PDA

View Full Version : The pope



Pages : [1] 2

RoD
04-04-2005, 08:54 AM
I'm suprised there is no thread on this already. Its not that big of a deal to me, but i never understood exactly what his standpoint in religion was/is. I dont follow religion closely or claim to know anything about it, but what does this actually mean for the community/world? Is it like our preident being shot?

Discuss.

ober
04-04-2005, 09:04 AM
There already was a thread, and it was removed.

Shot?? He died. There is a difference... it's not like they have terms they are expected to fulfill. Almost all of them just die and then they get replaced. Hell, the current one is #243 and only a handful of them have stepped down on their own (that I know of).

It doesn't mean anything for the world except that some new old guy will be saying the same stuff the previous old guy did. And in another 5 or 10 years, we'll go through this again. The current pope just happened to live a bit longer than the normal ones.

Govtcheez
04-04-2005, 09:07 AM
> Is it like our preident being shot?

Yes, the citizens of Popesylvania that he ruled over are marching in the street right now.

That was a pretty retarded analogy.

RoD
04-04-2005, 09:15 AM
Why was it removed? Guess it went the way of tradition cprog religion fighting lol. Yea the anology was bad, thnx for the info ober.

Thantos
04-04-2005, 09:24 AM
There was a thread I started on Friday when it was reported (incorrectly) he had died. But he wasn't dead yet and the thread was going down hill quickly.

Since I know the majority of cprog member's are incapable of having a civilized thread where religon is even remotly concerned I decided not to repost when he had died.

Darkness
04-04-2005, 10:23 AM
I think you are right Thantos, and the irony is certain members were getting upset at you for some comments that came across as insensitive. So you are right, no civilized discussion will likely come of this.

ober
04-04-2005, 10:55 AM
And you were getting upset at everyone and handing out red candy left and right. Let's watch who we call civilized, eh?

Darkness
04-04-2005, 10:57 AM
It was mutual, and I certainly didn't do it first. Well except to thantos, but I was just returning the favor to you ober :)

But, if I cared all that much about rating I wouldn't have voiced my opinion in the first place.

axon
04-04-2005, 12:40 PM
It doesn't mean anything for the world except that some new old guy will be saying the same stuff the previous old guy did. And in another 5 or 10 years, we'll go through this again. The current pope just happened to live a bit longer than the normal ones.


you don't know how wrong you are Ob. You said on another thread that you're sick of hearing about it, but you've never really listened...maybe you should take some time and read (watch or listen) about Karol Wojtyla the person, and what he did for the world.

That is all I am going to say about that, I really don't want to argue about this at this time of sadness. :(


P.S. as many of you know, I am an agnostic, which, as you can see, doesn't mean I can't respect religious people.

InvariantLoop
04-04-2005, 12:53 PM
Did you know that the Vatican is not part of Italy? It is an independent state with its own police force, mail system etc, and the Pope is the head of state.

Govtcheez
04-04-2005, 12:59 PM
you don't know how wrong you are Ob. You said on another thread that you're sick of hearing about it, but you've never really listened...maybe you should take some time and read (watch or listen) about Karol Wojtyla the person, and what he did for the world.

That is all I am going to say about that, I really don't want to argue about this at this time of sadness. :(


P.S. as many of you know, I am an agnostic, which, as you can see, doesn't mean I can't respect religious people.
Would you respect him that much if he wasn't Polish?

Thantos
04-04-2005, 01:46 PM
Did you know that the Vatican is not part of Italy? It is an independent state with its own police force, mail system etc, and the Pope is the head of state.
Yes, yes I did. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/vt.html


Would you respect him that much if he wasn't Polish?
Well I know for me his nationality meant little more to me then a trivia factoid. I think his actions meant a lot more then not being an Italian. Of course seeing how Axon is Polish I guess thats a fair question for him :)

Actually the fact that he wasn't Italian has more significance now since it could either open the door to non europeans or send the papacy back to Italy.

On the news they were mentioning that there is an online betting side that is laying odds on who'll become pope.

ober
04-04-2005, 01:48 PM
I'm still waiting for the reality show. Where is Jeff Probst when you need him?

Thantos
04-04-2005, 01:49 PM
Give it 5-10 years for the next election. They probably didn't foresee the game show chance.

SMurf
04-04-2005, 01:53 PM
Certain things about the way people reacted to his death disgusted me. Like some people were saying "Oh well, let's hope the next pope will be more liberal when it comes to condoms..."

