Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion related to learning about the faith (Catechetics), defense of the Faith (Apologetics), the Liturgy and canon law, motivated by a desire to grow closer to Christ or to bring someone else closer.

Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered on of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time and the Doctor of the Church.
Learn More: Saint Augustine

May 17th 2013 new
I'm glad the pre-marital question is posed up front, but why is this even considered a Catholic teaching? Does any major Christian denomination supports that pre-marital sex is OK? I don't think so. I do not and have never thought pre-marital sex was OK. But I have committed that very sin plenty of times and made more excuses for it than the number of times I committed the sin. The excuses were sins in themselves. And then there were the times I just tried to avoid thinking about it so that I didn't feel guilty. That's the real danger zone. Fortunately, a female friend turned onto a website called "GodofDesire.com" that no longer exists. It contained the 12 Principles of Dating by Dave Sloan. Reading the Principles kept me up much of the night, but for the most part, from that day forward, it liberated me from the societal norm. But it's been almost a decade since any physical pre-marital sex for me. So I know what Felicity said to be a fact. We CAN live an even more fulfilling and Godly life under his will to avoid pre-marital sex. I'm still too often tempted visually and I blame that on inadequate time/prayer devoted to God. And I know this to be the answer to minimizing those temptations.

I wish I were as intelligent and mature as Felicity when I was her age. I admire you Felicity. Regardless of my past sins, I don't think I would have ever said I thought the churches teaching on this matter were wrong. At one point, I would have said no to the contraception, but not now. But it is all by God's grace that I have since been able to align my other questions of mine in accord with the church doctrine.

I've previously heard the past transgressions reasoning to answer no to the pre-marital sex question before. But for the life of me, I can't understand it. I don't mean to be offensive, but it actually seems illogical, or essentially, unintelligent to me. No matter what a persons past or present sexual activity, I would tend to respect someone more who answered with a yes, because that is their honest belief about what they think God wants. That would apply even if they were still committing the sin so long as they were struggling to come to terms with resolving their temptations. If they answer no just because of past transgressions, that is deceitful and nothing else. I'm sorry if all this offends anybody, but I hope instead it convinces some to eventually change their response to what they actually believe. If someone can't answer what they truly believe, then how can I trust them with the most important of questions?

But, what gets me even more is the occasional negative response to the sanctity of life question. Not even comprehensible on this site. I've even run into a couple girls who have had no on all 7 answers. But with God, there's hope for all of us. Well, maybe not Obama, but all the rest of us :-)




LOCKED
May 17th 2013 new
As of 2003 there were 41,000 different Protestant denominations. I've seen numbers going as high as 56,000. And there are quite a good number who do not care much for the anti-fornication message found in scripture. I have met oodles and oodles and oodles of Protestants who have no problem with it, and I'm not just talking about the lay persons, I'm talking about ministers and pastors and leaders of these churches. Heck, I've met a professor of Christian theology, himself a professed christian of some baptist flavour who stated that there was no christlogical or scriptural evidence against sacramental homosexual "marriage". He likewise said that Protestatns should be concerned with waiting till marriage, not because of any scriptural aversion against fornication, but because of hte risk of STDs and pregnancy. Protestantism is at its very core a heresy built on foundations of lies and blasphemies. Do not be surprised if at branches of Protestantism that really do spit in the face of Christian truth. Heck, there are Christian atheists out there, people who beelive in the teachings of Christ, but don't beleive in a God, likewise christian witches. You'd be shocked to the point of vomiting into the back of your mouth what's out there under the banner of "Christian".
LOCKED
May 17th 2013 new
Seriously, this new forum format is useless.
LOCKED
May 17th 2013 new
(quote) Naomi-698107 said: Seriously, this new forum format is useless.
sorry It'll get better...just needs the bugs worked out of it!! In a week or so you won't even remember what the "old way" was like!! Well, maybe you will but you'll certainly have decided that the "new way" is better!!
LOCKED
May 17th 2013 new
(quote) Naomi-698107 said: Well, this new format is less than pleasant, I typed out a rather detailed post and it refused it. Here's the shortened version:

God killed Onan cos he spilled his seed.

The punishment for avoiding the responsibiility of fathering your dead brother's kid wasn't death, it was a telling off from your father, then a telling off from the Rabbi, then a social chastisement, then still if in refusal, you were kicked out of the community. This shows us God isn't happy about people contracepting.

Contraception vs. NFP boils down to two things, working with what gives us, and intention.

God built in the woman's reproductive cycles, with fertile and infertile times, there is no sin taking advantage of the infertile times, because the couple is still open to life. Granted, NFP can still be used sinfully, like a defacto "catholic contraception".

There are three people in a marriage, Man, WOman and God. During the sex act man brings sperm, woman brings ovum, God brings soul. Contraception blocks out God completely. And it places a barrier between man and woman. Marriage and sex are meant to be fully open and fully giving and fully receiving, contraception blocks from other the gift of one's fertilty. If one partner is contracepting, they are holding back a part of themselves. That is not the mutal giving of entire self marriage was designed for.

Post menopausal and infertile spouses are moot, as contraception for the sake of contraception has no point.

Scripturally and theologically one can [ignorantly] debate contraception, but the Bible is cut and dry clear on fornication and its rammifications. Fornication is wrong becaue the couple are telling porkies with their bodies, they are engaged in an act meant for marriage, not for single life boredom. Furthermore, marriage at its essence is an entire surrender to the other spouse, and by engaging in the sexual act they are expressing that. For a single couple to fornicate, they are in serious error, as if they were prepared to give to each other fully as is happening in the sex act, they'd get married first.

Plus, the statistics on fornication leading into divorce once married are quite worrying. Want to protect your future marriage, don't fornicate.
Thanks, Naomi....for taking the time not just once but twice to get out some clarifications!! I, personally, always have trouble with YES or NO answers when you have to answer only one YES or NO to two-part questions. I'm an old dog but I'm still able to learn new tricks!! wide eyed It'll happen!!
LOCKED
May 17th 2013 new
You are right. In this present generation, it seems like there is a battle between sacred and secular. Women knew the truth. However, majority of them wanted to conform with society The truth is there but media and society do not want people to acknowledge the fact.
LOCKED
May 17th 2013 new
I agree. You have a beautiful mind. I so love your intelligent response.
LOCKED
May 17th 2013 new
(quote) Diana-563505 said:  You seriously wish you could smack them on the head and say, " You didn't understand the article at all!" I don't know it's weird.... It's like you say "dont do this or that" and that makes them want to do it even more!
That brings up a good point, and some people believe that what's reported in the media is accurate and factual, and thus a reliable source of information. I am reminded of an incident when I got a phone call saying "hey did you hear the Catholic Church is endorsing condom use, and contraception is acceptable." After a brief laugh I said it wasn't April fools, and the conversation went on as "I'm serious the Pope said it today". I KNEW I had to find the source and read it in context because I KNEW that is not what PBXVI would say. All of this based on the Pope saying condom use was preferred to unprotected sex resulting in the transmission of HIV in Africa.
LOCKED
May 17th 2013 new
(quote) Sheila-953093 said:  I have been in discussions with Catholics who believe that post-menopausal sex is against the Church position, as well, because the possibility of pregnancy without Divine intervention is virtually impossible. If what they believe is correct, then why does the Church perform marriages between "old people"? Until I get a solid answer on this, my answer will be NO. That's not a NO because I believe that contraception and pre-marital sex are OK but because the "rules" aren't clear.
The rules are very clear, the Church teaches that every marital act MUST be open to new life. It does not say every act must result in new life. In the same way that couples practicing NFP know that there are infertile times when intercourse will not likely result in pregnancy, if it does (a surprise pregnancy) the couple must be open to that child. In the same way that post menopausal sex will likely not result in pregnancy the couple has to be open to that life should it occur. It's no different then infertile couples, or couples who are rendered medically /surgically infertile in order to protect the life of one of the partners (eg. Cancer treatments that cause infertility). Even if the chance is 0 the couple has to be willing to accept a miracle.
LOCKED
May 18th 2013 new
Naomi, I agree with you about this new format. It MAY get better, but right now, I don't like it at all!

LOCKED
Posts 41 - 50 of 200