Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

No Christian should contracept

one2one
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 2:04:53 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
I am of the opinion that no one can claim to be Christian and also embrace contraception. Contraception is the use of unnatural means to prevent pregnancy as a result of sexual intercourse. It bothers me that many protestants denounce homosexual actions as well as pre marital sex but embrace contraception. Any sexual act should be ordered to procreation of life. That is why homoseulaity is disordered because it is not open to life. the same standard must be held to all sexual acts.

So I ask my fellow Christians why do you think It's ok to use contraception?
Looncall
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 9:43:00 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 2:04:53 AM, one2one wrote:
I am of the opinion that no one can claim to be Christian and also embrace contraception. Contraception is the use of unnatural means to prevent pregnancy as a result of sexual intercourse. It bothers me that many protestants denounce homosexual actions as well as pre marital sex but embrace contraception. Any sexual act should be ordered to procreation of life. That is why homoseulaity is disordered because it is not open to life. the same standard must be held to all sexual acts.

So I ask my fellow Christians why do you think It's ok to use contraception?

The world has an overpopulation problem. Didn't you get the memo?

In any case, your nonsense us just a scam cooked up by the senile perverts in Rome to produce morbid guilt in their followers and so maintain clerical power.

Among humans, sex has many important functions, such as reinforcing pair bonding. As usual, clergy are working to make people hate their own humanity, for the benefit of those same clergy.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
bulproof
Posts: 25,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 4:34:41 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 2:04:53 AM, one2one wrote:
I am of the opinion that no one can claim to be Christian and also embrace contraception. Contraception is the use of unnatural means to prevent pregnancy as a result of sexual intercourse. It bothers me that many protestants denounce homosexual actions as well as pre marital sex but embrace contraception. Any sexual act should be ordered to procreation of life. That is why homoseulaity is disordered because it is not open to life. the same standard must be held to all sexual acts.

So I ask my fellow Christians why do you think It's ok to use contraception?

You are quite obviously a virgin and can be dismissed. Bye Bye.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 5:00:11 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 2:04:53 AM, one2one wrote:
I am of the opinion that no one can claim to be Christian and also embrace contraception. Contraception is the use of unnatural means to prevent pregnancy as a result of sexual intercourse. It bothers me that many protestants denounce homosexual actions as well as pre marital sex but embrace contraception. Any sexual act should be ordered to procreation of life.

Really?
How very interesting.
Should infertile, namely senior, men and women not get married then?

That is why homoseulaity is disordered because it is not open to life. the same standard must be held to all sexual acts.

So I ask my fellow Christians why do you think It's ok to use contraception?
one2one
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 5:21:35 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 5:00:11 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 2:04:53 AM, one2one wrote:
I am of the opinion that no one can claim to be Christian and also embrace contraception. Contraception is the use of unnatural means to prevent pregnancy as a result of sexual intercourse. It bothers me that many protestants denounce homosexual actions as well as pre marital sex but embrace contraception. Any sexual act should be ordered to procreation of life.


Really?
How very interesting.
Should infertile, namely senior, men and women not get married then?

That is why homosexuality is disordered because it is not open to life. the same standard must be held to all sexual acts.

So I ask my fellow Christians why do you think It's ok to use contraception?

The Church teaches that infertility is not an impediment to marriage. The difference between being infertile and contraception is that contraception is the deliberate rejection of the procreative nature of intercourse. Infertility is in no ways a rejection of the procreative nature of sex but rather one's inability to conceive. The act is still ordered towards the possibility of procreation whereas contraception is a rejection of that aspect.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 5:25:11 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 5:21:35 PM, one2one wrote:
At 8/17/2016 5:00:11 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 2:04:53 AM, one2one wrote:
I am of the opinion that no one can claim to be Christian and also embrace contraception. Contraception is the use of unnatural means to prevent pregnancy as a result of sexual intercourse. It bothers me that many protestants denounce homosexual actions as well as pre marital sex but embrace contraception. Any sexual act should be ordered to procreation of life.


Really?
How very interesting.
Should infertile, namely senior, men and women not get married then?

That is why homosexuality is disordered because it is not open to life. the same standard must be held to all sexual acts.

So I ask my fellow Christians why do you think It's ok to use contraception?

The Church teaches that infertility is not an impediment to marriage. The difference between being infertile and contraception is that contraception is the deliberate rejection of the procreative nature of intercourse. Infertility is in no ways a rejection of the procreative nature of sex but rather one's inability to conceive. The act is still ordered towards the possibility of procreation whereas contraception is a rejection of that aspect.

Should couples engage in sex when the women knows she's in her infertile period then?

These are all theoretical questions. I couldn't give a peanut shell what the Catholic church has to say on anything, really. Just for the record.
one2one
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 5:31:38 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 5:25:11 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 5:21:35 PM, one2one wrote:
At 8/17/2016 5:00:11 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 2:04:53 AM, one2one wrote:
I am of the opinion that no one can claim to be Christian and also embrace contraception. Contraception is the use of unnatural means to prevent pregnancy as a result of sexual intercourse. It bothers me that many protestants denounce homosexual actions as well as pre marital sex but embrace contraception. Any sexual act should be ordered to procreation of life.


Really?
How very interesting.
Should infertile, namely senior, men and women not get married then?

That is why homosexuality is disordered because it is not open to life. the same standard must be held to all sexual acts.

So I ask my fellow Christians why do you think It's ok to use contraception?

The Church teaches that infertility is not an impediment to marriage. The difference between being infertile and contraception is that contraception is the deliberate rejection of the procreative nature of intercourse. Infertility is in no ways a rejection of the procreative nature of sex but rather one's inability to conceive. The act is still ordered towards the possibility of procreation whereas contraception is a rejection of that aspect.

Should couples engage in sex when the women knows she's in her infertile period then?

These are all theoretical questions. I couldn't give a peanut shell what the Catholic church has to say on anything, really. Just for the record.

No It's perfectly fine to engage in sex during the infertile period of a woman's cycle. You don't need to have sex for the purpose of procreation It's just that the act itself must be open to life in its form.

lol peanut shell
one2one
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 5:42:54 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 9:43:00 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 8/17/2016 2:04:53 AM, one2one wrote:
I am of the opinion that no one can claim to be Christian and also embrace contraception. Contraception is the use of unnatural means to prevent pregnancy as a result of sexual intercourse. It bothers me that many protestants denounce homosexual actions as well as pre marital sex but embrace contraception. Any sexual act should be ordered to procreation of life. That is why homosexuality is disordered because it is not open to life. the same standard must be held to all sexual acts.

So I ask my fellow Christians why do you think It's ok to use contraception?

The world has an overpopulation problem. Didn't you get the memo?

In any case, your nonsense us just a scam cooked up by the senile perverts in Rome to produce morbid guilt in their followers and so maintain clerical power.

Among humans, sex has many important functions, such as reinforcing pair bonding. As usual, clergy are working to make people hate their own humanity, for the benefit of those same clergy.

1. The world certainly isn't over populated just far too greedy.
2. How would teaching against contraception give clergy more power?
3. How does teaching people about the true nature of sex make them hate their humanity ?
graceofgod
Posts: 5,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 6:05:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 2:04:53 AM, one2one wrote:
I am of the opinion that no one can claim to be Christian and also embrace contraception. Contraception is the use of unnatural means to prevent pregnancy as a result of sexual intercourse. It bothers me that many protestants denounce homosexual actions as well as pre marital sex but embrace contraception. Any sexual act should be ordered to procreation of life. That is why homoseulaity is disordered because it is not open to life. the same standard must be held to all sexual acts.

So I ask my fellow Christians why do you think It's ok to use contraception?

of course anyone who doesn't want children should use contraception, Christian or not..
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 6:05:52 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 2:04:53 AM, one2one wrote:
I am of the opinion that no one can claim to be Christian and also embrace contraception. Contraception is the use of unnatural means to prevent pregnancy as a result of sexual intercourse. It bothers me that many protestants denounce homosexual actions as well as pre marital sex but embrace contraception. Any sexual act should be ordered to procreation of life. That is why homoseulaity is disordered because it is not open to life. the same standard must be held to all sexual acts.

So I ask my fellow Christians why do you think It's ok to use contraception?

Can you find one scripture that shows it not to be?.

In this time of the end Followers of Christ and the Apostles are encouraged not to marry, or if they do not to have children so as to prevent unnecessary distractions from carrying out the ministry which is the privilege of all who wish to do Christ's father's will (Matthew 7:21-23), just as Christ taught all his followers to do, not just the 12.

However the one type of contraception which does infringe God's law is the type which prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. That is because it is the equivalent of abortion, which God regards as murder.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 6:09:44 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 2:04:53 AM, one2one wrote:
I am of the opinion that no one can claim to be Christian and also embrace contraception. Contraception is the use of unnatural means to prevent pregnancy as a result of sexual intercourse. It bothers me that many protestants denounce homosexual actions as well as pre marital sex but embrace contraception. Any sexual act should be ordered to procreation of life. That is why homoseulaity is disordered because it is not open to life. the same standard must be held to all sexual acts.

Yes, remember folks, Every Sperm is Sacred...

https://www.youtube.com...

So I ask my fellow Christians why do you think It's ok to use contraception?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
one2one
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 6:51:48 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 6:05:00 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 2:04:53 AM, one2one wrote:
I am of the opinion that no one can claim to be Christian and also embrace contraception. Contraception is the use of unnatural means to prevent pregnancy as a result of sexual intercourse. It bothers me that many protestants denounce homosexual actions as well as pre marital sex but embrace contraception. Any sexual act should be ordered to procreation of life. That is why homoseulaity is disordered because it is not open to life. the same standard must be held to all sexual acts.

So I ask my fellow Christians why do you think It's ok to use contraception?

of course anyone who doesn't want children should use contraception, Christian or not..

