I
IWantGod
Guest
Here is my solution to the energy crisis…
- Status
I
IWantGod
Guest
Here is my solution to over population.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
It feels like you’re describing Manila.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
For the scenarios that I have in mind it’s not a matter of choosing not to do anything, but not being able to do anything sufficiently effective. Life doesn’t exactly thrive when there is extreme resource competition. Not everyone is going to be able to get what is needed and as a result there will be less people with which to compete.
I
IWantGod
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
The principle of double effect.
B
buffalo
Guest
There is no such thing as overpopulation. Trust that God will provide.
I
IWantGod
Guest
History tells me that our physical existence is not guaranteed. It’s not a qeustion of what God’s going to do about it. It’s more a qeustion of what we are going to do about it and what we are going to do with the good that’s been given to each and everyone of us. I think thats what God wants from us. What are we going to do with our good.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Demographic Winter - the decline of the human family
I
IWantGod
Guest
Can the principle of double effect work for over-population?
B
buffalo
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
That’s a new one.
Kind of like square triangles.
I
IWantGod
Guest
Not really. Can you explain?
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
That’s what we usually think when we hear the word contraception.
Contraception is the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse.
This could conceivably include natural methods. Either way NFP is certainly a form of birth control.
Not according to google.
I
IWantGod
Guest
The intentional prevention of conception by artificial or natural means.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Vonsalza:
That’s a new one.
Kind of like square triangles.
Your understanding certainly seem in-line with that of the Catholic Church.
Non-Catholic sources, however, do not give it such a limited definition. Onanism and NFP are both considered contraception with very little ambiguity. Neither use artifice or object.
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
R
Rau
Guest
Do you think you can best determine the substance of what the church teaches by examining a dictionary definition of a word (like “contraception”) or by reading the church’s exposition of what it teaches? The dictionary holds no revelation about what is good or evil, and the meaning of church doctrine doesn’t evolve with dictionary editions.
You have been given several crystal clear explanations of exactly what the church teaches is wrong in the matter of regulating births. It is quite plain that NFP is not within the scope of what the church teaches is wrong, and which she calls “contraception”.
The church does not oppose all those steps taken to avoid pregnancy, regardless of whether the dictionary might capture some of then under the term “contraception”. It opposes only those that interfere with actual sexual acts - that disrupt the ordering of those acts.
I don’t know the basis of your position in this debate. May I say your responses seem to suggest not a lack of capacity to understand, but a lack of willingness to give up a hobbyhorse.
I have discussed NFP with many on CAF over many years. Often I find that those who will not budge from the “NFP is contraception” position make that claim so that they can persuade themselves that contraception is acceptable because it is not really different than NFP which the Church accepts. They are not looking to denigrate NFP, but to elevate contraception to “religious respectability” (in their own mind, at least). I’m not saying that is your perspective, but it is not uncommon.
Last edited:
- Status