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.
It'd be unhealthy to the extreme to get pregnant every year. I don't see anything in the bible against birth control. I see nothing wrong with planning on when to have kids to when you can best take care of them and when it's better for the person to have children and be responsible - both for the parents AND the children.
It'd be unhealthy to the extreme to get pregnant every year. I don't see anything in the bible against birth control. I see nothing wrong with planning on when to have kids to when you can best take care of them and when it's better for the person to have children and be responsible - both for the parents AND the children.
and in the case of Onan, the argument that Onan was killed not for what he did but for what he failed to do... definitely goes beyond Sola Scriptura
So prior to 1930, Protestant churches were wrong by teaching contraception was immoral and now they're right for teaching contraception is perfectly acceptable? I thought God didn't change....
I always was pretty irresponsibleOnly an irresponsible person would not use birth control.
Do people actually argue against this?
Cant follow your thinking here, I'm sorry.not necessarily, I think.
e.g., a person practicing NFP (having sex durng the infertile period)--or contraception, for that matter--may wish that a child will result, and for true bonding
Maybe not but God looks at the heart.but intentions don't determine the morality of an act itself
And why is one Immoral but the other is fine if they both lead to the same goal?and two means can be used to reach the same end while one means is moral and the other is immoral
They do but they dontotherwise Christians believe in Machiavellianism, basically
So prior to 1930, Protestant churches were wrong by teaching contraception was immoral and now they're right for teaching contraception is perfectly acceptable? I thought God didn't change....
Engaging in intercourse ≠ Not engaging in intercourse.
I always was pretty irresponsible
BUT.. i gotta say that it worked out well in my case.
Cant follow your thinking here, I'm sorry.
Maybe not but God looks at the heart.
)
Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar.So prior to 1930, Protestant churches were wrong by teaching contraception was immoral and now they're right for teaching contraception is perfectly acceptable? I thought God didn't change....
So whats your beef?I mean, for example, that a person practicing NFP through having sex only during the infertile period might desperately desire another child but beleive that God wants them to wait.
likewise with contraception. and God knows that.
So again i have to ask, what is so evil about using a condom?so God does look to the heart, yes, and it is very dangerous to the heart to deny objective differences in the means used to attain an end
I dunno, i sense a lot of bitterness in your words . in other words you're wrong even if you're right . (James 3:12-18)
True Saints don't care what church organizations teach, or taught, whether protestant or RC or EO or whatever.
Only what the Holy Spirit of Christ teaches us.
And HE certainly says nothing of this ridiculous topic.
I don't follow you....
I know of no denomination (Protestant or otherwise) that stated that contraception was wrong prior to 1930 (certainly no Protestant one), and I know of none today (the RCC being the foremost proponent of contraception and teacher of contraceptive birth control methodology)
.
Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar.
As it is written:
"So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge."
So again i have to ask, what is so evil about using a condom?
Union and Procreation
12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.
The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.
Faithfulness to God's Design
13. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one's partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. "Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact," Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. "From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God." (13)
If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life ...
You asked if God changes.Honestly, not sure how in the world that answered what I asked, but sure.
If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life ...
So avoiding ovulation, actually abstaining from sex during ovulation which
btw God forbids... is NOT impairing the capacity to transmit life? Sure fire
thing, no egg, no babe.
Are you trying to insult my intelligence?
I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed Jack but c'mon!
But at the end of the day, yeah, we dont agree lol. NEW!
(I think we GTers are more Spiritfilled than the rest of the world
btw.. I mean think about it, who can talk about religion or politics
and be nice!? kwim? ) so yeah, it's gotta be that we're more holy
Recourse to Infertile Periods
16. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.
If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.
New Questions
3. This new state of things gives rise to new questions. Granted the conditions of life today and taking into account the relevance of married love to the harmony and mutual fidelity of husband and wife, would it not be right to review the moral norms in force till now, especially when it is felt that these can be observed only with the gravest difficulty, sometimes only by heroic effort?
Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.
20. The teaching of the Church regarding the proper regulation of birth is a promulgation of the law of God Himself. And yet there is no doubt that to many it will appear not merely difficult but even impossible to observe. Now it is true that like all good things which are outstanding for their nobility and for the benefits which they confer on men, so this law demands from individual men and women, from families and from human society, a resolute purpose and great endurance. Indeed it cannot be observed unless God comes to their help with the grace by which the goodwill of men is sustained and strengthened. But to those who consider this matter diligently it will indeed be evident that this endurance enhances man's dignity and confers benefits on human society.
So again i have to ask, what is so evil about using a condom?
what exactly is so evil about oral sex before marriage or marital rape? neither are explicitly condemned in Scripture, the N.T. canon of which has no historical source but the Catholic Tradition. (the Bible doesn't say that oral sex is "fornication" or "lust". what is wrong with a little experimentation?)
the historic Trinitarian Church--the Biblical Church-- teaches that any action which proposes to render procreation impossilble is intrinsically contrary to love.
using a condom proposes to render procreation impossible
that's why using condoms/contraception is associated with divorce, HIV, adultery, etc, while NFP is associate with happier married life, much less divorce, much less STDs, etc
what exactly is so evil about oral sex before marriage or marital rape? neither are explicitly condemned in Scripture, the N.T. canon of which has no historical source but the Catholic Tradition. (the Bible doesn't say that oral sex is "fornication" or "lust". what is wrong with a little experimentation?)
the historic Trinitarian Church--the Biblical Church-- teaches that any action which proposes to render procreation impossilble is intrinsically contrary to love.
using a condom proposes to render procreation impossible
that's why using condoms/contraception is associated with divorce, HIV, adultery, etc, while NFP is associate with happier married life, much less divorce, much less STDs, etc
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?