Why are you allowed to project your own Ideas back into the bible, the same thing you say the Catholic Church does, while the Church can not? Why should I believe you and not the Church? You are doing exactly the same thing you accuse the Church of doing: Stating your own dogma's then finding a place in the Bible where it holds true.

It seems obvious to me that since you're losing this debate and can't support your position, you're reduced to making wild accusations at random. I don't believe anyone could be so ignorant as to not understand this: Atheists do not need to project anything onto the Bible because we do not believe in it. The Bible has no special authority for an atheist. If it says something we disagree with, or fails to mention something we believe, we don't need to contort its text to find support for that position; we defend our position using evidence and reason, and if the Bible fails to accord with that, so much the worse for the Bible. You, as a believer, are the only one who's obliged to find support for all your positions in the Bible's text - even the ones it doesn't support or doesn't mention, which has led to the word-mangling, arbitrary redefinition, and steadfast denial to deal with contradictory verses which we've seen from you throughout this thread.

We all have the right to put any drugs we want into our wifes bodies, and our wifes have all the right to allow it, or not allow it, this is not my point.

No, "we" don't. The decision is not ours to make, and it is not an issue of a woman submitting to or resisting it. What is so difficult about this concept?

I am just telling you why I do not use it (in no particular order, rather all three combined): 1. Bible 2.Church 3.Let me add medical reasons as well.

I'm almost afraid to ask, but...

I wanted to show you where in the bible it talks about contraceptioin

So go on and show us somewhere in the bible that actually talks about contraception.

Why are you allowed to project your own Ideas back into the bible, the same thing you say the Catholic Church does, while the Church can not? Why should I believe you and not the Church? You are doing exactly the same thing you accuse the Church of doing: Stating your own dogma's then finding a place in the Bible where it holds true.

What the hell are you talking about?

The Church has always taught against Abortion and Contraception, we know this through apostolic sucession, the Church, and the Bible combined. All three work in the favor of the Church.

As I understand it the church only became really interested in abortion and contraception in the last several centuries, though I might misremember my reading.

This being said, it is impossible for the Church to teaching something infallibly if it has not always been a church teaching, so no matter what conspiricy theories that are thrown at the Church, this fact remains true.

Wrong; infallibility was added to the Church's dogma in 1870, at the First Vatican Council. Although those in attendance asserted that this was an explicit expression of what had always been the church's position there are multiple instances of popes admitting to having been in error on points of doctrine (generally when threatened, which really doesn't help your case).

By the way, you still haven't answered me on how watching children you can't support suffer and possibly die is a blessing, nor how having to distribute the same amount of resources among more and more dependents will not eventually result in individual children receiving less than they need to survive.

I will try to make this as clear as possible: I am not trying to convince anyone to stop using contraception. We all have the right to put any drugs we want into our wifes bodies, and our wifes have all the right to allow it, or not allow it, this is not my point.

I am just telling you why I do not use it (in no particular order, rather all three combined): 1. Bible 2.Church 3.Let me add medical reasons as well.

I wanted to show you where in the bible it talks about contraceptioin, but this turned into a bible study again, much like we already had about abortion (see posts around Feb 10-19th.) Which is not the point. Both the Churches Tradition and Scriputre hold the deposite of faith, to which Ebon replied:

Again, Adam is simply taking the dogmas which the Catholic church has since come up with and projecting them back onto the Bible.

Why are you allowed to project your own Ideas back into the bible, the same thing you say the Catholic Church does, while the Church can not? Why should I believe you and not the Church? You are doing exactly the same thing you accuse the Church of doing: Stating your own dogma's then finding a place in the Bible where it holds true.

Here is the problem, The Church DOES NOT come up with dogma's then put them in the bible. Both Scripture and Tradition are the Authority in the Church (passed on through Apostolic Sucession), there is no other way to state this fact.

The Church has always taught against Abortion and Contraception, we know this through apostolic sucession, the Church, and the Bible combined. All three work in the favor of the Church.

