DeoOmnisGloria.com

Jay,

"It takes a strong belief and trust in God to throw away your protection"

Like it has been said before, NFP and a condom are the same. The intent is to prevent conception. Both are not 100% proof. This is a fact. NFP does not work all the time and neither does a condom.
We also go back to the issue of an ectopic pregnancy. As Marc said in a previous post, ectopic pregnancies can resolve on their own. They can also lead to a severe hemmorhage if it doesn't resolve. Doesn't it also take a strong belief and trust in God to allow Him to resolve it or even better, move the embryo into the correct location?
Don't get me wrong, God is able and can do anything, but the Lord also gives us wisdom.
To use contraception, be it NFP or a condom, for the sake of never having ANY children is wrong. However to space out children for the sake of financial responsibility is wisdom. God gave Joseph the wisdom to prepare for a famine. Does that mean that Joseph did not trust God to provide in the time of the famine? Of course not. The same goes for families. Using wisdom, given to you, by the Lord is fine. So be it NFP or a condom, if it is for a time period, for the right reasons, there is nothing wrong with it.
Once again, let me reiterate, NFP and a condom are the same. They both are intended to prevent conception, KEY WORD BEING INTENDED, but they both are NOT 100% proof.

God Bless

Jeff,
I feel like I keep repeating myself, but I'll do it again. First, if there's no difference between NFP and a condom, then why not use NFP? I'd like to know your answer, because I think it would be revealing.

If there is no difference between NFP and a condom, why do only 2% of NFP families divorce and around 50% of those using condoms?

There is a huge difference, take it from someone with practical experience. In using NFP, a couple is deciding that they need to space children for some serious reason. So, they work with God's design of the female body and they abstain from sex for a timeperiod each month. This is them giving up something they enjoy in order to space children.

For those using a condom, they can ignore God's design of the female body. They decide that they will space children (most are using contraception until they decide to have children, but I'll go with your analogy), but instead of giving up sex, abstaining, they decide to still enjoy the sexual act but to render it infertile. In other words, they don't want to miss out on sex, so they continue to do it.

It's simply whether you would be selfish or not selfish. Period. Even if you ignore that God killed Onan for contraception.

By the way, the ectopic pregancy thing was already answered very well I think, so I'll assume you read the answer.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

I have a question. Is sex between a husband and a wife selfish if :

A. Either the Husband or wife has a medical condition that prevents pregnancy?

B. If the couple is past child bearing age?

God made woman Because it was not Good for man to be alone. Companionship came 1st before
procreation.

You give the impression that the Sole purpose to marry is for procreation and that sex between
a husband and a wife is somehow selfish with implications that it is WRONG, if the motivation isn't to procreate.. I believe you indicated you
were married. Do you want us to believe that EVERY time you come together with your wife it is for the SOLE purpose of making a baby ????

When you use the word SELFISH it puts a STIGMA
on legal and sanctioned relations between a husband and a wife.

Onan was killed because he broke an agreement.
He knew that his duty was to give his brother an heir. He entered into the marriage knowing this
obligation was expected of him. He knew if he married his sister in law that the firstborn would be his brother's heir.

God killed him for breaking the covenant he made
to give his brother an heir through his sister in
law. If there was another reason then why did the scripture make a point of the fact that he knew that the child would not be his as the motivation for spilling his seed ..? Onan wanted to deprive his brother of an heir.

In Christ,

Clem

Clem,

Excellent post. I know that I am married and everytime me and my wife join, we do not say "LETS MAKE A BABY!!!"
LOL.

God Bless

Clem,
"Companionship came 1st before procreation"

Are you kidding? Do you believe that God created Adam and Eve without the ability to procreate? The first command God gave them was "Go forth and multiply" - let's be rational.

"Selfish" is the right term if you are using sexuality only to please your personal desires. When you remove any chance of procreation (which is the natural outcome of sex) from the equation, you are simply using sex to satisfy your desires. In other words, sex is holy because it allows us to participate in the procreative aspect of God's character: you're playing God by removing that aspect of sex.

Does this mean that once God has closed the womb (as only He can do), sex is wrong? No! Don't be silly. Unless of course you have chosen to close the womb through contraception, in which case it is wrong.

By the way, you still haven't explained why the Bible says Onan was killed for what he did - - all of your excuses surround what Onan did not do.

If you're practicing contraception, Jeff, I can see that. My wife and I don't say that either, but we also don't say, "Let's see how we can thwart the way God designed your body to prevent the gift of child that God might want to bestow on us!"

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

That's because if you read between the lines as Dave excused me of NOT doing it isn't about what Onan did but About what he did NOT do. It's so clear a blind man could see it. But for some reason you refuse to conceade the obvious. Onan did not perform his duty and that is why God killed him. He was never going to perform it because he didn't want to give his brother an heir.. Since he knew that a child conceived from that union would NOT be his as CLEARLY stated in the text. Obviously I am not alone in this view since others have posted the same view..

It is because it does not fit with what the Institution says it means so it can not be right.
An the Institution wonders why the reformation happened...
***********************************

8 Then Judah said to Onan , “Go in to your brother’s wife , and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother .”

9 Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife , he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother .

10 But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord ; so He took his life also
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995

Peace,

Clem

Clem,

You are correct. So is Jay. The Bible says that he did not want to give his brother an heir. It also says that Onan "wasted his seed". Then it says that "what he did" was evil. I'm not sure why that is so hard for you to see. First off, not wanting to give a brother an heir does not exactly fall under of the definition of what somebody does. On the other hand, wasting seed does qualify. But I'm willing to admit that both were wrong. Why can't you? It is you who insist on excising one portion of this passage in favor of another portion. Why?

Consider this also: the law a) did not exist at that time, and b) once it did exist did not REQUIRE any brother to marry his dead brother's wife. It may have been the right thing to do, but not required. Moreover, I'm sure you would find it repugnant for a man to have sex with his dead brother's wife, especially if he was already marries. So, clearly not wanting to give someone an heir was not evil in and of itself (or at least punishable by death). Do you agree? Isn't if obvious that the sin here was taking the benefits of the sexual union without the responsibilities?

In Christ,
Dave

P.S. I accused you; I certainly did not excuse you.

PS:

Doesn't the bible say "It is NOT good for man to be alone" BEFORE it says " be fruitful and Multiply" ? At least it is in that order in my bible.. So companionship came before
procreation. That's all I was saying. I don't see why that's so hard to grasp.

You said "If you use sexualiy to please your personal desires, then it is selfish."

And we all know that being selfish is a sin. We are supposed to put others first.. So by that strick definition. (Your words) a husband and wife having relations with each other to please their personal desires and not for the express purpose of procreation are being selfish and being selfish is a sin ..... ?? Hmmm ..

Peace,

Clem

Clem,
Are you kidding? I hope that is a joke, because the logic is so bad.

I guess you missed the question: Are you saying God created Adam and Eve without the ability to procreate? Please enlighten me. And how does "companionship" exclude procreation?

You should be ashamed of your second comment: I clearly explained it and you intentionally took my words and twisted them.

I have a question, Clem: what's your problem with the Church? In my experience, those who are so anti-Catholic that they can't reason have some problem with a specific moral stance of the Church. What's your problem? You don't like the condemnation of contraception, is that it?

If you were really seeking the truth, Clem, you wouldn't mischaracterize the points others make.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Aside from Clem covering the basic points and stealing my thunder...I will add or reaffirm what brother Clem said.

Here is what you said.
"but we also don't say, "Let's see how we can thwart the way God designed your body to prevent the gift of child that God might want to bestow on us!"

First let me say, this is the view of the RCC. Scripture has nothing to say about NFP versus the use of a condom. The RCC concluded that NFP is "natural" therefore it is ok. However, when we get down to the INTENT of each device, the INTENT is to prevent conception. Despite your logic in the above quoted statement, God cannot be thwarted. So even if you use NFP or a condom, you still can get pregnant.
Lets look at intentions. If a couple has sex 2 days after the woman finishes her menses, there is a 99% chance she won't get pregnant. With NFP the intent to have sex during this time period is to not have a child because the chances of conceiving is very slim. You can argue that you leave the door open for God to still make it happen. The same goes for a condom. IT can always break. The point is that it is the RCC that deemed one natural over the other. But when we reason on the intentions of both devices, they are the same. A man still is spilling his seed on what he believes to unfertile ground. Saying that NFP is not the same as contraception is the same as saying that anullments and divorce aren't the same. Clearly the intention and intended results are the same.
Clem is correct, you refuse to concede that the Bible shows that God killed Onan for his intentions of refusing to give his brother and heir.
The Bible does not teach about contraception. Onan's intentions were what God found to be detestable. Onan broke an agreement. That is why he got killed. If Onan knew about "NFP", and chose only to have sex on the days that she was unfertile, he still would have been killed, because God was displeased with his heart. You can accuse me of reading to much into it if you'd like. However the scripture clearly shows that Onan's thoughts and intentions were clear. This did indeed lead to his action of spilling his seed on the ground. However, the key point is that he wanted to have sex with his brothers wife without producing an offspring for his brother. Why? Because he knew it would not be his. That is called pride. We all know that God hates pride, which is why he ultimately killed Onan.

"Isn't if obvious that the sin here was taking the benefits of the sexual union without the responsibilities?"

The sin as pride. The Bible did not say that Onan did not want a child. IT says that he KNEW the child would not be his. That is the selfish pride of Onan that got him killed.

God Bless

Dave,

Your are correct, I used the incorrect word.
I meant Accused and typed excussed. I made a mistake. See , I will admitt when I make a mistake and apologize when I am wrong.
***************
Jay,

How did I misrepresent what you said. I quoted
your words. How did I twist them.. I expanded on them. I was under the impression that Selfishness
is considered a sin ? Am I wrong ? Being selfish is not a sin ? I twisted nothing. Maybe you were not as clear as you thought.

You made it sound like having relations with any other motivation except for the purpose of procreation is selfish. And if selfishness is not a sin it is wrong behavior..

The point I was trying to make was that there are other benefits to the marriage bed besides the blessing of children and that enjoying those benefits is acceptable to God and that there is nothing wrong with coming together as husband and wife to enjoy those benefits..

You came off sounding like the only reason for the marriage bed is to make babies. If that is not what you meant then I apologize for not understanding your meaning.. But you seem very one track lately. Maybe it is not your intention but you come across like God designed things for one purpose and that a scripture can only have one meaning.

I have posted before my problems with the RCC.
I will list them again if you'd like. I went into detail in my post to Dave.

Peace,

Clem

Clem and Jeff,

Neither of you have directly answered the point that the Bible says God was displeased with what Onan DID! The only thing he actually did was to waste his seed. (That's also in the Bible, remember?) Nobody is disagreeing with you as to what his intentions were. Please keep that in mind when you respond to this post. N-O A-R-G-U-M-E-N-T...

The question is whether it was the action or the intention that God found detestable. Isn't it both? The Bible does say that God hated what Onan DID. It does not say He hated Onan's intention. So it is you who have to make the stretch with your interpretation. Oddly enough, Jay and I are in the strict constructionist category that you two so often occupy. But we are willing to admit that God ALSO hated Onan's intentions. What do you offer to justify your position that Onan's intentions were the ONLY thing wrong. That is not in the Scripture and you know it!!!!

Also, at their root, what were Onan's intentions? Pride has nothing to do with it. How does raising someone else's kid damage your pride? That doesn't even make sense. No, selfishness was the root. Onan did not want to face the responsibility of raising someone else's child, with all of the costs and burdens that go along with it, and yet have no benefit at the end of the day (i.e. an heir). But consider this: would God have killed Onan had he not married his sister-in-law at all? Of course not. Even in spite of the fact that he would have still been acting selfishly. So the key sin here must depend on more that just his selfish desire not to raise a child. It goes to the fact that he pretended to take up the responsibility, took the benefits of that responsibility (sexual pleasure), but refused to couple that benefit with the burden it naturally entailed (in this case bearing and raising children for his brother).

Consider one of the few other examples in Scripture of God striking someone dead, Annanias and Saphira. In that case, they both agreed to sell all that they had and give it to the Church. This is a reflection of the marital union--a complete giving of oneself to another. Yet when they brought the proceeds of the sale, they held some back. Peter asked them if it was everything and they said "yes". Both of them were immediately struck dead. Again, in this case, neither selfishness (which we all have in our tithing practices) nor the mere act of not giving everything (they could have simply chosen not to participate) explain why they were killed. The explanation is found in the fact that they pretended to fully give their belongings to the Church, took the benefits of being recognized as having such charity, but were unwilling to follow through. The took on the cloak of great charity, but the refused give themselves over to the most powerful expression of that charity.

In the same way, Onan took on the cloak of the marital union (and in this case the added cloak of brotherly charity; again, both are true), but he failed to consummate that union in the manner of its most powerful expression.

Please tell me where my logic has gone wrong. And Jeff, no references to NFP. That is an argument you can make when you agree that contraception is wrong. Until then it is rather beside the point.

In Christ,
Dave

P.S. Have either of you read JPII's writings on the family? A lot of what we are saying is difficult to understand unless and until you can see marriage as a sacrament (as only Catholics do) which is the fullest earthly representation of God's trinitarian form: Fatherhood, sonship, and the essence of the family, love. I would highly recommend his writings on this subject. Give them a shot!

Dave,

"Please tell me where my logic has gone wrong. And Jeff, no references to NFP. That is an argument you can make when you agree that contraception is wrong. Until then it is rather beside the point."

First off, I will discuss NFP because it helps illustrate the inconsistency of the RCC.
But back to Onan. Dave, I hate to sound like a broken record, but ONAN KNEW THE KID WOULD NOT BE HIS. Scripture shows that ONAN SPILLED HIS SEED...and why? Because he knew the woman would not get pregnant with HIS brother's offspring. Then the Bible says that God found THIS to be detestable and so Onan was killed. Spilling his seed is part of the result of his intentions, but Scripture clearly shows that it was his intentions that got him killed. I believe you and Jay know this, but won't concede this. But here is why NFP is important in this discussion. THe RCC teaches you that contraception is wrong and uses Onan as an example. However NFP is allowed. NFP is a form of contraception. NFP is intended to plan on having sex without getting pregnant. THat is what it is. A condom does the same thing. Yet one is OK by the RCC and the other is not. Yet they both are the same...at least conceptually they are. They both are intended for preventing conception and they both are not 100% proof. Although statisitics will show when used properly a condom or NFP will have a 98% success rate. So, even though the RCC interprets Onan's act as contraception and subsequently deeming it wrong, why allow NFP? Is it because it is natural? Is this in the Bible? If so, could you please show me.

God Bless

Dave and Jay,

Since you two are so adamant to point out that God killed Onan for what he DID, I will concede the point that what Onan DID was prevent a pregnancy through contraception. This was why he was killed by God. However, does this story really teach the condemnation of all contraception in all circumstances? I think you are stretching this story beyond what it was intended for. It could be argued that this story condemns contraception in the narrow circumstance where there is a duty to be filled and that duty is subsequently not fulfilled due to the use of contraception. I think Jeff or Clem’s comment that Onan would have been struck down if he had used NFP is very valid, and the strongest counterpoint to this whole argument.

Why is it that you are hammering this particular passage of Scripture so hard? Could it be that you have no other Scripture to fall back on for the basis of your beliefs?

I think that your strongest argument against the use of contraception is not the Bible, but the fact that all subsequent writers that dealt with the subject also condemn it, and that the Catholic Church has always condemned it. I know that I have scoffed at this argument before, but it should hold some weight with those of us living in this age that all those who have gone before have always condemned contraception. Clearly the burden is on us who believe differently to show that contraception is ok. I think I have been able to do so at least in my mind, but this is a much more serious issue than many Protestants give credence to. I get laughed at (not really but it sometimes seems this way) when I tell other believers I know, that my wife and I have wrestled with this issue. I think that it’s because they have grown up assuming that contraception is right without really thinking it through. This really is a very important issue and aside from the issues of salvation, I would argue that this is the most important issue for it deals with the very souls of others. Through each child you have you will have more of an impact on the future history of the human race than anything you could do otherwise. In a very real sense your children are your legacy. The decision to not have kids should not be made flipantly.

I know a protestant couple who are both 27 and are pregnant with number 7. If you do the math that is around 14-15 without multiples. They are firmly convinced that you should always trust God with this issue period. If you are on the brink of starvation, God will provide etc. They see no place for NFP or any such nonsense. To me as well it is either all one way or all the other. Either we “trust” God to always determine the size of our families, or we “trust” God that he will lead us with our God given mind to decide what the size of our families should be.

And then there is the Church with its teachings, seemingly straddling the fence. When should we use NFP? The Church says when you feel lead to by God to space your children under dire circumstances. However, even in dire circumstances shouldn’t one still trust God to provide. Hasn’t he promised he would do so? When would you ever be in a situation where you cannot say this? When would you ever be in a situation where you could feel like you actually use NFP? Then on the other hand, maybe God has provided for us in that we have the God given ability to make the decision to procreate or not, and God has provide a way to do so. If this is the case, why can’t you use this decision making ability to be lead by God to say we are done having children? It doesn’t make sense to me.

Is it truly selfish to have sexual union with your spouse without the possibility of procreation? First of all there is never sexual union without the possibility of procreation, even with the most effective methods. God is still sovereign over this. Secondly, you not only want to enjoy the act yourself, but hopefully you want your spouse to enjoy it as well. This is not completely about you. Thirdly, if this is true then persons who are infertile either because of medical reasons or due to age should not have sex, as this would be selfish.

In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas,
I agree this is an important issue, particularly for those of us who are against abortion (these two go hand-in-hand). Also, it's important to note that I cite other Scripture in my articles, but this is the passage we are forced to defend repeatedly, which is why this is the one we often discuss.

Now, can we ever use NFP? Well, Jesus once noted that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of our hearts - this may be a similar issue. I think the argument could be made that you should simply have sex without contraception and not worry about the consequences. However, this is a hard teaching and many would have a problem with it, so the Church allows NFP (which works with the way God designed our bodies) in certain situations: of course, we will individually be judged by God on whether each situation was legitimate.

Finally, we aren't saying sex is selfish when you can't have children. God designed women's bodies to stop producing children at a certain age - He has His reasons for this. As well, God designed women to only be fertile for certain times of the month. Remember, these were God's decisions, not ours. Selfish sex is when you try and have sex during these fertile times and try to render the act of sex infertile. This is different than using NFP. The NFP couple rather abstains from intercourse, which is very unselfish, during these times. Does that make sense?

I also agree that another strong point is the 1900 years of consistency in this teaching on the part of all Christians. Remember though, they always pointed at Onan as proof!

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

If your thoughts on NFP and the Church's rationale for it are right, why does the Church still take such a hard line on Divorce?

In Christ,

Thomas

P.S.

What is up with the pink background? It's about blinding.

Jay,

"Selfish sex is when you try and have sex during these fertile times and try to render the act of sex infertile. This is different than using NFP. The NFP couple rather abstains from intercourse, which is very unselfish, during these times. Does that make sense?"

The NFP couple is told to abstain from sex during the highest probability of fertility. The whole point, and I think you keep missing it, is that it is still a form of contraception.
Here is an example of the NFP couple
"We can have sex, but since we are spacing are children, we won't have sex on the days that you most likely ovulate."

Now, lets not kid ourselves, going without sex for a couple of days is not hard at all. The point is that NFP is for guaranteeing pregnancy or avoiding it. The avoiding part is contracepion. Conceptually it is.
Let me repeat, the concept of contraception is to not get pregnant. That contraception in its simplest form. When NFP is used in this form, it is contraception. The RCC determined that NFP was acceptable. Not Scripture.
My church teaches that the biggest lesson from Onan's story was not contraception, because if he practiced NFP, he still would have been killed. The biggest lesson from Onan is that of deception and selfish pride. Things that God has shown to consistently hate.

