|
Alright, enough religious debate. If you want to talk about Pope Benedict and what he specifically did or didn't do, go ahead. But no more general discussion on the merits or ills of the Catholic church or their history.
-page 12 |
United States42548 Posts
On February 11 2013 23:07 SiroKO wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 22:51 KwarK wrote:
The vast, vast majority of HIV infections result from heterosexual sex in sub Saharan Africa due to shitty AIDS education there. Sorry but the facts disagree with you. The main vocation of catholicity is not the promotion of condom and libertinage. Churches promote fidelity and abstinence. In case you didn't know, the VIH tests are free in sub-sahara Africa. Thus if Subsaharan Africans were acting like true Catholics, their AIDS rate would become far inferior to the ones of atheist groups among first world countries.
Being a bad Christian does not mean they deserve to die horrible early deaths. How can you be so lacking in compassion? They're dying and your only response is "well they should have been better Christians". Jesus.
|
On February 11 2013 23:11 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:09 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:03 KwarK wrote:On February 11 2013 22:53 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 22:51 KwarK wrote:
The vast, vast majority of HIV infections result from heterosexual sex in sub Saharan Africa due to shitty AIDS education there. Sorry but the facts disagree with you. Not really. From what I understand, the church teaches that if you don't have sex (abstinence), you can't transmit the virus sexually. How do the facts disagree with that? This is not practical advice for a modern family who can't afford ten kids, let alone for war torn, misogynistic rape cultures. It's not quite as bad as saying "the only way to cure HIV is to pass it on to someone else, if you still have it then they probably didn't catch it or already had it so try often with multiple partners" but discouraging condom use isn't far off that. Abstinence only is a symptom of institutional denial of realities in the Vatican, no atheist pun intended, it's not preventing the spread of HIV while condoms work. Wait what? "If you don't want kids, don't have sex" is not practical advice to a modern family who can't afford ten kids? So it's the fault of an old man in Italy giving advice that will solve the problem if followed, but not the fault of rapists in a rape culture? Seems like the hatred is a bit misplaced here... Bottom line is, it's impossible to spread AIDS sexually without having sex. It is still possible to do so when having sex with condoms. This is not debatable. It's also possible for the human race to die without having sex ffs. Not having sex is against nature. Everybody who advises abstinence is an idiot.
lol, please try to use your brain. No one is promoting that NO ONE have sex. But if you cannot be responsible for the potential consequences of sexual intercourse, then you should not engage in sexual intercourse.
|
On February 11 2013 23:07 SiroKO wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 22:51 KwarK wrote:
The vast, vast majority of HIV infections result from heterosexual sex in sub Saharan Africa due to shitty AIDS education there. Sorry but the facts disagree with you. The main vocation of catholocity is not the promotion of condom and libertinage. Churches promote fidelity and abstinence. In case you didn't know, the VIH tests are free in sub-sahara Africa. Thus if Subsaharan Africans were acting like true Catholics, the AIDS rate would become far inferior to the ones of atheist groups among first world countries.
It seems there are things in the human life no church can control?
How many US politicians and preachers have called on abstinence and fidelity while not keeping it themself?
Being realistic about society is a challenge for religion and you have to ask if society is moving too fast for the religions systems.
It is not so much about a need for being consistent as an institution. Since we get new popes as often as others change underwear, it is about the elected popes being open about his opinions on some of the issues and making sense a bigger part of the popal work as opposed to traditional value promotion! 100 years ago abstinence was hot. Today it is not...
|
On February 11 2013 23:15 shadymmj wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:11 McBengt wrote:On February 11 2013 23:07 shadymmj wrote:
undeniable truth is that HIV spreads far more easily through anal sex and that homosexuals are more likely to engage in anal sex, which is in itself also contrary to christian beliefs (among other religions...) Where does the bible ever mention anal sex? And how would the orifice matter if you just used a condom in the first place? condoms tear, my dear friend. i know it's shocking news, but give it time to settle in. and i think that's enough derailment...let's keep it to the pope as an individual
Considering his stance on condoms was one of the defining features of this pope, I think it very relevant. Ratz was not much of an individual regardless, the was a representative of his ilk, he could have been practically anyone. They are concerned with their obscene wealth and power, and little else.
Being a bad Christian does not mean they deserve to die horrible early deaths. How can you be so lacking in compassion? They're dying and your only response is "well they should have been better Christians". Jesus.
One has to wonder who Jesus himself would react to this line of reasoning.
|
On February 11 2013 22:45 scFoX wrote:
I'm sad to see him go. Contrary to what many atheists are saying in this thread, he is one of the most learned and profound people I've ever seen. Sure, he's not as glamorous as John Paul II, but he makes it up in brain power. I hope stepping down from office will improve his health.
Really? Wasn't this Pope a former Hitler Youth? He also said some pretty ignorant stuff throughout his course as Pope imo. As a non-Christian, John Paul seemed like a much more attractive Pope than Benedict and actually demanded some respect because of this demeanor, words and actions..
|
Austria24417 Posts
On February 11 2013 23:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:11 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:09 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:03 KwarK wrote:On February 11 2013 22:53 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 22:51 KwarK wrote:
The vast, vast majority of HIV infections result from heterosexual sex in sub Saharan Africa due to shitty AIDS education there. Sorry but the facts disagree with you. Not really. From what I understand, the church teaches that if you don't have sex (abstinence), you can't transmit the virus sexually. How do the facts disagree with that? This is not practical advice for a modern family who can't afford ten kids, let alone for war torn, misogynistic rape cultures. It's not quite as bad as saying "the only way to cure HIV is to pass it on to someone else, if you still have it then they probably didn't catch it or already had it so try often with multiple partners" but discouraging condom use isn't far off that. Abstinence only is a symptom of institutional denial of realities in the Vatican, no atheist pun intended, it's not preventing the spread of HIV while condoms work. Wait what? "If you don't want kids, don't have sex" is not practical advice to a modern family who can't afford ten kids? So it's the fault of an old man in Italy giving advice that will solve the problem if followed, but not the fault of rapists in a rape culture? Seems like the hatred is a bit misplaced here... Bottom line is, it's impossible to spread AIDS sexually without having sex. It is still possible to do so when having sex with condoms. This is not debatable. It's also possible for the human race to die without having sex ffs. Not having sex is against nature. Everybody who advises abstinence is an idiot. lol, please try to use your brain. No one is promoting that NO ONE have sex. But if you cannot be responsible for the potential consequences of sexual intercourse, then you should not engage in sexual intercourse.
But that's the thing, you can. He just doesn't want to accept it because it's against completely outdated rules written in a book that was altered to supress people.
Condoms tearing is not what's causing the problems african peoples have with AIDS. Neither is anal sex. It's the fact that they don't have condoms. That's the real problem. And by saying that "it might be ok to use condoms in some cases if you're a male prostitute, ...", he's certainly not gonna help that problem.
|
On February 11 2013 23:19 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 22:45 scFoX wrote:
I'm sad to see him go. Contrary to what many atheists are saying in this thread, he is one of the most learned and profound people I've ever seen. Sure, he's not as glamorous as John Paul II, but he makes it up in brain power. I hope stepping down from office will improve his health. Really? Wasn't this Pope a former Hitler Youth? He also said some pretty ignorant stuff throughout his course as Pope imo. As a non-Christian, John Paul seemed like a much more attractive Pope than Benedict and actually demanded some respect because of this demeanor, words and actions..
yeah because the alternative to joining the hitler jugen was...?
|
I'm a Catholic, and I have no problem admitting that the Church is completely assbackwards on its teachings and canon law on sex. It all flows from the fundamental idea that sex is sacred and should not be had unless procreation is intended (ie -- no "fornicating"). This means no condoms or other birth control. In theory, this could be an acceptable position at least logically (however misguided) if the Church stuck to it. However, the Church doesn't. Instead, the Church creates and preaches two huge hypocritical loopholes. First, it teaches newly weds "natural family planning" techniques (timing sex to avoid peak fertility during the menstrual cycle), which is no different than using a condom in terms of intent. Second, and perhaps even worse, it then states it is okay to use a condom when one of the spouses has an STD (though I think it has to be a major one like AIDS). So really, is fornicating allowed or is it not?
