The times a changing?

[Howlin0001]

The Pope has said that the use of condoms are okay in certain situations. I think this is a step in right direction for the Church. What do you think?

Aids campaigners have said the Pope's shift on the use of condoms could "save lives" in African countries ravaged by the epidemic.

 

In an interview Pope Benedict XVI said that using condoms may sometimes be justified to stop the spread of HIV, a remark interpreted as a shift in one of the Vatican's most controversial positions.

 

He said: "There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants."

 

When pressed on whether this meant the Church was not opposed to the use of condoms, he said they were not "a real or moral solution" but could be justified in some cases.

 

Jason Warriner, clinical director for sexual health charity the Terrence Higgins Trust, said: "We often find that people from a religious background may not want to use condoms because of their faith. The Pope's statement is a way of opening the conversation and having increased dialogue around HIV and sexual health.

 

"If those conversations stop people from becoming infected with HIV then this is a major step forward and will save lives in the HIV epidemic."

 

Simon Wright, head of health and HIV at Save the Children, said: "This could be a significant step. We have known about HIV for 30 years now and in all that time the Church has never publicly said condoms prevent its spread. The Pope has now acknowledged that."

 

He said: "If this is done clearly and communicated throughout the Church, and if some of the qualifications and reservations are removed, then it could save lives. If the Church had said this 25 years ago it would have saved a lot of lives. This is a small but hopefully important step for the Church to make."

 

Sources in the Catholic Church in England and Wales warned that the Pope's comments did not mean a major shift in Vatican policy and that the Church would not become a public advocate of using condoms.

 

One said: "What he is not saying is that this is a change in institutional thinking or that condoms are a solution to HIV/Aids. He's speaking very specifically on this point of moral theology."

 

Source

[Alg]

Have to see where this goes.

[obfuscator]

It's not really a departure from any previous teaching as he makes it quite clear the use of condoms on the situations mentioned show only a "progression to morality" rather than an achievement of it.

[Zierro]

Sounds good to me. One of religion's main problems is the lack of flexibility with their guidelines and "morals". Adamant guidelines just don't work in an ever-changing world where we constantly discover better new ways.

[Napalm]

Times aren't changing. It's just that the church slowly gives in to new social trends and scientific findings. It has been like this forever.

[Skeptical]

People are having a much more difficult time justifying the blatant immorality of the Catholic Church: religious dogma, covering up child abuse, the child abuse itself... Hopefully a growing Western understanding of morality without religion will topple it.

[Range_This11]

Sounds like a PR move to me. There weren't any male prostitutes waiting for the Pope's go-ahead on this issue.

[Jaffy1]

Sounds like a PR move to me. There weren't any male prostitutes waiting for the Pope's go-ahead on this issue.

 

I don't think it's about that. Otherwise they'd have probably said something about certain priests.

Anyway, I think it's a step in the right direction, and I'd love to see celibacy let go by the church, but I'm afraid that day is far from near.

[Alg]

I have read the bible and some spots more then others, I dont recall Jesus ever preaching for celibacy. Wasnt it Paul who preached that sex was evil and other crap Jesus never talked about?

 

Sorry if I come off as ignorant if I missed something, but could someone verify via quote that Jesus indeed support celibacy? [as it is a major issue with the catholic faith]

Christianity isn't necessarily just the teachings of Jesus. In practice it really doesn't follow the Bible to the letter either. Contrary to popular belief, the system does evolve over time, though technology is evolving faster.

 

Not really enough for one to read the Bible and say he has a complete understanding of how the religion operates. Could look at it like a political system, knowing the basic party platform isn't the same as knowing how an individual politician will act.

[Jaffy1]

I have read the bible and some spots more then others, I dont recall Jesus ever preaching for celibacy. Wasnt it Paul who preached that sex was evil and other crap Jesus never talked about?

 

Sorry if I come off as ignorant if I missed something, but could someone verify via quote that Jesus indeed support celibacy? [as it is a major issue with the catholic faith]

 

 

As a Catholic I was never taught to follow the Bible to the letter since it was written by man. Stories from it were told as just that, stories with a moral point, message or teaching. -Still, some communities are more strict than others.

 

Anyway, no-one can prove or disprove anything Jesus may or may not have said 2000 years ago, and that wouldn't matter much either as it would be up to the Pope, his advisors and the "higher ranking" people within the church to make that decision.

[Range_This11]

Sounds like a PR move to me. There weren't any male prostitutes waiting for the Pope's go-ahead on this issue.

 

I don't think it's about that. Otherwise they'd have probably said something about certain priests.

Anyway, I think it's a step in the right direction, and I'd love to see celibacy let go by the church, but I'm afraid that day is far from near.

How is it not about that? The Church has been feeling pressure for years now because of their stance on contraceptives from AIDS research groups.

[obfuscator]

People are having a much more difficult time justifying the blatant immorality of the Catholic Church: religious dogma, covering up child abuse, the child abuse itself... Hopefully a growing Western understanding of morality without religion will topple it.

Ahh yes, bring up the corner cases to discredit the entire organization. Fantastic.

[Skeptical]

People are having a much more difficult time justifying the blatant immorality of the Catholic Church: religious dogma, covering up child abuse, the child abuse itself... Hopefully a growing Western understanding of morality without religion will topple it.

Ahh yes, bring up the corner cases to discredit the entire organization. Fantastic.

 

An organization that protects the rapists and abusers of children from the law. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1311781/How-decent-Catholics-Pope-hid-child-abuse-calls-gays-evil.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/21/pope-benedict-xvi-catholicism

 

An organization that has kept humanity in the dark for hundreds of years, twisted children's minds with lies about their sexuality, corrupted philosophy, killed, tortured, maimed and threatened those who dared to speak out against its evil idiocy, and created a sick partnership between the state and religion in many modern societies.

 

This is normally the point at which they preach tolerance, before turning around to deny another person their humanity as a result of their sexual orientation.

[Alg]

Proving once again that power corrupts. You're blind if you think that's exclusive to the Catholic church. Personally I'd think that some other massive, ancient organization would have been just as bad had it been in power instead... :razz: Not that it absolves those who were involved.

 

To catholics, I still want to know where Jesus preached celibacy, hatred towards homosexuals, forcing righteousness on your neighbors, and birth control being wrong.

Once again, Christian belief is not limited to the teachings of Jesus. As you probably know, the Bible is a very thick book, and it isn't hundreds of pages of "Jesus said x". Furthermore, it has adapted with time, resulting in beliefs that do not appear in the Bible (Such as the seven deadly sins, and for some, the rapture) and beliefs suited to modern times (Christianity probably predates condoms, yet the Catholic church has a position about them).

[Jaffy1]

How is it not about that? The Church has been feeling pressure for years now because of their stance on contraceptives from AIDS research groups.

 

Because there is a "bigger issue" that got a lot more publicity, which means that had PR been the motive, this would be about another subject entirely.

Also, they wouldn't just "change rules" on such a significant topic for the sake of PR.

 

 

Well both people that replied to my question said that the church resembles a government rather then a religion.

 

Is this a corner case that aims to discredit the whole organization, or is this evidence that the whole organization is flawed?

 

 

To catholics, I still want to know where Jesus preached celibacy, hatred towards homosexuals, forcing righteousness on your neighbors, and birth control being wrong. If no quotes are provided for these I stand by my belief that the church is a tool used by people to force their morality on others.

 

 

Please educate yourself... or read the above posts that already answered this.

Also, I was never taught I was to hate homosexuals, force anything on anyone, or that I couldn't use birth control... I think you have the wrong religion there. :rolleyes:

 

There is a distinct difference between Bible, Pope, and religion in practice.

[obfuscator]

 

 

Well both people that replied to my question said that the church resembles a government rather then a religion.

 

Is this a corner case that aims to discredit the whole organization, or is this evidence that the whole organization is flawed?

 

 

To catholics, I still want to know where Jesus preached celibacy, hatred towards homosexuals, forcing righteousness on your neighbors, and birth control being wrong. If no quotes are provided for these I stand by my belief that the church is a tool used by people to force their morality on others.

