The entire church?
Well, you're wrong in every single way outside the CATHLOIC point of view.
Do you have evidence to support you implicit claim here that other groups outside your so-called CATHOLIC group (which, if I correctly understand how you're using the term, is an historical fantasy) advocated contraception during the first near-two-thousand years of the Church's life until the 1920s?
"No segment of any christain group..." Really? PROVE IT!
Yes. I did. Please go back and read my original posts in this thread. I also, by the way, presented a thorough and rigorous argument based on Scripture which you will need to more closely analyze.
Show me the proof that NO christain ever "pulled out" or did anything else to aviod pregnancy until the 1920s.
I have demonstrated what the Christian view was for almost a full 2000 years. Did individual Christians fail to live up to that teaching? Sure. But since I can't prove a negative (i.e., that no one ever failed to live up to the teaching), why don't you live up to your own demand and provide evidence that Christians did
do the things you suggest AND that such behavior had broad Christian approval. (Again, this would be for the entire life of the Church up to the present.)
Also, everything you list as "proof" from your "saints" is irrelevant because their words are NOT from God, and, as you yourself said, they are "assumed".
Hmmm. Well, then, it's a level playing field and your vigorous opposition to the biblical account of sex also holds no authority or directive force as well. Funny how that knife cuts both ways.
But, in point of fact, I do not need to assume any sort of divine inspiration for any individual Christian from antiquity whom I quote. The point is that this is the mind of the Church
. That is the issue.
As for your scriptural refferences...
First of all, go grab your bible and re-read that whole story. In the meantime, I'll refresh your memory a bit. Onan was given a *specfic* command from God...why? Because his brother had died without baring any children sooooo, God told Onan to lay with his brother's widow and bring forth children *for* his brother. Is *every* single man on the planet, past, present and future given that command? No. Why? Because that was a very specfic command issued for a specfic purpose because his brother did not have the oppertunity to "be blessed" with children.
Since your comments here not only wholly bypass what I have said regarding Onan, and they also have nothing to do with the biblical account of Onan's sin--at least if they do it's not obvious to me from what you say here--I will simply bypass these as a logical diversion.
However, perhaps you can show how what you say here actually has something to do with the biblical account, in which case I'd be happy to address it in the future.
Let's not forget that Christ chewed out the priests for "blindly following *tradition*" because it was lip service, if you will and was not being done from the heart or for the sake of keeping God's commands or doing His will.
You yourself need to more carefully read what Jesus said about the traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees:
"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat." He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' But you say, 'If anyone tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father.' So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. (Matthew 15:2-6)
And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?" And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men." And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban' (that is, given to God)-- then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do." (Mark 7:5-13)
So far as we have record, these are the only
words of Jesus on tradition (paradosis
). Notice two things: 1) he is NOT rejecting tradition per se; 2) but rather he is rejecting tradition that "releases" someone from obeying something God actually commanded. That is to say, Jesus is criticizing that scribal/Pharisaic traditions were used to bypass God's clear commands, or to take away freedom that God had given.
In fact, elsewhere Jesus explicitly told his disciples:
"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you--but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice. (Matthew 23:2-3)
So, Jesus was not rejecting all tradition, only that tradition that bypassed God or prohibited that which God had expressly allowed.
There are five other instances of the use of the word "tradition" (paradosis
) in the New Testament. One of them is, indeed, a negative use:
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. (Colossians 2:8)
As I will show in a moment, St. Paul is in no way rejecting all
tradition, only that which is opposed to Christ. In other words, St. Paul's remarks are consonant with Jesus' criticisms: any tradition which abrogates God's command or which asserts a prohibition which God does not is to be rejected.
There is one neutral use of "tradition" by St. Paul when he's describing his own life in Galatians 1:14. But there are three explicitly positive uses of "tradition" in other of St. Paul's writings.
Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. (1 Corinthians 11:2)
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. (2 Thessalonians 3:6)
So, in point of fact, we ARE to adhere to tradition, apostolic tradition.
You can argue your "points" into the ground until the world ends and they will still be nothing more than the "opinions", "rules" and "laws" set forth by the *cathloloc* church...thus, they have very little bearing on what the bible teaches. They are "man's laws", not God's.
Please demonstrate that what I have argued is in fact merely
man's laws and is not the divine will for human sexual activity. Simply saying it does not make it so.
Also, if it is a sin per se' to use contreseption of one form or another because it is a violation of the "go forth be fruitful and multiply" command, then please explain this:
If the entire christain world just pops out as many "blessings" as our bodies will allow before it kills us, what are we to do when we can not afford so many "blessings"? Are we to "test" God and see if He will make it rain money?
You are arguing against something I have never argued, and in fact, is not necessary to my argument. Please return to my original remarks on this thread and read more carefully what I wrote there. All you present here is a straw man.
God is not ignorant and He didn't create us that way either. He gave us all a brain, free will and (usually) some common sense. It would be not only short sighted but extreamly foolish to think that He would *not* want us to exercise a bit of common sense and good judgement with our lives....that includes with having 20 kids just because the catholics say thou shalt not pullith out.
Well what you claim is the catholic viewpoint is, in fact, NOT the catholic viewpoint (I'm beginning to wonder who it is you're arguing with), nor is it mine, nor is it God's. You present a false dilemma which is not necessary to my argument and is therefore logically irrelevant.