Dubstepforum.com

Terpit wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... nti-condom

What I don't get about the criticism of the pope/previous popes' stance on condoms is that they get it in the ear for being against contraception, but nobody mentions that they also preach celibacy and sex within marriage only. Let's face it, places would have lower AIDS/HIV rates if they stuck to THAT part of Christianity.

Fair enough if the Pope came out and said "Fuck everyone you want, but don't you dare wear a johnny".

garethom wrote: What I don't get about the criticism of the pope/previous popes' stance on condoms is that they get it in the ear for being against contraception, but nobody mentions that they also preach celibacy and sex within marriage only. Let's face it, places would have lower AIDS/HIV rates if they stuck to THAT part of Christianity.

Fair enough if the Pope came out and said "Fuck everyone you want, but don't you dare wear a johnny".

You have a point but then it makes sense for the church to consider a more pragmatic approach. We know that people will continue to have sex unprotected to perpetuate the idea that using a condom is somehow sinful risks peoples lives.

Dude never looked like he wanted to be pope anyway

He prob just tired or something

Poping aint easy but its necessary

rayman612 wrote: but its necessary

scspkr99 wrote:

garethom wrote: What I don't get about the criticism of the pope/previous popes' stance on condoms is that they get it in the ear for being against contraception, but nobody mentions that they also preach celibacy and sex within marriage only. Let's face it, places would have lower AIDS/HIV rates if they stuck to THAT part of Christianity.

Fair enough if the Pope came out and said "Fuck everyone you want, but don't you dare wear a johnny".

You have a point but then it makes sense for the church to consider a more pragmatic approach. We know that people will continue to have sex unprotected to perpetuate the idea that using a condom is somehow sinful risks peoples lives.

I agree there's a level of responsibility from them but they already preach the most responsible way to avoid STIs/STDs. Their belief system is sort of their whole thing, if they start to compromise it, then where else will they have to concede that they're "wrong"?

garethom wrote:

Terpit wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... nti-condom

What I don't get about the criticism of the pope/previous popes' stance on condoms is that they get it in the ear for being against contraception, but nobody mentions that they also preach celibacy and sex within marriage only. Let's face it, places would have lower AIDS/HIV rates if they stuck to THAT part of Christianity.

Fair enough if the Pope came out and said "Fuck everyone you want, but don't you dare wear a johnny".

But they're both sins for different reasons and not especially connected.

Sex outside of marriage is sinful because of the likelyhood of having to raise a child with a single parent. In fact, sex for any other reason than procreation is pretty dodgy territory, even for married couples.

Protected sex is sinful because each sperm and ovum is considered human life. It's murder.

If you're looking at it purely in terms of scripture, condoms are arguably worse than sleeping around.

Of course, both ideas were devised a couple of thousand years ago when the Abrahamic tribes were desperately trying to grow their numbers to survive as a population. Convincing an endangered population to not waste their seed and to provide stable homes to raise strong kids makes a lot of sense in the Middle East in 500BC... it doesn't make quite so much sense when you live in a globalised population of 7 billion who's biggest concern is running out of space and food, though. We should be teaching kids that wasting water and electricity is sinful, not sperm. We've got a Pacific Ocean full of sperm to waste right now.

Yep, not saying I agree with them, but they're not notoriously open to change are they, and people from outside the faith telling them what they should and shouldn't preach isn't going to change anything unfortunately.

garethom wrote:Yep, not saying I agree with them, but they're not notoriously open to change are they, and people from outside the faith telling them what they should and shouldn't preach isn't going to change anything unfortunately.

People have been telling the Catholic church what to preach since St Peter started it, but one of the benefits of calling yourself God's right hand man is that you get to overrule pretty much anyone that steps to you. I wouldn't expect them to start listening to laymen anytime soon!

They'll fade. Any organisation built up over millennia isn't goingto collapse overnight, but even with all their 20th Century incursions into Africa, they're vastly less powerful than they've been at any point of the last 1700 years.

garethom wrote:Yep, not saying I agree with them, but they're not notoriously open to change are they, and people from outside the faith telling them what they should and shouldn't preach isn't going to change anything unfortunately.

People have been telling the Catholic church what to preach since St Peter started it, but one of the benefits of calling yourself God's right hand man is that you get to overrule pretty much anyone that steps to you. I wouldn't expect them to start listening to laymen anytime soon!

They'll fade. Any organisation built up over millennia isn't going to collapse overnight, but even with all their 20th Century incursions into Africa, they're vastly less powerful than they've been at any point of the last 1700 years.

rayman612 wrote:
Poping aint easy

garethom wrote: I agree there's a level of responsibility from them but they already preach the most responsible way to avoid STIs/STDs. Their belief system is sort of their whole thing, if they start to compromise it, then where else will they have to concede that they're "wrong"?

They've moved on bigger questions before purgatory for unbaptised kids being a significant theological shift.

With regard to condoms they are in a position in a lot of communities to effect real improvements in health yet prevent themselves from doing so on grounds that aren't relevant to how the majority of the faiths adherents live their life. They should concede that they are wrong wherever their teachings lead to a reduction in the quality of life.

u kno they believe there is a life after this right?

y would they give a fuck about quality of life

rayman612 wrote:u kno they believe there is a life after this right?

y would they give a fuck about quality of life

That's a lot less relevant than you think. How is access to the life after this determined because if you think you can act with impunity in this because there's another one then even by the churches own teachings you're fucked

magma wrote: People have been telling the Catholic church what to preach since St Peter started it, but one of the benefits of calling yourself God's right hand man is that you get to overrule pretty much anyone that steps to you. I wouldn't expect them to start listening to laymen anytime soon!

They'll fade. Any organisation built up over millennia isn't going to collapse overnight, but even with all their 20th Century incursions into Africa, they're vastly less powerful than they've been at any point of the last 1700 years.

As God's right hand man you also get to over rule those that went before you. He changed the position of the church on limbo which may not seem particularly important to those outside the church but theologically is.

I'd also say you may want to define power and I'd also argue that the church at the time of the schism between what became the Catholic church and the Orthodox church had less actual power than it does now.

scspkr99 wrote:

magma wrote: People have been telling the Catholic church what to preach since St Peter started it, but one of the benefits of calling yourself God's right hand man is that you get to overrule pretty much anyone that steps to you. I wouldn't expect them to start listening to laymen anytime soon!

They'll fade. Any organisation built up over millennia isn't going to collapse overnight, but even with all their 20th Century incursions into Africa, they're vastly less powerful than they've been at any point of the last 1700 years.

As God's right hand man you also get to over rule those that went before you. He changed the position of the church on limbo which may not seem particularly important to those outside the church but theologically is.

I'd also say you may want to define power and I'd also argue that the church at the time of the schism between what became the Catholic church and the Orthodox church had less actual power than it does now.

All popes change things - that's what they're there for! There'd be no need for leadership if all the questions were answered in the Bible - the Pope is the lead interpreter; as God's closest vassal he gets to find out when God changes his mind before anyone else. That's his whole raison d'etre.

I'd disagree pretty massively with the bit about the Catholic church being less powerful in the 1000s than in the 2000s... it's only about 50 years between the schism with the Orthodox and launching the first Crusade... they have nowhere NEAR enough power to launch a crusade these days - the thought would be laughable! They can encourage millions to shirk condoms, but when was the last time they burnt down a mosque or invaded a country? Nation states do that these days, not churches.

African pope would be a good step forward for the Church.

That's not why they are there at all. If you want to discuss the role of the pope then sound if you want to reduce it to some bullshit hotline to god nonsense then there's really no point.

wub wrote:African pope would be a good step forward for the Church.

Popes are only allowed to be white, silly

scspkr99 wrote:That's not why they are there at all. If you want to discuss the role of the pope then sound if you want to reduce it to some bullshit hotline to god nonsense then there's really no point.

Why so aggressive today, dude? I'm sorry if I've annoyed you here by talking to garethom about why the Pope's mind is difficult to change and why he might disagree with former Popes, but I'm not quite sure how I managed it... I seem to get this quite a lot with you though, so I'm really terribly sorry... I must have done something awful some time.

Of course I'm oversimplifying. I'm not a theologian or a Catholic and this is Dubstepforum, not Kings College. Before you started snarking at my posts, I was just replying to Garethom's point about popes being "not notoriously open to change" and the fact that outsiders can't change what they want to preach... my point was just that if no change was ever expected, you wouldn't need a leader. If all the values of Catholicism were set on stone tablets, you wouldn't need a figurehead re-evaluating things like Limbo, Homosexuality and rules on Celibacy. Whatever the myriad other responsibilities the Pope has, the most central one is to make decrees on grey areas in the faith. That's pretty simple - I don't know why you find it offensive?

But again, I'm really not quite sure why you've injected yourself into this and started trying to tear lumps off me. I'm not sure we even disagree. In fact, I think we agree unless you can point out why not?!

Terpit wrote:

wub wrote:African pope would be a good step forward for the Church.

Popes are only allowed to be white, silly

African cardinal was on the shortlist last time IIRC...and they said that 'bout the president of Americaland.

magma wrote:Why so aggressive today, dude? I'm sorry if I've annoyed you here by talking to garethom about why the Pope's mind is difficult to change and why he might disagree with former Popes, but I'm not quite sure how I managed it... I seem to get this quite a lot with you though, so I'm really terribly sorry... I must have done something awful some time.

Stop apologising & stand your ground!