Would it be sin?!?

Benedicta00 · Feb 4, 2007

ParsonJefferson said:
Oh come now... Regardless of semantic hair-splitting, we all know that sodomy refers to homosexual sex.

and why is homosexuality a sin? Because it's unnatural.. why? A man and a man can not do what a woman and a man can which is become one flesh and procreate.

By these same arguments, you could say older couples - where the woman is post-menopausal - are sinning, because she's no longer able to get pregnant as a result of their sexual intercourse.

No we can't and don't.
Again- for the 5th time now... it's about the means and the intent.

God made the woman the way he did. he made us fertile at times and infertile at other times. and after a certain age infertile all together.

what is so wrong with using the body the way God made it instead of recreating it with chemicals and surgeries?

If God made woman infertile after a certain age, then how is there sin involved on the part of the woman of man?

Uphill Battle · Feb 4, 2007

thereselittleflower said:
I wonder if those who use the Pill, realize that it is an abortifant?

It is an openness to life and to God's command to be fertile and multiple and fill the earth . . the earth is not yet filled, nowhere close to being filled . .. overcrowded in some areas, yes .. but not filled . . .

.

It CAN be abortificant. Not all brands are. If you do your research, you can get ones that are not. It isn't that cut and dried.

ParsonJefferson · Feb 4, 2007

thereselittleflower said:
No I'm not.

NFP avoids the marital act altogether.

Contraception makes the marital act deliberately sterile.

There is no crime in avoiding the marital act if both parties agree . . even in ancient Israel men would abstaine from their wives for years at a time to devote themselves to service of Torah.

It is not a crime to abstain from sex if both parties agree . .

It is a crime against God and nature to deliberately make the marital ACT sterile.

LOL . . No . . I am stating simply fundamental facts.

That's all.

.

Okay, here's where I'm calling the bluff.

I want Book, Chapter and Verse where the Bible says that it's a crime against God to have sex that doesn't result in pregnancy - or that cannot result in pregnancy.

And make no mistake about it: I'm talking about the Bible, not more man-made rules and laws of the RCC.

Uphill Battle · Feb 4, 2007

Benedicta00 said:
and why is homosexuality a sin? Because it's unnatural.. why? A man and a man can not do what a woman and a man can which is become one flesh and procreate.

No we can't and don't.
Again- for the 5th time now... it's about the means and the intent.

God made the woman the way he did. he made us fertile at times and infertile at other times. and after a certain age infertile all together.

what is so wrong with using the body the way God made it instead of recreating it with chemicals and surgeries?

If God made woman infertile after a certain age, then how is there sin involved on the part of the woman of man?

LOL

by that logic, you shouldn't use deoderants, makeup, perfume, soap (unless its lye based non chemical soap....) toothpaste, mouthwash. Advil. Tylenol. Midol for the ladies. How about contact lenses?

All of these things modify the body in one way or another. (some using chemicals, some not.) Either way, it modifies HOW GOD MADE you. Are they all sin too? I hazard that you will say no, they are not.

Benedicta00 · Feb 4, 2007

ParsonJefferson said:
You're splitting hairs and making judgments that are not Biblical.

NFP is practiced to keep from becoming pregnant. Any other claims are totally irrelevant.

Basically, you're coming up with fancy, holy-sounding ways to say that your form of birth control is better than other forms of birth control.

well. it is.

And that's because we do not take what God designed and created and change it with harsh chemicals and surgeries.

Wonder if this is a good time to bring up how B/C pills, shots and implants have the potential to act as an abortifant?

The Princess Bride · Feb 4, 2007

Benedicta00 said:
NFP users tend to take it one day at a time and they do not change the chemistry of their body.

And I repeat
"for women who are blessed to have a day to day accurate knowledge of their cycle, NFP ... would be feasible, but for some of us who dont know one week from the next what to expect, that is just not possible"

The impression I get, is there is no right solution to this, b/c ALL birth controls are percieved to induce abortion, and not ALL women can practice NFP.

Benedicta00 · Feb 4, 2007

Uphill Battle said:
LOL

by that logic, you shouldn't use deoderants, makeup, perfume, soap (unless its lye based non chemical soap....) toothpaste, mouthwash. Advil. Tylenol. Midol for the ladies. How about contact lenses?

All of these things modify the body in one way or another. (some using chemicals, some not.) Either way, it modifies HOW GOD MADE you. Are they all sin too? I hazard that you will say no, they are not.

No, they do not modify the body- the treat something that is wrong in the body.

Fertility doe not need treating unless it's broken.

We treat it to fix it, not to break it.

thereselittleflower · Feb 4, 2007

ParsonJefferson said:
First of all, sodomy refers to homosexual sex, and ANY comparison of it to (as you call it) "sterilized sex" is absolutely absurd.

Do you know what the definition of Sodomy actually is? I was pretty amazed when I found out:

Sodomy
SOD'OMY, n. A crime against nature.

That was the 1828 Noah Webster's definition.

More modern definitions:

Often simply refers to anal sex; however, the actual dictionary definition includes anything considered "unnatural or deviate sexual intercourse" which may include everything from oral sex to sex between partners of the same gender.www.mysexproblems.com/cst.asp

intercourse via the anus, committed by a man with a man or woman
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Now here is the really important one:

Sodomy is a term of religious origin to characterise certain sexual non-procreative acts. Most commonly used to describe the specific act of anal sex both between heterosexuals and homosexuals, the term "sodomy" also may include non-coital sexual acts such as oral sex and other paraphilia. Laws forbidding certain types of sex acts have been found in some pre-modern cultures.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy

Again . . contraception is the marital act of sodomy

And you're spinning in circles here. A woman who is post-menopausal is almost 100% certain to not be able to get pregnant. Therefore, by your professed line of reasoning, she and her husband are SINNING by having sex. And, again, that's just plain silly.

Tell that to Sarah and Elizabeth . .

.

Benedicta00 · Feb 4, 2007

The Princess Bride said:
And I repeat
"for women who are blessed to have a day to day accurate knowledge of their cycle, NFP ... would be feasible, but for some of us who dont know one week from the next what to expect, that is just not possible"

The impression I get, is there is no right solution to this, b/c ALL birth controls are percieved to induce abortion, and not ALL women can practice NFP.

I hear what you are saying and form one who has used NFP for years and years, I do know but we do have technology on our side now and with fertility monitors and better knowledge on how to track symptoms, it's better and not as impossible as before.

Now it's hard work but that's' another subject/objection for not using it.

ParsonJefferson · Feb 4, 2007

Benedicta00 said:
and why is homosexuality a sin? Because it's unnatural.. why? A man and a man can not do what a woman and a man can which is become one flesh and procreate.

No we can't and don't.
Again- for the 5th time now... it's about the means and the intent.

God made the woman the way he did. he made us fertile at times and infertile at other times. and after a certain age infertile all together.

what is so wrong with using the body the way God made it instead of recreating it with chemicals and surgeries?

If God made woman infertile after a certain age, then how is there sin involved on the part of the woman of man?

If you read the Bible, you find that homosexuality is sin because it is two men (or two women)having sex - and that is clearly referred to as an abomination. It has NOTHING to do with procreation.

Comparing homosexual sex to a married couple having sex after they've taken permanent birth control measures is totally absurd, illogical and silly.

So again, I'm going to throw down the gauntlet: What is wrong with a married couple deciding that they've had enough children, and do not want to intentionally have any more? I want Book, Chapter and Verse from the Bible to back up your argument - not some man-made rules.

I am loving my wife, and honoring God, by NOT getting her pregnant - now that we're in our mid-40s and have grown children. It would be stupid and irresponsible of me to make her run the risk of pregnancy by using a form of birth control (NFP) that is only about 70% effective.

There is absolutely nowhere in the Bible where we are commanded to not have sex if there's no possibility of getting pregnant.

So do feel free to use NFP as your form of birth control. But stop being so circularly judgmental of people who choose other forms.

Uphill Battle · Feb 4, 2007

Benedicta00 said:
well. it is.

And that's because we do not take what God designed and created and change it with harsh chemicals and surgeries.

Wonder if this is a good time to bring up how B/C pills, shots and implants have the potential to act as an abortifant?

propeganda. Studies show that this is likely untrue. And, there are several "definite non-abortificant" BC pills on the market.

thereselittleflower · Feb 4, 2007

Uphill Battle said:
LOL

by that logic, you shouldn't use deoderants, makeup, perfume, soap (unless its lye based non chemical soap....) toothpaste, mouthwash. Advil. Tylenol. Midol for the ladies. How about contact lenses?

Umm . . you are raising nothing but red herrings. .

Did God say "let their be stink from perspiration and let it fill the room." ???

No . .

Did God say "Let their be bad breath and let it afflict others." ??

No . .

see . . nothing but red herrings . .

Contraceptive sex is a crime against nature and God because it takes what God made to be fertile and commanded to be fertile, and uses it for selfish desires of gratification, even if mutual. For if there is no openness to life, then the sensual gratificaiton of sex becomes the top priority and turns what God made to be fertile and bring new life upside down.

All of these things modify the body in one way or another. (some using chemicals, some not.) Either way, it modifies HOW GOD MADE you. Are they all sin too? I hazard that you will say no, they are not.

Modifying the body is not wrong if it does not violate God's command and purpose.

One who is engaging in deliberately sterile sex cannot in any way be said to be doing anything other than violating God's command.

.

Uphill Battle · Feb 4, 2007

Benedicta00 said:
No, they do not modify the body- the treat something that is wrong in the body.

Fertility doe not need treating unless it's broken.

We treat it to fix it, not to break it.

fine, move the goalpost. That's fine. However, nobody has answered with biblical evidence that contraception is wrong. Likely, of course, because it does not exist.

thereselittleflower · Feb 4, 2007

Uphill Battle said:
propeganda. Studies show that this is likely untrue. And, there are several "definite non-abortificant" BC pills on the market.

not from my research . . all BC pills have as their last method of action the prevention of implantation in the uterus of a fertilized ovum.

some more so, some less so, but all have this action.

.

Uphill Battle · Feb 4, 2007

thereselittleflower said:
Umm . . you are raising nothing but red herrings. .

Did God say "let their be stink from perspiration and let it fill the room." ???

No . .

Did God say "Let their be bad breath and let it afflict others." ??

No . .

see . . nothing but red herrings . .

Contraceptive sex is a crime against nature and God because it takes what God made to be fertile and commanded to be fertile, and uses it for selfish desires of gratification, even if mutual. For if there is no openness to life, then the sensual gratificaiton of sex becomes the top priority and turns what God made to be fertile and bring new life upside down.

Modifying the body is not wrong if it does not violate God's command and purpose.

One who is engaging in deliberately sterile sex cannot in any way be said to be doing anything other than violating God's command.

.

you would use the bible to prove your point about it being ok to use those products, but then omit the fact that we are not commanded that every sex act between man and wife should possibly result in life?!? that's some excellent pick and choose!

ParsonJefferson · Feb 4, 2007

Benedicta00 said:
well. it is.

And that's because we do not take what God designed and created and change it with harsh chemicals and surgeries.

Wonder if this is a good time to bring up how B/C pills, shots and implants have the potential to act as an abortifant?

No, YOUR form of birth control is NOT better!

There is NOTHING better about having children when you're older - and running exponentially higher risk of having children with birth defects. There is NOTHING better about running severely increased risk of your wife dying in pregnancy or childbirth because your form of birth control is only 70% effective.

The fact that the RCC is trying to guilt you into filling pews with children does not change the fact that the Bible says NOTHING about birth control being a sin.

Uphill Battle · Feb 4, 2007

thereselittleflower said:
not from my research . . all BC pills have as their last method of action the prevention of implantation in the uterus of a fertilized ovum.

some more so, some less so, but all have this action.

.

You've been reading the "con" only sheets, I'd wager.

Benedicta00 · Feb 4, 2007

Uphill Battle said:
It CAN be abortificant. Not all brands are. If you do your research, you can get ones that are not. It isn't that cut and dried.

The B/C pills that doesn't act as an abortifant, meaning they do not have that mechanism that will abort if you do conceive, is a huge does of the chemical that represses ovulation.

Sadly- that is really unhealthy for woman. It really can cause caner- significantly. Back in the 60's they made the pill like that and it was killing woman. that is why they went with the low dose or mini pill a it's called.

Benedicta00 · Feb 4, 2007

ParsonJefferson said:
No, YOUR form of birth control is NOT better!

There is NOTHING better about having children when you're older - and running exponentially higher risk of having children with birth defects. There is NOTHING better about running severely increased risk of your wife dying in pregnancy or childbirth because your form of birth control is only 70% effective.

The fact that the RCC is trying to guilt you into filling pews with children does not change the fact that the Bible says NOTHING about birth control being a sin.

I don't know what kind your on so i can not speak, but mine don't have the potential to cause spontaneous abortions.

And I do think that's something to brag about. that and it poses absolutely no risk to my health. No other ABC on the planet can make that claim.

And it's free to use, costs me nothing to use it. So yes, based on that- NFP is far superior. IMHO.

thereselittleflower · Feb 4, 2007

Here is some information from the Early Church of the 1st century:

The noted Jesuit catechist Fr. John A. Hardon, in his essay "Contraception: Fatal to the Faith and to Eternal Life," wrote:

In the Roman Empire of the first century of the Christian era, contraception was universally approved and practiced by the people.... In the language of the day, contraceptive practice was referred to as "using magic" and "using drugs." It was in this sense that the first century Teaching of the Twelve Apostles [Didiche] warns Christians in four successive precepts: "You shall not use magic." "You shall not use drugs." "You shall not procure abortion." "You shall not destroy an unborn child."

"The sequence of those prohibitions is significant," Father Hardon continues. "We know from the record of those times that women would first try some magical rites or use sorcery to avoid conception. If this failed, they would take one or another of then known seventeen medically approved contraceptives. If a woman still became pregnant, she would try to abort. And if even this failed, she and her male partner could always resort to infanticide, which was approved by Roman law."

"Christians were warned not to follow the example of their pagan contemporaries, who walked in darkness and the shadow of death," Father Hardon concludes. "Christians were absolutely forbidden to practice contraception, which leads to abortion, which leads to infanticide."

http://www.catholicexchange.com/node/7636

Would it be sin?!?

Did this couple sin in their actions?

No, of course not.

Yes, it is still sin.

Don't know/other (please specify.)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

just LOVES the flagrantly biased moderating here

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

just LOVES the flagrantly biased moderating here

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

just LOVES the flagrantly biased moderating here

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency