Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Running On Empty

“The use of condoms denies and blocks the life-giving powers that God has designed for us, that we may share in His creation.”

So does abstinence.

But what a condom does is give a couple the ability to express their love without choosing to have a child. Dogs breed. Humans can and should love each other. And the use of our minds gives us a choice a dog doesn’t have.

If anyone doesn’t want to use a condom, that is fine. They are free to decide for themselves. But I see no scriptural warrant for claiming a person using a condom is evil.


49 posted on 10/06/2012 10:42:42 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Rogers

“...so does abstinence”.

Abstinence is a decision. Sexual intercourse is an act.


51 posted on 10/06/2012 10:45:06 AM PDT by Running On Empty (The three sorriest words: "It's too late")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: Mr Rogers; Running On Empty
But I see no scriptural warrant for claiming a person using a condom is evil.

As I just posted above, since, practically speaking, all Christians were united in condemning contraception before 1930, where in the Bible does it say that one can have relations with one's husband/wife and NOT be open to offspring? It seems to me that the burden of proof lies in showing that it is biblical to contracept.

Blessed Sunday!

65 posted on 10/07/2012 3:39:32 AM PDT by koinonia (Virgil Goode for President - I'm not getting paid to promote him :-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: Mr Rogers

“...what a condom does is give the couple the ability to express their love without choosing to have a child...”

Altering the marital embrace to make it barren reduces it to essentially the same act as a homosexual act i.e., an act that by its very nature is their way of expressing “love” without having a child. The process of neutering the marital embrace demeans it. Purposely abstaining during the fertile time each month for serious reasons is perfectly acceptable and does not mock the potential procreative act itself.


79 posted on 10/09/2012 12:40:01 PM PDT by stonehouse01 (Equal rights for unborn women)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson