There are many parodies of the famous birth control debate from Catholics and Protestants. Probably the most famous is Monte Pythons "The Meaning of Life", where the father of a protestant family opines about his ability to wear a Con-dome (brit accent) as his unique advantage over Catholics - as his dish washing wife, spits out another child amidst many other children...in fact, the exact line was - "Oh get that for me, deardry"
There are a number of undercurrents that potentially muddle this discussion, the first of which is:
Abortion or Life:
God's will or Mine:
Faith over Action:
Most notably, Tradition over Society:
In tradition, I believe it's best to begin with the a few things that I know I've covered before; they are scripture references in word, but not in actual citation. We know that God is not a God of confusion, nor contradiction. We know that God made us in the image of himself, imbuing in those that believe, the very face of Christ. We struggle at the same time with sin, but that our marriage to him, consecrates (makes holy) us to him. So in this sense, what we do within the bounds of the relationship, that is uplifting to the relationship, is acceptable in the relationship. Since we know that our worldly marriages are derived and mimic the Christ relationship, we can examine them in the same context.
Abortion vs Life: I think anyone would agree that in all matters we should choose life over abortion. At the same time, there are some technicalities that continue to plague even the most conservative of Christians. Modern birth control has multiple methods of preventing pregnancy. Some are more invasive than others; my research indicates that most fall into two camps. Camp a). Prevents adherence of the zygote to the uterine wall, thus preventing full gestation from occurring b). a hormone is introduced into the blood stream that in most cases prevents an egg from being released through the fallopian tubes. In either case, pregnancy is typically avoided. Then there are various forms of contraception, condoms, etc. In all cases however, pregnancy doesn't actually occur. So I believe that the forms of contraception afforded to modern man, fit nicely within the technological advancements of our day and do not present plural risk to our society or relationship with Christ. There is no scriptural support that presents itself to conclude that God has anything against pregnancy avoidance or that avoiding pregnancy was against God the explicit will of God. The reality is, children are a gift from God, but there is another part of this that needs to be considered - which brings us to God's will or Mine.
We reiterate that God is not a God of confusion, or contradiction. But he is a righteous God. Our desire to live our own life against the will of God is wrong - but there are two wills of God. There is the explicit will of God (he told us what to do) and the implicit will of God (God's allowable will, neither said nor written, but expected or allowable as determined by having intimacy with the explicit will of God). If those do not make sense to you, you'll need to contact me off line for scripture references and sources. All this said to come to a final point - as Christians we can only account for murder as a substantive violation of God's explicit will for the prevention of pregnancy, once pregnancy has occurred IE: Abortion. I agree that if you are murdering a viable baby that has been conceived, you're in violation of this Law that God has commanded and thus guilty of sinning against the relationship of Christ. However, if these processes do not occur through active means or passive means then it would be difficult that name that a sin. (caveat) - if you feel that it is a sin to engage in modern contraception for any reason - than to you it is a sin - but that does NOT apply to everyone - since it is NOT rooted in scripture. So the important item to emphasize here is a principle used for determining sin.
1. Does it go against God's explicit will?
2. Does it fall within God's implicit will?
3. What do elders in my church say about it?
4. What is my motivation for this action?
Faith over action - this is a conundrum for the non-believer. Unbelievers typically can't understand faith - and feel that action is the only means of accomplishment. And while most immature (not a negative term) Christians believe that they only need faith, maturity demonstrates that we must live by faith, by saddling our horses and riding into battle. Our faith is demonstrated by our actions. So the common belief of some Christians is that if I have enough faith, I can either abstain from sex, or engage with my marital partner and whatever God wants will occur. Unfortunately, while quite stunning in resolve, that faith is literally based in uneducated and rather dogmatic viewpoints. The reality is, if we used that same equation, we could say, playing in the middle of I-70 without regard for cars is ok and God will allow to happen what he desires...well it doesn't take a prophet of God to predict that you WILL be HIT and YOU could DIE. That is the consequences of being of not using your brain. When you compare that against the fact that sex is something that God made for us, not being a God of confusion, he didn't create it so it can only be enjoyed under oppressive circumstances, with the obvious exception being marriage (no marriage is not an oppressive circumstance!) God never intended to lay out every nuance of life - in MOST cases you are to use your brain, not emotion and compare that to your study of scripture to conform your life to a servants life, serving our master - God Almighty.
And finally tradition over society. Society and tradition are always at odds. Tradition shapes early society and society evolves providing contrast to existing tradition. The most common example of this is the US liberal interpretation of the constitution regarding "Church and State" and the tradition of Christianity. Keep in mind that I bring this up because of the contrast it creates. Often this contrast provides the fire that keeps dogma alive, however, I believe that it's necessary for True Christians to keep in mind that there are things that are divisive and then there are just contrasts like Tradition and Society. I don't believe that is appropriate to keep tradition as a means to be contrary to society - in fact, Jesus and Paul tell us not offend for the purposes of tradition, because it's not the tradition that makes the relationship, but rather the commitment to God that makes the relationship. For it's not what goes into the man that defiles, but what comes out that defiles a man.
In conclusion this is what I believe. God has armed me with intelligence and the understanding of consequences and while I frequently enjoy his gift to me that is marital relations, I do not believe that God intended or desires for me to have children every time I do. Ancient forms of contraception existed and modern forms exist and that is ok. God built sex for me and my wife first and for procreation second. In genesis and song of Solomon you can extrapolate the implicit will of God quite easily. So, my wife and I conform to societies ability to provide us a means to enjoy one another without the consequences of child birth. Since we're not murdering children we are in the will of God. And lastly, our marriages are about the relationship between us and God and each other. When compared to that relationship, CHILDREN always are second consideration under ANY circumstance. So if it's a question of sex with my wife, or child birth, the former always takes precedence over the latter since it is our first gift and our relationship is foremost in God's eyes. Contraception is just a means to avoid accidents that cannot be predicted. Assuming that most of us have children when we intended to....
57 comments:
Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: "It is not good that man should be alone," and "from the beginning [he] made them male and female"; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: "Be fruitful and multiply.",
----
Also are you aware that certain forms of birth control can and do cause abortions. So while the intention is not to abort but prevent in some cases woman unknowingly are aborting their children :(
------
Contraception is just a means to avoid accidents that cannot be predicted.
A child is an accident? And if you know your body it "can" be predicted :)
_--------
Happy New Year, by the way!
Birth Control Pill: Abortifacient and Contraceptive
(http://www.epm.org/articles/26doctor.html)
Can birth control pills kill unborn babies?
(http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-bcpill.html)
Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent
(http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126)
-----------
Here is a link to the clinical pharmacology section for Yaz on an internet drug index called rxlist. http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/yaz_cp.htm
Here is the excerpt that is relevant to the topic:
"Combination oral contraceptives (COCs) act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increases the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduces the likelihood of implantation)."
Reducing the likelihood of implantation means it tries to keep a fertilized egg from implanting, hence causing an early abortion.
------
Can contraception cause an early abortion?
The pill, Norplant, Depo-Provera, emergency contraception, the IUD - all of these chemical contraceptives have three basic modes of operation:
They can act to suppress ovulation (the release of an egg from the ovary). However, women can and do experience breakthrough ovulation, meaning that an egg is released and available to be fertilized.
They can cause the cervical mucus to thicken, making it difficult for the sperm to reach the egg. It is possible, though, for the sperm to break through the mucus and to fertilize the egg.
They can alter the lining of the uterus making it difficult, if not impossible, for the 7-9 day old developing baby to attach to the uterine lining, where it would receive the nourishment necessary for further development. The baby would then be expelled from the body during menstruation. This process is known as a chemical abortion and is why the pill is referred to as an abortifacient.
Sources:
1999 Physicians Desk Reference
Planned Parenthood
A Consumer's Guide to the Pill and other Drugs, by John Wilks, B. Pharm., M.P.S.
-------
Just some food for thought if you are using ABC, you may have aborted your children without even knowing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiCU46_lWeE&eurl=http://generationsforlife.org/2007/0525/new-video-on-the-pill/
Actually I did know that 'some' forms of contraception abort the children. But most fall into camp a. or b.
A child is an accident? And if you know your body it "can" be predicted :)
Yes...both of my children we're accidents. I didn't plan them. I'm glad they are here, but it wasn't my design for their timing. Thank God for that.
But we need to be clear, just because 'some' contraceptives kill children, doesn't mean ALL do.
you said:
Reducing the likelihood of implantation means it tries to keep a fertilized egg from implanting, hence causing an early abortion.
Honey - if the fertilized egg never implants, it's not a baby. Many times during the normal course of things, a fertilized egg is flushed through menstruation. Does this mean that an abortion occurred? No, it just means the environment wasn't right.
It appears that you believe that just because someone controls the environment, they are actively taking part in the results - and I'm sorry - apply that paradigm to God. It doesn't work and neither does this.
Honey - if the fertilized egg never implants, it's not a baby.
