Contraception

[Lotar]

These unpleasant tendencies in our American life are made evident by articles such as those which I actually read not long ago in a certain paper, where a clergyman was quoted, seemingly with approval, as expressing the general American attitude when he said that the ambition of any save a very rich man should be to rear two children only, so as to give his children an opportunity "to taste a few of the good
things of life." This man, whose profession and calling should have made him a moral teacher, actually set before others the ideal, not of training children to do their duty, not of sending them forth with stout hearts and ready minds to win triumphs for themselves and their country, not of allowing them the opportunity, and giving them the privilege of making their own place in the world, but, forsooth, of keeping the number of children so limited that they might "taste a few good things!" The way to give a child a fair chance in life is not to bring it up in luxury, but to see that it has the kind of training that will give it strength of character.

Even apart from the vital question of national life, and regarding only the individual interest of the children themselves, happiness in the true sense is a hundredfold more apt to come to any given member of a healthy family of healthy-minded children, well brought up, well educated, but taught that they must shift up, well educated, but taught that they must shift for themselves, must win their own way, and by their own exertions make their own positions of usefulness, than it is apt to come to those whose parents themselves have acted on and have trained their children to act on, the selfish and sordid theory
that the whole end of life is to "taste a few good things." The intelligence of the remark is on par with its morality; for the most rudimentary mental process would have shown the speaker that if the average family in which there are children contained but two children, the nation as a whole would decrease in population so rapidly that in two or three generations it would very deservedly be on the point of extinction, so that the people who had acted on this base and selfish doctrine would be giving place to others with braver and more robust ideals. Nor would such a result be in any way regrettable; for a race that practiced such doctrine—that is, a race that practiced race suicide--would thereby conclusively show that it was unfit to exist, and that it had better give place to people who had not forgotten the primary
laws of their being.

To sum up, then, the whole matter is simple enough. If either a race or an individual prefers the pleasure of more effortless ease, of self-indulgence, to the infinitely deeper, the infinitely higher pleasures that come to those who know the toil and the weariness, but also the joy, of hard duty well done, why, that race or that individual must inevitably in the end pay the penalty of leading a life both vapid and ignoble.
No man and no woman really worthy of the name can care for the life spent solely or chiefly in the avoidance of risk and trouble and labor. Save in exceptional cases, the prizes worth having in life must be paid for, and the life worth living must be a life of work for a worthy end, and ordinarily of work more for others than for one's self.

The woman's task is not easy--no task worth doing is easy -- but in doing it, and when she has done it, there shall come to her the highest and holiest joy known to mankind; and having done it, she shall have the reward prophesied in Scripture; for her husband and her children, yes, and all people who realize
that her work lies at the foundation of all national happiness and greatness, shall rise up and call her blessed.

“I do not wish to see this country a country of selfish prosperity where those who enjoy the material prosperity think only of the selfish gratification of their own desires and are content to import from abroad not only their art, not only their literature, but even their babies.”

Oh how things change.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I just had a rest stop and it occured to me... there is nothing different between artificial contraception and a baby's nappy... they are both altering the natural function of God given organs...

 

[Lotar]

Nappy?

Certainly the baby can't help it if it has ugly hair.

 

[Lotar]

The difference between the two is the abstaining is an ascetic act, that is very much in line with the whole philosophy; if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex.

Contraception deviods the maritial act of it's procreative purpose. God created sex for two main purposes: to bond husband and wife, and for procreation of the race. To willfully subvert one or both of the aspects for which sexual intercourse was created for is to go against God's will. This is why it is sinful to have sex with someone who is not your spouse, and this is why it is sinful to make the sex act barren.

For individual bans: Barrier methods are forms of Onanism, surgical sterility is a form castration, and pharmaceutical methods are abortive.

From earlier in the thread.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Nappy?

Certainly the baby can't help it if it has ugly hair.

oh. Americans... I mean "diaper"

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Contraception deviods the maritial act of it's procreative purpose. God created sex for two main purposes: to bond husband and wife, and for procreation of the race. To willfully subvert one or both of the aspects for which sexual intercourse was created for is to go against God's will. This is why it is sinful to have sex with someone who is not your spouse, and this is why it is sinful to make the sex act barren.

So married people who are infertile but have sex are sinners. Got it.

 

[Lotar]

So married people who are infertile but have sex are sinners. Got it.

Do you know what willful means?

 

[ParsonJefferson]

From earlier in the thread.

The difference between the two is the abstaining is an ascetic act, that is very much in line with the whole philosophy; if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex.

Contraception deviods the maritial act of it's procreative purpose. God created sex for two main purposes: to bond husband and wife, and for procreation of the race. To willfully subvert one or both of the aspects for which sexual intercourse was created for is to go against God's will. This is why it is sinful to have sex with someone who is not your spouse, and this is why it is sinful to make the sex act barren.

For individual bans: Barrier methods are forms of Onanism, surgical sterility is a form castration, and pharmaceutical methods are abortive.

I'd like to talk to you about this when you're 50 years old. I'll pretty much promise you you'll be singing a different tune!

Barrier methods of contraception are NOT "Onanism". Onanism is a term that - applied to masturbation and/or contraception - is a complete and total lie. That was NOT what was going on with Onan.

Surgical sterility is NOT a form of castration, in that first of all, you cannot castrate a woman. And with a vasectomy, the testicals are still there. Vast difference.

And pharmaceuticals are NOT necessarily abortive. There cannot be an abortion unless and until there has been a pregnancy.


Now... I'll ask you the same thing I asked Benedicto00: Can you provide me Book, Chapter and Verse - from the Bible - that says ANYTHING that indicates contraception is "going against God's will"?

 

[Benedicta00]

I just had a rest stop and it occured to me... there is nothing different between artificial contraception and a baby's nappy... they are both altering the natural function of God given organs...

that's why we potty train them.

 

[Fireinfolding]

So married people who are infertile but have sex are sinners. Got it.

I hear ya

Come together for a TIME that ye might ~have children~ is NOT WRITTEN

Only that ye might not be TEMPTED

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[Benedicta00]

That's EXACTLY RIGHT. The BIBLE does NOT say one way or the other!

So why does the Catholic Church? Why do I have Catholics accusing me of "Marital Sodomy"? Why are you making such a HUGE issue out of the fact that somebody uses a different form of birth control than you do?

That is EXACTLY what the point is! Thank you!

Because the Catholic Church does not ascribed to the 16th century man made doctrine of sola scripture.

We believe the Church is the authority to teach us faith and morals becuase when she speaks to us she does so with the very voice of Christ (He who hears you, hears me).

Everything is not taught in the bible, why?

Because God gave us His Church, not only and just a bible.

 

[Benedicta00]

So married people who are infertile but have sex are sinners. Got it.

No, you misunderstand.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Do you know what willful means?

I'm pretty sure that infertile people willfully have sex.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

that's why we potty train them.

eventually... but for that whole 2 or 3 years until they are potty trained, you are altering their God given natural body fuctions, just like contraception does.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

Because the Catholic Church does not ascribed to the 16th century man made doctrine of sola scripture.

We believe the Church is the authority to teach us faith and morals becuase when she speaks to us she does so with the very voice of Christ (He who hears you, hears me).

Everything is not taught in the bible, why?

Because God gave us His Church, not only and just a bible.

So it's a Catholic teaching - coming from the same "source of authority" that brought us the Spanish Inquisition, etc.

This is what it comes down to. You put your faith in the Catholic Church. I certainly do NOT.

And that, specifically, is where the debate ends - which is exactly what I wanted to come to. It is a CHURCH teaching, it is NOT a BIBLICAL teaching.


So you're free to practice whatever form of birth control you wish - and you do. But you'd be well advised to not be so harsh and condemning of those who don't agree with your church's teachings - especially in light of the fact that they're not Biblical.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Because the Catholic Church does not ascribed to the 16th century man made doctrine of sola scripture.

We believe the Church is the authority to teach us faith and morals becuase when she speaks to us she does so with the very voice of Christ (He who hears you, hears me).

Everything is not taught in the bible, why?

Because God gave us His Church, not only and just a bible.

Prov 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Its by His words we are justified. Every man is to be a liar and God be true. Even the Bereans had to search to see if what Paul was saying was true.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

If they consent not to wholesome words of Christ I wouldnt hear them. Its abiding in His not mens. They are true as far as they remain true to Him and His words and have fruit in their life as evidence to that truth.

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[Benedicta00]

Prov 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Its by His words we are justified. Every man is to be a liar and God be true. Even the Bereans had to search to see if what Paul was saying was true.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

If they consent not to wholesome words of Christ I wouldnt hear them. Its abiding in His not mens. They are true as far as they remain true to Him and His words and have fruit in their life as evidence to that truth.

Peace

Fireinfolding

Please show me how anything the Church teaches will contradict what is written in scripture.

 

[Benedicta00]

So it's a Catholic teaching - coming from the same "source of authority" that brought us the Spanish Inquisition, etc.

This is what it comes down to. You put your faith in the Catholic Church. I certainly do NOT.

And that, specifically, is where the debate ends - which is exactly what I wanted to come to. It is a CHURCH teaching, it is NOT a BIBLICAL teaching.


So you're free to practice whatever form of birth control you wish - and you do. But you'd be well advised to not be so harsh and condemning of those who don't agree with your church's teachings - especially in light of the fact that they're not Biblical.

Yep... just as your belief comes from those who burned the alleged witches of Salem.

And where have I condemned you? i asked where do you get the idea from that God is okay with ABC and sterilization? You are yet to answer, BTW.

 

[Benedicta00]

eventually... but for that whole 2 or 3 years until they are potty trained, you are altering their God given natural body fuctions, just like contraception does.

LOL, how are we altering it?? They aren't allowed to go or something? Umm, we put a "nappy" on them so they can go.

I'm so not getting where you are going with this.

 

[Benedicta00]

I'm pretty sure that infertile people willfully have sex.

he was meaning do they wilfully try to be infertile? You see the sin lies in being anti baby, not in being infertile. If one should not or cannot have kids who is fertile then they should chose a moral means, ABC is immoral. Not having children is not the sin. Sometimes things prevent us and hinder our freedom, from freely choosing to receive a child from sex, again, what we are discussing here is not the intent but the means.