Cookie Boy
Pope Benedict XVI’s made his maiden trip to Cameroon and Angola in the African continent recently. What was a well-intentioned trip to deliver ‘a word of hope and comfort’, however, was marred by a gaffe about condoms and AIDs prevention.
The Head of the Catholic Church was quoted as having said that the distribution of condoms in Africa cannot overcome the problem of AIDS, but on the contrary aggravates the problem. This slip-up comes on the heels of the Pope’s controversial decision in lifting the excommunication of Bishop Richard Williamson who had made denials over the extent of the Holocaust. This incident aside, Cookie Boy is left baffled and stumped by the Pope’s remarks on condoms.
Meanwhile, The Lancet, a well known British medical journal in its editorial had some harsh words for the Pope. The journal acknowledged the Church’s moral stance and support towards marital fidelity and abstinence in HIV prevention. “But, by saying that condoms exacerbate the problem of HIV/AIDS,” it said, “the Pope has publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue.”
Yet to those ignorant of the Church’s teaching, Cookie Boy worries that the Pope’s comments might be taken out of context and risks undoing the efforts of medical and volunteer workers in curbing the spread of AIDS in Africa.
To sum up the Church’s position on human life in just a few words: The Church is pro-life. Period! No arguments! No budging!
The Humanae Vitae decries the use of any artificial methods to prevent procreation as ‘unlawful’ and ‘intrinsically wrong’ which include the use of condoms. It states:
“Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come out of it.”
The condom here is the lesser of the two moral evils.
Church’s stand on prevention through condoms
But what is the Church’s moral and authority take about the use of condoms to prevent sexual disease? There aren’t any that I know of. Neither do I think it is stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. What I do know is that according to the Church’s teachings, fornication is sinful. Any sexual activity outside the sanctity of marriage is considered wrong and sinful (and that includes having extra-marital affairs). This translates to those happily married folks that, ‘Thou shalt not take any other partners besides thy spouse’; and for singles, this means a self-imposition of a sexual drought.
Therefore there is no need for the Church to make an official moral stand on the use of condoms to combat sexual diseases when her stand is absolutely clear – abstinence, chastity and fidelity. A man and woman who had never had intercourse with anyone prior to marriage, and who remain faithful to one another would therefore need no condoms to guard against sexual diseases.
This view is largely utopian and as many critics will argue – far from reality. Because we know that in reality, sex trade workers do exist! Because in reality, people are still going to continue with their sexual activities! Spouses will cheat. Some people will continue with their promiscuous lifestyles. No one is going to say: “Stop. I think I shall abstain from sex!”
Condom the “single, most efficient, available” preventive tool
A 2008 World Health Organisation Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic estimates 33 million people living with HIV, of which 22 million people are in the Sub-Saharan Africa region. It is estimated that there are 190,000 and 540,000 HIV sufferers in Angola and Cameroon respectively. In an ironical and stinging rebuff to the Pope’s comments, UNAIDS in its press release lists Cameroon as one of the countries most affected by HIV whereby “condom use is increasing for young people with multiple partners”.
UNAIDS states:
“Condoms are an essential part of combination prevention which includes among other elements: access to information about HIV, access to treatment, harm reduction measures, waiting longer to become sexually active, being faithful, reducing multiple partners and concurrent relationships…”
UNAIDS, UNFRA and WHO also updated their information on condoms and HIV prevention in response to the Pope’s remarks. They reiterate that “the male latex condom is the single, most efficient, available technology to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections” and will “remain the key preventive tool for many, many years to come”.
The information also states:
“Conclusive evidence from extensive research among heterosexual couples in which one partner is infected with HIV shows that correct and consistent condom use significantly reduces the risk of HIV transmission from both men to women, and also from women to men.”
Manipulating science?
So how did Pope Benedict XVI get the facts so horribly wrong? Perhaps it was just out of ignorance. Didn’t the Pope learn how to pay more attention to information easily available on the internet since the Lefebvrite decision? The Lancet in its editorial meanwhile wonders if this was a “deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology”.
The Lancet’s position is clear. It is braying for a mea culpa from Pope Benedict XVI for his comments. The Pope is an influential religious leader and the statement which he made is contrary to scientific knowledge which could put the health of millions of people at risk.
The controversy is nothing new. It isn’t the first time that the Catholic Church has been flogging this horse. The late Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, President of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family, said in an interview in a BBC Broadcast in 2003 that condoms don’t block the spread of AIDS.
The Catholic Church is in a quandary. On one hand, the Church has to safeguard and uphold the dogmas and teachings that have been its cornerstone for 2000 years whilst fighting off relativism and secularism, yet at the same time she has to make herself relevant and humanely accessible to the people who essentially form the body of Christ – physically represented by the Church. There is a clear need for a message of love and compassion, a need for solidarity manifested in practical action. There had been some previous talk of reforms to change the Church’s stance on condoms. But it looks likes the Pope’s recent comments have quashed all hopes. But yet, as the Second Vatican Council has proven, anything is possible.
Whether the Pope was right or wrong, one should not live under the fallacy that the condom is the only way to beat the spread of sexual diseases. Yet there is no doubt that the condom is part of a bigger equation and must work with the other elements suggested by UNAIDS above to curb the spread of AIDS.
——-
—-
i support The Lancet
As always, it’s good to take a look from the other side. Here are 3 links.
An AIDS worker says that Africans don’t need condoms:
http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-25480
An interview With Bishop Hugh Slattery of Tzaneen:
http://www.zenit.org/article-21446?l=english
The webpage of Catholic Studio, including a video on YouTube:
http://www.catholicportal.co.za/AIDS/The_Change_Is_On.htm
Cookie Boy, I understand how you can be ‘baffled and stumped’ over the Pope’s speech. It seems odd that millions of Catholics – of which a sizeable proportion have to be rational, educated, and science-loving people – would follow a religion that seems to be so “backwards” on social issues.
The simple answer is that many of these issues are very, very complex. They don’t boil down to simple statistics. They involve humans and human behaviour – which is one of the hardest things to deal with and talk about.
The Church, as with all (most?) religions, is ultimately concerned about the human condition. What behaviours are prompting the spread of AIDS? What are the reasons for these behaviours? Why do people act the way they do?
By dealing with these fundamentals, one can better address the phenomenon that arises from them.
A corollary to this is that the theology of the Catholic church is more profound than can be explained in a few paragraphs. The issue of fornication and birth control is a good example of this. It’s going to take some time to trace the path of this “rule” back to the primary teachings of the Church, but it boils down to this: fundamental respect and love for the human being. Not just for the baby, the embryo, etc. but for the people who engage in acts like these.
What most people read about Catholic practices in the mainstream media are about what is visible – actions and deeds, rules and speeches. For obvious reasons the media isn’t going to go into WHY Catholic edicts are what they are.
So being baffled is understandable. But there is a lot more to why a short speech by the Pope seems illogical. It sounds that way at face value, but an understanding of Catholic doctrine will perhaps shed some enlightenment on the issue.
The pope is right. It is the anti-God view of people who do not know God and His commanded blessings for obedience and cursings for disobedience that causes aids and crimes of various kinds. When you know Leviticus 26, you know the past, the present and the future. It is the basic DNA of the universe.
What we call s ex, God calls whoredom. Those organs were for pro-creation, reproduction; they work well. Condoms cannot prevent pregnancy. The saying almost from the beginning was that there was a baby in every box. I got mine. There is a blindness that takes hold of those who do not want to know God. Example: How does a man protect himself from an AIDS infected woman? How do you keep her fluid from touching your entry ways? Condoms are a lie out of the pit of Hell. Abstinance is not an AIDS prevention technique; it is a lifestyle that protects from AIDS, premature parenthood, other diseases and stress. Wanting God’s ways is the solution to all world problems; AIDS is just one of them.
Very informative article, fully substantiated by many points. A job well done cookie! :)
I would agree fully that the truest way to stop AIDS and various diseases (and unwanted, unplanned pregnancies) is to adopt God’s way, and not Man’s way of doing things. Sexual abstinence in singlehood and discipline in marriage is the only way to wipe out such diseases.
Unfortunately, Man is steeped in sin, and until Christ returns, there is no way to stop pre-marital sex, adultery and so on. I have come to accept this sad fact about our world, and while waiting for the Lord to return, it is of my personal opinion to limit the damage HIV can wreak on Man.
While I agree that the use of condoms has been a fundamental rule in the Catholic Church, I cannot help but wonder if this statement by the Pope himself would have an adverse impact on the AIDS stricken populations of Africa, or for that matter, around the world.
It is my sincere hope that HIV sufferers, or for that matter, adulterous or promiscuous individuals do not take this as an excuse to take off their condoms. At the same time, I hope that those who are frequent users of condoms are not lured by a false sense of security, thinking they can do whatever (or whoever) they want. Instead, consider reducing the need for condoms in the first place.
I’m not sure if I’m baffled as you are. The Catholic Church has been making statements which are contrary to science many times, especially if the scientific conclusions contradict the church’s doctrine. So the Pope’s recent remarks aren’t that out of the blue.
There are of course plenty of scientific evidence for the prevention of AIDS through the use of condoms, as well as several studies pointing out the failure of advocating abstinence. But I believe the church is willing to take such sacrifice for the greater good (i.e. “moral health”), whether justified or not.
I really wouldn’t call it a ‘gaffe’ on the Pope’s part. It wasn’t a blunder but a determined and concerted effort to misinform people in favour of Catholic doctrine. It’s indeed sickening to know that more people will succumb to HIV due to being misled.
i still support The Lancet
It is easy, low cost and low effort, for the rich countries to imagine that they are doing good by issuing condoms freely.
This is irresponsible and indirectly encouraging irresponsible sexual behaviour. That is why all those African countries who relied on condoms as their main weapon if not their only weapon against the spread of HIV, have failed, making their people pay a terrible price.
31/3/09
I am a Catholic since 1986 (converted from Methodist) and I am sad to say that the Pope is out of touch and he must make himself relevant with time (many things in the Catholic church are obsolete and they must make themselve relevant but sad to say, they cannot orelse, the foundation of the Catholic church owill collapse. Nevertheless, the Catholic church is still relevant in many other areas especially its faith and also it does not force its members to give tihes like modern churches and its servants ie brothers and sisters/nuns have been sacrificing themselve in serving fellow mankind (yes, there were a few black sheeps and the Catholic Church paid a very hig price).
Regards
Andrew Chuah
Let us not argue religious views which cause misunderstanding.
Religion can’t be proven experimentally, it is by faith! Christian can argue bible is truth. Muslim can argue koran is truth. So who is right or wrong nobody know?
Let the moral compass and church or temple be in our souls.
The religious authorities need to understand we live 21 ceuntrary and human are
not saint, they sins and need practical approach to solve the problems.
[---deleted---]
S ex outside of marriage is a sin in all holy books. We are not toys for a monentary tickle. We have become slaves to our own bodies. A man who has not controlled his lust for a woman is tied to her as a calf to its mother. They can be controlled and used until they turn to God’s command. Jesus comes as the word of God to overcome lusts and sin only to those who choose him. We overcome by wanting to be saved.
Not condemning s exual behavior with God’s warnings of various diseases IN ADDITION to AIDS, encourages the behaviors that provide the diseases. If people fear AIDS etc., but not God, they will use a condom and s exual immorality is not stopped. Condoms cannot protect a man from a woman with AIDS. There is at least one nation in Africa that has a very low insidence of AIDS and it is because they honor God and keep His commandments. The devil is a deceiver who come to kill, steal and destroy; AIDS is of the devil and so are promoting condoms.
for those who want to follow god’s way, go ahead. but that view should not be imposed on everyone. we need to save lives and that means being realistic.
The Catholic Church is certainly out of touch with the HUMAN CONDITION. Instead of sugar-coating its stand on many issues as pro-life, the more accurate term would be anti-commonsense.
It is not the first time that the Vatican has manipulated science. As early as the 1600s, the Vatican has been either persecuting scientists outright or contradicting scientific views on purpose. People like Galileo and Copernicus were subjected to a variety of threats for their views that the Sun, not the Earth, is the centre of the universe. There are also Christian publications which attempt to blur the line between science and religion. For example, the Christian Science Monitor is a strong advocator for the Intelligent Design Theory.
