Pope in Africa talking out of his ass - seriously wtf????

I apologize for snapping at you. The question you ask now, that is a good one.

I will try and keep it as short as I can, because it can get very diluted, IMO. I believe the Church doesn't so much need to modernize its core dogma as much as become more tolerant. The eras past, basically everything up until the 20th C, religious wars were okay, that was the mindset. Go of and jihad or Christianized someone. Not anymore.

The issue with condoms is more of one with tolerance. And realism, so the Church also needs tobe realistic in its dogma. Don't necessarily change it, but just know when and where it is appropriate.

People now don't want to be moralized to as much. They are less willing to just accept blind faith. Forcing religion on others will not work. With condoms in Africa they can keep an abstinence program by its teachings but also realize people are not perfect. Jesus gave us a model to try and achieve, a goal, but it is impossible to be truly Christ-like or a "true" Christian because the standard is set too high for a human to achieve.

So the Church doesn't need to change its core dogma. Holy Trinity, Purgatory, Pope, etc. etc. It just needs to become more modernized in that it needs to communicate better, know when to hold back on the religious teachings, and just know when to be realistic. You can gain Catholic converts by supplying condoms but also teaching that one day one should not need a condom because one should work for a day when he or she can be spiritually pure and eventually become abstinent from impulse.

I don't know if that answered your question or not.

Let's forget the niceties for a moment: the pope is a dude with alot of power and wealth who's promised to say pretty much one thing and one thing alone on this topic, and he has. He's simply not allowed to give REAL advice to these people, or any people, he's only allowed to say what he's allowed to say.

So yeah, I'm not at all surprised, another overly powerful religious icon giving bad advice to solidify his power. In religion, it seems, the higher up the foodchain you go, the less they actually have to offer to anyone that's not well off in a first world country, with terrible ideas otherwise.

Quote me a Bishop and you'll see more room for reasoning.

2 options:

1. He's lying in what he believes to be a good cause.

2. He thinks that the increased activity due to thinking condoms will solve the problem will make it worse by more than using condoms will make it better.

Maybe he just wants to blame something other than the nigras themselves..


You know, like everybody else.

I kind of agree with the pope.

when used properly condoms reduce the chance of you catching aids, but regular casual anal sex in a region where 20% people are HIV+ is going to carry a significant risk, whether or not you use condoms.

The Pope is telling people to treat aids with the caution its due.

This catholic bashing is not helping, did you know that Catholic charities are one of the biggest sponsors of anti-retrovirals for pregnant women, giving many children a chance without the burden of AIDs.

@Everyone but Invictus Legio

I wish this forum had a block button. Seriously

I went on this discussion on another board but will trow it down here....
There is no evidence that abstinence teaching or purity pledges actually stops anybody from having sex. Then why is the Pope's statement suppose to help stop people from having sex. It is most likely that they will continue to have sex but be unprotected.

Abstinence when not in a relationship, and being being faithful once the relationship hits the sexual stage (presumably at marriage). Along with strong discouragement of ending the relationship once it turns sexual. The church is offering a package solution, not a band-aid.

Besides, what the pope means is very clear: that the promotion of condoms encourages people to be promiscuous. "It'll be okay, I'll wear a condom." (I'd be curious to know how many of the guys on the board have used that line...) And sure, condoms only break, what, once in 20 times? That still means that at a rate of having sex once per week, the average person will have had about than 2 breaks per year, and two potential exposures to STDs.

Many agencies seem to be touting condoms as the end-all, be-all solution to AIDS. IT ISN'T. All it does is slow the spread of the disease. What is needed is for enough of the population to voluntarily remove themselves from the potential pool of vectors by not fucking around.

Well then let's forcibly register and brand the people so they can die of their own stupidity without anybody being ignorant f their condition.

EDIT Felidae

Look, brute force and liberal use of the Bullet-to-brain instantdeathpenalty is the only solution that can be currently sure.


Other than that, just do whatever Thailand did.

Possibly, but I do know a consistent message encouraging abstinence and faithfulness can have the desired result of dramatically reducing pre- and extra-marital sex.

The problem is that the message is inconsistent, with the culture at large celebrating the 'sexual coming-of-age' during the teenage years (it seems to be expected for teens to screw around), and promoting promiscuity as a semi-norm. With that kind of cultural pressure against, it is hardly surprising that a grade 10 sex ed class promoting abstinence, or a weekend gathering for purity pledges don't have the desired result.

It's not genocide when they do it to themselves.......

I mean, I don't actually advocate this, but seriously it's almost hard NOT to be racist when it's so painfully obvious that Africans simply can not govern themselves. I don't know if race or culture or geographic location, but they've proven over a long period of time that they simply can't run things. The proof is in the continent itself.....even with billions of dollars of aid rolling in, they STILL can't manage to solve any of their problems.

Functional systems develop over time.

Much of Africa is in a state of shock. As colonies, the Africans themselves weren't able to have any proper leaders within the government that was running things.. as such, when they Europeans up and left, there was nothing practical or trusted there to take it's place.

If you kidnap a child, isolate it with only basic needs until he's 30, then let him loose into the world.. is it his fault that he then dies from not knowing what a red street light means? Or is it yours for taking away his ability to learn, and then just letting him loose without any preparation?

The analogy is very general, but it speaks to the basic problem.

I would also say that contrary to what some have said, many places in Africa have shown themselves to want to be properly governed, and some have even risen to the challenge. But the recent problems in places like Kenya have shown the problem to be far above the single person.

It's a systemic problem. One that I'm sure every African is fully aware of.. but what are they to do besides live their lives as best they can and care for their families? It's like any problem, the majority of people just want to live their lives.. and the overall problems of society are of much less of a concern than making sure food is on the table.

Edit: I would like every member of this board that actually thinks they could do better to tell us all exactly what they would do if they were dropped into a place like Sudan or Rwanda right now. In places like that, best intentions quickly turn to lost limbs, the smart keep their heads down, and an individual is powerless.
It is NOT a problem with the "African race".

Prove this.

Look, I hated racist with a vengeance until I started doing resaerch on Jewish activities and Black people...

Ironically, while calling racist intolerant and ignorant seemed to be a fav I think it is just a guise so no-one ever does the research themselves.


I guess Neitzche was right..


BTW, Its the Ashkenasi I can't fuckin stand and learn about the jews that are okay with the diaspora.

There are a few tribes that think Israel is heretical or something and think that they should stay and be symbiotic with their host people.

It is these Jews that are the reason Europe had any left to kill by 1939...

The thing is that Africans know how to farm and do it pretty damn well considering what they have to work with. The problem in Zimbabwe that you're referring to is old-fashioned cronyism. Given how reports say that many Zimbabweans have set up their own little plots to grow household crops, I wouldn't say it's a lack of knowledge that's screwed the country!

Agriculture is, if I'm not mistaken, the largest single economic endeavour in terms of employment, especially if you count subsistence agriculture. The trouble starts when you can't grow anything because there's no rain and the ground is cracking up, or because there's too much rain and the ground turns to slush, or when you simply don't have enough land to grow what you need to live. The fact that the really fertile tracts of land are often given over to cash crops whose viability is utterly dependent on a fickle global market doesn't help countries struggling to feed themselves. Tariffs on food supplies are often staggeringly high. And then there's the near-total lack of investment and improvement of farms because the owners can't afford it.

You want that cast in bronze, or will carved in granite do?

While I understand what Bryan is trying to get at ... he and the Pope are wrong.

Sure, the only 100% way to not get aids via sexual transmission is to now have any kind of sexual contact at all ... but that's not what the Pope said because that is the most naive and unrealistic thing to say. Then again, what he actually said is naive, it's downright lying ...

If everyone in Africa used a condom then there wouldn't be an aid epidemic there, period. It doesn't matter if they were all nymphomaniacs, as long as they were using a condom this problem would be solved. Sure, there is always the EXTREMELY minor chance of the condom breaking but seriously ... I don't know how many condoms I've used but I can tell you I've never used one that broke. And before anyone tries to insinuate some thing about me, I'm plenty good in bed and am using the appropriately sized condoms (normal, you pervs). Never once have I had one break. Not once! Now I'll admit I've seen some shady looking ones that I just threw out because they didn't look right (packaging or dryness, ect) but that's just to be expected and looked for.

The only reason condoms are not 99.99% effective is because some people who use them are morons and don't use them correctly. In their case ... they're just beyond help.

But trying to say that condoms make a person more likely to have sex is just ... stupid.

Irrigation tech of Mesopatamia could solve that issue...


Isn't that where we're fighting?


No, wait its called Iraq now and that was
8000 YEARS AGO

It was more like 5-4,000 years ago, and was called Sumer.

..... did you just compare farming in Africa to farming in Iraq? :wtf:

Plus the last time I checked the only real way to create such a massive irrigation system for African farmers is to make rather large dams, like that of Hoover. I'm not really seeing that happening anytime soon in Africa.

Right, because conditions in contemporary Africa and the 'Fertile Crescent' are absolutely comparable. Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick...did you even read my post or do you seriously think that bad irrigation is the only problem African farmers might have?

Condition in ancient desert trump the junglebunnies problems..


Besides, what happened to all the fertile, useful farms that the Evil White Europeans stole? Hmmm?


All I am hearing is the same old excuses, over and over again.

'Cause there's no deserts anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa and the climate hasn't changed at all in eight millennia

Seriously, Invictus, you are just trolling here, aren't you?

Depends what country you're looking at. Zimbabwe's screwed up badly and I suspect you're referring to that as if it represents the rest of the continent. In a lot of other countries the most fertile land is, as I said before and you clearly didn't read, given to the production of cash crops.

And that isn't a clue that some of them may actually be right?

You truly are an idiot.

I'd give you tips on what to study in order to understand what you're talking about but I'd just be wasting my time, you appear to bask in your idiocy.

I sure hope so.

The cash crop thing just proves the point.