WE ARE ANTI-RH BILL!!!


WE FIGHT FOR THE RIGHTS OF OUR FUTURE!

WE DEFY THE AGGRESSIVENESS OF PRO-RH BILL!

WE ARE ANTI!

WE ARE PRO-LIFE!

ARE YOU IN?

  1. #1 by Aerial Cavalry on July 12, 2011 - 6:51 pm

    Well this is a good topic to discuss in the readme Blog, pag-usapan natin ito doon…para matesting natin ang TRAINED INSTINCT mo…

    • #2 by flewen on August 3, 2011 - 5:13 pm

      Well this is a good topic to discuss in the readme Blog, pag-usapan natin ito doon…para matesting natin ang TRAINED INSTINCT mo…

      matagal nang tapos ang pakikipagtalakayan ko sa moderator at ang panggulong miyembro ng INC dun sa blog ni readme, backread mo na lang sa kung papaano nilayo nila ang usapin.

  2. #3 by Basilio on November 17, 2011 - 7:50 pm

    We should look at the issue through the understanding of the marital covenant.

    Since Genesis, God has always wanted a covenant relationship with man. Started with Adam, continued with Abraham, then Israel, then the Church, the Bride of Christ. One thing to keep in mind is that while Christ wants a personal relationship with us, He also wants a family relationship – specifically, He wants a family, and He wants a big one.

    Let me start off by touching briefly what a covenant is. A covenant relationship differs from a contractual one in that a contract involves an exchange of goods – while a covenant involves an exchange of persons (“…and you shall be My people, and I will be YOUR GOD”, Ezekiel 36:28) and as per scripture it is by nature unitive, self-donating, and life-giving. A covenant unites us with our creator and it gives us life in many ways. Christ gave/self-donated Himself through His sacrifice and that’s why we have eternal life, in turn we donate/give ourselves to Him – that is why it is unitive, and life-giving. In keeping with this, the marriage of Christ and the Church made the marriage covenant possible between man and woman. This marriage covenant is also unitive in nature, self-donating and life-giving. Further, the marriage covenant involves not just the couple but Christ as well.

    In the marriage covenant, the husband, the wife ‘self donates’ to one another – Christ also donates to the covenant (applying the grace and fruits of His sacrifice) – giving it life, and the couple donates themselves to God, committing themselves, leaving themselves open to God’s will. This gives life to the couple and to the covenant. Now, if God wills, the couple’s self-donation (to each other) will lead to a new life in 9 months – now that’s life-giving love!

    This is what self-donation requires within the marital covenant:
    – Self-donation involves, being open to life, allowing God to bring life as He sees fit
    – Self-donation involves submission and commitment
    – Self-donation involves giving of oneself, and the sacrifices that go with it.
    – Self-donation and its fruits (including children) are not just for the couple’s enjoyment but also for God’s enjoyment.

    Allow me to touch on the last bullet. Scripture tells us that children are a blessing, a gift from God (see Gen. 13:16; Ruth 4:13-16; 1 Sam. 1:11). They are a reward and heritage, bringing joy to their parents. Also, a child has three parents: God, his father, and his mother (cf. Gen. 20:17, 18; 30:1, 2). As such, children also bring joy to God (Mal. 2:15). Parents also are held accountable unto God for their stewardship of parenthood. One thing you will notice from scripture is that children are never a curse or a burden. They are always a blessing. In fact in Hosea 9:11 and Jer. 18:21, God cursed Israel by preventing pregnancy, yet we look at children like a curse or a burden. If you think about it, the marital act was designed by God to populate heaven – children are what we give back (offer) in return for the marital act, or at least leaving ourselves open to the gift of new life and letting God decide. And this is what artificial contraceptives do: provide for the enjoyment of the marital act while denying God His numbers.

    That is another reason why masturbation is wrong in many ways. Not only is it a result of lust, but it provides oneself of the ‘goodness’ of sex while denying God His numbers. It is also directed towards oneself when it is supposed to be the means by which married couples renew the covenant with each other and with God. But the truth is, we cannot have a relationship or even a covenant with ourselves (or with our hand). Masturbation undermines the marriage covenant. It is neither unitive nor life-giving.

