Biblical birth control: The surprisingly contraception-friendly Old Testament

[Straw Man]

Biblical birth control: The surprisingly contraception-friendly Old Testament
Think conservative objections to birth control are enshrined in the Bible? Think again
ELISSA STRAUSS

When the Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases about the conflict between new healthcare mandates and religion, it sparked a heated conversation on the religious rights of for-profit corporations.

In Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. v. Sebelius and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, the Court will decide whether these corporations can refuse to cover as part of their employee health care plans certain types of contraception, which they allege prevent fertilized eggs from implanting and therefore object to on religious grounds.

As many have already argued, we should not have to live our lives according to certain groups’ interpretations of religious laws. But as a student of ancient religious texts – I run a secular Jewish house of study for culture-makers in New York – I take real issue with these groups’ reading of the Bible, too.

The Old Testament, despite some believers’ insistence to the contrary, does not take a hard line against contraception or abortion. The Bible and the 24 other books that make up the Jewish canon make both direct references and thinly veiled allusions to women using contraception.

These books include references to women using contraception to have, and enjoy, premarital sex, to use their sexuality as a political weapon without risking pregnancy and prove their fidelity to their husbands. More on that later. (There are far more references to contraception in rabbinical commentaries on the Bible, but I won’t get into them here since they are not considered authoritative texts by those from other religious traditions.)

Let’s start with the hot sex! The Song of Songs is a long, sexy, romantic poem that many are surprised to find in the Bible. It is an unusual text in that it makes no mention of God or law, just a young, unmarried couple chasing, and lusting, after one another and eventually, as I and others believe, consummating their relationship. Over the centuries, religious scholars have argued that the poem is a metaphor for divine love. Still, it is pretty hard to ignore the poem’s graphic descriptions of the longings of the flesh.

For example, in chapter 7 the young man says to young woman: “Thy stature is like to a palm-tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes. … ‘I will climb up into the palm-tree, I will take hold of the branches thereof; and let thy breasts be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy countenance like apples;  And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine, that glideth down smoothly for my beloved, moving gently the lips of those that are asleep.”

As Athalya Brenner points out in her book “The Intercourse of Knowledge: On Gendering Desire and Sexuality in the Hebrew Bible,” a number of the plants mentioned in the Song of Songs were used by women in the ancient Mediterranean world as contraception and abortifacients. These include pomegranates, wine, myrrh, spikenard and cinnamon. Brenner goes on to argue that since the book makes no mention of procreation as the purpose of sex, the many metaphors comparing sex to “gardens” and “orchards” may also be read as a reference to the forms of birth control that those gardens provided. Indeed, the man in the poem seduces the woman by offering her many of the plants that would have allowed them to have sex without the risk of pregnancy.

Another place in the Bible where contraception may have played a role is in the Book of Esther. This one’s about a beautiful woman named Esther who disguises her Jewish identity to become the queen of the Persian King Ahasuerus. When her cousin discovers an inside plot to kill all Jewish people, Esther intervenes through seduction and eventually saves the Jews.

In an article in the scholarly journal Conservative Judaism, Rabbi Joseph Prouser points out that the King’s potential wives were all required to anoint themselves with myrrh oil and aromatic herbs for one full year – which is a pretty long time for what some read as just a beauty treatment. Myrrh was a known contraceptive at the time, cited in the writings of Soranus of Ephesus, a Greek physician who was an expert on gynecology and midwifery. He explained that when used in a pessary, myrrh oil would work as an abortifacient, preventing the implantation of fertilized eggs. The aromatic herbs may have also had contraceptive properties.

Prouser writes:

The recurrent contraceptive imagery in Esther bespeaks the strength and control she exercises over affairs of state and Jewish national survival. Although confronted with powerful men who would exploit her sexually, and from whom the threat of bodily harm is readily apparent, Esther manages to protect herself and her people. The Scroll of Esther is thus allegory as national autobiography: the story of a Diaspora Jewry regularly threatened with rapacious assaults by hostile neighbors and historic foes.

As Prouser sees it, contraception allowed Esther, who wielded power through her beauty and ability to seduce, to take control of her reproductive system.

There is a darker example of birth control in the Bible, and it appears in Numbers 5. This describes a ritual when a husband, who suspects that his wife has cheated on him, can force her to swallow a special concoction prepared by a priest. If she has been unfaithful, the Lord will “make [her] belly to swell, and [her] thigh to fall away.” In other words, she will abort her fetus. If not, this means she is empty of womb and ready to conceive her husband’s child.

The one Bible story that some read as anti-contraception is that of Onan, who withdraws before ejaculating and is then killed by God as a punishment him for “spilling his seed on the ground.” The backstory here is that Onan doesn’t want to impregnate his wife Tamar, the widow of his brother Er, because he doesn’t want to share his inheritance with a child they might produce.

This is the text that the Catholic Church takes as proof that contraception is unholy, along with the many mandates to “be fruitful and multiply.” However, many biblical commentators have noted that God’s anger is because Onan failed to live up to his legal obligation to impregnate his brother’s widow, and not because he wasted his sperm.

Everything I’ve written here is my understanding of these texts. I don’t see myself, or anyone else for that matter, as an absolute authority, and hardly expect everyone to agree with me. The wonder of the Bible lies in the way in which it can be read in so many different ways and mean so many things to so many different people.

But it’s worth pointing out that until 1968, a good number of Evangelical Christians may very well have agreed with my reading. As Jonathan Dudley notes in his book “Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics,” magazine articles in Christianity Today and Christian Life in the late ’60s made the case for life beginning at birth. These articles cited Exodus 21:22–24, which says that the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense — killing a person, as stated elsewhere, most definitely is.

Dudley says these were mainstream opinions at the time, until televangelist Jerry Falwell started turning against abortion and contraception, aligning himself with Catholics – who, incidentally, were not always opposed to abortion either. So, according to Dudley, instead of following biblical law, Evangelical Christians have been swept up in a 30-year-old reactionary political movement.

The Bible is shared cultural history for many Americans, whether we read it as the word of God or not. (I don’t, for whatever that’s worth.) It is at times beautiful and at times troubling, and there is no question that it was written within the context of a patriarchal society. Nevertheless, it can be more observant about human nature than many of its most loyal adherents and uninformed critics give it credit for.

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/05/biblical_birth_control_the_surprisingly_contraception_friendly_old_testament/?source=newsletter

[whork]

The people who call themselves Christian in many cases has not read the bible or does not understand it. Its a strange thing.


Look at the Christians on this board. They go out of their way to loathe the poor while sucking up to the rich.

Apparently the have never heard about this Jesus guy.

[dario73]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

The buffoons on this board seem to never get a grip on the FACT that Christianity has nothing to do with Judaism..

Songs of Solomon? "Thinly veiled" notions of pre-marital sex and contraception INDEED. In fact there is no indication that anything happened. It is a POEM.

Not only that. But even if pre-marital sex occurred, it was still not condoned. Just look at what happened to the author. Solomon was condemned by the same A.T. for having too many wives, which led to him serving the gods of those women and was the principal reason for GOD dividing the kingdom during his son's reign.

You fools are the ones that never read the Bible.

Interesting how you morons like to point these things out, EVENTHOUGH you are wrong in its CONTEXT, but will not post the verses where the A.T. CLEARLY condemns HOMOSEXUALITY. Oh, but that's ok because JESUS, a JEW, is not quoted in the New Testament condemning homos. As if a JEW, WHICH HE WAS, would condone homos. It is clear he did not since when asked if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife he NEVER OFFERED FAGGOTRY AS AN OPTION. NO. What did he do? In his answer he went back to Adam and Eve. One man. One woman.

[loco]

The people who call themselves Christian in many cases has not read the bible or does not understand it. Its a strange thing.


Look at the Christians on this board. They go out of their way to loathe the poor while sucking up to the rich.

Apparently the have never heard about this Jesus guy.

"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

"But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election."

"The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away."

"Conservatives are even 18 percent more likely to donate blood."

"Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money -- four times as much."

"Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."

Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism
by Arthur C. Brooks
# ISBN-10: 0465008232
# ISBN-13: 978-0465008230

http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/24/america-philanthropy-income-oped-cx_ee_1226eaves.html

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2682730

[Soul Crusher]

Gay Marriage / Birth Control / Abortion = the most important thing to most progressive leftists in 2014 - embarrassing. 

[Purge_WTF]

Christian since 1998, and that article makes some good points. The Catholic church's anti-contraception stance is pure dogma.

[dario73]

"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

"But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election."

"The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away."

"Conservatives are even 18 percent more likely to donate blood."

"Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money -- four times as much."

"Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."

Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism
by Arthur C. Brooks
# ISBN-10: 0465008232
# ISBN-13: 978-0465008230

http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/24/america-philanthropy-income-oped-cx_ee_1226eaves.html

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2682730

Facts, facts, facts!!

What are you doing?

Those "liberals" are now going to have a meltdown.

[whork]

"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

"But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election."

"The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away."

"Conservatives are even 18 percent more likely to donate blood."

"Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money -- four times as much."

"Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."

Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism
by Arthur C. Brooks
# ISBN-10: 0465008232
# ISBN-13: 978-0465008230

http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/24/america-philanthropy-income-oped-cx_ee_1226eaves.html

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2682730

You mean Soulcrusher, Dario and you work in a soup kitchen every saturday?

[loco]

The people who call themselves Christian in many cases has not read the bible or does not understand it. Its a strange thing.


Look at the Christians on this board. They go out of their way to loathe the poor while sucking up to the rich.

Apparently the have never heard about this Jesus guy.

Conservatives More Liberal Givers

WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

[Soul Crusher]

Lib commies only believe in giving others money away.

[Dos Equis]

Conservatives More Liberal Givers

WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Don't mess with El Profeta.   

[whork]

You mean Soulcrusher, Dario and you work in a soup kitchen every saturday?

[loco]

You mean Soulcrusher, Dario and you work in a soup kitchen every saturday?

You'll have to ask them.  I don't know, but you'd be surprised.

As for myself, my faith in Jesus Christ has compelled me for decades to donate a great deal of my money, time and resources to help those who are less fortunate.  The same is true of every church I have ever been a member of, and the same is true of every devout Christian that I have ever known.

[loco]

The people who call themselves Christian in many cases has not read the bible or does not understand it. Its a strange thing.


Look at the Christians on this board. They go out of their way to loathe the poor while sucking up to the rich.

Apparently the have never heard about this Jesus guy.

Faith does breed charity

"We atheists have to accept that most believers are better human beings"

Roy Hattersley
The Guardian, Monday 12 September 2005

Hurricane Katrina did not stay on the front pages for long. Yesterday's Red Cross appeal for an extra 40,000 volunteer workers was virtually ignored.

The disaster will return to the headlines when one sort of newspaper reports a particularly gruesome discovery or another finds additional evidence of President Bush's negligence. But month after month of unremitting suffering is not news. Nor is the monotonous performance of the unpleasant tasks that relieve the pain and anguish of the old, the sick and the homeless - the tasks in which the Salvation Army specialise.

The Salvation Army has been given a special status as provider-in-chief of American disaster relief. But its work is being augmented by all sorts of other groups. Almost all of them have a religious origin and character.

Notable by their absence are teams from rationalist societies, free thinkers' clubs and atheists' associations - the sort of people who not only scoff at religion's intellectual absurdity but also regard it as a positive force for evil.

The arguments against religion are well known and persuasive. Faith schools, as they are now called, have left sectarian scars on Northern Ireland. Stem-cell research is forbidden because an imaginary God - who is not enough of a philosopher to realise that the ingenuity of a scientist is just as natural as the instinct of Rousseau's noble savage - condemns what he does not understand and the churches that follow his teaching forbid their members to pursue cures for lethal diseases.

Yet men and women who believe that the Pope is the devil incarnate, or (conversely) regard his ex cathedra pronouncements as holy writ, are the people most likely to take the risks and make the sacrifices involved in helping others. Last week a middle-ranking officer of the Salvation Army, who gave up a well-paid job to devote his life to the poor, attempted to convince me that homosexuality is a mortal sin.

Late at night, on the streets of one of our great cities, that man offers friendship as well as help to the most degraded and (to those of a censorious turn of mind) degenerate human beings who exist just outside the boundaries of our society. And he does what he believes to be his Christian duty without the slightest suggestion of disapproval. Yet, for much of his time, he is meeting needs that result from conduct he regards as intrinsically wicked.

Civilised people do not believe that drug addiction and male prostitution offend against divine ordinance. But those who do are the men and women most willing to change the fetid bandages, replace the sodden sleeping bags and - probably most difficult of all - argue, without a trace of impatience, that the time has come for some serious medical treatment. Good works, John Wesley insisted, are no guarantee of a place in heaven. But they are most likely to be performed by people who believe that heaven exists.

The correlation is so clear that it is impossible to doubt that faith and charity go hand in hand. The close relationship may have something to do with the belief that we are all God's children, or it may be the result of a primitive conviction that, although helping others is no guarantee of salvation, it is prudent to be recorded in a book of gold, like James Leigh Hunt's Abu Ben Adam, as "one who loves his fellow men". Whatever the reason, believers answer the call, and not just the Salvation Army. When I was a local councillor, the Little Sisters of the Poor - right at the other end of the theological spectrum - did the weekly washing for women in back-to-back houses who were too ill to scrub for themselves.

It ought to be possible to live a Christian life without being a Christian or, better still, to take Christianity à la carte. The Bible is so full of contradictions that we can accept or reject its moral advice according to taste. Yet men and women who, like me, cannot accept the mysteries and the miracles do not go out with the Salvation Army at night.

The only possible conclusion is that faith comes with a packet of moral imperatives that, while they do not condition the attitude of all believers, influence enough of them to make them morally superior to atheists like me. The truth may make us free. But it has not made us as admirable as the average captain in the Salvation Army.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/12/religion.uk/print

[Straw Man]

You'll have to ask them.  I don't know.

As for myself, my faith in Jesus Christ has compelled me for decades to donate a great deal of my money, time and resources to help those who are less fortunate.  The same is true of every church I have ever been a member of, and the same is true of every devout Christian that I have ever known.

any opinion on the topic of this thread?

[loco]

any opinion on the topic of this thread?

No

[Straw Man]

No

so then no disagreement with this section of the posted article?
that's good to know

The Old Testament, despite some believers’ insistence to the contrary, does not take a hard line against contraception or abortion. The Bible and the 24 other books that make up the Jewish canon make both direct references and thinly veiled allusions to women using contraception.

[Fury]

You mean Soulcrusher, Dario and you work in a soup kitchen every saturday?

You talk a lot of shit for a shut-in with Asperger's Syndrome.

How much money or time do you donate to charity? I'll take the bet that it's ZERO.

[loco]

so then no disagreement with this section of the posted article?
that's good to know

More like I don't care about the subject of your thread.  That's all.

Millions of people in the USA have lost their health insurance, courtesy of Obamacare.  Then, they were unable to sign up for health insurance, courtesy of Obamacare's broken website.  Those who managed to sign up are unable to get health insurance coverage because there is no connection between the website and the insurance companies' systems.  Also, the identity of those who managed to sign up for health insurance is at risk, courtesy of the same Obamacare's broken website which has no security.

And all you are worried about is what Christians think about contraception?  What's wrong with you?

[Straw Man]

More like I don't care about the subject of your thread.  That's all.

Millions of people in the USA have lost their health insurance, courtesy of Obamacare.  Then, they were unable to sign up for health insurance, courtesy of Obamacare's broken website.  Those who managed to sign up are unable to get health insurance coverage because there is no connection between the website and the insurance companies' systems.  Also, the identity of those who managed to sign up for health insurance is at risk, courtesy of the same Obamacare's broken website which has no security.

And all you are worried about is what Christians think about contraception?  What's wrong with you?

the subject of this article has nothing to do with the technical and legal issue of the ACA

When Christians (and Catholics) try to deny non-believers (and even believers) access to contraception then it's a valid point of discussion whether you happen to agree with it or not

It's also interesting to learn that your fellow christians current obsession with both abortion and birth control may in fact be a fairly recent (relatively speaking) interpretation of the book and maybe even a misinterpretation

Given how pervasive the infection of fundamental religious belief into secular society has become I find the topic of this particular article to be interesting

BTW - if you want to start a thread congratulating yourself for your generosity then go ahead and do so

[24KT]

.

[loco]

BTW - if you want to start a thread congratulating yourself for your generosity then go ahead and do so

When have I ever done that?  Why would I ever do that?

[whork]

You'll have to ask them.

I thought i just did


I don't know, but you'd be surprised.


Are you telling me in all honest you wouldnt be surprised if Dario and Soulc works in a soup kitchen serving food for the poor? And is that a yes from you on working in a soup kitchen?

As for myself, my faith in Jesus Christ has compelled me for decades to donate a great deal of my money, time and resources to help those who are less fortunate.  The same is true of every church I have ever been a member of, and the same is true of every devout Christian that I have ever known.


Yeah i got news for you the small amount of dollars you donated aint gonna do jack-shit but make you feel good about yourself. Try living in the real world.

[loco]

whork, learn to use the Quote button if you wanna continue having a discussion.

[whork]

whork, learn to use the Quote button if you wanna continue having a discussion.

Fair enough