"Theological Sushi is the best blog named 'Theological Sushi' on the internet that I've ever seen," says Babs Mcbabble of Pet Grooming Today.
"I couldn't start or stop reading," declares Timmy Thompsen of Wicker Baskets Magazine.
"It's almost like sushi and almost like theology, but not at all," says Bunny Bonnet of Carnival Life Weekly
"I'd buy that for a dollar," raves Johnny Jones about his cup of coffee, but he also said he thinks he's heard of Theological Sushi before too.
"I read Hodge every day in my devotionals. Charles is a great theologian," says Lonny Loony of Crocheting Outdoor Tents
"It's the best blog I've ever endorsed for the price of two packs of gum," says Willy Wilkins of the Thomas Jefferson Elementary School Band Email Newsletter
With endorsements like these, this blog is sure to reach the heights of Olympus.
It appears you've only got one commenter ... me! ... and I'm somewhat of a contrarian.
ReplyDeleteSorry! :-/
Are you the one who wrote about contraception?
If so (I've not read the book), are you suggesting that using non-abortive contraception in marriage is actually a sin?
What if the couple already had three kids and are simply being pragmatic about their finances? If they can't afford them, who is responsible for feeding and caring for their offspring? Their church? The government?
Perhaps you are like the Catholics who favor natural family planning. This always seems a bit like hair-splitting to me. Use a contraceptive or a calendar ... the intent is the same, no?
James,
ReplyDeleteNothing is worse than writing a 300 page book explaining your position and then have someone want you to rewrite it for them on a blog post. My arguments primarily stem from the creation principle from which all of biblical ethics flow. Someone who holds that abortion is wrong, but not contraception does so because he does not understand biblical ethics. The same goes for anyone who believes that murder is wrong, giving to the poor is good, taking care of the environment is good, having sex with animals is evil, etc. You can't throw out the creation principle without throwing out all biblical ethics, and if one holds the creation principle, the only consistency to that is to hold all ethics for which it argues. I've explained the creation principle numerous times on this blog, so you can look for that. BTW, there is no doubt in my mind that rejecting the principle in theory leads one to misunderstand what the Bible is doing with issues concerning war, slavery, etc.
And NFP does split hairs in my view, but contemporary Roman Catholicism argues from lex naturalis, which I reject as a primary, although accept as a secondary, argument against contraception (or anything else for that matter).
ReplyDelete"What if the couple already had three kids and are simply being pragmatic about their finances? If they can't afford them, who is responsible for feeding and caring for their offspring? Their church? The government?"
ReplyDeleteYou cannot establish what is moral or immoral on pragmatics. I could ask your same question for why it is wrong for a couple of three children to not kill one or all of them if they can no longer afford them. But the objection would be that murdering them is wrong. So one is only begging the question by assuming that preventing their existence is morally acceptable. If it is not, then one cannot argue this way.
Well, I'm not as frequent a commentator as James, but I read every post. I've benefited hugely from your writing, Bryan, so keep it up.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the encouragement, Ben. God bless.
ReplyDelete