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.
no, it's not. Some MENTION of any kind of sinlessness in Mary, and we'd ahve something to talk about.That is the level of proof that has been required of us.
They were fairly read. however, to support your assertion that the verses are a directive to multiply as much as possible, then why is not every catholic couple pumping out children as fast as possible? Why are they allowed to use NFP? that would be sinful, if the command to multiply was so specific that you were to shoot out kids rapid fire. This is not the case, it is not practiced, so apparently the command doesn't mean what you say it means.TLF said:It is not completely mute. To suggest so is to ignore the actual scriptures which reveal the scriptural evidence against contraception.
Examples were given, yet dismissed out of hand . . I doubt the actual verses were even read, let alone any honest attempt made to see how our POV is supported in them.
right. Which is why I vehmently oppose abortion. This speaks nothing of contraception, however.TLF said:Thou shalt not kill is fairly explicit. It means thou shalt not murder.
It does not have to identify all ways someone can be murdered . . .if it falls within this explicit denouncment of murder, then it is explict about abortion as well as being murdered by knife, gun, etc . .
It does not include death by accident or self defense or in cases of war.
This is comparing apples and oranges . . The evidence above is explicit evidence to one who accepts that developing babies are living human beings.
I have to disagree with you completely on this. The trinity, although not called the trinity, is very evident in scripture.TLF said:The type of evidence for the Holy Spirit I have required is not anywhere near so explicit, in fact, it goes far the other direction.
To require that we provide evidence from scripture that is at the same level of this command re: murder as evidence of the scriptural stance against abortion is still a double standard.
No such evidence at that level exists for the 3 beliefs regarding the Holy Spirit. . ..
It's a shame they don't have a shrugging smiley face.TLF said:It is not that one disagrees, but in how they do so . . .
.
This is ridiculous. i never against using a medical professional when you have a medical need.Now THIS is VERY interesting! And quite telling!
You used ARTIFICIAL MEANS TO STAY ALIVE!
A C-Section is ABSOLUTELY UN-NATURAL!
How DARE you? Don't you trust God to provide for you?
How come it's okay to rely on medical technology AFTER you get pregnant - and would DIE without it - but you won't use medical technology to not get pregnant?
If you're going to claim you trust God, then TRUST GOD! Don't be so selective about how and when you trust God!
This is complete and total hypocrisy. Wow!
This is ridiculous. i never against using a medical professional when you have a medical need.
Maybe I'm missing something here and instead of you trying to poke holes in our beliefs that Theresa and I have explained rather eloquently, you may want to point me to the source, I don't know..like the bible that tells us fertile is a disease that needs to be treated.
You must have glaceed over the part of my personal story where after I survived my doctor told me I can not/should not have any more kids.
I came this close to getting my uterus removed and I didn't object to that because if it's broken then it needs to be fixed.
But he didn't remove it and I don't know to this day why he didn't, but I went on to have 3 other kids complication free, after HE told me I shouldn't have any more at all.
So the moral of the stroy is, trust in God, not in ourselves.
Yeah, okay.
And again, I'll ask the same thing our Catholic friends are unable to answer: Is there a Book, Chapter and Verse - from the Bible - saying that birth control is sin?
If not, you need to apologize for speaking for God where He has not spoken.
Not having children is not anything like killing a child.. They aren't even thought of let alone not born.. This just doesn't even make common sense..
btw... double standard logical fallacy is not what you are saying it is.The Early Church VEHEMENTLY disagreed with you . . .
I guess we should believe you know better than they what is right Christian belief on the matter, we should believe you instead of those closest to the apostles?
Isn't amazing how Christianity missed this for an entire 1900 years until the Anglican Church caved into pressure from secular humanism and began to permit it, starting a chain reaction?
.
wow. . Christianity had it wrong for 1900 years if we are to believe you are right . .
Isn't that rather amazing???!!!
.
.
I'm sorry if you don't realize this, but the church was well in place at the time this passage was written.
taking care of the poor does not fall into the catagory of employing them to minster to God's children while leading them in worship of Him.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsJoy
[/b]
there is a big difference between helping those in need and going against Godly principles for ministry.
Godly principles of ministry? True religion is giving to the widows and orphans in their need. Which principle aren't we following?
We are ministering to the poor, and living the Gospel example doing so.
no, it's not. Some MENTION of any kind of sinlessness in Mary, and we'd ahve something to talk about.
