New game - Nail the Popes time of death to the board

[Optimus Prime Rib]

I agree with just about everything you said, Karl.

Smooth, youll agree with anything that says "Religion is bad. Or anything involving the US is bad."

[Kaylee]

I'm sad to think that the views I have gone to great lengths to explain have been interpreted so glibly.

[Metal Vendetta]

If you don't agree with the views of the Catholic church, why not try and change things?

Apply for the job here: http://www.bethepope.tk/

Caution, possibly nsfw.

[Brendocon]

If you don't agree with the views of the Catholic church, why not try and change things?

Apply for the job here: http://www.bethepope.tk/

Caution, possibly nsfw.

I have put forward my two nominations.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

[Professor Smooth]

I agree with just about everything you said, Karl.

Smooth, youll agree with anything that says "Religion is bad. Or anything involving the US is bad."

Nah. Just most everything. And only certain religions.

[Blacksword]

Overall I'd say John Paul II was a better Pope than most, especially for his attempts to make public repentance for past wrongs comitted by the Catholic Church, as well as his ceaseless campaigning against war. Another fact that is largely unknown in the West is that he was just as critical of unbridled Capitalism as he was of Communism (because his criticisms of Capitalism largely went undisributed here). But as progressive as he was in many areas outside of the Church, his papacy will be remembered for the iron grip which he held onto the Catholic Chruch. This Pope turned the Church away from the return to conciliarism and open discussion that saw a brief resurgence with Vatican II. This had most of its roots in John Paul's youth which was split between hostile Nazis and equally hostile Communists. He was used to a Church perpetually under attack and as a response felt that total unity was required to avoid defeat. And as such he would tollerate no dissent.

His moral views reflect the conservative side of Catholicism. A policy of not interfering in anyway in human reproduction has been Catholic doctrine ever since reliable methods of birth control first became readily available. Now I'll be the first to say given the world's population problems and the spread of HIV/AIDS, such a viewpoint is damaging to the situation, but I'll agree with Jetfire and say the Pope's statements aren't as significant as lack of education, medical facilities and cultural factors. And lets be honest here, if each person only had sex within marriage, sexual transmission of disease would not exist (assuming all persons who marry come to marraige disease free). STDs can only spread when people have multiple partners. Condoms are only a band-aid solution and not 100%. But unfortunately people will always have multiple partners and as such band-aids are needed. They may encourage promiscuity to some extent, but they do a better job of preventing the spread of disease. Lesser of two evils. But the acceptance of birth control measures is only common among Catholics in Western nations; Latin America, Africa and Asia tend to be more conservative, so John Paul certainly wasn't alone in his opinions.

Women will be ordained and the celebacy requirement will likely be dropped (in the West at least, which is where it has been more of a problem - Africa is turning out priests like there's no tommorow, many of them are now residing in Western parishes), but I don't think that John Paul in retrospect will be seen as the main opponent of these changes. If he is it will be because of his intollerance for dissent which had him ban even discussion of these issues. We'll never know the actual opinions of the world's Catholics (or at least the world's bishops). But if you go by the divisions in the Anglican church I would tend so think that the majority of Catholics outside the West would adhere to the traditionalist opinions.

Historically I think He'll be recorded amongst the greatest Popes largely because his long reign and forceful personality have left a huge imprint on the Catholic Church (nearly all the present Cardinals were appointed by him). He's historically very significant, and did make a number of revolutionary changes while resolutely holding to the status quo (even regressing - as in his authoritarian style) on other issues. A man of many contradictions to say the least.

I personally predict a caretaker Pope. An older man who'll die soon to let things quiet down after John Paul II's very active papacy. That or we'll get another relatively conservative Pope (though contrary to common belief, John Paul didn't fill the College of Cardinals with men who all thought exactly as he did, a great many conservatives and traditionalists, but not the whole lot). I hope for a Latin American or African Pope and a reformer like John XXIII who will bring a return to concilliarism (ie. having councils of bishops meet to duiscuss Church policy).

[Kaylee]

STDs can only spread when people have multiple partners.

I'm afraid that is utter rubbish. AIDS/HIV is spread mother to son through the womb, through blood donations or sharing needles through habitual drug use or unsanity hospital conditions as well as sexual intercourse. Keeping to one partner won't help, education about preventing transmission would- hence Pope not helping in the slightest by making doctrine against condoms imo.

