Sterilisering - godtatt i Kristendom?

[Gravity]

12 minutter siden, AnonymBruker skrev:

 Er det 100% sikkert at man ikke kan få barn?

 

Anonymkode: f64eb...309

Det eneste som er 100% sikkert er avholdenhet. Statistisk sett er heller ikke sterilisering 100% sikkert - men det er den sikreste formen for prevensjon som finnes. Sannsynligheten er så liten at man ikke bør bruke energi på å tenke på det.

Fra NHI.no: 

Hvor sikkert?

Sterilisering regnes som helt sikker prevensjon selv om det finnes enkelte tilfeller hvor det har blitt dannet en ny kanal, eller hvor kirurgen har gjort ufullstendig arbeid.

Hormonproduksjonen forstyrres ikke. Eggløsningene fortsetter. Man forblir like mye kvinne etter inngrepet, menstruasjon opprettholdes og seksualfunksjonen forstyrres ikke.

[Simbyxor]

Akkurat nå, Gjøksuppe skrev:

Så siter gjerne disse presters argumentasjon. Eller henvis til forfattede verker så kan jeg jo låne meg en bok. 

Litt av hvert som er fakta i våre dager gitt  

https://www.catholic.com/tract/birth-control

Skip to main content

 

 

Registration is now OPEN

Join us for the 2017 Catholic Answers Conference Sept 28-30 in San Diego, CA

 

Toggle navigation

 

• All
   
• Topics
• Audio
• Video
• Magazine
• Q&A
• Tracts
• Encyclopedia

 

Birth Control

 

SHARE

245113

 

In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence. 

Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods. 

 

The Historic Christian Teaching

Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception. 

Evidence that contraception is in conflict with God’s laws comes from a variety of sources that will be examined in this tract. 

 

Nature

Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children. 

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation. 

 

Scripture

Is contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex). 

The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10). 

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19). 

Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned. 

 

Apostolic Tradition

The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found even more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation. 

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2). 

Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that "on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies9:12). 

Around 307 Lactantius explained that some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20). 

The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in 325, "If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1). 

Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17). 

The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, "[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him." 

John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring." 

John Wesley warned, "Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.) 

 

The Magisterium

The Church also, fulfilling the role given it by Christ as the identifier and interpreter of apostolic Scripture and apostolic tradition, has constantly condemned contraception as gravely sinful. 

In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI stated, "[W]e must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth. Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (HV 14). 

This was reiterated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370). "Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means . . . for example, direct sterilization or contraception" (CCC 2399). 

The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative.aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive.aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life" (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997). 

 

Human Experience

Pope Paul VI predicted grave consequences that would arise from the widespread and unrestrained use of contraception. He warned, "Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificially limiting the increase of children. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point—have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion" (HV 17). 

No one can doubt the fulfillment of these prophetic words. They have all been more than fulfilled in this country as a result of the widespread availability of contraceptives, the "free love" movement that started in the 1960s, and the loose sexual morality that it spawned and that continues to pervade Western culture. 

Indeed, recent studies reveal a far greater divorce rate in marriages in which contraception is regularly practiced than in those marriages where it is not. Experience, natural law, Scripture, Tradition, and the magisterium, all testify to the moral evil of contraception. 

 

Wishful Thinking

Ignoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to decide according to their "individual conscience." Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly. 

There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called "individual conscience" argument amounts to "individual disobedience." 
 

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

 

 

 

 

[AnonymBruker]

47 minutter siden, pepsimaxtakk skrev:

Hun skrev at hun ikke lever i ekteskap og at hun ikke har sex, men vil sterilisere seg etter voldtektsforsøk, da hun er redd for å bli voldtatt, gravid og "tvunget" til å beholde barnet. 

Korrekt! Dersom jeg skulle bli utsatt for overgrep. Denne frykten kommer jo av bla.fordi jeg har opplevd flere voldtekstforsøk, deriblant overfall på høylys dag. Selv om jeg ble mer sint(!) framfor redd da disse hendelsene inntraff ligger det fortsatt i bakhodet at man absolutt ikke er trygg...noen sted.

