Assess The Magnitude Of The Threat To Modern-Day Chrstianity?

IT Loser

Conversions, forced or otherwise?

Islamic Extremism, Wahhabi Prosletysation in Ethiopia?

Muslim Intolerance, Religious Racism in Egypt?

Internal Strife:- Protestant v Catholic, Orthodox vs Roman?

An Indifferent, Sneering RTE and Other Media Outlets?

A Brutal Police Regime in China?

Evangelists in Brazil?

Child Abuse Scandals?

Know-It-All Attitude of Christian Youth?

Political Correctness?

Dictators in Catholic Countries {Venezuela, Chile, Argentina}

Please weigh in with your thoughts.

Sapien

Reason.

IT Loser

Reason...therefore, must be a threat to all Religions, no?Or is that...unreasonable?

Sapien

IT Loser wrote:

Reason...therefore, must be a threat to all Religions, no?

Pretty much.

robindch

> Reason...therefore, must be a threat to all Religions, no?

Yes. Look at the way that most religious leaders in the USA treat biologists, for one sad example of unreason treating reason as a direct threat:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/religion.asp

IT Loser

Okay then, if REASON be a threat to ALL...what Threat is SPECIFIC {or more specific} to the Modern Global Christian community.

What Islam gives with the left, it takes away with the right. Moderate tolerance, followed by prosletysation and forced conversions. Rules on religion of children of mixed-faith marriages etc

The Schismatic nature of the Church.?- Subdivisions of Divisions within Presbyterianism?

The Orthodox vs the Roman Church? -See Constantinople 1204 AD.

robindch

> Okay then, if REASON be a threat to ALL...what Threat is SPECIFIC {or
> more specific} to the Modern Global Christian community.

There's no such thing as the "Modern Global Christian community".

There are tens of thousands of different sects, though, most of which claim to be as authentic as all the other ones are false. Given this huge variety of religious species, it seems that the chances that all of them will die out over time is virtually zero, especially when you look at how rapidly some of them are evolving -- the religious industries in the USA, again, being a fine example of rapid evolution occurring before our eyes.

> What Islam gives with the left, it takes away with the right. Moderate
> tolerance, followed by prosletysation and forced conversions. Rules on
> religion of children of mixed-faith marriages etc

All these customs were, and many still are, being practiced by various christian sects. The last one, for example: it's still the case that if somebody marries a catholic in a catholic church, the couple must promise to raise any kids as catholics. Different religion, same evolutionary adaption -- a neat demonstration of convergent evolution.

I don't believe that there's any imminent threat to religious belief itself -- it seems to be hardwired into many people's brains. But as to threats to christianity, well, all religions are all fighting for the same belief space within people's brains and which one will "win" really comes down to deciding which one will be able to adapt itself to humanity better than any other one. At the moment, I'd be tempted to place my money on Islam being a better evolutionary candidate than christianity since it's been at the decentralization game for longer than baptist/presbyternism has been. But then again, Islam has a tendency to acquire civil administrative rights over time, with the consequent social misery that the application of anti-social laws causes, and that will act against it. Catholicism, with its centralized and glacier-like adminstrative heart, is likely to die out over time, as it simply won't be able to adapt fast enough.

I'd love to come back in 500 years time and see how the religions managed to slug it out.

Dades

In 500 years time I'd be particularly interested to see how the global depletion (or loss) of oil affects the balance, particularly in the middle east.

To answer the OP, I would say within the confine of religion, the Christian Church itself is the biggest threat to itself. I doubt more people leave Chritianity for Islam, than leave out of disillusionment or simple disagreement.

That said, if the Chinese authorities were more religiously tolerant, there is a virtually endless pool of believers just itching the take up the West's favorite faith. I'm talking about the ones in the paddy fields, though, rather than those in Shanghai or wherever already embracing what the West's other favorite religion.

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

> I'd love to come back in 500 years time and see how the religions managed to slug it out.

*as he spins his wheel*

Excellent post, good summary. I can indeed see the glacier-like adminstrative heart expiring over time, and this coldness does appear to be accelerating under leadership of the new Boss--no Vatican Charity concert this year springs to mind.
I don't see the religion expiring. I think it has become such a central core of peoples lives that it will continue. The real question for me is wither or not it will be driven by the people themselves, or will they still require a clergy to act as their guides and interface? If they do, IMO they are back where they started and will continue in this loop indefinitely until they can shake off the need to have an intermediary. I know very little of Islam, it is so far removed from the world as this Buddhist sees it to make anything I say irrelevant.

the Atheist wrote:

To answer the OP, I would say within the confine of religion, the Christian Church itself is the biggest threat to itself. I doubt more people leave Chritianity for Islam, than leave out of disillusionment or simple disagreement.

Another very true observation, just slots right in with what I and I think Robindch have more or less said in different ways.

This is not an attack on the religion, it is accepted that people have every right to practice whatever faith they wish too. For me, the problem occurs when a belief system placed a buffer layer between the practitioner and the deity. Then its just a matter of time before corruption starts to occur.

robindch

> The real question for me is wither or not it will be driven by the people
> themselves, or will they still require a clergy to act as their guides
> and interface?

I would imagine it would stay much the same as it is now - much the same as it always has been -- with a paid clergy who either (a) *is* the local civil adminstration itself and funds itself, or who (b) provides justification for civil administration in return for cash or (c) exists outside the civil administration and is funded by the local population.

As in my earlier post, from a cultural evolution point of view, option (c) is the most attractive (and therefore the one which will come to dominate) since it permits a religious market-place to exist with multiple service-providers, each advertizing for believers as though it were the end of the world, which it certainly will be for the religious service-provider concerned, if they fail to capture enough believers to self-sustain over time. And that's what's happening in the USA. The fact that it's all gloriously tax-free is not hindering their frantic marketing efforts, as AnswersInGenesis is amply demonstrating. (hmmm... maybe christianity will take over after all, given that I've seen their marketing departments doing the rounds all over the world, and have seen very few islamic marketers...)

Also, at a personal, rather than cultural level, a lot of traditional religious activities and beliefs (and much else besides) seems to map directly from our innate biological habit of seeking to inhabit exclusive well-formed hierarchies of one kind or another. So from this, it seems that there'll always be some skilled people who'll be as happy to slot themselves in at top of a religious pyramid, as there are lots more who'll be happy to place themselves at the bottom and fund the top, as they're told to or motivated to (er, by the top).

All in all, it's quite a cosy arrangement which has withstood the iron tests of Time and Economics and I don't see any reason for it to change much. Unless of course, some nutter decides to take his beliefs at face value and will attempt to bring on the end of the world for himself and the rest of us. Which is probably what's going to happen sooner or later unfortunately.

IT Loser

I do not agree with the monolithic tag which has been applied to the Catholic core {assumed to be in Rome?}

Urban II relief of Constantinople in 1086 {Remembered as the Crusade which took Jerusalem} in effect guaranteed the continued existence of the Eastern Christian Empire for some 400 additional years.

Was this the intention? Perhaps not, the intentions were mixed. Alexius Comnenus hoped for a military force to patrol his borders. The Pope hoped for Jerusalem to be returned to the Christian fold. Bohemond, Godfrey etc wished to carve out extra territories, or prinicpalities.

All of this is ancillary. What remains constant is the energy of the Roman Church at a time when all of Europe languished in a violent torpor of sorts.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps the core is rotten or frozen or both. But the limbs? Did not the Catholic Monarchs of Spain {Los Reyes Catolicos} almost singlehandedly reserve South America for Christianity?

I do not think that the Core is gathering cobwebs like people feel it is. Surely JP II was as open as could possibly be? This of course open to discussion. JP II wasn't very Homophilic of course, but is courting Political-Correctos the way to go? Perhaps "Begging On Bended Knee" the warring Factions of Christian Ireland was as good as we can expect things to get.

Perhaps, Perhaps not.

Granted, Islam has a few tricks up its sleeve. Like a virus it tries to shift and change to suit its new surroundings. But surely! Mecca and Medina, and the oppressive regimes of the Houses of Al Saud are as Spartan and as Monolithic as any?

Thank you for the comments so far.

mountainyman

The threat as always is Satan.

In the west consumerism is used. The devil piles up pretty baubles to distract from God. His Priests are everywhere and his Cathedral is in Dundrum.

The devil uses racism to drive a wedge betwen the faithful. This stops people from gaining strength from the faith of African immigrants.

The false worship of Baphomet (another mask of the devil) is growing we know it under the name Islam - submission to the will of Satan. God does not want submissive slaves, the devil does and tells us so.

He has corrupted the true Catholic Church and led the leaders of protestantism away from him and into liberal error as we see in Western Anglicanism (thank God for Africa where the faith being newer it is not grown weak- one could also say where the devil having been thrown out more recently he has not crept back in).

What is needed to strengthen Christianity is a greater awareness of satan and his presence in this world and that Hell is only a heartbeat away.

MM

Sapien wrote:

Reason.

DO NOT ENGAGE IN DISCUSSION WITH THIS PERSON SHE IS A COMPLETE TIMEWASTER.

Sapien

mountainyman wrote:

DO NOT ENGAGE IN DISCUSSION WITH THIS PERSON SHE IS A COMPLETE TIMEWASTER.

Huzzah!

robindch

> I do not agree with the monolithic tag which has been applied to
> the Catholic core {assumed to be in Rome?}

The church asserts its own centrality and unity, though, like any good religion, it does vary from place to place , because it has to, otherwise it will lose believers to other religions which do cater better for local tastes. Compare, for example, irish catholicism with jesuit catholicism, with black african, with ukrainian uniate, etc, etc.

> Surely JP II was as open as could possibly be?

I think you've really missed the point of what I wrote. The question is not related to "openness" or anything else. It's all about how institutions can guarantee that they will continue, which is what the original question was.

The church needs to attract and maintain believers to stay alive, as individual believers die. Cultural expectations change over time, so that means that the way that the church attracts and maintains believers must change too. Having lots of little churches makes it more likely that a believer will find a some small church they like, rather than some large one (unless people are motivated also by the desire for membership of a powerful collective, which is certainly the case in some people). Anyhow, since churches generally no longer run societies, the large ones are dying out (see the UK), and lots of small churches are taking their place. And evolution is the reason why.

> JP II wasn't very Homophilic of course, but is courting Political-Correctos
> the way to go?

Promoting homophobia is an evolutionary strategy used by plenty of religions. In the balance, it it's worth doing, because lots of people are homophobic, and religions are just mirrors of local expectations, because they have to. If, as a church, you're able to appeal to enough people, then you stay alive. If you don't, then you die and some other church which *is* able to retain believers will take your place.

Make sense?

Dades

mountainyman wrote:

thank God for Africa where the faith being newer it is not grown weak- one could also say where the devil having been thrown out more recently he has not crept back in.

Africans! Thank God for your sub 50-year life expectancy!

IT Loser

Please do not drag this down to one fine element of The Church and Africa. Thank you.

I accept the point about institutions keeping themselves alive. Perhaps in the wake of what the World witnessed in Saint Peters Sq in March and April of 2004, it could be said, that, for the moment, the Church has appealed to enough of the people. Maybe that was a JP II thing, I can't say.

Ratzinger doesn't look like the man to build on it, I'll concede that much.

Maybe its as much a question of keeping what you've got and hoping to hold onto it until attitudes, moods, etc change.

I think one of the other things we need to confront is the seeming inability of the Church {Rome} to agree with its foreign-based representatives. Bish. Oscar Romero did not have Church backing.

Infuriatingly, foreign Priests who tow proper, but utterly futile Church Policy {like, Sin causes Aids, not the absence of condoms} are backed up to the hilt.

This has to change.

Sin {promiscuity} is sin, yes...but AIDS is AIDS.

And a dead Christian, heaven bound or not, is no use to the rest of us.

Peace.

UU

IMO the biggest threat that religious fanatics see is possibly other fanatical religions and of course rationalism. Of course, blind faith is a threat to rationalism also.

Well, it is obvious that a true democratic society must be a secular state. That is, no religions are in power and trying to control politics and social affairs. Basically, there must be a division of church and state which I strongly am in favour of. Of course secularism would be seen as a threat to religions but I think, one the contrary, a country run by one religion is wrong and undemocratic. Maybe democracy itself is also a threat to religion? In our society, religion doesn't play as big a role is it once did (which is a relief). In many ways, it has been replaced by consumerism. It is true that materialism and consumerism of the West isn't perfect but nothing is perfect. I'd choose a materialistic, secular society any day over some faith-driven hell hole like Saudi Arabia for example. Mountainyman waffled on about the devil and sin in his previous post - blah blah blah :rolleyes: is my response. But maybe he ought to look into how religion (the fanatical sort) is destroying Africa before he dares preach on about "the faith being newer it is not grown weak". The insanity of religion there is a threat to itself. A non-weak religion like some of the Christian cults that exist there a perform "Satanic" exorcisms on young children.

I should state: Because it's true what they say "It's Better The Devil You Know". I'd choose a secularist consumer driven society any day over some religious nutjob group trying to run our society.

Scofflaw

IT Loser wrote:

Urban II relief of Constantinople in 1086 {Remembered as the Crusade which took Jerusalem} in effect guaranteed the continued existence of the Eastern Christian Empire for some 400 additional years.

Was this the intention? Perhaps not, the intentions were mixed. Alexius Comnenus hoped for a military force to patrol his borders. The Pope hoped for Jerusalem to be returned to the Christian fold. Bohemond, Godfrey etc wished to carve out extra territories, or prinicpalities.

You seem to be glossing over the major achievements of the Fourth Crusade - in which Venice, as the price of ferrying the Crusaders to Egypt, diverted them into an attack on Constantinople, which, being successful, cut the administrative heart out of the Eastern Roman Empire, balkanized its provinces into private fiefdoms of warlords, and is generally considered to have destroyed any chance the Empire had of resisting the Ottomans?

IT Loser wrote:

Granted, Islam has a few tricks up its sleeve. Like a virus it tries to shift and change to suit its new surroundings. But surely! Mecca and Medina, and the oppressive regimes of the Houses of Al Saud are as Spartan and as Monolithic as any?

Well, yes, but they're a particularly Spartan and puritanical variant - Wahabi Islam.

Islam settled pretty comfortably and gently into SE Asia - it is becoming radicalised (cf the Bali bombings), but the causes of that are not entirely internal.

Not that this is a threat to Christianity - indeed, to some extent, intolerant Islam is Christianity's last best hope.

Intolerant Christianity, on the other hand, is in this day and age the biggest threat to all Christianity - ask around, and you'll find that most of the ex-Christian atheists and agnostics on this board (and most of those I've met) have rejected Christianity for no other reason than its own intolerance and irrationality.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> [IT Loser] Infuriatingly, foreign Priests who tow proper, but utterly futile Church Policy
> {like, Sin causes Aids, not the absence of condoms} are backed up to the hilt.

The catholic church is a political institution and like any institution that's been around for a long time, it's collected a pile of political baggage which it finds very difficult to get rid of, despite simple the simple fact that less people would die if it did. If it did get rid of these policies, it would massively damage its political credibility (or "moral leadership" in its own curious vocabulary) in the eyes of the hierarchically-minded people who populate its aisles. And it's made a (conscious or unconscious) judgement-call that it'll do better in the long run by sticking to its policies and leaving people die, than by changing them and losing religious street-cred.

Or it could that, bearing in mind the current schismatic problems which beset the Anglican church over its acceptance of gay bishops, the catholic church has simply borne in mind the church's old adage:

if you have to choose between schism and declaring a heresy to be true, pick the heresy

...where in this case, the heresy is that preaching abstinence works better than recommending safe sex.

robindch

> [The Atheist] Africans! Thank God for your sub 50-year life expectancy!

...just on the beeb news this evening, there was a report about the king of Swaziland who's in the middle of his annual wife-choosing ceremony:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4283932.stm (last year's one)

Swaziland is 85% christian, and a country where around 40% of the population (15-49) have AIDS and the average healthy life expectancy for males is 31 years. One can only wonder whether it's too late for Swaziland and how it might have been different if the church had preached safe sex, instead of no sex.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

One can only wonder whether it's too late for Swaziland and how it might have been different if the church had preached safe sex, instead of no sex.

Robin I wish you would stop with these half truths. The Christianity teaches that sex practiced within the confines of a monogamous marriage relationship is right and proper. It does not teach no sex.

The result of going against this teaching: country where around 40% of the population (15-49) have AIDS and the average healthy life expectancy for males is 31 years.

Sapien

BrianCalgary wrote:

Robin I wish you would stop with these half truths. The Christianity teaches that sex practiced within the confines of a monogamous marriage relationship is right and proper. It does not teach no sex.

The result of going against this teaching: country where around 40% of the population (15-49) have AIDS and the average healthy life expectancy for males is 31 years.

So AIDS is a consequence extra-marital sex. Do you not agree that condom use would reduce this consequence?

BrianCalgary

Sapien wrote:

So AIDS is a consequence extra-marital sex. Do you not agree that condom use would reduce this consequence?

Not convinced.

Sapien

BrianCalgary wrote:

Not convinced.

Brian suddenly parsimonious.

You are not convinced that condoms prevent the transmission of AIDS? That, I must say, is an exotic opinion. Where do you get your information?

robindch

> The Christianity teaches that sex practiced within the confines of a
> monogamous marriage relationship is right and proper. It does not teach
> no sex.

Oops, I should have read my last post properly before clicking on 'Submit'!

You are, of course, correct -- most christian churches instruct their believers to have sex only when married, and only with their spouse, and many of those churches say that sex exists only for the purposes of producing kids and shouldn't occur except with that in mind. And, of course, it stands to reason that if you don't have sex, you probably won't catch AIDS. And if you never get into a car, you probably won't die in a car accident. And if you don't smoke, you probably won't die of lung cancer (why don't the churches launch a crusade against smoking? I didn't understand that one for a long time...).

But, anyhow, the problem is that people do have sex, despite what they're told by their local clergy. And when they do have sex, they are unsafe, because they are probably unaware of the dangers and have probably been lied to about condoms (ie, they've been told that condoms do not reduce the risk of transmission of the virus). And the result of that lack of education, or frank miseducation, gives the frightful figures we see.

