Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS in Africa. (1 Viewer)

[Tully B.]

You just pick parts and don't read everything that's written, hence you get a warped interpretation.

There is, however, one difference with Christianity. Once you break the rules you can be forgiven:

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
1 John 1:9

So no your not "fucked."


Educating people on the value of both abstinence and condom use (as well as providing condoms) would yield the best results

I agree with you, however, in my opinion the Church shouldn't be expected to do this.

When he said "abstain or you're fucked", I'm pretty sure he meant physically dead, not spiritually dead.

"Educating people on the value of both abstinence and condom use (as well as providing condoms) would yield the best results"
These "results" are human lives, Kalamari, so yes, it is the Church's responsibility. Instead, they do almost the exact opposite, preventing the education of the masses. We never said that they should do the educating, but why oh why do they have to prevent it???

 

[ablle]

You just pick parts and don't read everything that's written, hence you get a warped interpretation.

You said the Church teaches what it views as important. It teaches abstinence but not condom use. Therefore one could conclude that the Church does not view condom use as important. That's fine, but when it actively teaches that condoms are bad (as it apparently does) or prevents education on the merits of condom use simply because the Bible says so, despite the fact that condoms help prevent HIV...sounds like the Church is valuing its morals over the lives of people to me...

 

[Tully B.]

You said the Church teaches what it views as important. It teaches abstinence but not condom use. Therefore one could conclude that the Church does not view condom use as important. That's fine, but when it actively teaches that condoms are bad (as it apparently does) or prevents education on the merits of condom use simply because the Bible says so, despite the fact that condoms help prevent HIV...sounds like the Church is valuing its morals over the lives of people to me...

That's because it is.

 

[kalamari]

I did not say the Church should break with its teachings per se because I didn't say that the Church ought to preach that people should have sex out of marriage. What I said it should teach is don't have sex out of marriage, but if you do break this moral, for your own safety, use a condom.

I was not referring to the rule about sex outside of marriage. Instead its teachings on contraceptives.

This is a debate over opinion. We are looking at the validity of each others' opinion. The issue rests within this realm. The problem is that, in Africa, the Church substitutes facts for its own opinion and contributes to harm being caused. It also preaches very controversial material to people not educationally/intellectually equipped to deal with it critically and make their own mind up and make informed decisions. They actually do not have a fullfreedom, as you claim. Knowledge liberates; falsity enslaves.

I agree that the answer is education. However, I don't agree that the Catholic Church can be responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa (which is what this argument is about).

You make many valid points, but i still disagree that the Catholic Church can be held accountable. I doubt we will ever see eye to eye on this highly debatable topic.

This will probably be my last post on this topic as i find myself repeating what i have already written again and again. Thankyou to everyone who expressed their opinions and bothered to stand for what they believed.

I have come to the conclusion that in order to reduce the incidence of HIV/AIDS in society a combination of both abstinence education and condom education needs to be implemented into society. However, I do not think it is fair to expect that this condom education come from the Catholic Church. As I also do not think its justified to blame the Catholic church from the magnitude of HIV/AIDS in Africa.

 

[Tully B.]

I have come to the conclusion that in order to reduce the incidence of HIV/AIDS in society a combination of both abstinence education and condom education needs to be implemented into society. However, I do not think it is fair to expect that this condom education come from the Catholic Church. As I also do not think its justified to blame the Catholic church from the magnitude of HIV/AIDS in Africa.

We were never saying that the Church should educate people about condoms, but can you not agree with me in saying it is wrong for them to prevent the education of the African people with regards to contraception? (Which is what they do)

Please answer this question, for if you do agree, then I would like to see how you get out of agreeing with us in saying the Church is partly responsible for the magnitude of AIDS in Africa.

EDIT: I do think that the fact that you have come to that conclusion, at least, is quite honorable.

 

[kalamari]

We were never saying that the Church should educate people about condoms, but can you not agree with me in saying it is wrong for them to prevent the education of the African people with regards to contraception? (Which is what they do)

Please answer this question, for if you do agree, then I would like to see how you get out of agreeing with us in saying the Church is partly responsible for the magnitude of AIDS in Africa.

EDIT: I do think that the fact that you have come to that conclusion, at least, is quite honorable.

I think its honorable that you have accepted my conclusion, I still the don't think the Church holds responsibility. I will however acknowledge that i it does partially influence the decision making of individuals, this influence can be both good and bad. What impact this has had on the magnitude of aids is-in my opinion-impossible to determine because of the wealth of unreliable, contrasting evidence for both sides of the argument.

 

[Sir-BigBoyJames]

I don't believe the church holds any direct responsibly. however, the church does feed off the vast ignorant dolts in sub Sahara Africa.