Even if contraception distorts the marital act from its natural order, making it contrary to the natural law?
one2one
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 6:58:38 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 6:05:52 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 8/17/2016 2:04:53 AM, one2one wrote:
I am of the opinion that no one can claim to be Christian and also embrace contraception. Contraception is the use of unnatural means to prevent pregnancy as a result of sexual intercourse. It bothers me that many protestants denounce homosexual actions as well as pre marital sex but embrace contraception. Any sexual act should be ordered to procreation of life. That is why homoseulaity is disordered because it is not open to life. the same standard must be held to all sexual acts.

So I ask my fellow Christians why do you think It's ok to use contraception?

Can you find one scripture that shows it not to be?.

In this time of the end Followers of Christ and the Apostles are encouraged not to marry, or if they do not to have children so as to prevent unnecessary distractions from carrying out the ministry which is the privilege of all who wish to do Christ's father's will (Matthew 7:21-23), just as Christ taught all his followers to do, not just the 12.

However the one type of contraception which does infringe God's law is the type which prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. That is because it is the equivalent of abortion, which God regards as murder.

Where in the scriptures does it say only belive what is found in the scriptures? Do you belive in the trinity, an essential christian doctrine which is not mentioned in the bible.

Do you not see how contraception distorts the marital act making it contrary to the natural law? If God created sex to have certain natural effects who are we to say that God is wrong and we want it solely for pleasure and intimacy without the openness to life?

Also Matthew 7: 21-23 has absolutely nothing to do with having children.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 7:11:21 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 6:51:48 PM, one2one wrote:
At 8/17/2016 6:05:00 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/17/2016 2:04:53 AM, one2one wrote:
I am of the opinion that no one can claim to be Christian and also embrace contraception. Contraception is the use of unnatural means to prevent pregnancy as a result of sexual intercourse. It bothers me that many protestants denounce homosexual actions as well as pre marital sex but embrace contraception. Any sexual act should be ordered to procreation of life. That is why homoseulaity is disordered because it is not open to life. the same standard must be held to all sexual acts.

So I ask my fellow Christians why do you think It's ok to use contraception?

of course anyone who doesn't want children should use contraception, Christian or not..

Even if contraception distorts the marital act from its natural order, making it contrary to the natural law?

Ideally a Christian would remain chaste until they are in a married relationship, in which case a child is probably intended but I don't think any unwanted children are a good thing...
Looncall
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 7:13:15 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 5:42:54 PM, one2one wrote:
At 8/17/2016 9:43:00 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 8/17/2016 2:04:53 AM, one2one wrote:
I am of the opinion that no one can claim to be Christian and also embrace contraception. Contraception is the use of unnatural means to prevent pregnancy as a result of sexual intercourse. It bothers me that many protestants denounce homosexual actions as well as pre marital sex but embrace contraception. Any sexual act should be ordered to procreation of life. That is why homosexuality is disordered because it is not open to life. the same standard must be held to all sexual acts.

So I ask my fellow Christians why do you think It's ok to use contraception?

The world has an overpopulation problem. Didn't you get the memo?

In any case, your nonsense us just a scam cooked up by the senile perverts in Rome to produce morbid guilt in their followers and so maintain clerical power.

Among humans, sex has many important functions, such as reinforcing pair bonding. As usual, clergy are working to make people hate their own humanity, for the benefit of those same clergy.

1. The world certainly isn't over populated just far too greedy.
2. How would teaching against contraception give clergy more power?
3. How does teaching people about the true nature of sex make them hate their humanity ?

Clergy work hard to make people feel guilt over entirely natural aspects of their humanity in order to make those people dependent on them: to keep pews and collection plates full.

The true nature of sex includes far more than procreation. It is the vile puritanism of the religious that pretends otherwise.

Remember, clergy (especially catholic clergy) entirely lack concern for the well-being of people. Don't let them pull the wool over your eyes.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 7:13:38 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 5:31:38 PM, one2one wrote:
At 8/17/2016 5:25:11 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 5:21:35 PM, one2one wrote:
At 8/17/2016 5:00:11 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 2:04:53 AM, one2one wrote:
I am of the opinion that no one can claim to be Christian and also embrace contraception. Contraception is the use of unnatural means to prevent pregnancy as a result of sexual intercourse. It bothers me that many protestants denounce homosexual actions as well as pre marital sex but embrace contraception. Any sexual act should be ordered to procreation of life.


Really?
How very interesting.
Should infertile, namely senior, men and women not get married then?

That is why homosexuality is disordered because it is not open to life. the same standard must be held to all sexual acts.

So I ask my fellow Christians why do you think It's ok to use contraception?

The Church teaches that infertility is not an impediment to marriage. The difference between being infertile and contraception is that contraception is the deliberate rejection of the procreative nature of intercourse. Infertility is in no ways a rejection of the procreative nature of sex but rather one's inability to conceive. The act is still ordered towards the possibility of procreation whereas contraception is a rejection of that aspect.

Should couples engage in sex when the women knows she's in her infertile period then?