    The principle is the same with artificial contraception. It denies life and it removes the marital act from God’s will. The married couple enjoys the goodness while denying God his numbers. God is not allowed to interfere with the couple’s plans of enjoying the act and the couple’s plans of when to conceive children. There is no covenant with God when we do this. And what we are telling Him is that He has absolutely no business in our bedrooms. This time and place is ours and ours alone – and we are not giving God an option of having children. We decide, not Him. And we are the masters in this domain.

    We have always taught to make Christ the center of everything we do, yet we don’t trust God to be the center of the number of our children.

    And think about this: in Eph. 5:25, Paul instructs husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, by giving his entire body to her and holding nothing back. With contraception, husbands tell their wives, ‘I love you except your fertility, and you can have me except for my fertility – I am holding this back from you’. This love is a lie because it is self-centered, and not self-giving and life-giving. It also tells God, ‘we offer to you our bodies, except our fertility – we are holding this back from you ’. Yet we read in 1 Cor. 6:19-20 that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and that we must offer our bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God as a spiritual act of worship (Romans 12:1). Yes, even the marital act can be a spiritual act of worship – and it should be, because God is part of the covenant too. However, worship isn’t worship if we hold back on God. We must open ourselves to glorify God in our bodies by being open to His will and letting His will be done as He sees fit.

    Scripture also says that children are like arrows in quivers. “Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.” Psalm 127:3-5. Children are our army and God’s army – and who goes into a battle with just one or two? We need quivers and quivers if we are going into battle.

    Now, because children are blessings, you will also notice is that God nor the Apostles have never advocated family planning – not even the ‘proper spacing’ of children. Even in their ministry to the poor, they never lectured on family planning as a solution to their problem. The only thing you’ll read in scripture is about helping the poor. I will address that issue in a moment

    Because God is also a parent (cf. Gen. 20:17, 18; 30:1, 2), keep in mind that He provides for His children: “Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?” Matt 6:26 – and what do we take from this? If God gives us children (no matter how many), He will find a way to provide for them. Now, keep in mind that ‘provision’ means food, clothing and shelter. Nowhere in scripture does it say provision includes cars, university education, dinners at expensive restaurants, designer clothes, and all inclusive vacations – but that’s another discussion. Our prime mandate as parents and members of the covenant family is to populate heaven with Godly children. Whatever education, comfort and luxury our children receive are bonuses on top of those provisions.

    Whether or not the provision comes from the parents, family, relatives, strangers, or members of the covenant family, it is God who makes it possible, it is God who moves heaven and earth to provide for His children whom He enjoys. This is why scripture calls on us, not just to carry our cross, but others’ crosses as well – because that is part of how God provides. And this is how ‘family planning’ undermines our call to provide for our family or help the poor – ‘family planning’ gives the covenant family ‘a way out’ of providing or helping with provisions. The less children, the less to feed. The less people who are poor, the less we need to help, the less crosses we need to carry. The less the children, the less the poor, the more the comfort. There’s going to be more for us in the end. And this is what we call a win-win situation? It is certainly not for God who wants His numbers (Mal. 2:15) and requires more from us.

    The materialistic society we live in has skewed the way we look at the ‘bigger picture’ because now the ‘bigger picture’ is about success and material things and to ensure our children gets the same ‘material success’. Because the more we have in the end, the more responsible we are – thus the politically coined phrase ‘responsible parenthood’. The less sacrifices we make and our children make, the better. But scripture tells us something different: the less we focus on the body, the more alive we are in Spirit (1 Peter 4:1) – but that’s a different topic altogether. What Paul tells us though is to rejoice in our sufferings: “Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions” (Col 1:24) and that sufferings produces perseverance (Rom 5:3). Family planning in a way, takes away that opportunity to build character, to grow in the spirit through service and sacrifice. 1 Tim 2:15 actually says that childbearing is considered a “work” through which women may be saved by God’s grace.

    Now the war against artificial contraception has been fought since the beginning. In scriptures we find the following:

    Rev. 9:21; 21:8; 22:15; Gal. 5:20 – these verses mention the word “sorcery.” The Greek word is “pharmakeia” which includes abortifacient potions such as birth control pills. These pharmakeia are mortally sinful. Moreover, chemical contraception does not necessarily prevent conception, but may actually kill the child in the womb after conception has occurred (by preventing the baby from attaching to the uterine wall). If we allow the RH Bill to be passed, it will allow for these types of artificial contraceptives.

