AIDS : What the Catholic Church is doing
J Young
http://www.thesoutherncross.co.za/features/aids2003.htm
The Catholic Church has been involved for years in Aids work at local
level through its various projects. In 1999 the SACBC Aids Office was
formed. It has grown exponentially, and is now recognised as a leading
role player in South Africa's response to Aids.
The office cooperates with the various Catholic projects. Through
extensive training, capacity building, resource provision and
mentoring, this response has been built into a network of more than 140
projects, providing home based care, terminal care, orphan care,
advocacy and education to the most affected communities in the country.
The Church's responses have often been innovative. These include
diocesan responses, such as the diocese of Keimoes-Upington, which
provides care over a vast geographical area, and local ones-such as
that of parishioners at Mtubatuba, Zululand, who organised training for
themselves and then formed a home based-care group. At institutional
level, for example, the Catholic principals of nine schools in the
Ingwavuma diocese in rural KwaZulu-Natal joined forces to organise food
for orphans in their classes, who were too malnourished to learn.
Women's religious congregations have been at the forefront, sometimes
re-inventing themselves (like the School Sisters of St Francis, who
closed their boarding school and turned it into a home for orphans). At
other times they joined forces in the face of great adversity, like the
Holy Cross and Holy Family Sisters near Bloemfontein, who provide care
to the sick. In all of this, the SACBC Aids Office has been a guiding
and supporting force.
The Aids Office has developed a new model of umbrella funding for small
projects-effectively addressing the pandemic, over the largest
geographical and demographic extent. The Church ensures that funding
reaches those who really need it. And less than 10% of its funds are
spent on its own running costs (there are very few NGOs that can equal
this).
Life skills and prevention programmes for youth are key to turning the
pandemic around. Until 2000, youth in the 15 to 24 years age group
showed the most rapid increase in new infections.
The Church is one of the few institutions with the moral authority to
make a difference. Several programmes for youth are in operation.
Education for Life was adopted by the SACBC as the chief prevention
programme for youth. It stresses long term abstinence, and fidelity to
one partner. In the various dioceses intensive training of trainers and
follow-up courses take place. The momentum is maintained through the
establishment of youth alive clubs.
The ABCD programme was designed by the Association of Catholic Tertiary
Students (Acts) and Chiro, with the support of the SACBC Youth Desk. It
stands for "Abstain, Be faithful, Change your lifestyle, or you are in
Danger of contracting Aids."
Harry
state. AIDS is just unfortunate.
You can however blame your pimp for the Herpes, Genital Warts, Syphilis, and
NSU that afflict your sick little body and mind.
"J Young" <youngo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1115053815.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Gregory Gadow
> The Catholic Church fights in the trenches in the war on Aids.
>
> http://www.thesoutherncross.co.za/features/aids2003.htm
Yes, care for them AFTER, and ONLY after, they have contracted a fatal
wasting disease, console bereaved parents whose children became sick in
utero that their children "have been taken by God" and set up orphanages
for those children who have not died but have been left orphans because of
HIV.
Then do everything possible to prevent people from having knowledge of,
access to or an understanding of how properly to use a simple, inexpensive
device that could keep people from contracting the disease in the first
place.
--
Gregory Gadow
tech...@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe
in one fewer god than you do. When you understand
why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F. Roberts
Andrealphus
> The Catholic Church fights in the trenches in the war on Aids.
>
>
> http://www.thesoutherncross.co.za/features/aids2003.htm
>
> The Catholic Church has been involved for years in Aids work at local
> level through its various projects. In 1999 the SACBC Aids Office was
> formed. It has grown exponentially, and is now recognised as a leading
> role player in South Africa's response to Aids.
>
>
It's only fair, since the Catholic Church is primarilly responsible for the
spread of HIV. (No Condoms!)
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."
Albert Einstein
James
--
James B, master of the tri-pronged scrotal mount
aa #944
"All that belongs to human understanding, in this
deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical,
or at least cautious; and not to admit of any
hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which
is supported by no appearance of probability."
-David Hume
RS
"Gregory Gadow" <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message
news:427665A1...@serv.net...
>J Young wrote:
>
>> The Catholic Church fights in the trenches in the war on Aids.
>>
>> http://www.thesoutherncross.co.za/features/aids2003.htm
>
> Yes, care for them AFTER, and ONLY after, they have contracted a fatal
> wasting disease, console bereaved parents whose children became sick in
> utero that their children "have been taken by God" and set up orphanages
> for those children who have not died but have been left orphans because of
> HIV.
>
> Then do everything possible to prevent people from having knowledge of,
> access to or an understanding of how properly to use a simple, inexpensive
> device that could keep people from contracting the disease in the first
> place.
What don't you get? A list of those charities and organizations given to us
by young included organizations to educate people on the ONLY way to prevent
AIDS. A condom COULD keep them from contracting the disease. That would
work if they lived in a culture which believed in the use of condoms.
Rather, the poorest areas of Africa believe condoms to be insulting to ones'
manhood. The only way to prevent this disease on a personal level is to
avoid sexual contact with anyone but your wife, who is HIV negative. If you
marry one woman and both of you are loyal to one another, there is little
chance you could become infected (blood to blood being the exception).
-RS
Christopher A. Lee
What don't you get? That your rationalisation helps nobody? That
people are going to have sex anyway? That your conscience only applies
to yourself? That if they are going to have sex anyway that education
about condoms is better than telling them not to? That your religion
and its doctrines are contributing to the deaths of millions?
>-RS
>
RS
"Andrealphus" <OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote in message
news:Zdude.3208$BE3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> It's only fair, since the Catholic Church is primarilly responsible for
> the
> spread of HIV. (No Condoms!)
Haha. You are funny. The reason this geographic region is the heart of
this pandemic doesn't have to do with the Churchs' stance on condoms.
Teachings against artificial contraception are there, but aren't taught to
the public every single moment of the day. Rather, if you were to look to
local custom, you would understand that even by throwing condoms at them,
they aren't going to use them (some will, but most won't). Some areas of
Africa still consider AIDS to be a demonic affliction, cured by having
unprotected intercourse with a virgin. The reason this society is so
plagued by this disease is because this society is most sexually
promiscuous. The Churchs' stance on condoms is the same in Africa as it is
in Europe or the United States. We do not teach against condoms, but
against all forms of artificial contraception in regards to a healthy sexual
life that exists between a husband and a wife. There should be no sexual
relations outside of marriage. If that were the case, if people listened to
the Church, AIDS would disappear. People do not listen to the Church,
especially in Afirca where adultery and fornication are facts of life.
Therefore, the Church isn't to blame and the Church does everything in her
power to help those who, even after ignoring the guidance of the Church,
contracted this virus.
The only way to diminish the HIV percentage in this nation is to bring them
out of the third world and offer proper education to their children. The
only way to rid the world of HIV is to miraculously adopt Church teaching in
total. No sexual relations outside of marriage. No use of contraception
within marriage. If you know you have this virus or any other STD that is
uncurable, you should take a vow of celibacy for the rest of your life. To
continue to have sexual intercourse, even with the use of a condom, with
anyone is utterly evil, because it puts the other persons' health at risk
for the sake of a miniscule moment of pleasure to satisfy ones' lust (a
deadly sin).
If the world listened to the Church... heck if most Catholics listened to
the Church, there would be no need for condoms because there would be no
fornication, no adultery, and no STD's. But this isn't possible, as St.
Augustine explained in his City of God. Those of the city of men live for
short-lived pleasures and desire to bring down anything that stands in
eternal joy. Those of the city of God live for eternal joy, heavenly peace.
It is because of this that they do not belong to the world, and so the world
rejects them.
-RS
Peter James
<OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote:
>J Young <youngo...@aol.com> wrote:
>> The Catholic Church fights in the trenches in the war on Aids.
>>
>>
>> http://www.thesoutherncross.co.za/features/aids2003.htm
>>
>> The Catholic Church has been involved for years in Aids work at local
>> level through its various projects. In 1999 the SACBC Aids Office was
>> formed. It has grown exponentially, and is now recognised as a leading
>> role player in South Africa's response to Aids.
>>
>>
>
>It's only fair, since the Catholic Church is primarilly responsible for the
>spread of HIV. (No Condoms!)
Here in the UK at the moment we are going through the boredom and
horrors of a General Election. One of the jokes going the rounds,
could with a little editing be a good refelction on the RCC's
activities in Africa in relation to the Aids epidmic. And I quote:
"The government today announced that it is adopting a CONDOM as its
emblem because it accurately reflects the government's political
stance.
A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next
generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of
security while you're actually being screwed."
--
-
Peter James
Remove AT to reply
Mike Painter
> The Catholic Church fights in the trenches in the war on Aids.
>
>
do some real good.
USE A RUBBER.
Instead they help the dying while telling women they can't say no and
believe that teaching abstinence actually has any effect.
Gabby
"Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:I%vde.439$X21...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>J Young wrote:
>> The Catholic Church fights in the trenches in the war on Aids.
>>
>>
> If they used their "moral authority" to say three little words they could
> do some real good.
>
> USE A RUBBER.
>
> Instead they help the dying while telling women they can't say no
For what it's worth the Church no longer says that.
Gabby
RS
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:v5tc71p74e3cmfupb...@4ax.com...
My religion and its doctrines are meant fully to those who will believe in
them. The teachings of the Church do not hold for those who are not Roman
Catholic, unless the person wishes to adhere to all of them. At the same
time, the Churchs' teachings do not contribute to the death of millions, as
much as the world is looking for a scape goat to blame for these deaths.
Rather, if an individual adheres to the Churchs' teachings in full, that
person doesn't have to worry about these diseases.
The rationalism helps individuals. The Church teaches a method of sexual
purity. If you do not follow it, you put yourself at risk. The Church
understands that people are going to have sexual intercourse. The Church
advises that they should limit it to a man and a wife, only. Why, then,
would people have promiscuous sex and knowingly reject the Churchs'
teachings on that and then accept her teachings against artificial
contraception? It isn't logical, and merely leans to teh fact that people
are looking for a scape goat to blame for the AIDS pandemic.
People are going to have sex. The Church wishes to educate people on that
fact alone: to save sexual relations for marriage. The fact that people
aren't listening to the Church indicates that people love sex more than they
love God. Sexual promiscuity (or the social undertones surrounding it) are
responsible for dozens of international problems, from the spread of sexual
diseases to the destruction of the family unit. The Church isn't
responsible for this, since the Church teaches against it. The problem
isn't caused by people having unprotected sex. It is caused by people
having promiscuous sex (sex outside of marriage). People are going to have
sex. The Church advises them not to. If they aren't going to listen to
that teaching, but listen to the Church's teaching on artificial
contraception (which is meant for married couples), then the Church is not
to blame.
We aren't responsible for educating the world, but for standing true to our
teachings and our morals, as a beacon of light for anyone who wishes to live
a more pure life.
-RS
Andrealphus
> "Andrealphus" <OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote in message
> news:Zdude.3208$BE3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> It's only fair, since the Catholic Church is primarilly responsible
>> for the
>> spread of HIV. (No Condoms!)
>
> Haha. You are funny.
HIV Isn't funny.
James
Talk about sanctimonious bullshit. That's one big ol' paragraph of
crap. If your church gave a flying rat's ass about AIDS, it would
embrace the use of condoms as an effective tool at preventing
transmission. You embrace their "tendencies towards fornication"
because you get to blame the problem on your own concept of sin, then
show the embrace of Catholicism as the path to life. By using this
epidemic to further the membership and influence of your church, you're
spitting on everyone involved.
What you say means nothing. "If they listened to us, it wouldn't
happen." Yes, well, the problem would also be solved if all the males
became eunuchs. There are a billion unreasonable solutions to any
problem, and the Catholics have embraced one.
> The only way to diminish the HIV percentage in this nation is to bring them
> out of the third world and offer proper education to their children. The
> only way to rid the world of HIV is to miraculously adopt Church teaching in
> total.
Improving the use of condoms would certainly help, and be far less
"miraculous." The stance of your church is worthless. Condoms are
proven to "diminish the HIV percentage," and yet you decry their value
anyway.
I also like how you equate "proper education to their children" with
"adopt[ing] Church teaching in total." Very cute.
> No sexual relations outside of marriage. No use of contraception
> within marriage. If you know you have this virus or any other STD that is
> uncurable, you should take a vow of celibacy for the rest of your life. To
> continue to have sexual intercourse, even with the use of a condom, with
> anyone is utterly evil, because it puts the other persons' health at risk
> for the sake of a miniscule moment of pleasure to satisfy ones' lust (a
> deadly sin).
Yet another attempt to equate AIDS with sin. AIDS is a disease. It
needs to be treated like any disease, with education explaining its
transmission and prevention. Not with God.
> If the world listened to the Church... heck if most Catholics listened to
> the Church, there would be no need for condoms because there would be no
> fornication, no adultery, and no STD's.
If the world listened to your church, we'd still be throwing rocks at
witches and shaking totems at the clouds to make them rain.
> But this isn't possible, as St.
> Augustine explained in his City of God. Those of the city of men live for
> short-lived pleasures and desire to bring down anything that stands in
> eternal joy. Those of the city of God live for eternal joy, heavenly peace.
Worthless proselytizing. Absolutely pointless.
> It is because of this that they do not belong to the world, and so the world
> rejects them.
Do you sleep better at night thinking that all the ails of the world
come from the sins of man? That the universal cure for what ails ye is
the glory of God, and that we could all live in peace and harmony if we
just broke from Satan and heard the words of Truth you whispered so
delicately into our ears?
The rest of the world tries to deal with these problems while you
rationalize them away.
RS
"Andrealphus" <OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote in message
> RS <rsw...@bu.edu> wrote:
>> "Andrealphus" <OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote in message
>> news:Zdude.3208$BE3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>> It's only fair, since the Catholic Church is primarilly responsible
>>> for the
>>> spread of HIV. (No Condoms!)
>>
>> Haha. You are funny.
>
> HIV Isn't funny.
I didn't say it was funny. I said you were funny. Are you HIV? No.
-RS
RS
"James" <sh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:117d7ed...@corp.supernews.com...
> Do you sleep better at night thinking that all the ails of the world come
> from the sins of man? That the universal cure for what ails ye is the
> glory of God, and that we could all live in peace and harmony if we just
> broke from Satan and heard the words of Truth you whispered so delicately
> into our ears?
On the contrary, this isn't my opinion at all. I recognize sickness and
suffering to exist not only because of the sins of man, but because of the
frailty of the human body and mind. The universal cure for all suffering is
still, in the end, God's glroy. Short-lived sufferings mean nothing in
light of eternal glory. There will be no peace and harmony on this world,
for all attempts at peace in this world render short-lived peace. Rather,
to live for God is to embrace heavenly peace, eternal peace, eternal joy.
> The rest of the world tries to deal with these problems while you
> rationalize them away.
You are mistaken in feeling this, when the Catholic Church is one of the
largest resources for relief in the world, hence the point of this
thread-master.
-RS
RS
"Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:I%vde.439$X21...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Tell me, have you ever heard a clergy member in the Church tell a woman that
she cannot say no to her husband? I am sure you haven't. Rather, the
Church recognizes that condoms only REDUCE THE RISK, where as a loyal
marriage between a husband and a wife and a vow of chastity by all who are
inflicted with this disease prevents the risk completely. HIV spreads not
because of lack of condoms, but because people have promiscuous sex. Cut it
off at the source. It should be a CRIME for someone with HIV to have sexual
intercourse with someone else who isn't aware that their partner has the
disease, just as it is illegal for someone to attempt to poison another
individual, because that is what this disease is: an unnatural and uncurable
poison spread not because of people's close contact (as with the flu), but
because of people's sexual immorality (outside of the rare cases of
blood-to-blood transfusion as in hospitals or in medical care).
-RS
Dennis Kemmerer
>
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:v5tc71p74e3cmfupb...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 2 May 2005 14:41:00 -0400, "RS" <rsw...@bu.edu> wrote:
>
>> What don't you get? That your rationalisation helps nobody? That
>> people are going to have sex anyway? That your conscience only applies
>> to yourself? That if they are going to have sex anyway that education
>> about condoms is better than telling them not to? That your religion
>> and its doctrines are contributing to the deaths of millions?
>
> My religion and its doctrines are meant fully to those who will believe in
> them.
So keep it to yourself, then.
[snip self-righteous religionist bullshit]
> People are going to have sex. The Church wishes to educate people on that
> fact alone: to save sexual relations for marriage.
Then the church is willfully ignorant. The 'abstinence until marriage'
strategy has a historical failure rate of 100%.
[snip more self-righteous religionist bullshit]
Christopher A. Lee
>
>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:v5tc71p74e3cmfupb...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 2 May 2005 14:41:00 -0400, "RS" <rsw...@bu.edu> wrote:
>
>> What don't you get? That your rationalisation helps nobody? That
>> people are going to have sex anyway? That your conscience only applies
>> to yourself? That if they are going to have sex anyway that education
>> about condoms is better than telling them not to? That your religion
>> and its doctrines are contributing to the deaths of millions?
>
>My religion and its doctrines are meant fully to those who will believe in
>them. The teachings of the Church do not hold for those who are not Roman
>Catholic, unless the person wishes to adhere to all of them. At the same
>time, the Churchs' teachings do not contribute to the death of millions, as
>much as the world is looking for a scape goat to blame for these deaths.
>Rather, if an individual adheres to the Churchs' teachings in full, that
>person doesn't have to worry about these diseases.
Thank you for confirmirming your sociopathic view that following the
Vatican line is more important than saving lives.
Dennis Kemmerer
[snip]
> Talk about sanctimonious bullshit. That's one big ol' paragraph of crap.
> If your church gave a flying rat's ass about AIDS, it would embrace the
> use of condoms as an effective tool at preventing transmission.
Well, it's not surprising. They still hang on to their 'abstinence only'
delusion despite its historical 100% failure rate.
[snip]
The Etobian
<OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote:
>It's only fair, since the Catholic Church is primarilly responsible for the
>spread of HIV. (No Condoms!)
What about the responsibility of those who choose to have sex outside
of marriage?
Denis Loubet
"RS" <rsw...@bu.edu> wrote in message news:d566ur$kc3$1...@news3.bu.edu...
>
> "James" <sh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:117d7ed...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Do you sleep better at night thinking that all the ails of the world come
>> from the sins of man? That the universal cure for what ails ye is the
>> glory of God, and that we could all live in peace and harmony if we just
>> broke from Satan and heard the words of Truth you whispered so delicately
>> into our ears?
>
> On the contrary, this isn't my opinion at all. I recognize sickness and
> suffering to exist not only because of the sins of man, but because of the
> frailty of the human body and mind. The universal cure for all suffering
> is still, in the end, God's glroy. Short-lived sufferings mean nothing in
> light of eternal glory.
Very illuminating. You don't actually CARE about the suffering, you only
care about how it can be utilized to make more converts.
> There will be no peace and harmony on this world, for all attempts at
> peace in this world render short-lived peace.
Well, that's an outlook designed to encourage people to work towards peace.
NOT.
> Rather, to live for God is to embrace heavenly peace, eternal peace,
> eternal joy.
Oh, and be DEAD!
You are the Pro-Death cult, after all.
>> The rest of the world tries to deal with these problems while you
>> rationalize them away.
>
> You are mistaken in feeling this, when the Catholic Church is one of the
> largest resources for relief in the world, hence the point of this
> thread-master.
Yet you contradict this assertion with every word you write.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Christopher A. Lee
He'll never get it. What is disgusting, is that they imagine their
conscience is more important than saving lives. That their consciecne
which they refuse to compromise on, applies to everybody else.
AIDS is a world problem. The Vatican is exacerbating it.
James
> "James" <sh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:117d7ed...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>>Do you sleep better at night thinking that all the ails of the world come
>>from the sins of man? That the universal cure for what ails ye is the
>>glory of God, and that we could all live in peace and harmony if we just
>>broke from Satan and heard the words of Truth you whispered so delicately
>>into our ears?
>
>
> On the contrary, this isn't my opinion at all. I recognize sickness and
> suffering to exist not only because of the sins of man, but because of the
> frailty of the human body and mind. The universal cure for all suffering is
> still, in the end, God's glroy. Short-lived sufferings mean nothing in
> light of eternal glory. There will be no peace and harmony on this world,
> for all attempts at peace in this world render short-lived peace. Rather,
> to live for God is to embrace heavenly peace, eternal peace, eternal joy.
Whatever. Those words mean nothing to me, and they don't cure diseases.
>>The rest of the world tries to deal with these problems while you
>>rationalize them away.
>
>
> You are mistaken in feeling this, when the Catholic Church is one of the
> largest resources for relief in the world, hence the point of this
> thread-master.
It provides relief to those it causes harm. Respond to the rest of my
post, please.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
They would use condoms - except that the church lies about their
effectiveness.
Sanders Kaufman
> The ABCD programme was designed by the Association of Catholic Tertiary
> Students (Acts) and Chiro, with the support of the SACBC Youth Desk. It
> stands for "Abstain, Be faithful, Change your lifestyle, or you are in
> Danger of contracting Aids."
How divinely inspired!
If everybody just stops fucking AIDS could be erradicated in ONE generation.
Andrealphus
> "Andrealphus" <OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote in message
> news:N%wde.3313$BE3...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> RS <rsw...@bu.edu> wrote:
>>> "Andrealphus" <OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote in message
>>> news:Zdude.3208$BE3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>> It's only fair, since the Catholic Church is primarilly responsible
>>>> for the
>>>> spread of HIV. (No Condoms!)
>>>
>>> Haha. You are funny.
>>
>> HIV Isn't funny.
>
> I didn't say it was funny.
Sorry, I didn't have the time to read your sanctimonious bullshit earlier.
Andrealphus
> "James" <sh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:117d7ed...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Do you sleep better at night thinking that all the ails of the world
>> come from the sins of man? That the universal cure for what ails ye
>> is the glory of God, and that we could all live in peace and harmony
>> if we just broke from Satan and heard the words of Truth you
>> whispered so delicately into our ears?
>
> On the contrary, this isn't my opinion at all. I recognize sickness
> and suffering to exist not only because of the sins of man, but
> because of the frailty of the human body and mind.
What? No demons?
Andrealphus
You mean that people that have sex outside of marriage will contract HIV
even with condoms? Wow! Who knew!
Mike Painter
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:v5tc71p74e3cmfupb...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 2 May 2005 14:41:00 -0400, "RS" <rsw...@bu.edu> wrote:
>
>> What don't you get? That your rationalisation helps nobody? That
>> people are going to have sex anyway? That your conscience only
>> applies to yourself? That if they are going to have sex anyway that
>> education about condoms is better than telling them not to? That
>> your religion and its doctrines are contributing to the deaths of
>> millions?
>
> My religion and its doctrines are meant fully to those who will
> believe in them.
You'd better review you catechism about who your religion is meant for.
> The teachings of the Church do not hold for those
> who are not Roman Catholic, unless the person wishes to adhere to all
> of them. At the same time, the Churchs' teachings do not contribute
> to the death of millions, as much as the world is looking for a scape
> goat to blame for these deaths. Rather, if an individual adheres to
> the Churchs' teachings in full, that person doesn't have to worry
> about these diseases.
So is it your god or your doctrine that prevents the wife from AID's when
she is faithful but her husband spends a ot of his nights barebacking in the
park?
RS
You do not understand the culture. They will not use condoms. The vast
majority of men in that culture consider the use of a condom, or the
suggested use of a condom, very insulting to their manhood.
Andrealphus
"RS" <rsw...@bu.edu> wrote in message news:d56dar$1pr$1...@news3.bu.edu...
I do understand the culture. I've been to many parts of Africa. True, many
are resistant to condom use, however many have been convinced to use them.
The Catholic Church, among many other groups, mostly religious, has made
that job many times harder than it should be, and should have been. In my
opinion, such groups and churches are directly responsible for the
accellerated infection rate.
RS
"Sanders Kaufman" <uns...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:pgyde.310$7U....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
If you would not be so vulgar and see the beauty of it, you would realize
that God speaks to individuals through the Church. Therefore, if an
individual doesn't desire to contract HIV (who does), then that individual
must understand that the only sexual act he should perform should be with a
wife and only with a wife (the wife should be HIV negative). People with
HIV should be prosecuted if they have sexual relations with anyone without
letting that person know they are HIV positive. There is nothing different
between that and giving someone a drink with poison in it. If everyone
stops having promiscuous sex, then many problems will be solved:
STD's will disappear
Families will be stronger
The international culture will regain sexual morality.
Rather, people love orgasms more than they love God... it is a sad world,
but that is exactly what it is... the world... the city of Men... And it is
ruining the world for everyone. Condoms aren't the solution. Condoms only
REDUCE the risk. It is like saying "I am going to prevent fire in my house
by installing sprinklers". Though sprinklers may in essence reduce the
damage caused by a fire and in some cases, put it out, in most cases it will
only diminish the fire enough to allow everyone to get out. HIV is the same
way. Condoms may reduce the risk, but condoms were designed to block sperm
cells. An HIV virus is much smaller than a sperm cell. Also, if a condom
breaks it is pretty much useless and exposes the person completely.
Therefore, the only sound way of avoiding the risk is to avoid sexual
contact outside of marriage and to require mandatory open testing to all
couples before marriage.
It isn't that hard to wait until marriage to engage in sexual intercourse...
it is very pathetic to see that boys and girls (and I call them that even
though they may be 30 years old) engage in promiscuous sex. It is
irresponsible and immoral. It exposes them to risk and then they yell and
complain that the Church is at fault, though the Church teaches to those who
wish to listen that fornication is wrong and adultery is wrong.
Lust is counted as one of the seven deadly sins for a reason. It is deadly.
Those who seek to satisfy lust not only put their souls at risk, but their
bodies too.
Pride
Envy
Anger
Sloth
Greed
Gluttony
Lust
Those who surrender to any of those sins promote not only an unhealthy
spiritual life, but an unhealthy physical life as well, hence "seven deadly
sins". The Church is quite clear. When people violate the Churchs'
teachings and contract this disease, it isn't the Church's fault. The
teaching on artificial contraception is meant only for married couples. It
isn't meant for those who are unmarried since men and women who are
unmarried shouldn't be having sexual intercourse or sexual contact in the
first place, as per the teachings of the Church. Do not blame the Church,
however. She is just the messenger. God is the message and His will is the
creed. If you do not agree with us, take it up with God.
-RS
Sanders Kaufman
> "Sanders Kaufman" <uns...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
>> How divinely inspired!
>> If everybody just stops fucking AIDS could be erradicated in ONE
>> generation.
>
> If you would not be so vulgar and see the beauty of it, you would realize
> that God speaks to individuals through the Church.
What a vulgar thing to say about God.
> If everyone stops having promiscuous sex, then many problems will be
> solved:
If the sun would shine all day, we'd never have night.
Better to go ahead and pursue science than to wait for God to illuminate the
night.
> The international culture will regain sexual morality.
Which international culture?
Sanders Kaufman
> "RS" <rsw...@bu.edu> wrote in message news:d56dar$1pr$1...@news3.bu.edu...
> I do understand the culture. I've been to many parts of Africa. True,
> many
> are resistant to condom use, however many have been convinced to use them.
> The Catholic Church, among many other groups, mostly religious, has made
> that job many times harder than it should be, and should have been. In
> my
> opinion, such groups and churches are directly responsible for the
> accellerated infection rate.
Amen.
Christopher A. Lee
Neither do you. And instead of spouting the Vatican line, why not try
to educate them to use them WHICH SHOULD BE EASIER THAN ABSTINENCE
BECAUSE THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT ABSTAINING?
*B*E*C*A*U*S*E* *T*H*E*Y* *A*R*E* *S*T*I*L*L* *G*O*I*N*G* *T*O*
*H*A*V*E* *S*E*X* *A*N*Y*W*A*Y*
Sheesh, all it would take is ads showing some macho hero film star
tearing the sachet open before he disappears into the bedroom with a
lady.
But what does the Vatican do? It lies about their effectiveness.
Christopher A. Lee
>
>"Sanders Kaufman" <uns...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
>news:pgyde.310$7U....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>> "J Young" <youngo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1115053815.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>> The Catholic Church fights in the trenches in the war on Aids.
>>
>>> The ABCD programme was designed by the Association of Catholic Tertiary
>>> Students (Acts) and Chiro, with the support of the SACBC Youth Desk. It
>>> stands for "Abstain, Be faithful, Change your lifestyle, or you are in
>>> Danger of contracting Aids."
>>
>> How divinely inspired!
>> If everybody just stops fucking AIDS could be erradicated in ONE
>> generation.
>
>If you would not be so vulgar and see the beauty of it, you would realize
>that God speaks to individuals through the Church.
What a remarkably stupid thing to cross-post to an atheist newsgroup.
> Therefore, if an
>individual doesn't desire to contract HIV (who does), then that individual
>must understand that the only sexual act he should perform should be with a
>wife and only with a wife (the wife should be HIV negative).
Says the moron who imagines the Vatican line applies to everybody else
outside his religion.
> People with
>HIV should be prosecuted if they have sexual relations with anyone without
>letting that person know they are HIV positive.
BUT ONLY IF THEY KNOW THEY ARE, MORON.
> There is nothing different
>between that and giving someone a drink with poison in it. If everyone
>stops having promiscuous sex, then many problems will be solved:
What part of "condoms prevent the spread of disease" are you
pretending you don't understand?
>STD's will disappear
>Families will be stronger
>The international culture will regain sexual morality.
Why do you hate sex?
>Rather, people love orgasms more than they love God... it is a sad world,
Idiot.
>but that is exactly what it is... the world... the city of Men... And it is
>ruining the world for everyone. Condoms aren't the solution. Condoms only
>REDUCE the risk. It is like saying "I am going to prevent fire in my house
>by installing sprinklers". Though sprinklers may in essence reduce the
>damage caused by a fire and in some cases, put it out, in most cases it will
>only diminish the fire enough to allow everyone to get out. HIV is the same
>way. Condoms may reduce the risk, but condoms were designed to block sperm
>cells. An HIV virus is much smaller than a sperm cell. Also, if a condom
And the Vatican has lied about how small and the size of pores in the
latex.
>breaks it is pretty much useless and exposes the person completely.
