Contraception

[praying]

Cobalt Blue,

Allow me to first link you to some Scriptural verses that oppose contraception, and then the writings of the early Christians on why they opposed contraception. You will see that they are mainly on religious grounds, but hey, at least the Catholic Church is being consistent, right?

http://scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html Verses that oppose contraception.

Early Church Fathers quotes......

So oral sex is a sin in the churches eyes I gather from what you posted?

 

[Archbishop 10-K]

So oral sex is a sin in the churches eyes I gather from what you posted?

[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][bless and do not curse] outside of the vagina would be sin, but oral sex as foreplay is okay.

 

[Anovah]

The birth rate in American and Western Europe is below 2.


I'm sorry you've bought into the overpopulation lie.

How about, birthrate is not equal to population. All your point illustrates is that contraception has been successful in America and Western Europe. And even then, overpopulation is STILL a problem and you seem to be avoiding this.

I'm sorry you've bought into Christian propoganda. Would you like me to prove that you have? Here we go...

First, do you have any reference for this assertion? Where did you first hear of this statistic?

Second, in response to my statement that the population is growing, you seem to try and refute this by saying the birthrate is under 2 in parts of the world. This is evidence that you are not acknowledging the issue but instead are regurgitating statistical sound bytes. Your statistic has nothing to do with my comment.

Third, I challenge you to go to this site and still tell me there is no such thing as overpopulation. When I wrote this the world was at 6,384,548,583.
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
Also, if you click on the clocks themselves you will see some very interesting numbers. Do you have an explanation for why there are more births than deaths in the united states?

And here's a tiny bit of US history too. http://www.census.gov/statab/www/poppart.html.
There's a lot on the main page as well.

And the last piece of evidence that you are regurgitating propaganda is that you did not reply to any other bit of the post. You only replied to the one you had propaganda for. Which doesn't even apply to the statement you were trying to address.

I can appreciate a religious argument, but this is honestly ignorant.

Please PLEASE look into some of the hard facts.

 

[Cobalt Blue]

You don't know much about feminism then. Read up a little on Betty Friedan, Margaret Sanger and the rest.

I'll admit to not having researched the topic in depth, but let me try to clarify my view of feminism. I do not claim that this is how most women or most feminists view it. I think most big movements start off radical (partly to draw attention to themselves, and partly because they have been oppressed for so long) and then become more moderate and reasonable after a generation or so. Feminists said women could do anything men could do, and there was (and still is) a double standard about sexual promiscuity. People are much less likely to look down on a promiscuous male, indeed some view this as a positive thing or just a normal thing young men go through. A promiscuous woman on the other hand is automatically looked down on and given a whole slew of derogatory labels. Feminists said if men can be promiscuous, then so could women! The sexual revolution was going on about the same time, and so people did lots of irresponsible things. I think this attitude is a lot less prevalent in women today, but I could be completely wrong, I admit. Well whatever, I really don't have anything against people being promiscuous if that is what really brings them happiness, as long they use protection so as not to have children or spread diseases.

The birth rate in American and Western Europe is below 2.


I'm sorry you've bought into the overpopulation lie.

There is more to the world than America and Western europe.

almost 100% of the world population growth is predicted to occur in so called "developing" countries. This would still put the population at 9 billion by 2050.

check out this link: http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm

here is an excerpt:

The 2000 growth rate of 1.4 percent, when applied to the world's 6.1 billion population, yields an annual increase of about 85 million people. Because of the large and increasing population size, the number of people added to the global population will remain high for several decades, even as growth rates continue to decline.
Between 2000 and 2030, nearly 100 percent of this annual growth will occur in the less developed countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, whose population growth rates are much higher than those in more developed countries. Growth rates of 1.9 percent and higher mean that populations would double in about 36 years, if these rates continue. Demographers do not believe they will. Projections of growth rates are lower than 1.9 percent because birth rates are declining and are expected to continue to do so. The populations in the less developed regions will most likely continue to command a larger proportion of the world total. While Asia's share of world population may continue to hover around 55 percent through the next century, Europe's portion has declined sharply and could drop even more during the 21st century. Africa and Latin America each would gain part of Europe's portion. By 2100, Africa is expected to capture the greatest share (see chart, "World population distribution by region, 1800–2050", above).

And again, it is not the space people will take up, but the amount of recources we consume and waste we produce.

 

[Cobalt Blue]

[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][bless and do not curse] outside of the vagina would be sin, but oral sex as foreplay is okay

Why exactly is that? Please don't tell me I am going to have to refute the "It is a waste of sperm" argument again...

 

[Archbishop 10-K]

Why exactly is that? Please don't tell me I am going to have to refute the "It is a waste of sperm" argument again...

Read my quotes from the Church Fathers again. I am making an arguement for why the Catholic Church holds contraception to be a sin. It is because it is consistent with the Church Fathers and Scripture. If you can argue from a religious standpoint why I am wrong, go ahead.

 

[Cobalt Blue]

Read my quotes from the Church Fathers again. I am making an arguement for why the Catholic Church holds contraception to be a sin. It is because it is consistent with the Church Fathers and Scripture. If you can argue from a religious standpoint why I am wrong, go ahead.

Anyone can read anything they want into scripture. If I tried I could probably explain away all those quotes from scripture, and if I REALLY tried I could probably find a bible quote I could twist around to support contraception. I am not going to try however, because I do not see the point. I don't consider the bible or the early church fathers as ligitmate authority figures, but you do. What could I possibly say that would make you change your mind? I think I basically understand the reasoning behind the catholic church's position on contraception now, but I consider it irrational*.

*edited by me to remove word discussed in later posts.

 

[Archbishop 10-K]

Moronic?

Maybe the Catholic Church just thinks of sex as more sacred than Dan Brown (reference to The Da Vinci Code) could ever dream of.

Anyway, I request that you don't call me a "moron" again.

 

[Cobalt Blue]

Moronic?

Maybe the Catholic Church just thinks of sex as more sacred than Dan Brown (reference to The Da Vinci Code) could ever dream of.

Anyway, I request that you don't call me a "moron" again.

Apparently you cannot seperate yourself from your beliefs. I did not call you moronic, I would never do that. Re-read my post and you will see that I said I personally think the church's reasoning behind opposing contraception is moronic. If I called Bush's tax cuts a stupid idea, and you happened to support them would I be calling you stupid? No of course not.

 

[Archbishop 10-K]

Apparently you cannot seperate yourself from your beliefs.

Is a person not defined by his beliefs? I would imagine that someone who subscribed to moronic beliefs would consequently be a moron. Regardless, I would prefer you would use a different word for either me or the Church.

 

[Cobalt Blue]

Is a person not defined by his beliefs? I would imagine that someone who subscribed to moronic beliefs would consequently be a moron. Regardless, I would prefer you would use a different word for either me or the Church.

No, not in in my opinon. There are plenty of people I have great respect for who hold beliefs that I consider ridiculus. That said, perhaps you are right, I could have been bit more tactfull. I will edit my post.

 

[ONE WHO REMAINS]

Well getting into the birth control, and condoms etc., that is not a place for a church to tell you what to do, the church is merely a gathering place for believers to fellowship and worship. No one man has the authority to tell people what GOD means in a certain verse or passage. Im sorry to say it, but GOD has the final say so on pregnancy. You can take all the precautions you want but if he wants you pregnant you will. But try this question on for size.

What about "pulling out", or viagra or anything that would chemically enhance or altar the physical part of sex, give me what the "priests" say on that issue.

 

[Archbishop 10-K]

Well getting into the birth control, and condoms etc., that is not a place for a church to tell you what to do, the church is merely a gathering place for believers to fellowship and worship. No one man has the authority to tell people what GOD means in a certain verse or passage.

Well, I was going from a Catholic POV. Since the Pope has the keys of heaven to bind and loose (Matthew 16:18-19) I would say that he does have the authority to interpret. I would say that no man has the right to disobey God's appointed authority.

What about "pulling out", or viagra or anything that would chemically enhance or altar the physical part of sex, give me what the "priests" say on that issue.

Refer to my first post on this thread. The Church has been consistent since the beginning. Christians have historically always been against contraception until the 20th century, when morals started getting lax.

 

[praying]

Well, I was going from a Catholic POV. Since the Pope has the keys of heaven to bind and loose (Matthew 16:18-19) I would say that he does have the authority to interpret. I would say that no man has the right to disobey God's appointed authority.

The Pope has the keys to heaven? Do you mean that in a literal or figurative sense?

 

[Cobalt Blue]

Well, I was going from a Catholic POV. Since the Pope has the keys of heaven to bind and loose (Matthew 16:18-19) I would say that he does have the authority to interpret. I would say that no man has the right to disobey God's appointed authority.

Hmmm, that passage doesn't say anything about the Pope, only Peter. I guess you could infer it also means his decendants, but which ones? All of them? Surely not. Anyway, I could be wrong, but aren't popes elected now? Could you please clarify this for me?

Refer to my first post on this thread. The Church has been consistent since the beginning. Christians have historically always been against contraception until the 20th century, when morals started getting lax.

It is very possible to be consistently wrong.

 

[Archbishop 10-K]

The Pope has the keys to heaven? Do you mean that in a literal or figurative sense?

Figurative, of course. It just means he has the authority to bind and loose. in the Old Testament, when the King of Israel left his realm, he would give a literal set of keys to a prime minister, which opened and locked all the doors to the palace. Figuratively, that meant he was in temporary charge while the King was gone. Refer to Isaiah 22:22. Jesus is the King of Israel, and the Pope his prime minister. Refer to Matthew 16:18-19.

Hmmm, that passage doesn't say anything about the Pope, only Peter. I guess you could infer it also means his decendants, but which ones? All of them? Surely not. Anyway, I could be wrong, but aren't popes elected now? Could you please clarify this for me?

Peter's first successor, St. Linus, was appointed (according to the Church Father Irenaeus), however elections are also valid. For example, Judas' bishopric was replaced by Matthias in election, and that's Biblical. But hey, you're dealing with a non-sola Scriptura Christian. I like to fall back on the Church Fathers and on Apostolic Tradition as well as the Scriptures.

ANYWAY.............

Let's not turn this into a Catholic/Protestant debate. I just wanted to provide some historical grounds for why contraception is opposed by Catholicism.