Posted on 03/10/2008 10:21:49 AM PDT by Froufrou
Thanks.
Some so, some do not. Condoms certainly don't.
of course contraception intercepts God’s love for humanity
Not "of course." In your opinion. It is my opinion that God gave us sex as a gift, and gifts don't always come with strings attached. The beauty here is that your opinion is worth exactly what mine is.
My wife and I love our son, and hope to have another child within the year, but we didn't stop being adults when we became parents, and we didn't stop being lovers. Sex for its own sake, without responsibility or worry of any consequences, is an essential part of every marriage.
Cracking me up ping!
I know you didn’t ask me, but wouldn’t that depend on Onan’s reason for the last minute rebuke?
I can agree with that, but another poster emphasized that G-d killed Onan for what he "did", not his intent. If that's the case, then what he *did* could be referring to the betrayal and humiliation of Tamar, not the spilling of his seed.
I think we may be on the same fork in the road. The issue is the pleasure that can be related to the act. That is the issue.
Cracking up is next on the list, FrouFrou. FYI.
360 posted on 03/13/2008 12:08:25 AM MDT by Marie
The focus should on Yah'shua. The focus should not be on us, His created. I believe this whole chapter is about efforts by haSatan, the Evil One All scripture points to our creator.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua
to prevent the birth of the messiah, the one whose blood will cover all
the sins of the world.
“Well, either way you’re telling God to get out of your life. I guess we know where your heart lies.”
somehow you’ve confused the popes and catholic theology with god
“First, there is a categorical difference here between “the rythym method” (actually, NFP, which could be called the vaginal mucous method) and artificial means of contraception, since in the former case the couple is not employing any artificial means of inducing sterility,”
wrong, their artificially altering their timing of their lovemaking to conform to an artificial theological mandate
“A new soul is created when a new person is individuated, at conception. This applies to all creatures, and is basic Aristotelian philosophy.”
since when was Yeshua a believer or practictioner of ‘aristolean philosophy’ - though, obviously you seem to be claiming that the catholic church is
“Not sure I understand your point.”
that goes without saying
“It’s perfectly analogous. Where do you believe the analogy fails?”
the analogy attempts to portray lovemaking as having no moral purpose unless reproduction is intentionally assumed
the fact that reproduction CAN occur during lovemaking is not a foundation for a belief it has no moral purpose sans reproduction
consuming nutrition and reproduction may both be biological imperatives, that fact, common to the both, is not the sum and substance of their distinct human roles, in a truly human context
they might be if your morality attempts to restrict human analogies of human functions to no higher status than the animals
“In the former, you are simply restraining yourself.”
as i said - you’re artificially affecting results - either way
with contraception, in accord with reason, with NFP, to conform to not getting chastised by the priest at next ‘confession’
“As long as, of course, we *do* nothing to the act itself to deliberately make it infertile.”
this is not morality, it is simply priestly theology
“The question was what is the reproductive system for. For as in ultimate purpose.”
that’s the whole point
reproduction is an “ultimate purpose”
yet, beyond ‘reproduction’ sexual intercourse has been recognized to serve an ‘ultimate purpose’ of its own, in the relationship of the human couple, as a couple
whether or not reproduction occurs, whether or not reproduction is intended, whether or not reproduction is desired
and, in that purpose, throughout human history, it - the sexual relationship of the couple - has not been, in it physical practices, limited to the mere functionality of the biological requirements for reproduction
therefore, to define the sexual life that exists, physically, between the human couple, beyond the mere bilogical requirements for reproduction, as immoral unless reproduction is intended is a non-sequiter - the idea that it must is a theological fiction outside of human life, from time immemorial
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.