Contraception and Natural Law

[GuitarMan2387]

Hey guys, recently in class we were discussing contraception and its relation to natural law.

First off, what do you guys define natural law as?

This is the Catholic Church's definition of natural law:

Natural law:

Human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin. Human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.

Natural law states the first essential precept that govern the moral life. it expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties. Natural law is immutable and permanent throught the variations of history.

What do you guys think of this definition of natural law? What is your definition of it?

Now, I would like to make the statement that conception contradicts natural law. How might you ask does contraception contradict natural law?

Well there are several ways of going about this.

What is the purpose of eating?

Eatings objective purpose, as most of you would agree, would be to nourish the body, but it has a secondary aspect, it is also pleasing to eat. The food taste good. God created the food to taste good because he wanted us to eat to sustain our lives.

Now this can be compared to sex. Sex's main goal is create life. But, sex also has a secondary but less important function; its pleaserable, and bonding that comes with sex is important. God made sex pleasing so that we would do it.

Just as we eat because the food taste good, likewise we have sex because it feels good.

However both of these reasons why we do it serve a greater function. The sustaining of the human race.

This can be compared to contraception. What happens when we take away that main purpose? What are we left with? The procreation is gone, therefore reducing the act to nothing more than having sex for the sake of pleasure. The purpose and use for which it was intended is gone and has therefore lost its dignity.

So we can say that contraception contradicts natural law because it removes the primary function from the act, just as drinking diet coke (or something without nutritional value) until you die would be contradicting the natural law of eating, because the purpose is to sustain life, and if its not that doing that than its wrong. (this does not condemn products with no nutritional value, but the must also be able to sustain themselves through other foods.)

So you can still have sex for pleasure, but you must also be open, and sustaining life. Women dont get pregnant everytime they have sex, this is like drinking diet coke ocasionally. Now contraception is like drinking diet coke all the time, it doesn't sustain life, and therefore doesn't fullfill its main purpose, and is therefore contradictory to natural law.

Any thoughts? Disagreements?

[Thad]

Here I go again so please bear with me and just think about it.

The forbidden fruit in the garden has been discribed many ways.
One of the clearest explanation I have heard was it was "the fruit of choice", Man wanted the right to choose. GOD knew in the beginning that this would happen, it was his plan. He cast they out with their right to choose good or evil. "You got choice, live with it, it will be your judgement."
Before this man made no choices, just agreed and was happy. But man being man decided he was just a little sharper than GOD.

GOD's own choose to be HIS, that what HE wanted. The devils' are stolen, fooled, tricked and lied to.

The basis to man's devine soul is the choices he make. God gives us the intelligence to do wonderful things and the wisdom. We do not always use the wisdom.
An example or two
The atom - atomic energy - atomic bomb
Chemicals - fertilizers - medicine - poison gas
Gun - protect, defend others - murder
Contraception - control family size to match ability - abortion murder.
Abortion - medical reasons, mother's health - or murder
GOD gave sex to all animals for procreation and to man the added gift of family unit social bonding and enjoyment. Man has sex any time both are agreeable. Animal only when the female is ready to concieve. Animal mate then wander apart, some even kill their mate after breeding.

Take the word contraception, contra means against so it is an act against concieving. Abortion is not against conception, it is after conception so is murder. The are accept medical or moral reasons. But just because a person is to weak to say no, or to lazy to use a contraceptive is not acceptable.
Again what choice will be made?

Back to choice, GOD gave man choice, HE knew man would want choice and GOD wanted man to have choice so man could choice GOD.

It's one thing to have the seraphim sing praise, that what they were created for. Man singing praise to GOD is different. Praise that man has choosen to give, to freely give and not forced to give.

There is a freedom in GOD and with that freedom is choice. So next time when thinking about Adam and Eve, say thanks. The gift of choice to freely follow and praise our GOD.
There is a tremendous difference in doing what you are forced to do and what you choose to do. And when it is right and when it is following and praising GOD it is wonderful.

><> = +

[GuitarMan2387]

Interesting.

"Take the word contraception, contra means against so it is an act against concieving. Abortion is not against conception, it is after conception so is murder. The are accept medical or moral reasons. But just because a person is to weak to say no, or to lazy to use a contraceptive is not acceptable.
Again what choice will be made?"


"Even before you were in the womb, I knew you."

What is your definition of "giving oneself totally to another person?"

If we remove any part of the procreative act, it no longer is the procreative act, but is twisted and no longer whole.

Onen was struck down for using a form a contraceptive. He pulled out before his seed could be sown, and for this God struck him down.

He did not complete the act fully as it should have.

Homosexuality is not procreative, and we all recognize that it is wrong.

Contraception is not procreative, but for some reason it is accepted.

As Onen learned wasting one's seed is a terrible crime, he was struck down for it.

[Healing Oil]

No one can or should make rules where rules have not already been made, it is wrong. It is legalism. This is where conviction lies. If you do not feel right using it, than don't.

It is for no one to deside, not one person, not one church, what is right and what is wrong if God himself has not said so himself.

And I don't believe that sex is only for procreation. God did make it for pleasure within a marriage too. God wants us to have sex, and God wants us to have children. If God wanted sex just for procreation purposes, don't you think we would be popping out babies at every turn? Or why don't good and faithful Christian women get pregnant faster?

And yes, I am on birth control, and no, not for sex.

I have a question for those who say it is wrong. Is it wrong to have vasectomies/tubal ligations?

[Gandalf]

Onan was killed for disobeying and neglecting his duty, not necessarily for contraception in general - taking such a specific and generalizing it when the rest of Scripture doesn't really support that is not very solid. Since God is quite explicit in His Word about forbidden sexual practices (incest, homosexuality, adultery, fornication, and even instances in OT law disallowing normal relations during "that time of the month" etc.) and about treatment of others in general, it seems that there would be some prohibition of the practice if it were generally immoral. I realize such an argument from silence would not be sufficient to prove the point that contraception is inherently good, but given the lack of evidence, it is incumbent on those claiming it is sinful to prove the point.

As for the natural law approach, the problem I see with your reasoning is the assumption that sexual relations exist only for the purpose of procreation. By that logic, contraception is exactly comparable to having relations when elderly/postmenopausal or otherwise sterile. I think it would seem rather ridiculous to everyone here to say that it would be immoral for an elderly married couple to engage in such relations. But, the exact same logic would support that conclusion. If the premises and logic are sound, then both conclusions must be correct. If one conclusion is incorrect, it must be because either the premises or the reasoning are wrong.

Now, one could make the argument that given a purpose for sex being procreation, that the prerogative is God's as to whether or not life is formed could be plausible - at least in that case, the consequence (contraception being immoral) would be consistent with other consequences of the reasoning. The difficulty there is primarily that the premise is not a basic one - it has not been proven to be correct, and is not generally obvious enough to be a starting point.

[Healing Oil]

Onan was killed for disobeying and neglecting his duty, not necessarily for contraception in general - taking such a specific and generalizing it when the rest of Scripture doesn't really support that is not very solid. Since God is quite explicit in His Word about forbidden sexual practices (incest, homosexuality, adultery, fornication, and even instances in OT law disallowing normal relations during "that time of the month" etc.) and about treatment of others in general, it seems that there would be some prohibition of the practice if it were generally immoral. I realize such an argument from silence would not be sufficient to prove the point that contraception is inherently good, but given the lack of evidence, it is incumbent on those claiming it is sinful to prove the point.

As for the natural law approach, the problem I see with your reasoning is the assumption that sexual relations exist only for the purpose of procreation. By that logic, contraception is exactly comparable to having relations when elderly/postmenopausal or otherwise sterile.

Now, one could make the argument that given a purpose for sex being procreation, that the prerogative is God's as to whether or not life is formed could be plausible - at least in that case, the consequence (contraception being immoral) would be consistent with other consequences of the reasoning. The difficulty there is primarily that the premise is not a basic one - it has not been proven to be correct, and is not generally obvious enough to be a starting point.You said it best. Im glad you chimed in.

[GuitarMan2387]

Oh course sex is not only for procreation, there are reasons, one obviously is procreative, and the other is for pleasure, but if you take either one of those out, then you do not have the whole thing.

Contraception takes out the being open to procreation part, therefore reducing the act only to pleasure making it wrong.

For it to be complete both aspects must be present.

The problem with contraception is that it restrics the act, it is not giving oneself completly to the other if there is rubber, or something else between.

On the other side, contraception isnt the only means by which to regulate the birth of children, NFP (natural family planning) has been proven to work very well.

Keep the responces coming, i like em.

[MadCatholicGomer]

I have a question for those who say it is wrong. Is it wrong to have vasectomies/tubal ligations?

Yes, it is wrong.

[MadCatholicGomer]

Onan was killed for disobeying and neglecting his duty, not necessarily for contraception in general - taking such a specific and generalizing it when the rest of Scripture doesn't really support that is not very solid. Since God is quite explicit in His Word about forbidden sexual practices (incest, homosexuality, adultery, fornication, and even instances in OT law disallowing normal relations during "that time of the month" etc.) and about treatment of others in general, it seems that there would be some prohibition of the practice if it were generally immoral. I realize such an argument from silence would not be sufficient to prove the point that contraception is inherently good, but given the lack of evidence, it is incumbent on those claiming it is sinful to prove the point.

As for the natural law approach, the problem I see with your reasoning is the assumption that sexual relations exist only for the purpose of procreation. By that logic, contraception is exactly comparable to having relations when elderly/postmenopausal or otherwise sterile. I think it would seem rather ridiculous to everyone here to say that it would be immoral for an elderly married couple to engage in such relations. But, the exact same logic would support that conclusion. If the premises and logic are sound, then both conclusions must be correct. If one conclusion is incorrect, it must be because either the premises or the reasoning are wrong.

Now, one could make the argument that given a purpose for sex being procreation, that the prerogative is God's as to whether or not life is formed could be plausible - at least in that case, the consequence (contraception being immoral) would be consistent with other consequences of the reasoning. The difficulty there is primarily that the premise is not a basic one - it has not been proven to be correct, and is not generally obvious enough to be a starting point.

There is both an objective and a subjective end to the sexual act, though they tie in with one another. The objective end, the purpose for which God created sex in all living sexual beings (including animals), is to continue the species through reproduction. This is the reason that God creates a sexual desire in animals: so that they will reproduce, and therefore sex also relieves this desire. However, in the end, the sexual act alone does not guarantee that this end will come to fruition because God is the Lord of Life. There is also a subjective end for human beings: it draws the spouses to closer communion with one another when both choose the sexual act out of love: it helps them grows as persons who live for one another in the totality of marriage. Both of these ends, the objective and subjective, are good ends given by God. All the Catholic Church says is that in order to use the sexual act in the way that God ordained it, both the objective and subjective end have to be possible. If the subjective end is not possible, for example in pre-marital sex (which brings to people closer together, but not two spouses), than sex is being misused. Also, in cases where the husband rapes his wife, it is being misused because it is not the kind of sexual act in which communion can be achieved.

The Catholic Church says that in any action, including sex, if you by a single act mean something subjectively that is different from the objective nature of the act, there is going to be trouble. The example that I always like to use is food because it is another natural act. The objective end of eating is the nutritional side, the subjective end is the pleasure that is derived from the food. If a person eats for the subjective side, the pleasure of eating, but does not desire the objective end of the act (because they think they are getting fat for example) and do something that is objectively contrary to the objective end (for example, making themselves vomit the food after they eat), they have done something not good. Everyone can see that bulimia is not a good thing. In a sense, bulimia is no different from contraception. One act is objectively to procreate and then by another act you are objectively trying to stop procreation.

[Musicdude]

1Co 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.
1Co 7:9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.


Paul says that it is natural to "burn" but if you can resist the temptation, it is better that you do so. However if you cannot resist it, then it is better to marry. The "burning" is not a passionate desire to have children. It's a passionate desire to have sex.


1Co 7:4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
1Co 7:5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
1Co 7:6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command.

Paul tells the women not to "deprive" their husbands of sex unless they are both agreed to it and even then only temporarily. This is because the husband and wife need to have sex. It is an expression of the soul-love that a married couple have for each other, and it obviously is a pleasure as well.

Just for procreation? Not according to Paul.

[Healing Oil]

Contraception takes out the being open to procreation part, therefore reducing the act only to pleasure making it wrong. I dont want to seem rude, but, says who? Do you think a married couple who can no longer conceive (as Gandalf mentioned: Menopause) are still in the act for children? Where in the bible does it say if two married people have sex for pleasure (wich again, that is what God wants) it is wrong?

Again, you are making rules where rules havent been made by the only one who can make them. God.



The problem with contraception is that it restrics the act, it is not giving oneself completly to the other if there is rubber, or something else between. Maybe birth control or condoms make you feel incomplete in sex, but how do you know it is the same for every other couple? I dont believe that a pill or a condom can have enough power to restrict any kind of God given passion between sexual unions of a married couple.


On the other side, contraception isnt the only means by which to regulate the birth of children, NFP (natural family planning) has been proven to work very well.

I am really against this plan. Not because it's a bad one, I know some people that choose this plan, but because this plan is restrictive to me. Again, God wants us to have sex. I dont believe in scheduling a sex life. To me it would take away the spontaneity of sex with my husband. If it works for others, than that is great.

My question to you is how is NFP any different than any other form of contraceptive? You are still purposely trying to avoid pregnancy.

[Healing Oil]

Yes, it is wrong.
Biblical proof please?

Again, you are making rules where rules have not been made. And the ONLY one who has any say so on what is, or what isnt (when it is not clearly explained in the bible already) is God himself.

And by no means are any of us God. Again, I dont want to sound rude, I really dont, but you keep saying "The Catholic Church says"...what does God say?

[GuitarMan2387]

NFP is different because they are not having sex, but when they are they are completly open to life, every sexual act must be completly open to life, or it is not a complete act, but a perversion.

About the couple in metapos, it is ok for them because they are still open to life, (as long as they are not using a condom) They may not be like "lets go have kids" but it is in the way that they are still (if it were by miracle that they got pregnant) open to life.

It does not say in the Bible that you cannot have sex for pleasure, of course, thats half of it, but you must also be open to life at the same time.

[Healing Oil]

Each of you opposed to birth control have still yet to provide biblical proof as to why it is wrong. So what you have is merely just opinion, and not fact.

NFP is birth control, whether you admit to it or not. You are purposely trying not to get pregnant.

Of course anyone who has sex realizes (or should) that this could end up in a pregnancy. So in essence, we are "open to life", but even if we wish not to get pregnant as a result of a union, it does not make that union incomplete.

You can not try and turn your opinions into facts if you can not provide undeniable biblical proof, otherwise you are just making rules that you think everyone should follow. Your argument holds no water only because God himself has not said we can not use protection.

You have still yet to address this significant part of the debate.

[Thad]

Let see now, according to some postings my wife who had a tubal ligation 24 years ago was wrong (sinned?) but now she is post menepasual is no longer wrong. Aging past child bearing biologically removes her sin? So if I get too old to committ the crime it is no longer a crime. ?

Some times we have to look real close to discern if it GOD's law, or man's law. Closer than just listening to other advise. It is our decision we must live with.
What is GOD saying and is man interptation correct. What is the whole story?

We read HIS word, we study with HIS preachers, and we pray, then we make an honest choice. Honest in that we beleive it to be correct to the best of what GOD reveals to us. Then it is a choice for good.
Man demanded choice and GOD granted and now we live or burn on our choice. More so on the honesty of that choice.

GOD see our situation and answers accordingly, we need to listen. Just as HE speak Spanish to the latinos and English to the gringos, Chinese to China. GOD speaks to us so that we hear. (Always had a problem with latin only mass, like GOD only listen to and understood latin)

A group called Caritas came to the jungle in Guatemala and worked with the villagers. Health, sanitation, farming. The natives would have 5 to 6 children so 2 -3 could survive. But with good health, sanitation, inoculation all the children survived. But the work in farming only increased yield 50%. So in a few years time the villagers went from small families with fat kids to large families with starving children. Caritas refused and reframed from teaching birth control, even the basics, because it was against their religious doctrine and beliefs.

Small families - high infant mortality or large families - starving or help and teach birth cintrol. Which was the right way? Un-concieved children or children starved to death?

><> = +

[Healing Oil]

Thad- Your wife was not wrong, and do not let anyone tell you otherwise. That was a decision between God, you and her.

[SinnerSaint]

Healing Oil, using contraception is a violation of the first command ever given to mankind. "Be fruitful and multiply." Also healing oil when do you believe life begins?

[GuitarMan2387]

On another note, there are plenty of early christian documents, where church fathers have explicitly taught against contraception that date back to the 1st and 3rd centuries.

[Thad]

Wife feels fine. Was retrorical question
"Be fruitful and multiply---" the first instruction or law from GOD could also be seen as being intructions against homosexuality, celibacy, idleness, war, -- anything that does not physically or spiritually increase HIS kingdom, included would be those thing that cause it to decrease.

><> = +

[GuitarMan2387]

Your reasoning is somewhat flawed here,

The purpose of being celebit, is to focus on God, and being close to him, such as a priest/minister.

Homosexuality is wrong, because it is not procreative, I think we all know why.

Contraception is wrong because the act is suppose to be procreative, but by limiting it to pleasure only, it is not a complete act, but a perversion and wrong, such as homosexuality is wrong.

[Healing Oil]

Healing Oil, using contraception is a violation of the first command ever given to mankind. "Be fruitful and multiply." Also healing oil when do you believe life begins?
God never gave a specific as to how many we ought to multiply. Maybe for many good Christian couples, one child is their fruit. Why judge that? This is between God and the person, and only them. No one knows how many children God has told a man and woman to have.

I believe life starts at conception.

What do you believe is a sastifactory number of children for a couple to have in order to fulfil what God wants?

Guitar- I hate to sound argumentative but, because some pastors long ago taught that we "shouldnt" do it, than it must be right? Also, if you continue to refuse to support your argument with biblical proof backing it up, I feel I am wasting my time. The problem is, is that you can't.

I have a question for MDC if he is still here. Isn't celibacy a sin to you then? Yet, the CC strongly supports that a Father, minister, etc be celibate...

[Healing Oil]

Also- I could be wrong, so I am open to correction. But what about the Songs of Solomon? I just skimmed through it, admittedly I did not read through it all. But to my eye it speaks mostly of pleasure.

All I want is for my questions to be answered by those that Ive asked. 1.) Where in the bible does it say it is strictly forbidden for a man and woman to use birth control. 2.) How many children does a couple have to have in order to satisfy God. 3.) Why is celibacy and NFP okay? They are literally a form of birth control.

I probably have more questions, but since these have not been answered yet, I will just stick with these.

[GuitarMan2387]

2) It doesn't but everytime you have sex, you have to be open to life, otherwise it is not being open to God's creation, It is not the fact that you are limiting births, it is the mean by which you are doing it. That is what makes it wrong, the means by which.

Maybe this example will help.

A woman is pregnant and the baby has grown up into one of the tubes (not sure of exact name) Now if the baby remains the mother will die.

There are two ways of going about this, only one is morally correct.

Method 1: Use a saline solution that wipes out the baby, and thus saves the mother.

Method 2: Remove the fallopien tube, drastically decreasing the mothers chances of being pregnant again.

Which do you do?

Method 2, is the morally correct one, because the means by which you are saving the mother is removing the tube, not directly killing the baby like method # 1.

Both have the same outcome, but it is the means by which you go about these things that makes the difference because in method 1, the method is directly killing the baby, that is wrong. But in Method 2, the means is removing the fallopien tube, the unintended consequence is the baby dying.

This is the principle of double effect, and maybe isn't perfect for comparing, but you get the idea. It is the means by which something is accomplished that make all the difference.


3)

Because while they are limiting or spacing out the number of children they have, they are completing the sexual act entirely. It is what you do while having sex, you must be open to life for the sexual act to be complete and holy.

MCG, can prolly explain it better'n I can, I hope this helps. I'll let someone else answer # 1 elsewhere, as I cannot locate any exact verses except the one about Onen.

[Pouye]

I support Healing Oil in this thread... just read through it and I think the questions Healing Oil asked have not been answered in the light of Scripture, but rather in the light of opinions about Scriptures and doctrine.

Rock

[Healing Oil]

2) It doesn't but everytime you have sex, you have to be open to life, otherwise it is not being open to God's creation,It is not the fact that you are limiting births, it is the mean by which you are doing it. That is what makes it wrong, the means by which. All you had to say was "It doesnt". Anything after that is your opinion. You skipped over question 1.), how come?

Maybe this example will help.

A woman is pregnant and the baby has grown up into one of the tubes (not sure of exact name) Now if the baby remains the mother will die.

There are two ways of going about this, only one is morally correct.

Method 1: Use a saline solution that wipes out the baby, and thus saves the mother.

Method 2: Remove the fallopien tube, drastically decreasing the mothers chances of being pregnant again.

Which do you do?

Method 2, is the morally correct one, because the means by which you are saving the mother is removing the tube, not directly killing the baby like method # 1.

Both have the same outcome, but it is the means by which you go about these things that makes the difference because in method 1, the method is directly killing the baby, that is wrong. But in Method 2, the means is removing the fallopien tube, the unintended consequence is the baby dying.
I really dont know what you are trying to prove by this analogy, but either way the baby dies. Either way you intentionally choose a method that will end up killing your baby. I see no better selection over another. Either way if a woman is in that situation (and God forbid, it is horrible) it is a choice between her and God. I personally do not know what I would do. I personally would like to say Id carry the baby anyways, risk or not, but ultimately a decision like that comes with much prayer to the Father.

This is the principle of double effect, and maybe isn't perfect for comparing, but you get the idea. No, Im afraid I dont really.

It is the means by which something is accomplished that make all the difference. Explain to me the means of birth control that makes all the difference? I know them, but Id like to hear it from you. Birth control and celibacy all lead to the same thing. The only reason you are using this 'means' analogy is because in your opinion, pills and condoms are worse, how are they worse? It doesnt validate the argument though because as you admitted, the bible says nothing on it. So all it is really is your opinion.


3)

Because while they are limiting or spacing out the number of children they have, they are completing the sexual act entirely. It is what you do while having sex, you must be open to life for the sexual act to be complete and holy. I'll ask again, biblical proof?


So by yours and a few others here definition, I am sinning because I use birth control. I will let you know that I am 19 and birth control is a part of my medication (I could go into my history, it is brutal, but others here know it. If youd like to know for some reason, Im open to share). Without it, I would be in big medical trouble. Now, I will probably be sick for a really long time, and I may not be able to get off of birth control if I ever want to have a baby. This is not my fault, but it is how God designed my life. I hope that one day I can take myself off to try and have a baby, but what if I cant? Is it my fault? Or God's will?

[larryl]

i have a couple of comments, not all specifically connected, so i will seperate them.....

guitarman2387 said..
The purpose of being celebit, is to focus on God, and being close to him, such as a priest/minister.

so as a single adult, and not a priest or minister i need not be celebate? this is news to me.

next.....we are limiting God by using BC of any type? seems to me you are limiting God, by saying he cannot have His will be done in spite of these things....my ex-wife became pregnant 3 times while on birth control (resulting in 2 miscarriages, and my son)

lastly, one of my biggest problems with the "anti-birth control" teaching, is that it is usually (in my experience) coupled with a "more kids = more blessed/less kids = less blessed" teaching, which i firmly disagree with...