[Blacksword]

There are other modes of transmission, but STDs, as per their designation are primarily passed by sexual intercourse, as that is the most common form of vital fluid transmission among humans. Most mothers in Africa, to use that example, who pass AIDS on to their children do so after being infected via sex with their husband who in turn got it from a prostitute. IV drugs are not much of a factor in an area where people barely have enough to subsist upon. Hospitals can only spread the disease through improper hygiene if one patient is already infected.

Diseases like syphilis did all kinds of damage long before IV drug use and medical care involving needles existed. Today those things are definitely factors, but if people had stuck by one partner, most STDs would have died out before new methods of transmission developed. My statement was based on idealized condidtions, not present realities. It's far too late for abstinance alone to halt something like AIDS, even if all practiced it. But it would go a long way to slowing it, as it is the only 100% method to ensure that sexual transmission of AIDS ends.

[Metal Vendetta]

Abstinence is all well and good in idealised circumstances but historically almost nobody has ever practised it. Not even many Popes. Everywhere you find human beings, you find them having sex with each other. And even in a monogamous relationshiip, birth control is still necessary. Catholic families everywhere struggle to bring up their 8 or 9 children, but even more so in overpopulated cities in the developing world, the very places JP has been most busy during his papacy. To deny these people the right to stop having children (through threat of damnation, no less!) is despicable behaviour and completely blind to the reality of the situation. Think of the women who go through birth after birth after birth because their faith won't allow them to consider any other possibility. Or are women still being punished by God according to Catholic lore?

Overall I'd say John Paul II was a better Pope than most, especially for his attempts to make public repentance for past wrongs comitted by the Catholic Church, as well as his ceaseless campaigning against war.

He was a better Pope than most, though the standard is pretty low, with occasional exceptions. But saying sorry for excommunicating Gallileo, and admitting that the Earth goes around the sun after all, or conceding that the Spanish Inquisition was, well, a bit nasty, aren't particularly ground-shattering conclusions. Worse still, they leave me with the notion that in 400 years' time when half the planet is ******, the Vatican will finally get around to apologising for not promoting birth control when they had the chance, as if that makes it all right.

And although most of the tributes I've heard have mentioned his anti-war stance, I thought the whole point of Christianity was supposed to be about peace. If the number one Christian on the planet isn't anti-war then it's a poor state of affairs. Being anti-war is expected of a Pope, it comes with the territory.

[Blacksword]

Indeed it should, but as we all know that hasn't always been the case. Militarism seeped in and got pretty well entrenched as people slipped into the comfy, "God's on our side, you enemy scum" trap. The whole notion of a just war has also been an excuse not to protest conflicts.

And not everyone has the balls to say these things. So I'll give John Pual the credit he's due, though I did strongly diagree with a lot of his positions. Birth control among them. But on the flipside I think history will tend to hold Western nations a lot more culpable for the AIDS pandemic than the Vatican.

[Kaylee]

There are other modes of transmission, but STDs, as per their designation are primarily passed by sexual intercourse, as that is the most common form of vital fluid transmission among humans.

But it is not the only method, hence even in an ideal world abstinence will not solve the problem- which was the original thrust of your argument.

Most mothers in Africa, to use that example, who pass AIDS on to their children do so after being infected via sex with their husband who in turn got it from a prostitute.

As an aside I would be interested to see where that statement comes from as different communities in Africa have different values and different methods for primary transmission. Bearing in mind that 1 in 4 people there now suffer from that awful awful disease it would seem that you've got a pretty good chance of getting infected regardless of where you've had sex as the disease is now so firmly entrenched it is passed between drug users, hospitals and within families.

IV drugs are not much of a factor in an area where people barely have enough to subsist upon.

Again I'm sorry to say I think you're making that up. In areas of high deprivation many people (not most, but many) will turn to organised crime including drug trafficking. IIRC most of the worlds morphone/heroine comes from Africa. For some areas it could be considered a major employer.

Hospitals can only spread the disease through improper hygiene if one patient is already infected.

Which is my point entirely. Abstinence would work and solve the problem. But first we need to design a time machine to go back to the first infectee and stop him spreading it. That isn't an 'ideal world' solution, that's a fantasy.

Diseases like syphilis did all kinds of damage long before IV drug use and medical care involving needles existed. Today those things are definitely factors, but if people had stuck by one partner, most STDs would have died out before new methods of transmission developed.

Your equation that all STDs run along similar lines and principles is flawed imo. Clearing away all other STDs would not as far as I can see make any impact upon AIDS/HIV as it is a vastly different and infinitely more complex animal.

My statement was based on idealized condidtions, not present realities. It's far too late for abstinance alone to halt something like AIDS, even if all practiced it.

Which is exactly what the Pope did imo. Forget reality, it's finger wagging time, you bad sinners! Screw that, try and help them damnit rather than giving them lectures from a social high-horse.

But it would go a long way to slowing it, as it is the only 100% method to ensure that sexual transmission of AIDS ends.

So except for all the factors above, it's an ideal solution. I agree, although I think I've made it plain why I consider that to be nonsense.

Western nations a lot more culpable for the AIDS pandemic than the Vatican.

I quite agree. I fail to see however how that exonerates the Pope from all blame for his role in it.

[Best First]

And lets be honest here, if each person only had sex within marriage, sexual transmission of disease would not exist (assuming all persons who marry come to marraige disease free). STDs can only spread when people have multiple partners. Condoms are only a band-aid solution and not 100%. But unfortunately people will always have multiple partners and as such band-aids are needed. They may encourage promiscuity to some extent, but they do a better job of preventing the spread of disease. Lesser of two evils

Yes, having multiple partners is evil...

[Brendocon]

And lets be honest here, if each person only had sex within marriage, sexual transmission of disease would not exist (assuming all persons who marry come to marraige disease free). STDs can only spread when people have multiple partners

Okay, I've not read all the page, so I don't know who said this, but I want them to answer me, in as few words as possible, the following very simple question:

The root of your assertion is that STDs would not spread if people only had sex with one person. Given that, where do the infections originate from?

To rephrase: What is the source of each STI?

You have stated that STDs can only spread when people have multiple partners. But one person must have been the first person to contract the condition, it stands to logical reason. In your belief, if this person only has sex with one other person, they cannot spread the STD to that person. This is what you have said. It may not be what you meant, but it is what you have said.

So, to summarise, where do the diseases come from in the first place?

[Metal Vendetta]

...not everyone has the balls to say these things. So I'll give John Pual the credit he's due, though I did strongly diagree with a lot of his positions. Birth control among them. But on the flipside I think history will tend to hold Western nations a lot more culpable for the AIDS pandemic than the Vatican.

You're probably right - but then I still think a lot of the issues originate from a high-handed religious standpoint. The US denying aid funds to organisations that might offer abortions to poor women in desperate situations, for example, still smacks of religious colonialism and a misguided missionary mentality.

[Kaylee]

Rob and Blacksword... agreeing? On anything?!

We're into dangerous and uncharted water here, Cap'n!

[BB Shockwave]

You're probably right - but then I still think a lot of the issues originate from a high-handed religious standpoint. The US denying aid funds to organisations that might offer abortions to poor women in desperate situations, for example, still smacks of religious colonialism and a misguided missionary mentality.

Many people don'T know (or pretend not to know about it) but even the catholic church allows abortion in certain cases: like when the life of the mother is threatened,or if said women was raped and naturally doesn't want a kid from that man.

What exactly do you mean under the term "poor women"? Some of the above?

[Metal Vendetta]

By poor women I mean those who don't have the money or social circumstances to take care of the problem themselves - those in the developing world that need overseas aid. The Catholic church may allow abortion in those circumstances you mentioned but many women in Africa, for example, will have no access to the facilities required, largely due to the ****-headed religious-right stance of the Bush administration:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa051601b.htm

[BB Shockwave]

Ahh,I heard of this. These are organisations like the one that runs the "abortion boat" right? Providing abortion to those who can't afford the money or live in a state that bans abortion.

Thing is, abortion is people choosing about the life or death of a human, and it's pretty hard to judge when is it justifiable. As Magnus would say it, "Iwouldn't want that responsibility."

[Metal Vendetta]

As Bill Hicks said, "People suck, there are too many of them and it's easier to kill them when they're foetuses".

[Scraplet]

"Thing is, abortion is people choosing about the life or death of a human, and it's pretty hard to judge when is it justifiable. As Magnus would say it, "Iwouldn't want that responsibility."

