Critical Miss: The Cardinal's Corner
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
While I get the point of what you are trying to say, what does marriage have to do with condoms?zombie711 said:
Some don't want to have kids for whatever reason and while there are other means of protection, the result that the Church doesn't like is still the same. A child isn't born, which is why the church tends to make a big deal out of it, after all some passages in the bible can be seen as giving displaying that sex must equal childern.
Also condoms, as far as I know, are the ONLY means to avoid STDs.
Wow really man, I can use condoms for anything BUT what they're designed for, that's like saying I'm free to floss my teeth with a chainsaw, but should I want to cut down a tree, sorry no can do.....am I glad I'm not Catholic 
I read the link they based it on, and truthfully I think a lot of people are taking that comment out of context. Understand that I am not a Catholic, or a supporter of any established church for that matter, but their position is pretty much one of abstinanceCandidus said:
until marriage. Incidently, whether you agree with that or not, it DOES pretty much halt or greatly slow the spread of STDs.
One thing to point out is that condoms are *not* 100% protection against anything, either diseases or pregnancy. I think his attitude was more along the lines that he felt that if he said "condoms are okay" then this would be taken as permission to go out and start banging each other with condoms.
The people already having unprotected sex, are violating the abstinance laws to begin with, likely they do not care about condoms one way or another. The only people who would be affected by such a proclaimation were those holding to abstinance who would take advantage of the condom ruling and thus the rate of failure even if very low, would make the problem worse.
His comment about using condoms seemed to be limited to male prostitutes, and I am wondering how that line of questioning came about to begin with. However it should be noted that again, him saying it's okay in that case to halt the spread of disease, is also tempered by the simple fact that someone who is engaged in prostitution is ALSO violating church policy. Once your already there having unprotected sex, your apparently beyond what he thinks or what church policy is. His words being tempered specifically to deal with those who DO care, and the comment he made about using condoms being more or less irrelevent to anything unless The Catholic Church was to officially sponsor male prostitution.
Speaking for myself, I'm a Christian Agnostic, I believe in the general tenents of Christianity but with none of the current churches. Personally, I am one of those guys who believes we should be distributing condoms in high schools along with better sexual education domestically, and similar things. I really don't think god cares about your sex life (but that's not something I'm going to get into).
That said I think there is a definate anti-Catholic bent both in this thread and the article that inspired the strip/jokes. Even when I disagree with them I have a degree of respect for men of faith in today's world, it takes a lot to stick to that. This believe it or not includes a lot of those I consider enemies in The Middle East. For all the mockery, and talk of the wars, and the bad things that have happened in the name of religion, don't forget a lot of good has also come from it as well. Churches kept knowlege and history alive through the dark ages, have carried food, medicine and supplies into the wilderness, tended to the ill and hurt in ravaged areas, and even contributed to science, indeed things like "Punnet Squares" one of the major tools of modern genetics was invented by a monk. The point being that whether you agree with him or not, or agree with his religion or not, the guy sticks to his beliefs, and I think he really is trying to do the right thing as he sees it. Truthfully while I might not agree with him, his position in dealing with the faithful and what could happen with those who care what he thinks makes a degree of sense. I think a lot of critics sort of miss the point that what he says is only going to apply to those who follow the faith enough to be practicing absitnance, because again, those having UNPROTECTED sex, obviously don't care about the church policies to begin with. If they were going to be using condoms they would already be doing so.
I've known about the whole condom/water thing since Scouts but FMP did come to mind when I was writing it. Man that series was awesome.Aptspire said:
I agree. Atheism is a religion like Bald is a hair color. As for butthurt, I can almost certainly say Christianity comes above atheism on that scale. How many Christians get offended (in public,no less) when someone wishes them "Happy Holidays" during the holiday season rather than "Merry Christmas"? How many people of non-Christian religions do the same? Most Atheists would just rather be left alone.Jonesy911 said:
How are they a religion? same way anarchy is a form of government if you really think about it.
My definition of religion falls in line with "philosophy + zealotry/evangelism." Philosophy meaning a way of belief, behavior, life, principal. Zealotry/Evangelism meaning "you're better with us", "we know better", "you're wrong", etc.
