Wife swap USA - Christian Fundamentalists
05 July 2010, 11:21 AM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: South Bucks
Posts: 3,213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm. I kinda agree. There will always be an element that will rise to the top through playing on people's fears and prejudices. But religion is just one more thing they can use.
Like why the fanatics decided to crash some planes into some buildings? Because they don't like our pasty white skin and xboxes? It's because of their anger at the Western (Christian) support for a horrible little (Jewish) warmongering state that was plonked in the middle east and continues to veto and ignore UN resolutions. The neocon christians firmly believe that the Jews will be reunited with Christians for the rapture come judgement day. At a very simplistic level, religion is just as important as oil here for the Americans, and a thousand times more important for the bearded ones. This isn't a new thing either, it goes back a long long time, the Romans had Christian pogroms until they became Christian. Religion is just another excuse for one set of people to have a go at another. Getting rid of it won't stop the hatred, but it'll take away one of the reasons.
Like why the fanatics decided to crash some planes into some buildings? Because they don't like our pasty white skin and xboxes? It's because of their anger at the Western (Christian) support for a horrible little (Jewish) warmongering state that was plonked in the middle east and continues to veto and ignore UN resolutions. The neocon christians firmly believe that the Jews will be reunited with Christians for the rapture come judgement day. At a very simplistic level, religion is just as important as oil here for the Americans, and a thousand times more important for the bearded ones. This isn't a new thing either, it goes back a long long time, the Romans had Christian pogroms until they became Christian. Religion is just another excuse for one set of people to have a go at another. Getting rid of it won't stop the hatred, but it'll take away one of the reasons.
The source of the problem isn't religion. It's the evil, manipulative (and unfortunately all too often clever) people I've previously mentioned.
J.
05 July 2010, 01:06 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair, people can beleive whatever they beleive.
As long as they don't bother me with it, I am not bothered.
I can tolerate other religions and beleifs, and I respect theirs, as I would like mine to be respected.
Some people do get their panties in a twist over this sort of thing.
As long as they don't bother me with it, I am not bothered.
I can tolerate other religions and beleifs, and I respect theirs, as I would like mine to be respected.
Some people do get their panties in a twist over this sort of thing.
I agree exactly with your point about people being allowed to believe what they want without hassle, as long as it does not cause trouble for other innocent people.
If people believe in atheism that is their own affair as far as I am concerned and I would not dream of criticising them for their beliefs.
It seems to me these days that atheists are even more reactionary in their attitudes than any of the religiously minded people that I have met. I often wonder why they feel they have to jump up and down about those who follow a religion and pass such vicious and bad mannered remarks about them. Do they feel secretly threatened in some way by an all powerful being, or are they just trying to justify or bolster up their own beliefs?
Those who do follow a religion in an honest and true manner according to it's teachings will always be good and honourably minded. They should be beyond criticism since they will lead good lives without threatening anyone.
Those who are the trouble makers in the name of a religion for their own purposes won't in reality be being true to the religion in question. They tend to make up their own rules to suit themselves anyway. Attack them by all means since their ambitions are selfish and dangerous as we know. The religion in question is in no way at fault nor has any responsibility for such wicked people.
Les
05 July 2010, 01:39 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Les, I struggle with the idea that those who follow a religion in an honest and true manner according to its teachings will always be good and honourably minded.
In that group you could include the Pope who does not approve of condoms resulting in millions unnecessarily getting HIV and all the consequences of overpopulation. You can teach abstinence all you like, but HIV rates are still highest in some of the countries with very high levels of apparently genuine Christian belief. You have Shariah law followers. Historically you have people like Abraham who followed his hallucinations to intend to commit infanticide. You have another Old Testament father who offered his virgin daughter for rape to avoid some men getting raped instead.
These are just a few snapshots of people that are quite obviously not honourably minded and should not be immune from criticism.
Why should any behaviour be exempt from scrutiny simply because it is committed by someone who is convinced in their own mind that they are following a religion in an honest and true manner?
No!
In that group you could include the Pope who does not approve of condoms resulting in millions unnecessarily getting HIV and all the consequences of overpopulation. You can teach abstinence all you like, but HIV rates are still highest in some of the countries with very high levels of apparently genuine Christian belief. You have Shariah law followers. Historically you have people like Abraham who followed his hallucinations to intend to commit infanticide. You have another Old Testament father who offered his virgin daughter for rape to avoid some men getting raped instead.
These are just a few snapshots of people that are quite obviously not honourably minded and should not be immune from criticism.
Why should any behaviour be exempt from scrutiny simply because it is committed by someone who is convinced in their own mind that they are following a religion in an honest and true manner?
No!
05 July 2010, 02:56 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les, I struggle with the idea that those who follow a religion in an honest and true manner according to its teachings will always be good and honourably minded.
In that group you could include the Pope who does not approve of condoms resulting in millions unnecessarily getting HIV and all the consequences of overpopulation. You can teach abstinence all you like, but HIV rates are still highest in some of the countries with very high levels of apparently genuine Christian belief. You have Shariah law followers. Historically you have people like Abraham who followed his hallucinations to intend to commit infanticide. You have another Old Testament father who offered his virgin daughter for rape to avoid some men getting raped instead.
These are just a few snapshots of people that are quite obviously not honourably minded and should not be immune from criticism.
Why should any behaviour be exempt from scrutiny simply because it is committed by someone who is convinced in their own mind that they are following a religion in an honest and true manner?
No!
In that group you could include the Pope who does not approve of condoms resulting in millions unnecessarily getting HIV and all the consequences of overpopulation. You can teach abstinence all you like, but HIV rates are still highest in some of the countries with very high levels of apparently genuine Christian belief. You have Shariah law followers. Historically you have people like Abraham who followed his hallucinations to intend to commit infanticide. You have another Old Testament father who offered his virgin daughter for rape to avoid some men getting raped instead.
These are just a few snapshots of people that are quite obviously not honourably minded and should not be immune from criticism.
Why should any behaviour be exempt from scrutiny simply because it is committed by someone who is convinced in their own mind that they are following a religion in an honest and true manner?
No!
I am not in the business of defending individual religious rules nor do I consider that all what the individual religions say would suit me or anyone else.
The Aids problems stem as much as anything from the people concerned. I understand that in many of those countries the people practise **** sex to avoid pregnancy, maybe they dont even have condoms anyway. Surely that is a very effective way to get the Aids virus. It was stated that it all started from that practice anyway. I doubt that they are that interested in what the Catholic religion says about that anyway. Does education about the dangers do any good?
As I understand it, Shariah law is not officially part of Islam but is laid down by those who wish to maintain their power over the people.
I hardly think that a man who is affected by hallucinations can be said to be following his religion nor a man who is offering his daughter to the rapists. Do you really believe that their religion advocated such behaviour?
Quoting such examples indicate that you believe in the Bible which seems strange to me.
Those examples you quote are down to the actions of people with all the foibles that the human race is blessed with.
Of course no one can be exempt from criticism if they misbehave, but the point I was making which you seem to have missed was that the vicious and unpleasant remarks made against the religious by atheists are unfair and uncalled for especially since you rarely see those accusations going in the opposite direction.
We are all entitled to our personal beliefs which should be respected and a bit of tolerance and understanding is really all that is required in either direction.
Les
05 July 2010, 03:31 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Les, I struggle with the idea that those who follow a religion in an honest and true manner according to its teachings will always be good and honourably minded.
In that group you could include the Pope who does not approve of condoms resulting in millions unnecessarily getting HIV and all the consequences of overpopulation. You can teach abstinence all you like, but HIV rates are still highest in some of the countries with very high levels of apparently genuine Christian belief. You have Shariah law followers. Historically you have people like Abraham who followed his hallucinations to intend to commit infanticide. You have another Old Testament father who offered his virgin daughter for rape to avoid some men getting raped instead.
These are just a few snapshots of people that are quite obviously not honourably minded and should not be immune from criticism.
Why should any behaviour be exempt from scrutiny simply because it is committed by
someone who is convinced in their own mind that they are following a religion in an honest and true manner?
No!
In that group you could include the Pope who does not approve of condoms resulting in millions unnecessarily getting HIV and all the consequences of overpopulation. You can teach abstinence all you like, but HIV rates are still highest in some of the countries with very high levels of apparently genuine Christian belief. You have Shariah law followers. Historically you have people like Abraham who followed his hallucinations to intend to commit infanticide. You have another Old Testament father who offered his virgin daughter for rape to avoid some men getting raped instead.
These are just a few snapshots of people that are quite obviously not honourably minded and should not be immune from criticism.
Why should any behaviour be exempt from scrutiny simply because it is committed by
someone who is convinced in their own mind that they are following a religion in an honest and true manner?
No!
No religion is flawless at all, and yes, there will men and women who are corrpt, but that is the person, and not the religion they follow.
05 July 2010, 03:37 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Third world countries would be flooded with condoms I expect if they were allowed. It is the best thing our foreign aid pounds could be spent on IMHO.
It was my assertion that Abraham was having hallucinations when god told him to kill his son. The bible says he was a good egg for attempting to do it as it is what he believed god told him to do. The implication that blind faith and lunacy are better than reason and not attempting to murder your son. That is one of many reasons why I do NOT believe in the bible.
On the contrary, many believers think that non-believers are going to hell. The bible unless you interpret it away suggests the same, which is where they get the idea from.
I'd be delighted for believers to make any remark or argument they can against atheism. They do "apologetics" courses and try to run Alpha and similar courses to do just that.
We are all entitled to personal beliefs, but as per previous threads, religious belief would qualify as a delusion unless it was excluded from the definition of delusion. However, it is possibly to respecfully but strongly disagree with another's beliefs. Since these things are rarely personal, that debate is out in the open. It is only in relatively recent times, due to enlightenment and reason that non-believers, witches or homosexuals are not considered mad and worthy of a good stoning.
It was my assertion that Abraham was having hallucinations when god told him to kill his son. The bible says he was a good egg for attempting to do it as it is what he believed god told him to do. The implication that blind faith and lunacy are better than reason and not attempting to murder your son. That is one of many reasons why I do NOT believe in the bible.
On the contrary, many believers think that non-believers are going to hell. The bible unless you interpret it away suggests the same, which is where they get the idea from.
I'd be delighted for believers to make any remark or argument they can against atheism. They do "apologetics" courses and try to run Alpha and similar courses to do just that.
We are all entitled to personal beliefs, but as per previous threads, religious belief would qualify as a delusion unless it was excluded from the definition of delusion. However, it is possibly to respecfully but strongly disagree with another's beliefs. Since these things are rarely personal, that debate is out in the open. It is only in relatively recent times, due to enlightenment and reason that non-believers, witches or homosexuals are not considered mad and worthy of a good stoning.
05 July 2010, 03:41 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
To be fair though, all these people you mention getting HIV are catching it because of promiscuity, not because the religion opposes contraception.
No religion is flawless at all, and yes, there will men and women who are corrpt, but that is the person, and not the religion they follow.
No religion is flawless at all, and yes, there will men and women who are corrpt, but that is the person, and not the religion they follow.
In populations you can't stop promiscuity, but you most certainly can stop HIV transmission. The Pope's lack of action is leading to preventable misery, morbidity and mortality.
05 July 2010, 03:45 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
from what I gather condoms as well as formula milk for all the illegitimate babies is provided, it rarely gets to where it should though.
But that is a different subject, this is about religion not race.
But that is a different subject, this is about religion not race.
Third world countries would be flooded with condoms I expect if they were allowed. It is the best thing our foreign aid pounds could be spent on IMHO.
It was my assertion that Abraham was having hallucinations when god told him to kill his son. The bible says he was a good egg for attempting to do it as it is what he believed god told him to do. The implication that blind faith and lunacy are better than reason and not attempting to murder your son. That is one of many reasons why I do NOT believe in the bible.
On the contrary, many believers think that non-believers are going to hell. The bible unless you interpret it away suggests the same, which is where they get the idea from.
I'd be delighted for believers to make any remark or argument they can against atheism. They do "apologetics" courses and try to run Alpha and similar courses to do just that.
We are all entitled to personal beliefs, but as per previous threads, religious belief would qualify as a delusion unless it was excluded from the definition of delusion. However, it is possibly to respecfully but strongly disagree with another's beliefs. Since these things are rarely personal, that debate is out in the open. It is only in relatively recent times, due to enlightenment and reason that non-believers, witches or homosexuals are not considered mad and worthy of a good stoning.
It was my assertion that Abraham was having hallucinations when god told him to kill his son. The bible says he was a good egg for attempting to do it as it is what he believed god told him to do. The implication that blind faith and lunacy are better than reason and not attempting to murder your son. That is one of many reasons why I do NOT believe in the bible.
On the contrary, many believers think that non-believers are going to hell. The bible unless you interpret it away suggests the same, which is where they get the idea from.
I'd be delighted for believers to make any remark or argument they can against atheism. They do "apologetics" courses and try to run Alpha and similar courses to do just that.
We are all entitled to personal beliefs, but as per previous threads, religious belief would qualify as a delusion unless it was excluded from the definition of delusion. However, it is possibly to respecfully but strongly disagree with another's beliefs. Since these things are rarely personal, that debate is out in the open. It is only in relatively recent times, due to enlightenment and reason that non-believers, witches or homosexuals are not considered mad and worthy of a good stoning.
05 July 2010, 03:47 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by john banks;
In populations you can't stop promiscuity, but you most certainly can stop HIV transmission. The Pope's lack of action is leading to preventable misery, morbidity and mortality.
The two go hand in hand.
05 July 2010, 05:39 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Promiscuity and no/few condoms = lots of HIV
Little promiscuity = little HIV
Promiscuity and lots condoms = little HIV
Which is pragmatic given that most can't keep it in their trousers, religious or not?
Little promiscuity = little HIV
Promiscuity and lots condoms = little HIV
Which is pragmatic given that most can't keep it in their trousers, religious or not?
05 July 2010, 07:29 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
I agree there, and it's the same throughout all religions, people pick and choose what they do or do not want to follow, if it doesn't suit them, they simply ignore it.
06 July 2010, 12:16 AM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North Wales
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pope didn't take no action regarding condoms and AIDS, he explicity told people in Africa NOT to wear condoms and instead to rely on faith to protect them from a virus because condoms only make the problem worse. So that's 160million Catholics in Africa who have been told that they shouldn't wear a condom. Considering the size of the African HIV population it's fair to say that Catholic dogma will kill a few million people of this generation. But that's ok, because they believe fervently.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...a-condoms-aids
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...a-condoms-aids
06 July 2010, 10:04 AM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Third world countries would be flooded with condoms I expect if they were allowed. It is the best thing our foreign aid pounds could be spent on IMHO.
It was my assertion that Abraham was having hallucinations when god told him to kill his son. The bible says he was a good egg for attempting to do it as it is what he believed god told him to do. The implication that blind faith and lunacy are better than reason and not attempting to murder your son. That is one of many reasons why I do NOT believe in the bible.
On the contrary, many believers think that non-believers are going to hell. The bible unless you interpret it away suggests the same, which is where they get the idea from.
I'd be delighted for believers to make any remark or argument they can against atheism. They do "apologetics" courses and try to run Alpha and similar courses to do just that.
We are all entitled to personal beliefs, but as per previous threads, religious belief would qualify as a delusion unless it was excluded from the definition of delusion. However, it is possibly to respecfully but strongly disagree with another's beliefs. Since these things are rarely personal, that debate is out in the open. It is only in relatively recent times, due to enlightenment and reason that non-believers, witches or homosexuals are not considered mad and worthy of a good stoning.
It was my assertion that Abraham was having hallucinations when god told him to kill his son. The bible says he was a good egg for attempting to do it as it is what he believed god told him to do. The implication that blind faith and lunacy are better than reason and not attempting to murder your son. That is one of many reasons why I do NOT believe in the bible.
On the contrary, many believers think that non-believers are going to hell. The bible unless you interpret it away suggests the same, which is where they get the idea from.
I'd be delighted for believers to make any remark or argument they can against atheism. They do "apologetics" courses and try to run Alpha and similar courses to do just that.
We are all entitled to personal beliefs, but as per previous threads, religious belief would qualify as a delusion unless it was excluded from the definition of delusion. However, it is possibly to respecfully but strongly disagree with another's beliefs. Since these things are rarely personal, that debate is out in the open. It is only in relatively recent times, due to enlightenment and reason that non-believers, witches or homosexuals are not considered mad and worthy of a good stoning.
Practically speaking, what on earth is the point of getting into such arguments since in either case you would be preaching to the converted as far as their own beliefs are concerned. It has always been said that any kind of a religious argument will always be non productive and eventually lead to an unpleasant situation. Not much point in that is there?
The best answer of course is for each side of the coin to respect the rights of anyone to believe what they feel is right and to practice a bit of tolerance. Fanaticism can be a great destroyer as we know and we should be able to see through that and recognise it for what it is.
One question, how often do we see the religiously minded shouting off about atheists in comparison to the other way round? Why do the atheists feel the necessity to insult and denigrate the religious without any provocation? Is it all down to a lack of self confidence? They are putting themselves on the same level as the so called religious fanatics who are really working towards their own selfish programme which does not bear any significant relationship to a religious way of life.
If you don't believe in the Bible, then why bother to quote extracts which you don't think happened anyway?
When you think about it, you only need to quote your own beliefs if you feel you have to, with a logical explanation if you wish, and that will be respected by all. Do you really feel it is necessary to insult people who think differently? What does that go to prove? How often have you had people try to shout you down over your stated atheism? I personally would not dream of trying to get you to change your own religion.
On the other hand, can you blame those who feel they have to answer anyone who is prepared to insult them for their beliefs which they did not even mention in the first place?
Les
06 July 2010, 10:17 AM
#44
Scooby Regular
Welll said leslie.
The thing I find odd in these types of threads is that people are quick to shout off about why this or that religion is so bad/wrong/misguided without even knowing who they ate speaking to, and with total lack if respect for nothing other then their own view point.
I will repeat what I said at the start of this thread.... I am respectful of all religions. That is not because I beleive that what they practice is good or bad, it is because we all have a choice. I choose to beleive what I want, and I would like to think that others respect that.
For personal reasons my children are not members of any religious group, as I feel they need to make their own informed choice about religion, without having to 'convert'.
Oh, tathan, if all those Catholics were 'proper' enough to listen to the pope and not wear condoms, they should have also kept their legs closed, and their trousers zipped!
Another case of doing what suits.
The thing I find odd in these types of threads is that people are quick to shout off about why this or that religion is so bad/wrong/misguided without even knowing who they ate speaking to, and with total lack if respect for nothing other then their own view point.
I will repeat what I said at the start of this thread.... I am respectful of all religions. That is not because I beleive that what they practice is good or bad, it is because we all have a choice. I choose to beleive what I want, and I would like to think that others respect that.
For personal reasons my children are not members of any religious group, as I feel they need to make their own informed choice about religion, without having to 'convert'.
Oh, tathan, if all those Catholics were 'proper' enough to listen to the pope and not wear condoms, they should have also kept their legs closed, and their trousers zipped!
Another case of doing what suits.
I really don't see any point in criticising anyone because they choose to be atheist. As far as I am concerned that is their right and I respect that.
Practically speaking, what on earth is the point of getting into such arguments since in either case you would be preaching to the converted as far as their own beliefs are concerned. It has always been said that any kind of a religious argument will always be non productive and eventually lead to an unpleasant situation. Not much point in that is there?
The best answer of course is for each side of the coin to respect the rights of anyone to believe what they feel is right and to practice a bit of tolerance. Fanaticism can be a great destroyer as we know and we should be able to see through that and recognise it for what it is.
One question, how often do we see the religiously minded shouting off about atheists in comparison to the other way round? Why do the atheists feel the necessity to insult and denigrate the religious without any provocation? Is it all down to a lack of self confidence? They are putting themselves on the same level as the so called religious fanatics who are really working towards their own selfish programme which does not bear any significant relationship to a religious way of life.
If you don't believe in the Bible, then why bother to quote extracts which you don't think happened anyway?
When you think about it, you only need to quote your own beliefs if you feel you have to, with a logical explanation if you wish, and that will be respected by all. Do you really feel it is necessary to insult people who think differently? What does that go to prove? How often have you had people try to shout you down over your stated atheism? I personally would not dream of trying to get you to change your own religion.
On the other hand, can you blame those who feel they have to answer anyone who is prepared to insult them for their beliefs which they did not even mention in the first place?
Les
Practically speaking, what on earth is the point of getting into such arguments since in either case you would be preaching to the converted as far as their own beliefs are concerned. It has always been said that any kind of a religious argument will always be non productive and eventually lead to an unpleasant situation. Not much point in that is there?
The best answer of course is for each side of the coin to respect the rights of anyone to believe what they feel is right and to practice a bit of tolerance. Fanaticism can be a great destroyer as we know and we should be able to see through that and recognise it for what it is.
One question, how often do we see the religiously minded shouting off about atheists in comparison to the other way round? Why do the atheists feel the necessity to insult and denigrate the religious without any provocation? Is it all down to a lack of self confidence? They are putting themselves on the same level as the so called religious fanatics who are really working towards their own selfish programme which does not bear any significant relationship to a religious way of life.
If you don't believe in the Bible, then why bother to quote extracts which you don't think happened anyway?
When you think about it, you only need to quote your own beliefs if you feel you have to, with a logical explanation if you wish, and that will be respected by all. Do you really feel it is necessary to insult people who think differently? What does that go to prove? How often have you had people try to shout you down over your stated atheism? I personally would not dream of trying to get you to change your own religion.