[Thad]

As I read it and have heard explained by several preacher, celibacy was suggested, recommended, but not required if service to the Gospel and GOD could be be performed properly. It was mainly to reject fornication especially when traveling about witnessing/ teaching. Pagan religion of that time include temple prostitutes and sexual rites. The disciples were to be pure, different from others preaching the local and existing pagan religions. Being married would be better and acceptable for those who could not acheive celibacy.

History: Celibacy became a requirement for Catholic priest because some popes passed the papacy to their son like a king's dynasty. Did not all together succeed, some popes passed to their illegitmate son. Then there was two popes at once and at another time a woman pope--------

Today in some native indian areas of Central America catholic priest are not accepted due to celibacy problem among missionaries 300-400 years ago.
Long memories and oral history are common to illiterate peoples. This is one of the reason protestant groups are having great success in those area. The protestant missionaries most often come into these area are married couples.

><> = +

[GuitarMan2387]

Explain to me the means of birth control that makes all the difference? I know them, but Id like to hear it from you. Birth control and celibacy all lead to the same thing. The only reason you are using this 'means' analogy is because in your opinion, pills and condoms are worse, how are they worse? It doesnt validate the argument though because as you admitted, the bible says nothing on it. So all it is really is your opinion.


3)
I'll ask again, biblical proof?


So by yours and a few others here definition, I am sinning because I use birth control. I will let you know that I am 19 and birth control is a part of my medication (I could go into my history, it is brutal, but others here know it. If youd like to know for some reason, Im open to share). Without it, I would be in big medical trouble. Now, I will probably be sick for a really long time, and I may not be able to get off of birth control if I ever want to have a baby. This is not my fault, but it is how God designed my life. I hope that one day I can take myself off to try and have a baby, but what if I cant? Is it my fault? Or God's will?

So your saying that the ends justify the means? Hardly so, I find that very wrong. The ends can by no way justify the means, that is very bad logic.

That is like saying "I want to do good, but first I must do evil, but in the end its good, so its okay to do the evil, as long as the ends justify it?" No my friend no.

And you are correct in saying that you can use the pill or something for medical reasons other than actually using it for a form of contraception, in fact you could even be on it while having sex, as long as you are using it for medical reasons other than contraception. The unintended bad is that it may reduce your chances of having a baby. (but you better have a good reason for using it, the good must outway the bad in every case.)

Perhaps a better explanation is needed.

Principle of Double Effect

An action that is good in itself that has two effects--an intended and otherwise not reasonably attainable good effect, and an unintended yet foreseen evil effect--is licit, provided there is a due proportion between the intended good and the permitted evil.

When there is a clash between the two universal norms of "do good" and "avoid evil," the question arises as to whether the obligation to avoid evil requires one to abstain from a good action in order to prevent a foreseen but merely permitted concomitant evil effect. The answer is that one need not always abstain from a good action that has foreseen bad effects, depending on certain moral criteria identified in the principle of double effect. Though five are listed here, some authors emphasize only four basic moral criteria (the fifth listed here further specifies the third criterion):

1. The object of the act must not be intrinsically contradictory to one's fundamental commitment to God and neighbor (including oneself), that is, it must be a good action judged by its moral object (in other words, the action must not be intrinsically evil);
2. The direct intention of the agent must be to achieve the beneficial effects and to avoid the foreseen harmful effects as far as possible, that is, one must only indirectly intend the harm;
3. The foreseen beneficial effects must not be achieved by the means of the foreseen harmful effects, and no other means of achieving those effects are available;
4. The foreseen beneficial effects must be equal to or greater than the foreseen harmful effects (the proportionate judgment);
5. The beneficial effects must follow from the action at least as immediately as do the harmful effects.

In the case of the terrible instance of a baby becoming lodged in the follopien tube, the mother has 3 choices really, you are correct she could sacrifice herself for her son/daughter, which would be awesome, and I support that 100%.

But of the other two "options" only one is morally correct. It is the removing of the tube that is correct. Do you understand why it is correct, and do you agree?

I hesitate to bring up Biblical proof because of several reasons:

1. You assume to believe that the Bible is the only authority out there.
2. You believe that we are free to translate scripture as we feel guided by the holy spirit by ourselves.

Since your premise is only that "The Bible is the only authority" then we must move to something we both agree on and that is natural law, and logic.

Larryl, more kids doesnt not mean more blessed, and less blessed, in the Bible however it does say "Children are like arrows, happy a man who has a full quiver."

I'm not really sure I understand your other comments.

As a single adult, ie. not married? I hope your not having sex, haha wouldn't that be a sin?

I look forward to continuing this discussion

[Healing Oil]

So your saying that the ends justify the means? Hardly so, I find that very wrong. The ends can by no way justify the means, that is very bad logic.You have still yet to explain to me how using a pill or condom is worse than NFP. So I cant address this statement, because I dont understand what you are saying.


That is like saying "I want to do good, but first I must do evil, but in the end its good, so its okay to do the evil, as long as the ends justify it?" No my friend no. You say it is evil, the bible doesnt. To me it is very arrogant, and almost blasphemous to deem what is evil and wrong if God himself does not say it is or isnt. We can not add or take away words from the bible to fit what we want.

And you are correct in saying that you can use the pill or something for medical reasons other than actually using it for a form of contraception, in fact you could even be on it while having sex, as long as you are using it for medical reasons other than contraception. The unintended bad is that it may reduce your chances of having a baby. (but you better have a good reason for using it, the good must outway the bad in every case.) You just created a double standard. It is only ok if I am sick, even though the outcome is the same for me as if it for a healthy woman using it. It doesnt matter that Im sick and need it, I still use it, and that should still be a sin to you. You are putting boundaries on sin, and sin is sin, right?


Perhaps a better explanation is needed.
From me? About why I need BC? Cause Ill elaborate if you need me to...


I hesitate to bring up Biblical proof because of several reasons:

1. You assume to believe that the Bible is the only authority out there.
2. You believe that we are free to translate scripture as we feel guided by the holy spirit by ourselves.


I look forward to continuing this discussion These 2 comments right here are enough for me to know that I need to quit while I am ahead. But I cant resist but reply to them.

What other authorities are out there GuitarMan that we ought to consider?

To your second comment, you are absolutely correct that is how I feel. God governs my life, not the Catholic Church and or tradition, and certainly not man.

How do you validate what you believe in if you are so hesitant to turn to the bible with it? Again, if the bible doesnt say it, it is simply an opinion. Do you agree or disagree?

[GuitarMan2387]

That statement has nothing to do with the pill or anything thing else, do you believe that the ends justify the means?

You don't find anything wrong with doing evil that will eventually result in a good?!

No it is not a double standard, it is the principle of double effect, did you read my post at all? The difference is this:

Say a women uses the pill to clear up acme on her face. If she is using it for this purpose and having sex, this is wrong.

Why?

Because althought she is using it for her face, a baby is being prevented/murdered.

The intended good (her face being clear) is not greater or equal to that the unintended evil (the baby dying)

So if the pill was to say the only thing keeping her alive, (highly unlikely) and nothing else would work to save her, than it is ok for her to take the Pill and have sex at the same time.

Why.

The intended good is saving the mother. The unintended, but permitted evil (the preventing/killing of a baby) is equal to that of saving the mothers life, therefore it is morally ok. However that is a very very very unlikly circomstance.

There are hundreds of these types of scenarios.

A pregnant women with cancer.

Without chemo she will die, but with chemo the baby will die, is it ok?

Yes. because the act (chemo) is not intrinsically evil, and the good that is intended, (the saving of the mother) is equal or greater to that of the unitended evil (the unfornunate, killing of the baby).

Now again with the fallopian tube. If the mother uses a saline solution, the act is killing the baby, (intrinsicaly evil) therefore making that method wrong. With removing the tube (removing a tube is not intrinsically evil) it is ok. The unintended, but permitted, evil is the baby dying, but it does not equal or outweigh the saving of the mother therefor permitted.

Now with contraception, NFP vs Condom.

The Condom blocks the seed of a man, wastes his seed, (known to be intrinsicly evil from the story of Onen, he wasted his seed) it is the means by which he regulates the amount of children that he and his wife have.

Both methods have the same end, but it is the means by which they are accomplished that makes all the difference.

Take this example. 5 Christians have been taken hostage by terrorists.

To get them back there are two ways of going about it:

1: Negotiating with them
2:Taking their families of the terorists and killing them until the terrorist give the hostages back

Now both ways have the same goal, to get the hostages back, but you and I would both agree that killing the families is wrong to do. But why? If both have the same effect? Because killing is an intrinsically evil act, and negotiting is not.

Now that we have seen that using a condom is evil, but why again you ask?

Because marital relations must always be open to life, 100%. NFP is correct because they are not using a condom when they have sex, they just do not have it during the most fertile periods, sure there is a chance that they can get pregnant, but they are still open to the fact. NFP can be very useful way more reliable than the condom.

But still you say, its not in the Bible, so I don't have to follow it. You premise for that is that the Bible is the be all end all. But what if that premise is wrong, of course you will win if you argue under false premises, when the logic is perfect it does not contradict the Bible in any way, and has been taught by Christians since the 1st century and garentied by the Church, I believe it.

Eventhe earliest Christian Apostles wrote against the evil of contraception and abortion. Look at these wonderfull people who wrote against contraception:

(well it was too long read immidiant after post for the quotes of early church fathers)

Sorry for such a long post, it may be a little unclear, The point of the double-effect was to show how the means by which something is done greatly affects wether it is moral or not.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

[GuitarMan2387]

Here are letters from early Church Fathers speaking out against contraception.

The Letter of Barnabas


"Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11:29]. For he means, ‘Thou shall not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shall thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness’" (Letter of Barnabas 10:8 [A.D. 74]).



Clement of Alexandria


"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid., 2:10:95:3).



Hippolytus


"[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12 [A.D. 225]).



Lactantius


"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (ibid., 6:23:18).



Council of Nicaea I


"[I]f anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1 [A.D. 325]).



Epiphanius of Salamis


"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).



Augustine


"This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion" (The Morals of the Manichees 18:65 [A.D. 388]).

"You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1–4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps" (Against Faustus 15:7 [A.D. 400]).

"For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny" (ibid., 22:30).

"For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage . . . to yield it to the partner lest by fornication the other sin damnably [through adultery]. . . . [T]hey [must] not turn away from them the mercy of God . . . by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting [children], is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of a harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife. Of so great power is the ordinance of the Creator, and the order of creation, that . . . when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose [orally or anally consummated sex], the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman" (The Good of Marriage 11–12 [A.D. 401]).

...

"I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility. . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 [A.D. 419]).



John Chrysostom


"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. . . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws? . . . Yet such turpitude . . . the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

"[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father’s old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live" (Homilies on Matthew 28:5 [A.D. 391]).

"[T]he man who has mutilated himself, in fact, is subject even to a curse, as Paul says, ‘I would that they who trouble you would cut the whole thing off’ [Gal. 5:12]. And very reasonably, for such a person is venturing on the deeds of murderers, and giving occasion to them that slander God’s creation, and opens the mouths of the Manicheans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts as they that mutilate themselves among the Greeks. For to cut off our members has been from the beginning a work of demonical agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the works of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security as being irresponsible, and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members and by impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds" (ibid., 62:3).

"Observe how bitterly he [Paul] speaks against their deceivers . . . ‘I would that they which trouble you would cut the whole thing off’ [Gal. 5:12]. . . . On this account he curses them, and his meaning is as follows: ‘For them I have no concern, "A man that is heretical after the first and second admonition refuse" [Titus 3:10]. If they will, let them not only be circumcised but mutilated.’ Where then are those who dare to mutilate themselves, seeing that they draw down the apostolic curse, and accuse the workmanship of God, and take part with the Manichees?" (Commentary on Galatians 5:12 [A.D. 395]).



Jerome


"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" (Against Jovinian 1:19 [A.D. 393]).

"You may see a number of women who are widows before they are wives. Others, indeed, will drink sterility and murder a man not yet born, [and some commit abortion]" (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).



Caesarius of Arles


"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman" (Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]).

[Healing Oil]

You are trying to convince me that birth control/condoms are evil, and you wont be able to, because it is NOT evil. It is evil to you, but you have no proof that it is.

Therefore I really dont need to read anything else because it is not biblically factual. You are rehashing your baseless opinion.

And you can post those letters all you want. I dont follow man. I follow God. I have no doubt these men weren't wise, but they made a rule out of nothing.

Many churches are ran into the ground by legalism from making rules out of nothing.

More words in a post doesnt make up for lack of biblical reference.

[Healing Oil]

You also havent answered my question. How do you validate your views and beliefs if you hesitate or refuse to rely on what the bible has to say?

[GuitarMan2387]

I posted those things for a reason.

When did the martin luther get his grand idea to break from the church?

1500's?

So thats what 1400 years that things were the same, that means the teachings on birth control were the same as can be seen from those individual letters. What made luther able to just break from 1400 years of sound doctrine?

If you base your understanding on a false premise, you will never be able to get out of it because you will always go by it.

If you deny logical explanations because they dont fit your critieria....thats not too good.

Protestantism never made any sense to me, because for 1400 years everything was the same, no changes at all, then in 1500 some guy gets pissed and just changes it all and everyone believes it?

haha, i mean, it doesnt make sense, thats like me going along and telling an entire school of kindergardeners that 2 + 2 = 5 and I tell them that their whole life, and they go out and start telling other people and it jsut starts going, even though 2 + 2 has equalled for for a very long time. Pretty soon you would have a small ammount of people who actually had the real truth with them, but no one would believe them.

[Healing Oil]

If you base your understanding on a false premise, you will never be able to get out of it because you will always go by it.

If you deny logical explanations because they dont fit your critieria....thats not too good.

.No offense, but you are the one who is concreting rules about evil or what not when the bible does not support it. If you deny what the bible says, or doesnt say to fit your personal criteria, than that's not too good.

You even said so yourself that it isnt in the bible. Period, end of discussion. Can you please answer my question though?

You are comparing apples and oranges with the 2+2 thing.

[GuitarMan2387]

I do rely on the Bible but it is hard to debate your narrow translation. You wont branch out into anyone elses ideas, so I have to look elsewhere for ideas.

[GuitarMan2387]

What question would you like answered

aim me GuitarGuy2387

[Healing Oil]

I do rely on the Bible but it is hard to debate your narrow translation. You wont branch out into anyone elses ideas, so I have to look elsewhere for ideas.
Exactly, that is all it is. Its an idea that you are trying to make into fact. It is just your idea.

I see your idea, and I disagree. That does not make me narrow. It is hard to debate my point because you have nothing to debate it with.

[Healing Oil]

What question would you like answered

aim me GuitarGuy2387
Id like you to answer this question please, if you will.

You also havent answered my question. How do you validate your views and beliefs if you hesitate or refuse to rely on what the bible has to say?

[GuitarMan2387]

Its hard to debate your point because you consider the BIble end all be all, and when I bring up something in the Bible that supports it you say, no thats a wrong translation, thats why its hard, because you really do not seek truth, you want to win,

You believe contraception is correct because in the Bible it doesnt say "Using a condom is wrong"

Let me think about that one for a second, considering they had condoms back then...pssht.

I am done with this thread, I posted so much stuff, that has appearently been over looked or not read, just reread what I posted, you only arguemtn against mine is

"The Bible doesn't say so." weak.

[GuitarMan2387]

Ok, I rely on what the Bible says, and in fact I have brought up what the Bible says, being in that Onens sin. The Sin of wasting his seed, by pulling out before ejactulation occured, his form of contraception, he was struck down dead for this reason.

Now think about this, eventually the Bible writers would die correct.

Well who is supposed to help us sort out now-a-day problems that arent' specifcally detailed in the Bible?

We cant leave it up to everyone on there own, no, otherwise we have what we have now, a zillion different beliefs.

No, instead Christ left us with his Church so that he could divinly influence and assist people and keep his Church correct. and thus we have it the Catholic Church, that luther broke away from because he didnt like it.

[larryl]

1. You assume to believe that the Bible is the only authority out there.
2. You believe that we are free to translate scripture as we feel guided by the holy spirit by ourselves.

Since your premise is only that "The Bible is the only authority" then we must move to something we both agree on and that is natural law, and logic.

why can't we agree instead that we will go by the Bible?



Larryl, more kids doesnt not mean more blessed, and less blessed, in the Bible however it does say "Children are like arrows, happy a man who has a full quiver."

as i said....one of the issues i have is that these two teachings usually seem to go together, in my experience


I'm not really sure I understand your other comments.

As a single adult, ie. not married? I hope your not having sex, haha wouldn't that be a sin?


yes, single would mean not married. divorced, in fact. YOUR quote, which i will wuote again here, made it look like ONLY priests or ministers should be celibate

" The purpose of being celebit, is to focus on God, and being close to him, such as a priest/minister"

as to the other part of my original comment, i see know way it could be hard to understand. please let me know how that confused you, and i will try to help out.

[Healing Oil]

Its hard to debate your point because you consider the BIble end all be all, and when I bring up something in the Bible that supports it you say, no thats a wrong translation, thats why its hard, because you really do not seek truth, you want to win, I never said "that's a wrong translation". You never brought anything from the bible up. You never answered what other authority other than the bible and God (most of all) we should turn to for answers?

You believe contraception is correct because in the Bible it doesnt say "Using a condom is wrong" I think if something as so important as protecting ourselves from pregnancy is a sin, God surely would have told us so.



"The Bible doesn't say so." weak.Wow, there is no need to be rude. Your argument is based on everything else, besides the bible. On what man thinks, on what old preachers thought, on what the Catholic church thinks. You havent opened yourself up to the fact that maybe God works in everyone differently.

I have not been rude (or atleast have tried not to) to you, and I dont mind continueing this discussion, unfortunately I do need to go though.

[larryl]

Ok, I rely on what the Bible says, and in fact I have brought up what the Bible says, being in that Onens sin. The Sin of wasting his seed, by pulling out before ejactulation occured, his form of contraception, he was struck down dead for this reason.

Now think about this, eventually the Bible writers would die correct.

Well who is supposed to help us sort out now-a-day problems that arent' specifcally detailed in the Bible?

We cant leave it up to everyone on there own, no, otherwise we have what we have now, a zillion different beliefs.

No, instead Christ left us with his Church so that he could divinly influence and assist people and keep his Church correct. and thus we have it the Catholic Church, that luther broke away from because he didnt like it.


and who is to say that Luther was not being divinely influenced?

your attitude on this is quite frightening

[larryl]

I posted those things for a reason.

When did the martin luther get his grand idea to break from the church?

1500's?

So thats what 1400 years that things were the same, that means the teachings on birth control were the same as can be seen from those individual letters. What made luther able to just break from 1400 years of sound doctrine?

If you base your understanding on a false premise, you will never be able to get out of it because you will always go by it.

If you deny logical explanations because they dont fit your critieria....thats not too good.

Protestantism never made any sense to me, because for 1400 years everything was the same, no changes at all, then in 1500 some guy gets pissed and just changes it all and everyone believes it?

haha, i mean, it doesnt make sense, thats like me going along and telling an entire school of kindergardeners that 2 + 2 = 5 and I tell them that their whole life, and they go out and start telling other people and it jsut starts going, even though 2 + 2 has equalled for for a very long time. Pretty soon you would have a small ammount of people who actually had the real truth with them, but no one would believe them.

so according to your logic, after the original church fathers, there are ZERO new ideas? God inspired a chosen few to have some teachings early on, and then decided we were on our own? i must be missing something

[GuitarMan2387]

Ok, what I meant was, and I'm sorry for confusing you,

Priest eing celebit, is so they can focus on their duties to the Church and to not have other distraction that could prohibit them from performing their duties.

It doesnt make sense to say that luther was divinly inspired, why would go let his church be lead ascew for 1400 years? right after his death, this makes no sense, and es I apologize for speaking rather straighforward, its late I should probably go to bed, before I just blatantly start saying things without thinking.

Sorry to heating oil

[GuitarMan2387]

so according to your logic, after the original church fathers, there are ZERO new ideas? God inspired a chosen few to have some teachings early on, and then decided we were on our own? i must be missing something

Lol whats? thats exactly what I'm NOT saying, haha

He gave us his church for us to use, and to help us in our decisions because he knew things like this will happen.

oh man, i just had a thought, hopefully when we all get to heaven, this is gunna be the funniest thing to laugh about. haha

[Healing Oil]

Ok, I rely on what the Bible says, and in fact I have brought up what the Bible says, being in that Onens sin. The Sin of wasting his seed, by pulling out before ejactulation occured, his form of contraception, he was struck down dead for this reason.

Now think about this, eventually the Bible writers would die correct.

Well who is supposed to help us sort out now-a-day problems that arent' specifcally detailed in the Bible?

We cant leave it up to everyone on there own, no, otherwise we have what we have now, a zillion different beliefs.

No, instead Christ left us with his Church so that he could divinly influence and assist people and keep his Church correct. and thus we have it the Catholic Church, that luther broke away from because he didnt like it.This is what scares me. You say the bible is not the know all, end all, yet the CC is. God did not leave us His "church", that would require Him to leave. He is with us. God left Himself, for us. I turn to Him, not the "Church".

[GuitarMan2387]

Protecting yourself from a pregnancy?

You make it sound like a disease!

Come on, at least say like, you can't really raise kids right now due to finacial reasons (probably the most common reason and plausible) but to say "protect from"? Maybe its just how I look at those words but it makes it sound like something that is to be feared.

[GuitarMan2387]

No, what you say is incorrect,

The Church teaches that the Bible and Tradition are equal in authority and one cannot exist without the other, The Bible must be translated in spite of tradition and tradition must be handled in spite of the bible, neither can be seperated, kinda sounds familiar doesnt it? something about pleasure, and procreation in marriage... one thing for sure The Church is consistant 100% of the time.

[larryl]

You believe contraception is correct because in the Bible it doesnt say "Using a condom is wrong"

Let me think about that one for a second, considering they had condoms back then...pssht.
.

just as a note; some research would show you that the use of barrier methods of birth control date to at least the ancient roman empire, and probably earlier.....so a mention of that COULD be expected, if it were that pertinent

[Healing Oil]

Ok, what I meant was, and I'm sorry for confusing you,

Priest eing celebit, is so they can focus on their duties to the Church and to not have other distraction that could prohibit them from performing their duties.

It doesnt make sense to say that luther was divinly inspired, why would go let his church be lead ascew for 1400 years? right after his death, this makes no sense, and es I apologize for speaking rather straighforward, its late I should probably go to bed, before I just blatantly start saying things without thinking.

Sorry to heating oil
No apologies needed, I understand.

[GuitarMan2387]

so according to your logic, after the original church fathers, there are ZERO new ideas? God inspired a chosen few to have some teachings early on, and then decided we were on our own? i must be missing something

No larryl what I meant was up until 1500, the entire christian community believed the same thing! There were nto small sects who said, nope we dont believe that.

[Healing Oil]

Protecting yourself from a pregnancy?

You make it sound like a disease!

Come on, at least say like, you can't really raise kids right now due to finacial reasons (probably the most common reason and plausible) but to say "protect from"? Maybe its just how I look at those words but it makes it sound like something that is to be feared.
Well of course pregnancies and children can be a frightful thing. Anyone who has ever been pregnant Im sure can contest to that. I didnt mean for it to sound like a disease.

[larryl]

No, what you say is incorrect,

The Church teaches that the Bible and Tradition are equal in authority and one cannot exist without the other, The Bible must be translated in spite of tradition and tradition must be handled in spite of the bible, neither can be seperated, kinda sounds familiar doesnt it? something about pleasure, and procreation in marriage... one thing for sure The Church is consistant 100% of the time.


please say "catholic church"; when you continue to refer to it as "The Church" it is not only demeaning to us protestants, but confusing, as it took me a while to realize you meant catholics, as opposed to what i consider "the church"...all christians

[larryl]

No larryl what I meant was up until 1500, the entire christian community believed the same thing! There were nto small sects who said, nope we dont believe that.


so you don't consider the orthodox church to exist? interesting

[Healing Oil]

No, what you say is incorrect,

The Church teaches that the Bible and Tradition are equal in authority and one cannot exist without the other, The Bible must be translated in spite of tradition and tradition must be handled in spite of the bible, neither can be seperated, kinda sounds familiar doesnt it? something about pleasure, and procreation in marriage... one thing for sure The Church is consistant 100% of the time.
This is where you are very, very wrong. You can not now, nor ever say that the CC or ANY church is 100% consistent. That would make them 100% right and 100% perfect. Every church is flawed one way or another. Every church has its problems. Every body in a church has an opinion of what should be or what shouldnt be.

Man made tradition is exactly what it is, man made. Man is not perfect. Therefore there are and will be traditions that can be wrong.

And I agree with Larryl. I think it is very disrespectful to refer to it as "The Church"...but we probably can not change that.

[larryl]

Lol whats? thats exactly what I'm NOT saying, haha

He gave us his church for us to use, and to help us in our decisions because he knew things like this will happen.



weird.,....i wonder why Jesus didn't mention these that would come after him, instead of only mentioning the Holy Spirit?

[GuitarMan2387]

just as a note; some research would show you that the use of barrier methods of birth control date to at least the ancient roman empire, and probably earlier.....so a mention of that COULD be expected, if it were that pertinent

See, but what you do by discrediting all of tradition and men, is hold yourself to one side, you eliminate the other half of the equation.

Let T = truth
Let X = the Bible
Let Y = Tradition

x + y = T

what you say is that y no longer exists there for x = T, and of course when you take away one varible one cannot argue that x does not equal T, but your premise of x = T being the only part of the equation is false because in reality x + y = T

You see?

x = t is not true just like y = t is not true because T is only formed when x and y are combined and both are taken into account.

[larryl]

one thing for sure The Church is consistant 100% of the time.

not really....there are HUGE differences in how Catholicism is practiced in deifferent parts of the world....

[GuitarMan2387]

This is where you are very, very wrong. You can not now, nor ever say that the Church or ANY church is 100% consistent. That would make them 100% right and 100% perfect.

haha, (and pardon my language here) no crap!

However the Church is only 100% correct in matter of faith and doctrine, but the humans are fallible, meaning they can still sin, such as priest and molestation issues, selling of indulgences ect.

But the Catholic Church is 100% consistant and 100% correct in matters of faith and morals, and will also be and has always been.

Check it, the Church has always said that this is wrong and this is right.

[larryl]

because in reality x + y = T

You see?

x = t is not true just like y = t is not true because T is only formed when x and y are combined and both are taken into account.

sorry, we will never agree here. i do not agree that tradition is neccessary for "truth". the bible is all that is truly neccessary.

i do read the writings of the church fathers, as well as many others, but that are not equal to scripture.

[GuitarMan2387]

not really....there are HUGE differences in how Catholicism is practiced in deifferent parts of the world....

In how it is practiced or what it teaches?

Mind you those are very different things. It may teach that this is wrong, and yet people may still choose to say, no I dont believe that, but It will always teach that it is wrong, and teach that it should be practiced that way.

[larryl]

But the Catholic Church is 100% consistant and 100% correct in matters of faith and morals, and will also be and has always been.

Check it, the Church has always said that this is wrong and this is right.


again, some research on your part would be helpful here. i can cite examples where the catholic church contradicts itself....want one?

in some areas of south america, to win converts to catholicism, the missionaries allowed them to bring their idols in as new "icons".....

[GuitarMan2387]

sorry, we will never agree here. i do not agree that tradition is neccessary for "truth". the bible is all that is truly neccessary.

i do read the writings of the church fathers, as well as many others, but that are not equal to scripture.


Ok, we are making progress,

When you read something from a churc father, and you see that they speak against contraception, doesnt' that make you think, hey what the freak?

And then you should go back and read the bible with this new idea and see that, the bible does not contradict what is being said, and in fact when viewed from a point of view actually supports this, and the old view in fact doesn't look so correct anymore.

[larryl]

See, but what you do by discrediting all of tradition and men, is hold yourself to one side, you eliminate the other half of the equation.

Let T = truth
Let X = the Bible
Let Y = Tradition

x + y = T

what you say is that y no longer exists there for x = T, and of course when you take away one varible one cannot argue that x does not equal T, but your premise of x = T being the only part of the equation is false because in reality x + y = T

You see?

x = t is not true just like y = t is not true because T is only formed when x and y are combined and both are taken into account.


by the way, this all sort of ignored my point...that barrier methods WERE being used, so some scriptural words on this might be expected at some point

[Healing Oil]

This isnt a rhetorical question, Im actually curious. Does it say anywhere in the bible that tradition is a part of truth?

[GuitarMan2387]

again, some research on your part would be helpful here. i can cite examples where the catholic church contradicts itself....want one?

in some areas of south america, to win converts to catholicism, the missionaries allowed them to bring their idols in as new "icons".....

I have no idea what your talking about, but in any case if the missionaries were doing something wrong, that is still not what the church teaches, therefor the church is still consistant.

Believers are allowed to make mistakes, thats how they learn, they repent and come back, but there must be solid ground for them to return to, the church.

[Healing Oil]

haha, (and pardon my language here) no crap!

However the Church is only 100% correct in matter of faith and doctrine, but the humans are fallible, meaning they can still sin, such as priest and molestation issues, selling of indulgences ect.

But the Catholic Church is 100% consistant and 100% correct in matters of faith and morals, and will also be and has always been.

Check it, the Church has always said that this is wrong and this is right.
But what has God always said?

A church can not be 100% correct. Only God can be. The CC is made of up humans, fallible humans. The pope is a sinner. Mother Teresa was a sinner. The CC made up morals and said it was so. I find it very immoral that the CC turned a blind eye to the molestation issues. Sorry if this is a sour subject.

[GuitarMan2387]

This isnt a rhetorical question, Im actually curious. Does it say anywhere in the bible that tradition is a part of truth?

Paul tells us to "hold fast to the traditions that we leave you with" (something like that)

And there are other places of Jesus setting up Peter as the pope, (keys to the kingdom, ect.)

Too many to go into, I suggest going to www.catholic.com they have tons of information about hot topics, question about the faith, some great stuff there, if your truly geniunly intersted.

[larryl]

Ok, we are making progress,

When you read something from a churc father, and you see that they speak against contraception, doesnt' that make you think, hey what the freak?

And then you should go back and read the bible with this new idea and see that, the bible does not contradict what is being said, and in fact when viewed from a point of view actually supports this, and the old view in fact doesn't look so correct anymore.

i hold writings from the church fathers equal to the writings of luther, lewis, sproul, and even calvin (yes, even i, the great free will debater, read calvin).....very learned great christian men, who have wonderful things to say, but not on a level with scripture.

when i see that any of them has written that something is wrong, and i can find ZERO in the Bible about it, i have to spend some time in prayer, deciding if i believe it or not...

just because the bible does not specifically contradict something, does not make the teaching automatically correct. there are many things not specifically contradicted in the bible, that have been taught by many, that i do not agree with

[GuitarMan2387]

But what has God always said?

A church can not be 100% correct. Only God can be. The CC is made of up humans, fallible humans. The pope is a sinner. Mother Teresa was a sinner. The CC made up morals and said it was so. I find it very immoral that the CC turned a blind eye to the molestation issues. Sorry if this is a sour subject.

Again you overlook the fact that the people who make up the church are not what the church teaches,

Christ guides the church in matters of faith and morals, those who lead the church only stand in for him.

Yes there have been bad popes, but never have they made an unsound doctrine, it is christs promise.

"And the gates of hell shall never prevail against it."

[Healing Oil]

I have no idea what your talking about, but in any case if the missionaries were doing something wrong, that is still not what the church teaches, therefor the church is still consistant.

Believers are allowed to make mistakes, thats how they learn, they repent and come back, but there must be solid ground for them to return to, the church.
Jesus tells us to come just as we are. Battered, bruised, disgusting and sinful. He does not tell us to clean up first, and then come. I would expect that His "chosen church" would work this way as well.

[larryl]

I have no idea what your talking about, but in any case if the missionaries were doing something wrong, that is still not what the church teaches, therefor the church is still consistant.

Believers are allowed to make mistakes, thats how they learn, they repent and come back, but there must be solid ground for them to return to, the church.


well...these things were, and still are, taught as the catholic church's position in some parts of south america.

i have personal friends who have witnessed cathlic services, where ancient south american deitied are prayed to..

[larryl]

by the way, guitarman....you never commented on the orthodox church...they disagreed with, and left, the catholic faith, long before luther did....

[GuitarMan2387]

lol I find it funny that you still choose to ignore what I am saying,

yes there are people making mistakes, this doesnt not mean, that the church is false.

Every christian sins, does that make christianity wrong, no.

[Healing Oil]

Again you overlook the fact that the people who make up the church are not what the church teaches,

Christ guides the church in matters of faith and morals, those who lead the church only stand in for him.

Yes there have been bad popes, but never have they made an unsound doctrine, it is christs promise.

"And the gates of hell shall never prevail against it."Can you show me Christ's promise?

Who teaches the CC? The Pope and priests? Well the priests (not all) have already proven to be incredibly fallible. Im curious, I never studied what went on in the CC when it happened. But did the pope do anything during the time of the confirmed molestations? I feel like I saw nothing done. That to me was a huge blow to the CC. Which is probably why not many agree with the CC.

So you feel catholicism is different from christianity? ( I think I know the answer, but feel free to answer).

[GuitarMan2387]

by the way, guitarman....you never commented on the orthodox church...they disagreed with, and left, the catholic faith, long before luther did....


Yes its too bad too, the only disaggree about the pope being the vicar of christ, but they are very simliar

Pope John Paul II tried very hard to create unity once again, but it looks like ti'l take more work.

[larryl]

Which is probably why you guys have little respect.


ouch , healing oil......a little harsh.

[larryl]

Yes its too bad too, the only disaggree about the pope being the vicar of christ, but they are very simliar

Pope John Paul II tried very hard to create unity once again, but it looks like ti'l take more work.

but my point was, you said noone disagreed with the catholics until luther.....which is incorrect

they also disagree on some other points, but that is another topic for another thread

[Healing Oil]

ouch , healing oil......a little harsh.
Im sorry, I didnt mean to honest. If it offends you GuitarMan I can erase that. But Ive heard a great deal of concern and anger from people regarding the CC, and primarily because of the untaken care of issues involving molestations.

Not meant to be mean, honestly!

Edit: I changed it to sound more like what I meant.

[GuitarMan2387]

Can you show me Christ's promise?

Who teaches the CC? The Pope and priests? Well the priests (not all) have already proven to be incredibly fallible. Im curious, I never studied what went on in the CC when it happened. But did the pope do anything during the time of the confirmed molestations? I feel like I saw nothing done. That to me was a huge blow to the CC. Which is probably why you guys have little respect.

So you feel catholicism is different from christianity? ( I think I know the answer, but feel free to answer).

yeah, little respect, haha just like the profits,

Im not to clear what went on, but as I'm sure you know very well, the Catholic Church is not the most popular in the secular world, so I'm sure some of the accusations were crap, but they did what the felt was right you cant bash them for that

[larryl]

yeah, little respect, haha just like the profits,

Im not to clear what went on, but as I'm sure you know very well, the Catholic Church is not the most popular in the secular world, so I'm sure some of the accusations were crap, but they did what the felt was right you cant bash them for that

you're not clear? priests molested children. this made catholics not only unpopular with the secular world, but with large portions of other christians as well.....

the respect comment, i believe, was based on the lack of a strong stance from the vatican on this.

[Healing Oil]

yeah, little respect, haha just like the profits,

Im not to clear what went on, but as I'm sure you know very well, the Catholic Church is not the most popular in the secular world, so I'm sure some of the accusations were crap, but they did what the felt was right you cant bash them for that
Oh I have no doubt that some of the accusations were false. One person comes out and a landslide of "victims" followed. I feel many were in for the money, even so. The CC did little to salvage their name.

[Healing Oil]

Im curious. Does the CC have their own personal doctrine, or added books? Do you teach solely out of the bible?

[GuitarMan2387]

Im sorry, I didnt mean to honest. If it offends you GuitarMan I can erase that. But Ive heard a great deal of concern and anger from people regarding the CC, and primarily because of the untaken care of issues involving molestations.

Not meant to be mean, honestly!

Edit: I changed it to sound more like what I meant.

Naw its cool, I mean, I love you guys, your awesome, your on fire for Christ, your just a little off, but you don't know it and its killing me because I want you guys to see the fullness of the truth, its awesome, it makes so much sense its like just like awww!! haha I try to like explain it but I can never say what I want, and man, its hard being a 17 year old apologeticist, haha

[Healing Oil]

you're not clear? priests molested children. this made catholics not only unpopular with the secular world, but with large portions of other christians as well.....

the respect comment, i believe, was based on the lack of a strong stance from the vatican on this.
Yea, again I apologize. I didnt mean it the way it sounded. I tried to edit it to sound more like what I meant.

But you said what I meant larryl.

[larryl]

Naw its cool, I mean, I love you guys, your awesome, your on fire for Christ, your just a little off, but you don't know it and its killing me because I want you guys to see the fullness of the truth, its awesome, it makes so much sense its like just like awww!! haha I try to like explain it but I can never say what I want, and man, its hard being a 17 year old apologeticist, haha



saying we're "a little off" isn't really helping.......we feel the same way about you :D

[GuitarMan2387]

Oh I have no doubt that some of the accusations were false. One person comes out and a landslide of "victims" followed. I feel many were in for the money, even so. The CC did little to salvage their name.

Why do you think though? If the catholic church was worried about her image in the world we would allow, contraception, and all those touchy subjects as "its ok, don't worry about it, its gunna be ok."

But know we have to stand for whats right, even if its tought, take a blow or too if it spreads the kingdom.

[larryl]

Why do you think though? If the catholic church was worried about her image in the world we would allow, contraception, and all those touchy subjects as "its ok, don't worry about it, its gunna be ok."

But know we have to stand for whats right, even if its tought, take a blow or too if it spreads the kingdom.


so you are saying it is OK that the vatican was fairly quiet about accusations of cathlic priests molesting children? or am i missing something

[Healing Oil]

your just a little off, but you don't know it and its killing me because I want you guys to see the fullness of the truth, its awesome, it makes so much sense its like just like awww!! That is where we have a problem. Catholics think Christians are wrong, and most Christians think Catholics are wrong. I feel many of you are very mislead. I think you have good intent but the way the CC presents their views IMO is harsh and arrogant. I see a church of rules and regulations.

I was listening to this radio talk show the other day, it is called Dr. Laura (maybe you have heard of it). A woman called in and said she was worried about her 17 year old son because he is going off to college next year. She said he has been going to church with his friends more often and it is not the same as hers. She said "me and my husband are catholic and he is going to a christian youth group". Dr. Laura asked her what was her question and she said "What should I do or say to my son? Im afraid that when he goes off to college he is going to dive in this spoon fed religion". Dr. Laura had the perfect response IMO, she said "So what? You spoon fed him your religion for 17 years." Then she said "Why does it matter if he is Christian or Catholic? At the end of the day you all serve the same Jesus."

[GuitarMan2387]

LOL! You guys are so close, but thats exactly what I cant grasp,

How can millions of wonderful people, be just a little off?

It doesnt make sense how one man could lead a million astray.

Ok

I think I know how all this happens,

lots of people are mistaken in what the rcc really teaches, and from this the build false presumptions, stuff that even we say, "yes thats wrong we dont teach that"

so then when we try to discuss things, especially online, where its hard and you must say exactly what you mean, and make it clear, people just get confused, but I swear by my life and by my faith, that if you knew what catholics really believe and why, you would be one too, that is my promise, if you can completly understand the religion, I swear to you, that you will find your home.

[Healing Oil]

GuitarMan2387- Can you please address this comment? I dont think you did, if you did I apologize, but can you please give me your thoughts on it?

Jesus tells us to come just as we are. Battered, bruised, disgusting and sinful. He does not tell us to clean up first, and then come. I would expect that His "chosen church" would work this way as well.

[GuitarMan2387]

so you are saying it is OK that the vatican was fairly quiet about accusations of cathlic priests molesting children? or am i missing something

No oil said that we did little to "protect our name"

thats what I was responding too, and also if they didnt do such a great job, thats not something that is defined as infalible, that has nothing to do with morality, of course we say that molesting is wrong, but the fact that some people think we didint do such a good job is purely optionative.

[Healing Oil]

But know we have to stand for whats right, even if its tought, take a blow or too if it spreads the kingdom.
The bible doesnt say it is wrong. Somewhere in time someone said it was, and people followed.

Our home should rest in Jesus, not the RCC.

[larryl]

but I swear by my life and by my faith, that if you knew what catholics really believe and why, you would be one too, that is my promise, if you can completly understand the religion, I swear to you, that you will find your home.


careful....i have studied catholicism fairly deeply, and i am still baptist. there are quite a few places i disagree with the RCC, most of them deeper than contraception, which stop me from being able to even consider converting

[GuitarMan2387]

GuitarMan2387- Can you please address this comment? I dont think you did, if you did I apologize, but can you please give me your thoughts on it?

Come, just as you are to worrrship him, come.

One of our worship songs in fact at youth mass.

Yes He calls us to com back to him and repent, just as we are, confess to him our sins, and to be submerged and sanctified in his grace through confession and to go back out into the world ready to do His will once more.

[Healing Oil]

I'd also like this answered please.

Im curious. Does the CC have their own personal doctrine, or added books? Do you teach solely out of the bible?

[larryl]

No oil said that we did little to "protect our name"

thats what I was responding too, and also if they didnt do such a great job, thats not something that is defined as infalible, that has nothing to do with morality, of course we say that molesting is wrong, but the fact that some people think we didint do such a good job is purely optionative.


but, (and then i will leave this side topic alone) don't you think when the official representatives of a church are being accused, on a large scale, of something this horrific, that there should be a fairly open, public, statement about it from the church, itself?

[Healing Oil]

Come, just as you are to worrrship him, come.

One of our worship songs in fact at youth mass.

Yes He calls us to com back to him and repent, just as we are, confess to him our sins, and to be submerged and sanctified in his grace through confession and to go back out into the world ready to do His will once more.
What are your grounds for excommunication?

[Healing Oil]

careful....i have studied catholicism fairly deeply, and i am still baptist. there are quite a few places i disagree with the RCC, most of them deeper than contraception, which stop me from being able to even consider converting
I hate to sound mean GuitarMan, but I agree with larryl...

[Healing Oil]

Maybe it will help me understand better if you could specifically tell me what Christians do wrong that Catholics dont? What we believe that is wrong to you?

[larryl]

Maybe it will help me understand better if you could specifically tell me what Christians do wrong that Catholics dont? What we believe that is wrong to you?


let's make another thread, if we are going to get that far off topic....

[Healing Oil]

Maybe you're right, lol. Maybe I wont though. That could get pretty ugly.

[larryl]

Maybe you're right, lol. Maybe I wont though. That could get pretty ugly.


could, and has before :D

[GuitarMan2387]

The bible doesnt say it is wrong. Somewhere in time someone said it was, and people followed.

Our home should rest in Jesus, not the RCC.

See but the church is Jesus institution, he is in the church, thats why we cling to it.

And yes larryl I swear to it, because i believe that if you truly understand the rcc, truly understand it, and you see the truth, you cant run, but it only draws you, christ draws you to himself.

The rcc has not "added" any books to the bible, however some books were taken out by protestants and deemed "not inspiried" (hmmm...I question this)

The RCC has a "Canon" which is basically (and I'm not 100% sure on all of this, im just trying to do my best here) everything the church believes,

So what happened was when the church was first started, with st. peter and all the way till now, or whenever, the popes and bishops and everyone got together and had councils to redefine things (due to heresies that were spreading) and baiscally said "ok this is what the church teaches, in light of the Bible on this side, and what we know christ inspired the apolstles and what the holy spirit inspired on the tradidition side." And so with those two things BOTH in mind put together the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which contains everything the church teaches on every single subject.

Again, im not sure on actually how it was done, but thats basically it, I'm pretty sure, it wasnt just like a "ok lets do this kinda thing" because remember other than the orthadox breaking off, the entire christian world was catholic, all of the great scholars, thomas aquinas, augustine, everyone.

So anyway, haha im dead guys, this has worn me out, great discussions too you guys are awesome.

[larryl]

See but the church is Jesus institution, he is in the church, thats why we cling to it.

And yes larryl I swear to it, because i believe that if you truly understand the rcc, truly understand it, and you see the truth, you cant run, but it only draws you, christ draws you to himself.

The rcc has not "added" any books to the bible, however some books were taken out by protestants and deemed "not inspiried" (hmmm...I question this)

The RCC has a "Canon" which is basically (and I'm not 100% sure on all of this, im just trying to do my best here) everything the church believes,

So what happened was when the church was first started, with st. peter and all the way till now, or whenever, the popes and bishops and everyone got together and had councils to redefine things (due to heresies that were spreading) and baiscally said "ok this is what the church teaches, in light of the Bible on this side, and what we know christ inspired the apolstles and what the holy spirit inspired on the tradidition side." And so with those two things BOTH in mind put together the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which contains everything the church teaches on every single subject.

Again, im not sure on actually how it was done, but thats basically it, I'm pretty sure, it wasnt just like a "ok lets do this kinda thing" because remember other than the orthadox breaking off, the entire christian world was catholic, all of the great scholars, thomas aquinas, augustine, everyone.

So anyway, haha im dead guys, this has worn me out, great discussions too you guys are awesome.


why do you assume i don't understand? i have studied deeply, and had long conversations with catholics. there are key points i can just never agree with, as they do not line up with scripture

and please, do not try to give a history lesson, unless you are sure of your topic, and fairly certain others are not.

the books "removed" by protestants were later manuscripts, which some feel cannot be validated.

[GuitarMan2387]

What are your grounds for excommunication?

Not sure on specifics, again www.catholic.com is great, you can just type it in the search or select a topic, but I'm sure its something like repeated attack on the church not agreeing spreading lies, over and over, and BOOM your gone, lol

Well dont get me wrong, its not that ALL catholics believe contraception is wrong, sadly there are many "cafeteria catholics" who just take doctrine that they like,

Everybody sins lets just face it, but its in bettering ourselves that we can come closer to god.

[GuitarMan2387]

why do you assume i don't understand? i have studied deeply, and had long conversations with catholics. there are key points i can just never agree with, as they do not line up with scripture

and please, do not try to give a history lesson, unless you are sure of your topic, and fairly certain others are not.

the books "removed" by protestants were later manuscripts, which some feel cannot be validated.

