Thread Derails... Aids, Popes And Condoms

[MithLuin]

[quote]Just because you want the world to be different doesn't change things. [/quote]

Very true. We aren't going to just wish the AIDS epidemic away.

Please refer back to my description of Uganda's ABC program - handing out condoms was done to targeted populations who were likely to engage in risky behavior. In other words, men who showed up at clinics for sexually transmitted diseases (not just HIV) would be given free condoms. There was plenty of preaching of abstinence going on, and that was in fact the main drive of the program.

The Catholic Church says not to use condoms. It also says not to fornicate or commit adultery. If people obey both teachings, there's no problem - with AIDS, STDs or a lot of other things. The Church is teaching moral behavior, and it isn't going to call something wrong right just because a lot of people do it. It can be wrong and common/popular. Many sins are quite common, human nature being what it is, but they're still sins. I will grant that it is the responsibility of the Church to teach that fornication and adultery are very serious sins, and people should never think it is 'okay' just because they managed to not use a condom while doing so. That would be akin to thinking it was okay to rob a bank if your getaway driver obeyed the speed limit.

You are saying that a nonMuslim culture does not have a tradition of chaste sexual behavior among young people, and thus they cannot be encouraged to live chaste lives with any effect. That's...pretty deterministic. Everything is just the way it is and it won't change. Cultures change all the time. Uganda [i]has[/i] seen cultural shifts because of the abstinence education they've used. In Masaka, Uganda, "among 15-year-old boys and girls, the proportion who had never had sex rose from about 20% to 50% between 1989 and 1995." [url=http://www.who.int/inf-new/aids2.htm]source[/url]

Using condoms is also counter-cultural in Subsaharan Africa. I do not want to get into details about what styles of sex are preferred, but certainly there is some pretty strong resistance from the men when it comes to wearing condoms.

In fact, to speak of AIDS openly at all is counter-cultural. Most people do not admit they are HIV+, knowing they will be shunned by their community. The disease is a taboo. Speaking about sex is often taboo (though it depends where you are for that). It is not unusual for the gov't to try to downplay or deny the severity of the problem, which seriously undermines programs to educate and prevent the spread of the disease. The countries who have made a difference are ones where society has decided it was time to change the culture, not just give up:

[quote]The West African country of Senegal is one of the few countries in sub-Saharan Africa to have succeeded in containing the spread of HIV from the outset. Since the first cases appeared in the country in the mid-1980s, infection rates have remained consistently low at under 2% -- largely due to the success of a nationwide campaign to modify sexual behaviour. This has led to a massive increase in the use of condoms and [b]a delay in the age at which teenage girls first have sex.[/b] [url=http://www.who.int/inf-new/aids3.htm]source[/url][/quote]

There are many cultural challenges to confronting the AIDS epidemic (in the countries of Africa and in other nations). Encouraging abstinence and fidelity is just one of them. We don't give up on any of the others, and we shouldn't give up on that, either. The Catholic Church has done many things to help counter cultural prejudice. For instance, in Burundi (where 75% of the population is Catholic), the Church has said that they will not marry anyone who has not gotten an AIDS test. The results don't need to be shown to the Church (not their business), but they think it very important that the spouses-to-be are honest with each other on this issue. [url=http://www.thebody.com/content/news/art23456.html]source[/url] Sure, there are people who would 'rather not know', but this gets it out in the open. Testing is one of the important ways of combating the disease.


The Church does what it can to help. No, they aren't going to pass out free condoms. But...that doesn't mean the Church is 'doing nothing' about AIDS. If other groups what to pass out condoms...be our guest. AFAIK, they're not illegal in any African nation. The Catholic Church seeks to build strong and just societies. Yes, that means doing something about AIDS, but that is one issue only. The Church also wants the family to be a stable place where children can be raised with love. It takes a lot more than a health worker to assure that that is so, which is why the Church has such a variety of ministries. The Church doesn't say prostitutes can't use condoms. Rather, she says that the woman should not prostitute herself at all. It's a more compassionate approach to get the woman out of that job than to just supply her with condoms, anyway.

