Pope / Condoms dilemma resolved by Mitral Valve Technology breakthrough

So the Pope has said it is OK for a male prostitute to wear a condom in pursuance of his trade in order to reduce the probability of the the spread of HIV.

From a medical point of view, this is welcome, but for Catholic theologians, it poses a problem of the thin end of the wedge kind. It could open the floodgates to use of condoms by the Catholic laity. not to mention paedophile priests and seminarians, who by implication could reasonably infer that, if they have HIV, or suspect that their victims might be so infected, they should also wear condoms in the course of buggering young lives entrusted to their care.

As an inventor, I can offer a technological solution to the knotty problem faced by their Holinesses, the moral theologians. In the case of a HIV negative husband with an HIV positive wife, the problem rests in the ability of sperm to escape and execute their divine purpose of impregating the partner, while preventing HIV infected fluids from passing backwards to infect the male urethra.

The solution is simple. They need a valve at the tip of the condom. This could be a simple affair, which could aptly be termed a Mitral Valve, which would allow fluids to pass out but not inwards. At its very simplest, the teat could be snipped off, which would produce a rough-and-ready one way valve, sufficient for the laity.

A more sophisticated valve for the well-to-do would require a small battery driven pump, which would be activated by specific chemicals, probably prostaglandins. It would pump out the sperm into the fornix while preventing any back flow.

Sceptics will undoubtedly scoff at the cost and practicality implications of this inventions, but sceptics will always scoff, that is what they do. The market opportunity is there and the Market will always provide. Nano technology could ensure that the presence of the pump would be barely noticable as a slight thickening on the end of the condom.

So with one bound, the Church is free to overcome the embarrassment that it has over the matter  matter of its blanket ban on condoms. The ban is necessary in order to ensure that the Catholic Church succeeds in out-growing the Muslims population of the world, who also oppose contraception, on the basis of the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) once expressed the hope to a pair of newly-weds that they would be blessed with many children.

The condom ban causes many hundreds of thousands of deaths from HIV wolrdwide, but now, thanks to Mitral Valve Technology, which I offer free of any patent claims, the Catholic population numbers can continue to increase exponentially, without being eroded by a similar increase in HIV deaths.

As a post script, I must say that both God and Allah (Let us give them a collective name of GaA) do both move in mysterious ways. If it is unnatural and against the will of GaA to use contraception, it must be in the will of GaA for the human species' population numbers to increase exponentially.

Every skuleboy kno it is impossible to increase exponentially forever in a finite space. It is therefore the will of GaA that the end of human history to end in war: war for lebensraum, for resources like coal, oil, gas, arable land and places to live. In the course of these wars, killing, murder, torture and rape will take place, all in line with the will of GaA.  Which is a bit weird, considering that same gods (or Original Being, if you are some kind of liberal) express the desire elsewhere to treat others as you would have them treat you.

So there's another little consequent knot for the theologians to mull over for a few decades.

oD: The Riddle of the Christian Gunman

Abdulsaidka writes:

"maybe the name of the gunman is Christian, you didn't clarify what he was and what is your point in that please?"

No, the paper definitely did not mean that the gunman's name was Christian, or Brian or John.

The headline meant he was a gunman from the "Christian" social group in Beirut - a Phalangist of some kind I guess. (this was a few years ago mind; not now. I do not want to start another war). He was shooting people, and he killed 9. He was probably on a roof. I cannot remember more, but there are three main possibilities:

1 Maybe it was in a gunfight with other gunmen, in which case he was just being a hero,
2 Maybe he was shooting at the man who shot at him, and killed the man who shot him but also killed another 8 innocent citizens. That would make him a soldier, but not a very good one. The 8 civilians he killed would be called "collateral" in Iron Mike's language. At least it would be if he was an American official soldier. If the gunman was against American interests, it would be called some kind of "terrorist atrocity" maybe. Anyway, it happens all the time, especially with bombs.

3 Or maybe all 9 were civilians, so in that case he was a terrorist, by definition (if he was doing it for political purposes).

I said he could not be a Christian, because he was killing people. On second thoughts, I am being too "judgmental" (that means passing judgments on other people. It is a failing of mine). I meant in the sense of Christian as someone who tries to follow Christ.

I believe that Christ would not shoot people with guns, torture them, drop bombs on them or any bad stuff like that. I do not call myself a Christian, but I do try to follow Christ on this point at least.

(I am not very good at it in that I get angry easily, but I do not hit people, but maybe I would if I had had my country taken away from me, though I hope that I would join people like OneVoice instead of killing).

Many people who do call themselves "Christians" would believe as I do that Christ would not shoot people with guns, torture them, drop bombs on them or any bad stuff like that, but they say it is OK for them to do it.

They justify it by saying that
they had to in self defence, or that
the other side made them do it or that
they were going to bomb us in 45 minutes, or that
they are trying to get hold of nuclear weapons,

(but never because they wanted the oil under their sand).

In the scientific term used to describe ego defence mechanisms, they "rationalise" their motives, to reconcile in their minds the unbridgeable difference between what Jesus Christ said about loving their neighbour, and what they are in fact doing.

I hope I am making sense to you here.

So when I thought he was not a very "Christian" gunman, I meant that he was not being very loving to the 9 he killed, nor to their families and friends. I was saying he was being unChristian. But in saying this I was being unChristian, by judging him to be not a Christian, I was being unChristian myself maybe.

I love the music of Bob Marley. He said, "We're not here to judge the good from bad, but to do things thing that are right". That is a quote from the New Testament.

(He also said, "One good thing about music, when it hits you feel no pain").

It is not our work to be saying this person is good and that person is bad, and especially not to say "this man is not doing good" when we are doing even worse things ourself. Jesus made himself very clear on that point.

I hope I have cleared up what I meant about the Christian gunman.

Salaam

Richard

PS I am pleased that God, Allah, El, and YHVH are all different names for the same great Being. Truly the One has many many names. Almost as many names as there are groups of people, but that's OK. It's natural, we have lots of different languages, the Great Spirit gets lots of different names.

Jewel in the heart of the lotus

Discussing God on openDemocracy. Abdulksaida explains that god is not a good name, because it can be male female, plural &c. Allah cannot be so divided.

I see.

So Christians and Jews - not to mention all the others - have kind of got the Name wrong.

But despite being called by the wrong name by some, I expect Allah hears the true prayers and compassionate thoughts of all people, because every Surah is in the Name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful?

To Jews, the One is so Holy that they cannot even say the Name, so they write YHVH instead.

But that is still a name.

Theology is a funny business. I picked up a big fat book of theology once. It began with a "definition of God". I put it down again. How can we define the Infinite?

I remember a headline years ago, when Lebanon was in flames. It read "Christian Gunman Kills Nine". I thought, he may have killed nine, but he was not a Christian.

True religion is not about what we say but what we do. If we are kind to strangers we are quite likely being kind to Allah. If we are unkind to people, we may very well be being unkind to Allah.

The best and the hardest thing for us to do is to be kind to people who are being unkind to us. If we can all learn to do that, we can bring Paradise to Earth. If we can only do harm to those who do harm to us, we will bring Hell to Earth.

Om Mane Padme Hum...............

Shanti

Shalom

Salaam