>Therefore, the only sound way of avoiding the risk is to avoid sexual
>contact outside of marriage and to require mandatory open testing to all
>couples before marriage.
What part of PEOPLE STILL HAVE SEX NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOPU DISLIKE IT
are you pretending not to understand?
>It isn't that hard to wait until marriage to engage in sexual intercourse...
Then why do those states where abstinence is taught have higher rates
of teenage pregnancies, STDs, etc?
>it is very pathetic to see that boys and girls (and I call them that even
>though they may be 30 years old) engage in promiscuous sex. It is
>irresponsible and immoral. It exposes them to risk and then they yell and
>complain that the Church is at fault, though the Church teaches to those who
>wish to listen that fornication is wrong and adultery is wrong.
The church "teaches" nothing, moron. It imagines it does, and that it
gets to decide the conscience of everybody else.
WHAT EXPOSES THEM TO RISK IS YOUR DELUSIONS ABOUT ABSTINENCE TEACHING,
AND, YOUR CHURCHES LIES ABOUT CONDOMS, AND ITS REFUSAL TO FACE UP TO
REALITY.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
You and your church are in cloud-cuckoo land. And responsible for
countless deaths and suffering.
>Lust is counted as one of the seven deadly sins for a reason. It is deadly.
No such thing as a "deadly sin" outside your deluded imagination.
>Those who seek to satisfy lust not only put their souls at risk, but their
>bodies too.
Don't be so fucking stupid.
>Pride
>Envy
>Anger
>Sloth
>Greed
>Gluttony
>Lust
>
>Those who surrender to any of those sins promote not only an unhealthy
>spiritual life, but an unhealthy physical life as well, hence "seven deadly
>sins". The Church is quite clear. When people violate the Churchs'
Moron.
>teachings and contract this disease, it isn't the Church's fault. The
YES IT IS, MORON, BECAUSE IT IS OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY.
>teaching on artificial contraception is meant only for married couples. It
ONLY BECAUSE IT IS OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY.
>isn't meant for those who are unmarried since men and women who are
>unmarried shouldn't be having sexual intercourse or sexual contact in the
WHY NOT, MORON?
You have to have a real reason, not your stupid "the church says co".
>first place, as per the teachings of the Church. Do not blame the Church,
BECAUSE IT IS OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY.
>however. She is just the messenger. God is the message and His will is the
No, moron. It lays down what it imagines is the law.
"God" isn't "the message" UNTIL YOU DEMONSTRATE IT INTHE REAL WORLD
OUTSIDE YOUR CHURCH'S MYTHOLOGY.
>creed. If you do not agree with us, take it up with God.
No, moron. You posted this idiocy to an atheist newsgroup. We're
calling *Y*O*U on it, not the voices in your head that you are hiding
behind.
Because YOU posted it. The thoughts are yours. And you are attempting
to back them up using some character out of your religion's mythology.
You fool no-one except yourself.
>-RS
>
Cary Kittrell
>
> "Sanders Kaufman" <uns...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
> news:pgyde.310$7U....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> > "J Young" <youngo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1115053815.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >> The Catholic Church fights in the trenches in the war on Aids.
> >
> >> The ABCD programme was designed by the Association of Catholic Tertiary
> >> Students (Acts) and Chiro, with the support of the SACBC Youth Desk. It
> >> stands for "Abstain, Be faithful, Change your lifestyle, or you are in
> >> Danger of contracting Aids."
> >
> > How divinely inspired!
> > If everybody just stops fucking AIDS could be erradicated in ONE
> > generation.
>
> If you would not be so vulgar and see the beauty of it, you would realize
> that God speaks to individuals through the Church. Therefore, if an
> individual doesn't desire to contract HIV (who does), then that individual
> must understand that the only sexual act he should perform should be with a
> wife and only with a wife (the wife should be HIV negative). People with
> HIV should be prosecuted if they have sexual relations with anyone without
> letting that person know they are HIV positive. There is nothing different
> between that and giving someone a drink with poison in it.
> If everyone
> stops having promiscuous sex, then many problems will be solved:
If everyone would stop sinning, then all problems would be solved.
Therefore, the Church should say nothing beyond "Y'all? Stop
sinning now, you hear?"
Clearly, nothing more is needed.
-- cary
Dennis Kemmerer
Got a mouse in your pocket?
> take it up with God.
The thing that's really sad is that you're too wrapped up in your
sanctimonious, misinformed bullshit to realize that it's going to kill your
kids.
Steve Knight
snippage
>The only way to diminish the HIV percentage in this nation is to bring them
>out of the third world and offer proper education to their children. The
>only way to rid the world of HIV is to miraculously adopt Church teaching in
>total.
Why did your god make AIDS to begin with? It's a recent disease
(relatively speaking) for humanity. To hear you talk, it seems like a
disease platform to promote your superstition.
After all, and excuse me for boiling it all down, but you're saying
if people were strict followers of Catholicism your god's disease
would be gone.
If you follow the logic, your god made the disease specifically to
gain followers.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
RS
"Andrealphus" <OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote in message
news:3Wyde.3382$BE3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
So the Church is responsible because people want to have sex? What don't
you get? Condoms aren't the solution! Condoms reduce the risk. The
solution comes with the acceptance of sexual morality. If you follow God
and remain chaste for your whole life (chastity within marriage is a healthy
sexual life with your wife free from artificial contraception), then you
have nothing to worry about. Encouarge sexual morality and you encourage
the destruction of this disease.
-RS
RS
> "RS" <rsw...@bu.edu> wrote in message news:d56dt6$5r9$1...@news3.bu.edu...
>> "Sanders Kaufman" <uns...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
>
>>> How divinely inspired!
>>> If everybody just stops fucking AIDS could be erradicated in ONE
>>> generation.
>>
>> If you would not be so vulgar and see the beauty of it, you would realize
>> that God speaks to individuals through the Church.
>
> What a vulgar thing to say about God.
>
>
>> If everyone stops having promiscuous sex, then many problems will be
>> solved:
>
> If the sun would shine all day, we'd never have night.
> Better to go ahead and pursue science than to wait for God to illuminate
> the night.
Psalm 139. God has no need to illuminate the night since darkness is as
light to God. To God, the darkness shines like the day.
-RS
Paul Duca
wrote on 5/2/05 1:38 PM:
> J Young wrote:
>
>> The Catholic Church fights in the trenches in the war on Aids.
>>
>> http://www.thesoutherncross.co.za/features/aids2003.htm
>
> Yes, care for them AFTER, and ONLY after, they have contracted a fatal
> wasting disease, console bereaved parents whose children became sick in
> utero that their children "have been taken by God" and set up orphanages
> for those children who have not died but have been left orphans because of
> HIV.
>
> Then do everything possible to prevent people from having knowledge of,
> access to or an understanding of how properly to use a simple, inexpensive
> device that could keep people from contracting the disease in the first
> place.
> --
That's how the J Youngs work...that way, they get to dispense both
moral superiority and cheap compassion--the ONLY things they have to offer.
Paul
RS
> No, moron. You posted this idiocy to an atheist newsgroup. We're
> calling *Y*O*U on it, not the voices in your head that you are hiding
> behind.
>
> Because YOU posted it. The thoughts are yours. And you are attempting
> to back them up using some character out of your religion's mythology.
What a brilliant response. I appluad you..... (it was actually simply
pathetic). The inspiration I recieve from God is complete truth. I am not
hiding behind them. I am expressing the will of God to those who have ears
to hear. It is quite simple. If you do not want this disease, do not have
promiscuous sex. It is quite simple. That is all we teach. We continue it
from there, though, into marriage. Be chaste in life. Be chaste in
marriage. The use of artificial contraception renders sexual intercourse an
act of lust, unchaste, sin.