LOL! what is it then??
Life begins at conception not implantation, Honey!
Yes...both of my children we're accidents. I didn't plan them. I'm glad they are here, but it wasn't my design for their timing. Thank God for that.
A child is never an accident! A child is always a gift, a gift from God.
Karin,
So, does this mean you only have sex with your husband when you want to have children?
NOPE, but everytime we have sex we are open to life :)
We do not play God, with our fertility.
okay so does that also mean that you take NO preventative action?
IE pulling out, rhythm method, condoms???
okay so does that also mean that you take NO preventative action?
IE pulling out, rhythm method, condoms???
Nope, no preventive action.
As I said before, we are open to life every time we have sex.
Marriage is more than having sex and feeling good, Seraphim.
It would seem from your comment "So, my wife and I conform to societies ability to provide us a means to enjoy one another without the consequences of child birth. "
that you think sex is the most important thing.
well it IS pretty important, but that's how I'm wired. And more power to you - I can't believe that's the way you roll - but different strokes for different folks.
well it IS pretty important, but that's how I'm wired. And more power to you - I can't believe that's the way you roll - but different strokes for different folks.
Yes sex is important, but it is not the only important thing in marriage (that is the point I was trying to make). I got the impression from your post that sex was first and foremost the most important thing in marriage.
I am sorry that you think children are accidents and that sex is the most important thing in marriages, gosh that sounds like you are no better than two dogs in heat. Oh well!?!
And just becuase we dont use ABC or any other form of BC dont assume we dont have sex ;)
Seraphim, I, too, was surprised to read that you believe implantation has to occur before you consider the union of the sperm and egg to be a baby. In my mind, when those two little guys connect, it is the beginning of a human life. Many events can happen along the way, including failure to implant successfully, that might prevent a live birth several months later. But I am not sure why you draw the line at implantation, rather than conception. All of the genetic components are present in that little two-cell being to form a perfect human baby as the natural process of cell division and multiplication continues from that point on, even though any number of things may prevent that from happening. But I would like to hear why you have come to a different conclusion...just out of curiosity.
Marcia,
I examine the pregnancy process and see there are "essential" steps in order to effect the process. Without one of these steps there is NO pregnancy. While we can both agree that eggs are fertilized that are then passed through menstruation during most BC uses, what hasn't occurred is the natural cycle for pregnancy. Without implantation, a fertilized egg will never be anything more. And cell division does NOT occur until then. So while it may not be morally convenient to take my position - I believe that the process must be fully underway to consider the process as a valid one. Just the same as I don't pull out and say - OMG, there go a million of my little babies!!!! That could have been life!!!
Sometimes I think people just want to take the life debate too far because it's morally convenient to do so.
I stand against abortion, but I've never been a picket line, I stand against planned parenthoods tactics, yet I used them when I was a kid - or at least my girlfriend did.
I think what this really boils down to, is, do you find moral or spiritual conviction in your actions - if not and there is no biblical support - I'm pretty sure you're free to make a choice as I have.
Seraphim,
So you dont agree that life begins at conception?
Cell division starts to occur before implantation;
Pre-embryonic Period
After fertilization, the zygote begins a process of dividing by mitosis in a process called cleavage. It divides until it reaches 16 cells. It is now referred to as a morula. As the morula floats freely within the uterus, it starts to bring nutrients into the cells. The morula fills with fluid and the cells inside start to form two separate groups. At this stage it is now a blastocyte. The inner layer of cells is called the embryoblast, and will become the fetus. The outer layer is called a trophoblast which will develop into part of the placenta. At this point the zona pellucida is disintegrating. The trophoblast contains specialized cells that become extensions, like fingers, that grow into the endometrium once in contact with the well thickened endometrium
Morula:16 celled embryo
Embryo:the fetus is first called an embryo during the first eight weeks after conception.
-----
Sometimes I think people just do not want to take the life debate too far because it's morally inconvenient to do so.
Sometimes I think people just do not want to take the life debate too far because it's morally inconvenient to do so.
except you can't prove a negative...
Seems like you just would like to be contrary - prove what you say with the level of support I'm bringing to the table.
So while it may not be morally convenient to take my position - I believe that the process must be fully underway to consider the process as a valid one. Just the same as I don't pull out and say - OMG, there go a million of my little babies!!!! That could have been life!!!
I had honestly never thought of it this way before, but it makes sense. Just because there is the potential for a new person does not mean it actually IS a new person until ALL needed aspects are in place.
