M
mark_a
Guest
Bob_Bobber0 said:
Reminds me of a friend I have of the predestination kind. I would sometimes encourage him to quit smoking. His response was always the same, “When it’s your time to go, it’s your time to go.”
- Status
Reminds me of a friend I have of the predestination kind. I would sometimes encourage him to quit smoking. His response was always the same, “When it’s your time to go, it’s your time to go.”
J
John_Taylor
Guest
Once a non-Catholic christian - who recognizes the evil of abortion for what it is - can see the evil involved with any “contraceptive method” which can (and does) result in a “silent abortion”, then they will most likely fall back to “barrier methods” but these can inturn be demonstrated as contrary to God’s Will by an honest look at “the sin of Onan” as recorded in Genesis 38:9-10:
The Sin of Onan Revisited by Brian W. Harrison
ccli.org/nfp/morality/bible.php
Keep the Faith
jmt
The Sin of Onan Revisited by Brian W. Harrison
ccli.org/nfp/morality/bible.php
Keep the Faith
jmt
V
Vincent1560
Guest
As a Protestant I can assure you that well reasoned arguments (for Protestants it is true that you have to do a little more than cite the catechism) work, regardless if they are by the Catholic Church or not. For example I learned from Catholics that birth control pills potentially can cause abortions and thus when I marry, my wife and I wont use them. However I see nothing wrong with barrier methods and I don’t believe the scriptures teach that such things are wrong. The sin of Onan is the most commonly cited scripture for those who believe all contraception is wrong, but I just don’t see how if you read it in context you can conclude this.
Genesis 38: 6 Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7 Now Er, Judah’s firstborn, was evil in the Lord’s sight, and the Lord put him to death. 8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife. Perform your duty as her brother-in-law and produce offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he released his semen on the ground so that he would not produce offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was evil in the Lord’s sight, so He put him to death also.
In the red portion we see what Onan was required to do and in the bold portion we see why he did not do it, selfishness and pride. Thus it follows logically that the evil referred to is his failure to fulfill his scriptural obligation to his sister in law and brother because of his pride and selfishness. Reading into the passage a general ban on contraception is improper exegesis in my opinion.
V
Vincent1560
Guest
Also, if you really want to leave it up to God wether you have a child, why practice NFP? NFP and condoms have similar success rates when used properly, so I don’t see how one is leaving the marriage more open to children than the other. God can just as easily cause a condom to break as he can enable a women who shouldn’t be able to get pregnant at a certain time to get pregnant.
M
mark_a
Guest
I think that might interfere with our free will.
M
mark_a
Guest
Has anyone given you the “Before 1930, no Christian denomination approved of any type of birth control” speech yet??
V
Vincent1560
Guest
mark a:
I’ve heard it before. But again, before 1822 saying the earth revolved around the sun could get a guy excommunicated and placed under house arrest.
V
Vincent1560
Guest
mark a:
By that logic so would interfering with a woman’s fertility cycle to enable her to get pregnant while practicing NFP.
M
mark_a
Guest
NFP does not interfere with a woman’s cycle(s).
Having said that, there IS a good bit of disagreement between Catholics about using NFP to avoid pregnancy.
So much of the NFP debate centers around pregnancy avoidance, but I think the real danger is when we assume that responsibility-free sex is a God given RIGHT.
The Church’s teaching hits the bull’s eye, and is a perfect example of it’s infallibility.
J
John_Taylor
Guest
At this point I could only ask that you read the following article:
The Sin of Onan Revisited by Brian W. Harrison
ccli.org/nfp/morality/bible.php
perhaps later we could compare notes.
Keep the Faith
jmt
V
Vincent1560
Guest
mark a:
I don’t think that you should ever marry unless you are able to deal with the responsibility of having sex and potentially having a child. That said I believe that when having children would be unduely burdensome (i.e. recent pregnancy, financial situation, health etc.) a married couple should be able to enjoy sex with each other (a healthy sex life makes for a good marriage and minimizes temptation to sin) while taking steps to minimize the likelihood of conception. Catholics seem to agree with this, but that NFP is the only option. I just don’t see a difference between practicing NFP and using a condom accept in the later case you are able to give yourself to your spouse more frequently which is a good thing in my opinion.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
The argument is based on shoddy reasoning. What if I put a blindfold on myself and fired random shots into a stadium full of people? Suppose I killed someone doing this, and then I argued before court that I wasn’t intentionally trying to kill anyone, and it must have been God’s will for the person to be shot dead, because no one dies unless God allows it. To say I fired the gun is right or wrong is up to God, becaue he is in control … Would any court grant me a not guilty verdict with this stupid argument?
A couple that uses artificial contraception has the intention of making their sexual act as sterile as possible. Their intention is to prevent that act from being open to life. The only reason that they aren’t a hundred percent capable of completely artificially sterilizing themselves is because of the limitations of the technology available to them. If the couple had a choice between using condoms that were 90% effective and 100% effective, would the couple use the condoms that are 90% effective, because that allows for a better possibility of God giving them a baby?
