• 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.

Are we really thinking everything through?

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,285
4,084
The South
✟129,061.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
They should abstain from sex. The problem is that the couple would not be having sex. It would something a little less than sex since there is a barrier between them. It would be pleasurable and only partly unitive. It would be a twisted form of sex, like oral sex, etc. It would be an imitation, not the full reality of sex.

It would be like God making a cheetah that ate vegetables. It really isn't a cheetah. It looks like one, but wouldn't be one.

Now I understand why some folks dont take this seriously ^_^

They would cease to burn if they were burning
 
  • 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
Eight? You've been keeping busy ^_^

Wow girl, I didnt know you you had that many! LOL.
So you think 8 is enough then?
:doh:that was so bad lol.
(Not as bad as " yeah I have 8,.. that i know of *wink wink)

Nah sis, I never took birth control after my mom took me to get it at around 16, when I started to gain weight (being vain as I was) I was like, "forget this" ^_^ (as if that made any sense either! lol)
LOL
Yeah, I did gain some weight while not taking BC pills

Im 44 and have not taken it since that time. But I would never feel guilty for such a thing now. I mean if I hurt someones feelings or stole something (etc) I'd feel guilt for doing my wrong, but I wouldnt have a second thought or feeling of guilt attached to something like that.

The reality of the matter is,
Im just plain less active in the evenings then you are sis ^_^;):p
Fer Shizzle! :thumbsup: ;)
Gotta be more active with all these kids. No time to lay around.:holy:
You're too funny, you naughty thing you.
However, I also don't believe that we, as individuals, have the right to come to our own conclusions on such important issues as abortion and contraception. We need to be careful how we approach such matters. If we are starting out with the preconcieved notion that this is what I believe to be right, and then we try to make God's will conform to our own, we are putting ouselves on a very dangerous path. If, however, we start out by saying that we want to first find out what God's will is on this issue, and then we conform ourselves to His will, we put ourselves on the right path to understanding and accepting God's truth. We must always be willing to humbly submit our own will to His truth.
Amen.

Now, with that, come the questions, "What is truth?" or, "What is God's truth?" These questions have been asked by great men throughout history, from great philosophers, to great theologians, to even Pontius Pilate himself who asked Jesus this very question.
And here I could have told them the answer! :clap::clap:
Thy Word oh Lord is Truth


Thankfully, we as Christians have the light of our Lord's truth and teachings to guide us down the narrow path which leads to righteousness, and away from the broad path which leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13-14)
:amen:
This is not meant to be offensive to my Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ, but
RUT ROH!

I see Protestantism as the, unfortunate, first step leading down the dangerous spiral staircase from the Fullness of Truth of the Catholic Church to the ideology of our individualistic, liberal, atheistic and anti-Christian culture we see today.
Holy smokes! That wasnt offensive now, was it? lol
The Reformation led people to question why they should listen to the Church and not just come up with their own Christian beliefs based on the Bible.
And you see that is a bad thing?
The "church" wasnt acting like "the church"
If it doesn't walk like a duck and it doesnt look like a duck
and doesnt talk like a duck...
Do we call it a ... duck??
I suppose it could always be a 'sick' duck
in need of a change of diet (the word)
But what if the ducky wont take the meds?

Then people began questioning why they should even believe in the Bible
No, they began to question why they couldn't read the Bible for themselves.
Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.
Source: Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Edited with an introduction by Edward Peters, Scolar Press, London, copyright 1980 by Edward Peters, ISBN 0-85967-621-8, pp. 194-195, citing S. R. Maitland, Facts and Documents [illustrative of the history, doctrine and rites, of the ancient Albigenses & Waldenses], London, Rivington, 1832, pp. 192-194.
I don't mean to be a naysayer but this don't seem right to me.
:wave:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fireinfolding
Upvote 0

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,285
4,084
The South
✟129,061.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That would involve being open to fertility. If you aren't giving all of yourself to your spouse, then it isn't fully unitive. You can't have an honest relationship with secrets.

Im not getting how your response applies. She was honest with her allergy to him, as the doctor told her it was so, there are no secrets, and neither is having sexual relations with whom you are allergic if the man wears a condom (to whom you are allergic)
 
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
They should abstain from sex. The problem is that the couple would not be having sex. It would something a little less than sex since there is a barrier between them. It would be pleasurable and only partly unitive. It would be a twisted form of sex, like oral sex, etc. It would be an imitation, not the full reality of sex.
:bigeye:

you sure?

That would involve being open to fertility. If you aren't giving all of yourself to your spouse, then it isn't fully unitive. You can't have an honest relationship with secrets.
So now what?
 
Upvote 0

MrPolo

Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20
Jul 29, 2007
5,871
767
Visit site
✟24,706.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
I cant see a differnce with a barriered act and a less barriered act.....You lost me on your first sentence MrPolo

When I said there was no sexual act at times I was referring to the rhythm method. That does not involve contracepting the sexual act. It involves not having the sexual act at times. You see the difference? Deliberately contracepting the sexual act is sinful. Restraining from it is not.

Regarding sterility that does not involve someone introducing some outside form of contraception that would frustrate procreation. If he's sterile, he's sterile. He's not deliberately compromising the sexual act. He's not taking away from it by way of contraception. Contraception is something done with the intent to frustrate procreation. Someone sterile cannot help it. As I earlier mentioned, bringing in some outside form of contraception into the act is contrary to one of the purposes of the sexual gift which is openness to procreation.
 
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
When I said there was no sexual act at times I was referring to the rhythm method. That does not involve contracepting the sexual act. It involves not having the sexual act at times. You see the difference? Deliberately contracepting the sexual act is sinful. Restraining from it is not.
Because?
Both have the same goal dear sir.
 