These are all theoretical questions. I couldn't give a peanut shell what the Catholic church has to say on anything, really. Just for the record.

No It's perfectly fine to engage in sex during the infertile period of a woman's cycle. You don't need to have sex for the purpose of procreation It's just that the act itself must be open to life in its form.

lol peanut shell

What NT passage teaches or even necessarily implies this position?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 8:00:38 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 2:04:53 AM, one2one wrote:
I am of the opinion that no one can claim to be Christian and also embrace contraception. Contraception is the use of unnatural means to prevent pregnancy as a result of sexual intercourse. It bothers me that many protestants denounce homosexual actions as well as pre marital sex but embrace contraception. Any sexual act should be ordered to procreation of life. That is why homoseulaity is disordered because it is not open to life. the same standard must be held to all sexual acts.

So I ask my fellow Christians why do you think It's ok to use contraception?

There is not a single biblical verse condemning contraception. Someone can be a Christian and use contraception. It's simply your opinion contraception is wrong. Your opinion is not supported by the bible.

I'm an atheist by the way.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 8:07:34 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 5:21:35 PM, one2one wrote:
At 8/17/2016 5:00:11 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 2:04:53 AM, one2one wrote:
I am of the opinion that no one can claim to be Christian and also embrace contraception. Contraception is the use of unnatural means to prevent pregnancy as a result of sexual intercourse. It bothers me that many protestants denounce homosexual actions as well as pre marital sex but embrace contraception. Any sexual act should be ordered to procreation of life.


Really?
How very interesting.
Should infertile, namely senior, men and women not get married then?

That is why homosexuality is disordered because it is not open to life. the same standard must be held to all sexual acts.

So I ask my fellow Christians why do you think It's ok to use contraception?

The Church teaches that infertility is not an impediment to marriage. The difference between being infertile and contraception is that contraception is the deliberate rejection of the procreative nature of intercourse. Infertility is in no ways a rejection of the procreative nature of sex but rather one's inability to conceive. The act is still ordered towards the possibility of procreation whereas contraception is a rejection of that aspect.

The Catholic church may teach contraception is a bad thing yet it has no biblical content supporting its claim.

The reality is contraception is a great thing and should be encouraged. It prevents unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections and allows parents to choose how many children to have.

The Catholic Church's active opposition to contraception is truly disgusting. I could not take a more aggressive stance towards its inhumane and illogical position. How those pompous priests can live with themselves for telling people in poverty they cannot use contraception when they already have far more children than they can afford to look after baffles me.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 8:09:43 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 5:31:38 PM, one2one wrote:

Should couples engage in sex when the women knows she's in her infertile period then?

These are all theoretical questions. I couldn't give a peanut shell what the Catholic church has to say on anything, really. Just for the record.

No It's perfectly fine to engage in sex during the infertile period of a woman's cycle. You don't need to have sex for the purpose of procreation It's just that the act itself must be open to life in its form.

What is the difference between A ) engaging in sex when the women is in her infertile period and thus intercourse is unlikely to lead to pregnancy and B ) engaging in protected sex which is also unlikely to lead to pregnancy?
one2one
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 8:55:29 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 8:07:34 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 8/17/2016 5:21:35 PM, one2one wrote:
At 8/17/2016 5:00:11 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 2:04:53 AM, one2one wrote:
I am of the opinion that no one can claim to be Christian and also embrace contraception. Contraception is the use of unnatural means to prevent pregnancy as a result of sexual intercourse. It bothers me that many protestants denounce homosexual actions as well as pre marital sex but embrace contraception. Any sexual act should be ordered to procreation of life.


Really?
How very interesting.
Should infertile, namely senior, men and women not get married then?

That is why homosexuality is disordered because it is not open to life. the same standard must be held to all sexual acts.

So I ask my fellow Christians why do you think It's ok to use contraception?

The Church teaches that infertility is not an impediment to marriage. The difference between being infertile and contraception is that contraception is the deliberate rejection of the procreative nature of intercourse. Infertility is in no ways a rejection of the procreative nature of sex but rather one's inability to conceive. The act is still ordered towards the possibility of procreation whereas contraception is a rejection of that aspect.

The Catholic church may teach contraception is a bad thing yet it has no biblical content supporting its claim.

The reality is contraception is a great thing and should be encouraged. It prevents unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections and allows parents to choose how many children to have.

The Catholic Church's active opposition to contraception is truly disgusting. I could not take a more aggressive stance towards its inhumane and illogical position. How those pompous priests can live with themselves for telling people in poverty they cannot use contraception when they already have far more children than they can afford to look after baffles me.

1. The Church's teaching on contraception is not a matter of biblical theology, but rather the theology of the body. It can be philosophically shown that contraception is distortion to the natural law and therefore God's law.

2. There are many clinical studies showing the damaging effects of hormonal contraception on the body of the women. Also there are natural means to understand a woman's cycle and planning when to abstain from sex to help a family be responsible.

3. The Church and priests should first and foremost be concerned with the souls of their flock. How in humane is it to let people commit mortal sin in the name of comfort. Again there are natural means to help families be responsible with children while keeping the act of sex itself properly ordered the way God intended it.
one2one
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 9:03:36 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 8:09:43 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 5:31:38 PM, one2one wrote:

Should couples engage in sex when the women knows she's in her infertile period then?

These are all theoretical questions. I couldn't give a peanut shell what the Catholic church has to say on anything, really. Just for the record.

No It's perfectly fine to engage in sex during the infertile period of a woman's cycle. You don't need to have sex for the purpose of procreation It's just that the act itself must be open to life in its form.

What is the difference between A ) engaging in sex when the women is in her infertile period and thus intercourse is unlikely to lead to pregnancy and B ) engaging in protected sex which is also unlikely to lead to pregnancy?

Good question It's distinction I struggled with when first learning about it.

It's not about the likelihood of conceiving It's about the act itself and weather its naturally ordered to be open to life or not. When a couple uses contraception they are using unnatural means to cut off the procreative aspect of sex. When a women is in her infertile period it is simply that she does not conceive. There is no difference in the act itself when she is infertile so It's still ordered to create life it just likely won't. Were as contraception distorts the act and it is no longer ordered to create life.

It may seem like a fine line but the more i have studied it the more I see the difference and see how damaging it is to the soul of the believer.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 9:07:08 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 2:04:53 AM, one2one wrote:
I am of the opinion that no one can claim to be Christian and also embrace contraception. Contraception is the use of unnatural means to prevent pregnancy as a result of sexual intercourse. It bothers me that many protestants denounce homosexual actions as well as pre marital sex but embrace contraception. Any sexual act should be ordered to procreation of life. That is why homoseulaity is disordered because it is not open to life. the same standard must be held to all sexual acts.

So I ask my fellow Christians why do you think It's ok to use contraception?

+1
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 9:16:22 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 9:03:36 PM, one2one wrote:
At 8/17/2016 8:09:43 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 5:31:38 PM, one2one wrote:

Should couples engage in sex when the women knows she's in her infertile period then?

These are all theoretical questions. I couldn't give a peanut shell what the Catholic church has to say on anything, really. Just for the record.

No It's perfectly fine to engage in sex during the infertile period of a woman's cycle. You don't need to have sex for the purpose of procreation It's just that the act itself must be open to life in its form.

What is the difference between A ) engaging in sex when the women is in her infertile period and thus intercourse is unlikely to lead to pregnancy and B ) engaging in protected sex which is also unlikely to lead to pregnancy?

Good question It's distinction I struggled with when first learning about it.

It's not about the likelihood of conceiving It's about the act itself and weather its naturally ordered to be open to life or not.

That's just gibberish.

When a couple uses contraception they are using unnatural means to cut off the procreative aspect of sex.

What's wrong about unnatural, i . e., artificial means to "cut off the procreative aspect of sex" ?

When a women is in her infertile period it is simply that she does not conceive. There is no difference in the act itself when she is infertile so It's still ordered to create life it just likely won't. Were as contraception distorts the act and it is no longer ordered to create life.


There's a reason why you struggled with this issue at first. Because the explanation no doubt you've heard and are now recounting is as hollow as a cave. It amounts to nothing. It's been a while since I've read such a vacuous defence of an absurd point of doctrine.

You Catholics.

It may seem like a fine line but the more i have studied it the more I see the difference and see how damaging it is to the soul of the believer.

And yet this alleged profound study you have conducted managed to leave no trace but the above quoted paragraph, which is one of the most vacuous and petty word salad I've read around here.
one2one
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 9:23:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 9:16:22 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 9:03:36 PM, one2one wrote:
At 8/17/2016 8:09:43 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 5:31:38 PM, one2one wrote:

Should couples engage in sex when the women knows she's in her infertile period then?

These are all theoretical questions. I couldn't give a peanut shell what the Catholic church has to say on anything, really. Just for the record.

No It's perfectly fine to engage in sex during the infertile period of a woman's cycle. You don't need to have sex for the purpose of procreation It's just that the act itself must be open to life in its form.

What is the difference between A ) engaging in sex when the women is in her infertile period and thus intercourse is unlikely to lead to pregnancy and B ) engaging in protected sex which is also unlikely to lead to pregnancy?

Good question It's distinction I struggled with when first learning about it.

It's not about the likelihood of conceiving It's about the act itself and weather its naturally ordered to be open to life or not.

That's just gibberish.

When a couple uses contraception they are using unnatural means to cut off the procreative aspect of sex.

What's wrong about unnatural, i . e., artificial means to "cut off the procreative aspect of sex" ?

When a women is in her infertile period it is simply that she does not conceive. There is no difference in the act itself when she is infertile so It's still ordered to create life it just likely won't. Were as contraception distorts the act and it is no longer ordered to create life.


There's a reason why you struggled with this issue at first. Because the explanation no doubt you've heard and are now recounting is as hollow as a cave. It amounts to nothing. It's been a while since I've read such a vacuous defence of an absurd point of doctrine.

You Catholics.

It may seem like a fine line but the more i have studied it the more I see the difference and see how damaging it is to the soul of the believer.

And yet this alleged profound study you have conducted managed to leave no trace but the above quoted paragraph, which is one of the most vacuous and petty word salad I've read around here.

I'm taking an Aristotelian approach to the subject, if you are unfamiliar with Aristotle it may be why you are having trouble seeing the distinction.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 9:27:47 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 9:23:00 PM, one2one wrote:
At 8/17/2016 9:16:22 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 9:03:36 PM, one2one wrote:
At 8/17/2016 8:09:43 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 5:31:38 PM, one2one wrote:

Should couples engage in sex when the women knows she's in her infertile period then?

These are all theoretical questions. I couldn't give a peanut shell what the Catholic church has to say on anything, really. Just for the record.

No It's perfectly fine to engage in sex during the infertile period of a woman's cycle. You don't need to have sex for the purpose of procreation It's just that the act itself must be open to life in its form.

What is the difference between A ) engaging in sex when the women is in her infertile period and thus intercourse is unlikely to lead to pregnancy and B ) engaging in protected sex which is also unlikely to lead to pregnancy?

Good question It's distinction I struggled with when first learning about it.

It's not about the likelihood of conceiving It's about the act itself and weather its naturally ordered to be open to life or not.

That's just gibberish.

When a couple uses contraception they are using unnatural means to cut off the procreative aspect of sex.

What's wrong about unnatural, i . e., artificial means to "cut off the procreative aspect of sex" ?

When a women is in her infertile period it is simply that she does not conceive. There is no difference in the act itself when she is infertile so It's still ordered to create life it just likely won't. Were as contraception distorts the act and it is no longer ordered to create life.


There's a reason why you struggled with this issue at first. Because the explanation no doubt you've heard and are now recounting is as hollow as a cave. It amounts to nothing. It's been a while since I've read such a vacuous defence of an absurd point of doctrine.

You Catholics.

It may seem like a fine line but the more i have studied it the more I see the difference and see how damaging it is to the soul of the believer.

And yet this alleged profound study you have conducted managed to leave no trace but the above quoted paragraph, which is one of the most vacuous and petty word salad I've read around here.

I'm taking an Aristotelian approach to the subject, if you are unfamiliar with Aristotle it may be why you are having trouble seeing the distinction.

Please, don't be condescending.
Especially since your condescendence doesn't match your ability to defend the position.

The idiom "full of hot air" does come to mind.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 9:30:17 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 9:16:22 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 9:03:36 PM, one2one wrote:
At 8/17/2016 8:09:43 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 5:31:38 PM, one2one wrote:

Should couples engage in sex when the women knows she's in her infertile period then?

These are all theoretical questions. I couldn't give a peanut shell what the Catholic church has to say on anything, really. Just for the record.

No It's perfectly fine to engage in sex during the infertile period of a woman's cycle. You don't need to have sex for the purpose of procreation It's just that the act itself must be open to life in its form.

What is the difference between A ) engaging in sex when the women is in her infertile period and thus intercourse is unlikely to lead to pregnancy and B ) engaging in protected sex which is also unlikely to lead to pregnancy?

Good question It's distinction I struggled with when first learning about it.

It's not about the likelihood of conceiving It's about the act itself and weather its naturally ordered to be open to life or not.

That's just gibberish.

Actually it is very logical... however it should be stated that there must be sufficient reason for doing so.

Sex has 2 purposes procreative and unitive.

In one (NFP) you are emphasizing one aspect without violating the other. In the other you are violating the purpose for which God created sex and turning is from a mutual giving to a mutual using.

When a couple uses contraception they are using unnatural means to cut off the procreative aspect of sex.

What's wrong about unnatural, i . e., artificial means to "cut off the procreative aspect of sex" ?

It is a violation of what sex is. This is philosophically true and it was true for the early Christians as shown in the Didache:

You shall not practice birth control, you shall not murder a child by abortion, nor kill what is begotten

When a women is in her infertile period it is simply that she does not conceive. There is no difference in the act itself when she is infertile so It's still ordered to create life it just likely won't. Were as contraception distorts the act and it is no longer ordered to create life.


There's a reason why you struggled with this issue at first. Because the explanation no doubt you've heard and are now recounting is as hollow as a cave. It amounts to nothing. It's been a while since I've read such a vacuous defence of an absurd point of doctrine.

Yet you give absolutely no justification as to why it is just to interfere with what God has established. Couple that use NFP have a divorce rate of 0.2%. Coincidence? Or could it be that NFP is better for psychologically for the practitioners.

http://www.lifeissues.net...

The divorce rate is significantly higher for those who use artificial birth control.

You Catholics.

Thanks!

It may seem like a fine line but the more i have studied it the more I see the difference and see how damaging it is to the soul of the believer.

And yet this alleged profound study you have conducted managed to leave no trace but the above quoted paragraph, which is one of the most vacuous and petty word salad I've read around here.

