Pathetic. Covenant, oath, there is no difference. We are not to make, promises, covenants, or oaths to God. Quit spouting your personal opinions and show some evidence for your claims instead of spewing ad hom and other ignorant banter.
Really, the ten commandments are a covenant - and teh are covenants throughout the Bible. But go ahead Prophet, explain to us how most Christians - who actually read teh Bible - conclude that promiscuity is bad and displeasing to God, but not YOU. Once again, you find yourself lecturing actual Christians because you think you should be able to screw anyone you wish? Well brother, that isn't how it works. But go ahead, God gave you free agency, he gave you a book filled with guidance (that you will discard on a whim apparently), and free agency to choose. And your choice? Pride. To be above reproach because you already know everything.
Go ahead expert, show us what Jesus says about sex. Because we know that the Abrahamic law changes ... somehow. I read these passages just last night, how about you? Ever? And again, explain to me why and how you think that promiscuity is OK for Christians, when not a single Seminary Trained theologian would possibly agree with you. Go ahead. Lets see you support it.
Well, even if you put the fact that 25 of 100 women using Mucus methods do get pregnant down to laziness (and I doubt that the high percentage is just that - the human body just is not a flawless machine and mucus can be influenced by very many factors outside the normal cycle), you'll have to face that laziness and plain inability are a human fact, especially among groups that are most vulnerable to unwanted pregnancies. Personally I'd much rather see women belonging to such groups using easier methods of birth-control than seeing them go to an abortion clinic. The problem that not every woman wants to get pregnant immediately after breast-feeding remains. I totally agree on that one. And I would include fathers who look after their children as well. Great! Feel free to come over as soon as God decides to render our eager efforts fruitful, work for me without pay while I'm pregnant and look after our child once its born. Unfortunately our city-flat's only guestroom will be a nursery by then, but I'm sure you'll find somewhere to stay. While you're at it you can also start saving money for the child's university education and for the bigger flat we'll need once its 5 siblings arrived. Joke aside: One problem in our western societies - who contrary to the rest of the world do indeed have the demographic problem of not enough children - is indeed that social networks for young families have largely broken down. Not everybody is as lucky as our neighbours from downstairs who not only both have stable jobs, but also a grandmother in town and neighbours who love babysitting to jump in whenever their worktimes clash with those of the day-care nanny they finally found. I'm all for improving/substituting such networks politically. I think it's up to a woman to decide what kind of birth control is best for her after she's been given thorough information on their respective effectiveness and possible side-effects. Just like you I certainly hate the killing of conceived human-beings! That's why I think we should work for a society where a) unwanted pregnancies are reduced to a minimum and b) woman who do get pregnant unwantedly do not face social stigmatisation and get offered all the help they need during their pregnancy and after. A society that stigmatizes such women, casts them out, provides them and their children with next to no social and financial assistance and leaves them with shady back-street abortionists as the only perceivable alternative to total destitution would be my personal nightmare.
You;'re kidding, right? If you're not then you really don't know the Bible. The first is the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery". That alone says a lot against sexual promiscuity. Here are a few other verses: The big one: The Bible may be contradictory in some areas, but it does present a message that is quite clear against immoral sex. However, this is one of my personal problems with the Bible, despite my faith. Because I don't believe that sex is for married people period. I am against immoral sex, but I don't have a problem with a sexual relationship between a man and a woman that have sex only between themselves.
There is not "perfect use" of BC either. There are more abortions procured by women who had BC fail (or failed to use BC properly) than of women who are familiar with their fertility cycle and adjust behavior choices accordingly. It's a state of mind--not a short cut. And, as proven, that is not a guarantee if a woman BOTHERS to get to know the signs of fertility in her cycle. You are employing scare tactics to justify laziness. More scare tactics. Life works--and people can make it work if they are willing. A baby is not going to RUIN anyone. There is always a way and always people who want to help. You're promoting a defeatist attitude. Partially due to the idea that pregnancy and families are a PROBLEM to be "protected" from. Personal choices and do affect success. Bandaiding and shortcuts doesn't solve the issue. Personal responsibility does. Of course it is--it's a free country. Problem is--INFORMATION is NOT given, AGENDAS are. Agreed, but medicating a healthy body is not HELPING--it's masking the underlying problem of over sexualization and the lack of respect for the family and the maternal role that women play in society. Again, agreed. However, "protecting" women against pregnancy feeds the problem. It's not pregnancy that is the problem--it's confusion in our society between freedom and licence and the lack of personal responsibility and communal social justice.
So much yapping but so little understanding. Your Appeal to the ignorance of the masses does not support your case. Hence why in philosophical circles such arguments are called logical fallacies. Point 1) You still have not shown where Jesus speaks out against promiscuity. Point 2) There is a difference between a covenant given and initiated by God, and one initiated by man. God is allowed to do these things, man is not. The fact that you would make this simplistic and false argument shows how desperate you are to maintain your man made beliefs. Do you not understand the words of Jesus from his most famous sermon?. Dont even swear by even one hair on your head. The vows/oaths of the marriage cerimony in most Christian churches ( and in particular Orthadox and Catholic) are not in keeping with the suggestions of Jesus.