To smallvice 585….no offense but U are talking about some concepts many many many years back before the Age of Enlightenment….yes of cos during those times the Catholic Church have made some grave errors but they had fully apologised for them….they recognised their ignorance then. But now, the church is making a moral stand against AIDS rather than a scientific stand. U have to look at both sides of the coin….in fact, some non catholics feels the same way the pope does. The fact that people tinks they are protected against AIDS promotes s exual immorality makes them more vunerable to AIDs. In fact, the condom only insulates the person from AIDs but to really really solve the problem, people should (ideally) refrain from causal s ex. I tink thats the main point the pope is putting across. Of cos, scientifically, to protect a promiscuous person, u should use a condom. The church teaches christians (Both catholics and protestants) not be so. By justifying the condom to protect against AIDs, isn’t the pope attacking a cornerstone of the church to explictly imply that promiscuous behaviour is ok as long u protect yourself? Because in fact, if the listeners are true practising christians, catholics, even muslims, they would not subject themselves promiscuous se x that would open themselves to AIDs. Afterall, thats wat monogamy is all about, se x with one spouse for your whole life. Y would u get AIDs if christians, catholics, muslims, buddhists follow that doctrine?
Cookie Boy, kudos to you for raising an issue that is so relevant with vast implications affecting the lives of millions of people.
For the Pope to recant his views about the use of condoms is to admit that he is not infallible. And that may amount to a credibility crisis for the Catholic Church. Well, if it was a slip of tongue or a mistake made on the spur of the moment, then it would be just being honest to admit the mistake. The Pope after all is human and humans are prone to mistakes. And several popes in the past were less than exemplary in their behavior, for example: John XII, Urban II, Sixtus IV, Innocent VIII [definitely NOT innocent], Alexander VI, Gregory XIII [and others].
To Marie Devine – the Catholic Church has been proven wrong on many other issues, hence the public apology made by Pope John Paul II in 2000 on behalf of his Church over her past misdeeds over the preceding two millennia.
You talked of God, anti-God, sin, holy books etc. These terms have no meaning to many people. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And there is no evidence, even ordinary, for the existence of God. There is a lot to be discussed, but much of it is old hat.
One thing I would never hesitate to mention when it comes to the question of God. Some Christians including Catholics know little or next to nothing about the history of their religion; are you aware of the biblical portrayal of God and of the innumerable inconsistencies and contradictions that are littered throughout the Bible?
Hi rwkc, as a previous athetist (now christian) who questioned all those u mentioned in all last line, i would like to ask, do u know the history and theology of the bible?
[#17 Concerned Citizen]
As a previous Christian but now an atheist, I have read the Bible and have also read articles/books about the Bible/God.
Are you familiar with the traditional arguments for the existence of God and the rebuttals?
[#17 Concerned Citizen]
I wrote a response and clicked “Submit Comment” but the response is not displayed. So here’s another try.
As an ex-Christian now an atheist I have read the Bible and various articles/books concerning God/Bible.
Are you familiar with the so-called traditional arguments for the existence of God?
to rwkc …. yes i m=).. cos i debated them with other christians when i was not one….and i used to be a staunch atheist as well cursing God and debunking all their “myths”
And oh ya…sorry i forgot to add….ya i read alot of anti christian books while i was not one….and i meant alot…
goto http://www.thetrumpet.com to know about bible,the rising roman empire,USA, Germany and Israel and the coming end of days.
To all who dont believe there is a GOD,
GOD dont need you to believe in him, he really dont need. If you think human life just happen to exist, also happen to live in such a beautiful planet and happen to be in such a solar system and happen that everything works so beautifully, that is the mathematical probability that even most advanced supercomputers cant calculate it out. The odds are Fools(atheists) celebrate April’s Fool Day. Happy FOOL’s day!
At least the Pope & Catholic Churches speak out and touch on sensitive issues like abortion, euthanasia, cloning of cells, condoms, No same sex marriages, No pre-marital sex, etc.
Some people accept it.
Others don’t. Why?
It’s a challenge. It’s tough. You gonna move out of your “comfort conscience zones”. Not surprising some becomes atheists, it’s more “relaxing”.
