Contraception - Ladies - Men

[larkin31]

Jesus refers to “in the beginning” when answering a question about marriage. (Mt 19:3-8) God created marriage in the beginning - in Genesis. Why is sex sacred - why is it different from animals procreating? There are so many aspects to the answer of this question, but I’ll try to be brief.

God created mankind uniquely among the animals because man was made in “Original Solitude” - God saw this as not being complete because Man is made in His image - thus, man needs to be in relation with another (you can not love without someone to love - God is love - part of the reason for belief in the Trinity). Thus, God made Mankind into Man and Woman (Genesis only begins the story with two distinct genders in one of the accounts). They were created in a marriage relationship to one another in order to make the truest sense of love possible, and thus in order to be a complete image of God’s love.

This love relationship, which God made to exist within the marriage, is also unique among other creatures in that the husband and wife come together to create another being made in the image of God. Animals procreate, but they do not create creatures with souls. They do not possess the free will in order to experience the self-sacrificial love which we are able to experience. When we redefine the marital relationship to be simply the same as animals, we are denying the definition of love which God uniquely instilled in our creation.

If you want a stronger understanding of what the Catholic church teaches, look into JPII’s Theology of the Body.

thanks

Matthew 19 is here:

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4"Haven’t you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two, but one.

There is only one part here about sex: * 4"Haven’t you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?* This is explaining the psychological/religious drive to reunite the two bodies/souls that were separated in the “rib” passage. This does not make “sex” sacred. Sex is coitus, and this is indeed shared among the animal kingdom.

 

[anns82]

thanks

Matthew 19 is here:

There is only one part here about sex: * 4"Haven’t you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?* This is explaining the psychological/religious drive to reunite the two bodies/souls that were separated in the “rib” passage. This does not make “sex” sacred. Sex is coitus, and this is indeed shared among the animal kingdom.

I used Mt to show that Jesus refers to Genesis when answering a question about God’s intention and meaning in marriage.

Yes, sex also occurs in the animal kingdom, but it is still very different because 1. mankind was originally created in solitude, which emphasizes the importance of relationship in humans as an Image of God 2. mankind has freewill, which is what makes love possible, and is also what makes mankind an Image of God.

How are we most intimately imaging God? When we are in the fullness of relation to another with complete self-sacrificial love - and within this embrace, a new Image of God can be created.

If you believe human life is sacred, then the beginning of human life is also sacred.

You still might not agree with me, but I do appreciate your response.

 

[larkin31]

I used Mt to show that Jesus refers to Genesis when answering a question about God’s intention and meaning in marriage.

Yes, sex also occurs in the animal kingdom, but it is still very different because 1. mankind was originally created in solitude, which emphasizes the importance of relationship in humans as an Image of God 2. mankind has freewill, which is what makes love possible, and is also what makes mankind an Image of God.

How are we most intimately imaging God? When we are in the fullness of relation to another with complete self-sacrificial love - and within this embrace, a new Image of God can be created.

If you believe human life is sacred, then the beginning of human life is also sacred.

You still might not agree with me, but I do appreciate your response.

calling sex “complete self-sacrificial love” is the neurotic thing I was talking about. You seem to be suggesting that sexual union is a form of re-engaging with divine love.

 

[anns82]

calling sex “complete self-sacrificial love” is the neurotic thing I was talking about. You seem to be suggesting that sexual union is a form of re-engaging with divine love.

I would say it is an image of divine love rather than “re-engaging with divine love” - not exactly the same, but “sex” is the only form of love which creates a new soulful being, who will be the source of unconditional love from the parents, and an new source for love in other people.

It is “self-sacrificial” because the woman gives her full self, as does the man. If that element of sacrifice were not present, then people would not be able to distort sex into being about power as is often the case in rape. It is only when each person willingly give themselves, and even their very future (as is what happens when a child occurs and they raise the child together) that “sex” is used in the way God intended in the beginning.

While a man and woman are bound together through a marriage covenant to share their futures together, sex is the marital act which - if a new life results - binds the two futures together through love of their child

 

[larkin31]

I would say it is an image of divine love rather than “re-engaging with divine love” - not exactly the same, but “sex” is the only form of love which creates a new soulful being, who will be the source of unconditional love from the parents, and an new source for love in other people.

