Hmm, would that be your bible and your religion? I mean, if the bible is the word of God, how come we have other writings that say different things? Which religion and which interpretation are correct?
I’m sure of course that it is yours and only yours… good luck with that.
[quote]miniross wrote:
wow, folloy. absitnance seems to be the universal cure all. i mean, its not like that would be in direct conflict with our instincts, would it?
I actually admire abstinance (i cant beleve people do it) and i am sure that you did. how did the masterbation go, coz if you have millions of people not having sex, then there better be a release somewhere.
and i have got to say that stating the bible “says it is so it is so” is not an increadibly strong argument. that is another issue, but creationism has been dealt a death blow and has been diproved by a weight of evidence, could it be that the bible is not totally correct, maybe?
Anyway that would be a hijack to start down that thread.[/quote]
Actually, no, I was pretty much a bastard when I was younger. I didn’t follow the rules I was taught, and believe me, I’ve paid a price for it. I learned my lesson the hard way, and I teach my children not to do what I have done. They know that I wasn’t abstinent. They know that I am not perfect. But I do my best to be transparent for my children. If making mistakes and learning from them makes me a hypocrite, then so be it.
No, abstinence isn’t a universal cure. But it will prevent pregnancy and STD’s. 100% of the time. That’s what they are teaching in the third world.
Creationism hasn’t been disproven. Lots of theories, sure, but the missing links are still missing. Remember that Darwin retracted his writings, and that Einstein actually purposefully introduced a flaw into his theories (the cosmological constant) because he couldn’t get them to work otherwise. There was this missing piece that he couldn’t explain. Might read some Gerald Schroeder. Great stuff. He wrote “The Science of God”. He is both a Christian and a Scientist. At the SAME TIME. 
-folly
[quote]vroom wrote:
It does exist as the word of God. What does this mean in the permissive age that we live in? I think it means that you can go on sinning and our culture will not condemn it. In fact, in many ways they will applaud it. However, because man wonders from Gods word does not mean that God is supposed to change.
Hmm, would that be your bible and your religion? I mean, if the bible is the word of God, how come we have other writings that say different things? Which religion and which interpretation are correct?
I’m sure of course that it is yours and only yours… good luck with that.[/quote]
vroom:
(clears throat) we are having a discussion regarding the next Pope and the direction of the Catholic Church. Therefore, my remarks were based upon this. It is not just “my Bible” I am referring to, it is also the cornerstone of the Catholic Church. O
Also, for your own edification I would imagine that the approximately 2 billion Christians (Catholics and non-Catholics alike) world wide would also call it their Bible
Do you follow?
I have to ask, what the hell to Papal decrees have to do with AIDS in Africa?
If people would actually follow them and NOT have sex outside of marriage then the spread of AIDS would slow dramatically.
If people are going to go ahead and “sin” and have sex outside of marriage, do you really think they decide it is better not to compound the “sin” and wear a rubber?
Of course not! They don’t wear rubbers because they don’t feel as good.
If anyone here wants to fly to Africa to hand out rubbers, I have one in my wallet, you are welcome to it!
Zap Branigan,
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I have to ask, what the hell to Papal decrees have to do with AIDS in Africa?[/quote]
Here is your answer - it is somewhat lengthy (sorry, Dear Moderator), but I have tried to keep the copy/pasting down to a minimum. Please follow the links, if you want to read the full texts.
The first source describes sex “education” by the catholic church on the use of condoms, using clearly false claims. In many developing countries, the church is a main source of education - providing wrong information on a potentially deadly topic is what even I would call a sin.
Vatican: condoms don’t stop Aids
Steve Bradshaw
Thursday October 9, 2003
The Guardian
"The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV."
Probably so, except of course for blood transmission, infected blood products (about 40% of Japanese hemophiliacs were infected during the 80ies), infection at birth, needle-sharing (not only for drug use but out of pure poverty). The notion that an HIV-infection is the victims’ fault, simplifies the problem in my view too much.
[quote]If people are going to go ahead and “sin” and have sex outside of marriage, do you really think they decide it is better not to compound the “sin” and wear a rubber?
Of course not! They don’t wear rubbers because they don’t feel as good.
If anyone here wants to fly to Africa to hand out rubbers, I have one in my wallet, you are welcome to it![/quote]
If the catholic church let’s you:
UNESCO Report - Religious institutions can exert influence over policy-making
http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=24156&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
“Religious institutions exert important influence over policy-making in some countries. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, for example, the influence of the religious leadership is patent, as discussed earlier. Notwithstanding its distinguished role in opposing persecution, the Church in Latin America has also helped to prevent some gender equity initiatives from being attempted. In Chile, for example, a programme initiated in 1996 by the Ministry of Education and the women?s national service (Servicio Nacional de la Mujer ? SERNAM) focused on informing secondary-school communities (teachers, parents and young students) about sexuality and related issues. Resistance from conservative families and Church representatives, who felt the campaign condoned the use of contraceptives and early sexual relations, led to the initiative being abandoned (Avalos, 2003). In Costa Rica, the Roman Catholic Church used its influence to block the implementation of sex education policies in the ?Young Love Programme?, started in 1999. It mobilized religious associations and neo-conservative groups to oppose contraception and the use of condoms in preventing the transmission of HIV/AIDS. It also challenged the contents and methods of sex education in state primary and secondary schools on the grounds that it threatened Christian morality. These controversies compelled the state to modify its approach (Guzman and Letendre, 2003). Similar controversies are reported from Argentina and Mexico (Tietjen, 2000, p. 150).”
But in all fairness, it is not only the catholic church which hinders proper sex education, the spread of safer sex and condom use, it is the general inability to communicate over sexual issues, as this cutout from an interview shows:
"Today on In Person Ian is joined by Dennis Altman. Dennis is an academic and author, and since 2001 he has been the president of the AIDS society of Asia and the Pacific.
Transcript: Professor Dennis Altman with Ian Henschke:
"You need a multi-focal approach and you need an approach which both recognises there are certain groups who are particularly vulnerable but there are many people who are vulnerable without being part of those groups.
So that, for example, the advice which moralists like, which is say, ‘be monogamous’, is actually not much use. Many married women, who have been faithful to their husbands and satisfied the moral criteria, have become infected by HIV because their husbands are carrying the virus.
So I think the common element to all this is you have to have a much greater willingness to talk about the behaviours that put people at risk, to talk about them non-judgementally, and to talk about them to kids.
And the greatest problem, it seems to me, in stopping the spread of HIV, is the way in which people will stop that discussion in the name of religion, culture and tradition. And of course the classic case of this is where most organised religions will campaign against making condoms available to young kids and effectively ensure that HIV transmission continues.
Well, that is a major problem in countries, obviously, where Catholicism is the dominant religion because the Catholic church.
And where Islam is the dominant religion and it is also a major problem where you have orthodox Hindus. It is a problem of religion, not just of Catholicism."
Let’s sum it up: The catholic church, and other religious organisations (and traditions) have a tendency to hinder an open dialogue about sexual matters. May that just be a moral/personal issue under normal circumstances, in the case of world-wide sexually transmitted epidemic like AIDS, it can be quite simply disastrous.
Personally, I don’t care whether people want to have their sexuality regulated by their religion - it is their choice. But when this choice is being systematically hindered by a religious or social establishment, with the effect that a deadly disease spreads further, then I personally have a problem.
Makkun
What about the other several billion people on the planet?
Which version are you talking about anyway? If it’s in English, it’s not the original. If I truly considered it the word of God, I would do my best to learn the language that it was spoken to us in, so that I could better understand it as it was intended. I don’t see many devout bothering to do so.
What language are the original documents in?
How do reconcile the disparities between Judaism and Christianity?
Did you know the differences before you were born into your family so that you could make an informed choice from the religions available?
You are welcome to your faith, but it doesn’t have to be blind faith does it?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Also, for your own edification I would imagine that the approximately 2 billion Christians (Catholics and non-Catholics alike) world wide would also call it their Bible
What about the other several billion people on the planet?
Which version are you talking about anyway? If it’s in English, it’s not the original. If I truly considered it the word of God, I would do my best to learn the language that it was spoken to us in, so that I could better understand it as it was intended. I don’t see many devout bothering to do so.
What language are the original documents in?
How do reconcile the disparities between Judaism and Christianity?
Did you know the differences before you were born into your family so that you could make an informed choice from the religions available?
