Church of England & Catholic Church?

And so are the other weeks of the month (the non fertile period). With NFP you are just keeping the pleasure without the payoff (child). Ah, but you say the chance is still there. See the link to carson's site at the bottom.

And? Are you going to take the stance that God only says "have sex for kids"?

Well, it appears that you make so many logical mistakes I don't have enough time to point them out, but I will try for some.

1. Just because contraceptions can be used for extra-marital affairs doesn't mean they are bad.

By this logic:

Alcholol = BAD (for many reasons, but it also lowers ones inhibitions)
Cars = BAD (you know, makes it easier to get to and from these extra-marital affairs)
Nice soft beds = BAD (makes all of us want to grab our condoms and make sweet passionate love to our nonmarried partners)

2. If NFP is not 100% effective, and condoms are not 100% effective, they do the same thing. But, and I will use a fellow catholics website here to show you something, if NFP is MORE effective than condoms (at preventing conception), you would actually be BETTER OF to use condoms. Don't like this do you?

http://boerne.com/carson/catholic/familyplan.html

So, if NFP is better than condoms (for instance), one of your arguments goes out the window. Now we are left with:

1. Foreign device
2. Sex for pleasure == bad

If 1, there is no biblical evidence for this...and by this logic, we should have no foreign device for any natural process (think toilet paper).

If 2. You see, there is nothing that says sex for pleasure is bad (of course we are talking in marriage here..and all over the place). But if you want to say that, go ahead. I am sure no bible believing person will even acknowledge such a reply.

In Christ,
jason

 

Jason,

Sex for pleasure alone is not bad as long as you aren't closing the door on the procreative element. The two cannot be separated.

If it's the fertile period, obviously you're not doing anything wrong, becasue you're not having sex at all.

If it's the non-fertile period, you aren't closing any doors. I know someone from my home town who was born from parents who didn't even believe they could conceive. Talk about a miracle!

Again, contraceptives are putting human barriers on a gift given to mankind. It's like saying, "Thanks God, but I'm going to start doing this my way."

NFP is 100% natural, and the only human intervention is abstinance.

Again, God obviously made sex pleasurable for a reason. Sex for pleasure is only bad when the procreative element is killed.

[ April 08, 2002, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

I think you missed the part about NFP being more effective at preventing conception than condoms. So, if I were to use a condom durning the non-fertile periods, I wouldn't be sinning right? Wrong. Why is this? Only because it is a foreign device.

So, this entire argument boils down to something man made being introduced into sex. Once that gets established, we can discuss this issue. Until then, we will be talking around each other.

jason

 

This "foreign object" is a man-made attempt to kill the procreative element. What would you like to discuss about it?

 

just making sure.....the only reason contraception is bad is because it is foreign?

jason

 

No,

Contraception is a foreign element taken into sexual intercourse with the purpose of killing one of the two elements of sexual intercourse, love and procreation.

NFP is leaving the procreation of children in the hands of God. You can not maintan that abstinence in this form is contraception. If my wife and I decide (or are too busy) for sex on a Saturday night, are we defying God by not having sex and thus refusing to bear children? No. Abstinence is a natural part of marriage any way. It builds respect and keeps the marriage alive.

Furthermore, as I have said before, without a contraceptive, sex during non-typical fertile periods are still open to the gift of a child if that is what God has in store. We aren't stopping it. If sex occurs, it is open to procreation.

With contraception, procreation is closed.

With Natural Family Planning, any sex that occurs is open to procreation.

 

But condoms are not 100% effective. As a matter of fact, the link to carson's site shows them to be less effective than NFP. So, it is still in God's hands.

So, if is it the possibility of conception. Both are fine.

Theoretical: I use a condom in the non-fertile period. Yay or Nay? Nay of course. But why?

Now, it has to be the foreign element.

 

Jason,

Of course, it's the foreign element that we place in an attempt to kill the procreative element.

Please continue and elaborate your opinion so I can know why you keep repeating this.

 

just making sure.....the only reason contraception is bad is because it is foreign?

jason</font>[/QUOTE]Sex has two natures. It is procreative and unitive. It is wrong to seperate these two natures.

Using this yardstick it is easy to know what is right and what is wrong.

Sex outside of marriage is wrong because it is not unitive.

Birth control is wrong because it is not procreative.

Artificial insemination is wrong because it is not unitive.

See the pattern?

 

Well, I repeat because you backtracked

If it is the foreign element, where does that line get drawn? I take it you prescribe to the missionary only position as well (or you should, I mean, it was mandated by the CC for years...don't know if it still is)?

Now, lets see why it is the foreign element.

Is it because it interferes with the natural process? It is artificial and violates the natural order?

jason

PS. You never answered. Condom during non-fertile periods is bad?

 

Sex after menopause is not procreative.

Infertile and still have sex? Not procreative.

Sex while pregenant already is not procreative.

See the pattern?

Hope you don't plan on having sex anytime after your wife hits 45 or so!

 

I'm sorry if I did. I'm not sure where or how I did...

The line gets drawn on a foreign element that kills the procreative element of sexual intercourse. Exactly what I've been saying.

I don't know of this position of the Church. I will try and look something up, though.

The order of sexual intercourse created by God, yes. In marriage we are of one flesh. Contraceptives split that.

I did answer it repeatedly. Yes it is bad because it closes the procreative element. Our bodies are interesting and weird things indeed, and often unpredictable. Just because your fertile period is over doesn't mean that you won't end up pregnant. It happens. So using a condom ANY TIME is closing off the proceative element, instead of leaving it open, even if the chance is .0001%.

 

How do they split this? I assume you mean a physical seperation right?

But you aren't answering it again. You keep saying 'leaving it open' ... 'even if the chance is .0001%'. But a condom has this chance, even during the non-fertile periods.

 

Yes, but this is not by human intervention. This is the natural order, and cannot be helped. The procreative element is not closed by us artificially, but naturally.

Same situation as above. This is not by our intervention. We aren't killing the procreative element; it simply happens.

Perhaps sex while pregnant is wrong?

I see the pattern and I see your thought process, but your using examples outside of material/human intervention.

Read above.

 

The whole purpose of marriage is to be one with one another. Now you want to throw some plastic in there so that you don't have to have kids. Yeah, I call that a separation.

I do not see why you cannot see the difference.

Look at what you are saying. Why are you wearing a condom in the non-fertile period? Why? What's the reason, unless you STILL want to prevent having children. You are never leaving yourself open, naturally, to having children, but instead trying to control the situation outside of God's will.

 

Sex after menopause is not procreative.

Infertile and still have sex? Not procreative.

Sex while pregenant already is not procreative.

See the pattern?

Hope you don't plan on having sex anytime after your wife hits 45 or so!</font>[/QUOTE]It's difficult having a conversation with someone who is not serious.

BTW, it was right about when my wife was 45 that we started praying for one last child. She did not become menopausal until age 50. We haven't stopped uniting and we haven't stopped praying for another child.

 

This wasn't for you GS. This was for trying2understand who was trying to tell me that it has a two part nature: Procreative and unitive (sex that is) and to take one part away is wrong. I was showing how not having the procreative part is not wrong, and we have never been told it is wrong. The unitive part is what is required...

jason

 

I am completely serious about this. I was just showing you how ridiculous your response was.

Uhm, the age was more sarcastic than edictal. I hope God gives you another child if it is His will.

jason

 

This wasn't for you GS. This was for trying2understand who was trying to tell me that it has a two part nature: Procreative and unitive (sex that is) and to take one part away is wrong. I was showing how not having the procreative part is not wrong, and we have never been told it is wrong. The unitive part is what is required...

jason</font>[/QUOTE]Jason,

Tell me one single line in the Bible where God is understanding of using artificial means to plan the family. Tell me where children are not referred to as gifts. Tell me, Biblically, how you justify saying the procreative element is not important to sex.

 

I never said they weren't gifts, I said they were not REQUIRED TO HAVE SEX! A person can be completely sterile/barren/infertile and still have sex with his/her wife/husband. There is nothing wrong with this.

So, is it not foreign and procreative again or just foreign?

jason