|
Post by Stal on Apr 26, 2012 13:08:59 GMT -5
Now here is where I disagree. When you spread disinformation that hurts people, it is your responsibility to own up to your mistakes and tell the truth. They almost did, quite halfheartedly, one might even say in a lukewarm manner if one wanted to be cute about it. Actually, I didn't say that I think they shouldn't own up to their mistakes. One can speak factually and truthfully and own up to what you did. And they should. Deception is wrong, period. But that doesn't have to transfer to supporting them (coming out in favor of). And that's what I said I don't think they need to do
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Apr 26, 2012 13:26:49 GMT -5
The spreading of incorrect information of the Catholic Church is definitely wrong.
But that's definitely a far cry from being religion being responsible for killing people, which I think was Sarn's point about religion not being a huge factor of the leading causes of death. Because we're talking about a fraction of people within a group that's only half of Christians (since the Pope isn't really part of any non-Catholic Christianity), which is a way smaller group than religion as a whole. And that's not even factoring in the other diseases Sarn mentioned, heart disease and malaria, which I'm pretty sure religion's doing a bigger job of helping than hurting.
|
|
|
Post by Enn on Apr 26, 2012 13:38:39 GMT -5
Nah, like I said, it'd be amazing if they did (come out in favour of birth control to stop disease spread), but I think most people can understand why the Catholic Church is not going to do a full 180 on their teachings on condoms in a short time. Just in case it came off that way, I'm not saying there's any active duty on them at the start of things. But then there's lying about condoms and HIV, and with those marks against them, I kinda expect some strides forwards to make up for them. I guess the 'maybe, very specific people could use condoms to start with' from the Pope is kind of that. Not to mention the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only programs in stopping HIV... If I was in a position to encourage people to use condoms, protection that would help reduce the spread of HIV, I would consider that the morally correct thing to do and do it. If your moral code or religion actively to not use birth control, I guess that's your choice. But that shouldn't be a choice clouded with lies.
|
|
|
Post by Enn on Apr 26, 2012 13:46:57 GMT -5
The spreading of incorrect information of the Catholic Church is definitely wrong. But that's definitely a far cry from being religion being responsible for killing people, which I think was Sarn's point about religion not being a huge factor of the leading causes of death. Because we're talking about a fraction of people within a group that's only half of Christians (since the Pope isn't really part of any non-Catholic Christianity), which is a way smaller group than religion as a whole. And that's not even factoring in the other diseases Sarn mentioned, heart disease and malaria, which I'm pretty sure religion's doing a bigger job of helping than hurting. Well, I mean the Pope's word does have a major impact on a huge amount of people. About 1.2 billion apparently in the Catholic Church, and no way is it a 'tiny fraction' of Catholics who are influenced by his view on condoms. Sure, religions and charities do superb work with a lot of issues. And there's no inherent duty to promote condom use on them, although there should be at least the moral duty to not lie about them. It's just, you know, one of those things where it'd be fantastic if they did change because of the lives it could save.
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Apr 26, 2012 13:54:22 GMT -5
Well, I mean the Pope's word does have a major impact on a huge amount of people. About 1.2 billion apparently in the Catholic Church, and no way is it a 'tiny fraction' of Catholics who are influenced by his view on condoms. I didn't say his views only affected a tiny fraction of Catholics. I was saying incorrect information spread by Catholic priests causes only a small fraction of the people overall who die from AIDS, because obviously not everyone who believes condoms are laced with HIV will actually contract AIDS in their lifetimes.
|
|
|
Post by Enn on Apr 26, 2012 14:01:29 GMT -5
Well, I mean the Pope's word does have a major impact on a huge amount of people. About 1.2 billion apparently in the Catholic Church, and no way is it a 'tiny fraction' of Catholics who are influenced by his view on condoms. I didn't say his views only affected a tiny fraction of Catholics. I was saying incorrect information spread by Catholic priests causes only a small fraction of the people overall who die from AIDS, because obviously not everyone who believes condoms are laced with HIV will actually contract AIDS in their lifetimes. I see what you mean now. It's not just incorrect information, as there have been active steps to stop condom distribution which I believe Teow linked to before, but of course we're not talking about loads of people being affected like this- but it is going to kill some people, which is where there's a huge problem.
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Apr 26, 2012 14:05:53 GMT -5
Now here is where I disagree. When you spread disinformation that hurts people, it is your responsibility to own up to your mistakes and tell the truth. They almost did, quite halfheartedly, one might even say in a lukewarm manner if one wanted to be cute about it. Actually, I didn't say that I think they shouldn't own up to their mistakes. One can speak factually and truthfully and own up to what you did. And they should. Deception is wrong, period. But that doesn't have to transfer to supporting them (coming out in favor of). And that's what I said I don't think they need to do Well, in this case it sort of does, doesn't it? They said condoms could not stop the transmission of HIV. Admitting their mistake would mean going on the record as admitting condoms are an effective means of preventing transmission of AIDS. The infected condoms quote was from Kenya, where 7 out of every hundred will contract AIDS and 4 out of 5 will not be treated. About a third of the population there is Catholic. The impact must be significant, even if we can't know the exact numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Yoyti on Apr 26, 2012 16:36:55 GMT -5
Well... this is a lot of new information. Sorry if I missed something, I'll go over it again in a bit, but I wanted to get this out there before you started thinking I disappeared.
I agree that freethoughtpedia is quite opinionated, my main point being that it is still worth reading. I never liked The Catcher in the Rye, but I still think it was worth reading. I don't very much like a fair bit of what Douglas Hofstader says, but I still read his books. I don't like the bible, but I know a fair bit more of it than most of my friends (or at least, of the parts which aren't open to interpretation, which basically means mostly the Torah (which is a good story, even though it drags on more than Victor Hugo ;D))
My point is basically that it's good to read things that you don't agree with. Obviously, you don't want to read it all the time, but sometimes it's good to see what other people think, and on the internet, wikias are second only to forums on this account, as they can be edited by many people.
In the future, I will try to be more tactful about what I cite. If you'd like revenge on me, feel free to link me to a corresponding religious website. ~~~ Regarding religion playing a role in death, well, again, freethoughtpedia is opinionated, I've agreed to that. And it seems you've discussed the issue at length while I've been away.
As far as I can gather, and correct me if I'm mistaken, the church discourages condom use because it's a contraceptive, and those prevent pregnancy, thus ending a human life (does this mean sperms have souls? Or maybe the sperm has half a soul and the egg has another half?). As a side effect of this, however, STDs spread because of the distinct lack of condom.
The implication of this to me is that the church does not promote recreational intercourse. In that case, with coitus being only for procreation, both partners should be tested for STDs (and other potential health problems as well) before engaging in copulation, even if only for the baby's sake. So I won't weigh the church too heavily on this count. If you choose to never use a condom, you should be more careful about your fornication life. The church may speak out against condoms, but as far as I'm aware, they don't speak out against medical tests. That's not to say I'm completely on the side of the church, but they're not as involved here as in other areas.
Regarding faith healing, before I was born, and I found this out last year, my mother's uncle had died because he put too much stock into faith healing. I'm fine if you pray for healing, but I'd be much more comfortable if you also got the medicine. When it comes to things like this, I'm all for maximizing your chance of survival. But I am aware that there are churches which advocate people praying instead of getting the medicine, and there is at least one documentary on the subject.
Faith healing does offer a placebo effect at the very least. And placebos have been shown to be very effective in certain cases. So if you have a migraine headache, I won't stop you if you want to pray instead of reaching for the advil (but if you want both, that's good too). But a migraine headache isn't deadly, and as I've previously stated, I'm a big proponent of maximizing your chances of survival. So, again, I don't have a problem with the prayer, so long as it's done in addition to taking the medicine.
On a slightly different topic, there is a (mostly) possible test which could be done to see if prayer has any effect, but it would require getting the entire world to stop praying for the sick during the experiment, so as to make sure it's controlled, and that is the impossible part. ~~~ Saeryena, would you feel that I'm responsible for the bacteria in my intestine? If one of them breaks their pseudopod, am I liable?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2012 16:53:26 GMT -5
This seems to boil down to one simple dilemma for Catholics. Is the cost of sexual sin high enough to give it priority over not supporting something that has been proven to prevent the spread of a deadly disease.
The answer for me is quite obviously no, because I don't have a problem with birth control, and I do think that since people are going to be having sex anyway, we might as well do everything in our power to keep them safe.
It's like when I took my little brother to the pool. He didn't want to stay in the little pool, he wanted to go in the big one that he couldn't touch the bottom of. I kept bringing him back to the little pool but he was so insistent that I eventually found a floating ring and put it around his middle. He was heading for deep water, and it was my responsibility as a member of his family and a fellow human being to make sure I kept him safe. Plus my parents would've skinned me alive if I hadn't. xD
The dilemma for the Catholics is slightly different, but I think I would still like them to come to the conclusion that not saving lives trumps not using condoms on the list of really bad sins. The whole reason Christians go into mission work is because we believe our fellow humans - all humans - have infinite value and deserve the chance to live long and healthy lives and the chance to know God in the process. I fail to understand why the value of human lives suddenly disappears when a controversial issue like condoms comes up. :<
As an aside, does anyone actually know the Biblical justification for the whole no-condom thing? I'm pretty sure it isn't just "every sperm is a potential life", 'cause that'd be a bit ridiculous. xD
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Apr 26, 2012 17:13:14 GMT -5
If my understanding is correct, it's because lustful, non-procreative sex is sinful in official Catholicism eyes (Catholics feel free to correct). Sex is only to be used for furthering a family and out of necessity, and not something to just enjoy.