 

Probably a bit of both - but it's certainly not the be all and end all.

 

See, if you actually took the time to learn church doctrine, you'd realize how ridiculous you sound. The church does not force hatred towards homosexuals. Of course Jesus didn't preach about BC being wrong, it was hardly commonplace at the time. It's an interpretation of Jesus' teachings for the modern world.

 

 

 

An organization that protects the rapists and abusers of children from the law. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1311781/How-decent-Catholics-Pope-hid-child-abuse-calls-gays-evil.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/21/pope-benedict-xvi-catholicism

 

An organization that has kept humanity in the dark for hundreds of years, twisted children's minds with lies about their sexuality, corrupted philosophy, killed, tortured, maimed and threatened those who dared to speak out against its evil idiocy, and created a sick partnership between the state and religion in many modern societies.

 

This is normally the point at which they preach tolerance, before turning around to deny another person their humanity as a result of their sexual orientation.

 

This is like arguing against a brick wall.

 

Just because you believe something is immoral doesn't mean you're denying people their humanity.

 

I'll be the first to admit that the church has made mistakes (many of them) throughout its long history. Show me an organization that has not. Please, do.

 

It's hard for people to see - but when you beleive in something like religion, apostolate, or missionary work (forcing down people's throats) is part in parcel with belief.

 

I'll use an example. Let's say you found out that tomorrow a virus would hit the world that would anihilate the entire population in hours. The only way to protect against this virus is to drink a litre of ketchup the day before. You know this for certain fact.

 

Sounds ridiculous, right? To many, it is ridiculous.

 

But I ask you this? What would you do? Would you drink your litre of ketchup and be the last man alive on earth? Or would you try to get the word out, to tell people..because you feel you have a duty to humanity to save them from something that could be avoided? Is it a desire to force people to be like you? Or is it an overwhelming urge to do something good for your fellow man based on your beleifs?

 

The failure to recognize the motivation behind religion is one of the biggest failures of contemporary liberal society. Add that in with a tendency to hold the church to far higher standards than any other organization while simultanously discrediting them as an organization better than any other leads to ever increasing slandering of the church's motives.

[Skeptical]

You only feel that it's a pointless argument because I'm just as determined as you are: when you don't bring any real evidence to the fight, the world can turn to dust around us and I'll be sitting here waiting.

 

The motivation of religion is to control the general populace: it is a convenient vessel to carry a useless form of morality. Why exactly is there such a focus on children? If there is any reasonable evidence at all for belief in the divine, why then could people not have it presented to them later in life? Religion would collapse if that actually occurred: no one in their right mind would believe any of it if it wasn't ground into their minds from birth, until the religion switch has been firmly installed. It's a brutal cycle, reminiscent of child abuse: I was abused by someone, so I shall abuse someone in turn. The means of religion is even simpler: they have prestige, power, acceptance, and stupidity to work with. How could they not be successful?

 

When you tell someone that they can't marry someone they love, that another human being is not who they are (they're just lying, no one's actually gay) or fuel the hatred that homosexuals face the world over, then you're denying them their humanity. It's as simple as that.

 

Oh, and while we're on the topic of the Catholic Church, I can also add their support of the Nazis:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/05/24/the-catholic-church-in-nazi-germany-book-notes-pope-benedict-xvi.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany#Nazi_Attitudes_towards_Christianity

 

I hold a church to a higher moral standard than, say, a hockey team. Why? Well, as far as I am aware, no Leaf or Wing has ever preached morality. Then again, the church usually just turns around and begins dehumanizing, lying to, and molesting people, so I'm really not sure where I'm going with this.

 

You're right we can't judge an entire organization by its outliers: however, I have to say that the abuse has now occurred in such significant numbers that we're safe to criticize the Church as a whole, and to demand the prosecution of those who covered it up.

[Alg]

Oh, and while we're on the topic of the Catholic Church, I can also add their support of the Nazis:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/05/24/the-catholic-church-in-nazi-germany-book-notes-pope-benedict-xvi.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany#Nazi_Attitudes_towards_Christianity

Congratulations! You've officially lost the right to ever be taken seriously when you argue about religion again. How does it feel to destroy your credibility in such an area in so few words when it took men like Dan Brown hundreds more?

Can I make a recommendation? Take a look at how things actually happen in practice, rather than let your leftist media choices tell you what to think. You may be surprised.

 

This is the second time I've had to post this, you'd think someone would get the hint.

 

Catholics number in the billions. Are you surprised that not every single gathering of them ends in one atrocity or another? Did you ever stop to think that there might not be wild child-orgies and gay-hangings behind every closed church you drive past?

 

Ladies and gentlemen, the reason that Atheism has been ruined for me. I'm sorry you have guys like this on your side.

[Jaffy1]

You only feel that it's a pointless argument because I'm just as determined as you are: when you don't bring any real evidence to the fight, the world can turn to dust around us and I'll be sitting here waiting.

 

I've ignored your posts so far because it would without any doubt result in a flame war, but I just have to point out that your "real evidence" isn't at all that trustworthy.

 

You've offered a column from the guardian as objective evidence (among others)?

Well what if someone said any woman (or man) watching their weight is vain, stupid and ignorant, and offered this as proof, does that mean it is true? :roll:

 

Also, your wikipedia heading lists "Nazi Attitudes towards Christianity" whereas you were meaning the opposite?

You seem to not understand the context of what was happening in Nazi Germany at the time, or how they attempted to abuse Christianity (in that both Protestantism and Catholicism).

 

Now I realise that, as a Canadian, European history may not have been a detailed subject in your history classes, but you might just want to think about what you're talking about and where you get your "reliable" information from.

 

..I mean this in the nicest possible way, but you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

 

 

Edit:

I would just like to add that I fully support the above post.

[Skeptical]

I never said that every Catholic supported the Nazis, or at any point implied that. I was simply adding more evidence to the pile against the Catholic Church. I would like to point out that you yourself made a dangerous generalization by assuming that every article included in the Guardian is worthless. We are discussing the Pope, and the Catholic Church, not it's adherents.

 

Please Mask, I would appreciate your attention, since I will only post this once: I do not believe that all Catholics are Nazis/Evil/Hitler loving ovary haters. I do believe (and have shown evidence to the point) that the Catholic Church is ruled by a monstrous collection of pedophile-protecting, anti-semitic liars, who happen to wear dresses and hear voices, and have actually done a pretty good job of corrupting Christianity through their edicts and disastrous public relations skills.

 

I still stand by my Wikipedia link; it supported my point that religion was used as a tool my the Nazis to control the masses, I have no idea what your problem with that is.

[obfuscator]

Yes, anti-semitics do visit Jerusalem and pray at the west wall. http://www.sacredheart.edu/pages/12234_a_pilgrimage_of_peace_pope_john_paul_ii_visit_the_holy_land.cfm

 

I'm done arguing though. With every respective post you only prove further how determined you are to attack the church in every way, shape and form and there's no reason to debate with someone who refuses to see things from the other's point of view.

 

Oh, here's an interesting link for you. It's the transcript of a debate about religion...like what one should actually be like, where they respect each other and don't make ridiculous accusations. http://pewforum.org/Belief-in-God/Can-Civilization-Survive-Without-God-.aspx

[Jaffy1]

I never said that every Catholic supported the Nazis, or at any point implied that. I was simply adding more evidence to the pile against the Catholic Church. I would like to point out that you yourself made a dangerous generalization by assuming that every article included in the Guardian is worthless. We are discussing the Pope, and the Catholic Church, not it's adherents.

 

The point of the article is to show that columns are, by definition, not objective and therefore not proof.

You evidently also do not know what the Catholic Church is.

 

Oh, and while we're on the topic of the Catholic Church, I can also add their support of the Nazis:

 

You claim that wikipedia article supports the above quote. You are wrong, and even twisted what you were trying to say with it. You are refusing to educate yourself, and you do not know what you're talking about, so I will no longer respond to you since it will be meaningless flaming against a brick wall of obstinacy and ignorance.

 

I'm sorry that I may sound a tad frustrated, but what you're saying is downright insulting.

[obfuscator]

Well both people that replied to my question said that the church resembles a government rather then a religion.

 

Is this a corner case that aims to discredit the whole organization, or is this evidence that the whole organization is flawed?

 

 

To catholics, I still want to know where Jesus preached celibacy, hatred towards homosexuals, forcing righteousness on your neighbors, and birth control being wrong. If no quotes are provided for these I stand by my belief that the church is a tool used by people to force their morality on others.

 

 

Please educate yourself... or read the above posts that already answered this.

Also, I was never taught I was to hate homosexuals, force anything on anyone, or that I couldn't use birth control... I think you have the wrong religion there. :rolleyes:

 

There is a distinct difference between Bible, Pope, and religion in practice.

 

If you yourself admit this was not told by God yet the church does this then it is evil. Just looking at how [cabbage]ty the church treated their fellow man when they had absolute power is my evidence for that.

 

And I was trying to educate myself by asking the question. And yes but the problem with the religion is the morality it imposes on those who dont necessarily follow the religion. For example, it IS good to give a 10% tithe to the church so you OUGHT to do so. Homosexualility IS immoral so you OUGHT not be homosexual. Sex outside of marriage IS immoral so you OUGHT not have sex outside of a marriage.

 

The fundamental flaw with moralility is that it is generally forceful, to someone who agrees that something IS good, there is a force that makes them OUGHT to do it. This IS-OUGHT gap shows the flaw of morality in that it is generally forcing people who agree with the morals do follow them but it goes a step further. Morality tends to force itself on those who do not believe in those subjective morals, the prime example is the abortion issue. Prolifers are trying to put their morals over that of Prochoicers who simply say everyone deserves to choose their own morals.

 

If you'd care to read my post you might understand the situation a little better from the minds of those with the morals.

[obfuscator]

 

It's hard for people to see - but when you beleive in something like religion, apostolate, or missionary work (forcing down people's throats) is part in parcel with belief.

 

I'll use an example. Let's say you found out that tomorrow a virus would hit the world that would anihilate the entire population in hours. The only way to protect against this virus is to drink a litre of ketchup the day before. You know this for certain fact.

 

Sounds ridiculous, right? To many, it is ridiculous.

 

But I ask you this. What would you do? Would you drink your litre of ketchup and be the last man alive on earth? Or would you try to get the word out, to tell people..because you feel you have a duty to humanity to save them from something that could be avoided? Is it a desire to force people to be like you? Or is it an overwhelming urge to do something good for your fellow man based on your beleifs?

 

The failure to recognize the motivation behind religion is one of the biggest failures of contemporary liberal society. Add that in with a tendency to hold the church to far higher standards than any other organization while simultanously discrediting them as an organization better than any other leads to ever increasing slandering of the church's motives.

[obfuscator]

 

It's hard for people to see - but when you beleive in something like religion, apostolate, or missionary work (forcing down people's throats) is part in parcel with belief.

 

I'll use an example. Let's say you found out that tomorrow a virus would hit the world that would anihilate the entire population in hours. The only way to protect against this virus is to drink a litre of ketchup the day before. You know this for certain fact.

 

Sounds ridiculous, right? To many, it is ridiculous.

 

But I ask you this. What would you do? Would you drink your litre of ketchup and be the last man alive on earth? Or would you try to get the word out, to tell people..because you feel you have a duty to humanity to save them from something that could be avoided? Is it a desire to force people to be like you? Or is it an overwhelming urge to do something good for your fellow man based on your beleifs?

 

The failure to recognize the motivation behind religion is one of the biggest failures of contemporary liberal society. Add that in with a tendency to hold the church to far higher standards than any other organization while simultanously discrediting them as an organization better than any other leads to ever increasing slandering of the church's motives.

 

And what is the force that religion is saving non followers from?

 

 

Religion has always been about good vs. evil - heaven vs. hell, etc. I don't know what else it could possibly be about....