Why must a married couple be open to life?

[Thorns]

It seems like in man’s early developmental stages a lot of bizarre things were permitted due to the circumstances. Things like incest, adultery/polygamy, and killing were allowed and in some cases, even commanded.

So how do we know that the command to “be fruitful and multiply” was also not one of those commands due to the circumstances of the earth being empty? Is it possible that it was only a requirement at the time so that the earth would be populated and now that it has already been achieved, and more than achieved, it is no longer mandatory?

Thoughts?

 

[Itsjuslittleme]

Christ, who is God, teaches us through His Church.
His Church is infallible with regards to teachings on faith, and morals.
His Church teaches us that we must be open to life.
Therefore, God infallibly teaches us that we must still be open to life.

 

[Thorns]

Christ, who is God, teaches us through His Church.
His Church is infallible with regards to teachings on faith, and morals.
His Church teaches us that we must be open to life.
Therefore, God infallibly teaches us that we must still be open to life.

This just isnt a satisfactory answer. I already know that.

Why does the Church, or the Holy Spirit, pick and choose which ancient teaching it wants to keep and which ones it wants to drop? Does it just do this arbitrarily or is there a reason?

 

[Peter_Plato]

It seems like in man’s early developmental stages a lot of bizarre things were permitted due to the circumstances. Things like incest, adultery/polygamy, and killing were allowed and in some cases, even commanded.

So how do we know that the command to “be fruitful and multiply” was also not one of those commands due to the circumstances of the earth being empty? Is it possible that it was only a requirement at the time so that the earth would be populated and now that it has already been achieved, and more than achieved, it is no longer mandatory?

Thoughts?

There are a rather odd number of associations made in your argument.

It is not clear that incest was ever “allowed” and it is not obvious how permitting killing is conducive to being “fruitful and multiplying.” That polygamy occurred is not deniable, but its mere occurrence does not amount to it being condoned or positively mandated by God.

As to “being fruitful” no longer being mandated, it is questionable whether it ever was. It may have been a general directive, but it was never, I don’t think, an imperative command. Paul advised that it was better for some not to marry at a time when, obviously, the Earth was not nearly as populated as it is now.

Marriage is a vocation and ought to be seen in that light. Part of the vocation is to be open to new life precisely because it is making use of the gift by which God instrumentally creates new human beings. The potential of that gift ought to be respected and not abused. If a person perceives that their vocation is not to “be fruitful” then there is no necessity to enter marriage. We are not commanded to be married.

The gift of sexuality is an aspect of stewardship, it isn’t one to which we are entitled for its own sake. That is a complete misapprehension of what it means to be a creature. Nothing we have, not even our own lives, are “owned” by us. We have been given use or lease of what we have, not carte blanche, but also guidelines in terms of what is acceptable use.

 

[TimothyH]

The command to be fruitful and multiply was never abrogated.

Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the teaching of the Church have no record of that command ever being reversed. On the contrary, Jesus restored the relationship between man and woman to the way it was “In the beginning” in Matthew 18:8-9.

We know it was not temporary command because it has never been rescinded.

-Tim-

 

[Tablefor9]

The command to be fruitful and multiply was never abrogated.

Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the teaching of the Church have no record of that command ever being reversed. On the contrary, Jesus restored the relationship between man and woman to the way it was “In the beginning” in Matthew 18:8-9.

We know it was not temporary command because it has never been rescinded.

-Tim-

This ^^^^^.

And, quite frankly, it’s an amazing thing to me that one would say God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, saying something “just isn’t good enough”. Being neither blind nor obtuse, I see people live as though it weren’t good enough all the time, and it’s deeply troubling. To see it in print is a slap in the face that reeks of pride.

 

[Itsjuslittleme]

This just isnt a satisfactory answer. I already know that.

Why does the Church, or the Holy Spirit, pick and choose which ancient teaching it wants to keep and which ones it wants to drop? Does it just do this arbitrarily or is there a reason?

Would God do things arbitrarily? I think you know the answer to that. Is your question one of skepticism, or “faith, seeking understanding”?!

 

[Thorns]

Would God do things arbitrarily? I think you know the answer to that. Is your question one of skepticism, or “faith, seeking understanding”?!

Im playing devils advocate for the sake of bettter understanding. Sometimes these are the questions or doubts that pop into my mind and I want to ask questions.

 

[Thorns]

The command to be fruitful and multiply was never abrogated.

Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the teaching of the Church have no record of that command ever being reversed. On the contrary, Jesus restored the relationship between man and woman to the way it was “In the beginning” in Matthew 18:8-9.

We know it was not temporary command because it has never been rescinded.

-Tim-

Were the other temporary commands ever reversed? If so, when and for what reason?

 

[Thorns]

There are a rather odd number of associations made in your argument.

It is not clear that incest was ever “allowed” and it is not obvious how permitting killing is conducive to being “fruitful and multiplying.” That polygamy occurred is not deniable, but its mere occurrence does not amount to it being condoned or positively mandated by God.

Incest had to be allowed. How else could the children of Adam and Eve procreate to populate the earth?

Polygamy was allowed and even instructed. Abraham and Onan come to mind.

As to “being fruitful” no longer being mandated, it is questionable whether it ever was. It may have been a general directive, but it was never, I don’t think, an imperative command. Paul advised that it was better for some not to marry at a time when, obviously, the Earth was not nearly as populated as it is now.

Im under the impression God commanded it.

Paul also said its better for some to marry than to burn with desire.

Marriage is a vocation and ought to be seen in that light. Part of the vocation is to be open to new life precisely because it is making use of the gift by which God instrumentally creates new human beings. The potential of that gift ought to be respected and not abused. If a person perceives that their vocation is not to “be fruitful” then there is no necessity to enter marriage. We are not commanded to be married.

But for those who marry because its better than to burn with lust, this wouldn’t seem to indicate being open to life but an option to extinguish or control the flame of desire.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Incest had to be allowed. How else could the children of Adam and Eve procreate to populate the earth?

tofspot.blogspot.ca/2011/09/adam-and-eve-and-ted-and-alice.html

 

[Peter_Plato]

Polygamy was allowed and even instructed. …and Onan come to mind.

I’m not clear how a story that ends with “What he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also…” demonstrates God’s allowance, particularly since it was Judah (one who had clearly committed prior wrong) who did the “instructing” and not God.

Abraham is another question. It was Sarah (and not God), in that case, who prodded Abraham. There are many ways to read the story and a very plausible one is that Abraham’s listening to his wife Sarah (in her attempt to preempt God’s timing RE: him having a child in his old age) rather than trusting God’s promise is what convinced him that the sacrifice of Isaac was a just consequence of his actions.

 

[RedFox0456]

Incest had to be allowed. How else could the children of Adam and Eve procreate to populate the earth?

Polygamy was allowed and even instructed. Abraham and Onan come to mind.

Im under the impression God commanded it.

Paul also said its better for some to marry than to burn with desire.

But for those who marry because its better than to burn with lust, this wouldn’t seem to indicate being open to life but an option to extinguish or control the flame of desire.

The problem with your incest argument is such - it only follows if you read Genesis literally. The Old Testament uses a great deal of symbolism and metaphorical language and was meant to be interpreted by teachers who had studied and been taught themselves. So when we read the Old Testament we have to be careful not to read it like a history book.

We also know that the Old Covenant with God was incomplete, hence the necessity to be fulfilled in Christ. We also understand that although there are righteous figures in the Old Testament, not everything they did was perfect - just as even our saints have had their imperfections (see: St. Nicholas punching Arius in the face). So we can’t take every action as the fulfillment of God’s Law.

 

[Thorns]

tofspot.blogspot.ca/2011/09/adam-and-eve-and-ted-and-alice.html

I skimmed through it, but what I got out of it is that the earth was already populated by manlike creatures and then one day God granted one a soul and then a female a soul. Is that correct?

In which case that still isnt clear to me. So the children of Adam and Eve bred with the other manlike creatures to avoid incest, but at the same time we’d consider those actions bestiality, which is even more bizarre.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I skimmed through it, but what I got out of it is that the earth was already populated by manlike creatures and then one day God granted one a soul and then a female a soul. Is that correct?

In which case that still isnt clear to me. So the children of Adam and Eve bred with the other manlike creatures to avoid incest, but at the same time we’d consider those actions bestiality, which is even more bizarre.

Unfortunately, if you skimmed the article, you likely missed the best parts, but so be it.

Why would bestiality be entailed if the physical attribute (genome) of Adam was identical to that of the others? They were not merely primates, but humans who lacked the capacity for sapience or abstract thought. Physically, except for very tiny (perhaps) epigenetic and neuronal differences in the brain - akin to a switch being thrown (a light going on) - they were no different than Adam. The difference was, in a sense, hugely metaphysical but minutely physical.