The people that use this lame argument aren’t concerned about what God wants, they are only concerned about artificially sterilizing themselves with the best technology available.
J
John_Taylor
Guest
The problem with barrier methods is that they introduce an unnatural element into the conjugal act… essentially the couple are seeking to separate from the conjugal act that which God has joined together: the unitive function of sex with the procreative function…they render the sex act “unnatural”.
From St Paul’s words in Romans we know that God condemns “unnatural sexual acts” (as most Christians will agree is true with regards to acts of sodomy between same sex couples)…what the Christian couple who employ barrier methods needs to recognize is that their rationalization for “separating what God has joined” to the sex act logically leads to the same rationalization being employed for homosexual/lesbian relations…ie., if heterosexual conjugal relations willfully render sterile is okay with God then the same would be true for homosexual sex relations - provided, of course, they are engaged in with the same “love and commitment to each other” as any heterosexual couple may claim for their relationship…and such, as we now know, is exactly what we are witnessing within our western - post Christian - societies.
Keep the Faith
jmt
From St Paul’s words in Romans we know that God condemns “unnatural sexual acts” (as most Christians will agree is true with regards to acts of sodomy between same sex couples)…what the Christian couple who employ barrier methods needs to recognize is that their rationalization for “separating what God has joined” to the sex act logically leads to the same rationalization being employed for homosexual/lesbian relations…ie., if heterosexual conjugal relations willfully render sterile is okay with God then the same would be true for homosexual sex relations - provided, of course, they are engaged in with the same “love and commitment to each other” as any heterosexual couple may claim for their relationship…and such, as we now know, is exactly what we are witnessing within our western - post Christian - societies.
Keep the Faith
jmt
J
John_Taylor
Guest
Not necessarily, and for good Biblical exegesis reasons your conclusion is faulty. First, the passage affirms that it was for what Onan “did” (and an active Hebrew verb is inspired in the text) that God punished him, NOT for what he “didn’t do”…sorry, I meant to write this morning but I’ve got to go for now…I would like to address Genesis 38:8-9 when I return.
Keep the Faith
jmt
M
mercygate
Guest
Huh? That’s not “interfering,” that’s workin’ with the divine plan!
M
mark_a
Guest
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
Vincent1560:
Periods of sexual “fasting” teach you self control similar to fasting from food and respect for your wife’s incredibly complex womanhood (for lack of the proper term). And we all like a little respect.
We don’t get all the food we want without consequences. Unlimited, consequence-free sex with a barrier is also likely to bring unforeseen undesireable consequences.
Everything you say is logical from the human side, but not from the spiritual side. The Church’s position is that children are not a burden, they are a gift from God. One cannot do God’s will at his own convienience.
Remember, there is still much discussion and disagreement about the proper use of NFP among Catholics.
Except that your spouse may not want your wrapped gift of yourself as often as you would like to present yourself to her.
Periods of sexual “fasting” teach you self control similar to fasting from food and respect for your wife’s incredibly complex womanhood (for lack of the proper term). And we all like a little respect.
We don’t get all the food we want without consequences. Unlimited, consequence-free sex with a barrier is also likely to bring unforeseen undesireable consequences.
M
mark_a
Guest
True, but irrelevent to this thread.I’ve heard it before. But again, before 1822 saying the earth revolved around the sun could get a guy excommunicated and placed under house arrest.
V
Vincent1560
Guest
mark a:
I was trying to make the point that just because something is widely condemned at one time, doesn’t make it wrong or sinful. And to make it more applicable, when most protestants condemned birth control along with Catholics they did not have a healthy view of sexuality. They believed a woman was to resist her husband as much as possible and only give in to his needs reluctantly. Many churches also refused to read Song of Solomon, because it depicted both a man and woman enjoying sex. I am not sure if this attitude was also prevalent among Catholics at the time, but I wouldn’t be suprised.
V
Vincent1560
Guest
mark a:
I believe abstaining for periods of fasting and prayer is good and wise. But I don’t think these periods need to correspond to a woman’s hormonal cycle. As for a woman not liking “a wrapped gift” I think it depends on the woman. Just like all other sexual acts, you must always respect your spouse’s wishes. For example if I were to marry a woman uncomfortable with any kind of birth control other than NFP I would respect that. But as I don’t view barrier methods as sinful, I would think it acceptable to use them so long as my wife was comfortable and in agreement with it.
M
mark_a
Guest
I see your points but do not agree with them. My quoting Catholic scources would fall on deaf ears.
Nearly all such questions have been previously addressed by the Church. Some early writings get right down to the nitty-gritty. For example, there are writings that address whether a man or woman can demand payment of the “marital debt” during menstration.
But for myself, it is good to know that the Church throughout history has examined these sexual issues. Can you imagine how difficult it must be for a young couple with raging hormones to submit to a Johnny-come-lately church authority?
The Church is here to address sexual issues as they develope. And as they develope, they become less about sex and more about life. These issues will continue to evolve. And the Church will be there. And when the issues are tough, the Church will be led by the Holy Spirit to the stricter, least popular position.
- Status