If God is all mighty,why doesn't he change bad people/seiners into good ones?

[John V]

oh, burn.....

You have got to be the single most arrogant prick I have ever encountered. Your arguments on this board consist of "I was a druggie but then I found Jesus and now I am better than you because I know the TRUTH!"

Uh, you sure you got the right Christian in mind there, Spanky?

[Baalzebutt]

oh, burn.....

You have got to be the single most arrogant prick I have ever encountered. Your arguments on this board consist of "I was a druggie but then I found Jesus and now I am better than you because I know the TRUTH!"

Uh, you sure you got the right Christian in mind there, Spanky?

My bad. I apologize. I had Strudel on the brain.

I still think you are being an arrogant prick though. You are making broad assumption and laying out rules for an ideal world that doesn't, and can't, exist. I understand your point about following the rules but I suspect that, while not outright banning the availability of condoms, the religious sector probably exerts a great deal of pressure on potential condom suppliers thereby significantly reducing the availability of condoms to both believers and non-believers alike. So this is not just about people following church rules. It is, at its root, about the church poking its nasty little nose in where it doesn't belong.

[TromboneAtheist]

Something I would like to add, that others have touched upon, is that NOT ALL AIDS/HIV COMES FROM SEX. I know. Mind blown. I feel like SOME PEOPLE need that reminder.

[festive1]

And, they apparently don't care enough about sin to obey.

Unlike you, perhaps they don't consider themselves slaves.

What is considered sinful and immoral is often culturally relative. Simply because some people don't consider extra-marital sex a sin, doesn't make their views wrong and your's right. It just means they're different.

[TromboneAtheist]

And, they apparently don't care enough about sin to obey.

Unlike you, perhaps they don't consider themselves slaves.

What is considered sinful and immoral is often culturally relative. Simply because some people don't consider extra-marital sex a sin, doesn't make their views wrong and your's right. It just means they're different.

But they disagree with Christianity! Blasphemy! *sarcasm*

[Ryantology]

A saint with a past would get tested before putting others at risk.

Because that's something the average African pauper can either access readily or afford.

The problem wouldn't exist if people followed catholic doctrine.

If you assume that all cases of AIDS are transmitted via consensual sex or drug use, yes. That is, of course, entirely untrue. What does Catholic doctrine suggest we do with the two and a half million babies born with AIDS? 21st century leper colonies? What about the extraordinary prevalence of rape in sub-Saharan Africa, and the tens of thousands of young people and children infected in this manner? How does Catholic doctrine protect them?

I mean, it isn't as if the Catholic church possesses the moral authority to preach that child rape is wrong, do they?

So, no, they haven't blocked the sale of condoms.

What saints they are for not making the problem even worse than they have already made it.

And we're back to the beginning. Catholic doctrine isn't scary enough to stop people from extramarital sex, but it is strong enough to stop condom use? Completely idiotic position.

Resisting the human sex drive is as easy as resisting the use of condoms? And my position is idiotic?

Thousands and thousands die because they can't keep their pants on. If the church drops the ban tomorrow, thousands and thousands will still die, because they still won't keep their pants on.

Thousands and thousands fewer will die if the Church fucks off, stops preaching improbable solutions and stops fighting effective ones.

[John V]

Unlike you, perhaps they don't consider themselves slaves.

What is considered sinful and immoral is often culturally relative. Simply because some people don't consider extra-marital sex a sin, doesn't make their views wrong and your's right. It just means they're different.

You don't get my point. It's not about right/wrong, it's about consistency. It's stupid to claim that the same people feels free to disagree with the Catholic church regarding extramarital sex, but feels obliged to obey the Catholic church's position on condoms.

It makes no sense to suppose that they obey on the one point of condom use but disobey the rest.

---

Because that's something the average African pauper can either access readily or afford.

We're not talking about the average American pauper. We're talking about a saint. And as 2.5 million babies have apparently been tested, I would think that yes, testing is accessible and affordable. Or are you just making up numbers?

If you assume that all cases of AIDS are transmitted via consensual sex or drug use, yes. That is, of course, entirely untrue. What does Catholic doctrine suggest we do with the two and a half million babies born with AIDS? 21st century leper colonies?

If AIDS is now survivable, why do you go on about all these deaths? If not, then unfortunately no plan is needed for such babies.

What about the extraordinary prevalence of rape in sub-Saharan Africa, and the tens of thousands of young people and children infected in this manner? How does Catholic doctrine protect them?

How do condoms protect rape victims? Are you now claiming that rapists used to use them, but the church guilted them out of it?

What saints they are for not making the problem even worse than they have already made it.

You haven't demonstrated that they've made it worse. I just checked on statistics and found that about 1/6 of Africans are Catholic. That's also the case in the southern region, which has the highest AIDS proportions. I find it more likely that the 84% are more of a problem than the 16%. Plus, research has found that religion is not a big factor in condom use in Africa:
http://www.futurity.org/health-medicine/...a-bad-rap/

Some religious groups in Africa are criticized for prohibiting condom use, a practice that can prevent the transmission HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. However, most people do not avoid condoms because of religious teachings, according to the researchers, who detail their findings in Religion and AIDS in Africa (2012, Oxford University Press).

During interviews, people frequently complained that condoms diminish sexual pleasure, but seldom attributed any reluctance to use them to their religious beliefs, according to Trinitapoli.

The researchers’ analysis of condom use data from the African Demographic and Health Surveys also points to a lack of religious motivation for condom avoidance. Despite the Catholic Church’s prohibitions against condoms, African Catholics are no less likely to report using condoms than Protestants, whose religious leaders do not prohibit their use. Condom use tends to be lowest among Muslims even though there is no prohibition against condom use among mainstream Muslim leaders.

---

Here's a column written by the lead author of the research I noted earlier.
http://www.centredaily.com/2013/02/17/35...chers.html

[jstrodel]

Well, if they didn't take the women during a time of war as their wives, they would have had to kill them.

Why?

Because if there are thouands of people around, the people can turn around and revolt and kill the occupiers. Look at how difficult it was for the US to subdue Iraq with all the weapons that it had.

---

If you assume that all cases of AIDS are transmitted via consensual sex or drug use, yes. That is, of course, entirely untrue. What does Catholic doctrine suggest we do with the two and a half million babies born with AIDS? 21st century leper colonies? What about the extraordinary prevalence of rape in sub-Saharan Africa, and the tens of thousands of young people and children infected in this manner? How does Catholic doctrine protect them?

It is not like condoms solve this problem. They are not 100% effective. A person who is HIV positive can't protect them-self with a condom. The ONLY safe thing for them to do is abstain from all sexual activity.

The cruelest thing in the world to do would be to suggest to someone that 95% effectiveness or 99% effectiveness was enough to stop something as dangerous as HIV.

---

It doesn't really seem like any of you really want to understand the issues surrounding HIV, you would rather blame the church for something that really isn't related. If people have sex before marriage, there is a high risk that they will contract some sort of STD or AIDs. It does matter if they use a condom, but it doesn't matter enough to make it some kind of magic bullet. The only kind of safe sex is sex between married people who are tested.

[Ryantology]

We're not talking about the average American pauper. We're talking about a saint. And as 2.5 million babies have apparently been tested, I would think that yes, testing is accessible and affordable. Or are you just making up numbers?

Without treatment or aid, transmission rates of AIDS from mother to child can be as high as 45%. AIDS also has a much more noticeable effect on children, with their underdeveloped immune systems. Mass testing is not required to get a general grasp of the number of children with the disease.

A person who contracts it in adulthood can conceal it much more easily, as well. They may not even realize they carry it until it is obviously manifest, which could take years, so adhering to Catholic doctrine is in no way a guarantee of safety, unless they are indoctrinated from birth and never falter.

As for numbers, I discovered that my source was outdated, the actual range according to the UN is 3.1-3.8 million children infected.

And, this is all beside the point. If the church cared about human life as much as it cared about proselytizing, they would promote protection in addition to sexual repression, as a concession to reality.

If AIDS is now survivable, why do you go on about all these deaths? If not, then unfortunately no plan is needed for such babies.

I didn't know that Africans had access to state of the art experimental first world medical treatment which was first demonstrated to work last week. Certainly, nobody in Africa will die from AIDS from now on. Thanks for letting me know.

How do condoms protect rape victims? Are you now claiming that rapists used to use them, but the church guilted them out of it?

That's the wrong question. The question is, how does the doctrine banning pre-marital sex protect rape victims, if that doctrine is the magic pill which would cure everything?

You haven't demonstrated that they've made it worse. I just checked on statistics and found that about 1/6 of Africans are Catholic. That's also the case in the southern region, which has the highest AIDS proportions. I find it more likely that the 84% are more of a problem than the 16%. Plus, research has found that religion is not a big factor in condom use in Africa:
http://www.futurity.org/health-medicine/...a-bad-rap/\

Does a person have to be a professing Catholic to listen to their diatribe and follow it? The Pope doesn't resort to scripture to justify his position to Africans, he tells them outright lies about how condoms help spread AIDS faster.

The Catholic church is not involved in this out of charity. They are exploiting a crisis to push their dogma.

[quote=Mr. Epistemotology] The cruelest thing in the world to do would be to suggest to someone that 95% effectiveness or 99% effectiveness was enough to stop something as dangerous as HIV.

That would be cruel, but it is also a giant strawman. A device with 95-99% effectiveness would not stop HIV, it would just, you know, make it 95-99 times more likely to prevent it than not using one.

Instead, you guys introduce a standard you know that most people can't live up to, blame people for being people when your stupid idea doesn't work, and make it worse by disallowing effective alternatives. Which, when you get right down to it, is a very Christian way of doing things, isn't it?

[jstrodel]

The cruelest thing in the world to do would be to suggest to someone that 95% effectiveness or 99% effectiveness was enough to stop something as dangerous as HIV.

That would be cruel, but it is also a giant strawman. A device with 95-99% effectiveness would not stop HIV, it would just, you know, make it 95-99 times more likely to prevent it than not using one.

Instead, you guys introduce a standard you know that most people can't live up to, blame people for being people when your stupid idea doesn't work, and make it worse by disallowing effective alternatives. Which, when you get right down to it, is a very Christian6 way of doing things, isn't it?

This is the stupidest thing I have heard all day. You really think that a device with 95-99% effectiveness would make it 95-99% more likely to stop HIV? No, it would open people to having sexual intercourse.

Abstinence works. I have not been seriously tempted to have sex in years and years and years. God takes the desire away. You are the one who is deceiving people, telling them that if they are HIV positive they can have sex and it is ok because it is 95-99% effective.

You call the Christians position ideological, but this is the most ideological nonsense in the world. That is the way that young children count, the way that you just did. You think you compute probabilities based on a single instance and that condoms have no effect on psychological behavior? You are brainwashed. Either people are sexually active or they aren't. The probability of contracting AIDS is based on whether people are sexually active, it is not based on a single use. For someone who has HIV, the chance that they will give it to someone else, whatever kind of contraception they use is far, far too high to do anything than abstinence. But you would never accept that. You are much to comfortable in your politics and your advocacy of hedonism to step outside yourself and actually consider how what you advocate translates into the real world.

You are the one who is making HIV worst, not the Catholic church.