NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not curious what your views on the Christian religion or any other religion for that matter are, everyone some how manages to make it perfectly clear, thank you very much. What I am curious in is what people think of Christianity without the God. What do you think of Christian morality on a purely secular level?

I know there will be some different ideas as to what constitutes Christian morality, so I'll make arbitrary guidelines. If it shows up in the Roman Catholic catechism, it's fair game. I know plenty of people are Christian and not Catholic, but it's the most explicit listing of beliefs that I can think of. A copy of it is here (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm).

The reason I ask is because of a hypothesis I have about modern Christianity and some of the backlash to it. Because it was so successful integrating itself into European, and therefore world, culture, I think plenty of ideas that were originally Christian were no longer thought of as that in people's minds. People eventually began to act in a "Christian" manner without thinking of their ways as such. The only thing people thought of as specifically Christian was the stuff they only heard or saw in church or in the Bible, and thus fundamentalists use it so much and take it literally because it distinguishes them from people who have a Christian morality but do not consider themselves Christian.
I'm sorry if that sounds confusing, I will try to clarify if questions are asked.

The Catholic church has a lot to answer for in terms of the AIDS epidemic.

The Catholic church has a lot to answer for in terms of the AIDS epidemic.

Er, not really. I think monkeys started it, or something.

Er, not really. I think monkeys started it, or something.

Starting it out =/= Causing an epidemic.

However, helping it spread is more along the lines of causing an epidemic.

It's a bit hazy, but I figure that discouraging people from using condoms might be helping it spread, but then again...

Starting it out =/= Causing an epidemic.

However, helping it spread is more along the lines of causing an epidemic.

It's a bit hazy, but I figure that discouraging people from using condoms might be helping it spread, but then again...
Oh, I see. I thought Phase IV was accusing the Church of spreading the disease with dirty needles, or blood transfusions.

I don't really think the Church telling people not to use condoms does much, to be honest. It tells the same thing to Americans, but most people continue to use birth control. I think the fact much of sub-Saharan Africa is dirt poor with no access to clean drinking water let alone birth control has more to do with the epidemic than the bishop of Johannesburg telling people not to use them.

Well, let's see.

"Christian morality", in one form or another, seems to have a problem with homosexuality, masturbation, pre-marital sex, contraception, violently resisting evil, divorce, feminism, polyamory, and a whole lot of other things that I support or have no problem with... so no, thanks.

If all of us atheists really just acted on an institutionalized "Christian morality", we would have no basis for distinguishing between those elements of Christian morality we like and those we don't. But clearly we do have such a basis, so....

"Christian morality", in one form or another, seems to have a problem with homosexuality, masturbation, pre-marital sex, contraception, violently resisting evil, divorce, feminism, polyamory, and a whole lot of other things that I support or have no problem with... so no, thanks.

Can you cite your sources? Perhaps with the one (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm) I gave you?

Starting it out =/= Causing an epidemic.

However, helping it spread is more along the lines of causing an epidemic.

It's a bit hazy, but I figure that discouraging people from using condoms might be helping it spread, but then again...

...then again I fail to see how encouraging abstinence, which has a 100% effective success rate in preventing the spread of STD's, is a bad thing. Everyone loves to throw out the "discouraging condoms" line and completely ignore the fact that the Catholic Church is actively promoting other methods of preventing the spread of AIDS.

Wrong.

I'll accept the other part, but abstinence not being a 100% guarantee against STDs? How can not having sex not prevent a sexually transmitted disease?
I realize AIDS can be spread other ways, such as with a blood transfusion. But a condom isn't going to stop that.

...then again I fail to see how encouraging abstinence, which has a 100% effective success rate in preventing the spread of STD's
Wrong.
, is a bad thing. Everyone loves to throw out the "discouraging condoms" line and completely ignore the fact that the Catholic Church is actively promoting other methods of preventing the spread of AIDS.

They didn't just promote other methods, they out and out lied about condoms. They purposely kept countless African people ignorant because they have a problem with artificial contraception.

The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.
I know condoms are more effective than nothing, but is this really true, they are impermeable? I thought nothing was completely impermeable, thus the 85-95% success rate (meaning a 5-15% failure rate).

EDIT: This will probably go unheeded, but the point of the thread wasn't really about the Church's views on contraception. It's about Christian morality in general.

I don't really think the Church telling people not to use condoms does much, to be honest. It tells the same thing to Americans, but most people continue to use birth control. I think the fact much of sub-Saharan Africa is dirt poor with no access to clean drinking water let alone birth control has more to do with the epidemic than the bishop of Johannesburg telling people not to use them.

It's one thing to discourage, it's another to outright lie: http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3176982.stm
Remember that The Catholic church has much more weight in these countries than in the USA.

...then again I fail to see how encouraging abstinence, which has a 100% effective success rate in preventing the spread of STD's, is a bad thing. Everyone loves to throw out the "discouraging condoms" line and completely ignore the fact that the Catholic Church is actively promoting other methods of preventing the spread of AIDS.

There's nothing wrong with encouraging abstinence, so long as it's supplementary. If they just stopped bullshitting about condoms the situation wouldn't be as bad as it is now.

There's nothing wrong with encouraging abstinence, so long as it's supplementary. If they just stopped bullshitting about condoms the situation wouldn't be as bad as it is now.
You can't really have supplementary abstinence. :)
"It's true, abstinence is effective, but you should wear a condom anyway."

You can't really have supplementary abstinence. :)
"It's true, abstinence is effective, but you should wear a condom anyway."

More like: "Abstinence is effective, but if you are going to do it - use a condom."

EDIT: I know condoms are more effective than nothing, but is this really true, they are impermeable? I thought nothing was completely impermeable, thus the 85-95% success rate (meaning a 5-15% failure rate).

Condoms are impermeable, but unless you do the deed in condom y-fronts you run the risk of bodily fluids coming into contact or the condom slipping.

Like very nearly everything else about the "Christian Religion", its "morals" are simply a conglomeration and heteroginazation of ideas that date back beyond recorded history.

This is not "Xtian Bashing" by any means.....it is simply pointing out the historical truth of the matter.

That said, "Christian Morals" are simply common sense, get along with your neighbor premises that by and large aren't a necessarily bad thing.

The PROBLEMS start when the over-zealous insist on forcing those morals on others who may not necessarily agree with them.

Most religious tenets are spread via peer pressure and social coercion.

A simple fact of human nature and free will is that some of us don't respond well to such pressures.

Can you cite your sources? Perhaps with the one (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm) I gave you?

Divorce: "2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign."

Masturbation: "2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."137 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."138"

Premarital sex: "2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children."

Homosexuality: "2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

Polyamory: "2387 The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law." [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive."179"

Contraception: "In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:158"

The Catholic Church's stance on violence is not as absolute as Jesus's was, but since Jesus said it, it can hardly be argued to be other than Christian morality:

Matthew 5:38-39: "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

As for feminism, the history of Christian sexism is long and extensive, as you are surely aware, whatever the rhetoric of the Catholic Church has to say about it.

I'm not curious what your views on the Christian religion or any other religion for that matter are, everyone some how manages to make it perfectly clear, thank you very much. What I am curious in is what people think of Christianity without the God. What do you think of Christian morality on a purely secular level?

I know there will be some different ideas as to what constitutes Christian morality, so I'll make arbitrary guidelines. If it shows up in the Roman Catholic catechism, it's fair game. I know plenty of people are Christian and not Catholic, but it's the most explicit listing of beliefs that I can think of. A copy of it is here (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm).

The reason I ask is because of a hypothesis I have about modern Christianity and some of the backlash to it. Because it was so successful integrating itself into European, and therefore world, culture, I think plenty of ideas that were originally Christian were no longer thought of as that in people's minds. People eventually began to act in a "Christian" manner without thinking of their ways as such. The only thing people thought of as specifically Christian was the stuff they only heard or saw in church or in the Bible, and thus fundamentalists use it so much and take it literally because it distinguishes them from people who have a Christian morality but do not consider themselves Christian.
I'm sorry if that sounds confusing, I will try to clarify if questions are asked.


EXACTLY! The term christian today is SOOO far frm what it used to mean. Its now a cultural thing. When followers of Jesus were first called Christians, in antioch, they were called so, because they acted like Christ. Now a days, you can call yourself Christian and act nothing like it, and people will still say that you are Christian. For examples, see Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanon, most right wingers, etc.

Oh, I see. I thought Phase IV was accusing the Church of spreading the disease with dirty needles, or blood transfusions.


Tainted baptismal pools? Communion wafers that people did mod-knows-what with (thinks of Marquis de Sade)? Something in the rulers?

Condoms are impermeable, but unless you do the deed in condom y-fronts you run the risk of bodily fluids coming into contact or the condom slipping.

