Sins that don't harm others

nubs · Oct 25, 2011

Emmy said:
Dear Curious Atheist. In Matthew, Jesus gave us the two Commandments on which hang all the Law and the Prophets. 1) Love God with all our hearts, with all our souls, and with all our minds. 2) Love our neighbour as ourselves. You mention having sex-relations will hurt no-one and is therefore no sin. What about all the children being born without parents? or the following estrangements with the parents of the people concerned? or any other unfortunate results? Is there no sin involved? God is Love, and God wants loving children/sons and daughters, is that being loving?? We have been given much time to become as God wants us to be: and what does God want from us? Stop being selfish, treating all we know and all we meet as we would love to be treated: with kindness and consideration, remembering who made us in His image, and wants us to love and care for our neighbour. It is not easy to let go of our selfishness and instant gratification, but we have Jesus to help us, and the Holy Spirit, also. Jesus told us to " ask and ye will receive," then we thank God and use our strenghtening gifts to follow God`s Commandments: to love and to care. We will stumble and fail often, but we ask God to forgive us, and God will forgive us as we will forgive others. To love is not only a feel-good factor, it is also a " doing-word," and we will notice that we gradually are changing into the men and women, which God wants to live eternally with. Jesus is waiting to help and guide us, Jesus is our Saviour, and Jesus will lead us back to where we came from. But first we have to " Repent," to change from being selfish and doing our own thing, to following Jesus, and God`s Commandments to love selflessly and freely: God with all our beings, and our neighbour as ourselves. I say this with love, Curious Atheist. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

If people weren't having sex outside of marriage, all the "unwanted" pregnancies as the result of having sex outside of marriage that went to full term would have never been born in the first place. God knew us all before we were born. There is a reason people are having sex outside of marriage. There have been people who have gone on to live very productive and successful lives growing up with adoptive parents from a mother who didn't want her child.

I am thankful for all the children and people that are alive today as the result of unplanned pregos.

salida · Oct 25, 2011

Curious Atheist said:
This is one of my quickest questions I think.

I understand why 'thou shalt not kill' or steal etc as it directly harms another person/affects their free will.

Why however does God care about what we do when we don't harm others? Apparently we can't discuss homosexuality which is a shame as it is a prime example.
But what about gluttony? Yes you are harming the body God gave you, but so does almost anything you do. It would be like making skateboarding a sin because you might fall and harm yourself.

So when something is consentual, unharmful to others or even yourself and has no effect on your decision making or your ability to be a good person, does God condemn it? Why do we not have the free will to have sex with someone we love unless we have signed a piece of legally binding paper? What difference does it make to God?

I suppose some might say 'God creates morals', but didn't he originally make it immoral to eat pork for example?

Thanks

I will discuss homosexuality but in my email. It causes AIDS among other things.

Gluttony does harm-it causes high blood pressure etc. Not being married is fornication. God invented sex as he ctreated all things so it makes a big difference.

No, its not immoral to eat pork. Your not understanding the old testament.

Why is God so different in the OT than He is in the NT?
http://www.gotquestions.org/difference-old-new-testaments.html

nubs · Oct 25, 2011

salida said:
I will discuss homosexuality but in my email. It causes AIDS among other things.

Gluttony does harm-it causes high blood pressure etc. Not being married is fornication. God invented sex as he ctreated all things so it makes a big difference.

No, its not immoral to eat pork. Your not understanding the old testament.

Why is God so different in the OT than He is in the NT?
[URL="http://www.gotquestions.org/difference-old-new-testaments.html"]http://www.gotquestions.org/difference-old-new-testaments.html[/URL]

God invented everything, so yes, he did invent sex, what does that have to do with anything?

If two gay people have sex, and neither have aids, neither will get aids.

Curious Atheist · Oct 26, 2011

nubs said:
God invented everything, so yes, he did invent sex, what does that have to do with anything?

If two gay people have sex, and neither have aids, neither will get aids.

Exactly, it shows what people are being taught if you think homosexuality causes AIDs. Wasn't it the Pope himself, the one who claims to be a direct link with God who preaches condoms spread AIDs also? Or at the very least he actively discourages the use of AIDs claiming it doesn't help?

