Harvard Aids Research Chief Agrees With Pope Benedict

i think this moron is missing the REAL reason why they use condoms.....


to prevent having kids with AIDS...

Originally posted by Missing Blue Sky
reply to post by badmedia

 

You are right, Pope Benedicts views are not a surprise. The point of the post was that the Chief AIDS researcher from Harvard, agrees with Benedict. The researcher says monogamy is what is best for the human body.

And about calling men on earth Father...the scripture you quoted needs to be interpretted contextually, not literally. The context of the scripture is about the idea, not just the legalistic use of words. The idea is...know who your creator is, it is our Almighty God and Heavenly Father. Follow the Almightys way and not the erroneous ways of your elders. The context of this scripture is about the guilt associated with following a belief system that was new and not native to ones family. The mosaic law teaches how we need to honor our parents, but becoming Christian might upset them, so remember who you "real" father is ...it is God. It would be silly to think it means don't call priests father. As the church is our earthly mother, Pope Benedict is our Holy Father. We call him this because all his work is done for our benefit. It is an honorific and not a title.

You tell me to look at the context and say it is not meant to be literal, so it is ok. But in the correct context these people still do the things mentioned in context.

You are doing more than just calling them father. You are putting them into positions of authority and so forth. You are still doing the very things mentioned in context. No only in name, but also in understanding and context. There is nobody on this earth who has such legitimate authority.

The church even goes around and gives people or says certain people have the power and authority to forgive sins and all sorts of things. All positions of authorities in places where they have none, and they are merely taking advantage of the people by making them believe they have such authority.

Not only do they fill the literal, they also fill the context.

When I read about Pharisees, I see the church and a good bit of it's leaders(ones with any real pull anyway).

reply to post by badmedia


There seems to be a concerted effort by badmedia to hijack any thread having to do with Catholicism and/or the Papacy to attack Catholicism and its history.

To help return this thread to where it started, the topic is about the continuous claims by the msm (especially those on the left) that the pronouncements by the Church (and especially the Pope) are responsible for the promulgation of AIDS and the deaths of millions.

Supercertari has offered the opinions of an eminent researcher in field who agrees with the Pope and the Church and has noted the lack of media attention that this has garnered.

Why has the msm ignored this when it has eagerly embraced the opposite view? Is there an active conspiracy against the stances supported by the Church regarding monogamy and birth control?

Eric

reply to post by EricD


I feel there may be if not a deliberate conspiracy at least a conspiracy of ignorance generated by the shallow materialism of current Western culture.

In this thread we see quite a few cast aspersions on Pope Benedict concerning both his motives and his reasoning, interestingly we have yet to see anyone challenge Dr. Green and the institution which agrees with the Holy Father.

The Holy Father's recent statement was nothing novel, it is the consistent teaching of the Church since at least St Augustine and was well outlined in Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae, especially paragraph 17, which I regularly refer to in the hope that people will deny ignorance and have a read of it.

Where badmedia is concerned, I do note his frequent appearance in Catholic threads and his repitition of the same charges against the Church. Alas I think he fails to see that the authority of the Church is not her own but is that given to her by Christ, her authority always points toward Him. This is not surprising as badmedia seems to have a problem in acknowledging even the letters of St Paul as having a divine inspiration so I don't think the Church should fret too much that he has a "Problem" with her. I certainly will rarely rise to the challenge of challenging him as his fundamental failure to accept the canon of scripture means I fear it would be the equivalent of two people arguing in different languages.

reply to post by Supercertari


u fail to realize that bad media has a valid point concerning the church.. where at any point is there proof that christ in any shape or form gave the church that authority.. lets not forgett how they have manipulated and changed the bible.. and as far as the pope's claims.. the religous reich have been over there passing false info and propegating the spread of aids..they do this to eliminate compition for controll.. as it has ever been.. and the proof is easily seen by lookin at its history..and present actions by the so called church.. they conviently use scripture for their own gain.. and pick and choose to push their agenda.. which is power and controll..
and will convieniantly go against what jesus taught to achieve it.. as it suits them.. then use scripture to justify their actions.. scripture that they have been manipulating for a very long time.. just look at the current bible . there are several passages that have been blatantly changed to change its context to fit their paradim.. as most churches and bible thumpers can never accept that they can be wrong.. so they change the evedence even go so far as to change the written word.. and there is plenty of evedence that this is the case.. sorry for the rant back on topic.. while i think abstance is the most effective. the villages and people in the backwoods are going to do as they see fit by their belifes so the education condom use idea is a good one..but of course they cant have that

reply to post by scorand


Your proposition that the Church "manipulated and changed the bible" immediately makes any attempt to provide you with one of the numerous bliblical "proofs" a futile exercise. Again it would be two people arguing in different languages.

Iwuld be interested in seeing you reference some of these "blatant" changes in the words of scripture.

If these "backwood villages" people are going to do their own thing anyway what convinces you that they will find condoms any more acceptable than monogamy?

