the pope should take a stand on creation
TomS
"The Pope Should Take a Stand on Creation"
"In the New German book "Schoepfung und Evolution" (translated
"Creation and Evolution") published recently in Germany, Pope
Benedict was quoted as saying that evolution is not "completely
provable." Indicating that he believes it has been partially proven.
Where is this proof? Evolution is a belief, which is not provable, it
is not science, and it is not even rational. Spontaneous generation
would have to be a proven fact in order for evolution to even have
a starting point."
<http://www.earnedmedia.org/gjcm0418.htm>
--
---Tom S.
"...when men have a real explanation they explain it, eagerly and copiously and
in common speech, as Huxley freely gave it when he thought he had it."
GK Chesterton, Doubts About Darwinism (1920)
snex
seriously, what is his purpose? he lives in luxury while the vast
majority of his followers wallow in filth and disease. he does
absolutely nothing to help them. the catholic church is the most
harmful organization alive today.
Luminoso
>From a press release:
>
>"The Pope Should Take a Stand on Creation"
>
>"In the New German book "Schoepfung und Evolution" (translated
>"Creation and Evolution") published recently in Germany, Pope
>Benedict was quoted as saying that evolution is not "completely
>provable." Indicating that he believes it has been partially proven.
>Where is this proof? Evolution is a belief, which is not provable, it
>is not science, and it is not even rational. Spontaneous generation
>would have to be a proven fact in order for evolution to even have
>a starting point."
>
><http://www.earnedmedia.org/gjcm0418.htm>
And next week the pope will announce a return to the
policy of burning heliocentrists at the stake ...
The old "adequately/completely proven" excuse is getting
REALLY old. In truth, the only proof these people would
accept is a video documentary of every minute of the lives
of everyone from "Lucys" great grandfather up until at
least year zero. Then they'd claim it was all faked if
there wasn't a Church official present at every moment.
snex
of course, the virgin birth is known to be 100% true!
Scooter the Mighty
Really? How about the Janjaweed? I'm not a big defender of the
Catholic Church but this seems a bit exaggerated.
snex
lets compare numbers. how many have the janjaweed killed last year?
how many africans died from AIDS last year because the man in the
funny hat told them that using condoms is a sin? how many children
starved to death last year because the man in the funny hat demands
*at least* 10% of their income to go to his golden palace city? how
many children were molested last year by priests because the man in
the funny hat protects them?
chris.li...@gmail.com
I have my doubts that the RC Church demands a tithe still. Not that I
am a fan of the RC Church, mind you, but it doesn't pay to froth.
Chris
Scooter the Mighty
Individuals have to take responsibility for their own actions even if
men in funny hats tell them crazy stuff. At least that's my opinion.
snex
individuals cannot make educated decisions when their only form of
education comes from men in funny hats.
snex
they even issue you monthly packets of enevelopes with your name on
them so they know who isnt giving.
Scooter the Mighty
I don't buy that the pope is anyone's only form of education.
snex
possibly not, but he tells them that they will suffer eternal hellfire
if they do not listen. what are they to make of this?
alwaysaskingquestions
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:he9d23tf7h1e9ftpn...@4ax.com...
> Scríobh snex <sn...@comcast.net>:
>>
>>> I have my doubts that the RC Church demands a tithe still. Not that I
>>> am a fan of the RC Church, mind you, but it doesn't pay to froth.
>>
>>they even issue you monthly packets of enevelopes with your name on
>>them so they know who isnt giving.
>
> the faithful
IME typically about 2% from those who do contribute - which, again IME, is
less than half of those who are nominally Catholic.
snex
> Scríobh snex <s...@comcast.net>:
>
>
>
> >> I have my doubts that the RC Church demands a tithe still. Not that I
> >> am a fan of the RC Church, mind you, but it doesn't pay to froth.
>
> >they even issue you monthly packets of enevelopes with your name on
> >them so they know who isnt giving.
>
> the faithful
thats only because they dont have access to your paystub, at least in
america.
>
> --
> 'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
> © Féachadóir
Vend
Actually, AFAIK, the RCC doesn't ask money to its members for keeping
the membership.
Some local churches may ask money to perform certain rituals
(weddings, funerals, etc.).
Lee Jay
The RCC asked for my father-in-law's tax return so they could tell him
how much he had to contribute. He hasn't been to church since.
Lee Jay
rmj
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:he9d23tf7h1e9ftpn...@4ax.com...
> Scríobh snex <sn...@comcast.net>:
>>
>>> am a fan of the RC Church, mind you, but it doesn't pay to froth.
>>
>>they even issue you monthly packets of enevelopes with your name on
>>them so they know who isnt giving.
>
> the faithful
Quite right. And since the Church has records of the donations, the
individuals can deduct them from their income tax.
chris.li...@gmail.com
Seriously? That's unbelieveable.
Chris
John Wilkins
What, you didn't see the video?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Pete G.
>
> how many africans died from AIDS last year because the man in the
> funny hat told them that using condoms is a sin?
Let's not forget that Pope Panzer XVIth *also* allows his Africa-based
employees to spread the lie that there's 'no point using condoms' because
'they have tiny holes in them which will let the HIV through anyway...
P.
Martin Kaletsch
Not if you live outside of Germany, I suppose... Here, if you are a member
of one of the big churches, the state collects church tax together with the
income tax for them! And your local (Catholic) church sends you a message
every year that you should contribute whatever you think apropriate to
them.
--
Martin Kaletsch
chris.li...@gmail.com
I might be old-fashioned, but when I hear the word "tithe" I think of
the classic meaning: 10% of your income. I guess hardly anyone tithes
in that sense anymore (although I understand the Mormons make a virtue
of it, but don't require it).
Seriously, in Germany the state collects money from the populace and
passes it on to the church? Do you get to say how much they take? Can
you decline to contribute?
Chris
Robert Carnegie
> From a press release:
>
> "The Pope Should Take a Stand on Creation"
>
> "In the New German book "Schoepfung und Evolution" (translated
> "Creation and Evolution") published recently in Germany, Pope
> Benedict was quoted as saying that evolution is not "completely
> provable." Indicating that he believes it has been partially proven.
> Where is this proof? Evolution is a belief, which is not provable, it
> is not science, and it is not even rational. Spontaneous generation
> would have to be a proven fact in order for evolution to even have
> a starting point."
>
> <http://www.earnedmedia.org/gjcm0418.htm>
"Contact the promotions department at kmcca...@yahoo.com". Now /
that's/ funny.
I also like the line - this is me quote-mining what's probably a quote-
mine - "Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science
to the desperate end over evolution." Yeah, say what you mean. They
liked it well enough that they used it.
Nick Keighley
Martin Kaletsch
>> Not if you live outside of Germany, I suppose... Here, if you are a
>> member of one of the big churches, the state collects church tax together
>> with the income tax for them! And your local (Catholic) church sends you
>> a message every year that you should contribute whatever you think
>> apropriate to them.
>
> I might be old-fashioned, but when I hear the word "tithe" I think of
> the classic meaning: 10% of your income. I guess hardly anyone tithes
> in that sense anymore (although I understand the Mormons make a virtue
> of it, but don't require it).
>
> Seriously, in Germany the state collects money from the populace and
> passes it on to the church?
Yes, and the bishops are paid directly by the state, from the normal tax,
collected from all people.
But Germany is officially a secular country...
> Do you get to say how much they take?
No, it is a fixed percentage 8-9% of your income tax, depending where you
live. Not realy the traditional tithe, but it amounts to several billion
Euros for the big churches.
> Can
> you decline to contribute?
Only by leaving the church, which is some bureaucratic bother and costs
money as well (only once, though ;-).
Theoretically all officially registered religious communities can tax their
members that way, but apart from the big Catholic and Protestant churches
few do. The Mormons and Jehovas Wittnesses for example have the right but
chose not to use it.
--
Martin Kaletsch
Nick Keighley
<snip>
> I might be old-fashioned, but when I hear the word "tithe" I think of
> the classic meaning: 10% of your income. I guess hardly anyone tithes
> in that sense anymore (although I understand the Mormons make a virtue
> of it, but don't require it).
>
> Seriously, in Germany the state collects money from the populace and
> passes it on to the church? Do you get to say how much they take? Can
> you decline to contribute
seriously, yes they do! Several other european countries as well. See
Wiki.
My brother's former girl friend (an Austrian) used to get quite heated
on the
subject. She seemed particularly peeved that my brother (who was
resident
in Austria) did not pay it. He wasn't a Catholic. Why not tell them
you arn't
a Catholic? Because then you don't recieve the sacrament... I believe
parts
of Scotland used to have a tithe until relativly recently.
--
Nick Keighley
chris.li...@gmail.com
If they don't have their members taxed, are their bishops, or elders,
still paid from the common fund?
Chris
chris.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
Couldn't receive Communion? How do they know? What about visitors,
tourists?
Chris
jcon
> From a press release:
>
> "The Pope Should Take a Stand on Creation"
>
Perhaps, but I would much rather the rational world took a stand
on the Pope.
Wishful thinking, I know.
-jc
Scooter the Mighty
When he tells me that, what I make of it is "that's a lot of
nonsense." I recommend this view pretty highly.
If the people of Africa were following the Pope's advice exactly due
to fear for their soul then they'd be getting married as virgins and
never divorcing or cheating. Therefore they wouldn't get AIDS. If
you screw a prostitute and get HIV and then try to argue that it's the
pope's fault because for some reason you listened to him about condoms
but not about screwing prostitutes, well, that's pretty thin.
AC
Public health can't be based on idealistic pie-in-the-sky notions of
morality. You won't stop teenagers from having sex with abstinence
programs. You won't stop guys from frequenting prostitutes because the
Pope says it's immoral. It's not like these concepts are new, and it's
certainly not like they ever worked in the past.
A public health official is concerned about stemming the tide of
communicable diseases. To do this he is going to try to find the method
that will most likely get results. Telling johns not to have sexual
intercourse with prostitutes is not likely to be very successful
(if threats of hellfire and damnation won't work, then having some
guy from WHO telling them is hardly going to be a rousing success).
However, encouraging a smaller change in behavior; that is wearing a
condom, may have more success.
