Political Crossfire Forums

[perdidochas]

toddytodd wrote: perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: Perhaps someone of the Catholic faith could enlighten me on why (or if) contraception's are 'bad'?
If they are considered 'bad' (or frowned upon), where is the biblical basis of this belief?
It never made any sense to me, but I am not Catholic

Biblical basis:

Genesis 1:27 God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth."

Also
Genesis 38:9 Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother's widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother.
10 What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too.

God didn't seem to like Onan having sex and spilling his seed on the ground.......

Gen 1:27 Seems to only speak about how procreation is done (male & female - typical biology). It doesn't seem to speak to anything about 'sin'. Or am I missing it?
Gen 38:9 I could see how you could say that the act of trying to elude reproduction caused his death. But it can also been seen that God didn't want him to have sex with his sister-n-law. Or being wasteful in general. Regardless, how is this seen as sin?

Gen 1:27--it says to be fertile and multiply. Contraception is against that. Contraception is an attempt to not be fertile and not multiply.

In the second case, Onan didn't want to have kids by his former sister-in-law. God killed him for spilling his seed on the ground in the attempt to not have children.

Quote: Gen 1:27--it says to be fertile and multiply. Contraception is against that. Contraception is an attempt to not be fertile and not multiply. I don't remember seeing this as a commandment. It would also seem to infer that whoever doesn't reproduce is sinning. This seems to be an assumed sin. Which, as long as it is held to a personal level, seems to be fine.
Quote: In the second case, Onan didn't want to have kids by his former sister-in-law. God killed him for spilling his seed on the ground in the attempt to not have children. That seems to be a stretch towards a 'pro-procreation' stance. God doesn't seem to be 'killin' off people' now for using contraception. The population seems to be doing quite well.
Regardless, there are differing ways to look at these quotes. I don't think one is more correct than the other. But thanks for trying to answer my questions.

Well, to me, it's pretty obvious. The story of Onan, classically, is a proscription against masturbation (a synonym for masturbation is onanism). I think it's pretty clear that Onan's sin was refusing to impregnate his sister-in-law. Read the whole passage of Genesis 38 to form a better opinion.

[eynon]

perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: Perhaps someone of the Catholic faith could enlighten me on why (or if) contraception's are 'bad'?
If they are considered 'bad' (or frowned upon), where is the biblical basis of this belief?
It never made any sense to me, but I am not Catholic

Biblical basis:

Genesis 1:27 God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth."

Also
Genesis 38:9 Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother's widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother.
10 What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too.

God didn't seem to like Onan having sex and spilling his seed on the ground.......

Gen 1:27 Seems to only speak about how procreation is done (male & female - typical biology). It doesn't seem to speak to anything about 'sin'. Or am I missing it?
Gen 38:9 I could see how you could say that the act of trying to elude reproduction caused his death. But it can also been seen that God didn't want him to have sex with his sister-n-law. Or being wasteful in general. Regardless, how is this seen as sin?

Gen 1:27--it says to be fertile and multiply. Contraception is against that. Contraception is an attempt to not be fertile and not multiply.

In the second case, Onan didn't want to have kids by his former sister-in-law. God killed him for spilling his seed on the ground in the attempt to not have children.

Quote: Gen 1:27--it says to be fertile and multiply. Contraception is against that. Contraception is an attempt to not be fertile and not multiply. I don't remember seeing this as a commandment. It would also seem to infer that whoever doesn't reproduce is sinning. This seems to be an assumed sin. Which, as long as it is held to a personal level, seems to be fine.
Quote: In the second case, Onan didn't want to have kids by his former sister-in-law. God killed him for spilling his seed on the ground in the attempt to not have children. That seems to be a stretch towards a 'pro-procreation' stance. God doesn't seem to be 'killin' off people' now for using contraception. The population seems to be doing quite well.
Regardless, there are differing ways to look at these quotes. I don't think one is more correct than the other. But thanks for trying to answer my questions.

Well, to me, it's pretty obvious. The story of Onan, classically, is a proscription against masturbation (a synonym for masturbation is onanism). I think it's pretty clear that Onan's sin was refusing to impregnate his sister-in-law. Read the whole passage of Genesis 38 to form a better opinion.

Yeah but Onan wasn't Masturbating..........Leviticus deals with it specfically, 15:16 "when a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water and he will be unclean till evening."

it treats masturbation in the same way it treats any bodily discharges, be they fluids during sex, vomit, or a woman's cycle.......it's not a sin, but it is unclean, so wash up afterwards..........good advice if you ask me :-D

[toddytodd]

perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: Perhaps someone of the Catholic faith could enlighten me on why (or if) contraception's are 'bad'?
If they are considered 'bad' (or frowned upon), where is the biblical basis of this belief?
It never made any sense to me, but I am not Catholic

Biblical basis:

Genesis 1:27 God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth."

Also
Genesis 38:9 Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother's widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother.
10 What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too.

God didn't seem to like Onan having sex and spilling his seed on the ground.......

Gen 1:27 Seems to only speak about how procreation is done (male & female - typical biology). It doesn't seem to speak to anything about 'sin'. Or am I missing it?
Gen 38:9 I could see how you could say that the act of trying to elude reproduction caused his death. But it can also been seen that God didn't want him to have sex with his sister-n-law. Or being wasteful in general. Regardless, how is this seen as sin?

Gen 1:27--it says to be fertile and multiply. Contraception is against that. Contraception is an attempt to not be fertile and not multiply.

In the second case, Onan didn't want to have kids by his former sister-in-law. God killed him for spilling his seed on the ground in the attempt to not have children.

Quote: Gen 1:27--it says to be fertile and multiply. Contraception is against that. Contraception is an attempt to not be fertile and not multiply. I don't remember seeing this as a commandment. It would also seem to infer that whoever doesn't reproduce is sinning. This seems to be an assumed sin. Which, as long as it is held to a personal level, seems to be fine.
Quote: In the second case, Onan didn't want to have kids by his former sister-in-law. God killed him for spilling his seed on the ground in the attempt to not have children. That seems to be a stretch towards a 'pro-procreation' stance. God doesn't seem to be 'killin' off people' now for using contraception. The population seems to be doing quite well.
Regardless, there are differing ways to look at these quotes. I don't think one is more correct than the other. But thanks for trying to answer my questions.

Well, to me, it's pretty obvious. The story of Onan, classically, is a proscription against masturbation (a synonym for masturbation is onanism). I think it's pretty clear that Onan's sin was refusing to impregnate his sister-in-law. Read the whole passage of Genesis 38 to form a better opinion.

I respect what you see, but clarity in the bible isn't always cut-n-dry. What one person sees is many times quite different than someone else.
I doubt if someone not familiar with Christianity and its teachings were to read this passage they would think 'anti-masturbation' or the like. It seems more 'taught' than learned. That is just how I see it.

[eynon]

toddytodd wrote: perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: Perhaps someone of the Catholic faith could enlighten me on why (or if) contraception's are 'bad'?
If they are considered 'bad' (or frowned upon), where is the biblical basis of this belief?
It never made any sense to me, but I am not Catholic

Biblical basis:

Genesis 1:27 God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth."

Also
Genesis 38:9 Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother's widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother.
10 What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too.

God didn't seem to like Onan having sex and spilling his seed on the ground.......

Gen 1:27 Seems to only speak about how procreation is done (male & female - typical biology). It doesn't seem to speak to anything about 'sin'. Or am I missing it?
Gen 38:9 I could see how you could say that the act of trying to elude reproduction caused his death. But it can also been seen that God didn't want him to have sex with his sister-n-law. Or being wasteful in general. Regardless, how is this seen as sin?

Gen 1:27--it says to be fertile and multiply. Contraception is against that. Contraception is an attempt to not be fertile and not multiply.

In the second case, Onan didn't want to have kids by his former sister-in-law. God killed him for spilling his seed on the ground in the attempt to not have children.

Quote: Gen 1:27--it says to be fertile and multiply. Contraception is against that. Contraception is an attempt to not be fertile and not multiply. I don't remember seeing this as a commandment. It would also seem to infer that whoever doesn't reproduce is sinning. This seems to be an assumed sin. Which, as long as it is held to a personal level, seems to be fine.
Quote: In the second case, Onan didn't want to have kids by his former sister-in-law. God killed him for spilling his seed on the ground in the attempt to not have children. That seems to be a stretch towards a 'pro-procreation' stance. God doesn't seem to be 'killin' off people' now for using contraception. The population seems to be doing quite well.
Regardless, there are differing ways to look at these quotes. I don't think one is more correct than the other. But thanks for trying to answer my questions.

Well, to me, it's pretty obvious. The story of Onan, classically, is a proscription against masturbation (a synonym for masturbation is onanism). I think it's pretty clear that Onan's sin was refusing to impregnate his sister-in-law. Read the whole passage of Genesis 38 to form a better opinion.

I respect what you see, but clarity in the bible isn't always cut-n-dry. What one person sees is many times quite different than someone else.
I doubt if someone not familiar with Christianity and its teachings were to read this passage they would think 'anti-masturbation' or the like. It seems more 'taught' than learned. That is just how I see it.

but he wasn't wanking........the passage has nothing to do with wanking......

[John]

eynon wrote: toddytodd wrote: perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: Perhaps someone of the Catholic faith could enlighten me on why (or if) contraception's are 'bad'?
If they are considered 'bad' (or frowned upon), where is the biblical basis of this belief?
It never made any sense to me, but I am not Catholic

Biblical basis:

Genesis 1:27 God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth."

Also
Genesis 38:9 Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother's widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother.
10 What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too.

God didn't seem to like Onan having sex and spilling his seed on the ground.......

Gen 1:27 Seems to only speak about how procreation is done (male & female - typical biology). It doesn't seem to speak to anything about 'sin'. Or am I missing it?
Gen 38:9 I could see how you could say that the act of trying to elude reproduction caused his death. But it can also been seen that God didn't want him to have sex with his sister-n-law. Or being wasteful in general. Regardless, how is this seen as sin?

Gen 1:27--it says to be fertile and multiply. Contraception is against that. Contraception is an attempt to not be fertile and not multiply.

In the second case, Onan didn't want to have kids by his former sister-in-law. God killed him for spilling his seed on the ground in the attempt to not have children.

Quote: Gen 1:27--it says to be fertile and multiply. Contraception is against that. Contraception is an attempt to not be fertile and not multiply. I don't remember seeing this as a commandment. It would also seem to infer that whoever doesn't reproduce is sinning. This seems to be an assumed sin. Which, as long as it is held to a personal level, seems to be fine.
Quote: In the second case, Onan didn't want to have kids by his former sister-in-law. God killed him for spilling his seed on the ground in the attempt to not have children. That seems to be a stretch towards a 'pro-procreation' stance. God doesn't seem to be 'killin' off people' now for using contraception. The population seems to be doing quite well.
Regardless, there are differing ways to look at these quotes. I don't think one is more correct than the other. But thanks for trying to answer my questions.

