Problably going to regret posting this

[John_oxios]

Ok! So we can actually agree that there is no real scriptural basis for the Church’s teaching on contraception! It is based solely on tradition.

Hi LaSainte,
Let’s get more specific, In a marriage or outside the marriage? Or both? Marrrigae in the RC Church is a Sacrament, whereas in Protestant Church’s it is a civil union process

Who was it that is pushing the church’s to change their teaching on contraception prior to 1948? and why? Ever hear of Zero population growth, the fight is not coming from within but from outside.

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

That’s the point. If I thought it came from God, there would be no argument. I don’t recall the Apostles ever discussing contraception. I don’t see where it was a matter of divine revelation. The fact is that divine revelation ended with the death of the last apostle and there is NOTHING in their writings about contraception or anything even remotely close. That is why people cling so rabidly to the unlikely story of Onan. Without being a part of divine revelation or directly related to it, this teaching cannot be dogmatized I think?

Does anyone have any idea when the earliest writings re: contraception came from within the Church?

Hi LaSainte,
Onan sin and read the Torah was his own selfishness, ‘coitus interruptus,’ he pulled out because he did not want to mar Tamars beauty in making her pregnant, and how many guys think like that? I knew a few.

As far as earliest writings Catholicism’s roots lie in Hebraic Teachings, they may be ancient but they haven’t changed, ‘nothing knew under the sun’ history doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes, man makes mistakes, suffers, turns to God, receives forgiveness, generations later… man repeats same mistakes… and so on that’s human nature.

Only Jesus can Change our nature if we allow Him too.

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

Yes! I’ve read it before today and it still makes no sense as to why anyone would interpret the story that way.

Can anyone here honestly tell me that if you were taking a literature course and read this story and were asked to submit a paper on it, that your paper would actually make the claim that this story is about the evils of all contraception excluding NFP?

No! If this were a story in the Iliad, and Zeus killed this guy, you would interpret it in a much different way because anyone without an agenda would. It is only when you insert an anti-contraception agenda into it that you can even APPROACH making a claim that this story is about contraception.

Hi,

Ancient stories "myths’ (Which use to mean a truth) used the story to reveal a truth. a myth is reduced to a fable.

We are not talking folkelore,we are talking biblical lessons… God does not waste His Words. Man disobeys God, man suffers.
Wisdom 1:12
Court not death by your erring way of life, nor draw to yourselves destruction by the works of your hands.
13
Because God did not make death, nor does he rejoice in the destruction of the living.

Onan is a aprox, 1700 b.c. there aren’t too many ways to prevent babies? That I’m aware of back then . maybe they could have used 'Ye Olde Sheepskin, back then?]

The biblical word they used is ‘wasted his seed’ so yes, people can project from that, but the context of the story is Onan who would not provide a son, under the Law for his brother Er’s widow, so ER’s name could live on in the records of Israel, and his children receive the promises of God in the Holy land. Which as a son of Abraham he was entittled too. Resurrection revelation comes later, here Israel believes they live on by their seed. So is it a contraceptive practice? no doubt! was it wrong, no doubt, was it a most selfish act? no doubt! So find the right in this story. There’ more to written scripture, than just what you want to see.

Contraception opened the door to ‘free love’ in the sixties, porn, adultery by minimizing the consequences . STD’s and the chances of getting caught can minimized, ergo we think less of the consequence, (who’s gonna know) our secrets/ the hidden things we do make us sicker, but we’re all sorry when we do get caught. your sin will find you out.

Num 32:23 But if you will not do so, behold, you have sinned against the LORD; and be sure your sin will find you out.

The Holy Spirit convicts us of our sin, when WE are READY TO GIVE EAR to the Message heard, Faith comes by hearing. And when we hear it we feel guilt, but until then we fight, grumble… we hang on…why? because we want what we want when we want it our way … Just like Onan, that’s Human nature!