Upvote 0

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,285
4,084
The South
✟129,061.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When I said there was no sexual act at times I was referring to the rhythm method. That does not involve contracepting the sexual act. It involves not having the sexual act at times. You see the difference? Deliberately contracepting the sexual act is sinful. Restraining from it is not.

Regarding sterility that does not involve someone introducing some outside form of contraception that would frustrate procreation. If he's sterile, he's sterile. He's not deliberately compromising the sexual act. He's not taking away from it by way of contraception. Contraception is something done with the intent to frustrate procreation. Someone sterile cannot help it. As I earlier mentioned, bringing in some outside form of contraception into the act is contrary to one of the purposes of the sexual gift which is openness to procreation.


What if your allergic to your husbands stuff like my sister, whereas she'd love to have children and wouldnt want to hinder having them but actaully might look into other ways given she has an allergic reaction to her mate. Would you also advise abstinence for the young couple or because its not hers or his fault would a codom be recommended here or is it still a big no no and her salvation is at stake here as well?

Forgive me I just hafta ask these things^_^
 
Upvote 0

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,285
4,084
The South
✟129,061.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So do bank robbers and laborers, but one is sinful and the other isn't. The ends do not justify means.

Wait, before I go... MrPolo Paul said its better to marry then to burn, he's justifying marraige because of ones burning not for the desire to procreate there.

Now I will be back later^_^
 
Upvote 0

MrPolo

Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20
Jul 29, 2007
5,871
767
Visit site
✟24,706.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
What if your allergic to your husbands stuff like my sister, whereas she'd love to have children and wouldnt want to hinder having them but actaully might look into other ways given she has an allergic reaction to her mate. Would you also advise abstinence for the young couple or because its not hers or his fault would a codom be recommended here or is it still a big no no and her salvation is at stake here as well?

I'm pretty sure I've never heard about allergic reactions to "husbands stuff"----and I don't even really want to think about that. I'm pretty sure if you asked a theological expert on the matter (I am but a mere master's student), they still would not condone condom use for the reasons I've already mentioned. They would probably ask about the nature of the allergic reaction, explore other methods of consideration that would still be open to life, or something else I don't know about.
 
Upvote 0

MrPolo

Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20
Jul 29, 2007
5,871
767
Visit site
✟24,706.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Wait, before I go... MrPolo Paul said its better to marry then to burn, he's justifying marraige because of ones burning not for the desire to procreate there.

He is not saying marital acts should not be open to procreation in that passage. :holy:
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,550
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
GT's theology on thinking :)

janet-zweig-779404.jpg
 
Upvote 0

MrPolo

Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20
Jul 29, 2007
5,871
767
Visit site
✟24,706.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
One thing to ask would be: Where is there evidence in the Scriptures that contraception is a sin, other than an assumption of natural law?
If we go by your rule of Scripture alone---I could first point out that the Bible shows that the Church was appointed to pass on such truth, and therefore listening to the Church's teaching is one and the same as listening to Biblical teaching.

If we go by the strict Protestant assumption that the Church does not have this privilege and we therefore need to individually show other individuals where the Bible is against contraception, one could begin with the sin of Onan (Gn 38:9-10), which your faith's namesake John Calvin also interpreted as a "monstrous" sin.

You also have the figure of marriage (which I covered earlier) with Jesus as bridegroom that loses value if contraception is introduced.

You also have Paul arguing against homosexual behavior on the grounds that it was "unnatural" (Rm 1:27-28) Thus introducing unnatural addendums to thwart the natural result of the act, one is by Paul's standard sinning.
 
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
If we go by your rule of Scripture alone---I could first point out that the Bible shows that the Church was appointed to pass on such truth, and therefore listening to the Church's teaching is one and the same as listening to Biblical teaching..

Well God trumps both and if it's not written then we better ask Him.

He did design sex to be very pleasant so that the population would continue (according to logic)
He did design Marriage for the purpose of godly offspring. (Malachi) :thumbsup:
But sex can be unpleasant and still needful ( dont deny your spouse)
and marriage can be childless and still sexual. (see above)

The marriage bed is undefiled and imo it's between the couple and their creator.
 
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
Intents arent the issue ^_^
Oh lol.

So do bank robbers and laborers, but one is sinful and the other isn't. The ends do not justify means.
Whats the difference if i choose to abstain from sex
(For purpose of contraception)
or if i choose to have sex but use a condom?
There is none.
 
Upvote 0

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,285
4,084
The South
✟129,061.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm pretty sure I've never heard about allergic reactions to "husbands stuff"----and I don't even really want to think about that. I'm pretty sure if you asked a theological expert on the matter (I am but a mere master's student), they still would not condone condom use for the reasons I've already mentioned. They would probably ask about the nature of the allergic reaction, explore other methods of consideration that would still be open to life, or something else I don't know about.

Its being allergic to his seminal fluid MrPolo (ya had to make me say it) ^_^ I posted the name for it a few posts back, and OFCOURSE you dont want to think about it, if your wife had it and was given the ultimatum of abstain having from with you forever or wear a non option condom Im sure you'd be giving it ALOT of thought ^_^

She'd love to be artificially inseminated and have three kids if it were up to her because they are both able too:thumbsup:

Its just that she's just allergic to "his stuff" (as I call it).

He just wears a condom, and that takes care of the problem between them. She would never ask someone because she feels no doubts in herself that doing that is at all wrong, shes never felt a conviction over it and Im sure not going to lay one on her lol

Is being artificially inseminated ok with the church, or no in this case? Or should I ask someone else?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sunlover1
Upvote 0