NationStates

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

Ailiailia wrote:
I suggest you take the word "pro-life" out of the OP.

Nanatsu I think was raised Catholic, but there's lots of atheists and also lots of pro-choice folks on NSG. For many of us, the thoughts that come to mind when hearing the word "catholic" is 1. Rapist priests, 2. Opposition to abortion and contraception, 3. The Pope has a Twitter account.

Indeed, I was raised Catholic and as a former Catholic I do see the Church's policies on contraception and abortion to be, well, prehistoric. I can understand the whole stance on abortion (it's a religion thing), but contraception? Not at all.

There's nothing wrong with being a responsible adult. If you're not ready to be a parent, contraception is the wise choice.

Its like the Catholic Church hates stress relief (no masturbation or premarital sex, along with a really negative attitude towards abortion and items that would effectively prevent the need for abortions in the first place). Or non-violence. Doesn't lack of sexual release correlate with an increase in violent activity?

Its a fucking conspiracy. [/sarcasm]

But seriously. I'm fairly sure that its been shown that a lack of sexual release causes a rise in violent tendencies...

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol wrote:I don't believe you uderstand the point of relogion. if you believe that going against your religion will result in eternal suffering, you're going to be prepared to do neaely anything to avoid that.

I fail to comprehend how, a God that is describe as a god of love, would condemn his creation to eternal suffering for being responsible or for disagreeing with the edicts of men.

This is part of why I can't see any logical reason to believe that there is an eternal Hell.

Nightkill the Emperor wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
I still fail to understand how a god of love can, in the same breath, condemn the very creation Christians claim he loves, to eternal suffering. He's either a god of love or not.

Why would he punish a married couple that uses contraception? Is there a fair reason for said punishment?

As I believe Stephen Colbert said,
"You see to Catholics, sex isn’t two drunk strangers getting their freak on at closing time,” he said. “It is the mystical union of two people inspired to create new physical life while God adds a soul in a divine and ineffably beautiful three way. So when you use contraception, you are not only sinning, you are cock blocking the Almighty."

This is soo getting sigged.

Spiritus Sancti wrote:Sit Deus cum te!

Sounds disgusting.

The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
I don't see anything in that position worth agreeing with. Contraceptives are not bad and to insist they are is akin to condoning irresponsibility.

it may be irresponsible, but churches are only required to maximise their followers spiritual well-being.

Unfortunate as Catholic condemnation of contraceptives is, you know, resulting in the deaths of a whole lot of people. Well-being, indeed.

The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
I don't see anything in that position worth agreeing with. Contraceptives are not bad and to insist they are is akin to condoning irresponsibility.

it may be irresponsible, but churches are only required to maximise their followers spiritual well-being.

Tell me, how is contraception against the spiritual well-being of people?

This reminds me of a Dogma quote:

Organised religion destroys who we are by inhibiting our actions, by inhibiting our decisions, out of fear of some intangible parent figure, who shakes a finger at us from thousands of years ago and says "Do it, do it and I'll fucking spank you!"

It feels like that's the image churches wish to sell about god. And that, that's sad.

Grenartia wrote:But seriously. I'm fairly sure that its been shown that a lack of sexual release causes a rise in violent tendencies...

I just feel that the Church wants its followers to consider sex a boogeyman, only permissible when spawning.

This is part of why I can't see any logical reason to believe that there is an eternal Hell.

Neither do I.

I lost you between here..

The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol wrote:playing the apparent (heh) devil's advocate, I'd like to point out that being part of a large group fosters ideological connection with that group, and even if you assume only that faith is necesary to avoid eternal damnation,

..and here..

..being part of said large group would prevent that, even if you have to deal with other laws imposed by the group. The end does, after all, justify the means in this scenario

..prevent what?

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol wrote:it may be irresponsible, but churches are only required to maximise their followers spiritual well-being.

Tell me, how is contraception against the spiritual well-being of people?

I'll answer this in two ways. the first one in that, as I said before, not using contreceptive would imply a greater faith in "god's plan for you" or however you choose to put it. more faith=less chance of eternal damnation. the second way to answer this is that god could choose to define contraceptives as bad as a test. I know that statement is overused, but tests imposed by god to weed out people with less faith would be a logical process to keep only those with the most faith, and they are, in fact, canon.

Bombadil wrote:I lost you between here..

The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol wrote:playing the apparent (heh) devil's advocate, I'd like to point out that being part of a large group fosters ideological connection with that group, and even if you assume only that faith is necesary to avoid eternal damnation,

..and here..

..being part of said large group would prevent that, even if you have to deal with other laws imposed by the group. The end does, after all, justify the means in this scenario

..prevent what?

prevent eternal damnation, or, alternitively, provide eternal bliss.

The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Tell me, how is contraception against the spiritual well-being of people?

I'll answer this in two ways. the first one in that, as I said before, not using contreceptive would imply a greater faith in "god's plan for you" or however you choose to put it. more faith=less chance of eternal damnation. the second way to answer this is that god could choose to define contraceptives as bad as a test. I know that statement is overused, but tests imposed by god to weed out people with less faith would be a logical process to keep only those with the most faith, and they are, in fact, canon.

What are contraceptives are in God's plan for you? What if, by not using them, you're messing up his plan? You think you know about his plan, the one he's been putting into effect since forever? Don't you think he's already planned out you using a condom or not?

The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Tell me, how is contraception against the spiritual well-being of people?

I'll answer this in two ways. the first one in that, as I said before, not using contreceptive would imply a greater faith in "god's plan for you" or however you choose to put it. more faith=less chance of eternal damnation.

Men of 'great faith' have done horrible things. You can't possibly tell me that those who commit atrocities in the name of god escape damnation. Because if they do, then god is not only terrible, but also unfair (in case he exists).

the second way to answer this is that god could choose to define contraceptives as bad as a test. I know that statement is overused, but tests imposed by god to weed out people with less faith would be a logical process to keep only those with the most faith, and they are, in fact, canon.

This is... this... I can't even begin to explain what reading this made me feel.

Contraception as bad as a test? FFS.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol wrote: I'll answer this in two ways. the first one in that, as I said before, not using contreceptive would imply a greater faith in "god's plan for you" or however you choose to put it. more faith=less chance of eternal damnation.

Men of 'great faith' have done horrible things. You can't possibly tell me that those who commit atrocities in the name of god escape damnation. Because if they do, then god is not only terrible, but also unfair (in case he exists).

the second way to answer this is that god could choose to define contraceptives as bad as a test. I know that statement is overused, but tests imposed by god to weed out people with less faith would be a logical process to keep only those with the most faith, and they are, in fact, canon.

This is... this... I can't even begin to explain what reading this made me feel.

Contraception as bad as a test? FFS.

I also don't know why God would want to weed out his own children from enjoying life with their brothers and sisters.

The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol wrote:

Bombadil wrote:I lost you between here..



..and here..



..prevent what?

prevent eternal damnation, or, alternitively, provide eternal bliss.

Okay, honestly asking here rather than being difficult - how does being part of a large group prevent enternal damnation?

Nightkill the Emperor wrote:

The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol wrote: I'll answer this in two ways. the first one in that, as I said before, not using contreceptive would imply a greater faith in "god's plan for you" or however you choose to put it. more faith=less chance of eternal damnation. the second way to answer this is that god could choose to define contraceptives as bad as a test. I know that statement is overused, but tests imposed by god to weed out people with less faith would be a logical process to keep only those with the most faith, and they are, in fact, canon.

What are contraceptives are in God's plan for you? What if, by not using them, you're messing up his plan? You think you know about his plan, the one he's been putting into effect since forever? Don't you think he's already planned out you using a condom or not?

The bible states (or at least heavily imlplies) that humans have free will. God's plan woud be his ideal view of how your life would go, but you can choose to deviate from it at any time. Contraceptives would not in-and-of themselves change god's plans, but not having chidren god wants you to have would have. can we please not talk about contraceptives anymore? I'm actually pro-contraceptives, I just felt that if religion didn't get some sort of defense on the topic it would just turn into you people agreeing with each other and not getting you to actually think about the topic.

Nightkill the Emperor wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Men of 'great faith' have done horrible things. You can't possibly tell me that those who commit atrocities in the name of god escape damnation. Because if they do, then god is not only terrible, but also unfair (in case he exists).



This is... this... I can't even begin to explain what reading this made me feel.

Contraception as bad as a test? FFS.

I also don't know why God would want to weed out his own children from enjoying life with their brothers and sisters.

I can only describe this as an absurdity.

Popes in the Middle Ages, men proclaiming to be of 'great faith' sanctioned the Crusades, where thousands died in the Holy Land. Jews, Christians and Muslim alike. Men like Torquemada, a man of 'great faith' and who's gone down in history as one of the worst and more blood thirsty Inquisitors in the history of the Inquisition, condemned thousands of souls to die burned at the stake in the name of 'great faith'.

