Contraception

[Rhamiel]

Joshia
lets say that I concede the point to you
you are correct
you have convinced me that Condoms and NFP are on the same leval
now what?
do you have anything else to say on the topic?

 

[patricius79]

If it's done in hopes of conceiving, it would not be. If the MEANS is contraception, the END is contraceptive - it's contraceptive. .

given that your interpretation of Scripture is at odds with the early Church's interpretation and view of contraception, is it possible that you are incorrect?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

given that your interpretation of Scripture

I haven't given any interpretation of Scripture. You haven't either.

We're disagreeing on this: Is contraceptive sex contraceptive sex? I say yes, you say no. I say that what has the explicity MEANS of being contraceptive and the explicit END of being contraceptive is contraceptive - you say not. I say that what is DONE with the sole INTENT of "rendering conception impossible" cannot be BOTH "evil" (as you claim it is) AND pious/moral (as you claim it is).





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Joshia

you have convinced me that Condoms and NFP are on the same leval
now what?

I never mentioned condoms.
I never mentioned "levels."

Have you read my posts?
Have you read the Catholic and Orthodox posts?




.

 

[patricius79]

I haven't given any interpretation of Scripture. You haven't either.

We're disagreeing on this: Is contraceptive sex contraceptive sex? I say yes, you say no.
.

sorry for any miscommunication.

I don't believe that having sex during the infertile period is contracepted sex, even if one intends to avoid conception

(if one intends to do so without justification--i.e. selfishly-- then one's intention is sinful, but not the act itself of having sex during the infertile period)

I agree with Jesus and the Biblical Church by the grace of God and despite my sinfulness and pathetic character.

And I agree with Mother Teresa:

In destroying the power of giving life, through contraception, a husband or wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to self and so it destroys the gifts of love in him or her. In loving, the husband and wife must turn the attention to each other as happens in natural family planning, and not to self, as happens in contraception. Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily.
​

 

[cowboysfan1970]

I think you are.

It is MY view that contraceptive sex is contraceptive sex.
It is YOUR view that it's not. But is.

YOUR denomination says that ANY action - before, during or after - that has the END and purpose of "rendering contraceptive unlikely" is contraception and is evil. I think it was you that stressed that and gave that official Catholic quote.

There are some things that I do wonder about. First off, what about NFP do you find so objectionable?

Second, what do you think about Albert Mohler's blog entry AlbertMohler.com – Can Christians Use Birth Control? attacking the contraceptive mentality of many Protestants today and the evangelicals that are questioning contraception and suggesting that it's time for a change in attitude among Protestants?

Third, can you define the difference between artificial and natural forms of birth control?

Fourth, how do you explain Deuteronomy 25:5-10 Deuteronomy 25:5-10 - Passage Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com and how that gives more information about what Onan's punishment was for failing to fulfill his duty to continue his brother's blood line?

Can you provide anything is scripture that condones the use of birth control or gives approval to its concept?

And lastly, if God can and will override contraception at His will, then what's the point of using it in the first place if He is ultimately in control?

 

[Rhamiel]

I never mentioned condoms.
I never mentioned "levels."

Have you read my posts?
Have you read the Catholic and Orthodox posts?




.

then what are you saying?
you are posting much but saying very very little

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

then what are you saying?

Read my posts.
Go back however many pages you are willing to explore, and read my posts.
I don't think it's possible for me to be more clear than I've already been.

What I posted is what I've said.
What I've not posted is what I've not said.

I hope that's acceptable and understandable.



.

 

[cubinity]

Read my posts.
Go back however many pages you are willing to explore, and read my posts.
I don't think it's possible for me to be more clear than I've already been.

What I posted is what I've said.
What I've not posted is what I've not said.

I hope that's acceptable and understandable.

I'm picking up what you're putting down.
Keep it up.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

There are some things that I do wonder about. First off, what about NFP do you find so objectionable?

SEVERAL times now, I've stated that I have no opinion on the value, worth, effectiveness or morality of this contraceptive birth control method.

IF you read the exchanges of the past couple of weeks, here is the disagreement (it's NOT about ANY of the above issues - which has been repeatedly and clearly stated):

I think that contraceptive sex is contraceptive sex. Catholics disagree.
I think the that that which is the MEANS and has the END of being contraceptive makes it contraceptive. Catholics disagree.
I think that the Catholics insisting that WHATEVER is done - before, during or after - that has the end of rendering procreation unlikely is "evil" (quoting official Catholic documents stating that) AND that doing something to render procreation unlikely is "pious" and "moral" and SHOULD be taught in Catholic parishes is problemmatic and has lead many to conclude the RCC is engaging in "double talk."

Again, IF you read the exchange - all this has been discussed (abundantly!!!!!!!) - and you can read a plethora of Catholic attempts to defend their position: contraceptive sex is not contraceptive sex; that done to prevent contraception is not contraception. Kind of interesting stuff, if you read it.

Third, can you define the difference between artificial and natural forms of birth control?

The issue here is contraception.

Fourth, how do you explain Deuteronomy 25:5-10 Deuteronomy 25:5-10 - Passage Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com and how that gives more information about what Onan's punishment was for failing to fulfill his duty to continue his brother's blood line?

He did not fulfill the obligations of a law of the time.

Can you provide anything is scripture that condones the use of birth control or gives approval to its concept?

No. But then I only know of one denomination that passionately endorses and promotes it, even teaching classes in how to do it right there in the parish center, occasionally even MANDATING that couples learn a birth control method. But that denomination isn't too focused on what Scripture says or doesn't say, so I think your question wouldn't be too significant there.

And lastly, if God can and will override contraception at His will, then what's the point of using it in the first place if He is ultimately in control?

1. Ask the RCC. It's the only denomination I know of that promotes this.

2. Why wear seat belts if God can protect you no matter what?








.

 

[Rhamiel]

SEVERAL times now, I've stated that I have no opinion on the value, worth, effectiveness or morality of this contraceptive birth control method.

so this is all just an excuse to attack the Catholic Church?

 

[cowboysfan1970]

SEVERAL times now, I've stated that I have no opinion on the value, worth, effectiveness or morality of this contraceptive birth control method.

IF you read the exchanges of the past couple of weeks, here is the disagreement (it's NOT about ANY of the above issues - which has been repeatedly and clearly stated):

I think that contraceptive sex is contraceptive sex. Catholics disagree.
I think the that that which is the MEANS and has the END of being contraceptive makes it contraceptive. Catholics disagree.
I think that the Catholics insisting that WHATEVER is done - before, during or after - that has the end of rendering procreation unlikely is "evil" (quoting official Catholic documents stating that) AND that doing something to render procreation unlikely is "pious" and "moral" and SHOULD be taught in Catholic parishes is problemmatic and has lead many to conclude the RCC is engaging in "double talk."

Again, IF you read the exchange - all this has been discussed (abundantly!!!!!!!) - and you can read a plethora of Catholic attempts to defend their position: contraceptive sex is not contraceptive sex; that done to prevent contraception is not contraception. Kind of interesting stuff, if you read it.

I have read them. That's why I asked.

The issue here is contraception.

You don't know do you?

He did not fulfill the obligations of a law of the time.

The penalty for that was public humiliation and not death. He had to have done something really bad for God to have eliminated him.

No. But then I only know of one denomination that passionately endorses and promotes it, even teaching classes in how to do it right there in the parish center, occasionally even MANDATING that couples learn a birth control method. But that denomination isn't too focused on what Scripture says or doesn't say, so I think your question wouldn't be too significant there.

Oh yes it would. I don't think you understand why.

1. Ask the RCC. It's the only denomination I know of that promotes this.

Because I'm asking you.

2. Why wear seat belts if God can protect you no matter what?

Red herring. That's putting God to a foolish test and God doesn't suffer fools lightly.

You have a lot of passion and are very convicted but you can't seem to clearly explain why. When someone though takes a look at you posts there is a common theme that comes out and that is that you have an ax to grind against anything Catholic. I asked you to explain some things and either you couldn't do it or wouldn't. Your answers are kind of like politicians answers in that you use a lot of words to basically say nothing. You've been given good answers and explanations but what good are they if you are just going to reject them outright? I used to think that contraception wasn't a big deal but by looking at scripture I'm now not so sure about it. You need not to be so venomous with anyone that doesn't think exactly how you do.








.[/QUOTE]

 

[sunlover1]

so this is all just an excuse to attack the Catholic Church?

Maybe he posts for the same reason i go.
So that the "other side of the story" can be presented.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Maybe he posts for the same reason i go.
So that the "other side of the story" can be presented.

What other side has been presented?

 

[MamaZ]

I dont believe that it is an attack on the CC but on the hyocracy of BC is evil but yet they okay one form of BC and call it natural. He has repeatedly stated that NFP is a form of birth control.

 

[bbbbbbb]

IMO CJ has done a very effective, if not entirely thorough, job of proving that contraception is contraception no matter whether it is "natural" or "unnatural". Thus far, the Catholic responders have yet to prove to my satisfaction that NFP does not have the intent of preventing the probability of conception. If it does have that intent then it is contraceptive, pure and simple.

 

[sunlover1]

What other side has been presented?

There have been a couple of different Points of view presented, including
my Scriptural POV, suggesting that we let God have complete control
and do as Leah and Rachel did (pray for God to open or close the womb)

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I dont believe that it is an attack on the CC but on the hyocracy of BC is evil but yet they okay one form of BC and call it natural. He has repeatedly stated that NFP is a form of birth control.

Contraception and birth control are not the same thing.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

There have been a couple of different Points of view presented, including
my Scriptural POV, suggesting that we let God have complete control
and do as Leah and Rachel did (pray for God to open or close the womb)

I must have missed those posts by CaliforniaJosiah.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I dont believe that it is an attack on the CC but on the hyocracy of BC is evil but yet they okay one form of BC and call it natural. He has repeatedly stated that NFP is a form of birth control.

The Church does not condemn birth control, only certain forms of it.

In my opinion, Josiah defines 'contraception' as he sees fit so as to include NFP in that definition because whatever the Catholic church teaches MUST be wrong. This is just my opinion, not necessarily objectively a fact.