Surely the ‘any actions (by any of the parties involved)’ isn’t relevant for casting blame/responsibility here? Christianity recognises, or rather emphasises, that people do constantly fall short of the values, and encourages repentence and continuing to follow the same rules.
I don’t know whether churches would advise a repentent person who had cheated or had sex before marriage to then be celibate within their marriage. But if they tell them to keep having sex without protection then that specific action can be blamed for the results. A system of behaviour that relies on being universalised to make any sense is flawed. One encouraged by a religion that is fully aware that people constantly fall short of its commandments could be regarded as culpable.
I don’t know whether churches would advise a repentent person who had cheated or had sex before marriage to then be celibate within their marriage. But if they tell them to keep having sex without protection then that specific action can be blamed for the results.
Only if they tell them to keep having sex without protection even if you have an STD. Or, perhaps, forbid testing for STDs.
It wasn’t my intention to make or imply any value judgments and blame assignments in this context. I just asked if someone can think of a scenario that meets these conditions, as a mere question of fact and logic.
As in somebody gets AIDS from their first partner (who gets it from whatever, depending on how far back we count as ‘parties involved’: perhaps a cheating grandparent or if that still counts then transfusion etc.)
Surely the ‘any actions (by any of the parties involved)’ isn’t relevant for casting blame/responsibility here? Christianity recognises, or rather emphasises, that people do constantly fall short of the values, and encourages repentence and continuing to follow the same rules.
I don’t know whether churches would advise a repentent person who had cheated or had sex before marriage to then be celibate within their marriage. But if they tell them to keep having sex without protection then that specific action can be blamed for the results. A system of behaviour that relies on being universalised to make any sense is flawed. One encouraged by a religion that is fully aware that people constantly fall short of its commandments could be regarded as culpable.
Only if they tell them to keep having sex without protection even if you have an STD. Or, perhaps, forbid testing for STDs.
It wasn’t my intention to make or imply any value judgments and blame assignments in this context. I just asked if someone can think of a scenario that meets these conditions, as a mere question of fact and logic.
Oh, fair enough: I was reading back to the ‘how many people were killed by Christian fundamentalists’ question… Sorry!
On your question, am I missing something obvious or would widows/widowers be a real and all-too-likely possibility?
What exact scenario with widows/widowers do you have in mind?
As in somebody gets AIDS from their first partner (who gets it from whatever, depending on how far back we count as ‘parties involved’: perhaps a cheating grandparent or if that still counts then transfusion etc.)
Yes, you’re right, that would be another possibility.