For a serious answer, Gerald, I think you've overstated the case. I don't think "virtuous" is the right word at all. I think "accepted" or "acceptable" may be better. Also, I don't think contraception has been considered "evil" by many people with the exception of priests and a few zealots for several hundred years at least. It's been practiced for a long, long time by various methods (depending on your definition of "natural" which you've refused to talk about). By the way, is it OK for post-menopausal women to have sex? The pill, of course, made it a big deal. Industrialization brought women into the workforce in droves, which made pregnancy an inconvenience to the working woman - besides, big families were no longer necessary or desirable in a non-agrarian society.
Re: sodomy - as you know that's been going on forever, too. Actually, the acceptance of homosexual relationships has allowed, I believe, more men and women to form long-term relationships and helped reduce the promiscuity that homosexual men, in particular, have been prone to - in part because it helped them stay in the closet. Once the catholic church tried to "hold the line" on the strictures on contraception - and failed, I think it caused people to think twice about the church's rules about other things, fish on friday, divorce, etc. People, I think, are more apt to form their own opinions on morality based more on the principle of Do Unto Others... than 2000 year old mores.
"For nearly two thousand years all Christian Churches and their leaders, including Luther and Calvin, condemned artificial birth control as wrong and sinful."
Yes, Luther definitely believed in God's command for us to "be fruitful and multiply".
Because of this belief, he rejected the Catholic Church's 'tradition' of celibacy for priests, stating it went directly against this Scriptural command from God.
Luther believed ministers should marry and have big families, setting a Biblical example for their congregation.
Yeah, and not divorce.
"Statement - Acceptance by Church and society of the sin of contraception is making the acceptance of sodomy inevitable.
Do none dare speak here?"
With respect, and realizing our differences (you being Roman Catholic; me being a Protestant) I would have to say that it is man's original sin that makes acceptance of ANY sin inevitable.
Gerald, I merely point out your seeming obsession with sodomy.
You will judge yourself in the end(no pun intended).
Look at ancient writings as history.
Go here, register for free and read 'The Awful Truth'.
Taste just a little food for thought...
I was referring to the attitudes of society and churches towards contraception and sodomy.
While both have been practiced for thousands of years, there was a belief among Christians for 2,000 years that the practice of both is evil. It was unthinkable, for example, in the 1940s that gays would be celebrating the practice of homosexuality and parading in America's streets by the tens of thousands. Similarly, it was unthinkable that public school teachers would be teaching students how to put condoms on bananas.
Somehow both contraception and sodomy have gone from being viewed as evil to being viewed by many as virtuous.
I believe that the acceptance of the contraceptive mentality that sex is for recreation devoid of procreation paved the way for the acceptance of sodomy.
I say again, therefore, that in my view, the Christian legitimization of the evil of contraception is responsible for the legitimization of sodomy.
Good movie on TCM at 10 PM tonight, titled The Portrait of Dorian Gray, an adaption of Oscar Wilde's novel. The struggle against the sin of sodomy was a struggle that burdened this gifted author, a struggle that he eventually won.
Calling George R., where's George R.?
It is about time, a bleep thread , just pulled brownies out of oven!
That budget stuff was getting a little dry!
Perhaps the reason that sodomy and contraception is acceptable today is because it is a natuaral progression. I can't imagine God sat down with the Christians leaders and said make sure your followers only screw around when they wish to create a new life. Perhaps God wanted us to use birth control so we could still enjoy the pleasures he graced us with and to keep us close without the hardship of delivering and raising dozens of children year in and year out. As the worlds population grew and life expectancy increased and man invented easier ways to live the need to expand the human race became less urgent. God gave us the tools and left us to make the choices.
As far as the acceptance of sodomy, I personally think that is a bummer and it's percieved popularity is because most men in heterosexual relationships try endlessly to get what they can't have...it's the chase :wink:
Beth, I think you nailed it. God's probably sitting there thinking, "I can't believe they're still reading that stupid old book. Haven't they got anything better to do?"
Dem...I don't think the bible is a "stupid old book"...however, that said...we do not base our government on literal interpretations of the bible.
Looks like Democrat and Beth are founding a new religion.
Meanwhile Christian churches continue to be based on the Bible and tradition with exceptions for some on contraception and sodomy.
Perhaps the reason that sodomy and contraception is acceptable today is because it is a natuaral progression. I can't imagine God sat down with the Christians leaders and
God (Jesus) did discuss with Christian leaders (Apostles) how moral laws could be adopted/revised in the future.
Scripture states that Jesus told the Apostles that He was giving the keys to the kingdom of heaven and building His Church on a rock named Peter; and whatever Peter and the Church bound or loosened or earth would be bound or loosened in heaven. He further stated that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church and its teachings until the end of time.
The Church has never loosened its teachings on contraception or the practice of sodomy.
You seemed fixated on sex? Ever think of trying to pass the time by birding?
