Would it be sin?!?

[thereselittleflower]

Lol.

You done yet?

And now UB is laughing at my posts and my exposure of his logical fallacies instead of demonstrating for us how he is not engaging in logically false argumentation known as the double standard by requiring we prove that God forbids contraception with scriptures that plainly state this when he cannot prove the following Trinitarian belief regarding the Holy Spirit by providing scriptures that plainly state 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

The issue remains invalidly addressed by UB thus far .. . .



.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Where did you find that or did you calculate it?

found the square miles, calculated it to acres.

 

[Uphill Battle]

And now UB is laughing at my posts and my exposure of his logical fallacies instead of demonstrating for us how he is not engaging in logically false argumentation known as the double standard by requiring we prove that God forbids contraception with scriptures that plainly state this when he cannot prove the following Trinitarian belief regarding the Holy Spirit by providing scriptures that plainly state 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

The issue remains invalidly addressed by UB thus far .. . .



.

sigh....

1) I am not laughing at you. I am laughing at the absurdity of the argument. It's really quite pointless.

2) I have addressed it, but I will go over it again. Scripture demonstrates that God the Father is God. Scripture demonstrates the Jesus the Son is God.
Scripture demonstrates that the Holy Spirit is God.
1+1+1=3. I know it's more involved than that, but the assertion that the trinity is not in the bible is false.

3) I asked you to stop refering to me in the third person. I ask again.

 

[thereselittleflower]

You are correct, it's my cats fault. He is on my desk. In my way.

Serioulsy though I stand corrected. That is two ephianinies in one day.

LOL Blame it on the cat! I am sure she is grinning at you as we speak! LOL

However I sitll question whether 6.5 billion/4 could all fit in Texas with one acre of land each. I couldn't find how many acres of land make up Texas though .

Actually, I was using your numbers to make a point.

I actually said 4/acre . . . .


And I am not sure it is an acre, it might be a half acre . . but still.


We ae no where close to filling the earth . . .


.

 

[praying]

LOL Blame it on the cat! I am sure she is grinning at you as we speak! LOL

ok it wasn't my cat' fault but he was on my desk in my way and now my 2 kittens Mittens and Muffins are sitting on me. They think they own me. And Muffins is always trying to get my mouse pointer.

Actually, I was using your numbers to make a point.

I actually said 4/acre . . . .


And I am not sure it is an acre, it might be a half acre . . but still.


We ae no where close to filling the earth . . .


.

4 acres it still sounds unbelievable. Why would we want to fill the earth? Our resources could not sustain us.

But back to bc, so NFP is only good if you have a valid reason for not wanting to get pregnant, and valid does not count as I am not ready, or I don't want kids right now.


ohh goodness now all three cats are about. 2 on the desk and one on me.

 

[thereselittleflower]

sigh....

1) I am not laughing at you. I am laughing at the absurdity of the argument. It's really quite pointless.

It seems that UB believes I accused him of laughing at me .. . that is not what I said.

2) I have addressed it, but I will go over it again. Scripture demonstrates that God the Father is God. Scripture demonstrates the Jesus the Son is God.
Scripture demonstrates that the Holy Spirit is God.
1+1+1=3. I know it's more involved than that, but the assertion that the trinity is not in the bible is false.

And now we see yet another example of logical fallacy in UB's argumentation.

This one is known as the STRAWMAN.

This is where one invents an argument, then substitutes it for the real argument made against one's position, then attacks that invented argument and acts as though they have demolished the real argument.

No one has argued that the Trinity is not in scripture.

That is UB's invention, his substitution, his strawman.

This type of argumentation is generally engaged in when one finds themselves backed into the proverbial corner and can find no easy way to extricate themselves, and so try a deflection tactic such as this.

But that is all it is . . a Strawman.

The real issue is that UB's argumentation requiring that we prove our position using scriptures which plainly state that contraception is forbidden, is nothing more than the logical fallacy known as a double standard since UB cannot provide scirptures that plainly state 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

And this issue he has never validly addressed. We have only seen one logically false response after another.

3) I asked you to stop refering to me in the third person. I ask again.

The request is duly noted. However, I hope UB realizes that as a member of CF I am free to either address him directly, or to respond using the 3rd person and there is no rule prohibiting me from availing myself of the latter choice.


.

 

[Uphill Battle]

It seems that UB believes I accused him of laughing at me .. . that is not what I said.



And now we see yet another example of logical fallacy in UB's argumentation.

This one is known as the STRAWMAN.

