NationStates Jolt Archive

The pope advocates abstinence to combat AIDS.

The Roman Catholic pope has come under renewed criticism after saying that condoms are not the solution to Africa's HIV epidemic.

Pope Benedict XVI made the remarks as he started a seven-day tour of the continent on Tuesday.

"You can't resolve it [Aids] with the distribution of condoms," the pope said. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

It is the first time that Benedict has addressed the issues of condom use. Pope John Paul II, his predecessor, often said that sexual abstinence - not condoms - was the best way to prevent the spread of the disease.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2009/03/20093183550676229.html

Opposition within:

Some priests and nuns working with those infected with the virus question the church's opposition to condoms. Many ordinary Africans do as well.

Narcisse Takou, a teacher working in the Cameroon capital where the pope started his tour, said: "Talking about the non-use of condoms is out of place. We need condoms to protect ourselves against diseases and Aids."

Stanley Obale Okpu, a civil servant working in the ministry of urban development in Cameroon, said: "What the pope says is an ideal for the Catholic church.

"But he needs to look at the realities on the ground. One should be aware of these realities. In the case of Cameroon - and Africa as a whole - condoms are very necessary... You need condoms to prevent Aids and birth control."

Some people have got it right, the all Church ideals and reality are not compatible. A reader's opinion on sex and the Church:

The solution is to keep religious people out of sex life.

-Aladdin, United States

That's a slippery slope of hypocrisy there. Might as well not have religion then :|

Might as well not have religion then :|

Can't say I disagree.

Can't say I disagree.

That is if we (religious people) were to take such advice.

Story on old story is old and predictable.

:tongue:

That is if we (religious people) were to take such advice.

Indeed, and most intelligent people of religion wouldn't, which is fine.

Alas the people most swayed by religion tend to be found in the lower ends of society, religion as a problem is tied up with a lack of education, and the Pope clearly demonstrates that such dogma flies in a the face of all evidence that condoms absolutely help control the spread of AIDS in a realistic way.

I've no real truck with faith, I'd rather a person said 'I have faith' rather than 'I'm religious' because, for me, the codification of religion is its very worst aspect.

I've no real truck with faith, I'd rather a person said 'I have faith' rather than 'I'm religious' because, for me, the codification of religion is its very worst aspect.

How so? To say "I have faith in Jesus Christ" but to not follow his commandment and teachings is hypocritical. There is no Muslim who does not observe the pillars of Islam even if they do not observe dietary laws and Hadith sayings, since the pillars are the most fundamental aspect of the religion.

I think you'd rather a person say 'I am spiritual,' where they do not adhere to a religion, but selectively read sacred texts and agree with those segments that is the most compatible with their ideals.


The religious code is to be changed and adapted to society. When people fail to do that, you see places like Afghanistan.

How so? To say "I have faith in Jesus Christ" but to not follow his commandment and teachings is hypocritical. There is no Muslim who does not observe the pillars of Islam even if they do not observe dietary laws and Hadith sayings, since the pillars are the most fundamental aspect of the religion.

Indeed, every religion is hypocritical in that sense.

I think you'd rather a person say 'I am spiritual,' where they do not adhere to a religion, but selectively read sacred texts and agree with those segments that is the most compatible with their ideals.

Again, every religion does that.

I still prefer 'I have faith'.

The religious code is to be changed and adapted to society. When people fail to do that, you see places like Afghanistan.

If religious code is not immutable, it's rather pointless, well quite.

Afghanistan is a problem of poverty, religion is an offshoot of that problem.

Abstinence is a great way to curb the AIDS epidemic, so the Pope is on to something. It's just that no-one would really listen to that, or people think it's too unrealistic... Which is kinda true.

Practicing sexual abstinence is the best way to prevent HIV transmission. The fact that the Catholic church still believes that their telling people to do it will make it so suggests that they should probably mind their own business.

How on earth do condoms make the HIV/AIDS epidemic worse?

How on earth do condoms make the HIV/AIDS epidemic worse?

Presumably the idea that condoms encourage people to have more sex. I'd say that given the spread of HIV in Africa the lack of contraceptives (or possibly the lack of education on their necessity) isn't exactly discouraging people from having sex in the first place.

Fuck the Pope. :)

Presumably the idea that condoms encourage people to have more sex. I'd say that given the spread of HIV in Africa the lack of contraceptives (or possibly the lack of education on their necessity) isn't exactly discouraging people from having sex in the first place.
You'd swear people enjoy having sex or something!
Fuck the Pope. :)

Just don't use a condom.

Just don't use a condom.

Definitely not. Using a condom would really upset him. ;)

Fuck the Pope. :)

It's people like you who got me to start voting Republican. For all the intolerance one can find on the Right, it pales to what I heard while I was part of the Left.

Definitely not. Using a condom would really upset him. ;)
And might give him HIV.
It's people like you who got me to start voting Republican. For all the intolerance one can find on the Right, it pales to what I heard while I was part of the Left.

Pssst, noob. LG is a Christian. He's just a hilarious Christian. A hilarious mud-coated Christian. A hilarious, mud-coated, taco-eating Christian.

Practicing sexual abstinence is the best way to prevent HIV transmission.

Of course it is. But unfortunately, no one wants to exercise any self-control.

If people lived the way that the Church suggests leads to the most happiness, they'd only have sex within the bounds of a faithful marriage and always be open to new life, which means you would have a society in which people would be free from STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and emotional betrayal.

Why on earth would anyone want to live free from all that when they can have AIDS, unfaithfulness, and be "punished by having a baby" (as Obama once out it)?

It's people like you who got me to start voting Republican. For all the intolerance one can find on the Right, it pales to what I heard while I was part of the Left.

And it's people like you that makes me glad that I place my faith in Christ and not in some withered white dork who thinks his shit doesn't stink. Jesus was a pretty tolerant guy but like me, He draws the line at tolerating intolerance.

And might give him HIV.


Pssst, noob. LG is a Christian. He's just a hilarious Christian. A hilarious mud-coated Christian. A hilarious, mud-coated, taco-eating Christian.

I look at mud and ask, "What Would Jesus Do?" The rest you know. :)

And might give him HIV.


Pssst, noob. LG is a Christian. He's just a hilarious Christian. A hilarious mud-coated Christian. A hilarious, mud-coated, taco-eating Christian.

My mistake.

BTW, not a noob. Been around for years, but off and on and not with much posting. This nation isn't my first.

And it's people like you that makes me glad that I place my faith in Christ and not in some withered white dork who thinks his shit doesn't stink. Jesus was a pretty tolerant guy but like me, He draws the line at tolerating intolerance.

Tolerant like YOU? "Withered white dork who thinks his shit doesn't stink" is how you express tolerance?...

Interesting..

Tolerant like YOU? "Withered white dork who thinks his shit doesn't stink" is how you express tolerance?...

Interesting..

You seem to have confused tolerance and politeness.

You seem to have confused tolerance and politeness.

I don't think so.

Tolerant like YOU? "Withered white dork who thinks his shit doesn't stink" is how you express tolerance?...

Interesting..

Well, we can't all express our intolerance by advocating the treatment of women and homosexuals like second-class people can we?

From the dictionary,

Tolerance: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own.

He seems to lack that.

Well, we can't all express our intolerance by advocating the treatment of women and homosexuals like second-class people can we?

If women are second class citizens in the RCC, then how did Mary get crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth? Doesn't sound like a second class title.

As for gays, I suggest you check the Catechism, article 2358. Love and tolerance and all that expressed rather nicely in there.

From the dictionary,

Tolerance: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own.

He seems to lack that.

Poking fun at the Pope for his age and "Holier than thou"-thing isn't being intolerant of his beliefs. It's just poking fun.
If women are second class citizens in the RCC, then how did Mary get crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth? Doesn't sound like a second class title.
And yet, women can't hold any position of real significance in the church today. One token dead woman isn't much.

From the dictionary,

Tolerance: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own.

He seems to lack that.

Actually, the Pope seems to lack that.

I tolerate other people's beliefs and practices just fine up to the point where their beliefs and practices include the belief that they have to practice telling other people what their beliefs and practices ought to be. I'm afraid that's a belief and practice I can't tolerate. Still, while not perfect, that makes me considerably more tolerant than say.... the Pope. :D

If women are second class citizens in the RCC, then how did Mary get crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth? Doesn't sound like a second class title.

As for gays, I suggest you check the Catechism, article 2358. Love and tolerance and all that expressed rather nicely in there.

If women and homosexuals aren't second-class people, then why are none of them priests?

Poking fun at the Pope for his age and "Holier than thou"-thing isn't being intolerant of his beliefs. It's just poking fun.

And yet, women can't hold any position of real significance in the church today. One token dead woman isn't much.

I've never heard the Mother of God described that way before. Token dead woman. Interesting..

Well, we wouldn't want to forget the Saints, and doctors of the church and all that. But why stick with the facts, right?

If women and homosexuals aren't second-class people, then why are none of them priests?

Well to be fair, there are some gay priests. They're just in the sacramental closet.

If women and homosexuals aren't second-class people, then why are none of them priests?


That'll be because the Catholic Church is intolerant of homosexuals and they think women are second class citizens.

Fuck the Pope and the fucking Catholic Church.

If women and homosexuals aren't second-class people, then why are none of them priests?


Women aren't priests, because none of the apostles were women. Being male is a "constitutive" element of the sacrament of Holy Orders, and not even the Pope is allowed to alter a sacrament's constitutive elements.

As for homosexuality, again, read the passage from the Catechism I gave you. It's right there on Google.

Well to be fair, there are some gay priests. They're just in the sacramental closet.

True, because being gay isn't the issue. The issue has always been acting on it, just like it's not a sin for me to find a woman other than my wife attractive, but to act on that attraction and have an affair, well that would be the problem. Same thing.

Women aren't priests, because none of the apostles were women. Being male is a "constitutive" element of the sacrament of Holy Orders, and not even the Pope is allowed to alter a sacrament's constitutive elements.

We can't let women be priests because of a really really old rule! We can't change a really really old rule!!!!!11!11!

Women aren't priests, because none of the apostles were women. Being male is a "constitutive" element of the sacrament of Holy Orders, and not even the Pope is allowed to alter a sacrament's constitutive elements.

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/bsflag.gif

Look, you don't like the Catholic Church, don't be a member. But realize that the Pope has every right to express an opinion, and those of us who wish to follow his suggestions have every right to do so as well.

Live and let live. But if someone chooses to live as part of the RCC, there are some rules to follow, just like if you choose to live in America there are some rules to follow specific to this nation.

We can't change a really really old rule!!!!!11!11!

And I explained why. Constitution of the sacrament etc. Did you read what I wrote? Guess not..

True, because being gay isn't the issue. The issue has always been acting on it, just like it's not a sin for me to find a woman other than my wife attractive, but to act on that attraction and have an affair, well that would be the problem. Same thing.

So then why do the priests even stay in the closet? If the Church is so loving and tolerant they should be more than happy to come out.

We can't let women be priests because of a really really old rule! We can't change a really really old rule!!!!!11!11!

Except for not eating meat on Friday. We can change that one. And Latin Mass. We can change that one too. We can also reverse policy on evolution and geologic history. Those we can change. Just not the women as priests thing.

Except for not eating meat on Friday. We can change that one. And Latin Mass. We can change that one too. We can also reverse policy on evolution and geologic history. Those we can change. Just not the women as priests thing.

Fasting and language of the liturgy aren't sacraments. That's why they can change.

And I explained why. Constitution of the sacrament etc. Did you read what I wrote? Guess not..

You explained that it's a really old rule and you can't change it because it's a really old rule. I'm sure you and others like to think that it's necessary to be a man to be a priest, but any sensible person could look at it and see this isn't true. Did Jesus even say anything about women being priests?

So then why do the priests even stay in the closet? If the Church is so loving and tolerant they should be more than happy to come out.

If you're so loving and tolerant, why not let the Church operate as it sees fit in regards to its theology?

You explained that it's a really old rule and you can't change it because it's a really old rule. I'm sure you and others like to think that it's necessary to be a man to be a priest, but any sensible person could look at it and see this isn't true. Did Jesus even say anything about women being priests?

That's not what I said. You just lied. Why would you do that?

Except for not eating meat on Friday. We can change that one. And Latin Mass. We can change that one too. We can also reverse policy on evolution and geologic history. Those we can change. Just not the women as priests thing.

The Church must be unchangeable! Apart from all the changes its already made......

Look, you don't like the Catholic Church, don't be a member. But realize that the Pope has every right to express an opinion, and those of us who wish to follow his suggestions have every right to do so as well.

Live and let live. But if someone chooses to live as part of the RCC, there are some rules to follow, just like if you choose to live in America there are some rules to follow specific to this nation.

I'm not a Catholic. I'm a christian. I realize the Pope has every right to express his opinion, except when that opinion carries undeserved authority and causes people to die horribly. I also realize the Pope has every right to show complete intolerance for the lifestyles and customs of a large portion of his constituency but that doesn't mean I have to tolerate his intolerance.

Why can't someone be a member of the RCC and not follow the rules of some doddering old fool who thinks he's somehow closer to Jesus than anybody else?

The Church must be unchangeable! Apart from all the changes its already made......

The Church changes. Sacraments don't. I'm sorry, I don't see why that's so difficult to understand...?

The Church changes. Sacraments don't. I'm sorry, I don't see why that's so difficult to understand...?

Probably because they're total nonsense.

I'm not a Catholic. I'm a christian. I realize the Pope has every right to express his opinion, except when that opinion carries undeserved authority and causes people to die horribly.

Then you must have a real problem with presidents and prime ministers, too?

Why can't someone be a member of the RCC and not follow the rules of some doddering old fool who thinks he's somehow closer to Jesus than anybody else?

Same reason you can't claim 10 strikes is an out and still play Major League baseball.

On the subject of women as priests, could someone point out where Jesus explicitly said women were not allowed?

These are the four quotes Pope John Paul II used to explain why women were not allowed to be priests.

"Isn't this why I chose you twelve? Even so, one of you is a devil?" (Jn 6:70)

"Go and announce: 'Heaven's Imperial rule is closing in'. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, drive out demons. You have received freely, so freely give." (Mt 10: 7-8)

"All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. You are to go and make followers of all peoples. You are to baptise them in the name of the Father and the son and the holy spirit. Teach them to observe everything I commanded. I'll be with you day in and day out, as you'll see, so long as this world continues its course." (Mt 28: 18-20)

"But I have prayed for you that your trust may not give out. And once you have recovered, you are to shore up these companions of yours." (Lk 22:32)

??

If you're so loving and tolerant, why not let the Church operate as it sees fit in regards to its theology?
I do let it operate as it sees fit. Even if I wanted to, there's nothing I could do to stop it. I'm free to criticise the church without being intolerant of it.


Oh, and can you answer my question about gay priests staying in the closet, or are you just going to dodge and try to paint me as intolerant?
That's not what I said. You just lied. Why would you do that?

That's no exactly what you said, obviously. Maybe a more accurate summation would be you can't change this really old rule because that really old rule says you can't change this kind of rules. So the Church's internal rules keep women from being equal to men. Now, is this tolerant, or intolerant?

Oh, and can you answer my question about gay priests staying in the closet, or are you just going to dodge and try to paint me as intolerant?

I did. Go back and re-read.


That's no exactly what you said, obviously. Maybe a more accurate summation would be you can't change this really old rule because that really old rule says you can't change this kind of rules. So the Church's internal rules keep women from being equal to men. Now, is this tolerant, or intolerant?

Again, explained already. But you don't read... whatever...if that's your thing, there's nothing I can do about it.

The Church changes. Sacraments don't. I'm sorry, I don't see why that's so difficult to understand...?

Sacraments don't change because the church says they don't. The church could change and say they do, and then they would. Simple.

On the subject of women as priests, could someone point out where Jesus explicitly said women were not allowed?


If I do that, will you point out where Jesus explicitly said service should start at 10 am, or where he says there must be many denominations, one named Baptist, one named Methodist, etc?

Then you must have a real problem with presidents and prime ministers, too?

As opposed to people with an 'opinion which carries undeserved authority and causes people to die horribly'.

I did. Go back and re-read.

You can tell me to read it as many times as you want, but that won't turn a question about me being loving and tolerant into an answer about catholic priests staying in the closet.

Sacraments don't change because the church says they don't. The church could change and say they do, and then they would. Simple.

Ok.

Look, you hate the RCC.. why, I don't know. Sorry you feel that way. Hope you work it out.

If I do that, will you point out where Jesus explicitly said service should start at 10 am, or where he says there must be many denominations, one named Baptist, one named Methodist, etc?

Well quite.

He didn't.

As Pope of your posts I now declare myself sole translator of your posts, please don't be offended if I add some stuff you never said and then condemn to death those who disagree.

You can tell me to read it as many times as you want, but...

...but you still won't read it. I know. I've accepted that.

If I do that, will you point out where Jesus explicitly said service should start at 10 am, or where he says there must be many denominations, one named Baptist, one named Methodist, etc?

So you admit that the RCCs refusal to treat women equally is their own decision, and has no biblical justification. Not that it would make it any better if it did.

Then you must have a real problem with presidents and prime ministers, too? And what connection does one have with the other? The Pope is not a monarch except of a tiny little speck about the size of three city blocks.



Same reason you can't claim 10 strikes is an out and still play Major League baseball.

Oh, I'm sure that if a large enough portion of the few hundred Major League Baseball players wanted to change the rules, the Commissioner wouldn't have a choice. Because the Commisisioner has as much authority as he's given by the players and not by a mythical connection to the inventor of the game with considerably simpler rules.

Well quite.

He didn't.

As Pope of your posts I now declare myself sole translator of your posts, please don't be offended if I add some stuff you never said and then condemn to death those who disagree.

As Catholics we look not only to the scriptures, but to Sacred Tradition, too. The same tradition that Paul himsefl writes about in his epistles.

Ok.

Look, you hate the RCC.. why, I don't know. Sorry you feel that way. Hope you work it out.

I don't hate the RCC. Just the Pope.

Oh, I'm sure that if a large enough portion of the few hundred Major League Baseball players wanted to change the rules, the Commissioner wouldn't have a choice. Because the Commisisioner has as much authority as he's given by the players and not by a mythical connection to the inventor of the game with considerably simpler rules.

Yeah, look how well theology by popular vote has been working for the Anglicans..

I don't hate the RCC. Just the Pope.

Ok.

As Catholics we look not only to the scriptures, but to Sacred Tradition, too. The same tradition that Paul himself writes about in his epistles.

Yet nothing that can't be changed given rational reason, which is what the sort of dogma, dogma that affects the choices of millions of people, the Pope chooses to place above the health and well-being of the very people he purports to lead.

Jesus said little on most of the subjects most adhered to by Christians, and he seemed a pretty tolerant guy, does this really make sense?

Yeah, look how well theology by popular vote has been working for the Anglicans..

I like the Anglicans. Especially Desmond Tutu. Nicest clergyman ever. *nod*

Ok.

Look, you hate the RCC.. why, I don't know. Sorry you feel that way. Hope you work it out.
You really have trouble with understanding this idea, don't you? The sacraments aren't immutable laws of the universe. The Church can't change them because it says it can't, therefore they can never change!
http://rubenerdshow.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/CircularReasoning.png

This is all irrelevant. It doesn't matter why the church treats women and gays unequally. What matters is that they do it.

And yes, the Pope has every right to say what he damn well pleases. But, when he says stupid shit, we have every right to call him out on it. Free speech goes both ways. Further, it's not intolerant to point out when somebody says something stupid, not even if that person is religious, or even a religious authority. It's not intolerant to point out discrimination and intolerance-- or else all those who criticize the KKK are intolerant.

This is all irrelevant. It doesn't matter why the church treats women and gays unequally. What matters is that they do it.

And yes, the Pope has every right to say what he damn well pleases. But, when he says stupid shit, we have every right to call him out on it. Free speech goes both ways. Further, it's not intolerant to point out when somebody says something stupid, not even if that person is religious, or even a religious authority. It's not intolerant to point out discrimination and intolerance-- or else all those who criticize the KKK are intolerant.

Stop being so intolerant!

Oh, and the baseball analogy: it's stupid. The rules of baseball are just that, the rules of a game. They're entirely artificially designed, and do not pretend otherwise. But Catholics (like the majority of religious people) claim that their views on morality and on how to organize society (e.g., denying women the right to authority roles, promoting discrimination against homosexuals) are objectively and absolutely correct for all circumstances. The two cases are not comparable.

Oh, and the baseball analogy: it's stupid. The rules of baseball are just that, the rules of a game. They're entirely artificially designed, and do not pretend otherwise. But Catholics (like the majority of religious people) claim that their views on morality and on how to organize society (e.g., denying women the right to authority roles, promoting discrimination against homosexuals) are objectively and absolutely correct for all circumstances. The two cases are not comparable.

"Basketball players are going to hell!"

;)

Of course it is. But unfortunately, no one wants to exercise any self-control.

If people lived the way that the Church suggests leads to the most happiness, they'd only have sex within the bounds of a faithful marriage and always be open to new life, which means you would have a society in which people would be free from STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and emotional betrayal.

Why on earth would anyone want to live free from all that when they can have AIDS, unfaithfulness, and be "punished by having a baby" (as Obama once out it)?

So when you're married to someone with AIDS, you shouldn't use a condom, you should clearly get AIDS yourself and pop out babies born with AIDS. Good idea.

And of course, let's completely ignore the outrageously high rates of rape in some African countries and pretend that all sex is consensual.

Also, if the Church doesn't want people to use condoms for moral reasons (silly as they may be) they should tell them not to use them for that reason. Instead, the Church tells people in Africa that western companies intentionally coat condoms with AIDS in a plot to destroy Africa. It's despicable.

Also, if the Church doesn't want people to use condoms for moral reasons (silly as they may be) they should tell them not to use them for that reason. Instead, the Church tells people in Africa that western companies intentionally coat condoms with AIDS in a plot to destroy Africa. It's despicable.

Okay, I'm gonna need a source for that.

Of course it is. But unfortunately, no one wants to exercise any self-control.

If people lived the way that the Church suggests leads to the most happiness, they'd only have sex within the bounds of a faithful marriage and always be open to new life, which means you would have a society in which people would be free from STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and emotional betrayal.

Why on earth would anyone want to live free from all that when they can have AIDS, unfaithfulness, and be "punished by having a baby" (as Obama once out it)?

As much as I cherish the Catholic church's suggestion that I have sex only within a marriage and for the purposes of procreation I'm not really sure that would lead to the most happiness.

"Basketball players are going to hell!"

;)
Don't even get me started on what'll happen to hockey players. *shudder*
Also, if the Church doesn't want people to use condoms for moral reasons (silly as they may be) they should tell them not to use them for that reason. Instead, the Church tells people in Africa that western companies intentionally coat condoms with AIDS in a plot to destroy Africa. It's despicable.

The church may be bad on some things, but that bad, really?

As much as I cherish the Catholic church's suggestion that I have sex only within a marriage and for the purposes of procreation I'm not really sure that would lead to the most happiness.

I wonder if Catholics are allowed to have sex during pregnancy. I mean, that's definitely not going to lead to any additional babies.

Okay, I'm gonna need a source for that.

Certainly (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7014335.stm).

My apologies for not providing one with the post in the first place.


Note that it's not just some backwoods preacher, but an archbishop in good standing in the church. The church has not denounced this statement anywhere that I can find, but if they have, I will, of course, retract my criticism on this issue.

Certainly (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7014335.stm).

My apologies for not providing one with the post in the first place.


Note that it's not just some backwoods preacher, but an archbishop in good standing in the church. The church has not denounced this statement anywhere that I can find, but if they have, I will, of course, retract my criticism on this issue.

Wow. Apparently there's no academic requirement for promotion in the church. :p

Wow. Apparently there's no academic requirement for promotion in the church. :p

Of course not. How would they ever get Popes if there was?

If women and homosexuals aren't second-class people, then why are none of them priests?

Why do you have to be serious in threads LG?

Where is the clown we all grew to love?

Why can't someone be a member of the RCC and not follow the rules of some doddering old fool who thinks he's somehow closer to Jesus than anybody else?

Well they can and are. As for being closer to Jesus I know the previous pope mentioned how he was further from God and indeed he was the servant of the servants of God. Don't know about the current pope's view of his position.

Why do you have to be serious in threads LG?

Where is the clown we all grew to love?

Behind your couch waiting for you to fall asleep. :)

Behind your couch waiting for you to fall asleep. :)

:eek:

There goes all chance of me having a good night sleep.

*makes coffee*

Well they can and are. As for being closer to Jesus I know the previous pope mentioned how he was further from God and indeed he was the servant of the servants of God. Don't know about the current pope's view of his position.

If he is further from God, then where does he get his authority on theological issues from? It seems to me the whole reason you're supposed to listen to him (at least to some extent) is because he has the direct connection with God.

Well they can and are. As for being closer to Jesus I know the previous pope mentioned how he was further from God and indeed he was the servant of the servants of God. Don't know about the current pope's view of his position.

Most servants of servants dont wear Prada shoes and have personal tailors.

Most servants of servants dont wear Prada shoes and have personal tailors.

And? we are talking about servants of servants of God, not of some prude down at the country club.

If he is further from God, then where does he get his authority on theological issues from? It seems to me the whole reason you're supposed to listen to him (at least to some extent) is because he has the direct connection with God.

I don't know he is the servant of the servants (i.e us) in order to help us to live out God's will, thus he must be able to tell us and help us. But then according to Jesus we are all equal in Gods eyes.

Yeah, look how well theology by popular vote has been working for the Anglicans..

Theology by popular vote worked well for the Catholics in terms of slowly changing doctrine with respect to slavery.

I don't know he is the servant of the servants (i.e us) in order to help us to live out God's will, thus he must be able to tell us and help us. But then according to Jesus we are all equal in Gods eyes.

But even in that theological viewpoint, he is closer to God, in the sense that God directly communicates with him, whereas most others must go through an intermediary (that is, him). It doesn't matter that he's closer to God for the purpose of helping others-- he's still closer.

The pope is right. Condoms don't cure Aids once you have aids no amount of condom wearing will make it go away. However, if you don't have HIV condoms might help prevent it.