Ratzinger condemns condoms

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Why the Pope opposes condoms (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7951839.stm)


The Pope said the "cruel epidemic" should be tackled through fidelity and abstinence rather than condoms, and that "the traditional teaching of the Church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids".

The magic solution: https://img516.imageshack.us/img516/9629/handjob.gif
.

[Major Robert Dump]

Yes, abstinence will stop the rapists.

And we all know that poor, desperate, hungry people never have sex, so it should work for them, too.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He makes a valid point. If people didn't have sex it would spread. You can't argue with that.

[Sarmatian]

He makes a valid point. If people didn't have sex it would spread. You can't argue with that.

Exactly. If people didn't eat, there would be an abundance of food in the world.

On a serious note, it's a Pope and he's against contraceptives - like any other self-respecting Pope...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Exactly. If people didn't eat, there would be an abundance of food in the world.

On a serious note, it's a Pope and he's against contraceptives - like any other self-respecting Pope...

You don't have to have sex. The Pope's point is that condoms allow people to abdicate responsibility for their actions.

Now, whether or not you agree with contraception (no problem with it myself) you have to admit that he does have a point.

People in Africa don't take responsibility for their sexual misadventures, they aren't monogomous and they don't use condoms.

[Kralizec]

This isn't any different from what the Vatican has been saying for the past century. They've always held that extramarital sex is bad and the Africans don't care. If Benedict started encouraging people to use condoms, how many Africans would follow his advice?

The Vatican's position is stupid, but mostly ineffectual.

[Vuk]

Condoms are evil. I once had a really bad experience with a condom that has left me scarred (mentally and physically) to this day. Save a horse, don't use condoms. :yes:

[rasoforos]

No Condoms = More AIDS = More suffering = More People turning to religion


Simple as that.

[Fragony]

Condoms are evil. I once had a really bad experience with a condom that has left me scarred (mentally and physically) to this day. Save a horse, don't use condoms. :yes:

I once shot one in my eye. Hate these things a pain to get it on and sex is much better without them.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Condoms are evil. I once had a really bad experience with a condom that has left me scarred (mentally and physically) to this day. Save a horse, don't use condoms. :yes:

If there's a horse involved, you're doing it wrong. :wink:

The Pope certainly has a point and it is a solid one. One can argue that real experience may be different, but his role is to teach the absolute in ethical principles.

The issue, IMO, is not condom use per se, but the powerlessness of women in many African societies. Abstinence for them is simply not possible as they cannot deny the demands of men. The Church's stance fails because it has rarely championed women's sexual rights, and refuses to recognise that advocacy of condom use should be a method of empowering women, not promoting promiscuity.

[rasoforos]

The Pope certainly has a point and it is a solid one. One can argue that real experience may be different, but his role is to teach the absolute in ethical principles.



Banquo I think you are over simplifying this. One could argue that the most absolute ethical principle of the church is to 'do good'. I believe that this 'doctrine' is ahead of any more specific moral theological views as in 'do not throw your seed on the earth'. If we take it one step forward and agree that the pope's statement did more bad than good (as in more people will contract AIDS than if said statement was not made) then the pope is in error... ...and in contradiction will the 'good' nature of the church.



Anyhows I am kind of glad that our local flavour of Christianity does not care about such things (the Greek Orthodox church, having seen that religion is not a prosperous enterprise anymore , has mostly diversified into the real estate business :beam:)

[Banquo's Ghost]

Banquo I think you are over simplifying this. One could argue that the most absolute ethical principle of the church is to 'do good'. I believe that this 'doctrine' is ahead of any more specific moral theological views as in 'do not throw your seed on the earth'. If we take it one step forward and agree that the pope's statement did more bad than good (as in more people will contract AIDS than if said statement was not made) then the pope is in error... ...and in contradiction will the 'good' nature of the church.

I'm not sure that you are right. Our more learned theologians may differ, but I think the absolute ethical principle of the Church would be to do the will of God. We, the laity, may well have pre-conceived ideas of what is good, but his Holiness, as vicar of Christ on Earth, is there to tell us what is "right". If we believe, then it is a matter of our conscience and faith for us to follow that absolute, or in conscience, ignore that teaching at peril of our soul.

The Pope therefore, advocates no relativist teaching based on what might be "good" at this time or opinion, but what is "right" in his understanding of God's will. It is up to others to place their own relativist moral outlook on this ruling, if they wish to differ. Faithful Catholics may well observe the Holy Father's rulings to the letter - or mostly, be guided by such and their own consciences - which the Church also accepts may be influenced by the Holy Spirit.

This is not to say I agree with His Holiness on the issue of condoms, much less contraception in general, but I can understand why he might make such an argument and why it is valid.

[CountArach]

When has the pope ever been wrong about anything?

[Strike For The South]

Whats a pope?

[tibilicus]

You don't have to have sex. .

Sure you don't, but it's not viewed that way in some cultures. Africa's a good example as a lot of people their simply aren't educated in safe sex, therefore money should be used to educate them and inform them of safe sex, you can't just tell them not to have it.

Also do you not know anything about today's teen/youth culture? Yes you do have to have sex. Obviously your not forced to at gun point or anything but there's huge social pressure and a lot of desire amongst young people to experiment sexually and engage in it.

The Pope can either accept that times are changing or continue to preach his same ancient scrolls about issues which they can't simply be applied to in modern day society..

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If people ignore the Pope's teaching on sex, why would they suddenly accept his ruling against condoms with open arms?

Anti-Catholics here, you need to use a bit of the logic I know that you all [usually] have on other topics. If they're not using condoms, it is because they don't want to use them anyway, not because the Pope said so. Besides, try to find a correlation between Catholic African countries and the worst AIDS rates/worst increases in AIDS rates. Good luck!


The Vatican's position is stupid, but mostly ineffectual.

The former is only true if you follow the one piece of advice and not the other. If you take both pieces of advice together, it makes perfect sense and is completely logical.

[Meneldil]

While I think the catholic church is stupid and the pope a reactionary idiot, I can't understand the outrage here.

Any pope is against contraception and extramarital sex. This is not news.
And Africa would be plagued by AIDS even without the pope, because to be honest, nobody gives a damn about him anyway.

Even if he threatened any catholic of excommunication if they didn't use condoms, the situation would be the same.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Faithful Catholics may well observe the Holy Father's rulings to the letter - or mostly, be guided by such and their own consciences - which the Church also accepts may be influenced by the Holy Spirit.I think that where Catholicism is a minority or opprossed religion, the Catholics take the letter of the law much more seriously. (The Irish, the Americans, the Poles)

In Latin Europe, most Catholics take a more relaxed attitude and realise that there are a) rules, and b) real life.



the Greek Orthodox church, having seen that religion is not a prosperous enterprise anymore , has mostly diversified into the real estate businessCatholicism has moved the other way. From the largest landholding, feudal intitution to a mostly moral institution.

Which, of course, I regret. It is the ancient dilemma of the anti-clericals. One the one hand, this shift is an expressed goal of anti-clericalism. On the other, the church needs to be involved in worldly affairs, with all the neverending scandals, orgies, and abuse that stems from having two feet firmly in the mud. Or else people will start to take all that superstition, magic and transubstantation seriously.



Besides, try to find a correlation between Catholic African countries and the worst AIDS rates/worst increases in AIDS rates. Good luck!That is an excellent point.
Catholicism is only a small minority religion in Africa. Plus, the AIDS epidemic is strongest in the non-Catholic South and East of Africa.

[rvg]

I salute the Pope in his adherence to the basic Church principles. Expected nothing other than exactly that. Furthermore, this refusal to bow down to secular pressure is once again an indicator that the Catholic Church serves God and God alone, and there isn't a single government or social group capable of derailing the Church's commitment to the fundamentals of the Christian religion. Come to think of it, Orthodox Church is also pretty much the same way: they do not look kindly upon condom use.

Either way, if people do not like it, there are plenty of other religions out there. Nobody is *required* to be Catholic.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't have particularly great enthusiasm for either side of the contraception debate, but I must say in this case the Pope is simply sticking to his principles.


The Pope can either accept that times are changing or continue to preach his same ancient scrolls about issues which they can't simply be applied to in modern day society..

Just as surely as it was the case 2,000 years ago, abstaining from sex protects you from STD's. If people in todays society don't want to live by that, fine, it's their problem. For all the talk of religions role in society, if you are a Christian you would not believe that religion exists to be helpful or justified to society. People should stop apologising for their beliefs and say it like it is!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

While I think the catholic church is stupid and the pope a reactionary idiot, I can't understand the outrage here.

:inquisitive: I don't recall him saying anything mean about you....~;). Obviously we differ in our assessments, but we'll set that aside.


Any pope is against contraception and extramarital sex. This is not news.
And Africa would be plagued by AIDS even without the pope, because to be honest, nobody gives a damn about him anyway.

There are those who do "give a damn," and in Africa that is a growing number. However, you are VERY much on target that the Holy Father's stance is hardly surprising or new, and the most in Africa are not making their decision (or lack of decision) on that basis.

Again, I think folks get a little overly out of focus on this issue. It is not as though The Church is sending Franciscan Spec Ops teams to destroy condom shipments to Africa or terminate sex educators.

The Church, and the Holy Father, are articulated a moral stance that has been part of the Churchs view of things for centuries. Posters in this thread are almost casting The Church as the instigator of things, and one post by Rasoforos didn't label them the instigators but very definitely asserted that the Church was seeking to exploit the issue so as to enhance human suffering.

So, for those of you taking that line, is The Church a unique coterie of heartless ******** from your point of view or are all religious organizations equally wrong?