Well, to me, it's pretty obvious. The story of Onan, classically, is a proscription against masturbation (a synonym for masturbation is onanism). I think it's pretty clear that Onan's sin was refusing to impregnate his sister-in-law. Read the whole passage of Genesis 38 to form a better opinion.

I respect what you see, but clarity in the bible isn't always cut-n-dry. What one person sees is many times quite different than someone else.
I doubt if someone not familiar with Christianity and its teachings were to read this passage they would think 'anti-masturbation' or the like. It seems more 'taught' than learned. That is just how I see it.

but he wasn't wanking........the passage has nothing to do with wanking......

:lol:

It has to do with being an evil jerk.

And a little to do with standing in the way of the line of Messiah.

[toddytodd]

eynon wrote: toddytodd wrote: perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: Perhaps someone of the Catholic faith could enlighten me on why (or if) contraception's are 'bad'?
If they are considered 'bad' (or frowned upon), where is the biblical basis of this belief?
It never made any sense to me, but I am not Catholic

Biblical basis:

Genesis 1:27 God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth."

Also
Genesis 38:9 Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother's widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother.
10 What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too.

God didn't seem to like Onan having sex and spilling his seed on the ground.......

Gen 1:27 Seems to only speak about how procreation is done (male & female - typical biology). It doesn't seem to speak to anything about 'sin'. Or am I missing it?
Gen 38:9 I could see how you could say that the act of trying to elude reproduction caused his death. But it can also been seen that God didn't want him to have sex with his sister-n-law. Or being wasteful in general. Regardless, how is this seen as sin?

Gen 1:27--it says to be fertile and multiply. Contraception is against that. Contraception is an attempt to not be fertile and not multiply.

In the second case, Onan didn't want to have kids by his former sister-in-law. God killed him for spilling his seed on the ground in the attempt to not have children.

Quote: Gen 1:27--it says to be fertile and multiply. Contraception is against that. Contraception is an attempt to not be fertile and not multiply. I don't remember seeing this as a commandment. It would also seem to infer that whoever doesn't reproduce is sinning. This seems to be an assumed sin. Which, as long as it is held to a personal level, seems to be fine.
Quote: In the second case, Onan didn't want to have kids by his former sister-in-law. God killed him for spilling his seed on the ground in the attempt to not have children. That seems to be a stretch towards a 'pro-procreation' stance. God doesn't seem to be 'killin' off people' now for using contraception. The population seems to be doing quite well.
Regardless, there are differing ways to look at these quotes. I don't think one is more correct than the other. But thanks for trying to answer my questions.

Well, to me, it's pretty obvious. The story of Onan, classically, is a proscription against masturbation (a synonym for masturbation is onanism). I think it's pretty clear that Onan's sin was refusing to impregnate his sister-in-law. Read the whole passage of Genesis 38 to form a better opinion.

I respect what you see, but clarity in the bible isn't always cut-n-dry. What one person sees is many times quite different than someone else.
I doubt if someone not familiar with Christianity and its teachings were to read this passage they would think 'anti-masturbation' or the like. It seems more 'taught' than learned. That is just how I see it.

but he wasn't wanking........the passage has nothing to do with wanking......

I didn't think so either

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Perhaps someone of the Catholic faith could enlighten me on why (or if) contraception's are 'bad'?
If they are considered 'bad' (or frowned upon), where is the biblical basis of this belief?
It never made any sense to me, but I am not Catholic

I get tired of saying this but it seems it remains necessary, Catholics DO NOT believe that ALL TRUTH resides in the Bible nor do we take every word of the bible literally.

The issue is NOT ONLY contraception but the purpose and nature of sex as a life creating act of responsibility. The most simplistic way to understand it, is to say that ANY artificial interference in the creation of human life, places man's will over God's will and therefore is seen as wrong and obviously selfish to the extent that one seeks the pleasure without the purpose.

If I begin sex assuming I do not want to create a life but simply satisfy my own instinctual nature, then what will happen when I "accidently" create a life? The answers are obvious. The loving couple that believes each life is precious will pull together and raise a child in loving environment, the couple that places self over others will terminate the created life and continue their pattern, the scared single mom that places life over self will either find a way to raise the child on her own or place the created life up for adoption and the scared single mom who places self over others will terminate the life created, none of these scenarios is better than the couple that wanted to create a life to begin with and are happy when they are lucky enough to have succeeded.

The issue is NOT about contraception per se, but the meaning and significance of creating new life.

If you remove the "relgious" aspects to this point of view and simply say, is it BEST if people who have sex, do so when they are mature and in a committed relationship, then who would argure????

Cathoics are ALL FOR sex and as much of it as you can stand, they just think it should be contained in a mature committed and yes blessed relationship for the BEST possible outcome for the couple, their children and humanity in general.

The debate is one which is larger than sex and is defined by the ability for the individual to be responsible for the control of his/her human base instincts vs. the convenience and seduction of self indulgence. Contraception is just one of the many subitems in this much larger question of placing the needs of the self above all else.

Where do you (meaning catholics) get the basis for your idea(s) other than the bible?

I will assume this is a serious question and avoid a smart a## response.

The teaching of the Church is centralized and based upon both Scripture and tradition. That is why, while there has always been debate about various aspects of its own theology, the Catholic Church has not splintered like the hundreds of Protestant sects which are based on a PERSONAL interpretation of the content of the Bible.

It is the very centralized nature of Catholic teaching which permits the rich historical and traditional, intellectual and theological internal debate throughout its history as well as the establishment of schools universties and hospitals world wide. Far from fearing ideas, Catholicism welcomes them, but not at the expense of compromising core beleifs and principles.