It is “self-sacrificial” because the woman gives her full self, as does the man. If that element of sacrifice were not present, then people would not be able to distort sex into being about power as is often the case in rape. It is only when each person willingly give themselves, and even their very future (as is what happens when a child occurs and they raise the child together) that “sex” is used in the way God intended in the beginning.

While a man and woman are bound together through a marriage covenant to share their futures together, sex is the marital act which - if a new life results - binds the two futures together through love of their child

that would be nice, if it were true

lovers, whether married or not, never give “their full self.” That is a form of extreme language that does not and cannot happen. This is what I mean by “neurotic”: and absolute form of idealism that strains real relations between actual couples, married or otherwise.

 

[rwillenborg]

You only care what your subjective opinion says?

Uhm, yes.
I don’t understand why this is such a problem for you.
I said the pill didn’t work for me and, since I have more effective alternatives that don’t have nasty side effects, I will never go back. How is this a point of contention?
I don’t get why you are trying to convince me otherwise. Why is it such a problem for you that I found an alternative that suits me better?

Tell me, if you took a drug which didn’t deliver the promised result and instead delivered nasty side effects, and then found a more effective way to treat your problem anyway, without side effects, would you care that the drug was 99% effective? Why? Why wouldn’t you just stick with your new program, which worked?

Again, I’m not sure why you’re arguing with me on this. I’m well aware of what the documentation says. Their studies were very thorough. I simply don’t care, since it was such an epic fail for me and I found an alternative more to my liking. Not sure why this troubles you.

 

[anns82]

that would be nice, if it were true

lovers, whether married or not, never give “their full self.” That is a form of extreme language that does not and cannot happen. This is what I mean by “neurotic”: and absolute form of idealism that strains real relations between actual couples, married or otherwise.

I disagree because I know it in my own life - a response which I understand does not work for you. Logic can only go so far.

I do not see it as inconsistent from reality because Genesis and Jesus recognize the challenges of our fallen reality. It recognizes that life is not the way God created it in the beginning, but I think it is especially relevant in understanding God made us to love other people. I find it interesting that for as materialistic as our culture becomes - loving relationships are the common source of happiness available for each person throughout history, regardless of economic or cultural situations.
For this reason, simply dismissing “love” as a sentimental notion does not respect the truth in the complexity of free-will and sacrifice, without which, love does not exist.

 

[Justin1982]

Uhm, yes.
I don’t understand why this is such a problem for you.
I said the pill didn’t work for me and, since I have more effective alternatives that don’t have nasty side effects, I will never go back. How is this a point of contention?
I don’t get why you are trying to convince me otherwise. Why is it such a problem for you that I found an alternative that suits me better?

Tell me, if you took a drug which didn’t deliver the promised result and instead delivered nasty side effects, and then found a more effective way to treat your problem anyway, without side effects, would you care that the drug was 99% effective? Why? Why wouldn’t you just stick with your new program, which worked?

Again, I’m not sure why you’re arguing with me on this. I’m well aware of what the documentation says. Their studies were very thorough. I simply don’t care, since it was such an epic fail for me and I found an alternative more to my liking. Not sure why this troubles you.

I haven’t read this entire discussion between you and Zatzat but it almost sounds like they are trying to convince you to come back as if you had left a religion.

 

[eucharisteo]

that would be nice, if it were true

lovers, whether married or not, never give “their full self.” That is a form of extreme language that does not and cannot happen. This is what I mean by “neurotic”: and absolute form of idealism that strains real relations between actual couples, married or otherwise.

I must assume you are a wonderful person. Obviously your spouse sees something in you. But this must be a personal struggle for her if this is your true view of marriage. It lacks even a little bit of chivalry to spice up the relationship. No offense but WOW!, I’m speechless to your view of marriage or rather lack of view.

I wish you well, but I’m dumbfounded by your views. Each is entitled to his own opinion, but not all opinions are equal.’

 

[larkin31]

I disagree because I know it in my own life - a response which I understand does not work for you. Logic can only go so far.

I do not see it as inconsistent from reality because Genesis and Jesus recognize the challenges of our fallen reality. It recognizes that life is not the way God created it in the beginning, but I think it is especially relevant in understanding God made us to love other people. I find it interesting that for as materialistic as our culture becomes - loving relationships are the common source of happiness available for each person throughout history, regardless of economic or cultural situations.
For this reason, simply dismissing “love” as a sentimental notion does not respect the truth in the complexity of free-will and sacrifice, without which, love does not exist.

ayiyi

I did not dismiss love

this is becoming a wasted exercise. I am giving up.