Convenience has nothing to do with it, no? It's the most logical.
I do have a huge problem with hearing from the Catholic contingent that I am disobeying God by not being open to having 10 kids. Why did God give me free will? As you have stated, the Bible gives us no implicit direction in this area. A Catholic would tell you that the Pope does, but that's another debate entirely.
Thank you for posting this. it really gave me some clarity.
Karin, thank you for obviously quoting an unnamed source that supports what I remembered from my nursing school days in the Dark Ages. Much has been learned since then, but I don't think the basics of how babies are formed have changed since Adam and Eve first experienced it. Seraphim, you might want to do a bit more research on the biology here. You certainly are entitled to your own stance on this, but if you are basing your conviction on information that is not complete or might be inaccurate, I'm guessing you would want to correct that situation ASAP. I'd hate to count the number of times I have had to re-think my position on something in my sixty years on this earth because new information shed different light on a subject!!
What I think is awesome, in reading the debates between the two of you, is how very deeply committed both you and Karin are to searching to find God's Truth in your lives and your beliefs. My hat is off to both of you, even though you do get a bit testy with each other on occasion :) My prayer is that you will both learn more, and above all, that God will be glorified in your discussions and your influences on the people in your lives and who read your blogs.
Seems like you just would like to be contrary - prove what you say with the level of support I'm bringing to the table.
Not at all (to the contrary part that is).
I did prove that you where mistaken in your comment that cell division does not occur till implantation. That was the point of my post.
Sorry Seraphim, but I guess I am one of those Catholics /Christians that has no problem stating that life begins at conception no matter how much you twist and attempt to convince yourself otherwise.
So Seraphim, I guess I was correct that you do not think life begins at conception. For you life begins at implantation. (Please correct my if I am mistaken).
Marcia-
Thank you.
As to the source, of my biology info (which by the way is the same info I was taught in HS and college) is from http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Human_Physiology/Pregnancy_and_birth
sorry about not having the link :(
And Seraphim, sorry if I have gotten testy with you.
As a Catholic Pipsylou, I dont think I have ever looked down on you or stated that you should have 10 kids or more, and that if you dont your sinning.
_________________
"Be fruitful and multiply.", I do recall reading that in the Bible. So it would seem that we are given "some" direction from the good book.
________
As to "pulling out---coitus interruptus" Seraphim what does the bible say about Onan?
Do you have a different interpretation than me? It would seem so if you dont see a problem with it.
I guess I am puzzled by the term "morally convenient" and how that relates to this discussion. Maybe that is because "morals" seems to be such a wishy-washy term, and very few people will admit to having no morals. But their practice and definition of what they consider to be "moral" has huge variation. It seems to me that the basic beliefs we are talking about here are on a much higher plane than a societal discussion of morals. But maybe I quibble semantics. To me that term "moral convenience" would imply something like "But I didn't inhale" or "But we didn't actually have sex" when trying to justify an emotional affair, or one that was physical, but only to a certain degree. What might be morally reprehensible to one person, might be rationalized or justified as meeting a moral standard by another, because a certain line was not crossed. That is a matter of opinion and one's perspective. But I think we all would agree that God's laws are absolutes, even though some around us would only consider that to be our "opinion." Bear with me...I am working my way to a point...I think :)
My concern with drawing a line at any point beyond conception as the beginning of a human life is this: It seems to me that the whole rationale of the pro-abortion community is some hazy thinking and clever choice of words that muddy the waters and imply that that tiny in utero child is something sub-human until a certain stage of development. Some would see that point at 24 weeks gestation because the "fetus" is not considered to be viable until that time. Some carry it even further out, to the point where late-term abortions are performed on children who would, in the vast majority of cases, survive without problems, with minimal, if any, need for even simple support such as oxygen upon delivery...rationalized by some because that child has not proven his ability to survive independent of his mother to date. I believe that all of us in this discussion so far, would consider that abhorrent to the nth degree!
Seraphim, your argument that many fertilized eggs are passed with menstruation, and therefore are not pregnancies is technically true as far as it goes. And a certain percentage of all implanted pregnancies are lost to miscarriage. But I don't see how either of those statements negate that value of that first little union of one sperm and one egg. It seems to me that if pro-lifers draw a line at anything beyond conception, it just gives fuel to the debate that the line can justifiably be drawn anywhere, and is simply a matter of opinion....and we must, after all, be tolerant of everyone else's opinions! I don't want us to fall victim to what may be considered acceptable to society in general, in determining the value of the "products of conception" based upon whether or not that "product" is wanted by the parents at any given time. Couples wanting to have a child go through all kinds of testing, treatment, discomfort and expense to determine exactly why they either do not conceive or that fertilized egg does not securely implant or develop beyond a certain point. And each month they mourn what might have been when menstruation signals another month has gone by without a baby coming. But, somehow, that same microsopic bit of life becomes dispensible if it is not WANTED by the parents. Something about that just doesn't sit right with me.