But whether or not we agree with the Pope's position, having the Church
disseminate outright falsehoods about condoms is completely
counterproductive, and does indeed put the lives of people at risk.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
snex
we arent talking about educated first world people who understand how
to think critically and scientifically on at least *some* parts of
reality.
and condoms are one thing, but denying human nature to fuck is
completely different. the pope knows damn well that they wont listen
to him about sex but they will about condoms - if he even bothers to
tell them that condoms exist. i would also bet that they dont get
taught fire and brimstone for sex, but they do for condoms and
abortion. its no different in america. oh you had sex? thats ok just
go to confession. wait you had an abortion?? SINNER!
notice how the pope isnt threatening catholic politicians with
excommunication over pushing any other anti-catholic stances. your
defense of this man's actions is despicable. just because he isnt
*solely* responsible for the evils in the world is no excuse for his
*deliberate* perpetuation of them. he has more of an opportunity to
fix the situation than any other human being alive because of his
position of power, and he does *dick* to fix it. all he cares about
are his golden palaces thousands of miles away from the filth his
followers are forced to live in.
Scooter the Mighty
I agree with you completely. I'm just saying that you can't say that
Pope is solely to blame for AIDS among catholics in Africa. I agree
that he's not helping things and ought to OK condom use, I just think
that on personal level the guy who sticks his dick in a prostitute and
gets HIV can't claim it's the pope's fault.
Scooter the Mighty
I don't disagree with most of your general points, but I think you are
affecting a patronizing attitude towards the people of Africa and
overemphasizing the pope's personal responsibility for the actions of
other people.
I don't buy that anything as straightforwards as people accepting the
popes views on condoms but not on sex is happening. You seriously
think that people in Africa are getting taught "fire and brimstone"
for condoms but NOT for sex? Seriously?
Irrational hyperbole isn't particularly helpful.
snex
is there any reason to think that the catholic church in africa
teaches any differently than the one i grew up in?
Martin Kaletsch
> If they don't have their members taxed, are their bishops, or elders,
> still paid from the common fund?
Not that I know of. As far as I know, the bishops being paid directly by the
state and other payments of tax money to the churches is the result of old
treaties between the established religions and the German state, going back
partly to the early 19th century. The "newcomers" are not part of that
system, no matter if they collect church tax or not.
--
Martin Kaletsch
ayer...@hotmail.com
catholic church HAS MADE UP FALSE DOCTRINE. THINGS THAT ARE NOT EVEN
IN THE BIBLE. CHECK IT OUT, ASK A cathlic pastor DOCTRINE, AND COMPARE
TO WHAT IS IN THE BIBLE. THE PEOPLE IN THE cathlic church DON'T EVEN
KNOW , BECAUSE THEY DON'T READ THER BIBLE. AND THE BIBLE SAYS HOW CAN
THE BLIND LEAD THE BLIND LESS THEY ALL FALL IN A DITCH,AND BE LOST.
THE cathlic church HAS TO ANSWER TO ADDING, AND CHANGING THE WORD.THIS
YOU WILL FIND IN REVELATION 22:19
DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT CHECK IT OUT FOR YOUR SELFS. JUST COMPARE
cathlic doc, TO THE BIBLE IT'S ALL THERE AND CAN'T BE DENIED. AND THE
POPE IS A GRAVEN IMAGE HAVE A NICE DAY EVANGELICAL CHRISTAIN GEORGE.
snex
this applies to all christian sects. nobody can take the bible
entirely literally because it contradicts itself and is deliberately
confusing.
Vend
> I agree with you completely. I'm just saying that you can't say that
> Pope is solely to blame for AIDS among catholics in Africa. I agree
> that he's not helping things and ought to OK condom use, I just think
> that on personal level the guy who sticks his dick in a prostitute and
> gets HIV can't claim it's the pope's fault.
If a man fully educated an informed about what AIDS is, how it is
transmitted and how the sexual transmission risk can be drastically
reduced using condoms knowly has unprotected sex with a prostitute in
an area of high AIDS incidence and gets AIDS, then I agree that he
can't blame anyone but himself.
But many (probably most) Africans aren't properly educated on such
subjects or can't easly find and afford condoms.
The Catholic Chruch has a great power in many African countries, since
it runs many charity programs that bring substantial financial and
human resources to those countries, so that governments came to depend
on them.
If the Church uses this power to influence public health and public
education policies against the usage of condoms and towards the
demostrably ineffective abstinence-only positions, then it can be
considered responsable for the new infections.
Luminoso
>On Apr 18, 4:00 pm, lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote:
>> On 18 Apr 2007 10:31:13 -0700, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> >From a press release:
>>
>> >"The Pope Should Take a Stand on Creation"
>>
>> >"In the New German book "Schoepfung und Evolution" (translated
>> >"Creation and Evolution") published recently in Germany, Pope
>> >Benedict was quoted as saying that evolution is not "completely
>> >provable." Indicating that he believes it has been partially proven.
>> >Where is this proof? Evolution is a belief, which is not provable, it
>> >is not science, and it is not even rational. Spontaneous generation
>> >would have to be a proven fact in order for evolution to even have
>> >a starting point."
>>
>> ><http://www.earnedmedia.org/gjcm0418.htm>
>>
>> And next week the pope will announce a return to the
>> policy of burning heliocentrists at the stake ...
>>
>> The old "adequately/completely proven" excuse is getting
>> REALLY old. In truth, the only proof these people would
>> accept is a video documentary of every minute of the lives
>> of everyone from "Lucys" great grandfather up until at
>> least year zero. Then they'd claim it was all faked if
>> there wasn't a Church official present at every moment.
>
>of course, the virgin birth is known to be 100% true!
That word got kind-of maltranslated. In the original
it meant "young girl" and didn't necessarily comment
on her sexual experience. I got that yummy tidbit
from a catholic priest of all people, a scholar of
the ancient languages. He probably isn't a priest
anymore if they found out he was being so informative ...
snex
he was only partially correct. matthew did indeed say virgin - the
context of the story makes absolutely no sense unless it is
interpreted as such. the mistranslation was the verse in a greek
version of isaiah that matthew used to derive the "prophecy."
skyeyes
Dunno. I've heard the Mormons do much the same thing.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
skyeyes
> catholic church HAS MADE UP FALSE DOCTRINE. THINGS THAT ARE NOT EVEN
> IN THE BIBLE. CHECK IT OUT, ASK A cathlic pastor DOCTRINE, AND COMPARE
> TO WHAT IS IN THE BIBLE. THE PEOPLE IN THE cathlic church DON'T EVEN
> KNOW , BECAUSE THEY DON'T READ THER BIBLE. AND THE BIBLE SAYS HOW CAN
> THE BLIND LEAD THE BLIND LESS THEY ALL FALL IN A DITCH,AND BE LOST.
> THE cathlic church HAS TO ANSWER TO ADDING, AND CHANGING THE WORD.THIS
> YOU WILL FIND IN REVELATION 22:19
> DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT CHECK IT OUT FOR YOUR SELFS. JUST COMPARE
> cathlic doc, TO THE BIBLE IT'S ALL THERE AND CAN'T BE DENIED. AND THE
> POPE IS A GRAVEN IMAGE HAVE A NICE DAY EVANGELICAL CHRISTAIN GEORGE.
How about taking the caps lock off, Evangelical Christian George?
And while you're at it, why don't you produce some evidence that the
Bible is anything other than a book of Bronze Age mythology?
Thanks awfully.
skyeyes
Actually, the Catlicks don't mind a bit if you know that "alma" simply
means "young woman." Oddly enough, it's the Christian funnymentalists
who get all bent out of shape if you translate "alma" as anything
other than "virgin." Why, they say, if it just meant "young woman,"
then it wouldn't be much of a prophecy, would it???
<Eyeroll>
macaddicted
> On Apr 19, 1:58 pm, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > catholic church HAS MADE UP FALSE DOCTRINE. THINGS THAT ARE NOT EVEN
> > IN THE BIBLE. CHECK IT OUT, ASK A cathlic pastor DOCTRINE, AND COMPARE
> > TO WHAT IS IN THE BIBLE. THE PEOPLE IN THE cathlic church DON'T EVEN
> > KNOW , BECAUSE THEY DON'T READ THER BIBLE. AND THE BIBLE SAYS HOW CAN
> > THE BLIND LEAD THE BLIND LESS THEY ALL FALL IN A DITCH,AND BE LOST.
> > THE cathlic church HAS TO ANSWER TO ADDING, AND CHANGING THE WORD.THIS
> > YOU WILL FIND IN REVELATION 22:19
> > DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT CHECK IT OUT FOR YOUR SELFS. JUST COMPARE
> > cathlic doc, TO THE BIBLE IT'S ALL THERE AND CAN'T BE DENIED. AND THE
> > POPE IS A GRAVEN IMAGE HAVE A NICE DAY EVANGELICAL CHRISTAIN GEORGE.
>
> this applies to all christian sects. nobody can take the bible
> entirely literally because it contradicts itself and is deliberately
> confusing.
Yes, because only the men about to become priests and a select few
laymen, such as myself, who have trained alongside them are allowed the
truly intimate knowledge of the secrets.
--
macaddicted
fides quaerens intellectum
macaddicted
I have stayed out of this for as long as I can bear. Really, this is
becoming quite dishonest. If you have a problem with institutional
religion that is between you, and well you. But somehow this notion has
developed that while the only thing that stands between educated and not
is the Church, and between healthy and not is the Church, but the Church
cannot act according to its mandate.
Has the Church acted shamefully in the past? Yes, there is no denying
it. But damning it in the same breath that you castigate it for trying
to help is no better.
snex
wrote:
LYING to these people is trying to help? what the fuck is wrong with
you?
macaddicted
Well golly gee wilikers my cursing friend you've punched a hole in my
logic I simply won't be able to close. Despite my paragraph above I had
never truly considered that the Church could be an imperfect
institution.
Left adrift by your comments I will give them the consideration they so
richly deserve.
snex
wrote:
there is a vast difference between being imperfect and deliberately
lying to people who you know will believe you and therefore die of a
disease that need not exist.
macaddicted
And as with everything else the whole hole story was blown (sorry) out
of proportion. The Church is opposing condom use as the ONLY means of
AIDS reduction, as it is in many places.
