Being 'socially inacceptable'...

[MrsSeanBean]

I just wanted to say that it's great to be able to chat about this topic (Philosophy / religion / spirituality ) on MN.

I find it so much more diffuclt to talk about religion / faith / spiritual things in RL.

I find assume that no-one in RL will think in a remotely similar way to me, or share any of my beliefs, and will think I am some kind of religious nutter.

Do you think it's just the case that people are more reluctant to talk about these things in RL?

Do you think it would be worthwhile / beneficial to instigate more RL conversations on this subject?

I heard the other day that to say you believe in God is almost 'socially inacceptable' now, which is rather sad.

So then, mersmam,(and others)

Creationist theory VS Darwin.
Do Catholics (or other Christians) believe in Evolution?

I am asking because all the mums I asked at my sons RC primary professed we were created, and discounted evolutional theories, and told their kids straight when asked questions about descending from apes, etc.

If you DO believe in evolution, how do you reconcile it with the scriptures?

We were taught evolution at all my Catholic schools, QS - and I was taught by nuns and Christian brothers!

KayHarker - I'm pregnant with number 4 now (hence my the hormonal element to some of my posts ) and I'm planning to stop with this one (using NFP) I've had nothing like the problems that you've had, I just find four enough to cope with financially and emotionally - so given what you've been through I think you're amazing for coping with four! I used to want to have many more, but in reality it's harder than you expect...never say never though, if a fifth came along I'm sure I'd end up being happy about it!
Thank you for your comments, I've enjoyed today's ramblings as its forced me to think a lot of things through and make them clearer in my own mind.

Habbibu - it is true that other animals do not marry but some of them do mate for life, and I believe that is what humans are meant to do! There's lots of evidence to show that promiscuity in humans leads to greater unhappiness and mental instability.
As a Christian I don't think that marriage is 'a human social construct'. I believe that marriage is a gift from God, and gives us the grace to deal with difficult situations and generally makes life a bit easier.

justaboutindisguise will definitely have a look at that, but am going to calm down on my mumsnetting over the next few days (my children no longer recognise me!!)

oo I just cannot get away can I?

Yes I do believe in evolution (although I know some catholics don't). To me, it still means that we were created from something. Whether man was created as man or monkey does not matter to me, I still believe that God did the creating.
Also to be honest, for me personally, the 'God made us' part of religion has never been that important (although I know it is for some people).

I believe in evolution, though I'm a liberal Protestant rather than a Catholic. I don't see any problem in reconciling a loving creator God with evolution as the process by which the created universe took shape.

I view the accounts in Genesis as an allegory rather than an attempt to accurately descibe the process.

ONE thing we agree on. I knew there had to be something!

How does a thoughtful Catholic reconcile the serious problems caused by world overpopulation (and the harm done to women's health by endless childbearing) with the idea of avoiding contraception, abortion, and sex which is purely for pleasure?
OK my history is sloppy in places but I am wondering if this particular fertilitiy cult only really took hold after the Black Death (which was around the time the more vicious misogynistic aspects of the monotheist cults got going, as well).

Ah, well, I believe we were created, but I don't really go a bundle on the whole 'creationist movement'. I genuinely think there are more important things to get your knickers in a twist about, though I do respect that some of my evangelical brethren see it differently. I think it gets hijacked by people who want the church to do things it's not actually been called to do - which is where the Christian Right in the US is on such a hiding to nothing.

I'm not convinced by evolution, but I'm completely convinced about species adapting, and sometimes changing quite radically, depending on the circumstance.

Habbibu on Thu 05-Feb-09 19:37:13
"Well, sex outside marriage, for a start, mersmam. Marriage is a human social construct, same as government is - it's not "natural" in the biological evolutionary sense. Other animals don't marry, and it's likely that promiscuity to a greater or lesser degree was part of the natural state of early humans for a long time. At what point did that stop being "natural"? "

There is immense variation in nature, actually, to the point where I don't think you can talk of one natural way of being.

Some fish stick to one partner throughout and will try to kill any other conspecific that passes through their territory. Others have harems. Yet others will mate with one after another. Some fish are SAHMs, others bunk off and leave it all to Dad, some just leave their offspring floating on the waves, others view them as a tasty snack. All this goes to show is that we're not fish.

If I remember rightly, the normal way of reproduction for many primates is not total promiscuity but some sort of harem structure where a powerful older male will have the right to the females and younger less strong males don't get to reproduce at all (not to say that monkeys won't try a bit of adultery, but they do get punished if caught- there is a brilliant scene in David Attenborough's Life of Mammals). Some monkeys have a set-up of two males to a female: the males take it in turn to look after the babies so mother can eat at her leisure . In packs of wolves, I think it's often just alpha female and alpha male who get to have sex, but I could be wrong on that.

I just don't think you can base any human system on nature, because nature is all over the place.

Solidgoldbullet:

''How does a thoughtful Catholic reconcile the serious problems caused by world overpopulation (and the harm done to women's health by endless childbearing) with the idea of avoiding contraception, abortion, and sex which is purely for pleasure?''

By using our intellect and conscience to decide how many children we should have (the church does not say that everyone should have twelve as some people believe ) and by only having sex within marriage, and by using natural family planning.

In general, the Catholic ideal is to educate people and promote chastity (chastity being the opposite of promiscuity - not necessarily abstinence) rather than handing out contraceptives!

QS for some reason I missed your post at the top of this page and have just read it! I have to thank you too for asking such interesting questions and forcing me to think a bit more deeply about certain issues... the best way of making faith stronger i think.

So thanks

Mersmam: being married does not actually act as a contraceptive (despite some of the threads about marital difficulties giving a different impression ), and 'natural' family planning methods are far more fallible than mechanical/chemical ones. Also, people who have lots of sexual partners are often very conscientious about using contraceptives so as not to have unplanned children.
I did think (and will admit I may be wrong here) that the Catholic opposition to birth control was/is part of an attitude that having lots of children is a Good Thing, though.

Solidgoldbullet - If you read up about natural family planning you'll find that if used correctly it is AT LEAST as reliable than any mechanical/chemical methods of birth control. As I mentioned before, I've used it with 100% success (yes I have 'almost 4' children - but them and their timings were all what my husband and me planned), and I also have friends who use it completely successfully.
I didn't say that marriage acted as a contraceptive - just that as a Catholic I believe it gives you the grace to cope with some difficult situations you might otherwise find even more difficult.
''people who have lots of sexual partners are often very conscientious about using contraceptives so as not to have unplanned children.'' - perhaps that is true, but often they are not so careful - which does lead to unplanned children!

ps QS - I think you should let your son go down the Catholic route (but you might have guessed I'd say that?
The Catholic attitude is that being open to producing life is a good thing, the church actually syas that you should THINK carefully about how many children you have and only have so many as you can manage emotionally/ financially. However, it does say that you should not be selfish about this and not for example, avoid having another child simply so you can afford to buy a spotscar to ride about in at weekends

Solidgoldbullet - when I mentioned 'only having sex within marriage' I was implying that being in a stable and (hopefully!) loving relationship, where you have made certain vows to each other, is the best environment for natural family planning. If a couple have agreed with each other to use natural family planning they are unlikely to have unwated children (certainly less likely than if they are two people having a casual affair).

Sorry, I really just cannot stop...

I know some people might say it is 'selfish' to have more than 2 children for environmental reasons.
Personally I don't believe that is the case here in the UK, as the average birthrate is now less than 2 per family, meaning that in 40 years time there will be fewer people paying income tax and more people needing pensions. That is my reasoning for thinking I am not selfish for having 4! Perhaps I would think differently if I lived somewhere like China... I really don't know.
It is not church doctrine though - the church just says you should thoroughly examine your conscience and have as many children as is right in the circumstances.

I think fundamentally that sex is about a lot more than breeding, though. In general I have problems with the 'institution' of marriage, which has historically been about slavery for women, and is encouraged by the authorities at least partly because it functions as an economic unit (man as wage-earner, woman as unwaged childcarer and domestic/social support system). The monotheistic religions' doctrines of male superiority have always seemed unethical to me as well.
Of course, the fundamental problem I have with all religion is that it just seems ludicrous for otherwise intelligent people to believe that there's a Great Pumpkin out there who is obsessed with a) being flattered and obeyed and b)who shags who and how many times.

I'm not going to get into a debate about the 'great pumpkin' - I've done all that before on mumsnet and would just be repeating myself.

But in answer to the two points you've made:
a - God does not care whether we flatter him. Going to Mass etc is for US - it's a celebration of who we are and what we believe in.
God wants us to 'obey' the 'rules' (or live our life in the way it was meant to be lives) because that's what we were created for, and the only way of living that will bring us lasting happiness.
b - Sex is just one small area of religious teaching (the one area of religion that atheists seem to be most obsessed with though!)

I agree that sex is a lot more than breeding and so does the church. It is possible the best and most fulfilling way of expressing love between man and wife.

I am married and I certainly do not see myself as a slave (to be honest it's more the other way around if anything ) I don't think the church sees males or females as superior to one another - just different, eg. women TEND to be better at the multitasking associated with raising children. There is nothing in the Catholic catechism which says women are not allowed to work.

Also, marriage is not encouraged by authorities (in this country anyway) - married couples can receive far more in benefit payments if they split up for example!

As a complete aside, I've actually grown rather fond of the 'Great Pumpkin' and the 'Great Celestial Teapot'. Never much liked the sound of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, but the pumpkin and the teapot sound rather lovely.

As you were.

Hi all, are you still here?

Not been able to post for several days; been up to my eyeballs. Even now I've had mere minutes to post whilst downloading a vid (DH is hurrying me along as I type!) so I've only caught up with a few posts.

So here are my few thoughts:

Onagar (have you changed the spelling of your name?), when you said "Maybe there needs to be a word for 'christian who has thought through what that means to them and doesn't necessarily agree with the rest'" - it made me smile. It was really nice to see that you understand what I'm trying to do.

Some of you have said that the church and religions as a whole have an unhealthy obsession with sex...interesting. I'll have to give that some thought. I've followed this faith throughout my whole life and have seen my personal faith change and mature as I have changed and matured, so my views on everything, sex included, have also changed. I don't think I can give you anything but a vague, wafty answer on that, as it's an issue which I've been thinking through and haven't yet drawn conclusions. I would say, though, so as not to bullshit you, that:

• it's certainly true that when people abstain from sex they are more likely to become 'obsessed' with it (there's a continuum of 'obsession', not just the extreme image of uncontrollable urges)
• in Biblical times people 'married' much earlier - around the start of puberty, I believe. So there was far less likelihood of people having to fight their sexual desire as many people of faith do today.
• a recent-ish study has shown that people who wait until their 20s and beyond to start having sex are more likely to find intimacy problematic than people who start earlier. Interesting.
• I do believe that some aspects of my faith should rightly adapt with the times, but what that means with regard to sex? I haven't finished thinking that through yet. I'd welcome everyone's thoughts on that question.

Right, off to watch Battlestar Galactica!

I think the vast majority of non-believers are ambivalent/indifferent/tolerant with people of faith, so long as no-one tries to convert them through stealth during the process of normal everyday conversation, That can get tiresome! Obviously with Muslims, Hindus etc the average British non-believer/Christian-by-name-only assumes and accepts that the a goodly proportion of them will be inextricably linked to, and wholly consumed by the faith that was their birthright, and we don't question it. Whereas fervently enthusiastic Christians (under the age of 92 and otherwise look and sound 'normal') are a rarer species, and therefore a bit of a fascination for the rest of us! Not in a bad way though, I think they just make us (well me, anyway) curious. Then again I'm curious about ANYONE who finds the time/inclination to be dedicated to any hobby or any passion, any political ideal or alternative lifestyle choice that consumes them, and shapes their lives differently from the 'rest of us' on the hamster wheel of life.

I certainly don't agree that the 'rest of us' find you 'nutters' unless of course you stand on street corners yelling at belwildered shoppers about Hell. If I find out that someone I know is a very committed Christian, it does stall me for a moment or two, (sometimes a day or two, but only because I'm a person who thinks alot about people generally) whilst I try to evaluate: did I expect it? Am I surprised? Or flabberghasted? (sometimes yes!)Does it seem logical - after all, there were obvious signs that they are 'the type'? Then I just file the info away in the same way I file away the knowledge that some of my friends and aquaintances are pushy parents/political activists/not very bright/hugely intellectual/away with the fairies/secretly a little bit racist/Man U fans/Am Dram luvvies. But it plays a very small part in colouring how I see them, or treat them.

I sometimes think Christians expect 'the rest of us' to find them odd, or to be alienated by their faith, so they look for signs that it is so, when actually, we care alot less than they think we do!

Oops! Sorry, must just say...I posted the above in response to something about a zillion pages back, didn't read the whole thread, and I now see the topic has gone down the catholic/family planning route so my post must seem highly irrelevant.

The 'nutters on street corners' thing reminded me, there is a very interesting video by the big one out of Penn and Teller (who is an atheist, btw) where he talks about a Christian witnessing to him, including all the stuff about hell, and he says how much he respects that.

Even though he doesn't believe it, if someone else does, then the sane thing for them to do is tell you, surely? Like, if you were the only one who could see a big lorry careening towards a group of people, you'd yell like a nutter to get their attention and get them to safety.

For the Christian that believes in hell, that's the motivation for telling people about Christ, and not caring if people think they're an idiot. Well, it is for me, anyway.

It's tricky, KayHarker, finding the balance between telling people what you believe to be true and being sensitive about their own beliefs over what is a deeply emotional and hugely significant issue. In my experience few people are like 'the big one out of Penn and Teller', more of them would rather not be spoken to in such an outspoken way. You have to ask yourself how would you feel if an atheist, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Scientologist, a Pagan, or anyone of any other religion spoke to you forcefully about their own religious beliefs, trying to convince you to switch sides. Can you honestly say that you would genuinely feel 100% happy with that? Or would you rather that they showed sensitivity and respect towards your belief system?