Repeated - Divorce rate 0.2%. Now if you can show me another group of Christians that has a 0.2% divorce rate we can talk.
one2one
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 9:31:32 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 7:13:38 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/17/2016 5:31:38 PM, one2one wrote:
At 8/17/2016 5:25:11 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 5:21:35 PM, one2one wrote:
At 8/17/2016 5:00:11 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 2:04:53 AM, one2one wrote:
I am of the opinion that no one can claim to be Christian and also embrace contraception. Contraception is the use of unnatural means to prevent pregnancy as a result of sexual intercourse. It bothers me that many protestants denounce homosexual actions as well as pre marital sex but embrace contraception. Any sexual act should be ordered to procreation of life.


Really?
How very interesting.
Should infertile, namely senior, men and women not get married then?

That is why homosexuality is disordered because it is not open to life. the same standard must be held to all sexual acts.

So I ask my fellow Christians why do you think It's ok to use contraception?

The Church teaches that infertility is not an impediment to marriage. The difference between being infertile and contraception is that contraception is the deliberate rejection of the procreative nature of intercourse. Infertility is in no ways a rejection of the procreative nature of sex but rather one's inability to conceive. The act is still ordered towards the possibility of procreation whereas contraception is a rejection of that aspect.

Should couples engage in sex when the women knows she's in her infertile period then?

These are all theoretical questions. I couldn't give a peanut shell what the Catholic church has to say on anything, really. Just for the record.

No It's perfectly fine to engage in sex during the infertile period of a woman's cycle. You don't need to have sex for the purpose of procreation It's just that the act itself must be open to life in its form.

lol peanut shell

What NT passage teaches or even necessarily implies this position?

First why limit this to the NT? Secondly while looking into the biblical roots of the teaching I was able to find this passage:

"Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother"s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother"s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8"10)

This is an example of trying to separate the act of sex from procreation, which was displeasing in the sight of the Lord.

I will also mention that before 1930 every protestant agreed with the Catholic Churches teaching on contraception, before they all gave into the world.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 9:33:22 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 9:30:17 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/17/2016 9:16:22 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 9:03:36 PM, one2one wrote:
At 8/17/2016 8:09:43 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 5:31:38 PM, one2one wrote:

Should couples engage in sex when the women knows she's in her infertile period then?

These are all theoretical questions. I couldn't give a peanut shell what the Catholic church has to say on anything, really. Just for the record.

No It's perfectly fine to engage in sex during the infertile period of a woman's cycle. You don't need to have sex for the purpose of procreation It's just that the act itself must be open to life in its form.

What is the difference between A ) engaging in sex when the women is in her infertile period and thus intercourse is unlikely to lead to pregnancy and B ) engaging in protected sex which is also unlikely to lead to pregnancy?

Good question It's distinction I struggled with when first learning about it.

It's not about the likelihood of conceiving It's about the act itself and weather its naturally ordered to be open to life or not.

That's just gibberish.

Actually it is very logical... however it should be stated that there must be sufficient reason for doing so.

Sex has 2 purposes procreative and unitive.

In one (NFP) you are emphasizing one aspect without violating the other. In the other you are violating the purpose for which God created sex and turning is from a mutual giving to a mutual using.

When a couple uses contraception they are using unnatural means to cut off the procreative aspect of sex.

What's wrong about unnatural, i . e., artificial means to "cut off the procreative aspect of sex" ?

It is a violation of what sex is. This is philosophically true and it was true for the early Christians as shown in the Didache:

You shall not practice birth control, you shall not murder a child by abortion, nor kill what is begotten

When a women is in her infertile period it is simply that she does not conceive. There is no difference in the act itself when she is infertile so It's still ordered to create life it just likely won't. Were as contraception distorts the act and it is no longer ordered to create life.


There's a reason why you struggled with this issue at first. Because the explanation no doubt you've heard and are now recounting is as hollow as a cave. It amounts to nothing. It's been a while since I've read such a vacuous defence of an absurd point of doctrine.

Yet you give absolutely no justification as to why it is just to interfere with what God has established. Couple that use NFP have a divorce rate of 0.2%. Coincidence? Or could it be that NFP is better for psychologically for the practitioners.

http://www.lifeissues.net...

The divorce rate is significantly higher for those who use artificial birth control.

You Catholics.

Thanks!

It may seem like a fine line but the more i have studied it the more I see the difference and see how damaging it is to the soul of the believer.

And yet this alleged profound study you have conducted managed to leave no trace but the above quoted paragraph, which is one of the most vacuous and petty word salad I've read around here.

Repeated - Divorce rate 0.2%. Now if you can show me another group of Christians that has a 0.2% divorce rate we can talk.

We'll talk when you understand the difference between causation and correlation.
one2one
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 9:36:39 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 9:27:47 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 9:23:00 PM, one2one wrote:
At 8/17/2016 9:16:22 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 9:03:36 PM, one2one wrote:
At 8/17/2016 8:09:43 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 5:31:38 PM, one2one wrote:

Should couples engage in sex when the women knows she's in her infertile period then?