DUH! Roman Catholicism has abstinence at its core. What good are condoms to you if you're having sex to conceive?!? :mad:

Why the hell are some people part of religions they don't seem to agree with I'll never know.

(For reference, I don't generally hold any faith. I'm too argumentative. :o)

ober
04-04-2005, 02:00 PM
>>DUH! Roman Catholicism has abstinence at its core. What good are condoms to you if you're having sex to conceive?!?

Abstinence outside of marriage is fine, but what about when you are married and don't want to have kids yet? Why is Catholocism against condom usage between 2 married people? It's things like that that really make me go crazy about the Catholic church.

sean
04-04-2005, 02:03 PM
I think his point is that it's crazy for people to be hoping for a change in the core of Catholicism with the next pope. I don't think he's actually agreeing or disagreeing with that policy.

edit:

[inside joke]:) [/inside joke]

SMurf
04-04-2005, 02:17 PM
Indeed Sean. Like I said, I'm not a part of it, so its rules don't affect me. If you have a problem with it, then why not just walk away?

B0bDole
04-04-2005, 03:05 PM
>Why is Catholocism against condom usage between 2 married people?

Correct me if I'm wrong (probably am) but don't they say that you only have sex when trying to conceive, even if you are married?

PJYelton
04-04-2005, 03:12 PM
>>Indeed Sean. Like I said, I'm not a part of it, so its rules don't affect me. If you have a problem with it, then why not just walk away?<<

I don't think I agree with this. It would be virtually impossible to find a religion that you didn't disagree a least a little bit with. If you agreed 100% then I'd be worried because that almost certainly means instead of holding your own beliefs you just had them dictated to you from your religion.

sean
04-04-2005, 03:17 PM
Unless of course you believe in Amos 3:7, and consider the leader of your religion to be one of these prophets. I'm not sure if that's how the Catholic church views the Pope though, but that's definitely how it is for us Mormons.

Thantos
04-04-2005, 03:25 PM
Unless of course you believe in Amos 3:7, and consider the leader of your religion to be one of these prophets. I'm not sure if that's how the Catholic church views the Pope though, but that's definitely how it is for us Mormons.
The Pope is considered infallible on matters of church doctorian.

okinrus
04-04-2005, 10:04 PM
Abstinence outside of marriage is fine, but what about when you are married and don't want to have kids yet?

Couples can naturally plan and space out their children.



Why is Catholocism against condom usage between 2 married people?

It has to do with how the Pope(s) viewed marital love.



Correct me if I'm wrong (probably am) but don't they say that you only have sex when trying to conceive, even if you are married?

BobDole, a couple shouldn't go out of their way not to conceive. They do this by using contraception. But they also don't have to be trying to conceive.

sean
04-04-2005, 10:11 PM
BobDole, a couple shouldn't go out of their way not to conceive. They do this by using contraception. But they also don't have to be trying to conceive.

Are you stating this as personal belief, or your understanding of Catholic doctrine?

major_small
04-04-2005, 10:17 PM
Couples can naturally plan and space out their children.you can't be serious...

I don't follow any religion, really, and I don't really subscribe to any system of beliefs... IMO, your strongest beliefs are the ones you come up with yourself - for example, I'm a vegitarian and try to help out the environment where I can, but I don't tell people I'm an environmentalist...

as for the whole religion thing, I suggest everybody read the satanic bible, by Anton Szandor LaVey. He brings up some very good points on why he thinks the catholic church is wrong on some points. the basic principle in the satanic bible is that nothing should be wrong so long as it doesn't hurt anybody else (unless they want to be hurt).

IMO, the catholic church speaking out against contraceptive use is very detremental to society. without the use of contraceptives, epidemics like AIDS and overpopulation start to rear their ugly heads. any educated (enlightened?) culture will know that contraceptive use is beneficical, and abstinence on a large scale in an unisolated environment will never happen.

Thantos
04-04-2005, 10:24 PM
there is a difference between what is "right" and what is socially accepted.

Govtcheez
04-05-2005, 05:50 AM
> Couples can naturally plan and space out their children.

So, a couple should only have sex as many times as they want children? What if they make a mistake and the woman doesn't get pregnant?

How about it one of the partners is infertile? Are they doomed to be virgins forever?

RoD
04-05-2005, 07:44 AM
The churches stance on sex is unstable at best. Its written on a dry erase testament so they can edit on the fly....

Thantos
04-05-2005, 09:32 AM
> Couples can naturally plan and space out their children.

So, a couple should only have sex as many times as they want children? What if they make a mistake and the woman doesn't get pregnant?

How about it one of the partners is infertile? Are they doomed to be virgins forever?
Its more like this:
Married couples are allowed to have sex as much or as little as they wish. You are allowed to use "natural" methods (monitoring her cycle, etc) to try and plan out your children. If you fail in your planning (she gets pregnant when you didn't want to or vica versa) its considered God's will.

You know whats funny? This in the scheme of things is such a minor issue, yet it gets blow up a lot. How we treat each other, the poor, and the suffering, are much much more important.

RoD
04-05-2005, 09:46 AM
Ok who gave my negative rep for an opinion?


How about doing some research before spouting off an opinion

Thats the dumbest thing i ever heard. I must be completely knowledged in something to have an opinion? Damn how gay can you be, its called public forum, grow up.

Govtcheez
04-05-2005, 10:03 AM
> This in the scheme of things is such a minor issue, yet it gets blow up a lot.

Yes, but as stated before, this is a big reason for the spread of AIDS in Africa, so it's really not that minor of an issue.

Thantos
04-05-2005, 10:42 AM
Yes but are the following the other church teachings (like not having sex outside of marriage)? If someone says "I don't use a condom while having sex with my girlfriend because the Pope says not to use condoms" then I call BS.

Govtcheez
04-05-2005, 10:44 AM
You win this round...

Still, you can't deny that if the misinformation about condoms hadn't been spread, the AIDS rate in Africa would be waaay lower.

sean
04-05-2005, 10:47 AM
the AIDS rate in Africa would be waaay lower.

That number actually has a lot to do with the high level of prostitution. There's no way that many condoms could be distributed.

anonytmouse
04-05-2005, 12:15 PM
Opinion: The Pope Spreads AIDS (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1999/10/07/the-pope-spreads-aids/)

The Holy Father is responsible for the deaths of thousands

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 7th October 1999.

The evidence stacking up against Pope Pius XII is compelling. The man who claimed to be the friend of the persecuted now emerges as an active Nazi collaborator. John Cornwell, a Catholic historian who had hoped to clear Pius’s name by examining the Vatican’s archive, has discovered instead that the pope helped Hitler to stamp out opposition in the German Church. He disbanded the Catholic Centre Party (one of Hitler’s main impediments), encouraged priests to “certify” converted Jews and helped persuade the Catholic Prime Minister to form an alliance with the Nazis. In response to these revelations, the Vatican, as if to prove that it inhabits another planet, has announced that it will proceed with its plans to declare Pope Pius XII a saint.

But, close as Pius’s association with the Holocaust might have been, he is unlikely to have been directly responsible for as many deaths as the man who now sits in his place. John Paul II, the Holy Father and Angelic Shepherd, God’s representative on earth and the only living person who is officially and constitutionally infallible is a mass murderer.

Every year the Pope kills tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of the world’s most vulnerable people by the simple expedient of forbidding Catholics to use condoms. While his imprecations are dismissed by most churchgoers in the First World as a load of papal bull, in countries in which there is little access to alternative sources of information and in which women have few rights, every papal decree against contraception sentences thousands to a lingering death.

There’s no question that the Pope sympathises with the victims of AIDS. In Italy he has hugged AIDS patients in public. In San Francisco, he kissed an HIV-positive baby. He has urged sufferers to “feel Jesus at your side, and through your hope bear witness to the life-giving power of his Cross.” Unfortunately, however, he has exercised the power of the cross only to spread death.

Teaching people about safe sex, the Vatican says, is “a dangerous and immoral policy based on the deluded theory that the condom can provide adequate protection against AIDS.” Sex education, “above all in relation to the spread of AIDS” is an “abuse”. In 1995, when a French bishop suggested that people infected with HIV should use condoms, the Pope promptly sacked him. Last month the Vatican used its seat at the UN General Assembly (where, preposterously, it has national status) to disrupt, yet again, the UN’s family planning and AIDS prevention programmes.

There are 122 million Catholics in Africa. Whenever the Pope visits them he explains that the only acceptable form of family planning is strict sexual abstinence. He told the Nigerians that exploiting the poor and ignorant is “a crime against God’s work.” But every year he exploits the poor and ignorant by preaching against the condom.

Many of Africa’s Catholic bishops know that the Pope’s position is absurd, and quietly, privately, they have tried to undermine it. But they are also keenly aware that, unlike dioceses in prosperous countries, they are almost entirely dependent on the Vatican for funding. They know that they and their churches will survive only if, in public, they do precisely as they are told. So in Zambia, Malawi, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, some of the countries with the biggest AIDS problems on earth, prominent bishops have insisted that condoms should not be worn. Some, who share the Pope’s views, go further, and suggest that condoms spread AIDS by selectively leaking the virus.

