Brother Adam Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 (edited) [quote name='crusader1234' date='Apr 4 2005, 11:11 PM'] I don't buy that answer. I've never heard of somebody being able to afford a vasectomy but not a reversal. As far as I know, atoning for sin doesn't have to be cheap and easy. [/quote] Oh man don't I know that one. Oh - and for the record I am married. Edited April 5, 2005 by Brother Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briguy Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 (edited) Hi Brother Adam, hope you are well. Iron, man that was quite a post. I don't know how I could respond to it because there was so much there. Most however was opinion and much OT law stuff that we are not bound by in this dispensation of grace. You can't quote things from OT "law/rules" and say it is so but not practice the laws/rules around what you said. Children that disrespect there parents were to be stoned and witches were to be put to death. Do you agree these two things should be done??? Are you practicing animal sacrifices for the remission of your sins?? I gave you direct scripture and you said "The bible is not an authority - I believe Christ." If you were trying to persaude me that the Catholic Church is correct and I am wrong, this type of thing does not help you. The Bible was written by Christ, it is God's word. I thought you believed the Bible was God's word as well. I just thought you also believed that tradition and Papacy authority was also God's word, with none of the 3 more important then the others. To say the Bible (you even used a small "b") is not an authority is just plain silly. What use is it at all if it does not have authority. Anyway, I respect you Iron and BA too. You have used charity and kindness to me in the past and made me feel welcome here. Your last two posts seem to be a little more agressive and less kind. Perhaps it was my comment about pretending the Bible does not say what it says. If it was I apologise as I didn't mean it harshly or to be degrading. The other possiblity is that I struck a nerve in you two because maybe in this area, in light of what Paul teaches, there is some inconsistency between the Bible and CC doctrine. If that is it, don't let it bother you and don't let it have an effect on the charity you usually both have. Iron, in that stuff you posted you never directly dealt with what Paul said. Tell me what he meant if he did not mean what I said he meant. It is there, it is scripture, it can't be ignored. If there is a scripture above you want me to deal directly with, that would be fair. Please post it alone and I will deal with it directly. In Christian Love, Brian Edited April 5, 2005 by Briguy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 (edited) Briguy, On your Corinthians quote: "Do we not find here the basis of that traditional understanding that one of the ends of marriage was the "relief of concupiscence" in the sense of indulging lustful desire? The Holy Father has insisted throughout his entire catechesis that there is real power in Jesus Christ's death and resurrection to set men free from the domination of concupiscence. Based on the ethos of redemption which Christ preached in the Sermon on the Mount, John Paul has held out this freedom as the norm and the task for all Christians and stressed that marriage does not justify indulging in ones lusts. For example, we can recognize that indulging lust at the expense of one's own wife would blatantly contradict Paul's call for husbands to love their wives as "Christ loved the Church" in Ephesians 5. 1 Cor. 7:9 must be understood in the intergral sense given it by the Christian Scriptures, which also teach of the redemption of the body (Romans 8:23) and point to the sacrament of matrimony as a way of realizing this redemption." - Theology of the Body Explained, Christopher West, p.297-8 Don't you want that kind of joy and freedom in your marriage? Instead of using your wife to indulge in your lusts, to be truly free to love her as Christ loves the Church? It's free for the taking. I've experienced it first hand having gone from contracepting to not contracepting and all it entails. Email me. Edited April 5, 2005 by Brother Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briguy Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Adam, I am kind of confused. There is no fulfillment of lust within a normal healthy, sexually active marriage. The idea here from Paul is not to indulge your lusts on your partner so you are not tempted. That is not it and you are missing such a simple thing, maybe too simple you are over looking it. The fulfilled marriage is to avoid temptation/LUST. It is not to indulge lust. In marriage we are to fulfill eachother, not hold anything back. There is no Lust in the sense you think if the marriage is running smoothly. We have a God given drive and it is powerful. God points this out through Paul. I still see no-one saying what God/Paul meant if it wasn't what I said. In Christ, Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 I think Brother Adam is a good example. I'm not sure if he was referring to this in his post, but I think it does. His marriage was thought by some to be invalid. He entered a painful and long process to amend this. I just hate people with double standards , so I think its only fair that if the rest of us have to correct ourselves (not passing judgement on Brother Adam's situation by the way) then it only makes sense that vasectomy victoms should get theirs reversed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 [quote name='crusader1234' date='Apr 4 2005, 08:18 PM'] Cmom, think about it this way. Having a sex using a condom is a sin right? Imagine if (this sounds disgusting but it illustrates the point) a person had sex using a condom, and never bothered to take the condom off. If they confessed having sex using a condom, and they just left the condom on, and continued having sex, that would be sinful. If a person has a procedure which causes sterility, and it can be reversed, I think it would be sinful to continue having sex until that procedure is reversed. Sorry for the disgusting analogy. [/quote] Crusader you are entitled to your opinion but the Church does NOT say you must get a reversal or that sex after a vasectomy is a sin once it has been confessed and absolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Apr 5 2005, 06:44 PM'] Crusader you are entitled to your opinion but the Church does NOT say you must get a reversal or that sex after a vasectomy is a sin once it has been confessed and absolved. [/quote] Cmom is correct. Although, IMHO, it would be noble to try to get a reversal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Sure it would. But most policies pay for a vasectomy but not a reversal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Apr 5 2005, 06:49 PM'] Sure it would. But most policies pay for a vasectomy but not a reversal. [/quote] True...stupid insurance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelFilo Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 AS Christians we don't shoot for the law, but go above and beyond. God bless, Mikey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 [quote name='Raphael' date='Apr 5 2005, 06:51 PM'] True...stupid insurance... [/quote] A vascetomy cost considerably less than a pregnancy to an insurance company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Apr 5 2005, 07:24 PM'] A vascetomy cost considerably less than a pregnancy to an insurance company. [/quote] I'm talking about a reversal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 Footnote: Vasectomies don't always work. I'm living proof. :tiphat: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briguy Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 (edited) Hi all, Still waiting for a response to my last post. If God through Paul did not mean what I said He meant then what do the verses I posted mean, directly that is. Not in theory or in the abstract. Adam, at one point you or something you quoted said that the Bible has to be taken as a whole to understand certain verses, like what Paul is saying. Do you realize that is exactly what I have said to Catholics and some Pentecostals about baptism and the argument is not accepted?? Maybe we all want to have our cake and eat it too. I can admit to that. I hope you can as well. In Christian love, Brian Edited April 7, 2005 by Briguy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briguy Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 Game, set, and match??? Sorry, I am going to play tennis today so this seemed like the proper post to the non-response. In Christ, Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now