These are all theoretical questions. I couldn't give a peanut shell what the Catholic church has to say on anything, really. Just for the record.

No It's perfectly fine to engage in sex during the infertile period of a woman's cycle. You don't need to have sex for the purpose of procreation It's just that the act itself must be open to life in its form.

What is the difference between A ) engaging in sex when the women is in her infertile period and thus intercourse is unlikely to lead to pregnancy and B ) engaging in protected sex which is also unlikely to lead to pregnancy?

Good question It's distinction I struggled with when first learning about it.

It's not about the likelihood of conceiving It's about the act itself and weather its naturally ordered to be open to life or not.

That's just gibberish.

When a couple uses contraception they are using unnatural means to cut off the procreative aspect of sex.

What's wrong about unnatural, i . e., artificial means to "cut off the procreative aspect of sex" ?

When a women is in her infertile period it is simply that she does not conceive. There is no difference in the act itself when she is infertile so It's still ordered to create life it just likely won't. Were as contraception distorts the act and it is no longer ordered to create life.


There's a reason why you struggled with this issue at first. Because the explanation no doubt you've heard and are now recounting is as hollow as a cave. It amounts to nothing. It's been a while since I've read such a vacuous defence of an absurd point of doctrine.

You Catholics.

It may seem like a fine line but the more i have studied it the more I see the difference and see how damaging it is to the soul of the believer.

And yet this alleged profound study you have conducted managed to leave no trace but the above quoted paragraph, which is one of the most vacuous and petty word salad I've read around here.

I'm taking an Aristotelian approach to the subject, if you are unfamiliar with Aristotle it may be why you are having trouble seeing the distinction.

Please, don't be condescending.
Especially since your condescendence doesn't match your ability to defend the position.

The idiom "full of hot air" does come to mind.

Wasn't meant to be condescending at all. It was simply an explanation as to why I took the approach I did.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 9:37:23 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 9:33:22 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 9:30:17 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/17/2016 9:16:22 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 9:03:36 PM, one2one wrote:
At 8/17/2016 8:09:43 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 8/17/2016 5:31:38 PM, one2one wrote:

Should couples engage in sex when the women knows she's in her infertile period then?

These are all theoretical questions. I couldn't give a peanut shell what the Catholic church has to say on anything, really. Just for the record.

No It's perfectly fine to engage in sex during the infertile period of a woman's cycle. You don't need to have sex for the purpose of procreation It's just that the act itself must be open to life in its form.

What is the difference between A ) engaging in sex when the women is in her infertile period and thus intercourse is unlikely to lead to pregnancy and B ) engaging in protected sex which is also unlikely to lead to pregnancy?

Good question It's distinction I struggled with when first learning about it.

It's not about the likelihood of conceiving It's about the act itself and weather its naturally ordered to be open to life or not.

That's just gibberish.

Actually it is very logical... however it should be stated that there must be sufficient reason for doing so.

Sex has 2 purposes procreative and unitive.

In one (NFP) you are emphasizing one aspect without violating the other. In the other you are violating the purpose for which God created sex and turning is from a mutual giving to a mutual using.

When a couple uses contraception they are using unnatural means to cut off the procreative aspect of sex.

What's wrong about unnatural, i . e., artificial means to "cut off the procreative aspect of sex" ?

It is a violation of what sex is. This is philosophically true and it was true for the early Christians as shown in the Didache:

You shall not practice birth control, you shall not murder a child by abortion, nor kill what is begotten

When a women is in her infertile period it is simply that she does not conceive. There is no difference in the act itself when she is infertile so It's still ordered to create life it just likely won't. Were as contraception distorts the act and it is no longer ordered to create life.


There's a reason why you struggled with this issue at first. Because the explanation no doubt you've heard and are now recounting is as hollow as a cave. It amounts to nothing. It's been a while since I've read such a vacuous defence of an absurd point of doctrine.

Yet you give absolutely no justification as to why it is just to interfere with what God has established. Couple that use NFP have a divorce rate of 0.2%. Coincidence? Or could it be that NFP is better for psychologically for the practitioners.

http://www.lifeissues.net...

The divorce rate is significantly higher for those who use artificial birth control.

You Catholics.

Thanks!

It may seem like a fine line but the more i have studied it the more I see the difference and see how damaging it is to the soul of the believer.

And yet this alleged profound study you have conducted managed to leave no trace but the above quoted paragraph, which is one of the most vacuous and petty word salad I've read around here.

Repeated - Divorce rate 0.2%. Now if you can show me another group of Christians that has a 0.2% divorce rate we can talk.

We'll talk when you understand the difference between causation and correlation.

Lol. Run along. Just coincidental that the one activity that is relegated to marriage in Christianity is handled with reverence by one particular group and that group just happens to have a divorce rate so much lower than everyone else is just a coincidence?

That is why you either have to show that it is unrelated or show another disparate group with a similar outcome to show that the causation is completely unrelated.