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

Apparently not. The Church traditionally holds (based on scripture and tradition) a pro-life position, whether it is on procreation, abortion, euthanasia or outright murder. These elements cover the gamut of human propagation and life cycle. We as Catholics believe that life is sacred and we are to be open to and supportive of life.

hello Soldier,
I agree, scripturally they could not eat meat with blood. Life is in the Blood.
nor could they boils a calf in the milk because milk represented life… it would be mixing life and death.
Essentially sex with contraception is mixing a pro creative act with all intent to thwart the purpose, Like the Hebrews somebody probably could have come up with 613 different scenarios to allow for contraception under modern use. Ie. health, to prevent having children too close together for the mother’s safety… etc…etc… to get around the Law.
But in the catholic Church all life is Sacred, and once we draw a line, well then, someone will blur it.

People forget Scripture is about God teaching man through his own mistakes. read all of Genesis, before the Ten Commandments given man broke them all, and then God pointed out man’s wrong, to help keep him on the path. The Church, Guided by the Holy Spirit, til Christ’s return teaches us how to follow that path til He comes to judge, the faithful and the unfaithful.

God bless,
John

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

**Why NFP is not contraception according to common sense.

Are all forms of birth control contraception? **

No! If they were you would have to accuse all couples that practice or have practiced abstinence (including Saint Joseph and the Virgin Mary) as using contraception. This would be ridiculous. Now do I need to explain how not having sex is not contraception? I hope not.

If the marital act is done when a woman is not ovulating is it always contraception?

No! However if you claim that NFP is contraception then this is what your stating. Which means you believe the only time a husband should have sex with his wife is when she is ovulating since any other time would be contraception. This would be ridiculous!

Can ABC’s be used to increase the chances of pregnancy?

No! NFP on the other hand can do this.

I pray that people can now see why NFP is not contraception and why it can never be called contraception.

 

[John_oxios]

i said baptism is scriptural, i said it isn’t scriptural that it is required for salvation, and NONE of the verses support that. and IF there was a verse that said baptism was required for salvation, then that would contradict other verses saying all you need is to believe.

and those verses don’t support confessing to a priest, they support repenting, (apologizing) and asking G-d for forgiveness. so again, i don’t see scriptural backup.

also i am not sure if your protestant comment was supposed to be directed at me, but i am not protestant, so doesn’t really apply.

also, i have always found it so intriguing how easy it is for Catholics to belittle others.

i disagree with a lot of catholic teachings, however, i respect your beliefs and will never mock you. i only wish you would have the same respect.

Hello RuthY…
You belittle what you don’t know or understand.
Catholics belittling others?? We get pounced on all the street, in the media, in our own forums all the time. did you know Catholics were beaten in the streets of NYC as late as 1920 for not reading out of a Protestant bibles? that there was a government movement 1880 to throw us Catholics out of the country? This country is founded Protestant values not catholic.

 Now, First one  believes  and because you believe you get baptized, Why delay? What prevents you?  Faith is belief in action.. doubt is unbelief.  Have you read Acts?

Scripture is very clear OLd and new:

Act 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.

Eight people were saved through Water, Noah and his family. unbelievers, left behind, Genesis ch. 6,7,8; 1Peter 3:20
If the Hebrews did not sprinkle blood on the lintel would they have been saved?
If they did not eat on the Lamb would they have been saved?
If the Hebrews did not cross though the parted waters of the Jordan, would they have been saved?
If Naaman did not dunk seven times would he have been cured?

Act 8:36 "And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?”

This one’s pretty clear to me,

Mar 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

This one also:

1Pe 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

If after coming to Christ, you’re not appealing for a clear conscious (forgiveness of your confession as a sinner) what made you, drop to your knees and confess HIM?

John preached a baptism of repentance to prepare for Jesus’ coming.
In submitting to baptism we die to this world and rise in Christ.

One other reason Jesus told His Apostles and disciples to go out and preach the Gospel and baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Matt 28:19,

Jesus said, Luke 12:49, 50, "I came to send fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished.

D. Guzik Blue letter bible commentary:

• The purifying power Jesus spoke of - the power of the Holy Spirit in our lives - could only come after He had accomplished His work on the cross (I have a baptism to be baptized with).

i. The fact that Jesus speaks of His suffering as a baptism is instructive. He wasn’t “sprinkled” with suffering; He was immersed in agony. In the same way, we are to baptized into Christ and baptized with the Holy Spirit, immersed and overflowing.*

Rom 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

• oh, excuse me? You refuse to be baptized?/I]

How about:

Act 18:8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

Act 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Hearing isn't just through the ears,  but it's also through the heart.. taht's where the Holy Spirit works.   they say the longest journey is from the head too the heart.  some people just don't get it there all head. logic without belief of the things not seen is not faith.

