User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 51

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    No, I'd rather have the institute stay stagnant and fizzle out that way. So some more modern movements can have their 15 minutes.
    Either of the things you've mentioned, the RCC betraying their first principles or being usurped from their role by so called modern movements would be bad for an already majority morally bankrupt world.

  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquarelle99 View Post
    Anything that helps prevent the spread of AIDS is good with me. It's not only an issue of the Catholic church-- condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS is something that all churches should recommend, in my opinion. Sure, some may say that an individual with AIDS shouldn't be sexually active at all. But if the individual's partner is aware of the risk and okay with the risk, than that's their choice, and if the couple is going to have sex anyway, they should definitely use condoms.

    I don't see this as so much of an issue for gay men-- since the church's stance (which I do not share, but that's beside the point) is against homosexual sex and extramarital sex, gay men who are sexually active with other men probably are not concerned about the church's stance on condom use. But for a Catholic, married, heterosexual couple in which one spouse is HIV-positive, one of 3 things is probably happening currently: 1) They aren't having sex, 2) They are having unprotected sex and risking the infection of the uninfected partner AND also risking a pregnancy, in which case the child may be born with HIV, or 3) They are using condoms despite the church's stance on condom use, and possibly worrying that they are going to Hell for that.

    I am aware that the official position of some religions is that sex should only be for the purpose of procreation, but frankly option 1, within the confines of marriage, is unrealistic. Option 2 is just terrible, and hopefully most people would not consider this option. Option 3 is the most likely, so if a whole bunch of people can be reassured by a religious figure that they respect that they are making the moral choice within their circumstances, that is a good thing.
    I agree with you that it is not only the RCC which has suggested that abstaining from sex is a major way of preventing the spread of AIDS since I'm actually much more familiar with this stance being adopted by other Churches, including US churches and large charitable foundations who lobby against the UN and other international and aid agencies and foundations because of their pro-artifical contraceptive poliices in both family planning and AIDS prevention.

    However, and I have to keep returning to this, it is factually accurate to suggest that condoms are no magic bullet in terms of either family planning or AIDS prevention, if it where not factually accurate then both the manufacturers and marketing, and very possibly government health departments, would be advocating more seriously their widespread use. In the eighties when the UK government was trying to get people, heterosexual and homosexual, to take the threat of AIDS more seriously they ran ad campaigns which included the line "using a condom may save your life", when I studied marketing they examined it as a case study because if the government had made a definite claim that "using a condom will save your life" it could possibly have left them open to actions under existing trades descriptions legislation.

    I dont think anyone would be worrying that using condoms will send them to hell, its not a greviously sinful act in any case, I'm very sure its not a mortal sin, I'm sure it is not a deadly sin (although this may depend on context) and I'm not even sure if it is a venial sin, what it is considered is contrary to natural law, ie it is unnatural, which also goes for a lot of recreational sex, also a lot of modern medical interventions, but where complex dilemmas arise its a general given that facts, context and generally life affirming principles will all come into play. Ultimately personal conscience is what is going to matter, everyone who has experience a twinge of conscience shouldnt be considering themselves as destined for hell, RCs are supposed to hope, pray and seek forgiveness as opposed to despair in those situations where they feel conscience is alerting them to something being wrong in their actions or beliefs.

    The thing about moral responsibility or moral authority and both AIDS prevention and family planning in the developing, frequently war torn and impoverished, parts of the world is that it is very different from exercising moral authority and consideration of dilemmas in a kind of class room or highly educationed/rationalising scenario. I recall that Indonesia where recognised as pioneers of family planning by the UN, possibly receiving awards, when they had been in practice committing acts of genocide and forced sterilisation. AIDs has been spread not by unprotected sex as often as it has been by rape, sometimes that is deliberate and part of tribal or genocidal actions, and child seductions.

  3. #33
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Either of the things you've mentioned, the RCC betraying their first principles or being usurped from their role by so called modern movements would be bad for an already majority morally bankrupt world.
    If we look at the indicators of what people consider the most morally bankrupt of behavior... murders, kidnappings, assaults, rapes, child neglect etc., secular regions like Scandinavia should be rife with these afflictions according to your logic, but they have some of the lowest crime rates in the world, and high quality-of-life indicators like health and education. Shouldn't it be the opposite?

    I'd posit that secular humanism is a superior system of values and morals. I also think you'd agree with most of its tenets.

  4. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    If we look at the indicators of what people consider the most morally bankrupt of behavior... murders, kidnappings, assaults, rapes, child neglect etc., secular regions like Scandinavia should be rife with these afflictions according to your logic, but they have some of the lowest crime rates in the world, and high quality-of-life indicators like health and education. Shouldn't it be the opposite?

    I'd posit that secular humanism is a superior system of values and morals. I also think you'd agree with most of its tenets.
    I'm unsure how you draw the conclusion that this is my logic, modernism or the betrayal of first principles by the RCC surely can not be accredited with the examples of lawful behaviour and prosperity which you suggest are atypical of Scandinavian countries, in fact I would suggest that this situation you describe would be in spite of rather than because of these two variables we've identified.

    You would have to define secular humanism if you wish to posit its superiority to RCC first principles, I would suspect that there corresponding points, shared values or norms but I would not suggest that secular humanism is superior. In fact, while I'm sure you will object, humanism having a very good press, I would suggest that in its purity the triumph of humanism, human centric, reasoning had laid the foundation for many of the uniquely modern atrocities from Burke and Hare, grave robbery graduating to murder for medical research, to Nazi or Soviet "medical" research or the mass murder of either regime.

  5. #35
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,878

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shimmy View Post
    You're absolutely correct on thinking I was trying to get that message across.

    I also agree with you that the best solution is not always the most desired one. Driving a car is even more likely to kill you than unsafe sex, but if you are driving, make sure you wear your seatbelt.
    Ah yay I was right! I mean.. *serious*..

    Driving a car IS a little different Since (legally, in america, anyways..) sex doesn't pay the bills, but driving to work does.. but the concept still sticks.

    I think that I know way too little about the Church and its beliefs to make an informed statement on how they do things.. but I don't really judge people on their personal beliefs either. If someone thinks condoms are a wicked thing, I hope they at least realize what the other options are for them.

    As for me.. Safety is my number one concern. Teach abstinence, but don't frown at people if you have to hand them a condom. I think multiple levels of safety are the best way.

    Quote Originally Posted by tawanda View Post
    Uhm...does anyone listen to the Vatican anymore?
    I'm sure there are literally millions of people who genuinely do.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  6. #36
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'm unsure how you draw the conclusion that this is my logic, modernism or the betrayal of first principles by the RCC surely can not be accredited with the examples of lawful behaviour and prosperity which you suggest are atypical of Scandinavian countries, in fact I would suggest that this situation you describe would be in spite of rather than because of these two variables we've identified.

    You would have to define secular humanism if you wish to posit its superiority to RCC first principles, I would suspect that there corresponding points, shared values or norms but I would not suggest that secular humanism is superior. In fact, while I'm sure you will object, humanism having a very good press, I would suggest that in its purity the triumph of humanism, human centric, reasoning had laid the foundation for many of the uniquely modern atrocities from Burke and Hare, grave robbery graduating to murder for medical research, to Nazi or Soviet "medical" research or the mass murder of either regime.
    I think the Council for Secular Humanism defines it well.

    * A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
    * Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
    * A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
    * A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
    * A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
    * A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
    * A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.
    http://www.secularhumanism.org/index...main&page=what

    What would be your critique/approval of these ideas? I know because you're religious, there will be some you might disagree with, but the way you conduct yourself also seems in line with some of this.

    More specific aspects of secular humanisn are here: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index...ge=declaration

  7. #37
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Sounds like a rehash of Comte's "religion of humanity" to me.

  8. #38

    Default

    "A marketplace of ideas", hmm, yeah, consumerism infects everything.

    To my mind that's a list of "good things", every movement that wants to market itself does that, while those are good things and difficult to find fault with I would also say that they are singularly uninspiring or original. Not the kind of thing I'd want to defend to my dying breath you know?

    The thing about humanism, and largely why I find it uninspirational, is that it possesses a kind of ruinous modesty, humankind is humankind, nothing more and nothing less and deserving of reverence consequently. I dont know, I cant clarify that any further really, if you're understanding of Nietzsche's aphorism about "human, all too human" you might get what I'm trying to convey.

  9. #39
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    There are significant differences between Secular Humanism and Theocentric Humanism.

  10. #40
    Senior Member Shimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    SEXY
    Posts
    1,868

    Default

    Apart from AIDS there are other reasons why condoms are a good thing. For one, there are over 6 billion people in the world. I wonder how many more our planet can sustain. I call it entirely unethical to prevent or condone the use of any method to counter population growth without harming others.

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    Like a New Agey kind of Pope taking ecstasy with you in a Cat in the Hat hat.
    I would go to that church.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquarelle99 View Post
    Anything that helps prevent the spread of AIDS is good with me. It's not only an issue of the Catholic church-- condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS is something that all churches should recommend, in my opinion. Sure, some may say that an individual with AIDS shouldn't be sexually active at all. But if the individual's partner is aware of the risk and okay with the risk, than that's their choice, and if the couple is going to have sex anyway, they should definitely use condoms.

    I don't see this as so much of an issue for gay men-- since the church's stance (which I do not share, but that's beside the point) is against homosexual sex and extramarital sex, gay men who are sexually active with other men probably are not concerned about the church's stance on condom use. But for a Catholic, married, heterosexual couple in which one spouse is HIV-positive, one of 3 things is probably happening currently: 1) They aren't having sex, 2) They are having unprotected sex and risking the infection of the uninfected partner AND also risking a pregnancy, in which case the child may be born with HIV, or 3) They are using condoms despite the church's stance on condom use, and possibly worrying that they are going to Hell for that.

    I am aware that the official position of some religions is that sex should only be for the purpose of procreation, but frankly option 1, within the confines of marriage, is unrealistic. Option 2 is just terrible, and hopefully most people would not consider this option. Option 3 is the most likely, so if a whole bunch of people can be reassured by a religious figure that they respect that they are making the moral choice within their circumstances, that is a good thing.
    (removed)

Similar Threads

  1. Policy Change in Netflix
    By kyuuei in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 09-21-2011, 01:23 AM
  2. Change in Marijuana Policy
    By Metamorphosis in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-19-2009, 11:56 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO