• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Contraception

Status
Not open for further replies.

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
you are saying that NOT doing something is an act?

Yes, to "reschedule", to "practice" something is to DO something...
And yes, to do so as to be contra-conceptive is contraceptive.




the CHurch's positions is consistent

I disagree. It IS inconsistent to argue that contraception is "evil," "sinful," "wrong" and then be the world's biggest religious proponent of contraception; it IS inconsistent to argue that birth control is "evil," "sinful," "wrong" and then teach birth control classes right there in the parish center (and mandate such for couples getting married).




it does not condemn abstinence


I agree (so it has nothing to do with not having sex); it actually promotes sex among married people but insists such can be done contraceptively - intentionally, purposefully, proactively - it even teaches couples how to do it.



.
 
Upvote 0

Vendetta

Convert to the RCC
Nov 4, 2008
1,154
104
Michigan
✟24,331.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In this thread: I come for the debate, I stay for the lawlz.


Condemning something that will save lives is immoral. So condemning forms of birth control such as condoms to parts of uneducated and religious Africa where aids is widespread should be considered manslaughter. Already millions have died.

Condemning something that saves lives is not necessarily immoral. Peace, rather than war, saves lives. If God ever chose to command people to engage in war and kill others, then, by your logic, you must call God immoral. After glossing over the Old Testament, well..you know the conclusion to which your logic arrives. Besides, the spread of AIDS is due to the actions of those in Africa. It is not Rome's fault if they choose to engage in an activity which spreads the disease.

If you're married ,... it is.

If you're married, abstinence is immoral? To pull a Protestant trick, show me that in scripture! Also, if the RCC ends up correct, people using that logic are going to have a really awkward conversation with Mary.
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
If you're married, abstinence is immoral?

Lost me; are you confusing the RCC or some Protestant denomination with the Shakers?

Yes, according to one of my Catholic teachers, it USED to be (prior to the sexual revolution of the '60's), a lot of Catholics said (but the RCC never taught!) that if you didn't want/should have kids - just don't have sex (have a sexless marriage). Note: This (I was told) was NOT the RCC position, just that heard from a lot of Catholics (including some priests).

But all that is moot now! The RCC does have an official position now - and it says NOTHING about sexless marriages (much less promoting such); it very much into CONTRACEPTIVE sex and birth control.




people using that logic are going to have a really awkward conversation with Mary.
I was taught that Mary never had sex, not that she had lots of sex - but in contraceptive ways, using good birth control methods, so that she didn't conceive.

I'm not aware that the RCC ever taught that married women must be perpetual virgins (again, are you confusing the RCC with the Shakers - you might be?). It CERTAINLY hasn't for the past 50 years, it stresses that women (and men!) who are married can have sex LOTS of times - as much (if not more) than any Baptist couples! But they can do so CONTRACEPTIVELY (which I don't think any Baptist denomination does) - they'll even show you how with birth control classes right at the parish center (I only know of one Baptist church well - I just can't IMAGINE them having birth control classes in the parish center).





.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,649
3,636
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟273,501.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I use NFP and I do consider it contraception.

Is NFP = natural family planning? Isn't that just abstaining at certain times of the month? Not using any tangible form of birth control? :confused:
 
Upvote 0

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,649
3,636
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟273,501.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I use it "against conception".

To be honest, using NFP is less than ideal. I use it because I already have a child with a disability and I have no health insurance. I don't pretend to think it is a good thing. It is just the less bad option.
Is that a bad thing? :confused: :sorry:

With my past experience, I have no room to talk. We did everything wrong because we didn't know what the Church taught then. We were "newbies" basically in the faith (even though I was baptized EOC when I was 1 - I didn't grow up in Church or any church for that matter).
 
Upvote 0

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,649
3,636
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟273,501.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Anyone who can't deal with putting off sex with their spouse for a few days has a serious problem. What if your spouse is sick...is burning in lust until he or she gets better really a problem? The Bible speaks of abstaining from sex for a short time in order to focus on prayer or fasting...so abstaining for 5 days or so out of a month really isn't a bad thing.
Self-control is in order in a marriage also. Not just for waiting until married as it may be thought in this culture (if that is even attempted to be promoted in the first place). Yes, and learning to curb our passions (when we want something just because we want it or lusting after it) is learning to control our flesh. This is good in all areas, lust, gluttony, and other areas, imo. :) Try fasting for 40+ days and 48 days and trying to work on "fasting" in that area as well. It is quite nice, actually, especially if fasting strictly on some foods is not a capability because of medical conditions.
 
