Rendering unto Caesar: The Origin of the Birth Control Ban

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

There is no evidence that Early Christians heeded the Roman ban on birth control. In fact, there are hints pointing to the practice of birth control in the early Christian literature. Apparently, the Church didn't subscribe to Roman law on the matter until it took control of imperial affairs in the fourth century.

The ban on birth control made sense for an urban population at the time. If each family did not give birth to an average of five children, the population would decline from disease and warfare. This threat to the city's power was also a threat to the Church's power. One of the crimes that heretical sects were accused of was the crime of trafficking in prophylactic herbs.

To this day, the subjects of the Vicar of Caesar are prohibited from practicing birth control, except in limited contexts such as through monasticism. It is easy to determine whether a person is slave or free by establishing whether they follow the ban or not. Do you obey the laws of Caesar, or do you conform to a higher jurisprudence?

Comments

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

I don't see you as tolerant at all... in fact I see you as the bigot.

Re: read much?

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

Ok so your proud of your bigotry? I have to say congrats on that because most people don't take pride in being a bigot.

Re: read much?

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

How far should we go to stop this poison?

Re-education camps?

Government laws outlawing it?

or just cut to the chase and kill them all off?

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Many times this.

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

Two bigots. Well I suppected as much from you but this just settles the point.

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

Just making sure the label fits and sticks.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Btw what is "suppected"? Suspected or expected? Oh nevermind.

[consortofvenus.livejournal.com]

Oh, good one.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Pot and kettle, pal. Pot & kettle.

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

You know the whole "end their tax benefits" argument forgets why that was done in the first place. You want to see the power of the Church grow then end their tax benefits. Those tax "benefits" are linked to the Churches staying out of politics. While it has at times failed in this effort (see Democrats and Leftist constant meetings and speeches at liberal churches) it has in fact largely succeeded.

Now lets consider what would happen if you ended the Tax Benefit. One small churches could not afford to stay open, you know those churches small enough that they could not support any one politically. The religious would be forced in to larger mega churches that could afford to stay open and with their vast wealth support political movements. This would also decrease diversity among the religious and the surviving denominations would become larger and even more influencal.

The next effect is that the ban of the churches being in politics would disappear over night as the punishment disappeared. Then good luck at "debate over evolution or abstinence only education or same sex marriage?
the earth is not 6000 years old."

The rest of your post was just hateful bigotry with no bases in fact so I will ignore that part as I fully believe you have every right to be a hateful person. I think the more people hear from people like you the more they will join my side of the discussion. So please keep the hate on, that is after all what you leftist are good at.

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

So you want to be rid of the right to privacy and pursuit of happiness. Such a good little bigot Stalin would be proud of you.

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

Stalin hated religion just as much as you. The only real difference was he had the power to go out and kill the religious and did. You on the other hand can only dream of such a thing.

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

Thats why he killed millions of religious people.... because they were his power.


in conclusion youre a schmuck.

[consortofvenus.livejournal.com]

You could say his attitude was based on a poor interpretation of the bible, rather than having 'no basis in fact', thus not simply hateful because he is obviously going by his interpretation of it. But hey, I've read that book and he's right. Let's cut to the chace here, however: why is his political ideology open for singling-out and opinionating but not a religious theology?

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

"I've read that book and he's right."

Then you are as wrong as he.