We've already produced the figures before, but to reiterate them: in places where christian religions dictate sex education, rates of STD's, abortions, unwanted pregnancies etc are always higher, sometimes spectacularly so.

The conclusion -- when you misinform, or fail to inform, people about safe sex, the results are disastrous. And when you give people the information to make an informed judgement, the results are equally clear.

So a question: if you're in a situation where you were asked to provide advice about sex, would you say to lay off until married, or would you advise abstention, but if that wasn't possible, would you advise condom use?

Scofflaw

Sapien wrote:

Brian suddenly parsimonious.

You are not convinced that condoms prevent the transmission of AIDS? That, I must say, is an exotic opinion. Where do you get your information?

Thabo Mbeki.

impudently,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Robin I wish you would stop with these half truths. The Christianity teaches that sex practiced within the confines of a monogamous marriage relationship is right and proper. It does not teach no sex.

The result of going against this teaching: country where around 40% of the population (15-49) have AIDS and the average healthy life expectancy for males is 31 years.

Amazing. Ireland has a 40% AIDS rate? The UK has a 31 year life expectancy? One datapoint doth not a hypothesis make...


cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Swaziland is 85% christian, and a country where around 40% of the population (15-49) have AIDS and the average healthy life expectancy for males is 31 years. One can only wonder whether it's too late for Swaziland and how it might have been different if the church had preached safe sex, instead of no sex.

I think this illustrates the point I often make that what is calls itself Christian is known by its fruit. The ungodly living of many Africans in the matter of sex has brought upon themselves - and their innocent partners and children - a holocaust. It is seen to a lesser, but still significant, extent in the West.

The problem is not that any church - genuine or not - preaches abstinence; the problem is what the people practise. Real Christians should not need safe sex, if they abstain from sex while single and they and their spouse are faithful in marriage. Let the real Christians get on with real Christianity. Let the ungodly do what they think best. If folk were honest Christians or honest heathens, they could prevent the spread of disease in their own families.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

I think this illustrates the point I often make that what is calls itself Christian is known by its fruit. The ungodly living of many Africans in the matter of sex has brought upon themselves - and their innocent partners and children - a holocaust. It is seen to a lesser, but still significant, extent in the West.

The problem is not that any church - genuine or not - preaches abstinence; the problem is what the people practise. Real Christians should not need safe sex, if they abstain from sex while single and they and their spouse are faithful in marriage. Let the real Christians get on with real Christianity. Let the ungodly do what they think best. If folk were honest Christians or honest heathens, they could prevent the spread of disease in their own families.

Again, this implies that those nations (like the UK) that are generally considered pretty godless (and absolutely have huge pre-marital sex rates) should have high AIDS rates - unless we either accept that the effect is actually minor, or that the UK is evidently much more Christian than it seems, because it has a low AIDS rate...

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

You are, of course, correct -- most christian churches instruct their believers to have sex only when married, and only with their spouse, and many of those churches say that sex exists only for the purposes of producing kids and shouldn't occur except with that in mind. ?

You need to distinguish between the teachings of Christianity and the teachings of a particular church. Christianity does not teach that sex is for reproduction only.

robindch wrote:

And, of course, it stands to reason that if you don't have sex, you probably won't catch AIDS. And if you never get into a car, you probably won't die in a car accident. And if you don't smoke, you probably won't die of lung cancer (why don't the churches launch a crusade against smoking? I didn't understand that one for a long time...).?

If you don't have sex ouside of marriage you won't contract AIDS from sex. I'm all for the don't smoke campaign.:)

robindch wrote:

But, anyhow, the problem is that people do have sex, despite what they're told by their local clergy. And when they do have sex, they are unsafe, because they are probably unaware of the dangers and have probably been lied to about condoms (ie, they've been told that condoms do not reduce the risk of transmission of the virus). And the result of that lack of education, or frank miseducation, gives the frightful figures we see.

Quite a few assumptions here. The dangers of illicet sex are taught quite well in our schools, the problem is that the message of, but go ahead and do it anyway, is prevalent as well. And you had better use a condom.

robindch wrote:

So a question: if you're in a situation where you were asked to provide advice about sex, would you say to lay off until married, or would you advise abstention, but if that wasn't possible, would you advise condom use?

I would advise and do: wait until you are married. Period. End of discussion.

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

Amazing. Ireland has a 40% AIDS rate? The UK has a 31 year life expectancy? One datapoint doth not a hypothesis make...


cordially,
Scofflaw

the country that these stats refer to is Swaziland. Courtesy of Robin.

robindch

> You need to distinguish between the teachings of Christianity and the
> teachings of a particular church. Christianity does not teach that sex is
> for reproduction only.

Yes, that's why I included the "many of those churches" qualifier. Certainly, as far as I can understand the vatican's position, sex is only supposed to be used for reproduction and to that end, there's an explicit requirement for fecundity (lots of kids) placed upon the shoulders of its willing flock. There are plenty of other churches that don't say that, with just as much justification as the vatican does say it (ie, none)

> I would advise and do: wait until you are married. Period. End of discussion.

So -- despite knowing well that plenty of people ignore the advice of "no sex before marriage" and suffer the unpleasant or fatal consequences -- you would still never advise them to use condoms?

robindch

> the country that these stats refer to is Swaziland.

I think the point that Scofflaw was making is that you can't say that ignoring religious rules increases disease, because Ireland generally ignores the dominant religion's notions of sex and it does not have a 40% AIDS rate.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

So -- despite knowing well that plenty of people ignore the advice of "no sex before marriage" and suffer the unpleasant or fatal consequences -- you would still never advise them to use condoms?

if they ask for my advice it is thereby given. If one isn't going to pay attention to the no sex advice, why would they listen to the use condom advice?

Unfortunately the old saying of keep asking as many priests as possible until you find one that says OK, would come into play. People will do what they want regardless of advice given.

robindch

> why would they listen to the use condom advice?

Because it's not stopping them from having sex, which is what humans want to do.

Look at what happened when conservatives forced through Prohibition in the USA -- complete social disaster. The same is happening now with sex-ed in conservative regions of the USA -- public health is in pieces.

> People will do what they want regardless of advice given.

So why do you bother to give the advice then, if you know it's going to be ignored?

Why not have some concern for their health and just drop the "no sex until marriage" bit -- since you admit that it doesn't work -- and tell them to use condoms, for reasons of public health alone?

From where I'm sitting, it looks like you're placing distribution of your own ideas on morals ahead of other people's health, which is a distinctly selfish thing to do in my book.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

the country that these stats refer to is Swaziland. Courtesy of Robin.

Er, yes - that's exactly the point. These figures do not apply to Ireland or the UK, depsite their levels of extra-marital sex. Therefore, your explanation of the figures - that extra-marital sex promotes AIDS - is clearly inadequate.

What you have of a case is this:

In a perfect world, where every person had sex only with their spouse, and unmarried people had no sex at all, it is logically the case that STD's will find it virtually impossible to spread.

Therefore, logically, it should follow that strict observance of Christian mores will reduce the spread of STD's. The more people observe the no-extra-marital-sex rule, the slower the spread of STD's, because there are far fewer "connections" between the points of the spreading network.


So far so good. However, the perfect world described above has never been observed.

If people will have sex outside marriage, then STD's will spread. It is clear from the antiquity and widespread prevalence of STD's that people do have sex outside marriage.

It is therefore the case that urging people not to have extra-marital sex is positive, but inadequate in the real world.

So now we come to a stumbler - what else can we do? Well, what else explains the lower AIDS rates in other countries equally afflicted by extra-marital sex? It's not better public health, because AIDS has been incurable throughout most of its existence.

Condom use is negatively correlated with AIDS transmission - the more condom use, the less AIDS. BArrier prevention works.


Now, here'e the kicker - the same people who are spreading one positive message - be more Christian, have less extra-marital sex - are simultaneously fighting the other positive message - be safer, use a condom.

This is what makes any Christian claim to be concerned for the welfare of AIDS-ridden countries ring hollow. You want people to be more Christian so that they're more Christian, and not for any other reason.

If a cigarette company claimed that they promoted the message "dont' get fat - smoke instead" out of concern for the welfare of the obese, I would have no hesitation in calling them vile hypocrites.

If you believe that spiritual welfare is more important than physical welfare, and that spiritual welfare is somehow damaged by the use of condoms, say so - otherwise you too are a vile hypocrite.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> why would they listen to the use condom advice?

Because it's not stopping them from having sex, which is what humans want to do.

Look at what happened when conservatives forced through Prohibition in the USA -- complete social disaster. The same is happening now with sex-ed in conservative regions of the USA -- public health is in pieces.

> People will do what they want regardless of advice given.

So why do you bother to give the advice then, if you know it's going to be ignored?

Why not have some concern for their health and just drop the "no sex until marriage" bit -- since you admit that it doesn't work -- and tell them to use condoms, for reasons of public health alone?

From where I'm sitting, it looks like you're placing distribution of your own ideas on morals ahead of other people's health, which is a distinctly selfish thing to do in my book.

Not at all. IF I am asked for advice I GIVE IT. It is very simple. It is then up to the person to heed it or not. They then will suffer the consequences or reap the benefits of their decided course of action.

The ideas and morals that I use are not my own but those of the creator of all things, God Himself. I do have concern for health, physical and emotional and SPIRITUAL. Sex before marriage damages emotional and spiritual and can damage physical.

I have not admitted that it doesn't work, Robin, please do not put words into my mouth. If someone wants to engage in sex before marriage or outside of marriage they will whether or not anyone advises against it.

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

If a cigarette company claimed that they promoted the message "dont' get fat - smoke instead" out of concern for the welfare of the obese, I would have no hesitation in calling them vile hypocrites.

If you believe that spiritual welfare is more important than physical welfare, and that spiritual welfare is somehow damaged by the use of condoms, say so - otherwise you too are a vile hypocrite.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw, I hope that you don't really mean this about me being a vile hypocrite?

I am far more concerned with peoples eternal salvation then anything else. That means doing what I can to bring them into a relationship with Christ. It means caring about their spiritual health. It means caring about their emotional health. It means caring about their physical health.

Ultimately people have to choose for themselves. Sex outside of marriage is forbidden by God, because He knows the consequences that come about by such actions. Since I mean the above statement how can I advise otherwise? It would be hypocritical of me to not follow the instuctions of God. If someone where to ask if they shouls smoke: my response is no based upon the biblical principle of you body being a temple of the Holy Spirit and to take care of that temple. But, if somone wants to ignore said advice and smoke anyway, there is now much I can do their either.

robindch

> I have not admitted that it doesn't work, Robin, please do not put words
> into my mouth. If someone wants to engage in sex before marriage or
> outside of marriage they will whether or not anyone advises against it.

I don't want to sound excessively picky (hey, I'm good at that!) but when you say that "they will whether or not anyone advises against it", you are admitting straight up that your advice is ignored, meaning that your advice does not do what it's intented to do, which means that your advice does not work. I trust you can follow this reasonable train of logic here.

So, again, why do you provide advice it in the full knowledge that your advice will be ignored? Even out of a concern for basic public health, why do you not tell people that if they want to ignore your advice about their soul, that they should not ignore advice about their health?

And more to the point, are you frequently in a position where you are called upon to provide this advice, either as a mentor, or as a teacher?

UU

BrianCalgary wrote:

Sex before marriage damages emotional and spiritual and can damage physical.

Sorry Brian but that is some generalised statement that you have just conjured up which isn't even supported by evidence so sorry. Let me ask you then, did you remain a pure white virgin before you married? How many people in reality actually do? Not many it seems. :rolleyes:

Teenagers will try to have sex. It is NATURAL. Most people are sexual and will have sexual desires to have sex with somebody. To deny that is unnatural. Considering these days people often get married in their late 20s / early 30s so they're supposed to stay celebate for over ten years from the start of puberty? If people just use condoms, then what's the big deal?

In my opinion, I think religion tries to control people with sex. It is so obvious. It is their means of exerting power over people. They should keep their noses out of it as they're causing more problems than it's worth. Religions should focus on what they're supposed to focus on - spirituality not sex.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Again, this implies that those nations (like the UK) that are generally considered pretty godless (and absolutely have huge pre-marital sex rates) should have high AIDS rates - unless we either accept that the effect is actually minor, or that the UK is evidently much more Christian than it seems, because it has a low AIDS rate...

Good point. The answer is that it is only the particular type of godlessness (sexual immorality) that is revelant. And the physical outcome of such immoral conduct is modified by two practical factors: condom use and the pool of infected sexual partners.

Africa is notorious for sexual promiscuity, but the UK today is not too far behind. So the main factors that have limited (to date) the AIDS rate would seem to be condom use and a much smaller pool of infected people. I don't see the former becoming any more popular than it is today; it may even tail off as HIV becomes less feared with the success of anti-retrovirals. But as the infected pool increases, the rate will go up, if sexual behaviour remains constant.

Africa's problem came from an unwillingness to change sexual behaviour and the reluctance to use condoms. So the pool increased rapidly. The most significant check has been where promiscuity has been actively discouraged.

BTW, I'm not opposed to folk being taught that condom use reduces the risk of AIDS, but the difficulty comes where it leaves the impression that it is the answer. It is not. Mechanical and operational failures often happen. Better by far to encourage faithfulness in marriage as the only proper sexual outlet.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

I don't want to sound excessively picky (hey, I'm good at that!) but when you say that "they will whether or not anyone advises against it", you are admitting straight up that your advice is ignored, meaning that your advice does not do what it's intented to do, which means that your advice does not work. I trust you can follow this reasonable train of logic here.?

the bit that you miss is that I am not God and have no idea who would and who wouldn't going to take my advice. There are some that would and some that wouldn't. Those that wouldn't take my advice I daresay wouldn't take it on condom use either.

robindch wrote:

So, again, why do you provide advice it in the full knowledge that your advice will be ignored?

Because I don't know who will or won't take it or not.

robindch wrote:

Even out of a concern for basic public health, why do you not tell people that if they want to ignore your advice about their soul, that they should not ignore advice about their health?



And more to the point, are you frequently in a position where you are called upon to provide this advice, either as a mentor, or as a teacher?

I think that the above two paragraphs fall into th esame category. In my 7 years working with teenagers at my church I have never been asked by anybody if they should have sex outside of marriage or whether they should use condoms. I have only responded to your question: So a question: if you're in a situation where you were asked to provide advice about sex, would you say to lay off until married, or would you advise abstention, but if that wasn't possible, would you advise condom use? that starts with an "if", implying a hypothetical situation.

BrianCalgary

UU wrote:

Sorry Brian but that is some generalised statement that you have just conjured up which isn't even supported by evidence so sorry. Let me ask you then, did you remain a pure white virgin before you married? How many people in reality actually do? Not many it seems. :rolleyes: .

Sorry UU, none of your business.:(

UU wrote:

Teenagers will try to have sex. It is NATURAL. Most people are sexual and will have sexual desires to have sex with somebody. To deny that is unnatural. Considering these days people often get married in their late 20s / early 30s so they're supposed to stay celebate for over ten years from the start of puberty? If people just use condoms, then what's the big deal? .

It is also natural to want to cheat on exams. Should we allow that? God asks us to go against our natural desires and show restraint and self control. When i am away from home I have natural desires, I go against them and just wait it out.

You last statement re condoms and just use them. They are not completely safe. I am aware of some kids who are the result of condom holes. AIDS and STD's are reduced through condom use, but aren't eliminated. So that is the big deal, you want to play Russian roulette with your health, that's Ok, but why would you instruct others to?

UU wrote:

In my opinion, I think religion tries to control people with sex. It is so obvious. It is their means of exerting power over people. They should keep their noses out of it as they're causing more problems than it's worth. Religions should focus on what they're supposed to focus on - spirituality not sex.

Your opinion is way off here. The only church that I am aware of that mentions sex to any great extent is the RC church. So in keeping with your desires the churches do stay out of peoples bedrooms. What I see is the immorality of people causing even greater problems with the high rate of STD's and abortions and such by not practising abstainance.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

BTW, I'm not opposed to folk being taught that condom use reduces the risk of AIDS, but the difficulty comes where it leaves the impression that it is the answer. It is not. Mechanical and operational failures often happen. Better by far to encourage faithfulness in marriage as the only proper sexual outlet.

Hmm. Better by far to do both, I think.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Scofflaw, I hope that you don't really mean this about me being a vile hypocrite?

No, I don't, because...

BrianCalgary wrote:

I am far more concerned with peoples eternal salvation then anything else. That means doing what I can to bring them into a relationship with Christ. It means caring about their spiritual health. It means caring about their emotional health. It means caring about their physical health.

...you are prepared to state that you value spiritual welfare over all. I may disagree with your priorities, but they are entirely comprehensible given your faith.

I may have got slightly carried away there, but it's the logical conclusion - nothing personal was intended!

BrianCalgary wrote:

Ultimately people have to choose for themselves. Sex outside of marriage is forbidden by God, because He knows the consequences that come about by such actions. Since I mean the above statement how can I advise otherwise? It would be hypocritical of me to not follow the instuctions of God. If someone where to ask if they shouls smoke: my response is no based upon the biblical principle of you body being a temple of the Holy Spirit and to take care of that temple. But, if somone wants to ignore said advice and smoke anyway, there is now much I can do their either.

Exactly. Except that of course I take issue with this bit:

BrianCalgary wrote:

Sex outside of marriage is forbidden by God, because He knows the consequences that come about by such actions.

This takes us back to a functionalist argument for God's prohibitions. Unfortunately, such a position is often demonstrably counterfactual (since many of God's prohibitions are clearly not functional) and also counter-productive.

It may seem a good thing to argue the functional aspects of God's requirements when faced with unbelievers, but frankly it's usually a perversion of both religion and science to do so. God's requirements may occasionally be in line with what is demonstrably the best policy option, but that is accidental - to argue otherwise requires a level of denial of facts that puts one outside the reach of rational discourse.

cordially,
Scofflaw

UU

BrianCalgary wrote:

It is also natural to want to cheat on exams. Should we allow that? God asks us to go against our natural desires and show restraint and self control. When i am away from home I have natural desires, I go against them and just wait it out.

You last statement re condoms and just use them. They are not completely safe. I am aware of some kids who are the result of condom holes. AIDS and STD's are reduced through condom use, but aren't eliminated. So that is the big deal, you want to play Russian roulette with your health, that's Ok, but why would you instruct others to?

Well when one cheats an exam, they will most of the time feel bad for what they done because they knew it was wrong. How is sex wrong? It is a part of who we are as humans. Remember: not everyone gets married. The only reason for sex according to God is for procreation so if one is not producing babies, they shouldn't be having sex. Of course, sex is pleasurable and shows a physical bond between two people. I am against one-night stands because most of the time they can cause hurt, pain and can abuse sex. Yet, there are many unmarried couples who love each other and want to have sex and who are you to tell them that they can't.

Condoms are better than no condoms. They aren't 100% safe all the time. But nothing is perfect. Personally, if I was having sex with somebody, I'd prefer to use condoms. Safe sex is very important in this day and age.

Look, you are entitled to your own views on sex and all according to your religion and I'm entitled to mine. But what happens between two consenting adults is really their own personal business. That is why homosexual acts were decriminalised in many countries throughout the world because you can't make something a crime because you feel it is a sin.

Your opinion is way off here. The only church that I am aware of that mentions sex to any great extent is the RC church. So in keeping with your desires the churches do stay out of peoples bedrooms. What I see is the immorality of people causing even greater problems with the high rate of STD's and abortions and such by not practising abstainance.

Look, there is a line between what works in theory and what works in practise (reality). Abstainance doesn't work and never will as it denies the natural human sexual desires and also causes many problems such as sexual fustration which has been proven clearly by many Catholic priests and nuns to result in serious consequences. We must accept what is - there are people with STDs, people do have abortions (some for the wrong reason, others for acceptable reasons). The thing that churches can do for the best is to be there as support for these people who have gone through trauma rather than condemning them. Help them in the way Jesus told his followers. It isn't a Christian's place judge I thought anyway but rather God's judgement (if you're theist that is). And there are "religious" people out there who picket around with signs saying "Thank God for AIDS". If anyone is to be condemned, they should be.

robindch

> [...] have no idea who would and who wouldn't take my advice. [...]
> Those that wouldn't take my advice I daresay wouldn't take it on condom
> use either.

I think you're quite wrong here because you are assuming that people who won't accept your religious views, won't accept any medical advice you provide also. I think people are smart enough to work out for themselves the difference between the two. The same with your knowledge about, for example, football -- I'll probably happily take your advice on any matter related to the game, but in matters, for example, of biology, I will seek alternate sources.

Do you see the difference between the two types of "knowledge"?

> In my 7 years working with teenagers at my church I have never been
> asked by anybody if they should have sex outside of marriage or whether
> they should use condoms.

I presume from the roundabout phrasing in the this sentence that you have been asked other questions about sex, but are unwilling to mention either what the questions are, or how you've replied to them. Is this correct, or not?

> What I see is the immorality of people causing even greater problems with
> the high rate of STD's and abortions and such by not practising abstainance.

"Immorality" does not cause high rates of STD's and abortions. Engaging in unsafe sex does. And unsafe sex happens when the people do not appreciate that they should engage in safe sex because they are either uninformed or misinformed. It's a quite straightfoward link which a recent study of 12,000 teenagers in the USA pointed out -- almost 90% of "pledgers" had sex before marriage, but were far more likely to be unsafe about it. And that's leaving aside the fact that the abortion rate in abstinence-obsessed USA is around three times higher than liberal Holland; that the teenage pregnancy rate is around five times higher, and the rate of gonorrhea is around fifty times higher.

Out of interest, do you believe that the clear evidence that abstinence does not work has any validity? Or do you believe that it is more important to continue on a course of action which does not work and demonstrably leaves people with serious diseases, unwanted pregnacies and abortions?

BTW, I'd like to say that I believe that wolfsbane's position is the correct one -- abstain if you can, but if you can't for whatever reason, then make sure you do it safely.

ISAW

IT Loser wrote:

Conversions, forced or otherwise?

Islamic Extremism, Wahhabi Prosletysation in Ethiopia?

Muslim Intolerance, Religious Racism in Egypt?

i dont see how you maintain these are a threat to the christian church. How do you see them as such?

Internal Strife:- Protestant v Catholic, Orthodox vs Roman?

Could you list the "strife "? As I understand it Rome gets on very well with the Anglican Communion and the Orthodox churches.

An Indifferent, Sneering RTE and Other Media Outlets?

But how (even in Ireland) is this a threat to the church as you suggest?

A Brutal Police Regime in China?

The chinese official roman catholic church (or any other one for that matter) is really only an extention of the communist party. How are they a threat as you claim to Christianity?

Evangelists in Brazil?

so what? how are they a threat?

Child Abuse Scandals?

Ah now here you have something! the fact that members of the church (whether clergy or lay people) abused others isnt the point here however. The fact that orgainsations in the church covered it up is the point! Now would you like to list where it was covered up and the church did not eventually have to do something about it? If so you have a point . If not then how is it a threat?

Know-It-All Attitude of Christian Youth?

Political Correctness?

afgain show how it is a threat.

Dictators in Catholic Countries {Venezuela, Chile, Argentina}

chaves isnt a dictator. Pinochet and Peron were thirty years ago. How are they a threat to the church?
Please weigh in with your thoughts.[/QUOTE]

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

It is also natural to want to cheat on exams. Should we allow that?

The argument that it is natural/unnatural (the unnatural argument used against homosexuality) is a bit of dead end really.

Everything is technically natural, or part of human nature. It is human nature to be racist and xeniphobic, but then it is also human nature to eat food, and urinate.

So a blank "its nature, allow it", or "its unnatural, don't allow it" isn't going to work.

One needs to look at why we allow or disallow certain things in society.

There is actually nothing wrong with cheating on a test, unless it is a requirement of the test that you don't. No one is going to give a crap if you cheat on a Cosmo test about how good a lover you are. But if it is then by cheating someone is breaking the predefined rules of the test they are taking part in and it is important they follow those rules, that is an issue. One would say that if you aren't going to follow the rules then don't take the test in the first place. If you agree to take the test you agree not to cheat, and if you then do cheat you have broken an agreement.

None of this is particularly applicable to sex. I suppose it could be applicable to relationships, in that most people in relationships agree to be faithful to each other, and if one breaks that agreement it is considered a bad thing. If you don't want to be faithful don't get into a relationship with someone who expects you to.

So what is actually wrong with sex?

The argument that it is risky unless you only have sex within a marriage framework is, while true, quite impractical for most people. You begin to develop a biological urge to have sex when you are a teenager. Someone might not get married until their 30s, or even never. But they most likely will have relationships with that time. Simply not having sex during that time is not practicle proposition, any more than saying "I'm just not going to eat food this week"

The idea that one should not have sex in that time because they might catch an STD is a bit like saying one abstain from driving a car because they might crash. You certainly might crash, but it is considered impractical not to drive a car, you will miss out on so much, that one takes the risk of a car crash.

Now there is a big difference between being a safe responsible driver, and being one that breaks the speed limit and drinks and drives. Obviously the chances that the second person will be involved in a hidious car accident are much high. Of course the 2nd person could crash into the 1st person, and they both end up in trouble, but again the 1st person realises that there are people out there like driver 2 and takes care to avoid them.

What does this have to do with sex?

Well it is actually a very similar set up. Obviously some people are going to be so nervous about the idea of catching an STD that simply refuse to have sex unless they can be sure they won't get one (sex within marriage where your partner is a virgin and you have both had STD tests, just in case). But for most people that is about as practical as saying they won't ever own a car, they will only walk everywhere. Most people assess the risks of sex and weight that up against the benefits, as they do with driving.

Of course, just as with driving, some people can be very sensible about this, while others can be quite reckless. Some people have STD tests before they sleep with a person in a new relationship, and move from monogamous relationship to mongamous relationship. Some people have lots of sex with lots of different people without protect (this is the same as the drunk drivers above, and intrestingly drink can be a factor in both cases).

Unfortunatetly, just as with car drivers, the reckless people and the responsible people are all in the same system together. So once in a while someone who is very responsible is going to run into a reckless person and something bad is going to happen, just as driver 1 can still be in a car crash with driver 2. But most people would still argue that that is not a reason to abstain from driving, and most people would argue as well that that is not a reason not to have sex, though it would be a reason to be even more careful doing both (not at the same time, obviously).

BrianCalgary wrote:

They are not completely safe. I am aware of some kids who are the result of condom holes. AIDS and STD's are reduced through condom use, but aren't eliminated. So that is the big deal, you want to play Russian roulette with your health, that's Ok, but why would you instruct others to?

Why would anyone teach someone else to drive a car in this day and age. You are pretty much signing their death warrent. Do you know how many people die each year on Irish roads? Hundreds upon hundreds. Far far far more than HIV, Hepetius and cervical cancer combined. It seems appauling that anyone would drive a car, let alone teach someone else how to. Driving is not safe, it isn't even kinda safe. It is flat out dangerous. The only sure way to protect yourself is to simply not drive, ever.

See, it doesn't seem as reasonable an arguement when applied to something much more dangerous but also much more open, like driving. Everyone drives (do you drive?), and most people are at least aware that they must drive responsible or risk injury or death. Yet each week we still have approx 5-10 peolpe die in Ireland due to this. We keep driving. And as far as I'm aware none of the churches have called for people to abstain from driving completely for their own health and well being.

It is possible that someone could simply refuse to drive, because they do not want to run the risk that they would cause an accident, or be in an accident (and considering the average driver is in 3 minor accidents in their life time that is a pretty much given). But most people will drive. How many priests abstain from driving a car because of the risks? How many priests would claim God does not want you to drive a car because of the risks?

The fact of the matter is that there is nothing wrong with driving until you crash. There is nothing wrong with sex until you sleep with someone with an STD, or get someone pregnent. I both cases people take (or at least should take) steps to educate themselves of the risks and what can be done to limit those risks. But not driving is not an option. And neither is simply not having sex.

The key is education. And that is something that the different Judeo/Christian churchs have been fighting to stop. It would be completely ridicious for the government to state that we are not going to provide a seat belt road safey compain because we do not wish to encourage people to actually drive cars, or to imply driving a car can be safe. People all ready drive cars, people want to driver cars. And some people will die this weekend because of this. Simply telling people "don't drive, you might die" is not going to work. You might possibly lessen the number who will die if you increase awareness of safety and increase education.

ISAW

robindch wrote:

[The catholic church is a political institution and like any institution that's been around for a long time, it's collected a pile of political baggage which it finds very difficult to get rid of, despite simple the simple fact that less people would die if it did. If it did get rid of these policies, it would massively damage its political credibility (or "moral leadership" in its own curious vocabulary) in the eyes of the hierarchically-minded people who populate its aisles.

the VATICAN is a political institution and is fairly flat as a hierarchy. the CHURCH has not necessity for a vatican state. Christians believe in sex in loving relationships. This does not equate to a "free Love" and sex with whoever you met last night. I really hasnt anything to do with the contraception issue. as such it is quite rational and reasonable for any church to say they favour monagamy over condoms. It wouldnt make any sence for them to say "we oppose robbing banks but if you are going to rob a band use a semi automatic rather than an automatic weapon" or "if you are going to kill someone please kill them as quick as possible and dont torture them beforehand" they oppose killing and stealing and not whether it is a lesser form of stealing or robbing. two wrongs do not make a right.

Or it could that, bearing in mind the current schismatic problems which beset the Anglican church over its acceptance of gay bishops, the catholic church has simply borne in mind the church's old adage:...where in this case, the heresy is that preaching abstinence works better than recommending safe sex.

It is 100 percent true that if one didnt have sex one would not get HIV from sex. It is a certainly much safwer way not to contract HIV than to have sex and use a condom.

How is anything you say about AIDS a threat to the Church?

ISAW

Sapien wrote:

So AIDS is a consequence extra-marital sex. Do you not agree that condom use would reduce this consequence?

Do you not agree that it would have been better in canada if the student used an handgun rather than an automatic weapon? He might not have killed as many people. so do you therefore conclude that the church should back people having handguns as opposed going the whole way and supporting automatic weapons based on the idea that hand gun use would reduce the consequent nuber of deaths? The church just can suggest that doing a lesser wrong is berrer than a worse wrong. Two wrongs do not a right make.