A physical failure rate of 0.4% from water testing is acceptable to the
USDA. But golly gee the Church looks beyond this to the fact that up to
15% of condom failures are due to a variety of, shall we say, usage
errors. Would you call a "total" solution with potential failure rate of
15% positive?
Oh, and the USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) has noted
that the AIDS rate in Uganda has fallen, as opposed to Zambia and Kenya,
primarily due to the reduction in sex partners, a similar impact as a
potential medical vaccine of 80 percent efficacy.
Note link opens a pdf:
<http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/aids/Countries/africa/ugand
a_report.pdf>
The Church's opposition is not so simplistic as you would have others
believe. Again it is following its mandate in looking beyond the mere
physical care of the body to the spiritual and physical care of the
person.
Trying to argue that chastity and strict monogomy are not a better
solution is disingenuous. That it is without a doubt the most difficult
solution to partake of is also undoubted.
snex
nobody teaches this. it is dishonest to claim otherwise.
>
> A physical failure rate of 0.4% from water testing is acceptable to the
> USDA. But golly gee the Church looks beyond this to the fact that up to
> 15% of condom failures are due to a variety of, shall we say, usage
> errors. Would you call a "total" solution with potential failure rate of
> 15% positive?
15% is better than 100%. why arent priests teaching proper usage,
bringing it back to 0.4%?
>
> Oh, and the USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) has noted
> that the AIDS rate in Uganda has fallen, as opposed to Zambia and Kenya,
> primarily due to the reduction in sex partners, a similar impact as a
> potential medical vaccine of 80 percent efficacy.
>
> Note link opens a pdf:
> <http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/aids/Countries/africa/ugand
> a_report.pdf>
>
> The Church's opposition is not so simplistic as you would have others
> believe. Again it is following its mandate in looking beyond the mere
> physical care of the body to the spiritual and physical care of the
> person.
lying to people is not caring for them. if a doctor did this, he would
lose his license.
>
> Trying to argue that chastity and strict monogomy are not a better
> solution is disingenuous. That it is without a doubt the most difficult
> solution to partake of is also undoubted.
nobody claims that they are not better solutions. the church claims
that 1) any other solutions are EVIL, and 2) that other solutions are
ineffective, and therefore lying.
your defense of this disgusting organization is appalling.
Martin Andersen
> Scríobh "rmj" <gle...@jps.net>:
>> "Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
>> news:he9d23tf7h1e9ftpn...@4ax.com...
>>> Scríobh snex <sn...@comcast.net>:
>>>>> I have my doubts that the RC Church demands a tithe still. Not that I
>>>>> am a fan of the RC Church, mind you, but it doesn't pay to froth.
>>>> they even issue you monthly packets of enevelopes with your name on
>>>> them so they know who isnt giving.
>>> Trust me, those envelopes contain nothing near 10% of the income of
>>> the faithful
>> individuals can deduct them from their income tax.
>
> Why do you assume I would be bound by US tax laws?
>
So where you come from you can't deduct donations?
macaddicted
In bold type:
"Condoms are effective in preventing HIV and other STDs."
<http://aids.about.com/od/hivprevention/a/hivprevent.htm>
I suppose an 85% effectiveness is sufficient for the author.
That condoms have been shown to be very effective WHEN PROPERLY USED is
known. That there is a failure rate of 10-15% because of improper
construction and/or use has also been shown.
>
> >
> > A physical failure rate of 0.4% from water testing is acceptable to the
> > USDA. But golly gee the Church looks beyond this to the fact that up to
> > 15% of condom failures are due to a variety of, shall we say, usage
> > errors. Would you call a "total" solution with potential failure rate of
> > 15% positive?
>
> 15% is better than 100%. why arent priests teaching proper usage,
> bringing it back to 0.4%?
I can get a lot closer to 100% the Church's way than your way.
Which begs the question: Why are worldwide AIDS prevention organizations
beginning to press the delay of sexual activity and the practice of
monogamy, in addition to the use of condoms, as a practical method of
preventing AIDS. This is, after all, nearly what the Church is advising.
While abstinence is the most difficult, and certainly the least
pleasurable, of the STD prevention measures, yet even you must admit
that it is the most effective.
Your desire to disregard any pronouncement by the Church as holding any
validity is choking off your ability to see that what the Church is
advocating is based on what it is to be a social subjective person as
opposed to a mere objective human body. If all you are concerned with is
body counts then by all means, condoms it is.
>
> >
> > Oh, and the USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) has noted
> > that the AIDS rate in Uganda has fallen, as opposed to Zambia and Kenya,
> > primarily due to the reduction in sex partners, a similar impact as a
> > potential medical vaccine of 80 percent efficacy.
> >
> > Note link opens a pdf:
> > <http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/aids/Countries/africa/ugand
> > a_report.pdf>
> >
> > The Church's opposition is not so simplistic as you would have others
> > believe. Again it is following its mandate in looking beyond the mere
> > physical care of the body to the spiritual and physical care of the
> > person.
>
> lying to people is not caring for them. if a doctor did this, he would
> lose his license.
Really, what in that 5% difference is causing you such concern. 85% is
ok, but 80% is too many.
Also, you keep saying that they are lying. I think I know what you are
referring to, but just so I can be sure what specifically are they lying
about?
>
> >
> > Trying to argue that chastity and strict monogomy are not a better
> > solution is disingenuous. That it is without a doubt the most difficult
> > solution to partake of is also undoubted.
>
> nobody claims that they are not better solutions. the church claims
> that 1) any other solutions are EVIL,
Only in as much as they affect the subjective person, as opposed to the
objective human body. You seem much more concerned with the latter, the
Church is entirely concerned with the former.
> and 2) that other solutions are
> ineffective, and therefore lying.
But they are less effective then the means the Church advocates. You may
disagree, and many do. You can choose not to follow them, and heavens
knows LOTS of people do. But the fact that something is difficult and
less simple does not lower its efficacy.
>
> your defense of this disgusting organization is appalling.
Which says everything about your willingness to accept that any Church
statement or philosophy has any usefulness of any sort. That you would
actually say "the catholic church is the most harmful organization alive
today." to my mind rises to the level of severe bigotry or severe
naiveté, I'm not sure which. Your name calling and hyer-aggressive
language adds nothing to our interaction.
If you have problems with the Church that's your issue, not mine. But
when you try to attack it without bothering to try to understand the
underlying ideas and philosophies you simply prove yourself the fool.
I am willing to explore the issue with you to the limits of my available
time. But if you are going to continue to be as closed minded as your
remarks to me and others have indicated then there can be no discourse
and I see no need in attempting to continue.
If you want to dial yourself back a little and have a conversation fine,
otherwise I'm done. If you want to accuse me of Paganoesque actions then
fine, in this case I would view your disdain as an honor. (Anyone who
has been here to see my battles with Pags would know how ironic the last
statement was.) The decision is yours, but continuing in the manner you
have been is at once boring and borish.
snex
this does not support your original claim. you claimed that "The
Church is opposing condom use as the ONLY means of AIDS reduction, as
it is in many places." this is absolute nonsense. the church does NOT
oppose condom-only prevention. the church opposes condom use PERIOD.
furthermore, NOBODY ANYWHERE teaches condom-only prevention.
you are simply lying about what the church's position is.
>
> I suppose an 85% effectiveness is sufficient for the author.
85% effectiveness is better than 0%. when will you and the catholic
church get this?
>
> That condoms have been shown to be very effective WHEN PROPERLY USED is
> known. That there is a failure rate of 10-15% because of improper
> construction and/or use has also been shown.
and irrelevant. the church opposes all condom use no matter what.
>
>
>
> > > A physical failure rate of 0.4% from water testing is acceptable to the
> > > USDA. But golly gee the Church looks beyond this to the fact that up to
> > > 15% of condom failures are due to a variety of, shall we say, usage
> > > errors. Would you call a "total" solution with potential failure rate of
> > > 15% positive?
>
> > 15% is better than 100%. why arent priests teaching proper usage,
> > bringing it back to 0.4%?
>
> I can get a lot closer to 100% the Church's way than your way.
again, irrelevant. the church lies about alternatives.
>
> Which begs the question: Why are worldwide AIDS prevention organizations
> beginning to press the delay of sexual activity and the practice of
> monogamy, in addition to the use of condoms, as a practical method of
> preventing AIDS. This is, after all, nearly what the Church is advising.
no, you are lying again. the church does NOT advise condom use to
prevent AIDS. the church demands that condoms NEVER be used, *EVEN
BETWEEN MARRIED COUPLES WHEN ONE PARTNER HAS AIDS*!
>
> While abstinence is the most difficult, and certainly the least
> pleasurable, of the STD prevention measures, yet even you must admit
> that it is the most effective.
nobody anywhere in the world disputes this.
>
> Your desire to disregard any pronouncement by the Church as holding any
> validity is choking off your ability to see that what the Church is
> advocating is based on what it is to be a social subjective person as
> opposed to a mere objective human body. If all you are concerned with is
> body counts then by all means, condoms it is.
this is the most disgusting and pathetic excuse i have ever seen, and
at the risk of godwinning, you are making an argument no different
from the nazi argument that hitler advanced about doing what he
believed was right. he was advocating advancing the "social subjective
person" by eliminating the unfit, as opposed to a mere objective human
body. if all you are concerned with is body counts, then by all means,
save the jews.
i mean seriously. LOOK at what you are saying! you just attempted to
justify allowing people to suffer and die! all to protect your pope
from criticism.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Oh, and the USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) has noted
> > > that the AIDS rate in Uganda has fallen, as opposed to Zambia and Kenya,
> > > primarily due to the reduction in sex partners, a similar impact as a
> > > potential medical vaccine of 80 percent efficacy.
>
> > > Note link opens a pdf:
> > > <http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/aids/Countries/africa/ugand
> > > a_report.pdf>
>
> > > The Church's opposition is not so simplistic as you would have others
> > > believe. Again it is following its mandate in looking beyond the mere
> > > physical care of the body to the spiritual and physical care of the
> > > person.
