“The organisation says “consistent and correct” condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%”
Sorry, my fault. I misread the article; the odds aren’t 10%, they’re 10% of whatever they would be otherwise. Thanks for the heads up.
The organization is the WHO, by the way; this 10% figure isn’t from the Vatican.
Right, plus if God has told you not to use condoms when having sex, God has also instructed you not to be having sex with people at all . . . I’m pretty sure that the Vatican also encourages Catholics not to commit murder, which the intentional spread of AIDs pretty much is. So, using the “God told me not to use condoms” excuse is likely to get you a “that dog won’t hunt” from the jury - you can’t claim religious motivation for actions unless you can demonstrate that you actually follow a religion.
Also, I feel I should point out the obvious fact that not all Christians are Catholic. And a great many Christian denominations do not oppose contraception.
Yeah, and I wonder how the True Pope feels about it. I mean, obviously he has less scientific credibility because of his less flashy hat, but what is his take on this AIDs situation?
Have you guys seen <a href=“HIV hitting young at rate of one every 14 seconds | World news | The Guardian”>this?</a>
“The world’s population, currently 6.3 billion, is projected to rise to 8.9 billion by 2050. If Aids-related deaths in Africa, Asia and Latin America are not checked, that figure will be cut to about 7 billion.”
Sweet Zombie Jesus. I don’t even know what to say.
How about: “aw snap?”
Who?
What you should say is that projections like this are almost always foolish. No one can correctly project population growth 50 years into the future. It simply isn’t possible. In 50 years, I have a feeling China and India will both be post-industrial with drastically declined/declining birth rates. The problem with projections of this nature is that they don’t (obviously because they can’t) take into account economic and social development throughout the world.
Now, because I hate the moral hyposcrisy of the UN, I feel I need to rant for a bit. Didn’t the UN also predict a terrible AIDS epidemic in the United States that simply never happened? I understand the circumstances in Africa are different, but they’re primarily different for cultural reasons. The spread of AIDS is made much easier by practices like female circumcision. Even handing out condoms and educating the people of Africa is meaningless unless barbarism is stomped out. Most of the members of the UN (see Saudi Arabia, half of Africa, and France) are not willing to do anything so drastic as pretend that women ought not to be mutilated and raped.
You need to ask? The True Pope, who thinks Vatican II was heretical (he’s right, it was) and ultra-liberal (he’s wrong, it wasn’t)?
The organization is the WHO, by the way; this 10% figure isn’t from the Vatican.
Well, I’m not convinced that their idiocy is significantly less. International organzinations are notoriously bad at paying attention to facts. This is due in large part to the fact that they aren’t run by Americans, though American organizations often have their own difficulties with the truth.
Who?
Well, there are two “True Popes”.
Pope Pius XIII in America, leader of the [url=http://www.truecatholic.org/]True Catholic Church (who I believe is who those two are talking about)
and Pope Gregory XVII in Spain, leader of [url=http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/7170/ipal1.htm]The Palmar of Troya sect of Catholicism.
Both of these “popes” or “antipopes” are members of sedevacantist sects who believe (generally) that the office of pope has been vacant since Vatican II.
I hate them both. They are making needless distinctions within a group that is itself needlessly distinct from all the other needless varieties of Christianity.
I hate Africa. But not because it is filled with africans, but because they have the gall to ask for MY MONEY to help they feed their vaginal mutilating kids. STOP HAVING ONE MILLION KIDS PER FAMILY!
You are correct. Pius XIII is the one we were talking about.
I hate/loathe/abhor the Catholic faith, but I feel I need to defend it at least a little.
On needless distinctions within: What in the world are you talking about? These people are discussing issues that are fundamental to their faith. For instance, the issue of whether non-Catholics can be saved. It seems to me that this is pretty important, especially in the case of Christians - who are pretty much required to not just look out for themselves.
On needlessly distinct from: Again, what? It might be pointed out that the vast majority of other Christian faiths are the ones that are needlessly distinct. After all, Catholicism was first. But I don’t believe this anyway. Protestants and Catholics have very real differences in belief (or did prior to Vatican II), and saying that they should just forget it and all be the same seems like a poor solution.
On needless varieties: Why are the varieties needless? Here I’ll draw a distinction between Catholicism and Mormonism because I think it’s easiest. Catholicism has its set of revelations, mostly contained within the Bible - and Mormonism has that set, but also another set. As Christianity is a revealed religion, it seems to me that someone who has his own set of revelations is pretty much obligated to go along with those, and that is going to lead to variety. Additionally, there are ways to defend the variety of denominations, at least insofar as Protestantism is different from Catholicism is different from Orthodox is different from Mormonism.
Yeah, but now you’ve got people with essentially the same beliefs trying everything to show that THEY are the one true faith. It’s like if Microdsoft had a milion subcompanies that published different versions of Windows XP. It’s as meaningless as neo-gothic-wiccans, since it’s just a pathetic effort to adapt a known faith into the beliefs that were most convenient to whoever started the sub-cults at the time.
You think Martin Luther established the first major Protestant sect because it was the most convenient thing for him at the time?
About that 10% number, that was the WHO stating that condoms do in fact reduce the chance of passing on AIDS by 90%. Thus if the original chance of getting AIDS is about 10%, as LPFabulous stated, then using a condom, there should be a 1% chance. The WHO, who was opposed to the Vatican on this issue, also stated there that the reason condoms are not 100% effective is the condom slipping or breaking, not tiny holes as the Vatican claimed.