Let say, if you are a smoker or a drinker or a person who live a fast life and IF you are Ask to quit, would you? If you want to quit, there are challenges ahead (from family, friends or peer pressure). Many don’t want to quit and just wait for doctors to give them the final verdicts.
That’s why many non-catholics parents (including malays) are willing to send their children when young to Catholic schools. The children are taught how to behave and girls are taught how to sit properly.
jerry,
Do you seriously believe that all Christians are non-smokers, non-drinkers and people who live straight and narrow lives? Do you seriously believe that only Christians are moral people? Do you not know that there is a unmentioned belief that girls from Catholic schools are more wild and that is the reason why they are more welcomed by boys from other schools? The ancient Chinese have often been regarded as non-religious people. Do you think that they were immoral people? The ancient Chinese has its own secular system of rights and wrongs, called Confucianism. It is an erroneous Western belief that only godly people are moral.
When Pope Paul II apoligized for the sins of the church against the Jews, he failed to realize that the biggest sin was rejecting the word of God through Moses and the Prophets. In fact, as the Christian daughter churches followed, they all also ignored the teachings of Jesus to live by EVERY word of God. By obedience or disobedience, our world is fashioned, much like virtual reality. We get what we thought we wanted and we only change direction when we realize the bondage, disease and stress that go with it.
Pain and suffering prove God is true to His word. Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 promise rain in due season, abundant crops and healthy people and animals and peace in the land for obeying His wisdom. It also promises 4 x 7 curses if we disobey; the first is terror and, of course, no rain in due season etc.
The histories in the Bible (Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles) are proof God did what He said He would do, even though many sounded too horrible for a loving God to do. The purpose is so we will ONE DAY realize we need to love His word with all our heart because it is the source of our abundant life, our provision and our protection from our own wickedness.
He calls for a 7th day Sabbath of no work for anyone, 10% of all your increase must be given to Him and He will increase the power of your days and your money that remains. He warns against debt, charging interest, insurance, gambling and seeking riches. In Malachi 3 God calls people that withhold the 10% tithe- robbers and under a curse, even the whole nation and tells people to prove Him and see if He will not open the window of heaven and pour out a blessing we will not be able to contain. These things seem to fit in with our reoccurring financial crises. When we want His ways, He has an economic system that will be more than you need and never run out and you will not be in bondage to get it. He has promised that all ways of man will fail; so they will, for our own good.
Pope Benedict XVI does well to hold onto his stance on condoms and AIDS, abortion and ho-mos-exuality as the world criticizes him because God’s has pronounced evil against a nation that does not correct its sins. Now he has only to realize what a horrible sin it is to ignore the word of God that God said is forever-and Jesus said to live by every word. That is as much an abomination in the eyes of God as ho-mos-exuality and abortion. He will want to change, Passover (Exodus 12), this month is a great time to turn to God’s truth.
rwck#16,
instead of littering here about the ‘inconsistencies” of GOD , show them to us.
You sound so intelligent with a head fool of knowledge that you miss out the one key component of faith. You are looking for evidence of the existence of GOD. You will never find because you were and are blind. Let us say you found but you will still say you have not found.. You said you were a christian but I say you never were but you were an atheist and that is the reason you never found GOD. If you have not found GOD then you wouldn’t understand what you hear. You wouldn’t be able to distinguish between rubbish and truth. You wouldn’t be able understand about condoms and aids and why the POPE spoke against them. You only understand as the rest of the world and keep asking why is this and that. Practicality is what you are asking so that you can do whatever you want ans yet it is still moral. You define morality to suit yourself.
To Chained:
God will judge who is moral or not. But he opened the door like a father to his children. The choice for the children to enter the house. No matter how “moral” a person is, if he do not enter the house and recognise his father, what can the father do? He gave them free will when they entered the World and it is the children’s own choice to be moral yet not enter the house and recognise the father. The father did not use the whip but asked for free will of his children. Morality is useless in the face of recognising the father. BUT that does not mean morality is useless. Cos if he/she recognises the father, he/she will do thy bidding and follow the good works of Christ.
