| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 12/18/2019 7:59:03 PM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Off topic flame wars. |
Posted on 12/06/2019 1:01:35 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
Like most of my colleagues, I intended to have two, maybe three kids. And like them, I thought the Catholic view of sex and contraception was ridiculous.
That was about 25 years ago.
Since then, I’ve discovered Theology of the Body (TOB) — Pope John Paul II’s biblical analysis of what it means to be human. This radically transformed my view of the body, human sexuality — and in turn, birth control. And now, I don’t think the Catholic view is ridiculous. I think it’s biblical. And though I’m not dogmatic about it, I, like a growing number of evangelicals, no longer feel comfortable with contraception.
John Paul argued that contraception profoundly distorts the marriage analogy. Christopher West explains:
Christ did not sterilize His love. When we sterilize our love, we are changing what is happening in the sexual act itself to the point that we are no longer imaging Christ’s love for the church. We are no longer imaging the Trinity. In fact, it becomes a counter-image … of Christ and the church.
Rejecting contraception does not mean couples must have as many children as possible. There are valid reasons to avoid pregnancy. And there is a way to do that without violating the spiritual significance of marital intimacy. It’s called natural family planning (NFP).
NFP works with our God-given body, rather than against it.
(Excerpt) Read more at stream.org ...
But then we’d be getting our Replacement Population elsewhere.
We can’t create a demand for a Replacement Population by not producing our own and then cry foul when people step up to fill that role.
It would be interesting to know how many are Catholics in name only, are C&E (Christmas & Easter) Catholics or were only baptized Catholic.
Ya. Nuns are not any family, anti kids nor even anti sex, not authentic catholic nuns. They have a different vocation in life from married women or women in the professions -they don’t expect everyone else to do the same. They do promote chastity. But that’s just anti promiscuity more or less.
I see. Yes true.
And as always, context will bring the correct meaning of the verses into the light.
6Now Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar.
7But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was evil in the sight of the LORD, so the LORD took his life.
8Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.”
9Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother.
10But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.
11Then Judah said to his daughter-in-law Tamar, “Remain a widow in your father’s house until my son Shelah grows up”; for he thought, “I am afraid that he too may die like his brothers.” So Tamar went and lived in her father’s house.
*****
Roman Catholics are living under the Old Testament.
However, the fact remains Roman Catholics continue to practice birth control through NFP.
The intent of NFP is to avoid pregnancy. There's no difference in that or a RC using condoms.
Read the verse again: “But what he did...”
He was slain for a positive act; there’s no statement asserting that his death was due to disobedience.
But see the question I put to Dartoid; you’re free to take a stab at it as well. (I hope he didn’t disappear. The Protestants seem to always disappear when I put a direct question to them.)
Were the Protestants who shunned birth control from the time of Martin Luther to the time of the 1930 Anglican Lambeth Conference also incorrect in their interpretation of this passage? (Were they too, “living under the Old Testament”?)
Read the passage again.
The Roman Catholic lives under the false presumption that every sex related act has to have a chance at child birth.
NFP attempts to get around that.
It's contraception just under another name.
Until 1930, every Christian of every stripe believed that every conjugal act had to be open to procreation.
Because you can’t address this point you have no other option but to ignore it. (Because the obvious question is, “If we were wrong before, what assurance do we have that we’re not wrong now?”)
All contraception is evil
You’re making a broad assault what you think every believer believed.
I wouldn’t dare to venture what another human being believed about anything.
I’m pointing out that the position of every Christian denomination prior to 1930 was that every conjugal act had to be open to procreation, which is a position that Protestants now dismiss as having no basis in Sacred Scripture.
That’s way two generations ago.
You make yet another false assumption.
The Lambeth Conference is a decennial assembly of bishops of the Anglican Communion convened by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The first such conference took place in 1867.
The methods vary, but it's still birth control.
I’m not sure what your point is here.
People have been doing a lot of bad things for a “very, very long time”, be it murder, rape, theft, you name it. But nobody takes the position that these are morally okay, simply because they might actually be viewed as acts of convenience at some point in somebody’s life. And nobody takes the position that these are allowed in Sacred Scripture.
Having sex without an aim to have kids is not a “bad” thing...maybe it is for Roman Catholics, but not Christians.
Keep in mind that your theology on this matter is 90 years old; my theology on the subject goes back to Christ Himself (as every other Christian’s did until 1930).
You again make yet another error. That’s three. You’re out!
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.