Howdy men.

[Commander 598]

Lets see. 10 years ago an aerial shot of I20(Shreveport, Bossier) was taken. There was a total of 30 vehicles on it. The road beside it had three vehicles on it.

 

Today I20 has endless traffic and traffic jams. The road beside it has a car on ever 10ft of it ALL(24 hrs) DAY LONG. That is overpopulation.

 

 

As it is, the entire world population could fit into the state of Texas, with each person having a considerable amount of space to himself, leaving the rest of the planet absolutely empty.

 

You actually believ that China and other Third World Countries actually count the people living there? They could care less about counting heads. They just put down a believeable number.

 

And lets not forget that texas is bigger than many countries in the world.

 

I don't read the numbers I look at the number of houses that have sprung up around a neighborhood that was already there.

 

I'm not even gonna count the cheap houses that have gone up around me in the past half year.

 

There are so many people in China that they have had to restrict the number of children you can have.

[Keyan Farlander]

You're confusing badly handled resources and overcrowding in specific areas with planetary overpopulation. Believe me, this planet can support many many times the number of people currently on it quite comfortably. Did you see what I said up above? Even with liberal estimates for China, the population of THE ENTIRE WORLD could live in TEXAS. Each person could even have something like 2000 square feet to themselves, too. Overpopulation? Not exactly.

 

If the people in charge would get their acts together, we wouldn't have any problems. Hunger and these other problems are the results of stupidly managed resources and tyrannical governments.

 

And another thing I can assure you of, in the US anyway. We have aborted and contracepted ourselves in to a situation such that you will see a major population decline soon enough. If it weren't for immigration, there is no way we would be able to keep our population where it is now, and considering recent events, I'm not sure how many immigrants we're going to be letting in in the near future. We'll see how that turns out soon enough, I suppose.

 

Since, just to maintain the population, every single person needs to have two children who themselves survive to adulthood and have children of their own, and since the average American's goal seems to be to go through life never having children, well, do you see where I'm going with this? And the people who do have, say, 2 children often take measures to stop it there. That's not going to get us very far.

 

But none of this even really matters. The point is, for the Christian, there is no reason AT ALL, not overpopulation, not anything else that should justify abusing sex. It was given to us for a very important, very holy purpose, and it is not for us to twist it in to something else.

[Redwing]

"Up until 1930, every Christian church regarded artificial contraception as a detestable evil, completely at odds with God's will and commands."

 

Your argument in a nutshell, I presume...

 

They regarded it as such because they decided to, apparently? Hmm...

 

Well, I've never trusted tradition...remember what Jesus had to say about it...something about "the scribes and the Pharisees"

 

I think abortion is wrong...because it is murder, killing of the innocent for no other reason than they haven't emerged into the world yet...but contraception is not murder. I frankly don't care about tradition, because horrible things have been done in tradition.

 

Man...I just switched randomly from flippant to angsty and back again...I'm not a girl...I shouldn't be having mood swings...no fair

[edlib]

The biggest problems facing the overpopulation of the planet don't exist today, but within 50 years when the current numbers are doubled if nothing is done to curb the current rate of growth. I have seen no numbers recently to indicate that this is not an inevitablity. This growth will not be from the westernized nations, but mostly from the 3rd world countries that are already struggling.

I think I have said it before in another thread on this same topic that if we could all agree to hold the population at close to the current numbers we could eventually figure out how to control the planetary resources properly so that everybody could have a fairly equal standard of living. But the REAL problems facing humanity are going to come when there are twice as many of us scrambling to posess the same resources with no controls in effect. All the problems you described will only become much, MUCH worse. There will be no way to solve our current crop of problems once we are faced with solving all the new problems that will inevitably come with such unchecked growth. Unless we all agree to live under conditions far different than what we are used to now in the western world.

At current rates of consumption our fossil-fuel supplys may run out within a century, and that includes all the untapped resources that we currently know about. Double that rate of use and it be much quicker. Unless we discover a new, HUGE source of fuel somewhere we will be struggling before long. There is currently no workable renuable source of energy that will power our entire country, (let alone World,) TODAY,.. forget about a future world population double in size or larger. Unless we quickly make strides towards perfecting fusion technology, or increasing the efficency of Solar and wind power, we are going to hit a wall.

Also, overcrowding in specific areas is inevitable, simply because there are HUGE portions of the planet that are simply uninhabitable for our species at the moment. Fresh water doesn't exist everywhere, and temprature extremes make many parts of the world far too difficult for humans to ever scratch out an existance in many other places. We will always gather together in tight, overcrowded clumps around areas rich in essential resources, causing our own living conditions to decrease for ourselves at the very time we are doing so.

History has shown this to always be the case.

 

Oh, and trust me... I sincerely hope you are right and I am wrong about this. I really do. But I have been around long enough and have studied human patterns enough to be pessimistic over our chances.

[Commander 598]

Thats pretty much what I was trying to say.

 

I envision a war with China over resources on the moon.

[Gold leader]

Originally posted by Keyan Farlander

Each person could even have something like 2000 square feet to themselves, too.

 

Texas has an area of 268601 sq. mi. Let's say that there are 6 billion people on this planet, that means that each person would have 1248 square feet, or 116 m² to live on. If, like Edlib said, whole Texas is inhabitable.

 

I think the main issue in the coming decades will not be the availability of fossil fuels, but fresh water. More and more parts of this world are dealing with this problem. Together with increasing pollution, a water shortage is the first result of overpopulation in a certain area.

[Keyan Farlander]

Originally posted by Redwing

"Up until 1930, every Christian church regarded artificial contraception as a detestable evil, completely at odds with God's will and commands."

 

Your argument in a nutshell, I presume...

 

They regarded it as such because they decided to, apparently? Hmm...

 

Well, I've never trusted tradition...remember what Jesus had to say about it...something about "the scribes and the Pharisees"

 

That wasn't tradition. That was misunderstanding the spirit of the law. There are many scriptural passages that indicate the importance of Sacred Tradition. The apostles warned people to keep in mind not only what had been written, but what had been passed on to them unwritten. So...did the men who decided on scriptural canon just "decide?" You cannot accept scripture without accepting tradition, my friend, or you would have no canon.

 

I think abortion is wrong...because it is murder, killing of the innocent for no other reason than they haven't emerged into the world yet...but contraception is not murder. I frankly don't care about tradition, because horrible things have been done in tradition.

 

In the name of "tradition," perhaps, but never in the name of "Tradition." And contraception is not wrong because it is murder. It is wrong because it is a violation of the Natural Law that God has set in place for the world. You do not need Scripture or Tradition to figure this out - you need only your intellect.

[Keyan Farlander]

Originally posted by Gold leader

 

Texas has an area of 268601 sq. mi. Let's say that there are 6 billion people on this planet, that means that each person would have 1248 square feet, or 116 m² to live on. If, like Edlib said, whole Texas is inhabitable.

 

I think the main issue in the coming decades will not be the availability of fossil fuels, but fresh water. More and more parts of this world are dealing with this problem. Together with increasing pollution, a water shortage is the first result of overpopulation in a certain area.

 

The point is not that we could all actually live in Texas. I was simply using the example to point out that we are not falling off the edge of the planet due to overpopulation.

[Keyan Farlander]

Originally posted by edlib

The biggest problems facing the overpopulation of the planet don't exist today, but within 50 years when the current numbers are doubled if nothing is done to curb the current rate of growth. I have seen no numbers recently to indicate that this is not an inevitablity. This growth will not be from the westernized nations, but mostly from the 3rd world countries that are already struggling.

I think I have said it before in another thread on this same topic that if we could all agree to hold the population at close to the current numbers we could eventually figure out how to control the planetary resources properly so that everybody could have a fairly equal standard of living. But the REAL problems facing humanity are going to come when there are twice as many of us scrambling to posess the same resources with no controls in effect. All the problems you described will only become much, MUCH worse. There will be no way to solve our current crop of problems once we are faced with solving all the new problems that will inevitably come with such unchecked growth. Unless we all agree to live under conditions far different than what we are used to now in the western world.

At current rates of consumption our fossil-fuel supplys may run out within a century, and that includes all the untapped resources that we currently know about. Double that rate of use and it be much quicker. Unless we discover a new, HUGE source of fuel somewhere we will be struggling before long. There is currently no workable renuable source of energy that will power our entire country, (let alone World,) TODAY,.. forget about a future world population double in size or larger. Unless we quickly make strides towards perfecting fusion technology, or increasing the efficency of Solar and wind power, we are going to hit a wall.

Also, overcrowding in specific areas is inevitable, simply because there are HUGE portions of the planet that are simply uninhabitable for our species at the moment. Fresh water doesn't exist everywhere, and temprature extremes make many parts of the world far too difficult for humans to ever scratch out an existance in many other places. We will always gather together in tight, overcrowded clumps around areas rich in essential resources, causing our own living conditions to decrease for ourselves at the very time we are doing so.

History has shown this to always be the case.

 

Oh, and trust me... I sincerely hope you are right and I am wrong about this. I really do. But I have been around long enough and have studied human patterns enough to be pessimistic over our chances.

 

I can't really think of anything to say that hasn't been covered in my other posts. What problems we have are not because we don't have the resources, they are because we do not use them right. And believe me, with all the technology we are coming up with that has applications in this field, we are going to be able to handle plenty more people. We slap a few tyrants around, we're going to be in great shape.

 

But none of this really matters. None of this is the point. Even if I agree with everything you are saying, and the world is doomed to self-destruct due to population problems, it still doesn't matter. It is still not an excuse to abuse sex. That is my only point.

[Commander 598]

Originally posted by Keyan Farlander

 

What problems we have are not because we don't have the resources, they are because we do not use them right. And believe me, with all the technology we are coming up with that has applications in this field, we are going to be able to handle plenty more people. We slap a few tyrants around, we're going to be in great shape.

 

 

Don'y use them right... Care to tell how we aren't using them right?

If we really needed lets say oil badly we would start digging into the moon and Mars.

Resources aren't a big problem.

 

Slapping a few tyrants around is a political no no. Slap one tyrant and there allies will start slapping you. And your allies might not like how you handle it... Almost nobody(Other Countries) is supporting a war against Iraq with the US. Remember WWII? We declared war on Japan and then Germany declared war on us.

 

In other words don't slap around tyrants without someone to back you up or thinking of the consequences of you actions(Don't declare war on someone that everyone knows has alot of ICBMs).

 

You can't just slap a tryant around without politics getting in the way. Remeber Vietnam? We decided to go after Ho Chi Minh... we neglected terrain and we thought we knew what they would do. It turned into a 10 year war against endless enemies.

[Redwing]

Well, Keyan...what you see is that the Catholic Church has the divine right to create this Tradition. I see only pride, arrogance and an institution too caught up in themselves to retain any objectivity. I'm sure you'll tell me I'm way off base, but I can't really bring up a unbeatable argument to prove I'm not, nor can you, otherwise it would have been done millennia ago when this argument first started.

 

@the overpopulation argument: If you'll give me a time machine, I can tell you two which one of you is right...

[Keyan Farlander]

Originally posted by Redwing

Well, Keyan...what you see is that the Catholic Church has the divine right to create this Tradition. I see only pride, arrogance and an institution too caught up in themselves to retain any objectivity. I'm sure you'll tell me I'm way off base, but I can't really bring up a unbeatable argument to prove I'm not, nor can you, otherwise it would have been done millennia ago when this argument first started.

 

If you saw the Catholic Church as it truly is, through objective eyes, you would see only humility, devotion to the Lord, and love for all mankind. It has been said that for all the people in the world who claim to hate the Catholic Church, only a handful really do. The rest hate it for what they erroneously precieve it to be. I am certain this is true. I do say you are way off base, and not only that, but I say it is easily proven. One need only look at the early Christians, the Scriptures, and the present day beliefs of the Christians of the world to see that. But I think it is probably the case that whatever your situation in life is, it has prevented you from even being able to see that information through objective eyes. I don't fault you for that, as it is not something that you have chosen for yourself.

 

But even you are getting away from the point. This is not a Protestant/Catholic issue. If it were, I would not have said anything in the first place, since GUNNER is not a Catholic. I still maintain this is an issue of sexual morality that any Christian - Prostant, Catholic, or Orthodox should be able to reason through using nothing but his own intellect.

[Keyan Farlander]

Originally posted by Commander 598

 

Don'y use them right... Care to tell how we aren't using them right?

If we really needed lets say oil badly we would start digging into the moon and Mars.

Resources aren't a big problem.

 

Slapping a few tyrants around is a political no no. Slap one tyrant and there allies will start slapping you. And your allies might not like how you handle it... Almost nobody(Other Countries) is supporting a war against Iraq with the US. Remember WWII? We declared war on Japan and then Germany declared war on us.

 

In other words don't slap around tyrants without someone to back you up or thinking of the consequences of you actions(Don't declare war on someone that everyone knows has alot of ICBMs).

 

You can't just slap a tryant around without politics getting in the way. Remeber Vietnam? We decided to go after Ho Chi Minh... we neglected terrain and we thought we knew what they would do. It turned into a 10 year war against endless enemies.

 

By "us" I was not referring to the United States of America. I simply meant that somebody needs to get these people out of power. There is not much reason to hope that everything is going to be great in the world until that gets done. The people who are being oppressed and those who are sympathetic toward their situation need to do something about it. What's the alternative? Let evil run loose? Some things are worth going to war for, if that's what it comes to. I'm not talking about just going in, guns blazing, and killing everyone, but a good start at least would be for all the people who live in comfort and safety to realize that this is going on, it is a serious injustice, and actually CARE a little about it. And there are other, indirect ways of fighting this, like stopping the flow of drugs and weapons that fund them, etc.

[Redwing]

Originally posted by Keyan Farlander

If you saw the Catholic Church as it truly is, through objective eyes, you would see only humility, devotion to the Lord, and love for all mankind. It has been said that for all the people in the world who claim to hate the Catholic Church, only a handful really do. The rest hate it for what they erroneously precieve it to be. I am certain this is true. I do say you are way off base, and not only that, but I say it is easily proven. One need only look at the early Christians, the Scriptures, and the present day beliefs of the Christians of the world to see that. But I think it is probably the case that whatever your situation in life is, it has prevented you from even being able to see that information through objective eyes. I don't fault you for that, as it is not something that you have chosen for yourself.

 

I don't hate the Catholic Church. Quite contrary. If you got the impression, I'm very sorry for causing it. What I said earlier wasn't very objective, but that was mostly me being overdramatic. I've had similar debates with completely different people before...so I came off harsher than I intended

 

I don't understand what you are talking about when you refer to "information". If you could easily prove it beyond all shadow of doubt, why haven't you ever said anything before? I could be offended by your uninformed remarks about my own life, but as you weren't attempting to offend me, I choose not to be offended...and I digress.

 

*leaves this argument and returns to the original*

 

But even you are getting away from the point. This is not a Protestant/Catholic issue. If it were, I would not have said anything in the first place, since GUNNER is not a Catholic. I still maintain this is an issue of sexual morality that any Christian - Prostant, Catholic, or Orthodox should be able to reason through using nothing but his own intellect.

 

I have read the Bible verses you referred and I still do not understand how you can excrete those added meanings from the text, so I assume that you are referring to tradition for justification. I still don't understand. Minus tradition (which Catholicism, not Protestantism, requires adherence to; hence my distraction with the "C/P issue"), do your conclusions makes sense at all?

[Keyan Farlander]

Originally posted by Redwing

 

I don't hate the Catholic Church. Quite contrary. If you got the impression, I'm very sorry for causing it. What I said earlier wasn't very objective, but that was mostly me being overdramatic. I've had similar debates with completely different people before...so I came off harsher than I intended

 

But you should hate the Catholic Church if you see it as prideful, arrogant, and unobjective, shouldn't you?

 

I don't understand what you are talking about when you refer to "information". If you could easily prove it beyond all shadow of doubt, why haven't you ever said anything before? I could be offended by your uninformed remarks about my own life, but as you weren't attempting to offend me, I choose not to be offended...and I digress.

 

I have said things. Numerous times. But it just doesn't matter. You will never accept it or even stop to consider it. It isn't hard to see that Protestantism is nothing like what Christ intended for man. I've been all over the Protestant side of the fence, and I've put forth the same arguments you have, but they just don't work out. Read what the aposltes and their students wrote and see if you can make a serious case for it. You won't be able to. But you still won't accept what I am saying. It's nothing to get offended about - remember, I said I can't fault you for that. It's a fact of life that we lose objectivity based on what goes on in our enviornment. That's not just religion, but all sorts of things.

 

I have read the Bible verses you referred and I still do not understand how you can excrete those added meanings from the text, so I assume that you are referring to tradition for justification. I still don't understand. Minus tradition (which Catholicism, not Protestantism, requires adherence to; hence my distraction with the "C/P issue"), do your conclusions makes sense at all?

 

Those are not added meanings, they are the original meanings! I am not referring to Tradition for justification, but think about it; these men lived with Christ, they ate with Christ, they were there when he tought from the Scriptures. They, of all, people, should have known what he tought on the issue. Did Christ send his apostles out to convert the world without giving them the truth? You can't look at things written so long ago from a 21st century perspective. That was not the 21st century. They did not see the world as we do. The early Christians did not accept any form of artificial contraception as being morally acceptable. The Protestants did not accept any form of artificial contraception as being morally acceptable. Why did they suddenly change they change their minds in the early and mid 20th century? Basically, because people were leaving because of this teaching, and they wanted to keep people in. This is an honorable objective, but the solution wasn't right. You can't just declare something moral that Christians have always held to be immoral. Not even the Catholic Church considers itself to have the authority to do that. Things are either moral or they are not. You change a basic teaching on morallity and you are either admitting that you are wrong, or you were wrong. Either way, that doesn't give people a lot of reason to believe that you know what you are talking about.

 

But nevermind all that. You don't need Tradition, you don't even need to pick out bits of the Scriptures to justify it. The only thing you really need is your brain. Think about what sex is, what its purpose is, the nature of God, the nature of the world, the nature of man, what man's place is in the world in relation to God, the nature of life. You can follow your thoughts through to the conclusion that every sexual act must be absent of physical interference from man of the transmission of life. And people did, including the Protestants. Up until they started losing members in their churches because of it.

[Jem]

*YAWN*

[Keyan Farlander]

Yawn? This is the only interesting thread in the whole forum!

[Redwing]

"But you should hate the Catholic Church if you see it as prideful, arrogant, and unobjective, shouldn't you?"

 

No. I myself have been prideful, arrogant, and unobjective before. I don't hate myself. I think the Catholic Church is wrong in some of its beliefs, not evil.

 

"I have said things. Numerous times. But it just doesn't matter. You will never accept it or even stop to consider it. It isn't hard to see that Protestantism is nothing like what Christ intended for man. I've been all over the Protestant side of the fence, and I've put forth the same arguments you have, but they just don't work out. Read what the aposltes and their students wrote and see if you can make a serious case for it. You won't be able to. But you still won't accept what I am saying. It's nothing to get offended about - remember, I said I can't fault you for that. It's a fact of life that we lose objectivity based on what goes on in our enviornment. That's not just religion, but all sorts of things."

 

Almost everything you said I had heard before. That's why I didn't reconsider it; I already had done so. I've heard the serious case, and I just can't agree with the results...that's why I said I was leaving this particular argument.

 

 

"Those are not added meanings, they are the original meanings! I am not referring to Tradition for justification, but think about it; these men lived with Christ, they ate with Christ, they were there when he tought from the Scriptures. They, of all, people, should have known what he tought on the issue. Did Christ send his apostles out to convert the world without giving them the truth? You can't look at things written so long ago from a 21st century perspective. That was not the 21st century. They did not see the world as we do. The early Christians did not accept any form of artificial contraception as being morally acceptable. The Protestants did not accept any form of artificial contraception as being morally acceptable. Why did they suddenly change they change their minds in the early and mid 20th century? Basically, because people were leaving because of this teaching, and they wanted to keep people in. This is an honorable objective, but the solution wasn't right. You can't just declare something moral that Christians have always held to be immoral. Not even the Catholic Church considers itself to have the authority to do that. Things are either moral or they are not. You change a basic teaching on morallity and you are either admitting that you are wrong, or you were wrong. Either way, that doesn't give people a lot of reason to believe that you know what you are talking about.

 

But nevermind all that. You don't need Tradition, you don't even need to pick out bits of the Scriptures to justify it. The only thing you really need is your brain. Think about what sex is, what its purpose is, the nature of God, the nature of the world, the nature of man, what man's place is in the world in relation to God, the nature of life. You can follow your thoughts through to the conclusion that every sexual act must be absent of physical interference from man of the transmission of life. And people did, including the Protestants. Up until they started losing members in their churches because of it."

 

I still don't see how it is wrong. Why couldn't an erronous but widely accepted belief be declared wrong if there was no Biblical evidence for it?

 

The nature of God is: Incomprehensible to man.

 

The nature of the world is: Fallen.

 

The nature of man is: Sin.

 

The nature of life is: More than I can define here.

 

Man contradicts natural law every day. Prolonging life. Making life easier for himself (or attempting to). Not usually considered evil. This only seems to be an exception because, well, it's always been thought that way.

 

My thoughts on this do not bring me to the moral conclusion that "every sexual act must be absent of physical interference from man of the transmission of life", besides referring to a Victorian-ish mindset that sex is a scary thing, and must be left alone.

 

@Jem: Close your mouth before you let flies in.

[Zargon]

Originally posted by Keyan Farlander

As a Christian man, shouldn't you leave such things in the hands of God, and not try to take them into your own hands?

 

I personally believe he put it all in our hands when he gave us free will.

 

plus, Job put it all in god's hands, and he got screwed.

[TheRogue 3000]

True, but not quite, Zargon.

 

Job was only screwed on earth. He was lifted up in heaven. Many people I know hold a lot of stock in how much they get screwed on earth when they forget that this world isn't as big as it gets. Life is so frail that people begin to think that everything is held in the crude and weak God-made bodies we live in and they forget about that it's the soul that matters. Martyrs of the faith are glorified in heaven.

 

And I heard a voice from the heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessid are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them. -Revelation 14:13

 

Keyan--

 

I don't believe that saying "taking things into your own hands" is a sin is entirely accurate (for lack of a better word). My father has had a vasectomy and I do not believe that in any way he went behind God's back, so to speak. I believe that he did what he believed God wanted for him. As in he prayed and thought long and hard about such a decision. That is, after all, all we can do in some situations. I think that intentions transend actions.

 

Furthermore, if it was God's plan to have a child to be born to to say, an infertile man or woman, I don't believe that He would let something as small as a man-made or God-made action get in the way of his plan.

 

Again, this are just several naive thoughts from an equally naive individual.

[Zargon]

Originally posted by TheRogue 3000

True, but not quite, Zargon.

 

Job was only screwed on earth. He was lifted up in heaven. Many people I know hold a lot of stock in how much they get screwed on earth when they forget that this world isn't as big as it gets. Life is so frail that people begin to think that everything is held in the crude and weak God-made bodies we live in and they forget about that it's the soul that matters. Martyrs of the faith are glorified in heaven.

 

 

I'll take no martyrdom thanks..................

[Keyan Farlander]

Originally posted by Zargon

 

I'll take no martyrdom thanks..................

 

But do you comprehend how small this world is in the grand scope of our lives? If a person's entire existence were the size of an ocean, this life wouldn't even be as large as the amount of water in an eye dropper. As Christians, we are told to take up our crosses and follow God. We are warned that it will not be easy, that we may have to suffer for it, that we may even die for it, but we will also be rewarded for it far beyond what we can even imagine. I'll take an eye dropper worth of suffering for an ocean of joy any day, rather than the reverse.

 

Also, "free will" does not equal "moral relativism." God gave man the choice between good and evil, but that does not mean there is no good and no evil. It means we are able to choose evil if we wish to. But we will have to accept the consequences, as illustrated in story of the expulsion from Paradise.

[Keyan Farlander]

Originally posted by Redwing

All that stuff he said in his last post

 

Rather than respond directly (since that could go back and forth forever), I'll take a different approach, in hopes of keeping it interesting for everyone else.

 

You say that we violate nature every day. That is true, and it is never right. But by nature I don't mean trees and flowers and the way things work in the middle of the woods. I don't mean that we have to keep things primitive. I mean that we have to look at the purpose for which God made things and not pervert their uses into something else. You hear about sex often (especially from the Vatican) because it IS so holy and important. But there are other examples.

 

Take eating, for example. Why do we eat? To sustain ourselves - because we get hungry and we need to eat to live. Is it then wrong to enjoy our food? Not at all. The pleasure we get from enjoying our food is another gift from God. But you cannot eat only for the pleasure, just as you cannot use sex for the pleasure alone. This is abusing the thing - using it for your own purposes and not the purpose for which God intended it. It is wrong to stuff your face with an entire carton of ice cream just because you want to enjoy the taste or because you are bored.

 

Also, let me ask you this - do you think masturbation is wrong? If so, why?

 

And one more thing - you never answered my question. Why would God allow people to believe that artificial contraception was wrong for 2 millennia when it was really perfectly moral? How can you defend a teaching that was changed for the sole purpose of getting people not to leave the churches? Were the Protestants wrong before or are they wrong now?

[edlib]

Less cynical response:

Human understanding of spiritual matters changes with time.

 

Take creation. I understand that there are some churches that still teach that the world was created in 6 literal days about 6,000 years ago, and that the fossil record we see is due to the flood of Noah. But many churches have softened that line a bit since there are many worshippers who accept a more scientific view of the origins of the universe.

Were the teachings of all the churches wrong in the past? Are some wrong today? Which side?

 

The early church followed the Hebrew Holy-Day calendar,.. and even until recently holidays such as Christmas and Easter were shunned by most Christians because of thier origins in pagan celebrations. Now they are almost universally accepted by Christians.

What changed? If these holidays were wrong before, why are they good now?

 

The answer depends on your point of view, and your personal belief system.

 

More cynical response:

Birth control was banned by early church leadership because follower's children raised in the church from birth would most likely stay in the church. Having as many followers as possible equals:

more prestige;

more (political) power;

and more money coming in from tithes and offerings.

Therefore chuch leadership would encourage large families. Encouraging large families means discouraging, or banning the use of contraception.

 

 

Hmmm... Both responses are pretty cynical now that I look at them. Oh well... take your pick.

[Keyan Farlander]

Originally posted by edlib

Less cynical response:

Human understanding of spiritual matters changes with time.

 

Take creation. I understand that there are some churches that still teach that the world was created in 6 literal days about 6,000 years ago, and that the fossil record we see is due to the flood of Noah. But many churches have softened that line a bit since there are many worshippers who accept a more scientific view of the origins of the universe.

Were the teachings of all the churches wrong in the past? Are some wrong today? Which side?

 

The early church followed the Hebrew Holy-Day calendar,.. and even until recently holidays such as Christmas and Easter were shunned by most Christians because of thier origins in pagan celebrations. Now they are almost universally accepted by Christians.

What changed? If these holidays were wrong before, why are they good now?

 

The answer depends on your point of view, and your personal belief system.

 

But these things have nothing to do with faith or morals. For example, the Catholic Church's official teaching on creation in 6 days and evolution over a long period of time is that, well, there is no official teaching. This is a theological non-issue - a matter for other fields.

 

More cynical response:

Birth control was banned by early church leadership because follower's children raised in the church from birth would most likely stay in the church. Having as many followers as possible equals:

more prestige;

more (political) power;

and more money coming in from tithes and offerings.

Therefore chuch leadership would encourage large families. Encouraging large families means discouraging, or banning the use of contraception.

 

No, it was banned in the early Church because it was considered immoral, even before this time. You can see that by just taking a look at the writings of the day. The Church has never allowed any teaching on faith or morals to be influenced by outside factors. Otherwise, we'd have contraception, divorce, and women priests right now.