Edited January 12, 2010 by MithLuin

[Socrates]

[quote name='jkaands' date='09 January 2010 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1263058266' post='2033233']
Subs-Saharan (not Muslim) Africa does not have a tradition of virginity, abstinence or fidelity in marriage. Both boys and girls, but particularly boys, have sex early and often. Many men have sex on the road, infecting their wives and through births of infected mothers, their children. [b]It is a complete waste to promote abstinence among countries who do not have this anywhere in their traditions[/b], to the exclusion of barrier and gel contraception, male circumcision and HPV vaccination (to deter cervical cancer, which is an STD). Condoms work in these countries to decrease the spread of HIV and AIDS. Male circumcision works too, to decrease the spread of STD's in general, and is now being promoted widely. The HPV vaccine is shown to be very well tolerated and effective in the US and will also enter widespread use.
[/quote]
God forbid Christians (much less the Pope!) dare promote virtue and try to change immoral "traditions"!

The Church has often worked to change immoral "traditions" in many places through history - including polygamy, slavery, infanticide, and human sacrifice. Contrary to the dogmas of that pc religion of "liberal Catholicism," it is the duty to of the Church to promote virtue and oppose immorality, whether it is popular or not - not to bow to popular opinion and offer easy fix "solutions" that are contrary to morality.
Promoting chastity is the best solution to the problem of AIDS. There's nothing wrong with vaccines and circumcision, but contraception is immoral and cannot be promoted by the Pope. Throwing shiploads of condoms at Africa has done little to eliminate the AIDS epidemic, anyway. Nobody ever died from sexual abstinence.

No one said promoting virtue and morality where it is not commonly practiced is easy, but it is what we all must do as Catholics and Christians, and especially our Holy Father on earth.

And rubbers and contraception are not part of the African tradition either, for that matter.


[quote name='jkaands' date='09 January 2010 - 12:34 PM' timestamp='1263058480' post='2033235']
The countries in Africa with the lowest STD and HIV rates are in Muslim Africa. I, for one, would not like to live in countries with a 14th century moral code, and when the rights of both men and women, but especially women, are severely restricted.
[/quote]
Yeah, God forbid we Christians oppose the "rights" to fornicate and sodomize with careless abandon! Much better to suffer from an epidemic of AIDS and other disgusting diseases than to live by some repressive medieval moral code!
Gotta love "liberal Catholicism."

As most people on here are aware, I don't support the excesses of Islamic penal code regarding women, but there is certainly nothing wrong with promoting the virtue of chastity and opposing promiscuous sex.

If the Muslims can reduce AIDS in Africa by promoting sexual morality, why can't we Christians?

[Winchester]

So it's ridiculous to try to assert women's rights in countries that don't have this in their traditions.

Yeah. I can totally see the UN adopting that stance.

[Socrates]

Blaming the Pope for the AIDS epidemic in Africa is utterly ridiculous.

If people in Africa were actually listening to the Pope and Church teachings, they wouldn't be fornicating, committing adultery, and engaging in prostitution and sodomy with reckless abandon.
If such behavior was discontinued, and chastity practiced, in accord with the Church's constant moral teaching, you can guarantee the spread of AIDS would be drastically reduced.

In addition to the problems with condoms brought up by others here, the entire blame-the-Pope game is absurd. Obviously, people engaging in fornication are not paying any heed to what the Pope says about sexual morality in the first place. Do you think someone who sleeps around with many different women, visits prostitutes, or engages in bi-sexual activity (all common practices in much of Africa) is suddenly going to pay reverent attention to what the Pope says when it concerns wearing a rubber?

Of course, rather than attack the root problem - the popular practices of sexual promiscuity and immorality - it's so much easier (and much more politically-correct) to blame the Pope for an unpopular Church moral teaching. Do this, and you'll receive a pat on the back and congratulations from all the other liberal opinionists for your "courage."

Edited January 13, 2010 by Socrates

[philbo]

[quote name='havok579257' date='12 January 2010 - 07:43 PM' timestamp='1263321793' post='2035470']
1. Dude we are human, animal instincts do not control us, logic does. An animal will have sex with any type of female that it can. That's obviously not the case with humans.
[/quote]
You obviously know as little about animals as you do about humans: I can guarantee over 50% of animals do not "have sex with any type of female"... (and among most species, not even male animals will have sex with any type of female) logic doesn't control humans (if it did, there would be no religions - faith without evidence as about as illogical a behavioural trait as you can get).

[quote name='havok579257' date='12 January 2010 - 07:43 PM' timestamp='1263321793' post='2035470']
2. A women is only pregnant not even 10 days a month. Something you would know if you bothered to look up a women's cycle. So once again your logic is flawwed.
[/quote]
I assume you mean a woman can only get pregnant.. however, trying to get your timing right is the most inefficient form of birth control, and doesn't work - there's nothing wrong with my logic. I really didn't think it was that hard to understand.

[quote name='havok579257' date='12 January 2010 - 07:43 PM' timestamp='1263321793' post='2035470']
Millions of humans have had sex throughout the centuries without condoms and never had 50 kids. Its very rare that women will have children in large numbers due to the difficulty in getting pregnant since a women is not fertaile the majority of days a month and nearly all couples do not have sex every day of their life. Once again, flawwed logic.
[/quote]
All four of my grandparents came from families with >10 children, and that wasn't considered unusual at the time - go back another couple of generations and it was the case that you needed a lot of children to see enough survive through to childbearing age.. but with the vast improvements in health care, such reproductive profligacy is not sustainable as almost all children survive.

[quote name='havok579257' date='12 January 2010 - 07:43 PM' timestamp='1263321793' post='2035470']
3. So just because the world has lots of premarital sex I just need to accept it? Well duh! But what I and the catholic church does not have to do is comprimise our morals.[/quote]
It's up to you whether you get on your moral high horse and try and stop people from having sex... you may want to change things, but you have to accept that it does happen.

[quote name='havok579257' date='12 January 2010 - 07:43 PM' timestamp='1263321793' post='2035470']
4. Once again you keep saying strawman but have no rebuttal. You complain about winchester not giving you any rebuttal yet you do the same thing. Its called pot... kettle... black.
[/quote]
Oh, FFS - are you really as stupid as you're coming across? You *really* see a moral equivalence between helping prevent the spread of serious disease and helping people kill people?

If you believe that your comment was not a strawman, then what you are saying is that it is morally the same thing to use condoms to help reduce the spread of AIDS as it is to help murderers - is this really what you're saying?

[quote name='havok579257' date='12 January 2010 - 07:43 PM' timestamp='1263321793' post='2035470']
5. You insisted every preist by the way you framed your arguements. You tried to insinuate that all priests can not remain celebate, so don't even try to back track.
[/quote]
Can you read? What I said was:
[quote]After all, it doesn't work 100% for priests who have had years oftraining and taken vows of abstention, why would you expect lecturingfrom the pulpit to make people decide not to have sex?[/quote]
..at what point does saying "abstinence doesn't work 100%" mean "every priest"

[quote name='havok579257' date='12 January 2010 - 07:43 PM' timestamp='1263321793' post='2035470']But your logic is faulty once again. Cause by your logic, if a few priests became murders, then how can we expect the majority of humanity to not become murderes? This is getting so old. Get some logical arguements here.[/quote]
Again, you're ascribing things to me that I didn't say - where did I talk about "majority"? I didn't say "most", just "not none". Please try and read what I've actually said rather than making inaccurate assumptions and misquotes.

