Son

yet cannot produce any scripture plainly stating these things.


.



.

 

[Uphill Battle]

if both agree not to engage in relations, how is this so?

I don't think you understood me. During the act is what i was referring to as condoms interfering with the total self giving.

If you are on B/C and you turn your spouse down, you can be still guilt of the same thing, right?

That's not the issue, turning your spouse down. its choosing together when and when not to do it for the sake of a greater good.

and what is the greater good? Avoiding pregnancy? Ergo, birth control!

It's a simple connection.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Nothing but strawman and red herrings . . .logically false responses.

This response is in no way responsive to anything in my post it is attempting to respond to . . .



.

I'm sorry, what?

 

[KJVisTruth]

Jesus never said anything about being fruitful and multiply, and He also said no one can get to the Father without Him. Sounds like to me He did rescind that "commandment," because it wasnt repeated, and other commandments were.