EPTPope Benedict XVI to resign - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Proseat
Germany5113 Posts
| ||
|
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
On February 11 2013 22:13 DarkLordOlli wrote: You know what will send you to hell? Trick question, nothing will send you to hell. What DID send some people to living hell though is him telling believers that they shouldn't use condoms when AIDS is a real threat and he's aware of it. The irony of your made up quote is that this pope actually sad something about condoms and AIDS, only it was later revoked by other Vatican officials (yes, cardinals revoked their own infallible head of church): http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40289256/ns/world_news-europe/#.URj29Gfy1pg http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11804398 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148899/Pope-approves-use-of-condoms-in-fight-against-Aids.html | ||
|
jdsowa
405 Posts
Anyway, calling it right now EGBenedict[RC] | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
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. Be aware that the data are uncetain and the sexuality number is a minimum estimate: http://aids.about.com/od/dataandstatistics/a/world_facts.htm | ||
|
scFoX
France454 Posts
On February 11 2013 22:53 DarkLordOlli wrote: He told people (paraphrasing) that they shouldn't use condoms. He effectively DID cause AIDS babies. if he'd said "don't have sex", that'd be a different thing (probably equally retarded) but he didn't. He said don't use condoms. This is blatantly false. The first and foremost contraception method promoted by the Church has always been and always will be abstinence. I don't contest his position about condoms, but that is hardly unique for his pontificate as popes have been saying the same since Paul VI. Benedictus XVI has also recently accepted the use of condoms in these difficult situations. But hey, let's crucify a man based on his appearance ("he's ugly") and on what he (supposedly) represents. Guess people here need a Big Bad to vent their frustrations on. | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On February 11 2013 22:58 RoberP wrote: Because it's a command that goes against human nature and is almost impossible to follow. It's like telling children not to brush their teeth because they shouldn't be eating sweets. Almost impossible to follow? Maybe if you lack self control. The problem is people don't like to take responsibility for their actions. Much easier to blame other people. If a doctor tells you not do something or you'll get sick, and you do it anyway because you're addicted to it, is it his fault when you get sick? | ||
KwarK
United States41470 Posts
On February 11 2013 22:53 SpeaKEaSY wrote: 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. | ||
|
McBengt
Sweden1684 Posts
| ||
|
MasterOfPuppets
Romania6942 Posts
On February 11 2013 22:52 McBengt wrote: 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? While his point is pretty stupidly expressed, his claim is not entirely outlandish. Obviously, it's not about sexual orientation as it is about unprotected anal sex, but the correlation is not entirely false. However to say "they pose such a risk to mankind" is beyond absurd. No, they pose far less risk than masses of impoverished, uneducated, disease-ridden people boning like crazy in third world countries. | ||
|
SiroKO
France721 Posts
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. | ||
|
shadymmj
1906 Posts
| ||
|
Thallis
United States314 Posts
On February 11 2013 22:15 Zandar wrote: For the record to my Catholic fellows here. I'm a non believer somewhere between agnost and atheist. I don't hate Catholics at all. I have neighbours, family members who are catholic. I've been to a catholic school as a kid. Even had catholic girlfiends. I just think it's time for a more modern pope, and yes I think Benedictis did some serious harm. But can I say that without being anti catholic? I sure hope I can. I don't hate blacks, some of my best friends are black! Honestly a ton of people here do not know how these decisions made by the Pope work. There is no defense for moving around the pedophiles, for sure, but the way the pope handled homosexuality and condoms are just par for the course. It's his job to be consistent as possible regarding new phenomena, the way actual dogma changes is through Ecumenical councils (Vatican I, II, etc.). The pope's teachings are outdated because they're meant for the mid 20th century. The way these teachings come about almost like the legal system, they use a precedent already in catholic teachings, and then base their new theology to remain consistent. For sure catholic dogma needs reform, but a single Pope can't really do that without a council. | ||
Olli
Austria24416 Posts
On February 11 2013 22:59 lord_nibbler wrote: The irony of your made up quote is that this pope actually sad something about condoms and AIDS, only it was later revoked by other Vatican officials (yes, cardinals revoked their own infallible head of church): http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40289256/ns/world_news-europe/#.URj29Gfy1pg http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11804398 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148899/Pope-approves-use-of-condoms-in-fight-against-Aids.html Benedict said that condoms are not a moral solution to stopping AIDS. But he said in some cases, such as for male prostitutes, their use could represent a first step in assuming moral responsibility "in the intention of reducing the risk of infection." Benedict drew the wrath of the United Nations, European governments and AIDS activists when, en route to Africa in 2009, he told reporters that the AIDS problem on the continent couldn't be resolved by distributing condoms. "On the contrary, it increases the problem," he said then. He reiterated the church's position that abstinence and marital fidelity is the only sure way to prevent HIV. See, an intelligent person would've said "or you could use condoms". | ||
|
Wrath 2.1
Germany880 Posts
On February 11 2013 22:52 McBengt wrote: 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/ 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. | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On February 11 2013 23:03 KwarK wrote: 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. | ||
|
Olli
Austria24416 Posts
On February 11 2013 23:09 SpeaKEaSY wrote: 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. | ||
|
McBengt
Sweden1684 Posts
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? | ||
|
Warheart
Italy25 Posts
On February 11 2013 21:41 masterbreti wrote: well techinally Vatican City is a seperate country from Italy. sadly the Vatican is very powerful in Italy,economically and politically so the vatican being a different state only prevents external infuences to come in it,but does not keep it form influencing the rest of the world. there is definitely not enough separation between church and state when cardinals can go on national tv and say what the main objectives of the next italian Prime Minister should be. not to mention stupid and disgraceful laws on (or lack thereof) about abortions, artificial insemination and assisted suicide... | ||
|
MasterOfPuppets
Romania6942 Posts
On February 11 2013 23:11 McBengt wrote: Where does the bible ever mention anal sex? And how would the orifice matter if you just used a condom in the first place? Did you read the link I posted as a reply to you? No? It explained everything in layman's terms. The anus/rectum is very susceptible to cuts and tears while conducting anal sex. This means there is a greater chance for infected body fluids to enter the blood stream. Male homosexuals are the group most at-risk for HIV and other STIs. This is largely due to the high prevalence of the virus in semen as opposed to vaginal fluids, and the type of sexual activity associated with this group, e.g. anal sex. | ||
|
shadymmj
1906 Posts
On February 11 2013 23:11 McBengt wrote: 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 | ||
| ||