At the end of the day its the individual that makes the final decision NOT the church, and therefore the buck stops with the individual.

 

[MaNiElla]

 

[moll.]

You do if you want me to take your opinion seriously. Otherwise I might as well base my morals on LoTR and claim that they are 100% right.

OH MY GOD.
Best idea ever.
"You must seek salvation for your souls, you men of Gondor! You must seek purity of mind and soul, and strive towards the past glories reaped by the Numenorians of eons past!
Be wary though, lest ye stray from the path and fall into the arms of the Dark Lord, Sauron, becoming another of his minion Orcs, tromented for eternity in the very fires of Mount Doom!
Listen only ye to the angelic Elves, for it they who are the messengers of the godly Vala and it is only they who can lead you after death to the diamond cities and pearl-waters of Aman, the distant Homeland!
Cast not the net of your followers wide though, for the Creators, the Vala, care not for the stunted and deformed creatures of this world, the "Hobbits" and the "Dwarves". These ceatures are not human, but instead are the warped and imperfect imaginings of the Vala which have clung to life in the dark corners of the world since the Beginning. They are not worthy of the golden streets of Aman, and The Lords beseech ye to not associate with them!"

 

[Tully B.]

I think its honorable that you have accepted my conclusion, I still the don't think the Church holds responsibility. I will however acknowledge that i it does partially influence the decision making of individuals, this influence can be both good and bad. What impact this has had on the magnitude of aids is-in my opinion-impossible to determine because of the wealth of unreliable, contrasting evidence for both sides of the argument.

Even if they have had an overall positive impact on AIDS in Africa (which I don't think they have), do you agree with me in saying that if they ceased preventing the education of the African people, it would have a positive impact?

It doesn't matter if they are a positive influence as well, if you agree with the above statement, then you must also agree that the Church's influence is having a negative impact on the enormity of the problem, even if it is having a positive impact as well.

We'll never agree on whether the negative impact outweighs the positive impact, but do you agree that there is a negative impact?

... some of these questions mean the same thing, so you don't have to answer all of them. It would be nice though.

 

[kalamari]

Even if they have had an overall positive impact on AIDS in Africa (which I don't think they have), do you agree with me in saying that if they ceased preventing the education of the African people, it would have a positive impact?

It doesn't matter if they are a positive influence as well, if you agree with the above statement, then you must also agree that the Church's influence is having a negative impact on the enormity of the problem, even if it is having a positive impact as well.

We'll never agree on whether the negative impact outweighs the positive impact, but do you agree that there is a negative impact?

... some of these questions mean the same thing, so you don't have to answer all of them. It would be nice though.

Yes and yes again.

 

[Tully B.]

Yes and yes again.

Yes?

Ummm.... but that was my whole point. Does that mean you concede? That you admit the Catholic Church has negatively influenced the spread of AIDs in Africa? I'm confused, and that confusion is only augmented by your changed Profile Picture. Is that really you, Kalamari?

Well, it would be boring if that were true. I want Iron to come back.

 

[cutemouse]

And what's wrong with that? Sex is great. You should try it sometime!

Are you saying that it hasn't caused ANY problems at all?

 

[SylviaB]

Also, condoms are useless if individuals choose not to use them.

FACEPALM.JPG.

"Individuals" can't use condoms, not because they don't want to, but catholics are preventing their access to them.

Donating contraception WORKS.

Fact: Claims that the Bible is unverifiable are unverifiable.

Um, no they're not.
Some facts:
You can't prove jesus was resurrected.
You can't prove Jesus was born born of a virgin.
You can't prove Jesus performed miracles.
You can't even prove your god exists.

Nothing unverifiable here, unless you can prove otherwise.

Fact: Historians class the Bible as an historical document. Although it is true that it is a debatable topic, it will always be classed as an Historical document.

No, it's not. You just pulled that straight out of your arse.
Only theologians do.

Fact: I never said we didn't evolve.

true, but I'm saying it's not being disrespectful to say that we evolved.

Fact: Individuals have free will.

1. Not really, you know, the whole omnipotence thing.
2. If god doesn't want me to do something, then why the hell not just tell me himself not to do it, instead of 2000 years worth of hearsay.
3. This whole idea of free will and god is like locking someone in a room until they almost starve to death, and then bringing in some poisoned food, telling them it's poisoned and that thye shouldn't eat it, and then blaming them for eating it and saying, "It's not my fault! he had free will!"

There is just as much evidence supporting the integrity of the Bible as their is against it.

There is no evidence for the bible, but there is evidence against it.