There was a little thing called the Reformation which had this among other things as a central theme of disagreement.

(I have said here many times that the Reformation was MADE necessary by the obvious institutionalized corruption of many of those in the Catholic hierarchy and was probably the best thing that could have happened to Catholicism at that time.)

[John]

Quote: The teaching of the Church is centralized and based upon both Scripture and tradition. That is why, while there has always been debate about various aspects of its own theology, the Catholic Church has not splintered like the hundreds of Protestant sects which are based on a PERSONAL interpretation of the content of the Bible.

Well that was an unnecessary jab.

Many of these Christians practice hermeneutics and allow the Bible to interpret itself. God is a pretty smart guy ya know.

[mojo]

John wrote: Quote: The teaching of the Church is centralized and based upon both Scripture and tradition. That is why, while there has always been debate about various aspects of its own theology, the Catholic Church has not splintered like the hundreds of Protestant sects which are based on a PERSONAL interpretation of the content of the Bible.

Well that was an unnecessary jab.

Many of these Christians practice hermeneutics and allow the Bible to interpret itself. God is a pretty smart guy ya know.

It is impossible for anything to INTERPRET itself.

[Babylon_Horuv]

mojo wrote: John wrote: eynon wrote: I humbly disagree. Contraception is simply pragamtic and healthy. More-over how does it make a child any less a gift? If anything it should have the opposite effect; a child is planned for and welcomed into a loving home as opposed to being simply another accident and "burden".

Unwanted Children and abortion are not the result of contraception, but the absence of it.

Agreed. There is a period of time were my wife's body needs to rest from making babies (mentally more than physically). Does that mean we can't have sexual relations? Of course not.


There is a difference between using contraceptives in a responsible manner and using them to promote a sinful lifestyle.

1 Corinthians 10
23 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable All things are lawful, but not all things edify.



The key for living a Christian life is to just follow the lead that the Holy Spirit puts in your life. There is a time and place for things such as condoms, and if you are walking correctly with the Lord…you’ll know the difference.

Why can't you abstain from having sex then? It seems a little more in tune with God's wishes to allow for choice to be a requisite to action than to have unnatural barriers destroying choice. A condom undermines the Christian values of openness to God. Unnatural contraception is closing yourself off to the gifts that God is according to you. If God wills it for you to have children, shouldn't you be receptive to that will.

Protected sex is just a way to enjoy the pleasures associated with sex without experiencing the possible rewards and/or consequences of those decisions.

It invariably leads to wrong characterizations of what sex and relationships are.

The idea that we should not use contraception because we are defying god's will is silly. If god did not wish us to use contraception he would not have allowed it to exist. Assuming that God will keep you from having a child if it is not the right time and refusing to use contraception even if you are not ready for a child is like saying "God will see to it that a job arrives for me if he feels I should have one, there is no need to fill out any applications or aquire any skills" God helps those who help themselves.

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Perhaps someone of the Catholic faith could enlighten me on why (or if) contraception's are 'bad'?
If they are considered 'bad' (or frowned upon), where is the biblical basis of this belief?
It never made any sense to me, but I am not Catholic

I get tired of saying this but it seems it remains necessary, Catholics DO NOT believe that ALL TRUTH resides in the Bible nor do we take every word of the bible literally.

The issue is NOT ONLY contraception but the purpose and nature of sex as a life creating act of responsibility. The most simplistic way to understand it, is to say that ANY artificial interference in the creation of human life, places man's will over God's will and therefore is seen as wrong and obviously selfish to the extent that one seeks the pleasure without the purpose.

If I begin sex assuming I do not want to create a life but simply satisfy my own instinctual nature, then what will happen when I "accidently" create a life? The answers are obvious. The loving couple that believes each life is precious will pull together and raise a child in loving environment, the couple that places self over others will terminate the created life and continue their pattern, the scared single mom that places life over self will either find a way to raise the child on her own or place the created life up for adoption and the scared single mom who places self over others will terminate the life created, none of these scenarios is better than the couple that wanted to create a life to begin with and are happy when they are lucky enough to have succeeded.

The issue is NOT about contraception per se, but the meaning and significance of creating new life.

If you remove the "relgious" aspects to this point of view and simply say, is it BEST if people who have sex, do so when they are mature and in a committed relationship, then who would argure????

Cathoics are ALL FOR sex and as much of it as you can stand, they just think it should be contained in a mature committed and yes blessed relationship for the BEST possible outcome for the couple, their children and humanity in general.

The debate is one which is larger than sex and is defined by the ability for the individual to be responsible for the control of his/her human base instincts vs. the convenience and seduction of self indulgence. Contraception is just one of the many subitems in this much larger question of placing the needs of the self above all else.

Where do you (meaning catholics) get the basis for your idea(s) other than the bible?

I will assume this is a serious question and avoid a smart a## response.

The teaching of the Church is centralized and based upon both Scripture and tradition. That is why, while there has always been debate about various aspects of its own theology, the Catholic Church has not splintered like the hundreds of Protestant sects which are based on a PERSONAL interpretation of the content of the Bible.

It is the very centralized nature of Catholic teaching which permits the rich historical and traditional, intellectual and theological internal debate throughout its history as well as the establishment of schools universties and hospitals world wide. Far from fearing ideas, Catholicism welcomes them, but not at the expense of compromising core beleifs and principles.

There was a little thing called the Reformation which had this among other things as a central theme of disagreement.

(I have said here many times that the Reformation was MADE necessary by the obvious institutionalized corruption of many of those in the Catholic hierarchy and was probably the best thing that could have happened to Catholicism at that time.)