Breadoflife [#26]
Here are further examples [all from New International Version]:
Crucifixion accounts of Jesus:
[1] In Mark Jesus is reported to have died [crucified] the day after the Passover meal was eaten, whereas in John Jesus was allegedly crucified the day before the Passover.
[2] In Mark 15 we hear of Jesus being crucified at the “third hour” while in John 19 the time mentioned is the “sixth hour.”
[3] It is reported in Matthew 28 that Jesus after his so-called resurrection met his disciples in Galilee while in Luke 24 Jesus allegedly met his disciples in Jerusalem.
Acts 9.4 and Acts 26.14
In Acts 9.4 we get the impression that only Saul [Paul] fell to the ground while his companions travelling with him stood there speechless; in Acts 26.14 we hear that Saul and his companions all fell to the ground.
Acts 9.22-26 and Galatians 1.16-17
Acts 9.22-26 are clear: Paul left Damacus and came to Jerusalem to join the disciples of Jesus; but in Galatians 1.16-17 Paul claimed he did not go to Jerusalem to meet up with the disciples but went immediately into Arabia
Galatians 2.16 and Ephesians 2.8-9 [apparently contradicting James 2.24 and John 5.28-29]:
Galatians
• 2.16. know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
Ephesians
• 2.8.For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
• 2.9. not by works, so that no one can boast.
James
• 2.24. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
John
• 5.28. “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice
• 5.29. and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.
Matthew 1.16 [apparently contradicting Luke 3.23]:
Matthew
• 1.16. and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Luke
• 3.23. Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,
I hope your mind is not littered like the way the Bible is.
Concerned Citizen #27
Can you define what exactly is free will?
Do you believe in scientific findings, for example, that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years’ old? That water is constituted of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen? That the Earth is roughly spherical, not flat as it was once believed?
Do you agree with science when it says that human beings first arrived on the scene only in the last [give or take] 200,000/250,000 years and that, before that, the ancestors of human beings, called the hominids, had lived for millions of years and became extinct?
Do you agree that millions of the developments – roads, houses, buildings, communication systems, transport systems, and other innumerable technologies you see around you today are the result of human ingenuity and evolution?
These, with the exception of the first question, are simple questions which I hope you can answer without equivocation.
rwkc,
will rebutt you point for point that you have taken the verses out of context and also to prove that you forced your own interpretation on the readers to make you look clever. You are not but someone who is lost in the intellectual erudite debris that the Darwinian monkeys would love you as their cousin.
Wait for my response and surely as the sun rises in the east I shall prove you the evolutionary leftover.
rwkc,
The purpose of the Bible is to teach people how to understand God, how to read the word of God and how to avoid false prophets. Things that seem like controdictions have a purpose, to make you look deeper and see that what is written is not all there is and what is revealed later gives better understanding to what was written before. When God is speaking to one person about sinful man, he limits their life, but the promise of obedient is a long life.
In Deuteronomy 13 God says He will prove us by sending prophets that will do miracle and try to turn the people from following Him. Paul is confusing (the Bible says). Part of the time he sounds like he is saying the Law is just and holy and good and part of the time he sounds like he is saying we do not need to follow the law. Careful reading and remembering that Paul cannot be contrary to Jesus who said to live by every word of God, shows that keeping the law without realizing the God who fortold the rejection, crucifixion and resurrection of His Beloved Son and caused it to come about, will not get you beyond the natural benefits of the Law. Understanding God is a living entity that warns, guides and rewards us gives us the abundant life of knowing we are not going through life alone and there is life after death.
If you send your child to the store for eggs, milk and cheese and just before he leaves you tell him to bring you bread and butter, does not cancel out the first order. This explains some of you “controdictions” like the 2 and 7 animals taken into the ark.
The millions of developments made by people attest to the fact that we are going the wrong way and destroying ourselves and are snared agains in bondage. God’s plan is a garden paradise lifestyle where trees, plants and animals provide fresh food around you. God warned against debt, charging interest, insurance (surety), gambling and seeking after riches. Our modern, worldly educated society has created great developments that are polluting us off the earth as God said they would. Our modern life is oppressive, stressful and disease ridden, increasing the cost of everything we buy and all the services we use. Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 prove God as we see the many unpleasant and dangerous things in our world which have come about by using our wisdom instead of relying on the living God who created all things according to a pattern and designed how things will work out. The promise is destructions will continue and get worse UNTIL we turn to Him in truth.
