Evidence for God from Science

An ad in the New York Times today encouraged readers to abandon the Catholic Church because of their response to the birth control happenings lately.

I'm SICK of reading how people justify certain things like abortion and irresponsible sexual behaviors with "women's rights"! People condemn the church for presenting an alternative to the easy way out: BEHAVING.
But the main thing I'm wondering is what the "Christian" position is on birth control. Honestly, I don't see myself living the rest of my life with somebody and not using contraception of some kind. What is the Catholic Church's objection with birth control? I don't see why it's wrong for a married couple to use. Maybe I'm just wanting to be free in my sexual encounters with my wife.. but still.
Any comments?

Short1 wrote:But the main thing I'm wondering is what the "Christian" position is on birth control. Honestly, I don't see myself living the rest of my life with somebody and not using contraception of some kind. What is the Catholic Church's objection with birth control? I don't see why it's wrong for a married couple to use. Maybe I'm just wanting to be free in my sexual encounters with my wife.. but still.
Any comments?

I listened to a lecture from a Catholic standpoint (I consider myself a non-denominational, but I'm a cultural Catholic), and the main point raised was that sexual relations between husband and wife should be open to life. So, actively preventing procreation strips sex from its original purpose. If I understood it right. Byblos will correct me if I'm wrong.

Now, personally... Things aren't rosy in the real life. I don't think that a married couple should practice sex only when they want to have children, because people would then do it just a few times in their lifetimes. On the other hand, without planning your family, you'd have a house full of children in the first five years of marriage. These days, living standard is high enough that most women are fertile well into their 40s, and infant mortality is so low that you can safely assume that every child you have will reach 18 years of age. A high living standard also means that feeding and educating those children costs money, as well as their leisure activities, toys, hobbies etc. Of course, it would be very financially demanding to raise as many children as you would have if you had uncontrolled sex throughout your fertile age.

Some Catholics mention natural methods of birth control, such as fertile/infertile days, but this method is (a) unreliable, and (b) more importantly, means that you don't want (more) children at this point anyway, so why lie to yourselves? God knows our hearts anyway, so if you think that you're not in a good position to raise more children, for any reason, it would be worthless to pretend that you are. I don't see anything wrong with using condoms - they are not abortive because they physically prevent semen from entering the woman's body. The common objection I encounter is that a husband and a wife shouldn't "protect themselves from each other", or fear having children because that's the point of marriage. Well, I think that if pregnancy somehow happens despite using birth control, it definitely shouldn't be treated as if it's the end of the world, but in reality, a married couple will sometimes want to have sex for pleasure, not necessarily procreation.

My humble opinion.

Short1 wrote:An ad in the New York Times today encouraged readers to abandon the Catholic Church because of their response to the birth control happenings lately.

I'm SICK of reading how people justify certain things like abortion and irresponsible sexual behaviors with "women's rights"! People condemn the church for presenting an alternative to the easy way out: BEHAVING.
But the main thing I'm wondering is what the "Christian" position is on birth control. Honestly, I don't see myself living the rest of my life with somebody and not using contraception of some kind. What is the Catholic Church's objection with birth control? I don't see why it's wrong for a married couple to use. Maybe I'm just wanting to be free in my sexual encounters with my wife.. but still.
Any comments?

Few comments.....

1. 95% (literal fact) of all abortions performed are the result of sexual hedonism gone further wrong. The war is essentially between those people groups that know right from wrong and are pleased to take a proactive stand for it...versus...those who have been duped by our out of control sexuall illicit culture which grooms young boys and girls to be our future sexual hedonists. In short, the abortion Mills need the Sexual Hedonist and, vice versa. Of course such things as entitlement come into play here with women , too ; they want the entitlement to nullify their basic responsibility to nuture their own developing flesh and blood because they hadnt planned on getting pregnant . Most wont even give adoption a second thought.

2. Instead of going according to an instititution such as the Catholic Church, i would get your truthsource from The BIble , since much of what the Catholic Church says has become man-made under the guise of The Bible. I see absoltuely no indication in the Bible that a married couple cant use contraception to prevent an unwanted birth ; in fact , I believe God would totally approve of contraception in a marriage especially if the time wasnt right financially or emotionally to bring a child into the world . God meant for a marriage to be strengthened thru the sex act and thus endorses recreational sex between husband and wife. They key behind contraception is to PREVENT the egg from being fertilized by the sperm , so such things as a condom, IUD, pill, etc....are allowable and effective in preventing this from occuring. Things like RU486 pill is unacceptable because it doesnt prevent egg fertilization but rather destroys the already fertilized egg which has formed...therefore , a human life has been started (regardless of its size) and it is being destroyed thru this type of process .

3. While the Bible says that children are a blessing from the Lord and its good to have a quiver full of them....God also expects us to make responsible choices and to bring children into the world under correct and healthy circumstances . These would include consideration to such things as : The level of financial security that the household is currently in , the desire of both Parents to be Parents at this particular time, the commitment to time and energy required to nurture a new child until adulthood , Career desires , and perhaps most of all....how the marriage is going thus far , whereby if its not going as hoped for, to delay bringing children along until it has become a healthy marriage .

Those are my thoughts on the issue.

CallmeDave, just wondering, do you see the irony in one sense of advising to go to the Bible and not the Catholic Church when it was the Catholic Church that established the canon of the Bible you use?

Canuckster1127 wrote:CallmeDave, just wondering, do you see the irony in one sense of advising to go to the Bible and not the Catholic Church when it was the Catholic Church that established the canon of the Bible you use?

Hello. No, i dont see any irony because it wasnt 'the RCC that established the canon' as is often pronounced in Catholic circles ; rather, it was God himself who established which books were to make up the canon in accordance to five converging lines of evidence for Gods inspiration . It was the Church that simply picked out the ones that conformed to this criterion , and that is how the canon came about. The Administrator of the Canon wasnt the Roman Catholic Church, but rather, God himself who wanted certain books canonized...and, it was the CHurch who discovered which those were. Big difference.

So, I stand by my previous dissent of the RCC as it has strayed tremendously from the Bible over the centuries with man made 'official' doctrines which it refers to as 'Holy' Traditions equal to the actual Canon of Scripture and (if it can be believed)...the 'Holy' Majesterioum inclusively .

, so such things as a condom, IUD, pill, etc....are allowable and effective in preventing this from occuring.

Dave, FYI, some iud's are abortafacients.

CallMeDave wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:CallmeDave, just wondering, do you see the irony in one sense of advising to go to the Bible and not the Catholic Church when it was the Catholic Church that established the canon of the Bible you use?

Hello. No, i dont see any irony because it wasnt 'the RCC that established the canon' as is often pronounced in Catholic circles ; rather, it was God himself who established which books were to make up the canon in accordance to five converging lines of evidence for Gods inspiration . It was the Church that simply picked out the ones that conformed to this criterion , and that is how the canon came about. The Administrator of the Canon wasnt the Roman Catholic Church, but rather, God himself who wanted certain books canonized...and, it was the CHurch who discovered which those were. Big difference.

So, I stand by my previous dissent of the RCC as it has strayed tremendously from the Bible over the centuries with man made 'official' doctrines which it refers to as 'Holy' Traditions equal to the actual Canon of Scripture and (if it can be believed)...the 'Holy' Majesterioum inclusively .

That's interesting Dave. I'm not Catholic myself but it's always interesting to see the reasoning used to work through that particular situation.

Do you think it's possible (just for the sake of discussion) that you have any "traditions" at work in your world view and beliefs about God?

Canuckster1127 wrote:

CallMeDave wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:CallmeDave, just wondering, do you see the irony in one sense of advising to go to the Bible and not the Catholic Church when it was the Catholic Church that established the canon of the Bible you use?

Hello. No, i dont see any irony because it wasnt 'the RCC that established the canon' as is often pronounced in Catholic circles ; rather, it was God himself who established which books were to make up the canon in accordance to five converging lines of evidence for Gods inspiration . It was the Church that simply picked out the ones that conformed to this criterion , and that is how the canon came about. The Administrator of the Canon wasnt the Roman Catholic Church, but rather, God himself who wanted certain books canonized...and, it was the CHurch who discovered which those were. Big difference.

So, I stand by my previous dissent of the RCC as it has strayed tremendously from the Bible over the centuries with man made 'official' doctrines which it refers to as 'Holy' Traditions equal to the actual Canon of Scripture and (if it can be believed)...the 'Holy' Majesterioum inclusively .

That's interesting Dave. I'm not Catholic myself but it's always interesting to see the reasoning used to work through that particular situation.

Do you think it's possible (just for the sake of discussion) that you have any "traditions" at work in your world view and beliefs about God?

Glad I could shed light on the common misconception about how the Canon was derived .
I dont have any traditions regarding my Theistic Worldview ; only scientific emphirical evidence which leads to a personal Creator with a Will and Intellect. The kind of traditions that I hold to , are melting marshmellows on whipped sweet potatoes at Thanksgiving and going for a walk on the beach on Christmas afternoon regardless of weather.

RickD wrote:

, so such things as a condom, IUD, pill, etc....are allowable and effective in preventing this from occuring.

Dave, FYI, some iud's are abortafacients.

Thats news to me. From an online site called WebMD :

'Both types of IUD prevent fertilization of the egg by damaging or killing sperm. The IUD also affects the uterine lining (where a fertilized egg would implant and grow) ----------

1. Hormonal IUD. This IUD prevents fertilization by damaging or killing sperm and making the mucus in the cervix thick and sticky, so sperm can't get through to the uterus. It also keeps the lining of the uterus (endometrium) from growing very thick.This makes the lining a poor place for a fertilized egg to implant and grow. The hormones in this IUD also reduce menstrual bleeding and cramping.

2. Copper IUD. Copper is toxic to sperm. It makes the uterus and fallopian tubes produce fluid that kills sperm. This fluid contains white blood cells, copper ions, enzymes, and prostaglandins'
.

Dave, I didn't realize that some "birth control" pills, and iud's were abortaficients either, until recently. Here's just a few sites I got from googling
"iud abortafacient" :
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/182/36/
http://www.mydomesticchurch.com/2006/01 ... versy.html
http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html
http://www.pregnantpause.org/abort/untold.htm

RickD wrote:Dave, I didn't realize that some "birth control" pills, and iud's were abortaficients either, until recently. Here's just a few sites I got from googling
"iud abortafacient" :
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/182/36/
http://www.mydomesticchurch.com/2006/01 ... versy.html
http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html
http://www.pregnantpause.org/abort/untold.htm

Thanks.

CallMeDave wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

CallMeDave wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:CallmeDave, just wondering, do you see the irony in one sense of advising to go to the Bible and not the Catholic Church when it was the Catholic Church that established the canon of the Bible you use?

Hello. No, i dont see any irony because it wasnt 'the RCC that established the canon' as is often pronounced in Catholic circles ; rather, it was God himself who established which books were to make up the canon in accordance to five converging lines of evidence for Gods inspiration . It was the Church that simply picked out the ones that conformed to this criterion , and that is how the canon came about. The Administrator of the Canon wasnt the Roman Catholic Church, but rather, God himself who wanted certain books canonized...and, it was the CHurch who discovered which those were. Big difference.

So, I stand by my previous dissent of the RCC as it has strayed tremendously from the Bible over the centuries with man made 'official' doctrines which it refers to as 'Holy' Traditions equal to the actual Canon of Scripture and (if it can be believed)...the 'Holy' Majesterioum inclusively .

That's interesting Dave. I'm not Catholic myself but it's always interesting to see the reasoning used to work through that particular situation.

Do you think it's possible (just for the sake of discussion) that you have any "traditions" at work in your world view and beliefs about God?

Glad I could shed light on the common misconception about how the Canon was derived .
I dont have any traditions regarding my Theistic Worldview ; only scientific emphirical evidence which leads to a personal Creator with a Will and Intellect. The kind of traditions that I hold to , are melting marshmellows on whipped sweet potatoes at Thanksgiving and going for a walk on the beach on Christmas afternoon regardless of weather.

That's amazing. You may well be the very first person I've ever met who had things so well put together that tradition had no effect upon them whatsoever. It's really nice to meet someone who is so purely aligned with the Bible that nothing else has an impact upon them except of course scientific emphirical (sic) evidence.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

CallMeDave wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

CallMeDave wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:CallmeDave, just wondering, do you see the irony in one sense of advising to go to the Bible and not the Catholic Church when it was the Catholic Church that established the canon of the Bible you use?

Hello. No, i dont see any irony because it wasnt 'the RCC that established the canon' as is often pronounced in Catholic circles ; rather, it was God himself who established which books were to make up the canon in accordance to five converging lines of evidence for Gods inspiration . It was the Church that simply picked out the ones that conformed to this criterion , and that is how the canon came about. The Administrator of the Canon wasnt the Roman Catholic Church, but rather, God himself who wanted certain books canonized...and, it was the CHurch who discovered which those were. Big difference.

So, I stand by my previous dissent of the RCC as it has strayed tremendously from the Bible over the centuries with man made 'official' doctrines which it refers to as 'Holy' Traditions equal to the actual Canon of Scripture and (if it can be believed)...the 'Holy' Majesterioum inclusively .

That's interesting Dave. I'm not Catholic myself but it's always interesting to see the reasoning used to work through that particular situation.

Do you think it's possible (just for the sake of discussion) that you have any "traditions" at work in your world view and beliefs about God?

Glad I could shed light on the common misconception about how the Canon was derived .
I dont have any traditions regarding my Theistic Worldview ; only scientific emphirical evidence which leads to a personal Creator with a Will and Intellect. The kind of traditions that I hold to , are melting marshmellows on whipped sweet potatoes at Thanksgiving and going for a walk on the beach on Christmas afternoon regardless of weather.

That's amazing. You may well be the very first person I've ever met who had things so well put together that tradition had no effect upon them whatsoever. It's really nice to meet someone who is so purely aligned with the Bible that nothing else has an impact upon them except of course scientific emphirical (sic) evidence.

Now , youre making me blush .........

Now , youre making me blush .........

That might be an appropriate response but I suspect we might see it as appropriate for different reasons ....

There is a reference in the Bible to birth control to Onan in Genesis 38:9 - "And Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so it came about that 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."
The reason God did this is not because Onan wasted his seed on the ground, but because Onan refused to perform his familial duties of producing offspring for his brother's. This was a great offense at that time. Onan knew this and refused to take part in furthering the honor and name of the brother's wife and God was very displeased.

Could this be construed as reason to not spill one's seed today? I'm not sure. In the Catholic Church, we are most definitely taught (and this is apparently not well known??) that sex, while primarily for offspring, is not just for offspring. Sex is a special act between man and woman to help create the bond and trust that is required for a healthy relationship and the security that can be created, also required to raise a family. It's also a way to help cope with the world and it's stresses, and speaks to the spiritual one-ness of man and wife. They are not only one spiritually, but also physically.

What is funny to me is that many atheists-naturalists will argue in favor of sexual hedonism, but their own knowledge of sexuality tells them there is absolutely NO medical reason for the female orgasm. So why does it exist? Just another random thing that's useless in creation? (seems to be a lot of that in their view )
But as a Christian, it's not hard to consider that God would want the pleasurable experience to be equal for both male and female (because he's fair). So how does the apparently sexist religion/faith suddenly sound not-sexist...and not only that, pretty open minded about the act itself!?

Don't you love how they don't use logic -- ever?