I'm curious as to why Catholics seem to be the lone voice against contraception when the founders of Protestantism were against it themselves

.
While there is a growing movement opposing contraception among evangelicals, most mainstream protestants Churches allow contraception; Lutherans are for it or have no opinion, Methodists, Presbyetrians, etc.

However, the creators of those denominations were uniformly against that.

Luther said contraception was a sin "greater than adultery and incest.' Calvin, Zwingli and Wesley all condemned it as well.

This brings up the broader question; how tied to the beliefs of the Protestant Reformers are the members of those Churches today? I suppose this question is useless since I don't think we have one single protestant on the board. But it seems to me that 'sola scriptora' means 'interpret the Bible however you want' and the belief system has spiraled out of control into a morally-relativistic way of life among many Protestants. I think Luther would roll over his their grave if he the Protestant Churches today.

In a recent series of Christians commentaries drawing from the Church fathers, the evangelical authors seem to be becoming more and more traditional in thinking the more they study the Fathers. My point of this thread, then, is to say that the tradition of your religion cannot simply be thrown out, as the Protestants did or else you'll go on a relativistic spiral, inventing new doctrines that do not fit with the Church's thought over the last thousands of years.

I don't know if there is a mainstream position among Protestants on contraception but I think there are anti-abortion groups.

But I suspect all churchs are going to have trouble answering to God for falling into the "traditions of men" just like the Pharisees of Christ's day did.

People are apt to be lazy about their theology and when they do they over rely on the previous generation and generations can be fallible. God is always performing generational attitude adjustments.

Give us a refresher on why the usage of contraception is a sin? (According to you/Catholic church/whatever)

Secondly, most people don't (and don't have good reason to) believe everything their "founding fathers" believed. If they did they would still believe a bunch of things that are now considered sexist, racist, immoral, or just plain ******ed. Again, these are *humans*, they are not God and thus do not get to say what is, or isn't, correct.

Given they don't think the Bible labels abortion a sin, why should they just because other protestants did (or do)?

My archair theorising would be that Protestantism was based (significantly, in any case) on rejecting church authority figures and instead on basing one's theology on the Bible. As such, it should be no surprise that the historical beliefs of founding fathers doesn't hold much sway - the interpretation of the Bible is paramount, not what Luther said.

How horrifying progress is.

The difference is that if the Christian God exists, why would he let people go wrong for a couple thousand years before we finally got it right? Those closest to Jesus, the Apostles, and those the apostles taught would have received the 'purest' form of truth and passed it down.

This is much different than the founding fathers of a country, who were human and could be wrong. Christ is Lord, and not one Christian would claim that the Apostles weren't guided by the Holy Spirit.

It is only recently that Christians have even considered using contraception. The very first Christian group to allow contraception was the Anglicians in the 1930's; soon after, almost all denominations tumbled.

So why would God allow sins or theological inaccuracies to continue? For the good of the Church. Here's an example:

1. Salvation outside the Church - past Christians believed that only those baptized could be saved. However, this led to an increase vigor for evangelization, so one could see why God would allow this.

Is it possible that God allowed us to be against contraception for some hidden good? It seems unlikely.

There are many arguments against contraception. Natural law arguments hold that it is wrong to go against the nature of an act - by eating and vomiting afterward you frustrate the process of obtaining nutrition. By contracepting you frustrate the natural process of procreating (this argument can also be used against gay marriage.)

Bibically:

Gen 38:9-10 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.

Onain used the withdrawal method of contraception. Many protestants supporting contraception claim he are violating God's commandment by not fulfilling his Levite marriage and thus put to death.

But Deut. 25:5-10 states that the punishment for a brother not fulfilling his Levite marriage, i.e. not taking his brother's wife as his own, is to take one of his sandals and spit in his face. This punishment is much lighter than being put to death. Something else went on here, and that is contraception.

Taking off the sandal and spitting is not a punishment. It is symbolic of a transfer of rights. You see it in the Book of Ruth when Boaz acquires the right to marry Ruth from a kinsman redeemer who has priority ahead of him.

They call it haliza:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halizah

Thanks, learn something new everyday.

But I don't think this detracts from my point, it actually supports it. God wasn't punishing Onan for refusing his brother-in-law duty, but for contracepting.

I think God was punishing Onan for disobedience. There were strong cultural reasons at the time for multiplying and Onan willfully disobeyed God while seeking his own selfish pleasure and disrespecting his relatives.

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/onan.html

From your link:

Quote: "Onan enjoyed sex, but rebelliously prevented its natural and beautiful result, the conception of a child. He was selfish to the core, and showed disrespect for his brother, his wife, his father, and God."

The reason why Onan was punished seems clear - he disobeyed God by withdrawing, an act that is selfish and goes against the natural purpose of the sexual act. Again, it's only recently (1930s) that interpretations downplaying the act of contracepting have been proposed.

He's your God, why don't you ask Him? We've had countless examples of things that the original founding fathers of Christianity "got wrong" (at least according to protestants, I know you Catholics have papel authority or what have you)

And not one Christian would claim that the leaders of the current Protestant church aren't guided by the Holy Spirit ... well I guess you would claim that.

It was only recently that Christians have even considered a ton of things after it was shown that their "traditions" were sexist, racist, homophobic, illogical, or even immoral.

Seems unlikely to you. Why don't we ask God and see what he thinks ... *crickets*

----

what is this "natural law" you speak of? Homosexuality and polygamy, for example, occur in nature *all the time*.

I'm pretty sure most level headed people who claim that God killed him not because he pulled out, but because he purposely tried to disobey God. But as Concerto would say, you are trying to apply a commandment/lesson that was meant for one person to all Christians.