>
> > lying to people is not caring for them. if a doctor did this, he would
> > lose his license.
>
> Really, what in that 5% difference is causing you such concern. 85% is
> ok, but 80% is too many.
>
> Also, you keep saying that they are lying. I think I know what you are
> referring to, but just so I can be sure what specifically are they lying
> about?
for one thing, they lie about the HIV virus being able to easily
permeate condom latex. this is a demonstrably false statement that the
catholic church still peddles to the uneducated.
>
>
>
> > > Trying to argue that chastity and strict monogomy are not a better
> > > solution is disingenuous. That it is without a doubt the most difficult
> > > solution to partake of is also undoubted.
>
> > nobody claims that they are not better solutions. the church claims
> > that 1) any other solutions are EVIL,
>
> Only in as much as they affect the subjective person, as opposed to the
> objective human body. You seem much more concerned with the latter, the
> Church is entirely concerned with the former.
the church is concerned with maintaining its golden palaces far away
from its starving constituents. it cant very well do that if they use
condoms, or (god forbid) are educated at all. educated people make for
bad churchgoers.
>
> > and 2) that other solutions are
> > ineffective, and therefore lying.
>
> But they are less effective then the means the Church advocates. You may
> disagree, and many do. You can choose not to follow them, and heavens
> knows LOTS of people do. But the fact that something is difficult and
> less simple does not lower its efficacy.
i have never disagreed, nor has anybody else. proper care involves
discussing ALL possible prevention methods HONESTLY, and the catholic
church does NOT do this.
>
>
>
> > your defense of this disgusting organization is appalling.
>
> Which says everything about your willingness to accept that any Church
> statement or philosophy has any usefulness of any sort. That you would
> actually say "the catholic church is the most harmful organization alive
> today." to my mind rises to the level of severe bigotry or severe
> naiveté, I'm not sure which. Your name calling and hyer-aggressive
> language adds nothing to our interaction.
i challenge you to name any organization alive today that is more
harmful.
>
> If you have problems with the Church that's your issue, not mine. But
> when you try to attack it without bothering to try to understand the
> underlying ideas and philosophies you simply prove yourself the fool.
>
> I am willing to explore the issue with you to the limits of my available
> time. But if you are going to continue to be as closed minded as your
> remarks to me and others have indicated then there can be no discourse
> and I see no need in attempting to continue.
>
> If you want to dial yourself back a little and have a conversation fine,
> otherwise I'm done. If you want to accuse me of Paganoesque actions then
> fine, in this case I would view your disdain as an honor. (Anyone who
> has been here to see my battles with Pags would know how ironic the last
> statement was.) The decision is yours, but continuing in the manner you
> have been is at once boring and borish.
why should i be respectful to you? you are lying and protecting liars.
you deserve no better than pagano or ray martinez. when you decide
start being honest about what the church teaches, i will consider
taking you seriously.
Martin Andersen
>>>> how many africans died from AIDS last year because the man in the
>>>> funny hat told them that using condoms is a sin? how many children
>>>> starved to death last year because the man in the funny hat demands
>>>> *at least* 10% of their income to go to his golden palace city? how
>>> am a fan of the RC Church, mind you, but it doesn't pay to froth.
>> of one of the big churches, the state collects church tax together with the
>> income tax for them! And your local (Catholic) church sends you a message
>> every year that you should contribute whatever you think apropriate to
>> them.
>>
>> --
>> Martin Kaletsch
>
>
> I might be old-fashioned, but when I hear the word "tithe" I think of
> the classic meaning: 10% of your income. I guess hardly anyone tithes
> in that sense anymore (although I understand the Mormons make a virtue
> of it, but don't require it).
>
> Seriously, in Germany the state collects money from the populace and
> you decline to contribute?
>
> Chris
>
In Denmark 'kirkeskatten' (literally: "the church tax") is something members of
'Folkekirken' ("church of the people", which is lutheran-protestant and
privileged over other religions by specific mention in our constitution) pay the
same way as the rest of their income tax. That is, the state collects it for the
church.
Becoming a member at any point in your life is trivial, but by far the largest
group become members as infants when their protestant parents arrange for them
to be baptized.
So, unless the individual acts on own volition later in life and opts out (by
officially leaving Folkekirken) he will be required to pay the church tax. You
leave by filling out a form that can obtained at "your" local priest, or
downloaded. You can't submit it again electronically (which was annoying :P) and
you have to attach your original (!!) birth certificate, which will then be
replaced. I found the procedure rather bizarre really.
Just how much constitutes the church tax varies from county to county. From what
I can find it ranges from 0.42% to 1.51%
---
Random info: January 1st 2006, 83% of the danish population were members of
Folkekirken and the number is steadily declining. It went down 7.3 percentage
points over the period of 1985 to 2003. Even if you opt out of Folkekirken, you
still help finance it indirectly. For example: In 2005 they got an additional
650 million DKK (next to whatever they got from the church tax) from the state
via various agreements that they have. 550 of those millions were used to pay
priest salaries and pensions, which translates to roughly 40% of their salary
and all of their pensions.
macaddicted
And the site shown above does not list abstinence as a possible means of
prevention in the article or any of the follow on articles I looked at.
> you are simply lying about what the church's position is.
>
And you are simply so completely lost in your anger that you can't see
straight.
> >
> > I suppose an 85% effectiveness is sufficient for the author.
>
> 85% effectiveness is better than 0%. when will you and the catholic
> church get this?
100% effectiveness is better than 85%. That the solution is not
generally socially acceptable seems to be your only response.
You'll excuse me while I grab my time machine. I have to go tell Martin
Luther King he is wasting his time.
>
> >
> > That condoms have been shown to be very effective WHEN PROPERLY USED is
> > known. That there is a failure rate of 10-15% because of improper
> > construction and/or use has also been shown.
>
> and irrelevant. the church opposes all condom use no matter what.
Because it has a better method? Because actions have consequences?
Because a physical act can have an effect on a PERSON beyond the merely
physical? Wait, gotta go back a little farther to talk to Freud.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > A physical failure rate of 0.4% from water testing is acceptable to the
> > > > USDA. But golly gee the Church looks beyond this to the fact that up to
> > > > 15% of condom failures are due to a variety of, shall we say, usage
> > > > errors. Would you call a "total" solution with potential failure rate of
> > > > 15% positive?
> >
> > > 15% is better than 100%. why arent priests teaching proper usage,
> > > bringing it back to 0.4%?
> >
> > I can get a lot closer to 100% the Church's way than your way.
>
> again, irrelevant. the church lies about alternatives.
To quote Reagan "There he goes again." Uh huh. Um, not to put to fine a
point on it, what method do you have that helps to close that 15% you
are willing to accept.
>
> >
> > Which begs the question: Why are worldwide AIDS prevention organizations
> > beginning to press the delay of sexual activity and the practice of
> > monogamy, in addition to the use of condoms, as a practical method of
> > preventing AIDS. This is, after all, nearly what the Church is advising.
>
> no, you are lying again. the church does NOT advise condom use to
> prevent AIDS.
Becuae it has a preferred method that you don't like
> the church demands that condoms NEVER be used, *EVEN
> BETWEEN MARRIED COUPLES WHEN ONE PARTNER HAS AIDS*!
>
And to further prove that I am intellectually honest I will grant you
that point. The Church has discussed it under these circumstances but
nothing has come of it yet.
> >
> > While abstinence is the most difficult, and certainly the least
> > pleasurable, of the STD prevention measures, yet even you must admit
> > that it is the most effective.
>
> nobody anywhere in the world disputes this.
Oh no! The Church is advocating the most effective means of STD
prevention over any other. The sheer horror of it. I mean what's next, a
new version of Leave It to Beaver and Avacado Green walls?
>
> >
> > Your desire to disregard any pronouncement by the Church as holding any
> > validity is choking off your ability to see that what the Church is
> > advocating is based on what it is to be a social subjective person as
> > opposed to a mere objective human body. If all you are concerned with is
> > body counts then by all means, condoms it is.
>
> this is the most disgusting and pathetic excuse i have ever seen, and
> at the risk of godwinning, you are making an argument no different
> from the nazi argument that hitler advanced about doing what he
> believed was right. he was advocating advancing the "social subjective
> person" by eliminating the unfit, as opposed to a mere objective human
> body. if all you are concerned with is body counts, then by all means,
> save the jews.
My goodness. Well you have pretty much encapsulated the depth of your
ability to think in that paragraph.
>
> i mean seriously. LOOK at what you are saying! you just attempted to
> justify allowing people to suffer and die! all to protect your pope
> from criticism.
>
Golly gee what a free thinker we are. Advocating personal responsiblity
for your actions is so last millenium.
You admit that abstinence is the most effective method, but still
critique the Church for advocating it. But you don't have the faintest
idea of what the Church is teaching and advocating. To compare what the
Church is teaching to the Nazis is at once pathetic and laughable.
LOOK at what you are saying! You just advocated a method you admit is
less effective because it allows you to continue your vitriol against
the Church.
But well as they say, loathe and let loathe.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Oh, and the USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) has noted
> > > > that the AIDS rate in Uganda has fallen, as opposed to Zambia and Kenya,
> > > > primarily due to the reduction in sex partners, a similar impact as a
> > > > potential medical vaccine of 80 percent efficacy.
> >
> > > > Note link opens a pdf:
> > > > <http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/aids/Countries/africa/ugand
> > > > a_report.pdf>
> >
> > > > The Church's opposition is not so simplistic as you would have others
> > > > believe. Again it is following its mandate in looking beyond the mere
> > > > physical care of the body to the spiritual and physical care of the
> > > > person.
> >
> > > lying to people is not caring for them. if a doctor did this, he would
> > > lose his license.
> >
> > Really, what in that 5% difference is causing you such concern. 85% is
> > ok, but 80% is too many.
> >
> > Also, you keep saying that they are lying. I think I know what you are
> > referring to, but just so I can be sure what specifically are they lying
> > about?
>
> for one thing, they lie about the HIV virus being able to easily
> permeate condom latex. this is a demonstrably false statement that the
> catholic church still peddles to the uneducated.
You mean to the uneducated at the FDA, who teach that you have to use
different condoms in different ways with the proper lubricants or they
won't work right?
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Trying to argue that chastity and strict monogomy are not a better
> > > > solution is disingenuous. That it is without a doubt the most difficult
> > > > solution to partake of is also undoubted.
> >
> > > nobody claims that they are not better solutions. the church claims
> > > that 1) any other solutions are EVIL,
> >
> > Only in as much as they affect the subjective person, as opposed to the
> > objective human body. You seem much more concerned with the latter, the
> > Church is entirely concerned with the former.
>
> the church is concerned with maintaining its golden palaces far away
> from its starving constituents. it cant very well do that if they use
> condoms, or (god forbid) are educated at all. educated people make for
> bad churchgoers.
Yes, my education has driven completely from the Church. As it has my
thesis advisor, my professors, my classmates...
As to the "golden palaces" that is such an old canard it barely deserves
comment, much less rebuttal.
>
> >
> > > and 2) that other solutions are
> > > ineffective, and therefore lying.
> >
> > But they are less effective then the means the Church advocates. You may
> > disagree, and many do. You can choose not to follow them, and heavens
> > knows LOTS of people do. But the fact that something is difficult and
> > less simple does not lower its efficacy.
>
> i have never disagreed, nor has anybody else. proper care involves
> discussing ALL possible prevention methods HONESTLY, and the catholic
> church does NOT do this.
And it's here, ladies and gentlemen, that the wheels went off the cart.
That the Church has considered and rejected the use of condoms for
reasons that go beyond the less successful than advertised use of
condoms seems to be a point far to nuanced to penetrate your fortress of
sophistry.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > your defense of this disgusting organization is appalling.
> >
> > Which says everything about your willingness to accept that any Church
> > statement or philosophy has any usefulness of any sort. That you would
> > actually say "the catholic church is the most harmful organization alive
> > today." to my mind rises to the level of severe bigotry or severe
> > naiveté, I'm not sure which. Your name calling and hyer-aggressive
> > language adds nothing to our interaction.
>
> i challenge you to name any organization alive today that is more
> harmful.
Well lets see, all the good communist states are gone (Cuba and Albania
just don't make it do they. Even Vietnam doesn't even work as well as it
once did as an example) as are most of the autocratic police states,
unless you count, say, Africa. Or the Middle East. Or South East Asia.
Al Queda has attacked and killed people with malice and forethought
around the world, based on their own peculiar religious system, and
seeks to impose social systems that would probably make us long for the
times of the inquisition (but it would do wonders for Saudi Arabia's
tourist trade). But knocking 'em off quick saves them from suffering.
North Korea's actions threaten to destabilize the entire Far East by
forceing Japan (and then South Korea) to seek to remilitarize,
especially with nuclear weapons. And oh yeah, it's society is about as
close to a living version of Orwell's _1984_ as exists on our planet.
But hey, don't want to seem too concerned with the ability of entire
populations to be treated as subjective persons because then someone
comes along and compares you to the Nazis.
Iran is doing much the same through its allies and puppet organizations
in the Middle East as NK is in the Far East.
I could name more but that would require I stop typing long enough to
actually consider your question.
>
> >
> > If you have problems with the Church that's your issue, not mine. But
> > when you try to attack it without bothering to try to understand the
> > underlying ideas and philosophies you simply prove yourself the fool.
> >
> > I am willing to explore the issue with you to the limits of my available
> > time. But if you are going to continue to be as closed minded as your
> > remarks to me and others have indicated then there can be no discourse
> > and I see no need in attempting to continue.
> >
> > If you want to dial yourself back a little and have a conversation fine,
> > otherwise I'm done. If you want to accuse me of Paganoesque actions then
> > fine, in this case I would view your disdain as an honor. (Anyone who
> > has been here to see my battles with Pags would know how ironic the last
> > statement was.) The decision is yours, but continuing in the manner you
> > have been is at once boring and borish.
>
> why should i be respectful to you? you are lying and protecting liars.
> you deserve no better than pagano or ray martinez. when you decide
> start being honest about what the church teaches, i will consider
> taking you seriously.
I would offer your own comment back to you:
when you decide (sic) start being honest about what the church teaches,
i will consider taking you seriously.
In Pagano's best style (and there's a set of words I never thought I
would type):
I'm done here.
snex
very first paragraph: "Refraining from having unprotected sexual
intercourse with an infected partner is the best way to prevent
transmission of HIV and other STDs."
lying does no good when the source is open to all.
>
> > you are simply lying about what the church's position is.
>
> And you are simply so completely lost in your anger that you can't see
> straight.
>
>
>
> > > I suppose an 85% effectiveness is sufficient for the author.
>
> > 85% effectiveness is better than 0%. when will you and the catholic
> > church get this?
>
> 100% effectiveness is better than 85%. That the solution is not
> generally socially acceptable seems to be your only response.
no, that the catholic church calls it a SIN and LIES about it is my
response. they offer a "solution" that they know most people *cannot*
listen to, and refuse to discuss other possibilities honestly. this is
a violation of the hippocratic oath, and would see any doctor losing
his license. why then do you let the church get away with it?
>
> You'll excuse me while I grab my time machine. I have to go tell Martin
> Luther King he is wasting his time.
>
>
>
> > > That condoms have been shown to be very effective WHEN PROPERLY USED is
> > > known. That there is a failure rate of 10-15% because of improper
> > > construction and/or use has also been shown.
>
> > and irrelevant. the church opposes all condom use no matter what.
>
> Because it has a better method? Because actions have consequences?
> Because a physical act can have an effect on a PERSON beyond the merely
> physical? Wait, gotta go back a little farther to talk to Freud.
your argument is like saying its justified to lie about seatbelts and
call wearing them a sin because simply not driving is a much better
way of avoiding accidents.
>
>
>
> > > > > A physical failure rate of 0.4% from water testing is acceptable to the
> > > > > USDA. But golly gee the Church looks beyond this to the fact that up to
> > > > > 15% of condom failures are due to a variety of, shall we say, usage
> > > > > errors. Would you call a "total" solution with potential failure rate of
> > > > > 15% positive?
>
> > > > 15% is better than 100%. why arent priests teaching proper usage,
> > > > bringing it back to 0.4%?
>
> > > I can get a lot closer to 100% the Church's way than your way.
>
> > again, irrelevant. the church lies about alternatives.
>
> To quote Reagan "There he goes again." Uh huh. Um, not to put to fine a
> point on it, what method do you have that helps to close that 15% you
> are willing to accept.
youve already brought it up - proper education about condom use.
>
>
>
> > > Which begs the question: Why are worldwide AIDS prevention organizations
> > > beginning to press the delay of sexual activity and the practice of
> > > monogamy, in addition to the use of condoms, as a practical method of
> > > preventing AIDS. This is, after all, nearly what the Church is advising.
>
> > no, you are lying again. the church does NOT advise condom use to
> > prevent AIDS.
>
> Becuae it has a preferred method that you don't like
no, because it LIES about other methods, and calls them EVIL.
>
> > the church demands that condoms NEVER be used, *EVEN
> > BETWEEN MARRIED COUPLES WHEN ONE PARTNER HAS AIDS*!
>
> And to further prove that I am intellectually honest I will grant you
> that point. The Church has discussed it under these circumstances but
> nothing has come of it yet.
>
>
>
> > > While abstinence is the most difficult, and certainly the least
> > > pleasurable, of the STD prevention measures, yet even you must admit
> > > that it is the most effective.
>
> > nobody anywhere in the world disputes this.
>
> Oh no! The Church is advocating the most effective means of STD
> prevention over any other. The sheer horror of it. I mean what's next, a
> new version of Leave It to Beaver and Avacado Green walls?
no, that is NOT what the church is doing. it is advocating the most
effective (but rarely followed even by its own priests) method at THE
EXCLUSION of any other.
>
>
>
> > > Your desire to disregard any pronouncement by the Church as holding any
> > > validity is choking off your ability to see that what the Church is
> > > advocating is based on what it is to be a social subjective person as
> > > opposed to a mere objective human body. If all you are concerned with is
> > > body counts then by all means, condoms it is.
>
> > this is the most disgusting and pathetic excuse i have ever seen, and
> > at the risk of godwinning, you are making an argument no different
> > from the nazi argument that hitler advanced about doing what he
> > believed was right. he was advocating advancing the "social subjective
> > person" by eliminating the unfit, as opposed to a mere objective human
> > body. if all you are concerned with is body counts, then by all means,
> > save the jews.
>
> My goodness. Well you have pretty much encapsulated the depth of your
> ability to think in that paragraph.
>
>
>
> > i mean seriously. LOOK at what you are saying! you just attempted to
> > justify allowing people to suffer and die! all to protect your pope
> > from criticism.
>
> Golly gee what a free thinker we are. Advocating personal responsiblity
> for your actions is so last millenium.
>
> You admit that abstinence is the most effective method, but still
> critique the Church for advocating it. But you don't have the faintest
> idea of what the Church is teaching and advocating. To compare what the
> Church is teaching to the Nazis is at once pathetic and laughable.
you clearly have a reading comprehension problem. i do not critisize
the church for advocating abstinence (if i did, id have to critisize
planned parenthood too!). i critisize the church for lying about and
demonizing other methods.
>
> LOOK at what you are saying! You just advocated a method you admit is
> less effective because it allows you to continue your vitriol against
> the Church.
wrong, and trying to turn my words back on me doesnt work. you are the
one who openly supports a position that leads to greater suffering and
death than mine.
no, uneducated people in 3rd world countries. by the way, the FDA does
not teach that. most latex condom brands are "ready to go" right out
of the box.
>
>
>
> > > > > Trying to argue that chastity and strict monogomy are not a better
> > > > > solution is disingenuous. That it is without a doubt the most difficult
> > > > > solution to partake of is also undoubted.
>
> > > > nobody claims that they are not better solutions. the church claims
> > > > that 1) any other solutions are EVIL,
>
> > > Only in as much as they affect the subjective person, as opposed to the
> > > objective human body. You seem much more concerned with the latter, the
> > > Church is entirely concerned with the former.
>
> > the church is concerned with maintaining its golden palaces far away
> > from its starving constituents. it cant very well do that if they use
> > condoms, or (god forbid) are educated at all. educated people make for
> > bad churchgoers.
>
> Yes, my education has driven completely from the Church. As it has my
> thesis advisor, my professors, my classmates...
the fact that the catholic church is the fastest dwindling religion in
the world is no secret. churches are closing down in record numbers
all over the world.
>
> As to the "golden palaces" that is such an old canard it barely deserves
> comment, much less rebuttal.
are you denying that the pope lives in a golden palace of extreme
extravagance? what ever happened to the vow of poverty? why doesnt he
use that vast amount of money to improve the lives of the people that
gave it to him?
>
>
>
> > > > and 2) that other solutions are
> > > > ineffective, and therefore lying.
>
> > > But they are less effective then the means the Church advocates. You may
> > > disagree, and many do. You can choose not to follow them, and heavens
> > > knows LOTS of people do. But the fact that something is difficult and
> > > less simple does not lower its efficacy.
>
> > i have never disagreed, nor has anybody else. proper care involves
> > discussing ALL possible prevention methods HONESTLY, and the catholic
> > church does NOT do this.
>
> And it's here, ladies and gentlemen, that the wheels went off the cart.
> That the Church has considered and rejected the use of condoms for
> reasons that go beyond the less successful than advertised use of
> condoms seems to be a point far to nuanced to penetrate your fortress of
> sophistry.
1) condoms are not less successful than advertised.
2) the church demonizes use of condoms in any circumstance. proper
health care involves honest discussion of ALL options.
and of course none of these institutions come close to the
stranglehold the catholic church has. everything south of texas is
controlled by it. most of africa is controlled by it. and large parts
of europe are controlled by it. in every single one of these places
the catholic church causes more problems than it solves by a long
shot.
>
>
>
> > > If you have problems with the Church that's your issue, not mine. But
> > > when you try to attack it without bothering to try to understand the
> > > underlying ideas and philosophies you simply prove yourself the fool.
>
> > > I am willing to explore the issue with you to the limits of my available
> > > time. But if you are going to continue to be as closed minded as your
> > > remarks to me and others have indicated then there can be no discourse
> > > and I see no need in attempting to continue.
>
> > > If you want to dial yourself back a little and have a conversation fine,
> > > otherwise I'm done. If you want to accuse me of Paganoesque actions then
> > > fine, in this case I would view your disdain as an honor. (Anyone who
> > > has been here to see my battles with Pags would know how ironic the last
> > > statement was.) The decision is yours, but continuing in the manner you
> > > have been is at once boring and borish.
>
> > why should i be respectful to you? you are lying and protecting liars.
> > you deserve no better than pagano or ray martinez. when you decide
> > start being honest about what the church teaches, i will consider
> > taking you seriously.
>
> I would offer your own comment back to you:
> when you decide (sic) start being honest about what the church teaches,
> i will consider taking you seriously.
>
> In Pagano's best style (and there's a set of words I never thought I
> would type):
> I'm done here.
good riddance to bad rubbish. if only you could apply your rational
mind to the horrors and inanities of catholicism (and indeed all
religion) that you do to evolution.
Wombat
> On Apr 18, 5:22 pm, Scooter the Mighty <Greyg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 3:15 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 18, 5:05 pm, Scooter the Mighty <Greyg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 18, 2:55 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 18, 4:49 pm, Scooter the Mighty <Greyg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 18, 12:31 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > From a press release:
>
> > > > > > > > "The Pope Should Take a Stand on Creation"
>
> > > > > > > > "In the New German book "Schoepfung und Evolution" (translated
> > > > > > > > "Creation and Evolution") published recently in Germany, Pope
> > > > > > > > Benedict was quoted as saying that evolution is not "completely
> > > > > > > > provable." Indicating that he believes it has been partially proven.
> > > > > > > > Where is this proof? Evolution is a belief, which is not provable, it
> > > > > > > > is not science, and it is not even rational. Spontaneous generation
> > > > > > > > would have to be a proven fact in order for evolution to even have
> > > > > > > > a starting point."
>
> > > > > > > > <http://www.earnedmedia.org/gjcm0418.htm>
>
> > > > > > > > ---Tom S.
> > > > > > > > "...when men have a real explanation they explain it, eagerly and copiously and
> > > > > > > > in common speech, as Huxley freely gave it when he thought he had it."
> > > > > > > > GK Chesterton, Doubts About Darwinism (1920)
>
> > > > > > > seriously, what is his purpose? he lives in luxury while the vast
> > > > > > > majority of his followers wallow in filth and disease. he does
> > > > > > > absolutely nothing to help them. the catholic church is the most
> > > > > > > harmful organization alive today
>
> > > > > > Really? How about the Janjaweed? I'm not a big defender of the
> > > > > > Catholic Church but this seems a bit exaggerated.
>
> > > > > lets compare numbers. how many have the janjaweed killed last year?
>
> > > > > funny hat told them that using condoms is a sin? how many children
> > > > > starved to death last year because the man in the funny hat demands
> > > > > *at least* 10% of their income to go to his golden palace city? how
> > > > > the funny hat protects them?
>
> > > > Individuals have to take responsibility for their own actions even if
> > > > men in funny hats tell them crazy stuff. At least that's my opinion.
>
> > > individuals cannot make educated decisions when their only form of
> > > education comes from men in funny hats.-
>
> > I don't buy that the pope is anyone's only form of education.
>
> possibly not, but he tells them that they will suffer eternal hellfire
>
> - Show quoted text -
I understand that HIV/AIDS is being passed around in Africa by the men
being unfaithful to their wives. Since this is way against RC
doctrine I cannot see that telling Catholics in Africa not to use
condoms is going to be heeded.
Wombat
snex
then what is your explanation for why they dont use them?
>
> Wombat
Wombat
> On Apr 18, 5:44 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 18, 6:12 pm, Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
> > > the faithful
>
> > america.
>
> The RCC asked for my father-in-law's tax return so they could tell him
> how much he had to contribute. He hasn't been to church since.
>
> Lee Jay
When I lived in England some people were giving a set amount that they
had decided every week to the parish church. Unless Gordon Brown has
changed the rules, the church could then claim tax relief on that sum,
which is why they would need to know the donor's tax code.
Wombat
Wombat
When I posted the above I was not aware of your heated argument with
macaddicted.
I agree with him and since my views coincide with his, any duplication
is wasteful.
Wombat
Nick Keighley
<chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 9:01 am,Nick Keighley<nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 19 Apr, 12:10, "chris.linthomp...@gmail.com"
>
> > <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 19, 4:06 am, Martin Kaletsch <mano...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > > > chris.linthomp...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > > I might be old-fashioned, but when I hear the word "tithe" I think of
> > > the classic meaning: 10% of your income. I guess hardly anyone tithes
> > > in that sense anymore (although I understand the Mormons make a virtue
> > > of it, but don't require it).
>
> > > Seriously, in Germany the state collects money from the populace and
> > > passes it on to the church? Do you get to say how much they take? Can
> > > you decline to contribute
>
> > Wiki.
> > My brother's former girl friend (an Austrian) used to get quite heated
> > on the
> > subject. She seemed particularly peeved that my brother (who was
> > resident
> > in Austria) did not pay it. He wasn't a Catholic. Why not tell them
> > you arn't
> > a Catholic? Because then you don't recieve the sacrament... I believe
> > parts
> > of Scotland used to have a tithe until relativly recently.
>
> > --
> >Nick Keighley
>
> Couldn't receive Communion? How do they know? What about visitors,
> tourists?
>
> Chris- Hide quoted text -
Nick Keighley
you have to fill a form in. How they identify the ones who have filled
the
form in I don't know. maybe your ID card states your religion. But
then,
as you say, what about visitors? perhaps it only really worked in
small
rural communities.
--
Nick Keighley
snex
failure to answer the question noted.
>
> Wombat
macaddicted
Of course now there's text.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Wombat" <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote in message
news:1177046982.0...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 19 Apr, 00:28, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
[...]
> I understand that HIV/AIDS is being passed around in Africa by the men
> being unfaithful to their wives. Since this is way against RC
> doctrine I cannot see that telling Catholics in Africa not to use
> condoms is going to be heeded.
Snex believes that people who ignore the Church's teaching on promiscuity
will still obey its teachings on condoms.
alwaysaskingquestions
Same here in Ireland; and it's not just Church donations, if you draw up a
covenant to donate a regular amount to *any* registered charity, that
charity can claim back the tax you paid on that donation.
snex
i believe it because it is a fact of reality. in catholic countries,
people fuck and they dont use condoms. how do you explain this
observed fact?
Martin Kaletsch
> On 19 Apr, 15:23, "chris.linthomp...@gmail.com"
> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 19, 9:01 am,Nick Keighley<nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 19 Apr, 12:10, "chris.linthomp...@gmail.com"
>> > seriously, yes they do! Several other european countries as well. See
>> > Wiki.
>> > My brother's former girl friend (an Austrian) used to get quite heated
>> > on the
>> > subject. She seemed particularly peeved that my brother (who was
>> > resident
>> > in Austria) did not pay it. He wasn't a Catholic. Why not tell them
>> > you arn't
>> > a Catholic? Because then you don't recieve the sacrament... I believe
>> > parts
>> > of Scotland used to have a tithe until relativly recently.
>> Couldn't receive Communion? How do they know? What about visitors,
>> tourists?
> you have to fill a form in. How they identify the ones who have filled
> the
> form in I don't know. maybe your ID card states your religion. But
> then,
> as you say, what about visitors? perhaps it only really worked in
> small
> rural communities.
I don't think they check your ID in the Austrian churches - they definitely
don't in the Catholic churches in Germany.
I doubt I could receive Communion in the small village church which I would
belong to, if I still was a member (hmm, knowing the oppinion of the priest
on church dogma, he may not give a damn about me not paying anymore ;-),
but if I was visiting the next city where no one in the church knows me, it
should not be a problem. Not that I would, though!
--
Martin Kaletsch
Luminoso
>On Apr 19, 2:34 pm, lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote:
>> On 18 Apr 2007 14:11:52 -0700, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 18, 4:00 pm, lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote:
>> >> On 18 Apr 2007 10:31:13 -0700, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >From a press release:
>>
>> >> >"The Pope Should Take a Stand on Creation"
>>
>> >> >"In the New German book "Schoepfung und Evolution" (translated
>> >> >"Creation and Evolution") published recently in Germany, Pope
>> >> >Benedict was quoted as saying that evolution is not "completely
>> >> >provable." Indicating that he believes it has been partially proven.
>> >> >Where is this proof? Evolution is a belief, which is not provable, it
>> >> >is not science, and it is not even rational. Spontaneous generation
>> >> >would have to be a proven fact in order for evolution to even have
>> >> >a starting point."
>>
>> >> ><http://www.earnedmedia.org/gjcm0418.htm>
>>
>> >> And next week the pope will announce a return to the
>> >> policy of burning heliocentrists at the stake ...
>>
>> >> The old "adequately/completely proven" excuse is getting
>> >> REALLY old. In truth, the only proof these people would
>> >> accept is a video documentary of every minute of the lives
>> >> of everyone from "Lucys" great grandfather up until at
>> >> least year zero. Then they'd claim it was all faked if
>> >> there wasn't a Church official present at every moment.
>>
>> >of course, the virgin birth is known to be 100% true!
>>
>> That word got kind-of maltranslated. In the original
>> it meant "young girl" and didn't necessarily comment
>> on her sexual experience. I got that yummy tidbit
>> from a catholic priest of all people, a scholar of
>> the ancient languages. He probably isn't a priest
>> anymore if they found out he was being so informative ...- Hide quoted text -
>
>Actually, the Catlicks don't mind a bit if you know that "alma" simply
>means "young woman." Oddly enough, it's the Christian funnymentalists
>who get all bent out of shape if you translate "alma" as anything
>other than "virgin." Why, they say, if it just meant "young woman,"
>then it wouldn't be much of a prophecy, would it???
Suprising that the HRCC is so blase' about 'alma' when
they're SO keen on the whole "immaculate conception" bit.
I mean she WAS already married to Joe, husbands and wives
DO tend to fiddle around (well, for a few years anyway).
What's so unusual or holy about an ORDINARY conception
resulting from ordinary sex ? Yea, you can claim that
the PARTICULAR conception had nothing to do with Joe,
or some handsome young Roman soldier, but that stretches
credulity to the breaking point.
Luminoso
>he was only partially correct. matthew did indeed say virgin -
He came along much LATER. In particular he sure as hell
wasn't in young Joe & Marys tent, making sure they didn't
do what young marrieds so often do.
>the
>context of the story makes absolutely no sense unless it is
>interpreted as such. the mistranslation was the verse in a greek
>version of isaiah that matthew used to derive the "prophecy."
"The context of the story makes absolutely no sense" ...
NOW the lightbulb has come on. Now the question is
whether you've got a big bright 100-watter or one of
those itty bitty nightlights. :-)
alwaysaskingquestions
"snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1177086402....@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
In*all* countries, people fuck and don't use condoms because they're fucking
stupid, that's why.
snex
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
and yet, countries in which people are properly educated about
contraception do not have AIDS epidemics. why is this?
alwaysaskingquestions
"snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1177086402....@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Is the USA a Catholic country?
According to National Survey of Family Growth, in 1994 (most recent figures
available) 57% of pregnancies were unintended.
You reckon they were all Catholics?
About 1.3 million abortions are carried out in the USA each year.
You reckon they are all Catholics?
snex
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1177086402....@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 11:14 am, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> > <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Wombat" <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1177046982.0...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On 19 Apr, 00:28, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >> > I understand that HIV/AIDS is being passed around in Africa by the men
> >> > being unfaithful to their wives. Since this is way against RC
> >> > doctrine I cannot see that telling Catholics in Africa not to use
> >> > condoms is going to be heeded.
>
> >> Snex believes that people who ignore the Church's teaching on promiscuity
> >> will still obey its teachings on condoms.
>
> > i believe it because it is a fact of reality. in catholic countries,
> > people fuck and they dont use condoms. how do you explain this
> > observed fact?
>
> Is the USA a Catholic country?
the USA is in fact largely catholic. it is one of the (if not *the*)
largest single denomination of christianity in the USA.
>
> According to National Survey of Family Growth, in 1994 (most recent figures
> available) 57% of pregnancies were unintended.
misleading statistic. how many of these "unintentional" pregnancies
were among married couples who wanted to have children, but just not
necessarily at that time?
>
> You reckon they were all Catholics?
i reckon plenty were.
>
> About 1.3 million abortions are carried out in the USA each year.
>
> You reckon they are all Catholics?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all
abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women
account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7%
of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who
identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
none of this, however, relates to africa where there is an AIDS
epidemic. where is the AIDS epidemic in america? when are you going to
get around to answering the single simple question i asked?
alwaysaskingquestions
1.3 million sufferers in North America may not be an epidemic in your terms
but its a hell of a lot of people.
Leaving that aside, your basic argument about the role of the Catholic
Church is completely misfounded.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07030610.html
"A short examination, however, of the HIV/AIDS rates of those African
countries that have a large Catholic population shows that the Church's
accusers have not done the homework or are deliberately misreporting the
facts. The available statistics show that countries with a large Catholic
percentage population, show significantly lower rates of HIV/AIDS infections
than countries with mostly non-Catholic populations.
2003 statistics from the World Factbook of the US Central Intelligence
Agency, shows Burundi at 62% Catholic with 6% AIDS infection rate. Angola's
population is 38% Roman Catholic and has 3.9% AIDS rate. Ghana is 63%
Christian, with in some regions as much as 33% Catholic and has 3.1% AIDS
rate. Nigeria, divided almost evenly between the strongly Muslim north and
Christian and "animist" south, has 5.4% AIDS rate.
Strongly Christian Uganda continues to frustrate condom-pushing NGO's by
maintaining its abstinence and fidelity AIDS prevention programs and one of
the lowest rates of AIDS in Africa, at 4.1%. Uganda's population is listed
by the CIA Factbook as 33% Roman Catholic and 33% Protestant.
Of African countries with low Catholic populations, Botswana is typical with
37.3% AIDS, one of the highest in Africa, and 5% of the total population
Catholic. In 2003, Swaziland was shown to have a 38.8% AIDS infection rate
and only 20% Catholic population. "
So which one are you - "not done the homework" or "deliberately misreporting
the facts" ?
If you can step aside from your vitriolic hatred of the Catholic Church and
learn about the problems dispassionately, you might try reading what UNAIDS
has to say about reducing AIDS - they identify condoms as *part* of the
answer but far from *all* of it - they identify overall behavioural change
as far more important.
http://data.unaids.org/pub/GlobalReport/2006/2006_GR_CH06_en.pdf
Robert Carnegie
> On Apr 19, 8:21 pm, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com (macaddicted)
> wrote:
> > Trying to argue that chastity and strict monogomy are not a better
> > solution is disingenuous. That it is without a doubt the most difficult
> > solution to partake of is also undoubted.
>
> nobody claims that they are not better solutions. the church claims
> ineffective, and therefore lying.
I claim that chastity and monogamy are "not better solutions" if they
don't deliver the desired result across society. And, for instance,
if "chastity" means something other than "monogamy" then I suppose it
means "abstinence", and if everyone does that then the human race
ceases to exist - unless you intend to allow technologically assisted
conception, and I think the Catholic church isn't fond of that,
either. So that's a stupid idea. Now monogamy, well, not so bad, but
also not 100% protective against diseases that can be transmitted both
sexually and otherwise. I don't keep track of STDs since I believe
there are around 30 and that's more than some soap opera casts.
Robert Carnegie
> I understand that HIV/AIDS is being passed around in Africa by the men
> being unfaithful to their wives. Since this is way against RC
> doctrine I cannot see that telling Catholics in Africa not to use
> condoms is going to be heeded.
Maybe being told you're going to hell is one thing - they're vague
about that, since if you're definitely for hell or definitely for
heaven then they have nothing to sell you - whereas, I dunno, if they
tell you condoms make your member turn necrotic and drop off, or give
your partner a fistula, somehow that's more real.
Robert Carnegie
> When I lived in England some people were giving a set amount that they
> had decided every week to the parish church. Unless Gordon Brown has
> changed the rules, the church could then claim tax relief on that sum,
> which is why they would need to know the donor's tax code.
I think name and address is considered sufficient. Maybe "national
insurance number", it's a while since I made one. The tax folks know
how much tax you paid, some of that they give "back" to the charity
that you gave to. Not to you.
snex
do you realize how silly it is to claim that 6% AIDS infection rate is
a *good* thing? 6% in america would be 15 million people! the muslim
countries in africa have <1%, as well as virtually all first world
countries. have you bothered to look at the AIDS rates in central and
south america?
by the way, the CIA factbook does not say that botswana is 5%
catholic. it only lists "chistian" without breaking it up into
denominations.
to claim these rates are somehow a victory of the catholic church is
disengenous, considering how much better other poor countries not
under the thumb of the pope are doing.
>
> If you can step aside from your vitriolic hatred of the Catholic Church and
> learn about the problems dispassionately, you might try reading what UNAIDS
> has to say about reducing AIDS - they identify condoms as *part* of the
> answer but far from *all* of it - they identify overall behavioural change
> as far more important.http://data.unaids.org/pub/GlobalReport/2006/2006_GR_CH06_en.pdf
when is the catholic church going to stop lying about condoms?
Vend
<snip>
> I can get a lot closer to 100% the Church's way than your way.
>
> beginning to press the delay of sexual activity and the practice of
> monogamy, in addition to the use of condoms, as a practical method of
> preventing AIDS. This is, after all, nearly what the Church is advising.
>
> pleasurable, of the STD prevention measures, yet even you must admit
> that it is the most effective.
>
Analogy: We want to reduce the numeber of people killed in car
accidents.
We can teach two options:
1) Never ride a veichle and never cross the street. Has a success rate
of nearly 100% when properly applied.
2) Wear seatbelts, don't drive when you are drunk/high/ill, strictly
follow the driving rules. Has a success rate smaller than option 1.
So, what do you think the best option to teach is?
snex
rational answer: teach all options and be honest about their success
rates.
catholic answer: teach (1) only. all other options are morally wrong.
any catholic politician who enacts a law supporting anything other
than (1) will be excommunicated.
Vend
I think that politicians fear of losing the Church material support
more than excomunications.
snex
i think politicians in america dont give a rats ass what the man in
the funny hat says because most catholics in america dont give a rats
ass what the man in the funny hat says. they are educated enough to
know that people are going to fuck no matter what, and that condoms
prevents AIDS and unwanted pregnancy. most "catholics" in america are
merely paying lip service. education is the most effective opponent
the catholic church ever had, so its no wonder they are shifting their
efforts to poor countries.
alwaysaskingquestions
> On Apr 20, 6:08 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
[...]
The silliness here is you trying to blame AIDS on the Pope when the level of
AIDS is actually lower in countries where the Church has more influence
> the muslim
> countries in africa have <1%,
You don't know much about Islamic teaching on sexuality and contraception,
do you ?
>as well as virtually all first world
> countries. have you bothered to look at the AIDS rates in central and
> south america?
Ahem, Latin America, where the Catholic Church has a strong presence, has a
lower AIDS rate at 0.5% than the 0.8% in North America where the Church has
much less influence - you're really digging yourself in deeper here.
> by the way, the CIA factbook does not say that botswana is 5%
> catholic. it only lists "chistian" without breaking it up into
> denominations.
And it gives Christians in total as 15% so I doubt if the 5% for Catholics
is far away.
> to claim these rates are somehow a victory of the catholic church is
> disengenous, considering how much better other poor countries not
> under the thumb of the pope are doing.
>
>>
>> If you can step aside from your vitriolic hatred of the Catholic Church
>> and
>> learn about the problems dispassionately, you might try reading what
>> UNAIDS
>> has to say about reducing AIDS - they identify condoms as *part* of the
>> answer but far from *all* of it - they identify overall behavioural
>> change
>> as far more
>> important.http://data.unaids.org/pub/GlobalReport/2006/2006_GR_CH06_en.pdf
>
> when is the catholic church going to stop lying about condoms?
So you can't step aside from your vitriolic hatred of the Catholic Church -
never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh?
alwaysaskingquestions
> On Apr 20, 7:43 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>> On 20 Apr, 04:47, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com (macaddicted) wrote:
>> <snip>> I can get a lot closer to 100% the Church's way than your way.
>>
>> > Which begs the question: Why are worldwide AIDS prevention
>> > organizations
>> > beginning to press the delay of sexual activity and the practice of
>> > monogamy, in addition to the use of condoms, as a practical method of
>> > preventing AIDS. This is, after all, nearly what the Church is
>> > advising.
>>
>> > While abstinence is the most difficult, and certainly the least
>> > pleasurable, of the STD prevention measures, yet even you must admit
>> > that it is the most effective.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Analogy: We want to reduce the numeber of people killed in car
>> accidents.
>> We can teach two options:
>> 1) Never ride a veichle and never cross the street. Has a success rate
>> of nearly 100% when properly applied.
>> 2) Wear seatbelts, don't drive when you are drunk/high/ill, strictly
>> follow the driving rules. Has a success rate smaller than option 1.
>>
>> So, what do you think the best option to teach is?
>
> rational answer: teach all options and be honest about their success
> rates.
Unlike you, dishonestly trying to blame AIDS on the Catholic Church when
AIDS rates are actually lower in countries where the Church has greater
influence.
> catholic answer: teach (1) only. all other options are morally wrong.
> any catholic politician who enacts a law supporting anything other
> than (1) will be excommunicated.
And that is an outright lie.
Walter Bushell
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
Its much easier to give up condoms, than to give up promiscuity. Besides
illicit sex is a venial sin and using a condom is a mortal sin IIRC. In
addition having a condom is evidence of planing which increases the
severity of the sin.
alwaysaskingquestions
"Walter Bushell" <pr...@oanix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-D7EB48....@032-325-625.area1.spcsdns.net...
Your understanding of the Catholic Church's definition of sin is badly out
of date. Specific actions are no longer defined as venial or mortal in
nature, it's the seriousness and intent behind the action that decides
whether it is venial or mortal.
Good summary of it here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin
macaddicted
Don't even bother. snex has lost all claims to objectivity. He has
become a dogmatic partisan, unwilling to admit any validity to ideas
that contradict in the least part the doctrines to which he adheres. In
this he has taken unto himself the worst part of that which he detests.
--
macaddicted
fides quaerens intellectum
snex
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
lower than *what?* not the united states or europe.
>
> > catholic answer: teach (1) only. all other options are morally wrong.
> > any catholic politician who enacts a law supporting anything other
> > than (1) will be excommunicated.
>
> And that is an outright lie.
no it isnt. this is the exact position of the catholic church on
condoms.
snex
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Walter Bushell" <p...@oanix.com> wrote in message
>
> news:proto-D7EB48....@032-325-625.area1.spcsdns.net...
>
>
>
> > In article <58s77aF2i0un...@mid.individual.net>,
> > "alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Wombat" <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote in message
> >>news:1177046982.0...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On 19 Apr, 00:28, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >> > I understand that HIV/AIDS is being passed around in Africa by the men
> >> > being unfaithful to their wives. Since this is way against RC
> >> > doctrine I cannot see that telling Catholics in Africa not to use
> >> > condoms is going to be heeded.
>
> >> Snex believes that people who ignore the Church's teaching on promiscuity
> >> will still obey its teachings on condoms.
>
> > Its much easier to give up condoms, than to give up promiscuity. Besides
> > illicit sex is a venial sin and using a condom is a mortal sin IIRC. In
> > addition having a condom is evidence of planing which increases the
> > severity of the sin.
>
> Your understanding of the Catholic Church's definition of sin is badly out
> of date. Specific actions are no longer defined as venial or mortal in
> nature, it's the seriousness and intent behind the action that decides
> whether it is venial or mortal.
>
> Good summary of it herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin
and nothing in walter's statement is incorrect.
snex
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
lower than *what?*
>
> > the muslim
> > countries in africa have <1%,
>
> You don't know much about Islamic teaching on sexuality and contraception,
> do you ?
http://www.islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_service/spot_full_story.asp?service_id=842
However, proliferation is not obligatory. It is recommended (mandub
action), meaning that it carries a reward; however, if it is not
performed, it would not entail a punishment neither in temporal life,
nor in the Day of Judgement by Allah (swt).
Therefore, not performing the recommended (mandub) action, which in
this case seeking a large family, is not necessarily undesirable
(makruh) nor is it forbidden (haram).
>
> >as well as virtually all first world
> > countries. have you bothered to look at the AIDS rates in central and
> > south america?
>
> Ahem, Latin America, where the Catholic Church has a strong presence, has a
> lower AIDS rate at 0.5% than the 0.8% in North America where the Church has
> much less influence - you're really digging yourself in deeper here.
argentina - 0.7%
belize - 2.4%!!
brazil - 0.7%
chile - 0.3%
colombia - 0.7%
costa rica - 0.6%
ecuador - 0.3%
el salvador - 0.7%
guatemala - 1.1%!!
honduras - 1.8%!!
clearly you lied. next time LOOK IT UP before spouting bullshit. for
comparison, here are a few countries where the catholic church is
relegated to mostly museums:
iceland - 0.2%
finland - less than 0.1%
netherlands - 0.2%
norway - 0.1%
sweden - 0.1%
>
> > by the way, the CIA factbook does not say that botswana is 5%
> > catholic. it only lists "chistian" without breaking it up into
> > denominations.
>
> And it gives Christians in total as 15% so I doubt if the 5% for Catholics
> is far away.
another lie! the latest data says this: "Christian 71.6%, Badimo 6%,
other 1.4%, unspecified 0.4%, none 20.6% (2001 census)"
why do you keep lying when the data is open to the public?
>
>
>
> > to claim these rates are somehow a victory of the catholic church is
> > disengenous, considering how much better other poor countries not
> > under the thumb of the pope are doing.
>
> >> If you can step aside from your vitriolic hatred of the Catholic Church
> >> and
> >> learn about the problems dispassionately, you might try reading what
> >> UNAIDS
> >> has to say about reducing AIDS - they identify condoms as *part* of the
> >> answer but far from *all* of it - they identify overall behavioural
> >> change
> >> as far more
> >> important.http://data.unaids.org/pub/GlobalReport/2006/2006_GR_CH06_en.pdf
>
> > when is the catholic church going to stop lying about condoms?
>
> So you can't step aside from your vitriolic hatred of the Catholic Church -
> never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh?
says the one posting LIES!
Walter Bushell
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
It looks like the same stuff, they just give less direct guidance. Some
politicians have been denied Mass, because they advocated letting
abortion be legal. It seem this clearly overrided individual conscious.
Vend
> > I think that politicians fear of losing the Church material support
> > more than excomunications.
>
> i think politicians in america dont give a rats ass what the man in
> the funny hat says because most catholics in america dont give a rats
> ass what the man in the funny hat says. they are educated enough to
> know that people are going to fuck no matter what, and that condoms
> prevents AIDS and unwanted pregnancy. most "catholics" in america are
> merely paying lip service. education is the most effective opponent
> the catholic church ever had, so its no wonder they are shifting their
> efforts to poor countries.
I think that the extent of the political power the Church has in a
country depends more on its financial power rather than the general
level of education.
In Italy, for instance, while the majority of people identify
themselves as Catholics, they have a fairly good level of education
(worse than Northen European countries but probably better than the
U.S. average), and they don't listen to the Pope on their behavior
(they have extra-marital sex, use condoms, divorce, have abortions,
etc.).
The Church holds great financial assets and runs or controls lots of
companies and other economical activities.
Despite the fact that people are so little religious, the Church is
able to exert a considerable influence on Italian politics.
alwaysaskingquestions
[...]
> It looks like the same stuff, they just give less direct guidance. Some
> politicians have been denied Mass, because they advocated letting
> abortion be legal.
Please name just one such politician.
alwaysaskingquestions
It's totally wrong. Please tell me where the Catholic Church defines illicit
sex as a venial sin and using a condom as a mortal sin.