Contraception

[Gregory Thompson]

i think i disagree with that teaching too .

people need to get married for the right reasons that encourage healthy lasting relationships . forcing people to get married because they had a kid and discouraging birth control or teachings on sexual education is irresponsible and harmful to the creation on many levels.

there's enough people on this planet already . we don't need to keep acting like humanity was born yesterday . we need to learn to take care of the humans who are already here . and that begins with being a larger family that transcends such boundaries .

 

[max1120]

i think i disagree with that teaching too .

people need to get married for the right reasons that encourage healthy lasting relationships . forcing people to get married because they had a kid and discouraging birth control or teachings on sexual education is irresponsible and harmful to the creation on many levels.

there's enough people on this planet already . we don't need to keep acting like humanity was born yesterday . we need to learn to take care of the humans who are already here . and that begins with being a larger family that transcends such boundaries .

Very True indeed!

 

[patricius79]

. forcing people to get married because they had a kid and discouraging birth control or teachings on sexual education is irresponsible and harmful to the creation on many levels.
.

I think we should encourage birth control: i.e., self-control. It's just we shouldn't encourage irresponsible means of birth control which involves using others

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I think we should encourage birth control: i.e., self-control. It's just we shouldn't encourage irresponsible means of birth control which involves using others

At least advocate sexual education so people can use their brains and understand the consequences of their actions .

 

[MrPolo]

To put down Solomon's word of God in Ecclesiastes is to be the opposite of His Wisdom from God. Bad form for sure.
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

My comments are not a put-down. It is the intended teaching of the book. There is wisdom to gain from his lamentation if it is understood properly. Have you read the book? It is chock full of hopelessness and observations that wicked men get justice and good men don't, that all is vanity, that man is no better than an animal, he's vexed by the repetitive cycles of life, he hates his toils of life because the work is never done, his life is vanity, and on and on and on. The majority of the book is like this. Occasionally he stumbles on a truly good saying, such as how worldly possessions cannot satisfy, but even those remain as frustrations for him because the perspective he uses in this book is to not look beyond this world.

You can find even plenty of Protestant commentaries that recognize that this book demonstrates how the world looks if you only use a human perspective.

 

[max1120]

I think we should encourage birth control: i.e., self-control. It's just we shouldn't encourage irresponsible means of birth control which involves using others

That sounds all well & good but that does nto work as it goes against human nature. Humans are sexual beings and will engage in sex both inside and outside marriage, it has not stoped since begining of time and will not stop in the future. There is no good reason to prohibit birth control since it protects innocent parties and allows for society to reduce poverty. Perfection is not possible, thus we should allow for humans to be humans and not punish the innocent.

 

[max1120]

My comments are not a put-down. It is the intended teaching of the book. There is wisdom to gain from his lamentation if it is understood properly. Have you read the book? It is chock full of hopelessness and observations that wicked men get justice and good men don't, that all is vanity, that man is no better than an animal, he's vexed by the repetitive cycles of life, he hates his toils of life because the work is never done, his life is vanity, and on and on and on. The majority of the book is like this. Occasionally he stumbles on a truly good saying, such as how worldly possessions cannot satisfy, but even those remain as frustrations for him because the perspective he uses in this book is to not look beyond this world.

You can find even plenty of Protestant commentaries that recognize that this book demonstrates how the world looks if you only use a human perspective.

Hmmmm.... I don't know about that...I for one do not "hate my toils of of life" in fact I am usually pretty upbeat and look forward to each new day as a new adventure. I love life. I am never satisfied because I constantly have a new goal and that new goal motivates me and gives me satisfaction in life. Life is awsome!!! or at least beats the alternatives hands down!!!!

 

[MrPolo]

I believe family planing is a moral and ethical obligation to insure to ensure that all children are loved and wanted from the moment of birth.

I cringe a little at the notion of "unwanted" children, but....

There is nothing wrong with natural planning, but the idea of contraception means introducing something into the marital act to remove fertility from the equation. And the partners in the ultimate expression of self-giving give not-quite-all of themselves to each other. In an act that expresses the full giving of oneself, the person essentially bears false witness with his/her body.

So, can we agree that pro-contraception folks do not believe that the marital act is the theological figure of bride and bridegroom giving themselves entirely to one another?

I believe contraception says to God: "Thanks for the gift of sexuality, to be able to participate in the Creator's procreative faculties, a gift not even the angels are given. But today I choose not to 'be fruitful.' I just want physical pleasure. Thanks anyway!"

 

[sunlover1]

I cringe a little at the notion of "unwanted" children, but....

There is nothing wrong with natural planning, but the idea of contraception means introducing something into the marital act to remove fertility from the equation. And the partners in the ultimate expression of self-giving give not-quite-all of themselves to each other. In an act that expresses the full giving of oneself, the person essentially bears false witness with his/her body.

So, can we agree that pro-contraception folks do not believe that the marital act is the theological figure of bride and bridegroom giving themselves entirely to one another?

I believe contraception says to God: "Thanks for the gift of sexuality, to be able to participate in the Creator's procreative faculties, a gift not even the angels are given. But today I choose not to 'be fruitful.' I just want physical pleasure. Thanks anyway!"

And... the NFP way of not having sex when she's ovulating says....?
oh wait, it's the same thing!

 

[Gregory Thompson]

thanks for the food for thought . i'm out .

 

[patricius79]

And... the NFP way of not having sex when she's ovulating says....?
oh wait, it's the same thing!

having sex and not having sex are the same thing?

must two means which can be used for the same both be just if one is?

it certainly doesn't follow logically

it is true, however, that even things not intrinsically wrong--such as abstiinence--can be abused

 

[Heavens]

My comments are not a put-down. It is the intended teaching of the book. There is wisdom to gain from his lamentation if it is understood properly. Have you read the book? It is chock full of hopelessness and observations that wicked men get justice and good men don't, that all is vanity, that man is no better than an animal, he's vexed by the repetitive cycles of life, he hates his toils of life because the work is never done, his life is vanity, and on and on and on. The majority of the book is like this. Occasionally he stumbles on a truly good saying, such as how worldly possessions cannot satisfy, but even those remain as frustrations for him because the perspective he uses in this book is to not look beyond this world.

You can find even plenty of Protestant commentaries that recognize that this book demonstrates how the world looks if you only use a human perspective.

I know the book very well. Commentaries that state other than this are in error.

The view that Solomon gives in Ecclesiastes is what God is desiring all men would view of this vain life. For every word Solomon spoke is true beyond the shadow of turning in God's wisdom. We learn that this existence is only vanity.

To know this is to usher in hope.

Such a wise view of our vain state of being, which is given to Solomon by God Himself, is the most appropriate wisdom for men to be reminded of, that they might seek the Lord in dust and ashes.
We are given this wisdom to help educate us to escape the vanities of the flesh.
...Which can only be attained in the "second Solomon", our King of Peace, even Jesus Christ our Lord.

To this agrees the Saints and their Holy Writ;

(Rom 8:20) For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

 

[sunlover1]

having sex and not having sex are the same thing?

must two means which can be used for the same both be just if one is?

it certainly doesn't follow logically

it is true, however, that even things not intrinsically wrong--such as abstiinence--can be abused

having sex for pleasure not for pregnancy
BOTH the same logic.
That is the goal of the sex in BOTH cases..
(and there is nothing at all wrong with that btw)
Be blessed.

 

[MrPolo]

oh wait, it's the same thing!

As patricius said, it's not the same. One engages in the expression of total self-giving and the other does not.

Engaging in intercourse ≠ Not engaging in intercourse.

 

[MrPolo]

hat is the goal of the sex in BOTH cases..

And the goal of thieves and laborers is to get money. Both equally moral!!! Right?

 

[sunlover1]

As patricius said, it's not the same. One engages in the expression of total self-giving and the other does not.

Engaging in intercourse ≠ Not engaging in intercourse.

The one who has sex ONLY when it's not going to produce a child
is having sex for pleasure only... that's what i answered to your post.
No matter how you dice it, it is what it is.

You're doing it for pleasure.. so .. selfishly.. more or less..

 

[sunlover1]

And the goal of thieves and laborers is to get money. Both equally moral!!! Right?

Okay, so you're saying that it's alright to do the act and purposely avoid pregnancy by doing it when there is no ovulation ... for pleasure only...
but that to do it for pleasure only and use a barrier to avoid pregnancy..
is somehow not alright?

WHY is one alright and one not?

 

[Heavens]

Only an irresponsible person would not use birth control.
Do people actually argue against this?

 

[patricius79]

having sex for pleasure not for pregnancy
BOTH the same logic.
That is the goal of the sex in BOTH cases..
.

not necessarily, I think.

e.g., a person practicing NFP (having sex durng the infertile period)--or contraception, for that matter--may wish that a child will result, and for true bonding

but intentions don't determine the morality of an act itself

and two means can be used to reach the same end while one means is moral and the other is immoral

otherwise Christians believe in Machiavellianism, basically

 

[JCFantasy23]

It'd be unhealthy to the extreme to get pregnant every year. I don't see anything in the bible against birth control. I see nothing wrong with planning on when to have kids to when you can best take care of them and when it's better for the person to have children and be responsible - both for the parents AND the children.