Question for the Religious Types

[luns101]

Come now vt, you're taking some liberties now with what was actually put forth by the Vatican. Even the Guardian article that Bertros cited didn't go that far.

A few. But can you blame me? I'm fallible, plus I have a penchant for hyperbole.

[CrazyAnglican]

Ok great. But the whole path taken to get here was to do with the Vatican's stance on condom usage and the effect their inflexibility on this subject is having on the millions of faithful in the third world, where risk of infection is high and education is poorer.

Hi Bertros this was the product of a lengthy research session and I apologize in advance if it comes off as abrasive, I don’t really have time to do much more than show my findings.

Let’s look at this policy’s effect on the third world:

1) The fastest growing infection rates are in South Asia (not a highly Roman-Catholic
area)

http://www.iht.com/articles/1999/10/25/aids.2.t_0.php


The largest infected populations (in Asia) are found in these three countries:
Cambodia (2% Christian), Thailand (predominantly Buddhist with minimal Christian
Presence), and Myanmar (minimally Christian)

The lowest HIV infection rate in this area (SE Asia) is the Phillipines which is prodominantly Roman Catholic.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-52575/Myanmar
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51507.htm
http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/hiv-a ... ntry-asia/


2) In Latin American countries (as you have stated they are highly Roman Catholic, poor, with poor educational opportunities in many cases) the estimate of infected populations is under 1% with 2% being the highest estimate.

http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/hiv-a ... caribbean/

3) The situation in Africa, which is dire, is a little different, but not much.

http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/hiv-a ... ry-africa/
http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/hiv-a ... ry-africa/

Botswana (25% infection rate and only 5% Roman Catholic)
Zimbabwe (20% infection rate and only 7% Roman Catholic)


In my research I found two places that seem to fit your assessment. Here they are, I’m sure there are others, but these are the ones I found.

Zambia (20% infection rate is 25% Roman Catholic )
Namibia (19.9% infection rate and 25% Roman Catholic)

Here's an article about a Roman Catholic organization which acted proctively in Namibia that probably saved many lives in that country. You may find it interesting that they do advocate condom usage in the same way that I stated in my earlier posts on this issue.

Note the ABCD section in which they state A = Abstinence (before marriage), B=Be Faithful (in marriage), and C=condom usage (if you choose not to follow A or B), D (of course)= Death otherwise. These people are out trying to save lives, are their actions wrong merely because they do not agree with you on this issue?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_62324455

There are places in the world where large Roman Catholic populations coincide with large rates of HIV infection. This is not to say that the Roman Catholic Church can be blamed for this. There are certainly more areas with large Roman Catholic populations and low infection rates (The Phillipines, for instance, has the lowest infection rate in Southeast Asia). It's hard to see the Roman Catholic Church as the sinister, backward, and uncaring institution you suggest when you take into account the above stats and that in certain instances they have softened their stance to save lives.

I'm assuming your a protestant here and also in the group that has no problem with contraception. If so what is your thoughts on the Vatican's stance? Does your acceptance of religious doctrine as a whole allow you to feel comfortable with the more authoritarian and insensitve aspects of Catholicism or do you like me find these unpalatable?

I realize you were speaking to Daddy1gringo. I hope you will both forgive me for answering, but I am a protestant and I don’t see the harm in using contraception (I’m sure OnlyAmbrose will enlighten me at some point). In light of the above data though, I don’t see that it matters much. Bottom line the Roman Catholics get to decide what they believe without input from outsiders like us. Far from being negligent or out-of-touch the Roman Catholic Church seems to be protecting their faithful as the places with the largest Roman Catholic populations seem to have relatively small rates of AIDS infection. re: the above article on Namibia

[Bertros Bertros]

Hmm been away for the weekend, where to start, a bit of humble pie is never a bad entré. Whilst I still hold some reservations I have to concede, to both luns and anglican, that you are right in many ways and that I am to some extent guilty of one of my own pet hates, obtusity.

luns: The article makes very interesting reading and I agree with lots that he says. My only criticism is that he identifies the problems with Malthus' arguments on overpopulation in the precis and the rest of the article just points out the Malthusian limitations of others arguments, some of whose authors seem fairly obscure. Whilst making a compelling argument against overpopulation theory based on flawed Malthusian logic it still doesn't make me comfortable that we can happily discard any concerns over population purely because we have proven in the past we can adapt. I am also sceptical of someone who goes to such great lengths to point out their objectivity; he must have some agenda or am I just a cynic?

So where does that leave me on this. Well it was an aside really, I'm not massively concerned about it and I don't personally think its going to cause mankind catastrophic difficulties in the near future though ultimately, even allowing for technological advance, there is a limit on the population the world can support so at some point it will have to. That being said I do think there are enough of us already, not particularly because of scarcity of resources but more because of quality of life. In the UK, even in the last 10 years, it has become harder and harder to get any space to yourself, it doesn't seem to matter where you go, how remote it is, or how unusual the time there is someone there already, in fact usually a queue! Just because the world can support more people doesn't mean we need them. Control through policy though does seem very authoritarian and heavy handed, which is something I am generally opposed to and so perhaps your initial comment that started this discussion was fair; policies on population control are heinous. But then what is the alternative? Just keep on breeding, cramming us all in, finding new ways to provide and accept the compromises on our quality of life? Doesn't sound all that great to me.



Anglican: I have to admit my presumptions in this were a bit errant, based on your research the numbers of Catholics in high risk areas is not as great as I had assumed. I guess its not so bad if the numbers are smaller?

I think you have me a little wrong in terms of the Church, maybe I come across a little more zealous on the forum or your mixing my comments with others, I'm not sure. I don't see the RC Church as sinister or uncaring particularly, though Catholicism does seem a bit bloodthirsty and oppressive at times. Also I am very thankful for all the amazing things people of all faiths do to help others. This the greatest part of religion, that it galvanises people to be good to others, sadly it has the opposite effect almost as much of the time.

I do think the Vatican is out of touch spirtually, sociologically and politically with the rest of the world, even many of its own followers. The article on Namibia is great, it is wonderful to see evidence of grass roots Catholics prepared to go against the doctines passed down from on high and compromise them for what they know inside is right. As I alluded to in an earlier post the insular and secretive nature of the the Vatican along with their resistance change may be its downfall. Hopefully it won't bring an end to the good work done on its behalf.

[Bertros Bertros]

Come now vt, you're taking some liberties now with what was actually put forth by the Vatican. Even the Guardian article that Bertros cited didn't go that far.

A few. But can you blame me? I'm fallible, plus I have a penchant for hyperbole.

The Vatican does say that we shouldn't use condoms doesn't it? So if not extension it is certainly implication which is pretty much the same thing. We all know why the Vatican made this statement. It was to support its position that condoms are bad and to try to encourage people to not use them. To pretend otherwise because they didn't openly say that is naive at best.

[daddy1gringo]

I'm assuming your a protestant here and also in the group that has no problem with contraception. If so what is your thoughts on the Vatican's stance? Does your acceptance of religious doctrine as a whole allow you to feel comfortable with the more authoritarian and insensitve aspects of Catholicism or do you like me find these unpalatable?

Well, in the interest of getting back to you in this century, I decided to leave out about 90% 0f what I was going to say. I’m probably going to get ridiculed for this, though most likely not by you, because what I’m about to say is nonsense, or at least hard to swallow, for people who are not accustomed to taking God’s presence and activity into account in daily life.

Even though I disagree with the Catholic church on this, I don’t want to see them “change with the times” as many would have them do. They’ll be more good to the world by being obedient to God according to the light given them than they will by compromising. God’s math is different from ours, as Jesus said that God could do more with the poor widow’s 2 cents than with the impressive sums ostentatiously put in the Temple treasury by the Pharisees.

