Simple question?

Quote: FrGamble

so profound is the action of love making
.

Somebody has really duped you, dude. Sex
is not 'profound', far from it. It's lots of things,
profound isn't one of them. For some reason
the Church has sex on a pedestal that it
doesn't belong on. At all.

Sex can be fun, it can also be routine, dull
and boring. It's why Al Bundy never wanted
to have sex with his wife. Why the Church
wants to make sex almost sacred is weird,
and it's just wrong.

Quote: FrGamble

And I completely disagree with your opinion and practically in working with many, many couples my experience shows me that I am correct. I have seen marriages completely turn around for the better just by eliminating contraception. Moving this discussion outside of the covenant of marriage is also where your opinion completely breaks down. Contraception is what has allowed the disrespect and objectification of women to reach the epic and disgusting levels we see all around us today.

My experience shows me that I am correct. Now what?

I am keeping this conversation firmly within the covenant of marriage precisely to establish that condom use within a marriage will have no effect on the disrespect and objectification of women. If contraception were allowed within a marriage then we wouldn't be having this conversation, and we could talk about the evils of extramarital sex and how contraception enables it.

But, I am specifically talking about a married couple's ability to plan when to have a family very specifically by using a condom.

I really don't see the difference to god by only having sex when a woman is not fertile (NFP) and having sex with a woman when a woman is fertile and using a condom. Both of these are open to the possibility of conception. The intention in both cases is not to get pregnant. Both people have to agree whether or not birth control is going to be used, each and every time they have sex. Using a condom is not disrespectful or denigrating to women.

Quote: FrGamble

If God is God

Of course "God" is "God." Law of Identity. But also Rey is Rey and BB8 is BB8, and Ist is Ist and Ueser is Ueser, and Thor is Thor, and The Flash is The Flash.

Still none of them are real.

Quote:

then true experience, knowledge, science and philosophy must always count and not contradict the truth of God.

I'll take human knowledge gained by science and experience, as well the evidence of my own eyes and the reason of my own mind, over the prejudices, musings, notions, hallucinations, fantasies, politics and whatever else of a long gone desert people and their imaginary deity.

The Bible is no more inherently "true" than the Popol Vuh, the Book of the Dead, the Ramayana, the Odyssey, the Aeneid, the Koran, or The Lord of the Rings.

If science, philosophy, reason or experience say one thing and "God" says another, then "God" is wrong.

Quote: FrGamble

It is wonderful to fly. It takes an already healthy and natural desire in us to explore and travel and learn to new levels. Taking the natural healthy desire in us to have children and deadening it is like building a device that stops us from flying.

Whereas exploring is natural, hurl any animal that doesn't fly into the air and you soon see that flying isn't normal when you're not made it. And humans aren't.


So, you're wrong again.

You really should have a rule against any unnatural human flight.

Quote: rxwine

You really should have a rule against any unnatural human flight.

How about elevators. When I'm forced
to use them, they feel unnatural as
hell. The Church should ban members
from using elevators.

Quote: Dalex64

My experience shows me that I am correct. Now what?

Now we recognize the futility of anecdotal evidence. Fore every couple whose marriage improved by adding contraception, there are bound to be some who had the opposite experience.

It sounds flippant, but trying to find common rules that will apply to every individual and, worse, any combination of individuals, is as likely as finding which ice cream flavor is the "best." Meaning you won't find any such rules, and therefore it is best to allow as much freedom and discretion as possible. It's also best to see ethics in terms of principles rather than specific actions. Thus first your actions should not violate the rights of other people. And we can go on from there.

Religion so robs people of freedom and discretion, that it must splinter again and again so everyone who wants to can find a place within it.

Quote: FrGamble

It is wonderful to fly. It takes an already healthy and natural desire in us to explore and travel and learn to new levels.

Tell that to people who are terrified of flying.

In fact, don't even tell it to me. I love to fly, but I know a great deal about it on a very basic level. I know how safe it is, but I also know how to tell when, sometimes, things get dangerous. I've been terrified in several such occasions, because landing several tons of aluminum and plastic loaded with a respectable amount of fuel-air explosives is not natural.

Quote: Nareed

Religion so robs people of freedom and discretion, that it must splinter again and again so everyone who wants to can find a place within it.

That's a good explanation of why there
are 3000 brands of Christianity. It's so
rigid and puts such a stranglehold on
living any kind of normal life, it has
to constantly split itself and morph into
something else.

Quote: rxwine

Whereas exploring is natural, hurl any animal that doesn't fly into the air and you soon see that flying isn't normal when you're not made it. And humans aren't.

What is it about us that makes it unnatural to fly? We have an amazing intellect that desires to fly for lots of reasons, do you see something wrong with that? Does it hurt us at all to fly?