 

[eucharisteo]

More that it had nothing to do with what I’d asked.

Perhaps they just see it as orthogonal to their beliefs? Perhaps they consider that you’re trying to finish off an intellectual jigsaw puzzle by biting bits off pieces to make them fit?

I guess I’ll have to aim lower next time I say something incomprehensible to you. I believe I responded correctly to your question, which really was a blurt to me. I elaborated on some things that you do not have the faculties to comprehend i guess.

The poor example of Catholics is no excuse for anyone. It’s a sign of the sickness infecting the body of Christ.

 

[larkin31]

I must assume you are a wonderful person. Obviously your spouse sees something in you. But this must be a personal struggle for her if this is your true view of marriage. It lacks even a little bit of chivalry to spice up the relationship. No offense but WOW!, I’m speechless to your view of marriage or rather lack of view.

I wish you well, but I’m dumbfounded by your views. Each is entitled to his own opinion, but not all opinions are equal.’

I said NOTHING about chivalry. You folks obviously traffic glibly in these idealistic extremes of language. I don’t. And I am a poet and teacher of literature! But I just can’t honestly admit that sex with one I love is “the ultimate self-sacrifice.” It is not the “ultimate” of anything. And I have written many poems on the wonders of love and sex and have made my wife cry and melt with joy over them. But I can’t trade these absolutes of divine love or self-sacrifice about sex. It just strikes me as neurotic and false. Sex is neither angelic nor demonic, but something much more real and human in between, an exchange of giving and receiving, a combined effort of affection and pleasure and love and sometimes the hope for making a child together.

But ULTIMATE “self-sacrifice” or “mirror of divine creation”? No. That is freakish to me.

 

[Kaninchen]

I guess I’ll have to aim lower next time I say something incomprehensible to you.

Yes, indeed.

I believe I responded correctly to your question, which really was a blurt to me. I elaborated on some things that you do not have the faculties to comprehend i guess.

I’m afraid that I don’t know what ‘a blurt’ is. To me it was just a rather simple question but, since I don’t facitlites to comprehend, your response seemed just a rumination on the subject of yourself.

The poor example of Catholics is no excuse for anyone. It’s a sign of the sickness infecting the body of Christ.

Which had nothing whatsoever to do with the question I asked.

Never mind, us rabbits of little brain will just look on in awe.

 

[anns82]

I said NOTHING about chivalry. You folks obviously traffic glibly in these idealistic extremes of language. I don’t. And I am a poet and teacher of literature! But I just can’t honestly admit that sex with one I love is “the ultimate self-sacrifice.” It is not the “ultimate” of anything. And I have written many poems on the wonders of love and sex and have made my wife cry and melt with joy over them. But I can’t trade these absolutes of divine love or self-sacrifice about sex. It just strikes me as neurotic and false. Sex is neither angelic nor demonic, but something much more real and human in between, an exchange of giving and receiving, a combined effort of affection and pleasure and love and sometimes the hope for making a child together.

But ULTIMATE “self-sacrifice” or “mirror of divine creation”? No. That is freakish to me.

“ultimate ‘self-sacrifice’”? is that what you were thinking when I said “complete”? (I don’t know if you were referring to someone else) There is sacrifice in the self-gift involved, as you mentioned in the giving and receiving - that may be part of where we miss each other in terminology. I don’t mind using the term “self-gift” instead of "self-sacrifice. I actually think that is a more accurate description because the “gift” refers to a giving/receiving, whereas a sacrifice has more of a giving/taking kind of connotation. Where I was going with the “complete self-sacrifice” is the idea of giving your full self (body, mind, soul) at that moment in union - which is the case unless your mind wonders. When you say “ultimate” I think sacrificing your life on an altar at that very moment. That sounds freakish to me as well.

At the same time, sacrifice does apply in a way that a lover would be willing to die for his/her beloved - but I did not mean to apply that mindset to the exact moment of each sexual union.

I still see the union of husband and wife an image of divine love - but it pales in comparison to Divine Love itself.

I was not going to comment, but the word change that you used made me realize that I should clarify.

We can still agree to disagree.

