An open letter to religious people

[LonelyPilgrim]

Quoting Haunted from 13:42, 20th Aug 2008
Why is something being "unnatural" a bad thing exactly?

Because it's stuffed full of hormones and pesticides and mankind is evil and the government was behind 9/11 and meat is murder and all sex is rape and THE FLORIDE IN THE WATER IS KILLING YOUR BRAIN!!!!!

Sorry, I've just spent a bit over a week surrounded by militant vegan hippie feminist conspiracy theorists.

[hr]

Man is free; yet we must not suppose that he is at liberty to do everything he pleases, for he becomes a slave the moment he allows his actions to be ruled by passion. --Giacomo Casanova

[LonelyPilgrim]

The problem re: STI's and sex education as I see it is thus:

We live in a permissive culture that hyper-emphasises individuality and freedom of choice. When you have people who are used to being able to do what they want and get what they want whenever they want, regardless of what it is that they want, why would we for a moment assume that they will suddenly show cautious restraint in regards to sex? We don't think about consequences anymore, because our societies have done a very good job of preventing nasty consequences of bad decisions in other areas of life through paternalist government policies.

Why don't we treat sex ed and STI's the same way we treat drunk driving? Everyone knows you shouldn't drink and drive, so when someone does drunk drive, we hold that individual accountable for the bad decision they've made. If we applied the conservative religious STI/sex-ed principle to drunk driving, we'd tell everone to not drink, and there'd be no school programs or PSAs on drunk driving to educate the public about why it's bad - ie. to emphasise the potentially tragic consequences.

If we treated sex ed this way, as I believe we should, by having public service announcements, and full education in safe sex practices in schools - then clearly, rationally, if someone goes out and gets pregnant or gets HIV we should regard that as their own damn fault, and not some great systemic flaw in the system. After all, we could say with some degree of certaintly that the person in question knew better.

Education, complete education, shifts the moral responsibility onto the individual, and gives them the chance to make smart choices. Refraining from education makes the state/church/whatever morally responsible and limits the chances of individuals making smart choices. My personal political philosophy says that anything which increases the opportunity of an individual to consciously live their own life and make their own (educated) choices is a good policy - regardless of whether the choices people actually make are good ones or not.

[hr]

Man is free; yet we must not suppose that he is at liberty to do everything he pleases, for he becomes a slave the moment he allows his actions to be ruled by passion. --Giacomo Casanova

[exnihilo]

Quoting Haunted from 13:38, 20th Aug 2008
Apology accepted; you have misunderstood.
Once again, I never said anything about what he is or is not allowed to say regardless of my "world view". I am free to find what he says disgusting and his actions morally abominable.

Clearly I had. You think his opinion is abominable and he and 500,000 people who share it should be disregarded and insulted, but yours is not and therefore should be some kind of trump card in government policy and in how those people's children are raised.

For what it's worth, I'm no fan of him or the Church and have had to deal with both in respect of HPV, I just find your position interesting as it seems to be "I will defend to the death your right to say it, providing nobody ever listens to you."

[Haunted]

Quoting exnihilo from 15:20, 20th Aug 2008
Clearly I had. You think his opinion is abominable and he and 500,000 people who share it should be disregarded and insulted, but yours is not and therefore should be some kind of trump card in government policy and in how those people's children are raised.

For what it's worth, I'm no fan of him or the Church and have had to deal with both in respect of HPV, I just find your position interesting as it seems to be "I will defend to the death your right to say it, providing nobody ever listens to you."

Oh come on this is the third time you have put words in my mouth. If you can point out where I suggested anyone's opinion be disregarded and that my own should trump all others then by all means. There's a shiny dollar in it for you.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[macgamer]

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 14:57, 20th Aug 2008
The problem re: STI's and sex education as I see it is thus:

If we treated sex ed this way, as I believe we should, by having public service announcements, and full education in safe sex practices in schools - then clearly, rationally, if someone goes out and gets pregnant or gets HIV we should regard that as their own damn fault, and not some great systemic flaw in the system. After all, we could say with some degree of certaintly that the person in question knew better.

I feel that I seem to be making myself better understood.

I certainly appreciate and agree with many of your points. The problem is indeed the lack of responsibility.

I do also agree with your point about education and responsibility allowing informed choices. Indeed sex education is needed, however as I have perhaps made clear earlier I and the Church could not endorse sex education which included advice on the use of contraception, which makes sex outside of marriage feasible.

This is because of our philosophy on the role of sex in human relationships. To suggest that it was licit to use contraceptives would be contradictory to the important and essential procreative nature of sex.

The opposition to contraception really is secondary to the opposition to sex outside of marriage.

Hopefully, I've shown over the last several posts that the Church's position on this is not as illogical or opposite for the sake of it, but rather a rational one. However it all depends on whether you accept certain initial principles, much like any other philosophy.

I'm not adversarial for the sake of it either.

[Senethro]

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 14:57, 20th Aug 2008
The problem re: STI's and sex education as I see it is thus:

Heyyyyyyyy LP made a post I completely 100% agree with.

[ezra]

To suggest that it was licit to use contraceptives would be contradictory to the important and essential procreative nature of sex

Brief question: do humans (and animals such as bonobos) use sex purely for procreation, or does it also serve to maintain social bonding?

[creepy old man]

I've taken sex ed courses at various schools I attended, and they all had the same central message: Abstinence is the best way to avoid STI's, and is the only 100% effective way to avoid pregnancies and venereal diseases. However, if you do choose to have sex, you should use protections in order to minimise the risk.

There is nothing unchristian about that statement. We were never told that sex was safe and amazing and totally worry-free, as you seem to suggest. Abstinence was always encouraged as the best and safest option. As for your argument that the use of contraception is immoral, fine. I guess I can see how you would be against providing contraception to students. However, just because someone is brought up Catholic doesn't mean they should be shielded from the rest of society and never told about the contraceptive options that do exist. That's hugely unfair, especially considering that a lot of Catholic youths will inevitably decide not to remain abstinent. It just seems so horribly selfish to me for parents and religious leaders to want their children never to hear about contraception and safe-sex measures. If I was a parent, I wouldn't want my young kid having sex either, but if they did I'd be much happier to know that they weren't getting infected or pregnant. It's as though Catholics believe that people should get unwanted pregnancies and STIs as punishment for having sex outside marriage.

[Anon.]

Quoting Haunted from 13:42, 20th Aug 2008
Why is something being "unnatural" a bad thing exactly?

Oh, I wasn't expressing an opinion on whether it was a bad thing or not. I was just slightly amused by your description of sex without contraception as a "bizarre practice".

[Haunted]

Quoting Anon. from 12:18, 21st Aug 2008
Oh, I wasn't expressing an opinion on whether it was a bad thing or not. I was just slightly amused by your description of sex without contraception as a "bizarre practice".

More words in my mouth! The bizarre practice to which I was referring is the deeming of contraception to be intrinsically immoral.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting creepy old man from 03:10, 21st Aug 2008
It's as though Catholics believe that people should get unwanted pregnancies and STIs as punishment for having sex outside marriage.

Funny you should say that
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081506.html

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Mr Comedy]

I'll weigh in because, hey I'm feeling masochistic and I can't resist an argument that never reaches a logical conclusion. Just to clarify, I'm mainstream evangelical Christian.

1. The Bible clearly ordains sex as being something exclusively for marriage, and forbids it outside of it at all. From my thinking abortions, STDs etc in the normal course of things are where people don't follow the Bible's teaching here. I'm not going to be high-handed and say it is punishment from God, and I'm not sure we can draw that conclusion from Scripture either. However I think we can safely say that these are potential consequences of not following the Biblical pattern on marriage.