Thus since condoms prevent procreation, you're sinning by having sex just because (even as a married couple).
And I think part of the doctrine deals with the verse basically saying a man shouldn't pull out and finish on the ground. Forget the book/chapter that's in.
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Apr 26, 2012 17:24:36 GMT -5
To my knowledge non-procreative sex is considered forbidden under several interpretations: 1. that it is in violation of "go forth and multiply" 2. that sex for pleasure and not reproduction is a type of sexual immorality and is then covered by about a billion verses (debatable, for sure, other passages imply that sharing yourself with your spouse is good and don't appear to specify that it must be productive) 3. Really, really questionable interpretation of the story of Onan Or any number of other reasons, I'm sure. That is a strange defense, to say the least. In many of the poor areas hit hardest by AIDS, the money, supplies, and enough medical professionals to test everyone simply aren't available. The vast majority of people infected with HIV do not show up on tests as infected for at least 3 months. They can still spread the disease , but may not show up on tests as infected for up to half a year. Only if you don't have insurance! Yeah, this is the Onan story I mentioned. This guy Onan had a brother who died. It was his duty under law to provide an heir for his dead brother. He had sex with the widow, but intentionally pulled out. I think it's sort of shaky to apply his violation of a promise to all marital sex ever.
|
|
|
Post by Jo on Apr 26, 2012 17:29:34 GMT -5
If my understanding is correct, it's because lustful, non-procreative sex is sinful in official Catholicism eyes (Catholics feel free to correct). Sex is only to be used for furthering a family and out of necessity, and not something to just enjoy. Thus since condoms prevent procreation, you're sinning by having sex just because (even as a married couple). And I think part of the doctrine deals with the verse basically saying a man shouldn't pull out and finish on the ground. Forget the book/chapter that's in. For Jews, the law which says sperm shouldn't be wasted mostly comes from the story of Onan. He was made to marry his brothers wife when he died, but didn't want to impregnate her, so pulled out and spilled his sperm on the ground instead. But then god was angry and struck him down, so Jews believe what he did was wrong. Not sure how this applies to Christians though as I'm still not 100% sure which old testament laws Christians follow. Also in Judaism many rabbis are not against contraceptive use if it is to space out children or there is a health risk to the mother of childbirth, because sex for pleasure in Judaism is encouraged between a married couple. However most would advocate contraceptive pills instead of condoms since pills don't damage sperm, unless there was a health risk to the mother of childbirth and of the contraceptive pill.
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Apr 26, 2012 18:48:41 GMT -5
This seems to boil down to one simple dilemma for Catholics. Is the cost of sexual sin high enough to give it priority over not supporting something that has been proven to prevent the spread of a deadly disease. The answer for me is quite obviously no, because I don't have a problem with birth control, and I do think that since people are going to be having sex anyway, we might as well do everything in our power to keep them safe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought each sin has to be absolved by a priest before you died, or else you'd wind up in purgatory instead of Heaven. That's why Catholics have a confessional, right? So I think the goal is to keep people from sinning at all, just so you don't wind up sinning and then dying before a priest could absolve you. 'Course, this could be movie Catholicism creeping into my brain, but I think that's what I know from what my parents told me (and they were Catholics both before they converted to Baptism).
|
|
|
Post by Gav on Apr 26, 2012 18:53:16 GMT -5
This seems to boil down to one simple dilemma for Catholics. Is the cost of sexual sin high enough to give it priority over not supporting something that has been proven to prevent the spread of a deadly disease. The answer for me is quite obviously no, because I don't have a problem with birth control, and I do think that since people are going to be having sex anyway, we might as well do everything in our power to keep them safe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought each sin has to be absolved by a priest before you died, or else you'd wind up in purgatory instead of Heaven. That's why Catholics have a confessional, right? So I think the goal is to keep people from sinning at all, just so you don't wind up sinning and then dying before a priest could absolve you. 'Course, this could be movie Catholicism creeping into my brain, but I think that's what I know from what my parents told me (and they were Catholics both before they converted to Baptism). Well, from what little I remember, I think the whole point was that Man is unable to not sin, but confession is to absolve yourself of them. Kinda like releasing your guilt or something, I guess. I have no idea about the whole 'absolve or no heaven!' deal.
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Apr 26, 2012 19:40:40 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought each sin has to be absolved by a priest before you died, or else you'd wind up in purgatory instead of Heaven. That's why Catholics have a confessional, right? So I think the goal is to keep people from sinning at all, just so you don't wind up sinning and then dying before a priest could absolve you. 'Course, this could be movie Catholicism creeping into my brain, but I think that's what I know from what my parents told me (and they were Catholics both before they converted to Baptism). Well, Which is good, because otherwise the Catholic view of God would be as something of a nasty little martinet.
|
|