I wasn't aware of how much tradition plays a role in the Catholic church. Quite frankly, that frightens me beyond measure, which is an evident reason why I am not a Catholic.
But a historical church question: Didn't all christian 'sects' (groups, believers, etc) fraction off of the Catholic church originally?

[perdidochas]

toddytodd wrote: perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: Perhaps someone of the Catholic faith could enlighten me on why (or if) contraception's are 'bad'?
If they are considered 'bad' (or frowned upon), where is the biblical basis of this belief?
It never made any sense to me, but I am not Catholic

Biblical basis:

Genesis 1:27 God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth."

Also
Genesis 38:9 Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother's widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother.
10 What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too.

God didn't seem to like Onan having sex and spilling his seed on the ground.......

Gen 1:27 Seems to only speak about how procreation is done (male & female - typical biology). It doesn't seem to speak to anything about 'sin'. Or am I missing it?
Gen 38:9 I could see how you could say that the act of trying to elude reproduction caused his death. But it can also been seen that God didn't want him to have sex with his sister-n-law. Or being wasteful in general. Regardless, how is this seen as sin?

Gen 1:27--it says to be fertile and multiply. Contraception is against that. Contraception is an attempt to not be fertile and not multiply.

In the second case, Onan didn't want to have kids by his former sister-in-law. God killed him for spilling his seed on the ground in the attempt to not have children.

Quote: Gen 1:27--it says to be fertile and multiply. Contraception is against that. Contraception is an attempt to not be fertile and not multiply. I don't remember seeing this as a commandment. It would also seem to infer that whoever doesn't reproduce is sinning. This seems to be an assumed sin. Which, as long as it is held to a personal level, seems to be fine.
Quote: In the second case, Onan didn't want to have kids by his former sister-in-law. God killed him for spilling his seed on the ground in the attempt to not have children. That seems to be a stretch towards a 'pro-procreation' stance. God doesn't seem to be 'killin' off people' now for using contraception. The population seems to be doing quite well.
Regardless, there are differing ways to look at these quotes. I don't think one is more correct than the other. But thanks for trying to answer my questions.

Well, to me, it's pretty obvious. The story of Onan, classically, is a proscription against masturbation (a synonym for masturbation is onanism). I think it's pretty clear that Onan's sin was refusing to impregnate his sister-in-law. Read the whole passage of Genesis 38 to form a better opinion.

I respect what you see, but clarity in the bible isn't always cut-n-dry. What one person sees is many times quite different than someone else.
I doubt if someone not familiar with Christianity and its teachings were to read this passage they would think 'anti-masturbation' or the like. It seems more 'taught' than learned. That is just how I see it.

As I said, I don't buy the "anti-masturbation" interpretation. The only one that makes sense is the contraceptive interpretaion. Onan wanted sex with his sister-in-law without being open to having a child with her.

[perdidochas]

toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Perhaps someone of the Catholic faith could enlighten me on why (or if) contraception's are 'bad'?
If they are considered 'bad' (or frowned upon), where is the biblical basis of this belief?
It never made any sense to me, but I am not Catholic

I get tired of saying this but it seems it remains necessary, Catholics DO NOT believe that ALL TRUTH resides in the Bible nor do we take every word of the bible literally.

The issue is NOT ONLY contraception but the purpose and nature of sex as a life creating act of responsibility. The most simplistic way to understand it, is to say that ANY artificial interference in the creation of human life, places man's will over God's will and therefore is seen as wrong and obviously selfish to the extent that one seeks the pleasure without the purpose.

If I begin sex assuming I do not want to create a life but simply satisfy my own instinctual nature, then what will happen when I "accidently" create a life? The answers are obvious. The loving couple that believes each life is precious will pull together and raise a child in loving environment, the couple that places self over others will terminate the created life and continue their pattern, the scared single mom that places life over self will either find a way to raise the child on her own or place the created life up for adoption and the scared single mom who places self over others will terminate the life created, none of these scenarios is better than the couple that wanted to create a life to begin with and are happy when they are lucky enough to have succeeded.

The issue is NOT about contraception per se, but the meaning and significance of creating new life.

If you remove the "relgious" aspects to this point of view and simply say, is it BEST if people who have sex, do so when they are mature and in a committed relationship, then who would argure????

Cathoics are ALL FOR sex and as much of it as you can stand, they just think it should be contained in a mature committed and yes blessed relationship for the BEST possible outcome for the couple, their children and humanity in general.

The debate is one which is larger than sex and is defined by the ability for the individual to be responsible for the control of his/her human base instincts vs. the convenience and seduction of self indulgence. Contraception is just one of the many subitems in this much larger question of placing the needs of the self above all else.

Where do you (meaning catholics) get the basis for your idea(s) other than the bible?

I will assume this is a serious question and avoid a smart a## response.

The teaching of the Church is centralized and based upon both Scripture and tradition. That is why, while there has always been debate about various aspects of its own theology, the Catholic Church has not splintered like the hundreds of Protestant sects which are based on a PERSONAL interpretation of the content of the Bible.

It is the very centralized nature of Catholic teaching which permits the rich historical and traditional, intellectual and theological internal debate throughout its history as well as the establishment of schools universties and hospitals world wide. Far from fearing ideas, Catholicism welcomes them, but not at the expense of compromising core beleifs and principles.

There was a little thing called the Reformation which had this among other things as a central theme of disagreement.

(I have said here many times that the Reformation was MADE necessary by the obvious institutionalized corruption of many of those in the Catholic hierarchy and was probably the best thing that could have happened to Catholicism at that time.)

I wasn't aware of how much tradition plays a role in the Catholic church. Quite frankly, that frightens me beyond measure, which is an evident reason why I am not a Catholic.
But a historical church question: Didn't all christian 'sects' (groups, believers, etc) fraction off of the Catholic church originally?

This is tradition passed down from the beginning of the church, not new traditions. If you look at almost all teachings ascribed to tradition, Catholics share those teachings with the Orthodox church. Why? because we share the early Church history with them.

[mojo]

Babylon_Horuv wrote: mojo wrote: John wrote: eynon wrote: I humbly disagree. Contraception is simply pragamtic and healthy. More-over how does it make a child any less a gift? If anything it should have the opposite effect; a child is planned for and welcomed into a loving home as opposed to being simply another accident and "burden".

Unwanted Children and abortion are not the result of contraception, but the absence of it.

Agreed. There is a period of time were my wife's body needs to rest from making babies (mentally more than physically). Does that mean we can't have sexual relations? Of course not.


There is a difference between using contraceptives in a responsible manner and using them to promote a sinful lifestyle.

1 Corinthians 10
23 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable All things are lawful, but not all things edify.



The key for living a Christian life is to just follow the lead that the Holy Spirit puts in your life. There is a time and place for things such as condoms, and if you are walking correctly with the Lord…you’ll know the difference.

Why can't you abstain from having sex then? It seems a little more in tune with God's wishes to allow for choice to be a requisite to action than to have unnatural barriers destroying choice. A condom undermines the Christian values of openness to God. Unnatural contraception is closing yourself off to the gifts that God is according to you. If God wills it for you to have children, shouldn't you be receptive to that will.

Protected sex is just a way to enjoy the pleasures associated with sex without experiencing the possible rewards and/or consequences of those decisions.

It invariably leads to wrong characterizations of what sex and relationships are.

The idea that we should not use contraception because we are defying god's will is silly. If god did not wish us to use contraception he would not have allowed it to exist. Assuming that God will keep you from having a child if it is not the right time and refusing to use contraception even if you are not ready for a child is like saying "God will see to it that a job arrives for me if he feels I should have one, there is no need to fill out any applications or aquire any skills" God helps those who help themselves.

Our sin creates all sorts of things. I have the free will to create all sorts of things whether they be good things or bad things. The good thigns glorify God while the bad things insult his grace. If God's will directly controlled every aspect of our lives we would no longer have free will. He loves us too much to take that away.

Your analogy about a job holds true. BUT you are arguing for the Catholic position not against it. My old priest used to tell me "You are responsible for the efforts, while God is responsible for the accomplishments."

[toddytodd]

Babylon_Horuv wrote: mojo wrote: John wrote: eynon wrote: I humbly disagree. Contraception is simply pragamtic and healthy. More-over how does it make a child any less a gift? If anything it should have the opposite effect; a child is planned for and welcomed into a loving home as opposed to being simply another accident and "burden".

Unwanted Children and abortion are not the result of contraception, but the absence of it.

Agreed. There is a period of time were my wife's body needs to rest from making babies (mentally more than physically). Does that mean we can't have sexual relations? Of course not.


There is a difference between using contraceptives in a responsible manner and using them to promote a sinful lifestyle.

1 Corinthians 10
23 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable All things are lawful, but not all things edify.



The key for living a Christian life is to just follow the lead that the Holy Spirit puts in your life. There is a time and place for things such as condoms, and if you are walking correctly with the Lord…you’ll know the difference.

Why can't you abstain from having sex then? It seems a little more in tune with God's wishes to allow for choice to be a requisite to action than to have unnatural barriers destroying choice. A condom undermines the Christian values of openness to God. Unnatural contraception is closing yourself off to the gifts that God is according to you. If God wills it for you to have children, shouldn't you be receptive to that will.

Protected sex is just a way to enjoy the pleasures associated with sex without experiencing the possible rewards and/or consequences of those decisions.

It invariably leads to wrong characterizations of what sex and relationships are.

The idea that we should not use contraception because we are defying god's will is silly. If god did not wish us to use contraception he would not have allowed it to exist. Assuming that God will keep you from having a child if it is not the right time and refusing to use contraception even if you are not ready for a child is like saying "God will see to it that a job arrives for me if he feels I should have one, there is no need to fill out any applications or aquire any skills" God helps those who help themselves.

I agree. Perhaps it can be said that infertile people are being punished by God as well. :roll:
There is a lot of talk about people taking responsibility for their actions, yet when some do, it is 'against God's will'.
It just doesn't make sense, thus, is 'silly'.

[mojo]

toddytodd wrote: Babylon_Horuv wrote: mojo wrote: John wrote: eynon wrote: I humbly disagree. Contraception is simply pragamtic and healthy. More-over how does it make a child any less a gift? If anything it should have the opposite effect; a child is planned for and welcomed into a loving home as opposed to being simply another accident and "burden".

Unwanted Children and abortion are not the result of contraception, but the absence of it.

Agreed. There is a period of time were my wife's body needs to rest from making babies (mentally more than physically). Does that mean we can't have sexual relations? Of course not.


There is a difference between using contraceptives in a responsible manner and using them to promote a sinful lifestyle.

1 Corinthians 10
23 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable All things are lawful, but not all things edify.



The key for living a Christian life is to just follow the lead that the Holy Spirit puts in your life. There is a time and place for things such as condoms, and if you are walking correctly with the Lord…you’ll know the difference.