A note on infallibility I put together, I'll block quote it for easier reading.

What is infallibility? Infallibility is a gift from the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13, Jn 14:26, Acts 15:28 that allows the pastors of the Church, the Pope and bishops in union with him, to proclaim doctrine of faith and morals for the belief of the faithful; these teachings are free from error. (cf. CCC glossary). This means that every teaching of the Church is free from error as handed down by Jesus Christ. The Church is not infallible on matters of mathematics and sciences, but rather the faith and morals Jesus taught. Jesus did not come to write and biology book, rather he came to teach man about God (cf. Mt 16:18-19

Why is infallibility necessary? First of all, infallibility must not be seen as a repressive dictation. It is not used to suppress thought or “crack the whip” but to build on thought and define it so that all may come to understand God the Father, Christ, and His Church. Infallibility is the guide wall which prevents people from jumping over and becoming misguided regarding faith and morals; directing all to knowing God. It functions as protection for the deposit of faith (Apostolic succession and Scripture), so that all Christians might believe what Christ authentically taught.

When does the Church use its power of infallibility? It is used only to defend Divine Revelation (teachings of faith and morals given by God) against heresy. Take for example the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. Since the time of Christ, Christians had always believed that Jesus was God; he told them so and died and rose again to prove it. The Apostles and their successor had always taught the faithful about the divinity of Christ, but when the Arian heresy arose in 250 A.D. the Church needed a formal definition. The Church had always taught Christ is God, now they needed it in writing. Thus at the council of Nicaea the successor of Peter, Pope St. Sylvester I (314-335 A.D.), and many of the bishops came to define for the faithful exactly who Christ is; thus the Nicene Creed.

Why is the power of infallibility reasonable? If God did indeed reveal himself to man for the purpose of teaching man who God is, and how to obtain everlasting life, it would make sense that He would want every man to have access to this Divine Revelation. To do this, God would need a Church, but not just a Church that teaches, but an infallible Church that teaches faith and morals and is free from error. He would want a Church free from error so that His true teachings, the fullness of who God is, would stay protected for all time, removing any doubt as to what He taught. We know this is what Christ wanted to happen because of the primacy of Peter (Mt 16:18-19, Lk 22:32, Jn 21:17, Acts 15:7, etc.) Christ’s delegation of power to his Apostles (cf. Mt 18:17-18, Mt 28:18-20, Lk 10:16, 1 Cor 11:23-24, etc.), and Apostolic Succession (cf. 1 Cor 12:28-29, Act 1:25-26, 1 Tim 3:1, 8; 5:17, etc.). Each Pope is bound by the Teachings of the previous Pope. St. Peter (32-67 A.D.) was bound by Jesus’ teachings (God's teaching about faith and morals), St. Linus (67-76 A.D) was bound by St. Peter, St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88 A.D) was bound by St. Linus, St. Clement I (88-97 A.D) was bound by St. Anacletus, etc. This is true for every Pope; St. Peter (1st Pope) to Benedict 16th (266th Pope). It is reasonable to assume that the Church has access to a Higher Authority because Jesus established it.

This being said, it is impossible for the Church to teaching something infallibly if it has not always been a church teaching, so no matter what conspiricy theories that are thrown at the Church, this fact remains true.

the conspiricy theories fact's are wrong.

Finally, I still like clarification about a question I had last month:

I said

Secondly, even if the brain does start to function in the 3rd trimester, then by yours and Ebons definition they are "people" and any surgical abortion performed would be murder.

Ebon's reply:

Yes, starting at around the third trimester, but not before that. That's what's currently legal in America and that is also my position.

I respond:

You say yes, but I am confused. Is it yes that the child is a person at that time, or yes that if you had an abortion at that time it would be murder, or both, or neither? sorry please clarify

Comment by: Adam | February 19, 2008, 11:10 pm

If indeed abortion is murder after the 3rd trimester I think you would do well to look more closely into the reasons why Catholics oppose abortion all together (It deals with philosophy, Church history, and the history of Ethics).

