Condoms (NSFW)

[PlaysLikeMyung]

The only people who teach "no contraceptives" are the Catholics, for whom every sperm is sacred, indeed.  Protestants don't buy that crap.

What an ignorant generalization.

Ignorant? My understanding was that it was a Catholic teaching as well. Unless I'm ignorant too.

What I think Hef meant was that the organization as a WHOLE is the only one that does it. I'm sure there are protestant churches out there who preach the same thing, but as a whole it doesn't.

[Ħ]

The verses in Rom 1 about homosexuality attack the unnaturalness of it.  Condoms are unnatural as well so I wonder if the same principle applies.  In that case, the only scriptural endorsement of birth control is the natural cycle of the woman.

[rumborak]

I think it's these kinds of discussions that make people question the supposed wisdom that is inherent in religion.

rumborak

[7thHanyou]

How is it feeding the flesh any less than outside of marriage?

The Flesh is not inherently evil.  Feeding the flesh to the exclusion of the spirit is, but there are times when the two actually intersect.  Times of fasting are advisable, but that does not demand that we deprive ourselves of food entirely.  Drunkenness is wrong, but there is no prohibition on drinking (and enjoying) wine.

See, you're broadening the prohibition.  Simply saying that it is wrong to derive pleasure from sex in all circumstances does not make it so according to Christianity.

The verses in Rom 1 about homosexuality attack the unnaturalness of it.  Condoms are unnatural as well so I wonder if the same principle applies.  In that case, the only scriptural endorsement of birth control is the natural cycle of the woman.

So is anything unnatural morally problematic?

I think it's these kinds of discussions that make people question the supposed wisdom that is inherent in religion.

rumborak

Why, because Christians disagree on fundamental principles?  If anything, I think that showcases that the religious don't lose their analytical abilities.  I never understood why some expected religious beliefs to be monolithic among Christians.

I might have misunderstood, though.  Your post was vague.

[rumborak]

 I think quite a few people find it hard to fathom how an act that is consensual, enjoyable and doesn't harm anybody, should be used solely for procreation, an act whose reproductive purpose should really rather be moderated in an overpopulated world, not blatantly encouraged.

rumborak

[7thHanyou]

I think quite a few people find it hard to fathom how an act that is consensual, enjoyable and doesn't harm anybody, should be used solely for procreation, an act whose reproductive purpose should really rather be moderated in an overpopulated world, not blatantly encouraged.

rumborak

Since Christians discourage promiscuity, I have no real problem with the latter half of what you're saying.  The natural result (note: I'm not arguing exclusive purpose) of sex between a man and a woman is conception; encouraging chastity until marriage should prevent "surprise" pregnancies.

Also, maybe it's presumptuous of me to assume this, but I've run into very few Christians who believe sex should only be used for procreation.  

EDIT: I actually do have a sort of problem with the latter half.  I find overpopulation an insufficient justification for anything.  Should we also discourage life-extending practices?

[rumborak]

I think quite a few people find it hard to fathom how an act that is consensual, enjoyable and doesn't harm anybody, should be used solely for procreation, an act whose reproductive purpose should really rather be moderated in an overpopulated world, not blatantly encouraged.

rumborak

Since Christians discourage promiscuity, I have no real problem with the latter half of what you're saying.

I'm sorry, but equating the enjoyment of sex with promiscuity is the kind of sexual framework that gets pedophiles into priesthood.
Prostitutes and sluts are promiscuous. Married/loving couples who want to consummate their marriage/relationship without popping one after the other are not.

The natural result (note: I'm not arguing exclusive purpose) of sex between a man and a woman is conception;

Hardly so. Most intercourse actually does not lead to conception. Polarizing things like this is surely necessary for the strenuous Catholic ethical framework, but it's not reality.

EDIT: I actually do have a sort of problem with the latter half.  I find overpopulation an insufficient justification for anything.  Should we also discourage life-extending practices?

Only that one involves using condoms as the measure of enforcement, the other one euthanasia. But other than that, surely they are the same.

rumborak

[7thHanyou]

I'm sorry, but equating the enjoyment of sex with promiscuity is the kind of sexual framework that gets pedophiles into priesthood.
Prostitutes and sluts are promiscuous. Married couples who want to consummate their marriage without popping one after the other are not.

Umm...exactly.  That's what I've been arguing.

Hardly so. Most intercourse actually does not lead to conception. Polarizing things like this is surely necessary for the strenuous Catholic ethical framework, but it's not reality.

You're saying the same thing I did about Catholicism.  Are you arguing or agreeing with me?

Only that one involves using condoms as the measure of enforcement, the other one euthanasia. But other than that, surely they are the same.

rumborak

Euthanasia != condoms, and that's not even what I was talking about.  I was talking about discouraging life-extending practices, not encouraging life-ending ones.  Whenever population control is used as a justification for anything, I have to question what makes it a sound justification.

