Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Infinity Lover · 12-28-2002, 10:12 PM

Alek0

If you have a point to make, why don't you just make it? It seems like you're asking questions you've already pretty much answered for yourself, so let's have those answers.

Tell what you think is stupid, what you want everybody to do, and get it over with.

Amie · 12-28-2002, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by alek0
Then does Deuteronomy 23:1 apply to cancer patients? Are those who lost testicles due to testicular cancer allowed to enter the congregation fo the lord?

Or are people picking and choosing what is applicable from the bible and what isn't? And if so, how do you decide? There are so many possible interpretations, how to know what is true if you don't take it literally? And you can't take it literally since it is full of contradictions and errors. Why would then people make their decisions based on what bible says?

It is true there are so many interpretations. I listed them as an example because in your OP you said you wanted someone to explain what the deal is with contraception within the catholic church and so I tried my best to explain the stance within the church. It was a position maintained by many denominations until about 1930 and then social pressures and other factors came into play...

In regards to cancer I don't think they would be forbidden but then I am also not a bible literalist.
I believe in God. I love God but I am not going to base my life's decisions on scripture. I try to be the best person I can be but the bible does not run my life. I do. For instance I am in love with Mar (Infinity Lover) who is an atheist. I won't and can't deny my heart regardless of the unequally yolked speech I get from some of my brethren based on scripture. To this I say I love him and I am going to be with him, he is the most honest, moral, loving man I have ever known and if God has a problem with it he can take it up with me. He knows where to find me.

Infinity Lover · 12-28-2002, 10:39 PM

Here, want me to have a shot? I'm "an atheist" by the way...

Quote:

Originally posted by alek0
Then does Deuteronomy 23:1 apply to cancer patients? Are those who lost testicles due to testicular cancer allowed to enter the congregation fo the lord?

Wouldn't an omnicient god know the difference between removing testicles for one reason and for an entirely other reason?

Quote:

Or are people picking and choosing what is applicable from the bible and what isn't? And if so, how do you decide? There are so many possible interpretations, how to know what is true if you don't take it literally? And you can't take it literally since it is full of contradictions and errors. Why would then people make their decisions based on what bible says?

The Bible is more of a historical report on people's relationship with their God at that time, and a source of inspiration (rather than a strict litteral guideline) for how to pursuit that relationship. I can't vouch for how well Christians in general manage to grasp that concept though.

Amie · 12-28-2002, 10:40 PM

Also Alek0 I just did a google search and came across Birth Control and the Catholic church I hope this can help you as well...

If you scroll down to catholic history on birth control, it will take you to the early years

306-Council of Elvira, Spain, decree #43: a priest who sleeps with his wife the night before Mass will lose his job.
325-Council of Nicea: decreed that after ordination a priest could not marry.
385-Pope Siricius left his wife in order to become pope. Decreed that priests may no longer sleep with their wives.

and then it goes into Augustines teachings... and so on and so forth...

alek0 · 12-28-2002, 11:13 PM

Thank you, Amie, that link is quite nice, especially the comments in survey results.

Infinity Lover, I just read a book last night which got me thinking on birth control and catholic church. I don't have all the answers, otherwise I wouldn't be asking the question.

What I don't understand, for eample, are statements like following:
"One of the primary purposes of the sacrament of matrimony is procreation. Using artificial contraception is a willing act used to counter this purpose. While the use of the rhythm method and NFP do constitute a conscious act of family planning, they still leave the possiblity of conception open."

which are quite common for catholics. Yet, the websites about NFP typically state that it is highly effective. (99% as stated here http://www.ccli.org/nfp/effect1.shtml). This would make it more effective than condoms. If the point is to leave possibility of conception open, wouldn't it make more sense to use condom or a diaphragm? If the issue is to leave possibility of conception open, "spilling the seed" for example would be more suitable than NFP.

These are the typical answers to this:

Quote:

Q. How can a couple using NFP to avoid conception claim to be open to conception when they are using a method that is 98% effective in preventing conception (this is the claim, at least)?
A. At the level of intention, the two practices are the same, for both intend to use sex for the unitive good only. Humanae vitae, #16 states that the difference is that in the case of NFP, "married couples rightly use a facility provided them by nature. In the latter (artificial contraception) they obstruct a the natural development of the generative process." According to the Magisterium, the difference is one of willful intent and deliberate obstruction. Couples using artificial contraception are doing something to make sure that conception won't happen while couples using NFP are not-doing-something, i.e. not having sex during the fertile period. As noted above, Pope John Paul II has also introduced the "language of sex" rationale to supplement the teaching of Humanae vitae.