You are welcome to your faith, but it doesn’t have to be blind faith does it?[/quote]
vroom:
Vroom is hijacking the thread…lol
You are either getting wacky or you just don’t get the purpose of this thread.
Why don’t you wonder over to the “liberals are non-Christians” thread and spout off there?
Okay I’ll address it: I have heard that “which version” soooo many times, it’s sort of a running joke.
Tell me vroom which version did you read? Since you have no problem criticizing the Bible I assume you have read it.
Funny thing about people like you, you jump on others for not bothering to read various liberal propaganda (the kind you like) but you have no problem attacking a book that you have never read, much less studied!
By the way I am not currently of the same religion that I was raised. How about you vroom, did your parents raise you as a Christian? Did they send you off to Church every sunday?
What sort of nasty thing happened to you to make you so bitter about a book you probably never read, much less studied?
(Be careful telling me that you have read the Bible if you have not vroom…
Zeb, I didn’t criticize the good book, I criticized you.
I know you think highly of yourself, but this is ridiculous!
By the way, there is nothing “liberal” or “conservative” in my post, read it again.
Finally, this thread is simply a bitch fest about people not respecting the Pope… the point is to keep crap out of the thread concerning the Pope.
I know you will never actually consider or discuss the questions raised, but do try finding something new to discredit me with. This liberal thing is some type of fetish with you or something.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Personally, I don’t care whether people want to have their sexuality regulated by their religion - it is their choice. But when this choice is being systematically hindered by a religious or social establishment, with the effect that a deadly disease spreads further, then I personally have a problem.
Makkun[/quote]
Makkun, I do agree the Catholic Church should not interfere with the use of condoms. I believe that the Church (and most other cultures) has created this “morality” where extramarital sex is not acceptable.
The reason they have created this form of morality is to protect society from unwanted pregnancy and spread of disease.
Unfortunately the Church likes to take absolute positions on things. You cannot preach abstinence and then turn around and handout condoms. It is quite a mess.
Regarding the Church providing disinformation about condoms I hope these are isolated incidents.
makkun rocks the hizzy!
What a great post, man. That is EXACTLY what I’m talking about when I say the church needs to change. What they are doing isn’t helping. At all. Can anyone disagree with this?
As to the folks who are saying “it’s their own fault for not following the bible” or whatever: stop right there.
http://www.health24.com/medical/Condition_centres/777-792-814-1762,23100.asp
Do some reading. This is not American culture we are talking about here. You see, the problem is that the Catholic church is going into the third world and spreading their dogma instead of doing what has to be done to HELP these people. And if you answer this by saying: “well what did you expect a Catholic priest to do besides preach the Catholic way?”, then I will answer: “THAT is why I am saying Catholicism isn’t relevant.” It just isn’t working, folks. Wake up.
Plain and simple, the Catholics are failing in their self-appointed task of saving the third world from itself. The problems are too complex, and the church is too ponderous and incapable of adaptation to address the special needs of the African continent.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Okay I’ll address it: I have heard that “which version” soooo many times, it’s sort of a running joke.
[/quote]
Classic evasion of the question. If you’ve heard the argument so many times, why don’t you share the earth-shaking catholic response to this question? Even a simple copy paste would do the trick.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
…As to the folks who are saying “it’s their own fault for not following the bible” or whatever: stop right there.
[/quote]
I hope you didn’t interpret my post to say this. My point was if you take the Churches teachings at face value then you cannot have extramarital sex and you cannot use a condom. It isn’t mix and match. Both of these are prohibited.
If you are going to commit a “sin” in the eyes of the Church and have extramarital sex, why wouldn’t you use a condom?
I personally enjoyed premarital sex and condom use back in my single days.
The Church is an easy target and rightfully so, but you cannot blame them for the spread of AIDS in Africa.
Can they do more to prevent it? Yes. Are they responsible for the spread of AIDS? Absolutely not.
I have not been to church in over 10 years so please do not think I am some zealot.
And you are right about the Church becoming less relevant. The Catholic Church is stagnant or even shrinking in Western counties.
Zap: I wasn’t singling you it, bro. I guess I should have made my statement more general to convey that I wasn’t calling anybody out or whatever.
And you’re right about the church not being responsible for the spread of AIDS in Africa. The link I posted goes into pretty good detail there as to why. What I’m saying is that the church dogma isn’t helping, and that they are a fish out of water in the third world as far as doing something positive to effect change.
Quite simply, the Catholic church doesn’t have the proper tools for the job. If we want a different result than what we’re seeing, we’re going to have to try to do something different. More of the same ain’t gonna do shit.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Actually, lothario I think there are more than two references to homosexuality in the Bible, especially if you include Sodom and Gomora (there is an “h” in there somewhere).
The Bible (and the Church) is about loving the sinner and hating the sin. That, is tolerence![/quote]
So when all the gays showed up the last time the Pope was in the US, and the AIDS victims asked him “can we be saved?” and the Pope said “no”, that was tolerance? Hmmm…
[quote]Now how would it be if they loved the sin? See what I’m saying old buddy old pal?
How would it be based on the Bible if they embraced murder, roberry, or any other sin? They can’t do it, but they can show love through tolerence, which is loving the sinner.[/quote]
That would be so cool if it was true. I think my problem in the catholic vs. gay issue is the fact that the catholics define the gays as sinners in the first place. The last time I checked, Jesus never said “thou shalt not take it in the butt”. In fact, unless I’m a little foggy here, Jesus was pretty much a hippie freakazoid who tried to preach a message of love and hope. The fact that two women might love each other is not a crime. The fact that two men might love each other (yes, even physically…ewww) is not a crime either. Raping, robbing and murdering somebody is. Until you can see the fundamental difference between homosexuality and real criminal activity, we’re never going to see eye to eye on this. And that’s okay. You just go ahead and cling to however many references to homosexuality being wrong that you need to.
Just one thing though ZEB ol buddy ol pal: What if one of your children ends up being gay? You know that I have two kids, and I acknowledge this a possibility. Have you thought about this too?
[quote]Okay, as far as the Catholic Church goes, they can’t change sorry lothario. If they change to meet any particular modern standard (especially todays) they would cease to be based upon the Bible. Hence they would be worthless anyway. So…if you think they are going to fall (I disagree) then let them fall by clinging to the proper values.
[/quote]
I’m sure that the Vatican no longer burns heretics at the stake for believing in the earth being round. What is so hard about saying: “Ya know what? We’ve been thinking about it, and maybe condom use isn’t such a bad thing after all.” I’m sure they can dig up some reference in the bible SOMEWHERE to justify changing their stance on this issue like “spread not the seeds of disease to your brother” or some obscure thing like that, I don’t know the bible too good. But do you see what I’m getting at? It’s like I mentioned in an earlier post: change is not death.
Zap Branigan,
I see your point, and I agree with you that the catholic church (and other religious organisations) is not solely responsible for the spread of AIDS. But they could play a much more useful role in the fight against AIDS, by accepting that they have so far not shown the competence to give the necessary advice to prevent the disease.
Keep in mind that religious organisations tend to have a strong influence on the behaviour of people, even when certain facts tend to say otherwise. What the church has to do in my view is not step back from its postulates of monogamy and abstinence, thus betraying its dogma, but rather accept that it (and the pope) is not in the position to give public health advice. To state that in order to alleviate the intense suffering and social turmoil caused by AIDS, that the use of condoms if you do have sex against their recommendation (even seemingly monogamous, with both partners alledgedly being honest) is not an additional sin.
I don’t ask them to support abortion or even other forms of contraception than the condom, just making sure that when (not if) people “sin”, they don’t get killed. No dogma should directly or indirectly require people dying for actions unwanted by a religious organisation. If it does, it is in my view just wrong.
BTW, here is some interesting reading on that subject, perhaps there is some hope:
Spain Church cautious on condoms
"The Roman Catholic Church in Spain has acknowledged that condoms could play a role in the global fight against Aids.
The comments mark an apparent shift from traditional Roman Catholic teachings which ban condoms because they are a form of contraception.
But a spokesman for Spanish bishops said the use of condoms and practising sexual restraint appeared to be the best strategy to tackle the disease."
Amid the Vatican not being thrilled, they relativised this position, but with a new, less conservative pope… perhaps…
Makkun
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zeb, I didn’t criticize the good book, I criticized you.
I know you think highly of yourself, but this is ridiculous!
By the way, there is nothing “liberal” or “conservative” in my post, read it again.
Finally, this thread is simply a bitch fest about people not respecting the Pope… the point is to keep crap out of the thread concerning the Pope.
I know you will never actually consider or discuss the questions raised, but do try finding something new to discredit me with. This liberal thing is some type of fetish with you or something.[/quote]
Not really, vroom. It seems there are many liberal/non-Christians on this forum. And many have stepped forward and agreed on the other thread. No big deal, just one interesting point is all.
Let me ask you this: are you a liberal non-Christian? I only ask because you have that sort of slant to your posts, especially the one at the top of this page. It’s usually the non-Christians who question “which version of the Bible is correct.” In fact, that phrase is sort of pretty common with non-Christians. I suppose you want to escape that label as well…
Perhaps you don’t want to answer my question. You never have openly admitted your liberal political leanings (although they were easy to determine).
I’m sorry you think it’s an insult to be called a liberal. However, I have found that most liberals hate that label. I think they hate it, not because they disagree with liberal views. They hate it because it “tags” them as to what the rest of us can expect relative to their future comments.
lothario:
The Gays asked the Pope “can we continue to be Gay and be saved?” The answer was “no.” That is harsh to you I know, but the Pope sort of has to go by that document you don’t seem to respect to much, the Bible. And First Corinthians 6:10 pretty much makes it clear (among other passages) that Homosexuals are not going to Heaven. You may not like it, I may not like it, but the Pope is indeed limited by that book!
Your interpretation of Jesus as a hippie doesn’t really change anything, sorry. The Pope and the 2 billion or so Christians throughout the world look at the Bible as Gods word. That means that Jesus did not have to say it himself in order for it to be so. Thomas Jefferson had a “Jeffersonian Bible” which only had Jesus teachings and words. He thought (maybe like you) that that was the only thing that counted. However, the Pope does not have that luxury.
It’s not a matter of me “clinging to references of homosexuality being wrong.” I am merely stating what I think the new Pontiff will adhere to (that is the topic right?). I don’t really think he will claim that Jesus was a hippie type and we don’t have to even look at the rest of the Bible. No…I don’t imagine he will do that.
I know you want to draw me into a personal discussion about homosexuality, however I think I’ll save that for another thread (then again I have written volumes on this forum about it, go to the search engine). Since this is a discussion about the Pope and the Catholic Church I don’t feel my children’s future sexuality is pertinent. Isn’t that question a little off base for our purposes?
One more comment. I think that your entire view of the Catholic Church is wrong minded. They are not the Red Cross, or any other institution set up to feed the homeless (although they do a great deal of that sort of thing). You stated:
“You see, the problem is that the Catholic church is going into the third world and spreading their dogma instead of doing what has to be done to HELP these people.”
They are supposed to “spread their dogma” that is what they do. They are mainly interested in saving souls. Their emphasis is on the after life, not this life. You might not like it, but that is what they will continue to do. They are the Catholic Church! Maybe you would actually have to believe in God in order to put your arms around that one?
I do think there is plenty wrong with the Catholic Church, since I’m not a Catholic I suppose that they would not listen to my ideas huh?
Like it or not the church is not a democracy, it’s more take it or leave it. I am surprised that so many people hate Catholics and thier beliefs, yet run to defend islam, though that church appears to defend murder, foster hate and acts of terrorism. I am further surprised that the actions of the Catholic church bothers those who are non-Catholic. Why in the fuck do you care if WE Catholics behave the way we do. We require nobody to do the same. You can come join us if you want or you can do what ever you want apart from the church. It is complete freedom, any obediance to the church is completely volentery, never a gun to the head.
So if you want to fuck men with out a rubber, knock up some prostitutes, have ten abortions, fuck other peoples wifes, steal a car stereo, what ever the hell you want to do, go for it. Just don’t do it to me or you might get shot.
I am, however, comforted by the fact that the church will be around many centruries after your long since dead.
Zebra, here’s a little definition for you:
lib?er?al: adj.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
How could this be insulting?
Orbitalboner:
Zebra? Oh I see you are trying to be funny, or insulting, or childish…
Well with a name like “Orbitalboner” my work is already done!
Yes, I agree the word “liberal” has many definitions. I wonder why vroom runs from such a fine word?