Birth control and Christian colleges.

[Paul33]

Manchester,

If the list of sins is connected in anyway to paint a portrait, then that is how!

Outside are the dogs, the ones who use potions (birth control pills) and are sexually immoral and who murder (abortion/pill) and who idolize themsleves and who love and practice falsehood.

If they are connected, that certainly would be a good description of the local bar scene.

I know I'm pushing the envelope. But did I really push it that far? I've heard tens of sermons with less exegetical support than that. And I bet you have too.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[foxrev]

Larry says:
You have just made a wonderful argument for birth control.

Thank you Paul! "Boy, did you turn that one on its head."

Indeed, Larry, there are some politicians on the left in need of your expertise.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You know that I don't believe that my words are the words of Jesus. My next sentence should have cleared that up for you if you weren't sure.

You said, "Show me something that Jesus said."

The text I based my argument on are attributed to Jesus in Revelation 22.

I asked for the teaching of Jesus on birth control. You did not give that. You made a bad connection between pharmakaia and birth control. BTW, I did say that this may be a mistake in your writing. I believed that it was.

The lexicons all connect the drugs with magical arts, not with birth control. Look it up. If you have one that connects it with birth control, then please show it. There is no connection between Rev 21:15 (or 8) and birth control. Absolutely none.

Just sit down with the text and ask yourself why sexually immoral behavior is linked together with murder, idolatry, falsehood, and potions?

Because it is a list of sins that are indicative of unbelief. You have connected the potions with the sexual immorality, as if the two go together. They do not. The whole list is a list of sins.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Larry says:
You have just made a wonderful argument for birth control.

Thank you Paul! "Boy, did you turn that one on its head."

Indeed, Larry, there are some politicians on the left in need of your expertise.

I did it for a particular reason ... to show how absurd the statement was. You made an argument that works both way ... an argument that has absolutely no basis in Scripture and should not have been made by you. It was a bad argument.

 

[foxrev]

Paul33 Says: "Do you really think that God is going to give me 34 kids?"

Well Paul, there is ONE thing for sure if He does. HE will provide for them!

The mentality that came from the so-called "Greatest Generation" said, "we want our children to have life better than what we did during growing up" is a philosphy rooted in self-pleasure and materialsim. So they had less children and allowed parents to spend more on them, producing the "ME generation." Now that the ME generation has grown up they say, "well, we cannot afford children." That is a statement based on the supposed idea that Johnny or Susie must have all the new widgets/gagdets and bells out on the market for their birthday, Christmas, and every day in-between. AND, they want to keep spending for all the new Adult toys for themselves!

This philosophy is a destructive curse on our society as a whole and many Christians practice it as well.

Strange that those "HUGE" families of 7, 8, 12 or whatever amount of children made it just fine in their poor circumstances! How did they survive with no running water, no electricity, no indoor plumbing, no Wal-Marts, KMarts, superhighways, internet, computers, etc? It's no wonder that they all didn't die and the human race end. Just think of how much more fun they COULD have had if they had just not had "all those children" and just had one or two and "behaved" themselves. Maybe we never would have had a depression and, MAYBE MOST OF US WOULD NOT BE HERE TODAY.

 

[foxrev]

Larry says:
I asked for the teaching of Jesus on birth control.

I believe you are quoting Paul33, Larry. However, your demanding a specific legislation from the New Testament is purely, unadulterated LEGALISM. Did Jesus speak about children? Well He sure did. In John 1 GOD says "THE WORD BECAME FLESH." That, without question, is Jesus The Christ.

His Word is the Old Testament too Larry. Look back at my previous posts. Proverbs 5, Psalm 126, Song of Solomon, Malachi 1:15 are VERY Clear about what Jesus The Christ has said about children.

 

[foxrev]

Larry says:

It was a bad argument.

Nay, but thou art the poor one at that. You took my statement OUT of context.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I believe you are quoting Paul33, Larry. However, your demanding a specific legislation from the New Testament is purely, unadulterated LEGALISM.

No it's not. You know better. Go back and follow the conversation. I must admit you never cease to amaze me though. Let's review.

I asked where God said anything about birth control. Paul raped Revelation 22:15 in order to try to come up with a place. He then attributed those words to Jesus (which was fine ... that was not the issue). The issue was a horrible, unacceptable, blasphemous use of the text. When Paul used Rev 22:15 against birth control, he violated the third commandment about using God's name in vain. That commandment forbids using God's name for something God would not use it for. When you twist the text and read something into that clearly is not there, that is what you have done.

Did Jesus speak about children? Well He sure did. In John 1 GOD says "THE WORD BECAME FLESH." That, without question, is Jesus The Christ.

Which has nothing to do with birth control.

His Word is the Old Testament too Larry. Look back at my previous posts. Proverbs 5, Psalm 126, Song of Solomon, Malachi 1:15 are VERY Clear about what Jesus The Christ has said about children.

None of which have anythign to do with birth control. You just don't get it. Your opinion does not mean anything. You have yet to support your opinion from God's word. God does not forbid the use of birth control ... period. That this has gone on for 13 pages is beyond belief. This was a cut and dried issue from the beginning.

Larry says:

It was a bad argument.

Nay, but thou art the poor one at that. You took my statement OUT of context.

I already answered this. I did it to demonstrate how ludicrous such an argument was. You made a bad argument you should not have made. It didn't help your case. It certainly wasn't biblical. It actually supported the other side.