My writing of this comment was interrupted by the arrival of my husband home for dinner, the eating of said dinner, and the resumption of my slow thought processes and typing. By the time I actually post this I will probably discover seven intervening comments, and this will make no sense to the current discussion! Oh, well.so be it! :)
"Be fruitful and multiply.", I do recall reading that in the Bible. So it would seem that we are given "some" direction from the good book.
________
As to "pulling out---coitus interruptus" Seraphim what does the bible say about Onan?
Do you have a different interpretation than me? It would seem so if you dont see a problem with it.
KARIN!!!
Your knowledge of 'context' is just weak. I'm not sorry to say that you need to reach for context before laying out content.
First - Be fruitful and mulitply was a commandment given to adam and eve and as far as I can remember is not repeated to another person or nation. So your continued use of that verse is only proof that you need to work on your knowledge of context.
Onan - this proves it. What happend to Onan? Onan was struck dead not for pulling out, but because he disobeyed GOD! That has no lasting message to us, save OBEY GOD....
Lordy be woman - I do love the spirited discussion - you are a gem; but puhlease factor context before dropping verses.
yes - I make mistakes too - IE: cell division comment. But I own up to it to by addressing each of your points.
I don't believe that babies are babies until the following factors are met:
1. Sex occurs
2. Conception Occurs
3. Knowledge of said conception occurs
Then you have a baby, before that, it's scientific hair splitting. I only made the comment about implantation, B/c typically you don't know conception occurred until implantation. typically...
SEARPHIM,
I guess you and I will once again disagree. :)
I can give you Catholic teaching on these things, but since your not Catholic and you rely on your own interpretation of the Bible and teachings they would be useless to you. Especially since they go against your POV regarding human life and marriage, ABC and what role sex plays in marriage.
____________________
I don't believe that babies are babies until the following factors are met:
1. Sex occurs
2. Conception Occurs
3. Knowledge of said conception occurs
Then you have a baby, before that, it's scientific hair splitting. I only made the comment about implantation, B/c typically you don't know conception occurred until implantation. typically...
And once again we will have to disagree.
(reason stated above)
________________________________
As far as your comment re: context. My comments are in context, Catholic context that is.
____________________
As far as your comment re: context. My comments are in context, Catholic context that is.
-- Exactly might point --
And the Pope is in fallible and so on and so forth.
I mean, just imagine what you're saying...think of the ramifications of it. You're basically saying that if you're not catholic you're wrong. It's funny, where does Jesus or God say that?
Where were catholics during Adam's day or Abraham's or job, or David, or Jesus. The entire faith is predicated on two verses that a interpreted, let us say...aggressively.
I'm not attacking you or Catholics as a whole - but frankly, where in heaven or earth is the "establishment" of mans traditions respected by God? (please answer this question if you answer anything)
RE: I don't believe that babies are babies until the following factors are met:
1. Sex occurs
2. Conception Occurs
3. Knowledge of said conception occurs
Announcement to everyone - please don't bring up the extremely fat person who brings a child to term without knowledge a antiproof of my principle. I'm speaking generally, and generally speaking people know or can determine when they are pregnant, and if armed with that knowledge they have the obligation to respect that life.
Mans Tradition?
Is that like sola scripture? birth control? a baby is not a baby till you know your pregnant?
answer the question.
I am trying to understand what you mean by "mans tradition".
Is it those things I mentioned or is it something else?
How about you explain that one then I can attempt to answer the question :)
_____________________
Until the Lambeth Conference in 1930, every Protestant denomination condemned artificial birth control, just as the Catholic Church does today.
----just an interesting tid-bit.
"Mans Tradition"
Every denomination out there that presupposes their 'interpretation' as being more holy than another. That's mans tradition.
Where in recorded history does God respect that in man?
Until the Lambeth Conference in 1930, every Protestant denomination
-- I think you misinterpret me - I'm not a protestant, nor catholic, nor lutheran, episcopal, baptist, egalitarian....
I'm the body of Christ, I'm the adopted son of God, I'm the chosen, and the foreknown of God. My Bible is my sword and the words are my armor. No MAN on earth save Jesus may tell me more than I can know with the tools I have bee given, save his [the mans's] words stand the test of my sword, which rightly divides good from evil and marrow and sinew.
Mans Tradition"
Every denomination out there that presupposes their 'interpretation' as being more holy than another. That's mans tradition.
Where in recorded history does God respect that in man?
More holy than another? Hmm, did I say that? Does the Catholic church say that? Nope to both.
-------------------------
-- I think you misinterpret me - I'm not a protestant, nor catholic, nor lutheran, episcopal, baptist, egalitarian....
Not at all...as I said I thought it was an interesting tid-bit. I never said you where protestant or anything else.
--------
I'm the body of Christ, I'm the adopted son of God, I'm the chosen, and the foreknown of God. My Bible is my sword and the words are my armor. No MAN on earth save Jesus may tell me more than I can know with the tools I have bee given, save his [the mans's] words stand the test of my sword, which rightly divides good from evil and marrow and sinew.
That is nice.
So I guess Jesus built his church on you and gave you the keys??
That is nice.
So I guess Jesus built his church on you and gave you the keys??
--EXACTLY!!--
O-KAY, have you been drinking the Kool-Aide again??
Karin
Unless I'm mistaken, you and the catholic church are saying the same thing? Correct me if I'm wrong.
In what regard Seraphim?
----
I find it interesting that you think you are the person Jesus built his Church on, that is what you said isnt it?
In what regard Seraphim?
Cephas, upon this rock I will build my church...
----
I find it interesting that you think you are the person Jesus built his Church on, that is what you said isnt it?
Not the person, a member of the body that makes up the collective body of Christ.
Cephas, upon this rock I will build my church...
Matthew 16:18-
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it
-----------
Not the person, a member of the body that makes up the collective body of Christ.
Ah, you should of said that the first time then.
Because that is not what you said EXACTLY to.
Freshman biology in 1995, at IUB taught me:
Life is defined by displaying assimilation, cellular division/reproduction/irritibility (response to environment).
Hmm--at the two cell stage a Human displays all of that.
In Cladistics, i was taught that what makes a member of a species, a member of a species is it's "identity at the molecular level"--it's genetic identity. Immediatly upon fertilization, a Human has 100% human genetics. All ovf it's own, unique.
So if it meets thes criteria, implantation is simply a matter environment--where it's at. It's human long befor implantation.
Unless of course, you want to redefine life and the criteria fro speciation.
ignorsnt redneck,
Here's the thing, as I said before, I"m not trying to split scientific hairs. I'm trying to say that you can't know you're pregnant until you know. So how can you respect what you don't know exists? My point is, I'm all bout respecting life, but I have to know it's there to respect it.
Further, if we take karins approach about being "open" to life - hmmm let me think about that....what about when you're 50?What about when you're financially unable to support yourself? What about when you're mentally, emotionally or otherwise handicapped? What about when you have antibodies that attack any children through gestation?
Be serious! I think it's great that Karin can enjoy a rambunctious sex-life like I do with not a passing thought as to the consequences of unprotected sex. I just don't think she's right in calling pip or anyone else for that matter a sinner for not sharing her view point....
that's it, and that's all.
Seraphim-
1st, I never called Pips or anybody else a sinner for using ABC, lets get that straight. I do not agree with the reasoning behind the choice to use it, that is it, simply! Heck you wanna pump your body full of chemicals, run the risk of aborting a child etc. by all means knock yourself out! But dont expect me to stand on the side lines and applaud your choice!
2nd, how can you respect something that is not there or that you dont know if it is there? Simply really. You have to assume (until proven otherwise) that it could be. You acknowledge that some forms of BC do cause abortions, how can you say that but then go on to say that you can not respect something unless "you" know it is there? Those two things contradict each other.
3rd, for those that are financially unable to, mentally or physically ill etc. that should space kids or not have them. There is a way to do this without risking aborting children.
-----------------
Be serious! I think it's great that Karin can enjoy a rambunctious sex-life like I do with not a passing thought as to the consequences of unprotected sex.
LOL! Consequence of unprotected sex?
For a married couple there is no consequence. That is where you and I differ, a child is not something bad or to be feared. It is that mentality (the one you have) that allows millions of unborn children to be MURDERED every day in this country!
Karin,
We fundamentally differ but we use the same logic - that's the reason we'll never agree.
BTW, whether is was you or another, I was told by pip that she was being accused, directly or by insinuation regarding sin and bc. Sorry if you weren't the person.
