PDA

View Full Version : How religion's demand for obedience keeps up in the dark ages



mrveggieman
03-22-2012, 09:46 AM
I saw the link to this on facebook and just wanted to get the groups thoughts on it:

http://www.alternet.org/belief/154604/how_religion%27s_demand_for_obedience_keeps_us_in_ the_dark_ages/

habsheaven
03-22-2012, 10:45 AM
Great article. Too bad that those that need to hear his message, won't.

mrveggieman
03-22-2012, 10:50 AM
Great article. Too bad that those that need to hear his message, won't.


Good point. Now I do believe in God but I hate religious extremists who uses God's name to justify hate or claim to do God's work but in reality they are only oppressing innocent people. It's ok to believe in (or not to believ in) God just don't be a jerk about it. The world will be a much better place once we all realize that we all have to live in it together despite our differences. :kiss:

duane1969
03-22-2012, 11:02 AM
RE: The contraception issue.

I think a key aspect that is never considered by both sides is that when the "no contraception" component became prominent in Catholicism it wasn't that big of a deal. Most non-married couples abstained and the "no contraception' component was a tool to prevent pre-marital sex, because couples didn't want to risk pregnancy or the stigmatism that went with pregnancy out of wedlock.

The only reason that the social aspect of contraception has changed is because it has become socially acceptable (and amazingly common) for people to have sex, not just out of wedlock, but out of committed relationships in general.

So from a religious perspective, asking the church to accept contraception is essentially asking the church to accept casual sex.

mrveggieman
03-22-2012, 11:10 AM
RE: The contraception issue.

I think a key aspect that is never considered by both sides is that when the "no contraception" component became prominent in Catholicism it wasn't that big of a deal. Most non-married couples abstained and the "no contraception' component was a tool to prevent pre-marital sex, because couples didn't want to risk pregnancy or the stigmatism that went with pregnancy out of wedlock.

The only reason that the social aspect of contraception has changed is because it has become socially acceptable (and amazingly common) for people to have sex, not just out of wedlock, but out of committed relationships in general.

So from a religious perspective, asking the church to accept contraception is essentially asking the church to accept casual sex.


Churches can tell there members what ever they want. If the members follow it is on them. However employees of religious businesses do not neccessaliry subscribe to the doctrine of the business and should not have it's views forced on them.

duane1969
03-22-2012, 11:14 AM
Churches can tell there members what ever they want. If the members follow it is on them. However employees of religious businesses do not neccessaliry subscribe to the doctrine of the business and should not have it's views forced on them.

In what regards? What employees of religious businesses are forced to comply with that religion's demands?

mrveggieman
03-22-2012, 11:16 AM
In what regards? What employees of religious businesses are forced to comply with that religion's demands?


If an employee needs an item that is generally covered by insurance but he the employer refuses to provide it due to the religion that's a clear case of forcing religion on someone.

pspstatus
03-22-2012, 07:35 PM
I saw the link to this on facebook and just wanted to get the groups thoughts on it:

http://www.alternet.org/belief/154604/how_religion%27s_demand_for_obedience_keeps_us_in_ the_dark_ages/


It all boils down to a simple equation.

Religion + mass population = Control

shrewsbury
03-22-2012, 08:36 PM
Religion + mass population = Control

so;

no religion + mass population = chaos ??

Wickabee
03-22-2012, 08:38 PM
So from a religious perspective, asking the church to accept contraception is essentially asking the church to accept casual sex.
I take exception to that. I am happily married and do not want more children at this time. Does it make me a bad person to think I shouldn't have to abstain from making love with my wife? If I were Catholic, would that make me a bad Catholic?

pspstatus
03-22-2012, 10:26 PM
so;

no religion + mass population = chaos ??


No, I think that equation would be more like this.

No religion + mass population = Peace

duane1969
03-25-2012, 01:56 AM
If an employee needs an item that is generally covered by insurance but he the employer refuses to provide it due to the religion that's a clear case of forcing religion on someone.

I am not making the connection. What religious business prevents it's employees from using contraception?


I take exception to that. I am happily married and do not want more children at this time. Does it make me a bad person to think I shouldn't have to abstain from making love with my wife? If I were Catholic, would that make me a bad Catholic?

I was speaking of unmarried couples. Most Catholic families are large in size because contraception was not used (think large Italian and Spanish families).

I am not Catholic, so I may be wrong, but I think the reason they opposed contraception in the past was because unmarried couples didn't need it because they were not supposed to be having sex and married couples didn't need it because they were procreating. Times have changed but I think the old perception still exists that contraception = sex between unmarried couples.

Wickabee
03-25-2012, 02:23 AM
I was speaking of unmarried couples. Most Catholic families are large in size because contraception was not used (think large Italian and Spanish families).

I am not Catholic, so I may be wrong, but I think the reason they opposed contraception in the past was because unmarried couples didn't need it because they were not supposed to be having sex and married couples didn't need it because they were procreating. Times have changed but I think the old perception still exists that contraception = sex between unmarried couples.
I know what you were speaking of. I'm pointing out that connecting contraceptives exclusively with premarital sex is flat out wrong.

As for Catholic views on it, they believe it's wrong to have sex for any reason other than prcreation, if I'm not mistaken.

theonedru
03-25-2012, 11:50 AM
I am not making the connection. What religious business prevents it's employees from using contraception?



I was speaking of unmarried couples. Most Catholic families are large in size because contraception was not used (think large Italian and Spanish families).

I am not Catholic, so I may be wrong, but I think the reason they opposed contraception in the past was because unmarried couples didn't need it because they were not supposed to be having sex and married couples didn't need it because they were procreating. Times have changed but I think the old perception still exists that contraception = sex between unmarried couples.

The catholic church opposes contraceptives because bigger families means more followers, more followers means more money for the church, more money = more profit. Just like why priests cannot marry, when priests could marry their $ was passed down through their families, when the church forbid the priests marrying their $ ended up with the church.

Wickabee
03-25-2012, 12:52 PM
The catholic church opposes contraceptives because bigger families means more followers, more followers means more money for the church, more money = more profit. Just like why priests cannot marry, when priests could marry their $ was passed down through their families, when the church forbid the priests marrying their $ ended up with the church.
It's a great business plan, really.