Catholic condom ban helping AIDS spread in Latin America: U.N.

Yeah, people should do a lot of things. Then again, human nature is what it is. We can acknowledge that and work within that, even if that sometimes means damage limitation, or we can stick our heads in the ideological sand and wonder why things keep screwing up on us. As you yourself say:

People will want to have sex. It is a wired-in biological imperative as strong as eating, drinking and breathing. We can have sensible rules about not sleeping around and only having sex within a stable monogamous relationship, but healthy teenagers with hormones will want to do what comes naturally, and keeping them ignorant of the facts of life ("just don't go there, that's sinful") and not equipping them with ways of handling their urges relatively safely is not going to help. We know that. We've seen the same thing with drug and alcohol use. Denial and prohibition does not work --it makes things worse.

Hey, call me a pragmatist. But religion is supposed to give you sensible moral and philosophical guidance. It is supposed to help you lead your life, not give you huge blind spots that cause you to be woefully ill-prepared for its dillemmas and complexities.

As for the abortion debate, I have only one question: How did the ruling of Roe vs. Wade affect crime levels in the US about 20 years later? Discuss.

 

I agree, but I still don't see how the Church then is partially responsible for the spread of AIDS - it's just the people who "want" to follow the Church's rules but end up not doing it.

I agree that the Church's rules may go against human nature (but so do a lot of secular laws) but again... people choose to follow these rules, people choose not to follow other rules. The institution of the Church is therefore, in my book, not at all responsible for anything relating to this.

Of course, it would most likely be of help if the Church said "OK, Jesus changed His mind, rubbers are allowed now". But does an institution need to change its rules because some of its followers are complete idiots? Our laws don't change just to suit the needs of the more moronic of the proles.

 

There are two ways to stop getting aids in this context. One is to stop having sex, which isn't realistic. The other is condoms, which is realistic.

The church massively enters these countries and uses unproven arguements to bewilder and foster the idea that the only realistic method of protection is actually not just wrong, but a cardinal sin as you are preventing the life of children. At the same time, they offer mixed and inconsistent views on children (no adultery, no sex outside marriage, have as many children as possible, gods greatest gift).

The result of their influence is a lot of sick, dying people who, without the church, could have been educated properly and saved.

That's how they are responsible.

 

^^^ What he says.

It would not be a problem if the church simply said "IMHO you shouldn't sleep around and you should not use condoms..." but it doesn't. It actively interferes with, and tries to influence AIDS prevention and sex education programmes that could otehrwise be effective in saving lives.

Moreover to proselytise against contraception and in favour of having more children in countries where child death is rife and deprivation is so great that parents are barely able to raise to adulthood the children that they have is, frankly, immoral. The church throws itself up as the leading authority to give people guidance in their lives. It should then bloody well take on this task in a responsible manner.

 

Right, I "tried" to reply to this two times whilst sober, but I refrained because it sounded too stupid. Now I am fairly ****ing shiftfaced sao woo.

anyway

I see both your points, but I cant agree with them for some reason. I guess I find myself, for some odd reason, "respecting" the institute of the Church to much to actually go against them.
In other words, perchance I have become such a misanthrope I thrive on people being stupid, and institutions putting rules on them which they won't follow anyway and stuff.

Either way, humanity can sod off. STDs for teh win. My ex girlfriend came by two days ago, and I def got chlamydia. S i find myself in the Latin American group.

Now, if only I had followed the Church's teachings, I would not be in this position. Unfortunately. I dont care enough. So yeah.

Anyway, yay for human extinction and the Knigdom of God which will undobtedly come down when that **** goes down.

Goodnight.

 

Instant fail if you have to get drunk to believe your own arguements,

 

True, but it sounded stupid because there were no arguements to use. Like I said, I see both your points, I just can't 'agree' (what's the word? "line up"?) with them. I guess on this thing we're just on opposite sides of the mental spectrum (I'm sure Nexxo can explain that in fancier words ).

 

It sounds to me like a fear to accept a world without a god, which is udnerstandable. You agree with the anti-church arguements, but won't side with them? Is the only reason I can think of.

 

Cognitive dissonance, probably. You get the argument but it is incompatible with your framework of previously held beliefs (you worldview, if you will), and challenges it.

Now you either have to modify the argument until it fits, or change your framework. The latter is a lot harder, and for good reasons: if we had to change our world view every time it gets challenged by our experiences, we'd live in chaos. And it is easier to live with the idea that some anonymous forum members are wrong, than that the church, which has a much more significant and pervasive meaning in your life, is wrong.

Of course, now you've got the clap (sorry to hear that, by the way), you have to integrate that experience as well. That happens to fit very well with your previous framework of beliefs, which incorporates those of the church ("screwing around is bad, mmmokay?"), so your framework is reinforced by it. This in turn reinforces your rejection of our incompatible arguments such as ours.

The reason you have not worked this out for yourself by now, is because being drunk reduces your ability to introspect.

 

Fail for ever having dated a girl with the clap, DOUBLE fail for shagging her unprotected. TRIPLE fail for admitting in a thread where you are defending the Church.

 

Win.

 

I don't fear the concept of a world without a god, as that is how I view it most of the time. But yeah, I can see the points you and Nexxo made, I just find it impossible to side with them (which was the term I was looking for, btw ).

Mehh, I don't like to introspect too much, it confuses me I'd rather revert to "I don't like anything" (which, strangely enough, I find incompatible with defending the Church).

I find it hard to explain why I defend the Church, because I don't follow its rules myself, or agree with them. I've done so in recent years, most of the time because of what I perceived as ignorance from other people towards the Church. Now, I do want to say that yours and CardJoe's posts are not ignorant in my book, I'm talking about the goth/emo/generally stupid kids I used to encounter when going out/on the forums about the going out etc.
It's probably the same reason why I "defend" nazism (read on first) whenever the media/people mention it. In the eyes of most people, nazism was the worst thing to ever ever happen to mankind, the greatest abomination to everything ever. Yet, they fail to see that the Allies were (almost) just as bad when it came to mass-killing civilians, or that the Soviets enjoyed themselves getting rid of jews, homosexuals, and dissidents as well.

It's not necessarily siding with the underdog, because if let's say the commie party in Belgium was to be attacked, I'd probably have a good laugh at it or even join in.

Ergh, I can't explain it. Maybe I'm schizophrenic?

As for the clap, it's my own fault. And, just to be clear (seeing as it's a long time since I had that topic about it), it is the same girl, same infection. I haven't been stupid on the sexual front since that happened; she just failed to tell me and I failed to get myself checked out (she said she didn't have it, she's the only one I slept with; so that would make me not infected. Couple that with the embarrassment of peeing in a cup/getting something shoved up my uretha and lo, avoidance of possible fact is bliss).

Wow, speaking of digression. Anyway...

My life = one big fail

 

Fail for jumping to conclusions. If I recall correctly, the girl cheated on him with an ex-boyfriend (who infected her). As far as Khensu knew, they were in a long-term monogamous relationship.

Relationships can only be based on trust. But that does not mean that you don't get burned sometimes...

 

Nope, you're just a geek.

No, fail for taking the word of someone who had cheated on you at face value and not getting yourself checked.

 

I just have to quote Peep show here:

Spoiler

"Who needs trust when you're doing it up the bum?"

 

If I remember correctly, chlamydia (and other STIs/STDs) can be transferred anally too. But I'm not sure and I forgot the NHS/gov't website which states that.


As for the Church, I thought about it a bit this afternoon (how to explain it in words), and I sort of think I know why I get on the defence. Basically, if every single person followed the Bible (though perchance not the Church - more on that later on, unless I forget), I would believe in a purpose or even usefullness (?) of mankind.

Same with for example the ideal of nazi-Germany* (if you ignore all the bad stuff). A society, one leader, everyone follows/contributes/smiles alot. But, as history shows over and over and over (etc) again, power corrupts. So such a society would never work, much like our current, "democratic" societies do not work.

[ (*) Please note I said the ideal of... I like to believe I know my history, both from the "accepted" (i.e. Allied) side and the other sides. I mean the ideal that I see in it (and which, maybe, you don't, so you may not get what I am trying to say). The good stuff. The romanticised idea. The stuff that maybe never even happpened. ]

In my view, the Bible contains a lot of wisdom. Whether it is the wisdom of (a) God(s) or the wisdom of Man (and henceforth, philosophy?), it doesn't matter. It's got a lot of good points, a lot of good advice, and it hurts me to see people follow all this health crap but piss all over the Bible, for example. (But I guess that does fall in line with my "humanity is stupid" remarks/thoughts.)

All of which, ultimately, reverts to me thinking that all is useless. Everything. We are so intelligent that we have become stupid.

Rats live and procreate for the survival of the species. We have gone past that, which is not a good thing (apart from porn, I guess). Ah well.

I know this is a very incoherent rant, but try to be me for a few minutes - it gets really confusing in my head (alcohol solves that, though - once more to the breach, dear friends, once more! I mean, bottle. Toodle-pip!).

 

woah, I had been hoping to come back to this and address a few points but quite frankly ...

 

Yeah, Nexxo's head-shrinking abilities are a little on the scary side. Couple points I'd like to add: Please note that the Roman Catholic Church does not speak for all Christians, everywhere - the whole birth control/premarital sex thing is pretty hotly debated within the Christian community (using the term 'Christian' in the loosest possible sense).

That said, I do wish the more conservative elements would be more responsible about teaching teens to deal - not in a 'just use a condom' way, but 'this is how you're going to feel, it's normal, here's how to handle it without going insane' kind of way. God made bodies, God's creation = good. Too many Gnostic ideas (as filtered through the Victorian era) still hanging around, in my opinion.

I'd add something about the increasing gap between sexual maturity and marriage and my own concerns about the church's relevance to/influence over society here, but I think I'm probably in over my head already.

 

Sorry to bring this back but I finally had time to get back to this thread:

All is well - as you said, I do get a little upset when it appears that someone is claiming "that religion is the root of all evils". I'm quite pleased when people can see past that lie. The book you recommend is an interesting choice.

 

I don't occasionally browse porn.