(Watch some joker quote "what I'm about to say is nonsense" out of context and say,"amen to that")

Years ago I read a column by Maureen Dowd, a decidedly liberal and feminist NY Times columnist. She spoke of how she had left the Catholic church after many years of trying to get them to liberalize their stand on such issues. Then she said something fascinating. Even though she strongly believes, and frequently writes columns to the effect that the Church should make these changes, she is strangely comforted that it does not. It is good to have a standard that is rock-solid and reliable, and does not change After having referred to herself as a “lapsed Catholic” she made the memorable statement. "Even outside of it, I am defined by it.”

That kind of faith, and faithfulness, is more powerful than being correct.

[luns101]

Come now vt, you're taking some liberties now with what was actually put forth by the Vatican. Even the Guardian article that Bertros cited didn't go that far.

A few. But can you blame me? I'm fallible, plus I have a penchant for hyperbole.

The Vatican does say that we shouldn't use condoms doesn't it? So if not extension it is certainly implication which is pretty much the same thing. We all know why the Vatican made this statement. It was to support its position that condoms are bad and to try to encourage people to not use them. To pretend otherwise because they didn't openly say that is naive at best.

Here's what the Vatican actually said from the article:

"The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom. These margins of uncertainty... should represent an obligation on the part of the health ministries and all these campaigns to act in the same way as they do with regard to cigarettes, which they state to be a danger."

What's wrong with warning them of the possible consequences? We do that with other health hazards.

This to anyone, not Bertros exclusively: If you knew that your sexual partner had AIDS, would you still go ahead and have sex with them, using a condom during the act? I think whatever your answer to that question is, is the actual indicator of your faith in condoms and their ability to prevent HIV contraction.

[Bertros Bertros]

Come now vt, you're taking some liberties now with what was actually put forth by the Vatican. Even the Guardian article that Bertros cited didn't go that far.

A few. But can you blame me? I'm fallible, plus I have a penchant for hyperbole.

The Vatican does say that we shouldn't use condoms doesn't it? So if not extension it is certainly implication which is pretty much the same thing. We all know why the Vatican made this statement. It was to support its position that condoms are bad and to try to encourage people to not use them. To pretend otherwise because they didn't openly say that is naive at best.

Here's what the Vatican actually said from the article:

"The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom. These margins of uncertainty... should represent an obligation on the part of the health ministries and all these campaigns to act in the same way as they do with regard to cigarettes, which they state to be a danger."

What's wrong with warning them of the possible consequences? We do that with other health hazards.

This to anyone, not Bertros exclusively: If you knew that your sexual partner had AIDS, would you still go ahead and have sex with them, using a condom during the act? I think whatever your answer to that question is, is the actual indicator of your faith in condoms and their ability to prevent HIV contraction.

This time purely for effect you understand but again, Poppycock! Whats wrong with warning of the potential hazards? Nothing per se, except condoms, unlike cigarettes, are 90% effective in preventing transmission of HIV. It is a gross misrepresentation to only present a single fact in isolation which combined with the unhidden Catholic agenda on contraception was clearly intentional. That's as far as I'm going with that as I suspect your just winding me up now?

Your second question is much harder to answer and almost impossible to be honest about unless you were in that situation. Its very difficult, I have been with my girlfriend (soon(ish) to be wife) for 10 years. If she contracted HIV, for the sake of argument we'll say through a blood transfusion, then I think yes we would still make love and yes I think we would use a condom, initially at least. But then after some time perhaps we would stop doing so, but this wouldn't necessarily be a reflection on the effectiveness of condoms but more likely down to love.

I think a more accurate question to gauge opinion on condom safety is to take out the element of love, which clouds how you feel about somebody and yourself so strongly. Again it requires putting yourself in an unlikely position, at leats for me anyway. If you were going to have sex with someone you hardly knew, would you use a condon, and would you still do it if you didn't have one available?

[Jenos Ridan]

But seriously, the Garden of Eden seems like a bad place to be. Every day would be the same, no new challenges, just endless boredom.