Anyone considering abortion is probably in a desperate situation. Desperate situations often involve taking responsibility for desperate choices whether you want that responsibility or not. However, its their reponsbility and, most importantly, their choice. Not George Bush or the Catholic church.

As an aside, why do 'pro-lifers' generally support the death penalty and (in the US anyway) want to run about with guns and have the right to shoot people?

[Blacksword]

Yes, having multiple partners is evil...

Lesser of two evils is just a term Besters. It's not like you to nit pick insignificant details.

And if one wants to get technical multiple partners according to one major stream of Christian thought is a sin. Though if one were to look at the weight of material in the Bible it's not of primary concern. But it stands to reason that its a sin in part because multiple partners are required to spread STDs in the absence of hypodermic needles/blood transfusions or the rare cases of the blood of an other in an open wound etc.

Brend, you pose a good question. My knowlegde of epidemiology is limited but I would suppose that diseases that are now sexually transmitted may have originally transmitted by other methods. Flu initially enters humans from bird feces but then becomes and airborne disease spread human to human through spittle in coughs and sneezes.

Karl, my example was that of a number of women in South Africa, not the whole continent (though I should have clarified). Long distance truck drivers in that region tend to follow that pattern.

Heroine to my knowledge comes largely from Afghanistan and the sureounding areas, though I could be wrong. But in any case, yes there will always be a certain ammount of drug trafficking, but that tends to be limited to the cities in the largest part, to my knowledge at least. It's the sort of thing that will vary from country to country.

In any case my point was that abstinence is an ideal solution, in that in an ideal world it would prevent the pread of STDs, and in that sense I agree with it as a method. The other part of my point is that since we live in a less than an ideal world, we must use all methods available. Condoms will save lives, period, and need to be promoted alongside absinence, and monogamy. Abstinence is a valid solution, but condoms are more practical in the real world and will save more lives immediately. Hence why I disagree with official Catholic teachings on that issue.


However the same argument you used against absinence as an effective method of AIDS prevention go just as much against condoms save that condom use is more likely than abstinence. Which is again why their use needs to be promoted. Be careful not to argue against your own point when attacking another.

[wideload]

maybe its the 2 pitchers talking but....

cant we all just get along

some people believe in catholisism.... doenst make them bigots or homophobes.

other people dont....

[BB Shockwave]

"Thing is, abortion is people choosing about the life or death of a human, and it's pretty hard to judge when is it justifiable. As Magnus would say it, "Iwouldn't want that responsibility."

Anyone considering abortion is probably in a desperate situation. Desperate situations often involve taking responsibility for desperate choices whether you want that responsibility or not. However, its their reponsbility and, most importantly, their choice. Not George Bush or the Catholic church.

Yes and no... yes, it's partly their choice. But if they belong to a larger organisation, it's the choice of that too. If said women are catholics, it's the choice of the church too, if said woman lives in the USA, well it's Bush's choice as long as he stays president. You live in an organisation, you accept the rules.

As an aside, why do 'pro-lifers' generally support the death penalty and (in the US anyway) want to run about with guns and have the right to shoot people?

They do? I thought that was only so in Steaven Seagal movies.

[Kaylee]

However the same argument you used against absinence as an effective method of AIDS prevention go just as much against condoms save that condom use is more likely than abstinence.

So in fact the arguments don't necessarily apply.

Which is again why their use needs to be promoted. Be careful not to argue against your own point when attacking another.

But that is exactly the point I was trying to make o_O Their use needs to be *promoted* which is not what the Pope did.

So apart from the fact that abstinence promoted as an effective prevention of HIV/AIDS is a fantasy as it 'tackles' only one aspect of the problem and condom/education promotion (which I went to great lengths to give duality to, as I consider condoms to be a part of HIV/AIDS education) actually stands a chance which is what I've said from the start, I don't follow a single thread of what you've proposed, other than a good deal of theory based upon 'Well I think that...' or 'I was assuming that...'

You shouldn't make such glib assumptions about the state of the world imo. Especially not where HIV/AIDS is concerned.

[Scraplet]

"Yes and no... yes, it's partly their choice. But if they belong to a larger organisation, it's the choice of that too. If said women are catholics, it's the choice of the church too, if said woman lives in the USA, well it's Bush's choice as long as he stays president. You live in an organisation, you accept the rules."