My question was though, why at 1500 were they suddenly decided, "OH wait! these arent right youve got it all wrong!" i mean...lol

[Healing Oil]

Do you believe that Christ does not dwell in my church?

I just want to know when and where you found out or claimed that this church wich was to be called the RCC was Christ ordained. Just like Moronai had a vision to build the mormon church, who was ordained to build the RCC? Where in the bible does Jesus talk about you guys? Etc...

Do you teach out of the bible I read?

[GuitarMan2387]

Several different places, again, with only the bible you cant get very far, its only when you see the tradition and the bible in action together you get the big picture, I have already sited several places to go, I am too tired to keep repeating try that site they explain things much bettern me

Yes christ does dwell in your church "where 2 or more are gathered in my name I am with them."

But the fullness of the faith remains in the catholic faith, and i really feel like Im being mean saying that but theres no other way to put it, ok ive got to go to bed.

[larryl]

My question was though, why at 1500 were they suddenly decided, "OH wait! these arent right youve got it all wrong!" i mean...lol


it wasn't sudden......please, go do some research on those who you seem so intent on converting.

don't get me wrong; i LOVE your zeal, but the first thing you need to do when talking to others about their religion, is make sure you understand it. you don't seem to understand protestantism very well

[larryl]

My question was though, why at 1500 were they suddenly decided, "OH wait! these arent right youve got it all wrong!" i mean...lol


and by the way.....the books us protestants just "decided" to take away, were one that catholics has just "decided" to add to the original jewish old testament.....(RC and Prot new testaments are the same)

[Healing Oil]

and by the way.....the books us protestants just "decided" to take away, were one that catholics has just "decided" to add to the original jewish old testament.....(RC and Prot new testaments are the same)
Wow, I never knew that...Interesting.

[Thad]

OH boy!
GOD knew from the beginning what society and civilization would advance too. And it also stands to reason that HE saw it would have been a waste of time trying to explain and give laws to Adam, Moses and other about many things today.

What GOD did do was give man a firm basis to assess and realise what was good and what was bad. What HE would want us to do or not do.

The scriptures are Holy but many times man's interptation is not. And even when interptated correct and true, man's understanding is not always as meant.

How many centuries have we ran around quoting the commandment "Thy Shall Not Kill" then they find the Dead Sea Scrolls the closest writings we have to the original and find the comandant is "Thy Shall Not Murder". A big difference.

All can quote their version but remember it is the version each person choses to believe. No matter whose version most are very close to the same intent as GOD wanted, only different in degrees and semantics. What GOD wants is for us to follow our honest moral choice. It is not the wording of the law, it is the intent that GOD wants followed.

Others may not agree with our choice but if true, spirit and scriptural directed as they feel, not situational ethics or hypocrisy, then it should be respect it. But the respect must be both ways. The we talk and learn from each other.

Honest, moral choice lead by GOD and scripture.
><> = +

[GuitarMan2387]

well that was a good discussion the other night, got a little heated, and confusing, dunno how much we actually accomplished except that we know we are both on opposite ends.

Haha, ok anyway, I was listening to a tape today on contraception and its roots in america.

The tape said that up until 1930, ALL christian churches were opposed to contraception. But then the Anglicans began to allow it for extreme circumstances.

Is this correct? I'm going to assume it is unless someone tells me otherwise.

Also in the 1960's contraception began to become increasingly more avaible to people, and more effective.

A study was presented on this tape concerning the divorce rate, because with this new contraception, and the people back then thought that contraception was going to solve all these amazing problems within marriage, I mean, abortion should go down right? Because, I mean, the babies won't be formed, meaning nothing should have to be aborted?

Also marriages should be better, because people will be able to release this "tention" and not be worried with becoming pregnant?

But the study showed that during the 60's and 70's the number of divorces increased from 6% to 17%. And then in the 90's the divorce rate was about 1/4 of every marriage, ended in a divorce.

The man conducting the study searched for a reason for why the divorces were so high, I mean with contraception now it should be better right?

He found that the line of divorces was almost equally proportional to the avaiblity of contraceptives, meaning as contraceptives were more and more avaible, the divorce rate went up.

But this doens't make any sense. Contraception is suppose to help right?

But contraception does almost the complete opposite.

Using contraception takes away the dignity from the woman, in the view of men. I mean, if I can have sex without having to worry about kids, whats keeping me from having sex with a women other than my wife, if my wife can't please me, its not like I'm having kids. This creates a huge moral problem and a near occasion of sin, I mean, we're only human and no one will know, and I'm not having a kid?

The number of abortions dramatically increased as well, why?

Because contraceptives don't work too well. And then whats left to do, kill the baby.

Contraception shifts the view of life, from treasured, to unwanted. Even though it may not appear to, it does.

That is what was one the tape, and I agree with pretty much, what are your thoughts?

[SinnerSaint]

Healing Oil,
I believe that God determines the number of children we have. So your question to me was a straw man. Anyway I do agree that it is between you and God, but women who have had abortions have made the same agruement. Now do I believe that if you use contraception you are headed straight to hell of course not, but then if a woman has an abortion I do not believe that she is going to Hell necessarily. After all we are saved by grace through faith.

[Gandalf]

Contraception shifts the view of life, from treasured, to unwanted. Even though it may not appear to, it does.
I agree that the use of contraception probably most often stems from such a view of life. But, that is not sufficient to say that it's contraception itself that is inherently immoral, any more than saying that because many unsaved people in our culture who drink alcohol do so to get drunk, the alcohol is the cause of their flawed concept that causes them to misuse it.

Contraception is not something I have any particular plan to use when I'm married, because I think children are a blessing from God, etc. I cannot, however, say that contraception is itself immoral, only that I do not personally like it. Scripture does not speak to the issue one way or the other, and every philosophical/natural law argument I've heard either has analagous conclusions that are absurd (eg. it also being equally wrong for a postmenopausal woman to have sex since it cannot possibly result in procreation), or is simply begging the question. It's simply not an issue that I can find grounds to generally form an opinion on, when applied to the actions of others. I have to leave it to conscience.

[Hawkeye Childs]

Here I go again so please bear with me and just think about it.

The forbidden fruit in the garden has been discribed many ways.
One of the clearest explanation I have heard was it was "the fruit of choice", Man wanted the right to choose. GOD knew in the beginning that this would happen, it was his plan. He cast they out with their right to choose good or evil. "You got choice, live with it, it will be your judgement."
Before this man made no choices, just agreed and was happy. But man being man decided he was just a little sharper than GOD.

GOD's own choose to be HIS, that what HE wanted. The devils' are stolen, fooled, tricked and lied to.

The basis to man's devine soul is the choices he make. God gives us the intelligence to do wonderful things and the wisdom. We do not always use the wisdom.
An example or two
The atom - atomic energy - atomic bomb
Chemicals - fertilizers - medicine - poison gas
Gun - protect, defend others - murder
Contraception - control family size to match ability - abortion murder.
Abortion - medical reasons, mother's health - or murder
GOD gave sex to all animals for procreation and to man the added gift of family unit social bonding and enjoyment. Man has sex any time both are agreeable. Animal only when the female is ready to concieve. Animal mate then wander apart, some even kill their mate after breeding.

Take the word contraception, contra means against so it is an act against concieving. Abortion is not against conception, it is after conception so is murder. The are accept medical or moral reasons. But just because a person is to weak to say no, or to lazy to use a contraceptive is not acceptable.
Again what choice will be made?

Back to choice, GOD gave man choice, HE knew man would want choice and GOD wanted man to have choice so man could choice GOD.

It's one thing to have the seraphim sing praise, that what they were created for. Man singing praise to GOD is different. Praise that man has choosen to give, to freely give and not forced to give.

There is a freedom in GOD and with that freedom is choice. So next time when thinking about Adam and Eve, say thanks. The gift of choice to freely follow and praise our GOD.
There is a tremendous difference in doing what you are forced to do and what you choose to do. And when it is right and when it is following and praising GOD it is wonderful.

><> = +

Amen....i agree.

[GuitarMan2387]

I agree that the use of contraception probably most often stems from such a view of life. But, that is not sufficient to say that it's contraception itself that is inherently immoral, any more than saying that because many unsaved people in our culture who drink alcohol do so to get drunk, the alcohol is the cause of their flawed concept that causes them to misuse it.

Contraception is not something I have any particular plan to use when I'm married, because I think children are a blessing from God, etc. I cannot, however, say that contraception is itself immoral, only that I do not personally like it. Scripture does not speak to the issue one way or the other, and every philosophical/natural law argument I've heard either has analagous conclusions that are absurd (eg. it also being equally wrong for a postmenopausal woman to have sex since it cannot possibly result in procreation), or is simply begging the question. It's simply not an issue that I can find grounds to generally form an opinion on, when applied to the actions of others. I have to leave it to conscience.


I agree, if it were a sin for post metapause women, that would make no sense. But that simply is not the case.

Limiting the number of kids you have is not immoral at all.

It is the means by which you accomplish this that make all the difference.

[Healing Oil]

I agree, if it were a sin for post metapause women, that would make no sense. But that simply is not the case.

Limiting the number of kids you have is not immoral at all.

It is the means by which you accomplish this that make all the difference.
But even by the other means that you have suggested, according to your philosophy, a man and woman are still sinning.

By other means you have suggested the family planning method, and I forgot what other method, I think there was one more. This is still purposely avoiding pregnancy. But you say we must not do that when we have sex. Family planning is having sex on days you know you most likely cant get pregnant. That to me is still a way of protection. They are choosing not to embrace the possibility of pregnancy, thus making their sexual act incomplete...

[GuitarMan2387]

Untrue,

They are completing the sexual act, they are not using any method that is contrary to natural law or Gods law.

If having sex during infertile periods was a sin that would be ridiculous because God put them there specifically for the purpose of regularint children.

They are still open and are not blocking life in any way.

[Gandalf]

Your conclusions though depend upon your assumptions as to why God does things, not on any basic premises on which we've agreed.

[GuitarMan2387]

True Gandalf, if our premises are false, well then, we have a solid arguement for something that is incorrect.

However when we look back and see that up until the 1930's every Christian Church rejected contraception, until the Anglicans decided to allow it for spiecal purposes, and now we have what we have today, people thinking it is great, it just doesn't make sense, What changed in the last 70 years? The morality of the world.

Actually NFP is more effective than contraception, in fact if you dont want to have children NFP is the way for you because it has a 99.6% success rate.

Contraception doesnt even come close to those numbers.

So if it works better, why are people still using it? Is it because they want to be able to have sex whenever they want? Well then, what is the true value of sex, is it just for pleasure?

This raises alot of questions.

[MadCatholicGomer]

But even by the other means that you have suggested, according to your philosophy, a man and woman are still sinning.

By other means you have suggested the family planning method, and I forgot what other method, I think there was one more. This is still purposely avoiding pregnancy. But you say we must not do that when we have sex. Family planning is having sex on days you know you most likely cant get pregnant. That to me is still a way of protection. They are choosing not to embrace the possibility of pregnancy, thus making their sexual act incomplete...

There are a lot of things that need to be said here.

1. First of all, we don't believe that a couple should have sex only when they know they can get pregnant. God Himself built into the fertility of a woman times when a normally fertile woman will be infertile. We are rational creatures, and God wants us to use that rationality to decide whether or not a certain time is a good time to have children.

2. That being said, objectively marriage and the sexual act are for the procreation of children. It is not the only reason but it is the most important reason: by means of the sexual act, God creates new souls who are destined to live with Him eternally. Wanting to have children is the norm in marriage; Scripture is chalked full of testimony to the fact that large families are a blessing. If a couple decides that for a physical, psychological, or financial reason they should not have another child at a certain time, or even for the duration of their marriage, it should be a HARD decision, one that is not come to easily, and one they should be a little saddened by.

3. You may disagree with me on this, I think a lot of times couples choose not to have children for reasons that are either selfish or, even if well-meaning, are just wrong. For example, not to have another child because you are afraid all of your children may not be able to go to college (financially) is not a good reason. The "human education" that a child can get by having another brother or sister far outweighs that consideration. If a couple uses family planning to limit their family size for a selfish or just-plain wrong reason, it can be a sinful action.

4. That being said, I still believe that using natural family planning for a bad reason is "less bad" than using contraception for a good reason. It is for the same reason that homosexual acts of a "committed couple" are worse than heterosexual fornication for a "one-night stand". Heterosexual fornication still respects the God-given design of sex, whereas, by its very nature, homosexual acts thwart the sexual act. In Romans 1, Paul speaks about homosexuality saying that it derives from deliberately choosing a false understanding of who God is, and "For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions"... he isn't just speaking about unchastity, but homosexuality ["exchanging natural relations for unnatural" (v. 26)].

5. One of the arguments that has been used in this thread is that the result of contraception and family planning is the same, so how is one necessarily wrong where the other isn't. While my examples which follows will not prove that family planning is different, it will show that just because the result is the same does not mean both means to get there are right. Two families with an elderly grandparent who is suffering from cancer that is terminal. One family helps to ease the person's pain as much as possible but lets them die on their own. The other couple helps ease the person's pain through euthanasia. The results are the same, does that mean that the means are morally equal? The difference is that one allowed God to be God, and the other took matters of life and death into their own hands.

[Healing Oil]

Untrue,

They are completing the sexual act, they are not using any method that is contrary to natural law or Gods law.

If having sex during infertile periods was a sin that would be ridiculous because God put them there specifically for the purpose of regularint children.

They are still open and are not blocking life in any way.Of course it would be rediculous, I agree. What does God's law say? I dont remember but I think earlier in this thread "natural law" was something brought on by Catholicism. So I'm not going to abide by that, because I am not catholic.

I will, however, abide by God's law. And God's law has not told me that I can't use birth control.

I will ask you one more time though, what do you feel about conviction and the personal relationship between one and God? Many many many people say that drinking is a sin. That is clearly false, the bible says it's not, only being drunk with wine is a sin. Some people have conviction in Christ not to drink, perfectly fine. Some people that have a same relationship, if not better, with Christ feel it fine to have a drink with dinner here and there, is that a sin? Well, no I dont think so. They brought it to God, prayed on it I hope, and have not been struck down for it.

Do you agree that God works different with all people without contradicting what he has already set forth for our lives (in His word)? We have already established that the bible does not ban BC, so maybe it could very well be a possibility in some Christians lives, that again is between them (or me) and God.

This to me is an established rule that man has made up.

[Healing Oil]

4. That being said, I still believe that using natural family planning for a bad reason is "less bad" than using contraception for a good reason. It is for the same reason that homosexual acts of a "committed couple" are worse than heterosexual fornication for a "one-night stand". Heterosexual fornication still respects the God-given design of sex, whereas, by its very nature, homosexual acts thwart the sexual act. In Romans 1, Paul speaks about homosexuality saying that it derives from deliberately choosing a false understanding of who God is, and "For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions"... he isn't just speaking about unchastity, but homosexuality ["exchanging natural relations for unnatural" (v. 26)].

You are measuring sin. Sin is sin in the eyes of God. We as humans measure sin all the time, but to God it is all the same.

Homosexual sex is no worse than heterosexual sex (out of marriage). Im sure we should atleast be able to agree on that.

[MadCatholicGomer]

You are measuring sin. Sin is sin in the eyes of God. We as humans measure sin all the time, but to God it is all the same.

Homosexual sex is no worse than heterosexual sex (out of marriage). Im sure we should atleast be able to agree on that.

Nope, sorry. The Bible does teach that some sins are worse than others: specifically in 1 Jn. 5:16-17. In the Old Covenant, some sins received a less serious penalty than other sins (otherwise every sin would have received death), and those penalties were established by God. Why do you think that was?

[MadCatholicGomer]

Of course it would be rediculous, I agree. What does God's law say? I dont remember but I think earlier in this thread "natural law" was something brought on by Catholicism. So I'm not going to abide by that, because I am not catholic.

I will, however, abide by God's law. And God's law has not told me that I can't use birth control.

I will ask you one more time though, what do you feel about conviction and the personal relationship between one and God? Many many many people say that drinking is a sin. That is clearly false, the bible says it's not, only being drunk with wine is a sin. Some people have conviction in Christ not to drink, perfectly fine. Some people that have a same relationship, if not better, with Christ feel it fine to have a drink with dinner here and there, is that a sin? Well, no I dont think so. They brought it to God, prayed on it I hope, and have not been struck down for it.

Do you agree that God works different with all people without contradicting what he has already set forth for our lives (in His word)? We have already established that the bible does not ban BC, so maybe it could very well be a possibility in some Christians lives, that again is between them (or me) and God.

This to me is an established rule that man has made up.

The Bible does not specifically ban birth control, no, but birth control goes against established biblical principles. In the same way, the Bible does not ban in vitro fertilization, but it is an immoral way to conceive children and it goes against biblical principles.

There are some things that God does not condemn but which might be a sin for some people to use. I agree with that. I disagree that contraception is one of those "optional" topics. God does not want anyone using birth control. This is not only my conviction, but it was the conviction of non-Catholic Christians for over 400 years until 1930. Whether you like it or not, these people did not accept Catholic tradition and they are your spiritual ancestors, yet they rejected birth control and, in America, it was Protestant lawmakers that made birth control illegal. Now, you may disagree with their reasoning... but you cannot make this into a Catholic issue, because it isn't.

Natural law is biblical. It is found in Paul's letter to the Romans, chapter 1. He talks about the Gentiles knowing, without the law, what they are supposed to do. That means that there are things that God wants us to do that we don't necessarily need God's Revelation to know; though having God's Revelation makes it easier because we have weakened intellects and because sinners have a vested interest in "not knowing the truth" because it allows them to continue in their sin without having their consciences bother them.

[GuitarMan2387]

No, God never contradicts himself.

Something cannot be "wrong" for someone else but "right" for another. That simply cannot be.

There is a set of what is morally correct, and what is morally wrong, and we are to abide by this.

There is nothing wrong with a personal relationship with Christ, in fact its awesome and encouraged!

However it is when believers begin to "interpret" teachings for themselves that we get error, or misunderstanding.

We are all humans. Humans make mistakes. Which is why the Catholic Church is so great because the humans do not make up the doctrine! Christ himself guides the Church and guarrentied that "The gates of hell, would never prevail against it!"

It is in the Church that we can firmly believe that the teachings are correct, because it is Christ himself who is making the teachings!

As for a sin is a sin.

In the Catholic Church there are veniel and mortal sins.

A veniel sin is a sin that is not of serious matter, that hurts our relationship with Christ, eg. talking back to my parents (for me) These sins are forgiven during a certain part of the mass automatically, ( as long as we are sorry, but it is still important to confess them, in confession, but we can still recieve communion during Mass.)

A mortal sin is a sin that has been committed in full conciousness, with the intent to do harm, and the knowing that it is wrong and to do it anyway. This is a severe sin such as murder. It requires the one who has committed it to go to confession before recieving communion again, because we must be pure to recieve Christ into our body.

So one could say that I would rather talk back to my parents, than kill someone. That would be "choosing the lesser of two evils."

[Healing Oil]

Nope, sorry. THe Bible does teach that some sins are worse than others: specifically in 1 Jn. 5:16-17

1 John 5:16-17 (New King James Version)

16 If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. 17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death.

_________________________ _________________________ _________

To my understanding, the unpardonable sin is the blaspheming of Christ, or, not accepting Him. This is the sin that leads to death according to my understanding. Murder does not lead to eternal death, because we can be saved from that. Homosexuality does not lead to eternal death, because we can be saved from that. We can not however be saved if we choose to rebuke God. Of course all sin is a choice to rebuke God, but God is always open to save us, if we so choose. It is not choosing Him that is the unpardonable sin leading to death.

I feel this verse was taken out of context specifically because you stated what exact sins are worse, when the bible has not.

"Nobody can come to the Father but by me..."

Without Him, there is no Heaven, that is the gospel right there.

[MadCatholicGomer]

1 John 5:16-17 (New King James Version)

16 If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. 17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death.

_________________________ _________________________ _________

To my understanding, the unpardonable sin is the blaspheming of Christ, or, not accepting Him. This is the sin that leads to death according to my understanding. Murder does not lead to eternal death, because we can be saved from that. Homosexuality does not lead to eternal death, because we can be saved from that. We can not however be saved if we choose to rebuke God. Of course all sin is a choice to rebuke God, but God is always open to save us, if we so choose. It is not choosing Him that is the unpardonable sin leading to death.

I feel this verse was taken out of context specifically because you stated what exact sins are worse, when the bible has not.

"Nobody can come to the Father but by me..."

Without Him, there is no Heaven, that is the gospel right there.

Even by saying that, you have contradicted your principle that "sin is sin" in the eyes of God. You have consented that not all sins are of equal measure to God. Also, I edited the post in which I made that statement, so if you could go back and see what I added about the OT.

As far as taking it out of context: my point was only to show that some are worse than others.

[Healing Oil]

We are all humans. Humans make mistakes. Which is why the Catholic Church is so great because the humans do not make up the doctrine! Christ himself guides the Church and guarrentied that "The gates of hell, would never prevail against it!"


I dont remember, but I dont think you answered my question. Who initially started the CC? I could very well say the same thing you said about the mormon church. They feel their doctrine is divine and correct. But someone had to start somewhere.

Moronai and Joseph Smith, Martin Luther and the Lutheran church, *blank* and the CC?

By doctrine, do you mean the bible? Or do you have a whole other set of book(s)?

[MadCatholicGomer]

I have already talked to GuitarMan, and we have agreed that we should stay on topic... so lets do that... while I think that the authority of the Catholic Church is important, this is not the thread for that debate.

[GuitarMan2387]

Yea, thats for a whole other discussion, if you would like, make a thread, and we'll discuss it till its dead, haha, but lets try to stay on contraception here.

Do you believe in natural law?

[Healing Oil]

I dont want to sound rude or offensive, but, I do not feel it is wise or beneficial for me to continue discussing issues with anyone who feels spiritual superiority over another group of Christians.

I have not been provided adequate biblical proof, actually I have not been provided biblical proof. I have been provided one or two verses that I feel were taken out of context. I have asked what God says, I have asked what the bible says, many of my questions went unanswered, possibly because they can not be answered with out referring to what the catholic church believes in.

"The catholic church says..." simply is not a reasonable argument to me. I think I will just gracefully bow out for now :) Been fun gentlemen.

[GuitarMan2387]

Well it would be wise to start another thread, as people may become confused if were are discussing multiple church teachings.

Also again, it is a not "holyier than thou" kinda attitude, but a, lemme explain to you kinda deal.

Anyway, hope this continues.

Christ's peace.

[larryl]

No, God never contradicts himself.

Something cannot be "wrong" for someone else but "right" for another. That simply cannot be.

There is a set of what is morally correct, and what is morally wrong, and we are to abide by this.



so you do not believe that some are convicted of things that others are not?

i know people who feel convicted to listen to only "christian" music...and so to listen to secular music would be a sin for them. i feel no such conviction.....

same could be said for drinking, watching tv, etc...

[GuitarMan2387]

so you do not believe that some are convicted of things that others are not?

i know people who feel convicted to listen to only "christian" music...and so to listen to secular music would be a sin for them. i feel no such conviction.....

same could be said for drinking, watching tv, etc...

Listening to secular music is not a sin, they may feel that they need to only listen to christian music, but listening to secular music can in no way be a sin, unless the music is, bad, and has disgusting images, ect.

There is a set of what is right or wrong, that is it.

[larryl]

Listening to secular music is not a sin, they may feel that they need to only listen to christian music, but listening to secular music can in no way be a sin, unless the music is, bad, and has disgusting images, ect.

There is a set of what is right or wrong, that is it.


where is that set? please show it to me.

and answer this.....if you feel the Holy Spirit is telling you something is wrong, and you continue to do it, is that not sin?

[GuitarMan2387]

read the catechism of the catholic church and the ten commandments, that pretty much sums up everything.

About the holy spirit, what if I felt that the holy spirit was telling me that making my bed was wrong, well obviously its not, so perhaps a person could have mistaken what the holy spirit is telling them.

anyway im not really sure what were discussing lol

[larryl]

read the catechism of the catholic church and the ten commandments, that pretty much sums up everything.

About the holy spirit, what if I felt that the holy spirit was telling me that making my bed was wrong, well obviously its not, so perhaps a person could have mistaken what the holy spirit is telling them.

anyway im not really sure what were discussing lol

o ok. so while the holy spirit led some one, sometime (hence we have the catechism) he doesn't do that anymore. i see.

actually, i disagree.

i know people who feel convicted on many things....drinking, music, smoking, .....for them, those things are sin. i will dig up a scripture ref later....i am tired

[GuitarMan2387]

Ok, well, lemme see if I can explain what I think your asking.

For those people who think it is a sin to drink, they are doing good by not indulging in those things.

Maybe for them drinking is an occasion of sin, (meaning that if they drink, they usually cannot control themselves, so they must abstain in order not to sin)

This would be correct, however one can not make the statement that, in general, moderate drinking is wrong.

It may infact "lead" others to sin, moreso than say, me or you, but it is not a sin to have a drink.

As for the catechism, it is a collection of teachings that the Church has deemed correct, with deep thought and inspiration from the Holy Spirit. It is not that the Holy Spirit does not inspire people today, because any time we feel the need to pray, or to teach others, or reading scripture, they Holy Spirit is working through us.

However we must be carefully when we decide to interpret doctrine. Because we are fallible, and may not understand the text in context completely, and because of this create skewed doctrine, unintentionally, and then adhere to it and be blinded.

This is why Christ set up His Church. Because he knew me and you would have a hard time understanding the Eucharist, or the sacrament of confession, so he set up a system in which the Holy Spirit can divinly inspire those appointed by him, to make infallible and correct doctrine, that we can trust is correct because Christ Himself promised that it would.

Now of course this is all complicated and hard to take in at once. But in its essence that is what the Church is, The Bride of Christ.

[larryl]

the problem here is, and will be, that we disagree on the authority of the catholic church (whom you continue to refer to as "The Church" after being told that some find this insulting).

since we cannot agree on that, agreeing on other things will be hard, as you use the catholic church's word as your authority on so many things

[GuitarMan2387]

Yea, its either all or nothing when it comes to the Catholic Church, because it is one, and so you cannot just choose little bits and parts of it.

Generally, if you agree on one thing, you will agree on the others, and if you disagree with one thing, you will disagree with the others.

[GuitarMan2387]

Jesus tells us to come just as we are. Battered, bruised, disgusting and sinful. He does not tell us to clean up first, and then come. I would expect that His "chosen church" would work this way as well.

As I was reading back through this whole discussion today, I rememebered the gospel at church this is what it said.

"Matthew
Chapter 22

1
1 Jesus again in reply spoke to them in parables, saying,
2
"The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who gave a wedding feast 2 for his son.
3
3 He dispatched his servants to summon the invited guests to the feast, but they refused to come.
4
A second time he sent other servants, saying, 'Tell those invited: "Behold, I have prepared my banquet, my calves and fattened cattle are killed, and everything is ready; come to the feast."'
5
Some ignored the invitation and went away, one to his farm, another to his business.
6
The rest laid hold of his servants, mistreated them, and killed them.
7
4 The king was enraged and sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.
8
Then he said to his servants, 'The feast is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy to come.
9
Go out, therefore, into the main roads and invite to the feast whomever you find.'
10
The servants went out into the streets and gathered all they found, bad and good alike, 5 and the hall was filled with guests.
11
6 But when the king came in to meet the guests he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment.
12
He said to him, 'My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?' But he was reduced to silence.
13
7 Then the king said to his attendants, 'Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.'
14
Many are invited, but few are chosen."

I believe you have misunderstood the passage you quote from.

As you can see, Christ does want us to prepare ourselves for his kingdom.

Why was the man without a wedding garment thrown out of the feast?

Well, lets take a look at what the wedding garment signifies. It seems to suggest cleanliness and proper edicate.

"Come as you are" seems to suggest that we should come with our fallen nature, accepting whom we are as humans, fallen. However one would not go to venture before a king dressed in ordinary clothes. Instead, a noble citizen would prepare himself, and dress with his best garments.

Likewise are we to come before Christ, bearing all of His gifts. Yes, we have sinned, and are not perfect, but we have washed off this scum, and put on clean clothes so that we may present outselves properly.

[Pouye]

"Come as you are" seems to suggest that we should come with our fallen nature, accepting whom we are as humans, fallen. However one would not go to venture before a king dressed in ordinary clothes. Instead, a noble citizen would prepare himself, and dress with his best garments.

Likewise are we to come before Christ, bearing all of His gifts. Yes, we have sinned, and are not perfect, but we have washed off this scum, and put on clean clothes so that we may present outselves properly.

Actually, our wedding garments are the righteousness of Christ:

"Don't lie to each other, for you have stripped off your old evil nature and all its wicked deeds. In its place you have clothed yourselves with a brand-new nature that is continually being renewed as you learn more and more about Christ, who created this new nature within you."
Col. 3:9-10

It is Christ who washes us and cleanses us with His Blood:

"There was a time when some of you were just like that, but now your sins have been washed away, and you have been set apart for God. You have been made right with God because of what the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God have done for you."
1 Cor. 6:11

Titus 3:5-7 says this:

"He saved us, not because of the good things we did, but because of his mercy. He washed away our sins and gave us a new life through the Holy Spirit. He generously poured out the Spirit upon us because of what Jesus Christ our Savior did. He declared us not guilty because of his great kindness. And now we know that we will inherit eternal life."

You aren't suggesting that we need to get cleaned up before we take a bath, are you?

Off topic :o,

Rock

[GuitarMan2387]

That was my friend, btw.

What does the wedding garment signify, why was the man thrown out?

[Pouye]

That was my friend, btw.

What does the wedding garment signify, why was the man thrown out?

Jesus said that many are called, but some of those "many" are not the elect.

The man had come to the feast but had not made use of the appropriate clothing as the other guests had done.

Some commentators give a good deal of attention to the significance of the robe, some seeing in it meritorious works, others imputed righteousness or the righteousness that comes as a consequence of God’s saving work in the sinner, and so on. It is wiser to avoid speculation since the narrative gives no hint of a particular meaning we should attach to it.

In this parable the king is a strong personality, one who tolerates no nonsense. The man has no business being where he is, clothed as he is. So the king gives a command to his servants, directing them to tie the man up and be thrown into the outer darkness, an expression often used to denote the uncomfortable lodging of those who are rejected.

It would be inconsistent with the Scriptures to say that our righteousness can save us, or even clean us... for only the righteousness of Christ can do these things. What is consistent with Scripture is we as believers must abide in Christ and trust in His righteousness to save us and bring us before His Father spotless and without blemish.

Rock

[Healing Oil]

Listening to secular music is not a sin, they may feel that they need to only listen to christian music, but listening to secular music can in no way be a sin, unless the music is, bad, and has disgusting images, ect.

There is a set of what is right or wrong, that is it.
What you said is correct. Thus making it right for some, and wrong for others. Thus concluding that what can be right for someone, can be wrong for someone else. I believe that whatever is not conclusively stated as wrong (in the bible) means that it can be just as much right as it can be wrong. Does that makes sense? This is why I do not believe in making rules about what is wrong and what is right, when the source of our convictions and values doesnt specify it. God created conviction for a reason, we wouldnt have and/or need it if everything was specified in the bible. I believe God did this purposely so we would communicate to Him and put our trust in Him.

This making it possible for some things to be right for you, wrong for me, and vice versa.

[MU STE]

You suggest we read the whole Catechism....I did, and yet I am not catholic...Luther's great sin according to the Church at the time was saying God was eternally greater than man (rejection of tradition as binding) and the Solos(sola Scriptura, sola fide, solus Christus, soli Deo gloria, sola gratia)
I hate this argument, as the Lutheran church in America isn't an enemy, nor should have been Luther (he only sought to end corruption and false teaching in the church)
In other words, learn your history before you insult a man of God by calling him a devil and misleader, because honestly I like catholics, but find too often catholics don't like Lutherans.

[GuitarMan2387]

You suggest we read the whole Catechism....I did, and yet I am not catholic...Luther's great sin according to the Church at the time was saying God was eternally greater than man (rejection of tradition as binding) and the Solos(sola Scriptura, sola fide, solus Christus, soli Deo gloria, sola gratia)
I hate this argument, as the Lutheran church in America isn't an enemy, nor should have been Luther (he only sought to end corruption and false teaching in the church)
In other words, learn your history before you insult a man of God by calling him a devil and misleader, because honestly I like catholics, but find too often catholics don't like Lutherans.

Please tell me where I said that Luther was a devil. I believe that Luther may have had the intention of fixing all of the corruption and bad things that were going on with the church at the time. However the problems were not with the doctrine of the church, they were with the people and practices the people were doing (selling indulgences, ect.)

Luther instead decided to take matters into his own hands, instead of having patience, (as can be seen these problems were solved) it was in leaving the church and denying the unity that all christians should have is where he went wrong. He should have stayed with the church and "reformed" within the church. Nothing was wrong with the doctrine, but when he left people began to think that something was, and then, well, you know the rest.

That is why Luther was wrong, he denied unity.

[MU STE]

Much as you hate to admit it, Indulgences were Doctorine in the Church. It was in Luther's time that they sold the false pieces of paper to build the church of St Peter in Rome.
It is because of luther that the counterreformation, and the redemption of the Catholic church from the grip of greed and vice (they indeed sold Bishopships in those days, read the history books outside Roman control) happened, so really Luther should be given credit for both of our churches being what they are.
And again I ask, what Unity? Even in Luthers time you had the Chaldeans(Iraqi Christians) the Orthodox Church, several anabaptist and independent movements, and a festering reformation in England.
There was no unity, face it.

[larryl]

He should have stayed with the church and "reformed" within the church. Nothing was wrong with the doctrine, but when he left people began to think that something was, and then, well, you know the rest.

That is why Luther was wrong, he denied unity.

he tried to stay in and reform, but he was to be be-headed.....

[Gandalf]

Luther did try to get the RCC to reform from within, but politics got in the way. And, Luther was a fairly abrasive fellow (at least in his writing, he was about as subtle as our friend Tulip; he made good points, but made them in such a way it was certain his opponents would be fired up against him rather than convinced). It's somewhat understandable that although many Bible scholars within the RCC at the time agreed with Luther's points, he alienated the established powers rather than convincing them to reform. I wouldn't place the blame solely on him for "denying unity" though - there were real and serious doctrinal and practical issues that he raised that the corrupt power structure of the time refused to address, regardless of merit. It probably would've been possible in time to correct some of the issues (and his approach actually probably hurt the chances of that happening in the RCC), but the people in power at the time weren't willing to make most of the important changes that were needed. It was a two-sided split, not a unilateral one on either part.

That said, the whole Luther vs the Catholics dispute is really one for another thread, and has little to do with contraception or natural law. :)

[GuitarMan2387]

Posted by Gandolf:

"As for the natural law approach, the problem I see with your reasoning is the assumption that sexual relations exist only for the purpose of procreation. By that logic, contraception is exactly comparable to having relations when elderly/postmenopausal or otherwise sterile. I think it would seem rather ridiculous to everyone here to say that it would be immoral for an elderly married couple to engage in such relations. But, the exact same logic would support that conclusion. If the premises and logic are sound, then both conclusions must be correct. If one conclusion is incorrect, it must be because either the premises or the reasoning are wrong."

You are correct in saying that it would be dumb if it were a sin for elderly/postmenopausal to engage in sexual intercourse.

The reason that contraception is wrong is because it is not allowing "the seed" to be "sown." In the case of the elderly/postmenopausal couple, the seed is still being sown and, through no artificial way, is the seed being prevented from sown, it is infact, through no fault of their own, they cannot concieve a child.

This is perfectly fine, it is only when you reject the "seed" and waste it, is it a sin.

Do you understand my logic?

[Gandalf]

Why specifically is that a sin though? In order to make a natural law argument, it would have to be obviously so to most people in most cultures, apart from unobservable premises, and I don't see how that's the case.

I'll agree with you in many practical cases that people are wrong to try to avoid children because they're being selfish and children are a blessing from God. But, I think there are also probably cases where it's not wrong, though it's probably less common than the other case. Either way, the problem's not the means, but the end, in my view. We're discussing the means, I think here.

[MadCatholicGomer]

In order to make a natural law argument, it would have to be obviously so to most people in most cultures, apart from unobservable premises, and I don't see how that's the case.


Natural law does not necessarily mean that it has to be "obviously so to most people in most cultures." It means that on the basis of reason alone a person can reach an understanding that it is right or wrong. The problem is that sin can get in the way and make a person harden their heart: clouds the intellect so that we cannot see things clearly. Many cultures today do not, in general, recognize it as a sin... but we live in cultures that are so sex-saturated that they have a vested interest in not seeing contraception as wrong.

I'd like to remind once again that all Christian churches, before 1930, Margaret Sanger, and Planned Parenthood, taught that contraception is wrong.

[Gandalf]

If a general person in any culture cannot recognize something via reason, a natural law argument probably doesn't apply, as the premises on which you are reasoning are not fundamentally apparent. You have to have a universally accepted premise from which to begin in order to use such an argument. Men everywhere know murder is wrong. It is obvious to them - natural law is a valid argument with regards to such issues, as nearly everyone has the ability to recognize the premise. The premises that you're basing your argument on don't seem to be universally obvious in that sort of a way, so far as I can tell. In order to reach any conclusion using reason, there still must be some premise from which reason begins. It does not invent them. I say your natural law argument does not apply because you are using premises that are not accepted by all parties as being basic and correct, not because there's a flaw in your reasoning from those premises.

As for your historical argument, I'd have to see some evidence of it to know precisely how to respond... but I'd speculate that we'd find that old arguments against preventing pregnancy that hold weight are against the end, not the means. In general, many peoples' motivations in preventing pregnancy are fundamentally selfish, and likely sinful - the ends are not good. But, in modern times, our infant mortality rates have plummeted and our medical knowledge has vastly increased. It used to be that a family not using contraception would expect 2-4 surviving children. Now, it is more like 5-10. There are now plausible ends that would be responsible and conceivably righteous, rather than selfish, so the general position of many churches would rationally change to suit the new circumstances and knowledge. If it's the ends of something that are wrong, and not the means, and the situation changes such that there are possible ends to reach by the same means that are not wrong, there shouldn't be a lingering bias against the means themselves.

Imagine a hypothetical situation where there were no way to consume alcohol without becoming drunk, and then the situation changed to the current one, where it's possible to either abuse alcohol by being a drunk, or use it in moderation. In the former state, all would've agreed it'd be wrong to drink alcohol, because there's no plausible end to the action that's not wrong. But, in the new state, there are plausible ends that are not wrong, so we must focus on the ends, rather than the means. What we have now, on a large scale is like two groups - one who focusses on the means, and favors Prohibition, and another that realizes there's nothing wrong with the means, but many of whom has forgotten that there is still something wrong with some of the ends of those means. The first group sees some of those in the second engaging in the means for negative ends, and blames it on the means. Everyone in the other group agrees that the means are not of themselves a problem, but the issue of the ends gets ignored altogether in the discussion. I think that's what's happening here, on our current topic.

[GuitarMan2387]

I dont see how the ends can justify the means?

Take this situation,

I want to donate money to a charity.

Now I can go about this two ways. 1. I can steal the money (which would be more than I can give myself) 2. Or I can just take the cash I have at home (which is less) Both have the same ends, but one of the means are obviously very wrong.

[Pouye]

I think that's what's happening here, on our current topic.

Very well put, Gandalf.

Rock

[GuitarMan2387]

If a general person in any culture cannot recognize something via reason, a natural law argument probably doesn't apply, as the premises on which you are reasoning are not fundamentally apparent. You have to have a universally accepted premise from which to begin in order to use such an argument. Men everywhere know murder is wrong. It is obvious to them - natural law is a valid argument with regards to such issues, as nearly everyone has the ability to recognize the premise. The premises that you're basing your argument on don't seem to be universally obvious in that sort of a way, so far as I can tell. In order to reach any conclusion using reason, there still must be some premise from which reason begins. It does not invent them. I say your natural law argument does not apply because you are using premises that are not accepted by all parties as being basic and correct, not because there's a flaw in your reasoning from those premises.

As for your historical argument, I'd have to see some evidence of it to know precisely how to respond... but I'd speculate that we'd find that old arguments against preventing pregnancy that hold weight are against the end, not the means. In general, many peoples' motivations in preventing pregnancy are fundamentally selfish, and likely sinful - the ends are not good. But, in modern times, our infant mortality rates have plummeted and our medical knowledge has vastly increased. It used to be that a family not using contraception would expect 2-4 surviving children. Now, it is more like 5-10. There are now plausible ends that would be responsible and conceivably righteous, rather than selfish, so the general position of many churches would rationally change to suit the new circumstances and knowledge. If it's the ends of something that are wrong, and not the means, and the situation changes such that there are possible ends to reach by the same means that are not wrong, there shouldn't be a lingering bias against the means themselves.

Imagine a hypothetical situation where there were no way to consume alcohol without becoming drunk, and then the situation changed to the current one, where it's possible to either abuse alcohol by being a drunk, or use it in moderation. In the former state, all would've agreed it'd be wrong to drink alcohol, because there's no plausible end to the action that's not wrong. But, in the new state, there are plausible ends that are not wrong, so we must focus on the ends, rather than the means. What we have now, on a large scale is like two groups - one who focusses on the means, and favors Prohibition, and another that realizes there's nothing wrong with the means, but many of whom has forgotten that there is still something wrong with some of the ends of those means. The first group sees some of those in the second engaging in the means for negative ends, and blames it on the means. Everyone in the other group agrees that the means are not of themselves a problem, but the issue of the ends gets ignored altogether in the discussion. I think that's what's happening here, on our current topic.


Contraception is not taught to be wrong because people use it selfishly. That is not the reason that it is taught to be morally illicit by the Catholic Church. A couple can use contraception for "appearently good" reasons and for selfish reasons, and they are both morally wrong. This issue being debated here is why?

Contraception is taught to be wrong by the Catholic Church because it prohibits the completion of the sexual act. It dissassociates the sexual act with procreation.

For a sexual act to be complete it must always end in the most natural way possible.(i.e. the sperm being ejaculated into the female.) If that does not happen during the course of the conjugal act, then it is morally illicit and a mortal sin.

That is the teaching of the Catholic Church, and it is now a question of why this is wrong.

Hopefully this narrows this thread down to one discussion now.

[Pouye]

Contraception is not taught to be wrong because people use it selfishly. That is not the reason that it is taught to be morally illicit by the Catholic Church. A couple can use contraception for "appearently good" reasons and for selfish reasons, and they are both morally wrong. This issue being debated here is why?

Contraception is taught to be wrong by the Catholic Church because it prohibits the completion of the sexual act. It dissassociates the sexual act with procreation.

For a sexual act to be complete it must always end in the most natural way possible.(i.e. the sperm being ejaculated into the female.) If that does not happen during the course of the conjugal act, then it is morally illicit and a mortal sin.

That is the teaching of the Catholic Church, and it is now a question of why this is wrong.

Hopefully this narrows this thread down to one discussion now.

It is wrong to a Catholic because someone told you this was wrong. Period. You must side with the RCC. If they say oral sex is wrong, you must believe it to be wrong. If they say condoms are wrong, you have to believe them. If they say there are men on the sun, you have to believe them. Same ol' story. They burned people at the stake for translating the Bible because they believed they had the right and obligation to do so. They were flat out wrong, but what they say goes until they say something different. And you, being a good Catholic, will always agree and you will light the fire that burns the next heretic alive.

Rock

[GuitarMan2387]

Interesting reponse Pouye, and one that I did not expect from you.

You seem to resort to stone throwing when your angry instead asking why something is wrong. You are ignorant to say that its the same old story until we say something different, as if we make up doctrine. The Catholic Church is the only church that has been 100% consistant since its beginnings.

By bashing the church you go against St. Augustine, Aquinas, and countless other men and women who devoted there lives to the study of moral issues, and you tell me that we make up doctrine? I find it very hard to believe someone can "come" to a better explanation than many who devoted their lives to this kind of stuff.

Oral sex used as foreplay is not wrong. It only becomes wrong if the sexual act ends there, (meaning it does not end in the ejactulation of sperm into the female) Hmm sounds familiar doesn't it?

Why are condoms wrong? Because they do not allow the sexual act to be complete, hmmm sounds familiar doesn't it?

As for burning people alive, this arguement doesn't even make sense. Name the last time someone was burned at the stake?

Once again you fail to see that the Church is only garruntied to be correct in matters of faith and morals. Practices such as selling indulgences and burning people alive are things that are wrong however the Church the offical doctrine of the Church concerning morality did not say that this was allowed.

You fail to seperate Doctrine from the acts of fallible men.

Next time the Church teaches there are men in the sun or we burn someone alive come find me and I will renounce the Catholic Church, until then refrain from making ridiculous arguements.

If you want to throw stones that is your own game. I am here to discuss moral issues that are obviously very relative in the world and here.

Now back on track.

[Howlin' Wolf]

By bashing the church you go against St. Augustine, Aquinas, and countless other men and women who devoted there lives to the study of moral issues, and you tell me that we make up doctrine? I find it very hard to believe someone can "come" to a better explanation than many who devoted their lives to this kind of stuff.

the reformers came to a better explanation

[Howlin' Wolf]

No, even if they did, (which is not true) By breaking off from the church they deny the unity of the church. and that in itself is wrong.

Denying unity is always wrong. We are supposed to be the body of christ, united.

Again lets keep this thread on topic please.

seperating one's self from false teaching is a virtue that should be commended. i dont see the point of this thread or any thread that involves protestants and catholics debating an issue. we base all of our opinions on scripture, you base yours on church tradition...so whats the point? ive read the catechism, and i can use scripture to shred every argumrnt and make you look foolish. shall i do that? would that be profitable?

[Howlin' Wolf]

I would like to see you try. It cannot be done. All of your scripture is based on assumptions and things that don't hold up, or taken out of context.

I still don't understand where everyone gets the idea that they have a docterate in theology and can translate the Bible correctly 100% of the time?

Where do you get your authority?

What is your take on contraception, can we please stay on topic.
youre right. i'm wrong

the bible does say that Mary intercedes for sinners, that confession must be made to a priest, that contraception is sinful, that salvation is through the church, that purgatory exists, that works save, that "hail mary's" cleanse sin, and yadda yadda yadda

[Howlin' Wolf]

You misunderstand the need for works. And I've never head of Hail Mary's cleansing one's sin.