It also states that disobeying a direct command from God is a no-no, and we've seen countless times in the Bible where someone disobey's God directly (doing something that would either normally be not a big deal, or would be punished less severely) and gets death or something worse.

The perspective on childbearing has changed almost totally over time.

Children are always a blessing from God in the bible and barrenness is seen as a curse.

I think the problem is flow. You either see blessings as flowing from God and include children in those blessings or you see sexuality as something to be controlled and turned on and off like a faucet aided by the use of contraceptives.

Because people seem to turn the flow on and off more noticeably and have a greater illusion of control they think they have the right to control matters of life and death now.

But former generations always credited God with controlling life and death.

And former generations also credited Zeus with controlling the lightning and posieden with controlling the tides what's your point if you have one?

First of all you are very wrong about protestants and contraception. There are a multitude of ideas concerning contraception in the protestant faiths. The Catholics just have the most money to throw around on this issue.

Second, I hope you force your wife to wear a hat every time she enters church and to never speak. As that is what is required in the New Testament.

Third, why don't you allow your priests and bishops to marry. It says that they should in the bible.

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;


So, it seems that the catholic church really only sticks to the rules it wants to.

With your ultra conservative "Dear Leader" Kim Jong Benedict, it is no surprise that the church doesn't want to move forward with the rest of society.

Just we're the new generation.

Every generation thinks it is going to remake itself.

But this generation has more illusions competing with the Word of God than any other one. No wonder they are so quick to rebel and seize control and decide who can live and who can die at the drop of a hat.

John 7:17 "He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory"...(KJV)

TV and other modern devices teach everyone to be an attention whore these days. Acting used to be one of the less honorable professions to pursue. Some of the biggest whoremongers in the world today are on stage/tv/platforms and everyone is imitating them. Hell our kids sitting hours in front of tvs are raised by whoremongers, liars, theives, braggarts...You name it..if there's a sinner out there...he's on center stage...particularly all the psychopaths the News likes to broadcast around the clock...

Thats a word you don't hear very often.

[QUOTE=MelchyBeau;25752910]First of all you are very wrong about protestants and contraception. There are a multitude of ideas concerning contraception in the protestant faiths. The Catholics just have the most money to throw around on this issue.

Second, I hope you force your wife to wear a hat every time she enters church and to never speak. As that is what is required in the New Testament.

QUOTE]

Paul was talking to a specific Greek group. He says in the Gospels that he is a Greek with the Greeks and a Jew with the Jews: according to culture!

IOW he has to adjust to the culture to get God's message across.

Priscilla was a teacher and Paul honored her in the NT.

If you read the bible too literally it paralyzes you and no one would ever take action.

I don't think its so much a downward spiral of new doctrines as it is an evolution of ancient philosophies to be able to survive and adapt in the modern world. Just a thought.

It is a sin, because sex is not intended for pleasure. It is intended for the purpose of conception between a married man and woman.

Also, i've learned from this forum not to use the "because they're human" excuse. Its simply not true and the stupidest thing you could ever say. Just ask David Sklansky and KB24, refer to Who's in Hell thread for more info.

The Catholic church has no problem with couples using the 'rhythm method' as a method of family planning. If couples are not having sex for pleasure while using the rhythm method, why are they doing so?

The Catholic church has always preached that sex is a unifying act of love between a married couple. They just feel the need to control every aspect of it, including what forms of sex are permissible and which people are allowed to perform the act.

According to Catholic doctrine, masturbation is a sin. *Any* sexual activity outside of marriage is a sin.

I wonder how many unmarried Catholics in this forum haven't doomed themselves to hell thanks to violating that little rule?

Actually, the rhythm method is out (can be used but it's pretty ineffective). Now it's Natural Family Planning (NFP).

The key difference between this and contraception is that you in no way interfere with the natural process. You simply abstain from having sex on certain days, and abstaining from the act is not a sin, if done for the right reasons.

A couple should only use NFP if having a baby is impractical or detrimental to the family (for instance if a spouse has just lost his/her job and money is tight). You are correct in your thoughts that NFP is not simply a 'pleasure' tool while avoiding children. NFP should not be used if having more children would be merely inconvenient. Also, if the couple is to have children, they should welcome them lovingly.

NFP has great many benefits - the spouses must communicate with each other, probably take classes with each other, learn about each others bodies, and daily decide to make love or to abstain. (These are side effects of the act, not the reasons why it is a morally acceptable act)

I know it's the sin I have struggled with the most, especially since I converted after many years of masterbating. Prayer and the sacraments... especially the Rosary, Confession, and the Eucharist, have helped me the most.

In Fatima, the Virgin Mary said that people fall into hell like snowflakes because of sexual sins. Catholics are not bound by faith to believe in apparitions, but looking at the world around us, it is easy to believe.

Yes, NFP is more effective. I accidentally showed my age by refering to the "rhythm method". We learned about the rhythm method in the Catholic high school I attended 20+ years ago.

You're torturing yourself for no good reason.

Why would god give us these overwhelming urges and then not allow us to seek relief from them? Seems pretty cruel to me.

How old are you, if you don't mind me asking?

I'm only 23, engaged to be married. I probably speak too big for my age but what's the internet for eh?

Either I'm torturing myself for no good reason or I might be rewarded in the afterlife. Either way, I can't say that not masturbating is THAT much of a detriment.

But I often said 'No, God doesn't exist' and then proceed to commit certain sins. Then later I felt sorrowful since I know it was my urges that contorted my will into behaving out of harmony with my intellect. Which has decided that God exists.

Atheists may disregard it as nonsense, but the comfort of living in sin stops many people from living in truth, even Christians. If Christianity involved having sex more or getting rich, a lot more people would sign up. In fact many have for these reasons.