2. Personally (as this isn't something the Bible covers in much depth - there is a bit in the Old Testament that can be construed to cover it but I'm not 100% convinced), contraceptives are fine - as long as you are using them with your husband/wife. I can see logic in the Catholic view that they shouldn't be made available, but I think we have to conceed that sex outside of marriage will happen, and therefore provide mechanisms etc to minimise the potential consequences. From a more flippant personal viewpoint I don't want to be in a situation if I'm married where I can only have sex for the purposes of procreation!

3. STDs = punishment from God. I can't really go along with this, as from the Bible we understand that it is not a simple matter of cause and effect, e.g. I sin, God smites me. Instead overall bad things happen because of the condition of sin overall, so someone might suffer not because they've done something really terrible but because of the overall condition of the world. That is kind of a difficult thing to say, as it doesn't seem fair, but that is the conclusion I've drawn from what the Bible says on the subject.
This then leads to the inevitable question - "why do bad people get away with it/good people not get appropriately rewarded?". The answer to this again in Scripture is God will fully intervene at a point, and then judge everyone in the world according to what they have individually done. I suppose a poor illustration is to think of someone who has been convicted of a crime by a court of law, but is still awaiting the sentence for the crime. That's not a million miles off the Bible's teaching. The Bible makes clear that at that point, there won't be unfairness any more. Often in Scripture it is referred to as a king who is away - Jesus also describes something similiar in a story about a vineyard and bad tenants who are looking after it.

Now I'm concious I'm going to probably kick off a fight with the above, but I think I can argue all of these points comfortably from scripture, and I'm more than happy to do so if needed:

1. Sex in the Bible is a 'for marriage only' thing
2.Punishment in the Bible is not simply a question of sin = smiting (sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't).
3. There will be a point in time where this unfairness will be addressed.

[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung

[Anon.]

Quoting Haunted from 12:54, 21st Aug 2008
The bizarre practice to which I was referring is the deeming of contraception to be intrinsically immoral.

Well, that's not really a practice, is it? Practice implies an action rather than a mere advocacy.

[exnihilo]

Now, come on, Mr C, your first point is just utter nonsense. I can't speak for the New Testament, but there is no possible way from the OT/Tanakh you can defend the notion that sex outside marriage is forbidden.

[Haunted]

Quoting Anon. from 01:23, 22nd Aug 2008
Well, that's not really a practice, is it? Practice implies an action rather than a mere advocacy.

Quite right, apologies. Bizarre belief then?

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Senethro]

Hey Mr. C assuming I read your post correctly, how mainstream do you think evangelical christianity is

[Haunted]

Well if these stats are anything to go by it's probably not too esoteric
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/200 ... n.students
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm

What a joke of a country

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[bonobo style]

Quoting Haunted from 16:36, 22nd Aug 2008
Well if these stats are anything to go by it's probably not too esoteric
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/200 ... n.students
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm

What a joke of a country

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

the worst may be the links proposed by google:
Ads by Google

*
Creation Or Evolution?

Is evolution just a theory? You can prove creation. Order free booklet.

www.gnmagazine.org/evolution/?S=2
*
Evolution

Examples of living things that could never have evolved.

creationdesign.org
*
Study in the UK

Foundation, A Levels, GCSE, ELP 4 UK Locations. Join us for Sep 08!

www.Bellerbys.com/Admission

btw... I have been following the whole conversation from the beginning and there are two points I wish to discuss.
The first is illustrated by this girl who says "When I look at things in the world I think it is amazing that God has created it for us". Which evidence does suggest that this world has been "created for us"?

The second point is about the existence of the soul. I remember one Evangelist friend of mine told me once "there are the body, the spirit and the soul". Well... I would be really interested in hearing opinions about the existence of the soul, which is, to my mind, a good way to question the existence of god...

[rob 'f*ck off' wine boy]

I'm of the opinion that more people would be convinced that things came to be via evolution rather than creationism if the former didn't confound their need to view themselves as special in some way, no matter the amount of evidence supporting the latter. Folks just don't fancy accepting themselves as sentient apes.

[exnihilo]

Ha, most people can't handle seeing themselves as bog standard humans, so you're on a loser there.