Well gentlemen, once again, my opinion sides with the superior reason Jay and Dave used in the above thread, and I can "safely" conclude as advice to those whom rationalize certain forms of contraception, that whatever you do, always, always, remain open to the possiblity of creating life. Even if you fail in your "reasoned" attempt to "separate time" from the creation of "children" for financial reason. God's Wisdom is greater than the wisdom we foolishly think is proper.

The use of a condom automatically, always minimizes God's intention for the possiblity of creating life. Condom use is just as wrong as embryonic stem cell research. Not because they are the same act, but because they both are closed to the posibility of the creation of life. Each one wrongly justifies an "end" by killing the means, in the name of "Christian" behavior.

Cordially,
Eric

Eric,

I didn't know that a condom was 100% proof. Once again, NFP if done right is 98-99% full proof. That is the same statistics with a condom. I hope you realize this.
Lets do a quick review.

Condom- used to prevent conception, yet not 100% proof.

NFP- used to prevent conception, yet not 100% proof.

Conceptually, these 2 practices prevent "life" from forming.
It just so happens that the RCC prefers one over the other.
God Bless

Jeff, allow me to share something I retrieved from a website which may resolve a common confusion amongst Protestants between NFP and the use of Condems in order to advocate contraception. Also, I am not arguing which ideology is 100% "proof", because then I would be advocating an argument to justify being closed to the creation of life; which both belief systems agree is not God's "plan".

"NFP vs. Contraception

"Isn’t NFP the same as contraception if a married couple is using it to postpone or avoid a pregnancy that they are not ready for?"

The short answer is "No." The reason is, contraception involves the deliberate frustration of the marriage act; NFP does not. Therein lies the difference, and that difference is important.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that married couples, in their mission to transmit human life and educate children must fulfill their duty "with a sense of human and Christian responsibility" (cc:2367):

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of births. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. (emphasis in original text)

So, it is not "birth regulation" that the Church opposes, but selfishness and any immoral means of achieving that purpose.

The Church, receiving her authority from Christ Himself, teaches us that it was God who made us male and female, and therefore, it was by his design that the marriage act has as its purpose the procreation of offspring and the nurturing of love between the spouses. This purpose, designed into the marriage act, must always be respected. It goes against God’s plan to deliberately frustrate the procreative potential of the marriage act. Those who live in accordance with the moral law, and who have a "just reason" for avoiding pregnancy, abstain from the marriage act during the fertile time of the cycle in order not to violate God’s design.

Abstaining from the marriage act does nothing to deliberately frustrate the procreative potential if the marriage act because there is no act. It is not a sin to postpone or avoid conception for a just reason, but how one postpones or avoids can be sinful or it can be virtuous. Whether a method is 95% or 99% or 100% effective has no bearing on its morality.

When discussing the difference between NFP and contraception Pope Paul VI expressed it this way in section 16 of "Humanae Vitae," "In the former, the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter they impede the development of natural processes."

But reasons and arguments aside for the moment, isn’t a good part of the real problem the simple fact that those who raise their voices so stridently against the Church’s teaching simply don’t want to govern their sexual appetites, and therefore, by default become enslaved by them?"

(Retrieved 12/2/04 from http://www.ccli.org/contraception/nfpvscontra.shtml)

Cordially,
Eric

Eric,

Everything you have said is according to the RCC. Not the Bible.

God Bless

Just want to throw in one more thing: NFP requires quite a bit more sacrifice and self-control than Jeff thinks. If it were simply going for a "couple of days" without having sex, I would understand some of the confusion. It isn't. Using NFP you abstain for a significantly longer amount of time that just a couple of days - more like 12 days a month.

By the way, Jeff, if NFP is equivalent to a condom, why not do NFP and save yourself some money? Also, studies show that NFP families divorce at a 2% rate, whereas the general public is right at 50%, so you might save your marriage as well. Just something to think about.

God bless,
Jay

Great point Jay! And regarding Jeff's comment; I agree, everything I posted is in union with the Roman Catholic Church which reasons in accordance with the Word of God. Thanks Jeff!
Eric.

Just to clarify one point:

When the Roman Catholic Church speaks of "openness to life", it speaks not of the probability of conception but of respecting the integrity of the marital act - something which all contraceptives destroy and natural family planning merely observes.

Are we unable to understand the difference between destruction and observation? Presumably we all understand the difference between Pilate ordering Jesus' death and Mary watching it happen. Same principle applies here.

Eric

"I agree, everything I posted is in union with the Roman Catholic Church which reasons in accordance with the Word of God. Thanks Jeff!"

My point exactly. However, find the whole reasoning in the Bible for me;)

"Using NFP you abstain for a significantly longer amount of time that just a couple of days - more like 12 days a month."

12 days is not much of a fast.

"By the way, Jeff, if NFP is equivalent to a condom, why not do NFP and save yourself some money?"
Did I ever say I use a condom? Assuming as we usually do Jay?

"Also, studies show that NFP families divorce at a 2% rate, whereas the general public is right at 50%, so you might save your marriage as well. Just something to think about."

And a another study showed that Evangelical Protestant men make some of the best husbands and fathers, according to a recent study by W. Bradford Wilcox, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Virginia. Will you seriously consider this study as well? Or will you be dismissive since it does not support Roman Catholicism?