Also wouldn't it be common sense to abstain from sex until marriage in a society that is riddled with HIV/AIDS?

Sure, but teaching abstinance doesn't work.
And you're a total bastard if you act all righteous and deny them help because they want to have sex before marriage.

My way of proving this comes from the Bible and everything it tells us about sex.
Since you question the Bible then I doubt you will accept this as proof.

It's not proof though. By your logic what the Hindu religious texts say about sex is also proof, no?

Once again, you also have no way of proving that it is not.

You are a fucking moron. Seriously.

You can't disprove unicorns, therefore they exist. You can't disprove fairies, therefore tehy exists. You see where I'm going with this, right.

Again my opinion reflects the ideas expressed in the Bible. In genesis we see that man was made in God's image and not in the image of the animals. Man is distinct from the animals and thus sex should not merely be seen as an animal instinct.

HUMANS ARE ANIMALS THAT EVOLVED LIKE ANY OTHER ANIMAL.
therefore, you are wrong.

God commanded man to be productive and increase in number. The fact that sex is pleasurable allows man to fulfill God's wishes in an intimate, enjoyable way.

1. Why not make sex pleasurable only for amrried people? God could do that, but chooses not to, because he's a cruel bastard who likes to unfairly test people.
2.God could just make you people from scratch if he wanted to, meaning the idea of making us have sex to reproduce is totally redundant.
Sex is because of evolution. Sex is because of evolution. Sex is because of evolution. Sex is because of evolution. Sex is because of evolution.
Denying this is plain delusional and goes against facts.


--------------------------------------------------------

.: Morality is immoral.

I mean that it's undeniably immoral to deny aid to millions of people because of personal qualms with contraception, even though there's no harm done to anyone by them (contraceptives).

I think you'll find that there's a broad consensus across all good and enduring cultural norms that seek peace, love and compassion rather than violence, hate and greed.

Yeah...and?

Such damaging, relative and selfish views as expressed by Sylvester all started with those pesky protestants.

Wtf?????????

Men are not saved by faith alone - a mere internal flicker of a thought - but this must be matched with deeds. We must not be of the world, but we cant help but be in it!

Clarify this, please.

 

[moll.]

Are you saying that it hasn't caused ANY problems at all?

Nah it has.
It caused you.

 

[Lentern]

All proud whites should be proud of what the proud white Catholic white church has done for the white race by eliminating the blacks.

How should Pius Ncube feel about it?

 

[Cookie182]

If god didn't want us to have the desire to fuck anything that moves, then why the hell make us evolve to have these desires.

It's a test lol

 

[kalamari]

FACEPALM.JPG.

"Individuals" can't use condoms, not because they don't want to, but catholics are preventing their access to them.

Donating contraception WORKS.



Um, no they're not.
Some facts:
You can't prove jesus was resurrected.
You can't prove Jesus was born born of a virgin.
You can't prove Jesus performed miracles.
You can't even prove your god exists.

Nothing unverifiable here, unless you can prove otherwise.


No, it's not. You just pulled that straight out of your arse.
Only theologians do.



true, but I'm saying it's not being disrespectful to say that we evolved.


1. Not really, you know, the whole omnipotence thing.
2. If god doesn't want me to do something, then why the hell not just tell me himself not to do it, instead of 2000 years worth of hearsay.
3. This whole idea of free will and god is like locking someone in a room until they almost starve to death, and then bringing in some poisoned food, telling them it's poisoned and that thye shouldn't eat it, and then blaming them for eating it and saying, "It's not my fault! he had free will!"


There is no evidence for the bible, but there is evidence against it.




Sure, but teaching abstinance doesn't work.
And you're a total bastard if you act all righteous and deny them help because they want to have sex before marriage.



It's not proof though. By your logic what the Hindu religious texts say about sex is also proof, no?


You are a fucking moron. Seriously.

You can't disprove unicorns, therefore they exist. You can't disprove fairies, therefore tehy exists. You see where I'm going with this, right.

HUMANS ARE ANIMALS THAT EVOLVED LIKE ANY OTHER ANIMAL.
therefore, you are wrong.

1. Why not make sex pleasurable only for amrried people? God could do that, but chooses not to, because he's a cruel bastard who likes to unfairly test people.
2.God could just make you people from scratch if he wanted to, meaning the idea of making us have sex to reproduce is totally redundant.
Sex is because of evolution. Sex is because of evolution. Sex is because of evolution. Sex is because of evolution. Sex is because of evolution.
Denying this is plain delusional and goes against facts.


--------------------------------------------------------



I mean that it's undeniably immoral to deny aid to millions of people because of personal qualms with contraception, even though there's no harm done to anyone by them (contraceptives).