Jeg kom meg nok unna fordi jeg reagerte med aggresjon(det er jo en særdeles motivasjons trigger)manipulasjon, taktikk OG jeg hadde hatt min dose kampsport timer.

Jeg var heller ikke beruset og hadde nok attpåtil englevakt.

Uansett, aldri noens skyld at man blir voldtatt selvsagt!!!!

Men det er lurt å ta sine forhåndsregler.

Ved overfallsvoldtektsforsøket hadde jeg en magefølelse og var klar til kamp.

Må ha hatt englevakt for fyren var 70 kilo tyngre og vanvittig sterk, men jeg klarte på mirakelløs vis å komme meg unna!

Hadde en tyverialarm jeg utløste for å distrahere ham.

Nei, jenter : vær beredt!

Ved de andre tilfellene var jeg naiv, men slapp unna ved å a) late som om jeg var interessert b) gi uttrykk for at jeg var lesbisk..c) endre totalt egen atferd og forvirre overgriperene som meg var bekjent...gikk fra stillferdig og snill til å bli DET rivjernet!!!  d) sette overgriperene på plass " Tror du virkelig du slipper unna med dette!!! ..forstå det dem som vil.

Skriver det som et tips til andre;) 

Anonymkode: f64eb...309

[AnonymBruker]

3 minutter siden, Simbyxor skrev:

https://www.catholic.com/tract/birth-control

Skip to main content

 

 

Registration is now OPEN

Join us for the 2017 Catholic Answers Conference Sept 28-30 in San Diego, CA

 

Toggle navigation

 

 

• All
   
• Topics
• Audio
• Video
• Magazine
• Q&A
• Tracts
• Encyclopedia

 

Birth Control

 

SHARE

245113

 

In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence. 

Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods. 

 

The Historic Christian Teaching

Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception. 

Evidence that contraception is in conflict with God’s laws comes from a variety of sources that will be examined in this tract. 

 

Nature

Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children. 

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation. 

 

Scripture

Is contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex). 

The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10). 

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19). 

Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned. 

 

Apostolic Tradition

The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found even more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation. 

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2). 

Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that "on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies9:12). 

Around 307 Lactantius explained that some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20). 

The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in 325, "If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1). 

Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17). 

The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, "[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him." 

John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring." 

John Wesley warned, "Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.) 

 

The Magisterium

The Church also, fulfilling the role given it by Christ as the identifier and interpreter of apostolic Scripture and apostolic tradition, has constantly condemned contraception as gravely sinful. 

In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI stated, "[W]e must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth. Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (HV 14). 

This was reiterated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370). "Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means . . . for example, direct sterilization or contraception" (CCC 2399). 

The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative.aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive.aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life" (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997). 

 

Human Experience

Pope Paul VI predicted grave consequences that would arise from the widespread and unrestrained use of contraception. He warned, "Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificially limiting the increase of children. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point—have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion" (HV 17). 

No one can doubt the fulfillment of these prophetic words. They have all been more than fulfilled in this country as a result of the widespread availability of contraceptives, the "free love" movement that started in the 1960s, and the loose sexual morality that it spawned and that continues to pervade Western culture. 

Indeed, recent studies reveal a far greater divorce rate in marriages in which contraception is regularly practiced than in those marriages where it is not. Experience, natural law, Scripture, Tradition, and the magisterium, all testify to the moral evil of contraception. 

 

Wishful Thinking

Ignoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to decide according to their "individual conscience." Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly. 

There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called "individual conscience" argument amounts to "individual disobedience." 
 

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

 

 

 

 

Ojojojojojo, TS her. For mye å lese nå, men jeg kommer tilbake til det;)

Anonymkode: f64eb...309

[Simbyxor]

Akkurat nå, AnonymBruker skrev:

Ojojojojojo, TS her. For mye å lese nå, men jeg kommer tilbake til det;)

Anonymkode: f64eb...309

Ta din tid hehe 

[Gjøksuppe]

2 minutter siden, Simbyxor skrev:

Ta din tid hehe 

Jeg har lest gjennom innlegget ditt men kan desverre ikke si meg ening verken ut fra dette eller hva jeg selv har lært fra før. Det hele baserer seg på en tolkning av Onans synd hvor synden blir sett på som å la sæden gå til spille, ikke det å gå mot Guds ord og nekte sin bros kone sitt avkom (som tydelig kommmer fram som den faktiske synd i skriften). Vi trenger ikke lenger få barn med våre brødres koner om de dør, og holder oss heller ikke til renhetslover og renselsesritualer knyttet til sædavgang og menstrasjon gitt i det gamle testamentet. 