Why can't you abstain from having sex then? It seems a little more in tune with God's wishes to allow for choice to be a requisite to action than to have unnatural barriers destroying choice. A condom undermines the Christian values of openness to God. Unnatural contraception is closing yourself off to the gifts that God is according to you. If God wills it for you to have children, shouldn't you be receptive to that will.

Protected sex is just a way to enjoy the pleasures associated with sex without experiencing the possible rewards and/or consequences of those decisions.

It invariably leads to wrong characterizations of what sex and relationships are.

The idea that we should not use contraception because we are defying god's will is silly. If god did not wish us to use contraception he would not have allowed it to exist. Assuming that God will keep you from having a child if it is not the right time and refusing to use contraception even if you are not ready for a child is like saying "God will see to it that a job arrives for me if he feels I should have one, there is no need to fill out any applications or aquire any skills" God helps those who help themselves.

I agree. Perhaps it can be said that infertile people are being punished by God as well. :roll:
There is a lot of talk about people taking responsibility for their actions, yet when some do, it is 'against God's will'.
It just doesn't make sense, thus, is 'silly'.

The infertile hold a purpose just as the fertile do. Perhaps the adoption of a neglected child.

People should take responsiblity for their actions and situation.

[toddytodd]

mojo wrote: toddytodd wrote: Babylon_Horuv wrote: mojo wrote: John wrote: eynon wrote: I humbly disagree. Contraception is simply pragamtic and healthy. More-over how does it make a child any less a gift? If anything it should have the opposite effect; a child is planned for and welcomed into a loving home as opposed to being simply another accident and "burden".

Unwanted Children and abortion are not the result of contraception, but the absence of it.

Agreed. There is a period of time were my wife's body needs to rest from making babies (mentally more than physically). Does that mean we can't have sexual relations? Of course not.


There is a difference between using contraceptives in a responsible manner and using them to promote a sinful lifestyle.

1 Corinthians 10
23 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable All things are lawful, but not all things edify.



The key for living a Christian life is to just follow the lead that the Holy Spirit puts in your life. There is a time and place for things such as condoms, and if you are walking correctly with the Lord…you’ll know the difference.

Why can't you abstain from having sex then? It seems a little more in tune with God's wishes to allow for choice to be a requisite to action than to have unnatural barriers destroying choice. A condom undermines the Christian values of openness to God. Unnatural contraception is closing yourself off to the gifts that God is according to you. If God wills it for you to have children, shouldn't you be receptive to that will.

Protected sex is just a way to enjoy the pleasures associated with sex without experiencing the possible rewards and/or consequences of those decisions.

It invariably leads to wrong characterizations of what sex and relationships are.

The idea that we should not use contraception because we are defying god's will is silly. If god did not wish us to use contraception he would not have allowed it to exist. Assuming that God will keep you from having a child if it is not the right time and refusing to use contraception even if you are not ready for a child is like saying "God will see to it that a job arrives for me if he feels I should have one, there is no need to fill out any applications or aquire any skills" God helps those who help themselves.

I agree. Perhaps it can be said that infertile people are being punished by God as well. :roll:
There is a lot of talk about people taking responsibility for their actions, yet when some do, it is 'against God's will'.
It just doesn't make sense, thus, is 'silly'.

The infertile hold a purpose just as the fertile do. Perhaps the adoption of a neglected child.

People should take responsiblity for their actions and situation.

Perhaps. Not every infertile person can adopt. Not every fertile person wants children as well.
Definately, people should take responsibility for their actions

[eynon]

John wrote: eynon wrote: toddytodd wrote: perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: perdidochas wrote: toddytodd wrote: Perhaps someone of the Catholic faith could enlighten me on why (or if) contraception's are 'bad'?
If they are considered 'bad' (or frowned upon), where is the biblical basis of this belief?
It never made any sense to me, but I am not Catholic

Biblical basis:

Genesis 1:27 God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth."

Also
Genesis 38:9 Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother's widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother.
10 What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too.

God didn't seem to like Onan having sex and spilling his seed on the ground.......

Gen 1:27 Seems to only speak about how procreation is done (male & female - typical biology). It doesn't seem to speak to anything about 'sin'. Or am I missing it?
Gen 38:9 I could see how you could say that the act of trying to elude reproduction caused his death. But it can also been seen that God didn't want him to have sex with his sister-n-law. Or being wasteful in general. Regardless, how is this seen as sin?

Gen 1:27--it says to be fertile and multiply. Contraception is against that. Contraception is an attempt to not be fertile and not multiply.

In the second case, Onan didn't want to have kids by his former sister-in-law. God killed him for spilling his seed on the ground in the attempt to not have children.

Quote: Gen 1:27--it says to be fertile and multiply. Contraception is against that. Contraception is an attempt to not be fertile and not multiply. I don't remember seeing this as a commandment. It would also seem to infer that whoever doesn't reproduce is sinning. This seems to be an assumed sin. Which, as long as it is held to a personal level, seems to be fine.
Quote: In the second case, Onan didn't want to have kids by his former sister-in-law. God killed him for spilling his seed on the ground in the attempt to not have children. That seems to be a stretch towards a 'pro-procreation' stance. God doesn't seem to be 'killin' off people' now for using contraception. The population seems to be doing quite well.
Regardless, there are differing ways to look at these quotes. I don't think one is more correct than the other. But thanks for trying to answer my questions.

Well, to me, it's pretty obvious. The story of Onan, classically, is a proscription against masturbation (a synonym for masturbation is onanism). I think it's pretty clear that Onan's sin was refusing to impregnate his sister-in-law. Read the whole passage of Genesis 38 to form a better opinion.

I respect what you see, but clarity in the bible isn't always cut-n-dry. What one person sees is many times quite different than someone else.
I doubt if someone not familiar with Christianity and its teachings were to read this passage they would think 'anti-masturbation' or the like. It seems more 'taught' than learned. That is just how I see it.

but he wasn't wanking........the passage has nothing to do with wanking......

:lol:

It has to do with being an evil jerk.

And a little to do with standing in the way of the line of Messiah.

:clap: yes....God punishing evil jerks is a recurring theme in the book :)


in my own interpritation of the royal commandment I like to say "God doesn't like jerks, so first thing a Christian should do....is not be one" (easier said then done of course :lol: )

[Whitefields]

mojo wrote: I just got done reading "Casti Connubii". It is an apolistic letter from Pope Pius XI. He cites some interesting points. But before I go on to support my views on contraception, I would first like to make clear that I do not support any government policy to restrict contraception. I just wish to point out simpler truths that were illuminated to me through this apolistic letter concerning the society that arises from a culture of contraception. Pope Pius XI emphasizes that Marriage is an institution of God and the products of Marriage (children) are the direct result of gifts from God.

First let me illuminate the context of societies change from a culture of purity to a culture of contraception. Before 1930 nearly every Christian denomination opposed birth control in all its forms from the pill to condums. In 1930 the Anglican Church reversed their original position and decided that contraception could be allowed but "discouraged". Many protestant churches followed with this new theology and adopted it. The Roman Catholic Church standing firm in this new wave thinking spoke out firmly in opposition of this theology.

This is where "Casti Connubii" came into being. It was a decree by Pope Pius XI in opposition to Birth Control. He argued that allowing birth control would eventually lead to further concessions in other areas. He especially emphasized the effect this would have on the issues of abortion, marriage, respect for life, and the destruction of the family.

He prophesizes with ashtonishing detail how the rise of a culture of contraception would create a mentality against life itself. It is important to assert that children are gifts from God and are not burdens carried by parents in denial of their duty. For instance, if a person has the power to reject God's gifts? Should they not then also have the right to reject the life that God has given them?

Pope Pius argued that advocating birth control will increase divorce rates. Divorced rates have increased.
Pope Pius argued that advocating birth control will increase a culture of abortion and death. There have been 40 million abortions in this country alone.
Pope Pius argued that advocating birth control will destroy the family by reducing the value of a child's life. Single family/unwed homes now replace the traditional family structure.

In conclusion, this culture of contraception has created a society that refuses to recognize that a child is a gift from God. It wishes to ignore this fact in favor of its own self interests and self denial. As Christians we should stand in solidarity with one another over this issue. We are called to be beacons of hope in this dark world of sin. It is our duty as Chistians to respect life in all of its forms, and honor the gifts God has given us.

I agree. The powers of procreation are sacred and ought to be treated with respect. The family as we knew it is disappearing at an alarming rate, replaced with broken homes, fatherless children and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives taken away, never to be lived.

[toddytodd]

Whitefields wrote: mojo wrote: I just got done reading "Casti Connubii". It is an apolistic letter from Pope Pius XI. He cites some interesting points. But before I go on to support my views on contraception, I would first like to make clear that I do not support any government policy to restrict contraception. I just wish to point out simpler truths that were illuminated to me through this apolistic letter concerning the society that arises from a culture of contraception. Pope Pius XI emphasizes that Marriage is an institution of God and the products of Marriage (children) are the direct result of gifts from God.

First let me illuminate the context of societies change from a culture of purity to a culture of contraception. Before 1930 nearly every Christian denomination opposed birth control in all its forms from the pill to condums. In 1930 the Anglican Church reversed their original position and decided that contraception could be allowed but "discouraged". Many protestant churches followed with this new theology and adopted it. The Roman Catholic Church standing firm in this new wave thinking spoke out firmly in opposition of this theology.

This is where "Casti Connubii" came into being. It was a decree by Pope Pius XI in opposition to Birth Control. He argued that allowing birth control would eventually lead to further concessions in other areas. He especially emphasized the effect this would have on the issues of abortion, marriage, respect for life, and the destruction of the family.

He prophesizes with ashtonishing detail how the rise of a culture of contraception would create a mentality against life itself. It is important to assert that children are gifts from God and are not burdens carried by parents in denial of their duty. For instance, if a person has the power to reject God's gifts? Should they not then also have the right to reject the life that God has given them?

Pope Pius argued that advocating birth control will increase divorce rates. Divorced rates have increased.
Pope Pius argued that advocating birth control will increase a culture of abortion and death. There have been 40 million abortions in this country alone.
Pope Pius argued that advocating birth control will destroy the family by reducing the value of a child's life. Single family/unwed homes now replace the traditional family structure.

In conclusion, this culture of contraception has created a society that refuses to recognize that a child is a gift from God. It wishes to ignore this fact in favor of its own self interests and self denial. As Christians we should stand in solidarity with one another over this issue. We are called to be beacons of hope in this dark world of sin. It is our duty as Chistians to respect life in all of its forms, and honor the gifts God has given us.

I agree. The powers of procreation are sacred and ought to be treated with respect...

Honest education is, in my opinion, the best way to do this. However, we can't forget that procreation isn't the only reason for sex. Regardless, we all should learn and practice responsibility more than we currently do.

Quote: ...The family as we knew it is disappearing at an alarming rate, replaced with broken homes, fatherless children and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives taken away, never to be lived. The traditional family unit, perhaps. These things evolve with society (rather that is a good thing or not) and the family is changing as well. Our challenge is to adapt to these changes in a positive manner, while we remember our history.