God & Rubber
Via Slimes
Pope Benedict XVI has asked a team of experts to prepare a statement on the use of condoms by married persons who harbour infectious viruses such as HIV.
It is beyond my comprehension to grasp the selective interpretations by Church (Both Catholic and Protestant) and stubborn adherence to dogma.
Hinduism despite all its flaws fare better, when logic and rationality is concerned.
You will not find any Guru insisting on adherence to literal meaning or dogma.
This atleast should give Hindu baiters a pause.
15 comments:
Jaffna,
"But the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church is of the view that God's plan for a couple should not be thwarted by a condom i.e. if a couple were destined to have a kid - so be it. A condom could not be used to interrupt that."
And that is my contention, I dismiss existence of any God's plan
I have said before and will say again.
Religion relects humanity, in wisdom and in folly
Waiting for your response
Regards
Jaffna,
My point is if there is any plan it is up to individuals to find out.
I do not admit that Church or Bible has monopoly over truth.
Regards
Jaffna, if using condom amounts to thwarting God's plan then wouldn't abstinence during married life amount to the same thing? If people copulate according to God's plan then where is the free will they are talking about?
If Bible explicitly forbade the use of condoms I would understand the church's stance. But here the church is *formulating* new dogma.
Frog & Jaffna,
Suppose if Bible had forbidden use of contraceptions (It is possible, Egyptians were using herbs and oils for contraception long back)
What then ??
I hope I am getting the point through.
Regards
I realize a mistake in my argument; it seems God's plan according to christianity is that every intercourse must be for procreation; not that God has a definite plan for propagation of species. I don't know if there are concrete Biblical references though ( not of the old testament kind which are not believed by christians today, say ten commandments ).
Gaurav : following any belief is in some sense adherence to dogma.
Jaffna : I don't quite follow your statement that karma is analogous. Hindus give karma the status of a physical law, such as gravitation - it is not a mechanism run by God, nor a plan which the human beings are expected to enforce ( though in hinduism God and incarnations and possibly enlightened beings, can out of their compassion, take away some of the prArabdhas ).
Frog,
I make following distinction between belief and dogma.
Belief are analogous to assumptions thay can be discarded in face of proof.
Dogma is belief inspite of overwhelming evidence to contrary.
For example that man & woman must procreate for propogation of species is understandable.
However to insist that every sexual intercourse between man and woman be for the sake of procreation is in my opinion dogmatic and non sensical.
Regards
Dogma is belief inspite of overwhelming evidence to contrary.
Where is evidence against God having such plans?
Frog,
Where is evidence that God gave a plan to Moses or Jesus?
Regards
Well, your definition of dogma was :
Dogma is belief inspite of overwhelming evidence to contrary.
I only claim this isn't one such. After all if no spiritual person who isn't enlightened can claim to have evidence to backup his assertions.
By the way sorry for the digression, but isn't this as bad or worse than what the Malaysian authorities did?
Erratum :
I mean "After all, no spiritual person who isn't enlightened can..." ( without an "if" before the "no" ). Sorry for the confusion.
Frog,
Define enlightened.
For example if someone claims that God has revealed to him that non believers are to be massacared, will you agree with that ?
Regards
PS I broadly understand you, but I am just trying to narrow it down
PPS I can't open the link but is it about Vadodara clash.
Certainly I can't define enlightened. Anyway I should revise that statement as I made unjustified assumptions; what I mean is this : as long as we haven't had spiritual experiences that confirm/furnish evidence for our beliefs ( for ourselves ) our beliefs will be irrational. And I would say that having irrational beliefs is okay as long as these believers don't infringe upon the freedom of others ( I would consider incitement to violence as infringement on freedom ).
But I agree that the issue is not as black and white as I have written above. In practice urging believers to follow a custom that harms themselves does in some sense amount to curtailing freedom. And I do recognize that the domain of your criticism isn't restricted to the freedom issue alone. Probably it is a "case by case" type of situation upon which individuals may differ.
And as for the point of digression : yes, I am referring to the demolition of the dargah - isn't it as bad as, or worse than, what the Malaysian authorities did?
Regards.
Frog,
Actually I was not discussing about freedom at all.
What I meant was enlightenment doesn't come out of thin air.
It comes from long and serious contemplation.
This is the reason anyone who is willing to think can be enlightened.
I have serious objection to belief systems which replace contemplation with rigid adherence to a symbol whether the symbol be a scripture or son of God.
Further religion and spirituality goes beyond empirical science and therefore observation and deduction have limited influence,
induction however can be used.
Regards
Dude, my statement about freedom was to explain why I won't agree "if someone claims that God has revealed to him that non believers are to be massacared". But then since I talked about freedom I wanted to state why I consider this issue okay from that perspective as well.
I don't see any reason to believe that anyone who is simply willing to think will be enlightened. I would rather count on shraddha and purity of intentions than intellectual openness. And this purity can come by adherence to dogma, I believe.
Frog,
I would rather count on shraddha and purity of intentions than intellectual openness
There is a difference between shraddha and andhshradhha.
Further piety is no substitute for intellect.
Dude, my statement about freedom was to explain why I won't agree "if someone claims that God has revealed to him that non believers are to be massacared". But then since I talked about freedom I wanted to state why I consider this issue okay from that perspective as well.
Freedom is human, enlightenment is divine. I would think that enlightenment trumps freedom.
Regards
Post a Comment