Is Contraception Destructive?

[Ar Cosc]

razeontherock,

Regardless of the reasons christians get married, they still get married, and the fact that the original marriage was often under extreme pressure of some description doesn't change the fact that the marriage is still a valid marriage, and the eventual divorce just as valid.

 

[keith99]

all of the main Protestant groups--e.g. Lutherans--condemned contraception before 1930, as well as the Eastern Orthodox and the Trinitarian Church

Luther writes in his Commentary on Gen 38: 8 - 10:

Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the sperm, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. ... He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred. ... Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed and evil deed. Therefore God punished him. … That worthless fellow refused to exercise [love; C.P.]. He preferred polluting himself with a most disgraceful sin to raising up offspring for his brother.

Therefore Onan, unwilling to perform this obligation, spilled his seed. That was a sin far greater than adultery or incest, and it provoked God to such fierce wrath that He destroyed him immediately.








.

[/quote]

Bolding mine.

Wow, you decide this is about contraception rather than about obligation.

And I'd hardly call the Eastern Orthodox Church Protestant.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The opening poster (who seems to have fled) doesn't perhaps know that Martin Luther was a man - not a denomination or "group." Certainly not ALL non-RCC denominations or groups.

 

[razeontherock]

You're missing a digit there, it was 3,854 individuals. Also, please don't feign ignorance of what 'margin of error' means, which was 2% for the study.

Which is what as a % of the US population?

And if you'll read the rest of the article you might note that that study was confirming results found in previous studies, and also that looking at divorce statistics by area using U.S. census data (which has a much larger sample size, in case you were wondering) marks the bible belt states as those with the highest rates of divorce ... The states with the lowest divorce rates are traditional 'blue' ones... Connecticut, Vermont, Maine..

Which is not directly linked to what is under discussion here. These numbers are far too broad to be broadbrushed onto divorce rate of C's vs atheists.

 

[razeontherock]

Regardless of the reasons christians get married, they still get married, and the fact that the original marriage was often under extreme pressure of some description doesn't change the fact that the marriage is still a valid marriage, and the eventual divorce just as valid.

Of course. But then you can't take those #'s into account as any valid representation of the effect Christianity has on marriage as compared to atheism, since the influence isn't due to Christianity at all but rather social pressures which may in fact counter Christian principles. Not sure how this little sidebar issue got in the spotlight here, or why this isn't obvious.

 

[JadeTigress]

Of course. But then you can't take those #'s into account as any valid representation of the effect Christianity has on marriage as compared to atheism, since the influence isn't due to Christianity at all but rather social pressures which may in fact counter Christian principles. Not sure how this little sidebar issue got in the spotlight here, or why this isn't obvious.

But these social pressures affect everyone, not just Christians. So these social pressures that go against Christian principles are causing Christian marriages to fail more often than atheist/agnostic marriages, who face the same social pressures but don't have to worry about them going against Christian principles...something seems a little off here.

 

[razeontherock]

What seems off is the claim that atheists are affected by the same social pressures to the same extent.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What seems off is the claim that atheists are affected by the same social pressures to the same extent.

I think both atheists and Christians are too broad a group to have any uniform response to any given societal pressure. A growing empowerment of women in the 1930s, for instance, would be a pressure against all unhappy, misogynistic, domestic-abuse-ridden marriages, be they two Christians, two atheists, or a mix of both.

Is there any one societal pressure that affects all atheists equally? All Christians equally? I can't think of any (unless you start making No True Scotsman fallacies ).

 

[Jade Margery]

Which is what as a % of the US population?

Percentage of the total doesn't matter when a large enough sample is selected through proper sampling techniques. It's not like they just asked the first 3,854 people they could find. A study like this requires specific procedures to randomize the people sampled and provide as accurate a representation as possible. AND the whole point of a margin of error is to show how far off the mark the findings could be due to the imperfect nature of data collection. +/- 2% does not explain the over 10% discrepancy between atheists and fundamentalists. Everything you are saying just highlights your ignorance of statistical studies, how they are run, and what their terminology means.

Which is not directly linked to what is under discussion here. These numbers are far too broad to be broadbrushed onto divorce rate of C's vs atheists.

It supports the other set of data even if it is not directly referenced by it. For instance, if divorce rates were much lower in the bible belt and higher along the costs, it would not support the other data found. It is common knowledge that there is a higher percentage of religious people in the bible belt (that's why they call it that, after all) but if you're going to be picky about it I'm sure I could dredge up some religious surveys by area.

Of course. But then you can't take those #'s into account as any valid representation of the effect Christianity has on marriage as compared to atheism, since the influence isn't due to Christianity at all but rather social pressures which may in fact counter Christian principles. Not sure how this little sidebar issue got in the spotlight here, or why this isn't obvious.

You can't have it both ways dude.

If the average christian is being more affected by social pressures than the average atheist, that's because he's a christian--there's no other reason for it. It's bad logic that goes like this:

Christians are pushed to divorce by societal pressures, not because they are christian!

But atheists have the same societal pressures on them and a lower divorce rate.

Well, christians are more susceptible to those social pressures than atheists.

Why?

Because they are christians!


I note that you didn't address any of my other excellent and eloquently expressed points. "I think it's obvious you didn't because it can't be done."

 

[razeontherock]

I think both atheists and Christians are too broad a group to have any uniform response to any given societal pressure.

Thank you for seeing my point!

 

[razeontherock]

Everything you are saying just highlights your ignorance of statistical studies, how they are run, and what their terminology means.

"As accurate a representation as possible" still doesn't even begin to account for the complexities involved. The study is far too crude to conclude what is asserted, beyond those individuals chosen for the poll.

You can't have it both ways dude.

If the average christian is being more affected by social pressures than the average atheist, that's because he's a christian--there's no other reason for it.

Which ignores what Christianity is, and what it teaches. Noice! Doesn't make for an informed opinion though.

"For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." (Jude 1:4 - ESV)

I'll leave you to your fairyland where no corruption exists.

 

[razeontherock]

Please don't make me make a poll to see how many people on this board think of christianity as a religion. Meaning all of them except you, for some reason.

Quite wrong. I just read a very moving post that made the point better than I ever have, but the point remains that Christ never came to form a religion.

 

[Jade Margery]

Which ignores what Christianity is, and what it teaches. Noice! Doesn't make for an informed opinion though.

"For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." (Jude 1:4 - ESV)

I'll leave you to your fairyland where no corruption exists.

I should have recognized the 'no true scotsman/christian' fallacy at work here. That is your shtick after all. Silly me.

Obviously as an atheist I don't give a flying spaghetti monster what 'corruption' you think has been going on in the last two thousand years. Regardless of what Christ did or didn't intend to do, can you agree that in America there are large groups of people who call themselves christians and call christianity a religion and like to use little religious symbols similar to yours next to their avatars and that among these people, divorce rates are observed to be statistically higher than among those who identify themselves as agnostic and atheists?

 

[razeontherock]

Obviously as an atheist I don't give a flying spaghetti monster what 'corruption' you think has been going on in the last two thousand years.

No, it's not obvious at all that you should have such utter and callous disregard for your fellow man, but I'll try to keep that in mind.

divorce rates are observed to be statistically higher than among those who identify themselves as agnostic and atheists?

And I could observe a traffic light or 2 that are red, and conclude all traffic lights are always red, everywhere. Based on the cited evidence, both are roughly equally dubious; but stick to your credulity like it were a good thing!

 

[JadeTigress]

Wait, I'd completely forgotten what this thread was about. When did it change from being about contraception to being angry at research that maybe makes Christians look not so pristine instead of just turning the other cheek and going on with our lives?

 

[BleedingHeart]

Looks like it's ran its course.

 

[Jade Margery]

Wait, I'd completely forgotten what this thread was about. When did it change from being about contraception to being angry at research that maybe makes Christians look not so pristine instead of just turning the other cheek and going on with our lives?

It kind of went that way because of people saying that contraception encouraged divorce or something like that. Which is absolute nonsense.

 

[Athene]

Well actually, it's true sort of. Without contraception women are pretty much slaves to their fertility. If you spend a lot of time being pregnant or with an infant then it becomes more important to keep a bloke around the house.

OTOH, with contraception women can control the size of their family, will spend much less time pregnant, can work outside the home giving her economic independence. So if your other half turns out to be an unsatisfactory partner, there is less to lose and more to gain by booting him out.

Obviously, it's not just contraception that has led to an increase in divorce, the womens lib movement gave women more rights and greater earning opportunities and imo that will be a greater contributing factor.

 

[razeontherock]

OTOH, with contraception women can control the size of their family, will spend much less time pregnant, can work outside the home giving her economic independence. So if your other half turns out to be an unsatisfactory partner, there is less to lose and more to gain by booting him out.

Obviously, it's not just contraception that has led to an increase in divorce, the womens lib movement gave women more rights and greater earning opportunities and imo that will be a greater contributing factor.

It seems the premise of the OP is that this social progress is a bad thing. Maybe the rest of us find it impossible to address that further?

 

[Fantine]

None of these factors exist in isolation. Family size began to decrease in the 19th century with the rise of industrialization.

This is because children, an economic advantage for people who lived on farms requiring free manual labor, became an economic liability when people worked in factories, lived in small apartments in the city, and needed to educate their children so that they could become employed in the urban economy.

During economic hard times (the Depression) family size fell even more.

And with or without birth control, family size would, of necessity, be much smaller in industrial and technological societies.