Ask a CL

[Catholic_Lady]

Lol not very many mainline Christians take Genesis as literal, historical fact...

Yeah, I know that. But since we agree that the Adam and Eve story is just that and not history, it does make me wonder why there was no urgency in communicating these divine precepts to much earlier humans, considering the stakes. Given their very recent introduction, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to ask how important marriage — or any of the rest of the divine plan — was that your god couldn’t be bothered to lay it out much earlier.

It’s almost as if it was all man made.

I think it makes sense that humans would need to be evolved enough and civilized enough before being expected to settle down into commited, lifelong relationships. I dont think God spoke from the heavens one day and told them about marriage. I imagine it probably started to come naturally and seem "right" as we became more and more civilized. And I think God intended it to be that way. That's my theory at least.

[Crossless2.0]

Any anthropologist could have told you that, CL. No need for the Bible, the church, or divine plan “theories”.

[Whateverist]

What the heck is wrong with birth control?!  

*can 'o' worms opened.  Sorry*

Separating out the procreative aspect from sex. With timed abstinence you just don't have sex during the fertile week when you're trying to avoid pregnancy, which is fine. But when you take the pill or use a condom, you introduce something into the sex itself to render it sterile. Since we believe sex is a highly sacred thing, we think purposely changing its nature so fundamentally isn't right.

But that only applies to married couples. For unmarried folks, we don't think it's moral to be having sex at all, so whether or not they use artificial contraception doesn't matter. It becomes a moot point unless the couple is married.

Can there ever be too much of a good thing where peopling up the earth is concerned, in your opinion?  Would you be fine with massive extinctions of many, many other species just so that we can continue to go forth and be fruitful?

[Catholic_Lady]

Separating out the procreative aspect from sex. With timed abstinence you just don't have sex during the fertile week when you're trying to avoid pregnancy, which is fine. But when you take the pill or use a condom, you introduce something into the sex itself to render it sterile. Since we believe sex is a highly sacred thing, we think purposely changing its nature so fundamentally isn't right.

But that only applies to married couples. For unmarried folks, we don't think it's moral to be having sex at all, so whether or not they use artificial contraception doesn't matter. It becomes a moot point unless the couple is married.

Can there ever be too much of a good thing where peopling up the earth is concerned, in your opinion?  Would you be fine with massive extinctions of many, many other species just so that we can continue to go forth and be fruitful?

No, I think responsible parenthood is a thing when it comes to family planning. Don't have more kids than you can reasonably handle.

[Whateverist]

Can there ever be too much of a good thing where peopling up the earth is concerned, in your opinion?  Would you be fine with massive extinctions of many, many other species just so that we can continue to go forth and be fruitful?

No, I think responsible parenthood is a thing when it comes to family planning. Don't have more kids than you can reasonably handle.

I wasn't thinking so much of the kid's or the parent's well being as I was that of other creatures besides ourselves.  Don't we have any stewardship responsibility to the wider web of life beyond our own creature wants?

[Catholic_Lady]

No, I think responsible parenthood is a thing when it comes to family planning. Don't have more kids than you can reasonably handle.

I wasn't thinking so much of the kid's or the parent's well being as I was that of other creatures besides ourselves.  Don't we have any stewardship responsibility to the wider web of life beyond our own creature wants?

Do you mean people who want kids should refrain from having kids for the sake of other animals? I don't think so, personally. I believe in doing our part to help the environment, but I don't think that should extend to married couples refraining from having children if they want them.

[KevinM1]

Is there any place in the US you haven't been to that you'd like to visit?

Hawaii, Vegas, Hollywood. In that order.

You should come up here to NH.  It's only cold about eight months a year.

[Minimalist]

Marriage existed throughout the ancient world as an alliance between families and was a legal rather than religious event.  In fact, the church did not even bother to make marriage a sacrament until the late middle ages when the Cathars became a problem to the popes.

Once the church figured out a way to make a little money off the deal matrimony became "sacred."

[energizer bunny]

Ok, I'll be honest. I see most member here as being atheist, liberal, thinking religion is "the root of all evil" (so to speak),

It is. Religion is the ultimate sin. It guarantees you a one way ticket to hell.    j/k

[ignoramus]

I wasn't thinking so much of the kid's or the parent's well being as I was that of other creatures besides ourselves.  Don't we have any stewardship responsibility to the wider web of life beyond our own creature wants?

Do you mean people who want kids should refrain from having kids for the sake of other animals? I don't think so, personally. I believe in doing our part to help the environment, but I don't think that should extend to married couples refraining from having children if they want them.

Remember that the earth is a finite resource.
Every child we have, every breath we take, the net sum total of energy needed to keep us alive will destroy us all very soon at this exponential rate of growth.
And there ain't no skydaddy coming to save anybody ...that's guaranteed. Everybody needs to make compromises, even the deluded who think their divine right overrules others rights to life.