Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

16580simple questions

Expand Messages
  • nocost2great
    Oct 26, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      It has been quite awhile since I have logged in, so I have spent
      quite a bit of time reading over the last thread. I have not read the
      article you posted a link to Ben, but I plan to. I did read the
      portion that Edgar quoted and I didn't see much logic in her
      reasoning. I enjoyed reading your dissertation on natural law, and
      somehow I don't see that contraception falls into the arguement of
      being unatural. That doesn't, however, mean that I am pro-
      contraception (obviously to those who know me.) Sometimes I think we
      dig too deep to find answers, or maybe I am just shallow?
      My first very simple question is how do we disregard the Onan passage?
      I will abstain from offering any comment until I have heard answers
      on this. I have read how some approach it, but I am curious as to
      what others here think.
      The other question that has lingered as I read through all the posts
      is why no one has appealed to the inverse arguement. Please forgive
      me if I don't use technical philosophical terms. :) For example, if A
      is true, then it is given that the opposite of A is false. Do we not
      see this over and again in the WCF, especially with regard to the 10
      commandments? Granted, there are some worst case scenarios that cause
      us to question the rationale and sometimes we want to invoke common
      sense to rationalize our thought processes. We can easily create
      hypotheticals that are extreme, but do they help us "trust in the
      Lord with all our heart and lean not on our own understanding"? Or
      are they thoughts that the devil plants to help us come to an
      acceptance of things that are abominable before God? I am thinking
      specifically of arguments in favor of movies, style of dress, and
      other ways we have come to live not only in the world, but of it as
      well. I know I am straying from the topic of contraception, but I
      think it easily applies to natural law in general. As Romans 1
      becomes prevalent in our culture, then 'natural' and 'normal' are no
      longer synonymous (in my eyes.) Defining unatural becomes more
      difficult. I could take all the arguments and extrapolate them to the
      medical world and say that toxic drugs simply taken to eliminate
      symptoms are unatural and sinful. (They are poison and create their
      own set of symptoms we call side effects and by and large do nothing
      to correct the root cause.) I doubt that argument would be any less
      volatile though. :) We are too addicted to feeling good, and if
      popping a pill can make us feel better..... Hopefully this isn't
      opening another Pandora's box. Maybe it will help Ben to flesh out
      the natural law arguement...
      Now I am off to read the article, although I doubt I'll comment on
      it. Not being into philosophy makes it difficult for me to offer
      stimulating arguements. But I couldn't resist asking those questions
      since they hadn't been covered in the conversations.

      Dee Dee