Manga News: Check out this week's new manga (4/6/15 - 4/12/15).
New Forums: Visit the new forums for Boku no Hero Academia!
Forum News: Check out the results for the Anime Awards 2014
Even when questioning is "allowed", the answers are not falsifiable because they are based only on belief, so ultimately the question is worthless.
That's why I prefer humanism about religious forms of it. It's based on respect to each other, non-violence, freedom of conscience and tolerance, so there is no risk of harming or despising each other out of weird ideologies.
Stuff like marking all homosexuals as sinners for example is a clear seperation between the value of people and will lead to some kind of conflict sooner or later.
Last edited by Roflkopt3r; March 25, 2011 at 05:31 AM.
The banning of condoms, which in itself is a pretty mundane concept, thanks to our taboo-less society, it actually covers a pretty large issue...and that is the idea of sex within the family and promote that...family being the most basic cell of society and on an ideological level it is actually an institution...that's the meaning behind it, but of course it can also be considered as a stubborn refusal of accepting the phenomenon of sex before marriage, which is wide-spread, and source of diseases
Just something I read somewhere which I thought was pertinent to this discussion.Quote:
You on the other hand are not being respectful at all, and that is not tolerance nor is it humanism.
Besides, I've been thinking about it for a while and I think you're off topic dude.
it says religious QA not athiest QA.
If someone wants to discuss between two religions, then it's okay here, if someone wants to discuss between a humanistic point of view, and a religious one, then that's okay too. The important thing is that he topic is somewhat related to religious believes, thus roflkopt3rs post isn't irrelevant because he claims why he prefer humanism over the big religions.
Basically, this thread is a hub which tries to cover all aspects of religious discussion and therefore it's related to discussing non-religious point of views contra religious point of views.
Last edited by blai; March 27, 2011 at 06:16 AM.
what he's doing is not discussion it's bashing.
People are the religion, wasn't it in the rules to not bash people ?
This kind of threads shouldn't be here in the first place, they just cause trouble and feed hatred, I'm not saying I hate anyone because he thinks diffrently.Honestly I don't give squat about it.
I've never once thought of the banning of condoms as an attempt to decrease the amount of incest that occurs daily because I've never once addressed incest as a common matter (but what the heck do I know).
I see it more as a tool to control the young Catholics, the ones who doesn't follow everything they've been told by the hierarchy but who respects it, thus reacts when suddenly, according to the Pope, they aren't allowed to use condoms. This would, obviously, decrease the amount of pre-martial sex because believing Catholics won't risk having a child born out of marriage.
Though, this also heavily affects the married couples who wants to enjoy sex but not in a procreational purpose.
Sex is a beautiful thing if between two persons who loves each other and banning Condoms is a horrible act to prevent them from having sex unless they want a baby because, in my eyes, there are nothing sinful about having sex at all, nothing.
Yes, people = the religion, and what he's doing is the same as saying "buddy I think you're wrong here because your logic isn't solid here, and here."
Bashing would be something like "omfg Catholicism sucks it's like the worst religion of all time I hate them so bad it hurts".
I find this kind of thread very important because even if two persons of different religious views can't come to an agreement, they can at least come to an understanding and that's the reason of this thread.
Understanding people who are different is a key to prevent conflict and is incredibly important if we want to live in a peaceful world.
It's exactly like the Protestants in Sweden has to understand and respect the Muslim immigrants that comes here, as well as the Muslims has to understand and respect the Protestants. They should of course not convert or agree on every viewpoint, but to agree to disagree with an understanding is a big step against peace.
Last edited by blai; March 27, 2011 at 06:33 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
The funny thing it that it's much harder to discuss between religions than to discuss about religions in general, because a discussion between religions can barely contain matters which are discussable on a logical level.
I know that it can seem rough when I (or anyone) argues against religion as a whole, because it means a extensive rejection. But it's not really possible to say "there could be a little bit of god but not much".
Also I'm always trying to point out that I'm not generalising the believers themselves. For example, when I said that the thing that religion is not discussable on a logical level and thus can lead to weird and dangerous ideologies, I specified that this is only sometimes the case and not for all religious communities.
For me, most religious believers are people who did not question their beliefs thoroughly in a logical way. This might sound like a big accusation, but it's actually not. We rarely question things logically, especially those things we are involved with ourself. It's just a relatively normal state actually.
Also, critizising religion does not mean critizising people at the same rate (even though perhaps a little). You're saying "people = religion", but I don't see it like that. Religion is just an idea, such as Communism, Democracy, Humanism, Racism, whatever. These can be discussed, without beeing agressive against the people maintaining the idea, when maintaining an objective level. That's the scientific point of view. If I would be able to prove the theory of relativity wrong, that wouldn't be a personal attack on Einstein and the people believing in that theory. It's just "sorry, I believe you are wrong and I can tell you why".
Still, I'm sorry when someone feels like I am offending certain people here. It's not my intention to do so.
Last edited by Roflkopt3r; March 27, 2011 at 08:04 AM.
@blai...I actually phrased that incorrectly...sex within family meant only husband/wife relationship...so no incest
Why do religions have any right to forbid premarital sex or condom? Is it to avoid rapid reproduction or to avoid any bad genes being spread? At least, long ago when premarital sex ban was actually almost nearly followed.... I can understand condoms being banned, but does the Pope know what other uses condoms have?
Last edited by blai; March 28, 2011 at 10:56 AM.
^^Not really...the problem of pre-marital sex goes back, waay back...when there were different times, when virginity had higher value, as it symbolized purity...giving up the virginity to create life was more important than pure pleasure...
And regarding pleasure...letting pleasure take over, means that there's higher chances of broken marriages for example, which is one of the reasons for such ideas...
Of course religions are rooted in tradition, so if by our modern day standards condoms are good, cuz of STDs, unwanted pregnancies etc, we have the right to complain that it's old-fashioned thinking, or outdated...
One can easily say...hey I have control over my sex life, so there's no danger for STDs, or any other problems...but is this true for the entire human kind? Not really...people are irresponsible and are driven by instinct, so in order to insert some discipline, some guiding into people's lives, the Church as an institution has to reach decisions, like this...
One needs to comprehend the bigger picture when it comes to things like this IMO and to actually comment on it, because it's not a personal problem, it's a problem concerning an entire community...
And there's also the ethical side of this...
It's more like an inner process...
Last edited by benelori; March 28, 2011 at 08:54 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
The thing is that I never once saw the Church as a valid institute to forbid things or found laws that controls our lives. However, they are more than welcome to provide us with guidelines in how to live, or rather, how they would want us to live. If we want to do it or not is up to us because after all, the Church is not God, and not even God wishes to rule or control our lives. What God did was to provide Moses, and the people of Israel with ten commandments and these commandments were of religious and moral imperatives to help them live their life free of sin.
However, to sin, should always be a choice. Temptation, should always be there. So should Gluttony. Because without sin, there's no goodness. Without wrong, there is no right.
To forbid the evil, then the good is not justified.
As a wise man once said "If you're only doing what you're told, it's not you who are living your life" and I believe that God does not wishes to force us, nor control us because that's not the God I know, nor the God I believe in.
(ps. I only wanted to respond to that paragraph because if I'd respond to all of it I'd just make a wall of text that nobody would like to read )
@ Milly, please save the smart comments for the less serious threads >,>
That's true...however please don't take this ban seriously or should I say literally...the Church is very much aware of the fact that the people have their own choices, because that is something that is the core of the belief...God gave free will to people...
That's why the banning of the condoms is really just a message not some text book rule...there's no indication that at the end of my Credo for example, I will have to add
I believe that banning condoms was a good idea.
This entire situation is just a message that reinforces the Church's official position on the matter...the main idea and reasoning IMO is the one I posted earlier...
So it's okay to not recognize the Church as an authority, or an institution whose rules need to be obeyed...an intelligent and educated person should search for the meaning behind such a message, and follow the consequences in real life...
What they should have done, is said "The Church would like to address their dislike and disapproval when it comes to sex intended for pleasure and the use of Condoms.
Instead, by verbally banning the use of condoms they are basically saying "The Church is still the highest deciding authority and we are a force to be reckoned with." and that is where my dislike for this whole thing erupts.
I respect the Church and I respect the people who sees the Church as the highest deciding authority, as the most valid religious institution in the Catholic world but to globally ban something is disrespectful.
It's an incredible generalisation that I do not believe God would have made because he sees us all as individuals and if the Church fails to do so then they fail as being the closest thing to God in my eyes.
Disapproving is one thing, banning is another.
Ah I see...
That's indeed a good approach of the problem...but let's consider this type of person...the one that is afraid of the consequences of not using a condom, but who still has premarital sex...
If it's the religious type, which in essence is contradictory, but unfortunately this blind type is the most spread...then banning condoms will actually force him not to have premarital sex...I'm not saying forcing someone is good...but when dealing with people who don't have a sense of responsibility and control, such measures are the best....the moral and ethical side of the matter doesn't really count here, cuz there's no basis, but it eliminates the danger of STD and unwanted children...will this person be able to comprehend the core of the problem even if it's addressed the way you did? Or is it better to just say it like that and the person will do it
If it's not the blind religious type, then discussion over...
The main idea is...intelligence, self control and sense of responsibility is the key here...those who have this why complain? And those who don't, who are the primary target of such a message, should obey it right?
But these arguments don't cover the morality side of the problem, which in some eyes is probably the most important...
Last edited by benelori; March 28, 2011 at 12:13 PM.