Posted on 06/10/2018 6:42:31 PM PDT by marshmallow
1 Timothy 3:1-7 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
What makes you think people who may use some form of contraceptive AREN'T still trusting God? I know a few women who got pregnant WHILE taking the pill - they kept their babies. My own father sired two more sons after his vasectomy (my brothers). We can't thwart the will of God. Look at Sarah and Moses - they got pregnant when they were senior citizens! John the Baptist's parents as well.
Question: Does God expect us to provide for our children, to be able to feed and clothe them and ensure they have a roof over their heads and the security of loving parents? It's called RESPONSIBILITY.
Please understand, I am not in any way condoning sex outside of marriage nor do I think abortifacient contraceptives (IUD, BC pill, hormone implants, etc.) are acceptable. But using some kind of barrier method - though NOT 100% effective - isn't all that different than Natural Family Planning (NFP) that Catholicism doesn't have a problem with. Like I said, giving guidance and education WRT Biblical principles IS the role churches should play in families' lives. To state ALL CONTRACEPTION IS ALWAYS EVIL is overkill - pardon the pun.
BTW...not for nuthin'...Michelangelo's magnificent Sistine Chapel ceiling as well as his other works of sculpture and paintings are some examples of what is called homoerotic art as he was rumored to be a homosexual through out his life.
To my understanding, before those things were accepted in every faith group, they first accepted birth control within marriage. Are there faiths groups that have accepted birth control within marriage and haven’t accepted those other things? Sure, and I hope they never do. But everyone that did first accepted birth control within marriage.
Why do you think the most liberal Catholics are the ones that hate the prohibition of birth control within marriage the most? Just like liberal Catholics hate the discipline of celibacy the most. They think it will lead to other things.
Freegards
The invention of the pill did not cause the moral breakdown.
The moral breakdown is what caused the demand for the pill.
Y’all are putting the cart before the horse and taking away human responsibility for moral choices.
FYI...The Midrash is NOT the Bible.
First of all there is far more than Michelangelo and JUST the Sistine Chapel. Point being: the Catholic Church’s artscape leaves room for sensuality, mystery, and yes even the contradictions and spiritual struggles of its adherents (like Michelangelo and others.)
By taking on the flesh, Christ redeemed Creation.
Perhaps Michelangelo’s homosexual desires and struggles were redeemed by God and put in the service of His Glory. Beauty from the pain.
And Michelangelo’s works, especially pertaining to the Crucifixion - definitely capture pain masterfully.
I wonder what caused the demand for that “other” pill? You know, that little blue one? 😁
Neither is the "new testmament."
But whatever one thinks of derash interpretation, the plain sense of the text is that a very short gestation period was lengthened to a much greater amount of time. The idea that it refers to more conceptions after than before the sin is metmom's own private interpretation. Even if private interpretations are all put on the same level, her opinion is no more the obvious sense of the text as the traditional one.
That, btw, is why there has always been an authentic oral interpretive tradition. Unfortunately the Catholic Church ruined that idea for Protestants.
I’m smashed to say I don’t know what you mean by the little blue pill. Probably everybody else got it. What is the little blue pill?
LOL. How about sildenafil citrate.
I didn’t imply St. Paul was never ever married. He may have been a widower, like St. Peter. I just meant he was celibate by the time he was writing the Epistles, as he himself attested. And as he recommended.
Please note that Catholics not only believe that marital sex is good -— we believe it is Holy, a constituent element of a Sacrament, and thus a channel of a specific Sacramental grace.
And interestingly, celibacy is not.
True, the verse does not suggest NFP. But it supports and harmonizes with NFP because it says mutually consenting, prayerful, periodic abstinence can be a good thing.
This is something Scripture never said about contraceptive paraphernalia.
You make many good points here about sin starting in the heart. That is certainly true.
However, I did not say that I blame the mere *existence* of, for example, hormonal pills or condoms for sin. A hormonal pill can legitimately be used to treat a disease, like PCOS or endometriosis. I understand a condom can be used diagnostically to get a sperm sample for analysis. It can be used as a water balloon, whee!
The mere *object* is not evil.
Using any object to deliberately sabotage fertility is evil.
Such a sin can be done even without an “object”at all.
Ref. Genesis 38. It’s intentionally impairing what could otherwise have been a fertile sexual encounter. It is akin to withdrawal, or sodomy, both condemned in Sacred Scripture.
I’ll have to look it up! Google is almost as good as a PDR.
There's no record of Peter being a widower.
1 Corinthians 9:5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
St. Paul said he was (not necessarily always, but at the time of his writing) -- celibate. We know that, too. A Catholic fiend sent this to me:
"The Bible never says whether Paul was married or not. Some think that he was at one time based on what he said in 1 Corinthians 9:5, "Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" If Paul was married at one time, his wife likely passed away considering he never mentions her in any of his writings. Paul declared that he had the gift of celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7.
"Paul’s statement to the unmarried and widows in the Corinthian church gives evidence that he was not married at the time of his writing the letter: “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Corinthians 7:8-9). Clearly, he was not married at that time, but whether he married before that or afterward is also a matter of speculation."
Holy moly, MDO, it’s viagra. 😁👍
My dentist had a necktie with little blue pills all over it——14 years ago.
He thought he was quite the comedian-—and pointed it out to everyone.
(I moved,and got a new dentist.):-)
.
.
I did a report on Michelangelo three years ago for my Faith and Art group. Wow, what a splendidly gifted man! And he knew he owed it all to God.
I would argue that, whatever his internal struggles --- and they were lifelong and felt full-force --- there's credible evidence that he never engaged in homosexual relations.
Unlike almost all prestigious sculptors of his time and place, he did not live with, and barely tolerated, apprentices, though many ambitious parents urged him to accept their sons in his workshop. According to one account, some would more-than-broadly hint that such-and-such a young man was very attractive and would be good in bed, and he literally chased them out the door with physical force.
He was ascetical and solitary in his personal life, which also made him most unusual for the elite artists of his day. His contemporary and biographer Condivi called him a man who "withdrew himself from the company of men," describing his "monk-like chastity".
My own take on it is that he had a romantic affection for men, which he sublimated into his powerful art.
His 300+ sonnets and madrigals unquestionably express a passionate attraction to the male form and the anima maschile, and also a passionate devotion to God to Whom he dedicated his solitude and his genius.
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.