|
On February 11 2013 23:20 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:11 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:09 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:03 KwarK wrote:On February 11 2013 22:53 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 22:51 KwarK wrote:
The vast, vast majority of HIV infections result from heterosexual sex in sub Saharan Africa due to shitty AIDS education there. Sorry but the facts disagree with you. Not really. From what I understand, the church teaches that if you don't have sex (abstinence), you can't transmit the virus sexually. How do the facts disagree with that? This is not practical advice for a modern family who can't afford ten kids, let alone for war torn, misogynistic rape cultures. It's not quite as bad as saying "the only way to cure HIV is to pass it on to someone else, if you still have it then they probably didn't catch it or already had it so try often with multiple partners" but discouraging condom use isn't far off that. Abstinence only is a symptom of institutional denial of realities in the Vatican, no atheist pun intended, it's not preventing the spread of HIV while condoms work. Wait what? "If you don't want kids, don't have sex" is not practical advice to a modern family who can't afford ten kids? So it's the fault of an old man in Italy giving advice that will solve the problem if followed, but not the fault of rapists in a rape culture? Seems like the hatred is a bit misplaced here... Bottom line is, it's impossible to spread AIDS sexually without having sex. It is still possible to do so when having sex with condoms. This is not debatable. It's also possible for the human race to die without having sex ffs. Not having sex is against nature. Everybody who advises abstinence is an idiot. lol, please try to use your brain. No one is promoting that NO ONE have sex. But if you cannot be responsible for the potential consequences of sexual intercourse, then you should not engage in sexual intercourse. But that's the thing, you can. He just doesn't want to accept it because it's against completely outdated rules written in a book that was altered to supress people.
you're rude and offensive beyond words
|
On February 11 2013 23:21 shadymmj wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:19 SupLilSon wrote:On February 11 2013 22:45 scFoX wrote:
I'm sad to see him go. Contrary to what many atheists are saying in this thread, he is one of the most learned and profound people I've ever seen. Sure, he's not as glamorous as John Paul II, but he makes it up in brain power. I hope stepping down from office will improve his health. Really? Wasn't this Pope a former Hitler Youth? He also said some pretty ignorant stuff throughout his course as Pope imo. As a non-Christian, John Paul seemed like a much more attractive Pope than Benedict and actually demanded some respect because of this demeanor, words and actions.. yeah because the alternative to joining the hitler jugen was...?
Having the ethical and moral conviction not to join, I'd say. Quite a few chose not to join Hitlerjugend. Apparently the wrath of the führer was more intimidating than that of god for young Ratz.
|
On February 11 2013 23:22 xDaunt wrote:
Second, and perhaps even worse, it then states it is okay to use a condom when one of the spouses has an STD (though I think it has to be a major one like AIDS). So really, is fornicating allowed or is it not?
Not true at all. Do you have a source?
|
On February 11 2013 23:21 shadymmj wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:19 SupLilSon wrote:On February 11 2013 22:45 scFoX wrote:
I'm sad to see him go. Contrary to what many atheists are saying in this thread, he is one of the most learned and profound people I've ever seen. Sure, he's not as glamorous as John Paul II, but he makes it up in brain power. I hope stepping down from office will improve his health. Really? Wasn't this Pope a former Hitler Youth? He also said some pretty ignorant stuff throughout his course as Pope imo. As a non-Christian, John Paul seemed like a much more attractive Pope than Benedict and actually demanded some respect because of this demeanor, words and actions.. yeah because the alternative to joining the hitler jugen was...?
A lot of the hate on him is really stupid (and I am no catholic)
He joined the hitler youth 1941, when he was 14 years old, and joining the hitler youth was mandatory and enforced by the police.
About condoms:
Sex outside marriage is forbidden so somebody having sex outside marriage already does not adhere to catholic teachings, why should he then follow the catholic teachings when it comes to condoms. In marriage where one person has an STD condoms are allowed.
Conclusion: By adhearing to catholic teachings STD's like AIDS will not spread. By adhering to the teachings of secular AIDS prevention campaigns (using condoms) STD's won't spread either. They only spread if you follow neither.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On February 11 2013 23:21 shadymmj wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:19 SupLilSon wrote:On February 11 2013 22:45 scFoX wrote:
I'm sad to see him go. Contrary to what many atheists are saying in this thread, he is one of the most learned and profound people I've ever seen. Sure, he's not as glamorous as John Paul II, but he makes it up in brain power. I hope stepping down from office will improve his health. Really? Wasn't this Pope a former Hitler Youth? He also said some pretty ignorant stuff throughout his course as Pope imo. As a non-Christian, John Paul seemed like a much more attractive Pope than Benedict and actually demanded some respect because of this demeanor, words and actions.. yeah because the alternative to joining the hitler jugen was...?
True. But I think the biggest point I think LilSon is making is that the previous pope, was respected by people of all walks of life because of the way he carried himself and while adhering to catholic catechism was generally much more well spoken and less abrasive in his approach to dissenting opinion.
Though when I heard this this morning I was very surprised, I didn't even realize a pope could resign, I thought you were Pope until you passed away :/
|
We'll need a new old man with a silly hat to take up the noble cause of fighting safe sex and same-sex marriage. Oh well
|
Austria24417 Posts
On February 11 2013 23:23 Wrath 2.1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:20 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:11 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:09 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:03 KwarK wrote:On February 11 2013 22:53 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 22:51 KwarK wrote:
The vast, vast majority of HIV infections result from heterosexual sex in sub Saharan Africa due to shitty AIDS education there. Sorry but the facts disagree with you. Not really. From what I understand, the church teaches that if you don't have sex (abstinence), you can't transmit the virus sexually. How do the facts disagree with that? This is not practical advice for a modern family who can't afford ten kids, let alone for war torn, misogynistic rape cultures. It's not quite as bad as saying "the only way to cure HIV is to pass it on to someone else, if you still have it then they probably didn't catch it or already had it so try often with multiple partners" but discouraging condom use isn't far off that. Abstinence only is a symptom of institutional denial of realities in the Vatican, no atheist pun intended, it's not preventing the spread of HIV while condoms work. Wait what? "If you don't want kids, don't have sex" is not practical advice to a modern family who can't afford ten kids? So it's the fault of an old man in Italy giving advice that will solve the problem if followed, but not the fault of rapists in a rape culture? Seems like the hatred is a bit misplaced here... Bottom line is, it's impossible to spread AIDS sexually without having sex. It is still possible to do so when having sex with condoms. This is not debatable. It's also possible for the human race to die without having sex ffs. Not having sex is against nature. Everybody who advises abstinence is an idiot. lol, please try to use your brain. No one is promoting that NO ONE have sex. But if you cannot be responsible for the potential consequences of sexual intercourse, then you should not engage in sexual intercourse. But that's the thing, you can. He just doesn't want to accept it because it's against completely outdated rules written in a book that was altered to supress people. you're rude and offensive beyond words
He was as well. I don't see a reason to hold back.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
One puppet masquerading as a puppeteer out, another in. The cycle continues.
|
United States42548 Posts
On February 11 2013 23:09 Wrath 2.1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 22:52 McBengt wrote:On February 11 2013 22:47 Wrath 2.1 wrote:
Church can't allow homosexuals until they are able to cure aids imho.
If the church would allow homo sex much more hiv / aids was spread wich has a comulative effect. So it's natural for a religios society to ban homosexuals.
(I don't hate homosexuality in itself, but as long as they pose such a risk to mankind it's for the best to have a critical stance.)
So, as a catholic I support the church in it's ways, though I too would approve of a greater transparacy. That is a very interesting, if somewhat unlettered assertion. I assume you have solid evidence to support the claim that homosexuality exacerbates the spreading of AIDS and is a threat to mankind? It's not difficult to find, and I thought it to be common knowledge. I named it because it was the church status regarding this topic is classic. here's the link: http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/Show nested quote +BY RISK GROUP
GAY, BISEXUAL, AND OTHER MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MEN (MSM):
By risk group, gay, bisexual, and other MSM of all races remain the population most severely affected by HIV.
MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. in 2009, as well as nearly half (49%) of people living with HIV in 2008 (the most recent year national prevalence data is available).
CDC estimates that MSM account for just 2% of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, but accounted for more than 50% of all new HIV infections annually from 2006 to 2009. In 2010, MSM accounted for 61% of HIV diagnoses.
In 2009, white MSM accounted for the largest number of annual new HIV infections of any group in the U.S. (11,400), followed closely by black MSM (10,800).
Young, black MSM were the only risk group in the U.S. to experience statistically significant increases in new HIV infections from 2006–2009—from 4,400 new HIV infections in 2006 to 6,500 infections in 2009.
You've managed to miss the point by several AU, HIV in the USA is globally insignificant. It doesn't matter that anal sex is, to pick a number, ten times more likely to pass it on because heterosexuals are having more sex and HIV in sub Saharan Africa is an epidemic. There are orders of magnitude more straight infections than gay. I'm straight but I'd bareback with ten promiscuous American gays without asking about HIV one before I had sex with a black south African woman without a condom and you should too. Focusing on gays is like worrying about sharks when your boat sinks, sure they look scary but it's the water that'll kill you.
|
On February 11 2013 23:20 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:11 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:09 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:03 KwarK wrote:On February 11 2013 22:53 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 22:51 KwarK wrote:
The vast, vast majority of HIV infections result from heterosexual sex in sub Saharan Africa due to shitty AIDS education there. Sorry but the facts disagree with you. Not really. From what I understand, the church teaches that if you don't have sex (abstinence), you can't transmit the virus sexually. How do the facts disagree with that? This is not practical advice for a modern family who can't afford ten kids, let alone for war torn, misogynistic rape cultures. It's not quite as bad as saying "the only way to cure HIV is to pass it on to someone else, if you still have it then they probably didn't catch it or already had it so try often with multiple partners" but discouraging condom use isn't far off that. Abstinence only is a symptom of institutional denial of realities in the Vatican, no atheist pun intended, it's not preventing the spread of HIV while condoms work. Wait what? "If you don't want kids, don't have sex" is not practical advice to a modern family who can't afford ten kids? So it's the fault of an old man in Italy giving advice that will solve the problem if followed, but not the fault of rapists in a rape culture? Seems like the hatred is a bit misplaced here... Bottom line is, it's impossible to spread AIDS sexually without having sex. It is still possible to do so when having sex with condoms. This is not debatable. It's also possible for the human race to die without having sex ffs. Not having sex is against nature. Everybody who advises abstinence is an idiot. lol, please try to use your brain. No one is promoting that NO ONE have sex. But if you cannot be responsible for the potential consequences of sexual intercourse, then you should not engage in sexual intercourse. But that's the thing, you can. He just doesn't want to accept it because it's against completely outdated rules written in a book that was altered to supress people. Condoms tearing is not what's causing the problems african peoples have with AIDS. Neither is anal sex. It's the fact that they don't have condoms. That's the real problem. And by saying that "it might be ok to use condoms in some cases if you're a male prostitute, ...", he's certainly not gonna help that problem.
More like it's the fact that people who have AIDS have sex anyway and spread AIDS even when advised not to is the real problem.
And the "quote" you provided is not true.
|
On February 11 2013 23:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 22:53 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 22:51 KwarK wrote:
The vast, vast majority of HIV infections result from heterosexual sex in sub Saharan Africa due to shitty AIDS education there. Sorry but the facts disagree with you. Not really. From what I understand, the church teaches that if you don't have sex (abstinence), you can't transmit the virus sexually. How do the facts disagree with that? This is not practical advice for a modern family who can't afford ten kids, let alone for war torn, misogynistic rape cultures. It's not quite as bad as saying "the only way to cure HIV is to pass it on to someone else, if you still have it then they probably didn't catch it or already had it so try often with multiple partners" but discouraging condom use isn't far off that. Abstinence only is a symptom of institutional denial of realities in the Vatican, no atheist pun intended, it's not preventing the spread of HIV while condoms work.
This is very true and needed to be quoted.
|
On February 11 2013 23:23 Wrath 2.1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:20 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:11 DarkLordOlli wrote:On February 11 2013 23:09 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 23:03 KwarK wrote:On February 11 2013 22:53 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On February 11 2013 22:51 KwarK wrote:
The vast, vast majority of HIV infections result from heterosexual sex in sub Saharan Africa due to shitty AIDS education there. Sorry but the facts disagree with you. Not really. From what I understand, the church teaches that if you don't have sex (abstinence), you can't transmit the virus sexually. How do the facts disagree with that? This is not practical advice for a modern family who can't afford ten kids, let alone for war torn, misogynistic rape cultures. It's not quite as bad as saying "the only way to cure HIV is to pass it on to someone else, if you still have it then they probably didn't catch it or already had it so try often with multiple partners" but discouraging condom use isn't far off that. Abstinence only is a symptom of institutional denial of realities in the Vatican, no atheist pun intended, it's not preventing the spread of HIV while condoms work. Wait what? "If you don't want kids, don't have sex" is not practical advice to a modern family who can't afford ten kids? So it's the fault of an old man in Italy giving advice that will solve the problem if followed, but not the fault of rapists in a rape culture? Seems like the hatred is a bit misplaced here... Bottom line is, it's impossible to spread AIDS sexually without having sex. It is still possible to do so when having sex with condoms. This is not debatable. It's also possible for the human race to die without having sex ffs. Not having sex is against nature. Everybody who advises abstinence is an idiot. lol, please try to use your brain. No one is promoting that NO ONE have sex. But if you cannot be responsible for the potential consequences of sexual intercourse, then you should not engage in sexual intercourse. But that's the thing, you can. He just doesn't want to accept it because it's against completely outdated rules written in a book that was altered to supress people. you're rude and offensive beyond words
No he is not, and blast you for saying that he is. He is judging this book, these men, and their nation by the exact same standards you would judge anyone else as a morally responsible person, by how you treat others, how you live your life and the quality and integrity of your morals.
They are being held to the same standards as everyone else, and they are found wanting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
