tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post5106684068005497234..comments2023-10-16T08:12:13.145-05:00Comments on Four and Twenty+ Blackbirds: Love - the Cruciform Foundation of EthicsRev. Rick Stuckwischhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10664716292792101540noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-47961066935629594522009-09-10T11:31:16.768-05:002009-09-10T11:31:16.768-05:00@Rev. Eric Brown:
I agree that God does thwart th...@Rev. Eric Brown:<br /><br />I agree that God does thwart the plans of sinners from time to time. He thwarts the plans of murderers just as he thwarts the plans of couples artificially contracepting. NOTE: I am not comparing contracepting couples to murders except to say that both are sinful (to various degrees).<br /><br />The point is, we shouldn't murder and we shouldn't artificially contracept (or contracept in any form) and put God to the test.<br /><br />One final point on this matter, my wife pointed out that there are indeed faulty, selfish reasons for using NFP which makes it also sinful.<br /><br />However, on the scale of more sinful or less sinful, NFP, even at its worst, always has the door open to conception. While the intent my be wrong, it is not a total rejection of God's providence.<br /><br />Artificial contraception attempts to shut the door completely and is a total rejection of God's providence in the procreation of children. God can overrule, sure, just like he can deflect bullets.<br /><br />NFP, at its worst, is still open to life. Artificial contraception, at its best is not open to life.Chad Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14930587550535317718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-13299568429984425242009-09-10T11:27:23.324-05:002009-09-10T11:27:23.324-05:00@Erich: No sweat, no need to apologize. I certainl...@Erich: No sweat, no need to apologize. I certainly was not offended and am hard to offend and don't carry grudges easily.<br /><br />As far as I can recall, at least in the context of contraception, I have not tried to make an argument from "because the Pope said so."<br /><br />If I have quoted, say, Humaae Vitae, it was from a 'here are some good arguments' approach, not from a 'because the Pope said so' approach.<br /><br />I have understood your citations of Luther to be from the same position. I am not appealing to Papal Authority, but to a fellow Christian who made some decent arguments that we should all consider. This person just happened to be the Pope.<br /><br />I do consider, from a scholarly perspective, the Magesterium to be a respectable authority on the subject since they have been very consistent in the opposition of contraception from the very beginning in the same way that Luther was consistent in his opposition of it.<br /><br />Both of them make compelling arguments that no Christian should easily dismiss.Chad Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14930587550535317718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-10566704045455646192009-09-10T10:56:05.575-05:002009-09-10T10:56:05.575-05:00My involvement in this discussion is only indirect...My involvement in this discussion is only indirect but I appreciate the Catholic participation and contributions.<br /><br />As to the question of "Papal Authority", which is another topic, there is no church body, denomination, confession, sect or individual who does not follow their own "papal authority." I think Luther said that we are all popes unto ourselves. We are half a millennia from the Reformation. What do we do today if the Pope and the Catholic Church teach justification by grace through faith in Christ Jesus and the many protestant groups, with their varieties of interpretations and authorities, teach nothing beyond how does God or Jesus make you feel? This may or may not always be the case but a flat rejection of papal authority raises the question if the teaching of justification is really bothering us in our relationship with the Catholic Church.<br /><br />This is whole different topic. Thank you for your patience.Timothy Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11869105787715732917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-38109051916928702342009-09-10T10:34:28.983-05:002009-09-10T10:34:28.983-05:00Chad,
Likewise, the assertion that, God will bypa...Chad,<br /><br />Likewise, the assertion that, God will bypass your use of NFP if He really wants you to conceive is sort of like saying:<br /><br />If I neglect to provide my neighbor that which he needs to live, God will find another way to provide for him if He really wants him to live. <br /><br />Or, more specifically, if I hate my brother the five days out of every month by neglecting him when he needs me most, this is erased by the fact that I love him the other 26 days of the month when he doesn't really need me. See how loving I am! Whenever I pay attention to my brother, I love him deeply and give him everything he needs at that time. Therefore, God doesn't hold me accountable for those times when I have put him out of my mind, even though it is those times he needed me most.<br /><br />Anyone who has used NFP knows that it forces a man and wife to stay apart when God's created nature calls them the most strongly to come together.Erich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-52881997580781367522009-09-10T10:32:51.937-05:002009-09-10T10:32:51.937-05:00Rev. Brown,
The historic Christian position on th...Rev. Brown,<br /><br />The historic Christian position on this is that one should not intentionally take actions against nature for the purpose of preventing conception.<br /><br />This is much different from saying one must do everything in their power to maximize their fertility and procreate as many human beings into existence as is biologically possible.<br /><br />My arguments here do not inevitably lead to the latter, but rather fully support the former. Why? Because "be fruitful and multiply" should not be seen as a "command" <i>per se</i>, but rather a divine ordinance. Be what God has ordained you to be as husbands and wives, doing what husbands and wives do according to their created nature, and leave the question of how many children result up to God.<br /><br />Luther's exposition on the meaning of the words "be fruitful and multiply" are very instructive on this point:<br /><br /><i>“For this word which God speaks, 'Be fruitful and multiply,' is not a command. It is more than a command, namely, a divine ordinance which it is not our prerogative to hinder or ignore. Rather, it is just as necessary as the fact that I am a man, and more necessary than sleeping and waking, eating and drinking, and emptying the bowels and bladder. It is a nature and disposition just as innate as the organs involved in it. Therefore, just as God does not command anyone to be a man or a woman but created them the way they have to be, so he does not command them to multiply but creates them so that they have to multiply. And wherever men try to resist this, it remains irresistible nonetheless and goes its way through fornication, adultery, and secret sins, for this is a matter of nature and not of choice.<br /><br />". . . from this ordinance of creation God has himself exempted three categories of men, saying in Matthew 19:12, 'There are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.' Apart from these three groups, let no man presume to be without a spouse. And whoever does not fall within one of these three categories should not consider anything except the estate of marriage. Otherwise it simply impossible for you to remain righteous. For the Word of God which created you and said, 'Be fruitful and multiply,' abides and rules within you; you can by no means ignore it, or you will be bound to commit heinous sins without end."</i> [Luther's Works, vol. 45, page 15 ff]Erich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-48544750519359285642009-09-10T10:03:46.032-05:002009-09-10T10:03:46.032-05:00Chad,
I would like to apologize for saying your p...Chad,<br /><br />I would like to apologize for saying your participation as a Roman Catholic is "wasting your time." That was uncalled for. I should have chosen a better phrase to make my point. Please understand that I did not mean to imply that all your contributions to this discussion are useless. I do believe some of the points you and your wife have made depend on a premise of papal authority, thus leading to conclusions which do more to confuse than enlighten this discussion. However, your comments which do not depend upon this premise have been quite valuable. In any case, it is not my place to render judgment upon the value of your participation here. Please accept my apology and forgive me.<br /><br />As for quoting Luther, I would happily quote the Popes to support my arguments wherever they have been right and said it well, just as I quoted that with which I agree from the <i>Latin Mass</i> magazine above. Please understand, then, that I appeal to Luther's fine presentation of certain arguments, not to his magisterial authority.Erich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-21435448579845560882009-09-10T09:45:21.896-05:002009-09-10T09:45:21.896-05:00Chad,
God does hinder the plans of murders - quit...Chad,<br /><br />God does hinder the plans of murders - quite often before the even get to shooting the gun. Or more likely even before it gets to the point.<br /><br />This is why we have rightly prayed many times "Deliver us from evil." That is precisely what we pray for with this petition.Rev. Eric J Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747919365522145094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-39803604221539754702009-09-10T09:36:59.183-05:002009-09-10T09:36:59.183-05:00@Erich:
My NFP and contraception arguments are no...@Erich:<br /><br />My NFP and contraception arguments are not from Papal Authority, though I could make those arguments as well. They are from a natural law and basic moral standpoint.<br /><br />As a side note, it's curious you reject the notion of Papal Authority arguments and then immediately turn around and start quoting Luther as an authoritative source: Pope Luther I.Chad Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14930587550535317718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-46417243491445530402009-09-10T09:26:34.825-05:002009-09-10T09:26:34.825-05:00Erich,
