Pope Ratzinger.

[Melchior]

Originally posted by Stratos: You use the term "anti-religious" pretty broadly, Melchior. Eating pork is forbidden in Islam, so it must be anti-religious. By stating it like this, you'll find that there's alot in life that is anti-religious and the term becomes watered down. Instead I prefer to use the term "anti-religious" for something or someone that actually opposes religion.

I would think it's perfectly normal for an Imam to condemn a song urging people to eat pork or forsake other muslim ideas as being anti-religious. We know he's muslim so we have a point of reference. I think people are being a bit harsh on Benedict, considering the quote is hearsay, and he's a German who presents edicts in accented Italian. Aside from the lost in translation aspect, it's a bit rough having condemning a man for voicing concerns about things that may undermine his church.

[Melchior]

Originally posted by Spelca: quote: Originally posted by Melchior: The church has a right to preach it's solution to aids - which is monogamy. What good catholic would make sure they obeyed the no contraception edict, and yet break the bigger edict - no sex outside marriage? The only people hurt by the contraception edict are married catholics who are in poverty with too many children. The spread of aids would actually be stopped if people followed the churches teaching and had one partner all their life. To blame the Catholic church for illnesses it's seeking to prevent and treat is sick.

Well I don't know whether what he said was true or not. But if it was then it was wrong. It's one thing saying that monogamy is a solution to aids, and another to lie and say that condoms don't help. They could've just not mentioned condoms... That way they could still preach monogamy, right? [/QUOTE]Catholics believe contraception is immoral. Why condemn them for not advocating something they believe is wrong? Where is the tolerance? They preach a solution to aids. If someone is going to listen to the Church, they will practice monogamy without contraception, they're not gonna religiously shun contraception, while committing adultery are they? If they're ignoring the church, they're ignoring the church.

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Melchior: quote: Originally posted by Spelca: Well I don't know whether what he said was true or not. But if it was then it was wrong. It's one thing saying that monogamy is a solution to aids, and another to lie and say that condoms don't help. They could've just not mentioned condoms... That way they could still preach monogamy, right?

Catholics believe contraception is immoral. Why condemn them for not advocating something they believe is wrong? Where is the tolerance? They preach a solution to aids. If someone is going to listen to the Church, they will practice monogamy without contraception, they're not gonna religiously shun contraception, while committing adultery are they? If they're ignoring the church, they're ignoring the church. [/QUOTE]I only said that saying condoms don't help is wrong. Because that is a straight lie, isn't it? If you use a condom there's less chance you'll get aids (and other stds). And lying is a sin as far as I know. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 04-26-2005, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Melchior: quote: Originally posted by johnny: Sometimes ?

What human is perfect and fautless? I don't see what your deal is. I do not believe the Pope or the Cardinals claim either infallibility or sinlessness. [/QUOTE]Well, when the Pope speaks ex cathedra his words are the words of God. That's quite a claim

[Melchior]

Condoms are not 100% safe. They break. That's factual. The best protection is abstainence and then monogamy. If the church want's to say that they're can. I could say the government lies and causes more aids deaths by promoting condoms instead of abstainence/monogamy.

Those who listen to the Pope will abstain, those who listen to the government will use condoms. They're different messages for different people. You can't blame the church for aids with this one. Blame them for overpopulation of Brazil perhaps, but let's not confuse issues. The spread of aids has nothing to do with the church's contraception ban, overpopulation does.

[shamrock_uk]

I'll take a 99.9% chance of it working successfully over a 0% chance by not using one at all any day

And an African woman in some countries is actually more likely to catch AIDS from her partner within marriage now. Definitely a case for encouraging the use of condoms.

Portraying them all as being promiscuous is a little simplistic...

[johnny]

Condoms may not be 100% safe, but what is ? Safetybelts don't garantee that you will live through a carcrash, yet the law says you have to put them on. Condoms worked 100% safe for me and for many others i know.

And i don't even wanna think about monogamy, what a waste of good fun.

[Melchior]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: quote: Originally posted by Melchior: quote: Originally posted by johnny: Sometimes ?

What human is perfect and fautless? I don't see what your deal is. I do not believe the Pope or the Cardinals claim either infallibility or sinlessness. [/QUOTE]Well, when the Pope speaks ex cathedra his words are the words of God. That's quite a claim [/QUOTE]That doesn't imply perfect sinlessness, only an open ear and a voice of annointed authority. You can listen to your father's words without obeying them to the letter. If you then relay those words to a younger sibling, you'll put in the personal interpretative spin that naturally occurs, but they're still words from your father, and whether you're an ass or not, if you've been listening, you're still in the best position to relay those words.

[Melchior]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: I'll take a 99.9% chance of it working successfully over a 0% chance by not using one at all any day And an African woman in some countries is actually more likely to catch AIDS from her partner within marriage now. Definitely a case for encouraging the use of condoms. Portraying them all as being promiscuous is a little simplistic...

You said it. You'd take the chance. You'd ignore the Pope's bigger edict of no sex outside marriage, so why would you keep the smaller one of no contraception?

You mention the African woman. How did her husband get aids if he only slept with her?

edit: also, what's she supposed to do if she wants children? Artificially inseminate while having protected sex?

[ 04-26-2005, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: Melchior ]

[Melchior]

Originally posted by johnny: Condoms may not be 100% safe, but what is ? Safetybelts don't garantee that you will live through a carcrash, yet the law says you have to put them on. Condoms worked 100% safe for me and for many others i know. And i don't even wanna think about monogamy, what a waste of good fun.

If you don't want a car crash, don't get in a car. Otherwise you make an educated choice about the risk.

Monogamy is way better than sleeping around anyway. It just gets better and better the more you practice with the one person. The more you know each other the better it gets.