The world would be a better place without such hateful ignorant views

chilehed · Oct 26, 2011

Curious Atheist said:
But WHY WHY WHY is it a seperation from God, why is it any different to brushing your teeth or wearing a blue t-shirt...

If you really want to know, study JPII's Theology of the Body.

I mean study it, not skim over it.

chilehed · Oct 26, 2011

Curious Atheist said:
Exactly, it shows what people are being taught if you think homosexuality causes AIDs. Wasn't it the Pope himself, the one who claims to be a direct link with God who preaches condoms spread AIDs also? Or at the very least he actively discourages the use of AIDs claiming it doesn't help?

The world would be a better place without such hateful ignorant views

You'd have more credibility if you fully accquiainted yourself with his views before you called him hateful and ignorant.

Curious Atheist · Oct 27, 2011

chilehed said:
You'd have more credibility if you fully accquiainted yourself with his views before you called him hateful and ignorant.

I mistyped, I meant he discourages condoms saying they don't work. I find this to be very ignorant and see no reason to aplogise for this view, which I would if I was being too harsh. Religion has a lot of power in Africa and with a bit of support in the right direction things might have a chance of improving. Spreading hate for homosexuals and actively making the AIDs situation worse is evil in my opinion, as I would think it would be with most people.

razeontherock · Oct 27, 2011

Curious Atheist said:
Wasn't it the Pope himself, the one who claims to be a direct link with God who preaches condoms spread AIDs also? Or at the very least he actively discourages the use of AIDs claiming it doesn't help?

The Pope actively discourages the use of AIDS? Mebbe he's not such a bad guy after all ...

razeontherock · Oct 27, 2011

Curious Atheist said:
I mistyped, I meant he discourages condoms saying they don't work. I find this to be very ignorant and see no reason to aplogise for this view

Agreed.

Curious Atheist said:
Religion has a lot of power in Africa and with a bit of support in the right direction things might have a chance of improving. Spreading hate for homosexuals and actively making the AIDs situation worse is evil in my opinion,

That first sentence, I strongly agree with! Now that second sentence, you do have a point that it is the most sensible explanation for the Pope's stance BUT, I should point out it is at least possible to state the the Pope is serious when he says he is (at least attempting to) act in their best interest. Hard to imagine, isn't it? And yet, in a recent thread (maybe still active?) a RC poster was actually arguing that using birth control within marriage is harmful!! And that poster might even be the RC you were engaging here ...

Curious Atheist · Oct 27, 2011

razeontherock said:
That first sentence, I strongly agree with! Now that second sentence, you do have a point that it is the most sensible explanation for the Pope's stance BUT, I should point out it is at least possible to state the the Pope is serious when he says he is (at least attempting to) act in their best interest. Hard to imagine, isn't it? And yet, in a recent thread (maybe still active?) a RC poster was actually arguing that using birth control within marriage is harmful!! And that poster might even be the RC you were engaging here ...

I understand the Catholic stance on birth control (or at least what is practiced), which is comparable to the Christian stance on Abortion. I am sure the Pope believes he is doing the right thing, but I dont see this as a legitimate excuse as Hitler thought he was doing the right thing for German people, both result in considerable evil.

I find the Catholic opinion extremely difficult to understand as surely if you take the logic to its end, then every potential to make a baby should be taken? Every sperm and every egg not fertilised is the same as using contraception, masturbation is no different to allowing the sperm to naturally die and be replaced which they do regularly. But they seem to have drawn a line somewhere, ignoring the facts on condoms to promote a bizarre imaginary line in the sand is inexcusable when it results in endless terrible deaths.

AlexBP · Oct 27, 2011

Curious Atheist said:
I understand the Catholic stance on birth control
...
I find the Catholic opinion extremely difficult to understand as surely if you take the logic to its end, then every potential to make a baby should be taken?

Based on this paragraph, it would seem that you do not actually understand the Catholic stance on birth control. It's set forth in the Encyclical Humanae Vitae, which you can read at this link:

CATHOLIC LIBRARY: Humanae Vitae (1968)

As you can see for yourself, it does not say that "every potential to make a baby should be taken", nor does it say anything that can rationally be interpreted as meaning that. You're flatly wrong about that.

As for the claim that the Pope is "actively making the AIDS situation worse", please explain how he's doing so. I pointed out earlier that anyone who follows the Christian ideal of sex only within marriage will not get or transmit AIDS or any other STD, and you agreed with this obvious fact. So anyone who follows the Pope's recommendation will not get or receive AIDS or any other STD. Furthermore if we look at the map of AIDS rates worldwide, we see that most countries with Catholic majorities have very low rates of AIDS infections, thus further disproving your claim.

Curious Atheist · Oct 27, 2011

Maybe I should explain how I understand it, and you can correct me where I am wrong (Alex)?

I think Catholics are against birth control as by definition it prevents pregnancy and the potential for life. The same way Christianity is against abortion as it is preventing life, or perhaps the zygote is seen as life from conception so it is seen as outright murder. I understand the Christian stand point more as the cells of a zygote will form life if left and deciding when the zygote is alive is really difficult to agree on.
However Catholics also see masturbation as wrong as the sperm could form new life. This is fundamentally wrong as a sperm only has a short 'life'-span (not independently alive, it only has 50% of the DNA genetic code) and they are constantly recycled and replaced. So masturbating and not masturbating amounts to exactly the same thing, the sperm aren't just going to wait forever until they find an egg. Why is it not also seen as wrong to not have as many children as possible? Ie every conceivable opportunity should be taken.

I know you argue that marriage would prevent the spread of AIDs. But you fail to acknowledge this would only be true in faithful marriages, with the wrong assumption that marriages last forever which they don’t. It would also only be relevant to those who want to be married or believe it is wrong to have sex before marriage, which wouldn’t be true of any entire population (maybe Vatican city?). The use of condoms would be a universal solution for all that could afford them and were educated on safe sex. But this is also an unrealistic dream for obvious reasons. There is also the elephant in the room that seems to be ignored, of population control as there are almost 7 billion people on this planet and much of them are starving. How is it argued to be responsible to encourage even more children to be born? Especially in some of the poorest regions of Africa where they can barely feed themselves.

I just fail to see the logic or morality in preventing the use of condoms in AIDs ridden areas, I won’t change my opinion on this but I am curious to hear your opinion.

AlexBP · Oct 28, 2011

Curious Atheist said:
Maybe I should explain how I understand it, and you can correct me where I am wrong (Alex)?

I think Catholics are against birth control as by definition it prevents pregnancy and the potential for life.

The Catholic stance is a little bit more specific than that. It is, in essence, that sex was created for two purposes: for procreation and for deepening the bond of a loving couple in a committed relationship. When people choose to use birth control they eliminate the first purpose and work against the second. When a whole society comes to view sex as existing merely for physical pleasure rather than procreation and personal connection, sex becomes easy and cheap and degraded, and eventually people view it as a weapon with which to hurt people rather than a positive source of enjoyment. This has happened many times in history. The Catholics therefore oppose birth control because it makes sex worse rather than better.

If you don't want to read Humanae Vitae, which I'd readily admit is a tough read, try the essay I Despise Birth Control by G. K. Chesterton. It comes from the same viewpoint but is shorter and blunter. Among the points that he makes is that "birth control" is a dishonest euphanism. Condoms and 'the pill' do not control births. They prevent births. Everyone agrees that mammograms are part of cancer prevention. Calling them cancer control would be dishonest. When dishonest words are used, it's often a sign that something untoward is going on.

I know you argue that marriage would prevent the spread of AIDs. But you fail to acknowledge this would only be true in faithful marriages, with the wrong assumption that marriages last forever which they dont. It would also only be relevant to those who want to be married or believe it is wrong to have sex before marriage, which wouldnt be true of any entire population (maybe Vatican city?).

Anyone who follows the ideal of Jesus Christ, which is what the Pope advances, will either be in a faithful marriage or chaste. If someone doesn't follow the advice of the Pope, the results can hardly be blamed on the Pope.