Upvote 0

Vendetta

Convert to the RCC
Nov 4, 2008
1,154
104
Michigan
✟24,331.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Lost me; are you confusing the RCC or some Protestant denomination with the Shakers?

Yes, according to one of my Catholic teachers, it USED to be (prior to the sexual revolution of the '60's), a lot of Catholics said (but the RCC never taught!) that if you didn't want/should have kids - just don't have sex (have a sexless marriage). Note: This (I was told) was NOT the RCC position, just that heard from a lot of Catholics (including some priests).

But all that is moot now! The RCC does have an official position now - and it says NOTHING about sexless marriages (much less promoting such); it very much into CONTRACEPTIVE sex and birth control.




I was taught that Mary never had sex, not that she had lots of sex - but in contraceptive ways, using good birth control methods, so that she didn't conceive.

I'm not aware that the RCC ever taught that married women must be perpetual virgins (again, are you confusing the RCC with the Shakers - you might be?). It CERTAINLY hasn't for the past 50 years, it stresses that women (and men!) who are married can have sex LOTS of times - as much (if not more) than any Baptist couples! But they can do so CONTRACEPTIVELY (which I don't think any Baptist denomination does) - they'll even show you how with birth control classes right at the parish center (I only know of one Baptist church well - I just can't IMAGINE them having birth control classes in the parish center).

No, I read Sunlover's post as saying that if one is abstinent while married, then that is a sin. In other words, if you are married and DON'T have sex, then you're sinning. It's the opposite of the Shakers. When I mentioned the BVM, I was saying most assuredly that the BVM was always, and always will be the BVM.
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟28,891.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, to "reschedule", to "practice" something is to DO something...
.

I asked you if NOT doing something is an act. you say "Yes"

your position is to assume that scheduling to not do something --even though one may desire this very much--is morally equivalent to having sex with a condom

apart from begging the question, this doesn't fit with common sense

you would have a point however if the Church taught that it is okay to have a contraceptive mentalityi/intention if one is using NFP
 
Upvote 0
I asked you if NOT doing something is an act. you say "Yes"

your position is to assume that scheduling to not do something --even though one may desire this very much--is morally equivalent to having sex with a condom

apart from begging the question, this doesn't fit with common sense

you would have a point however if the Church taught that it is okay to have a contraceptive mentalityi/intention if one is using NFP
So do you choose not to have sex ? If you choose and act on it it is an act. You have acted on your decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sunlover1
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Josiah said:
Yes, to "reschedule", to "practice" something is to DO something...


I asked you if NOT doing something is an act. you say "Yes"

Yes, to "reschedule" and "to practice" IS doing something...

Now, if you were Shaker and were insisting on abstinence - you'd have a tiny point (well, maybe not). But that's no longer the RCC position (it never was, officially, I understand). The RCC is NOT saying to married couples, "DO NOTHING - abstain from sex, be a sexless couple." No. Not since the 1960's sexual revolution. It's saying "HAVE sex. DO something! At least as often as that Baptist couple in the apartment next door! BUT you may DO so contraceptively, using our preferred birth control method - let us teach you how (in fact, if you want to get married in the Church, we require that we teach you how to DO this)!"




is morally equivalent to having sex with a condom

I don't recall mentioning condoms....


But yes, when sex is rescheduled from certain times, when that action is taken, that action lessens the odds of conceiving - thus it is a contraceptive practice. If you teach them HOW to do birth control, HOW to best schedule things, that is active and that is contra-ceptive.

Yes - if the marriage became sexless (because sex is bad or immoral or whatever, not to avoid conception) that would be a different issue - but that's not the issue here (unless you are confusing Shakerism with modern Catholicism).







.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟28,891.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, to "reschedule" and "to practice" IS doing something...

but not having sex is not doing something.

and if scheduling is morally equivalent to having sex while using a condom to block the natural effects of that sex ... how do you know that?

are you saying it is wrong to close one's heart to the spouse and to new life through God, whether or not one is engaging in contraception?

with that the Christian Church agrees. wrong intentions are wrong regardless of whether the act done is intrinsically wrong or not

but the idea that two means that can be used for the same goal must be morally equivalent is obviously false
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MKJ

Contributor
Jul 6, 2009
12,260
776
East
✟38,894.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Is NFP = natural family planning? Isn't that just abstaining at certain times of the month? Not using any tangible form of birth control? :confused:

Sort of. You learn to read your body's signs so you know when you are about to ovulate, and when you actually do ovulate, or when it could be unclear or possible to ovulate. So then you take appropriate action of abstaining for a number of days until the signs show you that you are infertile.

It isn't the same as just counting days, which sometimes people confuse it with.
 
Upvote 0

JacktheCatholic

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.
Mar 9, 2007
24,545
2,797
57
Michigan, USA
Visit site
✟51,888.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
were the reformers and the Catholic Church right to condemn contraception?

is there a strong link between contraception and divorce?

what was Onan's sin?

Judah got a wife named Tamar for his first-born, Er. 7 But Er, Judah's first-born, greatly offended the LORD; so the LORD took his life. 8 3Then Judah said to Onan, "Unite with your brother's widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother's line." 9 Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother's widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too.


I think the Protestant Churches were against contraception up until this last century. But even before Protestants existed the early church dealt with contraceptives as well.

Augustine wrote many letters and addressed the issue of matrimony, sort of like how we do here, except Augustine was heard as a voice of authority.

Let me share part of a letter of his and see if it doesn't sound similiar to discussions in this thread:
It is, however, one thing for married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget children, which is not sinful: it is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves venial sin. For although propagation of offspring is not the motive of the intercourse, there is still no attempt to prevent such propagation, either by wrong desire or evil appliance. They who resort to these, although called by the name of spouses, are really not such; they retain no vestige of true matrimony, but pretend the honourable designation as a cloak for criminal conduct. Having also proceeded so far, they are betrayed into exposing their children, which are born against their will. They hate to nourish and retain those whom they were afraid they would beget. This infliction of cruelty on their offspring so reluctantly begotten, unmasks the sin which they had practised in darkness, and drags it clearly into the light of day. The open cruelty reproves the concealed sin. Sometimes, indeed, this lustful cruelty, or, if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born. Well, if both parties alike are so flagitious, they are not husband and wife; and if such were their character from the beginning, they have not come together by wedlock but by debauchery. But if the two are not alike in such sin, I boldly declare either that the woman is, so to say, the husband's harlot; or the man the wife's adulterer.
Source: CHURCH FATHERS: On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book I (Augustine)
 
Upvote 0

JacktheCatholic

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.
Mar 9, 2007
24,545
2,797
57
Michigan, USA
Visit site
✟51,888.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I believe Clement of Alexandria spoke on contraception as well because of false teachings from the Gnostics of his time. Clement was a great theologian and the teacher for Origen.

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).
Source: http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

More but not quoted: http://books.google.com/books?id=sq...lement of alexandria on contraception&f=false
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JacktheCatholic

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.
Mar 9, 2007
24,545
2,797
57
Michigan, USA
Visit site
✟51,888.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
John Calvin, even though I think he had many things wrong, seemed to get this one right:

John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of sperm outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that sperm may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring."
Source: Birth Control

Calvinism covers many different churches today such as the baptist church, as I am learning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sunlover1
Upvote 0

sunlover1

Beloved, Let us love one another
Nov 10, 2006
26,146
5,348
Under the Shadow of the Almighty
✟102,311.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
John Calvin, even though I think he had many things wrong, seemed to get this one right:


Source: Birth Control

Calvinism covers many different churches today such as the baptist church, as I am learning.
Not a fan, personally.. not a hater, but not a fan.
And certainly he has outdone himself on this subject by taking
over the job of the Holy Spirit insisting that what HE believes
to be sinful ... IS..(sinful)
When they go beyond what's written,,..thy themselves fall into sin
The sin of presumption!
 
Upvote 0

JacktheCatholic

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.
Mar 9, 2007
24,545
2,797
57
Michigan, USA
Visit site
✟51,888.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Not a fan, personally.. not a hater, but not a fan.
And certainly he has outdone himself on this subject by taking
over the job of the Holy Spirit insisting that what HE believes
to be sinful ... IS..(sinful)
When they go beyond what's written,,..thy themselves fall into sin
The sin of presumption!

I think you will find that all the Protestant fathers delved into studies beyond scripture alone so as to understand it better. Martin Luther and John Calvin and that Zwingli guy, they studied this stuff as much as they could to try and get it right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sunlover1
Upvote 0

sunlover1

Beloved, Let us love one another
Nov 10, 2006
26,146
5,348
Under the Shadow of the Almighty
✟102,311.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I think you will find that all the Protestant fathers delved into studies beyond scripture alone so as to understand it better. Martin Luther and John Calvin and that Zwingli guy, they studied this stuff as much as they could to try and get it right.
Well I don't fault them for that either, but they could have added "IMO"..
:cool:


IMO :holy:
 
Upvote 0

JacktheCatholic

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.
Mar 9, 2007
24,545
2,797
57
Michigan, USA
Visit site
✟51,888.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well I don't fault them for that either, but they could have added "IMO"..
:cool:


IMO :holy:

In their defense it was before the internet and CF. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: sunlover1
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.