Oh yeah, God's a real killjoy. God's original plan included giving man domain over everything else. He can eat as much as he wants without having to hunt for it. All he has to do is not eat the fruit from one measly tree. Mankind didn't have to work, only enjoy everything in its perfection. He creates a beautiful woman for him to have sex with. On top of that he gets to actually walk and talk with the Creator as a friend.

Sickness, war, murder, and death as a result of sin is much better.

But just you wait, it will be again. And if you are willing, by the power of the Spirit, you can have that same power and authority He intended from the begining. Don't wait for it, go out and seek it and you'll get it.

[CrazyAnglican]

Hi Bertros,

First, congratulations on your upcoming (hopefully soon) wedding.

We both seem to be moderate (I think at least) which isn't to say that either of us will give an inch on our beliefs. I was wondering if we could change tack and find what we agree on. (No I'm not trying to convert you. That's not my gig.) Your choice to embrace any belief or belief system is entirely your own as far as I'm concerned. I just defend my own beliefs.

Anglican: I have to admit my presumptions in this were a bit errant, based on your research the numbers of Catholics in high risk areas is not as great as I had assumed. I guess its not so bad if the numbers are smaller?

I think we are in agreement that condom use can be effective in reducing the chance of getting the disease. The main problem that I see with them isn’t with the condom. They are actually more effective than you suggest. With “perfect use” that is all the time, every time, check for leaks, be careful not to tear it when putting it on, pinch an inch at the top, take it off while you’re still up, & turn away to make sure you don’t spill, and oh yeah store them in a cool dry place (not your wallet). They are basically the easiest contraceptive to screw up (pardon the pun) because you have to make a decision to use them when you are not exactly at your most rational and careful. Those people with the discipline to use them properly almost never transmit the disease or get pregnant. Don’t they seem come with a list of “thou shalts” to rival anything in the Bible, though? The problem isn’t with the condom, but the wearer. It's with "typical use", fumbling in the dark "How come the thing won't unroll? .... Oh...Ooops, I was trying to put it on backwards", that it becomes dangerous.

Where we might disagree is that I would place an emphasis on abstinence and monogamy first. Sexual moral codes have generally had the effect of slowing the spread of STD's. The Victorian morality in Britain was largely a response to rampant syphilis in the Eighteenth Century. The “cock of the walk’s” beauty mark was generally a syphilitic pock mark or imitation of one. In general, bestiality isn’t a good idea because you get diseases, like syphilis, from sheep and HIV from chimps. The moral codes passed down, generally through churches, are there for a good reason. They can also be helpful in containing the spread of AIDS. In reference to my earlier post, it seems that they are helpful in some areas.

I think you have me a little wrong in terms of the Church, maybe I come across a little more zealous on the forum or your mixing my comments with others, I'm not sure. I don't see the RC Church as sinister or uncaring particularly, though Catholicism does seem a bit bloodthirsty and oppressive at times. Also I am very thankful for all the amazing things people of all faiths do to help others. This the greatest part of religion, that it galvanises people to be good to others, sadly it has the opposite effect almost as much of the time.

I probably do have you wrong on this. It’s easy in debates to interpret your opponent’s position as more severe than it really is for a variety of innocuous reasons. My position is merely this. A church, any church, is a human organization created and run by fallible human beings. I don’t deny the bad in these organizations. I merely state, and statistics usually back me up, that the people in these organization are no worse than the people in any other organization.
I do, however, personally believe that people are generally good on some level. So I tend to believe that most organizations tend toward beneficence unless they are run or taken over by one of the rare truly depraved people. Therefore it's my personal belief that churches tend to of service more often than they are harmful. I won’t dispute your position on this though. Merely because having that discussion would most likely lead to a madening series of examples which neither of us can truly claim to be representative. “Hey whatta ‘bout the crusades?”. “Oh Yeah! Well whatta ‘bout Mother Theresa?” I don’t see that one going anywhere constructive.
You have a valid skepticism of Church leadership based, I think, on past abuses. I have faith in Church members to hold their leader’s to a high standard. It’s when people swallow whatever their leadership throws at them that you get the unhealthy cult mentality that is fostered in some churches, but not oany Church I’m likely to join. I look at my church leaders as people who’ve chosen to devote their lives to serving God in the Church. They are not little god’s to be served and obeyed. God warns against that in the ten commandments “Thou shalt have no gods before me.”

