Why Pope John Paul II did not get a Nobel Peace?
techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,682
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
pawelk1986 wrote:
Why? Can you explain?
Being anti-communist doesn't bode well for a Nobel Peace Prize.
It's almost like imagining a famous wiccan winning a prestegious award from a bible college.
Now I understand.
After all, the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which is responsible for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize is controlled by a bunch of commies, That's why Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize
Kurgan wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Oh, goody...
According to the WHO, 1.6 million people died of AIDS in 2012. HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of death in Africa, even surpassing malaria.
According to Amnesty International, at least 682 persons were executed in 2012. Even if we multiply this number by ten to over-account for the unknown Chinese executions, it would still amount to less than half a percent of HIV/AIDS deaths.
According to the WHO, 1.6 million people died of AIDS in 2012. HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of death in Africa, even surpassing malaria.
According to Amnesty International, at least 682 persons were executed in 2012. Even if we multiply this number by ten to over-account for the unknown Chinese executions, it would still amount to less than half a percent of HIV/AIDS deaths.
Irrelevant. The AIDS epidemy had started in the 1960s and had already spread outside Africa by 1980; a decade before John Paul IIs infamous speech. You're also missing the fact that the countries with the highest prevalence of AIDS (Swaziland, Botswana, Lesotho, Zimbabwe and South Africa) are not Catholic countries, with the exception of Zimbabwe.
Ahem...
GGPViper wrote:
And it doesn't really matter if it is the "practising catholics" or not, because the Catholic Church has been aggressively sabotaging public health campaigns targeted at *all* citizens in several African countries by falsely claiming that condoms do not protect against HIV.
... what I said.
Kurgan wrote:
If the church is actively sabotaging campaigns, why is the infection rate per capita rapidly falling? The infection rate has fallen by 33% since 2001, and the death rate has fallen by 30% since it's peak in 2005.
Because of medical treatment. Antiretroviral drugs reduces the risk of transmitting HIV by up to 96 percent, and is instrumental in preventing mothers from passing on HIV to their children.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6063/1628.full
It would likely have fallen even further if sound medical advise wasn't being undermined by misinformation from the Catholic Church.
Kurgan wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
I too can use CTRL-C+CTRL-V:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11804398
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/20 ... says-pope/
Ahem... *full quote of what I actually said about that link*:
GGPViper wrote:
Remember this?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/oct/09/aids
... this was during John Paul II's reign (with the later Benedict doing the dirty work as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith).
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/oct/09/aids
... this was during John Paul II's reign (with the later Benedict doing the dirty work as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith).
... none of your statements were made by John Paul II, the subject of this thread. They refer to a book by Benedict XVI written in 2010.
And last time I checked, most Africans infected with HIV aren't male prostitutes.
Kurgan wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/26/condom-ban-fuels-hiv-rise-in-the-philippines/
AIDS usually transmits via anal sex; this is nothing new. Furthermore, this is because of the government's politicians, not the pope.
False. The most common transmission of HIV is through standard heterosexual intercourse (90 percent).
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hivaids ... enhiv.aspx
Kurgan wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Do you read the entire articles you post?
"But Friday, he denied the church would consider such action against the president. “While the prevailing sentiment of a number of bishops was that of dismay and frustration over the reported stance of the president regarding artificial contraceptives, imposition of the canonical sanction has not been contemplated by the CBCP,” he said in a statement."
Oh, so the Catholic Church backtracked from sabotaging sex education at the very last instant. How heart-warming. I hereby demote them from 100 percent ass-holes to 98 percent ass-holes. Satisfied?
Kurgan wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
What is really damning is than John Paul II made anti-contraception statements throughout the early 1980s, when HIV was effectively a rapid death sentence due to no treatment possibilities.
http://www.catholicsagainstcontraceptio ... 8_1996.htm
http://www.catholicsagainstcontraceptio ... 8_1996.htm
He makes no mention of HIV or AIDS, nor any venereal disease in any of these quotes.
I'm pretty sure that they died anyway. If you judge people by their intended actions, not their actual actions, you get the Soviet Union.
Kurgan wrote:
As far as contraceptive use goes:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo ... ion-health
https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key ... XnvwJ-SsHQ
Contraceptive use mirrors the infrastructure rather than the prevalence of the Catholic faith.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo ... ion-health
https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key ... XnvwJ-SsHQ
Contraceptive use mirrors the infrastructure rather than the prevalence of the Catholic faith.
Well, it would seem that central Africa has the lowest level of contraceptive use on the continent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control_in_Africa
Oh, dear. Guess which part of Africa has the highest Catholic percentage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C ... try#Africa
pawelk1986 wrote:
Is good that he did not allowed for the appointment of women as priests.
Because the priesthood is not for women. While i do support women as World, lawmakers, astronaut etc. But priesthood was traditinaly mans role, Christianity originated from Judaism, and among the Jews, both those living in Jesus' time as well as today, is unlikely to meet a woman rabbi
Because the priesthood is not for women. While i do support women as World, lawmakers, astronaut etc. But priesthood was traditinaly mans role, Christianity originated from Judaism, and among the Jews, both those living in Jesus' time as well as today, is unlikely to meet a woman rabbi
It is so polite when people openly express their sexist beliefs rather than hiding them between smoke screens and "rational tail" arguments. It makes debating so much more... efficient.
I was going to point out that the first female rabbi was ordained in 1935 - almost 80 years ago - but for now I'll just say:
Q.E.D
TheValk wrote:
How about you let each individual Christian denomination decide whether female ordination is religiously justified instead of blindly following whatever the hottest new trend of liberalism emerges?
Well, I have no problem with that. As long as those denominations stay the f*** out of politics, because then it is blatant gender discrimination.
GGPViper wrote:
TheValk wrote:
How about you let each individual Christian denomination decide whether female ordination is religiously justified instead of blindly following whatever the hottest new trend of liberalism emerges?
Well, I have no problem with that. As long as those denominations stay the f*** out of politics, because then it is blatant gender discrimination.
What untermenschen do you consider them to be that they would be expected to opt out of politics?
TheValk wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
TheValk wrote:
How about you let each individual Christian denomination decide whether female ordination is religiously justified instead of blindly following whatever the hottest new trend of liberalism emerges?
Well, I have no problem with that. As long as those denominations stay the f*** out of politics, because then it is blatant gender discrimination.
What untermenschen do you consider them to be that they would be expected to opt out of politics?
Oh, I have no such expectation.
Bigots, apparently, are not known for their modesty... I find it particular illustrating that the Catholic Church - which does not allow female ordainment - has so adamant beliefs on the issues of abortion.
For instance: Wouldn't an organization with a mandated male-only leadership (The Catholic Church) be less competent to form an opinion on a topic which directly involves the female reproductive system compared to an organization with a more inclusive membership?
Why is it that organizations with the most limited female representation are the ones most vocal about what women should and should not do?
In this corner: a gang of fanatics out to canonize a man for accomplishing something he had nothing to do with!
In that corner: One fanatic out to crucify the same man - for a crime he didnt commit!
Lets get ready to RUMBUUULLLLLLLLLL!! !! !! !!
This thread is dumber than a WWF match!
Pope JP's contribution to overthrowing Communism: ZERO!
The number of Africans murdered by Pope JP: ZERO!
Gobachev took the helm of the whole corporation, and then liguidated it from the top down without any outside help from anyone including the Pope. So why honor the Pope for something he had no hand in?
GGPViper wrote:
TheValk wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
TheValk wrote:
How about you let each individual Christian denomination decide whether female ordination is religiously justified instead of blindly following whatever the hottest new trend of liberalism emerges?
Well, I have no problem with that. As long as those denominations stay the f*** out of politics, because then it is blatant gender discrimination.
What untermenschen do you consider them to be that they would be expected to opt out of politics?
Oh, I have no such expectation.
Bigots, apparently, are not known for their modesty... I find it particular illustrating that the Catholic Church - which does not allow female ordainment - has so adamant beliefs on the issues of abortion.
For instance: Wouldn't an organization with a mandated male-only leadership (The Catholic Church) be less competent to form an opinion on a topic which directly involves the female reproductive system compared to an organization with a more inclusive membership?
Why is it that organizations with the most limited female representation are the ones most vocal about what women should and should not do?
Because the murder of the unborn is a sin and women who have abortions just for your convenience, "Lets do some sex for fun, and eventually i can always get abortion on demand, i call such woman selfish b*****s. People undertaking the sexual act should take into account the possible consequences of their actions
I see abortion as an ordinary murder with premeditation, but I believe that abortion was the result of rape should be allowed. Although I would prefer instead, to the man who committed the rape was deprived of "tools" he used to commit the offense, of course, without anesthesia
Last edited by pawelk1986 on 18 Apr 2014, 1:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
naturalplastic wrote:
In this corner: a gang of fanatics out to canonize a man for accomplishing something he had nothing to do with!
In that corner: One fanatic out to crucify the same man - for a crime he didnt commit!
Lets get ready to RUMBUUULLLLLLLLLL!! !! !! !!
This thread is dumber than a WWF match!
Pope JP's contribution to overthrowing Communism: ZERO!
The number of Africans murdered by Pope JP: ZERO!
Gobachev took the helm of the whole corporation, and then liguidated it from the top down without any outside help from anyone including the Pope. So why honor the Pope for something he had no hand in?
In that corner: One fanatic out to crucify the same man - for a crime he didnt commit!
Lets get ready to RUMBUUULLLLLLLLLL!! !! !! !!
This thread is dumber than a WWF match!
Pope JP's contribution to overthrowing Communism: ZERO!
The number of Africans murdered by Pope JP: ZERO!
Gobachev took the helm of the whole corporation, and then liguidated it from the top down without any outside help from anyone including the Pope. So why honor the Pope for something he had no hand in?
Are you saying that the politics of John Paul II on the use of condoms had no effect on HIV/AIDS in Africa?
pawelk1986 wrote:
Because the murder of the unborn is a sin and women who have abortions just for your convenience, "Lets do some sex for fun, and eventually i can always get abortion on demand, i call such woman selfish b*****s. People undertaking the sexual act should take into account the possible consequences of their actions
I see abortion as an ordinary murder with premeditation, but I believe that abortion was the result of rape should be allowed. Although I would prefer instead, to the man who committed the rape was deprived of "tools" he used to commit the offense, of course, without anesthesia
I see abortion as an ordinary murder with premeditation, but I believe that abortion was the result of rape should be allowed. Although I would prefer instead, to the man who committed the rape was deprived of "tools" he used to commit the offense, of course, without anesthesia
I find it highly illustrating that a post about the absence in women in organizations against abortion is met by a claim by a man belonging to such an organization who explicitly announces that women who seek elective abortion are "selfish b*****s".
QED.
GGPViper wrote:
pawelk1986 wrote:
Because the murder of the unborn is a sin and women who have abortions just for your convenience, "Lets do some sex for fun, and eventually i can always get abortion on demand, i call such woman selfish b*****s. People undertaking the sexual act should take into account the possible consequences of their actions
I see abortion as an ordinary murder with premeditation, but I believe that abortion was the result of rape should be allowed. Although I would prefer instead, to the man who committed the rape was deprived of "tools" he used to commit the offense, of course, without anesthesia
I see abortion as an ordinary murder with premeditation, but I believe that abortion was the result of rape should be allowed. Although I would prefer instead, to the man who committed the rape was deprived of "tools" he used to commit the offense, of course, without anesthesia
I find it highly illustrating that a post about the absence in women in organizations against abortion is met by a claim by a man belonging to such an organization who explicitly announces that women who seek elective abortion are "selfish b*****s".
QED.
What I mean is that if someone fathered a child, it should take care of him or her.
I am a supporter of sexual abstinence, both women and men. People who decide to have sex should be responsible , and do not treat sex as innocent fun.
And if a woman have got pregnant, and I am thinking about voluntary with informed consent sexual intercourse, it can always give the kid up for adoption. There are many people who really want to have a child but are infertile.
I have two advice for man jacking off, for woman fingering, it also sin, but is far much better than murder of innocent children
EDIT:
Maybe i'm not should use word "selfish b*****s" for what i'm apologize, I overreacted.
I know that my beliefs may seem a little old-fashioned, but I believe that sex should be decided people aware of all the consequences, not necessarily wait until marriage, but is good solution, but both men and women should know that sex can end up pregnancy, and the child as a being has the right to life. that belongs to every human being regardless of race or religion. For this, if anyone has necessarily to have sex, it is good to buy a condom, even if it is a sin. You see, not all Catholics are against condoms
