Conference yukon::christian_v7

    What I would like to do is take a look at sex. What purpose did God
    create it for, what is it's nature? Obviously I'm talking again about
    sex within the confines of marriage.

    I think that God created sex to have 2 natures/purposes and that these
    are inseparable. The natures are one unitive and two procreative. The
    unitive nature binds man and woman into one flesh. I don't know the
    exact definition of "binding into one flesh", but I would think that
    it has possibly several meanings. The procreate nature of sex is fairly
    obvious, but carries with it some profound consequences IMHO. My feeling
    is that sex is a great and wonderful blessing/gift from God.

    From Genesis 2:

    18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone;
       I will make him a helper fit for him."
    19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and
       every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would
       call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was
       its name. 
    20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to
       every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper
       fit for him. 
    21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he
       slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; 
    22 and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a
       woman and brought her to the man. 
    23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my
       flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." 
    24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his
       wife, and they become one flesh. 
    25 And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed. 

    I feel that this supports the idea that sex is unitive. Now you might
    say that this refers to marriage in general. That "when a man leaves
    his father and mother etc..." refers to marriage. But Paul says
    differently in 1 Cor 6;

    15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I
       therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a
       prostitute? Never! 
    16 Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one
       body with her? For, as it is written, "The two shall become one flesh." 
    17 But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.

    Pauls intepretation of Genesis implies that this is talking about the
    sex act. For now that is all I'm going to say on this aspect of sex.
    Certainly I have not done it justice and would be happy later on to
    delve into this more deeply. In fact I would welcome it because I
    know that I lack somewhat in my understanding of it. However, because
    the issue here is contraception I won't to focus more on the other
    aspect of sex, procreative.

    More to follow...

    Peter

    P.S. Just a disclaimer, I know that most Christians, at least that's
         what I think now maybe I'm wrong :-), view sex this way and that
         I'm not coming up with something new or anything. It's just that
         at the present time I'm learning a lot about sex and how God
         created it.
    

    From Genesis 1:

    27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
       male and female he created them.
    28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply,
       and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of
       the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that
       moves upon the earth." 

    Now I would assert that this supports the idea that sex is also
    procreative. I would also assert that this aspect of sex is obvious
    from nature. Now of course God created nature, so in this case I
    would say that nature can be revelation for us and it would seem
    that it does not contradict scripture in this regard. I long way
    of saying that the procreative aspect of sex should be ovious. :-)

    There are more observations that I would like to make here on this aspect
    of sex. With the procreative aspect of sex God made us co-creators, or
    whatever the term is. God created man in His own image, so everytime
    the sex act is performed there is a potential to create another being
    with His image. What an amazing gift God has given us. With this gift
    is tremendous responsibility. I think that society has demeaned this
    gift and avoided the responsibility of it. The view that society has
    of sex and it's roles are foolish and shallow IM, humble although
    it may not always seem that way, O.

    Ok so much for my view of sex. As I have stated I see these as
    inseparable. So anytime sex is engaged in both aspects must be
    present. If they are not, in my opinion, it is an affront to God
    because He created sex to have 2 aspects, purposes or roles.

    Therefore I view contraception as wrong, as many have already guessed.
    The reason being that contraception removes one aspect of sex, the
    procreative aspect. Now would be a good time for me to state what I
    would include in contraception, or what I would not include. Any method
    that removes the possiblity of conception occuring or results in the
    termination of that which is already concieved, the latter being murder
    and a grave sin. So I would see any method that uses abstenience (SP)
    as OK. Yes Wayne we can get into the "pure" discussion if you like,
    as well as many others. :-)

    What I am not saying here is that people should just go and keep having
    children again and again with no thoughts at all. If a couple feels
    called to have 8 kids fine, if 1, 2 or whatever fine. When engaging
    in the sex act a couple should not "willfully" attempt to remove
    either of the aspects of sex. Now obviously there are questions and
    issues related to what I have just stated and I would be happy to
    flesh them out.

    I'm sure that what I have written appears to be dogma and that I think
    everyone should obey it. Well in as much as I'm human and imperfect that
    may to some extent be true, however I would never try to tell anyone
    that they should follow this. What I have written is MY OPINION, oh I'm
    sure there are other Christians who may agree in part.

    Let the flames, questions and comments fly, I'm ready.
    (IIIIII tttttthink) :-)

    Peter.
    

    Hi Peter,
     
        What I am not saying here is that people should just go and keephaving
        children again and again with no thoughts at all. If a couple feels
        called to have 8 kids fine, if 1, 2 or whatever fine. When engaging
        in the sex act a couple should not "willfully" attempt to remove
        either of the aspects of sex. Now obviously there are questions and
        issues related to what I have just stated and I would be happy to
        flesh them out.
    
    
    This paragraph of yours confuses me.  How can you stop after 8 kids
    without using contraception as you defined it?
    