This is where one invents an argument, then substitutes it for the real argument made against one's position, then attacks that invented argument and acts as though they have demolished the real argument.

No one has argued that the Trinity is not in scripture.

That is UB's invention, his substitution, his strawman.

This type of argumentation is generally engaged in when one finds themselves backed into the proverbial corner and can find no easy way to extricate themselves, and so try a deflection tactic such as this.

But that is all it is . . a Strawman.

The real issue is that UB's argumentation requiring that we prove our position using scriptures which plainly state that contraception is forbidden, is nothing more than the logical fallacy known as a double standard since UB cannot provide scirptures that plainly state 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

And this issue he has never validly addressed. We have only seen one logically false response after another.




The request is duly noted. However, I hope UB realizes that as a member of CF I am free to either address him directly, or to respond using the 3rd person and there is no rule prohibiting me from availing myself of the latter choice.


.

If scripture shows that the HS is God, and it does... does it have to say

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

God is God. so, if the HS is God, it is co equal with father and son, co-eternal, co pre-existing.

That isn't rocket science.

and yes, you can address me however you wish. common decency would dictate that you would stop, however.

 

[KJVisTruth]

In spite of what fact?

See the preceeding verse and put it in context:

1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.​

In spite of the fact that:
"the woman .....was in the transgression.....she shall be saved by the channel of childbearing . . . . "


.

Again, thats taking it out of context. Look at the earlier verses in the same chapter. Paul used Adam and Eve as an example, why women shouldnt usurp their men in worship, to be in silence. Its really simple. Childbearing has nothing to do with salvation or sin, its just what women do, and to stay in context, Paul was saying that if women missed (set aside, are "saved," etc) worship to give birth, they are still saved if they continue in faith.

 

[thereselittleflower]

ok it wasn't my cat' fault but he was on my desk in my way and now my 2 kittens Mittens and Muffins are sitting on me. They think they own me. And Muffins is always trying to get my mouse pointer.




4 acres it still sounds unbelievable. Why would we want to fill the earth? Our resources could not sustain us.

First, the whole point is that the entire rest of the world would be available to sustain the population we currently have if everyone was in the state of Texas . .

That is a tremendous amount of resources to more than sustain the currently population of the world many times over.

The issue is not current resources, but our abuse and allocation of them.

We have abundant resources .. it is simply that many choose a life style that abuses and hordes them, depriving others.


The issue is also that God COMMANDED we fill the earth.

Does God give commands that are rediculous?

To fill the earth does not mean fill every last inch, but obviously to fill as full as the earth can sustain.

We are not even close to that point yet.

But back to bc, so NFP is only good if you have a valid reason for not wanting to get pregnant, and valid does not count as I am not ready, or I don't want kids right now.

NFP is good for those who want to have children, are completely open to life and what God chooses to give, but wish to make choices regarding spacing of children.

In such cases, the couple using this method is totally open to life and their plans being upset by God.

The natural fertility of the woman and man's bodies is not altered in any way. They are using temorary times of infertility CREATED BY GOD, planned into the woman's cycle from creation.

Artificial contraception, on the other hand alters the fertility of either the woman or the man or both, and creates infertility NOT designed by God, and deliberately alters the normal sexual act to make it sterile.

Artificial contraception deliberately makes sterile what God created to be fertile. That is a crime against nature and God and against one another.

It means one is not open to life, because one is stoping all possiblity to life when engaging in the sexual act; the creation of new life is the fundamental reason for the sexual act, and why God gave it with the command "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the face of the earth."

ohh goodness now all three cats are about. 2 on the desk and one on me.

 

[icedtea]

You made a post a while back (not sure if tis this thread or the other) that once protestant churches stopped appreciating Mary, all this (contraception, abortion, etc) came about. When did that happen? obviously before I was born, but is there a direct correlation?

 

[thereselittleflower]

If scripture shows that the HS is God, and it does... does it have to say

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

God is God. so, if the HS is God, it is co equal with father and son, co-eternal, co pre-existing.

That isn't rocket science.

Yet the whole point of the argumentation is still being ignored . .

The requirement has been that we provide scripture which plainly state that contraception is forbidden.

Yet no scrripture can be provided which plainly state 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

by those who require such a level of evidence from us.

The issue is the level of evidence being required.

Yes, the Holy Spirit can be INFERRED to be all this, but that is not the issue that was raised.

That contraception is forbidden by scripture CAN ALSO BE INFERRED . . .yet that level of evidence has, thus far, not been acceptable. Instead, we have been met with unreasonable and logically invalid demands that we provide scriptures which PLAINLY STATE our position.

If we can get past this absurd requirement that we provide scriptures which PLAINLY STATE our position, then we could move forward . .

But right now we are stuck in this logically fallacious requirement . . . .

Is there agreement now that we do not have to provide scriptures which PLAINLY state our position in order to proceed with biblical proof, and that scriptures which INFER our position are evidence enough?

If not, we are right back at square one as revealed by the logical inconsistancey of requiring one level of proof for our position but accepting a different, and lessor level of proof for these three beliefs regarding the Holy Spirit.

So, where do we stand on this issue of level of proof?

And yes, you can address me however you wish. common decency would dictate that you would stop, however.

Common decency would dictate that we and our position would be responded to and treated with more charity.


.

 

[praying]

NFP is good for those who want to have children, are completely open to life and what God chooses to give, but wish to make choices regarding spacing of children.

So why is this okay, why do we not just accept when God gives us children, if it is one every 18 months or so for our entire fertile life, 40 years why not accept that. Why use NFP to go against what God has setup as the natural cycle?

 

[Benedicta00]

Ignoring the medical information God has put in your lap would be a sin. Being pregnant and finding out your child may have a disorder and aborting would be sin. Preventing a child from dieing or having a disorder is not. People should make their own call though. If they would have guilt over that decision then they should try other things.

We do not dispute this, we just dispute immoral ways to go about it.

 

[Benedicta00]

this is true.
If one truly wanted to leave the choice in God's hands, they'd just keep business as usual. No calendar, no worries.

I had three babies in about two and a half years, after having had a bunch of kids already.
I prayed as Rachel or Leah did for GOD to please close my womb.
But I said IF it's not your will, then that's fine too.

This is the "form" of birth control I used for six years.
He kept me from becoming pregnant.
He is faithful.
I didnt watch the calendar.
His will not ours.
ANY other way, you're still choosing your will.

But thats' what I chose, doesn't mean it's what you have to do to please God.
Maybe he gave you the choice to use your brain and modern devices as well.

that's very interesting.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Yet the whole point of the argumentation is still being ignored . .

The requirement has been that we provide scripture which plainly state that contraception is forbidden.

Yet no scrripture can be provided which plainly state 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

by those who require such a level of evidence from us.

The issue is the level of evidence being required.

Yes, the Holy Spirit can be INFERRED to be all this, but that is not the issue that was raised.

That contraception is forbidden by scripture CAN ALSO BE INFERRED . . .yet that level of evidence has, thus far, not been acceptable. Instead, we have been met with unreasonable and logically invalid demands that we provide scriptures which PLAINLY STATE our position.

If we can get past this absurd requirement that we provide scriptures which PLAINLY STATE our position, then we could move forward . .

But right now we are stuck in this logically fallacious requirement . . . .

Is there agreement now that we do not have to provide scriptures which PLAINLY state our position in order to proceed with biblical proof, and that scriptures which INFER our position are evidence enough?

If not, we are right back at square one as revealed by the logical inconsistancey of requiring one level of proof for our position but accepting a different, and lessor level of proof for these three beliefs regarding the Holy Spirit.

So, where do we stand on this issue of level of proof?




Common decency would dictate that we and our position would be responded to and treated with more charity.


.

I never ONCE said that it had to be explicitly detailed "thou shalt not use birth control."

However, if it is COMPLETELY MUTE, not much to glean from it.

The issue of the trinity is not mute, regardless of level of proof.

For instance, the bible doesn't say "thou shalt not abort" but it DOES say :thou shalt not kill."

There is no such caveat in regards to birth control.


And I fail to see how disagreeing with your position is lack of charity. You're the ones calling US sinners, after all....

 

[Benedicta00]

I never ONCE said that it had to be explicitly detailed "thou shalt not use birth control."
However, if it is COMPLETELY MUTE, not much to glean from it.

But we don't agree that the Bible is COMPLETELY MUTE. Just like Mary, we do not believe the bible is completely mute.

For there are deeper theological mysteries present and in this case what two being made one flesh really means. Have you ever even pondered it?

I know you don't understand how we approach things Uphill and that's okay but what the heck? if the bible to you is mute then where do you get the go ahead to put a knife to your organs in order to stop pregancy from happeing. I just do not see any justification for that at all.

 

[thereselittleflower]

You made a post a while back (not sure if tis this thread or the other) that once protestant churches stopped appreciating Mary, all this (contraception, abortion, etc) came about. When did that happen? obviously before I was born, but is there a direct correlation?

Yes . . it was a gradual devolution in the position the Protestant Church held Mary that has led to this situation.

Up until the Protestant Reformation, Mary was held in the highest esteem and regard as Mother of God, Ever Virgin etc.

The first devolution was the attack on Mary's Immacluate Conception within Protestantism. Protestant reformers began to move away from this, though many still beleiving Mary to have been Immaculate, changed the point at which she became Immaculate from her conception to the conception of Christ within her. They still saw the need for this Immaculate state, but began to change how this came to be, making her less than she had been.

This change also began to inflitrate into Eatern Orthodox Churches a little later so many now deny Mary was Immaculate at conception, even claiming she sinned.

During the "Enlightenment" secular humanistic thought began to more heavily influence Protestant thinking, and the status of Mary began to be devolved further from one of honor to one of commonness. She was eventually made to be just like us in every way in many Protestant circles, denying her Ever Virginity even.

Shortly after this, the first church, for the first time in all of Christendom, caved into the secular humanist and modernist pressures to approve contraception in 1930. This was followed by another, then another, until the only Church left, which has stood firm on this issue for virtually 2000 years, was the Catholic Church.

This has been followed by various protestant churches caving in on the issue of abortion as well, some allowing it for some instances, others leaving it to the woman to choose.

Again, the only Church left which has stood firm against this in keeping with the teaching of all Christian churches for 2000 years is the Catholic Church . .

It is no coincidence that it is the Catholic Church is the only Church to keep all of the Marian doctrines intact.

Contraception and abortion are attacks against the woman and her body as well as the child and new life.

It is no wonder that we see these attacks on women being accepted and even condoned in Christian circles following this demotion of Mary in whole or in part in Christianity.


.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I never ONCE said that it had to be explicitly detailed "thou shalt not use birth control."

That is the level of proof that has been required of us.

However, if it is COMPLETELY MUTE, not much to glean from it.

It is not completely mute. To suggest so is to ignore the actual scriptures which reveal the scriptural evidence against contraception.

Examples were given, yet dismissed out of hand . . I doubt the actual verses were even read, let alone any honest attempt made to see how our POV is supported in them.

The issue of the trinity is not mute, regardless of level of proof.

For instance, the bible doesn't say "thou shalt not abort" but it DOES say :thou shalt not kill."

Thou shalt not kill is fairly explicit. It means thou shalt not murder.

It does not have to identify all ways someone can be murdered . . .if it falls within this explicit denouncment of murder, then it is explict about abortion as well as being murdered by knife, gun, etc . .

It does not include death by accident or self defense or in cases of war.

This is comparing apples and oranges . . The evidence above is explicit evidence to one who accepts that developing babies are living human beings.


The type of evidence for the Holy Spirit I have required is not anywhere near so explicit, in fact, it goes far the other direction.

To require that we provide evidence from scripture that is at the same level of this command re: murder as evidence of the scriptural stance against abortion is still a double standard.

No such evidence at that level exists for the 3 beliefs regarding the Holy Spirit. . ..

There is no such caveat in regards to birth control.

Nothing so explicit . . just as there is nothing so explicit regarding those 3 beliefs concerning the Holy Spirit.

And I fail to see how disagreeing with your position is lack of charity. You're the ones calling US sinners, after all....

It is not that one disagrees, but in how they do so . . .


.

 

[thereselittleflower]

So why is this okay, why do we not just accept when God gives us children, if it is one every 18 months or so for our entire fertile life, 40 years why not accept that.

God built it into us by His design. If He didn't want us to be able to use such periods as helps to us, He would have made women ALWAYS fertile . . .

Using what God hs given to us by design is is OK. Changing what God has given to us by design is not.

Why use NFP to go against what God has setup as the natural cycle?

NFP does not go against what God ahs set up as the natural cycle . . it uses it as God intended it to be used by providing it.


.

 

[~RENEE~]

Just ran across this. So let me pipe in here.

No it is not a sin.

*insert personal story now*

We have one son. I was told that I could not have a baby. After praying God gave us our son. Do to complications during pregnancy I had an emergency c-section. Three weeks before the little guy's due date. During surgery I went into full congestive heart failure. In other words my heart gave out. This was not realized till two weeks later. When I was rushed by ambulence to the ER. My blood oxygen level was dangerously low. My sats were 75. Which is the sats of someone almost dead. Having him almost killed me. *end personal story*