God bless,
John*

 

[Debora123]

Yeah like those uneducated apologists on CAF that write the stuff for the library section. catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

If you need help removing your foot from your mouth feel free to PM me. I know I’m not going to be much of a help since I can’t be physically present but I will do my best to give you clear directions via PM.

No foot in the mouth, but thanks for the generous, non sarcastic offer.

I stand by what I said because it is the truth. There is nothing in the bible that is anti contraception. Many here have already explained why the story of Onan in not about contraception. Once again, people will believe what they want.

 

[Debora123]

Yeah I mean most sins are laid out pretty clearly in the bible. Yet the sinfulness or not sinfulness of contraception is not laid out clearly in the bible. The closest thing to support for that seems to to be the Onan story but it still poor reasoning to apply that story to all contraception expect of course NFP,which of course presents another logical problem But yeah I think most just reading the Onan story on its own at best might interpret that to mean pulling out is wrong but I donlt think many would say oh this must be all contraception is wrong but except of course carefully charting your spouses fertile signs to make sure that you only have sex on days she is infertile!

EEEExactly.

 

[Debora123]

The Old Testament and New Testament do not explicitly prohibit abortion either.

Uhhh… thy shall not kill???

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

No foot in the mouth, but thanks for the generous, non sarcastic offer.

Sure about that? And your welcome.

I stand by what I said because it is the truth. There is nothing in the bible that is anti contraception. Many here have already explained why the story of Onan in not about contraception.

Yes they have explained why they think it’s not about contraception but their explanation doesn’t make sense and I find it funny that a Catholic would take their side over their own Church’s view. You along with the others are incorrect.

Please read: catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9107chap.asp

Once again, people will believe what they want.

Oh yes Deb you are living proof of this. Unfortunately that’s not something to be proud of.

 

[Debora123]

Sure about that? And your welcome.

110%.

Yes they have explained why they think it’s not about contraception but their explanation doesn’t make sense and I find it funny that a Catholic would take their side over their own Church’s view. You along with the others are incorrect.

I have no idea how it makes no sense to you, but alright, we agree to disagree.

Oh yes Deb you are living proof of this. Unfortunately that’s not something to be proud of.

Thanks for the compliment.

 

[John_oxios]

i said baptism is scriptural, i said it isn’t scriptural that it is required for salvation, and NONE of the verses support that. and IF there was a verse that said baptism was required for salvation, then that would contradict other verses saying all you need is to believe.

and those verses don’t support confessing to a priest, they support repenting, (apologizing) and asking G-d for forgiveness. so again, i don’t see scriptural backup.

also i am not sure if your protestant comment was supposed to be directed at me, but i am not protestant, so doesn’t really apply.

also, i have always found it so intriguing how easy it is for Catholics to belittle others.

i disagree with a lot of catholic teachings, however, i respect your beliefs and will never mock you. i only wish you would have the same respect.

Hi Ruth,

Let’s see, not a protestant? Hmmmm, Jew for Jesus that would be a schism from Judaism, and you don’t belief in the teachings of the Catholic Church, hmmm that’s people have been calling a protestant (an adherent of any of those Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome during the Reformation, or of any group descended from them.)

Only one thing unites the protestants, not there beliefs, but “Protestants hold a great variety of beliefs, but they are united in rejecting the authority of the pope”

If your Temple, Synagogue, establishment hasn’t been around since 33 a.d. your either Jew, or a pagan or protestant. (Muslims est. 650 a.d).

Pointing to the scriptures, ‘baptism now saves you…’ by refusing to get your feet wet, do you make it into the promised land? that’s called disobedience.

As for confession??? Who do you confess to? God and God alone?? How’s that work out?? repentance is a 180 degree turn around. so you commit a sin… in Hebrew law you pay for the harm and pain you have caused… restitution, and go and sacrifice your best livestock, why because sin costs.

