lukeiamyourdad Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Now these guys really help the image of the Catholic Church. Promoting abstinence and fidelity without dissing condoms. http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=602577 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Bout damn time they get their act together. Huzzah for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 good for them! Might actually make the catholic church seem like a well meaning, benevolant organisation rather than a dogmatic organisation more obsessed with maintaining control by fear than anything else... Bet they get beaten down by the vatican though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 ... damn right. Happened just this morning. 'Bout time we line those fascists up against a wall... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_hill987 Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar Bout time we line those fascists up against a wall... Well, I wouldn't go that far. But at least they are starting to live in the 20th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 But this is century 21? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_hill987 Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Originally posted by RayJones But this is century 21? Exactly my point. They have been living in the 19th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar ... damn right. Happened just this morning. 'Bout time we line those fascists up against a wall... Were you one claiming you had documentation (yet withheld) to support the notion that the Vatican is in fact a Fascist Organisation? Or is this just empty polemic designed to provoke an emotional response (ie: if I don't like someone or what they stand for, call them names)? ; ) Anyway, if I'm not mistaken, prior to 1930, most Christian churches (if not all of them) were publically against artificial contraception methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 Originally posted by Kurgan Were you one claiming you had documentation (yet withheld) to support the notion that the Vatican is in fact a Fascist Organisation? Well, apart from the fact that they were an Axis power (well, an Axis country anyway) before there was an Axis to be part of. They were allied to Fascist Italy and Fascist Germany before they were allied to each other. And unlike the other countries who collaborated/were occiupied during the War, no independent investigation of the higher echelons of the Vatican chain of command was ever initiated, nor have their archives from those times ever been made available to historians. Add to that the fact that most of the Fascist ideas were taken straight out of Vatican propaganda textbooks: From antisemitism over condemnation of homosexuals (and - for that matter - contraceptives) to the overweening desire to rule the world. Anyway, if I'm not mistaken, prior to 1930, most Christian churches (if not all of them) were publically against artificial contraception methods. Which proves what? That all other Christian sects are as deluded as the Church? Or that the other Christian sects actually learned something from the War - at least on the propaganda front? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 29, 2005 Author Share Posted January 29, 2005 Hey hey hey this is a thread about Christians starting to accept contraception methods, not a rant about who's a fascist. You want to discuss that, go elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad Hey hey hey this is a thread about Christians starting to accept contraception methods Then it has outlived its purpose: The initiative was summarily smackdowned by the Papacy less than 24 h after it was proposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 and therefore i have an overwhelming faith that, should heaven and hell actually exist, there is going to be a special place reserved in one of them for the pope... and it isn't the one he is hoping for. He'll be slumming it down there with all the other mass murderers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar Then it has outlived its purpose: The initiative was summarily smackdowned by the Papacy less than 24 h after it was proposed. And? The bishop defied the Pope knowing that he would smack it down. This is about some high ranking people in the Catholic church starting to accept the use of contraception methods outside of abstinence. You want to whine about who's a fascist? Go elsewhere. If the thread dies, let it die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad And? The bishop defied the Pope knowing that he would smack it down. This is about some high ranking people in the Catholic church starting to accept the use of contraception methods outside of abstinence. Dissent doesn't matter if it doesn't bring about results. For all we know it could as well have been a media stunt. - As an aside, ceasing to condemn the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS does not diminish the problem that the Papacy is still opposed to contraception as a means of solving the problem of overpopulation, which, if unsolved, will far outmatch the problem of AIDS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 3, 2005 Author Share Posted February 3, 2005 It's a start and that's the point of it. It doesn't have to bring immediate result. What we know is that not all of them are narrow-minded. If they cease to condemn the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS, it will help overpopulation problems. If the Vatican ever decides to accept condoms in the fight against AIDS, the people's mentality might change. They won't necessarily view it as sinful element. Like I said, it's a start, a small one, but one we cannot ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar Well, apart from the fact that they were an Axis power (well, an Axis country anyway) before there was an Axis to be part of. They were allied to Fascist Italy and Fascist Germany before they were allied to each other. Good that you corrected yourself. Not a power, but a "country." Or rather, within a country that was fascist. But you're saying that not only is Vatican City Fascist, but it's STILL fascist. I don't see the proof of that, accept an assumption. I don't think the Pope was in control of Italy as the time, and what would have happened if he'd told Mussolini to shove it? I always saw it as more of a concession, like giving Native Americans a reservation to live on. Now perhaps it wasn't that extreme, I'm not a professional historian, so again, correct me if I'm wrong. Are Germany and Italy still Fascist? Why or why not? We could use similar criteria to judge Vatican City. And unlike the other countries who collaborated/were occiupied during the War, no independent investigation of the higher echelons of the Vatican chain of command was ever initiated, nor have their archives from those times ever been made available to historians. Are you sure about that? Nobody thought to check in all this time? Add to that the fact that most of the Fascist ideas were taken straight out of Vatican propaganda textbooks: From antisemitism over condemnation of homosexuals (and - for that matter - contraceptives) to the overweening desire to rule the world. Antisemitism was rife around the world, and ingrained in European society (yes, regrettably at times aided and abetted by church leaders, it goes back to John Chrysostom and then Martin Luther, historically). Contraception was opposed for a long time, and religious institutions rejected it until the Anglican church (IIRC) approved its use by married couples in 1930, wherein other churches began to fall in line that way. "Condemnation of Homosexuals" was part and parcile of many societies (not all obviously) and in Christianity, and still is today. The difference between that and the Nazis is that most people aren't trying to exterminate them. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but you hear about witch burnings and you hear about heretics being persecuted in history, but when were homosexuals ever targetted en-masse before the Nazis? And lest it be thought that the Nazis invented these things, the Eugenics program began in North America too if I'm not mistaken. It wasn't until Hitler that people realized just how horrible and dangerous these ideas were, if carried to conclusion, leading to massive repudiation of them around the world. Basically you're equating Christianity to Nazism (Fascism). Rhetorically speaking its a weak argument rendered so by endless name-calling in political disputes (don't like somebody? call them a Nazi/fascist, because that's synonymous in the public mind with anti-freedom and evil). Anyway, you might be able to show a correlation, but how can you show causation? The Church (if it ever did) no longer advocates anti-semitism, likewise it does not try to kill homosexuals (rather says to "hate the sin, love the sinner"). Rev. Fred Phelps isn't Catholic (he's Baptist, and while most Baptists agree that practicing homosexuals are indeed sinning, they don't approve of his tactics). Yet you're saying they're Fascist. Uh, ok. I suppose we're monarchist slave-holders in the US here too, because that's what we can from. Which proves what? That all other Christian sects are as deluded as the Church? Or that the other Christian sects actually learned something from the War - at least on the propaganda front? I am showing why one can't simply single out the Roman Catholic Church as some freakish anomaly for opposing artificial contraception. The other churches simply caved in to social pressures, that's all. Sex outside of marriage is widely regarded as sinful in Christianity, and yet too is opposed to the cultural "norm" too. Try to think of it from their perspective. If you felt something was immoral, would you want to promote it, or oppose it? We have toms calling the Pope a "mass murderer" yet again, this assumes that everyone is going to have promiscious sex, and so being against contraceptive methods is the same as causing AIDS, which is the same as murder. If people listened to the Pope they'd be fine. A little "repressed" I suppose, but fine, unless you're talking about people being raped or mishandling blood in hospitals. Sorry to drag that out, but that was my reply. Feel free to have the last word on this one if you wish... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Originally posted by Kurgan We have toms calling the Pope a "mass murderer" yet again, this assumes that everyone is going to have promiscious sex, and so being against contraceptive methods is the same as causing AIDS, which is the same as murder. If people listened to the Pope they'd be fine. A little "repressed" I suppose, but fine, unless you're talking about people being raped or mishandling blood in hospitals. Sorry. It is just an issue i feel strongly about. There are millions dying from aids africa, yet the pope would rather tell them "condoms don't stop aids, don't use condoms" than do something to save them. Of course not everyone listens to him, and the church is also trying to tell people not to be promiscuous... but unfortunately promiscuousness is built into both the human dna and the african culture... so it is going to be a very hard one to turn around. In the mean-time they are willing to let all those people die, in fact they are willing to encourage it by peddling lies and half-truths that undermine all the efforts of the health organisations to get condoms used. The use of condoms is something they might actually be able to influence, or at least stop undermining by keeping quiet. Many of the victims aren't even the ones being promiscuous, they are the wives and kids of the men who have been sleeping around. The church has basically turned a blind eye to their fate. Mass murderer? Maybe, maybe not. Going to hell... most definately imho. (if it exists) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiroki Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Heh, this is all really interesting. I'm just glad I'm not a Catholic. (Protestant here). I don't mind the use of condoms, or even sex outside of marriage. (*gasp*) It is casual sex that I am apposed to, as it undermines the value of intercourse, and turns it into just a worthless tool for "Gettin' off! Ah hell yeah!" types to abuse. Condoms however are just fine. I mean, having a child at the wrong time can really ruin somebody’s life, even if they do not have AIDs. And the child itself might end up being aborted (Which is far worse the condoms damn it.), or given away. Sex isn't merely for procreation after all. It is about sharing your deepest feelings with the one you love, and becoming as one with them for those precious few moments. (Which is why I am against casual sex...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Originally posted by Hiroki Sex isn't merely for procreation after all. It is about sharing your deepest feelings with the one you love, and becoming as one with them for those precious few moments. Nope. Sex is only 'made' for procreation. It has no other purpose. What you describe here about feelings etc is exactly why we don't stop doing it. It's a simple trick from our brain developed since the beginning of life, it's like a drug, you can't escape it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 22, 2005 Author Share Posted February 22, 2005 And people wouldn't procreate if there was no fun in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 which goes to show that god must be pro homosexuality, or he wouldn't have made it fun too!!!! Come to think of it, maybe he made it all a bit TOO fun... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 I imagine a bunch of wormfolks having ultimate fun in dividing themselves in halfs. .. I feel good knowing that we do it the bolt-in-hole style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 Originally posted by toms which goes to show that god must be pro homosexuality, or he wouldn't have made it fun too!!!! Come to think of it, maybe he made it all a bit TOO fun... I know you're kidding, but still, I don't need to point out that logic doesn't hold up. The idea that "sex feels good" because otherwise we wouldn't do it seems reasonable enough. Why do something so weird if there was no conceivable benefit? I guess it could be pure instinct. But as thinking beings we're like "wow, this is good for me, I'm going to do it." Short term benefits.... like eating food, even if in the long run eating bad food can make us sick or kill us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 Originally posted by Kurgan Sorry to drag that out, but that was my reply. Feel free to have the last word on this one if you wish... We'd better split this into a seperate thread... I think it's gonna generate a lot of heat and very little light, and it would be a pity indeed to derail the original thread. Originally posted by Kurgan Good that you corrected yourself. Not a power, but a "country." Or rather, within a country that was fascist. You overinterpret my words here. That they were not a "power" was not for lack of trying - rather lack of manpower and panzer. But you're saying that not only is Vatican City Fascist, but it's STILL fascist. I don't see the proof of that, accept an assumption. There was never a fundamental change in its political system. The burocracy was never de-nazified. Besides, it fulfills the criteria for a fascist regime: 1) It is headed by the autoritarian leader of a mass movement. 2) It desires to reshape not society (as do legitimate political movements) but the thoughts of every human. 3) It actively represses dissidents. I don't think the Pope was in control of Italy as the time, and what would have happened if he'd told Mussolini to shove it? One of these things: 1) Exile (like the Norweigian, Polish and French govnerments) 2) Death 3) Imprisonment/internal exile 4) Forced collaboration (like Denmark and Finland - and, some would argue, Sweden) Are Germany and Italy still Fascist? Why or why not? Their burocracies was de-nazified by the Soviet Union and the Allies after the war. Their armies were disbanded. Their countries occiupied. Their leaders hanged. We could use similar criteria to judge Vatican City. The Vatican burocracy was never de-nazified by the Allies (and much less by the Russians). The Vatican army was never (or only briefly) disbanded. Their leaders were not removed from office. Are you sure about that? Nobody thought to check in all this time? Of course negative evidence is hard to come by, but a quick Googling conjured up this That's from a Catholic site, and dated 2000 AD. And this That's from the ADL. Those were the two least heavy-handed of the first ten Google hits on the subject "Vatican WWII" This looks reasonably interesting as well - particularily Footnote #1 Antisemitism was rife around the world, and ingrained in European society (yes, regrettably at times aided and abetted by church leaders, it goes back to John Chrysostom and then Martin Luther, historically). I won't start an argument over whether the Church was the driving factor behind anti-semitism or merely a willing collaborator. But Chrysostom would seem to have lived about the same time the Church was founded, so appearently anti-semitism has been a constant companion of Christianity. Contraception was opposed for a long time, and religious institutions rejected it until the Anglican church (IIRC) approved its use by married couples in 1930, wherein other churches began to fall in line that way. OK, maybe that was a Protestant thing as much as a Catholic. Point taken. "Condemnation of Homosexuals" was part and parcile of many societies (not all obviously) and in Christianity, and still is today. The difference between that and the Nazis is that most people aren't trying to exterminate them. *cough*spanishinquisition*cough*russianorthodox*cough* And, correct me if I'm wrong, but you hear about witch burnings and you hear about heretics being persecuted in history, but when were homosexuals ever targetted en-masse before the Nazis? They were targeted en-bloc long before. But unlike other forms of so-called sexual depravity (such as pre-marital sex) it was fairly easy to conceal and never affected a large portion of the population, meaning that there was no means by which they could be targeted en-masse. Whether or not they would have been is conjecture, but "yes" is an educated guess. Gotta go now. I'll Be Back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.