/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I don't use it.

>>546561

Because there is no way for me to clothe, feed, and support 20 children. I'm not a Duggar.

>>546567

>bot trusting the Lord to provide for you

thee are of little faith

>>546570

Yes, yes I am of little faith. I tend to stick with the reality of having a whole litter of kids while being crammed into a tiny apartment and a wife who can't work because she keeps having to squeeze out a new rugrat every year. This ain't the ancient times where I can plow a field or herd sheep and nobody cares about running around in simple tunics and robes. Grocery stores, clothing stores, doctors, and schools want money. Real money.

I already have kids and God helps provide for them by making me smart enough not to keep making more of them.

>>546573

>every year

Watch the video. That doesn't happen.

And pills can actually kill the fertilized egg and God killed a dude fir pulling out.

>>546567

Stop using birth control.

>>546574

>God killed a dude fir pulling out.

Only applies to Jews in that time period because they had a tradition about a brother-in-law giving his widowed sister in law a son if she didn't have one. This is so she could be taken care of.

Does not apply to us.

>>546585

But he pulled out to not have kids. That's probably what you're doing.

>>546573

>he doesn't track ovulation cycles with his wife

>he doesn't cum inside his wife every time she isn't fertile and when she is fertile to ensure conception

>he doesn't free his wife from the crippling endocrine effects of oral contraceptives

seriously, its not that hard. pregnancy is called a miracle for a reason.

>>546659

>oral contraceptives is the only form of birth control

Wow.

>>546661

It is pretty common.

>>546664

Common doesn't mean only.

>>546666

Not sure why you'd want to use the other stuff tbh.

>>546667

See: >>546567

>>546588

We all know the story. It is also true that there are multiple, valid interpretations of why God was mad with Onan from the story.

Dude spilling seed on ground was bad cause:

1) it was his duty to get her pregnant

2) you're never supposed to pull out

Now, discern with the Holy Spirit why God was pissed, pray on it.

If you can't afford to feed a child, if having another child will force you to let one starve, I think pulling out is reasonable. If you're that hard up on food, you probably shouldn't be wasting your energy on sex though.

If you're pulling out cause' you're selfish and want luxuries instead of caring for another person - well, then you're choosing the world over life and love and, therefore, God.

It's all about your intent. Don't worry about giving your kids cash, college, etc. Most people I know in the middle class would've much rather just had parents that loved them and were good Christians. If you get your child to adulthood healthy, loving God, and feeling loved by you- they'll be successful if God will it.

Stop worrying about tomorrow, God takes care of the birds, right?

>>546671

Other interpretations:

> Cumming on God's green earth is a disrespect to God - like dude at least use a tissue

> Onan's REASON for pulling out was selfish (I know you touched on this)

> Tamar was under the impression that he was going to ejaculate inside her in an attempt to get her pregnant and Onan basically deceived her

One thing I'll never accept is that Onan's story is meant to be about masturbation.

My personal belief is that birth control is fine as long as you intend to try for a child later in life and you're having sex with a loving partner instead of a randomer.

As you said, it's 100% about intent at the end of the day, especially when it comes to your judgement at the gates of heaven.

Reminder to Roman Catholics - using NFP as birth control is still birth control

>>546697

Agreed. And those people who think it's not birth control are essentially trying to "trick" God / abuse a 'loophole' that they see. God, of course, isn't tricked by it and sees them as the hypocrites that they are. I'm not even a catholic and I have to shake my head at those who choose evangelical beliefs and don't have the commitment to follow them properly…

>>546582

You will in Heaven

>>546697

I agree

>>546697

>>546703

>>546713

It's not contraception, because in contraception what is evil is not so much the end (avoiding children, which can be justified), but the means (modifying the sexual act) one uses to achieve this end. The end itself isn't per se immoral.

>>546799

And yet the Fathers' argument against contraception is specifically that it is selfish because it does not allow for procreation.

>but the means (modifying the sexual act)

How do we define what the standard and natural "sexual act" is? The Fathers agreed that P in V alone can be tolerated, but also that any conscious attempt to avoid children is a mortal sin (with St John Chrysostom as an outlier). Natural law theory does give a certain standard, but Aquinas's interpretation of it is shattered very fast with modern biological knowledge.

>>546804

Post the quotes.

>Natural law theory does give a certain standard, but Aquinas's interpretation of it is shattered very fast with modern biological knowledge.

How so?

>>546697

Yes, but it's open to life so there is no conflict.

The Church doesn't allow it.

>implying that I had sex, ever

Lmao

Plus >>546816

>>546805

Was it that Aquinas thought that sperm contained little homunculi that needed only a suitable growing place to become macroscopic babies? I know that was a common belief at the time.

>>546830

Maybe, but it's absolutely irrelevant.

Isnt adultery sin in Christianity?

>>546845

It's absolutely relevant. Imagine how it would be if every time you ejaculated somewhere other than a fertile womb you killed actual (not potential) tiny humans, your children. Now compare that to the scientific reality that sperm only contains half the genetic code required to make children, the other half coming from the woman. If you think life begins at conception, then masturbation and condoms don't kill humans, instead merely being things that avoid the formation of a new human life. This is a profound philosophical difference.

>>546848

It's absolutely irrelevant because it's not the reason contraception is prohibited in natural law theory.

Besides, if I remember correctly, in terms of development of human in womb, Aquinas followed the opinion of Aristotle that at first the embryo didn't have the rational soul of man.

>implying anyone on this board has sex.

>>546704

will what?

>>546950

A lot of people on this board live normal lives, even among the mods.

>>546848

Aquinas was a rationalist and would submit to modern teaching that masturbation is still a grievous sin, while submitting to the Church teaching that life begins at conception.

The application of an invisible soul is never shown during pregnancy. Ergo, you must assume that if any soul is with the embryo/fetus/baby, it must be at conception.

>>546856

>natural law

The problem is that we have Catholics making things a mortal sin based on what some human philosopher thought was "natural". This is not a very strong position to take, theologically speaking. Argumentation along similar lines easily leads to absurdly restrictive results depending on what is initially defined as natural. For example, it could be argued that wedding rings are a mortal sin, because wearing a ring on one's finger is not according to the proper purpose of a finger.

It would be different if biology worked differently.

>>547016

It doesn't even have to be natural law to see that masturbation is a mortal sin, my friend.

> Argumentation along similar lines easily leads to absurdly restrictive results depending on what is initially defined as natural. For example, it could be argued that wedding rings are a mortal sin

I think your own rationale is borked.

>>547025

>mortal sin

As opposed to a venial sin or simply a vice that can become a sin? I don't see it.

But I'm not a Catholic, and I've never understood the Catholic idea of yo-yo state of grace that makes salvation in case of sudden death a percentage chance.

>>546848

>Imagine how it would be if every time you ejaculated somewhere other than a fertile womb you killed actual (not potential) tiny humans, your children.magine how it would be if every time you ejaculated somewhere other than a fertile womb you killed actual (not potential) tiny humans, your children.

SO THUS?

This is reality,ejeculating elsewhwere does kill actual children even if that fact makes you upset.

>>547109

What are you talking about? That theory is not remotely in line with actual biology.

>>547109

Only one sperm actually fertilizes the egg, though. The other several million die. By that logic, even successfully procreative sex is an act of mass murder.

>>547098

>yo-yo state of grace that makes salvation in case of sudden death a percentage chance

Explain, I'm genuinely interested.

>>547185

Catholics believe that if you die with unconfessed mortal sin, you go to hell, correct?

Confession is once weekly. Twice, if you're really scrupulous. Of course, this confession is on a weekly basis for a reason–it's safe to assume that your average Catholic commits a few mortal sins each week. I would guess that the first of these mortal sins is committed on Tuesday or Wednesday after Confession. So that's three or four days spent in a state of grace followed by around the same amount of days spent in a state of mortal sin.

