Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Dave, you'd better ask the moderator to remove that post before Reggie sees it. ;o)
Accidents happen. Sperm live. Eggs get released early. Women get colds and infection which give false signs. Women's cycles get erratic.
SD
I'm having a hard time reading the posts, my puter screen is fogged up from heavy breathing. :)
BigMack
Thanks for refraining.
-Kevin
No, once before. You asked too many questions about foreplay and if every session has to end in coitus then too. ;-)
SD
Well, you never know... If you're checking to see if today is "safe", it might count as foreplay... ;o)
My point is, if a condom is artificial, then so is a thermometer. The intent and the end result is the same.
From my perspective, I resolve the dilemma by viewing openness to procreation within the context of the marriage as a whole, not within every singular act of sex.
Is all I have to say on the contraception issue is I have 2 children, I was fruitful and multiplied. I also spent 18 months puking morning, noon, and night, high blood pressure, pre-eclampsia, and c-sections. I was/am not having any more kids. If you have never been there don't judge. Enough said:)
Becky
While y'all have been talking, we just finised another "smoke" :)
BigMack
That's all fine and good; but, nobody is limiting Christ to being merely the scripture - and especially not me. What you have said changes not a word of what I've said. It changes not one scentilla of it's meaning. The confession of Christ is the foundation and Christ as the word is the core of that foundation of faith. If you are building upon anything else, you build on sinking sand. Period.
What then becomes the issue is whether anything you state out of hand as tradition is proveable in scripture - so far it's been shown that is not the case and decidedly so. It's not a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of playing smorgesboard with the scripture - picking and choosing what you'll believe and leaving the rest as though it is of no import. The danger there is that you are responsible for all of it whether you choose to believe any of it at all. As I've said time and again - Jesus stated that the Word will judge you in the end - not tradition, not what you choose to believe of philosophy, not your logical constructs, and not your man made doctrines - the Word.
Makes it sound like a luxury car. Or a tennis racquet.
SD
-Kevin
I have further problems with this, but in the interest of avoiding becoming any more graphic than I already have, I will abstain from replying.
They are hlding back from having sex. They are not holding back while having sex. See the difference?
Frankly, no. If the second impairs the unitive aspect, then so does the first, IMO.
If I admit that NFP is essentially, while "natural," essentially a product of a "contraceptive mentality" what does that get me? An admission that some Catholics use a strange method to acheive the same ends. We are all sinenrs then. I can see that this is a quite logical conclusion. If NFP is sinful, it doesn't make other methods right.
As I said to Fury, I think you can resolve the problem and avoid the kind of nitpicky issues involved by viewing openness to procreation in the broader scope of the marriage as a whole, rather than within each particular act. But this will not be acceptable to Catholics who accept the church's teachings on contraception.
Nobody's judging you, Becky. We're just dicussing more of our differences of beliefs. Carry on. :o)
-Kevin
-Kevin
Well you're certainly getting closer. Christ...Himself...the person... is the foundation. Your previous statement was that is was the Bible. When your error was pointed out you basically said that Christ is the Bible and therefore there is no contradiction. So there was no foundation before the canon? Or if you insist that everyone knew the real Scriptures the moment they were written there was no church before Paul wrote his letters? No foundation?
There is no point in dancing around the terminology. Christ Himself is the foundation.
What then becomes the issue is whether anything you state out of hand as tradition is proveable in scripture
See. There you are restricting Christ to only what you find in Scripture - the original error. The real issue is whether anything is disprovable in scripture. Those are the two definitions of Sola Scriptura and you just put your chips on the one that most NCs claim the RCs improperly attribute to them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.