Biblical Assumptions Resolved

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Endeavor, Mar 13, 2006.

  1. Topher

    Topher allo!

    Ditto!
     
  2. thepunisher

    thepunisher Banned Banned

    What, are married ppl supposed to abstain from sex even during their marriage just to prevent STD's homer ? Just to clear up something, lots of ppl have partners before they marry, then when they marry they stick with one partner. If they still don't use condoms then, which even married couples do normally, they have the same risk of getting HIV or STD's. Condoms or pills not only prevent pregnancies but also help prevent getting STD's. As the church is completley 'banning' these contraceptions they are to blame for the STD's and HIV, not the ppl not using the condoms. Like I said, the church is lacking behind what concerns time. They seem to assume we still live in the 18.th century. Then ppl didn't even seem to enjoy sex much as they had partners picked for them. Now we enjoy sex, have contraceptions to help us enjoy it and the church doesn't like it. And there lies the problem.

    I was more thinking about the woman getting raped there, homer, not the man doing the raping.

    Christian
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2006
  3. tbubb1

    tbubb1 Notes of Autumn

    SAying

    But saying "Ok, you can use condoms now" is like saying "Alright, go ahead and have pre-marital sex since its negative consequences are now significantly decreased."

    You could say, "no, it's just saying if you MUST do this, because we can't stop you, atleast use a condom or other birth contraceptive", but that's still saying that you may go ahead and do it.


    That's what I understand at least.
    I don't know, im a baptist lol.
     
  4. Topher

    Topher allo!

    As i said, marriage is a different issue. My point is regarding unmarride people and that if they are willing to even have sex, they should also be willing to use a condom.

    Also, the church isn't banning anything, there not in any position to do so, they just frown the use of contraception. And the church has the same stance on contraception in Africa as it does in the UK and the US and anywhere else and most other places can get condoms. In fact our goverment activly promotes it. I agree it would be easier and better if the church got over their unreaslistic stupid doctrine and agreed that contraception use would be for the best, but they are not the ones who decides what a country does so it no good placing the blame completly on them.

    Yes, but even if condoms were widely avaliable/used, do you think the rapists would stop to put one on? :rolleyes: And a rapists has already comitted one of the lowest acts so the churches view on contraception has nothing to do with it.
     
  5. thepunisher

    thepunisher Banned Banned

    You're not getting my point, are you homer ? This interlinks both with abortion and contraception use. In Africa, in a civil war situation women often get raped by soldiers. These women are 1)unable to get an abortion if they get inpregregnated by this rape 2)don't have birth control pills to prevent them from getting pregnant or STD's and 3)have a highly likely chance to get HIV even if they were married before. A rapist doesn't care if the woman was married before or is a 'good christian'.

    As the church doesn't condone contraception use these women are even more in danger than others to get disease or HIV. This also applies to prostitution, from which said soldiers often profit from as well.

    Christian
     
  6. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    LMAO, I can just see it now, African Soldier breaks into house, sees woman, women says "Ok, you can rape me, but please wear a condom" cos thats really gonna happen isn't it. The church's views on contraception work. Full stop. But only because they also believe in monogamy. If the church had no problem with pre-marital sex then their contraceptive argument would hold about as much water as a cheese grater.

    I see no reason to attack the church for that, because if you follow one rule, you should follow both, and if you follow both then AIDS, HIV, and the rest of the STI family will be slowly wiped out.
     
  7. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    Punisher I don't see the logic of what you are saying or the point you are trying to make... if the church promoted contraception what difference would it make to women getting raped?

    The three possibilities you listed also seem to have little to do with the church? 1 the church could not be involved in because of its stance on abortion, 2 are you suggesting the church should be responsible for supplying birth control pills? and why would birth control pills prevent STD's?!? and 3 comes back to the point of do you think a rapist would wear a condom if it was widely available.

    You may not agree with the churches stance on the issue especially if it opposes the introduction or promotion of contraception however I don't see how you can hold the church primarily responsible?
     
  8. thepunisher

    thepunisher Banned Banned

    Okay, example. Two partners, one with multiple partners, one with no partners yet meet. The first partner used condoms while in his/her relationships. The second partner is waiting until married. They both decide to get married. Now you tell me why there still shouldn't be a chance partner one could have contracted an HIV or STD and why they
    BOTH still shouldn't be using the pill or condoms even while married ? Because even if monogamy is the case in marriage partner one still had a high chance of contracting either one.

    In todays society pre-marital sex is the norm so hence the contraception issue should also be the norm and thats why both arguments from the church hold about as much water as a cheese grater in todays society.

    Christian
     
  9. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    This isn't the traditional catholic relationship then is it? You are trying to compare apples and oranges and it doesn't work. If you have a couple, who have never slept with anyone else but one of them has contracted HIV from somewhere else, then it could be transmitted to their partner, but it can only be transmitted to their partner because they are in a monogamous relationship. This limits the spreading of the disease. Sure it could be passed onto their children but thats not always the case. Also, stop mentioning the pill, the pill doesn't stop AIDS any more than praying does.

    The Catholic church has a set of values that it cant compromise. Just because today promiscuity isn't uncommon doesn't the church should smile upon it. That's a ridiculous statement to make, no religion can just flip its ethical policy to make life easier for people. Your argument might stand up to scrutiny if you were criticising a government but you're not.
     
  10. thepunisher

    thepunisher Banned Banned

    I'm thinking about the after here not about the before CKava. If the woman, after having been raped (if she survives at all)isn't allowed to have an abortion and isn't able to even get contraceptions in the form of birth control pills/morning-after-pill she is more highly likely to get HIV, an STD or pregnant. So she adds to the number of women infected with HIV in Africa. Especially if, lets say she comes emotionally out of it okay, she decides to have another partner again. Since she isn't allowed to use contraception she can infect that partner then too.


    I don't hold the church primarily responsible but I hold it responsible. Its one thing to want to uphold churchs rules and another to give ppl choices. In a situation like in Africa giving choices is better than telling ppl to keep to the churchs rules. Like I pointed out before, "marriage" is something different in Africa, males often can have more than one woman to marry. So what the church should do is accept that the African society is different to ours and become more open to teach about contraceptions.

    Otherwise its a bit like a dictatorship of the church. You either follow our doctrines (even if they are western doctrines and have nothing do with African tribe customs)or you can die with HIV.

    Christian
     
  11. thepunisher

    thepunisher Banned Banned

    Why shouldn't the catholic church adjust itself to the times holyheadjch ? What makes it so incredibly special that ppl have to adjust themselves to it ? And its not "making life easier" for ppl holyheadjch, its realizing that society has changed. Hence the church should follow along. Otherwise it shouldn't be surprised if less and less ppl decide to join it. Its an easy principle even in marketing terms: you either adjust yourself to the customers requirements or you crash and burn.

    Christian
     
  12. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    That is possibly the most shortsighted thing you have ever posted,

    The Catholic church isn't a business, (well it is but thats another thread for another day) they enforce the word of God, its not something they can change because society has changed, thats not the nature of a religion. You ask what makes the church so special, God makes the church special, God set the rules, only God can change them, if God appeared to the pope and said, "Benedict, lets drop the whole contraceptive thing, its killing us in the ratings" then fine, but thats hardly likely to happen it it? You clearly have no clue regarding even the most basic fundamentals of theology. To compare the laws of God to a marketing strategy is mindboggling. You seem to be under the impression that the church can follow the same rules as a political party, and it cant.
     
  13. thepunisher

    thepunisher Banned Banned

    Only a believer believes that god wrote the rules holyheadjch, I wrote my post from an atheist point-of-view. And also getting back to the marketing example, as I don't believe god wrote those rules I think man can also change them. Especially if the church doesn't want to lose members even faster. I find it funny that you call me shortsighted if I actually am taking it down to the simplest principle: you either adjust yourself to the times or you loose out.

    I'm not surprised the church is losing members and more and more ppl are becoming agonistic or atheists. Times have changed, the word of god doesn't really apply to our times anymore but since, as you say we can't change them, more and more ppl aren't really following those same rules anymore. So it becomes a catch22. The church keeps to its stance from ages ago but condems anyone who has decided to modify the rules a bit because they need to as times have changed. At the same time the church won't change those rules as they are written by "god" so it keeps losing members that get condemned for not following the rules exactly as they are. Yep, a real catch22.

    Christian
     
  14. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    Exactly, you are looking at it from an atheist point of view, but its Catholics who are affected, you dont believe that God wrote the rules, but the church does, and as such the church doesn't believe they have the authority to change them. If the pope was an atheist he probably would be in favour of contraception, but he also wouldn't be the pope. If you cant look at this argument from the view of a catholic, then you have aren't adequately equipped to rationalise this issue.
     
  15. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    oh yeah, and that isn't a catch 22.
     
  16. dbmasters

    dbmasters Valued Member

    I have read a good deal of the thread to this point, and I gotta say I just don't quite see why the church should change it's moral compass just because society is changing it's. The laws of God (should one believe in such a thing) are not changing...just because society chooses to look the other way on things it didn't used to doesn't mean the church should.

    That said, many things within the church is changing. I am not referring to the church as "catholic church" as has been to this point, but more the Christian Church as a whole. Many are now holding more contemporary worship services and such things to attract a younger crowd that is is falling in to the amoral liberal society that exists today. They essentially say the same thing, preach the same gospel, but do so in a more upbeat, modern way...and at least in my area, such churches are growing at record paces...

    Gods laws are Gods laws, they don't change cuz society does.
     
  17. thepunisher

    thepunisher Banned Banned

    Care to clarify yourself on the bold statement. I frankly find that rude and offensive as a statement. What, society is only moral because we listen to god ? I think ppl have their own morals and they don't need laws set by god in order to live a moral life. Although, yes its good to see that the church is trying with "desperate" means to clinch back part of the crowds its losing because of its stance from the stone ages.

    Well, if that logic gets applied we have to say god must be living somewhere in the past because if he is a superior being but can't even adjust himself to society and humans changing than he is not as superior as he is made out to be.

    Christian
     
  18. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    Wow, you make yourself sound really foolish sometimes.
     
  19. xen

    xen insanity by design

    why? :confused:

    i've re-read dbm's post three post times now, just what offence could possibly be caused by what was posted?
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2006
  20. thepunisher

    thepunisher Banned Banned

    Wow, you make yourself sound really smart sometimes. Think believing in god makes you superior or something over non-believers holyheadjch ? Must be hard for you to put your mind away from thinking god is an all-ruling, all-superior being if you can't even think differently to him or free yourself to other thoughts sometimes.

    Christian
     

Share This Page