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JBENDY000123000005000513000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
http://www.springerlink.com/content/8006582wk4519um3/

The Catholic church has a lot to answer for in terms of the AIDS epidemic.
Why? The Catholic church is not responsible for the fucking through which folks are obtaining the virus, is it? The responsibility lies rather with those who conduct irresponsible sexual interaction.

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JBENDY000123000005000513000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/stis/male_condom.html
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/8006582wk4519um3/

The proportion of people having sex with biopsy guns can't be a high one.

I'll believe HIV can pass through condoms if you can find any links showing a major health organisation (like The WHO) saying so. Seriously - you've sown the seeds of doubt in my mind now.

Why? The Catholic church is not responsible for the fucking through which folks are obtaining the virus, is it? The responsibility lies rather with those who conduct irresponsible sexual interaction.

The whole responsibility does not lie on single organisation or people. The Catholic church have made the situation worse by spreading lies to maintain their anti-contraception stance in the face of AIDS.

The whole responsibility does not lie on single organisation or people. The Catholic church have made the situation worse by spreading lies to maintain their anti-contraception stance in the face of AIDS.
The responsibility lies with the person who has sex with someone who carries the virus or with someone they don't even know at all. If people didn't fuck around, they wouldn't get HIV, it's as simple as that.
The Catholic church is spreading lies? What lies? And what is their anti-contraception stance? That folks are not supposed to have sex with just everyone they meet? The Catholic church also promotes marriage and having sex within marriage. If folks were really following what the Catholic church teaches, then AIDS would not be an issue at all, you know. So don't blame the Catholic church for the suicidal idiocy of certain people. HIV is not a virus that spreads easily, you have to get active to contract it.

The responsibility lies with the person who has sex with someone who carries the virus or with someone they don't even know at all. If people didn't fuck around, they wouldn't get HIV, it's as simple as that.

That's ridiculous. It's not a simple as that, not by a long shot.

The Catholic church is spreading lies? What lies? And what is their anti-contraception stance? That folks are not supposed to have sex with just everyone they meet? The Catholic church also promotes marriage and having sex within marriage. If folks were really following what the Catholic church teaches, then AIDS would not be an issue at all, you know. So don't blame the Catholic church for the suicidal idiocy of certain people. HIV is not a virus that spreads easily, you have to get active to contract it.

Have you even read the rest of this thread? The links near the top? The Catholic church claiming condoms offer no protection, against what The WHO says?
What do you mean "What is their anti-contraception stance?"? Are you really unaware of their position?

What do you think of Christian morality on a purely secular level?

Christian morality is entirely based on the precept "God/Jesus says it is good or bad, therefor it is good or bad". There is no underlying reasoning that humanity has been able to deduce that consistently explains all commandments, rules and teachings by example.

Which is of course what causes the problems. People learn "do not steal" and "do not kill", find that if everybody obeys those rules the quality of life improves for most and then continue to obey everything else the same source says as well. After all, if the advice in the beginning was good, everything must be good, right ?

Wrong. Which is why Christian morality is an inferior moral system without the allknowing benevolent Godaspect to justify everything.

[QUOTE=New Limacon;13111607]I'm not curious what your views on the Christian religion or any other religion for that matter are, everyone some how manages to make it perfectly clear, thank you very much. What I am curious in is what people think of Christianity without the God. What do you think of Christian morality on a purely secular level?{/QUOTE]

You should read the books from John Shelby Spong and Lloyd Geering. This is the same concept they talk about in their books. Basically there idea is we define God as the highest values we as humans should strive for and we keep the moral values that defined us as christians. It's very good reading you should check it out.

I'll accept the other part, but abstinence not being a 100% guarantee against STDs? How can not having sex not prevent a sexually transmitted disease?
I realize AIDS can be spread other ways, such as with a blood transfusion. But a condom isn't going to stop that.

Because a lot of STDs can be spread in other ways. Like HIV, as you said.

That's ridiculous. It's not a simple as that, not by a long shot.Yes it is that simple. HIV is hard to get, so if you got it you did contribute to getting it.

Have you even read the rest of this thread? The links near the top? The Catholic church claiming condoms offer no protection, against what The WHO says?
What do you mean "What is their anti-contraception stance?"? Are you really unaware of their position?Their position is: no sex outside marriage. And I suppose that would probably erase 95% of all HIV infections. The use of condoms is not what keeps people from HIV infections, fidelity is.

Christianity without the religious parts would be equal to a tyrannical government. (Not that it wasn't during the dark ages.)

I still think looking at what Jesus did and his teaching is a much more accurate then what any church can tell you to do.

If we only want to look at human interpretation of Christianity's moral standpoint, I think there's no answer. Somehow every Christian group seems to interpret it differently, ranging from Right Wing Christians to the Salvation Army. And even within the Roman Catholic it seem to have inconsistency in their decision making. Maybe if we limit only to what the pope said in specific or something it might have some form of consistency.

Yes it is that simple. HIV is hard to get, so if you got it you did contribute to getting it.

The view that it's their own fault for getting AIDs is an extremely nieve one. Do some reading.

Their position is: no sex outside marriage. And I suppose that would probably erase 95% of all HIV infections. The use of condoms is not what keeps people from HIV infections, fidelity is.

Their position is also: No contraception - including condoms. That's including within a marriage.
Actually, the use of condoms is what keeps people from getting infected with HIV. Saying that condoms don't work and discouraging people from using them helps to spread HIV and that is what The Catholic church has been doing.

The view that it's their own fault for getting AIDs is an extremely nieve one. Do some reading.

Their position is also: No contraception - including condoms. That's including within a marriage.
Actually, the use of condoms is what keeps people from getting infected with HIV. Saying that condoms don't work and discouraging people from using them helps to spread HIV and that is what The Catholic church has been doing.You just don't get it: No Fuck, No HIV, No AIDS. Do you really want to dispute that? It is rampant promiscuity that is the main cause for the spread of AIDS, all other causes are almost insignificant compared to that.

You just don't get it: No Fuck, No HIV, No AIDS. Do you really want to dispute that? It is rampant promiscuity that is the main cause for the spread of AIDS, all other causes are almost insignificant compared to that.

Stop living in candyland and get the picture: Discouraging condoms is bad. It helps spread HIV. Abstinence only is an unrealistic policy. The Catholic church has gone for the latter, and lied about the effectivness of condoms. That is irresponsible and immoral.
Since the Catholic church has so much influence in many parts of Africa, their bullshittery cannot be called insignificant in contributing to the spread of AIDS, especially since the rumours spread like wildfire even outside the Catholic community.

You just don't get it: No Fuck, No HIV, No AIDS. Do you really want to dispute that? It is rampant promiscuity that is the main cause for the spread of AIDS, all other causes are almost insignificant compared to that.

I will never understand United Beleriand.

It's driving cars that's the main cause for car accidents. What is your point?

You just don't get it: No Fuck, No HIV, No AIDS. Do you really want to dispute that?

Except for visiting the dentist and so on. But indeed, sex is the main cause, and not having sex takes that cause away.

It is rampant promiscuity that is the main cause for the spread of AIDS, all other causes are almost insignificant compared to that.

Correct. Unfortunately people will simply not stop sleeping around. The churches know this perfectly well; and yet opt to discredit the backup of using condoms with statements often based on lies or false information.

Edit: I do however suggest we take this to another topic. I quite like the question from the OP and would hate to see it snowed under.

Abstinence only is an unrealistic policy.Policy? How is that a policy? It's a personal choice not to sleep around, this has nothing to do with any state's or church's policies. If folks are not grown up enough for that then they must bear the consequences of their behavior. :eek:
No state and no church is responsible for what folks do to their own bodies, that responsibility lies solely with the individual.

I will never understand United Beleriand.

It's driving cars that's the main cause for car accidents. What is your point?What's my point? If you know that driving cars is the main cause for car accidents, then don't walk on a busy road if you don't want to get driven over. Is that somehow difficult to understand?

Policy? How is that a policy? It's a personal choice not to sleep around, this has nothing to do with any state's or church's policies.

Abstinence is a church policy.

If folks are not grown up enough for that then they must bear the consequences of their behavior. :eek:

It isn't just a matter of people having sex with people they don't know.

Policy? How is that a policy? It's a personal choice not to sleep around, this has nothing to do with any state's or church's policies. If folks are not grown up enough for that then they must bear the consequences of their behavior. :eek:
No state and no church is responsible for what folks do to their own bodies, that responsibility lies solely with the individual.

What's my point? If you know that driving cars is the main cause for car accidents, then don't walk on a busy road if you don't want to get driven over. Is that somehow difficult to understand?

I would have thought that drawing from the analogy that driving cars is the main cause for car accidents the best way to not be in a car accident would be to not drive a car.

The idea is that in practice it's almost completely useless as a way of preventing STDs. It's almost on the same level as saying that the best way to eliminate unemployment is to give everyone jobs.

I'm not curious what your views on the Christian religion or any other religion for that matter are, everyone some how manages to make it perfectly clear, thank you very much. What I am curious in is what people think of Christianity without the God. What do you think of Christian morality on a purely secular level?

if you mean by that what i've been able to observe in practice; not worth the poweder to blow it to hell.

if you mean what it CLAIMS to care about, yes, of course, absolutely.

i'm much more interested in a genuine and abiding spirituality, without all the pretensions of christianity, islam, or any other name brand flavour of organized belief. in what i feel is the good side of the positive heart and soul, running through, but for the most part burried under, the litteralist pretentions of them.

that is what i do believe in. whatever and however many gods or anything else there may or may not happen to acutally be.

there is only one morality, and this is not something any one system of belief, or even organized belief at all, holds any sort of patent on, and that is the avoidance of causing suffering.

=^^=
.../\...

Christian morality ALSO advocates forgiveness, living in peace with one another, charity, and general respect for the rule of law. Most of the 10 commandments are codified into the US laws: Don't steal. Don't give false testimony in court. Don't murder.


Overall, most religions support most of these ideals which translate neatly into the secular society.

Christian morality ALSO advocates forgiveness, living in peace with one another, charity, and general respect for the rule of law. Most of the 10 commandments are codified into the US laws: Don't steal. Don't give false testimony in court. Don't murder.


Overall, most religions support most of these ideals which translate neatly into the secular society.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me?

Thou shalt not worship false idols?

Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God?

Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy?

Honor thy father and thy mother?

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife?

I would have thought that drawing from the analogy that driving cars is the main cause for car accidents the best way to not be in a car accident would be to not drive a car.But that's not how HIV is spread. HIV is out there, but it's your own fault if you get into harm's way.
If sex under certain circumstances is dangerous, then avoid those circumstances.

The idea is that in practice it's almost completely useless as a way of preventing STDs. It's almost on the same level as saying that the best way to eliminate unemployment is to give everyone jobs.
Well, then folks who can't keep their genitals under control may subsequently have to live with HIV.

Abstinence is a church policy.What does that have to do with the individual's behavior? Being abstinent is everyone's private decision.

It isn't just a matter of people having sex with people they don't know.It's a matter of having sex with people who might have HIV.

Well, let's see.

"Christian morality", in one form or another, seems to have a problem with homosexuality, masturbation, pre-marital sex, contraception, violently resisting evil, divorce, feminism, polyamory, and a whole lot of other things that I support or have no problem with... so no, thanks.


Nonsense. That's just catholic morality, which isn't even based on the bible but on Aquinas' natural law.

...then again I fail to see how encouraging abstinence, which has a 100% effective success rate in preventing the spread of STD's, is a bad thing. Everyone loves to throw out the "discouraging condoms" line and completely ignore the fact that the Catholic Church is actively promoting other methods of preventing the spread of AIDS.
But they encourage it knowing that not everybody will go that way, and they say "Condoms don't help. In fact, condom makers deliberately infect them with HIV to destroy Africans. So don't use condoms if you do have sex."

Policy? How is that a policy? It's a personal choice not to sleep around, this has nothing to do with any state's or church's policies. If folks are not grown up enough for that then they must bear the consequences of their behavior. :eek:
No state and no church is responsible for what folks do to their own bodies, that responsibility lies solely with the individual.

What's my point? If you know that driving cars is the main cause for car accidents, then don't walk on a busy road if you don't want to get driven over. Is that somehow difficult to understand?
Using your "logic," you'd also have to argue that a church that says "don't use seatbelts, they don't work. Just never drive." would not be responsible for an increase of deaths in traffic accidents that would be a direct result of that lie.

Using your "logic," you'd also have to argue that a church that says "don't use seatbelts, they don't work. Just never drive." would not be responsible for an increase of deaths in traffic accidents that would be a direct result of that lie.You know, car accidents happen to you, HIV doesn't, you have to seek it.

What does that have to do with the individual's behavior? Being abstinent is everyone's private decision.

It has everything to do with the matter we are actually talking about. Namely that The Catholic church is immoral for lying about condoms in favour of abstinence only.

It's a matter of having sex with people who might have HIV.

What about your apparently faithful husband, who's actually been poking every woman in sight when he was away for a few weeks at one of Southern Africas mines for instance. Catholic church says no condom protection for you. Oh well, guess you're just going to have to get AIDS. What about that woman you know and trust who was too scared to say she had HIV or didn't even know? What about your own Government's health department saying it doesn't matter because HIV doesn't cause AIDS?
That sort of shit is happening all the time, so don't tell me they have only themselves to blame for catching HIV through sex. Of course it wouldn't be such a problem if they could use condoms.
I repeat: abstinence only is not going to work. You can't stop people having sex, whether it's in a marriage or out of it.
Encouraged abstinence + condoms > abstinence only

It has everything to do with the matter we are actually talking about. Namely that The Catholic church is immoral for lying about condoms in favour of abstinence only.

What about your apparently faithful husband, who's actually been poking every woman in sight when he was away for a few weeks at one of Southern Africas mines for instance. Catholic church says no condom protection for you. Oh well, guess you're just going to have to get AIDS. What about that woman you know and trust who was too scared to say she had HIV or didn't even know? What about your own Government's health department saying it doesn't matter because HIV doesn't cause AIDS?
That sort of shit is happening all the time, so don't tell me they have only themselves to blame for catching HIV through sex. Of course it wouldn't be such a problem if they could use condoms.
I repeat: abstinence only is not going to work. You can't stop people having sex, whether it's in a marriage or out of it.
Encouraged abstinence + condoms > abstinence only

The Catholic Church maintains the same position all over the globe. But why do you not charge them with the spread of HIV in Europe of North America?

All religious morals are ridiculous.

All religious morals are ridiculous.

What's wrong with these?

Taoism (http://www.religioustolerance.org/taoism.htm)

Development of virtue is one's chief task. The Three Jewels to be sought are compassion, moderation and humility.

One should plan in advance and consider carefully each action before making it.

The Catholic Church maintains the same position all over the globe. But why do you not charge them with the spread of HIV in Europe of North America?

People don't believe their crap like "condoms are laced with HIV" and "Condoms offer no protection" in Europe and North America (think of all the Goverment AIDS awareness campaigns), it hasn't worsened the situation there. Partly because it's only really in the more uneducated countries where they've actually been lying.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3176982.stm

What about your apparently faithful husband, who's actually been poking every woman in sight when he was away for a few weeks at one of Southern Africas mines for instance. Catholic church says no condom protection for you. Oh well, guess you're just going to have to get AIDS. What about that woman you know and trust who was too scared to say she had HIV or didn't even know? What about your own Government's health department saying it doesn't matter because HIV doesn't cause AIDS?
That sort of shit is happening all the time, so don't tell me they have only themselves to blame for catching HIV through sex. Of course it wouldn't be such a problem if they could use condoms.
I repeat: abstinence only is not going to work. You can't stop people having sex, whether it's in a marriage or out of it.
Encouraged abstinence + condoms > abstinence only
If your apparently faithful husband has indeed been poking every woman in sight when he was a away for a few weeks at none other than a southern african mine then you will have more problems than just HIV. (Hate to break it to you, but its the husband's fault for doing that in the first place, and the wife's fault for not using a condom, and deciding to follow the Catholic church. I'm not saying its right, or good, or anything, but its only the facts, because you are responsible for yourself. Even if it is the actual stance of the Catholic church, because half of my freaking family is Catholic and most of them use many forms of contraception.)

If your apparently faithful husband has indeed been poking every woman in sight when he was a away for a few weeks at none other than a southern african mine then you will have more problems than just HIV. (Hate to break it to you, but its the husband's fault for doing that in the first place, and the wife's fault for not using a condom, and deciding to follow the Catholic church. I'm not saying its right, or good, or anything, but its only the facts, because you are responsible for yourself. Even if it is the actual stance of the Catholic church, because half of my freaking family is Catholic and most of them use many forms of contraception.)qft

which isn't even based on the bible

The Bible's actually pretty explicit about several of those....

Christianity without the religious parts is what many Western societies base their culture on I would say.

*snip*

As for feminism, the history of Christian sexism is long and extensive, as you are surely aware, whatever the rhetoric of the Catholic Church has to say about it.
Thank you.
As for anti-feminism, I wouldn't consider that to be Christian morality, specifically because it doesn't appear in the rhetoric. That, and the fact sexism is not Christian specific, make me disagree.

Just an aside: I gave the Catechism because it is easy to cite and Catholicism is culturally somewhere in the middle (if you were to interview Catholics about who they voted for in the US, the votes are about fifty-fifty). However, I was not referring to Catholic morality, and certainly not Catholic tradition, in particular.

It has everything to do with the matter we are actually talking about. Namely that The Catholic church is immoral for lying about condoms in favour of abstinence only.

Do you mean "immoral" according to Christian morality or to your own personal views? I only ask because you used the word that is the subject of this thread, and I don't know if it was intentional.

I still think looking at what Jesus did and his teaching is a much more accurate then what any church can tell you to do.

If we only want to look at human interpretation of Christianity's moral standpoint, I think there's no answer. Somehow every Christian group seems to interpret it differently, ranging from Right Wing Christians to the Salvation Army. And even within the Roman Catholic it seem to have inconsistency in their decision making. Maybe if we limit only to what the pope said in specific or something it might have some form of consistency.
I think I eliminated the inconsistency by saying the basis for what I'm calling Christian morality must appear in the Catechism. I realize that this is leaving a lot out, but it is hard to misinterpret the Catechism, espcecially compared to the Bible, and it covers many shared ideas among Christians.

As for anti-feminism, I wouldn't consider that to be Christian morality

I do, because sexism is everywhere in Christian tradition... gender roles, wives submitting to their husbands, the old sexist spin on the Adam and Eve story (not to mention the sexism in the original text), and so on.

That, and the fact sexism is not Christian specific, make me disagree.

Who said it was?

None of the problems with Christian morality are specific to Christian morality.

...then again I fail to see how encouraging abstinence, which has a 100% effective success rate in preventing the spread of STD's, is a bad thing. Everyone loves to throw out the "discouraging condoms" line and completely ignore the fact that the Catholic Church is actively promoting other methods of preventing the spread of AIDS.

Because abstinence only works if people actually follow it. Where the only "safe-sex" method taught in school is abstinence the kids are still just as likely to have sex, except they won't know about safe-sex so they are more likely to get pregnant. You can't stop people from having sex no matter how much you warn them about God's wrath, so the only logical thing to do is educate people about safe-sex and provide condoms.

Christian morality is true morality.

I do, because sexism is everywhere in Christian tradition... gender roles, wives submitting to their husbands, the old sexist spin on the Adam and Eve story (not to mention the sexism in the original text), and so on.
I don't consider tradition part of morality. There are plenty of gender roles, but I don't really consider those sexist; in theory, they treat both sexes equally. And that's what we're talking about, Christian morality in theory.



Who said it was?

None of the problems with Christian morality are specific to Christian morality.
Yeah, I realized after I posted that it doesn't make much sense. I think what I meant was, "people probably would have continued to be sexist if they didn't convert to Christianity, whereas they might not have 'loved their neighbors as they loved themselves.'" Even that is impossible to say for sure though, so I retract my original complaint.

I agree with you entirely.

Abstinence only would mean the end of the human species (personally speaking), even if only applied to exo-marriage relationships.

Realizing humans have a sexual side, is healthy; and like washing ones hands after going the bathroom, so are condoms healthy.

They are not an anti-biotic/-viral, they are a wall, a barrier. Is it wrong thinking to classify condoms as saving as many lives as an NBC/biohazard suit?

In benovolence,
Rafe,
-OOC

Stop living in candyland and get the picture: Discouraging condoms is bad. It helps spread HIV. Abstinence only is an unrealistic policy. The Catholic church has gone for the latter, and lied about the effectivness of condoms. That is irresponsible and immoral.
Since the Catholic church has so much influence in many parts of Africa, their bullshittery cannot be called insignificant in contributing to the spread of AIDS, especially since the rumours spread like wildfire even outside the Catholic community.

http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/stis/male_condom.html
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/



The proportion of people having sex with biopsy guns can't be a high one.SOMEONE doesn't watch enough anime. *nods*
Totally sigworthy, if i had the room.

I'll believe HIV can pass through condoms if you can find any links showing a major health organisation (like The WHO) saying so. Seriously - you've sown the seeds of doubt in my mind now.
Did i say that was my intent or something? Besides, The Who is busy on tour right now.
*shakes head*

I don't consider tradition part of morality.

Religious morality is necessarily grounded in religious tradition.

There are plenty of gender roles, but I don't really consider those sexist; in theory, they treat both sexes equally. And that's what we're talking about, Christian morality in theory.

Yes, and Christian morality "in theory" has historically advocated gender roles that are sexist.

Not that "separate but equal" isn't intrinsically sexist in a sense.

Even that is impossible to say for sure though

Actually it's not just "impossible to say for sure." It sounds like speculation without the slightest hint of support... especially since the Golden Rule, in one form or another, is at least as common among different cultures as sexism is.

Basic ethical reciprocity is an idea far more intuitive than the idea that women are inferior.

Actually it's not just "impossible to say for sure." It sounds like speculation without the slightest hint of support... especially since the Golden Rule, in one form or another, is at least as common among different cultures as sexism is.

Do note that Christianity is NOT based on the golden rule. It starts out with several supporting ideas, but the remainder of the Bible makes it clear that the golden rule is not its basis.

We simply do not know what the underlying principles of the Bible are, or even if there are any at all. Believers have faith that "God knows best"; without that belief the Bible is not a good moral guide.

I'm not curious what your views on the Christian religion or any other religion for that matter are, everyone some how manages to make it perfectly clear, thank you very much. What I am curious in is what people think of Christianity without the God. What do you think of Christian morality on a purely secular level?

I know there will be some different ideas as to what constitutes Christian morality, so I'll make arbitrary guidelines. If it shows up in the Roman Catholic catechism, it's fair game. I know plenty of people are Christian and not Catholic, but it's the most explicit listing of beliefs that I can think of. A copy of it is here (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm).

The reason I ask is because of a hypothesis I have about modern Christianity and some of the backlash to it. Because it was so successful integrating itself into European, and therefore world, culture, I think plenty of ideas that were originally Christian were no longer thought of as that in people's minds. People eventually began to act in a "Christian" manner without thinking of their ways as such. The only thing people thought of as specifically Christian was the stuff they only heard or saw in church or in the Bible, and thus fundamentalists use it so much and take it literally because it distinguishes them from people who have a Christian morality but do not consider themselves Christian.
I'm sorry if that sounds confusing, I will try to clarify if questions are asked.

Christian Morality sounds like an oxymoron to me. Do you believe that Christians get their morality from their faith then?

Could you perhaps give an example of such a morality and then we can compare it with a non Christian's moral rules and see if there is in fact any difference.

Do you mean "immoral" according to Christian morality or to your own personal views? I only ask because you used the word that is the subject of this thread, and I don't know if it was intentional.

I mean immoral according to my views, but moral according to theirs - unfortunately.

And to Laterale: My point was that not everyone who catches HIV through sex did so through irresponsible behaviour, in that case that wife.

What's wrong with these?

Taoism (http://www.religioustolerance.org/taoism.htm)

Development of virtue is one's chief task. The Three Jewels to be sought are compassion, moderation and humility.

One should plan in advance and consider carefully each action before making it.

The only thing wrong with that is that it labels "common sense" as religious.

The only thing wrong with that is that it labels "common sense" as religious.

What's the problem with applying the "religious" label to common sense?

Is it a bigger issue than calling it "inspirational"? Or "philosophical"? Why?

What's the problem with applying the "religious" label to common sense?

Is it a bigger issue than calling it "inspirational"? Or "philosophical"? Why?

Because common sense is common sense, and when a religion "bases" their morals on common sense they act all superior, or something.

I apologize, I do promise I had a logical point, but it seems to have been lost.

I'm afraid I've used up all of my weekly smartness on an argument about how rules on sexuality and religion in public schools shouldn't equate.. thing.

*passes out*

Religious morality is necessarily grounded in religious tradition.
It is. However, we are using a very limited definition, whatever shows up in the Catechism. The reason for this is because what is and what is not Christian morality is so fuzzy, and arbitrary definitions are, for the purposes of this discussion, better than none. I have yet to find anything that explicitly says, "women are inferior to men" there.



Yes, and Christian morality "in theory" has historically advocated gender roles that are sexist.

Not that "separate but equal" isn't intrinsically sexist in a sense.
Again, we aren't talking about historical Christianity, we're talking about its theory. And "separate but equal" is not intrinsically sexist, anymore than unicorns have intrinsic flying abilities. But, like unicorns, that statement does not exist in the real world.



Actually it's not just "impossible to say for sure." It sounds like speculation without the slightest hint of support... especially since the Golden Rule, in one form or another, is at least as common among different cultures as sexism is.

I don't know if I would say that. I think people are naturally altruistic, if for only evolutionary reasons, but I'm not how many cultures actually formalized it. And the Golden Rule that the early Christians were talking about was fairly extreme, including not only "good" people, those from your tribe, city, or nation, but also "bad" people (everyone else). Was this every put in practice? Ha ha ha ha ha. No. But, like I keep saying, in theory...

Christian morality is true morality.

"true" as in "unwavering in path"?
Even that is questionable, but it's your best one to go with since none of the others are all that close.

Since we are all going to be Christian for the weekend I guess I got to get my torch and pitchfork and hunt some homosexuals and nonbelievers.

Let's go!!!

Since we are all going to be Christian for the weekend I guess I got to get my torch and pitchfork and hunt some homosexuals and nonbelievers.

Let's go!!!
Needn't go far. There'll be a thread or two and some posting favourites, surely.