On the other hand, can you blame those who feel they have to answer anyone who is prepared to insult them for their beliefs which they did not even mention in the first place?
Les
06 July 2010, 11:33 AM
#45
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Aids problems stem as much as anything from the people concerned. I understand that in many of those countries the people practise **** sex to avoid pregnancy, maybe they dont even have condoms anyway. Surely that is a very effective way to get the Aids virus. It was stated that it all started from that practice anyway. I doubt that they are that interested in what the Catholic religion says about that anyway. Does education about the dangers do any good?
Les
Les
I am shocked that you would say such a thing. That is truly appalling. OK, **** sex is more likely to transmit HIV, but it is utterly irrelevant. There are millions of people who have contracted it through normal intercourse. These people, whatever there sexual practices, are doing it at the behest of the Pope. If they are truly having **** sex to avoid pregnancy (and I would love to see some proof of that, not just hearsay), then that is a direct result of them wishing to engage in sexual activity but not get pregnant, which is perfectly understandable.
Can you put your hand on your heart and tell me you have not had sex for pleasure during your whole life? If so, what protection did you use? If you did, then you obviously believe it ok to do so, so it should be for others to do so, not be told by some archaic religious head in a country thousands of miles away how you should conduct yourself. These people are losing their lives.
To say these people have brought it upon themselves is extremely unpleasant.
Geezer
06 July 2010, 11:52 AM
#46
I can cope with Religous Extremists, they seem pretty reasonable next to Apple Fanboys !
I suppose if religions didnt exist we would find another reason to fight and hate each other, perhaps something a bit more credible than religion would be better, I put it up there with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
There are a few types of religous people.
Do it becasue they have to, i.e. born into it and have no choice, easier to go along with it.
Those hedging their bets.
Raving Nutters.
I suppose if religions didnt exist we would find another reason to fight and hate each other, perhaps something a bit more credible than religion would be better, I put it up there with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
There are a few types of religous people.
Do it becasue they have to, i.e. born into it and have no choice, easier to go along with it.
Those hedging their bets.
Raving Nutters.
06 July 2010, 12:25 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geezer, you have jumped in with both feet without understanding what I was saying.
My point was that they do practice **** sex maybe to prevent pregnancy, or they might even prefer it anyway. For that reason they are unlikely to use a condom and therefore are risking picking up the Aids virus. I don't remember saying that you can't get it from normal intercourse by the way. neither did I say that "these people" have brought it on themselves.
It was stated quite correctly by John Banks that in the countries in question there is a terrible plague of HIV. An even greater tragedy is the children who have it as well. The disease is rife and my point is that if they don't have condoms or prefer not to use them for whatever kind of sexual activity, then the disease will continue to spread. I was wondering if education about the danger of contracting Aids and how to avoid it might help the situation.
My own sexual proclivities have absolutely no bearing on this discussion. I am perfectly capable of making up my own mind how I lead my life thanks.
You say that people are losing their lives, quite correctly of course, I have already mentioned the children who are stricken with it, so you are well aware of the problem anyway. People will obviously continue with their sexual activities so how do you suggest that they are persuaded that unprotected sex is so dangerous? Perhaps they would prefer not to use a condom and are prepared to take the risk because they don't realise the dangers.
It is by no means clear yet just how Aids suddenly appeared anyway.
You made assumptions in your post, I hope you realise they were wrong!
Les
My point was that they do practice **** sex maybe to prevent pregnancy, or they might even prefer it anyway. For that reason they are unlikely to use a condom and therefore are risking picking up the Aids virus. I don't remember saying that you can't get it from normal intercourse by the way. neither did I say that "these people" have brought it on themselves.
It was stated quite correctly by John Banks that in the countries in question there is a terrible plague of HIV. An even greater tragedy is the children who have it as well. The disease is rife and my point is that if they don't have condoms or prefer not to use them for whatever kind of sexual activity, then the disease will continue to spread. I was wondering if education about the danger of contracting Aids and how to avoid it might help the situation.
My own sexual proclivities have absolutely no bearing on this discussion. I am perfectly capable of making up my own mind how I lead my life thanks.
You say that people are losing their lives, quite correctly of course, I have already mentioned the children who are stricken with it, so you are well aware of the problem anyway. People will obviously continue with their sexual activities so how do you suggest that they are persuaded that unprotected sex is so dangerous? Perhaps they would prefer not to use a condom and are prepared to take the risk because they don't realise the dangers.
It is by no means clear yet just how Aids suddenly appeared anyway.
You made assumptions in your post, I hope you realise they were wrong!
Les
06 July 2010, 01:14 PM
#50
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geezer, you have jumped in with both feet without understanding what I was saying.
My point was that they do practice **** sex maybe to prevent pregnancy, or they might even prefer it anyway. For that reason they are unlikely to use a condom and therefore are risking picking up the Aids virus. I don't remember saying that you can't get it from normal intercourse by the way. neither did I say that "these people" have brought it on themselves.
It was stated quite correctly by John Banks that in the countries in question there is a terrible plague of HIV. An even greater tragedy is the children who have it as well. The disease is rife and my point is that if they don't have condoms or prefer not to use them for whatever kind of sexual activity, then the disease will continue to spread. I was wondering if education about the danger of contracting Aids and how to avoid it might help the situation.
My own sexual proclivities have absolutely no bearing on this discussion. I am perfectly capable of making up my own mind how I lead my life thanks.
You say that people are losing their lives, quite correctly of course, I have already mentioned the children who are stricken with it, so you are well aware of the problem anyway. People will obviously continue with their sexual activities so how do you suggest that they are persuaded that unprotected sex is so dangerous? Perhaps they would prefer not to use a condom and are prepared to take the risk because they don't realise the dangers.
It is by no means clear yet just how Aids suddenly appeared anyway.
You made assumptions in your post, I hope you realise they were wrong!
Les
My point was that they do practice **** sex maybe to prevent pregnancy, or they might even prefer it anyway. For that reason they are unlikely to use a condom and therefore are risking picking up the Aids virus. I don't remember saying that you can't get it from normal intercourse by the way. neither did I say that "these people" have brought it on themselves.
It was stated quite correctly by John Banks that in the countries in question there is a terrible plague of HIV. An even greater tragedy is the children who have it as well. The disease is rife and my point is that if they don't have condoms or prefer not to use them for whatever kind of sexual activity, then the disease will continue to spread. I was wondering if education about the danger of contracting Aids and how to avoid it might help the situation.
My own sexual proclivities have absolutely no bearing on this discussion. I am perfectly capable of making up my own mind how I lead my life thanks.
You say that people are losing their lives, quite correctly of course, I have already mentioned the children who are stricken with it, so you are well aware of the problem anyway. People will obviously continue with their sexual activities so how do you suggest that they are persuaded that unprotected sex is so dangerous? Perhaps they would prefer not to use a condom and are prepared to take the risk because they don't realise the dangers.
It is by no means clear yet just how Aids suddenly appeared anyway.
You made assumptions in your post, I hope you realise they were wrong!
Les
It would not surprise me to hear that **** sex is not uncommon in Roman Catholic countries generally for this very reason. I know a few Irish girls who say it is fairly commonplace (in fact, one of them even said she still felt a virgin because she had only taken it up the bum
).
Geezer
06 July 2010, 01:56 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
You don't think that they are having **** sex because the church forbids condoms then? Pretty difficult to avoid pregnancy if you can't use condoms! What else can they do then, oh I no, up the wrong 'un!
It would not surprise me to hear that **** sex is not uncommon in Roman Catholic countries generally for this very reason. I know a few Irish girls who say it is fairly commonplace (in fact, one of them even said she still felt a virgin because she had only taken it up the bum).
That's what the internet is all about
Geezer
It would not surprise me to hear that **** sex is not uncommon in Roman Catholic countries generally for this very reason. I know a few Irish girls who say it is fairly commonplace (in fact, one of them even said she still felt a virgin because she had only taken it up the bum
).That's what the internet is all about
Geezer
Being promiscuous is what has caused the spread of the HIV virus further (even though it's not JUST about sex).
If they abstained until marriage then it wouldn't be spreading as fast.
It isn't all to do with the Pope telling them what to do, it is a result of people not following the religion correctly. They want to have sex, but won't use protection, so in that case, don't have sex.
Now I am no advocate for these practices, so don't get me wrong, but blaming the Pope solely for the spread of HIV in third world countries is a bit much. There are so many other factors in play.
Last edited by Hysteria1983; 06 July 2010 at 01:58 PM.
06 July 2010, 02:26 PM
#52
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing is that strict Catholics shouldn't be having sex before they are married!!
Being promiscuous is what has caused the spread of the HIV virus further (even though it's not JUST about sex).
If they abstained until marriage then it wouldn't be spreading as fast.
It isn't all to do with the Pope telling them what to do, it is a result of people not following the religion correctly. They want to have sex, but won't use protection, so in that case, don't have sex.
Now I am no advocate for these practices, so don't get me wrong, but blaming the Pope solely for the spread of HIV in third world countries is a bit much. There are so many other factors in play.
Being promiscuous is what has caused the spread of the HIV virus further (even though it's not JUST about sex).
If they abstained until marriage then it wouldn't be spreading as fast.
It isn't all to do with the Pope telling them what to do, it is a result of people not following the religion correctly. They want to have sex, but won't use protection, so in that case, don't have sex.
Now I am no advocate for these practices, so don't get me wrong, but blaming the Pope solely for the spread of HIV in third world countries is a bit much. There are so many other factors in play.
"Not following the religion correctly"?!?!? Dear God! The Pope is the religion as far as these people are concerned. If he says jump, they jump.Sex for pleasure is not exclusively human, sex has been around a lot longer than marriage. The problem is not how promiscuous people are (though obviously you do need to condisder the consequences of any action you take) but how responsible people are when having sex (up whatever orifice!).
Prohibition didn't work for alochol, and it certainly won't work for sex. Maybe it'a a good thing, all the believers in the world will die of AIDs and leave the more enlightened
Geezer
06 July 2010, 02:39 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
Like I said before people should not choose to follow one part and not the other. The results is like has been highlighted. Millions of people who CHOOSE to ignore the NO sex before marriage bit, BUT listen to the NO contraception bit. Then it's all gone pete tong when they are spreading around a load of sti's and std's
Yes we are all human and have wants/needs/urges but we are taking about the basics of religion, as well as basic sex education. Both of which seem to be badly practiced.
Last edited by Hysteria1983; 06 July 2010 at 02:40 PM.
06 July 2010, 02:47 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't think that they are having **** sex because the church forbids condoms then? Pretty difficult to avoid pregnancy if you can't use condoms! What else can they do then, oh I no, up the wrong 'un!
It would not surprise me to hear that **** sex is not uncommon in Roman Catholic countries generally for this very reason. I know a few Irish girls who say it is fairly commonplace (in fact, one of them even said she still felt a virgin because she had only taken it up the bum).
That's what the internet is all about
Geezer
It would not surprise me to hear that **** sex is not uncommon in Roman Catholic countries generally for this very reason. I know a few Irish girls who say it is fairly commonplace (in fact, one of them even said she still felt a virgin because she had only taken it up the bum
).That's what the internet is all about
Geezer
You are scratching about now Geezer. I have no idea why they are having **** sex, why do people do it that way in this country, so many seem to love boasting about it anyway, that may be when thay are trying to appear manly perhap's! I have also seen it reported that in those countries where Aids is rife, they either can't be bothered to put a condom on, haven't got one to put on, or they prefer to go au naturel anyway! In any case, as I said before, they probably don't pay a lot of attention to the rules of the Catholic church anyway when they are about to have it off!
I have no idea about peoples' sexual activities in Catholic countries. To be honest, I don't really care. Just the same as your own beliefs are of no concern of mine.
I am concerned about the dreadful scourge of Aids however and the fact that even innocent children have it from birth. I seem to remember asking you if you could think of a solution, how would you go about persuading the people concerned not to have unprotected sex bearing in mind that they may not even want to bother with protection?
It may well be of course that we are wittling on in circles when we both wish to see a similar improved situation in any case.
As ever, Hysteria makes some very pertinent comments as well.
Les
06 July 2010, 05:54 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
06 July 2010, 08:08 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Hit the nail on the head. As someone mentioned earlier all this is is a deviation from the original source of their religion, the Bible, the Bible doesnt say anything about contraceptions so why is the Pope? To say that their faith will protect them is naive as their faith is in something not of the Bible (which is of course their foundation of their faith).
06 July 2010, 08:34 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Hit the nail on the head. As someone mentioned earlier all this is is a deviation from the original source of their religion, the Bible, the Bible doesnt say anything about contraceptions so why is the Pope? To say that their faith will protect them is naive as their faith is in something not of the Bible (which is of course their foundation of their faith).
Unfortunately that doesn't seem possible.
06 July 2010, 08:57 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
It cant be, as if that is true then "forcing them" is taking away free will. Again something that goes against what the Bible talks about and is fundamental to faith and something the Pope should know all about.