B
BM5
Guest
Birth control is the hinge-pin of morality.
If you want a lesson from God
check out what happened to Onan when he tried it!
If you want a lesson from God
check out what happened to Onan when he tried it!
- Status
K
Karin
Guest
Am I understanding the story of Onan incorrectly…I got this from Wikipedia.com but this is how I always understood it???
"Most modern Biblical scholars, however, say that Onan’s primary sin was to violate the rules of levirate marriage, the Biblical law which states that a childless widow must marry her late husband’s brother"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan
"But the main purpose of these verses was probably to denote the punishment for violating the rules of levirate marriage, which was a divine law"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
The thing with wikipedia is that ANYONE can edit it. . .whether they “know their stuff” or not.
Also, I note that you start your quote with “Most biblical scholars, however. . .” Well, now, “however”? Does that mean that there was something ELSE said to which this quote was a response? Why don’t we have THAT in your response? It would be more, balanced, I believe.
I would also be interested to see if that wikipedia discussed the sin of Sodom with “Most biblical scholars, however, see the as INHOSPITALITY rather than homosexual behaviors. . .”
Also, I note that you start your quote with “Most biblical scholars, however. . .” Well, now, “however”? Does that mean that there was something ELSE said to which this quote was a response? Why don’t we have THAT in your response? It would be more, balanced, I believe.
I would also be interested to see if that wikipedia discussed the sin of Sodom with “Most biblical scholars, however, see the as INHOSPITALITY rather than homosexual behaviors. . .”
A
alcmattingly
Guest
Sounds like Hitler…or Sanger…
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
.
The levirite law stated the wide must marry the late husband’s brother in order that his line may continue thus by not allowing the widow to conceive Onan broke the law. He was not guilty of not marrying her. He was guilty of purposely not getting her pregnant so that his brother’s line could continue. And how did he purposely not get her pregnant??? spilling of his seed outside it’s destined place.
K
kahenns
Guest
Alright, so the people that are against birthcontrol or articifical contriception usually argue that those who do not which to have children should not be having sex. Very true if they are 15 year olds in the back of a pick-up. But say a Catholic family, that is just making due and already has 4 kids that are hard enough to take care of, are you saying that they should not be allowed to express their love through sex. Well then you might argue that there are natural ways of contriception, so now they have to plan and write in the calander SEX TUESDAY… thats real healthy… come on the one thing this culture doesnt need is more systematic behavior, be spontanteous and live. The biggest deal is, if they decide they do not wish to have kids, you say its ok to just not have sex (repressing their desires… forcing them to lust) or the natural approach, but they cant use artifical… EITHER WAY NO CHILDREN… what difference does it make. Get a grip… use a condom… birthcontrol… just have passionate, loving sex devoted to your lifelong spouse… showing your love is the most beautiful thing 
S
Siena
Guest
Interestingly enough, I heard (I think from Scott Hahn…?) that the levitical punishment for refusing to have children for your brother was for the woman to publicaly take her shoe and hit the brother. He wanted his cake and to eat it too- he din’t want to raise his “brothers child” - yet- still wanted to have “contraceptive sex” with his wife/brothers widow
This was MUCH worse…
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
Karin:Michael …these are wonderful ideas
We should all be praying
And telling people to look at the Book of Acts and read St. Paul’s Epistles on the subject.At the same time, have you ever wondered how the really terrible persecutions of the Church in the middle and at the end of the Third Century ended?
Christians ran the welfare system for almost all of the Roman Empire. The more Roman Emperors persecuted the Christians, the more poor people starved while the rest of the people’s taxes went up as corrupt Pegans took over the posts the honest Christians had occupied.
The final persecution under Diocletian and Galerius very nearly tore the guts of the entire Roman Civil Service, which contributed greatly to the Civil War which brought Constantine to power.
The Church has run the welfare system for a non-Christian state before.
If givien the freedom to operate it in accordance with moral law and Biblical principles, the Church could probably make something like the above work.
Something to think and pray about.
In Christ, Michael
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
kahenns:Alright, so the people that are against birthcontrol or articifical contriception usually argue that those who do not which to have children should not be having sex. Very true if they are 15 year olds in the back of a pick-up. But say a Catholic family, that is just making due and already has 4 kids that are hard enough to take care of, are you saying that they should not be allowed to express their love through sex. Well then you might argue that there are natural ways of contriception, so now they have to plan and write in the calander SEX TUESDAY… thats real healthy… come on the one thing this culture doesnt need is more systematic behavior, be spontanteous and live. The biggest deal is, if they decide they do not wish to have kids, you say its ok to just not have sex (repressing their desires… forcing them to lust) or the natural approach, but they cant use artifical… EITHER WAY NO CHILDREN… what difference does it make. Get a grip… use a condom… birthcontrol… just have passionate, loving sex devoted to your lifelong spouse… showing your love is the most beautiful thing
Statistics show that those Catholics who follow YOUR advice and use ABC divorce at almost the same rate as the rest of society, while those who follow the Church’s teaching and use techniques such as Natural Family Planning, which require COMMUNICATION between husbands and wives, divorce at a rate of 4%.
