"...and was an altar boy for three years. "
Oh man I would have LOVED to see that... :-)
"My philosophy is that if God can part the Red Sea, He can certainly break a condom."
OMG!!! I almost spit oatmeal on my screen! LOL!
"...and was an altar boy for three years. "
LOL...that is a good one...
By the way, did everyone here realize that ALL Protestant denominations held the opinion that birth control was immoral up until 1930. Why the sudden change?
It is not that personal to me, the miscarriages were very traumatic for both of us, but that has nothing to do with birth control.
The protestant denominations stopped this about the time they realized sex wasn't dirty, or a neccesary evil. And because the cry of solo scriptura became more and more the focus of protestant theology.
What you may or may not know is the Catholic understanding of the morality of sex. You are not allowed the enjoyment of orgasm without the possibility of conception. Which means ofcourse regular sex play among married people is immoral. According to the Catholic position there are four requirements for a sex act to be morally acceptable. Marriage by the church, true love, the possibility of conception, and I always forget the fourth one sorry. This means going down on your partner is a sin.
All of the other positions have come up to justify a position based on the Platonic understanding that the physical is evil and the spiritual is good. This is not a biblical perspective. The original thought is faulty, so the other arguements, though some are compelling, are based on a false foundation. Ofcourse if you believe the church leadership, which doesn't have sex themselves, is uniquely qualified by God to instruct you in these matters, then you would agree with the position. But there really is not biblical, or in my mind logical, reason to continue this belief.
Also, ND I am not as current with things as I once was, isn't this belief one of the negotiables now? My close friend just converted, and the priest told her this along with some of the other doctrines she didn't believe in, were not required to become a Catholic, but were the official teachings of the church. Is this true? I think he even told her belief in the Imaculate Conception wasn't required for acceptance into the church also. I may be wrong on that one though.
Oh and ND, I am stressed out by the art show and preparing for it. Also we have spent so much money on it, we are really worried our fundraiser is not going to be a fundraiser at all :(, so if I sound harsh or like I am taking this personal please excuse me. I do believe this is an area where the church is making a big mistake, but you can have as many kids as you want :) just like the mormons :)
by the way, do you know what they call people who practice the rythem method?
The rythmn method is just a non abortive way of contraception, albeit not a very effective one.
I think the key issue here is that used properly contraception is not a bad thing. Eg. If a married couple uses contraception then that's cool, because if it doesn't work they'll bring up the child anyway.
But a non-commited couple who use contraception and can't deal with the consequences when it fails shouldn't be having sex.
And yes, the pill - in many cases, is an abortificient, though many women don't know that.
"Unfortunately for drug makers, there is a phenomenon known as "breakthrough ovulation." This occurs when the Pill fails to prevent the release of an egg. Studies have shown that this happens around 17 times a year for every 100 women taking the Pill (Wilks, 1997, p. 6). But each ovulation presents an opportunity for conception, which is precisely what the Pill is supposed to prevent. This is where progestin comes into play. It has two main roles. First, it thickens the cervical mucous, thus providing a barrier to sperm and preventing conception. And second, it disrupts the development of the uterine lining, thus preventing implantation of the fertilized egg (Shapiro, 1978, p. 19).
Product inserts and patient guides have described these effects in very similar terms for a long time now. The same literature usually begins by describing the product as "safe and effective." Non-technical consumer guides frequently skip any mention of progestin's effects, and emphasize the Pill's role in preventing ovulation. Understandably, manufacturers and public health services are not explicit about the Pill's abortifacient properties. It is left up to the patient to realize that the Pill can act as an interceptive, rather than a contraceptive. And it is in this role that a serious ethical difficulty arises: by preventing implantation, a woman runs the risk of denying life to a pre-born child. This is an early embryo--a baby--that would go to term if only it had a suitable "home" in which to grow and develop. "
"do you know what they call people who practice the rythem method?"
They call them Salsa Dancers.
True story, my wife and I will be having our last kid on Nov 5th. (boy). I wanted 3, she was done at 2. Anyway, this Valentine's day we had Salsa dancing at our church. Cool music, food, dancin etc. It was pretty cool.
A few weeks later my wife calls me and says... "DAMN SALSA! I'M PREGNANT!!!!"
LOL... that's the rythem method brutha!
rev, you're fine...not too harsh at all. You just disagree...I'll respond to your points a little more when I get a chance...I'm in the midst of setting up my new laptop at work...
By the way, the rythem method, and NFP are NOT interchangable...
"And yes, the pill - in many cases, is an abortificient, though many women don't know that."
If you believe abortions are wrong, and you also believe the pill is an abortificient, how can you not strenuously oppose the pill as well?
I unfortunately have a great deal of knowledge on this issue (took a seminar on Medieval Sexuality recently).
First of all, look into tese three books: Sexual Practices and the Medieval church (90879752688), handbook of Medieval Sexuality (0815336624), and Law, Sex and christian Society in Medieval Europe (0226077845). If you want to look into only one, get the last one (ISBN's are listed); it is writte by Vern Brundage, one of the best Medieval historians (along with Dave Nirenberg), but certainly the best sexual historian.
