Religions

[Beatrice Otter]

I think you're referring to the Old Testament, where God is portrayed...well, he's a bit different in the New Testament. Christianity is more NT than OT, which is more Judaism I think. PJ help me out here dude. Not sure, but I think the OT is pretty harsh, but the NT is more "liberal" in its interpretation of God and how he treats mankind.

It's not that God is different, it's that the circumstances are different and the perception of him is different.

In the OT, you have a fairly barbaric group in a fairly barbaric world. God spends most of it trying to knock some justice and mercy into their heads, and rarely succeeding. The people spend most of the OT either ignoring or directly flouting him. The only way he could get their attention was by knocking them over the head with a clue-by-four. His word of justice and mercy runs through it all, but often gets overwhelmed by the wickedness of the people. Also remember that these barbarians I'm talking about? They're the ones who wrote this stuff down. Even inspired by God (literally), that's gotta affect how they wrote it.

By the time we get to the New Testament, however, we're dealing with a civilized people with a highly developed notion of the law. Sometimes too highly-developed, as they clung to the letter of it rather than the spirit. In that environment, God still had to break through. But in that environment, he could let the whole justice mercy and salvation end be his focus; in that environment, the authors weren't interested in the judgment, wrath, and gruesome stories of the kind their ancestors had told. That's the main reason for the difference in the character of the two halves.

[Torrent]

ok first off let me clarify: my beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with what people around me believe or told me to believe, they are based entirely on my own reflection and study. As a history major my area of focus is gonna be world religions for my PhD. I have always made my own decisions.

A person is not often a world solely to himself; the actions and beliefs of those we surround are selves with most often affect us to a degree we may not be entirely aware of. To say you have come to your own conclusions is one matter to say they were entirely due to your own reflection and study seems to insinuate a lack of precise expression or understanding.

ok first off the church says it respects life, but then more wars and slaughter have been carried out in the name of the church and god than any other cause in history. The crusades, the inquisition, etc.

If you think that slaughter and brutal wars began with catholicism or that it was the worst offender I suggest you find a class taught by a very lliberal(for a lack of a better word. nothing against the democrats; both sides have their extreme) professor that won't let facts get in the way of a good paper. And if you want to say these acts were most often done under the banner of some god or another, then I would have to agree. A popular non-theistic religion of any type did not exist until recently and leaders often use anything they can to rally support for their interests.

the church says it wants to help ease suffering, yet because of its policies regarding the use of birth control and condoms, they have seriously contributed to the number of unwanted births and spread of disease in the world.

What policies would those be? Does the church burn condoms? Does it pressure governments to illegalize them? In many countries where aids and dangerous population growth is a huge problem the people are lucky enough just to get clean water or food. I don't think classes on safe sex would make the situation all that better. If local war lords sometimes have problems letting average international aid through I'm sure they'll be A-OK with truck load of condoms.

the catholic church glorifies and honors the cross using it as its symbol. The cross is a symbol of death and terror. for centuries enemies of rome for tortured and killed on crosses but do you ever hear about them? no the church has made the cross into a symbol for people to look for, people the world over wear it around their necks, a symbol of death and terror

Wow. I mean wow. Pick any flag of just about any country older than 100 years and you could find a reason to say the same.

the church denounces and persecutes paganism, yet the central action of the mass is canibalistic and heathen, you eat flesh and drink blood.

I wouldn't, but you could look at it as symbolic cannibalism. If someone wants look at that way I wont waste time arguing.

the thing that makes us diferent from the angels and all the other creatures god created is free will. the choice to make our own decisions. yet the catholic church would take away womens choice to have control over their own bodies. pure hypocrisy, they preach one thing and do another

If you're speaking of abortion there are those of us who feel denying an unborn child the chance to live is taking a life. If an outside party where to choose weather or not a pregnant mother was to live or die and choose the latter he may be well likely to be charged with two murders.(this is the case in more than a few countries) If the mother chooses to end the life of a fetus( Definition )before it begins it's abortion. The body of a mother to be is no longer solely her own.

the church's view and portrayal of god is small and petty. he is selfish and uncaring. anybeing that has the knowledge and power to create the entire universe and everything in it, would be so far beyond our human understanding that the need to have people acknowledge his existence through prayer and worship would be so incredible petty to him it is ridiculous to think about.

For a being "so far beyond our human understanding" you seem to think you understand him well enough to say "that the need to have people acknowledge his existence through prayer and worship would be so incredible petty to him it is ridiculous to think about." Everything I've read in the bible would at least suggest it's more of a preference.

I can't shake the feeling that you're grouping catholicism in with the rest of christianity. Odd since you seem to have at least some knowledge about it's relationship to the roman empire.

[puddlejumper747]

I think you meant Abraham Few hundred years difference there, though your other points are good.

::slams head down on keyboard:: Oh my....yes. Definitely my mistake. Thank you, Beatrice.

Did God set down every word for them? No. God works through people, you see, and people have free will. Their thoughts wishes, and perceptions shaped the way they wrote, and how they wrote it, and what they thought God wanted them to do.

Absolutely! Please don't misunderstand me....Inspiration doesn't mean that God somehow took over their minds and usurped their free will when they were writing the Scripture. They were completely in control of what they were writing down, and their own individual writing styles still shine through. But Inspiration means that while they were writing the Scripture, their will was completely and freely conformed with God's will. What they themselves wanted to write down is exactly what God wanted them to write down....but He didn't force it upon them. The Holy Spirit gave them the grace to conform their own will to God's, and then acted through their own individual will to ensure that they wrote down exactly what they intended to (from their own cultural prespective, etc....). It is God's Word, but it is spoken through His people to us. While they were writing the Scripture, the Holy Spirit protected them from error....this is why we say that Scripture is also Infallible. But note: Infallibility only guarantees us the truth as it was conveyed through the author's original prespective. Even if the very first and original writing of any particular book of Scripture actually had grammatical/spelling errors, that doesn't mean that "now we have proof that the Holy Spirit was not protecting them from error"....it simply means that the Scritural author obviously didn't know how to spell the word, or more probably just made an honest mistake. Either way, the quality of Infallibility is still preserved -- when the author wrote that word, he honestly believed that what He was writing down was the correct way to spell it -- he was honestly doing his very best to convey the correct message of God's Word to us. From his prespective, the complete, inerrant, and infallible truth of Scripture is preserved. And that is why Scripture can be so hard to translate, why there are so many different versions out there today, and why there is just so much work that goes into the study of Scripture. It isn't easy. We need someone to help us understand Scripture. It requires us to change our own point of view, and look at it as the people of that time would have looked at it themselves. Only then we will truly be able to understand what they were saying to us, so that we can finally arrive at the truth contained within.

i just feel ultimately it is a womans choice to make that decision for themselves. the fetus is a part of their body.

But is it really? Would you also say that it is no different than any other regular organ in her body? That fetus is another individual human life. Just because "it's a fetus" doesn't mean that it isn't human. After all, a fetus is just another name that we give to a stage of human development -- just like we give names to stages like a "toddler", "teenager", or "adult". It's no different. Sure, the fetus is initially dependent upon the mother for it's survival....but that's what a mother is for. The fetus is a completely independent human person from the mother -- it can still survive on it's own if she dies. It is alive....it already has it's own individual human soul. It is no longer "just part of the woman's body"....it is an indvidual. Are you really going to tell me that that fetus is actually going to develop into anything other than another human person? Are you perhaps going to tell me that the fetus "doesn't care"?....How much more do you think it really "cares" when it is just newly born? Is is any random mistake that when a pregnant mother is dying, her body will systematically choose to shut down each and every last one of her other vital organs in order to preserve the life of the child she carries? What difference is there really between the child when it is in the mother's womb or not? I'll give you a hint: *Warning: Spoiler Space* ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! I understand that you have the right to believe whatever you want to believe, and that no one should be able to take that right away from you....but I would really like you to please explain this to me, and show me the logic behind your reasoning. Because right now I guess I'm just not seeing it.

i think that when we start taking away peoples freedom over their own bodies, it is the begining of the end of human freedoms.

Yes! You're absolutely correct! But what I think you're missing is that abortion takes away the unborn child's right to live. It's no different than murder -- when you unjustly take away the right of another innocent person to live. And if it's acceptable to kill the fetus just because the mother doesn't want to care for it, then why can't she also kill her younger children if she doesn't want to have to care for them? After all, they're still her children. Right? Show me where I've gone wrong in following your logic. This could really turn out to be a very good discussion.

the church says it wants to help ease suffering, yet because of its policies regarding the use of birth control and condoms, they have seriously contributed to the number of unwanted births and spread of disease in the world.

I'll get back to you on that one....but only after we have finished the above discussion. If you don't recognize the individual life of the fetus as a human being, than I really can't start debating you on the morality, ethics, and reality of what birth control really is, what it does to the relationship between man and woman, and why the Church has decided to place a firm foot down strongly against it.

[spg_1983]

A person is not often a world solely to himself; the actions and beliefs of those we surround are selves with most often affect us to a degree we may not be entirely aware of. To say you have come to your own conclusions is one matter to say they were entirely due to your own reflection and study seems to insinuate a lack of precise expression or understanding.

im sorry but do you know me? did you grow up with me? i have spent most of my life struggling with the question of religion and god. my conclusions ARE due to my own reflection and study. i have examined the various religions thouroughly and made my decisions on what seems right to me, so dont you dare try saying i lack understanding because ive made my own choices and not just done what other people say or believed what they tell me to believe.

If you think that slaughter and brutal wars began with catholicism or that it was the worst offender I suggest you find a class taught by a very lliberal(for a lack of a better word. nothing against the democrats; both sides have their extreme) professor that won't let facts get in the way of a good paper. And if you want to say these acts were most often done under the banner of some god or another, then I would have to agree. A popular non-theistic religion of any type did not exist until recently and leaders often use anything they can to rally support for their interests.

my point was that more wars have been carried out in the name of god than any other. wars in the name of god are responsible for more deaths than any other cause in the history of man.
[/QUOTE]

What policies would those be? Does the church burn condoms? Does it pressure governments to illegalize them? In many countries where aids and dangerous population growth is a huge problem the people are lucky enough just to get clean water or food. I don't think classes on safe sex would make the situation all that better. If local war lords sometimes have problems letting average international aid through I'm sure they'll be A-OK with truck load of condoms.

as a matter of fact the church does pressure governments to illegalize condoms. it is due soley to the pressure of the the church that the AIDS efforts in africa no longer give out condoms. the church is responsible for that. and it is a proven fact that classes on safe sex help immensley, far more so than the churchs abstinence classes which dont do squat to help the situation

Wow. I mean wow. Pick any flag of just about any country older than 100 years and you could find a reason to say the same.

and that changes the validity of my statement how?

I wouldn't, but you could look at it as symbolic cannibalism. If someone wants look at that way I wont waste time arguing.

well obviously you do or else you wouldnt have mentioned it

If you're speaking of abortion there are those of us who feel denying an unborn child the chance to live is taking a life. If an outside party where to choose weather or not a pregnant mother was to live or die and choose the latter he may be well likely to be charged with two murders.(this is the case in more than a few countries) If the mother chooses to end the life of a fetus( Definition )before it begins it's abortion. The body of a mother to be is no longer solely her own.

you have your beliefs and i have mine, i dont feel a fetus is a seperate life until it is actually seperate from the mother. when the fetus is growing, it grows off the mother, its not like a chicken egg where it is seperate and grows on its own, it is actually attached and part of the mother and there for it is part of her body

For a being "so far beyond our human understanding" you seem to think you understand him well enough to say "that the need to have people acknowledge his existence through prayer and worship would be so incredible petty to him it is ridiculous to think about." Everything I've read in the bible would at least suggest it's more of a preference.

well since i dont believe in god, i make no claim to understand him, the point i was making was that a god capable of creating everything in existence would be so fare beyond human understanding and description, everything we attribute to him in terms of attitude and way of thinking is impossibly small, we couldnt even begin to understand how it thinks

[puddlejumper747]

as a matter of fact the church does pressure governments to illegalize condoms.

Yes. But why? Because (for reasons that I don't quite feel we're ready to start discussing yet -- but I can if you really want me too) the Church teaches that all forms of birth control, of deliberately preventing the conception of human life during the procreative act, are gravely immoral. So you're saying that they are hypocritical for not allowing the promotion of condoms and birth control in other countries? You're suggesting that instead they should just allow the widespread distribution of birth control, even though they believe that it is immoral? That it's somehow morally acceptable for them to do something evil now, just because the end result might bring about a greater good? (And take note: The true effectiveness of birth control to stop the spread of STDs is in fact a very long way from being proven anywhere near as effective as you claim.) That would truly be hypocritical. And that's why the Church won't allow it.

[spg_1983]

Yes. But why? Because (for reasons that I don't quite feel we're ready to start discussing yet -- but I can if you really want me too) the Church teaches that all forms of birth control, of deliberately preventing the conception of human life during the procreative act, are gravely immoral. So you're saying that they are hypocritical for not allowing the promotion of condoms and birth control in other countries? You're suggesting that instead they should just allow the widespread distribution of birth control, even though they believe that it is immoral? That it's somehow morally acceptable for them to do something evil now, just because the end result might bring about a greater good? (And take note: The true effectiveness of birth control to stop the spread of STDs is in fact a very long way from being proven anywhere near as effective as you claim.) That would truly be hypocritical. And that's why the Church won't allow it.

is it more immoral to stop conception or to contribute to the spread of AIDS and other STDs? i understand the churches position on premarital sex, but the fact is people are going to have sex, it doesnt matter what the church believes, but if they would stop living in the dark ages and join the modern world, they could actually do something to help the people of the world instead of just condeming them. the church could do so much good in the fight against AIDS and diseases, just by allowing and stopping the condemnation of contraceptives.

[LordAnubis]

It would seem that way, wouldn't it? But it's not true....in the OT and NT, God is one and the same. The key is that you really have to understand what the culture was like back then. Long ago during the Old Testament times, the world was full of pagan people worshiping their "powerful gods"...even Moses was originally from one of those pagan families. The only way to get people's attention in that society was through power, with the people demonstrating their loyalty through sacrifices and offerings. That's how God revealed himself to Moses -- as a powerful omnipotent God beyond all other pagan gods -- because that's how Moses would understand Him. God tested Moses' faith in Him by asking him to sacrifice his only son Isaac as an offering to Him. Why? Because in that culture, child sacrifice to pagan gods was nothing new. Moses already knew that the other gods demanded similar things of their followers....so why couldn't the true God ask the same from him? But all God really wanted was for Moses to demonstrate that he was just as completely devoted to Him as others around him were to their pagan gods. When Moses had proved that He was completely willing to follow God, then God stepped in and showed him His mercy -- Isaac was spared, because God had really never wanted a human sacrifice at all....only a proof of Moses' obedience to show that he truly was the person fit to lead His Chosen People. Through Moses, God established His original Covenant with the Jews. The whole purpose of Judaism was for them to become a special group ("God's Chosen People"), in preparation for the coming of the Savior that had been promised to Adam and Eve. The Jewish people were essentially a very young, immature (culturally speaking), and vulnerable group of people. Any interaction whatsoever with the outside pagan world could (and most probably would -- though only God could have known for sure) have easily corrupted the Jews and caused them to fall away from their faith to the one true God. And there are many instances in Scripture where we can see that this is the case (so much so to the point that 10 of the original 12 tribes of Israel were completely lost forever when they disobeyed God's law, and were assimilated by intermarrying themselves with the Assyrians). God literally had to step in and provide protection to His Chosen People, much as a parent has to occasionally step in to protect, instruct, and/or discipline their child so that they do not learn the wrong thing. And it's not like God was only an instructor and disciplinarian in the OT -- we also see many other times when He shows His mercy to other people such as the Ninevites. God's personality is perfectly consistent throughout the Bible. The Jewish people were simply the way that God was going to build up and prepare the world for the ultimate climax of His Redemption plan: the coming of the Messiah, God's Son, to destroy original sin and re-open the gates of Heaven for all of mankind. But before that point, the world and the culture that existed there simply weren't ready the Messiah. God knew that He had to prepare and protect this elite group of people until they were ready for the coming of His Son to fulfull the Old Covenant, and save the world through the establishment of His New Covenant and His Universal Church on Earth.
On the contrary....one of the greatest things about this life is that we can learn so much about God and His nature. It's not that we are "stupid", it's that we can only learn so much information at a time. But because God is infinite, there is absolutely no limit as to how much we can understand about Him -- no matter how much we know, there is always an infinite amount of knowledge that we still can learn in our study about Him. Our only real limit is that we can only live this life for a certain amount of time....and there is only so much information that we can learn during that period of time. In Heaven, we will have an infinite amount of time to learn more about an infinite God -- but we'll never be done. We may certainly be infinitely less than God, but God created us because He loved us infinitely for who we are, and desires for us to become more and more like him if we will only choose to follow Him and return His love as best we can.
Close....but quite. The Bible is inspired and infallible. It is the Word of God, in all of it's infinite complexity and perfection. First, let me give you the definition of Inspiration: "The Holy Spirit Himself, by His supernatural power, impelled the biblical writers to write, and assisted them while writing, so that they conceived in their minds exactly, and committed to writing in exact language, with infallible truth, all that God commanded and nothing else." The Bible is Inspired. The Scriptural authors wrote down for us exactly what God wanted then to write down, but of course through their own personal writing style. Scripture is also infallible, everything that it says is absolutely true -- but you have be sure that you clearly understand what this means. Infallibility in Scripture is only guaranteed so that the author wrote down for us exactly what he meant to write down....the complete truth of what he says is completly conveyed, but only from his prespective -- what he truly meant to say to us when he wrote it down. The best example I can think of is the flood story. In it, we are told that the flood "covered the whole Earth". But did it? Science tells us that such an event would truly be impossible given how we know now -- the tremendous amount of water that would required and the compression/pressure effects such a large body or water would have upon the atmosphere....not to mention the severe lack of evidence that such an event ever happened. The key is that we have to understand the original author's prespective on the situation. Very little of the world had been explored at that time....so to the author, the entire world was flooded. Every part of the land that his society and he himself knew about was covered by the flood. It was the entire known world that was flooded. But the biblical author didn't know that -- he couldn't have. So he wrote down for us exactly what he percieved as the complete truth. Scripture isn't wrong, it's just that we are usually approaching it from the wrong direction, and need help in understanding it's true sense and context, and the truth which it conveys to us. And because Scripture is the Word of God, it really wouldn't be much of an understatement to say that it is also infinite -- there is always something more that we can learn about it and it's deeper meanings. And the even better part is that we have the advantage of Christ's Church here on Earth to help us out, and to ensure us that we do not stray away form the truth, especially with how many different translations we have of the Bible today. After all....that's precisely what it was established for.

Sorry, I was only trying to say that you can't live by science alone and that you need faith. Didn't mean to offend anyone

[puddlejumper747]

is it more immoral to stop conception or to contribute to the spread of AIDS and other STDs?

Neither one of those options is really any much better than the other....but in this case, it really doesn't matter. Just because the Church doesn't allow birth control doesn't mean that they are also directly contributing to the spread of AIDS and other STDs. The are other perfectly acceptable and moral methods of preventing the spread of these diseases, so those are the methods that the Church is going to pursue. And it's not like allowing or rejecting birth control are the only two options out there. You can actually argue a very strong case that birth control devices are actually contributing more to the spread of STDs than they are effective in preventing it -- because now these people suddenly think that they are somehow perfectly "immune" to STDs if they use birth control. Many independent studies have actually concluded that this is in fact the case (But of course the media isn't actually going to tell you that, because then the birth control companies might start to lose all of the MONEY that they get by engouraging people to continue in these immoral lifestyles with the use of their products....), and that pursuing education in abstinence is actually more effective in the long run, because the people suddenly begin to understand that they are responsible for their own actions, and that they should really think twice before continuing their lifestyle in this fashion -- especially with the elevated risk of STDs in their country. These people aren't stupid. They aren't just like some wild animals that are somehow completely incapable of making an informed decision on their own and living with consequences. Abstinence alone may certainly not be enough of a solution (some people are obviously just going to do whatever they want to do no matter what you tell them)....but there are still plenty of other effective and perfectly acceptable methods out there, so those are what the Church is ultimately going to choose to pursue. Is that unreasonable?

[LordAnubis]

is it more immoral to stop conception or to contribute to the spread of AIDS and other STDs? i understand the churches position on premarital sex, but the fact is people are going to have sex, it doesnt matter what the church believes, but if they would stop living in the dark ages and join the modern world, they could actually do something to help the people of the world instead of just condeming them. the church could do so much good in the fight against AIDS and diseases, just by allowing and stopping the condemnation of contraceptives.

I think the issue is more responsibility than anything else. Catholics, like many other religions, feel that sexual intercourse should be something special for the explicit purpose of procreation. Other, more liberal religions, feel sexual intercourse is okay between two consenting adults. Many religions feel prophylactics, like condoms and birth control pills, are wrong because they: (1) Encourage irresponsible sexual behaviour; (2) prevent procreation; and (3) encourage irresponsible behaviour in general (e.g., hey, even though what I'm doing is wrong, I can just slip a rubber on and don'thave to worry about squat!).

The fact of the matter is, many religions do zealously try to prevent birth control, but not for the reason of preventing STDs and HIV, or from removing choice. They do so in order to promote responsibility.

In all honesty, if you're horny, there are a ton of other things you and your partner could do to satisfy your urges. You don't need to have sexual intercourse. I know this sounds preachy, but in a way, encouraging condom use is like encouraging sex. Sure, you say, they're gonna do it anyway, why not be protected? Why not just send the social message that wanton sexual intercourse is something animals do, not intelligent human beings. Why not send the right social message to people rather than giving them the "act irresponsible and use the magic pill" rationale that's so prevalent in the US. This is the rationale that goes like this: You have a guy who is overweight and has high cholesterol; he eats like crap. His doctor puts him on Lipitor, or some other medication, to reduce his cholesterol. Rather than take the medication and improve his diet, he continues to eat bad and says to himself: "Hey, I can eat whatever I want now cuz I'm taking Lipitor and it'll make my cholesterol go away." He continues to stuff his fat ass with greasy fried foods and then pops a magic pill. Is it any surprise when he suffers a massive myocardial infarction, stroke, or simply keels over dead? Nah, it's not. But hey, the magic pill cures all. An easy fix. You're unemployed and lazy and consequently depressed. Rather than act responsibly and taking control over your life, you see some quack who prescribes you Zoloft or Paxil or Effexor or Zyprexa. Now you can continue to lead a pathetic life and take a magic happy pill.

Same with birth control pills and condoms. If you don't have sex, this would not be an issue. Unless you're some kind of animal with no control over your body, you don't need to have sexual intercourse. Like I said, there are other fun and healthy alternatives to full blown (heh, excuse the pun) intercourse.

Now, on that line of reasoning, when Christians get in your face and preach that any non-marital sexual contact, including masturbation, is sinful, they are flat out wrong. I agree, sexual intercourse, for the purpose of non-procreation, is wrong and pointless, but sexual contact with another human being, or yourself, is NOT unhealthy or sinful. None of that Onan crap in the Bibel says that either. That passage has been misconstrued and misinterpreted for years. A human being is not an animal and should exercise responsibility.

[spg_1983]

Neither one of those options is really any much better than the other....but in this case, it really doesn't matter. Just because the Church doesn't allow birth control doesn't mean that they are also directly contributing to the spread of AIDS and other STDs. The are other perfectly acceptable and moral methods of preventing the spread of these diseases, so those are the methods that the Church is going to pursue. And it's not like allowing or rejecting birth control are the only two options out there. You can actually argue a very strong case that birth control devices are actually contributing more to the spread of STDs than they are effective in preventing it -- because now these people suddenly think that they are somehow perfectly "immune" to STDs if they use birth control. Many independent studies have actually concluded that this is in fact the case (But of course the media isn't actually going to tell you that, because then the birth control companies might start to lose all of the MONEY that they get by engouraging people to continue in these immoral lifestyles with the use of their products....), and that pursuing education in abstinence is actually more effective in the long run, because the people suddenly begin to understand that they are responsible for their own actions, and that they should really think twice before continuing their lifestyle in this fashion -- especially with the elevated risk of STDs in their country. These people aren't stupid. They aren't just like some wild animals that are somehow completely incapable of making an informed decision on their own and living with consequences. Abstinence alone may certainly not be enough of a solution (some people are obviously just going to do whatever they want to do no matter what you tell them)....but there are still plenty of other effective and perfectly acceptable methods out there, so those are what the Church is ultimately going to choose to pursue. Is that unreasonable?

what studies exactly are you refering to? becuse i consider myself very well informed on this issue, and all the extensive research and srudies ive read in medical journals regarding the spread and growth of STD's and AIDS shows that abstinence education has virtually no positive effect on the spread of STD's and there is data, inconclusive as of yet to be sure, that abstinence education actually contributes to the spread, especially in urban areas, because the people see it as a joke. on the other hand there is overwhelming evidence that contracptive training and support helps decrease the spread of STD's, but i would like to read whatever studies you are refering to though because all the reputable journals and studies ive read on the matter support contraceptive use as a more effective solution

[spg_1983]

I think the issue is more responsibility than anything else. Catholics, like many other religions, feel that sexual intercourse should be something special for the explicit purpose of procreation. Other, more liberal religions, feel sexual intercourse is okay between two consenting adults. Many religions feel prophylactics, like condoms and birth control pills, are wrong because they: (1) Encourage irresponsible sexual behaviour; (2) prevent procreation; and (3) encourage irresponsible behaviour in general (e.g., hey, even though what I'm doing is wrong, I can just slip a rubber on and don'thave to worry about squat!).

The fact of the matter is, many religions do zealously try to prevent birth control, but not for the reason of preventing STDs and HIV, or from removing choice. They do so in order to promote responsibility.

In all honesty, if you're horny, there are a ton of other things you and your partner could do to satisfy your urges. You don't need to have sexual intercourse. I know this sounds preachy, but in a way, encouraging condom use is like encouraging sex. Sure, you say, they're gonna do it anyway, why not be protected? Why not just send the social message that wanton sexual intercourse is something animals do, not intelligent human beings. Why not send the right social message to people rather than giving them the "act irresponsible and use the magic pill" rationale that's so prevalent in the US. This is the rationale that goes like this: You have a guy who is overweight and has high cholesterol; he eats like crap. His doctor puts him on Lipitor, or some other medication, to reduce his cholesterol. Rather than take the medication and improve his diet, he continues to eat bad and says to himself: "Hey, I can eat whatever I want now cuz I'm taking Lipitor and it'll make my cholesterol go away." He continues to stuff his fat ass with greasy fried foods and then pops a magic pill. Is it any surprise when he suffers a massive myocardial infarction, stroke, or simply keels over dead? Nah, it's not. But hey, the magic pill cures all. An easy fix. You're unemployed and lazy and consequently depressed. Rather than act responsibly and taking control over your life, you see some quack who prescribes you Zoloft or Paxil or Effexor or Zyprexa. Now you can continue to lead a pathetic life and take a magic happy pill.

Same with birth control pills and condoms. If you don't have sex, this would not be an issue. Unless you're some kind of animal with no control over your body, you don't need to have sexual intercourse. Like I said, there are other fun and healthy alternatives to full blown (heh, excuse the pun) intercourse.

Now, on that line of reasoning, when Christians get in your face and preach that any non-marital sexual contact, including masturbation, is sinful, they are flat out wrong. I agree, sexual intercourse, for the purpose of non-procreation, is wrong and pointless, but sexual contact with another human being, or yourself, is NOT unhealthy or sinful. None of that Onan crap in the Bibel says that either. That passage has been misconstrued and misinterpreted for years. A human being is not an animal and should exercise responsibility.

well thats where i disagree on the issue. sex is not wrong between two consenting adults regardless of marriage. ive been having sex regularly since i was 15 and i dont consider myself a bad person. i resent the implication (not your LordAnubis, the churches) that i am some how unclean or evil for doing sex. sex is a fun, enjoyable, natural act and anyone that tries to say it isnt, either hasnt experienced it or is trying to delude themselve. there is nothing wrong with sex at all and society needs to realize this.

[LordAnubis]

You are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, aboundant in steadfast love, and ready to relent from punishing.
Jonah, 4:2b

Could this ever be said of a Goa'uld?

What did God want from people? Let's take a look.

6. "With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before God on high?
Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,
with calves a year old?
7. Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
with ten thousands of rivers of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8.He has told you, O mortal, what is good;
and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

Can you picture a Goa'uld saying that? I can't

The Ten commandments, stripped of later priestly additions:
1. I'm God
2. Don't worship anyone else
3. Don't create idols
4. Don't swear
5. Keep the Sabbath as a day of rest
6. Honor your parents
7. Don't kill
8. Don't steal
9. Don't lie
10. Don't be jealous

The first three, I could see a Goa'uld giving as commandments. The other seven? No.

The rest of the legal code is convoluted and seems harsh to our modern ears. "An eye for an eye" is far worse punishment than our society ever metes out on its transgressors. But lets compare it with other legal codes that preceded it, shall we? In other codes, rich men had more rights than poor; slaves had almost none at all. A poor man who cut off a rich man's hand would be executed; a rich man who cut off a poor man's hand received a small fine. In the laws given to Moses, by contrast, relative social standing was irrelevant. Justice was blind, or at least supposed to be. Those who could not protect themselves received protection from God and the Law. If the Goa'uld bothered to set up such a detailed legal code, they would have set it up to maximise their exploitation of people--not to protect the weak from exploitation.

God spends most of the OT pleading with his people to be good. To do the right thing. To value justice. And only after that failed, did he bring in the heavy guns.

Something to remember about the Old Testament is that the world was a harsh place. The people were a harsh people, and how they perceived God (and, therefore, what they wrote down about him) reflected this. They were more likely to fault God for being too merciful, than being too harsh. Yet, often the voice of God is one calling not fo wrath and judgment, but repentence and mercy. Jonah tried to ignore the Lord's command to go to Ninevah (an enemy of Israel) and preach the Lord's word--why? Because the people repented of their evil ways (note, they were not followers of God either before or after Jonah's visit; their religious beliefs were not relevant). The people of Ninevah changed their ways, became more just, and God spared them. Jonah was furious! He wanted God to smite the sinners! The above quote was a bitter complaint!

Why did God smite the people he smote? Idolatry was never the only problem. Usually, injustice and evil were at least as (often more so) troubling to God. Things like taking advantage of widows and orphans and strangers and the poor. Ninevah, which God spared, did not worship him; neither did Soddom and Gommorah, which God would have spared had there been even five good men in the city. Unfortunately for the inhabitants, there was only one.



I think you meant Abraham Few hundred years difference there, though your other points are good.



Ah, yes, the dictaphone theory of Bible composition.

I would disagree here. Were they inspired? Yes. Did God set down every word for them? No. God works through people, you see, and people have free will. Their thoughts wishes, and perceptions shaped the way they wrote, and how they wrote it, and what they thought God wanted them to do. And God almost certainly adapted what he wanted to say to their world-view--he had to make sense to them at least in some fashion, or they would ignore him.

Thing is, we don't share those cultural norms and perceptions that shaped the Bible. Which is why Biblical archaeology, ancient history, and modern textual analysis are so crucial to an understanding of God's Word--they give us the knowledge to at least make a guess about how the Israelites perceptions shaped their view of God, and what they wrote down of Him. Which then allows us to adapt that to our (very different) culture.

Okay, sarcasm aside, Beatrice, do you know what I was trying to convey in my previous post? I wasn't saying God was like a Goa'uld, but rather, that in certain passages of the OT, God seems to be a childish, demanding, and very HUMAN deity; he's jealous and angry and vengeful.

My GOD is none of those things. My God is an omnipotent, kind, caring, and loving being who knows I'm a flawed human being with urges, desires, and weaknesses. My God has no desire to punish people who don't deserve wrath. My God does not murder children or innocents. My God doesn't flood the Earth cuz he's pissed. My God doesn't get jealous because I erroneously worship a golden calf. My God is understanding; he would never ask me to slaughter my own child, regardless of my previous religions. My God would never allow Satan to KILL my entire family and ruin my life and strip me of my wealth in order to prove to Satan that I'm loyal and have faith for faith's sake (See Job's trials and tribulations).

If one were uninformed, and knew only the Old Testament, one could infer that God was an angry, jealous little child who used human beings as his own play thing. On the other hand, one could see that God was testing us and showing us the righteous path, right? Like many things, the Bible can be open to interpretation. The OT is a more difficult read for many and often is the basis for rejecting religion.

So, to answer your question, I can absolutely see Apophis saying to Teal'c, kill Rya'c to prove to me your undivided loyalty. I can see Ra becoming irate if the Abydoisians worshiped Anubis rather than him. I can see Nirriti punishing her "subjects" for Idol worship. Hell yes.

God is the ultimate good; he is also way beyond our level of understanding. God wants your love, but God does not want you to divest yourself of your life, possessions, or family in order to SERVE Him or Worship Him. The word worship is misused. You should Adore God, not serve Him, for he is not your master; he is to be revered, not served. You are not a slave. A relationship with God is one of love and adoration, not one of domination or control. If you read the OT, however, you could get the wrong impression.

That was my point.

[LordAnubis]

what studies exactly are you refering to? becuse i consider myself very well informed on this issue, and all the extensive research and srudies ive read in medical journals regarding the spread and growth of STD's and AIDS shows that abstinence education has virtually no positive effect on the spread of STD's and there is data, inconclusive as of yet to be sure, that abstinence education actually contributes to the spread, especially in urban areas, because the people see it as a joke. on the other hand there is overwhelming evidence that contracptive training and support helps decrease the spread of STD's, but i would like to read whatever studies you are refering to though because all the reputable journals and studies ive read on the matter support contraceptive use as a more effective solution

spg, the issue is teaching responsibility, which is different from abstinence. Those that teach abstinence often forget that we are human beings. Human beings are biological beings: we need food, water, warmth, shelter. We need to relieve ourselves from waste material. We need sexual gratification. Like it or not, that is who we are and what we are. Physical beings.

The Uber Christian right will say abstain from sex and control your body, but you can't masturbate, you can't fantasize, etc., for that is sinful. That is a complete crock of crap. People don't need to act like animals and hump each other without being responsible, but sexual contact is not sinful and it's part of being human.

Condoms still encourage intercourse, which, IMO, should be DISCOURAGED on a majorly social level, same with smoking, eating unhealthy, etc. I agree in freedom and would never say make these things illegal or to deprive you of your rights, but I believe religion and non-religious agencies should actively encourage kids and adults alike to behave responsibly and if they did, this wouldn't be an issue. Abstinence from intercourse, yes; from sex entirely, IT WON'T HAPPEN!

[LordAnubis]

well thats where i disagree on the issue. sex is not wrong between two consenting adults regardless of marriage. ive been having sex regularly since i was 15 and i dont consider myself a bad person. i resent the implication (not your LordAnubis, the churches) that i am some how unclean or evil for doing sex. sex is a fun, enjoyable, natural act and anyone that tries to say it isnt, either hasnt experienced it or is trying to delude themselve. there is nothing wrong with sex at all and society needs to realize this.

Dude, that was my point. Read above ^^^.

I agree with that. Many Christians would have you believe that taking matters into your own hands, fooling around with your girlfriend/boyfriend, if you're not married (non-intercourse), oral sex, etc., are sinful things. They are not. They are biological urges just like eating, drinking, peeing, etc. I mean, if you don't eat, you will die. If you don't have a sexual release, you won't die, but your body enjoys it, it doesn't hurt anyone, and it feels good, plus, at least for males, you need that release to help reduce stress, eliminate that fluid build up, etc. It's not unnatural and it's NOT unhealthy. There is nothing wrong with being horny, and doing something about it. It's not unhealthy or sinful to fool around, in a non-intercourse, way, with a gf/bf. It's a good thing and I think God understands and doesn't care. Where I think it's bad is when people, especially young people, just have random or even planned sexual intercourse and act like a condom or a pill makes them safe from the possible consequences.

All that fear, guilt, and sin crap is pure rubbish. It's no wonder more and more Europeans and Americans are leaving organized churches. Rather than help us promote responsibility, many religions make us feel guilty for being human friggin' beings. You are what you are. You are not a wild animal, so don't act like one. However, God wants you to enjoy life and feel pleasure. He doesn't get upset when you watch Stargate, go for a drive in the country, eat chocolate, or have a nice restful nap. Why would he care if you tossed one off or had fun with your partner, without intercourse? An ejaculation without intercourse is NOT murder, nor is it procreation. An ovulation without intercourse is NOT murder, nor is it procreation. A female having a menstrual period is not sinning, so why should a male having a release of seminal fluid?

A healthy mind is a happy mind and a happy body.

[spg_1983]

Condoms still encourage intercourse

condoms dont encourage sex, they encourage SAFE sex. its still up to the people involved to make the decision. giving someone a condom doesnt make them have sex, it gives them an option to be safe if they CHOOSE to have sex. my parents gave me condoms when i was 14 so i could be safe if i CHOSE to have sex, but i didnt make that choice till almost 2 years later. condoms dont influence people to have sex, just to do it safely.