[quote name='havok579257' date='12 January 2010 - 07:43 PM' timestamp='1263321793' post='2035470']
7. Dude your logic is flawwed again. You say since premarital sex and extramarital sex will never completly stop, then we will never get rid of stds, so we should just give everyone condoms. Well what if I said, sinces condoms are not perfect, whats the point of even giving them out since they could break. YOur arguing my point for me here, don't you see that.
[/quote]
I really think you ought to do a course in critical thinking, and how to think logically. You seem repeatedly unable to draw an accurate conclusion from what's being said.

If you're waiting for a perfect means to stop transmission of STDs, you'll probably be waiting forever. Just because condoms aren't perfect, doesn't mean they shouldn't be used if they make an imperfect situation better.

[quote name='havok579257' date='12 January 2010 - 07:43 PM' timestamp='1263321793' post='2035470']
Did you honestly want to come here and debate logically or did you just want to try and attack the catholic church?
[/quote]
Where have I attacked the Catholic church? Disagreeing with church policy on condoms isn't attacking the Catholic church. If you only want people who toe the party line, why have a "debate" forum at all?

Would I be right in summarizing your arguments as being: "if you insist on being immoral and having sex outside marriage, then we want you to catch a life-threatening illness so you can join your fellow fornicators in Hell as soon as possible"?

[philbo]

[quote name='Socrates' date='13 January 2010 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1263339861' post='2035651']
Blaming the Pope for the AIDS epidemic in Africa is utterly ridiculous.
[/quote]
Nobody is blaming the Pope for the AIDS epidemic. What is it with you people here, can you only deal in absolutes?

[quote name='Socrates' date='13 January 2010 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1263339861' post='2035651']
If people in Africa were actually listening to the Pope and Church teachings, they wouldn't be fornicating, committing adultery, and engaging in prostitution and sodomy with reckless abandon.
If such behavior was discontinued, and chastity practiced, in accord with the Church's constant moral teaching, you can guarantee the spread of AIDS would be drastically reduced.
[/quote]
So, as I said to Havoc - Would I be right in summarizing your arguments as being: "if you insiston being immoral and having sex outside marriage, then we want you tocatch a life-threatening illness so you can join your fellowfornicators in Hell as soon as possible"?

[Winchester]

[quote name='philbo' date='13 January 2010 - 04:53 AM' timestamp='1263376419' post='2036035']
Nobody is blaming the Pope for the AIDS epidemic. What is it with you people here, can you only deal in absolutes?
[/quote]
The internet has reached the red zone for irony and will need to open its reserve holding tanks, now.

[philbo]

[quote name='Winchester' date='13 January 2010 - 02:38 PM' timestamp='1263389927' post='2036093']
The internet has reached the red zone for irony and will need to open its reserve holding tanks, now.
[/quote]
Has anybody, ever, said "The Pope is to blame for the AIDS epidemic"?

I'm trying to work out whether you're a naturally obnoxious type who enjoys trying to wind people up, or you really do think only in black and white.

..edit to add: well, it seems you're not the only one. The only hit on google for the exact phrase "The Pope is to blame for the AIDS epidemic" turns out to be someone misquoting Richard Cohen of the Washington Post. Somehow that seems vaguely ironic.

Edited January 13, 2010 by philbo

[Winchester]

[quote name='philbo' date='13 January 2010 - 10:31 AM' timestamp='1263396687' post='2036148']
Has anybody, ever, said "The Pope is to blame for the AIDS epidemic"?

I'm trying to work out whether you're a naturally obnoxious type who enjoys trying to wind people up, or you really do think only in black and white.

..edit to add: well, it seems you're not the only one. The only hit on google for the exact phrase "The Pope is to blame for the AIDS epidemic" turns out to be someone misquoting Richard Cohen of the Washington Post. Somehow that seems vaguely ironic.
[/quote]
No, I just think it's funny you generalise whilst complaining about generalisation.

Things are black and white--it's our limited perception that views shades of grey.