Pro 6:1 My son, if you have become surety for your neighbor, Have given a pledge for a stranger,

Pro 6:2 If you have been snared with the words of your mouth, Have been caught with the words of your mouth,

Pro 6:3 Do this then, my son, and deliver yourself; Since you have come into the hand of your neighbor, Go, humble yourself, and importune your neighbor.

Pro 6:4 Give no sleep to your eyes, Nor slumber to your eyelids;

Pro 6:5 Deliver yourself like a gazelle from the hunter’s hand And like a bird from the hand of the fowler.

Private confession and God is not scriptural, In the Hebrew Scriptures the sinner would drag his best goat, lamb, cow bleating, mooing all the way to Temple for all to see, he had to confess to the priest the reason and purpose of his sacrifice and the priest would offer his sacrifice to see if it was acceptable to the Lord.

In Catholicism, we are all in Christ, admitted sinners there is no shame praying in Church prior to confession, waiting in line in admittance that we are sinners as we beat our chest in humility. Going in and verbally, audibly admit our in the presence of the priest to God
and restitution is not about just going out and saying prayers, it is about making things right, and that is what a priest is there for to remind God is forgiving when we confess with a contrite heart, and God through his priest as His instrument absolves us of our confessed sin.

No where is it biblically okay, to have a private confession with God and then move on like nothing ever happened. It’s to easy that way, man can in his own mind b.s. God, foxhole prayers? Oh God get me out of this I won’t do it again, 'I swear" Two weeks later finds himself foxhole praying again… In Catholicism, we have to go back and confess it again, the priest is not only there to listen… but to help straighten our crooked path, by prayer, guidance and teaching… along with God, the Church he helps straighten our path if we are willing to change… and it not saves a whole lot of secular therapy, which points to God and His Church anyway.

God bless,

 

[DemetriusB]

The cumulative weight of the evidence - the structure and sexual explicitness of the text itself and the much greater severity of Onan’s punishment than that prescribed for levirate marriage infringements in Deuteronomy 25: 5-6 - leads us to conclude that while Genesis 38: 9-10 very probably includes disapproval of Onan’s lack of piety toward his deceased brother, it is nonetheless the unnatural sex act in itself which is presented as the most gravely sinful aspect of this man’s treatment of Tamar - the aspect for which God cut short his life. If the inspired author, while knowing the same historical facts, had evaluated them in the way most modern exegetes would have us believe he did (i.e., with complete moral indifference toward Onan’s contraceptive act as such), then we would expect quite different wording: “spilling the seed,” being irrelevant to the author’s interest and purpose on that hypothesis, would probably not even have been mentioned. Instead, we would expect to be faced with an account stating more discreetly that even though Onan took Tamar legally as his wife, he refused to allow her to conceive, so that God slew him for his “hardness of heart,” his pride, or perhaps his avarice (in wanting his brother’s property to pass to himself and his own sons).

rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

I have no idea how it makes no sense to you, but alright, we agree to disagree.

I’t doesn’t make sense because in their explination the punishment Onan received does not fit the crime! This is explained in the link --which I will just copy and paste since you probably didnt bother to read it.

**THE SIN OF ONAN **
By MARK BRUMLEY

WHAT DOES the Bible say about contraception? “Nothing!” reply many today–including some Catholic theologians and biblical scholars. Yet traditional manuals of moral theology cite Genesis 38:6-10 as an argument against contraception. Does this passage have anything to offer on the question? Let’s look at the text:

"Judah got a wife named Tamar for his firstborn, Er. But Er, Judah’s firstborn, greatly offended the Lord, so the Lord took his life. Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Unite with your brother’s widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother’s line.’

“Onan, however, knew that the descendents would not be counted as his; so, whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the Lord, and the Lord took his life too.”

Onan was supposed to marry his deceased brother’s childless widow. This practice, known as the Levirate law (from the Latin levir, meaning “a husband’s brother”), was required by the Law of Moses (Deut. 25:5-10) and was intended to insure an unmarried brother would “raise up seed for the deceased brother that his name be not blotted out of Israel.”

The argument against contraception, specifically coitus interruptus, based on this passage used to be considered straightforward. In recent years, both Protestant and Catholic commentators have downplayed, if not outright rejected, the anti-contraception interpretation of this text. Their argument goes like this: Onan’s sin consisted solely in his abandonment of his familial obligations to his dead brother. Onan performed the act which bears his name because the child which might have resulted would have been counted as his brother’s, rather than his own–something Onan found intolerable.

The difficulty with this argument is that violation of the Levirate law was not a capital offense. If a man didn’t fulfill his obligations to his deceased brother’s wife, she was to take the matter to the elders, who would counsel him and try to persuade him to change his mind. If he persisted, the widow was to “go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, saying publicly, ‘This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother’s family!’” (Deut. 25:9).

While such a punishment might be embarrassing, it falls short of the death sentence Onan received for his act. This suggests he sinned not only by violating the Levirate law, but also by the way in which he did so. The kind of act he committed was so despicable that, in the Old Testament context, it was punishable by death.

John Kippley, in Covenant, Christ and Contraception (New York: Alba House, 1970, page 19), explains it this way:

“Onan went through the motions of the life-giving act but refused to accept the consequences. He withdrew in order that the act could carry no reproductive consequences . . . [H]e went through the motions of the Levirate covenant, but he denied the reality of that covenant.”

Catholic teaching regards marriage as a covenant which has as one of its constituent elements an openness to new life and the procreative good. Sexual intercourse involves a renewal of the marriage covenant. Contraceptive intercourse is a violation of that covenant because it acts directly against procreation, one of the basic goods of marriage.

By acting contraceptively, Onan robbed sexual intercourse of its life-giving meaning and acted against the good of his potential offspring’s life. Both his intent and his concrete actions were against life. As a result, Onan received the Old Testament penalty for his crime.

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9107chap.asp

Pretty sound argument. Maybe you can explain why Onan received the death penalty for a crime that was not punishable by death according to the Law. If you cant explain it then feel free to respond with a

Thanks for the compliment.

Your welcome Deb.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I do beg to differ on one of your points though. NFP is MY judgement alone, which my husband trusts,…

that’s his cooperation. He is also not demanding sex from you when you are fertile and I’ll assume he is faithful. So, he is your partner in NFP.

Friend of mine conceived on the pill. That was a disaster.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Hello LaSainte,
Faith is belief in action, either you believe in the Church, or not?

I do not “believe in” the Church. My faith is in God, and I do not conflate the two.

 

[John_oxios]

No foot in the mouth, but thanks for the generous, non sarcastic offer.

I stand by what I said because it is the truth. There is nothing in the bible that is anti contraception. Many here have already explained why the story of Onan in not about contraception. Once again, people will believe what they want.

Hello deb,
What are your qualifications? to say whats in there or not? Study Hebrew? ancient Greek? The ancient Church? Customs? Sacred Traditions? traditions? Judaism?
Back in the day, you were considered wet behind the ears til you were about thirty. It is why Jesus began His earthly ministry @ 30 yrs of age. You had to experience what they taught you befroe age 21 before you could expound on your life experience and knowledge.

            I love people who believe they know whats in the Bible entirely, by what people tell them, they do not look. Not everything is expressly written, that is why God has teaching authorities, Patriarchs, prophets, sages and so on... and even then they did not understand.

Judaism was not a sola scriptura religion, they believed in Revelation and inspiration through their God sent leaders.

At least these people are digging, seeking a greater understanding of the subject, instead of dismissing it entirely, simply. Trinity is not in there either but you believe the teaching?

You have some three thousand yrs of Hebrew, Christian instruction to now fumble through, Why were all Christian faiths against contraceptive practices until 1930? Had to be a Reason!!!

            Though extreme this was an ancient contraceptive practice, and it was forbidden, todays its called vasectomy.

Jewish law also prohibits the sterilization of a male,

Deut 31: “Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them”

Deu 23:1 "He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the LORD.

“Shall not enter the assembly of the Lord” : Eunuchs were excluded because God’s covenant with Israel was vitally connected with the idea of the seed, and emasculation is a “crime” against the seed of man. Additionally, most eunuchs were made to be so in pagan ceremonies where they were dedicated to pagan gods.

Through Seed/ offspring we follow ‘go forth and multiply’ That is a command, it does not say when you ‘choose too’ or ‘not too.’ It was a sin for a man to waste his seed.

Biblically a Marriage has two purposes pro-creation and companionship. Biblically relations outside the marriage were forbidden.

The term family Jewels, comes from biblical expression.