Strangely, those select adults that consciously choose to abstain from sex, usually become obsessed with those that didn't choose to abstain. I have to wonder why that isâ€¦
Gerald, I'm one of the strong supporters of the papacy in general but you can't paint it with a very wide brush. There have been less than stellar pontiffs. Shall we bring up the cadaver synod?
What makes one form of contraceptive "artificial" and another form not?
As a Protestant, I value the conversations I've had with George R. (likewise with other Roman Catholics on AMG; rightwingwoman, francisz, Al Greenlaw, Gerald and others). I enjoy being able to critically examine the tenets of our respective faiths - compare/contrast, etc.
I am sorry to see that GR has not posted here in a long time. I miss his contribution to this forum.
RE: Gerald's topic, specifically artificial birth control...
I think the following explanation helps summarize the answers to the questions, "What does the Bible say about birth control? Should Christians use birth control?".
From a Protestant's perspective (speaking only for myself; what I've been taught and learned from studying the Scriptures - see Genesis 38, the story of Er, Onan and Tamar referenced at link above), "it was not the act of contraception that caused the Lord to put Onan to death, but rather Onanâ€™s selfish motives behind the action."
I've always wondered about this, it makes me chuckle. In my opinion, it's usually the ones that are so outwardly against something that have something to hide! And no, I'm not accusing Gerald of this, I am simply making an observation.
Virgil Kane wrote:What makes one form of contraceptive "artificial" and another form not?
The distinction seems quite obvious to me. Any humanly contrived barrier falls under the description of artificial while impediments resulting from natural causes such as you describe do not.
By the way, I don't think that your assertion of the Church's acceptance of the "withdrawal method" is correct.
IMHO, I think you are correct that the Church does not condone "coitus interruptus," as they call it. The list was referring to what I think are some "natural contraceptive" practices. And, I see the distiction you are making. My point is that, that is not the same distinction made by hte Church. Withdrawl is a good example to make my point; as you said, it is an impediment resulting from natural causes. There is nothing artificial about it. It does not involve the use of any humanly contrived barrier. The same is true of using breast-feeding to extend the period of infertility. But why is one morally okay and one not?
Virgil, these are very complex and subtle moral points which I don't feel fully qualified to try to explain. However my understanding of the Church's position is that as long as one does not interfere with God's plan in these crucial matters, as implemented through his laws of nature (as in your " natural causes") it is morally OK. ie., it is not morally acceptable to try to overrule God's design in matters of procreation. One could argue that even "coitus interruptus" is in fact a human impediment to nature's laws in this regard, making the Church's opposition to it totally consistent.
File under pot calling kettle black. You are far and away AMG's leading poster on homosexuality. No one is even close.
Those favoring homosexual practices are never accused of being obsessed with sex or fixed on sex. But if someone reminds people that sodomy has been considered an abomination from Sodom and Gomorrah and Moses to St. Paul and to most of today's Christian Churches, then opponents instead of debating the issue resort to name callling such as bigotry, homophobia, fixated, and obsessed.
When you cannot debate against truth, what else can you do but resort to name calling? Right Pot?
Yes the distinctions being made her by the Church are indeed subtle, even indiscernable, I'd say. As you say, one could argue that even "coitus interruptus" is in fact a human impediment to nature's laws in this regard, making the Church's opposition to it totally consistent.
But why is specifically limiting coitus to times known or thought to be moments of infertility not also an impediment to nature's laws? How is putting it in when there is no egg morally different from taking it out when there is an egg? It's a distinction without a difference.
And what about artificial insemination, or other manmade designs to interfere with the procreative process to increase the chance of reproduction? If it's all up to God, then man should butt out, whether his intentions are for good or for bad. What about viagra? Why interfere with the natural course that has already been established by Him? If it's His domain then it's His domain. These "positive" interferences are still attempts to overrule God's design in matters of procreation.
Yes the distinctions being made her by the Church are indeed subtle, even indiscernable
How is putting it in when there is no egg morally different from taking it out when there is an egg? It's a distinction without a difference.
8) Has anyone kept score yet it seems that Gerald is one or two up
in the forth inning! :D
Has anyone ever been called a bigotry?
8) Has anyone kept score yet it seems that Gerald is one or two up
in the forth inning! :D ...
It's the bottom of the seventh with the home team Angels leading the Devil Rays 7 to 0.
If Charlotte is Gay Poster Numero Uno, Gerald, you are most certainly Numero Dos.
In fact, Charlotte hardly ever starts the homosexuality threads.
We cannot say the same for you.
Naran seems to be a pinch hitter and has entered game!
Brownies left over from last night! :D
It's the bottom of the ninth and the Devil Rays have brought their vaunted pinch hitter to bat for Charlotte and she just struck out.
As Yogi would say, the fat lady has sung.
:lol: I love sports! :lol:
Very funny! You guys are killin' me. :lol: