Pope says condoms make AIDS worse

[Kulindahr]

That require religious doctrine to have the capability to progress. It's static though, so no dice, I'm afraid.

Ignorance alert: study some history.

Oh -- and read the Bible, too -- doctrine progresses substantially in a number of leaps and s few steady marches, and Jesus Himself says it will continue to do so.

Not so much pregression with doctrine as disregarding the bits they don't like or that will make them unpopular.

Prejudice alert!

You have this small-minded version of religion that is more a caricature than anything. Reality doesn't fit it well, though.

The RCC has always been utterly totalitarian in its outlook, its main aim always political power and control, using ignorance and religious indoctrination to do this. The reason it has lost so much of its direct power over the people is because of education. Mass education is the worst thing that's ever happened to them, but it now wields equaly an insidious indirect control. If it's not a purely spiritual organisation, why do they have nation-state status, embasies and a seat at the UN? To sum up, it's a state, with a fairly large totalitarian bent, The Rat being the head of that state. Ergo, the comparison is fair.

"Always" is arguable, but that you've pinned down the overarching trend is near-indisputable.

Mass education was bad for them, but mass education under one control is bad, period.

While the Vatican being a state is utterly weird (I keep wondering if they'll ever have an Olympic team), I don't think it's sufficient a state to make your comparison solid here. Better would be a comparison to a widespread political party.

Plus I don't see how forbidding the faithful the use of condoms, in areas where the HIV infection rate is at epidemic levels is all that different from shooting them in the back and burying them in pits. The bullet is probably kinder actually and it only kills the person you shoot.

The difference lies in the difference between firing a gun and firing a possibly infected load of bodily fluid: one is almost invariably fatal, and the other isn't.

Now, if you stirred in a batch of blanks into your ammo, the comparison is solid.

 

[Kulindahr]

Ewan, that's a colorful map, but it doesn't mean much without a label.

 

[Spensed]

Ignorance alert: study some history.

Oh -- and read the Bible, too -- doctrine progresses substantially in a number of leaps and s few steady marches, and Jesus Himself says it will continue to do so.

Prejudice alert!

You have this small-minded version of religion that is more a caricature than anything. Reality doesn't fit it well, though...

Just to observe, once again, on your Biblical comments.

While you're, obviously, right about doctrine progressing within the Bible, it's perfectly understandable why non-believers especially see it as as a static document. The text is static and doesn't get supplemented by additional text reflecting progress. So nothing, for example, about the morality of human cloning except by analogy. Clearly, the Bible is static in that sense.

We've had this exchange before, but it seems nonsensical that allegedly divine doctrine has to make progress within the Bible. Rather than convey human experience as a primitive and sometimes grotesque soap opera, you'd think God could get it right the first time. But that's a another issue.

As for "disregarding the bits they don't like", true believers, like you, are unable to admit that the Bible contains any mistakes so they, in effect, do disregard the bits they don't like. Doctrinal progress provides an apologia for slavery. Somehow Revelation makes sense dispite appearing to be mishmash of primitive nightmares. Etc., etc.

I'm actually not knocking your belief in the developed morality or moral poetry and spirituality of the Bible, if that's what you choose to believe. But your apparent sanctimony and lack of understanding of other responses to the Bible strikes me as worthy of comment.

Probably the wrong forum for this. So, having made my points, I'll just agree to continue to differ with you on the Bible. As much else. LOL.

 

[construct]

That require religious doctrine to have the capability to progress. It's static though, so no dice, I'm afraid.

Not so much pregression with doctrine as disregarding the bits they don't like or that will make them unpopular.

The RCC has always been utterly totalitarian in its outlook, its main aim always political power and control, using ignorance and religious indoctrination to do this. The reason it has lost so much of its direct power over the people is because of education. Mass education is the worst thing that's ever happened to them, but it now wields equaly an insidious indirect control. If it's not a purely spiritual organisation, why do they have nation-state status, embasies and a seat at the UN? To sum up, it's a state, with a fairly large totalitarian bent, The Rat being the head of that state. Ergo, the comparison is fair.

All of this is completely correct with respect to Roman Catholicism and Fundamentalist Protestantism. The hypocrisy of the church's claim to absolute truth, however, is undercut by each announcement of some new dogma. You know that's about to happen whenever they start a statement of doctrine with, "As the church has always taught . . . ."

As for Vatican City being a state, the U.S. could become consistent either by denying tax exemptions to Roman Catholic "churches," organizations, institutions, and agencies or by withdrawing diplomatic relations with Vatican City. I'd prefer the former.

 

[HenryReardon]

As for Vatican City being a state, the U.S. could become consistent either by denying tax exemptions to Roman Catholic "churches," organizations, institutions, and agencies or by withdrawing diplomatic relations with Vatican City. I'd prefer the former.

I have always felt that tax exemptions granted to churches should be limited to only those activities of the churches which are charitable.

Spending untold thousands to bus the faithful to church every Sunday should not qualify, nor should all the money they spend on billboard advertising etc etc.

 

[FirmaFan]

I have always felt that tax exemptions granted to churches should be limited to only those activities of the churches which are charitable.

Spending untold thousands to bus the faithful to church every Sunday should not qualify, nor should all the money they spend on billboard advertising etc etc.

Giving religion tax exempt status is like waving tax fees for parents who buy presents in order to sign them as being from "Santa Clause". When tax exempt status is given to the worship of an all seeing, all hearing, all loving person who bestows us his infinite love in the form of "gifts", I always question why santa clause is not included in that bracket, as they are the exact same? Both have the same amount of proof of their existence, both are told to children as being true, why isn't santa clause tax exempt?

 

[HenryReardon]

Giving religion tax exempt status is like waving tax fees for parents who buy presents in order to sign them as being from "Santa Clause". When tax exempt status is given to the worship of an all seeing, all hearing, all loving person who bestows us his infinite love in the form of "gifts", I always question why santa clause is not included in that bracket, as they are the exact same? Both have the same amount of proof of their existence, both are told to children as being true, why isn't santa clause tax exempt?

The two situations aren't exactly analogous.

Many churches spend a great deal of money on social outreach to the community at large. Who cares what their belief system may or may not be if the end result is in the betterment or enrichment of the community?

 

[FirmaFan]

The two situations aren't exactly analogous.

Many churches spend a great deal of money on social outreach to the community at large. Who cares what their belief system may or may not be if the end result is in the betterment or enrichment of the community?

You don't have to be a church to do that. So why do all churches, not just the ones which do charity work, receive such tax exempt status? Even Fred Phelps gets such benefits, and I haven't seen one cent of any of his money given to charity (although, a lot of it goes to what is commonly referred to as "the plaintiff".)

The point of my comparison is to question why the government would give tax exempt status to an organization that promotes the belief of something no more substantiated than santa clause by giving tax exempt status across the board. They are fueling the delusions of a people who are using illogical nonsense as a system of belief by which to lead their lives, no more credible than those who believe in santa clause. If people want to do charity, fine, give them tax exempt status. If people want to worship a delusional being but who may or may not be doing work for charity, do not give them tax exempt status. Religion is an insanity, why enable it?

 

[Lostlover]

I love how the pope goes to Africa, 1) tells the people that condoms makes AIDS worse (blatant bold faced lie), 2) tells the people to abandon their religion and 3) then says that economic aid must be given to Africa.

Carrot and stick, eh? Convert or get AIDS and die.

And they're really pro-life?

 

[Lostlover]

Well without saying some of the stupid things that some of you have said, I will say, as a Catholic, that I disagree with the church's stance on condoms, and particularly with the Pope's comments. A lot of Catholics similarly disagree with the church on this and don't follow that stance. The problem here is that the Pope is speaking in Africa, where condom use is already low and HIV rates are extremely high. Many in the 3rd world are more likely to strictly follow the church's teachings, so this could have a negative impact. I really hope the church changes it's stance on condoms, but I don't see it happening with this Pope.

They'll change their stance on condoms when they realize they need to stay relevant.

The Mormons did it (and continue to). And so have other sects.

 

[HenryReardon]

I love how the pope goes to Africa, 1) tells the people that condoms makes AIDS worse (blatant bold faced lie), 2) tells the people to abandon their religion and 3) then says that economic aid must be given to Africa.