[Chino]

Hardly so. Most intercourse actually does not lead to conception. Polarizing things like this is surely necessary for the strenuous Catholic ethical framework, but it's not reality.

This. As humans, we have been designed to want/have the ability to fuck repeatedly, day in and day out. This ensures guranteed preganancy at somepoint. Whether that abililty was put there through evolution or by god, you can't deny that it exists. I find it hard to believe that a god would give us that trait and expect us ignore it and never act upon it. And it's not like it is just something that a few people here and there encounter. It is something that every human being in the history of our species has delt with in one way or another.

[rumborak]

You're saying the same thing I did about Catholicism.  Are you arguing or agreeing with me?

I might have misunderstood your position. Seems we're agreeing with each other

Whenever population control is used as a justification for anything, I have to question what makes it a sound justification.

And that's completely fine I would say. All I'm saying is that in an overpopulated world, having a stance that essentially promotes unlimited procreation raises the question on how much guidance one should take from such stance.

rumborak

[7thHanyou]

I might have misunderstood your position. Seems we're agreeing with each other

Probably my fault.  I'm new here.  I don't know where anyone stands on anything.

And that's completely fine I would say. All I'm saying is that in an overpopulated world, having a stance that essentially promotes unlimited procreation raises the question on how much guidance one should take from such stance.

Fair enough.

[Ħ]

So is anything unnatural morally problematic?

Within marriage I would say yes.  (obviously fornication is natural but it is still condemned by the bible)

Need to do more research but I'm not taking chances

[rumborak]

I think it's very interesting to see how there's still aftershocks of the Middle Ages,  where the appreciation of something was shown through one's deprivation of it, and everything relating to the "flesh" was considered unclean.

rumborak

[Perpetual Change]

The only people who teach "no contraceptives" are the Catholics, for whom every sperm is sacred, indeed.  Protestants don't buy that crap.

What an ignorant generalization.

Ignorant? My understanding was that it was a Catholic teaching as well. Unless I'm ignorant too.

What I think Hef meant was that the organization as a WHOLE is the only one that does it. I'm sure there are protestant churches out there who preach the same thing, but as a whole it doesn't.

It's not JUST Catholics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraception


Also read the part about dissent in the Catholic section. I stand by what I said. 

[AndyDT]

I think it's very interesting to see how there's still aftershocks of the Middle Ages,  where the appreciation of something was shown through one's deprivation of it, and everything relating to the "flesh" was considered unclean.

rumborak

Within marriage it seems to become "clean" though as though nobody cares less how often sex is used once you're married.

[Perpetual Change]

I've seen some Catholic religious textbooks that defined  "regular sex is as important to a healthy marriage as the Eucharist is to mass."

[zerogravityfat]

i would love to find out what it is the prude people who are ashamed of their bodies and pleasure are thinking. they created an entire moral frame work so they don't have to face their basic human needs, sad sad people.

[rumborak]

I had a rather prudish gf once and I never understood the rationale. It was really more of a gut feeling than anything else I think. There was no good reason for her behavior at times, especially when it was in our own apartments.

rumborak

[AndyDT]

i would love to find out what it is the prude people who are ashamed of their bodies and pleasure are thinking. they created an entire moral frame work so they don't have to face their basic human needs, sad sad people.

What need - sensory gratification, reproduction, expressing affection etc?

[bosk1]

Andy, I honestly have no idea what your question is, and not surprisingly, the whole premise of this thread strikes me as rather asinine.  

If your question is about what Christianity has about sex, which there seems to be a hint of in your post, the short answer is:  Outside of marriage, it is forbidden.  Within marriage, it is both for procreation and pleasure, and there really aren't any limits.  Married partners should do it as often as they please and should enjoy doing it.  Whatever method of contraception one chooses really doesn't have any impact.  If a church or denomination teaches anything differently, they aren't teaching biblically, as neither marriage nor sex are "church-ordained."  Both are God-ordained.

If your question deals with whether or not you should feel comfortable buying condoms, that's really your own personal issue, Andy.

[rumborak]

i would love to find out what it is the prude people who are ashamed of their bodies and pleasure are thinking. they created an entire moral frame work so they don't have to face their basic human needs, sad sad people.

What need - sensory gratification, reproduction, expressing affection etc?

Yeah, those. There is a big distance between acknowledging and fulfilling one's bodily needs, and on the other hand hedonism and promiscuity. Religious dogma like to conflate the two in order to instill guilt into people (since that's the business model of religion really).

rumborak

[AndyDT]

Isn't sensory gratification an ego need rather than a body need? I think at best religion tries to put that point across but in christianity the whole message is has been drowned out under immorality.

[bosk1]

Isn't sensory gratification an ego need rather than a body need?

Why does the distinction even matter?  Neither is, in and of itself, wrong or immoral. 

[rumborak]

Is going to the bathroom an ego need for you? Or do you stroke your ego when you breathe?
The human body is wired for constant horniness because procreation was the name of the game 10,000 years ago where the average age expectancy was less than 30 years. Now, you can try to suppress that bodily need for your whole life, but I don't think it takes a psychologist to tell what that often results in.

And waiting until marriage for your first intercourse isn't any better. Sure, it was perfectly fine in biblical days where people married the point they started growing hair down there. But we don't do that either anymore, you know. A little fact that religious entities conveniently overlook.

rumborak

[AndyDT]

Andy, I honestly have no idea what your question is, and not surprisingly, the whole premise of this thread strikes me as rather asinine.  

If your question is about what Christianity has about sex, which there seems to be a hint of in your post, the short answer is:  Outside of marriage, it is forbidden.  Within marriage, it is both for procreation and pleasure, and there really aren't any limits.  Married partners should do it as often as they please and should enjoy doing it.  Whatever method of contraception one chooses really doesn't have any impact.  If a church or denomination teaches anything differently, they aren't teaching biblically, as neither marriage nor sex are "church-ordained."  Both are God-ordained.

If your question deals with whether or not you should feel comfortable buying condoms, that's really your own personal issue, Andy.

Funny you say that as when I worked on checkouts at a supermarket it was often a woman who bought the sheaths. So I wonder what there is to be embarassed about?
For me, I don't want to give the impression I'm into casual sex and throwing away semen willy-nilly, gung-ho, hither and thither like a whole sector of society seems to be. Nor reinforce mentally the impression I'm attached to pleasure seeking without restraint. Buying condoms to me symbolises this somehow - selfish, self-indulgence. Perhaps that's why the wife buys them alongside the groceries - to add an air of respectability, part of a loving relationship, avec shower gel, tinned tuna and tomorrow's cornflakes.

Thanks for the clarification.

[7StringedBeast]

Or they just buy them to be safe while having a good time? 

[AndyDT]

Isn't sensory gratification an ego need rather than a body need?

Why does the distinction even matter?  Neither is, in and of itself, wrong or immoral. 

It matters in finding the truth here. Is it spirit or is it flesh and thus out of align with spirit.

[rumborak]

Why do you worry about this stuff, Andy? What is it to you to belong to (or not) a certain "sector of society"? Use your own judgment about whether you're throwing away your semen or not. I can only say that, when compared to talking to the Palm Sisters, I consider having sex, even without being married, less "throwing away" semen than rubbing one off.

rumborak

[Ħ]

Isn't sensory gratification an ego need rather than a body need?

Why does the distinction even matter?  Neither is, in and of itself, wrong or immoral. 

It matters in finding the truth here. Is it spirit or is it flesh and thus out of align with spirit.

I agree with this...I don't think you can serve flesh and Spirit at the same time.

[rumborak]

o_O?

Dare I ask why not? Since when is flesh and spirit mutually exclusive?

Good god, you guys are setting yourself up for a lifetime of repression.

rumborak

[AndyDT]

Or they just buy them to be safe while having a good time? 

Not they, the woman more often I found. So unless the man is embarassed to go out and buy them I figured it was the woman who normally did the shopping and bought them for convenience alongside groceries, or was embarassed to go out and buy them alone.

If it is embarassment then regardless of their reason for buying it suggest there is an element of "shame" involved which suggests there is an association with selfish indulgence rather than love (which is what christianity states sex is for).

[7StringedBeast]

Or they just buy them to be safe while having a good time? 

Not they, the woman more often I found. So unless the man is embarassed to go out and buy them I figured it was the woman who normally did the shopping and bought them for convenience alongside groceries, or was embarassed to go out and buy them alone.

If it is embarassment then regardless of their reason for buying it suggest there is an element of "shame" involved which suggests there is an association with selfish indulgence rather than love (which is what christianity states sex is for).

Or maybe people don't like advertising to everyone that they are about to bone, but its a necessary evil in the case of buying condoms. 

You are really over complicating/ doing extreme generalizations at the same time.

[rumborak]

You know, my ex-gf and I used to buy them together. Because it was fun to do so.

rumborak

[Ħ]

o_O?

Dare I ask why not? Since when is flesh and spirit mutually exclusive?

Good god, you guys are setting yourself up for a lifetime of repression.

rumborak

I believe that they are mutually exclusive based on Scripture.

By the way, this whole convo makes me recall this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40npOyt_qBA

[rumborak]

You know guys, I figure I'd just point this out: While you are getting a mental aneurysm trying to discern what is clean and what is dirty, those people in certain "sectors of society" enjoy their life. Frankly, it's fun to have sex before breakfast. And it's fun to have sex in the shower. It's fun to have sex in all kinds of places and all kinds of times. Because you love the girl you're doing it with, and you feel you're sharing something special with her. And frankly, the more I hear about Scripture telling you guys this and that, the more I think it's best used for propping up the short leg of your bed that makes the stupid noise while you're enjoying sex with your girlfriend.

rumborak