Conscious self-awareness in not an easily detectable trait. David Chalmers and his idea of a philosophical zombie or p-zombie has had a great deal of traction in philosophy of mind, although I would question whether the capacity for abstract thinking could be completely cloaked by behaviour. Personally, I doubt that Turing is correct or that his “test” can be completely borne out.

However, to claim that bestiality is implied would be pushing things too far.

 

[TimothyH]

Were the other temporary commands ever reversed? If so, when and for what reason?

There was no such thing as divorce prior to Moses.

Granted, there was no explicit command from God against divorce but the permanent and indissoluble union of one man and one woman has a very good basis in scripture. Certainly the permanent union of one man and one woman is consistent with the natural order of things, consistent with God’s design. Moses allowed divorce however, because mankind had become so depraved that men were killing their wives to get out of marriage. Divorce was a temporary fix for an out of control situation.

Jesus restored marriage to the way it was “in the beginning.”

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:3-9)

The “hardness of heart” was mans’ unwillingness to forgive and his willingness to kill to get out of a marriage. Jesus takes the minds of his audience back to the opening verses of the Bible - in the beginning - and reorders things rightly. He restores marriage to the way it was in the beginning - one man and one woman in a permanent, life affirming relationship, where the inner workings of the Trinity are mirrored in the interaction between father, mother and children.

Slavery too. People get all upset over laws about how to treat slaves in the Old Testament, believing them to be approval of slavery. Laws about slavery not an approval of slavery but rather a first attempt to control what had become an out of control situation. It was a temporary fix until Jesus came to “restore all things.”

Drinking blood too. Most people don’t realize that Adam and Eve were not given animals to eat in the garden but only plants. Flesh was given to man after Noah and the flood. Man then became so depraved that they started eating each other, drinking each others blood, and drinking animal blood in pagan ceremonies. Drinking blood was forbidden therefor by Moses, as a temporary fix, to prevent wonton behavior, until Christ came so that we could drink his blood.

There are probably lots more examples. Moses “permitted” many things which are contrary to God’s design, if not contrary to his explicit command. Moses provided guard rails and safety nets on these behaviors until Christ came to set things right, to restore order to creation, and to remake all things new.

And he who sat upon the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” (Revelation 21:5)

-Tim-

 

[Philthy]

It seems like in man’s early developmental stages a lot of bizarre things were permitted due to the circumstances. Things like incest, adultery/polygamy, and killing were allowed and in some cases, even commanded.

So how do we know that the command to “be fruitful and multiply” was also not one of those commands due to the circumstances of the earth being empty? Is it possible that it was only a requirement at the time so that the earth would be populated and now that it has already been achieved, and more than achieved, it is no longer mandatory?

Thoughts?

Adultery and polygamy are not quite the same thing.
When was adultery permitted?
Killing is still permitted and at times obligatory.

Your claim that the earth is now “populated” is arbitrary.

A man and a woman who’s complete gift of self in love to one another in the conjugal act in which a child is brought into the world is an image of God. As such it will always be a beautiful and necessary witness of God to the world.

 

[Thorns]

Adultery and polygamy are not quite the same thing.
When was adultery permitted?

I seem to be under the impression that Abraham was instructed by God to impregnate his servant, Hagar, since his wife was not able to bear a child. I’ll have to go back and read through it.

Killing is still permitted and at times obligatory.

So in other words, you’d agree that killing is ok in certain circumstances?

Which is my point. If certain things are circumstantial, I’d think multiplying would be one of those things, since it was stated to multiply* to populate the earth*. Now that it is achieved, I’d think not multiplying for any reason would be okay too, due to the circumstances.

Your claim that the earth is now “populated” is arbitrary.

How so? The evidence and the numbers don’t lie.

A man and a woman who’s complete gift of self in love to one another in the conjugal act in which a child is brought into the world is an image of God. As such it will always be a beautiful and necessary witness of God to the world.

Why always necessary though? I believe even the Church says it’s okay not to produce children by means of NFP “if you have a good reason not to.”

Keep in mind there are different ways one can be a witness of God to the world, it doesn’t end with having children.

Nobody addressed my earlier post, but St. Paul says it is better to marry than to burn with desire. This sounds like he’s affirming using marriage as an outlet for sex for some people, specifically those that have a problem with desires and lust. It seems like there is more than one purpose for marriage, children not always being part of that equation.