Q. How can couples who use NFP claim that they are not willfully and deliberately "doing something" to avoid conception? They are charting the days, examining vaginal mucous to discern fertility--using their reason and will to make darned sure that there is a 98% chance that their intercourse will not result in conception! They are "doing something" when they choose to not have sex during the fertile period, and when they choose to have sex instead during the infertile period.

A. The key issue, as noted above, is not intentionality, but their making use of a natural rhythm. Again, the reasoning of the Magisterium is largely informed by its understanding of natural law. For a sexual act to be considered moral, it must be open to the possibility of new life, and it must express love.

Q. But couples who use NFP to avoid conception are not open to new life, and their sexual expression during the infertile period cannot be said to be open to new life! It's as though they are saying, "OK God, we're open to having children, but we're going to have sex only when we're 98% sure that conception won't take place. See how open we are to your gift of new life, God?" Give me a break! A condom is considered only 95% effective, at best. Why not say that couples using a condom are more open to new life?

A. Your points are well-taken, but the response of the Magisterium is that NFP couples are making use of a natural cycle, and therefore their sexual expression is more in conformity with the natural law, and therefore more moral.

I just simply don't see any logic in it.

Also, concerning statement:
"It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anticonceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion (Humanae vitae, #17)."

What does contracepion have to do with respect? And where does this "respected and beloved companion" comes from? Can't be from the bible...

Gemma Therese · 12-29-2002, 09:00 AM

From the horse's mouth:

http://www.newadvent.org/docs/pa06hv.htm

Gemma Therese

Sabine Grant · 12-29-2002, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amie
[B

I believe in God. I love God but I am not going to base my life's decisions on scripture. I try to be the best person I can be but the bible does not run my life. I do. For instance I am in love with Mar (Infinity Lover) who is an atheist. I won't and can't deny my heart regardless of the unequally yolked speech I get from some of my brethren based on scripture. To this I say I love him and I am going to be with him, he is the most honest, moral, loving man I have ever known and if God has a problem with it he can take it up with me. He knows where to find me. [/B]

Dear Amie ((((( Amie)))),

Way to go! Bravo! I recieved the same unequaly yoked speech from my christian friends and I did marry the noble and good man my agnostic hubby is. You are definitly not alone. Always remember that God knows your heart as noone else does and that gives Him the priviledge to be the only one to apply Grace.

Love. Veronique.
PS : good posts by the way.

Bubba · 12-29-2002, 10:21 AM

Posted by Sabine

Dear Amie ((((( Amie)))),

Way to go! Bravo! I recieved the same unequaly yoked speech from my christian friends and I did marry the noble and good man my agnostic hubby is. You are definitly not alone. Always remember that God knows your heart as noone else does and that gives Him the priviledge to be the only one to apply Grace.

Love. Veronique.
PS : good posts by the way.

I agree 100 percent. I'm a thiest and I teach a sunday school class full of teenagers. Kyle is probably my favourite student and he's been treated like crap by several fundy chicks, which I can't understand in the least. He's an absolute gentleman, thoughful, good looking, good grades, nice job, nice car...

Well, right now he's dating a non-thiest named Linda who is about the nicest 16-17 year old girl you'd ever want to meet and I'm really happy for them. Checkmate had a question in sec lifestyle and support about weather a non-theist and a thiest could make it.

I'm reversing what I said here earlier. Not only do I think that they can make it...I think thiest-non thiest relationships can be a good thing.

In Darwin

Chris

Opera Nut · 12-29-2002, 05:43 PM

The catholic position on birth control has been a death sentence in the past to many millions of women, due to lack of medical knowledge. Women were delivered by male doctors with filthy hands so they often died of puerperal fever (massive systemic infection introduced into a postpartum uterus). Semmelweis argued with his colleagues about antiseptic techniques in childbirth for 20 years, and it wasn't accepted over here for a long time either. Many women still die from childbirth today in places with no medical care or substandard care.

In some cultures when a young woman got married, she had to sew her wedding dress and also her funeral shroud in case she died in chidlbirth. It is estimated that in the past, one-third of women died from complications of childbirth and also the infant mortality rate was very high. Men went through several wives and often the women would have ten or more babies, and even if the mother survived, sometimes not one single baby would live to adulthood.

Also, myself and many other women would have died in childbirth without a c-section because of a small pelvis. This is not a malformation, just from being a small person with small bones and a narrow ass. In the US the C-section is the most commonly performed operation, which should tell you of its importance and necessity in keeping mothers and babies alive.

I have read that a woman can be totally crippled by having too many children -- the fetus leaches calcium from the woman's bones during pregnancy and she gets osteoporosis, or loses teeth because calcium is taken out of the jawbone, and the calcium is not replaced through diet. It used to be a truism that a woman lost one tooth for every baby she had.

To me that is not compassion for the woman, or the man, especially since the catholic church does not take any responsibility for supporting the child unless they become a nun or priest which I would not want to do. Many children who could not be supported by their parents sent to the church to be warehoused and turned into nuns and priests whether they wanted to be or not. There is an Incarnate Word convent here and I have noticed in all the obit notices for the old nuns that they are all from Ireland and probably came from starving families.

I don't have to mention Andrea Yates and her fundie lifestyle -- 5 kids in seven years of marriage. Hubby was clueless.

Godless Dave · 12-30-2002, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gemma Therese
From the horse's mouth:

http://www.newadvent.org/docs/pa06hv.htm

Gemma Therese

I just read that Gemma, and frankly it doesn't make any sense.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-28-2002, 10:12 PM	#11
Infinity Lover Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,047	Alek0 If you have a point to make, why don't you just make it? It seems like you're asking questions you've already pretty much answered for yourself, so let's have those answers. Tell what you think is stupid, what you want everybody to do, and get it over with.

12-28-2002, 10:40 PM	#14
Amie Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: New York Posts: 1,626	Also Alek0 I just did a google search and came across Birth Control and the Catholic church I hope this can help you as well... If you scroll down to catholic history on birth control, it will take you to the early years 306-Council of Elvira, Spain, decree #43: a priest who sleeps with his wife the night before Mass will lose his job. 325-Council of Nicea: decreed that after ordination a priest could not marry. 385-Pope Siricius left his wife in order to become pope. Decreed that priests may no longer sleep with their wives. and then it goes into Augustines teachings... and so on and so forth...

12-29-2002, 09:00 AM	#16
Gemma Therese Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: new york Posts: 608	From the horse's mouth: http://www.newadvent.org/docs/pa06hv.htm Gemma Therese

12-29-2002, 10:21 AM	#18
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	Posted by Sabine Dear Amie ((((( Amie)))), Way to go! Bravo! I recieved the same unequaly yoked speech from my christian friends and I did marry the noble and good man my agnostic hubby is. You are definitly not alone. Always remember that God knows your heart as noone else does and that gives Him the priviledge to be the only one to apply Grace. Love. Veronique. PS : good posts by the way. I agree 100 percent. I'm a thiest and I teach a sunday school class full of teenagers. Kyle is probably my favourite student and he's been treated like crap by several fundy chicks, which I can't understand in the least. He's an absolute gentleman, thoughful, good looking, good grades, nice job, nice car... Well, right now he's dating a non-thiest named Linda who is about the nicest 16-17 year old girl you'd ever want to meet and I'm really happy for them. Checkmate had a question in sec lifestyle and support about weather a non-theist and a thiest could make it. I'm reversing what I said here earlier. Not only do I think that they can make it...I think thiest-non thiest relationships can be a good thing. In Darwin Chris

12-29-2002, 05:43 PM	#19
Opera Nut Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Houston TX Posts: 1,671	The catholic position on birth control has been a death sentence in the past to many millions of women, due to lack of medical knowledge. Women were delivered by male doctors with filthy hands so they often died of puerperal fever (massive systemic infection introduced into a postpartum uterus). Semmelweis argued with his colleagues about antiseptic techniques in childbirth for 20 years, and it wasn't accepted over here for a long time either. Many women still die from childbirth today in places with no medical care or substandard care. In some cultures when a young woman got married, she had to sew her wedding dress and also her funeral shroud in case she died in chidlbirth. It is estimated that in the past, one-third of women died from complications of childbirth and also the infant mortality rate was very high. Men went through several wives and often the women would have ten or more babies, and even if the mother survived, sometimes not one single baby would live to adulthood. Also, myself and many other women would have died in childbirth without a c-section because of a small pelvis. This is not a malformation, just from being a small person with small bones and a narrow ass. In the US the C-section is the most commonly performed operation, which should tell you of its importance and necessity in keeping mothers and babies alive. I have read that a woman can be totally crippled by having too many children -- the fetus leaches calcium from the woman's bones during pregnancy and she gets osteoporosis, or loses teeth because calcium is taken out of the jawbone, and the calcium is not replaced through diet. It used to be a truism that a woman lost one tooth for every baby she had. To me that is not compassion for the woman, or the man, especially since the catholic church does not take any responsibility for supporting the child unless they become a nun or priest which I would not want to do. Many children who could not be supported by their parents sent to the church to be warehoused and turned into nuns and priests whether they wanted to be or not. There is an Incarnate Word convent here and I have noticed in all the obit notices for the old nuns that they are all from Ireland and probably came from starving families. I don't have to mention Andrea Yates and her fundie lifestyle -- 5 kids in seven years of marriage. Hubby was clueless.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.