After all if it is murder after the 3rd trimester, then you should work towards ending abortion after the third trimester.

See you on on the Blessed Legion thred

My wife is on board 100%. In fact, she is the one that originally showed me the information.

The fact that she is willing to submit to your delusions of ownership does not affect my evaluation.

Children are not a curse. "Saying there is too many children is like saying there are to many roses" Mother Teresa...I'm sure she has seen more suffering then anyone, yet she still thought of children as a bless. Children are not the problem.

Explain to me how having to spread a finite amount of resources among a greater number of dependents is not a problem, by providing evidence and coherent reasoning, not the secondhand platitudes of a sadist who thought that the suffering of the poor was a "blessing."

Some version talk about witch craft, others sorcery, the greek can be interpreted as "pharmakeia"=abortifacient potions (among other things).

In the space of two comments, you went from the claim that these verses "specifically speak" of abortifacients to the claim that these verses "can be interpreted" that way. That is a dramatic concession in your position which you haven't acknowledged. I note for completeness that your church's own Bible translation, the RSV, translates this word as "sorcery" or some variant in all three verses, and says nothing about abortion.

For further reference, here's the Strong's Concordance translation of "pharmakeia". Again, Adam is simply taking the dogmas which the Catholic church has since come up with and projecting them back onto the Bible.

Some version talk about witch craft, others sorcery, the greek can be interpreted as "pharmakeia"=abortifacient potions (among other things).

So when we put on our imagination helmets, then yes, I understand what you're saying.

Tell me, do you reject all mediciations and vaccinations then? After all, you can't trust those scientist witches and their godless potions.

Children are not a curse. "Saying there is too many children is like saying there are to many roses" Mother Teresa...I'm sure she has seen more suffering then anyone, yet she still thought of children as a bless. Children are not the problem.

And indeed, if roses are overgrown they'll form a prickly lawn that for all intents and purposes, is unusable. Imagine instead you have to live in the lawn, instead of just looking at it; then I feel there can be too many roses.
It's a cute saying, but I find nothing beautiful about starving children or over-population.

Also, the three verses which Adam says "specifically speak of abortifacients" (Galatians 5:20, Revelations 9:21, 21:8), in fact, all say absolutely nothing on that topic. Look them up for yourself if you don't believe me. Clearly, Adam is just inventing scripture out of thin air at this point based on what he wishes the Bible's authors had said, and hoping we won't check.

Why would I give bible verses, and hope you wouldn't check. Some version talk about witch craft, others sorcery, the greek can be interpreted as "pharmakeia"=abortifacient potions (among other things).

My point is not to convince you its in the bible. Scripture and Tradition is what passes on the Catholic Faith.

My point is to show you why I do not use contraception: 1. Bible 2. Church

If you do not think its in the bible, that is fine with me.

Alex,

I find it sickening that you feel entitled to control what your wife does with her body.

My wife is on board 100%. In fact, she is the one that originally showed me the information.

Anyone on earth who considers it a "blessing" to have to watch children one cannot support suffer and possibly die should be institutionalized. Giving birth to a child you cannot support is not a "blessing," it is a cruel and selfish betrayal.

Children are not a curse. "Saying there is too many children is like saying there are to many roses" Mother Teresa...I'm sure she has seen more suffering then anyone, yet she still thought of children as a bless. Children are not the problem.

Also, the Catholic Church continues to maintain that celibacy is the most blessed state of all; the position that being married is equally blessed is officially a heresy, the heresy of Jovinian.

You are misinformed. The Church loves married people, how else would they get more Catholics :) Marriage, like Religious life, is a vocation. Vocations come from God. Each one of us has a vocation. But you are right, priesthood is very blessed indeed. To lay ones life down for another is very special.

For example, in Genesis 38:24, Judah orders the execution of his daughter-in-law, Tamar, for adultery. Tamar is pregnant at the time. This does not seem to concern him.

The famous Exodus 21:22 says that injuring a pregnant woman and causing her to miscarry is only punishable by a fine. If the woman dies, however, the man who harmed her is to be put to death.

Numbers 27 discusses a census in Israel ordered by God. Infants are counted; pregnant women's fetuses are not.

In Hosea 13:16, God commands that the pregnant women of Samaria shall be "ripped up" for that city's sins. The lives of their fetuses do not seem to concern him.

Also, the three verses which Adam says "specifically speak of abortifacients" (Galatians 5:20, Revelations 9:21, 21:8), in fact, all say absolutely nothing on that topic. Look them up for yourself if you don't believe me. Clearly, Adam is just inventing scripture out of thin air at this point based on what he wishes the Bible's authors had said, and hoping we won't check.

And one can easily find counterarguments in the Bible. In Luke 23:29, Jesus Christ seems to praise childless women. And in 1 Cor 7:7-9, Paul seems to think that it's best to be single and celibate, and that if you can't keep yourself from being that, you ought to marry.

Also, the Catholic Church continues to maintain that celibacy is the most blessed state of all; the position that being married is equally blessed is officially a heresy, the heresy of Jovinian.

Furthermore, in the Middle Ages, the Church made an ideal out of celibate marriage, which it called "Josephite marriage", after the kind of marriage that Joseph and Mary had supposedly had. The Church maintains that Mary had been a virgin all her life, which means that Joseph had never had sex with her.

When I learned about all of this crap that was going to go into my wifes body I was like NO way!!! Not my Wife!!

Just read up and saw this. I find it sickening that you feel entitled to control what your wife does with her body.

I do not want more hormones, injected or in pill form, put into my wife's body. Especially when the drug hardens the lining in the womb so that a Zygote can not implant.

If that's your attitude, then isn't it a bit inappropriate to refer to it as "her" body? That's obviously not the way you think of it.

Ps 127:3-5 Children are a blessing

Anyone on earth who considers it a "blessing" to have to watch children one cannot support suffer and possibly die should be institutionalized. Giving birth to a child you cannot support is not a "blessing," it is a cruel and selfish betrayal.

Gal 5:20 & Rev 9:21, 21:8 specifically speak of abortifacients

No they don't.

The Church does not define when a recieves their soul, but we do know exactly when the human person starts to develope. (thank you for you link by the way: http://www.visembryo.com/baby/index.html)

As shown in the link given enough time the zygote does not turn into an elephant or a monkey or a fish, but a person. So yes, I would consider the protection of the zygote very important.

...you still don't understand that we don't accept your implicit premise that everything sorta-human-shaped is a "person," do you? (Any chance you'll respond to my point about department store mannequins?)

My point is I am against contraception.

I'll give two reasons:
1. it is an abortifacient (see above coments and link)
2. the bible clearly speaks out against contraception, and so does the Church:

Gn 1:27-28 Bear fruit and multiply
Ps 127:3-5 Children are a blessing
1 Chr 25:5 God gives 14 children as a sign of exulation
Hos 9:10-17 Israel is punished with childlessness
Lv 20:13 if a man has sex with another man, it is wasted seed
Lv 20:15 put to death if man has sex with an animal
Rom 1:25-27 natural function of woman is to have children
Mt 21:19 Jesus curses fruitless fit tree
Gal 5:20 & Rev 9:21, 21:8 specifically speak of abortifacients
1 Cor 6:19-20 body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, glorify God in body

Does a teeny tiny embryo qualify as a human being?

The Church does not define when a recieves their soul, but we do know exactly when the human person starts to develope. (thank you for you link by the way: http://www.visembryo.com/baby/index.html)

As shown in the link given enough time the zygote does not turn into an elephant or a monkey or a fish, but a person. So yes, I would consider the protection of the zygote very important.