AIDS does not spread by contact between committed partners, for the most part. It spreads because of prostitution, gang rape, and polygamy. The reason why it is so common in southern Africa is because all of these things are common in southern Africa. The Catholic Church opposes all of these things and so does every other Christian church. More influence from those churches would mean less spread of AIDS.

Curious Atheist · Oct 28, 2011

When people choose to use birth control they eliminate the first purpose and work against the second.

That is an absurd statement, why would you love or bond with your partner less if you aren’t at risk of pregnancy?

When a whole society comes to view sex as existing merely for physical pleasure rather than procreation and personal connection, sex becomes easy and cheap and degraded, and eventually people view it as a weapon with which to hurt people rather than a positive source of enjoyment. This has happened many times in history. The Catholics therefore oppose birth control because it makes sex worse rather than better.

Some people will have that view of sex, others don’t regardless of if they are married or not. Many married couples attend swinger parties, which shows they love each other but see sex as fun at the same time. I could focus on this one group and use your same arguments against you. As all your arguments are based on certain individuals, not the entire human race. Using sex as a weapon…that is such a pessimistic view of relationships, which again happens in married couples. Have you been cheated on by a partner? I know that is personal, but it would explain your outlook on relationships a lot.

If you don't want to read Humanae Vitae, which I'd readily admit is a tough read, try the essay I Despise Birth Control by G. K. Chesterton. It comes from the same viewpoint but is shorter and blunter. Among the points that he makes is that "birth control" is a dishonest euphanism. Condoms and 'the pill' do not control births. They prevent births. Everyone agrees that mammograms are part of cancer prevention. Calling them cancer control would be dishonest. When dishonest words are used, it's often a sign that something untoward is going on.

I did start reading your last link, but it was full of statements not back up with any statistics or facts so I stopped. I will give this new link a try after the weekend. Yes, control and prevent are just about synonyms. But if you want an example of misleading I would refer you to the creation story in the bible, it states the world was created in 7 days. Apparently it actually meant 3.6 billions years! Now that is misleading to say the least.

Anyone who follows the ideal of Jesus Christ, which is what the Pope advances, will either be in a faithful marriage or chaste. If someone doesn't follow the advice of the Pope, the results can hardly be blamed on the Pope.

The Pope actively discourages the use of condoms in AIDs ridden Africa where infection can be as high as 90% of the population. How can he not be to blame when people stop using condoms and die as a consequence? I haven’t heard anything about his campaigns to start happy marriages, which might I point out that even in America over 50% result in divorce and many more are unfaithful.

AIDS does not spread by contact between committed partners, for the most part. It spreads because of prostitution, gang rape, and polygamy. The reason why it is so common in southern Africa is because all of these things are common in southern Africa. The Catholic Church opposes all of these things and so does every other Christian church. More influence from those churches would mean less spread of AIDS.

If the churches interest was to prevent the spread of AIDs it would not go against the best forms of prevention. Prostitution in poor regions is not likely to be out of choice, neither does it mean married people would not visit a brothel. Gang rape…do you think the person being raped has any choice? That is as sickening as condemning a rape victim for not wanting to keep the baby, it goes against common ethics. Polygamy? Well that would mean a marriage to multiple wives would it not, so they are married therefore cannot get or spread AIDs according to your logic.
Not everyone wants to be a Christian either, so far Christianity has done more harm than good in Africa and has much to account for.

Can you please also answer my point about the responsibility to control a population? For example it would be extremely irresponsible to have babies you cannot afford, I am aware I am fortunate enough to live in the UK and I would not have a baby at this time as I don’t think I could give it the best start in life. Not everyone wants to risk having a baby every time they want to ‘bond with their partner’ as you put it.

chilehed · Oct 28, 2011

Curious Atheist said:
I did start reading your last link, but it was full of statements not back up with any statistics or facts so I stopped.

And so you will remain ignorant of the actual Catholic position.

If you never study opinions that differ from yours merely because they differ from yours, or because they don't include a statistical analysis, you'll never learn anything. I sense a bit of special pleading on your part here.

Curious Atheist said:
The Pope actively discourages the use of condoms in AIDs ridden Africa where infection can be as high as 90% of the population. How can he not be to blame when people stop using condoms and die as a consequence?...

So it's your position that people who are engaging in fornication, homosexual behavior and prostitution are avoiding condom use because the Pope says they should?

That's a manifestly absurd position.

AlexBP · Oct 29, 2011

Curious Atheist said:
Quote: When a whole society comes to view sex as existing merely for physical pleasure rather than procreation and personal connection, sex becomes easy and cheap and degraded, and eventually people view it as a weapon with which to hurt people rather than a positive source of enjoyment. This has happened many times in history. The Catholics therefore oppose birth control because it makes sex worse rather than better.

Some people will have that view of sex, others don’t regardless of if they are married or not.

I've alreadys responded to your argument that people's sex acts and attitudes are not in any way dependent on personal or social attitudes towards marriage. See posts #37 and #39.

Many married couples attend swinger parties, which shows they love each other but see sex as fun at the same time.

First of all, how many couples are we talking about second? Second, how do you know that they love each other but see sex as fun at the same time?

Have you been cheated on by a partner? I know that is personal, but it would explain your outlook on relationships a lot.

I've never been cheated on by a sex partner, nor have I ever had a sex partner.

I did start reading your last link, but it was full of statements not back [sic] up with any statistics or facts so I stopped.

Your posts are full of statements not backed up with any statistics or facts. Should I stop reading your posts?

AlexBP · Oct 29, 2011

Curious Atheist said:
The Pope actively discourages the use of condoms in AIDs ridden Africa where infection can be as high as 90% of the population. How can he not be to blame when people stop using condoms and die as a consequence?

Anyone who follows the ideal of Jesus Christ, which is what the Pope advances, will either be in a faithful marriage or chaste. If someone doesn't follow the advice of the Pope, the results can hardly be blamed on the Pope. (If this fact sounds familiar, it's because I've already posted it once before.)

If the churches interest was to prevent the spread of AIDs it would not go against the best forms of prevention. Prostitution in poor regions is not likely to be out of choice, neither does it mean married people would not visit a brothel. Gang rapedo you think the person being raped has any choice? That is as sickening as condemning a rape victim for not wanting to keep the baby, it goes against common ethics. Polygamy? Well that would mean a marriage to multiple wives would it not, so they are married therefore cannot get or spread AIDs according to your logic.

1. All Christian churches advocate the best forms of prevention of AIDS, namely chastity and monogamous marriages. If everyone practiced either one or the other of these things, there'd be no spread of AIDS by sexual contact. On the other hand, even if everyone was going around having sex with many partners but using condoms--which you've already acknowledged is impossible--AIDS would still spread rapidly, because condoms do not always prevent the spread of AIDS or other STDs. On the other hand, it's generally secular liberals who oppose chastity and monogamous marriage, so they're the ones who oppose effective methods for stopping the spread of AIDS.

2. You're right that prostitution is often not by choice for the prostitutes, but it is by choice for the people who visit prostitutes. Hence the best way to prevent AIDS and other STDS spreading by prostitution is to teach people that it's wrong to go to prostitutes (as well as to help prostitutes escape to better circumstances), which is what the Catholic Church and other churches do. Once again, secular liberals are largely missing in action on this issue.

3. You say that Christian opposition to gang rape "goes against common ethics". I'm glad I don't live in a country ruled by your "common ethics". On this side of the pond, opposition to rape is quite common, and the sooner we can bring those ethics to southern Africa the better.

4. Regarding polygamy, AIDS can spread in polygamous marriages; not in mongamous ones. The reason for this should be easy enough to see.

5. As I pointed out already, we can look at the map I posted and see that worldwide Catholic countries generally have low AIDS rates. (Protestant and Eastern Orthodox countries do as well.) This fact directly disproves your claim that Catholics are responsible for the spread of AIDS. If you want continue insisting that this is true, perhaps you should address this point.

Can you please also answer my point about the responsibility to control a population?

Worldwide the population is just fine. We have more than enough food to feed everybody. When there's famine in some particular area of earth, it's because of natural disaster combined with political interference and corruption, not because of a population that's too large.

Sins that don't harm others

Newbie

Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Veteran

Veteran

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency