One popular argument for NFP is that “artificial” birth control “usurps” the sovereignty of God.
I guess the short answer to this argument is that any “God” whose sovereignty can be usurped by men is a “God” whose sovereignty deserves to be usurped by men. A “sovereign” God whose sovereignty can be overrruled by his creatures wasn’t a very sovereign God in the first place. He's ripe for deposition.
I guess the short answer to this argument is that any “God” whose sovereignty can be usurped by men is a “God” whose sovereignty deserves to be usurped by men. A “sovereign” God whose sovereignty can be overrruled by his creatures wasn’t a very sovereign God in the first place. He's ripe for deposition.
ReplyDeleteThen why use artificial birth control at all?
Is there a category in the RCC for something like "common grace"?
ReplyDeleteSteven,
ReplyDeleteWhy not?
Steve.
ReplyDelete'Why not?' is not an answer.
There are many medical reasons to avoid the oral contraceptive and if you use condoms than why would a man chose to have a piece of latex in between him and his wife?
Let’s follow your argument to its logical conclusion. You have nothing to fear right?
Why use it? Let's hear it.
Again, in my reading of this blog which is apparently obsessed with how Catholics are wrong on this, I see very little argumentation in favor of it. There has been no exegesis offered other than 'it doesn't say you can't', no appeals to church history in favor it, and now no logic presented in favor of it.
You guys truly seem like a group that is defined by what you are against much more so than what you are for.
STEVEN SAID:
ReplyDelete"There are many medical reasons to avoid the oral contraceptive..."
Any medication involves a cost/benefit analysis.
"...and if you use condoms than why would a man chose to have a piece of latex in between him and his wife?"
Why would a man choose to get married in the first place if he's expected to practice abstinence (i.e. NFP) within marriage? You don't get married to have a platonic relationship.
"Again, in my reading of this blog which is apparently obsessed with how Catholics are wrong on this, I see very little argumentation in favor of it."
The question is whether "artificial" contraception is permissible. Just because you're a newbie doesn't mean that hasn't been discussed here before. That's what the archives are for.
"There has been no exegesis offered other than 'it doesn't say you can't', no appeals to church history in favor it, and now no logic presented in favor of it."
i) Been there, done that on exegesis.
ii) Even modern Catholic Bible scholars don't reject the traditional interpretation of Gen 38:8.
iii) Church history doesn't prove anything one way or the other, other than documenting what some theologians used to believe.
steve.
ReplyDeleteAny medication involves a cost/benefit analysis.
What is the benefit of artificial contraception?
Why would a man choose to get married in the first place if he's expected to practice abstinence (i.e. NFP) within marriage?
You either have a seriously deficient understanding of NFP or you are simply obstinate in your refusal to engage NFP honestly.
Couples practicing NFP are not abstinent. Neither is the relationship 'plutonic' anymore than your marriage (assuming you have one).
And - again - here you are framing the conversation as to what you are against while passing over what you are actually advocating.
i) Been there, done that on exegesis.
Lets see it. Here is a perfect opportunity for you to set me straight.
if you use condoms than why would a man chose to have a piece of latex in between him and his wife?
ReplyDeleteMaybe b/c they don't want to get pregnant right away.
File that under "duh".
Well - at any rate it looks like your point of view is winning the culture war. Congrats on that, I guess.
ReplyDeletehttp://networkedblogs.com/kF6Dg
Steven here, failing to be able to adequately address the issue, takes a true "Hail Mary" pass and equates Steve's position with that of Obama.
ReplyDeleteHow laughable.
Greetings, Steve!
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure if this post was made with me in mind. I had used the word “usurp” in the other thread, Consensus Patrum, but with reference to God’s prerogative. My intended meaning was that we are taking something into our own hands that God has indicated is reserved to Him alone. As for God’s sovereignty, I use Augustine to express my thought better than I could do myself. He has done this most beautifully in Chapters 100-102 of his ( Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love.
With love in Christ,
Pete Holter