The operative words, to be quoted in context are: “Thou shalt not use magic (ou mageuseis); thou shalt not use drugs (ou pharmakeusis).” It is reasonable to conclude that the double prohibition refers to contraception and abortion because these terms (mageia) and (pharmaka) were understood to cover the use of magical rites and/or medical potions for both contraception and abortion. Moreover, the context in the Didache refers to sex activity and the right to life.
therealpresence.org/archives/Abortion_Euthanasia/Abortion_Euthanasia_004.htmThe second commandment of the teaching is this: “Thou shalt not commit murder; thou shalt not commit adultery.”
Thou shalt not commit sodomy; thou shalt not commit fornication; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not use magic: thou shalt not use drugs; thou shalt not procure abortion, nor commit infanticide (Didache, II, 1-2).
Among other early condemnations of birth prevention are the first century Letter of Barnabas (X, 8) which denounces the practice of having intercourse while making conception impossible; and the mid-second century Apology of St. Justin the martyr who describes the marital problems of a young Christian convert. Her husband tried to satisfy his sex urge by copulating with her “against the law of nature and against what is right.” Her family prevailed on her to remain with the man for a while, but finally she could not tolerate his morals and left him. Justin praises her conduct in refusing to participate in the man’s “impious conduct” (Apologia II, 1).
Correlation≠ causation. Can you honestly tell me you would expect a healthy marriage would break apart if contraception were introduced?then why do couples who use NFP have such low divorce rates?
And who defines a misuse? And I believe I asked what makes taking your own will into account with sex mortally sinful while doing so in other endeavors is common sense. You seem to have simply stated “Because it’s a sin,” which I don’t need to tell you is about as circular as arguments come.Because misuse of your sexual system is mortally sinful. Misuse of your shoelaces is not.
I think there is some causation here. Couples that use contraceptive have higher divorce rates.Correlation≠ causation.
Yes, and it is statistically more likely.Can you honestly tell me you would expect a healthy marriage would break apart if contraception were introduced?
God. The Didache, a very early Christian writing, teaches that contraception is a sin.And who defines a misuse?
1 corinthians 6: 18-20And I believe I asked what makes taking your own will into account with sex mortally sinful while doing so in other endeavors is common sense.
So like I said, sex is treated a bit differently. Misueing it is not like forgetting to tie your shoes.18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
others drink potions to ensure sterility and are guilty of murdering a human being not yet conceived. Some when they learn they are with child through sin, practice abortion by the use of drugs. Frequently they die themselves and are brought before the rulers of the lower world guilty of three crimes: suicide, adultery against Christ, and murder of an unborn child. These are the women who are accustomed to say: “All things are clean to the clean. The approval of my conscience is enough for me. A pure heart is what God desires. Why should I abstain from foods which God created to be used?” And whenever they wish to appear bright and festive, and have drowned themselves in wine, they say—adding sacrilege to drunkenness: “God forbid that I should abstain from the blood of Christ.” And whenever they see a woman pale and sad, they call her a poor wretch, a nun, and a Manichean: and with reason, for according to their belief fasting is heresy (Letter 22, to Eustochium 13).
Sorry that’s just not how statistical logic works. For there to be causation, that would mean a healthy marriage could be made weaker and break apart x percent or so of the time, and if that’s true it has yet to be demonstrated. I’ve said it before on this thread, it is far more likely that weaker marriages (that are more likely to get a divorce) are less likely to desire children/care for NFP so they use contraception.I think there is some causation here. Couples that use contraceptive have higher divorce rates. Yes, and it is statistically more likely.
God. The Didache, a very early Christian writing, teaches that contraception is a sin.
1 corinthians 6: 18-20 So like I said, sex is treated a bit differently. Misueing it is not like forgetting to tie your shoes.
The fact that a belief is old does not speak to it’s validity at all. And if God had an objection to contraception it almost certainly would have come up in scripture- instead there is no mention at all. (and the Corinthians quote says nothing about contraception)St. Jerome had quite an opinion on this too:
Are you serious with this question? By the very fact that a couple uses artificial contraception is so that a child is NOT conceived. Why do you think they call it CONTRA-ception? It goes AGAINST the act of conception.If a couple uses a condom with the understanding that a child will be conceived if and only if God wills it, how is this couple denying God’s will?
They do not desire conception, so they reduce the probability of it. Just like I don’t want food poisoning, so I cook my food to reduce the probability of food borne bacteria.Are you serious with this question? By the very fact that a couple uses artificial contraception is so that a child is NOT conceived. Why do you think they call it CONTRA-ception? It goes AGAINST the act of conception.
. It’s not that it’s old, it’s that it was in a certain time period. It’s like if we wanted to know more about any historical figure, a book written in that historical figure’s time would most likely be more accurate and involve less guesswork.The fact that a belief is old does not speak to it’s validity at all
Ever heard of Onan?And if God had an objection to contraception it almost certainly would have come up in scripture- instead there is no mention at all.
No, that was to back up what I said about sins of this nature being more serious.and the Corinthians quote says nothing about contraception)
That actively denies some of it’s purpose.They do not desire conception, so they reduce the probability of it.
The purpose of food is not to give food poisoning.Just like I don’t want food poisoning, so I cook my food to reduce the probability of food borne bacteria.
What study proves your point? I’d like to see some of those stats.Again, correlation alone can be dismissed because it is often completely meaningless. The psychological effects of contraceptive sex have not been shown to differ from those without contraception. And since it is entirely plausible that couples with weaker marriages will not desire any children/ not find NFP appealing, the correlation is dismissed further.
I hate to dismiss a well written paragraph so briefly, but I’m not married (but in any event, anecdotal evidence would not qualify as a study)
And the chemical bonds between the proteins in DNA doesn’t appear relevant to the bonds between two people.
I’m not sure what a “sexual etthics” course teaches. I’m not sure what “TOBish” means, either.I would not consider myself undereducated on the issue, given that I’ve actually taken a Theology of the Body-ish course (sexual ethics). Not to sound disrespectful (truly), but experiences has shown me that digging deeper into a belief that seems completely illogical almost always leads to the discovery that said belief was, in fact, as it seemed.
I sought to imply that they were one and the same, just called by a different name to avoid scaring away non Catholics who are not used to such terms.I’m not sure what a “sexual etthics” course teaches. I’m not sure what “TOBish” means, either.
TruthI’m not suggesting that you are uneducated, but that there is always more to learn.
But such a person would not desire any discussion with othersAnd my experience is that people believe what they want. Especially if it appeals to selfish desires. It doesn’t always mean that it’s right, of course.
Having heard a great deal of information on the topic and remaining unconvinced I looked to others on the other side to see if anything logically sound was out there- and when arguments that I’ve seen before come up, the natural next step is rebuttal and voila! Now we’re debating. And you closing statements presume your side is the correct one- you shouldn’t do that.You posted a question. Are you hear to learn or argue? And no, I don’t mean any disrespect. But by how you are posting, it sounds like you don’t wish to learn, just argue. It’s not that we haven’t heard the arguments you bring up before. We all have. And many of us have said them ourselves at some time in our past. We’re not saying you are stupid or anything. Just that we’ve found something more. We were hoping you were looking for that, too.
The point that DNA bonds don’t affect the bond between two people? The only reason this has been brought up is that we happen to use the same word for chemical “bonds” and human “bonds.” Outside of the name, the two are unrelated.What study proves your point? I’d like to see some of those stats.
I thought the purpose of the scripture was to remove guesswork altogether?. It’s not that it’s old, it’s that it was in a certain time period. It’s like if we wanted to know more about any historical figure, a book written in that historical figure’s time would most likely be more accurate and involve less guesswork.
Onan used contraception (sorta) to actively deny a direct command from God.Ever heard of Onan?
Than what? And you seem to presume it’s a sin.No, that was to back up what I said about sins of this nature being more serious.
Please return to the diet foods scenario. I’ll replace this message with said scenario in the near future, but for now it’s time for sleep.That actively denies some of it’s purpose.
The purpose of food is not to give food poisoning.
OH! Sorry, your question just clicked for me. Anyway, the point of my statement on NFP/contraception was more to show how, given that there is no proof in either direction, correlation means nothing with respect to causation(i.e. if there is a relationship between A and B, it’s just as easy to say A caused B as it is to say B caused A or A and B are both caused by C)What study proves your point? I’d like to see some of those stats.
Ah, but you see. TOB is MORE than just rules about sex. It’s about relationships. It applies to the single and the religious, as well.I sought to imply that they were one and the same, just called by a different name to avoid scaring away non Catholics who are not used to such terms.
We’re all here for that.Truth
Maybe. I didn’t think I had a need for such information until one day, I was convinced to look into this subject.But such a person would not desire any discussion with others
Well, either there is a Truth to know or there isn’t. Assuming there is a correct side, then you need to recall that I was on the other side of this argument for several decades. After one failed marriage and almost another, you’ld think that 26 years of marriage I might have some experience that might back up the troubles one can have if they don’t have the proper perspective of sex and relationships.Having heard a great deal of information on the topic and remaining unconvinced I looked to others on the other side to see if anything logically sound was out there- and when arguments that I’ve seen before come up, the natural next step is rebuttal and voila! Now we’re debating. And you closing statements presume your side is the correct one- you shouldn’t do that.
These are long term cause/effect issues. And with so many variables over time, it’s a difficult task to “prove” anything. Believe as you will. Time will either show it’s true or not. So far, it’s looking real good that Humane Vitae was right, IMO.OH! Sorry, your question just clicked for me. Anyway, the point of my statement on NFP/contraception was more to show how, given that there is no proof in either direction, correlation means nothing with respect to causation(i.e. if there is a relationship between A and B, it’s just as easy to say A caused B as it is to say B caused A or A and B are both caused by C)
I’m not asking for definitive proof. I (personally) believe that the periods of abstinence required by NFP make contraception more appealing to weak marriages, rather than contraception weakening marriages. Does anything suggest the opposite?These are long term cause/effect issues. And with so many variables over time, it’s a difficult task to “prove” anything. Believe as you will. Time will either show it’s true or not. So far, it’s looking real good that Humane Vitae was right, IMO.
I’m doubtful, my high school’s religious department isn’t internet friendly. And my course focused strongly on the sexual aspect, albeit respect for the opposite sex and such was tied inAh, but you see. TOB is MORE than just rules about sex. It’s about relationships. It applies to the single and the religious, as well.
So I’d like to know more about this. Could you point to a class outline or such?
I’ve been looking, but I don’t see much in terms of information beneficial to the other side.Maybe. I didn’t think I had a need for such information until one day, I was convinced to look into this subject.
If your personal experience has led you to a certain belief, then that is fine- but understand (which you seem to) that evidence gained through personal experience has little meaning to others.Well, either there is a Truth to know or there isn’t. Assuming there is a correct side, then you need to recall that I was on the other side of this argument for several decades. After one failed marriage and almost another, you’ld think that 26 years of marriage I might have some experience that might back up the troubles one can have if they don’t have the proper perspective of sex and relationships.
I know I’m not alone here on CAF when I say that TOB makes sense. The rules the church suggests are fair, and aid in properly formed relationships. I may not have the smoking gun, but there is lots people being affected every day with STDs, broken hearts, unwanted pregnancies, poor marriages and adultery.
I’ve lived both sides. I know which works best for me and our marriage. Nothing is 100%. Of course, but somethings work better than others when it comes to relationships.
They have done some studies about people that cohabitate. Their divorce rate is higher. Why? Not sure. The rest is supposition. These are difficult things to get down to details. I don’t have a big fancy study, or documented proof from 10’s of thousands of people. But I believe I AM the proof I need. You are free to believe as you wish. Some learn from their own mistakes, some learn from other’s mistakes. If it’s Truth you are here to find, I will tell you, look to the Church. I’ve lost every argument with Her, so far.
Again, correlation alone can be dismissed because it is often completely meaningless. …
Hi again tjm,I’m getting tired of bringing this up.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
“Correlation does not imply causation” is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though it does not remove the fact that correlation can still be a hint, whether powerful or otherwise[1][2]). …In the mathematical sense, it is always correct to say “Correlation does not imply causation”. However, the word “imply” in casual use loosely means suggests rather than requires. The idea that correlation and causation are connected is certainly true; correlation is needed for causation to be proved…Tufte suggests that the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation must be at least expanded to either
Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality. or
Correlation is not equal to causation; it is only a requirement for it. …Generally, if one factor (A) is observed to only be correlated with another factor (B), it is sometimes taken for granted that A is causing B even when no evidence supports this. This is a logical fallacy because there are at least four other possibilities:
*]B may be the cause of A
*]some unknown third factor C is actually the cause of both A and B
*]the “relationship” is coincidence or so complex or indirect that it is more effectively called coincidence (i.e. two events occurring at the same time that have no direct relationship to each other besides the fact that they are occurring at the same time).
*]B may be the cause of A at the same time as A is the cause of B (contradicting that the only relationship between A and B is that A causes B). This describes a self-reinforcing system.
Well, my experience for one. I’ve done both. As other’s here have stated as well. NFP forces something contraception does not. And that communications, a sense of oneness, does not exist through contraceptive sex. Now I won’t say that anyone is 100% doomed by contraceptive sex. But you run the risk of being in the 50% or so that eventually will have problems associated with sex. Proof? No study, just those “coincidences that don’t prove anything” and a man with experiences that says NFP, was really the way to go.I’m not asking for definitive proof. I (personally) believe that the periods of abstinence required by NFP make contraception more appealing to weak marriages, rather than contraception weakening marriages. Does anything suggest the opposite?
For some.If your personal experience has led you to a certain belief, then that is fine- but understand (which you seem to) that evidence gained through personal experience has little meaning to others.