«Men de dyrker meg forgjeves idet de kommer med lærdommer som er menneskebud.»
‭‭Matteus‬ ‭15:9‬ ‭NB‬‬
http://bible.com/102/mat.15.9.nb

[AnonymBruker]

14 minutter siden, Gravity skrev:

Det eneste som er 100% sikkert er avholdenhet. Statistisk sett er heller ikke sterilisering 100% sikkert - men det er den sikreste formen for prevensjon som finnes. Sannsynligheten er så liten at man ikke bør bruke energi på å tenke på det.

Fra NHI.no: 

Hvor sikkert?

Sterilisering regnes som helt sikker prevensjon selv om det finnes enkelte tilfeller hvor det har blitt dannet en ny kanal, eller hvor kirurgen har gjort ufullstendig arbeid.

Hormonproduksjonen forstyrres ikke. Eggløsningene fortsetter. Man forblir like mye kvinne etter inngrepet, menstruasjon opprettholdes og seksualfunksjonen forstyrres ikke.

Kjedelig. Så til dere som har hatt sex. Er det verdt å oppgi troen for å ha sex?

Er det verdt risikoen det medfører? Tror frykten for graviditet er større enn frykten for evig pining i Helvete/ fravær av Gud.

Vanskelig dilemma. Er så mange både såkalte kristne og kristne som faller i seksuell synd og velger å leve i denne.

Da antar jeg at sex er bedre enn et fellesskap med Gud?

Jeg prater selvsagt om hor. Ikke ekteskapelig sex.

Misliker dette med at " kan man ikke holde seg avholden skal man gifte seg"..jeg har jo i utganspunktet ikke lyst til å gifte meg "kun" for sex, men nå ser jeg ingen annen løsning.

Evig avholdenhet er uaktuelt uten et under fra Gud, jeg er svært seksuell av meg.

Får vel bare be om 2 ting:

1) At jeg blir aseksuell

2) At jeg ikke blir voldtatt OG gravid

 

Anonymkode: f64eb...309

[AnonymBruker]

1 time siden, Simbyxor skrev:

Ikke dersom det foreligger en medisinsk årsak bak, såvidt meg bekjent. Men det gjør det ikke hos deg så i ditt tilfelle vil det nok være en synd. 

Ikke vær redd for barn..

Hva er definisjonen på medisinsk årsak? Jeg har sannsynligvis endometriose ( er jeg heldig gjør jo dette meg steril) .

Lett for folk å si som ønsker barn. Jeg kan ikke utstå tanken.

Tap av frihet, en mini-meg osv.

Jeg vil heller bruke tiden min på å hjelpe foreldreløse i slummen framfor å presse ut " mitt eget avkom":) Vil ikke adoptere. Føler jeg har andre kall utenfor familierammen.

Hvorfor ellers har jeg hatt denne skrekken siden ung alder?

Har ingen nedlagt behov for partner, ingen biologisk klokke...bare seksuelle behov og misjonerende utferdstrang, dessverre.

Kristendom virker enkelt for dem som har motsatt lyster og ønsker:)

 

Anonymkode: f64eb...309

[AnonymBruker]

1 time siden, AnonymBruker skrev:

Det er stor forskjell på kastrering og sterilisering. 

Anonymkode: 5f061...924

Ok, så egentlig bør jeg be om at jeg får kreft i underlivet?

Anonymkode: f64eb...309

[Gjøksuppe]

3 minutter siden, AnonymBruker skrev:

Kjedelig. Så til dere som har hatt sex. Er det verdt å oppgi troen for å ha sex?

Er det verdt risikoen det medfører? Tror frykten for graviditet er større enn frykten for evig pining i Helvete/ fravær av Gud.