    
    Jill
    

    Hi Jill,
    
    > This paragraph of yours confuses me.  How can you stop after 8 kids
    > without using contraception as you defined it?
    
    Probably a result of my inability to write. :-)
    
    In any case maybe I was not clear in my definition. I would see it
    acceptable to use a method of contraception that involved abstenience.
    Although I would not call it contraception. Natural Family Planning
    (NFP) comes to mind, and it can be nearly as effective as the pill. 
    Of course it must be done properly.
    
    I want to say again that I would not see NFP as contraception. A couple
    abstains on the days that the women is fertile. All other acts of sex
    the couple engage in then still have both aspects of sex involved. The
    couple that stops at 8 kids is can use this method to avoid having more
    children, of course after having discerned God's will on the issues to
    the best of their abilities.
    
    Peter
    
    Peter

|    I want to say again that I would not see NFP as contraception. A couple
|    abstains on the days that the women is fertile. All other acts of sex
    
    As a father of 4, I guess I was absent the day they covered NFP. 
    Anyone want to clarify "fertile days" for me?  Here or offline if you
    prefer.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    Re: .69
    
    Hi Mike,
    
    I can get you some information on it. You'll probably have to wait
    until next week though.
    
    
    Peter
    

    Its not a totally effective method.  Lots of guess work.  

NFP (not rhythm), which involves charting, temperature measurements, and
cervical mucous measurements is 95% effective in predicting the fertile
period.

As such one of the most effective contraceptive methods available.

It is also extremely effective in planning desired pregnancies.

/john

    I wonder how effective it would be if your spouse had highly irregular
    menstrual cycles (i.e., different week each month, different # of days
    each month).
    

    
    	Much more complicated, I'm sure, but because it relies
    	not upon counting days, but on observing the way ones
    	body behaves before and at ovulation, it is not impossible.
    

    Re: the past few.
    
    If you have access to the internet check out this site.
    
    Couple to Couple League
    
    //www.itek.net/~mission/cathlc/ccl/
    
    If you don't then let me know I can download some of the stuff and post
    or E-mail it.
    
    Peter.
    

    Here's some more info in CCL.
    
    Couple to Couple League's e-mail address: 73311.256@Compuserve.Com 
    
    Or write us:
    
    The Couple to Couple League
    P.O.Box 111184
    Cincinati, Ohio, USA 45211-1184
    
    Phone us: (USA) 513-471-2000
    Open Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. - 17:00 p.m. EST
    Fax us: (USA) 513-557-2449 
    
    The Couple to Couple League International, Inc. is a non-profit,
    tax-exempt organization founded in 1971 to provide
    quality natural family planning services throughout the world in order
    to strengthen the family, the basic unit of society. 

Hi, Peter.

My purpose in this discussion is to challenge folks to think through their
positions for consistency in light of God's Word and the commendation of His
Spirit indwelling the believer.

You said:

    "I would see it acceptable to use a method of contraception that involved
    abstinence. Although I would not call it contraception. Natural Family
    Planning (NFP) comes to mind, and it can be nearly as effective as the
    pill. Of course it must be done properly.
    
    "I want to say again that I would not see NFP as contraception. A couple
    abstains on the days that the women is fertile."

According to Webster's New World Dictionary, contraception is "the intentional
prevention of fertilization of an ovum, as by special devices, drugs, etc."

And a device is: 1) A thing devised; plan; scheme; trick.
                 2) A mechanical invention or contrivance for some specific
                    purpose.

Say again why you "would not call" NFP contraception?

Seems to me the issue here is not means (letter of the law), rather intention
(spirit of the law).

By the way, Scripture is quite clear regarding the role of abstinence in the
marriage relationship.  Preventing pregnancy isn't it!

/Wayne

      Hi Jill,
    
        I saw your reply awhile back as Wayne seemed to.  I took 
        it that you don't use contraception *because* your body is
        in God's hands.  This would seem to lead to the parallel
        that you wouldn't see a doctor for the same reason, but
        if you would see a doctor for sickness, the reason for 
        not having contraception seems less than airtight.  It
        would seem no contraception and no doctor's OR doctor's
        and ???.
    
      Hi Peter,
    
        I'm sorry brother if I came on strong.  I sensed that you
        were zealously defending 'no contraception' with your use
        of Luther/Calvin and what seemed to me a clear misuse of
        scripture.  I'm sorry if I wronged you.
    
        Can you see that Onan's situation involved much more than 
        the decision of whether or not to use contraception?  In
        his specific instance, God wanted his wife to continue her
        deceased husband's line.  Onan went expressly against this
        command.
    
        Now, if I were to be told by God to continue my wife's
        deceased husband's line and I used contraception, would that
        not be different than if I had no deceased husband's line
        to continue and I used contraception?
    
        Man looks on the utward act, God looks on the heart.
    
                                          Tony

    re .78
    
    Actually I put my body in God's hands, and then I follow Him.  
    
    
    Jill