Nov 16, 2006
that makes it alright then...
Correct me if I am wrong A4 Quattro you believe that the Archbishop of Kampala, Cardinal Emmanuel Wamala talks alot of sense and upholds a healthy traditional moral that serves his parish well and he does so in a compassionate manner that would make any group or religion proud ?
You agree that it is only right because you live here in Europe that the West is able to adopt a totally different policy to the African Arm of the church .
Is this what your saying ?
Congo's Kinshasa Archbishop Dominique Bulamatari said: "Using condoms as a means of preventing AIDS can only lead to sexual promiscuity."
You also agree that this statement makes perfect sense in a country with an Aids epidemic.
These are the words and claims made by Archbishops they are not my personal views or opinion so bare that in mind before launching any personal attack on me . These views are well documented and so is the manner in which they are enforced in Africa.
You have been trying to defend the above ,so I take it that you personally fully support both of the above mentioned Archbishops position just as the Vatican is doing.
I look forward to a frank response .
P.S Am I personally offending your faith or is it really a case of your own Archbishops doing a damn good job of offending everyone and I am merely pointing that out with fact ?
damn man this post is still going on? what's everyone talking about, there;s too much writing for me to read, can anyone summarise in a few lines? lol
...well this thread has definately taken a turn for the worse... Ill ignore all the stuff with Lottie as I have no idea what that is about... but I am now begining to think you are trying to wind us up...I have followed this thread from the start and this the 1st time you have mentioned that you are only talking about the "African Arm" of the Catholic church.. but then surely the title of this thread should be "Should the Archbishop of Kampala be treated as a terrorist?"
Imo you have changed your stance about 3 times in this thread 1st off you say 1 in 3 Africans have AIDS and imply that its the vaticans fault which is clearly ********. I should have known when you called Africa a country not to continue with this...
When I point out that it is imposible for 1 3rd of Africa to be infected with AIDS you then give me some random stats about Zimbabwe, Botswana and South Africa... 3 countries but not the whole of Africa...
Myself and Outlore have pointed out that there are plenty of countries in Latin America for example that are catholic but do not have this problem...
which proves what? In the whole of Latin America (20 or so Catholic Countries) there are only 2.5 million with AIDS while in Africa (40 mostly muslim countries) there are 24million infected!!!
so now you change again... your not talking about the pope but the archbishop of kapala.. and the archbishop of congo??
What really gets me though is the fact that because I dont agree with you Im painted as "defensive" and some sort of defender of catholism... Im not even religious!!
To be honest I couldnt care less if anyone wants to diss the pope or the catholic church makes no difference to me...but if your talking ******** ill say your talking ********
I think Co55ie just provided a very good summation in his last post. The biggest issue on this thread is that the majority of contributors can't seem to handle anyone questioning the actions of a major religious cult. They've not provided any answers to any of the questions posed, just had a good rant about how disrespectful it is to even query some of the outdated rules that make up the Catholic faith.
All I would say is that a lot of people on here need a quick history lesson on how the Catholic faith started and why. It certainly had very little to do with God, he was just a celebrity brought in to add weight to the marketing campaign. I have no issue with people beliveing what they believe, but at least do it with your eyes open.
This is what the Catholic Religion means to me
Always good for a laugh
I dont think the majority of people on here who have reacted negatively (including me) to this thread give two shits about catholism only one poster (chris) has shown otherwise.
Tommorow Im going to start a thread asking if we should treat Hollywood producers as terrorists, as they allways have love scenes in their movies, but never show anyone putting on a johnny. My arguement is that with 36 million people with AIDS around the world the actions of the Hollywood producers is irrisponsible and causing millions of deaths..
"I dont think the majority of people on here who have reacted negatively (including me) to this thread give two shits about catholism"
So why has everyone got so hysterical? You'd get less reaction asking if Hitler should be on the New Years Honours list.
its late and there are too many words on the screen and none of them seem to be funny... my brain hurts
It must be hard for them though because if i was hung like a black man i would be putting it about big time, perhaps if they were white with little pee wees they wouldnt be out shagging all the time
I like the way this thread has shifted the blame for the AIDS epidemic down to several different people, maybe you could trun it the other way and say "Should Jesus be treated as a terrorist?" maybe its his fault? or maybe "Should God Almighty be treated as a terrorist?" maybe its his fault?
Remember when "god created" all of us he allowed us our own free will, and that was our downfall, if the people in Africa are too short sighted to see what all this unprotected sex is doing to them, more fool them!
Maybe we should blame Big Bird from Sesame Street for starting the Bird Flu Pandemic
Guys if you read this link you will see that the Catholic Church has already opened the debate on the use of condoms to fight the spread of aids.
Would this be a good point to stop this thread????
That article would seem to suggest that the catholic condom issue has helped the spread of AIDS in Africa, but according to most people on here it's absolutely not the case. Ummm interesting... Talking about it and doing something about it are 2 very different things, but at least they can't just turn a blind eye to it now.
Interesting article and IMO a step in the right direction. I have read the article twice maybe I am reading it wrong but but I failed to see any specific reference to the condom issue having help the spread of AIDS in Africa but we could argue that all day.
The thing is I 100% agree that the vaticans stance on condom use is out dated and irresponsible.. Speaking for myself as I cant speak for others on here, all my posts have been in response to co55ies initial posts regarding AIDS and Africa, it is only now that I understand he was talking about specific archbishops in specific communities where one in 3 have AIDS and the bishops are telling them they will go to hell if they use condoms.
Maybe much of the "hysteria" would have been averted if co55ie had been able to express himself more clearly in his initial post and had responded better to the people who dissagreed with him
"I failed to see any specific reference to the condom issue having help the spread of AIDS in Africa"
They wouldn't be discussing it if it wasn't the case would they?
I thought he made his point perfectly first time round. The hysteria was from ignorant people skimming through what was said or even just reading the title and going off on one like a tabloid journalist, taking bits out of context to support their own twisted perspective.
If he'd sanitised the title I doubt we'd still be discussing it. Sometimes you have to put a rocket up people to get them mobilised.
Personally I think this thread has been incredibly interesting and thought provoking, and has behaved itself most of the time when it could have got quite nasty.
Anyone complaining about it, please go back and spend your valuable time doing something more worthwhile like filling in the word association game.
Im not getting into an arguement over my interpretation of this article
No he didnt. Read his second post (direct quotes)..
he makes no mention of which country he is talking about and in his 1st post he mentions "Africa" giving the impression that the catholic church is responsible for AIDS in all of Africa, his third post...
It is only on this page when he finally mentions Congo an example of a predominantly Catholic country with aprox 1 million living with AIDS where Catholic ministers have told people that they would go to hell if they use condoms that his previous posts have made sense.
IMO if he had made his point a bit clearer from the start only the foolish would disagree with him.
Now we are all in agreement job done.
"Im not getting into an arguement over my interpretation of this article" I'll take that as a YES then.
Sorry has the art of reading between the lines and interpretation died all of a sudden? All I said was I got it first time round so it was clear to me. The subsequent posts he made had to be more specific because people kept saying the stats didn't add up or that parts of the African continent weren't catholic, completely disregarding the fact that with the huge numbers quoted it didn't really matter. 2 million or 20 million it's still a massive number.
I'm afraid it does matter. The original argument was that the Catholic church was to blame for the aids epidemic in Africa. All the UN and WHO reports do not support this argument, and I've read the reports, in the same way that they do not blame the spread of aids in asia, europe or the rest of world on the religions in those regions. I agree that the number is massive but without data to back it up then as to who is responsible is a matter of personal opinion and in this case different people have different opinions
the data doesn't exist
the data will never exist
many african countries are uneducated with a large catholic population (why do you think they were targetted by the missionaries over 150 years ago?)
would the use of condoms help? yes
is the catholic rule on condoms making it worse? yes
I agree you can't solely blame one element in what is a huge cultural/economic/political problem, but it would seem to be an obvious step in the right direction.
Anyone think it would be a bad idea?
I totally agree that it is a step in the right direction.
As to the religious populations of Africa, the protestant churches have more followers (18%) than the catholic church (15%) whilst Islam has the highest amount (45%)
I could go blaming the other faiths for the aids epidemic but without data it is not fact it is an opinion, and we could argue over this "opinion" for a few weeks and get nowhere, but because it is only an "opinion" I wouldn't go there.
You are right about the education. The UN has documented proof that the longer a child stays in Education, irrespective of faith, then the lower are his or her chances of contracting aids. So maybe instead of shouting each other down as to who's opinion is right or wrong we should all do something about it.
If we give some money to charities that educate people then we will have a direct effect on the problem. It only costs 50 to sponsor a child for a year in Africa and thats what I am going to do this christmas to do my bit
I agree that the use of condoms would improve the situation, now.
But did the lack of them cause the epedemic? No.
MAJOR, MAJOR difference between Pope/other religious leader here and the likes of Saddam/other dictators is that the people within the Catholic church have a choice. Saddams/whoever's victims did not.
We all know that religions are based on stories told and documented thousands of years ago, and therfore they are outdated. When you get to religions like Jehovahs Witnesses etc, their opinion on blood transfusions/organ donations is based on a statement in the Bible "Thou shalt not partake in blood". They were not successfully performing organ donations or transfusions 2000 years ago. Whoever wrote the book could not possibly know that in 2000 years time it would become a "normal" occurance and therefore I (my personal opinion) do not think that this is what was meant. It's all about interpretation.
The commandment which states: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is open for opinion. The full description of adultery changes depending on who you are and where you look, for example;
Most people today regard adultery to be when you have sexual intercourse with someone outside of your own marriage.
In "Biblical" terms it is having sexual intercourse with someone who you are not married to. Therefore, sex before marriage or just with someone who you aren't married to is adultery, and therefore a breach of the previously mentioned commandment.
Anyone know if there is something in the Bible which the Catholic church interprets as not using contraception? Or does it go back to the old times when they were trying to get their numbers up?
the Catholic position on contraception has nothing to do with religion (like so many of it's rules). It dates back to the controlling of the lower classes and the need for the "flock" to have larger families therefore needing to work hard, die young and have plenty of offspring to take over.
Same thing with priests who aren't allowed to get married. Why? So that there's no wives to get in the way when they die, their property moves autiomatically to the new priest, and no children to inherit any wealth. It all goes straight to the church.
The Catholic church is the biggest financial power, wealth accumulator and property owner in existence. She is a greater possessor of material riches than any other single institution, corporation, bank, giant trust, government or state of the whole globe. The pope, as the visible ruler of this immense amassment of wealth, is consequently the richest individual of the twentieth century. No one can realistically assess how much he is worth in terms of billions of dollars.
They may be hypocritical & outdated, but they're not stupid. Religion? well I guess they do a bit of that as well, but it's really just a means to an end, a bit like timeshare on a massive scale. They could actually buy the African continent and give everyone a £1000, that might sort out a few problems. Such a shame that no one seems to benefit from all this accrued/stolen wealth.
I have to pull you up on this one. When a catholic priest dies their estate is governed by the same laws that everyone else is goverened by, since we live in a secular state, and if they choose to leave it to their relatives then that is who inherits it. If they choose to leave it to the church then that is their right to do as free individuals.
I think Andy's point was that apart from upwards (parents) and sideways (siblings) there will be no family - as they are not allowed to marry or have kiddies.
Not something I have ever thought about though to be honest.
Also many are urged to give up any property before taking the position and are then housed in church accomodation and the last thing they want is a grieving widow to evict.
Have I joined a forum full of freaks?
It's just history, stick around you might learn something
Some of the monastic orders have a vow of poverty and the monks are not allowed worldly possessions.
An ordinary run of the mill priest as you say lives in church accomadation but has no source of income to amass possessions to leave to the church. They have to exist on the income their parish generates through weekly collections at mass and thus no possessions to pass on except those they have inherited from family
As to the wealth of the Catholic Church yeah it is fantastically wealthy and to distribute that wealth would be a good thing but all the churches are in the same boat. The biggest land owners in England are the head of the Anglican church (the Queen) and the Anglican Church itself but you don't see them doling out money to the hundreds of millions of Anglicans living in Africa to help their poverty etc.
All organised religions have been hijacked by leaders down through the years as a convenient excuse to go kill/rape/pillage the neighbouring kingdom to amass wealth so they can all be held to blame for something.
Its in the General chat section if its car info you want try some of the other threads, not sure if they will helpful but if you have a Audi you should be ok
"All organised religions have been hijacked by leaders down through the years "
Hijacked? I think you need to check your history, I think you mean "started" not "hijacked"
Glad to be here
The popes have been notorious for terrorizing little boys and girls bums so I would dive right in and say yeah, he is a terrorist.
Back to smoking the crack pipe again then
Separate names with a comma.