So, putting it all together, if you die suddenly, you have a 3/7 (~43%) to 4/7 (~57%) chance of going to hell.

I don't really like those odds, but if Catholicism (or, to an extent, Orthodoxy) is the truth (which I'm still questioning), it must be the will of God and we have no right to question it.

I mean, there's still the doctrine of Final Perseverance, but I have trouble distinguishing between it and predestination doctrine present in Reformed theology, since ultimately the dying person has no control over his salvation.

>>547243

Catholics believe salvation is through the grace of God. This is not the same as predestination which assumes some men are made for damnation. A state of grace is prerequisite for salvation, but this state is attained solely through God's grace. The confession of sins justifies you in the eyes of God and is an act of reconciliation to His will. If you die in a state of unrepentant sin though, then yes you will be judged for it–barring of course God's grace. It seems you are turning grace into a numbers game, which is pretty conceited tbh

>>547243

>Catholics believe that if you die with unconfessed mortal sin, you go to hell, correct?

Correct.

>Confession is once weekly. Twice, if you're really scrupulous.

Once a year is the minimum, but you can go as often as you need.

>So, putting it all together, if you die suddenly, you have a 3/7 (~43%) to 4/7 (~57%) chance of going to hell.

God, being omnipotent and infinitely merciful, certainly provides everyone all graces and help they need for salvation. You only need to cooperate. Besides, in addition to confession there is perfect contrition.

>I mean, there's still the doctrine of Final Perseverance, but I have trouble distinguishing between it and predestination doctrine present in Reformed theology, since ultimately the dying person has no control over his salvation.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

>mom made some joke about birth control

>tfw she's probably using it or has used it because it seems highly unlikely to have 3 kids within 4 years of marriage and then none after that without it

>tfw don't want to discuss it because it's too awkward

>>546561

I don't

>>547436

Good job anon.

>>546561

Because intelligent people don’t breed like rabbits. The expenses would go through the roof.

>y-ye of little faith

Oh, shut the fuck up. We live in modern times where children cost an arm and a leg PER CHILD. There’s groceries, health care, toys, school supplies, college funds, vacations, transporting them around town, etc. Do the smart thing and use contraceptions, you fucking prudes. Better yet, get sterilized (vascetomies and tubal ligations).

>b-but that’s unchristian

So what? It’s the smart thing to do. How many intelligent people do you know that have multiple kids?

>>548120

>>>/reddit/

>>546561

Why do you still curse?

>>548120

I feel so sorry for you anon. I will pray that you find faith and keep yourself unspotted

>>547150

>>547168

>>547109

Monty Python isn't Catholic theology, you nits.

The point of sexual morality is to preserve and convey the sanctity of human life. God gave us our sexuality to allow us to grow closer to our spouses and to create human life by cooperation with the Holy Spirit. Two purposes, unitive and procreative. To purposefully inhibit either one for selfish reasons (the most common being money i.e. greed) is an affront against the sacred nature of humanity, a blasphemy against the dual nature of Christ, and a grave sin!

>>547436

>tfw dad has had a vasectomy and I converted/was baptized last Easter

my family is agnostic/atheistic, and I am almost positive that there is nothing more that I can do. Every time religion comes up, the conversation turns **hysterical****

Devil's got his hooks in deep, it's in God's hands now imo

Good luck, anon. Be patient, but your case is already showing real promise.

>>548120

I can feel how very, very sad and upset you are when I read this post.

>>548120

>Christians have lots of kids, """intelligent people""" have one or none

I look forward to """intelligent people""" being bred out of existence. Natural selection favors the Christian.

St. Catherine of Siena had 25 siblings or more (not sure) though half of them died very young.

>ywn have that many kids

Feels bad man

>>548122

>y-you’re a redditor

Not an argument

>>548274

I abhor kids, so there’s nothing to be feel sorry about.

>>548278

>y-you’re going to hell if you practice birth control!

Yawn

>>548291

>y-you’re sad without kids

Not an argument. You literally have to fabricate shit about me in order to make a point lol.

I’m in a neutral mood most of the time, so there goes your theory.

>>548300

>he actually thinks breeding like rats has an evolutionary advantage

Why are Baptists so uneducated? Are dumb, ignorant people just attracted to baptist ideas? Depleting our resources is not intelligent, idiot. In the old days, most people were killed off via war, disease, starvation, etc; this stabilized the population. Now, the population has to be stabilized via birth control, with vascetomies and tubal ligations being the most effective. Please educate yourself.

>>548315

>>548120

>both of my parents were dirt poor

>was conceived within days after the marriage, father 20 mother 19

>father worked himself to the bone, joined the military as an enlisted

>every deployment he would come home and pump another brother into my mother

>she raised us as well as any Christian woman could

>father became an officer, went to college

>by the time my parents had their fifth child they had both gotten bachelors degrees

>tfw my mother just graduated with her master's in clinical psychology

>tfw my father is about to get his master's in business administration

>tfw they have a net income of 130k

>tfw two lovers that were expected to drown in the narcotics flooding their small town

>tfw they were both told by their parents they would fail

>tfw they didn't

To my knowledge they would've had even more kids if it wasn't for falling out of the Church and drinking the college koolaid about birth control.

The key to raising kids is to , manage, time money, and love so that you're investments (i.e. the children) pay off. My brothers and I were worth the investment; we were taught good values and are expected to excel in STEM. If things keep looking up and we continue to show our reverence to God, my family is expected to live much more comfortably than anyone outside the nuclear family.

>>548332

>extraordinary exceptions disprove the rule

Fraid not. Assuming that this story isn’t bullshit: it’s remarkable because it is a rare occurrence. Most larger families remain dirt poor perpetually. While it’s cool that your family turned out okay, I’m not changing my views on family size and contraception based on your personal antedote.

>>548315

>Why are Baptists so uneducated? Are dumb, ignorant people just attracted to baptist ideas? Depleting our resources is not intelligent, idiot. In the old days, most people were killed off via war, disease, starvation, etc; this stabilized the population. Now, the population has to be stabilized via birth control, with vascetomies and tubal ligations being the most effective. Please educate yourself.

So you are """intelligent""" and concerned with overpopulation and depletion of resources and so you practice birth control, vasectomies, tubal ligations, sodomy and abortion. Meanwhile us dumb baptists and catholics have lots of unprotected sex with our wives and breed like rabbits. What do you think the percentage of the population who are eco-conscious woke childfree DINK atheists like yourself will be after a few generations, compared to the population of Christians? As a Christian I suppose I should be against the fact that you are practicing eugenics on yourself but I confess it brings a smile to my face to think that your bad ideas will die out by your adherence to your own depraved ideals.

>>548370

>What do you think the percentage of the population who are eco-conscious woke childfree DINK atheists like yourself will be after a few generations

Fucking idiot. Religious beliefs are not genetic; you can’t reproduce and expect that your child will automatically be a Christian. Even if all of the current “”””atheists”””” die off in the next generation, that doesn’t mean that no one will become atheist and secular in the fundie population. If that were the case, America would still be mostly christian. And let’s not forgot about all of the formerly catholic and Protestant countries in Europe that are now mostly secular.

Also, I’m not a fucking atheist. Contact a brain surgeon.

>>546561

Because I'm not white and /pol/ told me to keep using it.

>>548411

You sound mad. Yes, you can train up a child in the way he can go, and if you do it right and don't let TV raise him he will remain Christian. If you half ass it he might not, but the ones half-assing it aren't the ones forsaking all birth control.

>I'm not an atheist

You're sure not a Christian considering your response to the objection that your lifestyle is unchristian is "so what, it's smart". Which of course implies Christianity is stupid. I don't care what you are, your worldview is that of an atheist. I am glad you will not be polluting the earth with many of your spawn.

>>548554

>It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

Maybe this applies to everything else.