 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
from dictionary dot com
A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
The followers of such a religion or sect.
forget the extremist and false part (And unconventional manner part)
a cult is a religion or sect under the guidance of a charismatic leader
so catholics are possibly a cult, but most relgions are not
but all religions started out as a a cult
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
relgion from dictionary dot com
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
I can't really accept sex advice from consecrated virgins.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:31
|
|
The dictionary definition of "cult" is useless, so I always think of "cult" as meaning "a religion that exists more for the material benefit of its founders or administrators than for the spiritual well-being of its followers," which is, I think, what most of us mean when we say the word. Religions based on a genuine intent to help are not really cults in my estimation, and I would say that a faith can change into a cult and back again. While some say the Catholic church is evil, they strike me as generally concerned with the road to salvation, albeit in a wonky fashion, far different from the supervillian caricature "pornocracy" it became in the middle ages.
Seriously Diss, you need to gain some perspective. How does the poor judgment of certain people condemn, like, a third of the world's population in your eyes? Especially on such a non-canonical issue. If a democratically elected official delivered an off-the-cuff statement to declare, say, that the works of Edgar Allan Poe were evil, would that make democracy as a system intrinsically wrong?
In this situation, the Catholics are in a minority position, have very little sympathy going for them, and react like any cornered animal will, namely by biting at anything in reach. You can tell that this isn't really well-thought out doctrine just by what it says: condoms are wrong because they do not prevent AIDS. Between most married couples there is presumptively little risk of infection, assuming no hanky-panky, and the Church disapproves of all fornication in principle, so all in all it's moot from their POV. Certainly there's no point in treating this as canon law.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:31
|
|
Here's more fuel to the fire...
quote:
Cardinal surprised by reaction over his criticism of condoms
Associated Press
Vatican City, October 14
A top Vatican cardinal said he was surprised by the reaction over his contention that condoms don't adequately protect against transmitting the virus which causes AIDS.
Last week, the United Nations' health agency strongly contested Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo's claim, which came in an interview he gave in September.
The Vatican opposes condoms as a way to fight AIDS, saying chastity is the best way to prevent its spread.
"I imagined the subject was better known. Instead, I am surprised with some of the reactions," the prelate, who heads the Pontifical Council for the Family, said in comments on Monday.
"Among my concerns was my intention not to mislead people, especially the youth, by making them think there is safety, where in fact safety is not even proven," the cardinal said.
"I simply wished to remind the public, seconding the opinion of a good number of experts, that when the condom is employed as a contraceptive, it is not totally dependable, and that the cases of pregnancy are not rare. In the case of the AIDS virus, which is around 450 times smaller than the sperm cell, the latex material obviously gives much less security. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
My point is, Dr. Strangelove, is that you're not going to get people to abstain from sex, anymore than you're going to get all drinkers from stopping their consumption of alcoholic drinks, just because sometimes, social ills emerges from alcoholic consumption. |
But my point is that if you know that you're HIV infected then you should be aware that any sexual contact, even when using a condom, bears the risk of slowly killing your partner.
My next point is that I, as a physician, should be allowed to discuss the facts, i.e., that on average the use of condoms only reduces the risk of transmission by 50% (per episode of contact). I have been told in the past that I shouldn't be permitted to do this and have even been threatened with license revocation because some people consider dispensing such information to be discriminatory.
Having said that I must add that my usual approach as a practitioner is that I advocate the diligent use of condoms. I also feel that I'm entitled to advocate monogamy as the best choice. I have also at times advocated "manual sex" as a viable alternative for couples in which one or more of the partners is HIV infected. (If both partners are infected they still must use caution, because if one develops a drug resistant strain he can pass it to his consort, worsening the other's clinical condition.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
Ok -- if you're specifically talking about just HIV/AIDS patients, then I understand that viewpoint.
But telling those who do not have HIV/AIDS to stop having sex because of the risk, even with condoms, is like . . .
|
Yes, but in some places, like South Africa about 50% of the sexually active population is infected. In such places, if you treat the whole population as if they had the disease you're only half wrong.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Shi:
Now I know why I'm so familiar with this material,
From HUMANAE VITAE, written by Pope Paul VI
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6HUMANA.HTM
I regularly work with this when doing Catholic prolife apologetics. 
This is the passage you are thinking of,
15. The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefore, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.[19]
"The Church is coherent with herself when she considers recourse to the infecund periods to be licit, while at the same time condemning, as being always illicit, the use of means directly contrary to fecundation, even if such use is inspired by reasons which may appear honest and serious."
A person with AIDS will not be cured from AIDS through use of a condom.
I'm not trying to be harsh, just trying to point out to an alternative for Catholics to the barrier method of birth control. I have spent a fair amount of time trying to sort this out precisely because of the differences between myself and Denise. I have no problem with barrier methods, while she would prefer to use natural family planning methods.
This ought to be the best option for Catholic couples. |
Interestingly, ultra-orthodox Judaism, which generally does ban all means of birth control (and recourse to infecund periods doesnt work for them, due to purity laws) WILL allow such means in a case where pregnancy could endanger the life of the mother. The ban on birth control is based on the positive command to be fruitful and multiply, and not on any sense that its intrinsically wrong to interfere with nature.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-10-2003 06:41
|