Why are the New Age movement and other exotic ideas so attractive?

[PRmerger]

Please PRMerger. I won’t even entertain such a Glenn Beck style argument. You are talking about people’s lives.

Your friend
Sufjon

I don’t know what you mean by a “Glenn Beck style argument”. The source I provided is by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman.

Here’s another source:

According to the latest research, condom promotion is ineffective for anything but lowering the rate of AIDS in concentrated, high-risk groups, like homosexuals in San Francisco or prostitutes in Bangkok. Condoms have never been shown to reduce HIV infection rates and AIDS deaths in general-population epidemics like those in sub-Saharan Africa. Paradoxically, the more condoms AIDS activists send to Africa, the more widespread the disease has become.

 

[PRmerger]

Incidentally, this is a great example of how Catholics ought to conform their views to God’s, rather than creating a new god in one’s own image.

If I were to proffer my own opinion, I might argue that condoms are *not *immoral, when used by married couples when one spouse is infected with AIDS. I would view the contraceptive nature of the condom as a secondary effect, while the primary intent was the inhibition of the spread of disease.

However, as a Catholic I defer to the words of Jesus and must obey my leaders. Just as I obeyed my parents, even if the weren’t infallible, I follow the lead of my Church, even if I don’t understand with 100% certainty their teaching. As Cardinal John Henry Newman said: “for a man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, without doubting that it admits an answer”.

(NB: this really is only a hypothetical. For, as I have demonstrated, condoms do not prevent the spread of HIV. The above is proposed only if it were true that condoms could provide a barrier to the virus. *** They cannot***. Thus,as I would NEVER engage in marital relations with my spouse who had AIDS using a condom for “protection”, I would, in charity, never propose it would be okay for poor people in Africa to use condoms either. That which I wouldn’t do I wouldn’t offer to another. IOW, I wouldn’t drink gasoline if I were thirsty, so I wouldn’t propose that those dying from thirst in the Sahara drink gasoline either–even if they are dying of thirst. )

 

[Sufjon]

I don’t know what you mean by a “Glenn Beck style argument”. The source I provided is by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman.

Here’s another source:

According to the latest research, condom promotion is ineffective for anything but lowering the rate of AIDS in concentrated, high-risk groups, like homosexuals in San Francisco or prostitutes in Bangkok. Condoms have never been shown to reduce HIV infection rates and AIDS deaths in general-population epidemics like those in sub-Saharan Africa. Paradoxically, the more condoms AIDS activists send to Africa, the more widespread the disease has become.

PRMerger: The data would suggest that when properly used, condoms do help prevent STDs, and included among them is AIDS. It is a sinister twist on words that people use in the arguments like the one being quoted in your post. It says that promoting the use of condoms hasn’t stopped the spread of AIDS. That is primarily because:

• AIDS spreads when people don’t use them.

-There is no way to accurately estimate how much wider the spread would have been without the use of condoms. The greater likelihood is that the spread would be even more
profound when they are not used.

-It is even more likely that AIDS spreads so prodigiously Africa precisely because of the lesser availability of them. They are less available in areas where there is more poverty, less access, and more people teaching absolute truths.

The truth PRMerger is this:

According to a 2000 report by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), correct and consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85% relative to risk when unprotected, putting the seroconversion rate (infection rate) at 0.9 per 100 person-years with condom, down from 6.7 per 100 person-years. Analysis published in 2007 from the University of Texas Medical Branch and the World Health Organization[54] found similar risk reductions of 80–95%.

Out of all of this, there is perhaps one absolute truth. It is a grave and mortal sin to play fast and lose with words and facts when the lives of the innocent and the poor are at stake. It is even more unthinkable to give these people lessons in how one interprets scripture in regards to truth, when that interpretation of truth is like any other interpretation - relative. In this case, both relative and lethal.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[PRmerger]

PRMerger: The data would suggest that when properly used, condoms do help prevent STDs, and included among them is AIDS.

Sufjon, this is a moot conversation, because unless you state here, for all to see, that you’d have marital relations with your wife (using a condom) when you had AIDS–and risk her also having this fatal, horrific disease just so you can have some physical pleasure–then proposing that poor, black African folks use condoms is poor ethics.

To propose that which you would not do yourself yet propose that others do is simply immoral.

 

[PRmerger]

Out of all of this, there is perhaps one absolute truth. It is a grave and mortal sin to play fast and lose with words and facts when the lives of the innocent and the poor are at stake. It is even more unthinkable to give these people lessons in how one interprets scripture in regards to truth, when that interpretation of truth is like any other interpretation - relative. In this case, both relative and lethal.

Your friend
Sufjon

Do you not see the irony in the above opinion, Sufjon? You are proposing an absolute truth, while,* in the very same breath,* proposing that all is relative?

 

[Sufjon]

Do you not see the irony in the above opinion, Sufjon? You are proposing an absolute truth, while,* in the very same breath,* proposing that all is relative?

No, I am illustrating the irony in the situation. You have known me long enough to know that when you bend facts, I’ll call you on it. I used to get paid a lot of money to bend facts for large corporations. I was one of the best, and I know it when I see it, especially in an amateur environment. I don’t think that you personally have that intent. I think you have fallen under the sway of people who have that intent.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sufjon,

Let’s see how fascinated you are with the answers to your questons.

I think it would be good to make a distinction between Moral Relativism (where there is no absolute right or wrong - just be yourself and everything will work out for you) and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (his response to Newtonian mechanics and dealt primarily with planetary movements). While the words may be similar, the concepts are different.

Now, concerning the case you gave of the African AIDS epidemic. You realize that there are no scientific studies that document that condoms prevent AIDS. The term ‘safe sex’ is about as comprehensive as ‘honest used car salesman’ - you are really being mislead by both! The problem is, if you buy the lie about ‘safe sex’ (indiscriminate or causual sex using a condom) you are at serious risk to contract a disease that will greatly shorten your life expectancy. Even the advocates that sex is fun so have it often and with whomever admit to this:positive.org/JustSayYes/safesex.html In that context, buying a clunker of a car is not a bad alternative.

You are aware that condoms are far from ‘fool proof’ when it comes to preventing pregnancy with failure rates from 3% - 15% goaskalice.columbia.edu/2219.html Now, large sperm can get through (analogous to an large ocean liner) how is a virus going to be stopped (analogous to an ant in size)? It is not! A lot has to do with the infected partner’s ‘viral load’ - and not many folks advertise that they are infected to begin with.

The same groups (like Planned Parenthood) that champion the use of condoms - also champion the use of abortion as the next step WHEN condoms fail. These seemingly divergent topics all have their origin in the Culture of Death. For a serious looks (and this is no once over lightly issue) at just what is behind all of this and why the Pope has specifically condemned the use of condoms, check out this link: newadvent.org/library/docs_cf9601.htm WARNING: this is strictly from the view point of moral absolutism: there really is a right and a wrong - and we are to learn to do good and avoid evil.

I am serious on this: if life is devalued it sets the stage for every imaginable evil. It causes us to despair because one day we too will become infirmed and relying on others for help and care. Embrace the New Age philosophy and one automatically embraces Moral Relativism - and in so doing, one embraces everyon’e death. The argument that we will all die one day should be addressed here. While every cemetery on earth is filled with people who were once alive - the issue is were they viewed with contempt for not being self-sufficient, independent or whatever other human quality we wish to use as a criteria? Or, were they viewed with dignity and respect while they were alive? It is hard to imagine the abortionist viewing the unborn baby that is being torn apart alive in a direct effort to murder him as being seen with dignity and respect. The same is true for the mother who granted permission for her unborn child to be so sadly abused - she is but an object the abortionist must get throught to get to the life she holds inside of her.

Condoms encourage death - and promoting them does not address the solution to AIDS in Africa or any other country.

God bless

Hi tqualey: I think this whole topic of relativism vs absolutism is rather fascinating. Personally, I am a man of the 21st century, where things like relativity are thought to be the nature of the universe. I am looking hard for something absolute in the nature of things. I see people practicing what they think is absolutism, but they look pretty relative to me. It really depends on your vantage point. I think Einstein proved that.

Case in point:.

There is an epidemic of AIDS on the continent of Africa. There have been churches with missionaries on the ground in Africa teaching abstinence rather than contraceptives. They are telling people that you go to hell for using contraceptives. These same people are also quite aware that these people they are telling this to are going to have sex anyway. It has been a fruitless approach, and people to die in ever increasing numbers. The missionaries have thought perhaps that they were serving God and helping these people. I think they are free to think that if that’s what they truly think, but I think a better argument could be made that they are aiding and abetting the pathogenesis of a collosal human tragedy. It seems that the morality is here relative. The opinion of your Church on this matter is that proper moral teachings were being brought to the people of that continent. The United Nations has publicly disagreed with these church organizations, and issued an unprecedented statement about it (Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), 2001 ). Who is right? Who has the absolute truth in this situation?

Is it better for these people to die than to use a condom because of some absolute moral high ground? Why does that moral high ground apply only to people who are at your mercy and need your help? What do I mean? Your scriptures say that it is better to pluck out your eye than to cast a lustful glance, yet I have met few one-eyed Christians. I would like to propose a theoretical world-wide church service, wherein only adults who have never used a condom can attend. How many Christians could attend? How many Hindus, Jews or anyone else? How many of the people who told these Africans that abstinence was they way to fight AIDS could say that they have never used one? I would wager that If there is an absolute answer anywhere, it is here. The answer is that very few could attend.

My sense is that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw absolute truths about.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[PRmerger]

No, I am illustrating the irony in the situation. You have known me long enough to know that when you bend facts, I’ll call you on it. I used to get paid a lot of money to bend facts for large corporations. I was one of the best, and I know it when I see it, especially in an amateur environment. I don’t think that you personally have that intent. I think you have fallen under the sway of people who have that intent.

Your friend
Sufjon

Sufjon, are you calling me a liar? I will tell you that I never “bend the facts”.

You, however, have admitted that you are capable of this, and have done it in the past. For money, which, I propose, is the most heinous of reasons.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I am illustrating the irony in the situation.

So, which is it, Sufon? Is there an absolute truth? Or is everything relative. It can’t be both.

 

[benedictus2]

In my view there attractive because they cause people to come together.They feel they are part of something.Most people enjoy being with other people (groups and crowds).Often times they feel a crowd has more influence on other people than just one or two.Exotic ideas seem novel or strange.Something no one knows about or tried here.Maybe people from far off places have something we don’t know about.

In my view, the attraction most people find in new age is the same attraction that prompted Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil - the desire to be god. And New Age couples Hindu with pseudo science which makes it sound plausible.

 

[Sufjon]

Sufjon, this is a moot conversation, because unless you state here, for all to see, that you’d have marital relations with your wife (using a condom) when you had AIDS–and risk her also having this fatal, horrific disease just so you can have some physical pleasure–then proposing that poor, black African folks use condoms is poor ethics.

To propose that which you would not do yourself yet propose that others do is simply immoral.

The question is superfluous PRMerger, because you know that I am a yogi, and have practiced brahmacharya for many years…

THat said, I will answer your question as directly as possible. I cannot say what others might do in a relationship where one partner is dying from AIDS. Losing a partner is painful beyond all account. I can tell you this. If my wife were to be dying from AIDS and being close to me in that manner brought her comfort, I would do it as often as she liked. However, what suffering I am able to endure for love, or what perils I might subject myself to should not be the measure by which other people are held in the same regard. Moreover, if I did so and used a condom, I am relatively certain that I wouldn’t have much chance of getting the disease.

Let me turn the question around. If your husband were to be suffering through end the of life experience and was frightened and asked you for comfort in that regard, would you deny him that to save yourself, even though if you were careful, you’d probably be fine anyway? Would you not touch his tears or clean up after him for fear of being infected yourself? Likewise, to what extent should I abandon my wife to save my own temporary hide?

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[PRmerger]

The question is superfluous PRMerger, because you know that I am a yogi, and have practiced brahmacharya for many years…

I am curious as to why you would assume that I know you’re a yogi.

I just did a search of your posts and there is only one in which you proferred this info. And I was never on that thread.

I don’t have the time nor the desire to research what a yogi is or brahmacharya is either.

But I assume that this means you are celibate?

At any rate, I presume that you could project what you would do if you were engaging in marital relations if infected with the deadly HIV. Any moral person, with any formed conscience whatsoever, wouldn’t even think of exposing his beloved to this fatal disease.

And to offer it as a solution to poor Africans, when it is something you would not even consider for yourself, is heartless.

 

[PRmerger]

I can tell you this. If my wife were to be dying from AIDS and being close to me in that manner brought her comfort, I would do it as often as she liked.

This is unselfish of you, Sufjon. But it is a totally different question from what I asked you.

If you were infected with HIV would engage in marital relations with your wife, using a condom, knowing there is a greater than 20% chance, with each and every act, that you could infect her with this fatal, horrific virus?

 

[Sufjon]

This is unselfish of you, Sufjon. But it is a totally different question from what I asked you.

If you were infected with HIV would engage in marital relations with your wife, using a condom, knowing there is a greater than 20% chance, with each and every act, that you could infect her with this fatal, horrific virus?

I told you that the question is superfluous. Why would I start having sex after being infected with AIDS when I didn’t have sex before? The answer is no, I would not, but not because condoms are ineffective. I answered it even better though when I said that I would do it if it were the other way around and it was something my wife wanted and she was dying of AIDS. Yes, I would. No question about it. By the way, my wife cared for end stage AIDS patients when we were young. She was exposed regularly. She was careful. We had sex regularly. We were careful.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[PRmerger]

I told you that the question is superfluous. Why would I start having sex after being infected with AIDS when I didn’t have sex before?

Irrelevant question, Sufjon.

We are talking about principles here. That which you would not risk for yourself, you cavalierly volunteer others for.

The answer is no, I would not, but not because condoms are ineffective.

So you allow others, poor and black, to risk the lives of their loved ones, when you wouldn’t risk this yourself?

I answered it even better though when I said that I would do it if it were the other way around and it was something my wife wanted and she was dying of AIDS. Yes, I would. No question about it. By the way, my wife cared for end stage AIDS patients when we were young. She was exposed regularly. She was careful. We had sex regularly. We were careful.

Your friend
Sufjon

Not sure what this means…was your wife infected with HIV?

 

[Sufjon]

Hi, Sufjon,

Let’s see how fascinated you are with the answers to your questons.

I think it would be good to make a distinction between Moral Relativism (where there is no absolute right or wrong - just be yourself and everything will work out for you) and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (his response to Newtonian mechanics and dealt primarily with planetary movements). While the words may be similar, the concepts are different.

Now, concerning the case you gave of the African AIDS epidemic. You realize that there are no scientific studies that document that condoms prevent AIDS. The term ‘safe sex’ is about as comprehensive as ‘honest used car salesman’ - you are really being mislead by both! The problem is, if you buy the lie about ‘safe sex’ (indiscriminate or causual sex using a condom) you are at serious risk to contract a disease that will greatly shorten your life expectancy. Even the advocates that sex is fun so have it often and with whomever admit to this:positive.org/JustSayYes/safesex.html In that context, buying a clunker of a car is not a bad alternative.

You are aware that condoms are far from ‘fool proof’ when it comes to preventing pregnancy with failure rates from 3% - 15% goaskalice.columbia.edu/2219.html Now, large sperm can get through (analogous to an large ocean liner) how is a virus going to be stopped (analogous to an ant in size)? It is not! A lot has to do with the infected partner’s ‘viral load’ - and not many folks advertise that they are infected to begin with.

The same groups (like Planned Parenthood) that champion the use of condoms - also champion the use of abortion as the next step WHEN condoms fail. These seemingly divergent topics all have their origin in the Culture of Death. For a serious looks (and this is no once over lightly issue) at just what is behind all of this and why the Pope has specifically condemned the use of condoms, check out this link: newadvent.org/library/docs_cf9601.htm WARNING: this is strictly from the view point of moral absolutism: there really is a right and a wrong - and we are to learn to do good and avoid evil.

Condoms encourage death - and promoting them does not address the solution to AIDS in Africa or any other country.

God bless

Hi Tqualey: I read the articles you posted. One stringly suggests the use of condoms to prevent STD’s, the another said that condoms were highly effective in avoiding STDs, and the third was a Catholic website, and quite honestly I didn’t read that because any entity having a political, social or religious agenda is usually somewhat less objective. So I skipped that one. The Queen Bee of disease control in the country where I live is teh CDC in Atlanta. Here is what they have to say

“Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing heterosexual sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Research on the effectiveness of latex condoms in preventing heterosexual transmission is both comprehensive and conclusive. The ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission has been scientifically established in laboratory studies as well as in epidemiologic studies of uninfected persons at very high risk of infection because they were involved in sexual relationships with HIV-infected partners. The most recent meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies of condom effectiveness was published by Weller and Davis in 2004. This analysis refines and updates their previous report published in 1999. The analysis demonstrates that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection against heterosexual transmission of HIV. It should be noted that condom use cannot provide absolute protection against HIV. The surest way to avoid transmission of HIV is to abstain from sexual intercourse or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.”

As to the relevance of the topic in relation to relativism, I thought that would have been self evident, but let me explain. It illustrates how an organization with a moral agenda can see an issue colored by the lenses of their perspective, and totally miss the larger truth. In this case, an aversion to condom use based on reasoning that is centric to one sect of one religion, and it’s particular view of morality can lead it to engage in activities that are clearly wrong from the moral and practical reasoning of the average person (in this case, medical practitioners, public health officials, and most every other religion). It is relative to the thinking of some people in relation to the thinking of other people, and not absolute.

As for Einstein and relativity, he did in fact work in both smaller and larger models, being that he was not a cosmologist, but a physicist, however, both can agree that behavior seen in smaller observable models often carries on into larger observable models. For instance, orbits can be observed in electrons, moons, planets, solar systems and such. The position of each at a given time is relative, and the observation in itself has changes on the nature of their behavior that makes difficult to determine both position and velocity at the same time. That means that even these realities are relative to the viewer. In the case of electrons and sub-atomic particles, it can even be concluded that they only exist as potential realities until they are observed, which starts getting into quantum physics. Again, this demonstrates that everything is relative to the viewer, that which is viewed and the relationships between the two.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

Irrelevant question, Sufjon.

We are talking about principles here. That which you would not risk for yourself, you cavalierly volunteer others for.

So you allow others, poor and black, to risk the lives of their loved ones, when you wouldn’t risk this yourself?

Not sure what this means…was your wife infected with HIV?

Perhaps you should read my post again PRMerger. It was relatively simple. Do you read these things, or what? Yes, I am annoyed, but I still like you.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps you should read my post again PRMerger. It was relatively simple. Do you read these things, or what? Yes, I am annoyed, but I still like you.

Your friend
Sufjon

My apologies for not understanding. I can be obtuse sometimes.

Could you please simplify? Thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

"Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing heterosexual sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Harvard Aids expert says Pope ‘correct’ on condoms and spread of HIV.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5987155.ece

More from this secular source: “We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates, which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working.”

 

[Sufjon]

Harvard Aids expert says Pope ‘correct’ on condoms and spread of HIV.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5987155.ece

More from this secular source: “We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates, which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working.”

PRMerger: You can always find one or two people with outstanding credentials who are at odds with the rest of the professional community in which they operate. Most epidemiologists and medical experts disagree with that conclusion. In fact, even the article you posted quotes the chief of the UN AIDS prevention unit in Geneva as saying that this conclusion is “ludicrous”. He cited it as akin to "saying that sales of mosquito repellent are higher in places where people are more likely to get mosquito bites,” he said. “If people are using condoms more in areas where they are more likely to get HIV, that is positive.”

I have already posted scientific data from exhaustive research that that concludes that condoms are very effective in the prevention of AIDS. The article you have posted, while interesting, posts no data.

When I get time, I’ll look around to see if I can find a few experts who conclude that seat belts and child seats kill more people than they save. I bet it won’t take long, and I can come up with some pretty impressive proponents of that idea.

Your friend
Sufjon