But we all have right to disagree with rules. IF a pregnant women, having considered all options, considers abortion to be the best way then it SHOULD have nothing to do with state, church or anyone else. While that fotus cannot survive outside the body, and is entirely relient upon the woman, then the choice is hers as to whether the pregnancy continues IMO.

The church has a right to express its opinion. The state has the reponsibility to protect the rights of the child. When the state refelects the opinion of the church and disregards the rights of the individual and logical argument, then we are in dangerous territory

[Denyer]

STDs can only spread when people have multiple partners.

Come off it. I know you a) have a brain and b) are aware that STDs—particularly AIDS—are not only transmitted via sex. Looked at the statistics for childredn being born with HIV in Africa recently?

Oh, and best of luck dealing with the not-inconsiderable number of tribes who believe sex with a virgin cures AIDS. I'm not sure which is stupider: a person in a position of authority telling people that deflowering (often rape) offers a cure, or speaking out against contraception.

Whilst it would be a nice idea to sterilise the vast majority of the human race, it's impractical and narrowsighted to consider that you can sublimate sex drive in a population. It hasn't worked for many priests in positions of authority with young people; what makes anyone think that people often lacking access to basic education or safety without firearms are going to be more successful?

Pontificating from the point-of-view of Western culture (or even upon Western culture) helps nothing but self-justification.

You live in an organisation, you accept the rules.

Let's see... apartheid. Pogroms. Kristalnacht. Eugenics breeding programs.

No, you don't. Not when they interfere with biological self-determination.

abortion is people choosing about the life or death of a human, and it's pretty hard to judge when is it justifiable.

Personally I'd say it's as simple as you don't kill humans that are people. Being human doesn't equate to having a formed personality, or even a personality; as in cases such as Terry Schiavo.

some people believe in catholisism.... doenst make them bigots or homophobes.

In interpretation of church dogma, it may make them non-practising Catholics. The whole "revile as a sin" thing isn't dressed up much.

Yep, every life is equally special and full of rights. Though some more equal than others.

Beasts of England / beasts of Ireland / beasts of every land and clime / hearken to my joyful tidings of the golden future time...

[sprunkner]

I would like to believe that everyone who accepts a religion as a guide to their life does so to the best of their ability and the best of their knowledge about the religion. Certainly I found as a missionary that you couldn't
"brainwash" people. Sometimes people joined under pressure from family, but generally people believed it was right for them.

I dunno... For someone who is very religious, I don't really like to join in these conversations. My beliefs are so personal that it is hard to parade them around. It seems that we won't agree on this stuff. We're all trying to do the best we can according to some pretty deeply held convictions-- all of us, whether religious or not. Not that we shouldn't discuss it, but I'm not sure we'll agree.

Of course, Mormons believe birth control is a personal decision and abortion is okay in cases of incest, rape, or the life of the mother... and we used to have multiple partners. If, you know, you're all interested.

[BB Shockwave]

"Yes and no... yes, it's partly their choice. But if they belong to a larger organisation, it's the choice of that too. If said women are catholics, it's the choice of the church too, if said woman lives in the USA, well it's Bush's choice as long as he stays president. You live in an organisation, you accept the rules."

But we all have right to disagree with rules. IF a pregnant women, having considered all options, considers abortion to be the best way then it SHOULD have nothing to do with state, church or anyone else. While that fotus cannot survive outside the body, and is entirely relient upon the woman, then the choice is hers as to whether the pregnancy continues IMO.

The church has a right to express its opinion. The state has the reponsibility to protect the rights of the child. When the state refelects the opinion of the church and disregards the rights of the individual and logical argument, then we are in dangerous territory

I don't think that the 'state reflects the opinion of the church'. Many non-religious people have the same opinion about abortion as believers.

And about what I said by accepting the rules... If someone says "Ok, no killing, no stealing is fine by me, but my neigbour's wife is so sexy" - so said person decides that certain rules do not apply to him.

And when this happens with influential people and rules that influence other people's life as well, now , THEN are we on a dangerous territory.

Frankly, I don't agree with everything that stands in the Bible. The most discussed thing here, namely the ban on condoms, seems quite laughable to me to be frank (being a biologist, I don't think that "every sperm is sacred" as Monty Python put it well). But then, I don't plan on having any out-of marriage sex either.

[Best First]

all i can be bothered to add right now is that suggesting abstinance to prevent STDs is like banning driving to prevent car crashes...