Gen 24:2 And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh:

Gen 24:3 And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell.

The servants hands are not on Abrahams thigh, but cupping his testicles,
Strong’s #H3409, 1) thigh, side, loin, base
a) thigh

1. outside of thigh (where sword was worn)
2. loins (as the seat of procreative power)

No technical term for ‘testes’ back then.

Why? According to ancient custom, this describes a very serious oath. Abraham is extremely concerned that Isaac not be married to a Canaanite bride.
They took their seed, their ability/ obligation to God word to reproduce very seriously! In fact it, next to God it was everything. That’s why, Abraham’s obedience in sacrificing Isaac his only son was like the end of everything, by God’s will. Children are a gift from God, and Abraham knew it all too well.

To waste that seed was a crime against God, and humanity. They believed the seed is the beginning of life, and thier future, where we believe it begins at conception, and if everyone believed as they did today… there would be no abortion.

There are many things traditions, thoughts,words and symbols the Catholic’s lost, by removing ourselves from our Jewish roots for centuries… now we have to look back and see where they came from to re-identify why we do what we do.

Bottom line, Contraception is wrong because your Roman Catholic Church states it as so, that’s the teaching. Anything else, is a horse of another color. Looks and walks the same yet?

God bless,
John

 

[Debora123]

I’t doesn’t make sense because in their explination the punishment Onan received does not fit the crime! This is explained in the link --which I will just copy and paste since you probably didnt bother to read it.

Pretty sound argument. Maybe you can explain why Onan received the death penalty for a crime that was not punishable by death according to the Law. If you cant explain it then feel free to respond with a

Nope, wrong again. No shrug.

I have read it. There are theological arguments both ways and I believe yours holds absolutely no water. It is a very big reach and quite ridiculous in my opinion. If Onan was using NFP to avoid an heir for his brother, he would have been punished just the same. End of story.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Nope, wrong again. No shrug.

Funny how you avoided explaining the reason for why Onan was killed especially since the reason you state is not a crime punishable by death in the Old Law!

I have read it.

Reading something and understanding it are hardly the same thing. Did you understand it Deb?

There are theological arguments both ways and I believe yours holds absolutely no water.

Yes one side of the argument comes from a sound teaching authority called the Catholic Church while the other comes from the Church of Deb. Sadly the Church of Deb has zero authority in these matters and a lack of qualifications.

It is a very big reach and quite ridiculous in my opinion.

Thank God opinions arent fact.

If Onan was using NFP to avoid an heir for his brother, he would have been punished just the same.

No Deb your wrong because NFP is not contraception.

**Why NFP is not contraception according to common sense.

Are all forms of birth control contraception? **

No! If they were you would have to accuse all couples that practice or have practiced abstinence (including Saint Joseph and the Virgin Mary) as using contraception. This would be ridiculous. Now do I need to explain how not having sex is not contraception? I hope not.

If the marital act is done when a woman is not ovulating is it always contraception?

No! However if you claim that NFP is contraception then this is what your stating. Which means you believe the only time a husband should have sex with his wife is when she is ovulating since any other time would be contraception. This would be ridiculous!

Can ABC’s be used to increase the chances of pregnancy?

No! NFP on the other hand can do this

Your positioin that NFP is the same as contraception is ridiculous.

End of story.

Unfortunately it’s not. You still have to give a valid explanation for how your fairy tale came to its conclusion.

 

[Ruthyankees]

uggggggh. this thread has turned tenfold into what i expected/didn’t want it to be.

i didn’t want a debate, or the holier than though responses this is full of. simply asked Biblical support of not using contraception.

and i haven’t been on here for a few days (i somehow got pneumonia in august) and after reading the first 2 pages that i am behind on, i am not going to read the last three. i have come to the conclusion that in this situation that apparently we can’t agree to disagree, i will never see it your way. and you will never see it mine, now maybe i am far too open minded, because, i don’t think that is always a bad thing. i was looking to be educated, not to be a part of a adolescent bickering. but aside from the patronization, belittling and over all anger i have sensed, i got my answer, in fact, i got some other answers i wasn’t looking for. so i guess in a way, thank you. but overall, not only have been completely turned off by Catholicism, but religion in general. it’s always the same…