    Lev. 21:17,20 – crushed testicles are called a defect and a blemish before God. God reveals that deliberate sterilization and any other methods which prevent conception are intrinsically evil. Condoms render the marital act sterile, infertile, lifeless, defective.

    Gen. 38:8-10 – Onan is killed by God for practicing contraception (in this case, withdrawal) and spilling his semen on the ground – wasting seed that was meant to glorify God with the conception of a child. Withdrawal as a form of contraception is defined in scripture as evil and punishable by death.

    Those three scripture verses should be more than enough to cover the 3 types of contraception. For 2000 years, its evils are preached over and over again, in every generation. We read the early Christians preach about this and other related issues.

    “Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11:29]. For he means, ‘Thou shall not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shall thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness’” Letter of Barnabas 10:8 (A.D. 74).

    “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 (A.D. 191).

    “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3 (A.D. 191).

    “[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered.” Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 9:12 (A.D. 225).

    “[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife.” Lactantius, Divine Institutes 6:20 (A.D. 307).

    “God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring.” Lactantius, Divine 6:23:18 (A.D. 307).

    “[I]f anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy.” Council of Nicaea I, Canon 1 (A.D. 325).

    “They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption.” Epiphanius of Salamis, Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 (A.D. 375).

    “This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion.” Augustine, The Morals of the Manichees 18:65 (A.D. 388).

    “Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well…Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws?…Yet such turpitude…the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 24 (A.D. 391).

    “[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father’s old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 28:5 (A.D. 391).

    “[T]he man who has mutilated himself, in fact, is subject even to a curse, as Paul says, ‘I would that they who trouble you would cut the whole thing off’ [Gal. 5:12]. And very reasonably, for such a person is venturing on the deeds of murderers, and giving occasion to them that slander God’s creation, and opens the mouths of the Manicheans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts as they that mutilate themselves among the Greeks. For to cut off our members has been from the beginning a work of demonical agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the works of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security as being irresponsible, and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members and by impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 62:3 (A.D. 391).

    “But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?” Jerome, Against Jovinian 1:19 (A.D. 393).

    “Observe how bitterly he [Paul] speaks against their deceivers…‘I would that they which trouble you would cut the whole thing off’ [Gal. 5:12]…On this account he curses them, and his meaning is as follows: ‘For them I have no concern, “A man that is heretical after the first and second admonition refuse” [Titus 3:10]. If they will, let them not only be circumcised but mutilated.’ Where then are those who dare to mutilate themselves, seeing that they draw down the apostolic curse, and accuse the workmanship of God, and take part with the Manichees?” John Chrysostom, Commentary on Galatians 5:12 (A.D. 395).

    “You may see a number of women who are widows before they are wives. Others, indeed, will drink sterility and murder a man not yet born, [and some commit abortion].” Jerome, Letters 22:13 (A.D. 396).

    “You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your law [against childbearing]…they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1–4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps.” Augustine, Against Faustus 15:7 (A.D. 400).

    “For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny.” Augustine, Against Faustus 22:30 (A.D. 400).

    “For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage…to yield it to the partner lest by fornication the other sin damnably [through adultery]…[T]hey [must] not turn away from them the mercy of God…by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting [children], is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of a harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife. Of so great power is the ordinance of the Creator, and the order of creation, that . . . when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose [orally or anally consummated sex], the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman.” Augustine, The Good of Marriage 11–12 (A.D. 401).

    “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility…Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife.” Augustine, Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 (A.D. 419).

    “Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman.” Caesarius of Arles, Sermons 1:12 (A.D. 522).

    So you see, this issue has been addressed since the beginning, in scriptures, the early Christians – and even addressed by Luther and Calvin. This is not just a Catholic phenomenon:

    “[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her—that is, he lies with her and copulates—and, when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him” (Martin Luther, Commentary on Genesis).

    “The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring” (John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis).

    [Onan’s contraceptive act] was an abhorrent thing and worse than adultery. Such an evil deed strives against nature, and those who do it will not possess the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9–10). The holier marriage is, the less will those remain unpunished who live in it in a wicked and unfitting way so that, in addition to it, they practice their private acts of villainy” (Lukas Osiander 16th century Lutheran, Commentary on Genesis).