Every time the bishops speak out, they reverse years of awareness raising (often, paradoxically, by Catholic charities and local churches) about AIDS and how to prevent it. Men looking for an excuse to practice unsafe sex seize on the Church’s teachings. People who do use condoms deny it, ensuring that the safe sex message spreads more slowly than the disease.

The Pope’s position reflects not only a fundamentalist interpretation of the laws of God. Like Pius XII, he insists on total political control. Autocratic, backward-looking, both popes have sheathed themselves in ecclesiatical mythology, an infallible barrier to impregnation by reality.

The Vatican wants to celebrate the year 2000 by canonising Pius XII for helping the oppressed. A better way to mark the millennium would surely be the indictment of John Paul II for crimes against humanity.



BBC: Catholic Church attacks Zambian anti-AIDS campaign (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1106368.stm)

The Roman Catholic Church in Zambia has attacked a government-funded safe sex advertising campaign aimed at curbing HIV and AIDS.
The Church's secretariat said the campaign was offensive and in bad taste, encouraging promiscuity and moral decay. It said the adverts suggested to young people that sex was something nice to have if it was done with a condom.
The Zambian Health Minister, Enock Kavindele, said the hard-hitting campaign might be offensive but that the government was dealing with a grave situation which needed shock therapy.
He said he'd told religious leaders that they faced preaching to empty churches if the AIDS crisis wasn't dealt with firmly.
One-in-five Zambians is infected with HIV, and the country has more than half-a-million AIDS orphans -- a figure set to double in the next fourteen years.



ABC: Claims Catholic anti-condom stance contributing to spread of AIDS (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s964104.htm)

LINDA MOTTRAM: The Roman Catholic Church has been accused of putting lives at risk in developing countries because of its ongoing stand against contraception, following remarks made by leading clergy in an upcoming documentary by BBC Television's Panorama program.

In it, church leaders say that condoms are assisting the spread of HIV, a message that's being promoted in some of the countries worst hit by the virus.

Paula Kruger reports.

PAULA KRUGER: In Kenya an estimated 20 per cent of the population is HIV positive, and yet workers at health centres say they are being prevented from distributing condoms because of church opposition.

Archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki has told the BBC's Panorama program that condoms are assisting the spread of the disease.

RAPHAEL NDINGI NZEKI: The Catholic Church does not advocate use of condoms under any circumstances. They think they are protected. They are not protected.

PAULA KRUGER: And it's a message that comes straight from the top.

The Chair of the Vatican's Council of Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo told the program health authorities should be warning people about the dangers of condoms.

...

DON BAXTER: In those countries where it does, and there are some African ones and now it appears, some Asian ones, then I think ultimately the Catholic Church someday will be held accountable and culpable for actually increasing the spread of HIV infections.



BBC: EU criticises Vatican's condom 'bigotry' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3843797.stm)

The European Union has condemned Catholic Church "bigotry" over the use of condoms to fight HIV.

European Commissioner Poul Nielsen made his comments on the BBC's Panorama programme, broadcast on Sunday.

The Vatican says there is no such thing as safe sex
Mr Nielsen said: "They are hurting and bringing into great danger the lives of millions out there."


BBC: Sex and the Holy City (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3147672.stm)

This week marks 25 years since Pope John Paul was elected to Saint Peter's throne.

Yet as his reign is widely celebrated, millions of women around the world may feel they have reason to regret his long rule - and the global battles he has waged against contraception, abortion and condoms.

In the West, many Catholics ignore the Church's teachings on sex. But in poorer countries - from where the next Pope may emerge - the words of the priest on sex still matter, whether spoken from the pulpit or to a government minister.

The Pope believes everyone - not just the world's billion Catholics - should follow the Vatican's teaching.



The Catholic Church's stand against contraception is "a serious mistake which is costing human lives," Peter Piot, head of the UN's joint program against AIDS (ONUSIDA), said Friday in a interview in the Frankfurter Rundschau newspaper.
"When priests preach against using contraception, they are committing a serious mistake which is costing human lives," Piot said.
"We do not ask the Church to promote contraception but merely to stop banning its use," Piot said.

On the ground, in countries worst affected by the HIV/AIDS holocaust, the policy is not supported by the population:


BBC: Poll (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3276893.stm)
When people were asked if children under the age of 14 should be taught that using a condom can protect people from the virus there were huge majorities in favour, more than 90% in Brazil and Mexico, which have two of the largest Catholic populations in the world, despite the Catholic church's opposition to the use of condoms.

or even many church workers:


It is not immoral to use condoms to prevent AIDS (http://www.uscatholic.org/2003/12/sb0312.htm)

A South African bishop who daily faces the reality of AIDS in his diocese urges the church to reconsider its ban on condoms to stop the spread of HIV. It's not only a matter of chastity, he says, but one of justice—and a prolife issue as well.

More from the BBC (http://www.google.com/search?q=site:bbc.co.uk+condoms+OR+condom+vatican+ OR+catholic).

>> That number actually has a lot to do with the high level of prostitution. There's no way that many condoms could be distributed. <<

Hogwash. How many people do you think there are in Africa? A condom costs about 2 cents or less. To treat someone with HIV/AIDS costs several hundred dollars anually. To that you need to add the cost of a country losing vast numbers of it teachers, nurses and other workers who should be in their most productive years. What is the cost of a child losing both their parents by their fifth birthday?

>> Yes but are the following the other church teachings (like not having sex outside of marriage)? If someone says "I don't use a condom while having sex with my girlfriend because the Pope says not to use condoms" then I call BS. <<

Great, you call BS. In the meantime the woman will have an unwanted child and start the steady decline into illness and death caused by HIV. The child will be an orphan living in an over-crowded orphanage by the age of three or four. By five or six he will suffer his own death from HIV/AIDS.


Right now, we are in the middle of an horrific holocaust. When your grandchild asks you "Where were you during the HIV/AIDS holocaust", what will you be able to answer?

Govtcheez
04-05-2005, 12:17 PM
> That number actually has a lot to do with the high level of prostitution. There's no way that many condoms could be distributed.

That and the rumors that are rampant that condoms are a tool of the European whites used to cause sterility.

sean
04-05-2005, 12:20 PM
Now go look up Robert Mugabe's stance on the issue.

Govtcheez
04-05-2005, 12:34 PM
No one's comparing the Pope to the dictator of Sudan. If you can't answer the allegations, it'd be nice if you said "I'm wrong" instead of "well, at least he's not starving his people to death like SOME people". Mugabe has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

edit: OK, I remembered the name wrong. The point stands, though - I don't see what anyone else has to do with this.

Thantos
04-05-2005, 12:47 PM
Thanks anonytmouse for taking a relativly good thread and decending it into the normal relgious flaming.

Govtcheez
04-05-2005, 12:49 PM
Why do you say that? He just posted articles that backed up what was spoken about before.

adrianxw
04-05-2005, 12:54 PM
Abstinance/chastity is not now, and never has been a viable policy. If it was we would not see the prevelence of HIV infection in so many of these catholic countries. People have sex.

By discouraging and actively preventing access to condoms, the catholic church and by it's own teachings, it's infallible leader, have condemned thousands, probably millions to a lingering death and their dependents to poverty.

A crime against humanity.

Thantos
04-05-2005, 12:56 PM
Because no we are going to start bickering over minute points. There will be flaming from both sides.

Also using words like Holocaust just fan the flames (no pun intended)

Thantos
04-05-2005, 12:58 PM
Abstinance/chastity is not now, and never has been a viable policy.
I do it quite well thank you.

adrianxw
04-05-2005, 01:00 PM
>>> I do it quite well thank you.

There are, however, other people in the world that do not.

Govtcheez
04-05-2005, 01:01 PM
Fine. People, minus Thantos, generally have sex, and most people even do it before they're married. It's silly to expect otherwise in the best of circumstances, and dangerous in this one.

Thantos
04-05-2005, 01:02 PM
Should morality be dictated by what you believe is right or by what people actually do?

Govtcheez
04-05-2005, 01:04 PM
You believe it is immoral. Plenty of people do not.

edit: I would never marry a woman who wanted to "save herself for marriage". Sex is a pretty significant part of relationships, and I wouldn't want to be with a woman who I wasn't sexually compatible with.

Thantos
04-05-2005, 01:05 PM
Actually I haven't given my personal opinion. Now answer the question

adrianxw
04-05-2005, 01:07 PM
Morality is a difficult word. It is not a defianble measurable thing. What to you is immoral is to many other, simple human nature.

The fact remains that vast numbers of people ARE dying. That is the issue I have.

Thantos
04-05-2005, 01:09 PM
Sigh...
Your morality is based off of what you believe to be right regardless of what others are doing correct?