Yes, the last question does have a "snide" component. The scorn is for such attitudes, not against any particular forum patron.

[Sarmatian]

You don't have to have sex. The Pope's point is that condoms allow people to abdicate responsibility for their actions.

Now, whether or not you agree with contraception (no problem with it myself) you have to admit that he does have a point.

People in Africa don't take responsibility for their sexual misadventures, they aren't monogomous and they don't use condoms.

Yeah, you won't die if you don't have sex, but that's not the point. Sex is good. Not just the pleasure you get from it, but it relieves tension, stress, helps people bond. For males, the build up of testosterone can have dangerous consequences, it can even lead to violent behavior etc...

For myself, when I'm in a stable relationship, meaning when I have sex on a regular basis, I feel better, I have more energy and usually I'm more productive in whatever I do. God knows how many experts showed already that sex is good not only for your mental but also your physical health.

So, I believe no one should encourage people not to have sex and tell that sex is bad. We should teach them that sex is good but there are bad things that go along with it and educate them how to avoid them.

That's why I said what I said, meaning it's the wrong way to try to stop STD's and unwanted pregnancies and whatnot, just like trying to solve the problem of hunger in the world with telling people to eat less would be. Don't encourage them not to have sex, encourage them to have safe sex and educate them how to do it.

If both religious and secular authorities did that, the message would be able to reach further and have impact on much more people...

[rasoforos]

I salute the Pope in his adherence to the basic Church principles. Expected nothing other than exactly that.

Amen brother. And his holiness should finally do something about all those heretics that say the Earth is a Sphere. Also we should start burning witches again because it is a good old church tradition...




Furthermore, this refusal to bow down to secular pressure is once again an indicator that the Catholic Church serves God and God alone



How do we know God does not like rubbers? No really, there is no verse about rubbers in the bible. It is a bit far fetched to assume that God agrees.




Come to think of it, Orthodox Church is also pretty much the same way: they do not look kindly upon condom use.




They know better than that... I have yet to see an archbishop issue anti-rubber decrees.

[rvg]

Amen brother. And his holiness should finally do something about all those heretics that say the Earth is a Sphere. Also we should start burning witches again because it is a good old church tradition...

Church does not doubt the shape of the Earth. If fact, as far as Christianity is concerned, the shape of the Earth is irrelevant.



How do we know God does not like rubbers? No really, there is no verse about rubbers in the bible. It is a bit far fetched to assume that God agrees.

Genesis 38:6-10



They know better than that... I have yet to see an archbishop issue anti-rubber decrees.

So, if you ask an Orthodox priest whether or not it is okay to use condoms, will you receive an affirmative answer?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Amen brother. And his holiness should finally do something about all those heretics that say the Earth is a Sphere. Also we should start burning witches again because it is a good old church tradition...

He was talking about principles, not traditions, there is a big difference.

[rasoforos]

Genesis 38:6-10

γνοὺς δὲ Αὐνὰν ὅτι οὐκ αὐτῷ ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα, ἐγίνετο ὅταν εἰσήρχετο πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ, ἐξέχεεν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν τοῦ μὴ δοῦναι σπέρμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ.



Ok first of all lets see the piece of story that this whole thing is based on.

There is this guy Judah who had three sons. One of them, Er, got married to Thamar. But God did not really fancy Er so he murdered him. He then went to his brother Onan and said 'Go :daisy: your brother's wife so your brother has descendants but Onan would ejaculate on the earth because the descendants wouldn't be his. So God killed him. Then the father of the two boys said to the widow 'When my young son grows up you will get married to him'. But time goes by, the third son becomes adult and still Thamar doesn't get her third husband.

One day, after his wife died, the father goes to shear some sheep. Thamar gets covered from head to toe and goes to wait for him to pass by. When he does he thinks she is a prostitute and long story short he promises her a kid goat to have sex with her. She complies and gives birth to twins.

<---- This?! This is supposed to teach us morality...Women passed around and promised to people and tricking old men who don't mind visiting prostitutes soon after their wife died...ya...


There is no explicit mention to contraception or to condoms. It is however explicitly explained that:

a)If God wants you to have sex with your late brother's wife to have children then you have to do it.

b)Your sperm should not fall on the earth (and I have to say that condoms are a great means of making sure it does not)

[Sarmatian]

b)Your sperm should not fall on the earth (and I have to say that condoms are a great means of making sure it does not)


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

There are other ways, too, but most women are reluctant to do it :laugh4:

Now that someone mentioned Orthodox Church, I have to say I don't remember Serbian Patriarch or any other high-up in the church advocated not using rubbers. If you go to a priest and ask him specifically about condoms and/or other contraceptives he may say something but I don't think there was an active campaign against contraceptives ever. It seems Orthodox Church is more liberal when it comes to sex, for example, Orthodox priests are allowed to get married and have kids. Just an observation, though, I could be wrong. I'm not really into religion...

[Rhyfelwyr]

The special circumstances in Genesis 38:6-10 mean that the passage is not particularly well suited to deriving doctrine from. It is not specifically because he spilled his seed, but rather that he disobeyed God, that Onan is killed.

There's nothing else in the Bible to suggest that contraception would not be OK to use. I suppose sex without procreation would still have a good purpose for any married couple, whether it would strengthen their relationship, improve their health or whatever. Indeed, God created Eve to Adam would not be lonely, and sex may be a valid part of their relationship, whether or not it produces children.

On the other hand, it seems decadent to rejoice in worldy pleasures, which would be very much against the message of the New Testament. So I'm not sure.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Whats a pope?

A Pope is a man in a pointy hat who tells people to go on crusades, and also to stop attacking their Christian neighbors. He also looks pretty cool on the battlefield, and it is really fun to slay him.

Other than that, he's mostly unimportant.

[Rhyfelwyr]

A Pope is a man in a pointy hat who tells people to go on crusades, and also to stop attacking their Christian neighbors. He also looks pretty cool on the battlefield, and it is really fun to slay him.

Other than that, he's mostly unimportant.

It's not difficult to pick a figure and ridicule the way they dress or how they appear in RTS games, but it's not really reflective of the reality is it?

If you read my posts in some recent threads you'll know that I far from paint a saintly picture of the Pope or the office he holds. You've stated many times you value rational thought, and that you cannot fit religion into that framework. But does that really mean you should be so dismissive of something that many people, including no shortage of them who are quite likely a good deal smarter than ourselves, hold so dear?

[Askthepizzaguy]

It's not difficult to pick a figure and ridicule the way they dress or how they appear in RTS games, but it's not really reflective of the reality is it?

If you read my posts in some recent threads you'll know that I far from paint a saintly picture of the Pope or the office he holds. You've stated many times you value rational thought, and that you cannot fit religion into that framework. But does that really mean you should be so dismissive of something that many people, including no shortage of them who are quite likely a good deal smarter than ourselves, hold so dear?

I have a right to be dismissive of religion, as some have a right to be dismissive of global warming or evolution. I try not to make my views a personal attack on anyone, if it helps. But just as religious people have a right to express their love of their god or gods, I can say I don't think that religion is a good idea. I don't go door to door and try to convert people away from their belief, nor do I pass out pamphlets saying how much better skepticism and rationalism is than faith, nor do I belittle people who do believe.

Conversely, many religions proselytize more than any other kind of movement, tell you that your beliefs are dead wrong, and that you will burn in eternal hellfire if you don't convert. I find that offensive, but I allow it to happen, because it's freedom of speech.

:bow:

By the way I am looking forward to our conversation about the merits of faith, I am just bogged down at the moment with any number of games and such.

:medievalcheers:

[ajaxfetish]

Yeah, you won't die if you don't have sex, but that's not the point. Sex is good. Not just the pleasure you get from it, but it relieves tension, stress, helps people bond. For males, the build up of testosterone can have dangerous consequences, it can even lead to violent behavior etc...

Don't encourage them not to have sex, encourage them to have safe sex and educate them how to do it.

Eh, I didn't think the Vatican's position was anti-sex. I thought it was anti-extra-marital-sex. Don't they encourage sex between married couples? And isn't monogamous sex comparatively safe? Perhaps the Pope is advocating your position after all, just within the confines of Catholic doctrine.


Also we should start burning witches again because it is a good old church tradition...

Hey, I'm just as much in favor of bringing back witch burnings as the next guy (or hangings, if you want to get technical), but that was always more of a Protestant shindig. Catholics were more into burning heretics.

Ajax

[Rhyfelwyr]

I have a right to be dismissive of religion, as some have a right to be dismissive of global warming or evolution. I try not to make my views a personal attack on anyone, if it helps. But just as religious people have a right to express their love of their god or gods, I can say I don't think that religion is a good idea. I don't go door to door and try to convert people away from their belief, nor do I pass out pamphlets saying how much better skepticism and rationalism is than faith, nor do I belittle people who do believe.

Conversely, many religions proselytize more than any other kind of movement, tell you that your beliefs are dead wrong, and that you will burn in eternal hellfire if you don't convert. I find that offensive, but I allow it to happen, because it's freedom of speech.

:bow:

By the way I am looking forward to our conversation about the merits of faith, I am just bogged down at the moment with any number of games and such.

:medievalcheers:

You do indeed have that right, although the tone was a bit patronising (pointy hat for example). My point was that just because you don't like the idea of religion does not mean you should dismiss its influence upon the world, in the case of this thread the AIDS crisis in Africa. The man in the pointy hat has a very real influence upon many people, just like all those men dressed like penguins that fly around the world to engage in international diplomacy.

Ultimately, it is true Christianity does carry an offensive message, people put their faith in something higher than the individual, and this leads to many false accusations of hate or fearmongering. But it would be unfair to say that all Christians are not respectful in the deliverance of their message. Also, for what it's worth, I wouldn't threaten people with eternal hellfire.

I'm also looking forward to our discussion, although I fear we may be shooting at different levels. Remember, from a religious perspective, religion doesn't exist to serve society, although it's always nice when it is helpful.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Conversely, many religions proselytize more than any other kind of movement, tell you that your beliefs are dead wrong, and that you will burn in eternal hellfire if you don't convert.

How many evangelizing people have said to you that you will burn if you don't convert, and what religion where these people preaching?

CR

[Askthepizzaguy]

Too numerous to mention, and I'd prefer not to say here, as I think that's off topic.

Plus, focusing on just those people paints an unfair picture of a majority of religious people. It is not the militant psychotics which I criticize, because those exist regardless of philosophy or lack thereof; the primary criticism is where otherwise decent moral people would have a bias towards certain political affiliations, policy decisions, personal choices, privacy rights, social acceptance of certain groups, and attempt to teach religion alongside science as if it were a scientific discipline, based purely off of ancient texts and traditions, and considering those traditions with unequal weight from more recent data and knowledge.

I'd be willing to discuss this in more detail in another thread. I invited Rhyfelwyr, and I'd prefer to do this one at a time, but you'd also be welcome to the discussion CR.

[Xiahou]

I'm sure others have touched on this, but I find statements such as these to be hilarious:

With Africans - 22 million of whom are infected with HIV - hanging on his every word, that made his statement aboard the plane heading to Cameroon this week all the more significant. Really now? If people listened to everything the pope said, there would be no AIDs epidemic in Africa. Blaming the pope for the spread of AIDs is laughable. If they really listened to him everyone would be monogamous and no one would have extramarital sex. Sounds more like the problem is caused by people not listening to the pope. :yes:

[Sarmatian]

Eh, I didn't think the Vatican's position was anti-sex. I thought it was anti-extra-marital-sex. Don't they encourage sex between married couples? And isn't monogamous sex comparatively safe? Perhaps the Pope is advocating your position after all, just within the confines of Catholic doctrine.


Trust me, Pope doesn't advocate my position. If he did, he'd be kicked out from Vatican before you could say "condom".

On a serious note, it seems to me that Catholic Church advocates two things: no extra-marital sex and no contraceptives, which means only sex within wedlock is sin-free and only for the purpose of procreation (since contraceptives are a no-no). Although, quite naturally, there are instances where married couples engage in sex for the specific purpose of getting children, most of the times it's just about sex.

So, although Catholic doctrine isn't specifically anti-sex, it is so confining that it would allow you to have sex only under very specific circumstances which happen rarely. I'm not Catholic (and even if I were, I'd probably ignore the Pope, just like I ignore the Patriarch) so it's all the same to me, just saying how I see it...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To be fair, fundamental Christian doctrine preferences celibacy and always has. This is scriptural, but it also allows that most people want to have sex and that denying that would be bad. So you get married.

tibilicus, I have participated in "youth culture" as you term it. There was pressure to have sex but it eased off by 18, and frankly there was more pressure to drink than copulate.

[Major Robert Dump]

Abstinence will not only make the AIDs situation better, but it will also help to stem off global warming because condoms are not biodegradable and it will decrease the emitting of ozone-damaging vaginal gasses. Abstinence, when practiced properly, can furthermore help pull the world out of recession because it means wall street will stop screwing us.

[rvg]

Heck, if humans at least stuck to just screwing their own species, AIDS would have never happened.

[Strike For The South]

Heck, if humans at least stuck to just screwing their own species, AIDS would have never happened.

AIDS is a CIA conspiracy to get rid of the blacks.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

On a serious note, it seems to me that Catholic Church advocates two things: no extra-marital sex and no contraceptives, which means only sex within wedlock is sin-free and only for the purpose of procreation (since contraceptives are a no-no). Although, quite naturally, there are instances where married couples engage in sex for the specific purpose of getting children, most of the times it's just about sex.

The church acknowledges sex in marriage for more than procreation. The element of couple bonding that it affirms/generates are also viewed as part of the blessing of matrimony.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Heck, if humans at least stuck to just screwing their own species, AIDS would have never happened.

Many (most) viral diseases originate among animals and mutate until capable of infecting humans. Though often cited for humor value -- I recall Zappa (Carlin?) asking who was plooking the monkeys? -- there really is no need for any bestiaphilic component.

[Samurai Waki]

While the Pope as usual makes a good argument, I have to interject that sex also feels really, really good and because I am morally reprehensible, I'll take condemnation to hell (ever had kids? whats the difference? :wink:) over abstinence. I'm afraid AIDs, and sex isn't going away anytime soon, so having that said, it would be a fairer argument to actually encourage the little ones to make intelligent choices, educate them, and let them come to their own conclusions. When my daughters come of age, I can't not prevent them from having sex, so I'll take the low road and be open to the idea of allowing them to use contraceptives, I don't want to be a Grandfather at age 40, and I won't support the rabble, unless of course there was mitigating circumstances.

[Husar]

Conversely, many religions proselytize more than any other kind of movement, tell you that your beliefs are dead wrong, and that you will burn in eternal hellfire if you don't convert. I find that offensive, but I allow it to happen, because it's freedom of speech.

Well, it's what they believe, when you believe their teachings are rubbish, they will also find that offensive. The thing is they truly believe you will burn and want you to convert you to ssave you from that, in other words, they want to help you, how is that a bad thing?

Do you prefer the scientific side which always has to stress how the earth being round disproves the existence of God or some other unsubstantiated rubbish that doesn't really prove anything and then calls religious people stupid based on that? In case of the german media, they even ridiculed the religious people once, in a show called "news", if you think that is less offensive than a religious person trying to save you from what they believe will bring you eternal pain and suffering, then I am very offended by your beliefs. ~;)

[Askthepizzaguy]

Well, it's what they believe, when you believe their teachings are rubbish, they will also find that offensive. The thing is they truly believe you will burn and want you to convert you to ssave you from that, in other words, they want to help you, how is that a bad thing?

Do you prefer the scientific side which always has to stress how the earth being round disproves the existence of God or some other unsubstantiated rubbish that doesn't really prove anything and then calls religious people stupid based on that? In case of the german media, they even ridiculed the religious people once, in a show called "news", if you think that is less offensive than a religious person trying to save you from what they believe will bring you eternal pain and suffering, then I am very offended by your beliefs. ~;)

If I believe that if you don't convert to my faith, a serial killer will murder your family and rape your dead body (seems to be a lot quicker and less horrific than hell... a much milder punishment for non-belief) then that would be horribly, horribly offensive to you. And you would ask that I keep that nonsense to myself.


Do you prefer the scientific side which always has to stress how the earth being round disproves the existence of God or some other unsubstantiated rubbish

That's not a scientific statement at all; it sounds like you're inventing arguments out of frustration with my viewpoint. As such, I decline to continue this conversation, out of respect for the thread topic and also, proper debate.

No hard feelings, but I strongly, strongly disagree. :bow:

[Rhyfelwyr]

If I believe that if you don't convert to my faith, a serial killer will murder your family and rape your dead body (seems to be a lot quicker and less horrific than hell... a much milder punishment for non-belief) then that would be horribly, horribly offensive to you. And you would ask that I keep that nonsense to myself.

If you genuinely believed it, I would appreciate your concern. Although the personal nature of your example makes it more offensive, as well as the fact that they are promising that events will happen in this lifetime - if anyone pestered me with talk like that they would have a restraining order on them, since it sounds pretty threatening.


That's not a scientific statement at all; it sounds like you're inventing arguments out of frustration with my viewpoint. As such, I decline to continue this conversation, out of respect for the thread topic and also, proper debate.

No hard feelings, but I strongly, strongly disagree. :bow:

I think he was referring to the Dawkinesque dogmatic atheists who like to make such stupid arguments to totally disprove religious beliefs (it does happen). I don't think anyone here would make such a charge against yourself, but it is a fact that some people are guilty of it.

[Meneldil]

:inquisitive: I don't recall him saying anything mean about you....~;). Obviously we differ in our assessments, but we'll set that aside.

I could go on and rant on why I think the Church is the most corrupted institution ever created by man and how Popes have been slowing down humanity's progress for centuries, but
1 - I don't feel confident enough in my english for that
2 - That's not really the point of the topic




There are those who do "give a damn," and in Africa that is a growing number. However, you are VERY much on target that the Holy Father's stance is hardly surprising or new, and the most in Africa are not making their decision (or lack of decision) on that basis.

Actually, I think the number of catholics in Africa isn't growing that much. Most new christians there are Protestants and not Catholics. They might still form the majority of the christian population, but I'm pretty sure catholicism is having a hard time rivaling Islam and protestantism. Someone with fancy statistics might be able to prove me wrong though. I couldn't find anything about that on wikipedia.

Furthermore, apparently, a lot of them (catholics) obviously don't give a damn about the Pope and his ideas. I mean, Popes have been preaching against non-marital mariage for centuries. If anybody listened to them, you'd guess the AIDS issue wouldn't be as bad as it is now.

[Samurai Waki]

Wow. This discussion got really OT.

I think both sides of the argument have been rehashed to the point that its become skull numbing.

There's a saying I picked up somewhere that goes something like "We can talk about anything you like, except Religion, and Politics; you never know who you're going to offend."

Of course in the proper context it can be used, offensive or no, especially since this is the place where we discuss such things. However, I fail to see how this has any relevance to Ratzinger's condemnation of condoms.

[Askthepizzaguy]

People really want to express their opinions, Wakizashi, in an open forum... and when they finally blurt out their opinions, one discussion leads to another. I sometimes want to tolerate off-topic discussions. I recently had one in my own Discussions of Faith thread with Reenk Roink regarding epistemology, because I could not resist the temptation to respond to Reenk's points.

That said, there should be a limit to off-topic discussion, and I agree we may have reached that here.

[JAG]

This topic shows exactly how Chrsitianity kills more and will kill more people than Islam could ever aspire for. Disgusting.

[Fragony]

This topic shows exactly how the catholic church kills more and will kill more people than Islam could ever aspire for. Disgusting.

Fixed. I guess we can now stop making a destinction between radical and moderate islam, it's all islam no? Or doesn't it work like that in leftielalaland.

[HoreTore]

How many evangelizing people have said to you that you will burn if you don't convert, and what religion where these people preaching?

CR

My cousin works as a sound-guy for "Vision Norway" (http://www.visjonnorge.no/), the TV-station of a large evangelical and missionary church here. He started there when he was 14. Now, after he had worked there for a month or two, one of the pastors asks him if he's christian. My cousin says "no, not really"(or something like that), to which the pastor responds "well, you know you're going to burn in Hell if you don't believe, right?"

Anyway, an 80-year old virgin is frustrated at other people getting laid and wants to spoil their fun. What else is new?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This topic shows exactly how Chrsitianity kills more and will kill more people than Islam could ever aspire for. Disgusting.

Yeah, they don't use condoms in Islamic countries either (I'd bet buying a contraceptive is illegal in some of them), the girls just have anal sex not to get pregnant.

Stop attacking the older religion with more members.

[HoreTore]

Yeah, they don't use condoms in Islamic countries either (I'd bet buying a contraceptive is illegal in some of them), the girls just have anal sex not to get pregnant.

1. It's both legal and encouraged in Iran.
2. As far as I know, there are no virgin ring crusades in the muslim world, so I don't really see why they'd be taking it up the bum... And anyway, what's wrong with anal?

[rasoforos]

the girls just have anal sex not to get pregnant.





I have never ever heard a better conversion argument :beam:

So where do I sign and do I need to bring my own lube?

[JAG]

Yeah, they don't use condoms in Islamic countries either (I'd bet buying a contraceptive is illegal in some of them), the girls just have anal sex not to get pregnant.

Stop attacking the older religion with more members.

I am quite happy and able to attack all religions as I frequently do, no religion is spared - I am sure this will comfort you.

Just so you get the facts though - Iran: http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/533/iran_syringe_vending_machine_harm_reduction


Officials of the Iranian government announced last week that they are embarking on a pilot program to provide syringes and condoms to drug users in an effort to prevent the spread of AIDS and hepatitis.

http://newsocietyjournal.com/2008/07/09/contraception-in-egypt-and-iran/


The Iranian government has promoted these family planning initiatives through the state-run television and media, emphasizing the link between overpopulation and poverty, illiteracy, and unemployment. [13] The media encouraged the use of contraceptives, which were provided free of charge on demand, and legal reforms were made in favor of women. [14] Interestingly, religious leaders endorsed the program, directing all religious authorities to support family planning because it was initiated by the Islamic government. [15] Religious leaders now describe smaller families as a social responsibility. [16] In addition, the majlis, the Iranian parliament, voted to support the program. As a result, the number of women using contraceptives has nearly doubled from 37 percent in the 1970s to 65 percent now.

Egypt -
These efforts doubled contraceptive use from 24 percent in 1980 to 50 percent in 2000,

Basically, get some facts before you start trolling about 'those pesky moooselems'.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

This topic shows exactly how Chrsitianity kills more and will kill more people than Islam could ever aspire for. Disgusting.

Sorry JAG, but you may want to take a look earlier in the thread. This isn't Christianity or the Catholic Church killing anyone.

[JAG]

Sorry JAG, but you may want to take a look earlier in the thread. This isn't Christianity or the Catholic Church killing anyone.

Hmmm. Oh yes it is.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Hmmm. Oh yes it is.

No, it isn't.


If people ignore the Pope's teaching on sex, why would they suddenly accept his ruling against condoms with open arms?

Anti-Catholics here, you need to use a bit of the logic I know that you all [usually] have on other topics. If they're not using condoms, it is because they don't want to use them anyway, not because the Pope said so. Besides, try to find a correlation between Catholic African countries and the worst AIDS rates/worst increases in AIDS rates. Good luck!

I know you don't like Christianity or Catholicism, but you can do better than that.

[JAG]

If people ignore the Pope's teaching on sex, why would they suddenly accept his ruling against condoms with open arms?

What a load of BS that is.

OK, let's simplify this.

Some people in the place we like to call, backward land, do not read or write well - they are stupid, obviously - but they do however hold faith and the Catholic church in particular in high esteem. Because they are idiots and can't read or write and they are genius' for holding such a deep rooted faith, they look to figures such as the pope for their knowledge and understanding. When the old Nazi with the robe tells them condoms are terrible and not to use them, they won't - leading to the AIDS epidemic getting worse....

Or maybe you lack some common sense and can't see that in the real world, a decision about sex is different to a decision about condoms. Hence why there is a significant difference between people following the Pope's 'teachings', on sex and the wearing of condoms.

:idea2:

[Strike For The South]

Well if they followed the churches teaching of no premarital sex than we also wouldn't be having this convo. The pope says "dont have sex" as much as he says "dont wear rubbers"

I would also like to point out the pope only represents about half of christians anyway. So to say he speaks for all them is pretty stupid. Not only is it stupid, it's ignorant.

The kind of crap that gets churned out against religion here is mind numbing.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

What a load of BS that is.

:laugh4:


OK, let's simplify this.

Yes, you seem to need it.

1) Pope says don't have sex.
2) You're not having sex - no need for condoms - but Pope says don't use them anyway.
3) You have sex. You're doing something the Pope told you not to do.
4) You don't use a condom. Why, because the Pope told you not to? You're already having sex, aren't you? Didn't he tell you not to do that?

Thank you.

Also, you have yet to prove that there is a correlation between AIDS rate and Catholic African countries - and good luck with doing that.


they are stupid, obviously

high esteem. Because they are idiots

When the old Nazi with the robe tells them condoms are terrible and not to use them

Three whole trolls in a single paragraph!

[Samurai Waki]

Some people roll over in bed one day and realize that all they've got to offer the rest of the world is a punch in the mouth. While I respect that frustration it does absolutely nothing but exacerbate and entrench people in positions that they may not have been entirely convinced was right in the first place.

So what are you going to do about the Pope? My guess is, probably not much. :shrug: life moves on.

[HoreTore]

:laugh4:



Yes, you seem to need it.

1) Pope says don't have sex.
2) You're not having sex - no need for condoms - but Pope says don't use them anyway.
3) You have sex. You're doing something the Pope told you not to do.
4) You don't use a condom. Why, because the Pope told you not to? You're already having sex, aren't you? Didn't he tell you not to do that?

Thank you.

Also, you have yet to prove that there is a correlation between AIDS rate and Catholic African countries - and good luck with doing that.



Three whole trolls in a single paragraph!

Show me a human being without selective hearing.

The pope may say "no sex and no condoms" as much as he wants. Nobody is going to hear anything other than "no condoms".

Hence why a smarter thing to say would be "don't have sex(because jesus says so yadda yadda yadda), but be sure to use condoms if you do have sex".

[Askthepizzaguy]

Show me a human being without selective hearing.

The pope may say "no sex and no condoms" as much as he wants. Nobody is going to hear anything other than "no condoms".

Hence why a smarter thing to say would be "don't have sex(because jesus says so yadda yadda yadda), but be sure to use condoms if you do have sex".

I love you, HoreTore, in the platonic sense. :bow:

Nicely worded. Well put. Quoted for Truth.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Show me a human being without selective hearing.

The pope may say "no sex and no condoms" as much as he wants. Nobody is going to hear anything other than "no condoms".

Hence why a smarter thing to say would be "don't have sex(because jesus says so yadda yadda yadda), but be sure to use condoms if you do have sex".

If someone doesn't want to use condoms, they won't, whether the Pope says to or not. If they want to, they will. If you have selective hearing, fine - but that isn't the Pope's fault. Also, perhaps some of your anger should be directed toward the media. Perhaps, instead of "Pope Hates Condoms" we could have a "Pope Says Don't Have Premarital Sex" once in a while. Once again, AIDS rate vs. Catholic African countries.

[Husar]

Hence why a smarter thing to say would be "don't have sex(because jesus says so yadda yadda yadda), but be sure to use condoms if you do have sex".

But nobody is going to hear the part about condoms... :no:

[Askthepizzaguy]

But nobody is going to hear the part about condoms... :no:

Do we have a statistic that shows definitively one way or the other if sexual education and condom availability reduces unwanted pregnancy and/or spread of disease?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What a load of BS that is.

OK, let's simplify this.

Some people in the place we like to call, backward land, do not read or write well - they are stupid, obviously - but they do however hold faith and the Catholic church in particular in high esteem. Because they are idiots and can't read or write and they are genius' for holding such a deep rooted faith, they look to figures such as the pope for their knowledge and understanding. When the old Nazi with the robe tells them condoms are terrible and not to use them, they won't - leading to the AIDS epidemic getting worse....

Or maybe you lack some common sense and can't see that in the real world, a decision about sex is different to a decision about condoms. Hence why there is a significant difference between people following the Pope's 'teachings', on sex and the wearing of condoms.

:idea2:

I find this rather thoroughly offensive. What points you do make are submerged in too much gleeful venom. Since I have obviously succumbed to the viciousness of your trolling, I will opt out of responding to you in detail and pass this to my colleagues.

Thread closed pending their review.