Yeah...and?


Wtf?????????

Clarify this, please.

Sylvester learn to read the posts where we have discussed just about everything you mentioned here.

Also your argument is stupid

"Nothing unverifiable here, unless you can prove otherwise."

You cant prove that any of it didn't happen.

If you want to have a deep and meaningful conversation about God, go speak to:

a) Someone at your school that teaches religion
b) Someone who is an active participant in the Church community.
c) Anyone who is willing to listen to what you have to say (and no, at this present time, that person is not me.)

"HUMANS ARE ANIMALS THAT EVOLVED LIKE ANY OTHER ANIMAL.
therefore, you are wrong."

I look at it from a Biblical perspective, you look at it from an evolutionary perspective. Therefore I am not wrong, you are just unwilling to accept other people's views.

I was never disrespectful of your opinions at all. But you continued to be disrespectful towards mine. Why don't you read posts from Tully B. and Empyrean444 to learn how to conduct an argument whilst still be respectful of another persons view. In the meantime:

"You are a fucking moron. Seriously."

 

[Cookie182]

Way to respect the opinions of others....

1. Prove that it's not and that your interpretation is not "Completely batshit insane and backwards."

2. I never said it wasn't possible to share love with someone and not be married. I said it wasn't possible to experience the true joy of sexual interaction outside a monogamous marriage.

4. "Sex is merely evolution's ways of making organisms want to procreate. Nothing more."

I'm sorry to read that this is your interpretation on sex as I believe there is much more to it.

Two points here:

1) There is no 'presumption' of respect for others opinion, other then their liberty to hold it. You confuse tolerance with respect, which is a common case. Tolerance, at the bare minimum implies that someone with the power to interfere/stop something consciously chooses not to. Beyond that, it implies nothing about that person's feeling toward something. Respect entails an element of positively, it takes much more effort to 'respect' something and if a belief on its own is based on irrationality/evil etc, then it is not always possible to respect it (Do you respect racism or Nazism?). The only respect I think a liberal person can offer is the right to believe something, this is acceptable. However, be wary not to confuse this right with the right not to be criticised on that belief, they are completely separate. Religious people often assume that their belief should be automatically respected in its entirety (and this should not be the case). The belief can however be positive enough to earn the right to respect, but this is not a presumption. A common reason for this is that religion often goes beyond the liberty of others by making harmful judgements of people, propagating separation and conflict and so often being 'imposed' through laws or 'social norms' within an uneducated population (i.e. Africa). Therefore, as it is often directly affecting others (or breeds an ideology to do so), it is widely open to critical analysis and should be challenged accordingly.

2) The rest of your points were completely subjective, despite the irrational basis of speaking about a 'feeling' you have never experienced. Sexual gratification within or out of a marriage 'feels' no different (MRI scans of brain activity during/after sex etc could confirm this). Additionally, marriage has 0 correlations to God- it’s a legal and morally illusive social institution created purely by man. Anything you proceed to quote from the 'Gospels' is also, 'man's' interpretation of a 'heavenly' bodies thoughts (fair lol when you put it like that), in which, there is absolute zero evidence for. Your biology will reject these statements as there are deep set cognitive mechanisms within your neurology which have created this idea of 'religion' as a reality and subsequently any rejection of this thought or dismissal as an illusion is painstakingly difficult. That however does not mean it isn't a delusion, and I don't have to prove that God exists. Why? Because I am holding the only sensible and rational default opinion available, and that is, given 0 evidence, it is not intelligent to conclude the existence of a God never lone the imposition of man-made, millennia old ethics in his good name.

Neurology is currently in the process of proving scientifically that 'religion' is created fundamentally through a complex interplay of cognitive mechanisims within the brain, which well explains its widespread prominence still in this age (due to the fact that it is easier to accept then reject). See-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg

 

[kalamari]

Yes?

Ummm.... but that was my whole point. Does that mean you concede? That you admit the Catholic Church has negatively influenced the spread of AIDs in Africa? I'm confused, and that confusion is only augmented by your changed Profile Picture. Is that really you, Kalamari?

Well, it would be boring if that were true. I want Iron to come back.

You should know better Tully. I don't concede:

I think its honorable that you have accepted my conclusion, I still the don't think the Church holds responsibility. I will however acknowledge that i it does partially influence the decision making of individuals, this influence can be both good and bad. What impact this has had on the magnitude of aids is-in my opinion-impossible to determine because of the wealth of unreliable, contrasting evidence for both sides of the argument.

That is my overall opinion on this topic and no amount of persuasive, well worded questions will change that at this present point in time. I will however, continue to research the topic further.