[philbo]

[quote name='Winchester' date='13 January 2010 - 07:24 PM' timestamp='1263407042' post='2036254']
No, I just think it's funny you generalise whilst complaining about generalisation.
[/quote]
I see it more as me making a generalization along the lines of "not all birds are robins", and you coming back with "so you're saying no birds are robins". I'm not complaining about generalization, I'm complaining about almost everything I post being (intentionally?) misrepresented.

[quote name='Winchester' date='13 January 2010 - 07:24 PM' timestamp='1263407042' post='2036254']
Things are black and white--it's our limited perception that views shades of grey.
[/quote]
On the contrary: everything exists in shades of grey, it's a fiddler on perception that turns them to black and white.

[Winchester]

[quote name='philbo' date='13 January 2010 - 02:42 PM' timestamp='1263411721' post='2036324']
I see it more as me making a generalization along the lines of "not all birds are robins", and you coming back with "so you're saying no birds are robins". I'm not complaining about generalization, I'm complaining about almost everything I post being (intentionally?) misrepresented.[/quote]
Now you're ascribing intent to the others. I feel perfectly comfortable with people accusing me of being crappy, but there are some people here who aren't burnt out and they aren't misrepresenting you on purpose.

[quote]
On the contrary: everything exists in shades of grey, it's a fiddler on perception that turns them to black and white.
[/quote]
The model of the Cave, which is the best explanation for perception of Truth vs. Truth disagrees with this. And so does life experience. If one kills another, one either committed murder or one did not. Our perception may deprive us of the knowledge of the nature of the act, but it remains that it was either murder or not.

[philbo]

[quote name='Winchester' date='13 January 2010 - 09:20 PM' timestamp='1263414021' post='2036369']
Now you're ascribing intent to the others. I feel perfectly comfortable with people accusing me of being crappy, but there are some people here who aren't burnt out and they aren't misrepresenting you on purpose.
[/quote]
That's kind of why I stuck the "intentionally?" in brackets with a question mark... at least, when I'm positing the possibility of intent, I'm open about it.

[quote name='Winchester' date='13 January 2010 - 09:20 PM' timestamp='1263414021' post='2036369']
The model of the Cave, which is the best explanation for perception of Truth vs. Truth disagrees with this. And so does life experience. If one kills another, one either committed murder or one did not. Our perception may deprive us of the knowledge of the nature of the act, but it remains that it was either murder or not.
[/quote]
On the subject of thread derails...

"murder" has a precise definition, involving intent and a knowledge that ones actions are likely to cause the death of another; being certain that something is murder, on the other hand, requires knowledge of the killer's brain and state of mind.. things of which even the killer may not be consciously aware. So even for something as clearly-defined as murder, it is not always possible to be certain that an act was - so we're operating in a world where even where there are black-and-white absolutes, we can only operate with shades of grey, probability and "reasonable doubt".

PS Why does the word "foxtrot india lima tango echo romeo" change to "fiddler"?

[Winchester]

[quote name='philbo' date='13 January 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1263415265' post='2036386']
That's kind of why I stuck the "intentionally?" in brackets with a question mark... at least, when I'm positing the possibility of intent, I'm open about it.[/quote]
Fair enough.

[quote]
On the subject of thread derails...

"murder" has a precise definition, involving intent and a knowledge that ones actions are likely to cause the death of another; being certain that something is murder, on the other hand, requires knowledge of the killer's brain and state of mind.. things of which even the killer may not be consciously aware. So even for something as clearly-defined as murder, it is not always possible to be certain that an act was - so we're operating in a world where even where there are black-and-white absolutes, we can only operate with shades of grey, probability and "reasonable doubt".
[/quote]
Agreed.
[quote]
PS Why does the word "foxtrot india lima tango echo romeo" change to "fiddler"?
[/quote]
The fiddler does it.

[Socrates]

[quote name='philbo' date='13 January 2010 - 04:53 AM' timestamp='1263376419' post='2036035']
Nobody is blaming the Pope for the AIDS epidemic. What is it with you people here, can you only deal in absolutes?[/quote]
I have in fact seen opinion articles outright accusing the Pope of "genocide" (no joke!) for not endorsing condoms in Africa. No, you didn't post any such accusations yourself, but I thought perhaps this thread might have been spurred by such material.
It's heartening that at you at least apparently agree with me as to the asinine silliness of such charges.


[quote]So, as I said to Havoc - Would I be right in summarizing your arguments as being: "if you insiston being immoral and having sex outside marriage, then we want you tocatch a life-threatening illness so you can join your fellowfornicators in Hell as soon as possible"?
[/quote]
Of course not.
The argument would be not to commit immoral acts in the first place, and thus avoid both hell and life-threatening diseases. Condom-use is additionally immoral insofar as it deliberately blocks the procreation of life in the sexual act.
(However, it seems you have little interest in actually understanding Catholic moral teaching, but instead wish only to mock it.)
If you're thinking in terms of "if I commit such and such mortally sinful act, should I then do A or B?" you're already on the wrong path morally.
The Pope simply teaches what actions are moral and immoral. He can't force anyone whether to follow. We should always make the moral choice (though this is indeed impossible for all of us without God's grace).

[Winchester]

[quote name='philbo' date='13 January 2010 - 04:46 AM' timestamp='1263376009' post='2036033']

Where have I attacked the Catholic church? Disagreeing with church policy on condoms isn't attacking the Catholic church. [/quote]
The Church's stance on morality isn't a policy, really. Policies of the Church are more like the dates of celebrations, vows of celibacy, liturgical colors. Those are referred to as disciplines, which are meant to best convey the teachings of the Church which can never change. So attacking a moral stance of the Church is attacking the Church.

[Sirklawd]

Promiscuity is the problem. Condoms may prevent the spread of the std in a single act, but they promote more and more of the act. A condom's single purpose is to prevent conception. This removes responsibility from the sexual act and opens the door to promiscuity. Free orgasm? [i]WHY NOT?![/i] You cant prevent stds and promote free sex. It doesnt work. Promiscuity changes a society. It creates a society that is inherently self-centered.

This is what the pope said. And this is what the docu-dump said is being proved. Did anyone who disagrees with the pope actually read it?

I think people dislike the pope's teaching because it's just as critical of western civilization as it is of africa.

[Winchester]

Sinful nature is the problem--promiscuity is a symptom.

[philbo]

[quote name='Socrates' date='14 January 2010 - 07:12 PM' timestamp='1263492747' post='2037028']
I have in fact seen opinion articles outright accusing the Pope of "genocide" (no joke!) for not endorsing condoms in Africa. No, you didn't post any such accusations yourself, but I thought perhaps this thread might have been spurred by such material.
It's heartening that at you at least apparently agree with me as to the asinine silliness of such charges.[/quote]

I agree that charges of "genocide" are ridiculous - his stance doesn't help, but hyperbole like that are a little bit OTT



[quote name='Socrates' date='14 January 2010 - 07:12 PM' timestamp='1263492747' post='2037028']
The argument would be not to commit immoral acts in the first place, and thus avoid both hell and life-threatening diseases.  Condom-use is additionally immoral insofar as it deliberately blocks the procreation of life in the sexual act.
(However, it seems you have little interest in actually understanding Catholic moral teaching, but instead wish only to mock it.)
If you're thinking in terms of "if I commit such and such mortally sinful act, should I then do A or B?" you're already on the wrong path morally.
The Pope simply teaches what actions are moral and immoral.  He can't force anyone whether to follow.  We should always make the moral choice (though this is indeed impossible for all of us without God's grace).
[/quote]
I'm not thinking "if I commit such an act", because I'm married (for an inordinately long time now) and have never had sex outside that marriage.. not because I consider it a sin, but, well, just "because" I suppose.  But I don't go judging others, and I don't believe in moral absolutes that condemn people for doing exactly the same sorts of things as people in their culture have been doing since before there was a Catholic Church.  To be honest, I find the whole "it's sinful because we say it is" attitude really rather arrogant and repugnant... but then, that's probably because I don't have the underlying acceptance of a godly authority.

[quote name='Winchester' date='14 January 2010 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1263502721' post='2037138']
So attacking a moral stance of the Church is attacking the Church.
[/quote]
I suppose that's an inherent problem with declaring your pontiff "infallible".  But when he gets it so wrong (such as the stance on condoms), to be honest the Church just looks an ass.  It also makes debate pretty much impossible, if any statement pointing out the inhumanity of the Church's moral stance is taken as an attack on the whole institution.

You might just as well say "we want all you fornicators to burn in Hell as soon as possible", and at least be honest about it.

[quote name='Sirklawd' date='14 January 2010 - 10:44 PM' timestamp='1263505492' post='2037153']
Promiscuity is the problem. Condoms may prevent the spread of the std in a single act, but they promote more and more of the act.[/quote]

If you can provide evidence that condoms promote more and more of that act, I'd be interested to see it: the problems with AIDS in Africa is that people are already having (lots of) promiscuous sex *without* condoms.  Suggesting that condoms will cause more sex is unsupported and almost definitely inaccurate (please note I'm talking about sub-Saharan Africa where AIDS is rife - I don't want to get distracted onto a European/American debate right now).

[quote name='Sirklawd' date='14 January 2010 - 10:44 PM' timestamp='1263505492' post='2037153']
A condom's single purpose is to prevent conception. This removes responsibility from the sexual act and opens the door to promiscuity. Free orgasm? [i]WHY NOT?![/i] You cant prevent stds and promote free sex. It doesnt work. Promiscuity changes a society. It creates a society that is inherently self-centered.[/quote]


A condom, when STDs are rife, is not solely to prevent contraception.  And even if it were, the world's population is expanding so quickly that preventing contraception is a good idea.  Free orgasm?  Isn't that what hands and internet porn are for?

"Creates a society that is inherently self-centred"?  I'd say advertising does a better job of that, personally.

[quote name='Sirklawd' date='14 January 2010 - 10:44 PM' timestamp='1263505492' post='2037153']
This is what the pope said. And this is what the docu-dump said is being proved. Did anyone who disagrees with the pope actually read it?

I think people dislike the pope's teaching because it's just as critical of western civilization as it is of africa.
[/quote]

I dislike the Pope's teaching because it's founded in a world as he'd like it to be, where people are celibate outside marriage and faithful within it.. which isn't a world that actually exists at the moment.  He's not going to change promiscuity in AIDS-rife areas by talking about sin, and if the best weapon against the spread of AIDS is to wear a barrier during sex then either he should realize what is best for the uninfected population is at the very least to have some protection; or he sticks unflinchingly to dogma and presumably accepts the inevitable consequence that millions more will be infected and die.



[quote name='Winchester' date='14 January 2010 - 10:49 PM' timestamp='1263505789' post='2037156']
Sinful nature is the problem--promiscuity is a symptom.
[/quote]
But if mankind is inherently sinful, and promiscuity is a symptom of that sinful nature, surely the "Christian" thing to do would be to help rather than just preach?

[havok579257]

[quote name='philbo' date='14 January 2010 - 06:53 PM' timestamp='1263513183' post='2037241']
I agree that charges of "genocide" are ridiculous - his stance doesn't help, but hyperbole like that are a little bit OTT




I'm not thinking "if I commit such an act", because I'm married (for an inordinately long time now) and have never had sex outside that marriage.. not because I consider it a sin, but, well, just "because" I suppose.  But I don't go judging others, and I don't believe in moral absolutes that condemn people for doing exactly the same sorts of things as people in their culture have been doing since before there was a Catholic Church.  To be honest, I find the whole "it's sinful because we say it is" attitude really rather arrogant and repugnant... but then, that's probably because I don't have the underlying acceptance of a godly authority.


I suppose that's an inherent problem with declaring your pontiff "infallible".  But when he gets it so wrong (such as the stance on condoms), to be honest the Church just looks an ass.  It also makes debate pretty much impossible, if any statement pointing out the inhumanity of the Church's moral stance is taken as an attack on the whole institution.

You might just as well say "we want all you fornicators to burn in Hell as soon as possible", and at least be honest about it.



If you can provide evidence that condoms promote more and more of that act, I'd be interested to see it: the problems with AIDS in Africa is that people are already having (lots of) promiscuous sex *without* condoms.  Suggesting that condoms will cause more sex is unsupported and almost definitely inaccurate (please note I'm talking about sub-Saharan Africa where AIDS is rife - I don't want to get distracted onto a European/American debate right now).




A condom, when STDs are rife, is not solely to prevent contraception.  And even if it were, the world's population is expanding so quickly that preventing contraception is a good idea.  Free orgasm?  Isn't that what hands and internet porn are for?

"Creates a society that is inherently self-centred"?  I'd say advertising does a better job of that, personally.



I dislike the Pope's teaching because it's founded in a world as he'd like it to be, where people are celibate outside marriage and faithful within it.. which isn't a world that actually exists at the moment.  He's not going to change promiscuity in AIDS-rife areas by talking about sin, and if the best weapon against the spread of AIDS is to wear a barrier during sex then either he should realize what is best for the uninfected population is at the very least to have some protection; or he sticks unflinchingly to dogma and presumably accepts the inevitable consequence that millions more will be infected and die.




But if mankind is inherently sinful, and promiscuity is a symptom of that sinful nature, surely the "Christian" thing to do would be to help rather than just preach?
[/quote]


further proof you don't care about anything any of us say or what the church teaches, because once again you come off as the athiest who wants to ATTACk, yes ATTACk the catholic church without even understanding it. You obviously have no idea about the catholic church and what it teaches except what you know from other athiests. Cause its evident you have no clue what papal infallability is. The pope is not infallible 24/7. What the pope said about condoms in africa was not an infallible teaching. You come on here and bash the church yet you haven't even bothered to understand its most basic foundations. And you see why I stereotype athiests. Cause you just proved all the stereotypes right.

Please either learn something about the catholic church from someone who is catholic and not anti-catholic or stop attack the church for things IT DOES NOT STAND FOR! It would be nice to have a new athiest come onto this board and not fit into every sterotype.

Edited January 15, 2010 by havok579257

[philbo]

[quote name='havok579257' date='15 January 2010 - 06:15 AM' timestamp='1263532546' post='2037554']
further proof you don't care about anything any of us say or what the church teaches, because once again you come off as the athiest who wants to ATTACk, yes ATTACk the catholic church without even understanding it. You obviously have no idea about the catholic church and what it teaches except what you know from other athiests. Cause its evident you have no clue what papal infallability is. The pope is not infallible 24/7. What the pope said about condoms in africa was not an infallible teaching. You come on here and bash the church yet you haven't even bothered to understand its most basic foundations. And you see why I stereotype athiests. Cause you just proved all the stereotypes right. [/quote]
My word, you are an insecure type, aren't you?

Maybe if you think I'm wrong about what Papal infallibility is, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why? Being wrong about some esoteric parts of a particular belief system and means all your prejudices about atheists are proved right? Are you *really* that shallow?

[quote name='havok579257' date='15 January 2010 - 06:15 AM' timestamp='1263532546' post='2037554']
Please either learn something about the catholic church from someone who is catholic and not anti-catholic or stop attack the church for things IT DOES NOT STAND FOR! It would be nice to have a new athiest come onto this board and not fit into every sterotype.
[/quote]
If you think I fit every atheist stereotype, please list them and we can tick them off individually.