Pope re-affirms he is a dipshit.

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
crandc said:
And if you don't, you deserve to die.

If you are faithful but your spouse cheats, you deserve to die.

If you are raped, you deserve to die.

If you are so impoverished prostitution is the only means to feed yourself and your children, you deserve to die.

If you are sold into sexual slavery, you deserve to die.

If a health care practitioner re-uses equipment, not rare in impoverished countries, you deserve to die. And so does your spouse.

He sure does have a different belief system than me. I would not have joined Hitler Youth.
Click to expand...

So if you are raped by an AIDS-infected criminal not using a condom, you deserve to die more than someone who cheats with a condom?

If you're infected by a health-care professional, you deserve to die more than someone who cheats with a condom or willingly prostitutes themselves for the fun of it, but wears a condom?

What does "deserving to die" have anything to do with it? I submit that if you asked the Pope, he might say that we all deserve to die (Romans 3:23/6:23), but for the sacrifice of Jesus for the remission of sin and propitiation of God's wrath.
 
BrianFromWA said:
So the leader of a faith group encourages the members of his group to stand fast with their beliefs, even when the a large segment of the world seems to be going away from it, and somehow he's a dipshit?
Click to expand...

I say no. That does not make him a dipshit.

Abstinence is taught multiple times in the bible.
Click to expand...

In that case, teaching abstinence is in keeping with his faith. Ridiculous in my opinion when applied as the main approach to prevention of disease and pregnancy, but at least consistent.

"Evil Condoms" are not.
Click to expand...

So where did the "condoms are evil" come from, and why is the Pope promoting that line?

barfo
 
Last edited:
RR7 said:
Do rapists normally wear condoms?
Does an impoverished prostitute consider safe sex when makign decisions?
If you are sold into sexual slavery, is safe sex generally practiced there?
Do health care practitioners generally use condoms on older equipment to prevent the spread of aids?

I don't agree with him either, but it seems like a rather large step to get from your first point, and his from the article, and then what you have continued on with in your post.
Click to expand...


Actually, there are health care workers who work with imporverished prostitutes around STD and AIDS prevention. While Bush has gotten praise, even from those who disagree with him on everything else, for his AIDS initiatives, a criticism is that his program explicitly prevented using funds for such programs. You can be against prostitution while still recognizing a live prostitute can change. A dead one can't.

No, safe sex is not generally practiced in sexual slavery. But according to the pope, that should not change.

Believe it or not, there are rapists who use condoms. In their own interest, as it means no DNA to trace them with. Not that it alleviates rape effects, but according to the pope, if you're going to be a rapist, you should also give her/him AIDS.

Health care workers don't put condoms on used equipment, of course. But a person who gets HIV from infected equipment can prevent passing the virus to a partner by using condoms. The pope says not to.
 
maxiep said:
I believe in freedom of choice. People may believe what they wish. The fact that you're so threatened by someone who speaks out against the things you believe as to equate them with the Hitler Youth says more about you than the Pope.
Click to expand...

Um, maxiep, check your facts. The pope WAS a member of Hitler Youth. The fact that you don't know that easily obtainable information, which was widely publicized at his election, says a lot about you.
 
crandc said:
Um, maxiep, check your facts. The pope WAS a member of Hitler Youth. The fact that you don't know that easily obtainable information, which was widely publicized at his election, says a lot about you.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not particularly religious. But, which is the greater demonstration of ignorance? Not knowing that the current Pope served Germany in the last days of an evil regime, or not knowing that the rites of passage are the same for both Catholic girls and boys?

And as for the Hitler Youth, here's what is said about his time there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI

Following his fourteenth birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was enrolled in the Hitler Youth, as membership was required for all 14-year old German boys after December 1939[6], but was an unenthusiastic member and refused to attend meetings.[7] His father was a bitter enemy of Nazism, believing it conflicted with the Catholic faith, according to biographer John L. Allen, Jr. In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was killed by the Nazi regime in its campaign of eugenics.[8] In 1943 while still in seminary, he was drafted at age 16 into the German anti-aircraft corps. Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry, but a subsequent illness precluded him from the usual rigours of military duty. As the Allied front drew closer to his post in 1945, he deserted back to his family's home in Traunstein after his unit had ceased to exist, just as American troops established their headquarters in the Ratzinger household. As a German soldier, he was put in a POW camp but was released a few months later at the end of the War in summer 1945. He reentered the seminary, along with his brother Georg, in November of that year.
Click to expand...