They were fairly read. however, to support your assertion that the verses are a directive to multiply as much as possible, then why is not every catholic couple pumping out children as fast as possible? Why are they allowed to use NFP?
that would be sinful, if the command to multiply was so specific that you were to shoot out kids rapid fire.
not the case, it is not practiced, so apparently the command doesn't mean what you say it means.
Originally Posted by TLF
Thou shalt not kill is fairly explicit. It means thou shalt not murder.
It does not have to identify all ways someone can be murdered . . .if it falls within this explicit denouncment of murder, then it is explict about abortion as well as being murdered by knife, gun, etc . .
It does not include death by accident or self defense or in cases of war.
This is comparing apples and oranges . . The evidence above is explicit evidence to one who accepts that developing babies are living human beings.
right. Which is why I vehmently oppose abortion. This speaks nothing of contraception, however.
I have to disagree with you completely on this. The trinity, although not called the trinity, is very evident in scripture.
It's a shame they don't have a shrugging smiley face.
What are we supposed to do? Sit back and have you attempt to steamroll people with your beliefs? I would hazard that if you are so easily offended, then perhaps discussion and debate is the wrong forum for you? I never said anything offensive.
I challenged positions, I challenged knowledge.
If that is offensive, then you should stick to discussing things with people who agree with you only. there is nothing more I can do on the matter. Forgive any perceived offence, there is no intent, I simply disagree strongly with your position, and with good reason.
What level of evidence are you requiring?
Explicit?
Or Implicit?
We have given numerous verses already on the order of implicit evidence.
If you are requiring Explicit evidence, then you are simply engaging in the same logical fallacy UB has been doing for pages . . . . DOUBLE STANDARD.
And so, such a requirement is logically invalid on its face,.
Please read through the thread..
Is it really? If the explicit command is to be fruitful and multiply, then there is no number attatched to it, it stands to reason that you should continue popping out kids at as fast a rate as possible. If you are following the command explicitly.Another STRAWMAN and ignoring facts in evidence.
Asked and answered.
Another Strawman
The result of the Strawman.
Invalid conclusions. . . .
Sorry, abortion is not an EXPLICIT command. The command is don't kill. Don't murder. The INFERRED command is abortion is wrong, because killing is wrong. An explicit command would state "abortion is wrong."TLF said:And so we have an example of the level of evidence being required which is explicit [/b]evidence, in contradiction to the claim at the beginning of the post.
I think it's been fairly demonstrated.TLF said:No attempt has been made to validly engage the actual argument . . . that of the lack of explicit evidence for those 3 beliefs regarding the Holy Spirit.
and how do you infer that? I shrug because no matter what is said, you will believe that you are using superior logic, all who disagree are illogical (despite your constant overuse and MISuse of logical fallacies) and that anyone who dares challange your position is "attacking" ad hominum or some such. (of course, pointing the finger and yelling sinner, sinner! isn't attacking the person... trying to establish the opponent as supporting sin from the outset. What was that about poisoning the well?)TLF said:And so we have evidence of a lack of concern for validly engaging in logical, rational discussion which is respectful of another's position.
TLF said:No valid challenges of a reasonable, rational nature have been forthcoming.
that is a matter of opinion. I dare say that others disagree with this as well. (see.... I can do it too!)TLF said:It is appreciated that intent has been shared, however, no good reason has been demonsrated . . only logical fallacies .. . .
Show me book, chapter and verse where the Bible explicitly states that abortion is wrong. Also provide the same for the Trinity.Yeah, okay.
And again, I'll ask the same thing our Catholic friends are unable to answer: Is there a Book, Chapter and Verse - from the Bible - saying that birth control is sin?
If not, you need to apologize for speaking for God where He has not spoken.
although you are right, to state that we must have explicit command is invalid, SOME mention of it being a sin to prevent pregnancy should be evident.Show me book, chapter and verse where the Bible explicitly states that abortion is wrong. Also provide the same for the Trinity.
The Bible verses are there, it is just convenient for you to follow modern secular anti-life morality than Traditional Christian morality.
although you are right, to state that we must have explicit command is invalid, SOME mention of it being a sin to prevent pregnancy should be evident.
Onan isn't it, and with the being fruitful and multiplying, it doesn't give a limit to follow.
I'm at a quandry to find a scriptural reference where it can be strongly inferred that it is sinful to use contraception. (and if so, why NFP is not, seeing as its primary function is to avoid pregancy.)
Which brings me back to the purpose of the thread.I think Onan is, but beside that, there specifically shouldn't be a limit to follow; each couple should leave their fertility to God, and it is up to Him as to how many children He will bless them with. There is sin in distaining the gifts of God.
The difference with NFP is that it is not having your cake and eating it too. NFP is an ascetic act of denying yourself the pleasures of the conjugal act, if you want to deny the fruit of it. Still, it is the lower way, allowed for human weakeness and (in the Orthodox Church) is only allowed under certain circumstances.
IF you trust God to take care of you - as you have said to me - then WHY are you going to the hospital to have c-sections? IF God wants you to have kids, then surely He is going to allow you to have them naturally, right?
Or do you only trust God when it comes to GETTING pregnant?
You either trust God or you don't, right?
The REAL moral of this story is that you are "picking and choosing" when you will, and when you will not, trust God.
YOU are the ones claiming that Birth Control is sin - even though the Bible simply does NOT say that.
YOU are the ones (at least Theresa) using the sordid phrase "marital sodomy" because of the claim that "sterilized sex" is un-natural, yet you have NO problem engaging in the un-natural practice of c-sections.
YOU are the ones that are saying that YOUR form of Birth Control is acceptable, but other forms of Birth Control are sinful.
It appears to me that all the sanctimonious finger-pointing at people who choose to use a "non-Catholic approved" form of Birth Control is rather faulty. It's a non sequitur.
I believe that if a person firmly believed that if they had another child, it would starve, then they should practice moderation in their sexual desire.Which brings me back to the purpose of the thread.
We can debate Onan, I doubt we will agree.
However, it seems that the RCC and Orthodox are practacing situational ethics in regards to NFP. If there is a GOOD reason for NFP, or any form of birth control, it isn't considered sin, but if it doesn't have the stamp of approval, it is sin.
Again, do you think God would prefer starvation to sterilization?
You don't have to go to third world countries to find hunger, there are plenty of families who have less than enough to eat here. Adding children would be far from a blessing. I have no argument with the idea that they are hungry due to the greed of our nations, but the family is powerless to change that, yet are expected that they should be open to as many kids as natural relations without any NFP or otherwise will produce.
Citing strict abstinence to avoid pregnancy doesn't cut it either, it violates our command to come together except in prayer in fasting, in so doing preventing temptation.
Also, the notion of children being brought in to this world being viewed as burden rather than blessing makes me shudder. Someone practices NFP, and ends up pregnant, AGAIN, despite their best efforts. No child should be unwanted, IMHO, yet that is what getting pregnant while using NFP would make the child. (although this is not accusing that the child would not be loved. It's just stating that the initial reaction, and underlying current would be OOPS!)
Thanks for your perspective.I believe that if a person firmly believed that if they had another child, it would starve, then they should practice moderation in their sexual desire.
I believe however that, as Christ says, He will not give us more than we can handle. Though economically, having these children may not make sense, their being here may facilitate the salvation of some or many, and that it their true purpose here.
To note more thorougly, NFP is a condecention to human weakness, in the same way that divorce is. It is not good, but sometimes it is permitted so that the weak will not fall away.
Now, if you were to know the ins and outs of NFP, you would see that an intergral part of its practice is the incorporation of prayer and fasting. Also, in order for it to be practiced, both partners (and their priest) must constent to it. Which, in and of itself, sets it apart from how contraception is in large part practiced today.
While NFP is in essence birth control, it does so through ascetic practice, not through unnaturally seperating the procreative purpose from the pleasures of sexual union.
Which brings me back to the purpose of the thread.
We can debate Onan, I doubt we will agree.
However, it seems that the RCC and Orthodox are practacing situational ethics in regards to NFP. If there is a GOOD reason for NFP, or any form of birth control, it isn't considered sin, but if it doesn't have the stamp of approval, it is sin.
Again, do you think God would prefer starvation to sterilization?
You don't have to go to third world countries to find hunger, there are plenty of families who have less than enough to eat here. Adding children would be far from a blessing.
I have no argument with the idea that they are hungry due to the greed of our nations, but the family is powerless to change that, yet are expected that they should be open to as many kids as natural relations without any NFP or otherwise will produce.
Citing strict abstinence to avoid pregnancy doesn't cut it either, it violates our command to come together except in prayer in fasting, in so doing preventing temptation.
Also, the notion of children being brought in to this world being viewed as burden rather than blessing makes me shudder. Someone practices NFP, and ends up pregnant, AGAIN, despite their best efforts.
No child should be unwanted,
IMHO, yet that is what getting pregnant while using NFP would make the child.
(although this is not accusing that the child would not be loved. It's just stating that the initial reaction, and underlying current would be OOPS!)
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?