I just got back to all this. What do I say?
Chris, my longer posts reflect that I care about discussing this topic. This entire topic is fascinating because it touches on how Christians should address applied topics in ethics, especially when key texts are in dispute. There are at least two ways of handling such issues: (a) Go with what is easiest for your life or (b) Go with what is safest with respect to God's will. I've argued strongly for (b). But you are unaffected by my arguments, and the tone of your last email is that you are closed off to them. I'd like to listen to your counterarguments and points. There is a very big difference in *saying* that you disagree with someone and *showing* where they went wrong. I'm open to being wrong, but I'd like to know the places where I went wrong and how they amount to a mistake in thinking that it's best to play it safe when it's unclear what God wants us to do about contraception. I anticipate you will say that it is clear that it is fine to practice contraception, but this is where I think you go wrong. And here's why. Historically speaking, the Judeo-Christian tradition has thought contraception is wrong. As far as I know, the Roman Catholic Church still does. And the "refutations" of the dominant tradition don't seem to be refutations at all. Rather, they seem to be simple dismissals and textual spins, rather than the product of honest, historical-grammatical exegesis. So even if it is clear to you that contraception is permissible, such considerations should lead you to be less than clear. But if you are less than clear, you should follow (b) not (a). Is this convincing? If not, why? Darrin, I'll have to do some thinking on your last post. I don't have an immediate reaction. Bobby On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Darrin M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You, too Chris. We should be seeing a lot of each other starting > (maybe) next week! It should be fun seeing how the two band same > stage thing works. hehe > > I thought of something else on this Onan dealio. It has to do with > Tamar. Would not her escapades be a blessing on surrogacy if not > artificial insemination? I mean, Tamar did what was available at the > time to get that child (or children in this case). Although it seems > highly unethical and generally the wrong thing to do, it apparently > wasn't punished in an Onan sort of way. Not that I'm advocating a > girl go out and pose as a prostitute, but how can this one be > deciphered? In the spirit of my gnat analogy I might argue that it > was her can-do attitude toward fulfilling God's wishes that was the > main point. Not necessarily the means she instituted. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crosspointe Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/crosspointe-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
