Topic: Christian Sterotypes

[Braioch]

I said "seems to be". I made sure to put that qualifier in there as I always do. Noelle has every right to assure me that that wasnt how she meant it

Everything would have been fine if she just asked "What is considered Irreconcilable?" but adding those questions while knowing my background and reputation for fierce defense of my faith seems like nothing more then an attempt to goad me.

Yet she didn't mean it that way, my point was you jumped to a conclusion. Which is exactly what you're protesting against here.

Its obvious that we have different ways of thinking, influenced by our different pasts and lifestyles. You dont have to like or agree with me but that doesnt make me wrong either.

You mentioned not seeing change and this is probably the part where we differ, where you dont see change in the church I do. This makes me think youre looking at the church from the perspective of its leaders and not its people which is the exact opposite of how I look at it. For me a King is not the kingdom, a president is not a country, a guild is not the guild leader. It is the people that make up that group and keep its ideals alive, not the leaders

My views are not solely based on the leaders. I know full well that a leader doesn't represent the group completely, I mean look at our previous president. I sure as hell did not agree with that man on so many of his stands. My views are based on my experiences with other people. This isn't just based off the loud mouthed idiots you find on TV or internet videos, mine come from the 21 years worth of experience I have had with day to day Christians.

My stereotypes are born from the majority of them treating me poorly outright or in more subtle ways because of there differing views. I do not dislike them for their views, believe as you want, it's called free will after all. But when you treat me poorly for the differences, I'm going to dislike you and when others who come from the same standpoint do the same, a pattern emerges.

So no, even in the majority of people do I see much in the way of change. Only little changes here and there, and even then it doesn't always last.

For the record I hold no ill will to your standpoint or to you, don't make the mistake of taking things personally.

[Sure]

I find it... interesting that several people on here seem to be justifying their stereotypes by basically asserting 'But it's true!'. Regardless of the dogma, judging a Christian as anything, automatically because they are Christian, is stereotyping and wrong if you believe in individualism. Religious discrimination is just as bad as racial discrimination, to the point where discriminating against someone because of their religion is one of only three things the Supreme Court has ruled is never allowed to be used in making decisions (race being another, gender is not one nor is sexual orientation).

You know how stereotypes start? A general observation about a group. Stereotypes don't usually start because only one or two people are doing something, they start because a visible majority of the people are doing it. It would be foolish to think that most people are going to reconsider their view of an entire group if there are only one or two sterling examples available to offset the more noticeable figures of idiocy.

This melts and breaks down completely the moment you look at it.

Pray, does this apply to racial stereotypes? What about gender ones? Since the 'usual' method is apparently that a visible majority of people actually act that way, a visible majority of women must be irrational and emotional. A visible majority of men must be violent and sex-obsessed. A visible majority of African Americans must love them some Chicken and Watermelon. A visible majority of Asians must be study obsessed people with no social life. A visible majority of Muslims must be terrorists. A visible majority of Jews must be greedy. I'm going to stop listing stereotypes here because I could go on but it would be pointless to do so, you get the point.

And even if you meet one or two or even a group that go against that rule, you shouldn't reconsider those stereotypes, because there are more noticeable figures that prove these things true, according to this.

Just a note. To claim this is 'active' is flatly wrong. Ignoring something is, by it's definition, not taking action. Therefore, not active.

When the larger figurehead of the Catholics (The Vatican/Pope) whistles and turns their head when it comes to their dogma being used to justify violence against gays, that is active -- they're actively ignoring a chance to speak out against bigotry and reach out to the victims.

This, however, is active:

They're actively promoting ignorance by sending in a figure of authority they respect to tell them not to use condoms and practice safe sex, which in turn kills millions of people through the continued spread of HIV/AIDS

[Braioch]

I find it... interesting that several people on here seem to be justifying their stereotypes by basically asserting 'But it's true!'. Regardless of the dogma, judging a Christian as anything, automatically because they are Christian, is stereotyping and wrong if you believe in individualism. Religious discrimination is just as bad as racial discrimination, to the point where discriminating against someone because of their religion is one of only three things the Supreme Court has ruled is never allowed to be used in making decisions (race being another, gender is not one nor is sexual orientation).

This is the bit that I have to protest at. I am not justifying my stereotypes of Christians, I'm explaining why they exist. As I said, (as did Noelle) they form for a reason and many a times my Stereotyping of people has been wrong but a majority of the time I was right. That doesn't mean the Stereotype is real and I don't even say that all Christians are trouble. I just know that a majority of the ones I have had interactions with have left me with a desire of having done otherwise.

I do NOT categorize them all into one lumped group, I acknowledge that many of them have issues with me and may very well cause me some grief, or butthurt at the very least. As I said I will not be prejudice against someone for their beliefs the minute I find out, I will however be prejudice the moment I figure out that they really are someone who has fit the majority I've met.

[Sure]

... Here, have some quotes.

The fact you apparently want to overcome your own prejudice (though, to be frank, your comments imply you're waiting for Christians to prove worthy of the effort of overcoming the prejudice) or that you acknowledge it in no way eliminates the fact of the stereotype itself.

Here you are, lumping them into groups, making generalizations, and rationalizing why you stereotype them:

My views are based on my experiences with other people. This isn't just based off the loud mouthed idiots you find on TV or internet videos, mine come from the 21 years worth of experience I have had with day to day Christians.

My stereotypes are born from the majority of them treating me poorly outright or in more subtle ways because of there differing views.

Stereotypes exist for a reason as has been previously stated, it makes the world and people more easily compartmentalized in a mind. And they are generally formed either because of teaching, or because of experience. Most of the Christians I have met have left a bad taste in my mouth, not all, but most. And not only because of my homosexuality, but because of other views I have on the world. Not only that, but just how so many of them have acted. So yes, each new Christian I meet will instantly light up warning lights in my head, but you won't see me running or being rude.

Actually the majority of people I have met that are Christian are not in fact of the fire and brimstone category. Many of those that I have met are much more subtle and in many ways for that reason, worse than the fire and brimstone. I've met far too many Christians who I thought were cool and said they were, only to spout off what they really thought when they thought no one would really care and I found out about it. I have found far too many to be judgmental and then unwilling to be honest about it because a good chunk of people wouldn't like them for it.

my first reaction is immediate caution and a greater emotional distance than I would if I were to have not known or met someone else. So don't say that I lump them together immediately without any prior judgment. I give everyone a chance, even if I pull back from those people, I still give them a chance and if I didn't do that I wouldn't have some of the friends I do today.

Christianity hasn't exactly proved itself to have stellar followers in my mind as they are the majority of people you'll run into, and many are furthering this stereotype. You give me a time when I can run into someone whom I find out is Christian and not go "shit, let's play Russian Roulette and see if I'm hell bound, vile or just a fag." When I no longer have to emotionally hesitate the moment I hear their religion, then I suppose a great amount of progress.

[Braioch]

Again I find that I have to say, that yes, they are stereotypes, based off of experience. But again I shall plainly state that they do not in fact cause me to prejudice the other person, merely cause me to be cautious. I never once denied that they were stereotypes, but I have never tried to justify them either. They are there, they came about for a reason, and I gave the reason.

[Brandon]

Sorry, what? Maybe you could keep your personal issues out of this? I don't know what I've done to you here except engage you in debate, so if you don't want to talk to other people about the things you post, then don't post. There's no need to fling accusations where they haven't been provoked in any way. Please and thank you.

What I said wasnt brought on by my personal issues, it was about your personal behaivor. This is not the first time where you have posted material that is not factually substaintiated or misunderstood without anylasis. I have even done some of those anylasis for people explaining in detail why its been misunderstood, Ive also pointed many people at them but either they have not been read or the information goes in one ear and out the other. You've been in some of those conversations.

Your tone implied otherwise, that you felt your solution was quite obvious. "I would hope" implies that any other answer would be absurd.

No, what I meant was the answer of sticking it out and trying to make things better is the obvious answer to me. I do hope people would agree with me but by no means do I say theyre wrong if they dont. Its just a different way of looking at the situation

Indeed, and I countered that there are always groups out there that will have more in common with you, which would imply that you would stay with that group and there would be other like-minded individuals that would do the same. It kind of already happens. People are free to come and go from social groups as they like, nothing is holding them back, and yet the fabric of society is still whole, thus making your theory kind of irrelevant. You can leave your religion any time you want -- anyone can, and would you look at that? Christianity has maintained its prominent status for centuries, anti-gay, anti-contraceptive views and all. Imagine if people who disagreed left and helped build a new group in that time...

Again, not what I meant. Jude implyed that as soon as disagreements came up people should be leaving those groups to find or form new ones. I noted that if everyone did that the groups would be in such a radical state of flux that none would exist for very long.

It's not subjective. You know how stereotypes start? A general observation about a group. Stereotypes don't usually start because only one or two people are doing something, they start because a visible majority of the people are doing it. It would be foolish to think that most people are going to reconsider their view of an entire group if there are only one or two sterling examples available to offset the more noticeable figures of idiocy.

You said: So how many people do I have to meet that aren't the typical puppy-kicker fire-and-brimstone Christian before they become more than just an exception to the rule?

I said it is subjective and that hasnt changed. How many "exceptions to the rule" that you meet before your views on a group change is strictly up to you. I cant make a determination for you on that

If you believe that the state of mind where we stereotype people can not be overcome then I must simply disagree with you.

When the larger figurehead of the Catholics (The Vatican/Pope) whistles and turns their head when it comes to their dogma being used to justify violence against gays, that is active -- they're actively ignoring a chance to speak out against bigotry and reach out to the victims. They're actively promoting ignorance by sending in a figure of authority they respect to tell them not to use condoms and practice safe sex, which in turn kills millions of people through the continued spread of HIV/AIDS, but because they aren't going out and culling the AIDS-infected population with their own hands, somehow that's reconcilable? These aren't questions that are made to embarrass you, Brandon, unless you embarrass yourself. If I'm going to try to understand your point of view (and I am), these are questions that inevitably come up when I read your opinions and try to piece together your logic. You can't control the questions other people are allowed to ask of your point of view. That's not how dialogue occurs.

Here you go again, unfounded and factually unsubstantiated accusations of the church I happen to be a part of.

Ya know what? Lets put this issue to bed right now. For the last time.

The reason why condoms are not being used in Africa is because of a psuedo-macho belief that condoms harm a mans masculinity. The average african male will not use them at all because of their own cultural beliefs. Dont even get me started on some of their other cultural beliefs like "raping a virgin will cure your HIV/AIDS"

Now to get on with Cardinal Alphonse Lopez Trujillo's comment. According to the CDC a condom can not under any circumstances completely (meaning 100%) protect you against pregnancy or contracting the HIV/AIDS virus. The numbers rage at about 98% effectiveness but that is still not 100% (if it were any other number I wouldnt care about the numbers but I believe that teaching people that a condom can garatee protection when it cant is dangerous). 

Spermazoan have a size of about 5 micrometers by 3 micrometers and with a tail that measures around 50 micrometers. The HIV/AIDS virus has a diameter of 1/10,000th of a milimeter (if you dont care to do the math that means the HIV/AIDS virus is significantly smaller then a single spermazoan). Both the spermazoan and the HIV/AIDS virus has a small enough size to slip through the microscopic holes in condoms but they dont always do so

The comment that most people harp on about is this, said by Cardinal Alphonse Lopez Trujillo sometime before 2003: "Condoms do not protect against the HIV virus".

What people dont understand is the Cardinal was talking about the 10% of people that would not be protected by the use of condoms (that 10% being according to a study done by the WHO earlier that year). To him and many of the Cardinals that handle matters of health concern the chance of 10% of a population being infected was to many, I would dare say that even 1% would be to many for them. It was unthinkable for them to condone something that was not safe for everyone all the time. To them condoms promoted promiscuity which in turn increased the problem (there is misunderstood context in what the problem is as well).

To complicate matters Cardinal Trujillo made his statements about condoms in Italian, meaning there was a mistake in the translation. Often when he, the other cardinals, and the pope refered to the "tiny holes" in a condom they would specifically talk about the microscopic holes left in the material that allow spermazoan to rarely pass through. However translations always came out as Tiny holes, making people think that the church's leaders were specifically talking about small holes that you could slide a needle or even pen through. That is not the case and it never has been

In the proper context "the problem" was not the chance for condoms to break nor was it the chance for spermazoan or the virus to pass through. In fact it didnt even deal with condoms except in the loosest terms, instead it was societal. The problem was, to them, infedelity and promiscuity that condoms promoted but also it was a question of souls.

Cardinal Trujillo also talked about the sterilization of spirits or souls when condoms and other birth control was used. When I heard that I did some soul searching of my own. I believe in a soul (defined as every mental aspect that makes an individual an individual) and I had to really ask myself when does a soul attach itself to the body? Is it at birth? When we first develop memories? or could it be before the egg cell is even fertilized as Cardinal Trujillo suggested? To this day I havnt found an answer that satisfies me

There it is, I hope this is the last time I will have to teach birth control to Elliquiy

I feel I should also mention before this spirals back into historic conversations on the subject, yes, I am aware of Christianity's positive contributions to the world, I don't think it's a major force of evil, I wouldn't want it to disappear off the face of the earth, blah blah, etc.

I dont understand why you felt you needed to say that but ok, whatever

Yet she didn't mean it that way, my point was you jumped to a conclusion. Which is exactly what you're protesting against here.

My conclusion as you put it was formed from her personal behavoir in the past as an individual, not because of a blanket labeling of a group of people. It had nothing to do with stereotyping and everything to do with the individual

My views are not solely based on the leaders. I know full well that a leader doesn't represent the group completely, I mean look at our previous president. I sure as hell did not agree with that man on so many of his stands. My views are based on my experiences with other people. This isn't just based off the loud mouthed idiots you find on TV or internet videos, mine come from the 21 years worth of experience I have had with day to day Christians.

My stereotypes are born from the majority of them treating me poorly outright or in more subtle ways because of there differing views. I do not dislike them for their views, believe as you want, it's called free will after all. But when you treat me poorly for the differences, I'm going to dislike you and when others who come from the same standpoint do the same, a pattern emerges.

So no, even in the majority of people do I see much in the way of change. Only little changes here and there, and even then it doesn't always last.

For the record I hold no ill will to your standpoint or to you, don't make the mistake of taking things personally.

Then why do you demand that the Pope or vatican be the ones the must change for us to prove ourselves worthy of redemption in your eyes? If you agree with me that a group is the people and not the leader then it shouldnt matter one way or another what they say/do. You already have the stereotype broken. If you believe it must be a mix of teh people and the leader then thats much harder to quantify but also more important to do so IMO

[Noelle]

What I said wasnt brought on by my personal issues, it was about your personal behaivor. This is not the first time where you have posted material that is not factually substaintiated or misunderstood without anylasis. I have even done some of those anylasis for people explaining in detail why its been misunderstood, Ive also pointed many people at them but either they have not been read or the information goes in one ear and out the other. You've been in some of those conversations.

It's personal to insinuate that I'm only posting to "provoke" or "embarrass" you, but taking a page out of your book, "agree to disagree". I don't feel my behavior was personal, given I'm asking you for explanation on the topic at hand. I also feel you've been in many conversations where it goes in one ear and out the other, but dragging it out into other threads is inappropriate, and if you'd like to disagree with me there, perhaps we can take it up with the mods. Until then, if you've got issues with the way I post to you other than that you disagree with what I have to say, feel free to PM me and I would be happy to hash it out there.

Again, not what I meant. Jude implyed that as soon as disagreements came up people should be leaving those groups to find or form new ones. I noted that if everyone did that the groups would be in such a radical state of flux that none would exist for very long.

Implied and then corrected himself to say that not every disagreement is worth leaving, which I agree with and thus would likely avoid your worst-case scenario.

You said: So how many people do I have to meet that aren't the typical puppy-kicker fire-and-brimstone Christian before they become more than just an exception to the rule?

I said it is subjective and that hasnt changed. How many "exceptions to the rule" that you meet before your views on a group change is strictly up to you. I cant make a determination for you on that

And I said that it's not completely subjective because in general, it's going to take a MAJORITY of people changing their behavior to mend the stereotype they've built for themselves. It's pretty ridiculous to me to insinuate that it's so subjective that one or two (or even a handful of) people changing their behavior is automatically going to shatter every single stereotype built up about Christians, and Catholics especially. There's a long history of hurt there and pussyfooting around it without actually trying to think of a tangible solution doesn't get anything done.

Here you go again, unfounded and factually unsubstantiated accusations of the church I happen to be a part of.

Ya know what? Lets put this issue to bed right now. For the last time.

Alright, let's do it. Let's see...

The reason why condoms are not being used in Africa is because of a psuedo-macho belief that condoms harm a mans masculinity. The average african male will not use them at all because of their own cultural beliefs. Dont even get me started on some of their other cultural beliefs like "raping a virgin will cure your HIV/AIDS"

You mean one of the reasons. And that's if they even have access to contraception and know what it is and how to use it. Which, I might add, many people don't, given their sex education is poor at best and nonexistent at worst. I have a friend in Peace Corps in Cameroon right now and has been holding monthly citywide health fairs to show people how to put a condom on, and we're talking people who are well past their teens and twenties.

Next.

Now to get on with Cardinal Alphonse Lopez Trujillo's comment. According to the CDC a condom can not under any circumstances completely (meaning 100%) protect you against pregnancy or contracting the HIV/AIDS virus. The numbers rage at about 98% effectiveness but that is still not 100% (if it were any other number I wouldnt care about the numbers but I believe that teaching people that a condom can garatee protection when it cant is dangerous). 

Spermazoan have a size of about 5 micrometers by 3 micrometers and with a tail that measures around 50 micrometers. The HIV/AIDS virus has a diameter of 1/10,000th of a milimeter (if you dont care to do the math that means the HIV/AIDS virus is significantly smaller then a single spermazoan). Both the spermazoan and the HIV/AIDS virus has a small enough size to slip through the microscopic holes in condoms but they dont always do so

Yes, I am well aware of the failure rates of various methods of birth control, but let's just talk about the logic you're defending here. Even though condoms cannot completely protect against HIV/AIDS, how does that negate its usefulness for people who continue to have sex regardless of this fact? Indeed, this is bolded because it's important -- or would you perhaps like to argue with me over the effectiveness of abstinence-only education? I shouldn't think we need to, considering the evidence against it is pretty damning and even hurts the Pope's message about it even more -- that those who are given abstinence-only education are even more likely to engage in unprotected sex. So not only is he promoting an idea that doesn't work, he's promoting an idea that potentially puts people in even more danger. Not really sure how you can try and justify that because I'm not making these things up, as you like to unfairly accuse me of.

Let's summate it a bit: With typical use failure rates involved, if you can prevent something like 86 out of 100 people from spreading HIV/AIDS to their partner, why in the world would you say "Oh, but 14 people will get it anyway, guess everyone has to suffer!" Logic, please?

The comment that most people harp on about is this, said by Cardinal Alphonse Lopez Trujillo sometime before 2003: "Condoms do not protect against the HIV virus".

What people dont understand is the Cardinal was talking about the 10% of people that would not be protected by the use of condoms (that 10% being according to a study done by the WHO earlier that year). To him and many of the Cardinals that handle matters of health concern the chance of 10% of a population being infected was to many, I would dare say that even 1% would be to many for them. It was unthinkable for them to condone something that was not safe for everyone all the time. To them condoms promoted promiscuity which in turn increased the problem (there is misunderstood context in what the problem is as well).

How do you know he meant that? Please provide quotes of his correction of intent so I can be sure it's not simply you speaking on his behalf through your own filter.

And your logic fails again. regardless. Choosing not to save 90 people because 10 others might contract AIDS/HIV is horrific. How can you even defend that as being pro-life? How is that doing God's work? Could you maybe explain to me the rationale of why letting 100 people contract AIDS/HIV and most likely die is better than the failure rate of about 10 or so? That's pretty terrible logic no matter which way you slice it, and speaking of statements that are unfounded, let's talk about the old "promiscuity" adage, shall we?

This goes back to abstinence only education time and time again and is a tired talking point by the conservative right (who ironically usually end up being slut-shamers and not terribly sex-positive to begin with) . If you offer people birth control, sure, maybe a few more will choose to have sex because of its availability, but it has not been proven in any demonstratable way outside of conservative horror stories to scare their women into keeping their legs shut to be any kind of phenomenon outside of a negligible number of people. But allow me to do the homework for you, since apparently "time and time again", I just seem to make this stuff up.

The Church has been telling people for YEARS not to have sex til marriage, and it's ineffective, plain and simple, and yet, they're not willing to try and protect even 90% of the people who do it anyway, choosing instead to let 100% live a life of disease and eventual premature death. Again, please do try and explain this logic to me, how making everyone suffer because of 10% is benevolent.

To complicate matters Cardinal Trujillo made his statements about condoms in Italian, meaning there was a mistake in the translation. Often when he, the other cardinals, and the pope refered to the "tiny holes" in a condom they would specifically talk about the microscopic holes left in the material that allow spermazoan to rarely pass through. However translations always came out as Tiny holes, making people think that the church's leaders were specifically talking about small holes that you could slide a needle or even pen through. That is not the case and it never has been

He's still wrong.

In the proper context "the problem" was not the chance for condoms to break nor was it the chance for spermazoan or the virus to pass through. In fact it didnt even deal with condoms except in the loosest terms, instead it was societal. The problem was, to them, infedelity and promiscuity that condoms promoted but also it was a question of souls.

According to who? What proper context? Are you friends with him or do you have more substantial evidence of his intent?

There it is, I hope this is the last time I will have to teach birth control to Elliquiy

Condescending tone is unnecessary given I have a good understanding of how birth control works and have already pointed out flaws in your own explanation that are plainly false. Good talk.

Then why do you demand that the Pope or vatican be the ones the must change for us to prove ourselves worthy of redemption in your eyes? If you agree with me that a group is the people and not the leader then it shouldnt matter one way or another what they say/do. You already have the stereotype broken. If you believe it must be a mix of teh people and the leader then thats much harder to quantify but also more important to do so IMO

Because the leader speaks to a group and if the group is complacent and okay with that leader representing them while remaining and reaping the benefits of being in the group, then they're supporting his behavior. You want to change things, you claim you "distance yourself" from what you disagree with, that you aren't like the rest, but you just spent the last few paragraphs defending their behavior and justifying blatantly bad information. It's not an issue with other people not understanding you necessarily, it can very well be an issue of the message you're sending, whether or not you mean it.

By the way, some extra credit reading:
Condoms and promiscuity
Pope manipulates science on condoms (This article actually talks about how Catholics who work to prevent the spread of AIDS/HIV should be ANGRY with him, given he's reversing their work, and yet, they remain in the same group lead by him. Great logic.)
Also: Pope says condoms okay for male prostitutes ...But apparently not for people who could actually benefit the most from them. And as long as those male prostitutes are only fucking women. Because that's such a large population.

Edited for some additional references and rewording to clarify myself.

[Brandon]

It's personal to insinuate that I'm only posting to "provoke" or "embarrass" you, but taking a page out of your book, "agree to disagree". I also feel you've been in many conversations where it goes in one ear and out the other, but dragging it out into other threads is inappropriate, and if you'd like to disagree with me there, perhaps we can take it up with the mods.

No, rather the bother the staff with anything regarding people I instead use the ignore feature. However I save that for people who continually attack or try to provoke me without any signs of remorse. You arent there quite yet

Implied and then corrected himself to say that not every disagreement is worth leaving, which I agree with.

I agree with that too, that doesnt change the context of the moment.

And I said that it's not completely subjective because in general, it's going to take a MAJORITY of people changing their behavior to mend the stereotype they've built for themselves. It's pretty ridiculous to me to insinuate that it's so subjective that one or two (or even a handful of) people changing their behavior is automatically going to shatter every single stereotype built up about Christians, and Catholics especially. There's a long history of hurt there.

The answer hasnt changed and you have only helped prove my point. How many people you have to meet that do not fall within a stereotype before that stereotype is broken is completely up to the individual. Thus subjective

Yes, I am well aware of the failure rates of various methods of birth control, but even though condoms cannot completely protect against HIV/AIDS, how does that negate its usefulness for people who continue to have sex regardless of this fact? Or would you perhaps like to argue with me over the effectiveness of abstinence-only education, because the evidence is pretty damning. When millions of people are suffering, ANYTHING you can do to ease that is something worth doing no matter how hard you try and justify it otherwise. With typical use, if you can prevent something like 86 out of 100 people from spreading HIV/AIDS to their partner, why in the world would you say "Oh, but 14 people will get it anyway, guess everyone has to suffer!"

You missed the most important point I brought up in that entire section of text and went right to attacking the church again. How can I change your view when you dismiss important information thats given to you?

How do you know he meant that? Please provide quotes of his correction of intent.

This is required reading: http://www.wf-f.org/LopezTrujilloonAIDS.html

Much of it is rhetoric and if I understand his state of mind/body for the time he was suffering from mental trauma as well as his diabetes when this interview was done.

And your logic fails again. Choosing not to save 90 people because 10 others are going to die is horrific. How can you even defend that as being pro-life? How is that doing God's work?

Thats an opinion, not a fact and it also neglects the most important piece of information I gave you in that whole block of text. Read it again, if you cant find what Im talking about then I have my doubts as to whether or not it will ever stick in your mind.

It's unthinkable for them to promote something that will save 90 people, but letting 100 contract AIDS/HIV and die is okay. That's pretty terrible logic no matter which way you slice it, and speaking of statements that are unfounded, let's talk about the old "promiscuity" adage, shall we?

Again opinion, not fact. Cardinal Trujillo certainly disagreed with you and even went so far as to say condoms should be labled as "These are not safe" or "These are not completely safe". I do not disagree with him in that regard

This goes back to abstinence only education time and time again and is a tired talking point by the conservative right. If you offer people birth control, sure, maybe a few more will choose to have sex, but it's a negligible number, and compared to telling them to not have sex at all, has a greater benefit for the overall population. The Church has been telling people for YEARS not to have sex til marriage, and it's ineffective, plain and simple, and yet, they're not willing to try and protect even 90% of the people who do it anyway, instead damning 100% to a life of disease. Again, please do try and explain this logic to me, how making everyone suffer because of 10% is benevolent.

Again, missing the most important point I made. I cant comment till you find what Im talking about

He's still wrong.

For the time no he was not. Remember the comments were made in 2003. I remember back during a tour in Iraq when I got to go on R&R we got the condom talk and the microscopic holes idea was still being spouted then (it was also being taught that way in 1996 during my high school health class and in late 2007 when I was dating a nurse). I dont know when exactly the education changed but I do know when people talk about the church saying that "condoms increase the problem" they always quote Cardinal Trujillo

According to who? And again, the condom-promiscuity thing is largely unfounded, so unless you've got evidence that says condoms make people sleep around, please stop being hypocritical and accusing me of a lack of evidence.

According to me. As a younger man I was promiscuous because birth control gave me some measure of protection. 1. I had protection against STDs 2. I didnt have to worry about economic problems because if I used them right I wouldnt get a girl pregnant.

Today things are a bit different for me, I have a great pair of girlfriends that I love and am mostly manogimous. Occasionally I get that itch to find another for a 1 night stand. Knowing that I have a means to protect myself does make me want to have sex with more women but in my relationship its clear that if I do there will be no sex until I come back with a clean test. Thats how our relationship works. From my point of view condoms do give some measure of protection which promotes promiscuity in myself

Im not prepared to say they promote promiscuity in all guys, but I do think they promote sex. I mean lets be honest here unless were trying to have kids (or cant) we all use protection in our relationships. Why? because it helps remove some of the risk of unprotected sex.

Condescending tone is unnecessary given I have a good understanding of how birth control works and have already pointed out flaws in your explanation. Good talk.

*vows to never try the lighten the mood in P&R again*

Because the leader speaks to a group and if the group is complacent and okay with that leader representing them while remaining and reaping the benefits of being in the group, then they're supporting his behavior.

So if I understand you correctly, you were totally fine with every leader you have ever had in your entire life? Every US President, every Sherriff, every judge, every Senator, and even the head cheerleader? I wanted to make sure I pointed out the absurdity in that statement first

Beyond that there are some facts you are neglecting. 1. The members of the catholic church do not get to choose the Pope. Before Pope Benedict was given his position I didnt know he existed, I did not vote him into his position nor did we hold a big contest where the winner got to be Pope. 2. As was pointed out and seems to have been forgotten there is a big difference between idealogical differences and irreconcilable differences.

By the way, what exactly are the benefits I reap as being part of the church?

By the way, some reading:
Condoms and promiscuity
Pope manipulates science on condoms (This article actually talks about how Catholics who work to prevent the spread of AIDS/HIV should be ANGRY with him, given he's reversing their work, and yet, they remain in the same group lead by him. Great logic.)
Also: Pope says condoms okay for male prostitutes ...But apparently not for people who could actually benefit the most from them.

There is a couple things that jump out at me on the first article.