Also - every choice has a con-sequence. Something about that word has a negative connotation for you. Not for me. Action = reaction...
Just because you are mixing philosophy with logic and reason, doesn't mean I have to. When you have sex, there is a probability of of having children as a result. That's a consequence, yeah? Doesn't have to be negative.
Just to prove my over arching point - when my son kaleb was conceived we didn't know. Because my wife was on the pill, but the moment we discovered she was, we stopped.
Equating that will being part of the cause that leads to the needless deaths of innocent babies, is frankly mentally bankrupt. As I've said before, I like the spirited debate, but Lord, that dogma is unreal.
anyway, no harm no foul. I don't take any of this personally, I hope the feeling is mutual.
3rd, for those that are financially unable to, mentally or physically ill etc. that should space kids or not have them.
Come again?
There is a way to do this without risking aborting children.
Such as? Keep in mind that the Catholic Church will need to agree with this...
On your second point - the logic falls down rather quickly. Divorce your equation from birth, babies, abortion and replace it with anything else, and it doesn't make any sense.
I don't know if I'm infected aids, I'll just assume I am and act accordingly.
I don't know if I have diabetes, I'll just assume I do and act accordingly
I don't know if I want to go to higher ed, I'll just assume I do or don't and act accordingly.
Why do you relinquish thinking to the Pope? That sounds like a shot, but it's really not meant to be one. The Pope and Catholic Church are made up of people, that sin just like you do. They have the same access to God as you do, and yet you honor their thoughts over your own, seemingly in ALL cases.
What happens when you disagree with something the catholic church has to say?
SERAPHIM:
BTW, whether is was you or another, I was told by pip that she was being accused, directly or by insinuation regarding sin and bc. Sorry if you weren't the person.
No I was not the person.
Also - every choice has a con-sequence. Something about that word has a negative connotation for you. Not for me. Action = reaction...
when used to describe children yeah it does not sit well with me. Children are always a gift and they should never be seen as anything less, but then that is just my 2cents.
Just because you are mixing philosophy with logic and reason, doesn't mean I have to. When you have sex, there is a probability of of having children as a result. That's a consequence, yeah? Doesn't have to be negative.
Exactly does not have to be negative :)
As to when you have sex there is a chance of having a child, well DUH, that is one of the purposes of sex.
Just to prove my over arching point - when my son kaleb was conceived we didn't know. Because my wife was on the pill, but the moment we discovered she was, we stopped.
well that is nice to hear. but just imagine if you stopped to late...
Equating that will being part of the cause that leads to the needless deaths of innocent babies, is frankly mentally bankrupt. As I've said before, I like the spirited debate, but Lord, that dogma is unreal.
And what would you of called it if your wife did not stop in time and you lost your child?
Is that one of those times when the child really is not a child in your eyes? Is that just an Oops, my bad?!
anyway, no harm no foul. I don't take any of this personally, I hope the feeling is mutual.
Good, and yes it is mutual.
Such as? Keep in mind that the Catholic Church will need to agree with this...
And they do. :)
NFP would be the answer.
What happens when you disagree with something the catholic church has to say
Actually I have never disagreed with something the Church has said.
Well outside of using EMHC at mass and female altar servers :) But on the fundamentals I agree with everything that they say.
I have faith that the CHurch, the CHurch founded by Jesus has not lead me astray ;)
I don't know what NFP is.
In romans 12:1-8 Can you tell me "who" paul is talking to? Is is the Catholic Church or the members of the church?
Romans 12:1-8
I appeal to you therefore, brothers,by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world,but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. 3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. 4 For as in one body we have many members,and the members do not all have the same function, 5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. 6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; 7 if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; 8 the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads,with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.
I don't know what NFP is.
NFP=Natural Family Planing
You can find more info here regarding it, your wife may be interested especially if she would like to stop pumping harmful chemicals into her body and treating her fertility as a disease :)
http://www.ccli.org/
------
He is saying that the church is the body of Christ...he is also telling us about christian virtues.
----
Seraphim.
You will "never" convince me that the Catholic Church is not the one true Church.
Now can you please point out to me where the bible teaches that Sola Scripture (which is what you are doing) is correct.
You will "never" convince me that the Catholic Church is not the one true Church.
Thank you - at least now we both agree it is YOU who will not consider evidence in light of evidence. As I've said before about you - you're SO sold out for what you believe, nothing, not even facts will get in the way.
Seraphim,
Why should I believe false facts?
If I know where the truth is why should I follow a path that I know is not correct?
