Humanae Vitae Debate Part III

[christianlove]

With much renewed spirit, I greet you all in Love of God who leads all His children to light. I want to start off by sharing a few verses from 2 Timothy 2 that I read last night and immediately thought about our conversations:

22Flee the evil desires of youth, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. 23Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. 24And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

So it is God, of course, that we all put our trust and bow to His will. We do our part, but never let anyone’s “dishonestly” persuade you to stop preaching the Word of the Lord. Red Beard got through to me. He helped me listen to my heart (the Love of God) that was already in me. Christ Jesus showed us, with example, how to love each other, then gave us his Spirit as a gift from the Father to carry on these things.

Now on point, I mention that sometimes it takes one to know one (I should know). For one person, truth is clear and there is no wrong or error. Because these just persons can phantom no wrong, it is hard to understand the injustice. Can a King understand what it means to be so hungry and see his children starving, that it would make him steal (Plato’s Republic)? It doesn’t make stealing right, but the king may not be the best one to explain to the starving man why it is so wrong. Surely we are able to know what is wrong as much as what is right, but sometimes desperate motivation is the tool of the devil whose strength is immeasurable more than our own. Instead, perhaps the King should teach him how to fish and even offer the royal pond for the starving father to acquire food (so to speak). If we quarrel for interest and good will, to search all sides of the debate and consider any knowledge that comes from them (right or wrong), this is different. However, those of God’s love and light know the truth and are not seeking truth, but we desire to give the others the truth. This is hard to do but avoid the temptation to give up.

In this instance, it is the definition of Conjugal Love that Sub fails to comprehend…Maybe I missed this somewhere in the thread, but does Sub have a spouse? It would be hard for an unmarried person to understand the depth and meaning of this concept. In this way, let the amateur tell you what he thinks, simply acknowledge his ignorance (lovingly, as God accepts our own) and support him in a way to help him understand when the time is right. If he is married, then continue on and “endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus (2 Tim 2:3).” I certainly appreciate the one in this thread that did not give up on me, but wrote back with sincerity and good will; for he wished to bring me into the light (I speak of the work of God’s love in Red Beard, of course).

I cannot add much to the argument, for I am not yet far enough out from my own understanding and suffering to bring anything to the table. There is certainly enough being said on this thread to support the truth. I only speak of righteousness, faith, love and peace; the fruits of the Holy Spirit! Let these be the guide for all those who seek answers from you. These are the tools of salvation, not the words we use or the wit we have. Let your light shine!

Peace to all who come to the Father, for they will know who Jesus Christ really is.
Christian Love.

[BruceK]

Here's the latest exchange I've been having with this supporter of contraception and his moral justification of such. My words are in bold:
Me: ]how is it possibly moral to thwart the transmission of life by artificial gadgets, surgical alteration, or the pill? <<

My antagonist: <It is moral to artificially thwart the transmission of life because doing so violates no moral principle. ABC like NFP cooperates with God's will as revealed through His creation of human sexuality.>

What is flawed about his argument and what would be the best rebuttal of such?

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by BruceK

Here's the latest exchange I've been having with this supporter of contraception and his moral justification of such. My words are in bold:
Me: ]how is it possibly moral to thwart the transmission of life by artificial gadgets, surgical alteration, or the pill? <<

My antagonist: <It is moral to artificially thwart the transmission of life because doing so violates no moral principle. ABC like NFP cooperates with God's will as revealed through His creation of human sexuality.>

What is flawed about his argument and what would be the best rebuttal of such?

From Evangelium Vitae by Pope Paul II:

"Within this same cultural climate, the body is no longer perceived as a properly personal reality, a sign and place of relations with others, with God and with the world. It is reduced to pure materiality: it is simply a complex of organs, functions and energies to be used according to the sole criteria of pleasure and efficiency. Consequently, sexuality too is depersonalized and exploited: from being the sign, place and language of love, that is, of the gift of self and acceptance of another, in all the other's richness as a person, it increasingly becomes the occasion and instrument for self-assertion and the selfish satisfaction of personal desires and instincts. Thus the original import of human sexuality is distorted and falsified, and the two meanings, unitive and procreative, inherent in the very nature of the conjugal act, are artificially separated: in this way the marriage union is betrayed and its fruitfulness is subjected to the caprice of the couple. Procreation then becomes the "enemy" to be avoided in sexual activity: if it is welcomed, this is only because it expresses a desire, or indeed the intention, to have a child "at all costs", and not because it signifies the complete acceptance of the other and therefore an openness to the richness of life which the child represents."




God bless,
Ed

[Benadam]

Just to supplement Ed's post. ABC is an attempt to place a barrier between the natural order and the transmission of human life. Thus it operates outside the boundaries of the natural order of human sexuality. NFP, true to it's acronym operates within the boundaries of the natural order, and naturally ordered human sexuality.

[down under]

christian love is there any way you could cut down you epic disertation to 50 words + no more than 3 quotes. i dont have time to read all that. i am a busy guy not that it is not interesting I am sure.