Thank you David. I too used to attend an aspiring mega-Church a little over a decade ago. I met some awesome people there (some of whom are now Catholic : )
Again, no hard feelings. I genuinely do care about you and your Wife (which is strange, because I don’t even know you).
This isn’t my first rodeo. I’m 50 years old and I’ve given catholicism and it’s teachings far more thought and consideration than have most others here. I know exactly what I’m doing. Birth control is only one problem I have had with the church. There have been others. There is no “true religion”. Thank you for your prayers.
I feel I should provide some background about myself. I spent ten years studying both the Old and New Testament Bibles. I carried on personal email correspondences with the authors of books about Jesus. Some of those books are E.P. Sanders ; “The Historical Figure of Jesus”, Reza Aslan ; “Zealot”, Ray Martin ; “Philosophical Overview of the Quest for the Historical Jesus”. I studied the authorship and dates of the Gospels and the dates and origin of the books of the Old Testament. I mention all this only to explain that I have devoted much time and study. I learned over those years that the Roman Catholic Church and it’s teachings are far from infallible.
" You could be 100 years old and you’d still be mistaken". So could you.
…during fertile times.
Do you skip over the Song of Songs or do you believe it not to be inspired. Or do you believe it to be strictly allegory? Or something else?
In the words of Venerable Pee-Wee, “I know you are, but what am I?!” ; )
I am bowing out of this conversation. I have said pretty much all that I can say.
“The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” — Ecclesiastes 12:13-14
Cade_One ;
Good idea. I was arguing with a fool. I should have known better.
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his [own] opinion.” — Proverbs 18:2
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.” — Proverbs 1:7
“A wise son makes a glad father, but a foolish man despises his mother.” — Proverbs 15:20
“A wise man’s heart inclines him to the right, but a fool’s heart to the left.” —Ecclesiastes 10:2
“The discerning sets his face toward wisdom, but the eyes of a fool are on the ends of the earth.” — Proverbs 17:24
“The fool folds his hands and eats his own flesh (or snips his weiner ; ).” — Ecclesiastes 4:5
I know I had nothing more to say, but then this verse just popped into my head : )
“No one whose testicles have been crushed or whose pęnis has been cut off may come into the assembly of the LORD.” — Deuteronomy 23:2
In all fairness it is talking to a gathered community of Israelites, but the Early Church Council of Nicaea (325 AD) also spoke against voluntary castration among clergy (except for medical or at the hands of barbarians). Medical would imply like testicular cancer or a freak accident with a Lawn Mower 3000 ; )
David, your wife survived the first close call during childbirth. Therefore, a NEW doctor can be prepared in advance to respond effectly because he is prewarned of her condition. There should be not mortal threat if she becomes pregnant again and your marrage can proceed normally.
For the time being we have decided to use other forms of contraception before going through with vasectomy. If we are able to arrive at an acceptable alternative to sterilization we may try that. But so far we haven’t identified anything as good as vasectomy. Birth control for the female is complicated and problematic unlike male birth control which is simple and safe.
You did not answer my question.
Agree with the first statement and you forgot one word in your second statement. I assume you are talking about artificial means of contraception, in which you should have said, “simple, safe, and immoral.”
Am I to assume you see it as strictly allegory? Or one of the other options? Or something else?
We agree that God gave a duty and responsibility to, “be fruitful and multiply.” We agree that one of the purposes is procreation. You seem to believe that its only purpose is the procreative, which is where we disagree. What I am gathering from you is that you believe you should only be intimate with your spouse during fertile times. And I disagree with this, because there are more than one aspect to this gift. What we mustn’t do is use unnatural means to separate one aspect from the other.
Let me try to draw an analogy. Food. Here are a few things that we see in The Bible when it comes to this:
Hope this helps.
And we disagree. You are taking one verse and one aspect and throwing out the rest. I never said that it is for satisfying lust (this would be disordered).
Birth control has been the most important development in history in terms of progress in the improvement of the the lives and opportunities of women and the reduction of poverty and misery in the lives of disadvantaged populations around the world. This is not a matter of opinion. This is fact.
Approximately 90% of American catholic women have practiced birth control. Mostly ABC. The distinction between Natural and ABC is irrelevant. There is nothing “immoral” about birth control. What is immoral is bringing into the world unwanted babies without having the means to care for them either emotionally or financially. The fact that the vast majority of modern catholics around the world have ignored the churches “teaching” about birth control will determine whether the church will change and survive in the 21st century or whether it will continue it’s decline into irrelevancy and obscurity.
I do not doubt that it has impacted society, but I would call it regression.
If 99.999% of people say something is moral that is not, does not therefore make it so (Gen. 18:23-33). Those 90% of Catholic women (and men, because it takes two) are choosing the ways of the world above God’s ways. It is a sign of an immature faith.
One can say that there is noting “immoral.” I once had an atheist tell me that not only is rąpe not immoral, but a good in some cases (namely in the case that the human species is not reproducing at a sustainable rate)! I argued that even in this case, rąpe is still immoral (even if 99% of men all agreed that it is not immoral). The number of humans who wrongly believe something to be “good” or “progressive” does not make it so.
In fact, I would argue that what artificial means of controlling births has done is give fallen men what they always dreamed of. They have convinced women to believe that it has freed them, while they work a 9-5. And phase two of this scheme is convincing women that they can liberate themselves from the 9-5 by creating an OnlyFąns or that downloading a hook-up app is empowerment (meanwhile giving fallen men everything they ever dreamed of). A hook-up is just a swipe away. Women have been deceived by what is perceived as progress.
And that is not the only thing that they have been convinced is not what it is. Abortion was sold to many as being something that is “safe and rare.” And now babies are no longer viewed as human beings. You call it progress. I call it incrementalism towards a culture of death and despair.
Pope John Paul II said that the opposite of love is not hate, but use. Both you and Soul are using women in opposite ways. Soul is convinced that removing the unitive aspect to the Marital act is the way (I’m getting handmaids tale vibes from him) and you are convinced that removing both the procreative and unitive is the way.
It is certainly not prudent to do so, but not immoral. Jesus was born into poverty. Are you saying that it would be better for Him not to have been born? Jesus does talk about it being better for someone not to have ever been born (Matthew 26:24). It is the one who betrays God.
Also, what Americans call poverty today is amusing. Most “poor” people in America eat out more than twice a week, have smart phones, and multiple televisions, a microwave, and electricity.
If Bishops and Priests care more about money and public opinion than about truth, then you are not wrong. But, I believe there are still good Bishops, Priests, and Catholic Christians in general who still care about truth and protecting truth, even when it is not popular nor easy to do so.
Jesus said that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against here (meaning the church, founded on Peter, the Apostles, and their successors). There will always be bad Popes, Bishops, Priests, and Catholic Christians in general. There have been and will be bad moments in my own walk with Christ. But, I do not say, “everyone else is doing it” or “the Church needs to get with the times.” For the Church and Christ’s teachings are timeless. They are not based on what is in fashion, for modernism only last for a short while before it becomes a thing of the past. If you would like to read more about this topic, I would recommend G.K. Chesterton’s book, “Orthodoxy.”
Your phrasing of this is trickery. I presume you mean the Marital act, which includes the openness to life, in cooperation with God’s natural design.
I have asked you about the Song of Songs and you brushed it off. The USCCB’s Introduction to this inspired book of the Bible says, “it presents an inspired portrayal of ideal human love, a resounding affirmation of the goodness of human sęxuality that is applicable to the sacredness and the depth of Marital union.” It also talks about a “mutual desire,” meaning that handmaid’s tale is not what God intended.
Furthermore, Jesus talks about His relationship with the Church as that of a Husband and Wife (Ephes. 5:21-33). When Jesus gives us His body, life can come from it. But, sin and disordered behavior is like using the barrier method. It is saying that we do not desire to give God fully of ourselves, though He gave/gives fully of Himself to us.
And your understanding of the Covenantal relationship is like going through the motions. There are many who receive the Holy Eucharist, but do not have a relationship with Christ. I’m not saying that you, Soul, do not have a relationship with Christ, but I am comparing your view of the Marital act as being more about the mechanical aspects of the embrace and little about the unitive. God intended for both/and, not either/or.
I have shown you where I believe Sacred Scripture highlights both the procreative and the unitive; now I turn it back over to you to show me where the Bible says it is only about the procreative.
So 90% of catholics will go to hell for practicing birth control? Are you sure? That’s a lot of catholics on their way to hell. Perhaps you might want to re-think this. They don’t use birth control because it’s “moral” They use it because it’s necessary. An important distinction.The bible states that it is moral to beat a slave to death.
" if a man smite his servant /and he die under his hand/ he shall not be punished for he is his money" Exod. 21:20,21
We agree.
There is no Chapter 17 in either 1st nor in 2nd Corinthians. Are you referring to a different book in the Bible or a book that is not in the Canon of Scripture?
I believe you are reading more into the text than is meant. I read this as saying, keep Marriage sacred and not to defile the bed outside of Marriage (prior to Marriage) or once Marriage (adulatory).
Say there is an unBaptized Christian and they desire to receive the Eucharist. God says, “Unless you eat the flesh and drink His blood, you have no life within you.” But, if one is not first Baptized, He receives unworthily. Likewise, if someone is not Married, but, is “fruitful and multiplying,” then he/she is defiling the bed. Or if one is Married and is being fruitful and multiplying with someone who is not his Wife (sinning) then he is committing adulatory, while still being “fruitful and multiplying.”
I’ll give you some examples. Elon Musk has broken both of these, but he is mechanically repopulating the earth and time will tell if he will repopulating Heaven.
Another example is Muslim men, who are repopulating the earth at a faster rate than Catholics and Protestants combined. They can have up to five wives, which mean that they can have up to five babies a year if they wanted to.
According to David, if 90% Catholics disregarded the Church’s teaching on the definition of Marriage, then it would therefore be moral and Catholic Christians could out-reproduce them. This should make you happy ; )
First, you are using a term that I am not applying (you are arguing with a straw man and not with what I actually am saying).
Second, have you ever read it? Are there parts that you find problematic or that contradicts your understanding. I’m just curious.
Yes, there is a unitive aspect even in fertile times, if open to it. But, if you are limiting it to merely mechanical (which I believe you might be), then I would say no on your part. Going back to my analogy. Christ is giving fully of Himself, but you might not be. What do I mean. Say, you get Married only to fulfill your duty to repopulate the earth and the souls in Heaven, but you do not have a relationship with your Wife, then I would say that you are not open to the unitive. It is like fulfilling your duty to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass and receiving the Eucharist, as Christ told us to, but not having a relationship with Him.
You are phrasing the argument as procreate vs. lust, when I am not arguing in favor of lust vs. procreate. You are stuck in a binary.
It is like when Tea Red or Team Blue asks if you are for This Country or that Country in a war, when I am arguing against war.
According to David, if 90% Catholics disregarded the Church’s teaching on the definition of Marriage, then it would therefore be moral and Catholic Christians could out-reproduce them. This should make you happy ; )
huh??? did I say this? what in the world are you talking about?