Fireman's Wife said:
I have not twisted your words. I have used your words to support my argument. Your belief about condoms has nothing to do with my statement that "God is all powerful but that does not mean that you can rely on that fact to save you from the consequences of your immoral choices." I did not dirrect this comment toward you, rather I was making a statement with relevence to anyone and everyone that God being "bigger" than "whatever" does not negate our duty to make moral choices.
Nobody said that God's power to enforce His will does not negate our duty to make moral choices. So what relevance did this statement have to the conversation if not directly related to the fact that I believe that it is not immoral to use a condom?
Fireman's Wife said:
You did make this suggestion when you asserted that some womens bodies are not predictable. This is not a requirement of many forms of NFP, though it is to use a form of NFP called the Rhythm Method. Again, you are talking to an expert. I understand that womens bodies can work differently. But the NFP facts are that NFP can be "tailored to fit" almost any woman.
To my knowledge, forms of NFP use predictors. The workings of my body and the bodies of some other women aren't so predictable. How does that suggest rythm method? Is there some other form of NFP that does not rely on predictors such as temperature? I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I also made no mention of the rythm method in my original statement.
Fireman's Wife said:
O.K. first...I am not sure what "view" you are talking about. If you are saying that my view that the marriage act is both unitive and procreative then let me just say that this is hardly an extreme view. It is a teaching of the Catholic Church, the largest church in the world, with over a BILLION members. To say that this view somehow extreme is interesting considering that view is held by millions and millions of faithful Catholics.
That is the view to which I was referring. People can believe extreme views. Just because a lot of people believe it doesn't mean it is not extreme.
Fireman's Wife said:
Second, you want scripture...Ps 127:3-5--Children too are a gift from God... Gen 30:22--God remembers Rachael and gives her a son... Gen 9:7--Be fertile and multiply... Gen 38:8-10--Onan is struck dead by God himself for having an incomplete act with his sister-in-law by wasting his seed on the ground (withdraw--Is God bigger than withdraw?) Notice he refused to give his fertility to his sister-in-law but yet still had relations with her.
First, I am fertile and I am multiplying. How do these commands restrict the sexual acts between a married couple to being only procreative? These scriptures don't say that a husband and wife can't enjoy each other sexualy simply to enjoy each other and bond with each other.
Second, Onan was struck down for his disobedience. If God had commanded him to kill his brother and he did not and God struck him down, would you believe that we are supposed to kill our brothers? Admittedly, that is an extreme example, but Onan's folly was in his disobedience.
Fireman's Wife said:
I offer the scripture to satisfy your request. The Bible itself states that not all truths are in Holy Scripture. These are truths of Sacred Tradition and Church teaching. Strictly from a historical perspective, I have 2000 years of Tradition and Church teaching to back me up. I also place the burden on my conscience as I am sure you do also. I know that you are not Catholic, so the Tradition and teachings that I speak of probably mean little or nothing to you, but I say it so you will know that we are not on the same page, but yet I am not pulling this out of thin air.
I am sorry if there was a misunderstanding here. I don't have a problem if you believe in the doctrines of your Church. I admire you for holding true to your beliefs in what God wants for your life. However, I felt attacked in that you stated your view as an absolute. You didn't say anything like "my view" or "my opinion", so it felt as though you were forcing your view as truth for all of us. I'm sorry if I got defensive for no reason.
Fireman's Wife said:
Again, I was not twisting your words. I was pointing out the inconsistancies in your logic. You have however, changed your logic now, so I will respond accordingly. I agree, abortafacient contraception is wrong, but not just because it can cause abortions but also because the very nature of the marriage act is to be unitive and open to procreation. When a couple uses this gift with contraception, it is like saying to God "I want to use your wonderful gift, but I don't want the fertility part of the gift, so I'll just block that part of it and take the sensual pleasure only, Thank You." The difference when you use NFP is that, if for grave reasons (not selfish reasons) a couple feels that they should avoid a pregnancy, then they can abstain during the fertile period which is for a relatively short period of time. (which BTW abstinence, for a short time, is permissable in Holy Scripture.) A marriage act has not taken place and thus no thwarting of the nature of the act has occured. When the couple comes to a place in their lives where there is no longer a grave reason for avoiding pregnancy, they can quit abstaining during the fertile period and go for it 
!
I don't see where I changed my logic. In my original post I stated that abortive methods are wrong on the basis that they are abortive. I then when on to state that other methods that are non-abortive will not stand in the way of God if he chooses to enforce his will and give you a baby even if you think you are not ready. This is the argument I have made all along. I believe that there is more to the gift than just that of procreation. There is the bond formed between husband and wife. Enjoying each other sexually brings a couple closer. That, too, is a wonderful gift.