Anyway, the most anti-contraceptive books are those of the patristics, and although they are not in the bible, let us not forget that, according to Catholics, these are divinely inspired books by heavenly, saintly men, such as Augustine, Tertullian ("I believe because it absurd"), Jerome...ect ect. Augustine wrote widely that sexual pleasure was the equivilent of fornication (which is a mortal sin) and that the use of contraception (which is ALSO a mortal sin, and also only used for the act of sexual pleasure) is tantamount to adultry.
To quote from "Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe";
"Augustine judged the morality of marital in terms of the intentions of the parties. When marrried persons had sex for the sole purpose of procreation, they commited no sin. If they had sexual relations of trhe sole purpose of mutual pleasure and enjoyment, they sinned - but only slightly. If they had had sexual relations in some way calculated to avoid procreation, however, they sinned gravely. Married couples, he thought, should cease having sex as soon as they had produced a child or two. The sooner they stopped marital relations, the better for their moral health. They would have remained more virtuous, of course, had they remained virgins; but once married, the less they yielded to sexual desire, the better."
As you can see, Augustine, who is a SAINT, and nearer to god than any of us, let us know that sex is bad, and we'll be going to hell for enjoying ourselves too much.
If anyone is interested in this topic further, I have a great wealth of information in front of me.
I would never use them, not that there is much of a demand. With so many things these days being poluted and corrupted, this is something that I think should remain pure and the way it was designed to be.
Nice try Ganesha, but I never asserted that sexual pleasure is a bad thing. I said that the conception of a child is an act of God, and should not be interfered with. Don't twist this around into a debate that it is not. You have an obvious agenda...
If you are confused, re-read my original post.
Detriment, here is my Scripture reference, as promised earlier...
"8 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."
9 Onan, however, knew that the descendants 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.
10 What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too."
That's pretty clear to me.
"The rythmn method is just a non abortive way of contraception, albeit not a very effective one."
Well, let's use NFP instead of the rythem method. I would not call it it contraception, but rather natural birth control.
NFP, when practiced correctly is upwards of 99% effective...
"Also, ND I am not as current with things as I once was, isn't this belief one of the negotiables now? My close friend just converted, and the priest told her this along with some of the other doctrines she didn't believe in, were not required to become a Catholic, but were the official teachings of the church. Is this true? I think he even told her belief in the Imaculate Conception wasn't required for acceptance into the church also. I may be wrong on that one though."
rev, these kinds of things drive me insane. It soulds like the priest was just trying to make Catholicism palatable to her to get her to return to the faith. Is it a belief required in order to be Catholic?
No...BUT, presenting Church teachings like this gives the impression that Catholicism is just a buffet of beliefs...choose what you like, ignore the rest. This drives me crazy!
If you believe in something, be proud of it, and don't water it down simply for the sake of others! be honest about your beliefs, and the teachings of the Church. For a priest to tell her that following that teaching is optional, is an irresponsible thing to do, in my opinion.
I am familiar with the passage about Onan "wasting his seed." (This passage is the one most frequently used to denounce male masturbation, as well.)
I always thought that this passage was less about the act of "wasting the seed," but rather that Onan was unwilling to abide by the law of "levirite marraige." This law decreed that if a woman was widowed, her husband's brother had an obligation to impregnate her so that she would have sons to protect her as she grew old. There were other reasons for this law. For instance, the Israelites were a relatively small tribe of people surrounded by huge empires and civilizations. Obviously, they needed as many males as possible to protect themselves against these civilizations.
Onan refused to partake in his familial duty to "provide" for her in this way, which displeased God. And so Onan was struck down for his selfishness.
I believe that these reasons are a far more compelling explaination for Onan's punishment compared to his simply "wasting his seed." In refusing to impregnate his brother's widow he was comprimising not only the widow, but the tribe at large.
Of course, there are arguments to be made in the opposite direction. Even St. Augustine chimes in when he says, "For it is illicit and shameful for a man to lie with even his lawful wife in such a way as to prevent the conception of offspring. This is what Onan, son of Judah, used to do; and for that God slew him" (cf. Gen. 38: 8-10)."
Thought I'd throw that in there for the sake of fairness to the other side. ;)
Detriment, I agree, that passage can be read either way.
It wasn't really core to my argument though...I just knew of a biblical reference, so I thought I would throw that out there...
mino, I'm not sure I am following your point in the first paragraph.
However, in reagrds to Africa, don't you think the better course of action is education, rather than promoting contraception? Promoting contraception would be like saying "Hey, we know you are screwing like jackrabbits...keep doing it, but at least put a condom on"...that won't solve the problem. If anything it cuold cause it to worsen by furthering the culture of having sex anytime with anyone you wanted...
norplant wouldn't prevent the spread of AIDS...like I said, if anything, it will increase the spread of AIDS, since the patients won't have any fear of becomming pregnant.
Not in the same sense as conception being an act of God.
When I die, it will not be God who caused me to die. God will not kill me.
However, when my wife and I conceive our next child, it will have been God who breathes new life into our child.
Your analogy is flawed.
1) It's a natural physical reaction to a stimulus.
2) The problem with this is that we are trying to prevent something bad by promoting something that is, in my opinion, immoral. I know you don't consider that immoral. I guess this is where our little debate ends...back at the beginning!
I just can't rationalize solving a health crisis by promoting immoral behavior. Again, we're back at the beginning...