The only Biblical reference that directly pertains to birth control is out of Genesis:
Gen 38:8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother."
Gen 38:9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother.
Gen 38:10 And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.
I know, I know: VP always said that he was killed for not doing his duty toward his brother's wife, not for the mere fact that he didn't want to get her pregnant.
But take a look at Deuternomy:
Deu 25:5 "If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband's brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her.
Deu 25:6 And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.
Deu 25:7 And if the man does not wish to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, 'My husband's brother refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me.'
Deu 25:8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he persists, saying, 'I do not wish to take her,'
Deu 25:9 then his brother's wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, 'So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother's house.'
Deu 25:10 And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, The house of him that had his sandal pulled off.
You'll note that the penalty here (where the brother refuses to sleep with the widow) is humiliation, not death. Bottom line: the difference between the two accounts is that in the Genesis account, the brother wanted to get the sexual pleasure with the sister in law without the risk of pregnancy. In the second account, the brother didn't want to have sex with his sister in law.
So that's about it, Biblically.
Having said that, the culture was such that not wanting large families was unheard of and so birth control would have been seen as an abomination, in the vast majority of the cases.
Up until 1930, all Christian churches condemned the use of birth control. In 1930, the Anglican Church changed their historic position to one allowing limited usage of artificial contraception (Lambeth Conference, 1930, Res. 15):
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.
Within a few years, the majority of the rest of the Protestant Churches fell into line with the Anglicans.
Thanks you two! I can't tell you how much I appreciate this!
I've gotten to know this guy a bit through the site and feel soo sorry for him! He's so legalistic and intent on living "right by God" that he reminds me of my ex in so many ways. My poor ex was told by the priest in his Catholic upbringing that if he said enough Hail Marys during his lifetime he'd go straight to heaven. He spent every waking minute (even at red lights) saying all the Hail Marys he could hoping to say enough to make it to heaven. There's a deep seated fear there that he won't/can't see....
Here's his response to your posts. :(
---------- e wrote --------
Hmmm... that sounds like something Satan would say. "Do you really WANT to be burdened by so many rules and regulations?"
God puts rules in place to make us happy. Without them our world would be total chaos, death and destruction everywhere. Does that sound happy to you?
Your examples from Genesis and Deuteronomy both discuss the law about being obliged to have kids with your brother's wife if he dies, so his name survives. They do not speak directly about birth control in a marriage to prevent too many kids. BTW, that law about being forced to marry your dead brother's wife and have kids is a good example of some of the Old Testament laws that no longer apply.
Protestant churches continue to stray farther and farther from God, and change rules to suit their own desires. I don't want any part in that, I'm sticking to what I know is right. I'm not going to Hell.
Modern society is very selfish, materialistic and shallow relative to earlier times. It's also reached an unprecedented level of sexual obsession. Sex is the equivalent of God in medieval times. Nobody has ever wanted or felt a need for sex as much as they do today, and I fear that eventually it will be impossible for most people to have chastity without insanity. Do not decieve yourself so you can enjoy things that are wrong and not feel guilt.
Belle, does the Bible also not say somewhere that a man should not have a larger family than he can afford to provide for? So what happens if he has 6 kids and cannot afford to provide for any more? Is he then to never again have sex with his wife? But what about those verses that state one is only to abstain from sex for a short time?
What happens when his wife hits her mid 40's, is still fertile, and yet to become pregnant becomes high risk? Is it God's will for women to risk their very lives to have children they may never live to raise?
How is that a loving commandment for human kind's own good?
Sometimes, answering a question with more questions puts a person in a position to have to think a little more logically.
Belle, does the Bible also not say somewhere that a man should not have a larger family than he can afford to provide for? So what happens if he has 6 kids and cannot afford to provide for any more? Is he then to never again have sex with his wife? But what about those verses that state one is only to abstain from sex for a short time?
What happens when his wife hits her mid 40's, is still fertile, and yet to become pregnant becomes high risk? Is it God's will for women to risk their very lives to have children they may never live to raise?
How is that a loving commandment for human kind's own good?
Sometimes, answering a question with more questions puts a person in a position to have to think a little more logically.