Atheism has a philosophy plus on hell of a superiority complex bent towards decrying religion; therefore, they have philosophy, zealotry and evangelism. Hell there is even a church of atheism! (a church dedicated to the belief in no god; but man/science).
Just look at the responses Atheists have made on this thread and, with a few word replacements, you've got yourself a "tried and true bible thumper". Examples follow -
to
and
to
If it smells like a pig, looks like a pig, sounds like a pig....it's a pig.
And how are they butthurt?
Underlined makes you butthurt
Your points about the similarity between their statements and those of what you called a "bible-thumper" are undermined by your replacing the singular individuals named with the names of entire groups of people. That is precisely the difference between the people who have commented in this thread and people who are more bigoted. The pope is one person who you can like or dislike based on his own virtues or lack thereof where the groups "Liberals" and "homosexuals" can not be judged on their individual merits.Jinxey said:How are they a religion? same way anarchy is a form of government if you really think about it.
My definition of religion falls in line with "philosophy + zealotry/evangelism." Philosophy meaning a way of belief, behavior, life, principal. Zealotry/Evangelism meaning "you're better with us", "we know better", "you're wrong", etc.
Atheism has a philosophy plus on hell of a superiority complex bent towards decrying religion; therefore, they have philosophy, zealotry and evangelism. Hell there is even a church of atheism! (a church dedicated to the belief in no god; but man/science).
Just look at the responses Atheists have made on this thread and, with a few word replacements, you've got yourself a "tried and true bible thumper". Examples follow -
toand
to
If it smells like a pig, looks like a pig, sounds like a pig....it's a pig.
And how are they butthurt?
Underlined makes you butthurt
"A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." - taken from a wiki so not the most reliable definition however since athiesm is specifically the lack of belief in a god or other diety is does not strictly fall under this definition. Also atheists don't have a unified belief about the purpose of the universe. As it is a type of philosophy I can sort of see your point, but I do not believe that it really falls under religion.
Also the last quoted sentence made me think they were being rather arrogant, but not really butthurt.
1.) Good point on the person vs group thing. To me this example is still semi-applicable because the pope embodies a lot of the catholic church in todays world.
2.) Again, you are correct. I was more trying to say that they, as a collective, have the bad manners/habits of organized religion.
3.) And again probably right but I be trollin son!
2.) Again, you are correct. I was more trying to say that they, as a collective, have the bad manners/habits of organized religion.
3.) And again probably right but I be trollin son!
1) Agreed, but its easier to draw the line at the noun used.
2) I've certainly seen terrible examples of manners from both sides, but I would refrain from saving that either collective is really as bad as the other makes them out to be
3) Very well I concede this victory to the troll
2) I've certainly seen terrible examples of manners from both sides, but I would refrain from saving that either collective is really as bad as the other makes them out to be
3) Very well I concede this victory to the troll
Ahem... sorry to break the news to you dude, but you're posting on a videogames forum, that's kinda taken for granted. You wouldn't be here at all if you had more worthwhile things to do, like contributing to the boom in unplanned pregnancies that's sweeping the developed world.Mr Companion said:
Best non-intentional use of a condom? Fill it with water and use it as a novelty punching bag. Those things never break.
Thank you, voice of reason. (And yes, this is coming from the guy who basically just hinted that the vast majority of people on this forum including himself are closet virgins.)ZamielTheHunter said:
Trouble with your first point, though, is that liberals, homosexuals, Christians, and every other possible group you could mention, frequently DO get judged "as a group".
Personally, if anybody likes to judge the collective morals of the world's Christians, I, as an atheist, like to point out that two of the most famous devout Christians in recent history have been Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler. (Interestingly though, the latter's religious devotion is rarely mentioned in the history books of the time - largely written by white Christian scholars. But that's a whole other topic entitled "why the history of War is always written by the winners.")
My main point here is that while one of these people helped thousands of wounded soldiers during the Crimean War; the other believed he was on a holy mission to wipe the earth clean of the Jewish plague. Pretty much proof positive that whatever you feel about religion, you can't judge the individual morals of a person just BECAUSE they are religious (or, liberal, or homosexual, or anything else). Things are rarely that simple.