You miss something that Luther has God say...Erich,<br /><br />You miss something that Luther has God saying, "I gave you children and material means for this purpose."<br /><br />God gives. That's simply the way it is. I feel sad for the amount of fear and burden you seem to place upon yourself. Do you think God is so powerless as to let you prevent the existence of one whom He desires to exist? You deal with too many hypotheticals and what-ifs instead of recognizing that we live in a concrete world with concrete realities. Children are not some ether-based "what might have beens" or "what could have beens" -- for if you worry about that, then every single time your wife could have become pregnant and you did not impregnant her, you caused someone not to come into existence. That pushes things logically way too far.<br /><br />Also, note - this type of language (<i>So, go ahead and limit your family size. God will make sure that the hungry, thirsty, naked, sick, and imprisoned are served without your help.</i>) is precisely why I noted to Pastor Curtis above that there seems to be an attitude that one has to have as many children as possible. Again, you go too far.<br /><br />All that being said, I appreciate the zeal you have to provide and care for the wonderful family that God has given you. Care for them, show them love, rejoice and delight in them. I think you misapply this zeal with your comments here.Rev. Eric J Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747919365522145094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-49819910032892898532009-09-10T08:54:23.153-05:002009-09-10T08:54:23.153-05:00One other thing, speaking of logical pretzels, isn...One other thing, speaking of logical pretzels, isn't the assertion that if God really wants you to conceive, he'll bypass the artificial contraception devices sort of like saying:<br /><br />"I want to murder this guy, so I'll shoot him with a gun and if God wants him alive, God will deflect the bullet"Chad Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14930587550535317718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-60021416739226941822009-09-10T08:52:43.593-05:002009-09-10T08:52:43.593-05:00Why do you put artificial in quotations? Are not ...Why do you put artificial in quotations? Are not manmade devices and chemicals not artificial? Is not the woman's cycle natural? Already you have twisted my words and ignored the meaning.<br /><br />1.) If couples wish to keep having the pleasure of sex without accepting the gift of conception, it is selfish. <br /><br />2.) Artificial contraception abuses the bodies of the male and female and reduces sex to merely an exercise in pleasure and mutual stimulation and blocks its primary unitive aspect. At this point, why is sex with devices or chemicals any better than other non-intercourse acts whose sole purpose is merely selfish genital stimulation? Am I not abusing my wife if I seek to use her body merely for my own selfish pleasure? If no, would you consider that love/charity?<br /><br />3.) There is a vast logical difference between thwarting conception and not thwarting it. Timing sexual relations with the normal cycle CAN be sinful if done for the wrong reasons and with the wrong intent, but is not automatically so unlike artificial man-made contraception.<br /><br />4. Yes, this is true. You purposely did not block the conception and were open to it. That's the whole point of NFP. You're not actively TRYING to get pregnant, but you're open to it if it happens. Perhaps this is why you and Erich do not understand NFP correctly.<br /><br />5. Possibly. If you really wanted to get pregnant, why were you using contraception in the first place? You defiantly told God that he will not be allowed to conceive a child in the woman, but He did it anyhow. Why wouldn't you be upset with Him?<br /><br />6. ... which are entirely appropriate as both have to do with the reluctant acceptance of or the absolute defiance of responsibility.<br /><br />Should not have Christ jumped up and been overjoyed with God that the Fathers will would be carried out through Him (Christ)? Why did Christ ask to not suffer the cup?<br /><br />Reluctant obedience is still obedience.<br /><br />"I've known couples using NFP who were mighty ticked" ~ Rev. Eric Brown<br /><br />So then we should throw out NFP because one couple used it defectively and/or didn't understand the theology?<br /><br />In that case we should throw out the Bible because many people don't understand or use it correctly either.<br /><br />Your anecdotes, while poignant, don't reflect the majority case nor the proper understanding of either NFP or artificial contraception.<br /><br />I know Muslims who are really good God-fearing people. Should we all become Muslims now?Chad Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14930587550535317718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-65038102379133918952009-09-10T08:47:57.601-05:002009-09-10T08:47:57.601-05:00Chad,
With all due respect, you and your wife are...Chad,<br /><br />With all due respect, you and your wife are wasting your time here as Roman Catholics, and simply confusing the important epistemological and ethical questions we are investigating as Lutherans.<br /><br />Your arguments are predicated by something NONE of us will accept: Papal authority.<br /><br />If not, then show me how NFP gets around the argument found in my latest comment above.Erich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-84913704707558284862009-09-10T08:17:04.973-05:002009-09-10T08:17:04.973-05:00I wrote: "...could it possibly be that contra...I wrote: <i>"...could it possibly be that contraceptive use at that time would have meant that particular child would not EVER have been conceived, meaning that immortal soul would just simply have never existed?"</i><br /><br />Rev. Brown replied: <i>"If God forms a person, you aren't going to stop it - he can circumvent you. That is really, really egotistical - as though it all revolves around you? I don't understand that approach. I understand the sense of wonder and awe at the wonders of the individual -- but allow God some control, here."</i><br /><br />Now who sounds like a Calvinist? <br /> <br />Do you really believe God, in his sovereignty, circumvents the use of contraception and creates all the children He desires anyway? Or is it only if he "really, REALLY" wants to create a particular individual He will circumvent man's will, as if some individuals are more valuable than others?<br /><br />In any case, we should instead be thinking about the fact that each child God wishes to entrust into our care through the miracle of procreation has a grand purpose in this world. When man contracepts, he is not simply making a personal choice about how big a family he wants. He is making a choice that robs the world of a person whom God intended to be a "little Christ" to others.<br /><br />Listen to Luther chastise parents whose only crime is preventing the formal academic education of their children in favor of a purely vocational training:<br /><br /><i>"Suppose God were to address you on your deathbed, or at the Last Judgment, and say, 'I was hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked, sick, imprisoned, and you rendered me no service. For in that you have not done it to people on earth and to my kingdom or gospel, but have helped put them down and allowed men’s souls to perish, you have done this to me. For you could have helped. I gave you children and material means for this purpose, but you wantonly allowed me and my kingdom and the souls of men to suffer want and pine away—and you thereby served the devil and his kingdom instead of me and my kingdom. Well, let him be your reward. Go with him now into the abyss of hell. You have not helped to build but to weaken and destroy my kingdom in heaven and on earth; but you have helped the devil to build and increase his hell. Live, therefore, in the house that you have built!'"</i> [LW 46, 251]<br /><br />And that is just for preventing the formal academic education of children. How about preventing their very existence??!!!<br /><br />Oh, yes, I forgot. God is sovereign, as you pointed out Rev. Brown.<br /><br />So, go ahead and limit your family size. God will make sure that the hungry, thirsty, naked, sick, and imprisoned are served without your help. God will "circumvent" all your evil actions so you will have nothing to answer for on the last day.Erich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-86770856185859246442009-09-10T07:12:56.718-05:002009-09-10T07:12:56.718-05:00Chad,
So, if I read you rightly, you claim:
1 - ...Chad,<br /><br />So, if I read you rightly, you claim:<br /><br />1 - If someone uses "artificial" contraception it is automatically selfish.<br />2 - Contraception is tantamount to spousal abuse.<br />3 - There is a vast logical difference between attempting to avoid pregnancy, and stopping it from occurring, and "avoiding" is the good one.<br />4 - If one becomes pregnant while using NFP, it actually is what you wanted and is in accord with your will. <br />5 - If one becomes pregnant while using contraception, you are automatically upset with God and defiant.<br />6 - Then there are the Christ in the Garden analogies.<br /><br />I'm sorry Chad, I can't buy these. Logically, they don't work. From experience, they are often false. In some cases they are true - but I've known couples using NFP who were mighty ticked when another bambino came along, and couples who were using contraceptives who were surprised and delighted when a child came along.<br /><br />Too much here, too much.Rev. Eric J Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747919365522145094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-91240050447932854692009-09-09T23:13:40.871-05:002009-09-09T23:13:40.871-05:00@Rev. Brown:
The intent of artificial contracept...@Rev. Brown: <br /><br />The intent of artificial contraception is to prevent pregnancy for selfish reason (i.e. I want to abuse my wife's body for sexual pleasure without having to worry about a baby).<br /><br />That it is not 100% effective is accidental. <br /><br />By your logic, if I point a gun at you with the intent to murder you and I happen to miss, I'm not really a murderer in God's eyes.<br /><br />The intent with NFP is to say: "to the extent that God involves our will in the procreative decision, we say 'Not at this time', but we acknowledge that God's will is most important and so we will not actively try to thwart it. We will use the cycle he created to avoid it, but are open in any event to conception"<br /><br />By the very nature of the word, 'contraception' is to STOP/THWART conception.<br /><br />NFP is not trying to STOP/THWART conception, only avoid it with the power that God has granted us while still being open to the possibility should God choose to do so.<br /><br />With artificial contraception, conception happens IN SPITE of your will and actions.<br /><br />With NFP, it happens IN ACCORDANCE with your will and actions.<br /><br />With artificial contraception, we say to God: I do not want a baby, even if you do, so too bad!<br /><br />When I practice NFP, I say to God: I want a baby if you want me to have a baby, but I'm not going to go out of my way right not to make it happen. Please go ahead if you will it, Lord.<br /><br />NFP is tantamount to Christ in the Garden asking God to remove the cup from him, but accepting it obediently anyhow.<br /><br />We are allow to ask for things contrary to God's will, but must accept them if God chooses so.<br /><br />Artificial Contraception would be tantamount to Christ running away from the Garden or purposely chaining himself to a tree to prevent his removal from the Garden.Chad Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14930587550535317718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-47192016837829402572009-09-09T23:06:04.862-05:002009-09-09T23:06:04.862-05:00"And, Chad, that goes for NFP too." ~ Er..."And, Chad, that goes for NFP too." ~ Erich Heidenreich, DDS<br /><br />No it doesn't, since NFP doesn't actively block pregnancy. It leaves open the door for natural conception.<br /><br />Active contraception is an active saying of "NO" and using man-made ways of preventing the procreative aspect of sex.<br /><br />NFP acknowledges the procreative aspect of sex and allows for it to take place. <br /><br />Every marital act must be open to conception. Not every marital act must conceive.<br /><br />Please answer this question: Why did God create a cycle?Chad Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14930587550535317718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-60434248504087733882009-09-09T23:04:31.977-05:002009-09-09T23:04:31.977-05:00Chad,
On this: "it leaves open the possibili...Chad,<br /><br />On this: "<i>it leaves open the possibility of procreation since there are no chemicals or barriers (artificial means) imposed upon the act.</i>" you make a mistake.<br /><br />If your standard is that there is "possibility" - contraception does not eliminate the possibility of children - it reduces the possibility, just as natural family planning does. As was pointed out somewhere in <a href="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=627517209657132818&postID=2572950527434379099" rel="nofollow"> here</a> NFP is actually more likely to prevent the possibility of conception than some simple barrier methods.<br /><br />No, the key would have to be that these are "artificial" means. I don't see this assumption that simply because something is "artificial" that it is automatically sinful. That seems to be a logical stretch.Rev. Eric J Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747919365522145094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-77349373309850641122009-09-09T22:58:03.113-05:002009-09-09T22:58:03.113-05:00Erich,
a) I would argue we shouldn't assume e...Erich,<br /><br />a) I would argue we shouldn't assume either way.<br /><br />b) Beats the tar out of me. I'm not God. Otherwise I might have to point out the night several years ago when you were just too tired, and your lack of sex prevented SEAMUS RODRIGO from being born! Of course, the next day, because you fell asleep earlier, you were out of the house a minute earlier than you would have been otherwise, so the drunk driver didn't hit you like he would have, which would have made Seamus your last child, born nine months after your demise. Of course, this is to say nothing of the children you slaughtered before they were conceived by not marrying Polly Messersmith - they are all gone now.<br /><br />Rampant speculation is fun, isn't it? But alas, we are not God, we can't know, and any attempt we make to determine what might have been is fiction. There was a gal in college who I might have ended up marrying if only I weren't a pastor - she's expecting twins now - if we had been married they wouldn't have been here - but who knows who would be? <br /><br />Seriously - all this beats the tar out of me. Eh, my in-laws were using contraception and my wife came out of it - God has a way with things.<br /><br />c) Again, beat the tar out of me. That all depends on individual ages and the like. I doubt a few years will render infertile -- of course, I haven't been tested, I might be infertile already. Who, other than God knows.<br /><br />d) Um - if God knows that they exist, they will be formed in the womb. Whether it's here or there - it will happen. If God forms a person, you aren't going to stop it - he can circumvent you. That is really, really egotistical - as though it all revolves around you? I don't understand that approach. I understand the sense of wonder and awe at the wonders of the individual -- but allow God some control, here.<br /><br />By the by, lovely pictures - rejoice in what you have. Be thankful to God - but I certainly hope that you don't go around beating yourself up for the children you might not have caused. That's an awful lot of needless law to live under, that's a lot of fear of the unknown.Rev. Eric J Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747919365522145094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-9527605915102403962009-09-09T21:45:26.207-05:002009-09-09T21:45:26.207-05:00There is a difference between saying "we do n...<i>There is a difference between saying "we do not want more children" and saying "we do not actively want more children at this moment"</i> ~ Rev. Brown<br /><br />So, it's like declining that piece of fresh apple pie after dinner, saying you're too full right now, and you'd love to have it warmed up with a cup of decaf just before you go to bed instead. That's better than telling your wife your not interested in it at all. Right? Everybody's happy.<br /><br />You accuse Rev. Curtis of neglecting to take this concept of time into consideration. Well, then, let's consider time with regard to the argument at hand. <br /><br />a) Are you suggesting that we can assume God will bless us with more children later if we reject His blessing at the present time? <br /><br />b) Are you saying that if we had prevented the conception of one of our seven living children, for example <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5FuWdxYJ52Q/ST1qTuN5C1I/AAAAAAAAAMc/idrZd9LlKsU/s1600-h/IMG_0997_2.jpg" rel="nofollow">Luke Theophil</a>, that he would have just been conceived later? ...perhaps instead of <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5FuWdxYJ52Q/ST1qULhYlQI/AAAAAAAAAMk/Up1A_zWe8Fk/s1600-h/IMG_0968_2.jpg" rel="nofollow">Grace Katherine</a>?<br /><br />c) If so, how far can this delaying go on before you become infertile and someone doesn't get to be conceived?<br /><br />d) I prefer not to think of it, but could it possibly be that contraceptive use at that time would have meant that particular child would not EVER have been conceived, meaning that immortal soul would just simply have never existed? That terrifying thought is what has often prompted our children to thank us for not using contraception.<br /><br />Please enlighten me, Rev. Brown. Which of the children do you think we would have contracepted out of <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5FuWdxYJ52Q/ST1PDhe6E5I/AAAAAAAAAMM/XLzacn79ZAI/s1600-h/Everybody_3_2.jpg" rel="nofollow">this picture</a> if we had accepted your premise? Let me give you a hint: More than half!<br /><br />Now then, what exactly was it you were trying to point out is the difference between saying "we do not want more children" and saying "we do not actively want more children at this moment"?<br /><br />I'd suggest the selfish word "want" points to the very heart of the problem, making this a distinction without a difference -- that is, at least as far as my little <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wkkLJLp3Jio/SiHAUbMYruI/AAAAAAAAGgo/UmIN8xyiCV0/s1600-h/IMG_4765.JPG" rel="nofollow">Grace Katherine</a> is concerned.<br /><br />And, Chad, that goes for NFP too.Erich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-87138033589307874452009-09-09T21:37:07.059-05:002009-09-09T21:37:07.059-05:00@Rev. Eric: Abstaining from sex is not a sin. Timi...@Rev. Eric: Abstaining from sex is not a sin. Timing sex within the natural cycle is also not a sin as it leaves open the possibility of procreation since there are no chemicals or barriers (artificial means) imposed upon the act.<br /><br />Sacrificing is one thing, indulging in sexual pleasure while purposely denying the procreative aspect of it is a gravely disordered action (along the lines of masturbation) as it seeks to take the gift from God and rip out the worldly pleasing parts and rejecting the otherwordly parts.<br /><br />Otherwise, by your logic, married couples would be required to have sex as often as possible so as to never miss an opportunity to procreate.<br /><br />Couples are not called to have sex as often as possible. In fact, historically they're only required to have sex once to consummate the marriage shortly after the wedding and that's it for the rest of their life.<br /><br />But, if you have sex, you must accept the procreative aspect of it. Timing during the cycle is natural and not disordered as it is consistent with the designs of nature.Chad Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14930587550535317718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-21842822525821677792009-09-09T21:00:55.442-05:002009-09-09T21:00:55.442-05:00Chad,
You write: We always recognize this fact an...Chad,<br /><br />You write: <i>We always recognize this fact and never wish to actively reject this fact or to do anything to thwart or work against God's say in the matter.</i><br /><br />I hate to break it to you but saying, "We are not going to have sex" is a pretty active thwarting - physically checking time and temperatures and saying, "Nope, we will not do what we otherwise would" is action. Because if there is no sex, there will be no children. There's only One exception to that rule, and that's a big exception.Rev. Eric J Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747919365522145094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-9678161774269933682009-09-09T20:57:44.523-05:002009-09-09T20:57:44.523-05:00Rev. Ball,
With a few reservations - I will say y...Rev. Ball,<br /><br />With a few reservations - I will say yes. I don't like the term errorist - but rather I think an approach which outright disallows for conception falls more into a legalist camp -- it is an example of where I think pious men, in their desire to attempt to regulate God pleasing lives fell to a law in hopes of preventing greater evils.<br /><br />I cannot say as to whether or not it is "new" because I simply have not studied fully the history of the issue -- I will say that it has become into ascendancy in the past 80 years. Also, I cannot say whether or not any folks within the Church taught this position (this really isn't a huge matter of interest to me, certainly not enough for me to scour the fathers on my own) - but I will grant that it seems to be the apparent consensus of the Church.<br /><br />I do recognize that if I were to speak this way, say 100 years ago, I would be butting heads with the vast majority of folks and not a minority. However, I am not convinced that the exegesis which I have seen on this issue follows logically - and hence, since I am not convinced by either scripture or clear reason -- I remain dubious and unconvinced - especially given the somewhat obvious tendency of many in the Church to fall into legalistic tendencies regarding issues of human sexuality.<br /><br />I would also note, however, that the Church has often adopted new positions. We don't have qualms with Christians being actors - and again, that regulation is rightly dropped - the distinction isn't "acting" but participating in ungodly activities in acting. The assumption had been that to act automatically meant that one participated in ungodly pagan rituals. When that was shown to not always be the case, the ban on being an actor fell away.<br /><br />Perhaps we are reaching a point, given an understanding of how contraception works and how it might be used (especially for purposes which Christians might be able to consider while not violating the law of Christian love - and yes, I'm going to point to love again, for that is the summation of law) which brings about a right and proper reevaluation of these things.<br /><br />This is not meant to be a blanket approval of how contraception is used (any more that we would think that the fact that the Church allows people to be actors is a validation of the porn industry!), but rather that the sin of society is perhaps not fundamentally tied to the concept of contraception.<br /><br />Take care and enjoy the Illinois Fall, Pastor Ball -- in Oklahoma we don't really get fall - we jump from 90s to a mild winter here.Rev. Eric J Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747919365522145094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-70090706304540833882009-09-09T20:46:36.033-05:002009-09-09T20:46:36.033-05:00There's also another aspect: A couple might sa...There's also another aspect: A couple might say:<br /><br />Deciding whether or not our family has more children is a 3 party decision with God being the most important decider with veto power.<br /><br />We always recognize this fact and never wish to actively reject this fact or to do anything to thwart or work against God's say in the matter.<br /><br />Therefore, we resolve never to take active steps to physically block conception or prevent the natural course of the bodies of the man and woman.<br /><br />We will work within the natural cycle of the body and use what power was given to us, but always be open to allowing God to take control and affect His Holy Will.<br /><br />---<br /><br />This is why I feel that using NFP to naturally avoid pregnancy is not wrong. It is quite different than using chemicals or barriers to damage the body and thwart the natural process.<br /><br />God gave us the natural cycle, he did not give us artificial means, these were inventions of man.Chad Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14930587550535317718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-86685654211865834722009-09-09T20:39:15.504-05:002009-09-09T20:39:15.504-05:00http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/
environment/clim...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/<br />environment/climatechange/6161742/<br />Contraception-cheapest-way-to-combat<br />-climate-change.htmlTimothy Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11869105787715732917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627517209657132818.post-43000040118360191442009-09-09T20:36:56.769-05:002009-09-09T20:36:56.769-05:00Here is a temporary aside and a unique manner of s...Here is a temporary aside and a unique manner of support for contraception. <br /> <br />http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6161742/Contraception-cheapest-way-to-combat-climate-change.html<br />'Contraception cheapest way to combat climate change'<br />Contraception is almost five times cheaper as a means of preventing climate change than conventional green technologies, according to research by the London School of Economics.<br /><br />(Of course, it all has to do with the economy. Let the reader note, I am neither buying nor selling this argument.)Timothy Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11869105787715732917noreply@blogger.com