I say to you Satan get behind me :)
the belief in sola scriptura (scripture only) is itself extra-scriptural: nowhere does Scripture claim to be the sole rule of faith
Why should I believe false facts?
What proof do you have that they are false?
I say to you that I'm saved, by the grace of God, not of works, lest I be caught up in believing I'm equivalent with God.
I also say to you that the Catholic church is all about adding rules, interpretations and dogma to what jesus laid out; which in it's pure form was whole, complete and finished.
He even said himself that he has finished the work he came to do.
You've first closed your mind to new evidence, then decided in advance before you've heard any facts what is right and what is wrong.
I come from the position that I can't know anymore than which has been revealed to me by the Father in HIS time. Since he is the orchestrator and master and I am but the feeble student. I don't close my mind to knowledge and I don't pretend that either I or anyone has it all - since if they did, they themselves would be God or abjectly trying to ascend to his level.
I say to you that I'm saved, by the grace of God, not of works, lest I be caught up in believing I'm equivalent with God.
"I have been saved, I am being saved and I hope to be saved."
James 2:24 - a man is justified by works and not by faith alone
James 2:26 - faith without works is dead
I also say to you that the Catholic church is all about adding rules, interpretations and dogma to what jesus laid out; which in it's pure form was whole, complete and finished.
What rules?
Nothing the Church does/has done etc. has been in contradiction to what Jesus taught. It is and always will be in line with him.
You've first closed your mind to new evidence, then decided in advance before you've heard any facts what is right and what is wrong.
Not at all. I do not agree with your evidence is all. I know for a fact that the CC is right on all of its teachings etc.
Lets not forget that I am a convert to the Faith and was not always Catholic. I know what is out there and I know what the truth is, thank you though for attempting to lead me away from the Truth.
You tried but you did not succeed!
I come from the position that I can't know anymore than which has been revealed to me by the Father in HIS time. Since he is the orchestrator and master and I am but the feeble student. I don't close my mind to knowledge and I don't pretend that either I or anyone has it all - since if they did, they themselves would be God or abjectly trying to ascend to his level.
LOL!
well I can tell you that the CHurch does not pretend to be God or be on his level.
Nothing the Church does/has done etc. has been in contradiction to what Jesus taught. It is and always will be in line with him.
-- Just as an example, not that catholics do this , but telling people that they need to be in church as often as the doors are open or risk sinning is not against Jesus teachings either, but it's also not scriptural --
well I can tell you that the CHurch does not pretend to be God or be on his level.
OH Contrare monsieur
Catholics regularly call their priests and the pope Father:
Matthew 23:9 "Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven."
Since the priest is neither my "dad" nor my spiritual "Father" in what context does his title precede him?
I believe that the CC is "Trying" be God by acting like the intermediary. There is but One intermediary between man and God and that is Jesus. 1 tim 2:5
OH Contrare monsieur
Catholics regularly call their priests and the pope Father:
Matthew 23:9 "Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven."
Since the priest is neither my "dad" nor my spiritual "Father" in what context does his title precede him?
I believe that the CC is "Trying" be God by acting like the intermediary. There is but One intermediary between man and God and that is Jesus. 1 tim 2:5
I call the man that is my father (biological) father...I guess in your eyes I should not do that either?!
So what do you call the man that fathered you? what do you children call you?
Anyway, it might help to make your point if you have some idea about what your talking about.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
1 Timothy 3:15 - Church is called the "pillar and foundation of truth"
Karin,
You don't speak with authority and your constant references to the CC as the authority and not the Bible are frankly misguided and wrong - point blank. I think it disturbs me because you act as though you are an authority and frankly your positions and consistent picky-ness concerning which of my points you respond to just tells me you're not ready for my level. I feel for you, I don't want to discourage you in any way, but I'm pretty sure that your pretentious quality will override any contrition that might lead to that...
With arm twisted, uncle uncle..
I think you're not really seeking answers, it appears you believe the CC church has ALL the answers on every conceivable subject so I don't think there's really a point to continue on this topic.
My next topic should really get your gander going.
Seraphim.
Because the teachings are not just found in the Bible you have oral, written etc.
You done speak with authority either, well your own perhaps but that is it.
You constant use of Sola Scripture is totally wrong and disturbing.
And no I am not looking for answers, the answers are all found in the Catholic Church, the Church that Jesus found :)
I thought we had covered that all ready.
As to picking what I respond to, some things have been already discussed why discuss them again?
Anyway, I say to you get behind me Satan !!!
Sweet.
You write very well.
Post a Comment