These facts are well documented. Use Artificial Contraception and divorce at the same rate as the rest of society. Follow the Church’s teaching (use NFP which requires COMMUNICATION) and divorce at a rate of 4%.
Who are having the better marriages? Whose marriages are surviving the stresses of daily life better? Why?
The reason is simple - The Sexual Act within Marriage is SACRAMENTAL, which means that it confers Grace on the couple and those around them unless the couple does something to keep the Holy Spirit from confering that Grace.
The Grace is confered in the Sacrament by the Holy Spirit, “who is the Lord and giver of Life” according to the Nicene Creed you say every Sunday.
Since the Holy Spirit’s job is to give LIFE, don’t you think that blocking that life while still doing the act would block the action of “the Lord and giver of Life”?
kahenns, the blocking of this Grace is the reason the couples who use Artificial Contraception are divorcing at the same rate as the rest of society - They aren’t receiving the “Grace-Glue” that’s supposed to help them ride out all the storms and hold their marriage together when the going gets tough.
Meanwhile, those couples who are doing as the Church tells them aren’t blocking the Holy Spirit and are receiving that “Grace-Glue” which helps them ride out all the storms and holds the marriage together when they don’t know what else will.
It’s really that simple, and that’s one reason why the Church has been right for 1,970 years on this topic.
Please listen - I’m an Anglican, and it was my denomination which started this mess in 1931. Before then, the universal teaching among all mainstream Christian Churches (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) is what the Catholics are defending here and had been since the time of the Apostles.
Why are you spending so much time trying to say all of those people got it wrong for 1970 years and that we in the modern age starting with the Anglican Communion, which now can’t even figure out whether Jesus Christ was who He said He was or whether He rose from the dead or not, have somehow got this right against all the odds?
God gave us a Church with a Divinely protected Teaching Authority on matters of Faith and Morals, and he gave us Scriptures (cited by another poster), and he gave us Reason and the Canons of Ecumenical Councils… Why is it so hard to submit when all speak as one?
In Christ, Michael
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
Karin:
You or I could edit the entries in Wikipedia.com. It’s hardly authoritative. I’ve found that most “Biblical Scholars” the people in places such as Wikipedia.com like to cite say that the Exudos never occured and doubt the Resurrection of our Lord or that the miracles in the NT actually occurred. I’ve seen “Textual Criticism” which a lot of these people like to rely on, esp. those from the “Jesus Project”, used to deny the Virgin Birth, the Divinity of Christ and the Resurrection of Christ.
I would spend my time looking at how Orthodox Rabbis have interpreted the passages (for the Torah) and how the passages have been interpreted by the Church Fathers and by the Church throughout the ages (for the whole Bible).
According to one of the Orthodox Rabbis I listen to, Sons provided for their parents (usually widowed mothers) in ancient Israel. They were the “Social Security” for their parents. Onan’s brother died before he and his wife had any children. Onan was, therefore, required to provide a son so that his sister in law would be provided for in her old age.
When he “spilled his seed on the ground”, he disobeyed God’s Law and demonstrated his hard-hearted unwillingness to provide for her welfare. FYI, the Torah forbad sexual contact between man and wife until a week after the menses had ended. Here is a commandment that would have increased the likelihood of conception.
What do you think the purpose of that was?
Just so you know, Orthodoc Jews, esp. the Ultra-Orthodox, tend to have the same stances on Abortion and Contraception that the Catholic Church does.
Why do you think that is if “Most Biblical Scholars” are correct?
In Christ, Michael
K
Karin
Guest
Traditional Ang:
"Jewish law* not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother’s life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory. *An unborn child has the status of “potential human life” until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother’s, because you cannot choose between one human life and another. "
jewfaq.org/sex.htm#Abortion
Regarding Birth control…how is this just like Catholics…heck they can take the PILL???
*"In principle, birth control is permitted, so long as the couple is committed to eventually fulfilling the mitzvah to be fruitful and multiply (which, at a minimum, consists of having two children, one of each gender). The issue in birth control is not whether it is permitted, but what method is permitted, and under what circumstances. *Birth control is rather clearly permitted in circumstances where pregnancy would pose a medical risk to the mother or her other children. For example, the Talmud recognizes the use of birth control by very young women, pregnant women or nursing women. However, there is some variance of opinion as to what other circumstances might permit birth control. If this is an issue for you, you should consult a competent rabbinic authority. It is well-established that methods that destroy the seed or block the passage of the seed are not permitted, thus condoms are not permitted for birth control. However, the pill is well-recognized as an acceptable form of birth control under Jewish law. I have also heard some say that a condom would be permitted under Jewish law to prevent the transmission of AIDS or similar diseases, because preserving the life of the uninfected spouse takes priority; however, I am not certain how authoritative this view is. If this is an issue for you, you should consult a competent rabbinic authority. "
jewfaq.org/sex.htm
Actually (I live in a LARGE Orthodox Jewish town) they feel that abortion is ok till a certain time (beofre teh babies head enters the borth canal)…they view a baby in the womb like a “parasite” (living off the mother) so if the mom’s health is at risk they can and will abort. How is that the same stance as Catholics??
"Jewish law* not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother’s life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory. *An unborn child has the status of “potential human life” until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother’s, because you cannot choose between one human life and another. "
jewfaq.org/sex.htm#Abortion
Regarding Birth control…how is this just like Catholics…heck they can take the PILL???
*"In principle, birth control is permitted, so long as the couple is committed to eventually fulfilling the mitzvah to be fruitful and multiply (which, at a minimum, consists of having two children, one of each gender). The issue in birth control is not whether it is permitted, but what method is permitted, and under what circumstances. *Birth control is rather clearly permitted in circumstances where pregnancy would pose a medical risk to the mother or her other children. For example, the Talmud recognizes the use of birth control by very young women, pregnant women or nursing women. However, there is some variance of opinion as to what other circumstances might permit birth control. If this is an issue for you, you should consult a competent rabbinic authority. It is well-established that methods that destroy the seed or block the passage of the seed are not permitted, thus condoms are not permitted for birth control. However, the pill is well-recognized as an acceptable form of birth control under Jewish law. I have also heard some say that a condom would be permitted under Jewish law to prevent the transmission of AIDS or similar diseases, because preserving the life of the uninfected spouse takes priority; however, I am not certain how authoritative this view is. If this is an issue for you, you should consult a competent rabbinic authority. "
jewfaq.org/sex.htm
M
mlchance
Guest
The punishment proscribed under the Law for violating the rules of levirate marriage was public humiliation, not death. Yet, God chose to kill Onan, indicating quite clearly that his crime was a good deal more serious than merely refusing to marry a childless widow.
– Mark L. Chance.
M
mlchance
Guest
So much for your bragging about how much you “believe the Church doctrine.”Get a grip… use a condom… birthcontrol… just have passionate, loving sex devoted to your lifelong spouse… showing your love is the most beautiful thing
– Mark L. Chance.
J
jediliz
Guest
sex with condoms and birth control does not show love. To me, its both selfish and lustful, not GIVING of yourself. It leaves GOD out of the picture.
But if God wants you to have a child, he’ll find a way.
J
JCPhoenix
Guest
There may be some to whom this applies, but please allow me to stand up and say that your response here seems to be overly harsh in regards to the topic.
I grew up on welfare. My mother developed an illness when my brother and I were young and around that time period my parents divorced. Both my brother and I paid our way through college (we are still paying), and both of us have solid careers.
I am still ashamed that we had to “drink the sweat of the taxpayers” in order to survive, but it is a fact of life. And every so often I run into a family member who expresses surprise at how my brother and I “turned out” given our welfare backgrounds.
There are many many families who are like my own who lived like that for awhile and realized that by working hard they could actually pay thier own bills AND do something fun once in awhile and actually not have to have a stock of powdered milk as the substitute for the “expensive” real thing.
Please, please, consider who may be reading your posts and although you did use a “disclaimer” of sorts, I would like to point out that neither my brother nor I are “anomalies” of the system and your statement implies that we are.
Back on topic…
As far as this topic goes, my mother also has only one hand…from birth. She was actually approached by strangers when she was pregnant and told that “people like her” should not have children’; they should be using birth control or have abortions. These same strangers would have died of a stroke if they’d seen my father with my Mom at those times…he has spina biffeda. I guess we were supposed to be doomed from the start.
But God is good.
Contraception was the beginning of the “creation of a superior race”. we can actually look back and observe how it has harmed society if we have our eyes wide open. Birth control…then abortion…then in vitro, sterilizations…now they are cloning, and even “genetically selecting” particular traits or suggesting that it is proper to abort a child who may be identified in the womb as being imperfect in some way. Some scientists think it’s ok to blend human and animal genes. Wow.
A lot of people struggle with this, but when it comes down to it, many converts and cradle Catholics alike have seen the wisdom of the Church’s teaching on this topic.
I once had a boyfriend who referred to his girlfriends as “sperm recepticles”, and that’s exactly how he treated me…as an object. Needless to say, our relationship did not last long. He was all about contraception…but then again, from almost day 1 he was all about sex and how to get me into his bed.
Unfortunately, that is the cultural norm. Women are EXPECTED to be using contraception and jumping into bed on the first date. One night stands are considered to be “normal sexual expression.” People who believe in controlling our passions are looked upon as being “unenlightened” and “archaic”. This resulted from the dawn of contraception and the acceptance of it.
There are many theological AND social arguments against contraception…solid arguments. It seems that those FOR it result out of pure selfishness or a position of superiority over a particular group of people who allegedly shouldn’t consider procreating. I’ve been guilty of that position myself.
It is going to take a lot to undo the brainwashing of our society.
K
Karin
Guest
JCPhoenix-
I apologize if my response to “welfare” families sounded harsh…once again these are my own views/ opinions from what I have wittnessed here in the tri-state area for the past 20+ years.
I apologize if my response to “welfare” families sounded harsh…once again these are my own views/ opinions from what I have wittnessed here in the tri-state area for the past 20+ years.
J
JCPhoenix
Guest
Thank you for your response.
I’ve witnessed a lot, too. Used to live next door to a girl who claimed to be suffering from “depression”. I used to work in mental health, as did my roomate at that apartment, and neither of us ever saw any evidence of this very debilitating disorder. We did see (and HEAR) her up at all hours, partying all night long, fighting with her boyfriends and other people’s boyfriends, etc. She was Section 8 so paid about $20 a month for rent and got paid to do nothing but beg for rides to places she wanted to go. She actually begged for rides to places to which she could easily walk. Amazing.
There are many such as these, but there are also many families who work hard, who are embarassed by the need to be on welfare, etc. Right after I graduated from college, I found my dream career…and lost it. I could not afford my rent so I cashed in my retirement to pay most of one month’s rent. I had good credit so used my credit card to pay for monthy necessities. It was horrible. I found another job, the pay from which mostly went to rent, leaving little else.
Due to my own refusal to ever consider welfare to be an option, I got into debt I’m still paying for. When I was very ill (I’m pretty sure I had either bronchitis or pneumonia- was sick for 6 weeks), I refused to go to a doctor and nearly died one night…but I still refused to go to the hospital because doing so meant I would have to go back on the county…and I didn’t want to live that way.
My rationale was stupid as I really could have avoided a lot of things by swallowing my pride and doing what was really the correct thing to do…contact social services. But I couldn’t do it due to both my own upbringing/desire to be independent, and the social stigma perpetuated by attitudes such as yours.
People on welfare are automatically seen as being lazy and worthless, and even though that stereotype may apply in some or many cases, it is definitely not a good argument to use to support contraception.
K
Karin
Guest
**As to the rest of your post…I can totally understand and I agree (but I take note to the last sentence)…I also found myself in similar situations as you did after my divorce but I also felt strongly about going into the system…I made it so did my son
**
E
ElizabethAnne
Guest
No one is saying that a married couple should not be allowed to express their love through sex.
There is nothing unhealthy about planning sex. Some planning goes into every act since the desires of both spouses need to be considered as well as a variety of other factors, depending on the situation. That said, NFP does not equal no spontaneity. It only means that if the couple decides to postpone pregnancy, they need to abstain for a week once a month. If they have a good reason to not have children at that time, it a good reason to abstain for a week.
It’s not about repressing desires. Married couples who use NFP have sex just as often as those that use artificial contraceptives. They just have the sex at different times. No one is forced into lust by NFP, in fact, no one is ever forced into lust. We can, as human beings, control our own desires, which is not the same as repression.
There’s a huge difference between artificial contraceptives and natural birth control. Contraceptive means “against the beginning of life.” NFP is not a contraceptive because it does not in anyway impede the beginning of life.EITHER WAY NO CHILDREN… what difference does it make. Get a grip… use a condom… birthcontrol… just have passionate, loving sex devoted to your lifelong spouse… showing your love is the most beautiful thing
Most importantly, as another poster said, NFP is morally acceptable while contraceptives are not. It doesn’t really matter what’s more difficult in the end.
If you want to know more about why NFP is the only morally acceptable form of birth control, feel free to read the many threads about it or I would be more than happy to discuss it with you.
God bless.
F
fix
Guest
And you define health as?
Logic?
Contraceptive “sex” is not the marital embrace it is mutual masturbation.EITHER WAY NO CHILDREN… what difference does it make. Get a grip… use a condom… birthcontrol… just have passionate, loving sex devoted to your lifelong spouse… showing your love is the most beautiful thing
- Status