Once again..
"When the Roman Catholic Church speaks of "openness to life", it speaks not of the probability of conception but of respecting the integrity of the marital act - something which all contraceptives destroy and natural family planning merely observes"

Where in the Bible is this explained??

God Bless

Jeff, it was your earlier post that equated NFP with condoms because of they were both more than 90% effective. It was your earlier post that said the Roman Catholic Church was inconsistent when it allowed NFP but not artificial contraceptives. You have made other posts suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church opposes the use of contraceptives because their use prevents pregnancy from occurring.

All this suggests that what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and what you believe the Roman Catholic Church teaches do not match up. I was hoping to clarify the Roman Catholic Church teaching in hopes we could better understand one another.

While I respect your right to disagree with the Roman Catholic Church teaches, I cannot help but wonder if you actually know what it teaches. I know I returned to the Roman Catholic Church after I learned that I had misunderstood many of their teachings. Namely, that the teachings I rejected but believed to be Roman Catholic were not Roman Catholic to begin with.

Fabulous post Broken Record! Thanks!

Broken,

I equated NFP and condoms because they both aim to prevent pregnancy. That is contraception.
I understand why the RCC favors NFP over other contraceptives. Their reasons however are not validated by Scripture.
My bottom line is that NFP is a form of contraception. If you read my posts you would see that I kept saying, conceptually, a condom and NFP are the same. I bought up the statistics because a point was made that NFP still leaves the door open for God to give the gift of life. My mentioning of the statistics was merely to show that they both have the same success rate at accomplishing their goals. Which also means that they have the same rate of not preventing pregnancy. I know you may not like what I am saying brother, but please read if you intend to quote me.
Conceptually, as far as goals go, NFP and a condom do accomplish the same thing. They prevent conception. The part where you support one is due entirely to the RCC and not to scripture. But the RCC has a tendency to do that in my humble opinion. Another example is divorce and anullments. They result in the same thing...a married couple no longer married. However, one is preferred over the other by the RCC. Inconsistent if you ask me.

God Bless

Jeff, all life is sacred. Do us both a favor and YOU validate this truth using scripture. Presuming you believe that all life IS sacred. Give me the passage, and verse, and then give me the "reason" YOU use to "invalidate" NFP with a biblical passage based on your understanding of Catholic understanding. Go ahead. Catholics are not biblicist's. Catholics can reason their belief. I shared the Catholic position which always reasons according to Scripture. It seems you ignore the Catholic position based on your argument that you can't comprehend where in the Bible "it says so". You may find other sects of Protestantism which are in union with your own "hope" that it is ok as a Christian of good-will to use contraception. And you may find other sects of Protestantism not in union with your personal "hope". But the Catholic Church does not waver or flip-flop to appease the individual "hope" of good people, for the sake of their individual peace-of-mind. But if you seek a solution to the problem of contraception, at least you can look into NFP.

Where does it say NFP in the Bible? I think that is a silly question. But we do know that in the Bible exists a Holy Family. We do know that God created a Man and a Woman. We do know that they procreated. And we do know that life is sacred and instrumental towards the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is Biblical. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is Biblical. The use of REASON is Biblical. The existence of "Planning" is Biblical. The Creator of "Nature" is Biblical.

Reason + Natural + Family + Planning + Life + Procreation + God's Plan + Kingdom of God = NFP

Its reason. It's biblical.

Eric,

I do believe planning is in the bible. I did not ask where it says "NFP" in the bible. I said show me where the practice of NFP conceptually would be preferred over a condom.
You are missing my point. Onan did not want to get the women pregnant. So according to your belief he practiced contraception. According to the RCC his act was using contraception which is wrong. Now, I am saying that NFP is a form of contraception. Same results as a condom. But the RCC prefers NFP over a condom. They are both used to prevent pregnancy, the very same thing that Onan was believed to have done wrong. So what if you don't have sex for 10 days, you are still avoiding the planting a seed into fertile ground. When you use a condom, you do the same thing. One is deemed more natural than the other by the RCC, and this differentiation is not present scripturally. Bottom line is pregnancy is intended to be avoided by using either method. Which is the same thing that Onan did.

Let me ask you this, if Onan had practiced NFP as opposed to spilling his seed on the ground, would he have still died? What do you think?

God Bless

I can't speak for what has already been written regarding Onan's fate. I believe that your understanding of NFP is confused with contraception. Based on your understanding, you beg the question (logical fallacy) assuming your conclusion as truth that NFP is contraception, no matter what. Therefore, I can only conclude that your ignorance (with all due respect), is invincible.

Nevertheless, I will humor you by answering your question, according to my "opinion", and not "necessarily" in union with Catholicism, nor logic. (Although I hope it is). I think if Onan had practiced NFP, he would not have been performing an act of refusing "trust" in God. As a Protestant, you should be able to appreciate my argument about "trusting" in God's plan, as opposed to "trusting" in your "hope" that you are not sinning. Here is the sin: Contraception. To me, contraception is "spilling the seed"; but NFP is (and I hope this does not sound too crude) "injecting" the seed. Capice?? Now, whether that seed after it is "injected" produces life or not; the point is, that it went through where it was supposed to go through in order to create life. So the scientific, empiricist, "should" be able to reason a clear distinction between Contraception and NFP. May this help you. If not, then may it help others' understanding anyways.

God bless,
Eric

Eric,

I'll give you an analogy. I don't want to plant a rose. So to prevent this, I just dump the seeds when the winter is in season and the I know the ground is not fertile. This is the essence of NFP.
God is a God who is after our hearts. THis is biblical for sure. Now, you seem to be ignoring the issue of intention.
The heart of the person practicing NFP believes that he and she are planting into infertile ground. I can throw rose seeds onto the frozen ground and not throw it into the fertile ground of the spring. Knowingly I am wasting seed because I know or believe that the rose will not flourish in the winter. You say that contraception is the spilling of the seed. Look in the dictionary and see the definition. It means against conception. Is practicing NFP a means to attempt to avoid pregnancy? If you answer yes, then it is a form of contraception.
As far as intent goes, they are the same.

The commonality of NFP and condom is that the user or practitioner believes that the ground they throw the seed on is infertile. That is contraception. Would you plant a seed on icy ground and avoid planting it during the right season? That is what NFP is. The right place but assumingly the wrong time.

God Bless

Jeff,
Who made the ground infertile? God did, of course. During certain times a woman does not tend to get pregnant, however it is still possible (trust me - I have 2 examples to prove it).

The difference is that with NFP you are working within God's design of the body. With condoms you are preventing God's design from doing what it would normally be doing - just so you can personally enjoy sex during the whole month.

If you think NFP works so perfectly, you should try it for a few months.

Also, getting lost in this conversation is the fact that NFP cannot be used in most situations. For example, it would be a sin to say, "We're not having any more children," even if NFP were used to acheive these ends. Or, if you have no serious reason for trying to avoid pregnancy it would be sin. In the end, you can try to justify intervening in God's design, but you still can't justify using contraception constantly until the time you personally decide it's time for a child.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

"The difference is that with NFP you are working within God's design of the body. With condoms you are preventing God's design from doing what it would normally be doing - just so you can personally enjoy sex during the whole month."

What scriptural basis is this on?
Also, if Onan practiced NFP...would he have been killed?

"Who made the ground infertile? God did, of course. During certain times a woman does not tend to get pregnant, however it is still possible (trust me - I have 2 examples to prove it)."

The same happens with a condom Jay. It has happened to plenty of people.

"The difference is that with NFP you are working within God's design of the body. With condoms you are preventing God's design from doing what it would normally be doing - just so you can personally enjoy sex during the whole month."

A whole month....thats a lot Jay!

"instead of giving up sex, abstaining, they decide to still enjoy the sexual act but to render it infertile. In other words, they don't want to miss out on sex, so they continue to do it.

It's simply whether you would be selfish or not selfish. Period"

The NFP couple engage in sex when the ground is not fertile, thereby rendering the sexual act infertile.
Whether you want to admit it or not, the fundamental purpose of NFP is to prevent pregnancy. That is its purpose. As far your reasoning of the validity due to natural design etc...that is not found in Scripture. That is the reasoning of the RCC. Finally, all things are of God. This internet that I am viewing your site with is of God. Everything belongs to God. All knowledge. Even a condom Jay.
Now had ONAN used NFP, what do you think his fate would have been Jay?

God Bless

Jeff,
The use of the condom is nowhere to be found in my version of the Bible. Share the passage and I'll stop using my reason to determine the actual difference between NFP and the use of Condems. Show me where I am no longer supposed to be in union with the Church Christ founded, and I'll stop immediately, just like you. Tell me where in the bible I am to be a naive "realist" and stop using "critical" realism.

God bless,
Eric

Nice to know that all of those p*rn magazines are "of God". Let's all praise the Lord for His generous gift of p*rn magazines! Jeff, please be realistic. The elements of a condom were created by God; the condom and its uses were created by perverse men.

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,

First off, sex was created by God. Sex before marriage, or adulterous sex is wrong. Atomic energy was created by God. When used as a power supply, it is good. When used to destroy, that is bad.
Now as for a condom...if a couple wants to use it to space children for financial reasons, it is the same as using NFP. But let me ask you this, because I know this is not reaching you.
If Onan had practiced NFP, can you honestly say that he would have not been killed???
God Bless

Jeff wrote: The NFP couple engage in sex when the ground is not fertile, thereby rendering the sexual act infertile.

Last time I checked, waiting for something to happen (or watching something happen) is not the same thing as making it happen. Waiting for a woman to become infertile is not the same as rendering her infertile. When David killed Uriah so he could have Bathsheba, the Lord tells David (via Nathan) that David could have had Bathsheba legitimately simply by waiting for the Lord to arrange matters. Surely Judas and Pilate, by causing the death of Our Lord, bear the guilt of the Lord's death actions rather than the women who followed Jesus and watched his crucifixion.

Jeff wrote: If Onan had practiced NFP, can you honestly say that he would have not been killed???

Using NFP to avoid pregnancy involves two things: First: abstaining during times of fertility. Second: engaging in marital relations during times of infertility.

Would God have slain Onan for not having relations with Tamar? He does not slay Judah or Selah for failing to marry Tamar. The penalty the Lord dictates in Leviticus is for the widow to spit in your shoe and have the town laugh at you. I think we can be pretty sure that if Onan had abstained from sexual activity the Lord would not have slain him.

Would God have slain Onan for having relations with Tamar while she was believed to be infertile? John the Baptist, Isaac, Benjamin & Joseph (sons of Jacob and Rachel), and Samuel, were all conceived when their parents believed the mother to be infertile. God did not slay these men's fathers for having relations when they thought their wife to be infertile - in fact, the Lord appears to have encouraged the whole thing.

Based on this, I think I can honestly say that Onan would not have been killed for using NFP though he may have found one of his sandals full of spit. What was Onan killed for? Looks like "spilling seed" is still the only biblical option.

I must agree with Broken Record. As he stated, waiting for something to happen and making it happen are not the same. Likewise, actively doing something to achieve a desired result and not doing anything to achieve the same result are not the same.
Actively stopping a pregnancy that might otherwise occur during a woman's fertile time (using a condom, etc) and simply not engaging in sex during the fertile time are two very different things, even if the end result (not getting pregnant) is the same.

Say for example, you got into a fight with a friend. And for whatever reason, you decided that you did not want to be friends with that person ever again.

One way to prevent a friendship with that person is to simply ignore him - never talking with him, hanging up the phone, blocking his email, etc. In other words, you are simply doing nothing to mend the relationship.

Another way to get the same result would be to actively stop that person from being your friend by sending hate mail, punching him in the face, burning down his house, etc.

I'm not saying that ending a friendship is a desired result in any situation, I'm just trying to make the point that actively stopping something from happening and simply doing nothing that would make it happen are two very, very different things.

Why not use NFP? "Do not deprive one another...except for a time THAT YOU MAY DEVOTE YOURSELVES TO PRAYER." Abstaining from sex with your spouse for the purpose of refusing blessings is not a Scriptural reason.

Besides, it's just plain ridiculous. Who ever said, "Gee, God, I don't think I'd really like you to bless me with more money right now, so I'm not going to check the mail for the next year"???

Do we believe that children are a blessing, or do we believe that God is a liar?

Rachel,

Do you say grace before meals? Does this mean you think food is a blessing from God? Do you eat twenty-four hours a day? Or do you believe that God is a liar?

"NFP" DOES frustrate the purpose of the marriage act. That is its intent. I defy anyone to defend his position that (s)he practices NFP not to avoid procreation but to cement his/her marriage.
Now, some may use the principles upon which NFP is based to increase the probability of procreation, but that is not what is generally meant when the acronym "NFP" is used.

We are permitted to abstain from marriage. Not recommended for the normally equipped but for those who can "contain," and devote their energies to the service of the church of Christ.

We married are permitted to abstain from sexual relations for a time, by MUTUAL consent (agreement), for devotion to prayer (some editions add "fasting").

We are also permitted, even advised, to abstain from marital relations during times of extreme distress - the example given being a time of severe persecution.

At all more nearly normal times, however, the husband is not merely permitted to have sexual relations with his wife, he is COMMANDED to do so. Likewise the wife is COMMANDED to SUBMIT to her own husband, not denying him the marital duty.

Some compare NFP and c....ms ("c....m" was an obscenity just a few decades back) as equivalent -both are intended to deny the semen its access to the womb, while allowing the man to enjoy the physical pleasure of relations.
Really, when using a c....m the man is masturbating himself into a rubber sheath little different from the simsex rubber toys sold in truck stop restrooms. The woman is being penetrated by a rubber dildo.
NFP does allow intimate contact of the sexual membranes of the male and the female in the natural manner, but is scheduled so as to place the semen into the woman when her cervix is closed, serving the same purpose as a diaphragm or cervical cap.
The guidelines given in the Bible encourage sexual relations at the time when the woman is most likely to be fertile, about seven days after the cessation of her flow, and when her organ is prepared both for penetration and for welcoming the sperms into her womb (the entire reproductive organ, not just the hollow space iside the uterus). No added lubricants are needed, for she is ready.

Bob, there is a difference between frustrating the marriage act the purpose of the marriage act and avoiding procreation.

Obviously, when a couple times intercourse for the infertile times the purpose is to postpone procreation. This does not, however, frustrate the purpose of the marriage act as the marriage act is avoided all together during fertile times. During the infertile times, the couple has not induced infertility they have merely observed it.

Do you understand the difference between observing something and causing something? I had trouble with this concept for years. The following analogy helped me to understand the difference as something more than hair-splitting. My wife will stop running errands for her grandmother when she receives evidence that her grandmother is dead. Fairly straightforward. If my wife were to kill her grandmother in order to stop running errands for her, my wife would be sent to jail.

Christopher West, who has dedicated his catechetical ministry towards teaching about Pope John Paul II's insights in Theology of the Body, also explains the difference between NFP and contraception.

Post a comment