What is your perception of the current pope?

[joyboytoy79]

I wouldn't bank on it though, Stronzo. The prevalence of the D 32 gene in Europeans is 1:7 tops. But to have the resistance to HIV you'd need to be homozygous, i.e. a matching pair, one from each parent. So both parents would need to be heterozygous, i.e. carry one, with the other gene being the normal, non-D 32 gene varient (allele).

Doing math: the chance of both parents carrying one allele is 1 in 7x7 = 1:49. That would only give you a 1:4 chance of ending up as homozygous. So if you don't know the D 32 status of your parents, the chance of you being homozygous is 4 x 49 = 196. Let's call it 0.5%. Pretty long odds.

blah...blah...blah...

Your math = Flawed.

Blue eyes are a homozygous trait. Both of my parents had blue eyes. I have blue eyes. They were homozygous little b blue, and so am I.

What I'm getting at is this. If both parents are heterozygous Δ32, then a simple punnet square (do you remember doing those?) tells you that half of the children would be heterozygous Δ32, 1/4 would be homozygous normal, and 1/4 would be homozygous Δ32. However, you needn't have this situation to have homozygous offspring. Much better odds (100%) of having homozygous offspring occur if both parents are homozygous. Where on earth did you get the idea that to have homozygous children each parent must be heterozygous? Anyway, you are right that each parent must be AT LEAST heterozygous Δ32, because of one of them is homozygous, the best the offspring could be is heterozygous Δ32, but the math you stated is assuming, actually, that both parents are homozygous. Even then, it's wrong.

In reality, since 5% to 14% of Europeans (and those with predominately European heritage) carry the gene, without any real data as to how many are heterozygous vs. homozygous, it can best be assumed that roughly 75% of the carriers are heterozygous, and only 25% are homozygous(really, this number would be FAR lower). So, MAX, 3.5% of the European population at large is homozygous. Best case scenario (absurdly unlikely), the chance of having two homozygous parents is roughly 0.1225%. The chance of being at least heterozygous is still 5% to 14%, since that's the prevalence in the general population.

Anyway, the Pope and the Church in general, are still INSANE for spreading anti-condom propaganda. Preach abstinence, sure. Abstinence IS the only way to be 100% sure you're not going to contract an STD through sexual means. Just don't preach AGAINST condom use in the event that your flock should *gasp* ignore your admonishments of carnal joys.

 

[Astrate]

Your math = Flawed.

Blue eyes are a homozygous trait. Both of my parents had blue eyes. I have blue eyes. They were homozygous little b blue, and so am I.

What I'm getting at is this. If both parents are heterozygous Δ32, then a simple punnet square (do you remember doing those?) tells you that half of the children would be heterozygous Δ32, 1/4 would be homozygous normal, and 1/4 would be homozygous Δ32. However, you needn't have this situation to have homozygous offspring. Much better odds (100%) of having homozygous offspring occur if both parents are homozygous. Where on earth did you get the idea that to have homozygous children each parent must be heterozygous? Anyway, you are right that each parent must be AT LEAST heterozygous Δ32, because of one of them is homozygous, the best the offspring could be is heterozygous Δ32, but the math you stated is assuming, actually, that both parents are homozygous. Even then, it's wrong.

In reality, since 5% to 14% of Europeans (and those with predominately European heritage) carry the gene, without any real data as to how many are heterozygous vs. homozygous, it can best be assumed that roughly 75% of the carriers are heterozygous, and only 25% are homozygous(really, this number would be FAR lower). So, MAX, 3.5% of the European population at large is homozygous. Best case scenario (absurdly unlikely), the chance of having two homozygous parents is roughly 0.1225%. The chance of being at least heterozygous is still 5% to 14%, since that's the prevalence in the general population..

This makes no sense.

I do, of course, mean AT LEAST Heterozygous, -as opposed to not carrying the gene at all. I did not include a figure for homozygous parents to calculate the chance of being homozygous oneself because this number is so small that it would not affect my figure significantly.

Your "best" figure, that 25% of carriers are homozygous would only be so if each of the heterozygous carrier "marries" another carrier. But for each carrier there is only a (according to your figures) 14% chance of marrying another carrier (I called it 1 in 7).

If you are choosing 2 parents from a random population, the chance of both of them being carriers is 14% of 14% (I called it 1 in 7x7). Yes?

The chance of one parent homozygous carrier, -rather than being a non-carrier or a heterozygous carrier, is the same as the prevalence of the homozygous trait in the general population, which is the same as my worked out figure of 1 in 196 (~0.5%) I can't see where that is wrong.

FWIW The chance of having 2 homozygous parents, randomly "selected" is therefore 0.0025%

 

[Astrate]

the dogma behind infallibility relates the to concept that God will not allow the Catholic church to promote dogma which is in error. Basically that means that if the Catholic church thinks an article of faith is true, that God must want it.

You mean that the church believes that if it church promotes dogma which is in error, God would intervene to put them right.

So that any dogma that is put out without intervention from God is true -?

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

You mean that the church believes that if it church promotes dogma which is in error, God would intervene to put them right.

So that any dogma that is put out without intervention from God is true -?

The point is that this doctrine indicates that God would never have to intervene because the Church cannot be in error.

 

[Astrate]

The point is that this doctrine indicates that God would never have to intervene because the Church cannot be in error.

The difference is that if the lack of divine intervention is proof of truth of a doctrine, it means that a rational reform-minded pope would be shackled.

The doctrine against the use of condoms is not just insane, it is immoral. There are clear consequences. What's worse is that it is just a surrogate doctrine, their real gripe is contraception. It is also banned in a completely monogamous marital relationship, where abstention (the rhythm method) is the only acceptable means of contraception -just when your wife is at her horniest. (Oh and if you thought you could jack off instead....)

Under this doctrine gay sex should be perfectly OK with or without condoms.

 

[HazelGod]

I couldn't care less.

 

[jason_els]

Wow, that's the best summary yet. Jason comes through again.

Thank you for the compliment!

I saw JP2 at a papal audience in St. Peter's Square. This was in 1994 and he was already quite frail. When he came out of St. Peter's the crowd of thousands simply hushed. He delivered a homily of some sort in Italian and then walked down to the barriers separating the steps and the crowd from his dais. He greeted some people in what was, simply awful weather. It was windy, cold, and rainy. Everyone seemed charmed as he smiled and grasped hands and blessed people individually. I was quite impressed.

What really got me though was that some people with extreme disabilities were in wheel chairs off to the side just in front of me and JP2 walked over to them and began speaking to each of them, kneeling on the cold, wet stone so that he could speak to them face to face. These folks were in crash helmets and some had restraints to keep them in their chairs. A few could barely speak beyond making some sounds. When the wind blew from their area, it was clear that at least one of them had a leaking bag or unplanned bowel movement. The smell was atrocious. And yet JP2 chatted with each one of them individually for a good HOUR, spending at least 10 minutes with each, laughing, reassuring, touching, welcoming each as though they were long lost friends. His entourage were clearly upset, trying to keep umbrellas over him and finally resorting to throwing their own cloaks on the ground to provide the pope's knees some support. As much as they tried to rush him, JP2 waved them off, at one point saying something quite stern to make them stop.

When they wheeled these disabled people back to the bus I could see their faces. This all happened within 10 feet of me. A few were crying while many, and I swear this is true, looked like they had seen the face of God himself. This had to have been the biggest day in their lives and I was simply moved to tears to see how much this meant to them. I disagree vehemently with many of the Catholic church's policies and doctrines, but JP2 was the real deal. I can't say I supported many of his positions, yet I believed he was sincere in defending them. Whatever else the man was, and even if at times his compassion was misplaced, I believe he was compassionate in soul and spirit. As I left, it occurred to me that I had just seen someone who would be declared a saint.

 

[jason_els]

You mean that the church believes that if it church promotes dogma which is in error, God would intervene to put them right.

So that any dogma that is put out without intervention from God is true -?

Yes, however it's not quite that simple. They believe that God does allow them to promulgate an article of faith which is in error in the first place. This is because the church fulfills a position called the Divine Magisteria. If a point of faith or doctrine is debated, God will guide the debate to the infallible conclusion that whatever is resolved will be what God wants. This is a long, complicated, tedious, and detailed process which includes a great deal of prayer asking for God's divine guidance. It is not so simple as a Congressional vote or even the pope ascending his throne and pronouncing something to be true. The whole business of the bodily assumption of Mary had been debated for a few hundred years and approved by the Curia and the College of Cardinals and the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. The pope's 1950 ex cathedra pronouncement was vetted up and down before he essentially gave it the final seal of approval.

See what you learn in Catholic school?:biggrin1:

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

The difference is that if the lack of divine intervention is proof of truth of a doctrine, it means that a rational reform-minded pope would be shackled.

The doctrine against the use of condoms is not just insane, it is immoral. There are clear consequences. What's worse is that it is just a surrogate doctrine, their real gripe is contraception. It is also banned in a completely monogamous marital relationship, where abstention (the rhythm method) is the only acceptable means of contraception -just when your wife is at her horniest. (Oh and if you thought you could jack off instead....)

Under this doctrine gay sex should be perfectly OK with or without condoms.

The problem with your thesis is that RC doctrine on matters of human sexuality, as promulgated in Humanae Vitae proscribes all sexual activity not liable to be procreative and clearly defines all sex with no possibility of procreation as fornication.

Fornication is a fairly serious sin, especially if the sinner is unrepentant of it, and knowingly engaging in fornication in the cognizance of its sinfulness is all the more culpable.

Thence the ban on contraception and homosexual sex, and the notion that the Church does not hate the sinner but hates the sin.

In order to explain why anyone would knowingly engage in a kind of sex (homosexual sex) which contained no prospect of procreation, and which amounts to the sin of fornication, thus imperiling their own soul, the RC church has had to come up with a pseudo-psychological explanation in which it claims that Homosexuals have an "objective disorder" or similar nonsense. What the RC Church seems to ignore is that it's theological imperatives are completely unable to deal realistically with the human condition and that application of the extremes of RC doctrine has a tendency to distort and warp rather than clarify and rationalise.

 

[Astrate]

What really got me though was that some people with extreme disabilities were in wheel chairs off to the side just in front of me and JP2 walked over to them and began speaking to each of them, kneeling on the cold, wet stone so that he could speak to them face to face. These folks were in crash helmets and some had restraints to keep them in their chairs. A few could barely speak beyond making some sounds. When the wind blew from their area, it was clear that at least one of them had a leaking bag or unplanned bowel movement. The smell was atrocious. And yet JP2 chatted with each one of them individually for a good HOUR, spending at least 10 minutes with each, laughing, reassuring, touching, welcoming each as though they were long lost friends. His entourage were clearly upset, trying to keep umbrellas over him and finally resorting to throwing their own cloaks on the ground to provide the pope's knees some support. As much as they tried to rush him, JP2 waved them off, at one point saying something quite stern to make them stop.

When they wheeled these disabled people back to the bus I could see their faces. This all happened within 10 feet of me. A few were crying while many, and I swear this is true, looked like they had seen the face of God himself. This had to have been the biggest day in their lives and I was simply moved to tears to see how much this meant to them. I disagree vehemently with many of the Catholic church's policies and doctrines, but JP2 was the real deal. I can't say I supported many of his positions, yet I believed he was sincere in defending them. Whatever else the man was, and even if at times his compassion was misplaced, I believe he was compassionate in soul and spirit. As I left, it occurred to me that I had just seen someone who would be declared a saint.

I'm not really sure what the real deal from a pope would look like. A person in that position can't help but be sucked in by the adolation he gets. Just a little charisma and PR nous is all that is necessary to achieve personality cult status.

I'm sure John Paul II was compassionate, but not enough to reframe inhumane doctrine. It certainly did not show in his promotion of human suffering as a virtue, proclaiming that suffering is actually redemptive, that suffering with Christ gives people a special worth in his Kingdom (in the characteristic gymnastics of an exegete with his head well up his rectum).

Whilst this might provide some consolation for people who suffer inadvertantly, it also encourages believers to suffer, and what's worse also induces carers to allow the suffering (witness M. Teresa). I don't believe this exegesis came from someone with a deep compassion for his fellow man.

I have seen plenty of suffering and there is no virtue or grace in it, even if some people manage to suffer gracefully (with help). Some people find consolation in that doctrine, but telling a devastated mother who has lost her 4 yr old child in a hit and run, or a man who is suffering nauseating teeth-grinding intractable pain from cancer of the pancreas that they are being virtuous will just make them feel incredibly patronised and dismissed.


A compassionate exegete would automatically take that square peg out of that round hole and shave it down a little by concluding that Christ in his virtue suffered with them, -the inadvertant sufferers, rather than the other way round.

 

[Astrate]

The problem with your thesis is that RC doctrine on matters of human sexuality, as promulgated in Humanae Vitae proscribes all sexual activity not liable to be procreative and clearly defines all sex with no possibility of procreation as fornication.

Fornication is a fairly serious sin, especially if the sinner is unrepentant of it, and knowingly engaging in fornication in the cognizance of its sinfulness is all the more culpable.

.

But then that should apply equally to the rhythm method. Intercourse with a woman deliberately outside her fertile period provides no possiblity of procreation, and is designed to avoid it.

Yet that is allowed. -More exegetial gymnastics.

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

Every day millions of caring people, some who follow the teachings of Jesus, administer physical, emotional, support and friendship to the unlovely and unloved. A prince of the chuch spending a short while with the great unwashed may set an example to us but it is of no more merit because he (and it has to be a he hasn't it) is the head of a powerful economic/political organization claiming to represent God. Where in the gospels does it mention popes and a sinister curia?

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

But then that should apply equally to the rhythm method. Intercourse with a woman deliberately outside her fertile period provides no possiblity of procreation, and is designed to avoid it.

Yet that is allowed. -More exegetial gymnastics.

There's still a possibility a woman can get pregnant even using the rhythm method, and one uses "natural family planning" as part of what is decribed as "God's loving design" meaning that god designed the human body in such a way that is would regulate its own ability to produce children without human interference.

 

[jason_els]

I'm not really sure what the real deal from a pope would look like. A person in that position can't help but be sucked in by the adolation he gets. Just a little charisma and PR nous is all that is necessary to achieve personality cult status.

I'm sure John Paul II was compassionate, but not enough to reframe inhumane doctrine. It certainly did not show in his promotion of human suffering as a virtue, proclaiming that suffering is actually redemptive, that suffering with Christ gives people a special worth in his Kingdom (in the characteristic gymnastics of an exegete with his head well up his rectum).

Whilst this might provide some consolation for people who suffer inadvertantly, it also encourages believers to suffer, and what's worse also induces carers to allow the suffering (witness M. Teresa). I don't believe this exegesis came from someone with a deep compassion for his fellow man.

I have seen plenty of suffering and there is no virtue or grace in it, even if some people manage to suffer gracefully (with help). Some people find consolation in that doctrine, but telling a devastated mother who has lost her 4 yr old child in a hit and run, or a man who is suffering nauseating teeth-grinding intractable pain from cancer of the pancreas that they are being virtuous will just make them feel incredibly patronised and dismissed.


A compassionate exegete would automatically take that square peg out of that round hole and shave it down a little by concluding that Christ in his virtue suffered with them, -the inadvertant sufferers, rather than the other way round.

Fair enough. As I said, I think he believed he was being compassionate within the scope of his beliefs. It's not perfectly so and truly I don't know anyone who is. We're all fettered by our baggage.

 

[jason_els]

There's still a possibility a woman can get pregnant even using the rhythm method, and one uses "natural family planning" as part of what is decribed as "God's loving design" meaning that god designed the human body in such a way that is would regulate its own ability to produce children without human interference.

That is one of the most oxymoronic statements I've ever read; demented and sad, but true.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

That is one of the most oxymoronic statements I've ever read; demented and sad, but true.

I know it is totally demented and sad, but it's the upshot of Humanae Vitae. Basically to call the Rhythm Method an actual method of family planning is bogus, what it implies is that a married couple should be having sex all the time, regardless of the prospect of children, and that god will decide if the couple actual conceive or not. That's the loving design bit. Fuck you if you've had 10 kids already who you can't feed because you can't work because you have AIDS and you live in a shanty and one more kid will kill you.

 

[Astrate]

There's still a possibility a woman can get pregnant even using the rhythm method, and one uses "natural family planning" as part of what is decribed as "God's loving design" meaning that god designed the human body in such a way that is would regulate its own ability to produce children without human interference.

Crap design then. The least He could have done to help would be to provide a reliable outward sign that the woman is about to ovulate, or some horny-making pheromones, -like he did in virtually all other animals. The fact that he took that away from humans, and made humans lustful throughout the cycle could more sensibly be interpreted as an intention to get couples to have sex all the time to strengthen pair bonding. But no, the Catholic Church is not given to a simple interpretation when something more contrived and complicated would do.

Note that they impose these views and then deny responsibility for it, saying that the church did not make these rules, but they are "natural laws" given by God, and so the church cannot be their arbiter, only their interpreter. "Don't blame us, it's Him"

 

[hot-rod]

Just for the record....Catholics do not believe that the Pope is a conduit to God.

Well, I was taught that the pope is Jesus's representative on the earth, and that he speaks for Jesus. Is this not true or what?

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Well, I was taught that the pope is Jesus's representative on the earth, and that he speaks for Jesus. Is this not true or what?

It's certainly more complicated than that. But then everything about Catholic doctrine is more complicated than that :wink:

 

[798686]

Well, I was taught that the pope is Jesus's representative on the earth, and that he speaks for Jesus. Is this not true or what?

That IS what they teach - that the Pope is the Pontiff, and that he's the 'Vicar' or 'In the place of' Christ. (I think Pontiff means bridge-builder between man and the gods?).

It's based on the dodgy assumption that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, and that the Popes are his successors.