Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Church now claiming condoms don't prevent AIDS?

Religion Catholicism Condoms AIDS

  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#21 Lady of Mystery

Lady of Mystery
  • Islander
  • 361 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 01:22 PM

May I make a comment here, that I hope is not off-topic, but was about something stated in Delvo's post.

I can't speak for the entire  Christian community, nor can I speak for Catholics because I do not entirely believe in all they do.

But there are many Christians who believe as I do.  And that is that the Bible is either all truth or all lies .  If there is but one factor that is untrue, then the entire Bible is a lie.

Based on that belief, there are many Christians like myself that will never accept the Theories of Evolution because it goes against what is stated in Genesis.  The "miracle" of the creation is what sets God apart from Man.

Delvo said:

Quote

Interesting question about how much evidence it takes to convince the religious that something religion taught them is wrong, Rhea... especially because of the first example you chose.

You know Delvo, that can be said in the reverse.  I'm not sure how to define 'religious' actually, but I will say this.  There are many that believe that the Bible is Truth.  And to try to apply 'theories' to what we consider to be absolutes causes friction.  

I can't accept the theories of evolution because it goes against the creation.  And I don't believe that the creation is a 'story', or a 'parable' or as Rhea put it an allegory.  I believe it happened just as it is stated and many others believe this as well.

So does that make me stupid?  Does that mean that I am unwilling to accept what many in the science community consider to be fact?  No.  Because there are scientists that believe in the miracle of creation as well.

I just wanted to point this out.  Because there are many that don't like to hear that what they believe is "wrong" on either side of the fence.

Apologies to any that I might offend.

L

#22 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 01:32 PM

Quote

Because there are scientists that believe in the miracle of creation as well.

I'm not judging you or your beliefs in any way LoM, but that particular statement isn't quite true. The vast majority of scientists are committed to the model of natural selection.

As to the main thrust of this thread, I find it fairly apalling that senior Catholic leaders would say things like that. Real people may die because they don't want to go against Vatican doctrine.
Per aspera ad astra

#23 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 01:32 PM

^Interesting take, LoM (and why I specified that not ALL Christians have accepted that Genesis is an allegory).

What I don't understand is this: the Bible is filled with examples and allegories. Jesus, for example, told stories that illustrated principles he was trying to teach, and this happens in many instances in the Bible. So why is it necessarily to believe that everything mentioned in Genesis happened literally as stated? Would labelling it an allegory make it any less true? It seems to me that reconciling Genesis with evolution doesn't detract from the truth of Genesis at all, but rather enhances it, since it fits both the faith AND the real world that we see around us.

(And you can see where I come to the parting of the ways with people who take the entire bible literally, because I think Genesis is a very elegant explanation of evolution. Specifically, I think that Genesis is absolutely true in a different sense than you do).

Edited by Rhea, 09 October 2003 - 01:35 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#24 Jid

Jid

    Mad Prophet of Funk

  • Islander
  • 12,554 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 01:36 PM

^ I like this particular debate point Rhea, and I may have to just go ahead and steal it for an independent thread later on.  (wouldn't want to take this one too far off topic)

But just as a quick note:  The Vatican has only ever issues two official statements on the Theory of Evolution, both of which say the same thing: The theory itself is completely theologically sound so long as one considers God to be the driving force behind evolutionary change.  (IOW, God creates through evolution)

^One of their sensible decrees, unlike this current, mystifyingly oddball idea that condoms will lead to the further spread of AIDS.
cervisiam tene rem specta

#25 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 01:38 PM

LOM, if I may.

I don't think it has any bearing on your intelligence.  Your faith is your faith and you place it above the theory of evolution.

I can grok that.

I draw the line (my own personal line) when someone's insistence on adherence to a certain religious doctrine is hurting people.  And I do believe that the Church's (keeping in mind the definition I used in the disclaimer in the initial post) insistence, to the point of spreading outright falsehoods about the effectiveness of condoms, on blocking efforts to encourage condoms in order to stem what is a terrifying epidemic, is killing  people.  

I guess the question is "at what price adherence to Church Doctrine?"

Lil

Edited by Una Salus Lillius, 09 October 2003 - 01:38 PM.

Posted Image

#26 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 02:04 PM

Jid, on Oct 9 2003, 11:36 AM, said:

^ I like this particular debate point Rhea, and I may have to just go ahead and steal it for an independent thread later on.  (wouldn't want to take this one too far off topic)

But just as a quick note:  The Vatican has only ever issues two official statements on the Theory of Evolution, both of which say the same thing: The theory itself is completely theologically sound so long as one considers God to be the driving force behind evolutionary change.  (IOW, God creates through evolution)

^One of their sensible decrees, unlike this current, mystifyingly oddball idea that condoms will lead to the further spread of AIDS.
Sounds like a plan to me, Jid. Sorry about the threadjack, Lil.  ;)
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#27 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 02:07 PM

No worries Rhea.

Lil
Posted Image

#28 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 02:09 PM

Every time I see these numbers I'm staggered anew:

Quote

"These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million," the WHO told the program.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#29 Lady of Mystery

Lady of Mystery
  • Islander
  • 361 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 02:14 PM

Rhea, on Oct 9 2003, 01:32 PM, said:

^Interesting take, LoM (and why I specified that not ALL Christians have accepted that Genesis is an allegory).
Yes, I know Rhea and why I thanked you for that.  I appreciate your realizing that not all believe in the same manner.  :D

Quote

So why is it necessarily to believe that everything mentioned in Genesis happened literally as stated? Would labelling it an allegory make it any less true? It seems to me that reconciling Genesis with evolution doesn't detract from the truth of Genesis at all, but rather enhances it, since it fits both the faith AND the real world that we see around us.

Perhaps it would be easier if I ask you a question first.  When you mention Creation, does that include the creation of man as well?  And do you believe that man evolved from another species, such as something from the ocean?   ( I apologize, but I need that answered in order to answer your question, I hope you understand  :p )

Quote

(And you can see where I come to the parting of the ways with people who take the entire bible literally, because I think Genesis is a very elegant explanation of evolution. Specifically, I think that Genesis is absolutely true in a different sense than you do).

I think I understand.  But Rhea, if that is what you believe, that is what you believe.  Whether or not I agree I don't think is important.  Is it?  Or not?  :)

L

#30 Lady of Mystery

Lady of Mystery
  • Islander
  • 361 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 02:23 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Oct 9 2003, 01:38 PM, said:

LOM, if I may.

I don't think it has any bearing on your intelligence.  Your faith is your faith and you place it above the theory of evolution.

I can grok that.
I understand Lil.  I guess I just 'bristle' when I hear words such as wrong  :)   and um I think I understand but does 'grok' mean accept????
Just a bit baffled by that term??

Quote

I draw the line (my own personal line) when someone's insistence on adherence to a certain religious doctrine is hurting people.  And I do believe that the Church's (keeping in mind the definition I used in the disclaimer in the initial post) insistence, to the point of spreading outright falsehoods about the effectiveness of condoms, on blocking efforts to encourage condoms in order to stem what is a terrifying epidemic, is killing  people.

Hmmm.  I think in this case I would agree with you.  And I suppose for me I would consider it to be 'human error'.  I dun't got no answer fer dat one ma'am.  :blink:   But then, I'm not Catholic, so truly I can't completely relate.

Quote

I guess the question is "at what price adherence to Church Doctrine?"

And for me that is a valid question.  Again, because I am not Catholic, I don't know what 'importance' Church doctrine' is to the believer.  My church doctrine is pretty cut and dry and does not take major stands as the Catholic Church does.  So again, I think a valid question, but I can't speak clearly because I'm not of that 'faith'. Sorry  :)

L

#31 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 02:26 PM

Ooops sorry.

Grok is a term from Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land.

It means sort of a synthesis between understanding/knowing/accepting.

Lil
Posted Image

#32 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 03:36 PM

I can tell you the following.

I've always had a problem with the church's stance on birth control. (That I also had a problem with the church's stance on premarital sex is something I've discussed at length and later edited. I won't get into that here, since it's not applicable.)

Banapis summed up nicely the rationale that led to the current stance, even though other groups (notably, as he quotes, the CCCB) within the Church hierarchy have said that use of birth control essentially amounts to "what seems right to [the user] in good conscience". I can live with that. But then, they never taught us this back in the day, simply because they didn't want to tip their hand. Abstinence is the easy option to teach. It allows you to keep free of that icky stuff.

Infer from nature and you'll find that there's nothing that's going to stop people from having sex-- it's a biological thing. So anything that stands in the way of them doing it is going to be ignored. You might as well throw in your support and help them share safely. (Not to imply that the sex-before-marriage thing is a bad thing. I can see its being necessity, to a point, but I'll come back to this point if anyone takes me up on it.)

Sex happens. Hopefully with consent. (I'm reminded of that one part of Africa they talked about on the news where they apparently have a local belief that having sex with a virgin cures AIDS.) There's a lot of hoohah and voodoo surrounding the AIDS virus. It's in the best interest of everyone --especially the infected-- if the truth of what can and can't be of help in containing its spread, and treating those already infected, is both made known and made readily available.

And if these church officials want to come out against it --to the point of a bald-faced lie about the function of condoms-- then perhaps they should consider that any law which stands in a contravention of the demands of the people will meet with more civil disobedience than prosecution of the law is, in fact, worth. It's a simple question of whether or not they're going to attempt to preserve the doctrine in the name of principle, or in the name of reality.

To my mind, the reality in this case *demands* that law be changed, even if it undermines the principle. There are too many people across the world exposed to the very real threat of AIDS exposure. I don't want to have to wait until the African continent is reduced to a quarter of its current population for this arcane bit of church policy to be reconsidered. The job of the Catholic Church essentially comes down to protecting its flock --from the infidel, from unlawful persecution, and from even plagues like AIDS. Condoms do help, if used properly. The proof is there. And if the Church's administration chooses to ignore it.... then that doesn't leave them in a particularly strong position, scientifically or morally.

But then, what do I know? I'm just a Catholic.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#33 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 03:38 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Oct 9 2003, 11:29 AM, said:

DISCLAIMER:  I want to make it PERFECTLY clear that when I talk about the Catholic Church in this thread I am talking about the institution.  The fact that some of the quotes come from very highly placed members of its hierarchy make me comfortable with that.  I am in NO way making any claims about anyone HERE or about any individual Catholic other than the ones quoted in this post.
Btw, Lil-- thanks for this, I really appreciated it, even though it was easy to see that we weren't talking about *all* Catholics.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#34 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 03:41 PM

{{{{{{{{{{{{'Hawk}}}}}}}}}}}}

My pleasure.:)
Posted Image

#35 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 04:58 PM

For my part, I tend to be somewhat conservative in terms of Church doctrine, but I do believe that eventually the Church may rescind its position on many forms of contraception.  It's never been an easy thing to decide on.  The availability of widespread contraception certainly can have the effect of encouraging attitudes which can be detrimental to to taking sex seriously, this being I think, the major reason that the Church opposes it.  It can also lead to a mistaken belief that contraception prevent disease in all cases, which is wrong.

To be honest, if Cardinal Trujillo said what he said, I wouldn't be surprised, but I do think it's simply a matter of ignorance with perhaps a touch of wishful thinking.  Most importantly, I think that any widespread misinformation in Africa is simply the spread of a mistaken scientific information.  As far as I can tell, there's no such instructions coming down from the Vatican to "lie" to people.  In fact, the rest of the Church would be under no obligation to carry out any such order.  The Catholic Church isn't quite as centralized as most people think it is, it's far too big to be in lock step with the Vatican.  It's just people of a like mind jumping on what looks like science without checking it or being able to check it first.  

I do think these people need to get their facts straight, but that's not quite the same thing as lying to people.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#36 bandit

bandit

    Bond, Fuzzy Bond

  • Islander
  • 1,026 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 06:30 PM

Ok, first off, there is a little urban legend going here, that needs to be corrected.
Yes, AIDS is primarily a sexually transmitted disease, it is transmitted through bodily fluid from one person to the next. (IE: semen) ***BUT*** it CAN also be spread through other bodily fluids.
I am not saying that condoms are no good as protection against STDs, but you can get AIDS from kissing.
it is far less common, but it has happened, and is proveable. (cases like a girl who was still a virgin, and nither of her parents had aids, came up positive on a test, so if she had never had sex, and didn't get it in utero, then she must have gotten it some other way then sex.)

there are also many cases of pregnancy occouring in spite of condoms, and it happens much more often then many would like to admit.

now i'll go back and read the rest of the thread *L*

edit to add- the girl came up negative on all drug tests too, and there were no scars or anything on her arms, so no needles...

Edited by bandit, 09 October 2003 - 06:33 PM.


#37 Jid

Jid

    Mad Prophet of Funk

  • Islander
  • 12,554 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 07:21 PM

^ Ummm, actually, *Saliva* simply can't transmit AIDS.

(Technically, since I've been on my own case about this since I posted, you don't transmit AIDS, you transmit HIV, which leads to AIDS, but I digress)

The bigger worry is any blood or pus that might be in the saliva at the time.  Especially if there's been recent dental work, or cold sores, or cracked lips or some such on the part of both the transmitter and the receptor.

Or of course, oral sex, which to many people, means virginity is still intact.  (and while what constitutes 'sex' is an entirely different controversial topic, there you have another possible method of transmission.)

Keep in mind also that the transmitter's viral count would also have to be quite high at the time, and conditions just right for transmission (like blood in the saliva) to occur via kissing.

Saliva itself just doesn't carry enough viral material to make it past the rather formidable defense the mouth and gastrointestinal system usually is.
cervisiam tene rem specta

#38 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 07:34 PM

Jid, on Oct 9 2003, 05:21 PM, said:

^ Ummm, actually, *Saliva* simply can't transmit AIDS.
Thank you.

And bandit, a more careful reading of this thread will reveal to you numerous instances where I've talked about alternative means of transmitting/contracting HIV (thanks Jid).
Posted Image

#39 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 07:45 PM

The thing that strikes me is the Church appears to have left themselves some wiggle room to escape…  Latex condoms have sufficient lack of permeability to stop HIV but many other condom materials don’t.  

Quote

Rov: Delvo-- Obviously, condoms aren't 100%. I think the figure is that used properly and consistently, the success rate is about 85%.

Of course that means you are looking at a 1 in 10 failure rate when you look at the percentages.  You have slightly better chances than say playing Russian Roulette but they are far from infallible.  Somehow I doubt many of us would trust our car must if they crashed one out of every ten trips

Quote

Kevin Street: I'm not judging you or your beliefs in any way LoM, but that particular statement isn't quite true. The vast majority of scientists are committed to the model of natural selection.

I'd say some strike a balance between Natural Selection and whatever religion they might believe in. I had a professor way back who made an excellent case of arguing that creation is evolution.  Evolution is simply God’s giant copy machine and the little quirks like dinosaurs being wiped out if when god hauls off and kicks the copy machine whenever it gets sputtering due to bad toner.  Always sort of liked that argument plus it gives you one great image. :D
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#40 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,502 posts

Posted 09 October 2003 - 11:09 PM

Quote

Grok is a term from Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land.

It means sort of a synthesis between understanding/knowing/accepting.

It can't quite be translated into human terms, as I recall, but didn't it have an overlay to it of drinking/eating someone's essence and therefore knowledge?

Quote

you can get AIDS from kissing.

If you're claiming that it's spread only through saliva, well, don't spread that rumor in the hearing of someone whose father was an AIDS researcher for years before he retired from his microbiology career, thank you very much. Thanks to Jid and Lil for replying to that first. I'll go away now. ;)

Edited by Norville, 09 October 2003 - 11:14 PM.

"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Religion, Catholicism, Condoms, AIDS

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users