Carrot and stick, eh? Convert or get AIDS and die.

And they're really pro-life?

Yep, and the late (and unlamented Polish Pope) told all those starving Africans a few years ago to keep on breeding.

 

[aab91030]

This is sub-saharan Africa we're talking about. Standards of education are fairly low (the way the RCC likes it,) and believe it or not, followers of that religion do take what the pope and his minions say quite seriously.

That makes no sense at all. If that were the case and Africans took the Pope at his word on sexual morality, widespread rape and sexual promiscuity wouldn't be a problem in Africa, regardless of the Church's position on condoms. Come on.

 

[Kulindahr]

While you're, obviously, right about doctrine progressing within the Bible, it's perfectly understandable why non-believers especially see it as as a static document. The text is static and doesn't get supplemented by additional text reflecting progress. So nothing, for example, about the morality of human cloning except by analogy. Clearly, the Bible is static in that sense.

No one has authorization to add more text: the New Covenant is the Final Covenant.

But in a way there is more text: it's what the Catholic side of the church calls tradition, and the Orthodox call "holy tradition", and it in fact is the sort of thing you regard the Bible as being -- a mixed bag. In it is a thread of consistent faithfulness to the core of things, a thread which has brought many to faith, but sometimes one has to dig for it.

We've had this exchange before, but it seems nonsensical that allegedly divine doctrine has to make progress within the Bible. Rather than convey human experience as a primitive and sometimes grotesque soap opera, you'd think God could get it right the first time. But that's a another issue.

It's nonsensical only to those who prefer magic wands waved to destroy personalities and replace them with less-than-free souls. When you make claims like this, it's pretty obvious that you're designing your own concept of God as some great wizard with a magical staff or something, capable of reprogramming people as though they were clusters of code in the Matrix, rather than asking who the God of the Bible is and seeing if that fits -- in other words, you're distorting a body of thought by imposing alien, a priori conditions rather than studying it for what it says.

As for "disregarding the bits they don't like", true believers, like you, are unable to admit that the Bible contains any mistakes so they, in effect, do disregard the bits they don't like. Doctrinal progress provides an apologia for slavery. Somehow Revelation makes sense dispite appearing to be mishmash of primitive nightmares. Etc., etc.

I don't disregard any of it -- I just don't impose alien concepts on it.
If you know what sort of literature Revelation is, it does in fact make sense. When you read it like so many cults do, as though it had things in common with train schedules and engineering plans, or as "future history", it does look like something rather grotesque.
Though even at the time of the early Fathers, it was looked at uneasily, which is why it's antilegommena, "spoken-against", not to be used as a foundation for doctrine.

I'm actually not knocking your belief in the developed morality or moral poetry and spirituality of the Bible, if that's what you choose to believe. But your apparent sanctimony and lack of understanding of other responses to the Bible strikes me as worthy of comment.

I understand other responses to the Bible, but I pounce on ignorance. Most fundamentalist approaches to the Bible are based on ignorance, much of modern "evangelical" 'interpretation' of the Bible is based on ignorance, and the church in America especially has slid into 'interpretation' based on feelings rather than scholarship (a phenomenon about which Jesus and Paul warned strongly).

 

[Kulindahr]

All of this is completely correct with respect to Roman Catholicism and Fundamentalist Protestantism. The hypocrisy of the church's claim to absolute truth, however, is undercut by each announcement of some new dogma. You know that's about to happen whenever they start a statement of doctrine with, "As the church has always taught . . . ."

The announcement of new dogma is rather rare; even from Rome, I don't think there's been any in our lifetimes. Most new dogma Rome has pronounced has had to do with Mary; the ever-virginity, Immaculate Conception, and Queen of Heaven business are the big ones, and they're nothing but pious opinions legislated into the theology books -- things that some of the church always believed, but not all... just another expression of Rome's totalitarian streak.
Then there's the doctrine/dogma of papal infallibility, which is the result of political chicanery by manipulation of attendance at a church council -- an irregularity which renders the outcome invalid.
Of course some of the Mary dogma flows from the infallibility dogma...