God said that because people refused to believe in Him, He turned them over to strong delusion that they should believe a lie. Evolution is a lie with no facts to back it up. The only evolution is where we take information and use it to transform our lives, but we were made in the image of God fully formed male and female to reproduce. You cannot begin evolution from a start and progress it five steps because all things must have a mate. I hope this helps you to see that we do not have to understand the whole Bible; if we begin with the parts that tell us what to do, we will understand the rest in due time.
In a lost part of the book of Moses and Abraham found and interpreted in 1800s, God said that the earth was created where He is with materials there and brought it here. That accounts for an old looking earth; yet supports a young earth. He proves Himself in that He said that He created things with a seed to reproduce itself after its own kind. Science supports that; evolution is disproved in that.
Marie [#32]
That’s what I would describe as constructive comment. And that’s the way to discuss/debate about God/religion.
I do not agree with some of the things you said, so I shall offer my comments, likewise, constructively, and as objectively as I can.
Let us remember, this is an open discussion, subject to perusal by others with access to this forum.
In this regard, I shall have to draw reference to the example of Breadoflife [#26 and #31]. He/she probably is someone still wet behind the ears; and probably doesn’t know what ad hominem is.
I shall do a post shortly in response to the points you raised. But much [or all of it] is old hat, probably already said by someone else or some people in times past.
Sorry, my first few lines are messed up…..Yup….read from this onwards…”Now to the biblical inconsistencies”
rwkc ….by the way… I like the way that u keep it civil=)
Concerned Citizen,
Please do not post too lengthy comments. Your last comment is disallowed as it is more than 1,600 words-long.
Thank you.
[#35]
Concerned Cirizen, thank you. Yes, we should be civil and constructive in our discussions.
I raised some questions in #30 and I would like to hear your response.
rwkc,
i find it too tedious to rebut the so called contradictions you picked to contend and to support and to allay your own fear that GOD might exist.I can’t win you over even if I can rebut every single one you named and I can but I have chosen not to.I have decided to leave you to your own imaginative indulgence.
You are NOT the only critic.
My parting shot to you is this verse from the bible.
“Answer of fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.” [Pr 26:5]
[#39 breadoflife]
I gave examples of biblical inconsistencies ON YOUR REQUEST, not because I wanted to appear clever. You know what? From your comments so far, you appear to have a proclivity for misrepresenting or distorting facts.
No one can prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of God – you should write this down on a sheet of paper and keep it in your wallet for the sake of remembrance.
What I have quoted are all verbatim, as excerpted from the Bible. One can see them as they are and admit that they represent discrepancies, or review them with extraneous factors and give tenuous explanations or excuses to say they are not inconsistent or contradictory. But people who can read and are not irrational can of course make their own judgements.
Please stay tuned. The discussions on this thread may get to be more interesting or exciting.
Please guys, no personal attacks. Keep the discussion civil.
[#46]
Hi darren, please read the exchanges starting from post #16 and you will see how the ad hominem started, and by whom. Please evaluate honestly.
Seriously, how could the ad hominem be allowed to continue unchallenged? As I have said, breadoflife appears to be someone still wet behind the years. But that’s not a justification to engage in personal attacks
Some years ago, a Filipino national [a maid if I recall correctly] was sentenced to hang after a court trial in Singapore and the Philippine govt and some people in the Philippines raised a hue and cry against Singapore. A Filipino reporter was then heard writing in the press advising the two sides [Philippines and Singapore] to “get together to resolve their differences.”
Singapore did nothing wrong in this instance; the hue and cry was uncalled for. It was for the Philippines to examine itself, as this had nothing to do with the Singapore govt.
Hello everyone,
If the personal attacks carry on, this thread will be closed for further discussion.
Please refrain from such attacks.
Thanks.
The article is not about whether the Bible is the word of God or not. The article is about the Pope’s statement on condoms and AIDs prevention.
This discussion has turned into a debate about something else and it has gotten personal. Both sides are posting extensive quotes from the Bible and it will never end.
As such, this thread is now closed for posting.