    “How doth a man exercise uncleanness in [the sexual] act? Either by himself or with others. How by himself? By the horrible sin of Onan (Gen. 38:9), lustful dreams and nocturnal pollutions . . . arising from excessive eating and unclean cogitations or other sinful means” (James Ussher, 17th-Century Anglican Bishop, On the Seventh Commandment)

    “[Onan’s contraceptive act] was even as much as if he had, in a manner, pulled forth the fruit out of the mother’s womb and destroyed it” (Synod of Dort, 17th-Century Calvinist Council, Dutch Annotations on the Whole Bible).

    “It is time for me to tell you that the crime against which I warn you is that self-pollution, which, from the name of the only person that stands forever stigmatized for it in our Holy Bible, bears the name of ‘onanism’” (Cotton Math, 17th-Century Puritan, The Pure Nazirite).

    “Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married, and the memory of the brother that was gone, refused to raise of seed to his brother. Those sins that dishonor the body and defile it are very displeasing to God and evidences of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord and destroy their own souls” (John Wesley, 18th-Century Founder of Methodism, Commentary on Genesis).

    Few realize it today, but before 1930, all Christian churches (without exception) opposed contraception as an unnatural and thus impermissible interference with God’s design for human sexuality.

    That changed when, at the 1930 Lambeth Conference, Anglicans began permitting the use of contraception on a limited basis; other denominations quickly absorbed the secular sexual morality that flooded into the Protestant world. Today no Protestant church maintains the historic Christian faith on this issue. Did the truth change over time? We know that truth does not change in time. So far, only the Catholic Church has stood firm and resisted the onslaught of secularism in sexual ethics.

    Things grew so bad that by the early 1970s some Evangelical leaders were advocating not only contraception, but even abortion. At that time abortion and contraception were viewed as “Catholic” issues. When abortion was legalized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973, these Evangelicals rethought the issue and became firmly pro-life.

    In recent years, as the pro-life mindset has grown strong in Evangelical circles, some are even reconsidering the issue of contraception and are rejecting the contraceptive mindset. In doing so, they are returning to the historic position of Christianity and the position of their own Protestant forebears. It is my hope that you will too.

    David B. Currie, is from a fundamentalist Christian background, his study of the Word led him to closely study the marriage covenant, and the purpose of children. In his book he writes:
    “As with all of life, the purpose of children is to bring praise and glory to God eternally. God’s glory underlies all moral behavior, Here’s the connection: every child we bring into the world can glorify God for all eternity in heaven. This adds to the glory God so richly deserves…….Christian parents have the singularly important task of populating heaven with saints. Every life created by God in concert with a man and a woman can live forever to bring eternal praise and glory to God in heaven. We help populate heaven with “praise-givers”. If the angels of heaven rejoice when one sinner repents (Lk 15:10), what makes us think that heaven doesn’t resound with praise when a new eternal soul comes into being?”

    When we practice artificial contraception, we are limiting the number of children who will give praise and glory to God for all eternity. Being a Christian is all about putting God’s eternal glory before our own desires. Since angels don’t marry and bear children (Matt. 22:30 and Luke 20:34-36), the task is left for married couples to populate heaven with eternal praise-givers. What a wonderful privilege!

    That is why the RH Bill is a crucial issue. If this bill is passed, it will open the floodgates as it did with the Lambeth Conference – and soon the divorce rate will be like in the US where there are 1 in 4 Christians are divorced – with as much as 29% for a well known Christian branch according to a Barna Group Research. Then there are the threats of euthanasia being legalized, legalized abortion, and same-sex marriage. All this within just the last 80 years!!! The Christian family unit has never suffered this much of an erosion in such a short time. We know it had done so much better for close to 2000 years before that. And all this because we undermined the marital covenant which is the basic foundation of family life – and in effect weakens it until it tears the very fabric of its being. Do we want the Filipino family unit to follow suit? Even without the legalization of Divorce, abortion, RH Bill, same sex marriage, already Filipinos are embracing the liberal lifestyle of their western counterparts. What more if these are legalized? The flood is coming!!! And the floodgates are bursting at its seams!!! Despite the pressure, hold on to the gates. There is a lot to be lost if we allow the gates to open. I look forward to the day when all churches are united in closing the floodgates, restoring the foundation and putting Christ back in the center of the covenant – as the Master of our marriage, our children and their numbers.

  3. #4 by flewen on November 25, 2011 - 3:14 pm

    sir Basilio, good to see you posting in my personal apologetic blog…You truly helped me learn our Catholic Faith…:-)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: