A comparison of Christianity and Islam.

[rjd970]

How would the world not benefit from not having sex except with one's wife/husband? No STD's, we wouldn't have the epidemic of single-parent homes, little to no AIDS.

Contraceptives accomplish every single one of those. And given abstinence only education being a monumental failure that doesn't work anyway, any time the contraceptive does fail it far outweighs the risk of somebody not using it because it is a "sin". It's fine to teach both, but abstinence only stops nothing.

The catholic church's heavy missionary presence in Africa, teaching the sinfulness of condom use and insistence on abstinence only is a perfect example of a benign belief becoming genuinely lethal in a country ravaged by AIDS.

 

[JZVOL]

Contraceptives accomplish every single one of those. And given abstinence only education being a monumental failure that doesn't work anyway, any time the contraceptive does fail it far outweighs the risk of somebody not using it because it is a "sin". It's fine to teach both, but abstinence only stops nothing.

The catholic church's heavy missionary presence in Africa, teaching the sinfulness of condom use and insistence on abstinence only is a perfect example of a benign belief becoming genuinely lethal in a country ravaged by AIDS.

No. So even though they teach using contraceptives, not everyone uses them. It still doesn't work.

How is that any different than abstinence? Just because people don't practice it, doesn't mean it doesn't work.

It's amazing how you try to blame everything on the church or religion.

How much easier does it get? Here is a clear outline for your (not you personally) problems, yet you reject them. Who is the fool?

 

[KB5252]

Contraceptives accomplish every single one of those. And given abstinence only education being a monumental failure that doesn't work anyway, any time the contraceptive does fail it far outweighs the risk of somebody not using it because it is a "sin". It's fine to teach both, but abstinence only stops nothing.

The catholic church's heavy missionary presence in Africa, teaching the sinfulness of condom use and insistence on abstinence only is a perfect example of a benign belief becoming genuinely lethal in a country ravaged by AIDS.

It doesn't seem to have worked any worse than teaching about contraceptives. Teaching kids that contraceptives can keep them safe is as irresponsible as teaching kids only about abstinence. Teaching and stressing both in equal amounts seems to me the only logical way.

 

[rjd970]

It doesn't seem to have worked any worse than teaching about contraceptives. Teaching kids that contraceptives can keep them safe is as irresponsible as teaching kids only about abstinence. Teaching and stressing both in equal amounts seems to me the only logical way.

Hence the last sentence of the first paragraph of my post.

 

[rjd970]

No. So even though they teach using contraceptives, not everyone uses them. It still doesn't work.

How is that any different than abstinence? Just because people don't practice it, doesn't mean it doesn't work.

It's amazing how you try to blame everything on the church or religion.

How much easier does it get? Here is a clear outline for your (not you personally) problems, yet you reject them. Who is the fool?

I would put the statistics of condom use preventing STD's teen and pregnancy any day over abstinence only preventing them.

It's amazing how you think church and religion solves everything.

Tell me again how the Catholic church is actually helping fight the AIDS epidemic in Africa by telling everybody with no other access to information, it is a sin to use a condom.

 

[IPorange]

Any human institution can be twisted for evil. The bigger or more important the institution, the easier it falls to evil. It's just the nature of humanity.

 

[KB5252]

Hence the last sentence of the first paragraph of my post.

I was more or less agreeing with you. Both need to be taught equally. It is obvious that the risks associated with sexual activity are not enough to stop kids from having sex.

 

[KB5252]

I would put the statistics of condom use preventing STD's teen and pregnancy any day over abstinence only preventing them.

It's amazing how you think church and religion solves everything.

Tell me again how the Catholic church is actually helping fight the AIDS epidemic in Africa by telling everybody with no other access to information, it is a sin to use a condom.

I have to disagree here. One way serves to eliminate the risk, the other only reduces the chances of the same risk.

I am not naive enough to discount the added factor that many kids will be tempted and impulsively have sex, which is why both should be taught IMO. One is no better than the other as i see it.

 

[JZVOL]

I would put the statistics of condom use preventing STD's teen and pregnancy any day over abstinence only preventing them.

It's amazing how you think church and religion solves everything.

Tell me again how the Catholic church is actually helping fight the AIDS epidemic in Africa by telling everybody with no other access to information, it is a sin to use a condom.

Let's see, abstinence 100%, condoms?

No. The teachings of Jesus, yes. Note on personal level, not government.

I'm not Catholic so I have no clue what they are doing.

 

[wbailey7]

Let's see, abstinence 100%, condoms?


So 100% of people taught abstinence only didn't get STDs or encounter a pregnancy?

 

[JZVOL]

Let's see, abstinence 100%, condoms?


So 100% of people taught abstinence only didn't get STDs or encounter a pregnancy?

The post I'm quoting clearly states condom use, not teaching.

 

[wbailey7]

The post I'm quoting clearly states condom use, not teaching.

I don't think that's what he meant. It's more than obvious that abstinence only (when it works) is more effective than contraception. I think the point he meant to make was that in pratical use, contraception is more effective than abstinence only.

I say teach your kid whatever you want (it's your boat to sail), but I'd take a million dollar industry (they have flavored for pete's sake) over promise rings any day of the week.

 

[JZVOL]

Well thanks for jumping in to clear up what rjd meant. I've talked with him enough to know he can correct me on his own.

 

[gsvol]

What does islam teach about condom use???

These discussions sure take some weird twists.

When I said a 'camparison' between Christianity and islam, I really wasn't wanting to debate the issues of secular humanism.

What the hell does that have to do with this discussion??

 

[rjd970]

I don't think that's what he meant. It's more than obvious that abstinence only (when it works) is more effective than contraception. I think the point he meant to make was that in pratical use, contraception is more effective than abstinence only.

I say teach your kid whatever you want (it's your boat to sail), but I'd take a million dollar industry (they have flavored for pete's sake) over promise rings any day of the week.

Thank you sir. :hi:

I will debate in elementary terms from now on and not assume anything.

 

[rjd970]

I have to disagree here. One way serves to eliminate the risk, the other only reduces the chances of the same risk.

I am not naive enough to discount the added factor that many kids will be tempted and impulsively have sex, which is why both should be taught IMO. One is no better than the other as i see it.

One teaches a 100% effective rate, with increasing chances of problems if they slip up. The other actually teaches a 99% rate when the slip up happens, if it even happens at all.

Both work and need to be taught. The difference is condom use can stand on its own. In the end game, abstinence only is worse.

 

[JZVOL]

Thank you sir. :hi:

I will debate in elementary terms from now on and not assume anything.

Maybe I should do the same. Jesus does not send people to hell. He came to save not to punish. Jesus (and I get it you are way to educated to believe it) does not send anyone to hell, try looking in the mirror in regards to where you will spend eternity.

 

[JZVOL]

Thank you sir. :hi:

I will debate in elementary terms from now on and not assume anything.

And I'm so happy you found another religion thread, that has nothing to do with evolution, science or believing in nothing, to find and tell us how stupid we are. Bravo.

 

[rjd970]

Maybe I should do the same. Jesus does not send people to hell. He came to save not to punish. Jesus (and I get it you are way to educated to believe it) does not send anyone to hell, try looking in the mirror in regards to where you will spend eternity.

What did he save actually? And what is so moral about it?

I find the whole idea of salvation immoral in itself. Let's assume for a minute that Jesus actually did suffer and die for all the sins that we did, have, and will do in the future. What exactly does this change? If you go out and kill somebody, I can confess and take on your punishment for you. There is no greater love...but at the end of the day, I did not ultimately absolve you of responsibility of your actions. I took the punishment on, nothing more. It would be immoral for you to ask that of me, and it would immoral for me to offer.

This is neatly summarized in the cute story of John Chapter 8, when Jesus saves the adulterer. While Jesus is giving a sermon, the local township bring a woman to him accused of adultry, he goes over to save her, first by saying the famous "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" line (I actually find that a beautiful jusdgement of social justice) and then proceeds to write in the sand, one assumes the sins committed by everyone judging her, and they leave in earnest. Jesus then forgives her and tell her to "go and sin no more."

This is my whole point. First, who is Jesus to just forgive her of her transgressions? What about the victims? Surely some man or woman in the town felt cheated by what she did. No? Did he go ask them what they think about him claiming authority to just absolve her, and make her promise not to do it again? Do you not see a moral problem with this?

Besides, in verse 10 it says the only people having the conversation about being absolved of the sins was just Jesus and the woman, putting into question who the narrator really is....placing doubt on the validity of the whole story and if he even knows exactly what was said in the first place.

Nevertheless, it's an alright story I guess, despite it's imperfections.

 

[JZVOL]

What did he save actually? And what is so moral about it?

I find the whole idea of salvation immoral in itself. What exactly does this change? If you go out and kill somebody, I can confess and take on your punishment for you. There is no greater love...but at the end of the day, I did not ultimately absolve you of responsibility of your actions. I took the punishment on, nothing more. It would be immoral for you to ask that of me, and it would immoral for me to offer.

This is my whole point. First, who is Jesus to just forgive her of her transgressions? What about the victims? Surely some man or woman in the town felt cheated by what she did. No? Did he go ask them what they think about him claiming authority to just absolve her, and make her promise not to do it again? Do you not see a moral problem with this?

There is little point to discuss when you consider Christ or his actions or his purpose immoral.

In all of your study of the Bible and how to prove how stupid it is, did you miss the part where He is claiming to be the Son of God, the Creator of Man? that would be the part that gives Him the right or authority.

He is either who He says He is, or He is a liar. You have chosen to believe He is a liar I chosen to believe He is the Son of God.

 

[VolsDeep]

As little as 400 years ago Christianity wasn't that different than Islam in terms of being a cultural lifestyle. Just like Islam today, heresy and nonbelief was punishable by death in certain parts of the world. In many ways, its like Islam hasn't made it out of the middle ages...and in other ways, it is like they are clinging on to the glory of the 7th century where their culture was the center of intellectual enlightenment.

This unholy marriage of radical 7th century Islam with technological advancements of the 21st century is what I find most scary about it. The average radical Islamist is perfectly capable of being educated enough to build an atomic weapon, and still fully believe in the metaphysics of martydom. If you looks at the backgrounds of the 911 hijackers, most had college degrees and some even had advanced degrees.

Great post, and spot on. I think you would agree with me that in Western society, money as opposed to Religion is the biggest driving force....In the Middle East, money drives those in power, but for the average individual religion still fuels everyday life... The biggest difference is that Western Christendom believes that life gets better the more we progress, while Islam believes that life was at its best and purest form during the time of Muhammad and the 1st generation after Muhammad. They attempt to go back, while the rest of the world attempts to move forward... Clash of Civilizations, anyone?

 

[rjd970]

There is little point to discuss when you consider Christ or his actions or his purpose immoral.

In all of your study of the Bible and how to prove how stupid it is, did you miss the part where He is claiming to be the Son of God, the Creator of Man? that would be the part that gives Him the right or authority.

He is either who He says He is, or He is a liar. You have chosen to believe He is a liar I chosen to believe He is the Son of God.

The difference between us is your taking an extraordinary claim as truth by faith as a virtue, and then claiming all evidence in the Bible confirms. I work the other way, looking at all evidence in the Bible first, then deciding if the extraordinary claim is true.

Of course I see the parts of the Bible where he is the sone of the creator of man. Once one accepts that beforehand, everything else in the Bible is practically science.

 

[VolsDeep]

There is little point to discuss when you consider Christ or his actions or his purpose immoral.

In all of your study of the Bible and how to prove how stupid it is, did you miss the part where He is claiming to be the Son of God, the Creator of Man? that would be the part that gives Him the right or authority.

He is either who He says He is, or He is a liar. You have chosen to believe He is a liar I chosen to believe He is the Son of God.

Actually, the story of Jesus saving the adulterer was added in a later addition of John. It is not found in the oldest documents that we have since found of John.

Also, in the Old Testament, Solomon was believed to be the Son of God as well....And Jesus never claims that he is the Son of God, the Creator of Man... The closest he comes is when he says "I am" to John the Baptist's question....Not saying he is or isn't, but in order for your statement to be right that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, then you are basing that off of these two words (I am), which could have been added for literary sense, or could have been accurately recorded... Who knows.

Also, outside of John, Jesus being the Son of God is, I believe, not touched upon at great length in Matthew, Mark, or Luke....

 

[VolsDeep]

The difference between us is your taking an extraordinary claim as truth by faith as a virtue, and then claiming all evidence in the Bible confirms. I work the other way, looking at all evidence in the Bible first, then deciding if the extraordinary claim is true.

Of course I see the parts of the Bible where he is the sone of the creator of man. Once one accepts that beforehand, everything else in the Bible is practically science.

It is almost as if you think Faith is important in Christianity.....

 

[gsvol]

Clash of Civilizations, anyone?

The biggest cause of the clash is islam's demand that they be the highest authority and all others must be subject to their authority worldwide.

Actually, the story of Jesus saving the adulterer was added in a later addition of John. It is not found in the oldest documents that we have since found of John.

Also, in the Old Testament, Solomon was believed to be the Son of God as well....And Jesus never claims that he is the Son of God, the Creator of Man... The closest he comes is when he says "I am" to John the Baptist's question....Not saying he is or isn't, but in order for your statement to be right that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, then you are basing that off of these two words (I am), which could have been added for literary sense, or could have been accurately recorded... Who knows.

Also, outside of John, Jesus being the Son of God is, I believe, not touched upon at great length in Matthew, Mark, or Luke....

John also said that if all the miracles performed by Jesus were recorded, that all the books of the world couldn't contain them.

I am not familiar with any claim that Solomon was the son of God, where do you get that??

Are you familiar with the book; Christ the Eternal Tao, or for that matter the teachings of Lao Tse??

Mathew 27;43:

for he said; "I am the Son of God."
(this was said by the mockers.)

Mathew 27;54:

"Truly this was the Son of God."
(spoken by the Roman Centurian.)

He was crucified for claiming to be the Son of God and didn't deny it, and this weekend we will celebrate Easter to commemorate His resurrection that proved who He really was.