 

[Justin1982]

“ultimate ‘self-sacrifice’”? is that what you were thinking when I said “complete”? (I don’t know if you were referring to someone else) There is sacrifice in the self-gift involved, as you mentioned in the giving and receiving - that may be part of where we miss each other in terminology. I don’t mind using the term “self-gift” instead of "self-sacrifice. I actually think that is a more accurate description because the “gift” refers to a giving/receiving, whereas a sacrifice has more of a giving/taking kind of connotation. Where I was going with the “complete self-sacrifice” is the idea of giving your full self (body, mind, soul) at that moment in union - which is the case unless your mind wonders. When you say “ultimate” I think sacrificing your life on an altar at that very moment. That sounds freakish to me as well.

At the same time, sacrifice does apply in a way that a lover would be willing to die for his/her beloved - but I did not mean to apply that mindset to the exact moment of each sexual union.

I still see the union of husband and wife an image of divine love - but it pales in comparison to Divine Love itself.

I was not going to comment, but the word change that you used made me realize that I should clarify.

We can still agree to disagree.

I agree it does appear there is a break in the communication here because it was stated as a complete sacrifice and not ultimate sacrifice. An ultimate sacrifice is that in laying down ones life for another as Jesus did for us all. The complete sacrifice that Ann mentions makes sense as it is sacrifice in sex because you are “supposed to” have gone through the Sacrament of Matrimony which is the giving up of one’s self identity. This sacrifice also includes the entire meaning of sex; that of giving up the selves to bring another life into the world.

 

[larkin31]

“ultimate ‘self-sacrifice’”? is that what you were thinking when I said “complete”? (I don’t know if you were referring to someone else) There is sacrifice in the self-gift involved, as you mentioned in the giving and receiving - that may be part of where we miss each other in terminology. I don’t mind using the term “self-gift” instead of "self-sacrifice. I actually think that is a more accurate description because the “gift” refers to a giving/receiving, whereas a sacrifice has more of a giving/taking kind of connotation. Where I was going with the “complete self-sacrifice” is the idea of giving your full self (body, mind, soul) at that moment in union - which is the case unless your mind wonders. When you say “ultimate” I think sacrificing your life on an altar at that very moment. That sounds freakish to me as well.

At the same time, sacrifice does apply in a way that a lover would be willing to die for his/her beloved - but I did not mean to apply that mindset to the exact moment of each sexual union.

I still see the union of husband and wife an image of divine love - but it pales in comparison to Divine Love itself.

I was not going to comment, but the word change that you used made me realize that I should clarify.

We can still agree to disagree.

“complete,” yes. Sorry.

this has all been from a response of mine to the idea that sex is sacred.

While sex (act of intercourse) can be Tantric, I hardly see how sex can be sacred. If sex could be sacred, I would think that Mary would have had some herself with her husband.

 

[anns82]

“complete,” yes. Sorry.

this has all been from a response of mine to the idea that sex is sacred.

While sex (act of intercourse) can be Tantric, I hardly see how sex can be sacred. If sex could be sacred, I would think that Mary would have had some herself with her husband.

Viewing the sexual act as an image of Divine Love, and considering the already very intimate relationship Mary has with the Holy Spirit (God), sex pales in comparison to “the real thing.” She was in God’s presence throughout her life (being born “full of grace,” the Annunciation/conception of Jesus, carrying Jesus for 9 months, raising Him, traveling with Him throughout his life, the Holy Spirit’s decent and continued presence on Pentecost). She has a uniquely intimate relationship with God which no one else experience. The full gift of mind/body/soul with any man would seem to be a step down from her continued relationship with God (no offense to St. Joseph). It is part of the reason why Catholics don’t believe people will be having sex in heaven. Why go after the mere image when you are surrounded by the real thing?

For as important and sacred as the martial act is, it is not the “end all - be all” God has intended for humanity.

Again, if a person considers human life as sacred (distinctly different from animal life), then the beginning of that life is also sacred.
If human life were not sacred, then sex would not be sacred as well.

 

[anns82]

“complete,” yes. Sorry.

this has all been from a response of mine to the idea that sex is sacred.

While sex (act of intercourse) can be Tantric, I hardly see how sex can be sacred. If sex could be sacred, I would think that Mary would have had some herself with her husband.

Not believing human’s have souls would be a very legitimate reason to disagree with the idea of a “complete self-gift” and everything else I laid out (as well as other fundamental concepts, I’m sure).

Is that the origin of our disagreement?