L
- Status
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Nope. Itâs purposeful waiting. And not for the sake of holy chastity. Nope.
They donât want to have a kid. Thatâs why they âsufferâ.
Iâve not conflated. I recognize that they have differences.
Youâre just ideologically unable to admit they also have similarities because it makes you uncomfortable.
I understand completely.
Theyâre both absolutely contraception.
As @laylow accurately assessed, you can dance around it all you want.
Per Oxford: Contraception - The deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse.
Last edited:
R
Raxus
Guest
Yes, it is.
You are really, really stuck on the idea of suffering, arenât you?They donât want to have a kid. Thatâs why they âsufferâ.
Good.
They do have similarities, but only in the fact that the idea is to try and plan out when kids are going to happen. One is accepting of how the body was created and what sex is for, and the other is simply wanting to have oneâs cake and eat it too.
Clearly, you do not. Or choose not to. Either way: Ding-dong, you are wrong.
No, theyâre absolutely not.
Iâm not dancing at all. You yourself recognize that theyâre different. Youâre the one doing mental backflips here.
There is a difference between preventing and avoiding. Preventing something means to stop it from happening. Avoiding something means not placing yourself in the situation in which youâd have to prevent or allow it TO BEGIN WITH.
There is EVERY difference in the world, and the Church recognizes that. It follows logically and theologically.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Literally the only reason they wait is because if they didnât they might get pregnant.
Thatâs not chastity. Thatâs a wait that deliberately, intentionally separates the unitive and procreative aspects of sex.
But believe as you wishâŠ
Because you keep mentioning it.
âAnd you know what that is? Thatâs a sacrificeâ
Serious question, do you have some sort of attention disorder? If you do, Iâll soften my approach somewhat.
Yup. They both seek to enjoy the unitive function of sex without that burdensome procreative function.
Ok, then per Oxford dictionary they are.
Now if you wish to have a diatribe about how Oxford is wrong, have at it.
Pointing out that they are both used to enjoy sex without having kids isnât much of a backflip.
The greater challenge is yours - to defy sense and reason and explain how they both perform the above, but one isnât contraceptive.
Youâre not doing great. But to be fair, itâs an impossible challenge, so I sympathize.
No, there isnât. Youâre just trying to force that arbitrary distinction because youâve been fully backed up and youâre looking for an âoutâ.
The one youâve picked is ridiculous.
I donât doubt the sincerity of your belief. I doubt the soundness of your logic.
R
Raxus
Guest
There is very clearly nothing wrong with this in any sort of Church teaching or history.
No, it does not. The body does that ITSELF. Thatâs the POINT. And a woman can STILL get pregnant during those times, however unlikely, so your statement doesnât even logically follow.
No, I donât. You do.
Yes. It is doing Godâs will instead of their own. Thatâs not âsuffering for sufferingâs sakeâ.
Iâll ignore this exactly one time. Youâre getting awfully personal, here. Watch it.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Other than the CCC 2369 (and others) insinuating that the unitive and procreative functions of sex shouldnât be separatedâŠ
And they harness it with contraceptive intent. Or is it odd coincidence that theyâre intimate when itâs low probability and avoid each other like sexual lepers when conception is a high probability?
Give me a breakâŠ
Biologically, no she shouldnât. She should be sans-ovum, which makes pregnancy biologically impossible.
Thatâs why they use that time to have sex.
I literally cited where you mentioned it in your previous postâŠ
I donât know what else to do, manâŠ
Ok, empty unsubstantiated denialâŠ
More empty unsubstantiated denialâŠ
More of the sameâŠ
Absolutely. Besides the unitive pleasure, it also makes babies. Which NFP and artificial birth control attempt to subvert.
Youâve not explained why the Oxford definition is wrong, but I see your withdrawal based on your non-interactive denials above, so fine with me.
In a change-up, unsubstantiated affirmation.
More wordy, but still unsubstantiated denial (as I claim to have the truth too)âŠ
Fun chat. Thanks for your time.
R
Raxus
Guest
And yet the Church allows NFP. So clearly, NFP does not separate the two.
No, they donât. They donât have to DO anything.
Oh, please. Now your personal sentiment is leaking through, and itâs a little silly.
Itâs happened before.
You started that whole chain, bud.
A denial to an equally empty assertion.
Ditto.
Ditto squared.
Only one does.
Whatever you need to tell yourself to feel justified.
Nope.
As if.
Lator, gator.
L
LilyM
Guest
This would be because (depending on the reasons why), the mere fact of wanting to plan when one has children, or avoid having children, is not by itself wrong. Otherwise every adult would be obligated, if possible, to get married and start breeding.Raxus:
Nope. Itâs purposeful waiting. And not for the sake of holy chastity. Nope.
They donât want to have a kid. Thatâs why they âsufferâ.
Iâve not conflated. I recognize that they have differences.
Youâre just ideologically unable to admit they also have similarities because it makes you uncomfortable.
I understand completely.
Theyâre both absolutely contraception.
As @laylow accurately assessed, you can dance around it all you want.
Per Oxford: Contraception - The deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse.
Itâs rather like saying that if I need money to pay bills, I am wrong if I choose to obtain that money by robbing a bank or selling drugs when I could easily find legitimate employment.
M
MarkoB0726
Guest
Yep, starting to lose what very little faith I had in God (again) after coming back to the Church after a long absence. Thereâs only so many âGod loves youâ a person can take before it starts to sounds like a just empty promise. That, and Iâm just tired of dealing with a number of circumstances in my life, that Iâm sick of praying to God for help withâŠ
G
guanophore
Guest
A baptized Catholic does have the right, by canon law, to the sacraments. I agree that Godâs grace is a free gift, but by virtue of baptism we are made part of His One Body. The Church is here to minister that grace to help us get to heaven.
S
steve-b
Guest
The opening post said Catholic faith.
But since Peterâs chair is Rome, that is the True Church of Jesus Christ as are those in union with Peter.
Last edited:
R
Reuben_J
Guest
The difference is in the artificial and natural.
One is artificial and the other is natural.
L
laylow
Guest
So artificial things are evil and natural things are not?
V
Vonsalza
Guest
A line thatâs harder to draw than many think.Reuben_J:
So artificial things are evil and natural things are not?
Ants build an anthill - itâs natural.
Men build an Age of Exploration colony - itâs artificial.
In my limited experience, it boils down to the belief that all sex should ultimately be vaginal, the man must ejaculate inside the vagina and neither can deliberately use any artifice that frustrates the act.
Itâs that targeted and bizarrely specific.
A lot of Catholics will try to âback upâ and defend it from a perspective that sounds more generally justifiable, but these all have âspeed wobblesâ.
For example, itâs not about being âopen to lifeâ because NFP is allowed and the aim of that methodology is to be closed to life.
Itâs not about âkeeping artifice out of your bodyâ or ârespecting Godâs designâ because viagra, blood pressure meds and asprin (among 1000s of others) are all permitted - which are indubitably artifice and frequently frustrate the natural reactions to an unhealthy lifestyle.
Itâs not about exercising restraint because thatâs not what the couple is trying to achieve. Sex-sans-baby is what the couple is trying to achieve.
The policy really seems to be âpenis in vagina at completion, no artifice affecting procreative probabilityâ. No greater principle in play beyond raw divine command theory as presented by the Catholic Church.
âDo âXâ because we say God said so.â
Last edited:
A
Angel_Gabriel
Guest
Yes, and I think part of the problem also is that although the Church allows NFP for just/grave/serious reasons (pick your adjective), there is no laundry list of what those reasons are. I think that really is worrisome to some peopleâŠafter all the Church(mostly the Latin Church ) defines nearly everything under the sun (transubstantiation anyone?) so why canât it define this and give the specificsâŠI think thatâs a huge problem here.
The East doesnât tend to do this so itâs easier to accept using NFP or artificial birthcontrol b/c of that mindset.
The East doesnât tend to do this so itâs easier to accept using NFP or artificial birthcontrol b/c of that mindset.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I think this is at the root of the majority of the western Churchâs ills across history.
This and papal supremacy rather than primacy. But these two issues are conjoined even there.
When you dogmatically define something, you do create a wall to defend from.
But you also create a wall that can be used to box you in.
But youâre right. Post-Roman, Western European Christians loved loved loved staunch legalismâŠ
Last edited:
A
Angel_Gabriel
Guest
Yes mostly definitely. The âtop-downâ structure of the Latin Church which, although useful, is the root of the problem. (Of course this is a whole other topic and discussion in and of itself.)
L
laylow
Guest
Isnât that a microcosm of all religious indoctrination?
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I think thatâs still true if you remove the word âreligiousâ.Vonsalza:
Isnât that a microcosm of all religious indoctrination?
YOU ever seen a black hole or a quark or the plains of Mongolia? I certainly havenâtâŠ
Yet we rationalists still presume theyâre real. We have it on good authority. Like the devout Catholics claim
Last edited:
L
laylow
Guest
Itâs slightly different when something holds true under the scrutiny of peer-reviewed studies and repeated experiments aimed at disproving it.I think thatâs still true if you remove the word âreligiousâ.
YOU ever seen a black hole or a quark or the plains of Mongolia? I certainly havenâtâŠ
Yet we rationalists still presume theyâre real. We have it on good authority. Like the devout Catholics claim
Last edited:
- Status