But however you count it, technically anything out of Rome after about the tenth century is technically local doctrine, not catholic in the proper sense. Since, properly speaking, dogma can be proclaimed only by universal councils of the whole Christian church, there hasn't been any new dogma for a millennium.

As for Vatican City being a state, the U.S. could become consistent either by denying tax exemptions to Roman Catholic "churches," organizations, institutions, and agencies or by withdrawing diplomatic relations with Vatican City. I'd prefer the former.

Do foreign nations pay property taxes on embassies and consulates? Congress could declare every cathedral (church where a bishop has his seat) to be a consulate of a foreign nation....

Of course the problem in withdrawing diplomatic recognition of the Vatican is that they are so very, very useful in international relations -- with the Jesuits serving effectively as a diplomatic corps, the Vatican has served (and continues to serve) as a place or avenue for parties to get together and discuss things that might never otherwise be broached.

 

[Kulindahr]

Giving religion tax exempt status is like waving tax fees for parents who buy presents in order to sign them as being from "Santa Clause". When tax exempt status is given to the worship of an all seeing, all hearing, all loving person who bestows us his infinite love in the form of "gifts", I always question why santa clause is not included in that bracket, as they are the exact same? Both have the same amount of proof of their existence, both are told to children as being true, why isn't santa clause tax exempt?

Something just occurred to me, which I'll throw out here before giving it a great deal of thought: what if the exemption were per weekly per capita attendance? Say, $1000/yr. exemption per (statistical) person?

Suddenly these filthy rich churches with just a few hundred members would be paying taxes, and the poor churches with lots of members wouldn't have to worry about it.

BTW, Santa Claus is exempt, in his persona of Saint Nicholas. But all the people who use his "Christmas name" aren't -- just like you have to be a real church to qualify for the tax status.

 

[Kulindahr]

You don't have to be a church to do that. So why do all churches, not just the ones which do charity work, receive such tax exempt status? Even Fred Phelps gets such benefits, and I haven't seen one cent of any of his money given to charity (although, a lot of it goes to what is commonly referred to as "the plaintiff".)

The point of my comparison is to question why the government would give tax exempt status to an organization that promotes the belief of something no more substantiated than santa clause by giving tax exempt status across the board. They are fueling the delusions of a people who are using illogical nonsense as a system of belief by which to lead their lives, no more credible than those who believe in santa clause. If people want to do charity, fine, give them tax exempt status. If people want to worship a delusional being but who may or may not be doing work for charity, do not give them tax exempt status. Religion is an insanity, why enable it?

Your irrational bigotry is showing again.

I think you're smart enough to know the historical reasons that churches aren't taxed, too.

But any non-religious, non-charitable function should be taxed. I wouldn't tax schools, but that's because I don't think anyone's private schools should be taxed, whoever runs them.

As for Phelps... I think he is the charity; he seems to be a nut case likely incapable of supporting himself.

 

[Kulindahr]

That makes no sense at all. If that were the case and Africans took the Pope at his word on sexual morality, widespread rape and sexual promiscuity wouldn't be a problem in Africa, regardless of the Church's position on condoms. Come on.

Excellent point.

 

[Spensed]

No one has authorization to add more text: the New Covenant is the Final Covenant.

But in a way there is more text: it's what the Catholic side of the church calls tradition, and the Orthodox call "holy tradition", and it in fact is the sort of thing you regard the Bible as being -- a mixed bag. In it is a thread of consistent faithfulness to the core of things, a thread which has brought many to faith, but sometimes one has to dig for it.

So the Biblical text is static in that it can't be revised, or added to, by new text. Nonetheless, one can use that static text to make it up as one goes along and, in time, one's clarifying or new thinking becomes part of the religious tradition.

I know that's not what you're saying. But, if one doesn't believe in the Bible as divine revelation, that's what it boils down to.

It's nonsensical only to those who prefer magic wands waved to destroy personalities and replace them with less-than-free souls. When you make claims like this, it's pretty obvious that you're designing your own concept of God as some great wizard with a magical staff or something, capable of reprogramming people as though they were clusters of code in the Matrix, rather than asking who the God of the Bible is and seeing if that fits -- in other words, you're distorting a body of thought by imposing alien, a priori conditions rather than studying it for what it says.

Not at all. The Bible may, or may not be divinely inspired, but it comes to us through a fallible conduit that is clearly rooted in its own time, experience, and yes its own errors and omissions, moral and otherwise.

OK, I give you that the Old Testament is what it is, so the crazy passages there are part of the old order. However, the New Testament is supposed to be the definitive update.

And yet there's no unanimity of opinion as to how much Mosaic law, if any, continues to be applicable; you have to stand on your held to provide apologias with respect to, for example, slavery; and, if divine revelation expressed as new text is something that develops as the text continues, why does the text suddenly stop many centuries ago. The Bible is very clear about killing folk, so why not an update on, as I say, human cloning.

Clearly, the Bible is an important, historical, moral and poetic tome. But to believe that it's more than that, or that it can never be in error is a choice of faith, and unwarranted without it.

I don't disregard any of it -- I just don't impose alien concepts on it.
If you know what sort of literature Revelation is, it does in fact make sense. When you read it like so many cults do, as though it had things in common with train schedules and engineering plans, or as "future history", it does look like something rather grotesque.
Though even at the time of the early Fathers, it was looked at uneasily, which is why it's antilegommena, "spoken-against", not to be used as a foundation for doctrine.

So why didn't God provide something that was doctrine or could be used a foundation for doctrine. The obvious answer is that the inclusion of Revelation was a human mistake or something to scare the hoi polloi before most of them knew how to read. And that's still what' going on with the self-styled Biblical literalists that you complain of.

I understand other responses to the Bible, but I pounce on ignorance. Most fundamentalist approaches to the Bible are based on ignorance, much of modern "evangelical" 'interpretation' of the Bible is based on ignorance, and the church in America especially has slid into 'interpretation' based on feelings rather than scholarship (a phenomenon about which Jesus and Paul warned strongly).

I fully appreciate that. But, just my opinion, of course, "I pounce on ignorance" is the language and attitude of many of the folk you're seeking to correct.

Better IMHO to say what you need to say without arrogance and sanctimony and, yes, maybe even without definitive certitude. There's no unanimity of scholarship on many issues and just because someone's Biblical scholarship may, or may not, be extensive doesn't mean that their conclusion is the correct one, or the only one.

One Pope is more than enough. LOL.

 

[construct]

The announcement of new dogma is rather rare; even from Rome, I don't think there's been any in our lifetimes.

Don't be silly. New dogma goes all the way back to Nicaea. And don't leave out distinctively Protestant dogmas like the infallibility of scripture.

 

[Spensed]

That makes no sense at all. If that were the case and Africans took the Pope at his word on sexual morality, widespread rape and sexual promiscuity wouldn't be a problem in Africa, regardless of the Church's position on condoms. Come on.

Excellent point.

It's not that excellent. In less religiously critical Roman Catholic communities, not just in Africa, the faithful do take the Pope's word on sexual morality very seriously and many Catholics try to adhere stringently to it.

The result is that many people don't have access to condoms. They are inculcated with the ludicrous notion that illicit sex without a condom is better than illicit sex with a condom. They are ignorant about contraception. And they're part of the Catholic sin-confessional-sin-confessional cycle.

So, while I doubt that many devout Catholics (pedophile priests aside) commit rape as the norm, sexual temptation is a factor for almost every human adult and the Church's fetish about condom use that makes the consequences of sexual promiscuity for Catholics much, much worse than they need to be. In Africa, as elsewhere.

It's my understanding that the then Pope overrode his own papal committee, which had advised loosening the Church's position on contraception. So doctrinally the Pope's position isn't as underpinned as it could be. Indeed, there was some movement afoot, that actually seemed to making some progress, to permit condom use to try to help prevent AIDS in a marriage, where only one spouse is already infected. But I've lost track of the status of that.

Also, the Church does permit contraception using the rhythm method. So a couple can very deliberately use a calendar, calculator and thermometer to make out with the full intent of trying not to have children. But they can't use a rubber. Yet the risk of an unwanted pregnancy (also known as God's will) exists in both cases.

The fact remains that, unlike many Catholics in more developed continents, African Catholics don't simply ignore this tragic ridiculousness.