And someone dares tell me that contraception is bad and that god wants to weed out his own children from enjoying life, and also dares tell me that the Church that sanctions such actions is looking out for the spiritual well-being of its followers? The Fuck?

Bombadil wrote:

The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol wrote:prevent eternal damnation, or, alternitively, provide eternal bliss.

Okay, honestly asking here rather than being difficult - how does being part of a large group prevent enternal damnation?

peer pressure would make you less likely to deviate from faith and keep you on the "straight and narrow" so to speak. That tactic obviousy doesn't work as well now, but it did for the overwhelming majority of human history.

The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol wrote:

Bombadil wrote:
Okay, honestly asking here rather than being difficult - how does being part of a large group prevent enternal damnation?

peer pressure would make you less likely to deviate from faith and keep you on the "straight and narrow" so to speak. That tactic obviousy doesn't work as well now, but it did for the overwhelming majority of human history.

And you don't think that peer pressure exists among the congregations?

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

Nightkill the Emperor wrote:I also don't know why God would want to weed out his own children from enjoying life with their brothers and sisters.

I can only describe this as an absurdity.

Popes in the Middle Ages, men proclaiming to be of 'great faith' sanctioned the Crusades, where thousands died in the Holy Land. Jews, Christians and Muslim alike. Men like Torquemada, a man of 'great faith' and who's gone down in history as one of the worst and more blood thirsty Inquisitors in the history of the Inquisition, condemned thousands of souls to die burned at the stake in the name of 'great faith'.

And someone dares tell me that contraception is bad and that god wants to weed out his own children from enjoying life, and also dares tell me that the Church that sanctions such actions is looking out for the spiritual well-being of its followers? The Fuck?

you're mistaking people acting in the name of religion for religion causing people to act. religion has and still does cause people to do horrible thing, but I doubt that most people associated with doing evil in the name of religion were actually that motivated by religion. I'm not going to say that religious people have better morals than athiests or agnostics, but the viewpoint that you seem to hold regarding religiou people, and saying that they're primarily hypocritical and obnoxiously self rightios is more than a little hypocritical itself. If you don't believe that religious people shouldn't tell you how to live your life, you shouldn't tell them how to run their own religions, even if you disagree with them.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol wrote:peer pressure would make you less likely to deviate from faith and keep you on the "straight and narrow" so to speak. That tactic obviousy doesn't work as well now, but it did for the overwhelming majority of human history.

And you don't think that peer pressure exists among the congregations?

my entire point is that peer pressure exists among congregations, that's why they're traditionally effective at maintaining followers.

The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol wrote:

Bombadil wrote:
Okay, honestly asking here rather than being difficult - how does being part of a large group prevent enternal damnation?

peer pressure would make you less likely to deviate from faith and keep you on the "straight and narrow" so to speak. That tactic obviousy doesn't work as well now, but it did for the overwhelming majority of human history.

It would only make you less likely to deviate from the rules of that particular group, it has no say as to whether that group has any accordance with what any supposed God wants.

Bombadil wrote:

The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol wrote:peer pressure would make you less likely to deviate from faith and keep you on the "straight and narrow" so to speak. That tactic obviousy doesn't work as well now, but it did for the overwhelming majority of human history.

It would only make you less likely to deviate from the rules of that particular group, it has no say as to whether that group has any accordance with what any supposed God wants.

the only sassumption I'm willing to make about god is that faith would be an important if not required part of that god's religion, therefore, regardless of what the congregation does, having faith would still be beneficial to its members. If god does not require faith, then most of this topic is moot anyways.

The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
I can only describe this as an absurdity.

Popes in the Middle Ages, men proclaiming to be of 'great faith' sanctioned the Crusades, where thousands died in the Holy Land. Jews, Christians and Muslim alike. Men like Torquemada, a man of 'great faith' and who's gone down in history as one of the worst and more blood thirsty Inquisitors in the history of the Inquisition, condemned thousands of souls to die burned at the stake in the name of 'great faith'.

And someone dares tell me that contraception is bad and that god wants to weed out his own children from enjoying life, and also dares tell me that the Church that sanctions such actions is looking out for the spiritual well-being of its followers? The Fuck?

you're mistaking people acting in the name of religion for religion causing people to act. religion has and still does cause people to do horrible thing, but I doubt that most people associated with doing evil in the name of religion were actually that motivated by religion. I'm not going to say that religious people have better morals than athiests or agnostics, but the viewpoint that you seem to hold regarding religiou people, and saying that they're primarily hypocritical and obnoxiously self rightios is more than a little hypocritical itself. If you don't believe that religious people shouldn't tell you how to live your life, you shouldn't tell them how to run their own religions, even if you disagree with them.

That's a nice strawman you're attacking right there. I never said that religious people should live the way I say they should.

People can believe whatever they want. No, my contention is this whole damning someone for choosing to be responsible and for choosing what they consider best for themselves and hiding behind a deity. Something many religious people seem to be very adept at doing, telling others how they should live.

Now that, that is indeed hypocritical and, well, it stinks of self-righteousness.

The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
And you don't think that peer pressure exists among the congregations?

my entire point is that peer pressure exists among congregations, that's why they're traditionally effective at maintaining followers.

But you also said that that tactic doesn't work as well for them now so, what exactly is your overall point? Are they effective at maintaining their followers or not?

The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol wrote:

Bombadil wrote:
It would only make you less likely to deviate from the rules of that particular group, it has no say as to whether that group has any accordance with what any supposed God wants.

the only sassumption I'm willing to make about god is that faith would be an important if not required part of that god's religion, therefore, regardless of what the congregation does, having faith would still be beneficial to its members. If god does not require faith, then most of this topic is moot anyways.

Ah, I see what you mean - where faith in Jesus alone is enough then peer pressure from a group would mean it's more likely you maintain that faith. Well, possibly, if we think that a genocide-believing sect that has faith gets into heaven for faith alone - hyperbolic example I know.

I still can't agree with an organised interpretation of an unknowable god's will, even if I were to believe in a god as it is.

Spiritus Sancti wrote:

Bombadil wrote:I imagine every single religious person disobeys their church one way or another, even the Pope. In fact I doubt there's a truly consistent person on the planet regardless of ideology.

The only constant is that there's exceptions.

But what I get pissed, is that people, manly the "conservative" Catholic disobey the Church, then lie and say that they don't

You'll get over it.
Frankly, I'm of the opinion people disobeying the arbitrary rules of that archaic institution is a good thing.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol wrote:you're mistaking people acting in the name of religion for religion causing people to act. religion has and still does cause people to do horrible thing, but I doubt that most people associated with doing evil in the name of religion were actually that motivated by religion. I'm not going to say that religious people have better morals than athiests or agnostics, but the viewpoint that you seem to hold regarding religiou people, and saying that they're primarily hypocritical and obnoxiously self rightios is more than a little hypocritical itself. If you don't believe that religious people shouldn't tell you how to live your life, you shouldn't tell them how to run their own religions, even if you disagree with them.

That's a nice strawman you're attacking right there. I never said that religious people should live the way I say they should.

People can believe whatever they want. No, my contention is this whole damning someone for choosing to be responsible and for choosing what they consider best for themselves and hiding behind a deity. Something many religious people seem to be very adept at doing, telling others how they should live.

Now that, that is indeed hypocritical and, well, it stinks of self-righteousness.

As you were saying that religions should or shouldn't do something, I interpreted that as you wishing to dictate how religion should work. if you claim you were dojng something different, ai won't argue with you.

Bombadil wrote:

The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol wrote:the only sassumption I'm willing to make about god is that faith would be an important if not required part of that god's religion, therefore, regardless of what the congregation does, having faith would still be beneficial to its members. If god does not require faith, then most of this topic is moot anyways.

Ah, I see what you mean - where faith in Jesus alone is enough then peer pressure from a group would mean it's more likely you maintain that faith. Well, possibly, if we think that a genocide-believing sect that has faith gets into heaven for faith alone - hyperbolic example I know.

I still can't agree with an organised interpretation of an unknowable god's will, even if I were to believe in a god as it is.

assuming it is impossible to know or even guess what a god really wanted, a pro-genocide cult would have the same chance of escaping eternal damnation than any other group, and because they would faith in a higher power they would have a higher chance of escaping eternal damntion than an athiest.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol wrote:my entire point is that peer pressure exists among congregations, that's why they're traditionally effective at maintaining followers.

But you also said that that tactic doesn't work as well for them now so, what exactly is your overall point? Are they effective at maintaining their followers or not?

My overall point is that congregations have been effective at mantaining folowers so far. I don't have that many statistics on congregations now and I'm too lazy to look them up, so I'll only give you my view on past trends.
anyways, it's about 2 PM in my timezone. you can respond to my post if you want the last word, but I won't bother reading responses.