I do think the Vatican is out of touch spirtually, sociologically and politically with the rest of the world, even many of its own followers. The article on Namibia is great, it is wonderful to see evidence of grass roots Catholics prepared to go against the doctines passed down from on high and compromise them for what they know inside is right. As I alluded to in an earlier post the insular and secretive nature of the the Vatican along with their resistance change may be its downfall. Hopefully it won't bring an end to the good work done on its behalf.

I would interject that this was done with the blessings of the bishopric. The work in Namibia was done with the tacit approval of the Church leadership. As nobody has been hushed up, removed from their diocese, or excommunicated it seems that they had the Vatican’s approval, or at least its acquiescence.

One doesn’t truly need to be out-of-touch to disagree and choose another path. The fact that the Vatican disagrees with the rest of the world, to my Christian ears, says they just might be doing something right. I also believe that if they are doing something right, they aren’t going away any time soon.

I realize that most of this you disagree with, and I made an attempt to acknowledge your stance without challenging it. There are some things we just won’t agree on. This was more of an attempt to think out loud on the issue and give you the opportunity to say “yes” here and “no and here’s why ” there. If that makes any sense.

[luns101]

I have been with my girlfriend (soon(ish) to be wife) for 10 years.

I might respond to what you said later, but just wanted to single this part out to wish you a happy marriage!

They are basically the easiest contraceptive to screw up (pardon the pun)

Are you kidding me...after pointing out my foolproof/fullproof error!

[CrazyAnglican]

I have been with my girlfriend (soon(ish) to be wife) for 10 years.

I might respond to what you said later, but just wanted to single this part out to wish you a happy marriage!

They are basically the easiest contraceptive to screw up (pardon the pun)

Are you kidding me...after pointing out my foolproof/fullproof error!

Just have to ask your forgivness on that one brother.

[Bertros Bertros]

I just wanted to say thank you both for your well wishes. Its actually not until next summer, when you've spent 10 years getting round to it it doesn't hurt to wait a little longer. That and some very close friends of ours who emigrated to NZ are able to come back then so it made sense. It's strange, for all intents and purposes we have been married for years but I was still completely excited when she said yes, even if it wasn't a surprise! So thank you both.

We actually agree on a whole lot in there Anglican. I'll expand later, work is off the scale busy at the moment!

[daddy1gringo]

Are you kidding me...after pointing out my foolproof/fullproof error!

Just have to ask your forgivness on that one brother.

Actually, he ought to thank you, as do I. imagine what that typo could have done in the wrong hands if you hadn't so skillfully de-fused it first.

[daddy1gringo]

I have been with my girlfriend (soon(ish) to be wife) for 10 years.

I might respond to what you said later, but just wanted to single this part out to wish you a happy marriage!

Let me echo Luns101's sentiments. As one who is happily married 18 years (in 3 days) I can tell you that there's no joy on earth like it. Not that there haven't been "rocky times", but as the pastor of a little church we used to attend said: "When you're older you'll find that that's what foundations are built out of......rocks."

[Bertros Bertros]

Well later came sooner than I thought, work just isn't... working, for tonight.

Where we might disagree is that I would place an emphasis on abstinence and monogamy first

Here I think we agree. I would never advocate promiscuity and certainly never justify it because the risks (well at least the physical rather than the emotional/psychological) could be effectively negated by condoms. For me manogamy seems natural. Don't get me wrong here I love window shopping and at times can be an outrageous flirt but never anything more. Abstinence on the other hand.... Do you guys actually do the whole no sex before marriage thing? I don't mean one night stands or unattached "f*ck buddies", but in a long term commited relationship is there really any harm in getting some practice in? You mentioned Victorian morality being a response to syphilis and I can see likewise how no sex before marriage could be a response to problems with unwanted children and "ruined daughters". I think people are sometimes too quick to get married, I've known more than one couple who have met, married and divorced (one who also had children) in the time I have been courting! So I don't think this moral value is necessarily applicable to marriage so much as commitment these days.

I do, however, personally believe that people are generally good on some level. So I tend to believe that most organizations tend toward beneficence unless they are run or taken over by one of the rare truly depraved people. Therefore it's my personal belief that churches tend to of service more often than they are harmful. I won’t dispute your position on this though.

Again here we agree. People are basically good but inherently fallible also. A church in itself is undoubtedly of more good than harm by an overwhelming margin. The Church, as in the Church of England, or the Vatican as an organisation however is not responsible for all the good done by churches. The good is done on a community level and The Church is on a more abstract level which seems to bring more unrest. Take the farcical furor over the ordination of women as an example. As you say people are basically good and would be good anyway so churches provide a natural focal point for people to be proactive in helping others.

You have a valid skepticism of Church leadership based, I think, on past abuses. I have faith in Church members to hold their leader’s to a high standard. It’s when people swallow whatever their leadership throws at them that you get the unhealthy cult mentality that is fostered in some churches, but not oany Church I’m likely to join.

I'm more skeptical of Church leadership for its current positions than past indisgressions. Society is evolving more and more rapidly as the world gets relatively smaller with the advance of travel and communications, at what seems to be at a pace too fast for Church to deal with.

One doesn’t truly need to be out-of-touch to disagree and choose another path. The fact that the Vatican disagrees with the rest of the world, to my Christian ears, says they just might be doing something right. I also believe that if they are doing something right, they aren’t going away any time soon.

luns mentioned there being a phase of treating God in a "you can't tell me what to do/you're trying to stifle my fun" sort of manner but in some respects this is exactly what the Church is doing. In response to the world saying "we disagree with you on some of those ideas of yours we've been following for thousands of years, not all of them, but some of them are a bit wierd" the church is battling harder and harder not to adapt in a "you can't tell me what to do" fashion.

The bad I see is more in the name of religion than the Church. Notice I said in the name of, rather than because of. I don't think religion, at least most flavours, causes people to be bad, but it does provide a convenient excuse with the priviliged status of generally being taboo to object to. Some religions are questionably responsible for people being bad, but then you could argue, counter to the position with the Christian Church, that in some cases this is because of the the religious leaders rather than the religion itself. I guess what I'm trying to say is that religion or the Church isn't really good or bad, its people and the Church gets used by them as a reason to do both. However people would find it no harder to be good in the name of another cause though they might find themselves more accountable if being bad.

[Bertros Bertros]

I have been with my girlfriend (soon(ish) to be wife) for 10 years.

I might respond to what you said later, but just wanted to single this part out to wish you a happy marriage!

Let me echo Luns101's sentiments. As one who is happily married 18 years (in 3 days) I can tell you that there's no joy on earth like it. Not that there haven't been "rocky times", but as the pastor of a little church we used to attend said: "When you're older you'll find that that's what foundations are built out of......rocks."

Ain't that the truth Thank you and congratulations on the anniversary.

[luns101]

Do you guys actually do the whole no sex before marriage thing? I don't mean one night stands or unattached "f*ck buddies", but in a long term commited relationship is there really any harm in getting some practice in?

Can't answer for the other Christians here, but I was not a virgin before I got married. If you read my posts in other threads concerning my testimony, I lived a pretty immoral life 'cause I was mad at my hypocritical pastor/father. I had sex many times 'cause I thought that was the thing to do. After I became a Christian some people from the church I attended shared with me verses from the Bible which said the "marriage bed was holy". I couldn't change my past, but I was in control of what I did after I read those verses, so for me...I did not have sex again until I got married.

I know that sounds hard to do, but if you stay busy with other things in your life it's not as difficult as it might seem.