Question for the Religious Types

[MR. Nate]

C.S. Lewis always seems to have the answer, doesn't he?

Every Time, Baby.

[AndrewLC]

According to Black and White, a god needs faith and a temple to survive, once the temple is gone, the god dies.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Does God need faith to survive? <Not a trick question, just wondering>

I'd like to know where you get the idea that an all-powerful being needs anything.

Then why do religious people pray?

Because we need it. This isn't like computer games where praying to Gods makes THEM stronger - it makes US stronger.

[daddy1gringo]

Instituting a policy that includes condom distribution to students necessarily communicates this message, and as a result, teen pregnancies and STD's, including AIDS, frequently increase where they are instituted.

Really? Can you provide any evidence to back up that claim or is it purely supposition?

I'm working on getting you current information. The stats I heard were a long time ago. When Clinton brought Joycelyn Elders from Arkansas, where she was responsible for the "safe-sex" programs in the schools, to be his HEW secretary, it was 100%. Every case, up to that point, where it had been implemented, they had gone up. I'll get back to you.

Not to deceive: Initially couldn't remember Elders' name. Luns101 gave it. I edited.

[luns101]

When Clinton brought (forgot name) from Arkansas, where she was responsible for the "safe-sex" programs in the schools, to be his HEW secretary, it was 100%. Every case, up to that point, where it had been implemented, they had gone up. I'll get back to you.

I think you're talking about THE CONDOM QUEEN...Joycelyn Elders!

"I was called the Condom Queen. But you know what I've always said? I would gladly put that crown on my head, and sleep in it, if every young person who needed to use a condom did." - Joycelyn Elders

[mbell82]

I just got back on-line, so I am going back a few days on this thread...

A eternity. of gardening, while knowing neither good nor evil, your life completely without knowledge or acheivement.

What makes knowing good and evil so special? Seems to me knowing good and evil is what makes people do the evil they do. If there was no knowledge of it...life would be much more enjoyable. The great thing about knowing and loving Jesus (as opposed to some religious doctrine) is your focus is no longer good and evil. Knowing it isn't important anymore.

[mbell82]

...I don't reaqlly have an opinion either, and i believe that it is a man's choice what he believes. The freedom to have that choice is the thing we should all strive for...

Actually, that is the point. God gave you the opportunity to chose him or not. Religion basically says chose or else (aka Crusaders and Islamic Jihadists). Real Christianity (as opposed to the controlling manipulations of religion) does not demand you chose our way, just that you make a choice.

[daddy1gringo]

When Clinton brought (forgot name) from Arkansas, where she was responsible for the "safe-sex" programs in the schools, to be his HEW secretary, it was 100%. Every case, up to that point, where it had been implemented, they had gone up. I'll get back to you.

I think you're talking about THE CONDOM QUEEN...Joycelyn Elders!

"I was called the Condom Queen. But you know what I've always said? I would gladly put that crown on my head, and sleep in it, if every young person who needed to use a condom did." - Joycelyn Elders

That's the name. thanx, I'll edit.

[unriggable]

Real Christianity (as opposed to the controlling manipulations of religion) does not demand you chose our way, just that you make a choice.

Since when is there more to christianity than believing christ is your savior?

[vtmarik]

Real Christianity (as opposed to the controlling manipulations of religion) does not demand you chose our way, just that you make a choice.

Since when is there more to christianity than believing christ is your savior?

QFT

[CrazyAnglican]

Real Christianity (as opposed to the controlling manipulations of religion) does not demand you chose our way, just that you make a choice.

Since when is there more to christianity than believing christ is your savior?

Since the beginning. The letters of St. Paul. The writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. Believing Christ is your savior is only the beginning to a completely different life with much diversity within it. If that belief was all that there was then there would be no denominations. We tend to agree on the essentials and have differing opinions on the finer points.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Real Christianity (as opposed to the controlling manipulations of religion) does not demand you chose our way, just that you make a choice.

Since when is there more to christianity than believing christ is your savior?

QFT

Since always. What good is it believing that Christ is your savior if you don't keep his commandments? Something along those lines is written fairly clearly in the Bible.

[MR. Nate]

But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

Salvation is only through faith in the blood of Christ, but saving faith necessarily involves living a life of obedience to God.

[OnlyAmbrose]

But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

Salvation is only through faith in the blood of Christ, but saving faith necessarily involves living a life of obedience to God.

It's posts like this which make me wonder why Protestants and Catholics argue about Sola Fide. We agree on everything but the semantics.

[Bertros Bertros]

First of all, world overpopulation is a myth. Many of the theories on overpopulation are based on the limited observations of the American colonies by Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus. 97% of the world's land surface is empty. You could fit every single human in the world inside the state of Arkansas.

Poppycock! And you know it? Just because every single human could fit in Arkansas means nothing. What is important is the area needed not to contain an individual but to support them, and not just to feed them either but to maintain their lifestyle.

Bandying around meaningless statistics about empty land is pointless too. How much of that 97% is tundra, or savannah, or desert, or mountains, or glaciers, or salt marshes etc etc and how much is fertile land which can provide food and shelter, the most basic of our needs?

Consider alongside this our excessive western lifestyles, which I'll be the first to admit I readily enjoy and am reluctant to compromise. Look around you, everywhere we can see ready evidence of unsustainable practices by mankind. Over-fishing, deforestation, intensive agriculture, fossil fuel consumption etc etc

If the world isn't over populated then why isn't our usage of these resources sustainable? If the answer is because we are greedy and use too much then the world is over populated for our level of individual consumption. Either way you look at it, the world cannot sustain indefinitely even the current population without radical changes to the way we live, so any ongoing increase is only going to exarcerbate that problem in the long run.

[Bertros Bertros]

Instituting a policy that includes condom distribution to students necessarily communicates this message, and as a result, teen pregnancies and STD's, including AIDS, frequently increase where they are instituted.

Really? Can you provide any evidence to back up that claim or is it purely supposition?

I'm working on getting you current information. The stats I heard were a long time ago. When Clinton brought Joycelyn Elders from Arkansas, where she was responsible for the "safe-sex" programs in the schools, to be his HEW secretary, it was 100%. Every case, up to that point, where it had been implemented, they had gone up. I'll get back to you.

Not to deceive: Initially couldn't remember Elders' name. Luns101 gave it. I edited.

OK so your argument is that because programs to increase condom awareness in America, where people are at a comparitively negligible risk of infection in relation to say Africa, actually had the effect of increasing promiscuity we should outlaw the use and promotion of condoms as a method of safer sex worldwide?

[daddy1gringo]

OK so your argument is that because programs to increase condom awareness in America, where people are at a comparitively negligible risk of infection in relation to say Africa, actually had the effect of increasing promiscuity we should outlaw the use and promotion of condoms as a method of safer sex worldwide?

No, not at all, and I'm glad you brought this up. Some protestants hold with the Catholic position that all contraception is wrong. But most (I believe) have no problem with contraception that lives up to the name and actually prevents conception, like condoms, diaphragms, and conventional pills, rather than actually performing a very early abortion, like IUD's or RU487. The objection to condom distribution in schools is for the message and effect on promiscuity.

Now an AIDS prevention program in Africa that includes making condoms available is a different issue. It deals with the whole society, including adults, married and unmarried. We are not teaching them whether to have sex or not. I'm not stating categorically that there's nothing wrong with it, I'm just saying that it's a whole different ball game, so to speak, and so the answer to your question is "no; what I said about condom distribution in schools does not necessarily mean that we should outlaw such use and promotion."

[Bertros Bertros]

OK so your argument is that because programs to increase condom awareness in America, where people are at a comparitively negligible risk of infection in relation to say Africa, actually had the effect of increasing promiscuity we should outlaw the use and promotion of condoms as a method of safer sex worldwide?

No, not at all, and I'm glad you brought this up. Some protestants hold with the Catholic position that all contraception is wrong. But most (I believe) have no problem with contraception that lives up to the name and actually prevents conception, like condoms, diaphragms, and conventional pills, rather than actually performing a very early abortion, like IUD's or RU487. The objection to condom distribution in schools is for the message and effect on promiscuity.

Now an AIDS prevention program in Africa that includes making condoms available is a different issue. It deals with the whole society, including adults, married and unmarried. We are not teaching them whether to have sex or not. I'm not stating categorically that there's nothing wrong with it, I'm just saying that it's a whole different ball game, so to speak, and so the answer to your question is "no; what I said about condom distribution in schools does not necessarily mean that we should outlaw such use and promotion."

Ok great. But the whole path taken to get here was to do with the Vatican's stance on condom usage and the effect their inflexibility on this subject is having on the millions of faithful in the third world, where risk of infection is high and education is poorer.

I'm assuming your a protestant here and also in the group that has no problem with contraception. If so what is your thoughts on the Vatican's stance? Does your acceptance of religious doctrine as a whole allow you to feel comfortable with the more authoritarian and insensitve aspects of Catholicism or do you like me find these unpalatable?

[daddy1gringo]

This requires a carefully thought-out and carefully worded response. I'm working on it.

[luns101]

Poppycock! And you know it? Just because every single human could fit in Arkansas means nothing. What is important is the area needed not to contain an individual but to support them, and not just to feed them either but to maintain their lifestyle.

Bandying around meaningless statistics about empty land is pointless too. How much of that 97% is tundra, or savannah, or desert, or mountains, or glaciers, or salt marshes etc etc and how much is fertile land which can provide food and shelter, the most basic of our needs?

Consider alongside this our excessive western lifestyles, which I'll be the first to admit I readily enjoy and am reluctant to compromise. Look around you, everywhere we can see ready evidence of unsustainable practices by mankind. Over-fishing, deforestation, intensive agriculture, fossil fuel consumption etc etc

If the world isn't over populated then why isn't our usage of these resources sustainable? If the answer is because we are greedy and use too much then the world is over populated for our level of individual consumption. Either way you look at it, the world cannot sustain indefinitely even the current population without radical changes to the way we live, so any ongoing increase is only going to exarcerbate that problem in the long run.

Just stop...you had me at "poppycock"

Your point about habitable land is well taken. I don't think those percentages that I cited are meaningless. People live in close proximity to each other in order for the exchange of goods & services to take place...so it does feel sometime that we're all cramped on this planet.

Bertros, the world is going through a spell of underpopulation. Even the UN (which you used to be the secretary general of) puts out statistics that prove this. If you're not going to take my word for it, then check it out for yourself.

These endless myths about running out of mineral resources, oil, overpopulation and such are meant to affect government policies. You mentioned that you're cynical of the Catholic Church. I think it's more reasonable to be cynical of organizations which cry that the earth is going to be destroyed or radically altered because of capitalist economies or Christian teaching on social issues.

Seriously, go check out the statistics on world underpopulation. The UN even admits that there's going to be a disproportionate ratio of elderly people to younger people coming soon.

[Bertros Bertros]

Seriously, go check out the statistics on world underpopulation. The UN even admits that there's going to be a disproportionate ratio of elderly people to younger people coming soon.

I did a google search for "un world underpopulation" the top three results were:

1) http://www.metafuture.org/Articles/AgeingFutures.htm - A muslim futures blog article discussing the effects of an ageing/declining population on the economic welfare of a country.

2) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_62298511 - A news aggregator effectively reporting number 3.

3) http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=18776 - An article on the Catholic World News website again discussing the effects of ageing population such as higher retirment ages and increased taxes for workers.

The UN make an appearance at number 4 - http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/pop850.doc.htm - A press release fairly dispassionately detailing the projected quantifiable changes to population which includes decline due to "below-replacement fertility" in developed countries and increase in developing countries.

In all these cases underpopulation is used to describe the effects of ageing population on the economic and development prospects of developed nations as we start to feel the effect of longer life expectancy due to high quality medical care. We have a growing dependant population as the first wave of long healthy lives retire but our economy and infrastructure has already grown to accomodate a large working population. This leaves a burden with the working population, now declining due to lower birth rates which seem a by product of education and affluence. This is a valid concern and one which must certainly be addressed but is seperate from the issue of the world population and consumption being sustainable based on the available resources. This quote from wikipedia explains the term underpopulation:

Sometimes the term underpopulation is applied in the context of a specific economic system. It does not relate to carrying capacity, and is not a term in opposition to overpopulation, which deals with the total possible population that can be sustained by available food, water, sanitation and other infrastructure. "Underpopulation" is usually defined as a state in which a country's population has declined too much to support its current economic system. Thus the term has nothing to do with the biological aspects of carrying capacity, but is an artificial term employed to imply that the transfer payment schemes of some developed countries might fail once the population declines to a certain point. An example would be if retirees were supported through a social security system which does not invest savings, and then a large emigration movement occurred. In this case, the younger generation may not be able to support the older generation.

[luns101]

Bertros, I understand that overpopulation & scarcity of the world's resources are popular themes. They are also constantly repeated over & over so that when people say it isn't happening, they must be considered blind to the problem. This article is my last attempt to get you to see that it is not the case.

I still submit to you that the Catholic Church, although flawed, is not doing anything wrong by pointing out that condoms aren't fully effective in stopping the contractions of AIDS. Perhaps your own admitted cynicism against them is causing you to disregard their message.

All organizations, whether they are secular or religious, are defective. What does that show me?...that flawed individuals make up flawed organizations. In my own life, I realized that I was a hypocrite of the first order (you have witnessed that for yourself here in the forums). I believe I found the answer in asking to be forgiven of my sins by Jesus Christ. Looking at his miraculous life & resurrection, I was forced to make a decision of faith on whether He could really do what He claimed to be able to do - change my life. Since I made that decision about 17 years ago, I've changed and have peace. It's that event that caused me to change from the inside-out. Yeah, I still spout but I also try to make amends with those I offend (you've also been a witness to that). I never would have done that before my conversion.

I believe the developed world (mostly Europe) is going through a period of viewing God through the lens of "you can't tell me what to do/you're trying to stifle my fun". That view is affecting govt. policies on a variety of social issues, along with an animosity towards those who won't go along with those policies. I don't expect you to just "jump over" to my side of issue, but you understand that I at least had to try.

[vtmarik]

I still submit to you that the Catholic Church, although flawed, is not doing anything wrong by pointing out that condoms aren't fully effective in stopping the contractions of AIDS. Perhaps your own admitted cynicism against them is causing you to disregard their message.

Yes, but they're extending that message into "It's not 100% effective, so why use them?"

Nothing's perfect, but something's better than nothing.

[luns101]

I still submit to you that the Catholic Church, although flawed, is not doing anything wrong by pointing out that condoms aren't fully effective in stopping the contractions of AIDS. Perhaps your own admitted cynicism against them is causing you to disregard their message.

Yes, but they're extending that message into "It's not 100% effective, so why use them?"

Nothing's perfect, but something's better than nothing.

Come now vt, you're taking some liberties now with what was actually put forth by the Vatican. Even the Guardian article that Bertros cited didn't go that far.

[vtmarik]

Come now vt, you're taking some liberties now with what was actually put forth by the Vatican. Even the Guardian article that Bertros cited didn't go that far.

A few. But can you blame me? I'm fallible, plus I have a penchant for hyperbole.