"Firstly, there is the symbolic nature of saying such a thing just before a tour of a continent so ravaged by HIV. Secondly, and this is where I take particular issue with his words, is the suggestion that condom distribution "risks aggravating" the HIV epidemic. This is categorically not true and risks inflaming an already fragile situation. There is considerable resistance from certain sections of African society - typically men - to using condoms. They see it as emasculating and unnecessary. Years of work have gone into trying to reduce the stigma attached to condom use in Africa, and while Catholics in the West, such as Katharine, are liberated and able freely to choose to adhere or ignore the Vatican's stance on condoms, this luxury is not afforded to those in Africa, particularly women. "

Again misunderstanding of what they mean by "the problem"

"HIV transmission routes are complex, particularly in a continent as vast as Africa. The lorry drivers who shift freight up and down the Trans-Africa highways significantly compound the problem. If they visit brothels or use prostitutes in the cities when away from home they are at high risk of HIV infection. On their return home they infect their unsuspecting wives. In a place where treatment is scarce and a diagnosis of HIV signals a death sentence, the stigma is such that many would rather not know their status. Those women who are breastfeeding or who fall pregnant then risk infecting their children. Whole families can be wiped out. Fidelity doesn't protect these women or their children. "

Am I the only one that looks at this and goes huh? If these men had not been sleeping with other people how would their wives have gotten infected? How would they? It goes against rule 1 of abstinence, you cant get an STD if you dont have sex

The second article again misunderstands what he meant by the problem.

As for the third article I do not see anywhere where he says that it is not ok for others to use them but you still make it a point of putting those words in his mouth. Also for the third? time people confuse what he meant by the problem.

[Braioch]

I maybe stepping out of this argument for reasons that you two are displaying right now. You might want to chill on the subtle bits of sniping before you guys get your behinds.

It's not going to help either of your points.

As for me, I'm done with flagellating this deceased equine gentleman and lady, I bid you adieu.

[Trieste]

Couldn't have said it better m'self.

[Panthean]

Aloha, I haven't actually been on E for about a half a year, but an email alert brought me back and blah blah blah, I saw this.

It seems that there's a lot of argument over homosexuality, promiscuity, and other various sexual immorality on this thread; well, it makes since that those are the topics covered, given the site. I've read through most of this stuff, but I want to point out a few things.

42% of Protestants in America think homosexuality is morally acceptable and  62% of Catholics in America believe homosexuality is morally acceptable.  Protestants are 56% of America and Catholics are 22%, comprising a total 78% of America.  Thus roughly 28% of Christians in America are Catholic and 72% are Protestant.  Using these numbers we can calculate what percentage of Christians in America believe homosexuality is morally acceptable.

28% * 62% + 72%*42% = 17.36% + 30.24% = 47.6%

Thus the majority of Christians in America do not believe that homosexuality is morally acceptable (a slim majority I'll admit).  This kind of blows away your entire argument.  You're trying to downplay the numbers to make your point.  It's definitely quite true that not all Christians are opposed to homosexuality, but there's a reason that Christians are associated with this, and it's not unreasonable that they are.

sources:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/Americans-Acceptance-Gay-Relations-Crosses-Threshold.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124793/This-Christmas-78-Americans-Identify-Christian.aspx

Jude brings up some statistics and it seems like he's trying to make the point that most Christians are in fact opposed to homosexuality. While statistics are hard to argue with, do look at what the statistics are. It's a long way from simply being opposed to homosexuality, and being hateful and condemning of the GLBT community. Personally, while I don't necessarily condone homosexual activity, I don't much stand against it. If God really did intend for people to become this way, then who am I to oppose Him? There is no way I can know what other's truly feel in their hearts and in their very souls; the only thing I know for sure is what I feel, and the only thing I can be certain of is that I am not a homosexual. In any case, even if you are a fundamental Christian, and you DO believe that homosexuals are all going to go to Hell, it does not give you any right to openly condemn the GLBT community; if you really do feel that way, then who are you to judge? Judgement, as all of us Christians believe, is in God's hands; it is not our place, and all that is asked of us is to love God, and to love thy neighbor. If you love God, then you wouldn't sin against Him; and if you love your neighbor, then you wouldn't sin against them. If you really do believe that homosexuals are going to Hell, then it is not your place to stand in front of government buildings condemning homosexuality; if you really do believe this, and you are also not a hypocrite, then what you should really be doing extensive and in-depth outreach to the GLBT community. The main problem with some of these "evangelists" seems to be that they AREN'T evangelizing, they're doing their own will in God's name instead of doing His will.

Another topic brought up repeatedly is other forms of sexual immorality and indecency. Personally, I believe that this particular form of sexual promiscuity, that is, erotic literary roleplaying, is wrong; that's why I quit. Each person must decide what causes him or her to fall into sin though, not what others say or do; it is only God's place to judge some-one as sinful. If you look into the Old Testament, you will find quite a bit of things that are considered taboo today, such as polygamy, slavery, etc. The reason for such dramatic change is that the times have changed. In ancient days, when God said to "go forth and be fruitful and multiply," there was a specific reason for that; the reason is simple: the human race was in its beginnings, if they had not done so, we wouldn't be here. If you know anything about epigenetics, which I encourage you all to research in your own time, then you may know that as the human population rises and falls, there will be a varying ratio of men to women. In ancient times, when the population was much lower, there were more woman. The reason is biologically simple: woman can only bear one pregnancy at a time. For this very reason, polygamy was acceptable.

A huge reason for abstaining from sex until marriage is based in the simple idea that if you've never screwed around with anyone except your wife, then you're a lot less likely to go running around and chasing other woman (and vice versa). This is predominantly a social factor, and biologically, there's almost nothing going on. Humans, biologically, are not so well suited for monogamy, but I like to believe that abstaining from sex until marriage will make it all the more better, and at least make that love more special.

Back to the main topic, the Christian stereotype. Everyone forms stereotypes, whether or not they intend to do so. I have stereotypes that I try to keep from clouding my judgement, but I know I'm not perfect. The point being, even if you do find that you have a negative stereotype, it's okay, you have this condition that is widely known as being human; if you know you have a stereotype, your just one step closer to eliminating it. The negative connotation that is becoming associated with Christians seems to be that they are forcing their beliefs on others, and that they're condemning everyone who isn't like them. There are some Christians who do this, but they are not the majority; they're loud, obnoxious, and rude, so they get put on the news, and they get all the attention. Most of these Christians, as I pointed out earlier, are ignoring a fundamental law that Christ himself gave to us, to love one another as we are loved by God. As far as our beliefs being, as I have heard so many times, "forced down your children's throats," consider this: the public school system teaches the sciences; it teaches it in such a way that it is assumed to be the absolute truth, when, in fact, science is constantly changing and is unarguably flawed. History is taught in the same fashion, and if you look into history enough in your own time, you'll find that a lot of the things you learned in school are already written off due to some more recent discovery, and the same happens with most of the sciences. BUT, a large majority of the children in this country are taught in such a way anyways, so who is forcing who's beliefs down who's throats? It is important to approach everything with an opened, but critical mind: even the things you are absolutely sure you know.

Ultimately, we Christians do want to build a stereotype of ourselves, but not a negative one, we want a positive stereotype. The majority of us realize that as followers of Christ, we are also ambassadors of Christ. This means that we must constantly represent the grace and love of the Lord to all of those we meet. People who shout and condemn others are completely misrepresenting the Kingdom, and as I have already read in this thread a few times: it's just like the fundamental Muslims, they are the few, and the great majority of those who really do believe in Christ and follow his teachings are not like that.

[Bayushi]

We're all wrong in some ways on the subject, and right in others.

The problem with the entire issue regarding the issues of Contraception and homosexuality is that there seems to be very little of a middle ground.

With most of the groups participating in the discussion being so diametrically opposed to one another, progress on these issues is not likely to happen, and people will suffer (and die) as a result. To me, much of what is going on is simply a massive ego trip.

The gay community's worst enemy in their efforts to be legally recognized is the gay community. Which is why, as a lesbian, I have separated myself from this community, wanting no part in their reverse bigotry towards those with differing views, and often towards people who are simply heterosexual. I do not claim that all members of the community are like this, but the militant few cause the lion's share of the problems.

The same can be said for the religious communities that protest any attempt to give homosexuals equal rights under the law. I myself was once Catholic, and later on Lutheran (family church). Since I've become an adult, I've started seeing more and more in the religious community that I did not want any part of. So, I left. I'm not an atheist, but an agnostic, having chosen that I don't need a stuffy old fart in a robe to be able to believe in a higher power.

The problem we're having is that we're using stereotypes at all. I base my opinions of people how they act as individuals, not by their religious affiliation. One of my best friends in High School and awhile past was Mormon; yet I cannot stand to be around many of the Mormons I've met in my life. I did not hold her faith against her, as I wouldn't anyone else.

Brandon is a rare openly Christian individual I've encountered online who wasn't an outright asshole about the subject of homosexuality. Most of the aforementioned people are the type that are ready to label gay people they meet as "fags" immediately, then dismiss them outright. That is, if they don't go on a trolling spree.  I don't judge Brandon by his religion, nor do I judge him by the actions of others who share that religion.

I don't blame all Muslims for the actions of September 11th 2001, just the Muslims who planned and/or committed the atrocities themselves. I have the life experience of knowing various Muslims to know better than that.

As adults, we should all have learned by now to judge people by their actions, not the actions of others who share interests (including religion). Do you believe all Mexicans to be members of their drug cartels, or illegal immigrants? Do you believe all Pakistani immigrants to be terrorists like Major Nidal Hassan (the Fort Hood shooter)? Do you believe anyone wearing a turban is an Islamic terrorist (Outside of the fact that those wearing turbans are usually Sikhs, not Muslims)? Do you believe that every American that owns a gun is as guilty as Jared Loughner in the shooting deaths of 14 people and almost killing Congresswoman Giffords?

Do you now realize how childish this sounds?

[Revolverman]

Extremely well said Akiko