Once again you've proven yourself to be useless in having a senseable and logical arguement.

Wheres gandalf, he makes the most sense on these boards.
Gandalf makes sense because he tolerates your supreme ignorance and closed mindedness. i, however, do not

you make arguments, yet never post scripture. you have made it known that virtually every member of these here boards are not part of the true church. you constantly seek to advance catholic propaganda, that is rebuked with scripture every time. unlike MCG, you are incapable of having any sort of debate without bringing down condemnation on the reformers, who are an intergal part of every protestant's theology, including the band of this website(all protestants). when confronted with scripture, you claim that it is out of context and that we dont know what we are talking about. you constantly site the catechism, when we have shown that it contains error. you fail to meet anyone here on any common ground, because like i said earlier, we arent part of the true church. you call into question the educational backgorund of anyone that opposes you, because in your mind, protestants arent as smart as catholic priests. there is nothing more proud than a teenager with something to prove. but it would be in your best interests to shut up and listen sometime, you might actually learn a thing or two.

[Howlin' Wolf]

listening to you complain will not help. Now we you support your position and quote scripture w/e you want instead of cry about how things that are not relevant.

I cannot debate with you because you never post anything but direct attacks.

nice dodge!

[GuitarMan2387]

see there you go again.

Would you please just post your opinion and the reasons you came to this conclusion and your scriptural evidence to support it?

[Healing Oil]

I would like to see you try. It cannot be done. All of your scripture is based on assumptions and things that don't hold up, or taken out of context. Unfortunately, this is your argument against almost every citation of Scripture that we have used on this board.


I still don't understand where everyone gets the idea that they have a docterate in theology and can translate the Bible correctly 100% of the time?
Isnt that what you are kind of doing? It doesnt not matter how consistent a church is in anything. It matters how correct they are. Consistent your church is, sure, maybe. Correct 100% of the time? Well as you can see, no one really buys that. There are lots of people that are very commited/consistent in their lives or whatever they believe in. That does not make what they are into perfect and/or right. I could give extreme examples if you would like.

Where do you get your authority? Where do you? Or the RCC for that matter? To my eyes, you have still not addressed this question with proof. Citing the cathecism does nothing for me.


What is your take on contraception, can we please stay on topic.Many have expressed their views on this already. What more is there to say?


see there you go again.

Would you please just post your opinion and the reasons you came to this conclusion and your scriptural evidence to support it?We have. You have not...

I am going to have to agree with Tulip on much of what he has said. He may be blunt but he gets straight to the heart of the matter.

The bible says where two or more are gathered, there I am with them. That to me is a body of Christ. But I am sure you will disagree with me and claim I have taken this out of context too...

[GuitarMan2387]

What I still have a hard time understanding is why you can't just post your belief and why you believe in it, in the earlier discussions things were out of hand and everyone was talking about different things and now I narrowed it down to why or why not that specific act is wrong.

I just wanted to hear why you agree or disagree with it, not an attack on my faith.

I was hoping this would be a calm discussion, but appearently people here are incapable of discussing things without attacking each others faith.

The only response I get on here is "well you have to believe that because your catholic."

And the only response I usually say is "show me scripture or its out of context."

So after i defined what the teaching was specifically why can't we brush all of it aside and try to figure out why that is wrong? or right in your opinion.

Thats it, nothing else.

I tried to keep it low key and under control, then everyone just exploded on me, I didn't say anything against any other person here, I would expect the same.

[Howlin' Wolf]

What I still have a hard time understanding is why you can't just post your belief and why you believe in it, in the earlier discussions things were out of hand and everyone was talking about different things and now I narrowed it down to why or why not that specific act is wrong.

I just wanted to hear why you agree or disagree with it, not an attack on my faith.

I was hoping this would be a calm discussion, but appearently people here are incapable of discussing things without attacking each others faith.

The only response I get on here is "well you have to believe that because your catholic."

And the only response I usually say is "show me scripture or its out of context."

So after i defined what the teaching was specifically why can't we brush all of it aside and try to figure out why that is wrong? or right in your opinion.

Thats it, nothing else.

I tried to keep it low key and under control, then everyone just exploded on me, I didn't say anything against any other person here, I would expect the same.

i believe condoms are great because you can have all the sex you want and not worry about having 50 kids. i believe this because the bible is absolutely silent on the entire issue, in addition to giving me amazing freedom through the Christ. roamns 14 also tells me that sin is a subjective issue and not an objective one all things unwritten and decreed

are you happy now?

[GuitarMan2387]

the Bible is also silent on cloning, in-vitro fertilization, but these things are wrong as well.

Just because it doesn't define it clearly in the Bible doesn't mean its ok to do.

I don't understand your romans 14 quote.

[Howlin' Wolf]

the Bible is also silent on cloning, in-vitro fertilization, but these things are wrong as well.

Just because it doesn't define it clearly in the Bible doesn't mean its ok to do.

I don't understand your romans 14 quote.

try reading romans 14 first

and if you are comparing protective sex to cloning, then you have clearly lost your mind

[GuitarMan2387]

The point is still valid.

Cloning is wrong.

Cloning isn't in the Bible.

Therefore not everything that is wrong is spelled out in the Bible.

[Howlin' Wolf]

The point is still valid.

Cloning is wrong.

Cloning isn't in the Bible.

Therefore not everything that is wrong is spelled out in the Bible.

and not everything that isnt spelled out in the bible is wrong

[GuitarMan2387]

agreed, but your point about it being in the Bible is now invalid because you cannot make a definitive statement that since it isn't in the Bible its ok.

So now what are your other points, and what do you mean by "giving me amazing freedom through christ?"

[Howlin' Wolf]

agreed, but your point about it being in the Bible is now invalid because you cannot make a definitive statement that since it isn't in the Bible its ok.

So now what are your other points, and what do you mean by "giving me amazing freedom through christ?"

grace through faith gives freedom in christ

which means that i am not bound by any laws. so if i want to have protected sex with my wife, i am completely free to do so

[GuitarMan2387]

by your reasoning I can come and kill you now and its perfectly acceptable, because grace through faith gives freedom,

better watch out here I come.

[Howlin' Wolf]

by your reasoning I can come and kill you now and its perfectly acceptable, because grace through faith gives freedom,

better watch out here I come.

scripture is not silent on that
and on things that scripture is silent about, freedom is abound

[GuitarMan2387]

ah ok I see your reasoning.

What about cloning? Do you not agree that cloning is morally wrong?

[Howlin' Wolf]

ah ok I see your reasoning.

What about cloning? Do you not agree that cloning is morally wrong?

i have other things to concern myself with than cloning. if cloning organs can save lives, i'm all for it. cloning a human seems to be playing God. wearing a condom is not playing God

[GuitarMan2387]

But if cloning is morally wrong you canot say that what scripture is silent on freedom is allowed. Because we have just proved that something that scripture is silent on is morally wrong.

[SueQ]

Contraception takes out the being open to procreation part, therefore reducing the act only to pleasure making it wrong..


Even WITH contraception, procreation can occur....If God wills it..His will be done.....I have a beautiful 9-year old example at home ;)

Anyone who believes in fail-safe contraception (other than abstinence) is naive...deep in our hearts we must know what could happen when we choose to have sex....

[Howlin' Wolf]

But if cloning is morally wrong you canot say that what scripture is silent on freedom is allowed. Because we have just proved that something that scripture is silent on is morally wrong.

let the spirit be your guide....the holy spirit will not lead a person that is walking in the light into darkness

[GuitarMan2387]

But you love your son correct?

Why then would you be trying to prevent your son if you love him? Was he an accident?

You are still trying to prevent the creation of a child while still having sex, wrong.

Abstinence is the only 100% way to effectivly limit the number of children people have, for various reasons that they have have.

That is what NFP is, it is abstinence during the fertile periods. But while they are having sex they are not wasting God's gift of life.

Contraception is like the man who buried his talents. God doesn't want us to waste the gift he has given us. It is a slap in his face.

[GuitarMan2387]

let the spirit be your guide....the holy spirit will not lead a person that is walking in the light into darkness

What do you mean?

Every heresy has come from someone believing that God told them this, and God guided them to that.

Look at Islam. Mohamad thought God was talking to him.

[Howlin' Wolf]

But you love your son correct?

Why then would you be trying to prevent your son if you love him? Was he an accident?

You are still trying to prevent the creation of a child while still having sex, wrong.

Abstinence is the only 100% way to effectivly limit the number of children people have, for various reasons that they have have.

That is what NFP is, it is abstinence during the fertile periods. But while they are having sex they are not wasting God's gift of life.

Contraception is like the man who buried his talents. God doesn't want us to waste the gift he has given us. It is a slap in his face.


i hope that you have so many kids that you have to take out a second mortgage to feed and clothe them

contraception is not like the man who buried his talents. seriously, you can come up with something better than that
now i realize that being RC, you are a legalist. try reading romans 14. it destroys all your legalist doctrine

[GuitarMan2387]

I have no idea what a legalist is.

I hope I have tons of kids, they are a blessing, you treat it like a curse.

Prevention, preventing what? Children?

Wasting God's gift of procreation is a sin.

What are more reasons for you supporting contraception when NFP has been proven to be way more effective.

You cannot use, "because scripture is silent" as that has already proven to be no the case.

[Howlin' Wolf]

I have no idea what a legalist is.

I hope I have tons of kids, they are a blessing, you treat it like a curse.

Prevention, preventing what? Children?

Wasting God's gift of procreation is a sin.

What are more reasons for you supporting contraception when NFP has been proven to be way more effective.

You cannot use, "because scripture is silent" as that has already proven to be no the case.

scripture is silent on secular music, art, dancing, gambling, tattoos.....are they all sinful?

how am i wasting a gift? that seems to be the central issue. so explain that

[GuitarMan2387]

No they are not sinful, so therefor you cannot say that contraception is NOT sinful, and by that I can't say that it IS sinful by that reasoning so there must be a deeper meaning to discuss, but you didn't present one, so I was wondering if you had other reasons.

It is wasting God's gift of life. You are not using the sexual act as it was intended to be used. You remove the procreation part of the act reducing it to pleasure alone. You are physically placing something that blocks the seed where it would otherwise end up in the proper place, instead of being wasted, and that is wrong.

Onen was struck down for "pulling" out, to avoid impregnating his wife, struck down outright, killed. I think God was sending us a message about sexual immorality.

[Healing Oil]

What I still have a hard time understanding is why you can't just post your belief and why you believe in it, in the earlier discussions things were out of hand and everyone was talking about different things and now I narrowed it down to why or why not that specific act is wrong. You 'narrowed it down' to why it is or isnt wrong only according to the beliefs of Catholics.


I just wanted to hear why you agree or disagree with it, not an attack on my faith. Many of us feel attacked simply because of what the RCC stands for. And the superiority they feel over every believer.


I was hoping this would be a calm discussion, but appearently people here are incapable of discussing things without attacking each others faith. Some people are, and some arent. Some could easily say you are incapable of discussing things without thinking outside of the Catholic box.


The only response I get on here is "well you have to believe that because your catholic." Unfortunately, this is the case with many Catholics.


And the only response I usually say is "show me scripture or its out of context." But when we show you scripture, you deny it and say it is out of context because it does not line up with the Catholic doctrine.


So after i defined what the teaching was specifically why can't we brush all of it aside and try to figure out why that is wrong? or right in your opinion. It does not matter how right or okay it is in our opinion. It will always be wrong to you because the Catholic church says it is. I would still like to know and see the proof of when and how the Catholics figured out what is what and what is not.


I tried to keep it low key and under control, then everyone just exploded on me, I didn't say anything against any other person here, I would expect the same. Yes, in many ways you did. You step on toes every time you define the church you sit in as the one and only true church. This implying that the members of this one and only true church are really the one and only true believers. The "better half". You come here and say we have all strayed. No matter how much any one of us try and convince you (though we dont have any reason to) that our relationship with God isnt because of our affeliation with a particular denomination, but through a personal relationship with Him, you wont accept that. We are lost in our ways, and we are sinners if we dont follow the tradition and rules that the Catholic church has set. Conviction has no room in a relationship between man and God, and that to me is 100% false.

You have asked us repeatedly to show scripture and tie it into the reasons why we believe what we do, and we have. We have asked you the same and you have not.

Id still like to know how many kids are enough to please the will of God in the eyes of Catholics.

[GuitarMan2387]

Its not the number of children, that is riculous, it is simply being completely open to life everytime you have sex, thats it.

I don't remember the scripture you quoted because this thread is so old, could you please remind me.

[Pouye]

But if cloning is morally wrong you canot say that what scripture is silent on freedom is allowed. Because we have just proved that something that scripture is silent on is morally wrong.

I do not believe cloning a human to be morally wrong, but rather the process is morally questionable because of the botched jobs, birth defects, abortions, etc. It is the "cloning perfection process" which is morally wrong (IMHO). If a person could be successfully cloned without any of the problems associated with the cloning process, I don't think it would be wrong at all. A clone is simply a twin. They will not have the same finger prints, nor will they have the same retinal patterns. They will simply be like a 'delayed' twin. Identical twins are natural clones that happen when the DNA splits. You take my DNA and inject it in an egg and it begins to replicate, you just artificially did what many eggs do naturally.

I am not for cloning because I believe there are major ramifications involved when it comes to the clone himself/herself. Who "owns" a clone? The company that did the cloning? The person who bought the DNA? What if the DNA is stolen so that nobody knows who the donor was? Can a clone be sold? Exchanged? How would you know if someone was actually a clone or not?

Moral chaos.

Rock

[GuitarMan2387]

I believe that clones would also have souls. What is a human being without a soul?

Cloning is wrong because you are seperating the sexual act once again. You are turning human procreation into a manufacturing process.

The way they get the sperm for the egg is by masterbation another mortal sin. Its full of sin and violates the rights of that human clone to be born in marriage within the conjugal act. It is a violation of human rights.

Now back to the topic of contraception.

[Pouye]

I believe that clones would also have souls. What is a human being without a soul?


I agree... and if a clone has a soul, that soul could be saved.


The way they get the sperm for the egg is by masterbation another mortal sin.


Ummm... not quite. They don't use sperm in reproductive cloning. But even if they did, they could get sperm through surgery if they wanted to avoid the mortal sin of which you speak... ;)

Cloning fact sheet (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml)

Rock

[GuitarMan2387]

I was under the impression that the took an egg and a sperm and fertilized it in a dish and then caused it to divide thus producing clones? Perhaps there are other kinds of cloning?

This is worthy of a thread lets make one and keep this one on topic.

[Healing Oil]

I don't remember the scripture you quoted because this thread is so old, could you please remind me.No, I can't. You have not complied with any of my requests.

I am growing a little weary of repeating myself. And again, I feel anything I or anyone else here says is swept under the rug because it doesnt line up with Catholic mentality.

[ziggy_75g]

the problem I see (and this is my opinon) is that contraception only woeks when GOD allows it to work. To say it's wrong or right is up to God because, he is in control. The most effective crontraceptive is only 98% and that is if it doesn't break, come off or have a hole in it. please correct me if I'm wrong but if GOD wants you to jave a baby it's GOING to happen. -Z-

[Howlin' Wolf]

the problem I see (and this is my opinon) is that contraception only woeks when GOD allows it to work. To say it's wrong or right is up to God because, he is in control. The most effective crontraceptive is only 98% and that is if it doesn't break, come off or have a hole in it. please correct me if I'm wrong but if GOD wants you to jave a baby it's GOING to happen. -Z-

sovereignty is a beautiful thing

[GuitarMan2387]

the problem I see (and this is my opinon) is that contraception only woeks when GOD allows it to work. To say it's wrong or right is up to God because, he is in control. The most effective crontraceptive is only 98% and that is if it doesn't break, come off or have a hole in it. please correct me if I'm wrong but if GOD wants you to jave a baby it's GOING to happen. -Z-

Therefore, if God doesnt want you to have a baby, no amount of unprotected sex will make one, right?

Its almost like testing God, "Hey I will do everything in my power to prevent a child, see if you can beat it."

Also what contraceptive are you using, condoms are only like 50% and less effective and thats if it doesn't break.

The only effective way to limit the number of children is by NFP, because well frankly your not having sex during fertile times so theres no way you can get pregnant.

Although this raises another question. Why don't people want to have children? Is it for financial reasons? Is it because they are too much of a hassel?

If God naturally put a time in a women where they cannot get pregnant why dont people have sex then and abstain when they could get pregnant. (assuming that they do not want to get pregnant.)

[Gandalf]

Although this raises another question. Why don't people want to have children? Is it for financial reasons? Is it because they are too much of a hassel?
I'll agree with you that this question is important. I just don't think the means they use are really the issue. :)

[GuitarMan2387]

ah gandalf, my old friend haha.

Go back and read my response to your last post. and let me know what you think.

As well I would like to know what changed in 1930 that suddenly made contraception "ok."

I've got to go work be back later, hope to discuss more with y'all.

Later.

[SueQ]

The only effective way to limit the number of children is by NFP, because well frankly your not having sex during fertile times so theres no way you can get pregnant.

If God naturally put a time in a women where they cannot get pregnant why dont people have sex then and abstain when they could get pregnant. (assuming that they do not want to get pregnant.)


It is not clear for all women when we are fertile, even though science gives us a way to make a "good guess". My daughter was conceived during a time when I would not expectto be fertile and we used contraception anyway...yet...here she is...I believe God wanted her here even if we hadn't planned it...and thankfully He did!

[Healing Oil]

Therefore, if God doesnt want you to have a baby, no amount of unprotected sex will make one, right?

Its almost like testing God, "Hey I will do everything in my power to prevent a child, see if you can beat it."

Also what contraceptive are you using, condoms are only like 50% and less effective and thats if it doesn't break.

The only effective way to limit the number of children is by NFP, because well frankly your not having sex during fertile times so theres no way you can get pregnant.

Although this raises another question. Why don't people want to have children? Is it for financial reasons? Is it because they are too much of a hassel?

If God naturally put a time in a women where they cannot get pregnant why dont people have sex then and abstain when they could get pregnant. (assuming that they do not want to get pregnant.)Isnt using NFP mean that we arent open to the idea of life?

Whatever way you look at it, it is contraception. Purposely trying to avoid creating life. That doesnt sound very open to me. What makes a couple who uses this method any better?

[SueQ]

good point

[Healing Oil]

good point
I have brought this up before and to the best of my knowledge, it has not been addressed.

2nd time is a charm :)

[Gandalf]

It is wasting God's gift of life. You are not using the sexual act as it was intended to be used. You remove the procreation part of the act reducing it to pleasure alone. You are physically placing something that blocks the seed where it would otherwise end up in the proper place, instead of being wasted, and that is wrong.
Which all sounds very nice... but again, you've not proven any one of those points to be either true or sinful.

Why do you think it's wasting God's gift of life?
Why do you not think that it's being used as intended? Scripture tells us sexual relations must only occur between a married couple, but puts basically no other restrictions on it.
Why do you think there's no other possible purpose than procreation and pleasure?
Why would it be wrong to engage in an act for one of those purposes, but not the other(s)?
Why would it be wrong to "waste the seed"?

None of these has been established by anything other than "because the RCC says so." We're willing to consider arguments from Scripture, but I don't believe it's possible for you to prove contraception in general to be sinful based on any premise except the primacy of the Roman church and its tradition being on the same level as Scripture. That premise is not one to which the rest of us hold.
Onen was struck down for "pulling" out, to avoid impregnating his wife, struck down outright, killed. I think God was sending us a message.
That's like saying the sin of someone who kills someone with a knife is swinging the knife. Onan was struck down for selfishly refusing to do his duty and provide his brother with an heir. Pulling out was the means, but it was his motivation that was sinful.

I do think you have a good point that many people who use contraception are probably doing so in sin. But that doesn't make it the contraception that's sinful, and many is different from all.

As for your '30's statement, I believe I've already addressed it. But, I don't think it was the means that was ever sinful. What's changed is a drastically reduced mortality rate, and improved medical and contraceptive technology. There are now safe, reliable, non-abortive methods of contraception. We now have the problem that a couple who does not use any contraception would likely end up with ten or so surviving children, when in any previous time, only 3-5 of those would have lived. It's possible that it could be irresponsible to not use contraception in some cases.

[GuitarMan2387]

Isnt using NFP mean that we arent open to the idea of life?

Whatever way you look at it, it is contraception. Purposely trying to avoid creating life. That doesnt sound very open to me. What makes a couple who uses this method any better?

Ok, I don't think you understand what is wrong with contraception.

NFP and Condoms do the same thing. They prevent children from being concieved.

NFP is open to life insofar as it does not prevent anything natural from happening, rather nothing happens at all.

Condoms prevent something from happening that in any other situation would naturally happen. It prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and creating a new life.

he Catholic position on contraception (as opposed to abstinence) derives from the fundamental understanding of the dignity of the human person as being greater than his animal nature, animated by a spark of the divine. The Church has always taught that the marital embrace is a holy act; it is where a man and a woman cooperate with God in creation. We are pro-creators.

Non-Catholics often "require" a scriptural argument or may feel that something is not specifically laid out in Scripture, it is up for grabs. But the case against contraception does have strong scriptural support.

In the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul mounts the “natural law” argument. Even the barbarians, he says, have no excuse for failing to heed the law written on the human heart – the law which does not require special divine revelation. Thus, Paul equates unnatural sexual relations with idolatry. Although he specifies homosexual acts here, he uses the term “unnatural relations.” Contraception is, inarguably, unnatural. (Duh!)

Romans, Chapter I (RSV -- Protestant edition -- emphasis added):

[14] I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish:

[15] so I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.
. . .

[17] For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, "He who through faith is righteous shall live."
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
[19] For what can be known about God is plain to them [i.e., the Greeks and Barbarians], because God has shown it to them.
[20] Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
[21] for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
[22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
[23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
[24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
[25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
[26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
[27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

[Healing Oil]

Why would a couple need to use NFP unless they were not open to life at that time?

If the catholic church's reasoning on the matter of contraception is so inarguable, we wouldnt be having this discussion.

There are a great deal of people who dont believe or follow the catholic law, are we all wrong? Or could it be perhaps that we all have individual and personal relationships with God? It is not just "up for grabs" because it is not in the bible, it is up to God and conviction over our lives. It is not up to any particular church.

All in my humble opinion.

[GuitarMan2387]

Why would a couple need to use NFP unless they were not open to life at that time?

If the catholic church's reasoning on the matter of contraception is so inarguable, we wouldnt be having this discussion.

There are a great deal of people who dont believe or follow the catholic law, are we all wrong? Or could it be perhaps that we all have individual and personal relationships with God? It is not just "up for grabs" because it is not in the bible, it is up to God and conviction over our lives. It is not up to any particular church.

All in my humble opinion.

They ARE open to life because they are NOT activly preventing it.

It is not the fact that they are preventing children, (although I think alot of deliberation and thought should be put into such a decision) it is the means by which they accomplish this which is sinful. Just to clarify what we're discussing.

Now before we go any further we need to find common ground on which to discuss this issue. Now since you don't buy anything the catholic church says, we must almost play by your rules, leaving us with a little more work to do.

Anyway the common ground must lie in natural law. So a clear definition of natural law must be defined that is accepted by all.

So without further ado, what do you define as natural law? Or what do you think the common ground here is?

[Healing Oil]

They ARE open to life because they are NOT activly preventing it.

It is not the fact that they are preventing children, (although I think alot of deliberation and thought should be put into such a decision) it is the means by which they accomplish this which is sinful. Just to clarify what we're discussing.

Now before we go any further we need to find common ground on which to discuss this issue. Now since you don't buy anything the catholic church says, we must almost play by your rules, leaving us with a little more work to do.

Anyway the common ground must lie in natural law. So a clear definition of natural law must be defined that is accepted by all.

So without further ado, what do you define as natural law? Or what do you think the common ground here is?
Unfortunately, I dont think we can find a common ground here. Because our ideas and philosophies are too different. What I say wont click with you, what you say doesnt click with me.

All I know that is important is what I know for my life, and my life in Christ alone. I trust that He will not lead me into sin or temptation. This is all that matters. Not tradition, not human philosophy, not legalities other than the ones that Jesus has put in our lives. My beliefs are not your beliefs, and yours are not mine. That is the only common ground we have here, unfortunately.

In the midst of it all, we are saved by His grace. Thank God for that :)

[MadCatholicGomer]

the problem I see (and this is my opinon) is that contraception only woeks when GOD allows it to work. To say it's wrong or right is up to God because, he is in control. The most effective crontraceptive is only 98% and that is if it doesn't break, come off or have a hole in it. please correct me if I'm wrong but if GOD wants you to jave a baby it's GOING to happen. -Z-

I disagree with this, the only question here is whether or not contraception is a morally acceptable act. That God can positively act in a way that such that the natural consequences of our acts are circumvented is a moot point. I could shoot a gun loaded with bullets at someone with the intention to kill them and they could still live because God intervenes... but it does not make it okay that my intention was to murder someone. We have to look at the act itself, not merely the results.

Does that make sense?

[MadCatholicGomer]

Onan was struck down for selfishly refusing to do his duty and provide his brother with an heir. Pulling out was the means, but it was his motivation that was sinful.


Gandalf, you have asserted this many times, but I have a question for you: what is the biblical penalty for a brother who refuses to provide his brother with an heir?

[Howlin' Wolf]

I disagree with this, the only question here is whether or not contraception is a morally acceptable act. That God can positively act in a way that such that the natural consequences of our acts are circumvented is a moot point. I could shoot a gun loaded with bullets at someone with the intention to kill them and they could still live because God intervenes... but it does not make it okay that my intention was to murder someone. We have to look at the act itself, not merely the results.

Does that make sense?

that still doesnt prove that God is against contraception

[MadCatholicGomer]

that still doesnt prove that God is against contraception

Oh, I agree, I was just making the assertion that it is not the consequences of an act that make it good or evil.

[Howlin' Wolf]

Oh, I agree, I was just making the assertion that it is not the consequences of an act that make it good or evil.

gotcha!

i do have a question....is there freedom in the cathoilic church to view "gray areas" in regards to sin under the authority of romans 14?

i ask this because i simply dont understand why Guitarman would go through all of this to convince a few people that an act is sinful.

[MadCatholicGomer]

gotcha!

i do have a question....is there freedom in the cathoilic church to view "gray areas" in regards to sin under the authority of romans 14?

i ask this because i simply dont understand why Guitarman would go through all of this to convince a few people that an act is sinful.

There certainly are some things that may be sinful for one person that is not for another. For example, a movie that has some sexual references may not be sinful for you to watch, but I know for myself, it is at least an occasion under which I would be tempted to sin, and therefore putting myself in that occasion is sinful.

Contraception, however, is not one of those areas. There is no situation under which contraception can legitimately be used by anyone at any time.

[MadCatholicGomer]

gotcha!

i do have a question....is there freedom in the cathoilic church to view "gray areas" in regards to sin under the authority of romans 14?

i ask this because i simply dont understand why Guitarman would go through all of this to convince a few people that an act is sinful.

As far as why he wants to convince, I can't speak for him, but I see what the contraceptive mentality has done to our society. In every society, opening up to contraception has also led to an opening up to abortion. You may disagree that they are connected, but the Supreme Court of the U.S. has said that in a society in which contraception is permitted and can fail, abortion has to be unavailable.

Contraception leads to an increase in divorce as well. God hates divorce and made marriage to be indissoluble for a reason, and I think we Christians are not doing a good job of showing that... and we should be leading the way.

For myself, I have also read numerous stories of couples that have contracepted in one way or another and have seen the damage it did to their relationship. I have a book on sterilization reversal that tells the story of 20 different couples who on one stage of their faith journey or another realized that they their sterilization procedure was sinful.

I have personally felt the consequences of a society that encourages families to have only one or two children. Though my parents did not use contraception, I only have one sibling, and I see a lot of negative things that have come because of that. Though obviously it was God's will for my life for certain reasons, I think it is tragic when couples limit their family size without a REALLY good reason. As our late Holy Father, Pope John Paul II has said, there is nothing that a couple can give their child that will help them grow as Christians more than another sibling.

[Howlin' Wolf]

There certainly are some things that may be sinful for one person that is not for another. For example, a movie that has some sexual references may not be sinful for you to watch, but I know for myself, it is at least an occasion under which I would be tempted to sin, and therefore putting myself in that occasion is sinful.

Contraception, however, is not one of those areas. There is no situation under which contraception can legitimately be used by anyone at any time.

why?

[Howlin' Wolf]

As far as why he wants to convince, I can't speak for him, but I see what the contraceptive mentality has done to our society. In every society, opening up to contraception has also led to an opening up to abortion. You may disagree that they are connected, but the Supreme Court of the U.S. has said that in a society in which contraception is permitted and can fail, abortion has to be unavailable.
abortion can summed up by two issues...greed and fear. greed, because people dont want to give up their life to raise an unwanted child. they say they dont have the time or the money or they werent ready. fear...teens, especially christians, fear the shame they will receive for having pre-marital sex. abortion is the easy way out. americans love the easy way

to chalk social ills up to contraception is idealistic at best. remember, america is a fallen country in a fallen world. outlawing contraception will do nothing to cure these ills. outlawing contraception will only increase the number of abortions and unwanted pregnancy because people will use "the pull out method"

[SueQ]

[QUOTE=MadCatholicGomer]
Contraception leads to an increase in divorce as well. God hates divorce and made marriage to be indissoluble for a reason, and I think we Christians are not doing a good job of showing that... and we should be leading the way./QUOTE]

True...God hates divorce...but He did establish guidelines for it in..Deuteronomy 24...and Matthew 5:32...1Corinthians 7:10-15



My fear in interpreting "natural law"...what about artificial limbs, artificial hearts, artificial insemination, medications that alter our "natural state" i.e. medicine for epileptics..... :confused:

[MadCatholicGomer]

[QUOTE=MadCatholicGomer]
Contraception leads to an increase in divorce as well. God hates divorce and made marriage to be indissoluble for a reason, and I think we Christians are not doing a good job of showing that... and we should be leading the way./QUOTE]

True...God hates divorce...but He did establish guidelines for it in..Deuteronomy 24...and Matthew 5:32...1Corinthians 7:10-15



My fear in interpreting "natural law"...what about artificial limbs, artificial hearts, artificial insemination, medications that alter our "natural state" i.e. medicine for epileptics..... :confused:

There is a human nature that God has created for a specific purpose. God creates us with a working heart so that it can pump blood, and thereby we can live and worship God. God creates us with limbs so that we can do things that will help us do things like pick things up, walk... those are all part of what it means to be a human nature. Medicines and prosthetics for those sorts of things are okay because they are helping a person who has some kind of defect or disorder to live in a "more human way." For example, I wear glasses. Part of being a human person is being able to see, and, especially so that we can learn things and use the rational nature that God has given us. I have a defect of the eyes that makes it more difficult for me, but glasses correct that problem.

Artificial insemination is immoral. A human being has the right to be conceived by two loving parents by an act of their love, ie. the sexual act. A human person has the right NOT to be created by a mechanical or scientific process. That is contrary to our dignity as human persons. If science can help people have children by making it possible for them to conceive in the natural way, than that is a great good and beautiful.

The problem with birth control is that it takes a good natural process, ie. procreation, and treats it like it treats medical problems such as defective eyes, or epilepsy. Medicine and scientific help for defects and disorders in human nature are a good thing, but they are used specifically on something that IS A DISORDER. My eyes have a disorder, that is why I need glasses. Birth control treats procreation as some kind of disease that needs a medicine (the pill) or some other scientific thing that needs to be fixed... heck, we even call it "getting fixed" when a person has a vasectomy.

What would we think of a person who takes a pill so that he could be periodically blind or deaf? We would see it as something unnatural, something evil. But because birth control is connected to the most pleasurable physical act, sex, we don't see it in the same way.

Look at another pleasurable act that has a natural process attached to it (or, I should say it the other way around, it is an act with a natural end, and pleasure is attached to it): eating. A person eats and it gives them pleasure because of it. Now If a person does not like one of the natural consequences of their actions, their physical shape, if they are overweight, there are two ways that they can go about fixing the problem: they can do it naturally, by
diet and exercise, or they can do it unnaturally by making themself vomit. The ends are the same, the person loses weight, but that is not the only thing that matters. Pills that work by adding something natural, for example vitamin C, are working WITH the body. Things that do something unnatural, for example, making your body not absorb anything that it eats or by making you have diaherrea, they are working AGAINST the body.

Birth control acts AGAINST the body. Natural Family Planning works WITH the body. Artificial insemination works AGAINST the body. Treatments that make a couple more fertile work WITH and FOR the body. By the way, the analogy of food also shows why contraception is always wrong whereas with natural family planning it is not necessarily wrong though it can be:

If a person thinks they should lose weight, they have those two options: working against the body or working with the body. If they work against the body by becoming bullemic or whatever other method, it doesn't matter if they are right that they should lose weight or not, they are still performing an evil act. If they work with the body, than it is the objective situation (ie. should they really be losing weight) that determines whether the act is evil or not. If they are already the right size, but they are vain and want to be "supermodel size," than their actions in trying to reach that weight can be evil. If they are overweight and they work with the body to lose weight, their action is a good.

[MadCatholicGomer]

True...God hates divorce...but He did establish guidelines for it in..Deuteronomy 24...and Matthew 5:32...1Corinthians 7:10-15


By the way, I disagree that God has established norms under which two Christians who are married can get divorced.

[MadCatholicGomer]

to chalk social ills up to contraception is idealistic at best. remember, america is a fallen country in a fallen world. outlawing contraception will do nothing to cure these ills. outlawing contraception will only increase the number of abortions and unwanted pregnancy because people will use "the pull out method"

You have just given Planned Parenthood's explanation on why schools must teach sex education with condoms to teens rather than teach them abstinence.

[Howlin' Wolf]

You have just given Planned Parenthood's explanation on why schools must teach sex education with condoms to teens rather than teach them abstinence.

show me one non-believing teen that will listen to an abstinnce speech and follow it.

dont be so naive

[Healing Oil]

Artificial insemination is immoral. A human being has the right to be conceived by two loving parents by an act of their love, ie. the sexual act. A human person has the right NOT to be created by a mechanical or scientific process. That is contrary to our dignity as human persons. If science can help people have children by making it possible for them to conceive in the natural way, than that is a great good and beautiful. Than adoption must be immoral as well. Because the human being wasnt conceived by two loving parents by an act of their love, ie. the sexual act.


Birth control acts AGAINST the body. How? Natural Family Planning works WITH the body. It is still undoubtably a form of contraception, used for the sole purpose of limiting the odds of impregination. So, there are some degrees of acceptable birth control than, right? Artificial insemination works AGAINST the body. How? I truly anticipate this answer. Treatments that make a couple more fertile work WITH and FOR the body. Couldnt this apply to artificial insemination? Sounds spot on. By the way, the analogy of food also shows why contraception is always wrong whereas with natural family planning it is not necessarily wrong though it can be: Unfortunately, I did not catch how the analogy proved anything against contraception.

[MadCatholicGomer]

Than adoption must be immoral as well. Because the human being wasnt conceived by two loving parents by an act of their love, ie. the sexual act.


I don't think your analogy holds. Pre-marital sex is a sin, as is artificial insemination, but those who are conceived in those situations are not to blame; they are the victims, and they deserve all the rights that can be afforded to them. Included in that is the right to have parents, so that if they have been put up for adoption, they have a right to be adopted.


It is still undoubtably a form of contraception, used for the sole purpose of limiting the odds of impregination. So, there are some degrees of acceptable birth control than, right?

It is not the regulation of birth that is, in itself, sinful (though the regulation of birth can be sinful depending on circumstances/intention); it is the way that the births are regulated that the Church has the bigger problem with.

Couldnt this apply to artificial insemination? Sounds spot on.

To be honest, it is shocking to me that Christians actually think artificial insemination is okay. Conceiving children through a machine.... its repugnant. Parents DO NOT have a right to children. I really can't understand... just thinking about it makes my skin crawl. We are not working with the nature that God has given us... we are trying to conquer nature.

Unfortunately, I did not catch how the analogy proved anything against contraception.

Analogy:

Food: natural end -> nutrition. Attached to natural end -> pleasure
Sex: natural end -> procreation. Attached to natural end -> pleasure

Food: sometimes unwanted consequences -> gaining weight
Sex: sometimes unwatned consequences -> procreation

Food: ways to prevent consq.: dieting and exercise (licit) / bullemia and negative pills (illicit)
Sex: ways to prevent conq.: licit -> having sex during infertile times (licit) / means which separates sex from procreation (illicit)

Do you see that bullemia is unnatural and wrong? If so, why is it wrong?

[Healing Oil]

I don't think your analogy holds. Pre-marital sex is a sin, as is artificial insemination,No, it's not. but those who are conceived in those situations are not to blame; they are the victims, and they deserve all the rights that can be afforded to them. Included in that is the right to have parents, so that if they have been put up for adoption, they have a right to be adopted. I am not so sure that if I found out that I was conceived by artificial insemination Id feel like a victim. A couple who has this done, is looking to give a child all the rights they do deserve. I will not be so naive as to believe that such gifts from God are only obtainable through sexual penetration.



To be honest, it is shocking to me that Christians actually think artificial insemination is okay. Conceiving children through a machine.... its repugnant. Parents DO NOT have a right to children. I really can't understand... just thinking about it makes my skin crawl. We are not working with the nature that God has given us... we are trying to conquer nature. It shocks me that Catholics actually think they know what is sin and what isnt. It makes my skin crawl that there are believers who assume they know how God works through everything. Perhaps to a faithful and loving Christian couple, a machine was all God gave them.





Do you see that bullemia is unnatural and wrong? If so, why is it wrong?Yes, bullemia is unnatural and wrong to me. That doesnt mean that everything "unnatural" is wrong. If you consider modern medicine of today and compare it to the way it probably was in the time of Jesus, it would seem pretty unnatural I would say. Is it wrong?

[MadCatholicGomer]

It shocks me that Catholics actually think they know what is sin and what isnt. It makes my skin crawl that there are believers who assume they know how God works through everything. Perhaps to a faithful and loving Christian couple, a machine was all God gave them.


And aren't you making the same sort of judgment... that contraception and insemination are not sins... aren't you "thinking you know what is sin and what isnt"?

I just think with all of the moral chaos and in the scientific "brave new world" that our society is living in, there are answers that are in line with God's revelation that He wants us to know... He doesn't leave us orphans without any definitive answers.

[MadCatholicGomer]

Yes, bullemia is unnatural and wrong to me. That doesnt mean that everything "unnatural" is wrong. If you consider modern medicine of today and compare it to the way it probably was in the time of Jesus, it would seem pretty unnatural I would say. Is it wrong?

I don't think that all modern medicine is wrong. But I think there have been a lot of problems. For example, I have found out that a lot of the vaccines that we have are derived from human fetuses where they would take a child, for example, who has rubella, abort him, and then use that to make a vaccine... and from that first vaccine is derived all of the vaccines of rubella that we have today. Now, is it okay for a person to use that vaccine, yes or no?

Cloning, in vitro, the birth control pill, vaccines derived in such a way, stem cell research, and mercy killing... with all of the things that are going on, do you think God leaves us to ourselves to try and figure it out by ourselves without any definitve judgment possible? I don't believe God wants that. Otherwise we can get the situation that we are in with abortion, where some protestant denominations, entire denominations, say it is okay to have an abortion. What if God really does disapprove of these things?


So I'm going to go back to the analogy. What is it that make bullemia wrong but dieting and exercise good and right?

[MadCatholicGomer]

No, it's not. I am not so sure that if I found out that I was conceived by artificial insemination Id feel like a victim. A couple who has this done, is looking to give a child all the rights they do deserve. I will not be so naive as to believe that such gifts from God are only obtainable through sexual penetration.


Obviously they are not "only obtainable through sex" just as they are not "only obtainable within marriage." A couple can have a child by a machine just as a couple can have a child outside of marriage. A child may not feel like a victim in either situation, and the child is still a blessing in both situations, but in both situations the parents have done something objectively evil... even though God has brought a great good from the situation.

God is pretty good at that, ya know? That is one of His job descriptions... our salvation is the best example, when he took that whole nasty Judas incident and used it to save the world.

[Healing Oil]

And aren't you making the same sort of judgment... that contraception and insemination are not sins... aren't you "thinking you know what is sin and what isnt"? I am leaving the subject up for conviction to deside, up to the personal relationship between each individual and Christ. Which is why it is not a sin to me. If it is a sin to you, great, dont do it, but please do not try to make your conviction my conviction.


I just think with all of the moral chaos and in the scientific "brave new world" that our society is living in, there are answers that are in line with God's revelation that He wants us to know... He doesn't leave us orphans without any definitive answers.It is ok to think whatever you want. Im not begrudging that. It is not ok to me to take personal opinion (or a churchs' opinion) and make them into fact. Much of this moral chaos you speak of is only according the Catholic Churchs' standard. Whatever the answers are with God, I believe He will reveal through our relationship with Him. I dont believe He gives insider, unspoken revelations to any particular person and/or group and have him/her/them correct the masses. I believe He works in each of us individually with those situations and grey areas that are not specified in His word.

[Healing Oil]

Obviously they are not "only obtainable through sex" just as they are not "only obtainable within marriage." A couple can have a child by a machine just as a couple can have a child outside of marriage. A child may not feel like a victim in either situation, and the child is still a blessing in both situations, but in both situations the parents have done something objectively evil... even though God has brought a great good from the situation.

God is pretty good at that, ya know? That is one of His job descriptions... our salvation is the best example, when he took that whole nasty Judas incident and used it to save the world.
You can not compare in-vitro to conceiving outside of marriage. The bible says that sex outside of marriage is wrong, that we know. The bible does not say that conceiving by in-vitro within a marriage is evil, so I believe that neither should you or "the church" say so either. In-vitro was created for people who want life. It creates life, it does not destroy. Would you tell a product of in-vitro that their parents conceived them through sin and they are a victim of evil? How do you justify this opinion? What makes it sinful? Truthfully in your eyes, what makes it evil?

You and I have entirely different views on what evil is. I dont believe you can judge in-vitro without also judging adoption. They are both one in the same.

[MadCatholicGomer]

You can not compare in-vitro to conceiving outside of marriage. The bible says that sex outside of marriage is wrong, that we know. The bible does not say that conceiving by in-vitro within a marriage is evil, so I believe that neither should you or "the church" say so either. In-vitro was created for people who want life. It creates life, it does not destroy. Would you tell a product of in-vitro that their parents conceived them through sin and they are a victim of evil? How do you justify this opinion? What makes it sinful? Truthfully in your eyes, what makes it evil?

You and I have entirely different views on what evil is. I dont believe you can judge in-vitro without also judging adoption. They are both one in the same.

This is a good question. Would I tell a child conceived in this way that their rights were justified.... yes I would. Just as I would tell a child who may have been raised in a household where one of their parents is a practicing homosexual with a "long-term partner" that their parent is committing a sin. Just as I would tell a child whose parents are divorced that God hates divorce. Just as I would tell a child conceived out of wedlock that God does not plan for anyone to be conceived outside of a permanent, loving marriage. I would do so gently, lovingly... but hiding the truth does not help.

What makes in vitro fertilization sinful? God created our bodies in a certain way for a certain reason. I guess part of my problem with all of these things is that the things that the word of God specifically reveals that they are wrong... well, they are, if you think about it, very close to them.

For example, contraception. Why do you think it is that God condemns homosexuality and beastiality in the Bible? It is because sex was created for the procreation of children. Part of the responsibility of that procreation is the education of the children, which is why God makes procreation part of a stable union between a husband and wife who will both contribute to the education in what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. Children of both sexes need parents of both sexes because not only do they need to learn what it means to be an adult of their own sex, but they need to learn what it means to be an adult of the other sex so that they can relate appropriately to that if and when they get married.

If you deny that there is a rational reason, beyond divine revelation (though not contradictory to revelation), why homosexuality and bestiality and divorce are wrong, than you have no basis on which to say that non-Judeo-Christians should not practice them. I would assume you agree that homosexuality is wrong for everyone, not just Christians and Jews. It is not "left up for the individual to decide" even if they do not have any sort of divine revelation. I see no such problem. God created human beings in a certain way, a natural way, and one does not need divine revelation to understand what that is. That is why Paul talks about Gentiles doing, by nature, what the law requires (Rom. 2:14-15). He is talking about the Ten Commandments. He is saying that those commandements are relevant whether a person is a Judeo-Christian or not. No one is excusable for not knowing them. That is why a secular society like our own cannot justify legalizing homosexuality. I would say all of this is part of that natural law which is able to be known by reason.

Why is in vitro wrong? Because there has to be a connection between three realities that God put together: sex, procreation, and marriage. When human beings, on their own authority, take any of those three out of marriage, problems erupt: in their relationships and in soceity as a whole. Sex and procreation without marriage is fornication and adultery; sex and marriage without procreation is contraception; marriage and procreation without sex is in vitro fertilization; Sex without marriage and procreation is homosexuality, masturbation, and beastiality; marriage without sex and procreation... well, I don't know what that is, but it isn't usually good; and procreation without marriage and sex is the brave new world of cloning (and in vitro, and surrogate parenthood).

God created the love of spouses to be a sign of Christ's love for the Church (Eph 5). That love is always procreative... it always fruitful: it bears spiritual sons and daugthers in every generation. Imagine the love of Christ sterilized by His own choice. Its impossible. Now, does that mean that couples can have recourse to any means to have children? No. We are human beings who are disordered because of sin, and for some people that means that their fertility is disordered beyond fixing. But that does not give them license to create children in a labratory! Children are not a right to be pursued at all costs, even to the point where the child is treated as an object (for it is things that are appropriately created in labs, not people). Children are to be welcomed lovingly as a gift from God.

My question to you on in vitro fertilization and the word of God is this: how can the Bible condemn a procedure that was nearly two thousand years from coming into existence? The Bible does not condemn cloning either, should we assume that it is up to the individual to decide on that? How about stem cell research? Honest Christians have different opinions on this, but only one of them can be right: either cloning is morally acceptable or it isn't; either stem cell research is acceptable or it isn't, either in vitro fertilization is acceptable or it isn't. To say, "it is up to the individual's conscience" leaves out the possibility that it is wrong for EVERYONE... and the Bible simply can't cover everything.

[MadCatholicGomer]

You and I have entirely different views on what evil is. I dont believe you can judge in-vitro without also judging adoption. They are both one in the same.

I don't understand this analogy. In vitro involves what is legitimate in how children are conceived. Adoption involves what is legitimate with those persons who have already been conceived and therefore, are created in God's image and have a human dignity, but are not, for one reason or another, in the ideal family situation. The two, while not totally separate from one another, are not the same kind of question at all.

[MadCatholicGomer]

I am leaving the subject up for conviction to deside, up to the personal relationship between each individual and Christ. Which is why it is not a sin to me. If it is a sin to you, great, dont do it, but please do not try to make your conviction my conviction.


I find it distressing that you would use the same argument that non-Christians use towards homosexuality and abortion.

[MadCatholicGomer]

I am leaving the subject up for conviction to deside, up to the personal relationship between each individual and Christ. Which is why it is not a sin to me. If it is a sin to you, great, dont do it, but please do not try to make your conviction my conviction.

It is ok to think whatever you want. Im not begrudging that. It is not ok to me to take personal opinion (or a churchs' opinion) and make them into fact. Much of this moral chaos you speak of is only according the Catholic Churchs' standard. Whatever the answers are with God, I believe He will reveal through our relationship with Him. I dont believe He gives insider, unspoken revelations to any particular person and/or group and have him/her/them correct the masses. I believe He works in each of us individually with those situations and grey areas that are not specified in His word.

All of this is not based on "insider, unspoken revelations," but it is based upon reflection on what it means to be a human person with all of the things that we know that it entails. Sin hampers our ability to always judge soundly on these things. We can be led into error.

I know that we also disagree because you are not Catholic, but I'd like to remind you that it is the Church, not one's "relationship with Christ" that is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

And by the way, I still would say you are doing the same thing of which you are accusing me. This is not just the Church's conviction, it is MY conviction that these things are wrong. I have been convinced by the arguments. Therefore, you are still the one thinking you know what is objectively a sin and what isn't, just as I am doing. We both agree that there are some things that could subjectively be a sin for one person while it is not for another. You are making the judgement that in vitro is not an objective sin, therefore you think you know "what is sin and what isn't," just as I do.

[Healing Oil]

This is a good question. Would I tell a child conceived in this way that their rights were justified.... yes I would. Just as I would tell a child who may have been raised in a household where one of their parents is a practicing homosexual with a "long-term partner" that their parent is committing a sin. Just as I would tell a child whose parents are divorced that God hates divorce. Just as I would tell a child conceived out of wedlock that God does not plan for anyone to be conceived outside of a permanent, loving marriage. I would do so gently, lovingly... but hiding the truth does not help. You are comparing apples and oranges. I was conceived out of wedlock. I know my parents sinned. But if I were ever to find out that I was conceived through in-vitro (after they married), you would have a very hard time trying to conceive me that I came from something sinful and evil.


What makes in vitro fertilization sinful? God created our bodies in a certain way for a certain reason. I guess part of my problem with all of these things is that the things that the word of God specifically reveals that they are wrong... well, they are, if you think about it, very close to them. Where?


For example, contraception. Why do you think it is that God condemns homosexuality and beastiality in the Bible? It is because sex was created for the procreation of children. Part of the responsibility of that procreation is the education of the children, which is why God makes procreation part of a stable union between a husband and wife who will both contribute to the education in what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. Children of both sexes need parents of both sexes because not only do they need to learn what it means to be an adult of their own sex, but they need to learn what it means to be an adult of the other sex so that they can relate appropriately to that if and when they get married. So a couple who conceives by sex has more to offer and is able to better educate their children than someone who adopts or goes through in-vitro?

I dont have time to address all your other comments right now, Ill try later. It would be easier for me to follow if you had them all in one post.

[MadCatholicGomer]

You are comparing apples and oranges. I was conceived out of wedlock. I know my parents sinned. But if I were ever to find out that I was conceived through in-vitro (after they married), you would have a very hard time trying to conceive me that I came from something sinful and evil.


LOL, I would have a VERY difficult time conceiving you, considering my sex.

No, just kidding. To answer your question, it may be hard to convince some kids that it is bad to be conceived out of wedlock too... but that does not mean that there is nothing wrong with that. I don't think that it is comparing apples and oranges. A child conceived by in vitro is conceived, in a sense, outside of wedlock as well. Not to be crass, but a lot of times, the husband merely **********s into a cup... the action is not an action of love between husband and wife, but a sinful action (and an evil act, such as masturbation which is intrinsically evil and disordered, can never be done even for a good result). Even if they are able to collect semen from the marital act itself, it is still a machine that is impregnating the woman, not the husband... to me, it seems almost like a weird form of adultery.
[/QUOTE]


Where?


I'm sorry, I broke one of my own rules which is this: be clear in your writing. What I meant to say is that the things that the Bible clearly condemns (fornication, adultery, homosexuality and beastiality) are sins that, if you think about it, are not all that different from contraception and in vitro. Why are fornication and adultery wrong? Because they are sexual acts done outside of the bond of marriage. Why is homosexuality wrong? Because the two people cannot get married. Why can they not get married? Because homosexual sex is, by its very nature, sterile and "un-procreative." That is why God does not allow homosexuals to get married: their "union" does not and cannot image the fruitful love of God. Yet contraception seeks to make the couple sterile even though the whole reason their marital bond can be formed is because the man and the woman image God in such a way that they can, assuming their are no disorders, be fruitful.

Couples that are sterile do not contradict these truths because, again, they have a disorder; it does not contradict the nature of male-female sexuality and that it is essentially about procreation (while it is also about the union of the two). (By the way, the sterility of some couples is also one of the main arguments that homosexual couples use as to why they should be able to be married against those who argue that it is impossible).


So a couple who conceives by sex has more to offer and is able to better educate their children than someone who adopts or goes through in-vitro?


Yeah, sorry about that paragraph. I was going off on arguments that had nothing to do with what we were talking about. I was going off on arguments against homosexual "unions" and there being children in those situations. That paragraph had nothing to do with in vitro.


I dont have time to address all your other comments right now, Ill try later. It would be easier for me to follow if you had them all in one post.

I'm sorry about that... I kept realizing there were points I didn't address. I'll try to do better with that.

Here are a few of the points that I think you still need to address:

1. Do you think that the ban against homosexual actions and fornication and adultery are only things that apply to Judeo-Christian believers? If not, on what grounds can you argue against non-believers?

2. How can the Bible condemn a practice that would not come into existence for another 2000 years? Are you saying that any practice that is not specifically in the Bible that comes up in our "brave new world" will always be morally neutral? Cloning? Stem cell research? What if they came up with a procedure that could make a hybrid human/eagle? Would that be okay too since the Bible does not condemn it?

3. Do you agree that you are being judgmental to the same degree as I am about in vitro (except only with a different judgement)? What you have said, basically, is that in-vitro, in itself, is neutral (where a person cannot make a judgment whether it is right or wrong for someone else) whereas I have made the judgment that it is wrong for everyone.

I agree that there are things that are neutral: drinking, smoking, eating ice cream, and a host of other things. A person can legitimately make a deicison for or against those actions. We both agree, I hope, that there are things that are always (in themselves, ie. intrinsically) wrong, such as fornication and homosexuality. A person who judges that something is neutral can be just as sure and adament of their opinion as someone who says that the same thing is intrinsically wrong. Both people are judging what is a sin and what isnt.

[SueQ]

By the way, I disagree that God has established norms under which two Christians who are married can get divorced.

Now there...I agree with you! But I believe those verses it doesn't refer to 2 Christians....My friend is going through a divorce...he was saved 3 years ago...they've been married for 20 years...she no longer wants to be bonded to him...she served him with divorce papers...he tried to get her to work on the marriage....Before he was saved he wanted a divorce but when he became saved he knew he had to do what he could to save it...She is not saved and rejects the whole idea of salvation...So he will let her go but continue to pray for her salvation...I believe 1 Cor 7:12-15 addresses that situation....

[Gandalf]

Jesus set a higher standard in His teachings on earth than merely prohibiting a list of actions. He taught that God considers the heart, whether or not actions actually express what's there. It's not sufficient to refrain from adultery: we must also not feed lust in our minds. It's not sufficient to refrain from murder: we must also not be hateful and bitter towards others. The actions themselves are not the sin, it's the heart behind them. There are situations where it's appropriate and right to have sexual relations: within marriage. There are situations where it's appropriate and right to kill a person: in the defense of one's family's lives, or in times of war, etc - times when the authority to do so has been delegated. There are times when it's appropriate and right to consume an alcoholic beverage: when we haven't already had enough that it'd be excessive.

Murder is wrong because ending someone's life is something we don't have the authority to make the decision to do, not because swinging a knife or pulling the trigger on a gun is an immoral act. Adultery is wrong because the adulterer is having sex with the wrong person, not because of the physical act separate from that. Masturbation is wrong because it's selfish self-gratification and indulgence in lust, not because the physiological process is sinful. We agree with the Jews who live under the Law on many things that are right and wrong, but we are given an entirely different perspective of why. The rules are not arbitrary; the heart is the real issue. It's a different and higher standard, and also one that gives more freedom.

Paul said that all things are lawful, but not all are profitable. We should not be brought under the control of any. We do have the freedom in Christ to do many things that were prohibited under the law - we can eat pork, for example. We have the knowledge now that these actions themselves are something we can do. But, living under grace necessitates that rather than having the (simpler) option of merely following rules and having a formulaic approach to morality, we must actually keep our hearts and minds pure - we have to be transformed into the image of Christ. Doing enough good works just by willpower is useless. We have to actually become holy people.

With such a perspective, I find it hard to say that in vitro fertilization is in any way undesirable - it is within the bounds of marriage, and has the intent of conceiving a child. I find nothing sinful about it. As for contraception, I think my above description of perspective explains my position - it is not that a physical act has arbitrarily been declared to have moral value, but the heart that gives it such. If a person has righteous, pure motivations, and with a clean conscience engages in contraception, I will not condemn him.

Now, maybe as in 1 Cor. 8, he should be careful about his actions, lest he cause a brother with a weaker conscience to stumble. Those engaging in contraception who do so righteously should not make their freedom an excuse for those who would be sinning in doing so to sin.

[MadCatholicGomer]

Jesus set a higher standard in His teachings on earth than merely prohibiting a list of actions. He taught that God considers the heart, whether or not actions actually express what's there.

Masturbation is wrong because it's selfish self-gratification and indulgence in lust, not because the physiological process is sinful. We agree with the Jews who live under the Law on many things that are right and wrong, but we are given an entirely different perspective of why. The rules are not arbitrary; the heart is the real issue. It's a different and higher standard, and also one that gives more freedom.



I disagree with you, Gandalf. Why is homosexuality wrong? Its not because it is a "lustful use" of sex, because in one sense, a homosexual couple might do it as a restatement of their commitment to one another more than out of lust; it is the very act itself that is sinful, no matter what the intention may be. There are acts that are, in themselves, sinful. That includes masturbation. Masturbation is not sinful merely if it is "indulgence in lust." There are times when people use it as a means to relieve stress just as a married couple might legitimately have sex for the same reason rather than specifically to recall their covenant to one another or for procreation... so in a sense, the intention is the same. In the case of masturbation it is still immoral and in the case of marriage it is okay.

In the same way, in vitro fertilization is sinful. It is an act that deliberately separates procreation from the union of the couple and "what God has joined together, let no man put assunder." (Sure, it is a different context, but I think it still holds). It violates the dignity of the human person when a child is conceived by use of a machine (as opposed to a machine perhaps helping a couple to conceive). God willed that children come into existence in that way, not by use of a machine. Why is it that we can see that it would be wrong to make a machine to raise a child in place of parents, but not that it is wrong to ask a machine to conceive a child?

[Healing Oil]

Jesus set a higher standard in His teachings on earth than merely prohibiting a list of actions. He taught that God considers the heart, whether or not actions actually express what's there. It's not sufficient to refrain from adultery: we must also not feed lust in our minds. It's not sufficient to refrain from murder: we must also not be hateful and bitter towards others. The actions themselves are not the sin, it's the heart behind them. There are situations where it's appropriate and right to have sexual relations: within marriage. There are situations where it's appropriate and right to kill a person: in the defense of one's family's lives, or in times of war, etc - times when the authority to do so has been delegated. There are times when it's appropriate and right to consume an alcoholic beverage: when we haven't already had enough that it'd be excessive.

Murder is wrong because ending someone's life is something we don't have the authority to make the decision to do, not because swinging a knife or pulling the trigger on a gun is an immoral act. Adultery is wrong because the adulterer is having sex with the wrong person, not because of the physical act separate from that. Masturbation is wrong because it's selfish self-gratification and indulgence in lust, not because the physiological process is sinful. We agree with the Jews who live under the Law on many things that are right and wrong, but we are given an entirely different perspective of why. The rules are not arbitrary; the heart is the real issue. It's a different and higher standard, and also one that gives more freedom.

Paul said that all things are lawful, but not all are profitable. We should not be brought under the control of any. We do have the freedom in Christ to do many things that were prohibited under the law - we can eat pork, for example. We have the knowledge now that these actions themselves are something we can do. But, living under grace necessitates that rather than having the (simpler) option of merely following rules and having a formulaic approach to morality, we must actually keep our hearts and minds pure - we have to be transformed into the image of Christ. Doing enough good works just by willpower is useless. We have to actually become holy people.

With such a perspective, I find it hard to say that in vitro fertilization is in any way undesirable - it is within the bounds of marriage, and has the intent of conceiving a child. I find nothing sinful about it. As for contraception, I think my above description of perspective explains my position - it is not that a physical act has arbitrarily been declared to have moral value, but the heart that gives it such. If a person has righteous, pure motivations, and with a clean conscience engages in contraception, I will not condemn him.

Now, maybe as in 1 Cor. 8, he should be careful about his actions, lest he cause a brother with a weaker conscience to stumble. Those engaging in contraception who do so righteously should not make their freedom an excuse for those who would be sinning in doing so to sin.Very well put, as always!
Why is it that we can see that it would be wrong to make a machine to raise a child in place of parents, but not that it is wrong to ask a machine to conceive a child?
These two do not even remotely compare.

[MadCatholicGomer]

These two do not even remotely compare.

Why? Because one is only a momentary aspect whereas the educational is over a long period of time? The conception of the child is THE most important natural moment of their existence, it is the basis for every other moment. To say that it makes no difference where or how that moment takes place when God has ordained it to take place in utero by an act of marital love and not by the work of scientists... I just can't see that.

On a side note, once you have given that most important moment away to the scientists, you leave open the door where every other moment should be "given to the experts."

I'll show you how: well, the child doesn't NEED to be conceived in utero... a couple of years down the line, we figure out how to have children spend their entire gestational time in machines.... well, the child doesn't NEED to be spend any time in the mother's womb, after all he wasn't conceived there... well, the child doesn't NEED to be given to his parents, after all, they just provide the genetics. Soon we have exactly what Brave New World is talking about.

Soon, our society will have a view in which conception becomes all about mechanics and nothing about love. This does not make the argument that IVF and ET are wrong... but it shows where the thinking that allows for it leads to.

[Gandalf]

I disagree with you, Gandalf. Why is homosexuality wrong? Its not because it is a "lustful use" of sex, because in one sense, a homosexual couple might do it as a restatement of their commitment to one another more than out of lust; it is the very act itself that is sinful, no matter what the intention may be.
Homosexuality is a perversion, and is sex with someone to whom a person is not married. There are certainly some acts that are always wrong - homosexual relations is one example. But, I see it as the heart behind it that makes the action sinful, not the physics of the situation. If there could conceivably be a righteously motivated, and non-sexual reason to carry out an action that on the surface looks much the same as when a person commits a sexual perversion, that might not be sinful. This is not one of those activities where such an example exists.

Take murder, though. It's always immoral. But, the same actions in a different context might be right. If, instead of killing a man because you're angry with him and motivated by hate, you kill him because he's trying to rape and murder your wife, your actions were righteous, not sinful. Likewise, if you're a government official who must execute a convicted serial killer. In any of the cases, you're ending a human life, but in two, the fact that you're acting in a role of governmental authority (considering the family to be the most basic level of government) and justly carrying out the responsibility due that role, you're in those cases right in doing so, while in the case where you would be acting out of selfish, hateful motives, you're wrong.
In the same way, in vitro fertilization is sinful. It is an act that deliberately separates procreation from the union of the couple and "what God has joined together, let no man put assunder." (Sure, it is a different context, but I think it still holds).
I don't - divorce and medical aids to conception are more opposite than similar.
It violates the dignity of the human person when a child is conceived by use of a machine (as opposed to a machine perhaps helping a couple to conceive). God willed that children come into existence in that way, not by use of a machine. Why is it that we can see that it would be wrong to make a machine to raise a child in place of parents, but not that it is wrong to ask a machine to conceive a child?
How, precisely, does using medical knowledge to aid a couple in conceiving in that way differ from any other method, and in what way do you consider it to violate dignity? Is it a violation of dignity to put screws in a broken leg bone? Or to give someone a prosthetic limb? It seems an MRI would be more undignified than this - that uses a machine to look inside your body. I am not seeing the basis of this argument... (Additionally, why would "violating dignity" be inherently immoral? We are actually encouraged by David's example to be undignified in worship.)

Also, we're not asking a machine to conceive a child. We're using our resources and knowledge to help the parents conceive a child. It is still conceived from the parents' seed, with the express intent of the parents raising the child.

[MadCatholicGomer]

Homosexuality is a perversion, and is sex with someone to whom a person is not married. There are certainly some acts that are always wrong - homosexual relations is one example. But, I see it as the heart behind it that makes the action sinful, not the physics of the situation. If there could conceivably be a righteously motivated, and non-sexual reason to carry out an action that on the surface looks much the same as when a person commits a sexual perversion, that might not be sinful. This is not one of those activities where such an example exists.


It is not a good intention alone that makes an action right. I already know you believe this because all Christians know that it is not a right intention in worshipping God that matters, but a right way of worshipping God, in spirit and in truth, in Christ Jesus. It doesn't matter whether a person thinks that Islam or Judaism will get them to Heaven, the fact is that those religions simply cannot lead a person to Heaven because they are not "good worship actions." In the same way, there are some actions which are not "good moral actions" whether a person thinks they are good or not. Our freedom in Christ is freedom to be a good human being. Actions which contradict our nature as human beings, such as homosexuality, masturbation, can never be good. They contradict the nature of man, a nature created by God.


Take murder, though. It's always immoral. But, the same actions in a different context might be right. If, instead of killing a man because you're angry with him and motivated by hate, you kill him because he's trying to rape and murder your wife, your actions were righteous, not sinful. Likewise, if you're a government official who must execute a convicted serial killer. In any of the cases, you're ending a human life, but in two, the fact that you're acting in a role of governmental authority (considering the family to be the most basic level of government) and justly carrying out the responsibility due that role, you're in those cases right in doing so, while in the case where you would be acting out of selfish, hateful motives, you're wrong.


That is because killing is not an inherently evil act. If it was, than God would not command a person to kill someone else. God would never command someone to ********** or commit homosexual acts. I am arguing that any action that separates the unitive and procreative aspects of sex from each other or from marriage are inherently evil.


I don't - divorce and medical aids to conception are more opposite than similar.


My point is that we should have pause and take caution when we, on our own authority, seperate things that God has put together: especially something as important and inherent to humanity as procreation, which God made to create souls whom He wishes to spend eternity with.



How, precisely, does using medical knowledge to aid a couple in conceiving in that way differ from any other method, and in what way do you consider it to violate dignity? Is it a violation of dignity to put screws in a broken leg bone? Or to give someone a prosthetic limb? It seems an MRI would be more undignified than this - that uses a machine to look inside your body. I am not seeing the basis of this argument... (Additionally, why would "violating dignity" be inherently immoral? We are actually encouraged by David's example to be undignified in worship.)


Well, as I just said above, it is different in that the sort of thing being changed is inherent to us. Human beings both are and are not defined by their bodies. In one sense they are not because our souls are the form of the body, they are what defines the body. It is because our bodies are joined to our souls that we take shape the way that we do. It is because we are called to eternal life that our bodies exist in the way that they do: so in that sense the body does not define humanity. But in another sense, we are defined by our bodies. Our bodies are the natural way, along with families, and communities, that God tells us the purpose for which we are made. Some bodies do that better than others just as some families do. But the body, in marital love, is a natural sign to point to the fact that God is creative, that His love is fruitful, and even a natural sign to point to the Trinity. When you separate the ends of sex, union and procreation, you destroy that natural sign and you contradict the purpose of the body.

All parts of the body, all parts of our humanity, are signs of what our purpose in life is. God did not make anything superfluous, and he did not create any part of the body that does not, in some way, point to something for which we are created. For example, our feet point out that we have a free will to make choices and to reject other choices. Our emotions were created to show us that we are made to love some things more than other things, and to point us to the fact that we are to love God above all. Our sense organs were created to point us to the beauty and goodness of God because we use them to experience the beauty that is all around us: in some ways, those who have defective sense organs (deafness and blindness) cannot experience that beauty in the same way that those who do not have those disorders can.

The point of medicine is to heal disorders as far as possible. Prosthetic limbs compensate for a limb so that a person can experience a more "natural" mobility. It does not change the nature of human mobility, it is working towards that. An MRI does not change the nature of how the brain works, it uses a more detailed way of making diagnoses.

So, I guess here is an analogy that I think holds. A person with a prosthetic limb is compared to a person who uses a medicine that aids procreation naturally... for example viagra. What I mean is that the nature of how procreation takes place does not change. A person who uses IVF or other such technologies is kind of like a scientist who, because he can't fix the legs, decides to give the person a treatment where he grows wings instead.


Also, we're not asking a machine to conceive a child. We're using our resources and knowledge to help the parents conceive a child. It is still conceived from the parents' seed, with the express intent of the parents raising the child.

But it isn't done by the parents, it is done by a scientist (and sometimes, I'm sure, with a machine). The parents cooperate, but ultimately, you are directly depending upon the skill of the scientist where it is supposed to be a sexual act of love by the parents.

[Healing Oil]

Ill express again that adoption is not done by a sexual act of love from the parents. Does that make the process any less loving?

[MadCatholicGomer]

Again, adoption is completely different from in vitro. One is dealing with what we should do with children, already created by God, who have a dignity that comes from them being made by God and being made for God as human beings. When they are in a situation where a natural parent cannot take care of them, it would not be a good thing to just ignore them and pretend like they don't exist. You have to acknowledge there human dignity and the rights that result from that: and that is why couples can and should adopt orphaned children. Besides, the Scripture makes warrant for adoption: after all, we are all adopted children of God in Christ Jesus who is His natural Son.

In vitro has to do with the rights of the parent and of the children. Children have the right to be conceived by parents in an act of sexual, marital love and not by a machine, scientist, and scientific procedure. Parents do NOT have the right to children. Children are not a right, but a gift. In vitro has to do with the creation of human life: adoption has to do with what to do when human life has been created in a less than ideal situation. Two completely different areas.

Only ONE action done in respect to children is a sexual/genital act by (hopefully) married parents, and that is procreation. Everything done after that are acts done, not only by the parents, and not only by the family, but by members of society as a whole towards the children; those acts should not be genital/sexual but should always be loving.

The dignity of that which is conceived gives the marital act its importance. By removing sex and procreation and marriage from one another, we cheapen all of them.