"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
More like the devils plan.j316 wrote:None of you appear to be considering that it may be God's will that contraception exists. It is predominantly used in the non christian population, perhaps it is part of a plan.
All contraception is bad, whether it murders life or perversely stops that life from developing in the first place. The only thing that needs to be considered concerning contraception is how quickly we can ban it once and for all, starting with the ultimate and most vilest form of contraception there is - abortion.ray wrote:When talking about contraception you must be careful to decide what kind you are talking about. Some, condoms, prevent the sperm from fertilizing the egg. Others, some pills, allow the fertilization, but then have the hours old fetus aborted. If you believe life begins at conception, then some forms of contraception actually kill that new life. If you are considering some form of contraception, I would advise you look into how it actually works.
Ray
Have to agree with Kurieuo on this one. If sex was just for procreation - then why make it so pleasurable?XenonII wrote:Not really...Why does it have to have more than one function? It's obvious what the intended purpose of sex is for.Kurieuo wrote:I think it a rather cold view of God that He only intended sex for procreation.
Kurieuo.You can't agree that contraception is ok? It perverts the natural function of sex!
So the human race doesn't die out. Who would want to do it if it wasn't "so pleasurable" as you put it?Silvertusk wrote:
Have to agree with Kurieuo on this one. If sex was just for procreation - then why make it so pleasurable?
Evolutionary is the word I think you're looking for. Remember, evolution is only a theory and a ludicrous one at that. Evolution has never been observed. In a sense, sex does serve more than one function, but the enjoyment goes along with the procreation. It is just a side effect.Ok - there is a evolutionistic (is that a word?) answer for this but it certainly goes to show from a religious point of view it serves more that one function. Sex between lovers is such an intimate thing and serves to strenghten bonds between the two people involved.
Literally a devil-send more like. It has done more to spread fornication and other sins than anything else. That and the fact it perverts what sex is designed for and is the main cause of murder is ample evidence why God is not in favor of it. Don't forget those that have been prevented from aquiring sexually transmitted diseases, have done so against God's will, as in the vast majority of cases they had no business having sex in the first place! Absitence would have done the job just aswell and has the added bonus of not sinning or perverting yourself.Contraception is literally a God-Send. It has done more to decrease the spread of Sexually transmitted Disease than try to force abstinace for instance.
Why wouldn't God use this method to stop us from dying from horrible diseases?
Well if you're running around fornicating yourself, as an example, you would both be a slave to it and sinning. Sex is ONLY not a sin when it is engaged in the correct biblical context, which is the martial bed. Your second sentence could be used to justify all sorts of perversions.Sex is not a sin - being a slave to it is. God meant us to enjoy ourselfs and gave us the bodies to do that.
Think of how less a problem AIDS would be in Africa if there was less fornication, sodomy, prostitution and more education? The Catholic church is spot on in this regard. Lack of contraception isnt the problem its a lack of morals and self control!Think of how less of a problem AIDS would be in Africa if there was more Contraception and education? Would there be as much suffering? I think God gave us contraception so we could stop this needless sufferring. However the Catholic church still insist this is wrong. (Please correct me is I am wrong here) Personally I think they need to wise up - but of course that is only my personal opinion.
.jerickson314 wrote:XenonII, what would you think of a married man having a vasectomy, or a married woman having her tubes tied, after having several kids? Would this really be wrong? I think not.
Oh really...there's never any justification for encouraging sin to flourish which is what contraception provides. What does a married couple not feeling ready for kids have anything to do with it? God decides when they are ready not them! The answer is simple, if they feel they are not ready to have kids then they are not ready to have sex in the first place.And there are plenty of conceivable situations in which contraception could validly be used. Maybe a married couple doesn't yet feel ready for kids, for instance.
The morality of sex has everything to do with contraception. Contraception is often directly involved in immoral sex situations such as pre-maritial sex. If this sin enabling and encouraging tool wasn't so readily available no doubt there would be a lot less promiscuity and other wicked behaviour taking place. Sex is just fine in the right limited context that God has placed it under.The morality of sex has little link to contraception. Contraception itself is only wrong if it involves death after conception. It can be used in immoral situtations, yes. However, many things which are in and of themselves fine share this distinction. Take the Internet, for example. It can be used for porn or for apologetics forums. We don't need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Of course.XenonII wrote:Vasectomys are just yet another form of contraception.
That's why we look at what the Bible has to say. See 1 Corinthians 7. Sex within marriage is honored as an alternative to burning with lust. This does seem to imply more than just procreation. Also see the Genesis references to "it is not good for a man to be alone". I don't really see anything in the Bible that would stand in opposition to contraception.XenonII wrote:They go against God's will and limit sex to nothing more than animalistic lust turning a procreational activity into a recreational one. Semen wouldn't spurt out of a man's penis when he ejaculates if sex was for that. No offence, but it's what God thinks on this matter which is of importance.
I don't see how this is the case.XenonII wrote:Oh really...there's never any justification for encouraging sin to flourish which is what contraception provides.
We discussed this earlier. I believe it was in this thread, in fact.XenonII wrote:What does a married couple not feeling ready for kids have anything to do with it? God decides when they are ready not them!
If they feel that they couldn't take care of kids if the contraception failed, this would be the case. However, I don't think your statement would generally be true. Can you support it?XenonII wrote:The answer is simple, if they feel they are not ready to have kids then they are not ready to have sex in the first place.
The morality of sex has little link to contraception. Contraception itself is only wrong if it involves death after conception. It can be used in immoral situtations, yes. However, many things which are in and of themselves fine share this distinction. Take the Internet, for example. It can be used for porn or for apologetics forums. We don't need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The Internet is often directly involved in immoral lust through porn. Does that make the Internet inherently bad?XenonII wrote:The morality of sex has everything to do with contraception. Contraception is often directly involved in immoral sex situations such as pre-maritial sex.
The same could be said about Internet porn and lust. And people are responsible for their own behavior. There is no need to ban a tool that can be used for either good or evil.XenonII wrote:If this sin enabling and encouraging tool wasn't so readily available no doubt there would be a lot less promiscuity and other wicked behaviour taking place.
Certainly. Just as contraception is fine when used in this same limited context.XenonII wrote:Sex is just fine in the right limited context that God has placed it under.
And there's a reference (somewhere) about "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." You can make the Bible support pretty much any viewpoint you wish. Besides its not as if every time someone has sex it results in a conception. They can have all the sex they want without procreating while they are trying to procreate.jerickson314 wrote: That's why we look at what the Bible has to say. See 1 Corinthians 7. Sex within marriage is honored as an alternative to burning with lust. This does seem to imply more than just procreation. Also see the Genesis references to "it is not good for a man to be alone". I don't really see anything in the Bible that would stand in opposition to contraception.
It promotes promiscuity.I don't see how this is the case.
Why would they be using contraception in the first place! Doesn't sex work perfectly fine without it? Doesnt contraception pervert what sex is designed for ie to procreate?! Isn't there use of contraception an admission that they are abusing the design of sex and going against the will of God? Isn't contraception unnatural? Society functioned just fine for thousands of years without this modern menace!If they feel that they couldn't take care of kids if the contraception failed, this would be the case. However, I don't think your statement would generally be true. Can you support it?
I'm not saying sex is inherently bad! Sex does have a legitimate function ie procreation but contraception flies in the face of that going directly against it and doesnt have a legitimate function at all.The Internet is often directly involved in immoral lust through porn. Does that make the Internet inherently bad?
Again, the Internet and the legitimate use of it isn't the problem the porn and lust is. Same with sex not being the problem but the contraception.The same could be said about Internet porn and lust. And people are responsible for their own behavior. There is no need to ban a tool that can be used for either good or evil.
Which is an oxymoron as contraception is never fine it cant fit into that limited context, indeed it greatly broadens it to pervert sex into something it was never designed for or intended for. Sex is for procreation not recreation. There are plenty of other things that are for recreation such as sport, without bringing sex into it aswell.Certainly. Just as contraception is fine when used in this same limited context.
I can tell you didn't actually read any of the verses. That would be the first sentence of 1 Corinthians 7!XenonII wrote:And there's a reference (somewhere) about "It is good for a man not to touch a woman."
Yeah, if you ignore context. However, I do not see where I have ignored context. Can you point to somewhere I have done this?XenonII wrote:You can make the Bible support pretty much any viewpoint you wish.
Within marriage, of course.XenonII wrote:Besides its not as if every time someone has sex it results in a conception. They can have all the sex they want without procreating while they are trying to procreate.
Just as the Internet promotes porn...XenonII wrote:It promotes promiscuity.
Only if procreation is the sole purpose of sex.XenonII wrote:Why would they be using contraception in the first place! Doesn't sex work perfectly fine without it? Doesnt contraception pervert what sex is designed for ie to procreate?! Isn't there use of contraception an admission that they are abusing the design of sex and going against the will of God? Isn't contraception unnatural?
They also functioned just fine for thousands of years without the Internet. And video games, for that matter. Kidney transplants, too.XenonII wrote:Society functioned just fine for thousands of years without this modern menace!
The Internet is often directly involved in immoral lust through porn. Does that make the Internet inherently bad?
It'sXenonII wrote:I'm not saying sex is inherently bad! Sex does have a legitimate function ie procreation but contraception flies in the face of that going directly against it and doesnt have a legitimate function at all.
It's not the contraception that is the problem but the promiscuity!XenonII wrote:Again, the Internet and the legitimate use of it isn't the problem the porn and lust is. Same with sex not being the problem but the contraception.
Why not both? Can you support your position?XenonII wrote:Which is an oxymoron as contraception is never fine it cant fit into that limited context, indeed it greatly broadens it to pervert sex into something it was never designed for or intended for. Sex is for procreation not recreation.
Computers were originally designed for mathematical computations. Are video games thus a perversion? And we had plenty of recreational opportunities before video games, as well!XenonII wrote:There are plenty of other things that are for recreation such as sport, without bringing sex into it aswell.
Are you OC's Friend? You are starting to sound too much like him!XenonII wrote:All contraception is bad, whether it murders life or perversely stops that life from developing in the first place. The only thing that needs to be considered concerning contraception is how quickly we can ban it once and for all, starting with the ultimate and most vilest form of contraception there is - abortion.ray wrote:When talking about contraception you must be careful to decide what kind you are talking about. Some, condoms, prevent the sperm from fertilizing the egg. Others, some pills, allow the fertilization, but then have the hours old fetus aborted. If you believe life begins at conception, then some forms of contraception actually kill that new life. If you are considering some form of contraception, I would advise you look into how it actually works.
Ray
Actually, if used properly, the chance of conceiving is very, very small - close to zero. This is a fact the conservative media tends to distort as you did.XenonII wrote:Contraception perverts God's intended function for sex. They allow people who shouldnt be having sex to engage in it much more easily. They are sinful and should be outlawed. They also aren't as reliable as the liberal media would have you believe. They are unnatural and Christians have no place in using them.
If you agree with me most of the time, you can be my friend too, Biz.bizzt wrote: Are you OC's Friend? You are starting to sound too much like him!
ochotseat wrote:If you agree with me most of the time, you can be my friend too, Biz.bizzt wrote: Are you OC's Friend? You are starting to sound too much like him!
You're talking to Jesus' advocate, remember?bizzt wrote:
Yeah like that will ever happen. Even If I did agree I think you would argue me for the sake of an Argument