Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Answers to Chloe8

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 8:22:27 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
This is going to be far two long for one post so I shall split it in two.
I can only speak for True Christianity, which I define as being what Christ and the Apostles taught.
1: Its Sexist.
I guess that depends how you determine sexism.
Men and women are different. That cannot be argued.
They were created with different roles in mind so that they could work together as a team with their roles complementing each other and overlapping to an extent.
If that is sexist, then guilty as charged.
However there is no denying:
Women are built differently from men.
Not only is their physiology different from that of men so are their thinking processes, even down to the fact that their brains are physically different.
However, Christ taught that women should always be treated with respect equal to the men, in fact he favoured them in some ways.
Who was the first person Christ told of his mission on earth? " A woman.
Who was allowed to be the first to see him after his resurrection and given the privilege of telling the other disciples? " A woman.
2: it's elitist.
What did Christ teach? Matthew 23:8 But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers.
There is no room for elitism in Christianity.
3. It condones slavery.
That depends on what you call slavery. In scriptural terms if you have a job and have agreed to work 8 hours a day for wages, for those 8 hours you are in effect a slave of your "owner" for those 8 hours.
In Israel slavery was a contractual thing and all were expected to abide by the terms of the contracts which were set out in law. In fact in Israel in those days slavery was the equivalent of todays Welfare State, except that it was on a one-to-one basis and both parties had rights which each were expected to acknowledge.
An Israelite wold willingly sell himself into slavery for a set period rather than starve, or see his family starve.
Some of the terms may seem harsh, but life was harsh then.
4. It condones racism.
Not in the least. The example you cite has little to do with racism, and because of the faith the woman showed she got her request in full.
You need to remember that Jesus was there for a purpose.
Even though Israel had broken the ters of their "contract" with God many times over and had, as a nation,been abandoned Jesus was there to start up a new nation based on a "root stock" of the old abandoned one. He was, as he said, sent to gather in the "lost sheep of Israel" those who wished to be faithful to his father who were a part of the Abrahamic seed.
That was neither more nor less than Jehovah finding a way of keeping his promise to Abraham without offending his own principles.
5. It's homophobic.
The word homophobic denotes a fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. That is definitely not the case.
However mankind was created to form a one man one woman bond in order to procreate inside a stable family relationship.
The man was to be the "head of the household" and would those be solely responsible for teaching his wife, caring for his wife and family, his the wife taught the children in cooperation with her husband, and cared for the home to free him up to provide for them.
Why was the husband to be head of the family?
Two reasons:
A: In every relationship, whether it be familial, business or whatever, there has to be one who has overall responsibility for everything in that family or group. Jehovah designed the man for that role.
B: That doesn"t simply mean that he has the "privilege" of holding the casting vote in all decisions if one is needed, but that he also carried the can for what goes wrong. That is why Adam takes the blame entirely for what started out as Eve"s error. He evidently had not done his jo properly.
That is why, if you ask any truly Christian Sister in a marriage relationship she will tell you that she is happy not to have to carry the can for mistakes in the family even if it is she who makes them.

6. It's transphobic.
That is again not a case of fear. It is a case of each is designed for a role and is not really capable of carrying out the role of the other gender properly.
7. It stigmatizes sex.
No, it doesn"t, it merely puts it in its proper place.
Sex was not given us for pleasure; it is a method of procreation. That we have been given the ability to enjoy it is a bonus, not an excuse to perform it as when and how we wish.
The Bible acknowledges the beauty of sex in its proper place, even rejoices in it.
Interestingly it also teaches that inside a marital relationship each partner has to take the interests and desires of the other and put them before their own, which makes it a truly mutual arrangement.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 8:22:42 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
8. It stigmatizes contraception.
That is not strictly true.
Sex was designed for procreation and for nothing but, however it is also intended to be enjoyed, at least inside a marital arrangement.
It is not designed to be abused just for kicks.
Contraception is and should be a matter of conscience, except in one sense.
Any form of contraception which is abortive in nature is 100% out since that is murder in Jehovah"s eyes. That includes any pill or IUD which prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb.
9. It suppresses science.
Not in the least. There are Christians(JWs) who are also scientists. The Bible is complementary to science, and agrees with science or scientists could not be JWs. Jehovah is the original scientist.
However as with all things Jehovah is against its abuse. In other words its use in any way which harms life on earth or the planet itself, the entire universe in fact.
Unfortunately a lot of the uses to which science has been put do precisely that, cause harm, either directly or indirectly. Is t truly progress if it causes the destruction of this planet and endangers life itself?
10. It suppresses learning.
Not in the least. However it does supress the learning of things which it is not good for humans to knom but as with all things learning can be abused, there is a whole realm of knowledge which we do not need and which is more to our detriment than our good.
11. It teaches people false information.
Definitely wrong.
The Bible and Christianity is all about truth, nothing more nothing less.
12. It creates conflicts, violence and wars.
No it does not.
Only its abuse does that
Do you blame cars for the people they kill on the roads? Or the drivers who abuse them?
Christianity is entirely about peace, Christ commands us to love even our enemies.

13. It's violent, oppressive, murderous history.
Again Christianity does not. It n fact has a very short history, existing only on the first century, and the last century and a half
How do you think Christ feels about those who call themselves Christian but do not live up to what it asks?
How would you feel like someone who calls himself a lawyer but continual breaks and abuses the law to his own ends?
14. It's evil god.
How can a God who is in fact the epitome of Love Wisdom, Justice and Mercy ever be evil?
That is truly impossible.
Anyone who thinks differently simply doesn"t know him and is judging in ignorance.
Who would you like being accused of a crime if you had never committed it.
Jehovah has done all he can in the circumstances to protect humanity and human life, if necessary by resurrection when circumstances have been brought closer to what they should be.
15. The nonsensical nature of its claims.
There is not one claim it makes which is not absolutely rational and logical given the facts that exist.
16. It's negative influence on politics and science.
Christianity is not involved in politics in any way whatever, Christians are ordered to be no part of this wicked world, and like Abraham to be "Alien residents n a land not their own". That means they do not support governments wherever they are in any way whatever, not even voting in elections.
There is a very simple reason for that.
When anyone becomes Christian they acknowledge Christ as their King above all other Kings, they literally become a part of a completely separate, global, nation with their own King, Christ, and their own law book, the Bible.
Therefore to support any other government would make them traitors to God and Christ.
Simple as that.
17. It's holding back the human race.
Yes, it is holding it back from destroying itself. Simple as t
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 8:33:23 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 8:22:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
8. It stigmatizes contraception.
That is not strictly true.
Sex was designed for procreation and for nothing but, however it is also intended to be enjoyed, at least inside a marital arrangement.
It is not designed to be abused just for kicks.
Contraception is and should be a matter of conscience, except in one sense.
Any form of contraception which is abortive in nature is 100% out since that is murder in Jehovah"s eyes. That includes any pill or IUD which prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb

So why is NFP never condemned? Sex outside the woman's ovulation has a lesser chance to end in pregnancy than the chance of a condom used in sex to become ripped and thus ending in pregnancy.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:29:12 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 8:22:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

The Bible is complementary to science, and agrees with science or scientists could not be JWs.

LMAO @ that.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:41:09 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 9:29:12 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:22:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

The Bible is complementary to science, and agrees with science or scientists could not be JWs.

LMAO @ that.

Why is that lmao-worthy? Religion and science are different in that they ask different questions.
praise the lord Chin Chin
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:52:16 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 9:41:09 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 4/30/2016 9:29:12 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:22:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

The Bible is complementary to science, and agrees with science or scientists could not be JWs.

LMAO @ that.

Why is that lmao-worthy? Religion and science are different in that they ask different questions.

What is LMAO is the reasoning. "The Bible is complementary to science, or scientists could not be JW's."
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 11:33:13 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 8:33:23 AM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:22:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
8. It stigmatizes contraception.
That is not strictly true.
Sex was designed for procreation and for nothing but, however it is also intended to be enjoyed, at least inside a marital arrangement.
It is not designed to be abused just for kicks.
Contraception is and should be a matter of conscience, except in one sense.
Any form of contraception which is abortive in nature is 100% out since that is murder in Jehovah"s eyes. That includes any pill or IUD which prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb

So why is NFP never condemned? Sex outside the woman's ovulation has a lesser chance to end in pregnancy than the chance of a condom used in sex to become ripped and thus ending in pregnancy.

Easy. It's because you're working WITH God's design when using NFP (while still being open to the possibility of life). On the other hand, you're purposely trying to thwart God's design/plan when using artificial contraception.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Lonely-Bird
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 12:55:03 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 11:33:13 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:33:23 AM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:22:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
8. It stigmatizes contraception.
That is not strictly true.
Sex was designed for procreation and for nothing but, however it is also intended to be enjoyed, at least inside a marital arrangement.
It is not designed to be abused just for kicks.
Contraception is and should be a matter of conscience, except in one sense.
Any form of contraception which is abortive in nature is 100% out since that is murder in Jehovah"s eyes. That includes any pill or IUD which prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb

So why is NFP never condemned? Sex outside the woman's ovulation has a lesser chance to end in pregnancy than the chance of a condom used in sex to become ripped and thus ending in pregnancy.


Easy. It's because you're working WITH God's design when using NFP (while still being open to the possibility of life). On the other hand, you're purposely trying to thwart God's design/plan when using artificial contraception.
thwarting god's design? in what way? and your logic is skewed. the purpose of nfp (which doesn't work) is to prevent pregnancy. thus by your logic nfp thwarts god's design.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 1:16:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 8:33:23 AM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:22:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
8. It stigmatizes contraception.
That is not strictly true.
Sex was designed for procreation and for nothing but, however it is also intended to be enjoyed, at least inside a marital arrangement.
It is not designed to be abused just for kicks.
Contraception is and should be a matter of conscience, except in one sense.
Any form of contraception which is abortive in nature is 100% out since that is murder in Jehovah"s eyes. That includes any pill or IUD which prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb

So why is NFP never condemned? Sex outside the woman's ovulation has a lesser chance to end in pregnancy than the chance of a condom used in sex to become ripped and thus ending in pregnancy.

OK I'm going to assume that you mean "Natural Family Planning, am I right?

The situation changed with the sacrifice of Christ, and the fact that the Apostles and other followers of Christ were to set an example for us in these days.

Especially in this time of the end it is not condemned because couples are encouraged by scripture to remain childless, just as in fact they are recommended to singleness if they can make room for it, and so as long as it is done by mutual consent it is acceptable.

The idea in the 1st century, as now, was because of the perceived urgency of preaching the Good News of the Kingdom.

Unmarried people can give more time to that, as can childless couples.

However neither childlessness nor singleness can be mandated and is a personal choice.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 1:28:53 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 12:55:03 PM, Lonely-Bird wrote:
At 4/30/2016 11:33:13 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:33:23 AM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:22:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
8. It stigmatizes contraception.
That is not strictly true.
Sex was designed for procreation and for nothing but, however it is also intended to be enjoyed, at least inside a marital arrangement.
It is not designed to be abused just for kicks.
Contraception is and should be a matter of conscience, except in one sense.
Any form of contraception which is abortive in nature is 100% out since that is murder in Jehovah"s eyes. That includes any pill or IUD which prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb

So why is NFP never condemned? Sex outside the woman's ovulation has a lesser chance to end in pregnancy than the chance of a condom used in sex to become ripped and thus ending in pregnancy.


Easy. It's because you're working WITH God's design when using NFP (while still being open to the possibility of life). On the other hand, you're purposely trying to thwart God's design/plan when using artificial contraception.

thwarting god's design? in what way?

Well, not to be crude, but since you asked, God designed a man's sperm to be received by the female. It serves no other purpose. So, in the case of barrier methods, this is how they thwart God's plan. Let me know if you have any questions about other methods.

and your logic is skewed. the purpose of nfp (which doesn't work)
NFP. when used correctly, is just as reliable as artificial contraception.

is to prevent pregnancy.
thus by your logic nfp thwarts god's design.

No, because clearly God didn't mean for every sexual act to lead to pregnancy (since women are only fertile a few days a month). So having sex during her infertile time is ok
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 1:34:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 9:29:12 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:22:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

The Bible is complementary to science, and agrees with science or scientists could not be JWs.

LMAO @ that.

So how come some scientists have become JWs then?

They at least must feel that the Bible and Science agree, because no-one who doesn't believe the Bible 100% is allowed to get baptised.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 1:39:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 9:41:09 AM, 18Karl wrote:
At 4/30/2016 9:29:12 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:22:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

The Bible is complementary to science, and agrees with science or scientists could not be JWs.

LMAO @ that.

Why is that lmao-worthy? Religion and science are different in that they ask different questions.

Not really.
Religions asks:

How did we get here?

Why are we here?

What do we do that is best for the whole of creation?

The Bible answers all three of those questions with few details but absolute accuracy in the answers it does give.

You might find this interesting. http://wol.jw.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 1:41:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 1:34:14 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/30/2016 9:29:12 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:22:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

The Bible is complementary to science, and agrees with science or scientists could not be JWs.

LMAO @ that.

So how come some scientists have become JWs then?

Probably for the same reasons most scientists are not JW's.

They at least must feel that the Bible and Science agree, because no-one who doesn't believe the Bible 100% is allowed to get baptised.

Lying is commonplace among believers, they lied about what they believe, just like you do.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Lonely-Bird
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 2:09:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 1:28:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 4/30/2016 12:55:03 PM, Lonely-Bird wrote:
At 4/30/2016 11:33:13 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:33:23 AM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:22:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
8. It stigmatizes contraception.
That is not strictly true.
Sex was designed for procreation and for nothing but, however it is also intended to be enjoyed, at least inside a marital arrangement.
It is not designed to be abused just for kicks.
Contraception is and should be a matter of conscience, except in one sense.
Any form of contraception which is abortive in nature is 100% out since that is murder in Jehovah"s eyes. That includes any pill or IUD which prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb

So why is NFP never condemned? Sex outside the woman's ovulation has a lesser chance to end in pregnancy than the chance of a condom used in sex to become ripped and thus ending in pregnancy.


Easy. It's because you're working WITH God's design when using NFP (while still being open to the possibility of life). On the other hand, you're purposely trying to thwart God's design/plan when using artificial contraception.

thwarting god's design? in what way?

Well, not to be crude, but since you asked, God designed a man's sperm to be received by the female. It serves no other purpose. So, in the case of barrier methods, this is how they thwart God's plan. Let me know if you have any questions about other methods.

and your logic is skewed. the purpose of nfp (which doesn't work)
NFP. when used correctly, is just as reliable as artificial contraception.

is to prevent pregnancy.
thus by your logic nfp thwarts god's design.

No, because clearly God didn't mean for every sexual act to lead to pregnancy (since women are only fertile a few days a month). So having sex during her infertile time is ok

its purpose is to create a human being by merging with an egg, period. the tail is its means of locomotion. thus by the extended logic any act which does not result in merging with an egg thwarts god's plan.

since however imo god would prefer that humans think before procreating and have at least an idea as to whether or not bringing a child into the world at a particular moment is wise using any means of contraception would be acceptable. and who is to say that god wants EVERY human to procreate? what of those who are childless for no reason? they do not engage in contraception yet do not "multiply"?

thus the problem of "god's plan" which has a strange tendency to devolve down to "man's plan" with careful reading, parsing and "interpretation" of so-called scripture to back it up.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 3:37:01 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 2:09:45 PM, Lonely-Bird wrote:
At 4/30/2016 1:28:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 4/30/2016 12:55:03 PM, Lonely-Bird wrote:
At 4/30/2016 11:33:13 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:33:23 AM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:22:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
8. It stigmatizes contraception.
That is not strictly true.
Sex was designed for procreation and for nothing but, however it is also intended to be enjoyed, at least inside a marital arrangement.
It is not designed to be abused just for kicks.
Contraception is and should be a matter of conscience, except in one sense.
Any form of contraception which is abortive in nature is 100% out since that is murder in Jehovah"s eyes. That includes any pill or IUD which prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb

So why is NFP never condemned? Sex outside the woman's ovulation has a lesser chance to end in pregnancy than the chance of a condom used in sex to become ripped and thus ending in pregnancy.


Easy. It's because you're working WITH God's design when using NFP (while still being open to the possibility of life). On the other hand, you're purposely trying to thwart God's design/plan when using artificial contraception.

thwarting god's design? in what way?

Well, not to be crude, but since you asked, God designed a man's sperm to be received by the female. It serves no other purpose. So, in the case of barrier methods, this is how they thwart God's plan. Let me know if you have any questions about other methods.

and your logic is skewed. the purpose of nfp (which doesn't work)
NFP. when used correctly, is just as reliable as artificial contraception.

is to prevent pregnancy.
thus by your logic nfp thwarts god's design.

No, because clearly God didn't mean for every sexual act to lead to pregnancy (since women are only fertile a few days a month). So having sex during her infertile time is ok

its purpose is to create a human being by merging with an egg, period. the tail is its means of locomotion. thus by the extended logic any act which does not result in merging with an egg thwarts god's plan.


False. As I just said, since God didn't create females to always be fertile, CLEARLY God doesn't intend for every act of sex to lead to pregnancy. And when a couple uses artificial
contraception, they are INTENTIONALLY trying to thwart God's designs for creation. That's not the same thing as a couple just not getting pregnant after sex.

since however imo god would prefer that humans think before procreating and have at least an idea as to whether or not bringing a child into the world at a particular moment is wise using any means of contraception would be acceptable.

Only NFP works with God's design for how He intended for sex to work.

and who is to say that god wants EVERY human to procreate?

Not me.

what of those who are childless for no reason? they do not engage in contraception yet do not "multiply"?

I never said God intended for everyone to have kids. Please don't put words in my mouth.

thus the problem of "god's plan" which has a strange tendency to devolve down to "man's plan" with careful reading, parsing and "interpretation" of so-called scripture to back it up.

Which is exactly what you are doing.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Lonely-Bird
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 3:58:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 3:37:01 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 4/30/2016 2:09:45 PM, Lonely-Bird wrote:
At 4/30/2016 1:28:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 4/30/2016 12:55:03 PM, Lonely-Bird wrote:
At 4/30/2016 11:33:13 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:33:23 AM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:22:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
8. It stigmatizes contraception.
That is not strictly true.
Sex was designed for procreation and for nothing but, however it is also intended to be enjoyed, at least inside a marital arrangement.
It is not designed to be abused just for kicks.
Contraception is and should be a matter of conscience, except in one sense.
Any form of contraception which is abortive in nature is 100% out since that is murder in Jehovah"s eyes. That includes any pill or IUD which prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb

So why is NFP never condemned? Sex outside the woman's ovulation has a lesser chance to end in pregnancy than the chance of a condom used in sex to become ripped and thus ending in pregnancy.


Easy. It's because you're working WITH God's design when using NFP (while still being open to the possibility of life). On the other hand, you're purposely trying to thwart God's design/plan when using artificial contraception.

thwarting god's design? in what way?

Well, not to be crude, but since you asked, God designed a man's sperm to be received by the female. It serves no other purpose. So, in the case of barrier methods, this is how they thwart God's plan. Let me know if you have any questions about other methods.

and your logic is skewed. the purpose of nfp (which doesn't work)
NFP. when used correctly, is just as reliable as artificial contraception.

is to prevent pregnancy.
thus by your logic nfp thwarts god's design.

No, because clearly God didn't mean for every sexual act to lead to pregnancy (since women are only fertile a few days a month). So having sex during her infertile time is ok

its purpose is to create a human being by merging with an egg, period. the tail is its means of locomotion. thus by the extended logic any act which does not result in merging with an egg thwarts god's plan.


False. As I just said, since God didn't create females to always be fertile, CLEARLY God doesn't intend for every act of sex to lead to pregnancy. And when a couple uses artificial
contraception, they are INTENTIONALLY trying to thwart God's designs for creation. That's not the same thing as a couple just not getting pregnant after sex.


since however imo god would prefer that humans think before procreating and have at least an idea as to whether or not bringing a child into the world at a particular moment is wise using any means of contraception would be acceptable.

Only NFP works with God's design for how He intended for sex to work.

and who is to say that god wants EVERY human to procreate?

Not me.

what of those who are childless for no reason? they do not engage in contraception yet do not "multiply"?

I never said God intended for everyone to have kids. Please don't put words in my mouth.

thus the problem of "god's plan" which has a strange tendency to devolve down to "man's plan" with careful reading, parsing and "interpretation" of so-called scripture to back it up.


Which is exactly what you are doing.
nope, i am not. because i don't believe in "god's plan." god's plan smacks of inshallah. which is another way of saying if i do what i want and am successful then it must have been god's plan.

as for procreation, scripture says go forth and multiply, period. thus ALL humans are to multiply. yet some do not. how does that mesh with "god's plan"?

nfp doesn't "work". and doesn't work "within god's plan" because god's plan is for humans to multiply.

and humans did not know when women would be fertile in the bronze age. thus sex at all times was to be open to procreation. thus nfp thwarts god's plan since it calculates, allegedly, when a woman is fertile and has as its goal prevention of multiplying.

god's plan is for humans to multiply, period. ANY contraception method must be considered thwarting god's plan. it matters not the method. attempts to rationalize "natural" vs something made by man is a fallacy as man is a part of nature. to borrow from heinlein do we assume that a dam made by a beaver for a beaver's purposes is natural but one made by man for man's purposes is not? thus contraception methods made by man who is a part of nature are "natural". do they occur within nature as in growing on a tree? of course not. by that logic anything made by man any where including things ranging from antibiotics to airplanes to the internet are unnatural and not a part of god's plan as they do not occur within nature and are not mentioned in scripture.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 4:34:04 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 1:34:14 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/30/2016 9:29:12 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:22:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

The Bible is complementary to science, and agrees with science or scientists could not be JWs.

LMAO @ that.

So how come some scientists have become JWs then?

They at least must feel that the Bible and Science agree, because no-one who doesn't believe the Bible 100% is allowed to get baptised.

Numerous scientists - and people in general - are baptized who do not believe the Bible 100%. There would be no way of knowing exactly what they believed, other than the fact that (1) they desired to be baptized and (2) they believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The baptizer is not authorized to ask them any more than that.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 4:34:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago

Contraception is and should be a matter of conscience, except in one sense.
Any form of contraception which is abortive in nature is 100% out since that is murder in Jehovah"s eyes. That includes any pill or IUD which prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb

So why is NFP never condemned? Sex outside the woman's ovulation has a lesser chance to end in pregnancy than the chance of a condom used in sex to become ripped and thus ending in pregnancy.


Easy. It's because you're working WITH God's design when using NFP (while still being open to the possibility of life). On the other hand, you're purposely trying to thwart God's design/plan when using artificial contraception.

thwarting god's design? in what way?

Well, not to be crude, but since you asked, God designed a man's sperm to be received by the female. It serves no other purpose. So, in the case of barrier methods, this is how they thwart God's plan. Let me know if you have any questions about other methods.

and your logic is skewed. the purpose of nfp (which doesn't work)
NFP. when used correctly, is just as reliable as artificial contraception.

is to prevent pregnancy.
thus by your logic nfp thwarts god's design.

No, because clearly God didn't mean for every sexual act to lead to pregnancy (since women are only fertile a few days a month). So having sex during her infertile time is ok

its purpose is to create a human being by merging with an egg, period. the tail is its means of locomotion. thus by the extended logic any act which does not result in merging with an egg thwarts god's plan.


False. As I just said, since God didn't create females to always be fertile, CLEARLY God doesn't intend for every act of sex to lead to pregnancy. And when a couple uses artificial
contraception, they are INTENTIONALLY trying to thwart God's designs for creation. That's not the same thing as a couple just not getting pregnant after sex.


since however imo god would prefer that humans think before procreating and have at least an idea as to whether or not bringing a child into the world at a particular moment is wise using any means of contraception would be acceptable.

Only NFP works with God's design for how He intended for sex to work.

and who is to say that god wants EVERY human to procreate?

Not me.

what of those who are childless for no reason? they do not engage in contraception yet do not "multiply"?

I never said God intended for everyone to have kids. Please don't put words in my mouth.

thus the problem of "god's plan" which has a strange tendency to devolve down to "man's plan" with careful reading, parsing and "interpretation" of so-called scripture to back it up.


Which is exactly what you are doing.
nope, i am not. because i don't believe in "god's plan." god's plan smacks of inshallah. which is another way of saying if i do what i want and am successful then it must have been god's plan.


I've never defined God's plan that way, so I don't know where you got that. God's plan oftentimes doesn't coincide with man's.

as for procreation, scripture says go forth and multiply, period. thus ALL humans are to multiply. yet some do not. how does that mesh with "god's plan"?

God CLEARLY doesn't want everyone to procreate. Jesus never did, Paul never did. Some people have permanent disabilities that prevent them from doing so. This PROVES you are mistaken.

nfp doesn't "work". and doesn't work "within god's plan" because god's plan is for humans to multiply.

See above.

and humans did not know when women would be fertile in the bronze age. thus sex at all times was to be open to procreation. thus nfp thwarts god's plan since it calculates, allegedly, when a woman is fertile and has as its goal prevention of multiplying.

...That works with the fertility cycle God created.

god's plan is for humans to multiply, period.

See above.

ANY contraception method must be considered thwarting god's plan. it matters not the method. attempts to rationalize "natural" vs something made by man is a fallacy as man is a part of nature. to borrow from heinlein do we assume that a dam made by a beaver for a beaver's purposes is natural but one made by man for man's purposes is not? thus contraception methods made by man who is a part of nature are "natural". do they occur within nature as in growing on a tree? of course not. by that logic anything made by man any where including things ranging from antibiotics to airplanes to the internet are unnatural and not a part of god's plan as they do not occur within nature and are not mentioned in scripture.

See above.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 5:51:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 11:33:13 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:33:23 AM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:22:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
8. It stigmatizes contraception.
That is not strictly true.
Sex was designed for procreation and for nothing but, however it is also intended to be enjoyed, at least inside a marital arrangement.
It is not designed to be abused just for kicks.
Contraception is and should be a matter of conscience, except in one sense.
Any form of contraception which is abortive in nature is 100% out since that is murder in Jehovah"s eyes. That includes any pill or IUD which prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb

So why is NFP never condemned? Sex outside the woman's ovulation has a lesser chance to end in pregnancy than the chance of a condom used in sex to become ripped and thus ending in pregnancy.


Easy. It's because you're working WITH God's design when using NFP

Still I see people oppose birth control and homosexuality solely on the argument of "non reproductive".

(while still being open to the possibility of life).

What about those who skip sex on the ovulation?

On the other hand, you're purposely trying to thwart God's design/plan when using artificial contraception.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 5:57:12 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 4:34:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:

Contraception is and should be a matter of conscience, except in one sense.
Any form of contraception which is abortive in nature is 100% out since that is murder in Jehovah"s eyes. That includes any pill or IUD which prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb

So why is NFP never condemned? Sex outside the woman's ovulation has a lesser chance to end in pregnancy than the chance of a condom used in sex to become ripped and thus ending in pregnancy.


Easy. It's because you're working WITH God's design when using NFP (while still being open to the possibility of life). On the other hand, you're purposely trying to thwart God's design/plan when using artificial contraception.

thwarting god's design? in what way?

Well, not to be crude, but since you asked, God designed a man's sperm to be received by the female. It serves no other purpose. So, in the case of barrier methods, this is how they thwart God's plan. Let me know if you have any questions about other methods.

and your logic is skewed. the purpose of nfp (which doesn't work)
NFP. when used correctly, is just as reliable as artificial contraception.

is to prevent pregnancy.
thus by your logic nfp thwarts god's design.

No, because clearly God didn't mean for every sexual act to lead to pregnancy (since women are only fertile a few days a month). So having sex during her infertile time is ok

its purpose is to create a human being by merging with an egg, period. the tail is its means of locomotion. thus by the extended logic any act which does not result in merging with an egg thwarts god's plan.


False. As I just said, since God didn't create females to always be fertile, CLEARLY God doesn't intend for every act of sex to lead to pregnancy. And when a couple uses artificial
contraception, they are INTENTIONALLY trying to thwart God's designs for creation. That's not the same thing as a couple just not getting pregnant after sex.


since however imo god would prefer that humans think before procreating and have at least an idea as to whether or not bringing a child into the world at a particular moment is wise using any means of contraception would be acceptable.

Only NFP works with God's design for how He intended for sex to work.

and who is to say that god wants EVERY human to procreate?

Not me.

what of those who are childless for no reason? they do not engage in contraception yet do not "multiply"?

I never said God intended for everyone to have kids. Please don't put words in my mouth.

thus the problem of "god's plan" which has a strange tendency to devolve down to "man's plan" with careful reading, parsing and "interpretation" of so-called scripture to back it up.


Which is exactly what you are doing.
nope, i am not. because i don't believe in "god's plan." god's plan smacks of inshallah. which is another way of saying if i do what i want and am successful then it must have been god's plan.


I've never defined God's plan that way, so I don't know where you got that. God's plan oftentimes doesn't coincide with man's.

as for procreation, scripture says go forth and multiply, period. thus ALL humans are to multiply. yet some do not. how does that mesh with "god's plan"?

God CLEARLY doesn't want everyone to procreate. Jesus never did, Paul never did. Some people have permanent disabilities that prevent them from doing so. This PROVES you are mistaken.

nfp doesn't "work". and doesn't work "within god's plan" because god's plan is for humans to multiply.

See above.

and humans did not know when women would be fertile in the bronze age. thus sex at all times was to be open to procreation. thus nfp thwarts god's plan since it calculates, allegedly, when a woman is fertile and has as its goal prevention of multiplying.

...That works with the fertility cycle God created.

god's plan is for humans to multiply, period.

See above.

ANY contraception method must be considered thwarting god's plan. it matters not the method. attempts to rationalize "natural" vs something made by man is a fallacy as man is a part of nature. to borrow from heinlein do we assume that a dam made by a beaver for a beaver's purposes is natural but one made by man for man's purposes is not? thus contraception methods made by man who is a part of nature are "natural". do they occur within nature as in growing on a tree? of course not. by that logic anything made by man any where including things ranging from antibiotics to airplanes to the internet are unnatural and not a part of god's plan as they do not occur within nature and are not mentioned in scripture.

See above.

Thwarting Jehovah's original pan yes, and his recovery plan in it's initial stages, but not in the stage which stated in the 1st century, was allowed to lapse for almost 1800 years and is revived now at need.

Circumstances, as they say, alter cases.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 6:00:21 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 4:34:04 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/30/2016 1:34:14 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/30/2016 9:29:12 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:22:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

The Bible is complementary to science, and agrees with science or scientists could not be JWs.

LMAO @ that.

So how come some scientists have become JWs then?

They at least must feel that the Bible and Science agree, because no-one who doesn't believe the Bible 100% is allowed to get baptised.

Numerous scientists - and people in general - are baptized who do not believe the Bible 100%. There would be no way of knowing exactly what they believed, other than the fact that (1) they desired to be baptized and (2) they believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The baptizer is not authorized to ask them any more than that.

That is true, but they cannot rightly claim to be Christian since Christ and the Apostles believed i it and taught from it, so al Christians must do likewise in order to support their claim to being Christian.

Why would anyone who calls God a liar, as in fact you do, be allowed to claim to be Christian when we all know how Jehovah and Christ view liars?

Actually the baptiser is authorised to ensure a lot more of that, and scripture is his authority.

You water Christianity down too much. Way too much.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 6:02:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 1:41:26 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/30/2016 1:34:14 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/30/2016 9:29:12 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:22:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

The Bible is complementary to science, and agrees with science or scientists could not be JWs.

LMAO @ that.

So how come some scientists have become JWs then?

Probably for the same reasons most scientists are not JW's.

They at least must feel that the Bible and Science agree, because no-one who doesn't believe the Bible 100% is allowed to get baptised.

Lying is commonplace among believers, they lied about what they believe, just like you do.

I do not lie, and no-one who hopes to be acceptable to Christ can since Christ detests lies and liars.

There really is absolutely no point in lying, there is nothing to gain and everything to lose.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 7:20:28 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 6:00:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/30/2016 4:34:04 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/30/2016 1:34:14 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/30/2016 9:29:12 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:22:42 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

The Bible is complementary to science, and agrees with science or scientists could not be JWs.

LMAO @ that.

So how come some scientists have become JWs then?

They at least must feel that the Bible and Science agree, because no-one who doesn't believe the Bible 100% is allowed to get baptised.

Numerous scientists - and people in general - are baptized who do not believe the Bible 100%. There would be no way of knowing exactly what they believed, other than the fact that (1) they desired to be baptized and (2) they believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The baptizer is not authorized to ask them any more than that.

That is true, but they cannot rightly claim to be Christian since Christ and the Apostles believed i it and taught from it, so al Christians must do likewise in order to support their claim to being Christian.

Why would anyone who calls God a liar, as in fact you do, be allowed to claim to be Christian when we all know how Jehovah and Christ view liars?

Actually the baptiser is authorised to ensure a lot more of that, and scripture is his authority.

Well, give us the scriptures that authorize the baptizer to inquire anything other than if the candidate believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Lonely-Bird
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 7:34:04 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 5:57:12 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/30/2016 4:34:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:

Contraception is and should be a matter of conscience, except in one sense.
Any form of contraception which is abortive in nature is 100% out since that is murder in Jehovah"s eyes. That includes any pill or IUD which prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb

So why is NFP never condemned? Sex outside the woman's ovulation has a lesser chance to end in pregnancy than the chance of a condom used in sex to become ripped and thus ending in pregnancy.


Easy. It's because you're working WITH God's design when using NFP (while still being open to the possibility of life). On the other hand, you're purposely trying to thwart God's design/plan when using artificial contraception.

thwarting god's design? in what way?

Well, not to be crude, but since you asked, God designed a man's sperm to be received by the female. It serves no other purpose. So, in the case of barrier methods, this is how they thwart God's plan. Let me know if you have any questions about other methods.

and your logic is skewed. the purpose of nfp (which doesn't work)
NFP. when used correctly, is just as reliable as artificial contraception.

is to prevent pregnancy.
thus by your logic nfp thwarts god's design.

No, because clearly God didn't mean for every sexual act to lead to pregnancy (since women are only fertile a few days a month). So having sex during her infertile time is ok

its purpose is to create a human being by merging with an egg, period. the tail is its means of locomotion. thus by the extended logic any act which does not result in merging with an egg thwarts god's plan.


False. As I just said, since God didn't create females to always be fertile, CLEARLY God doesn't intend for every act of sex to lead to pregnancy. And when a couple uses artificial
contraception, they are INTENTIONALLY trying to thwart God's designs for creation. That's not the same thing as a couple just not getting pregnant after sex.


since however imo god would prefer that humans think before procreating and have at least an idea as to whether or not bringing a child into the world at a particular moment is wise using any means of contraception would be acceptable.

Only NFP works with God's design for how He intended for sex to work.

and who is to say that god wants EVERY human to procreate?

Not me.

what of those who are childless for no reason? they do not engage in contraception yet do not "multiply"?

I never said God intended for everyone to have kids. Please don't put words in my mouth.

thus the problem of "god's plan" which has a strange tendency to devolve down to "man's plan" with careful reading, parsing and "interpretation" of so-called scripture to back it up.


Which is exactly what you are doing.
nope, i am not. because i don't believe in "god's plan." god's plan smacks of inshallah. which is another way of saying if i do what i want and am successful then it must have been god's plan.


I've never defined God's plan that way, so I don't know where you got that. God's plan oftentimes doesn't coincide with man's.

as for procreation, scripture says go forth and multiply, period. thus ALL humans are to multiply. yet some do not. how does that mesh with "god's plan"?

God CLEARLY doesn't want everyone to procreate. Jesus never did, Paul never did. Some people have permanent disabilities that prevent them from doing so. This PROVES you are mistaken.

nfp doesn't "work". and doesn't work "within god's plan" because god's plan is for humans to multiply.

See above.

and humans did not know when women would be fertile in the bronze age. thus sex at all times was to be open to procreation. thus nfp thwarts god's plan since it calculates, allegedly, when a woman is fertile and has as its goal prevention of multiplying.

...That works with the fertility cycle God created.

god's plan is for humans to multiply, period.

See above.

ANY contraception method must be considered thwarting god's plan. it matters not the method. attempts to rationalize "natural" vs something made by man is a fallacy as man is a part of nature. to borrow from heinlein do we assume that a dam made by a beaver for a beaver's purposes is natural but one made by man for man's purposes is not? thus contraception methods made by man who is a part of nature are "natural". do they occur within nature as in growing on a tree? of course not. by that logic anything made by man any where including things ranging from antibiotics to airplanes to the internet are unnatural and not a part of god's plan as they do not occur within nature and are not mentioned in scripture.

See above.

Thwarting Jehovah's original pan yes, and his recovery plan in it's initial stages, but not in the stage which stated in the 1st century, was allowed to lapse for almost 1800 years and is revived now at need.

Circumstances, as they say, alter cases.

And cases alter circumstances. Much like schisms and the resultant sects/denominations. Much like the so-called Roman church and its condemnation and harassment/elimination of the heterodox.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 8:19:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 5:51:13 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/30/2016 11:33:13 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 4/30/ true.
Sex was designed for procreation and for nothing but, however it is also intended to be enjoyed, at least inside a marital arrangement.
It is not designed to be abused just for kicks.
Contraception is and should be a matter of conscience, except in one sense.
Any form of contraception which is abortive in nature is 100% out since that is murder in Jehovah"s eyes. That includes any pill or IUD which prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb

So why is NFP never condemned? Sex outside the woman's ovulation has a lesser chance to end in pregnancy than the chance of a condom used in sex to become ripped and thus ending in pregnancy.


Easy. It's because you're working WITH God's design when using NFP

Still I see people oppose birth control and homosexuality solely on the argument of "non reproductive".

Unlike unprotected sex.

(while still being open to the possibility of life).

What about those who skip sex on the ovulation?

What about them?

On the other hand, you're purposely trying to thwart God's design/plan when using artificial contraception.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 8:24:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 5:57:12 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/30/2016 4:34:37 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:

Contraception is and should be a matter of conscience, except in one sense.
Any form of contraception which is abortive in nature is 100% out since that is murder in Jehovah"s eyes. That includes any pill or IUD which prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb

So why is NFP never condemned? Sex outside the woman's ovulation has a lesser chance to end in pregnancy than the chance of a condom used in sex to become ripped and thus ending in pregnancy.


Easy. It's because you're working WITH God's design when using NFP (while still being open to the possibility of life). On the other hand, you're purposely trying to thwart God's design/plan when using artificial contraception.

thwarting god's design? in what way?

Well, not to be crude, but since you asked, God designed a man's sperm to be received by the female. It serves no other purpose. So, in the case of barrier methods, this is how they thwart God's plan. Let me know if you have any questions about other methods.

and your logic is skewed. the purpose of nfp (which doesn't work)
NFP. when used correctly, is just as reliable as artificial contraception.

is to prevent pregnancy.
thus by your logic nfp thwarts god's design.

No, because clearly God didn't mean for every sexual act to lead to pregnancy (since women are only fertile a few days a month). So having sex during her infertile time is ok

its purpose is to create a human being by merging with an egg, period. the tail is its means of locomotion. thus by the extended logic any act which does not result in merging with an egg thwarts god's plan.


False. As I just said, since God didn't create females to always be fertile, CLEARLY God doesn't intend for every act of sex to lead to pregnancy. And when a couple uses artificial
contraception, they are INTENTIONALLY trying to thwart God's designs for creation. That's not the same thing as a couple just not getting pregnant after sex.


since however imo god would prefer that humans think before procreating and have at least an idea as to whether or not bringing a child into the world at a particular moment is wise using any means of contraception would be acceptable.

Only NFP works with God's design for how He intended for sex to work.

and who is to say that god wants EVERY human to procreate?

Not me.

what of those who are childless for no reason? they do not engage in contraception yet do not "multiply"?

I never said God intended for everyone to have kids. Please don't put words in my mouth.

thus the problem of "god's plan" which has a strange tendency to devolve down to "man's plan" with careful reading, parsing and "interpretation" of so-called scripture to back it up.


Which is exactly what you are doing.
nope, i am not. because i don't believe in "god's plan." god's plan smacks of inshallah. which is another way of saying if i do what i want and am successful then it must have been god's plan.


I've never defined God's plan that way, so I don't know where you got that. God's plan oftentimes doesn't coincide with man's.

as for procreation, scripture says go forth and multiply, period. thus ALL humans are to multiply. yet some do not. how does that mesh with "god's plan"?

God CLEARLY doesn't want everyone to procreate. Jesus never did, Paul never did. Some people have permanent disabilities that prevent them from doing so. This PROVES you are mistaken.

nfp doesn't "work". and doesn't work "within god's plan" because god's plan is for humans to multiply.

See above.

and humans did not know when women would be fertile in the bronze age. thus sex at all times was to be open to procreation. thus nfp thwarts god's plan since it calculates, allegedly, when a woman is fertile and has as its goal prevention of multiplying.

...That works with the fertility cycle God created.

god's plan is for humans to multiply, period.

See above.

ANY contraception method must be considered thwarting god's plan. it matters not the method. attempts to rationalize "natural" vs something made by man is a fallacy as man is a part of nature. to borrow from heinlein do we assume that a dam made by a beaver for a beaver's purposes is natural but one made by man for man's purposes is not? thus contraception methods made by man who is a part of nature are "natural". do they occur within nature as in growing on a tree? of course not. by that logic anything made by man any where including things ranging from antibiotics to airplanes to the internet are unnatural and not a part of god's plan as they do not occur within nature and are not mentioned in scripture.

See above.

Thwarting Jehovah's original pan yes, and his recovery plan in it's initial stages, but not in the stage which stated in the 1st century, was allowed to lapse for almost 1800 years and is revived now at need.

Circumstances, as they say, alter cases.

Except Jesus said "and the gates of Hell shalll not prevail against it."... And "I'll be with you until the end of the age."
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:13:07 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
The bible is a monument to moral obscenity. Both the OT and the NT are defunct, albeit in different ways. The scarce morally sound ideas can be found elsewhere but, conversely, the truly atrocious ones are for the most part exclusive to Christianity.

On top of the copious amount of biblical flaws and shortcomings, Jehovah's Witnesses then add in their own layer of exclusive vile morality.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 11:16:27 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 8:19:52 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 4/30/2016 5:51:13 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/30/2016 11:33:13 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 4/30/ true.
Sex was designed for procreation and for nothing but, however it is also intended to be enjoyed, at least inside a marital arrangement.
It is not designed to be abused just for kicks.
Contraception is and should be a matter of conscience, except in one sense.
Any form of contraception which is abortive in nature is 100% out since that is murder in Jehovah"s eyes. That includes any pill or IUD which prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb

So why is NFP never condemned? Sex outside the woman's ovulation has a lesser chance to end in pregnancy than the chance of a condom used in sex to become ripped and thus ending in pregnancy.


Easy. It's because you're working WITH God's design when using NFP

Still I see people oppose birth control and homosexuality solely on the argument of "non reproductive".

Unlike unprotected sex.

So if sex should be reproductive, then NFP should be forbidden. NFP is non-reproductive. Less reproductive than any artificial birth control.

(while still being open to the possibility of life).

What about those who skip sex on the ovulation?

What about them?

You seem to underscore the importance of reproduction. If a married couple never use artificial birth control, yet calculate the ovulation to know when to skip sex, no babies will ever be made from this couple. What do you think about those who would do this?

On the other hand, you're purposely trying to thwart God's design/plan when using artificial contraception.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 11:45:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 11:16:27 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:19:52 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 4/30/2016 5:51:13 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 4/30/2016 11:33:13 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 4/30/ true.
Sex was designed for procreation and for nothing but, however it is also intended to be enjoyed, at least inside a marital arrangement.
It is not designed to be abused just for kicks.
Contraception is and should be a matter of conscience, except in one sense.
Any form of contraception which is abortive in nature is 100% out since that is murder in Jehovah"s eyes. That includes any pill or IUD which prevents a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb

So why is NFP never condemned? Sex outside the woman's ovulation has a lesser chance to end in pregnancy than the chance of a condom used in sex to become ripped and thus ending in pregnancy.


Easy. It's because you're working WITH God's design when using NFP

Still I see people oppose birth control and homosexuality solely on the argument of "non reproductive".

Unlike unprotected sex.

So if sex should be reproductive, then NFP should be forbidden. NFP is non-reproductive. Less reproductive than any artificial birth control.

Accept its Still open to the possibility.

(while still being open to the possibility of life).

What about those who skip sex on the ovulation?

What about them?

You seem to underscore the importance of reproduction. If a married couple never use artificial birth control, yet calculate the ovulation to know when to skip sex, no babies will ever be made from this couple. What do you think about those who would do this?


NFP is for spacing out your children if you have a valid reason to do so. You seem to be describing people who use it permanently. This is not a moral use of NFP.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 3:32:14 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Men are available for the draft while women are immune. I don't hear the men whining about it.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...