Lancantus had some pertinent information when he wrote the following:
Therefore let no one imagine that even this is allowed, to strangle newly-born children, which is the greatest impiety; for God breathes into their souls for life, and not for death. But men, that there may be no crime with which they may not pollute their hands, deprive souls as yet innocent and simple of the light which they themselves have not given. Can any one, indeed, expect that they would abstain from the blood of others who do not abstain even from their own? But these are without any controversy wicked and unjust. What are they whom a false piety compels to expose their children? Can they be considered innocent who expose their own offspring as a prey to dogs, and as far as it depends upon themselves, kill them in a more cruel manner than if they had strangled them? Who can doubt that he is impious who gives occasion for the pity of others? For, although that which he has wished should befall the child -- namely, that it should be brought up -- he has certainly consigned his own offspring either to servitude or to the brothel? But who does not understand, who is ignorant what things may happen, or are accustomed to happen, in the case of each sex, even through error? For this is shown by the example of OEdipus alone, confused with twofold guilt. It is therefore as wicked to expose as it is to kill. But truly parricides complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children; as though, in truth, their means were in the power of those who possess them, or God did not daily make the rich poor, and the poor rich.
Wherefore, if any one on account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from marriage than with wicked hands to mar the work of God.
- Divine Institutes (circa 305-310 AD), Book 6, Chapter 20.
Showing continence is hardly a radical idea. Particularly considering that it is only needed about 7 days out of every 28 (Even fewer if basal temperatures are tracked). Doesn't sound like all that radical an idea to me.
Thank you! I may invite him over here - to the doctrinal area anyway. This is the latest on our discussion. I just really feel for this kid - and YES, he is CHILD:
---------- belle wrote --------
I was in a group who thinks like you do for over 10 years and was miserable, never living up to expectations and developed some serious problems while involved with them. That's performance based religion and, ya know, Jesus Christ is the only perfect man who walked the face of the earth.
My own earthly Daddy doesn't put the stress, rules and regulations on me as your God does. He also doesn't expect me to be perfect. Love (1 Cor 13) is how I choose to live - and that's the law that Jesus left us with. That's what I prefer to live and life is so much sweeter, healthier and abundant living that way.
I feel for you, Eyes, it's how my ex sees the world (black & white). He's still miserable and attempting to jump through all the hoops he imagines God wants us to. It's a pitiful, pathetic existence and definitely NOT the Eph 3:20 God wishes for us. ;) I hope you'll see it that way some day so that you can be peaceful, have fun and really and truly enjoy life without having to spend so much energy straining at gnats. ;)
---------- eyesofice wrote --------
I agree with you that Christ is the only perfect human who ever lived. Expecting perfection when it is impossible is completely illogical, which is exactly why I don't expect perfection. I aim for perfection, that way I'll arrive as close to it as I possibly can.
Consider this: aiming for anything less than perfection means you are automatically allowing yourself some sin without trying to overcome it, which is sinful in itself.
I am sorry to hear that you developed problems while spending time with your group. You said that one reason why you were miserable was because you were never living up to expectations. Were they too high? If anyone expected you to be perfect (including yourself), you need to realize that it's impossible and expecting it is illogical.
The world is black and white, morally speaking. Sometimes we aren't sure whether something is black or white, so we think of it as grey. Other times we simply are decieved and see something that is black as white, or white as black. Sometimes we know full well something is wrong but choose to do it anyway, and sometimes we don't even feel guilty afterwards because we're so accustomed to doing wrong. It's important to listen to God and stay well in tune with your conscience in order to avoid morally wrong decisions and make good ones, to the very best of our ability.
I have 2 questions:
***Who exactly are you referring to when you say "my own earthly Daddy"?
***Why did you say "your God"? I thought we were talking about the same God, the God of Abraham, the God who's Son is Jesus Christ?
***Why do you think my existence is pitiful and pathetic?
I will never have peace, sweetness, pleasure, enjoyment or happiness. Not in this life. "Blessed are those who suffer for doing what is right. The kingdom of heaven belongs to them." When my soul is in Heaven, I will look down with relief at my cold, rotting carcass as it sinks face first into dirt.
Fire needs 3 things for it to exist: oxygen, heat and fuel. Without even one of those, it cannot exist.
Sex needs 3 things for it to be morally right: love, pleasure and reproduction. It cannot be morally right if even one of those is not there.