YOu continue to try to force your opinions onto the word of God and onto others. You are being confronted biblically about it. Will you change? Or will you continue to do the same thing you accuse BJIII of doing?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Legalism is forcing MY view of what is spiritual(which holding is personal) upon someone ELSE for THEM to be spiritual.

In the NT, it dealt with spirituality in SALVATION (as used by Paul) but applies to any area of works-oriented spirituality.

Dr. Bob
Saved by grace, lives by that same grace

 

[foxrev]

Larry says:
" Paul raped"

Larry, using such language in regard to the use of the Scriptures is intolerable. I cannot believe that a minister of the Gospel would draw such a vile illustration to paralell ones use of the Bible!

Larry says again:
"YOu continue to try to force your opinions onto the word of God and onto others."

Wow! I did not realize I had that much power- sorry, wrong again Larry.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Larry says:
" Paul raped"

Larry, using such language in regard to the use of the Scriptures is intolerable. I cannot believe that a minister of the Gospel would draw such a vile illustration to paralell ones use of the Bible!

It is a well known figure of speech for a extremely inappropriate use of the text. Paul was way out of bounds to distort that text to try to mean something about birth control. Any minister of the gospel worth his salt would have immediately recognized such a ploy and stood against it, regardless of which side of this issue you come down on. I first challenged him on it showing him that he was using it wrongly. He persisted, knowingly, to use the text wrongly. That is unacceptable.

Larry says again:
"YOu continue to try to force your opinions onto the word of God and onto others."

Wow! I did not realize I had that much power-

You don't ... as is obvious from the number of people who are showing the inadequacy of your positions. But even though you don't have that kind of power, you still (as I actually said) try to force your opinions on others.

 

[foxrev]

Larry:

I do not know what circles of preachers you are running with, but one thing is for sure, "Evil communications corrupt good manners." Well known? What kind of reverent, godly preacher would talk in such a manner? Not the kind of the Scripture in reference to a woman attacked physically by a vile man. How far from the world are you?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Perhaps farther than you are, if this exchange is any indication. I refuse to knowingly say things that aren't true. I refuse to participate in attacks on people with whom I have disagreements as to where certain lies should be drawn. I refuse to take dogmatic stands on issues God has not taken dogmatic stands on.

When I say he raped the text, it was quite obviously a figure of speech for an extreme misuse. For you to get bent out of shape about it shows how unwilling you are to talk about actual issues. In your short time on this board, you have been heavy on your personal opinion, heavy on attacks, very light on Scripture and exegesis. Simply put, your communications in this forum have been far from edifying and honest. I have appealed to you to change. I have confronted you biblically about your stands. You have rejected sound biblical admonition, and have attacked a figure of speech that I used, hoping to distract the attention from yourself.

The fact is that there was absolutely nothing irreverent in what I said. Paul grossly misused a text, denied the meaning of every single Greek lexicon, and made a bad application in hopes of substantiating an opinion. I simply pointed it out. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[scooter]

Here is an interesting thought to chew on. No where in Scripture do you find a verse that tells a Mother to love her children! Must be they don't have to if they don't want to then.

Titus 2:4 - that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children.

Apparently the apostle Paul felt that young women needed instruction in how to love their children.

 

[foxrev]

Scooter:

Correction noted. This is not a command though, and of course Mothers do, by their own nature, love their children.

 

[joyfulkeeperathome]

actually, it is a command. I'm not trying to argue. But the list in Titus 2 is a list of commands that the older women are to teach the younger women....

 

[dianetavegia]

Disagree foxrev: ad·mon·ish

To reprove gently but earnestly.
To counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution.
To remind of something forgotten or disregarded, as an obligation or a responsibility.


Titus 2:1 But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: 2 that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; 3 the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things-- 4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.

Not every mother loves her children. I am very positive of that fact. I have an online friend who will admit that she wishes her son would just go away. He's 11. My own mother who is now 72 wil admit she had children because that's what she was 'supposed' to do but never wanted children and does not like children at all.

 

[dianetavegia]

Sorry.... I've moved this back and will open a thread on birth control for the non Baptists who want to have their say. Please join there too so they can hear all views.

Diane

[ October 29, 2004, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

 

[dianetavegia]

Paul33, I agree with you on medical intervention to cause pregnancy. If it's a blockage or tumor type situation, fine, but if it entails major medications that might cause multiple babies, selective abortion... no way!

Diane

 

[Paul33]

Pastor Larry,

I am deeply offended by your comments. I'm sorry you are so provoked that you would make them.

I looked up pharmakia in the lexicons. Some definitions are poison; potions. And yes, there is a general use of the word to mean sorcery and magic arts. You know enough about Greek to know that a word doesn't carry with it every meaning attibuted to it in every usage.

Even in English, we have this type of occurence. The word "pen" has several meanings. Context determines meaning.

Birth control pills most certainly are a poison to the human body. They cause abortions.

My pointing out what pharmakia means and connecting it to the context from which it is used in Scripture is not a blatant use of Scripture.

It certainly is not blasphemy!

When John compiles a list of sins, is it only appropriate to look at the list and say that they are separate sins with nothing in common?

The list is interesting for what they do have in common. Like I said, it paints a picture. Pharmakia, sexual immorality, murder. In fact these words are linked together in several other places in Scripture. I think that is significant.

Did I push the envelope? Maybe. But not that far. Not so far that someone should scream, "He raped the text."

What would cause you to react the way you did? I'm sorry for my part in this reaction, but it seems that there has to be more to it than just my interpretation of pharmakia.