I would like to be able to be holy and moral enough by praying for true love and performing true love rituals, at a temple dedicated to a goddess of Love.
That is why I loved being a Pagan. Polyamory, open marriages, pretty much anything you wanted to do. It was all about personal freedom.
There is always something to be said about the morals of religionists. In my opinion, there should be nothing wrong with trying to be holy and moral simply for the sake and greater glory of our immortal souls.
That would be because Tram already did it for me. I understand once again, that you have clearly not read the Bible. Again. Let's start here: "No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and aGod is faithful, who will not allow you to be btempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it." 1 Corinthians 10:13 Remember how I told you 1 Corinthians is my fav? Clearly you have not read it. Well, it starts there - and continues throughout. But for some reason, you will come on here and lecture people about how stupid they are? When they know your silly opinions are not based on the Bible? Read the Bible kiddo. In fact, how about you read through this just to see how ignorant you truely are. http://www.realtime.net/~wdoud/topics/promiscu.html And remember, you are calling a Christians stupid and uneducated with a bunch of 'man' made beliefs for stating that promiscuity is NOT condoned by Christians. YOU apparently know better? Right. And we'll continue with your uneducated bafoonery: http://www.preceptaustin.org/covenant_in_the_bible.htm "Covenant as defined by the Scriptures is a solemn and binding relationship which is meant to last a life time." http://preceptaustin.org/the_covenant_of_marriage.htm But that is NOT in the Bible, eh? No way you are just using a proximity search, as you were for the debate over the Trinity, to venture into anything that supports your opinion? Why do you constantly caste yourself as an expert when clearly you are not?
rape is bad dont rape, punish rape dont abandon your children and the mother of your children punish those that do Dont call it quits till you satisfy your partner Get checked for std,s tell your partners if you have any There standards feel better now?
No. Heh, I have no STD's - so let me use you, a human being, as a recepticle for my sperm .... nothing else. Yep, I have a problem with that standard. And following that standard - has consequences.
Hold on no rape i have to agree to take the sperm and you must do your best to make sure i have an orgasm if I consent
Sex is not intended for anything other than reproduction and/or enjoyment. Marriage is a social construct and nothing more - like religion itself.
Of course not. But Mucus methods are among those methods of birth control that show the highest failure-rates. I don't doubt that for a second. Women who use mucus methods etc. for birth-control are a) most likely to be among those who've got the strongest scruples about having an abortion - God bless them - and b) were probably willing to take the risk of pregnancy in the first place. I'm not justifying laziness but I'm realistic enough not to ignore sober realities. Highly educated and organized women like you may be able to cope with the intricacies of their fertility cycles. But it's a fact that not all women are highly educated and organized. I've been using such methods to try and get pregnant - and even though I've got a university diploma, was certainly eager and hope to have at least average organizing skills I frequently messed it up. On top of that having to have sexual intercourse by calendar rather than out of spontaneous blooming of romance certainly took some toll on our marital bliss. It would have suffered even more if we had been forced to suppress said bloomings. And years back I've worked with many women who'd be absolutely hopeless at such complicated cycle-measurings even if they always had picture-book cycles. Nothing to do with laziness in their case but with struggling to even understand the concept! Feel free to apply your high standards to yourself but don't point your finger at women who out of no fault of their own won't be able to meet them. Which is exactly what I tell myself and any pregnant woman who worries about what the future with a child may bring: somehow solutions to all problems can be found. It's not defeatist though to think about these problems in order to try and work out solutions, nor is it defeatist to want to limit the number of ones pregnancies to the number of children one one can actually support and to get the timing right. It's among what the Vatican's Humanae Vitae calls "Responsible Parenthood": "With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time." http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p...ts/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html I may strongly disagree on very many moral precepts and conclusions this enzyclika draws, but at least it does indeed concede that there may be valid reasons for birth-control. Actually most young people want to have kids one day. That they find it hard to get around to founding a family is mostly due to precarious living conditions produced by the kind of predator capitalism that we're increasingly facing. A society that expects people to be mobile on the job market, only gives them temporary work-contracts and makes it necessary to have more than just one income to get by, asks to apply for day-care virtually before a child is actually born in order to get a place, shouldn't be surprised when founding a family gets delayed and delayed. You call it scare tactics - I call it sad reality. And why exactly do you feel compelled to accuse my neighbours, a well-educated hard working professional couple, who've just had their first child, of a lack of personal responsibility? Did you not just offer to help people who want to raise children? What's wrong with them asking me for my help here and there? You call it bandaiding, I'll just quote the old saying that it takes a village to raise a child. Unfortunately in our society the appropriate villages get scarce. And Catholic family planning advice is certainly not free from having an agenda. You're mixing up some very different problems. Artificial contraception does provide effective birth control. It can help sexually active women, who for whatever reason don't feel ready for a pregnancy. Feminists who have no qualms taking it will also criticize the over-sexualization of society, if from a very different angle than that of the Catholic Church. Using contraceptives has nothing to do with disrespecting the family and the maternal role in society. It did however help women to free themselves from being limited to that role. IMHO that's a good thing. Just as it's a good thing that due to modern parental-leave laws in my country, said neighbour of mine could concentrate on his paternal role of staying at home and taking care of his baby-daughter for a while. He enjoyed this opportunity of fatherly bonding that was unknown to our fathers' generation immensely. Many older people may long for the family model of the fifties. But the days where a single adult could provide for a family while the other could stay at home are long gone. They are not only gone because feminists decided that woman too could find personal fulfillment in jobs, but also because modern day capitalism often doesn't leave women any other option than holding down a job. It depends on what you see as "the problem". Accessible and reliant birth control certainly helps avoiding unwanted pregnancies. And however much one does cherish children unwanted pregnancies do present women with problems, be they in or out of wedlock. If you see sexual liberty as "the problem": yes, contraception made that a whole lot easier for women. We may disagree in how far it constitutes a problem though. I totally agree that one ought live one's sexuality responsibly and to teach young people to do so, too. Amongst other advice for me that includes giving them information on conception and birth control.
Human failure can be corrected--and, as you note, "failure" using the Sympto Thermal methods is sometimes actually not literal "failure, but purposeful abandon to the possibility of pregnancy. So give them a pill to sterilize them rather than educate and support them? Don't you see how that bandaids the problem and ignores the root cause? I find that unconscionable. It's all about acceptance--BOTH ways--aiming to achieve pregnancy and aiming to avoid pregnancy. BTW--Have you considered how past BC use may have influenced your current fertility? I'm sure you have, but I suppose that's too personal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Aa5G25GDeVA http://www.irh.org/SDM_Implementation/pdfs/SDM Factsheet.pdf Again--that defeatist attitude. People, properly motivated and supported, are amazingly resilient and successful. I am pointing no fingers at anyone except those who are unwilling to invest in the time and support of women's REAL needs and rather want to brush their needs under a rug of hormones because it's EASY. I have to go--I'll get to your incorrect reading of Humanae Vitae when I can.
Okay...back from my morning swim... Humanae Vita DOES encourage responsible parenthood, but it DOES NOT in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER support the use of artificial BC for ANY reason. There are valid reasons to refrain from having children, but it does not allow artificial means. In fact, it specifically states how to properly achieve the goal of avoiding pregnancy when it is appropriate to the family needs. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p...ts/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html The right and lawful ordering of birth demands, first of all, that spouses fully recognize and value the true blessings of family life and that they acquire complete mastery over themselves and their emotions. For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial. Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order. This is especially clear in the practice of periodic continence. How very prophetic is this encyclical written in 1968! Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife. Obama should read it. I must have misunderstood your scenario--I think it's great that you are there to help. People SHOULD be helped over difficult humps. HOWEVER--miring in difficulty and presuming upon the support of others leads to dependancy rather than self-sufficiency. People need to be helped and encouraged to help themselves. Other than the unnecessary wholesale killing of a generation of babies throttled in the womb--what's the agenda? And some women think pornography is liberating rather than objectifying. Some women are wrong. How is medicating a healthy body, sterilizing a woman's fertility so she is "protected" from that wholly uniquely feminine ability and undervaluing the work a woman can provide in the family--rather holding "career" on a pedestal NOT disrespectful to women and families? See? --you are parroting the mantra fed you. FREED FrOM??? LIMITED to that role???? LIMITED?! What's WRONG with that role??? And, further--women ALWAYS have had the choice of family or not--BC rather masks her womanhood and attempts to make her a man. Work within the system of womanhood rather than trying to change what is womanhood! Then OBVIOUSLY, the problem is not a woman's fertility--it's economic and social. Stop medicating and neutering women to cover up social ills!
It is not like you even understand the question ? 1)The link you give has a title "sexual promiscuity" and then talks about Adultery. Adultery and sex between unmarried folks are two different things. 2) The question is "where does Jesus speak against promiscuity" ? Paul is not Jesus. 3) Your other link talks about how marriage is a covenant. Humans making promises, convenants, or swearing oaths to God is against the teaching of Jesus. It is also against the OT which is why the Jews do not have any such things in their marriage cerimony. If you do not want to talk about what "Jesus" said and instead talk about "Paul", we can do this. Is that what you would like ? If you would like to continue the "original discussion" which was about Jesus (below), theh answer the post below.