If you are a pyromaniac and wish to have sex the way God intended it while on fire, you need 6 things (the sexfire hexagon): oxygen, heat, fuel, love, pleasure and reproduction. Without even one of those, you will not be having morally acceptable fiery sex.
Agree or disagree?
So where does that put me? Sterile since I was a child due to disease, I am incapable of reproducing.
All the "believing" in the world, all the years of praying, all the procedures I underwent never changed the situation.
Am I to think that when love and pleasure are present during sex, it is morally wrong because it's void of reproduction?
Most men and women, through the process of aging, become sterile (please note I said "most").
Are we to give up sex when we become old because we no longer reproduce? :blink:
Your friend is fortunate to have you help educate him. He surely needs it.
Fire needs 3 things for it to exist: oxygen, heat and fuel. Without even one of those, it cannot exist.
Sex needs 3 things for it to be morally right: love, pleasure and reproduction. It cannot be morally right if even one of those is not there.
If you are a pyromaniac and wish to have sex the way God intended it while on fire, you need 6 things (the sexfire hexagon): oxygen, heat, fuel, love, pleasure and reproduction. Without even one of those, you will not be having morally acceptable fiery sex.
Agree or disagree?
He's right about fire, he's wrong about sex. And you can quote me on that.
I always thought it was kind of interesting that the pope got shot on the same day (Mar. '81) that the way mag arrived with VPs Our Times article railing on the RC church's compulsory motherhood policy and such. Does the devil use his kids as human shields?
The analogy to fire is a complete red herring. Why three things. Why not 1 or 7?
And who says sex needs love, pleasure and reproduction to be morally right?
Who says it needs even one of them?
Belle,
You got snookered accepting his premise. If someone says "A is true therefore B so prove it to me" I think you should take it back to them, and say "prove your premise [that A is true] and make them do the hard work.
Thanks y'all! I've invited him over here. Hopefully he'll take me up on it.
My3Cents, thank YOU! Ya know, I have always heard the purpose of college, more than anything else, was to teach us to think. I've learned so much more about logic, critical thinking, debate, argument, theory and communication here at the Cafe than I ever have in life.
Just when I think I'm getting it, I get "snookered" by a red herring. Thank you, sincerely, for pointing that out. It's plain as day once you point it out, but I soooo didn't see it before. :)
Let us pretend for a moment that I do not hold dear any of the teachings from TWI. And that no body here has ever heard / nor attended a TWI worship service.
When saying that sex is 'moral' under specific circumstances, what exactly is the guideline to make that determination?
Do we each just make it up as we go along?
Or is there some definite concrete guide [that does not change] by which we should try to apply to discover moral 'rightness'?
Sorry to derail this thread for a moment but whenever the topic of birth control comes up I can only think of one thing.
Heres an easy way to practice good birth control - Put a picture of LCM wearing his white jumpsuit from AOS over your bed with the following written on it "My Daddy Didn't Use A Condom".
Your friend isn't correct on fire either. The correct answer is 1) atmosphere in which to burn, (not necessarily oxygen) 2) source of ignition, (my fingers have heat, but this keyboard still won't catch fire) and 3) fuel.
Also Belle,
I told you before in another thread: The line between right and wrong is filled with various shades of grey matter.
Thanks y'all! I've invited him over here. Hopefully he'll take me up on it.
A man convinced aginst his will is of the same opinion still. Sounds like he's sold out to being a martyr. Bottom line is we are not under the law.
Better he spends his time watching Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life". Every sperm is sacred you know! NOT! This is a crock of you know what! Poor guy but I don't think he sounds too open to what God says, sounds like he likes the legalism and "bondgage".
"Happy is he who condemneth not himself in the thing which he alloweth".
Romans 14:17 Â For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
18 Â For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
19 Â Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
20 Â For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
21 Â It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
22 Â Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23 Â And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
I remember hearing that VPW said that there was an effective birth control used in Old Testament days. He could somehow "see this" from the Bible but couldn't figure out just what the method was exactly. I'm not sure where I heard this. Anyone else remember hearing this?
I remember hearing that VPW said that there was an effective birth control used in Old Testament days. He could somehow "see this" from the Bible but couldn't figure out just <B><I>what</I></B> the method was exactly. I'm not sure where I heard this. Anyone else remember hearing this?
<center>sudo</center>
Sudo, I remember vpw saying that as well. He was teaching from the Old Testament and there were a couple of men in there that only had one or two kids. He said that he "just knew" that these guys liked to have sex. There MUST be a "natural" birth control, there just HAD to be.
Might be why they ended up trying to teach us that mucus method.
I am a midwife in Texas. There are many herbs that affect the female organs and if taken in great enough quantity might delay ovulation. [Might make you throw up, too. :-)] But it is not something you can count on.
But God did design women with a natural child-spacing system. If you breastfeed your baby 100% [no pacifiers, supplemental bottles or missed feedings], your periods should not begin again until months after the time you begin giving the child other food. With each of my children I nursed them, exclusively, for about 1 year. My periods returned when they were between 14 and 16 months-old. Caution: This doesn't work for everyone. But it does for most.
Also, you will ovulate before your first period so you should use the temperature method of natural family planning to know when you ovulate if you want to space your children farther apart. But it seems God's plan was about 2 years apart.
IMO, VPW was pro-abortion and pro-contraception because he didn't want any little VPWs running around whose DNA could prove what he was doing. :-)
Dooj = Do you remember the charting partners, I was so glad I was never asked to be anyones. I thought knowing when a gals mucus was sticky and when it was stretchy was a little personal. I just didn't need to know when someone was ovulating.
The Billings Method of Family planning was what it was called and it was taught by Mercedes Wilson. I remember Nancy Todd (9th) asking about all the Corps women that are ovulating on thier wedding night, what should they do? She answered with "abstain of course". I don't think that answer went over too well,
Recommended Posts
Radar OReilly
My maternal grandma had 17 pregnancies, 11 live births, 9 lived to adulthood.
She died when she was 56.
My mom had 1 child.......me.
I have no children.
See a pattern?
radar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
The only Biblical reference that directly pertains to birth control is out of Genesis:
Gen 38:8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother."
Gen 38:9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother.
Gen 38:10 And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.
I know, I know: VP always said that he was killed for not doing his duty toward his brother's wife, not for the mere fact that he didn't want to get her pregnant.
But take a look at Deuternomy:
Deu 25:5 "If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband's brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her.
Deu 25:6 And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.
Deu 25:7 And if the man does not wish to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, 'My husband's brother refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me.'
Deu 25:8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he persists, saying, 'I do not wish to take her,'
Deu 25:9 then his brother's wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, 'So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother's house.'
Deu 25:10 And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, The house of him that had his sandal pulled off.
You'll note that the penalty here (where the brother refuses to sleep with the widow) is humiliation, not death. Bottom line: the difference between the two accounts is that in the Genesis account, the brother wanted to get the sexual pleasure with the sister in law without the risk of pregnancy. In the second account, the brother didn't want to have sex with his sister in law.
So that's about it, Biblically.
Having said that, the culture was such that not wanting large families was unheard of and so birth control would have been seen as an abomination, in the vast majority of the cases.
Up until 1930, all Christian churches condemned the use of birth control. In 1930, the Anglican Church changed their historic position to one allowing limited usage of artificial contraception (Lambeth Conference, 1930, Res. 15):
Within a few years, the majority of the rest of the Protestant Churches fell into line with the Anglicans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Thanks you two! I can't tell you how much I appreciate this!
I've gotten to know this guy a bit through the site and feel soo sorry for him! He's so legalistic and intent on living "right by God" that he reminds me of my ex in so many ways. My poor ex was told by the priest in his Catholic upbringing that if he said enough Hail Marys during his lifetime he'd go straight to heaven. He spent every waking minute (even at red lights) saying all the Hail Marys he could hoping to say enough to make it to heaven. There's a deep seated fear there that he won't/can't see....
Here's his response to your posts. :(
---------- e wrote --------
Hmmm... that sounds like something Satan would say. "Do you really WANT to be burdened by so many rules and regulations?"
God puts rules in place to make us happy. Without them our world would be total chaos, death and destruction everywhere. Does that sound happy to you?
Your examples from Genesis and Deuteronomy both discuss the law about being obliged to have kids with your brother's wife if he dies, so his name survives. They do not speak directly about birth control in a marriage to prevent too many kids. BTW, that law about being forced to marry your dead brother's wife and have kids is a good example of some of the Old Testament laws that no longer apply.
Protestant churches continue to stray farther and farther from God, and change rules to suit their own desires. I don't want any part in that, I'm sticking to what I know is right. I'm not going to Hell.
Modern society is very selfish, materialistic and shallow relative to earlier times. It's also reached an unprecedented level of sexual obsession. Sex is the equivalent of God in medieval times. Nobody has ever wanted or felt a need for sex as much as they do today, and I fear that eventually it will be impossible for most people to have chastity without insanity. Do not decieve yourself so you can enjoy things that are wrong and not feel guilt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
bring him over here... we'll slap him around a little and send him back!
(in a good way of course)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Belle, does the Bible also not say somewhere that a man should not have a larger family than he can afford to provide for? So what happens if he has 6 kids and cannot afford to provide for any more? Is he then to never again have sex with his wife? But what about those verses that state one is only to abstain from sex for a short time?
What happens when his wife hits her mid 40's, is still fertile, and yet to become pregnant becomes high risk? Is it God's will for women to risk their very lives to have children they may never live to raise?
How is that a loving commandment for human kind's own good?
Sometimes, answering a question with more questions puts a person in a position to have to think a little more logically.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Lancantus had some pertinent information when he wrote the following:
Showing continence is hardly a radical idea. Particularly considering that it is only needed about 7 days out of every 28 (Even fewer if basal temperatures are tracked). Doesn't sound like all that radical an idea to me.
Edited by markomalleyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Thank you! I may invite him over here - to the doctrinal area anyway. This is the latest on our discussion. I just really feel for this kid - and YES, he is CHILD:
---------- belle wrote --------
I was in a group who thinks like you do for over 10 years and was miserable, never living up to expectations and developed some serious problems while involved with them. That's performance based religion and, ya know, Jesus Christ is the only perfect man who walked the face of the earth.
My own earthly Daddy doesn't put the stress, rules and regulations on me as your God does. He also doesn't expect me to be perfect. Love (1 Cor 13) is how I choose to live - and that's the law that Jesus left us with. That's what I prefer to live and life is so much sweeter, healthier and abundant living that way.
I feel for you, Eyes, it's how my ex sees the world (black & white). He's still miserable and attempting to jump through all the hoops he imagines God wants us to. It's a pitiful, pathetic existence and definitely NOT the Eph 3:20 God wishes for us. ;) I hope you'll see it that way some day so that you can be peaceful, have fun and really and truly enjoy life without having to spend so much energy straining at gnats. ;)
---------- eyesofice wrote --------
I agree with you that Christ is the only perfect human who ever lived. Expecting perfection when it is impossible is completely illogical, which is exactly why I don't expect perfection. I aim for perfection, that way I'll arrive as close to it as I possibly can.
Consider this: aiming for anything less than perfection means you are automatically allowing yourself some sin without trying to overcome it, which is sinful in itself.
I am sorry to hear that you developed problems while spending time with your group. You said that one reason why you were miserable was because you were never living up to expectations. Were they too high? If anyone expected you to be perfect (including yourself), you need to realize that it's impossible and expecting it is illogical.
The world is black and white, morally speaking. Sometimes we aren't sure whether something is black or white, so we think of it as grey. Other times we simply are decieved and see something that is black as white, or white as black. Sometimes we know full well something is wrong but choose to do it anyway, and sometimes we don't even feel guilty afterwards because we're so accustomed to doing wrong. It's important to listen to God and stay well in tune with your conscience in order to avoid morally wrong decisions and make good ones, to the very best of our ability.
I have 2 questions:
***Who exactly are you referring to when you say "my own earthly Daddy"?
***Why did you say "your God"? I thought we were talking about the same God, the God of Abraham, the God who's Son is Jesus Christ?
***Why do you think my existence is pitiful and pathetic?
I will never have peace, sweetness, pleasure, enjoyment or happiness. Not in this life. "Blessed are those who suffer for doing what is right. The kingdom of heaven belongs to them." When my soul is in Heaven, I will look down with relief at my cold, rotting carcass as it sinks face first into dirt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Amazingrace
So where does that put me? Sterile since I was a child due to disease, I am incapable of reproducing.
All the "believing" in the world, all the years of praying, all the procedures I underwent never changed the situation.
Am I to think that when love and pleasure are present during sex, it is morally wrong because it's void of reproduction?
Most men and women, through the process of aging, become sterile (please note I said "most").
Are we to give up sex when we become old because we no longer reproduce? :blink:
Your friend is fortunate to have you help educate him. He surely needs it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
He's right about fire, he's wrong about sex. And you can quote me on that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I always thought it was kind of interesting that the pope got shot on the same day (Mar. '81) that the way mag arrived with VPs Our Times article railing on the RC church's compulsory motherhood policy and such. Does the devil use his kids as human shields?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
My3Cents
The analogy to fire is a complete red herring. Why three things. Why not 1 or 7?
And who says sex needs love, pleasure and reproduction to be morally right?
Who says it needs even one of them?
Belle,
You got snookered accepting his premise. If someone says "A is true therefore B so prove it to me" I think you should take it back to them, and say "prove your premise [that A is true] and make them do the hard work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Thanks y'all! I've invited him over here. Hopefully he'll take me up on it.
My3Cents, thank YOU! Ya know, I have always heard the purpose of college, more than anything else, was to teach us to think. I've learned so much more about logic, critical thinking, debate, argument, theory and communication here at the Cafe than I ever have in life.
Just when I think I'm getting it, I get "snookered" by a red herring.
Thank you, sincerely, for pointing that out. It's plain as day once you point it out, but I soooo didn't see it before. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Let us pretend for a moment that I do not hold dear any of the teachings from TWI. And that no body here has ever heard / nor attended a TWI worship service.
When saying that sex is 'moral' under specific circumstances, what exactly is the guideline to make that determination?
Do we each just make it up as we go along?
Or is there some definite concrete guide [that does not change] by which we should try to apply to discover moral 'rightness'?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Out There
Sorry to derail this thread for a moment but whenever the topic of birth control comes up I can only think of one thing.
Heres an easy way to practice good birth control - Put a picture of LCM wearing his white jumpsuit from AOS over your bed with the following written on it "My Daddy Didn't Use A Condom".
Trust me, this will stop any unwanted pregnancy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brother Speed
Belle,
Your friend isn't correct on fire either. The correct answer is 1) atmosphere in which to burn, (not necessarily oxygen) 2) source of ignition, (my fingers have heat, but this keyboard still won't catch fire) and 3) fuel.
Also Belle,
I told you before in another thread: The line between right and wrong is filled with various shades of grey matter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LornaDoone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
They tried to teach some sort of "natural" birth control to the Corps.
Had to do with mucus....(ewww)
'Nuff said?
BTQ - Fire doesn't need HEAT to exist - It PRODUCES heat! Boyscouts 101.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
I remember hearing that VPW said that there was an effective birth control used in Old Testament days. He could somehow "see this" from the Bible but couldn't figure out just what the method was exactly. I'm not sure where I heard this. Anyone else remember hearing this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Sudo, I remember vpw saying that as well. He was teaching from the Old Testament and there were a couple of men in there that only had one or two kids. He said that he "just knew" that these guys liked to have sex. There MUST be a "natural" birth control, there just HAD to be.
Might be why they ended up trying to teach us that mucus method.
YUK.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
richnchrispy
Hi!
I am a midwife in Texas. There are many herbs that affect the female organs and if taken in great enough quantity might delay ovulation. [Might make you throw up, too. :-)] But it is not something you can count on.
But God did design women with a natural child-spacing system. If you breastfeed your baby 100% [no pacifiers, supplemental bottles or missed feedings], your periods should not begin again until months after the time you begin giving the child other food. With each of my children I nursed them, exclusively, for about 1 year. My periods returned when they were between 14 and 16 months-old. Caution: This doesn't work for everyone. But it does for most.
Also, you will ovulate before your first period so you should use the temperature method of natural family planning to know when you ovulate if you want to space your children farther apart. But it seems God's plan was about 2 years apart.
IMO, VPW was pro-abortion and pro-contraception because he didn't want any little VPWs running around whose DNA could prove what he was doing. :-)
Regards,
Chrispy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Out There
Dooj = Do you remember the charting partners, I was so glad I was never asked to be anyones. I thought knowing when a gals mucus was sticky and when it was stretchy was a little personal. I just didn't need to know when someone was ovulating.
The Billings Method of Family planning was what it was called and it was taught by Mercedes Wilson. I remember Nancy Todd (9th) asking about all the Corps women that are ovulating on thier wedding night, what should they do? She answered with "abstain of course". I don't think that answer went over too well,
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.