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.
What he has revealed through his Holy Word, that is, the canonical Scriptures.
oh ok - so it's only an act of God's will if you deem it so. makes sense.
Then they wouldn't need birth control, would they?
I said it does not prove it is an act of God's will.
And be denied God's gift of sex in the marriage bed?
Even if you don't use birth control you can still have lots of sex without the "risk" of getting pregnant. The time in a month when there is a "risk" of getting pregnant is very short compared to the time in a month when you can have sex without the "fear of getting pregnant".
I guess one would have to truly trust God in order to conclude that it is His will. I would rather trust God and know that those three children are indeed gifts of God than to think that they are simply three chemical mistakes.
But lets look at the counter to that. If God's will was for them to have children, the birth control wouldn't work.
you're kidding me, right? you don't get the line of reasoning?
my sister got pregnant 3 times using birth control. there's your line of reasoning.
No, I'm not kidding you.
Your one case only proves that birth control, which is not effective 100% of the time, failed. It does not prove that the pregnancies were an act of God's will.
And be denied God's gift of sex in the marriage bed?
That is true, but at the same time, no two human's systems are the same each and every month. An aid to preventing conception is not a problem.
I never said God WANTED me to be childfree. I said that He knew His plans for me.
I'm 43, I have cancer, diabetes, fibromyalgia, severe clinical depression, severe panic disorder,and a number of other things I don't care to introduce to the world. If I had given in to society's demand that I have kids, there is no way I could be a Mom to them. (Remember, I didn't marry until I was 38) IF I could have gotten pregnant the first year we were married, I'd have a 4 year old. I know my stamina and I know what it's like to chase after 4 year olds. That kid would have been taken away because I could not keep up. Heck, I can barely keep up with just M and I.
God knows the plans He has for us. I believe that God allowed me to be childfree in my heart because He knew I would never have children. Compassionately, He took the desire from me so I wouldn't be burdened with the despair of being childless. He has given me kids in abundance. I love them and they love me. They just don't happen to be mine in the conventional way.
Now that I think about it, contraception gives homosexuality more plausibility as well. If the production of children is not the primary aim of marriage, why oppose homosexual unions? Pretty hypocritical for Christians to point out that homosexuals can't reproduce when they're trying so hard not to behind their own doors.
Now that I think about it, contraception gives homosexuality more plausibility as well. If the production of children is not the primary aim of marriage, why oppose homosexual unions? Pretty hypocritical for Christians to point out that homosexuals can't reproduce when they're trying so hard not to behind their own doors.
Now that I think about it, contraception gives homosexuality more plausibility as well. If the production of children is not the primary aim of marriage, why oppose homosexual unions? Pretty hypocritical for Christians to point out that homosexuals can't reproduce when they're trying so hard not to behind their own doors.
PW, i do understand where you are coming from, and i understand your passion behind it - but in a situation such as mine and rev's, i don't see this as being selfishly motivated, i see this as being the best parents we can be for the children we have now, and taking care of the children we have at home, and that would not be possible with another infant this late in life.
some people take birth control because they don't want their children too close together - i don't see that as being selfish. some people take birth control because they have things they want to get out of the way first before they have children, so they can concentrate on the children once they have children - i don't see that as being selfish either. some people take birth control because they already have the number of children they feel they can handle - and i don't see that as being selfish either.
maybe i'm just being too naive about this. but that's how i truly feel.
You're kidding, right? You are actually trying to equate this issue with homosexual unions?? That is completely assinine. It's a completely straw argument.
What part of "a man shall not lie with a man as he lies with a woman for that is detestable" do you not understand? The Biblical definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Homosexual unions contradicts God's institution of marriage.
Sex is a gift of God given to married couples. Where is Scripture does it state that the sole reason for marriage is the procreation of children? I find it laughable that you would equate a married couple enjoying God's gift with an abomination like homosexuality.
This came through my Facebook feed and I thought it somewhat fitting for the discussion. Yep...I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments. After spending a raucous Sunday with my kids, I was really glad for the 5am-2pm shift at the Depot on Monday...
To parents of small children: Let me be the one who says it out loud | The Actual Pastor
that is the most asinine thing i've ever read. homosexuals cannot reproduce in a homosexual union, PERIOD. if all we had on this planet were homosexuals, the human race would die out. NOT ALL heterosexual couples (married or not) are on birth control. NOT ALL heterosexual couples that are on birth control have it work successfully.
that argument holds ZERO water.
This is a discussion we've had in some bible classes.
There are more reasons to oppose homosexual unions than the inability to have children. I have always loathed that argument because it once again puts a stigma on marriages that are barren.
You're kidding, right? You are actually trying to equate this issue with homosexual unions?? That is completely assinine. It's a completely straw argument.
What part of "a man shall not lie with a man as he lies with a woman for that is detestable" do you not understand? The Biblical definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Homosexual unions contradicts God's institution of marriage.
Sex is a gift of God given to married couples. Where is Scripture does it state that the sole reason for marriage is the procreation of children? I find it laughable that you would equate a married couple enjoying God's gift with an abomination like homosexuality.
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?