With that being besides the point may I again refer you, as others, to the opening post of this thread and ask you to argue your point not just with Catholicism but also with the Harvard AIDS Prevention Research Project - there seems to be a very conspicuous attempt not to do so on this thread.

Here is a recent interview with Dr Green which expands on his previous comments and also provides some further information. Including:

I'm glad you asked this. We are seeing HIV decline in eight or nine African countries. In every case, there's been a decrease in the proportion of men and women reporting multiple sexual partners. Ironically, in the first country where we saw this, Uganda, HIV prevalence decline stopped in about 2004, and infection rates appear to be rising again. This appears to be in part because emphasis on interventions that promote monogamy and fidelity has weakened significantly, and earlier behavior changes have eroded. There has been a steady increase in the very behavior that once accounted for rates declining — namely, having multiple and concurrent sex partners. There is a widespread belief that somehow Uganda had fewer condoms. In fact, foreign donors have persuaded Uganda to put even more emphasis on condoms.

the churches' involvement and intervention are essential. For one thing, they have always been right about where to put the emphasis — namely, on marital fidelity and abstinence, or delay of the age of first sex. All faith-based organizations promote this, whatever the denomination or religion. Faith-based organizations are some of the most powerful NGOs in Africa, and they play a leading role not only in general health and education in these countries, but also in caring for the sick and dying in the AIDS epidemics we find in Africa, from the very beginning.

Anyone want to challenge or denounce Dr Green yet?

[edit on 25/3/09/ by Supercertari]

Originally posted by Supercertari
reply to post by EricD

 

Where badmedia is concerned, I do note his frequent appearance in Catholic threads and his repitition of the same charges against the Church. Alas I think he fails to see that the authority of the Church is not her own but is that given to her by Christ, her authority always points toward Him. This is not surprising as badmedia seems to have a problem in acknowledging even the letters of St Paul as having a divine inspiration so I don't think the Church should fret too much that he has a "Problem" with her. I certainly will rarely rise to the challenge of challenging him as his fundamental failure to accept the canon of scripture means I fear it would be the equivalent of two people arguing in different languages.

So basically you are saying the scribes are the authority not the people. That if you do not accept all the "approved" scriptures, then you are by default wrong etc.

But Jesus taught the opposite, and that is why I have "problems" with the church and people such as yourself.

Matthew 7

28And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

29For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

Your church is not the authority you think or claim it to be. I have problems with any men who claim such authority. And the Catholic Church is a prime example of why.

Sorry, I didn't mean to derail the thread. I thought this topic was on the image of the Catholic Church. Otherwise, I see little to no significance in the fact the pope said something about it. I think it's always been pretty much common knowledge that staying with the same partner(on both sides) always reduces the spread of STD's. Big deal.

And you know, I can easily do the same thing with any number of people. All I would have to do is create a group that stays within the group and you could include as many people as you wanted. As long as they were all clean at the start, and stayed with the same people, then they are safe.

If you don't fly in airplanes, your chance of dieing in an airplane crash decreases significantly. So hey, no need for airline safety right? Just don't fly, problem solved.

So again, my apologies if I was taking the thread off course. I just didn't think the topic was seriously about what the pope said as it's not really exactly something that was up for discussion and was really just common sense.






[edit on 25-3-2009 by badmedia]

reply to post by badmedia


Tell me BM, how does the Gospel of Matthew differ from Paul's Letter to the Romans in your personal religion? Who decided that Matthew should belong to your canon of Scripture and not St Paul? Without knowing this I cannot engage you further in any discourse concerning Christianity, knowing it will be no guarantee that I would be able to either.

Your comment that what the Holy Father said is "common sense" is well recognised - I might add you to Harvard as being in agreement with him. However, as I am sure you are aware, many disagreed with him and delighted in using this piece of news as another excuse to dismiss him as a bumbling nazi buffoon. This thread intends to show that another "authority" is in agreement. Unfortunatley you chose to take the opportunity on seeing a thread containing the word "Pope" to launch into another exposition of your ideodoxy.

Originally posted by EricD
reply to post by badmedia

 

There seems to be a concerted effort by badmedia to hijack any thread having to do with Catholicism and/or the Papacy to attack Catholicism and its history.

To help return this thread to where it started, the topic is about the continuous claims by the msm (especially those on the left) that the pronouncements by the Church (and especially the Pope) are responsible for the promulgation of AIDS and the deaths of millions.

Supercertari has offered the opinions of an eminent researcher in field who agrees with the Pope and the Church and has noted the lack of media attention that this has garnered.

Why has the msm ignored this when it has eagerly embraced the opposite view? Is there an active conspiracy against the stances supported by the Church regarding monogamy and birth control?

Eric

What the pope said is just common sense stuff. Sure, it does work. But it doesn't help for people who do not follow that advice.

It has little to nothing to do with denying condoms for people who decide not to follow the pope.

Is the churches position that if you don't follow that advice, you get what you deserve?

Is it deserved punishment for the sin?

If so, are you wrong if you try to avoid the punishment by using a condom?

I don't make that claim, people are responsible for themselves. But not allowing condoms is pretty dumb and an announcement of the obvious doesn't really change that.

Originally posted by Supercertari
reply to post by badmedia

 

Tell me BM, how does the Gospel of Matthew differ from Paul's Letter to the Romans in your personal religion? Who decided that Matthew should belong to your canon of Scripture and not St Paul? Without knowing this I cannot engage you further in any discourse concerning Christianity, knowing it will be no guarantee that I would be able to either.

Your comment that what the Holy Father said is "common sense" is well recognised - I might add you to Harvard as being in agreement with him. However, as I am sure you are aware, many disagreed with him and delighted in using this piece of news as another excuse to dismiss him as a bumbling nazi buffoon. This thread intends to show that another "authority" is in agreement. Unfortunatley you chose to take the opportunity on seeing a thread containing the word "Pope" to launch into another exposition of your ideodoxy.

I didn't learn from the bible. I learned from the father and the holy spirit. I wasn't told 1+1=2 like the bible, I was taught how to add. I am able to see for myself. My entire perspective on the world changed. I was taught the path, and shown how and why.

I started coming across the occasional bible quote of Jesus and was like wow, I didn't know he said that, he is exactly right. So I looked into what he actually said, rather than what I had learned from the church I have no doubt that the father is speaking through him. To the point where it doesn't even matter to me if he is real or not, I don't find it hard to believe he was real but even if someone could flat out prove it, then I know that atleast whoever came up with it knows the father.

I found that Jesus completely described my experience and so forth, even the part where the holy spirit taught me things(John 14 - :20,:26).

When I read Jesus, I see what I was taught repeated back to me. I see the wisdom and I see the father. That is not what I see when I read Paul. When I read Paul, I see the things I was taught not to do. I see authorities and idols being created and used as replacements for the real thing and so forth. When I see the church, the pope and all these fake positions of authority I see what I was taught not to do.

And as that is the case, and as I see Jesus speaks the truth and the same truth I learned, then Jesus also says not to follow Paul and warns of the same things.

The names have been changed, but a rose by any other name still smells the same.

Synagogue = physical church.

Church = wisdom/understanding within a person, which is the only thing viewed as wealth by the father.

Pharisees = Pope and such religious leaders.

Jews = Christians as well, as Christians didn't exist at the time.

And so it's not just the catholic church, but all churches and such. But all the recognized religions in Christianity are branches off the Catholic Church, and all of them have their history in it.

Originally posted by badmedia
So I looked into what he actually said, rather than what I had learned from the church I have no doubt that the father is speaking through him. To the point where it doesn't even matter to me if he is real or not, I don't find it hard to believe he was real but even if someone could flat out prove it, then I know that atleast whoever came up with it knows the father.

I found that Jesus completely described my experience and so forth, even the part where the holy spirit taught me things(John 14 - :20,:26).

I'm afraid the same authority which declared John, Matthew to be the inspired word of God is the same that likewise acknowledged Paul's letters to be so. This is how the "actually" said was discerned by the Church through the inspiration and guidance of John 14's Counselor.

The authority of self is no authority, my signature might help you appreciate that but I suppose St Peter's letters are also excluded from your canon.

Originally posted by Supercertari
I'm afraid the same authority which declared John, Matthew to be the inspired word of God is the same that likewise acknowledged Paul's letters to be so. This is how the "actually" said was discerned by the Church through the inspiration and guidance of John 14's Counselor.

I don't care what authority said any book was right. There was no authority who told me only certain books are ok, and some aren't. As I said before, I didn't learn from the bible, none of the books are authorities for me in themselves.

With or without the bible I would say the same things. What I say is based on understanding, not based on what another man has told me is true.

You can write down 1+1=2, and if someone asks I will say - yes that is true. But not because I was told 1+1=2 and not because you wrote it down, but because I know how to add for myself. If I only take what authority gives as true, and just accept that, then I do not know how to add and regardless if I may speak things which are technically true, I would not have understanding. I would still be blind and ignorant.

The authority of self is no authority, my signature might help you appreciate that but I suppose St Peter's letters are also excluded from your canon.

The father is within. Coming from within doesn't always mean coming from self. The church and people who put all the authority into the scriptures look externally for answers, they look to other men and they do not hear or listen to the father. To do so is to look in the wrong direction, and to be blind to what is within and untrusting of what is within(the father).

We aren't even talking about prophecy, so the quote you mention doesn't even really apply. When taking a look at things like revelations, then I would agree that discussion and knowledge base of many is most helpful. Jesus taught and gave understanding to individuals and can and should be understood by all individuals.

However, that you would use that verse in this situation just goes to show who you follow, and it certainly isn't Jesus. Apparently, everything Jesus actually said is just "nonsense". All that matters is he did great things and didn't sin, and died for your sins. Sorry, but that is the nonsense.

Btw, matthew 7 pretty much describes the church and what you say. I'll just quote the ending of it.

28And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

29For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

Why is Jesus wrong?