Vanskelig dilemma. Er så mange både såkalte kristne og kristne som faller i seksuell synd og velger å leve i denne.

Da antar jeg at sex er bedre enn et fellesskap med Gud?

Jeg prater selvsagt om hor. Ikke ekteskapelig sex.

Misliker dette med at " kan man ikke holde seg avholden skal man gifte seg"..jeg har jo i utganspunktet ikke lyst til å gifte meg "kun" for sex, men nå ser jeg ingen annen løsning.

Evig avholdenhet er uaktuelt uten et under fra Gud, jeg er svært seksuell av meg.

Får vel bare be om 2 ting:

1) At jeg blir aseksuell

2) At jeg ikke blir voldtatt OG gravid

 

Anonymkode: f64eb...309

Å bevisst synde mot Gud for å tilfredstille kjødets lyster svekker nok troen på Jesus som herre og frelser ja. Det gjør nok ikke godt for din plass i himmelen eller fellesskapet med andre kristne heller. Hva med å finne seg en mann?  

[AnonymBruker]

54 minutter siden, Gjøksuppe skrev:

Å bevisst synde mot Gud for å tilfredstille kjødets lyster svekker nok troen på Jesus som herre og frelser ja. Det gjør nok ikke godt for din plass i himmelen eller fellesskapet med andre kristne heller. Hva med å finne seg en mann?  

Ja, det er jeg også sikker på! Poenget mitt var at 9 av 10 jeg kjenner som kaller seg kristne har sex før ekteskapet og angrer ikke på det. Samboerskap blir inngått ( også uten skam) i påvente av et evt.ekteskap en gang i fremtiden.

Jeg har truffet mange kjekke menn, men ingen som vil vente med sex. Blir ikke noe naturlig progresjon for dem når vi ikke " ekskalerer intimit sett" sier de og finner seg mer villige damer fra bibelskolen, memigheten osv... Som prippen pike stiller man langt bak i køen.

Dessuten...kan jeg ikke se for meg hvordan jeg skal holde ut med en mann med 10000 ligg bak seg og vite at jeg aldri får utforsket andre...

 

Anonymkode: f64eb...309

[AnonymBruker]

1 minutt siden, AnonymBruker skrev:

Ja, det er jeg også sikker på! Poenget mitt var at 9 av 10 jeg kjenner som kaller seg kristne har sex før ekteskapet og angrer ikke på det. Samboerskap blir inngått ( også uten skam) i påvente av et evt.ekteskap en gang i fremtiden.

Jeg har truffet mange kjekke menn, men ingen som vil vente med sex. Blir ikke noe naturlig progresjon for dem når vi ikke " ekskalerer intimit sett" sier de og finner seg mer villige damer fra bibelskolen, memigheten osv... Som prippen pike stiller man langt bak i køen.

Dessuten...kan jeg ikke se for meg hvordan jeg skal holde ut med en mann med 10000 ligg bak seg og vite at jeg aldri får utforsket andre...

 

Anonymkode: f64eb...309

Hvis jeg gifter meg gjør jeg det KUN for sex...er ikke DET litt syndig da?

Anonymkode: f64eb...309

[AnonymBruker]

1 minutt siden, AnonymBruker skrev:

Hvis jeg gifter meg gjør jeg det KUN for sex...er ikke DET litt syndig da?

Anonymkode: f64eb...309

Btw. Muligens ett poeng ...jeg er aromantisk, men ikke aseksuell;) 

Har sett minst 10 kjekke menn på min livsferd😂men ville nok bli stusselig for dem uten romantikk.

Anonymkode: f64eb...309

[Gjøksuppe]

7 minutter siden, AnonymBruker skrev:

Hvis jeg gifter meg gjør jeg det KUN for sex...er ikke DET litt syndig da?

Anonymkode: f64eb...309

«Men kan de ikke leve avholdende, så la dem gifte seg! For det er bedre å gifte seg enn å brenne av lyst.»
‭‭1 Korinter‬ ‭7:9‬ ‭NB‬‬
http://bible.com/102/1co.7.9.nb

Romantiske følelser er ikke et krav verken for å inngå eller oppholde ekteskapet. Så lenge en tjener hverandre og er tro mot hverandre gjennom godt og vondt er en langt på vei.

[funginger]

TS, kanskje du skal snakke med presten i menigheten du går i, så kan dere ta for dere problemstillingen. Det finnes mange motsigelser i Bibelen og mye som må tolkes ut ifra kontekst.

[AnonymBruker]

41 minutter siden, Gjøksuppe skrev:

«Men kan de ikke leve avholdende, så la dem gifte seg! For det er bedre å gifte seg enn å brenne av lyst.»
‭‭1 Korinter‬ ‭7:9‬ ‭NB‬‬
http://bible.com/102/1co.7.9.nb

Romantiske følelser er ikke et krav verken for å inngå eller oppholde ekteskapet. Så lenge en tjener hverandre og er tro mot hverandre gjennom godt og vondt er en langt på vei.

Ja, er dessverre klar over dette bibelverset, men takk for påminnelsen:)

Nei, sånn sett ender nok de fleste romantiske forelskelser ikke i ekteskap.

Så da står man igjen med en venn da, som man ikke er fysisk tiltrukket av, men som er den eneste man på lovlig vis kan ha sex med resten av livet?

Tviler på at jeg er i stand til å være trofast i tanker og handling etter snart 40 år i sølibat😂

Nei, jeg må nok ta i bruk sterkere metoder. Tatoovere en baby på handleddet som en sterk påminnelse på hva jeg risikere....supplert med mentale bilder av helvete OG tanker om alle ulykkelige forhold folk har friskt i minne😋.... Alternativt bli ateist, slik mine frafalne kristne venner. Virker forlokkende og uproblematisk etter å ha scrollet meg gjennom Kvinneguiden idag:p

Anonymkode: f64eb...309

[AnonymBruker]

5 minutter siden, funginger skrev:

TS, kanskje du skal snakke med presten i menigheten du går i, så kan dere ta for dere problemstillingen. Det finnes mange motsigelser i Bibelen og mye som må tolkes ut ifra kontekst.

Hei, 

Vil ikke forholde meg til kun en prest...foretrekker flere menigheter

Anonymkode: f64eb...309

[Brimi]

3 timer siden, Simbyxor skrev:

Oi så lite du vet om kristendommen, da..

Jeg vet at min kunnskap om kristendom ikke er så stor, men jeg vil gjerne ha en utbrodering på hva jeg tar feil? Gud tilgir mordere, pedofile, etc etc, men ikke ei som har sex utenfor ekteskap? De er ikke dobbeltmoralske? Spesielt ikke katolikker som forbanner homofile, men som også har prester med homofile tendenser? Tror jeg aldri har hørt om en prest som har forgrepet seg på små gutter som har vært innenfor en annen retning enn katolikken. Det skjer nok, men det er ikke så godt opplyst.

Eller som TS selv skrev: kristne som kritiserer abort, prøverørsbehandling etc, for så å ta silikon?

Man skal behandle folk pent, men det er greit å være stygge mot noen mennesker fordi de får utenfor normen? 

Alle mennesker er likeverdige i Guds øyne, men bare når de kommer til himmelen. På jorda er mannen kvinnens overhode.

Hvordan er kristendommen (deler av den) IKKE dobbeltmoralsk? 

14 minutter siden, AnonymBruker skrev:

Ja, er dessverre klar over dette bibelverset, men takk for påminnelsen:)

Nei, sånn sett ender nok de fleste romantiske forelskelser ikke i ekteskap.

Så da står man igjen med en venn da, som man ikke er fysisk tiltrukket av, men som er den eneste man på lovlig vis kan ha sex med resten av livet?

Tviler på at jeg er i stand til å være trofast i tanker og handling etter snart 40 år i sølibat😂

Nei, jeg må nok ta i bruk sterkere metoder. Tatoovere en baby på handleddet som en sterk påminnelse på hva jeg risikere....supplert med mentale bilder av helvete OG tanker om alle ulykkelige forhold folk har friskt i minne😋.... Alternativt bli ateist, slik mine frafalne kristne venner. Virker forlokkende og uproblematisk etter å ha scrollet meg gjennom Kvinneguiden idag:p

Anonymkode: f64eb...309

Må det være enten eller? Hvorfor ikke velge en retning innenfor kristendommen du kan leve med? Det finnes kristne homofile. Til og med kristne homofile Drag Queens. 

[AnonymBruker]

41 minutter siden, Brimi skrev:

Jeg vet at min kunnskap om kristendom ikke er så stor, men jeg vil gjerne ha en utbrodering på hva jeg tar feil? Gud tilgir mordere, pedofile, etc etc, men ikke ei som har sex utenfor ekteskap? De er ikke dobbeltmoralske? Spesielt ikke katolikker som forbanner homofile, men som også har prester med homofile tendenser? Tror jeg aldri har hørt om en prest som har forgrepet seg på små gutter som har vært innenfor en annen retning enn katolikken. Det skjer nok, men det er ikke så godt opplyst.

Eller som TS selv skrev: kristne som kritiserer abort, prøverørsbehandling etc, for så å ta silikon?

Man skal behandle folk pent, men det er greit å være stygge mot noen mennesker fordi de får utenfor normen? 

Alle mennesker er likeverdige i Guds øyne, men bare når de kommer til himmelen. På jorda er mannen kvinnens overhode.

Hvordan er kristendommen (deler av den) IKKE dobbeltmoralsk? 

Må det være enten eller? Hvorfor ikke velge en retning innenfor kristendommen du kan leve med? Det finnes kristne homofile. Til og med kristne homofile Drag Queens. 

Sist jeg sjekket var det kun 1 Gud og kun 1 riktig vei:)

Skal jeg kalle meg kristen MÅ jeg leve i tråd med Guds ord ellers villeder jeg andre(og meg selv).

Gud tilgir alltid! Dersom man angrer og det vises ved at en aktivt holder seg unna synden! Alle trenger Guds tilgivelse. ( Husk tanker er også synd).

Det er MYE jeg synes er ekstremt urettferdig i Bibelen (og åpenbart, hvis man leser den med et kristisk blikk uten nødvendig kunnskap i forhold til den historiske konteksten virker den kvinnefiendtlig og kontrollerende enkelte steder...).

Nå har jeg aldri lest Bibelen fra perm til perm og er overhodet ingen ekspert, men det trenger jeg heller ikke være for å tro.

MEN folk flest vakler i troen i møte med fristelser av ymse slag( seksuelle tilbud, lettvinte penger osv).

Det nytter ikke å blande mine personlige følelser med Guds fornuft da "han"er mye klokere enn meg og vet hva som er til det beste for menneskeheten.

Dette er jo en daglig kamp selvsagt og til tider ufattelig krevende, men forhåpentligvis er det verdt det...

Jeg har i det minste hverken kjønnsykdommer, aborter etc.på samvittigheten, men selvsagt MYE annet jeg gjerne skulle vært foruten;)

Sex utenfor Guds rammer er karakterisert som " synd begått mot kroppen" som visstnok er verre enn " all annen synd som blir begått utenfor kroppen". Kroppen skal hedre Gud.

Hjelp meg gjerne med referanse til dette bibelverset noen?:) 

Mange kristne er homofile ( har lesbiske tendenser selv jeg..eller bifil? Føler meg I det minste tiltrukket av vakre damer), men poenget er at homofil praksis(leve dette ut seksuelt, selv innad ekteskap ER feil i følge Guds ord).

Er forresten utrolig positivt overrasket over at denne tråden har medført en(slik jeg ser det) saklig og harmonisk debatt i motsetning til mange aggressive tråder på KG;) 

Nytter ikke å diskutere dette i festlig lag på et vorspiel f.eks😂

Cred til alle som har svart og stilt interessante spørsmål:)

 

Anonymkode: f64eb...309

[funginger]

3 timer siden, AnonymBruker skrev:

Hei, 

Vil ikke forholde meg til kun en prest...foretrekker flere menigheter

Anonymkode: f64eb...309

Så snakk med flere prester? Hva slags kirke går du i egentlig?