So, he did something that was required, that he didn't support. I signed up for Selective Service when I turned 18; does that make me a baby-killer? Your analysis once again is not particularly wide, yet only a millimeter deep.

So, were you ignorant to the circumstances or just disingenuous?
 
crandc said:
Um, maxiep, check your facts. The pope WAS a member of Hitler Youth. The fact that you don't know that easily obtainable information, which was widely publicized at his election, says a lot about you.
Click to expand...

Wow...I seriously did not know that, but I was out at sea during the whole Papal election thing, and I never knew a lot of the rules/bio that came up. Then again, I tend not to like a lot of what the Pope says anyway, and I can't say I ever have looked up information on him, other than knowing he was a German and that back-to-back non-Italian popes are rare.

Thanks for the heads-up...I thought you were being sarcastic.
 
Lots of stuff I didn't know...I'm not sure how being a deserter right before your side loses can be seen as honorable or good in any situation. :dunno: I admit to being myopic on this, though.
 
Add it to the pile of reasons....

The number of people who call themselves Christian is 76 percent, down 10 percentage points since 1990.

Thirty percent of married couples did not have a religious ceremony.

Better than one in four Americans do not expect a religious funeral.

It is important to reiterate that we are talking about overall percentages. In raw numbers, there are actually about 22 million more Christians now than in 1990. Still, the trend is clear, particularly as illustrated in one telling statistic: In 1990, 8.2 percent (about 14 million) of us said ''none'' when asked to specify their religion.

Last year, 15 percent (34 million) did.

Some have suggested our loss of faith is due to increased diversity, mobility and immigration. I'm sure there's something to that, but I tend to think the most important cause is simpler: Religion has become an ugly thing.

People of faith usually respond to that ugliness -- by which I mean a seemingly endless cycle of scandal, controversy, hypocrisy, violence and TV preachers saying idiot things -- in one of two ways. Either they defend it (making them part of the problem), or they regard it as a series of isolated, albeit unfortunate, episodes. But irreligious people do neither.

And people of faith should ask themselves: What is the cumulative effect upon outside observers of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker living like lords on the largess of the poor, multiplied by Jimmy Swaggart's pornography addiction, plus Eric Rudolph bombing Olympians and gays in the name of God, plus Muslims hijacking airplanes in the name of God, multiplied by the church that kicked out some members because they voted Democrat, divided by people caterwauling on courthouse steps as a rock bearing the Ten Commandments was removed, multiplied by the square root of Catholic priests preying on little boys while the church looked on and did nothing, multiplied by Muslims rioting over cartoons, plus the ongoing demonization of gay men and lesbians, divided by all those ''traditional values'' coalitions and ''family values'' councils that try to bully public schools into becoming worship houses, with morning prayers and science lessons from the book of Genesis? Then subtract selflessness, service, sacrifice, holiness and hope.

Do the math, and I bet you'll draw the same conclusion the researchers did.
Click to expand...
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/948713.html
 
BrianFromWA said:
Lots of stuff I didn't know...I'm not sure how being a deserter right before your side loses can be seen as honorable or good in any situation. :dunno: I admit to being myopic on this, though.
Click to expand...

I don't pretend to know his mind, but I think there's a difference between deserting and deserting a cause you don't support. Many Germans were anti-Nazi. In the last days of the war, my grandfather told me the Wehrmacht was kept from retreating or deserting by the SS, who where charged with shooting them rather than Allied soldiers.
 
maxiep said:
Or he could actually believe in Christianity.
Click to expand...

A) Not all Christians believe birth control is always wrong.

B) In the 1970s, leading Catholic theologians reviewed the church's stand on this issue, and concluded IT WAS WRONG. Pope Paul VI forbid any discussion of the issue, and threatened the scholars with dire punishment if they ever brought it up again. The notion that he might be wrong and his fellow Christians (protestants) might be right was seen as blasphemey.

This is the kind of over-reaction that helps drive thinking people - myself included- away from the church. (Not to mention fueling the rumors over the death of Pope John-Paul I)
 
oldmangrouch said:
A) Not all Christians believe birth control is always wrong.

B) In the 1970s, leading Catholic theologians reviewed the church's stand on this issue, and concluded IT WAS WRONG. Pope Paul VI forbid any discussion of the issue, and threatened the scholars with dire punishment if they ever brought it up again. The notion that he might be wrong and his fellow Christians (protestants) might be right was seen as blasphemey.

This is the kind of over-reaction that helps drive thinking people - myself included- away from the church. (Not to mention fueling the rumors over the death of Pope John-Paul I)
Click to expand...

When my wife and I were married, we were married in a Catholic ceremony. Religion is important to her and I'm as agnostic as one gets. So, pretty much I didn't really care. Anyhoo, we were married outside of a church which meant that we couldn't be married by someone directly under the control of the Archdiocese of Denver (a really conservative one). Instead we were married by this guy: http://www.freewebs.com/apriestcelebrates/

Father Marty is top notch. Just a terrific guy who was more than happy and willing to discuss issues of faith with me. In our meetings with him before we were married, he told us about the politics behind the Church's move to orthodoxy. He said that Rome would rather have 500M hard core believers than 1.5B practitioners of the faith. He furthermore said that the people entering the seminary today were vetted politically more than spritually.

He said that the impact was that he and like-minded former priests have been deluged with requests from Catholics to perform their own masses and create their own ministries. As such, he is concerned about the future of the Church in the US.

Like I said, I know squat about the Catholic Church, your post just reminded me of a previous conversation.
 
r408816490.jpg
 
r408816490.jpg


I CAN HAS PAPAL BLESSING?

barfo
 
His attempt to bring the lion back to life with the laying on of hands failed.
 
Don't you know that the pope IS HITLER?

Duh, you know all them spare-a-mints they was doing huh LUCY? He changed bodies with a young kid and somehow became the pope. What a life, they should make a movie about it.

I wonder how the pope would stop the distribution of condoms in Africa? Hijack a cargo plane? Buy up all the latex manufacturers?

I hate to sound horrible, but I am so I will just say it. I don't want them to stop the spread of HIV, I just want them to keep it from becoming easier to contract.
 
bodyman5001 said:
I hate to sound horrible, but I am so I will just say it. I don't want them to stop the spread of HIV, I just want them to keep it from becoming easier to contract.
Click to expand...

*edited*
 
Last edited by a moderator:
maxiep said:
Like I said, I believe in freedom, be it speech or choice. You're free to disagree with the Pope. Ain't America grand?
Click to expand...

Yes it is.

The Catholic Church however, does not share your beliefs in freedom, be they speech or choice.

This alone makes them dipshits.
 
MARIS61 said:
Yes it is.

The Catholic Church however, does not share your beliefs in freedom, be they speech or choice.

This alone makes them dipshits.
Click to expand...

And I believe in their freedom to choose their own beliefs.
 
maxiep said:
Well, I'm not particularly religious. But, which is the greater demonstration of ignorance? Not knowing that the current Pope served Germany in the last days of an evil regime, or not knowing that the rites of passage are the same for both Catholic girls and boys?

And as for the Hitler Youth, here's what is said about his time there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI



So, he did something that was required, that he didn't support. I signed up for Selective Service when I turned 18; does that make me a baby-killer? Your analysis once again is not particularly wide, yet only a millimeter deep.

So, were you ignorant to the circumstances or just disingenuous?
Click to expand...

A lot of non-Jews don't know rites of passage for Jews. I am a non-Catholic who does not know rites of passage for Catholics. I admitted it, while you made accusations against me for referencing Hitler Youth, claiming it was slander.

Required my ass! Some people showed consciences, they left the country. And of course my relatives had no choice.

I was not ignorant or disingenuous. I see no reason to believe a reluctant young man was forced into something he did not want to do. If the pope had been 6 I could say he was too young to know better. At 14 he damn well was not. He just revoked the excommunication of a Holocaust denier. Let's just say I am unforgiving of mass murder.

A couple of comments on the discussion:

Free speech is not the issue. Anyone has the legal right to say things that are stupid, factually incorrect, or flat out evil. But no one is exempt from criticism. And some would say it is irresponsible for a world leader, which the pope is, to say things that are stupid, factually incorrect, or flat out evil.

In some African countries, Christian clergy have destroyed shipments of condoms in order to stop their use. That is the influence of words like the pope's.

Now, if the pope said that married heterosexuals could have sex with their spouses in marriage while the rest of us should remain celibate forever, that would just be his opinion. I'd sure disagree, as Bristol Palin said, abstinence for all is not realistic. But it would be just his opinion. He did not say that, he said condoms don't stop spread of AIDS and may make it worse. In other words, he explicitly condemned what has been proven very effective in slowing an epidemic and saving lives. That was stupid, factually wrong, and evil.

A case scenario. Let's say a man (could be a woman, but say a man) has been very promiscuous. But he decides to settle down and marry. His wife is pregant and he discovers he is HIV+. Fortunately, his wife was not infected so she and her child are safe. What should he do, assuming the woman does not throw him out on his ear? Well, he has 2 choices. One is to take anti-retrovirals, accept that he and his wife will have no more biological children, adopt another child, and practice safe sex to keep his wife safe. But if he minded the pope, he would not use condoms. His wife would stand a high risk of infection, and of having an infected child. Does that sound moral?

And if the case sounds familiar, it should be. It's the story of Magic Johnson, who chose option #1. Personally I think that shows a lot more morals than option #2.
 
Last edited:
crandc said:
A case scenario. Let's say a man (could be a woman, but say a man) has been very promiscuous. But he decides to settle down and marry. His wife is pregant and he discovers he is HIV+. Fortunately, his wife was not infected so she and her child are safe. What should he do, assuming the woman does not throw him out on his ear? Well, he has 2 choices. One is to take anti-retrovirals, accept that he and his wife will have no more biological children, adopt another child, and practice safe sex to keep his wife safe. But if he minded the pope, he would not use condoms. His wife would stand a high risk of infection, and of having an infected child. Does that sound moral?

And if the case sounds familiar, it should be. It's the story of Magic Johnson, who chose option #1. Personally I think that shows a lot more morals than option #2.
Click to expand...

If he would've minded what the Pope believes, the significantly-low odds are that wouldn't have had HIV in the first place. For every Ryan White, there're millions of promiscuous people who got hurt playing Sexual Russian Roulette.
 
crandc said:
A lot of non-Jews don't know rites of passage for Jews. I am a non-Catholic who does not know rites of passage for Catholics. I admitted it, while you made accusations against me for referencing Hitler Youth, claiming it was slander.

Required my ass! Some people showed consciences, they left the country. And of course my relatives had no choice.

I was not ignorant or disingenuous. I see no reason to believe a reluctant young man was forced into something he did not want to do. If the pope had been 6 I could say he was too young to know better. At 14 he damn well was not. He just revoked the excommunication of a Holocaust denier. Let's just say I am unforgiving of mass murder.

A couple of comments on the discussion:

Free speech is not the issue. Anyone has the legal right to say things that are stupid, factually incorrect, or flat out evil. But no one is exempt from criticism. And some would say it is irresponsible for a world leader, which the pope is, to say things that are stupid, factually incorrect, or flat out evil.

In some African countries, Christian clergy have destroyed shipments of condoms in order to stop their use. That is the influence of words like the pope's.

Now, if the pope said that married heterosexuals could have sex with their spouses in marriage while the rest of us should remain celibate forever, that would just be his opinion. I'd sure disagree, as Bristol Palin said, abstinence for all is not realistic. But it would be just his opinion. He did not say that, he said condoms don't stop spread of AIDS and may make it worse. In other words, he explicitly condemned what has been proven very effective in slowing an epidemic and saving lives. That was stupid, factually wrong, and evil.

A case scenario. Let's say a man (could be a woman, but say a man) has been very promiscuous. But he decides to settle down and marry. His wife is pregant and he discovers he is HIV+. Fortunately, his wife was not infected so she and her child are safe. What should he do, assuming the woman does not throw him out on his ear? Well, he has 2 choices. One is to take anti-retrovirals, accept that he and his wife will have no more biological children, adopt another child, and practice safe sex to keep his wife safe. But if he minded the pope, he would not use condoms. His wife would stand a high risk of infection, and of having an infected child. Does that sound moral?

And if the case sounds familiar, it should be. It's the story of Magic Johnson, who chose option #1. Personally I think that shows a lot more morals than option #2.
Click to expand...

And let's just say that I have an entire side of my family buried in a mass grave outside of Minsk with bullets in their head, so save me the Holocaust victim bullshit--you're not the only one.
 
Or more likely it would be the third option that the Pope is really talking about: Don't have sex until you're married, and if you were promiscuous, suffered the consequences, and your wife forgave you - simply do not engage in sexual acts if you pose risk to another person.

The Pope's idea of no condoms may not be realistic in this day and age, but it doesn't mean he is dumb or suggesting having sex with multiple people without condoms. He's simply proposing that you follow the Bible - you know something a member of the clergy should probably be preaching.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top