I think that about sums it... a teaching for all those who follow the
teachings of the Church, the teachings of God. It is there, take it or
leave it. I will continue to teach this, I will continue to spread this
truth to anyone and everyone. The sins of men, however, do not reflect the
Church that teaches against that sin.
Paul Duca
2:48 PM:
>
> "Andrealphus" <OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote in message
> news:Zdude.3208$BE3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> It's only fair, since the Catholic Church is primarilly responsible for
>> the
>> spread of HIV. (No Condoms!)
>
> Haha. You are funny. The reason this geographic region is the heart of
> this pandemic doesn't have to do with the Churchs' stance on condoms.
> Teachings against artificial contraception are there, but aren't taught to
> the public every single moment of the day. Rather, if you were to look to
> local custom, you would understand that even by throwing condoms at them,
> they aren't going to use them (some will, but most won't). Some areas of
> Africa still consider AIDS to be a demonic affliction, cured by having
> unprotected intercourse with a virgin. The reason this society is so
> plagued by this disease is because this society is most sexually
> promiscuous. The Churchs' stance on condoms is the same in Africa as it is
> in Europe or the United States. We do not teach against condoms, but
> against all forms of artificial contraception in regards to a healthy sexual
> life that exists between a husband and a wife. There should be no sexual
> relations outside of marriage. If that were the case, if people listened to
> the Church, AIDS would disappear.
And the Church would have to dream up some other justificaton for
why God leaves people poor and hungry and hurting...
People do not listen to the Church,
> especially in Afirca where adultery and fornication are facts of life.
> Therefore, the Church isn't to blame and the Church does everything in her
> power to help those who, even after ignoring the guidance of the Church,
> contracted this virus.
>
> The only way to diminish the HIV percentage in this nation is to bring them
> out of the third world and offer proper education to their children. The
> only way to rid the world of HIV is to miraculously adopt Church teaching in
> total. No sexual relations outside of marriage. No use of contraception
> within marriage. If you know you have this virus or any other STD that is
> uncurable, you should take a vow of celibacy for the rest of your life. To
> continue to have sexual intercourse, even with the use of a condom, with
> anyone is utterly evil, because it puts the other persons' health at risk
> for the sake of a miniscule moment of pleasure to satisfy ones' lust (a
> deadly sin).
>
> If the world listened to the Church... heck if most Catholics listened to
> the Church, there would be no need for condoms because there would be no
> fornication, no adultery, and no STD's. But this isn't possible, as St.
> Augustine explained in his City of God. Those of the city of men live for
> short-lived pleasures
Like the temporary novelty when you first get to Catholic Heaven?
and desire to bring down anything that stands in
> eternal joy. Those of the city of God live for eternal joy, heavenly >
>peace--because God has unburdened them of brains. A happy vegetable is STILL
>happy.
>
> -RS
>
>
--
Paul Duca
5:03 PM:
>
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:v5tc71p74e3cmfupb...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 2 May 2005 14:41:00 -0400, "RS" <rsw...@bu.edu> wrote:
>
>> What don't you get? That your rationalisation helps nobody? That
>> people are going to have sex anyway? That your conscience only applies
>> to yourself? That if they are going to have sex anyway that education
>> about condoms is better than telling them not to? That your religion
>> and its doctrines are contributing to the deaths of millions?
>
> My religion and its doctrines are meant fully to those who will believe in
> them. The teachings of the Church do not hold for those who are not Roman
> Catholic, unless the person wishes to adhere to all of them. At the same
> time, the Churchs' teachings do not contribute to the death of millions, as
> much as the world is looking for a scape goat to blame for these deaths.
> Rather, if an individual adheres to the Churchs' teachings in full, that
> person doesn't have to worry about these diseases.
>
> The rationalism helps individuals.
The Church helps no one...they expect everyone to help them.
The Church teaches a method of sexual
> purity. If you do not follow it, you put yourself at risk. The Church
> understands that people are going to have sexual intercourse. The Church
> advises that they should limit it to a man and a wife, only. Why, then,
> would people have promiscuous sex and knowingly reject the Churchs'
> teachings on that and then accept her teachings against artificial
> contraception? It isn't logical, and merely leans to teh fact that people
> are looking for a scape goat to blame for the AIDS pandemic.
>
> People are going to have sex. The Church wishes to educate people on that
> fact alone: to save sexual relations for marriage. The fact that people
> aren't listening to the Church indicates that people love sex more than they
> love God. Sexual promiscuity (or the social undertones surrounding it) are
> responsible for dozens of international problems, from the spread of sexual
> diseases to the destruction of the family unit. The Church isn't
> responsible for this, since the Church teaches against it. The problem
> isn't caused by people having unprotected sex. It is caused by people
> having promiscuous sex (sex outside of marriage). People are going to have
> sex. The Church advises them not to. If they aren't going to listen to
> that teaching, but listen to the Church's teaching on artificial
> contraception (which is meant for married couples), then the Church is not
> to blame.
The problem is that the Church and its God are deadbeats when it
comes to rewarding people for doing as they say.
>
> We aren't responsible for educating the world, but for standing true to our
> teachings and our morals, as a beacon of light for anyone who wishes to live
> a more pure life.
>
The fact that no woman wants you, RS, assures that you will live a
pure llfe...and presumably, God will give you the big jackpot once you
croak.
Paul
Paul Duca
5:43 PM:
>
> "James" <sh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:117d7ed...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Do you sleep better at night thinking that all the ails of the world come
>> from the sins of man? That the universal cure for what ails ye is the
>> glory of God, and that we could all live in peace and harmony if we just
>> broke from Satan and heard the words of Truth you whispered so delicately
>> into our ears?
>
> On the contrary, this isn't my opinion at all. I recognize sickness and
> suffering to exist not only because of the sins of man, but because of the
> frailty of the human body and mind. The universal cure for all suffering is
> still, in the end, God's glroy. Short-lived sufferings mean nothing in
> light of eternal glory. There will be no peace and harmony on this world,
> for all attempts at peace in this world render short-lived peace. Rather,
> to live for God is to embrace heavenly peace, eternal peace, eternal joy.
>
Lobotomy ad infinitum...
Paul
Paul Duca
5:46 PM:
>
> "Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:I%vde.439$X21...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>> J Young wrote:
>>> The Catholic Church fights in the trenches in the war on Aids.
>>>
>>>
>> If they used their "moral authority" to say three little words they could
>> do some real good.
>>
>> USE A RUBBER.
>>
>> Instead they help the dying while telling women they can't say no and
>> believe that teaching abstinence actually has any effect.
>
> Tell me, have you ever heard a clergy member in the Church tell a woman that
> she cannot say no to her husband? I am sure you haven't. Rather, the
> Church recognizes that condoms only REDUCE THE RISK, where as a loyal
> marriage between a husband and a wife and a vow of chastity by all who are
> inflicted with this disease prevents the risk completely. HIV spreads not
> because of lack of condoms, but because people have promiscuous sex. Cut it
> off at the source. It should be a CRIME for someone with HIV to have sexual
> intercourse with someone else who isn't aware that their partner has the
> disease, just as it is illegal for someone to attempt to poison another
> individual, because that is what this disease is: an unnatural and uncurable
> poison spread not because of people's close contact (as with the flu), but
> because of people's sexual immorality
Which you use to justify your sanctimonious self-righteousness...
Pau8l
Paul Duca
ca...@optonline.net wrote on 5/2/05 5:51 PM:
> On Mon, 2 May 2005 17:03:15 -0400, "RS" <rsw...@bu.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:v5tc71p74e3cmfupb...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 2 May 2005 14:41:00 -0400, "RS" <rsw...@bu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> What don't you get? That your rationalisation helps nobody? That
>>> people are going to have sex anyway? That your conscience only applies
>>> to yourself? That if they are going to have sex anyway that education
>>> about condoms is better than telling them not to? That your religion
>>> and its doctrines are contributing to the deaths of millions?
>>
>> My religion and its doctrines are meant fully to those who will believe in
>> them. The teachings of the Church do not hold for those who are not Roman
>> Catholic, unless the person wishes to adhere to all of them. At the same
>> time, the Churchs' teachings do not contribute to the death of millions, as
>> much as the world is looking for a scape goat to blame for these deaths.
>> Rather, if an individual adheres to the Churchs' teachings in full, that
>> person doesn't have to worry about these diseases.
>
> Thank you for confirmirming your sociopathic view that following the
> Vatican line is more important than saving lives.
>
>
The deal has LONG been "If you aren't Catholic (or at least tow the
Catholic line), you DESERVE to suffer and die"
Paul
Sanders Kaufman
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> If you do not want this disease, do not have promiscuous sex. It is quite
> simple.
And if you don't want to drown - stay away from water.
As Darwin could tell you morons - not having sex is the short-path to
extinction.
It's even more dangerous than AIDS.
Paul Duca
7:32 PM:
Oh...so THAT'S why the Catholic Church opposes condoms--to keep from
insulting the manhood of their followers?
Paul
Christopher A. Lee
>
>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:39fd71pcn3u10ie5l...@4ax.com...
>
>> No, moron. You posted this idiocy to an atheist newsgroup. We're
>> calling *Y*O*U on it, not the voices in your head that you are hiding
>> behind.
>>
>> Because YOU posted it. The thoughts are yours. And you are attempting
>> to back them up using some character out of your religion's mythology.
>
>What a brilliant response. I appluad you..... (it was actually simply
>pathetic). The inspiration I recieve from God is complete truth. I am not
No, liar. That is a dishonest redefinition of the word "truth".
And whatever you might imagine, your pretend friend didn't post it,
you did.
Stop being so dishonest.
>hiding behind them. I am expressing the will of God to those who have ears
Of a figment oiof your deluded imagination.
>to hear. It is quite simple. If you do not want this disease, do not have
>promiscuous sex.
No, moron, WEAR A CONDOM.
> It is quite simple.
WEAR A CONDOM.
> That is all we teach.
And you're failing because you imagine your delusions trump reality.
The reality is that no matter how much you pretend otherwise, people
have sex.
> We continue it
>from there, though, into marriage. Be chaste in life. Be chaste in
>marriage. The use of artificial contraception renders sexual intercourse an
>act of lust, unchaste, sin.
There's no such thing as "sin" outside your religion, moron.
And in spite of your hatred for it, sex is the ultimate expression of
love between two people.
>I think that about sums it... a teaching for all those who follow the
>teachings of the Church, the teachings of God. It is there, take it or
Figments of your deluded imagination don't teach anything. And what
your church "teaches" causes death and misery.
>leave it. I will continue to teach this, I will continue to spread this
You're not teaching anything, moron.
>truth to anyone and everyone. The sins of men, however, do not reflect the
>Church that teaches against that sin.
What "truth", liar?
What "sins of men", liar?
Paul Duca
7:42 PM:
I know the cheap feel good from the previously mentioned things will
make an acceptable substitute for orgasms for YOU (along with the fake
hearty friendship of your parish priest). but what will it do for ME?!?
it is a sad world,
> but that is exactly what it is... the world... the city of Men... And it is
> ruining the world for everyone. Condoms aren't the solution. Condoms only
> REDUCE the risk. It is like saying "I am going to prevent fire in my house
> by installing sprinklers". Though sprinklers may in essence reduce the
> damage caused by a fire and in some cases, put it out, in most cases it will
> only diminish the fire enough to allow everyone to get out. HIV is the same
> way. Condoms may reduce the risk, but condoms were designed to block sperm
> cells. An HIV virus is much smaller than a sperm cell. Also, if a condom
> breaks it is pretty much useless and exposes the person completely.
> Therefore, the only sound way of avoiding the risk is to avoid sexual
> contact outside of marriage and to require mandatory open testing to all
> couples before marriage.
>
> It isn't that hard to wait until marriage to engage in sexual intercourse...
> it is very pathetic to see that boys and girls (and I call them that even
> though they may be 30 years old)
We see as a good Catholic you think in terms of everyone being
stupid and helpless and childlike, unable to cross the street unless God (or
Mommy) holds their hand.
engage in promiscuous sex. It is
> irresponsible and immoral. It exposes them to risk and then they yell and
> complain that the Church is at fault, though the Church teaches to those who
> wish to listen that fornication is wrong and adultery is wrong.
>
> Lust is counted as one of the seven deadly sins for a reason. It is deadly.
> Those who seek to satisfy lust not only put their souls at risk, but their
> bodies too.
>
> Pride
> Envy
> Anger
> Sloth
> Greed
> Gluttony
> Lust
>
> Those who surrender to any of those sins promote not only an unhealthy
> spiritual life, but an unhealthy physical life as well, hence "seven deadly
> sins". The Church is quite clear. When people violate the Churchs'
> teachings and contract this disease, it isn't the Church's fault. The
> teaching on artificial contraception is meant only for married couples. It
> isn't meant for those who are unmarried since men and women who are
> unmarried shouldn't be having sexual intercourse or sexual contact in the
> first place, as per the teachings of the Church. Do not blame the Church,
> however. She is just the messenger. God is the message and His will is the
> creed. If you do not agree with us, take it up with God.
>
>
I plan to take up PLENTY with God...
Paul
Clayton...Barber Responsible For The Lunatic Fringe
"Andrealphus" <OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote in message
> The Etobian <pdcor...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 02 May 2005 18:22:49 GMT, "Andrealphus"
> > <OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote:
> >
> >> It's only fair, since the Catholic Church is primarilly responsible
> >> for the spread of HIV. (No Condoms!)
> >
> > What about the responsibility of those who choose to have sex outside
> > of marriage?
>
> You mean that people that have sex outside of marriage will contract HIV
> even with condoms? Wow! Who knew!
It reminds me of people who say that people who die in plane crashes deserve
it because God didn't intend man to fly and they should have stayed on the
ground like God intended!
Paul Duca
8:36 PM:
And what will God give us in return, besides more empty promises?
Paul
>
--
Sanders Kaufman
<cj...@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com> wrote in message news:4276d0ca$0$4654>
> "Andrealphus" <OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote in message
>> You mean that people that have sex outside of marriage will contract HIV
>> even with condoms? Wow! Who knew!
> It reminds me of people who say that people who die in plane crashes
> deserve
> it because God didn't intend man to fly and they should have stayed on the
> ground like God intended!
That's why there are so few Christian Rocket Science academies.
No One
> "Gregory Gadow" <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message
> news:427665A1...@serv.net...
> > Then do everything possible to prevent people from having knowledge of,
> > access to or an understanding of how properly to use a simple, inexpensive
> > device that could keep people from contracting the disease in the first
> > place.
>
> What don't you get? A list of those charities and organizations given to us
> by young included organizations to educate people on the ONLY way to prevent
> AIDS. A condom COULD keep them from contracting the disease. That would
> work if they lived in a culture which believed in the use of condoms.
So, we should by all means go for a "regime change" in any country that is
too heavily influenced by the Roman Catholic Church, which seems to
oppose condoms regardless (even for gay sex where the risk of a pregnancy
is already zero.) Is that waht you meant? :-)
Of course, this is the same institution that waited 400 years before
reopening Galileo's case, so don't hold your breath waiting for it
to have a change of heart.
Andrealphus
Do you really have such a reading comprehension problem?
> What
> don't you get? Condoms aren't the solution!
Condoms have been clinically proven to block HIV 99.23% of the time. Which
means a far lower infection rate. Read what I said above about the effects
of Church dogma and accellerated infection rates.
Guess what? People are going to have sex. In the entire history of the
planet your imaginary sky daddy has not been able to stop it, or even slow
it down. Your church has helped throw gasoline on the fire and is, in
part, responsible for the accellerated rate of infection.
Live with it.
[snip sanctimonous crap]
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."
Albert Einstein
Andrealphus
>
> Psalm 139. God has no need to illuminate the night since darkness is
> as light to God. To God, the darkness shines like the day.
>
> -RS
Blah, blah, blah...
Andrealphus
LOL! Yeah, I've met a lot of people that think like that. Idiots.
Dennis Kemmerer
What part of 'it doesn't work' don't you get, dumbfuck?
Dennis Kemmerer
> Clayton...Barber Responsible For The Lunatic Fringe
> <cj...@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com> wrote:
>> "Andrealphus" <OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote in message
>> news:kpyde.3370$BE3...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> The Etobian <pdcor...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 02 May 2005 18:22:49 GMT, "Andrealphus"
>>>> <OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's only fair, since the Catholic Church is primarilly responsible
>>>>> for the spread of HIV. (No Condoms!)
>>>>
>>>> What about the responsibility of those who choose to have sex
>>>> outside of marriage?
>>>
>>> You mean that people that have sex outside of marriage will contract
>>> HIV even with condoms? Wow! Who knew!
>>
>> It reminds me of people who say that people who die in plane crashes
>> deserve it because God didn't intend man to fly and they should have
>> stayed on the ground like God intended!
>
> LOL! Yeah, I've met a lot of people that think like that. Idiots.
And then they get all indignant when people tell them to go fuck themselves.
Dennis Kemmerer
news:BE9C454B.1D7A6%p.d...@comcast.net...
Stop it, Paul, you're going to make his head spin.
Andrealphus
> "Andrealphus" <OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote in message
> news:H%Ade.3487$HL2....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Clayton...Barber Responsible For The Lunatic Fringe
>> <cj...@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com> wrote:
>>> "Andrealphus" <OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote in message
>>> news:kpyde.3370$BE3...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>> The Etobian <pdcor...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 02 May 2005 18:22:49 GMT, "Andrealphus"
>>>>> <OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's only fair, since the Catholic Church is primarilly
>>>>>> responsible for the spread of HIV. (No Condoms!)
>>>>>
>>>>> What about the responsibility of those who choose to have sex
>>>>> outside of marriage?
>>>>
>>>> You mean that people that have sex outside of marriage will
>>>> contract HIV even with condoms? Wow! Who knew!
>>>
>>> It reminds me of people who say that people who die in plane crashes
>>> deserve it because God didn't intend man to fly and they should have
>>> stayed on the ground like God intended!
>>
>> LOL! Yeah, I've met a lot of people that think like that. Idiots.
>
> And then they get all indignant when people tell them to go fuck
> themselves.
Well of course! What's religious dogma without a good bout of righteous
idignation?
Mike Painter
>> So the Church is responsible because people want to have sex? What
>> don't you get? Condoms aren't the solution! Condoms reduce the
>> risk. The solution comes with the acceptance of sexual morality.
>> If you follow God and remain chaste for your whole life (chastity
>> within marriage is a healthy sexual life with your wife free from
>> artificial contraception), then you have nothing to worry about.
>> Encouarge sexual morality and you encourage the destruction of this
>> disease.
>
>
> And what will God give us in return, besides more empty
> promises?
>
of them children.
But this is a short time pope and if he does not do it, the next pope will
allow condoms and those who parroted what the church said about not using
them will begin parroting what the church will say about using them.
If you had to go to church pre-Vatican II and only recently have seen what's
done now it comes as a shock.
It used to be that only the priest could *ONLY* touch the consecrated host
with the thumb and forefinger of his right hand. It was a big deal to get
the magic words that allowed thumb and forefinger of the left hand to be
used if you lost your right hand.
Anything but your mouth and his two fingers and you committed a mortal sin.
Now they drop it in your hands.
(What happened after it went into your mouth was not discussed but I suspect
that not all of it was fully absorbed by the body, so there is a lot of god
shit out there.)
Mike Painter
> In article <d56dt6$5r9$1...@news3.bu.edu> "RS" <rsw...@bu.edu> writes:
>> If everyone
>> stops having promiscuous sex, then many problems will be solved:
>
>
>
> Therefore, the Church should say nothing beyond "Y'all? Stop
> sinning now, you hear?"
>
> Clearly, nothing more is needed.
But we are told christ died for our sins. Don't we have a moral obligation
to make his death worthwhile?
Douglas Berry
beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed
the following
>So the Church is responsible because people want to have sex? What don't
>you get? Condoms aren't the solution! Condoms reduce the risk. The
>solution comes with the acceptance of sexual morality. If you follow God
>and remain chaste for your whole life (chastity within marriage is a healthy
>sexual life with your wife free from artificial contraception), then you
>have nothing to worry about. Encouarge sexual morality and you encourage
>the destruction of this disease.
If everyone followed this suggestion humanity would be extinct in a
century.
The Catholic Church lies about condoms and STDs. Flat-out lies. Of
course, given the church's hostory when it comes to science I'm not
surprised.
Did you know the church opposed the use of painkillers for women in
labor? True! Evidently the Bible declares that children are to be
born "in sorrow." Luckily, people ignored the church and the rate of
women dying in childbirth plummeted.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Jeff North
"Dennis Kemmerer" <d...@suespammers.org> wrote:
>| "RS" <rsw...@bu.edu> wrote in message news:d56dt6$5r9$1...@news3.bu.edu...
[snip]
>| Got a mouse in your pocket?
>|
>| > take it up with God.
>|
>| The thing that's really sad is that you're too wrapped up in your
>| sanctimonious, misinformed bullshit to realize that it's going to kill your
>| kids.
...and if his kids are anything like him, how would this be a bad
thing?
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnor...@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cary Kittrell
Well, SURE, when you say it like that....
-- cary
bam
"Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:I%vde.439$X21...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>J Young wrote:
>>
>>
> do some real good.
>
> USE A RUBBER.
To whom would this statement be addressed? Those who are having sex outside
of marriage, against the Church's teachings, but are obeying the Church by
not using a condom? Would this represent one in a zillion? Nope. In fact it
just doesn't exist.
Asshole.
BAM
thomas p
>
>"Andrealphus" <OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote in message
>news:3Wyde.3382$BE3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "RS" <rsw...@bu.edu> wrote in message news:d56dar$1pr$1...@news3.bu.edu...
>>>
>>> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>> news:stbd7159ub8pj3ud3...@4ax.com...
>>> > On Mon, 02 May 2005 18:10:27 -0400, The Etobian <pdcor...@msn.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>On Mon, 02 May 2005 18:22:49 GMT, "Andrealphus"
>>> >><OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>It's only fair, since the Catholic Church is primarilly responsible
>>> >>>for
>>> >>>the
>>> >>>spread of HIV. (No Condoms!)
>>> >>
>>> >>What about the responsibility of those who choose to have sex outside
>>> >>of marriage?
>>> >
>>> > They would use condoms - except that the church lies about their
>>> > effectiveness.
>>>
>>> You do not understand the culture. They will not use condoms. The vast
>>> majority of men in that culture consider the use of a condom, or the
>>> suggested use of a condom, very insulting to their manhood.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I do understand the culture. I've been to many parts of Africa. True,
>> many
>> are resistant to condom use, however many have been convinced to use them.
>> The Catholic Church, among many other groups, mostly religious, has made
>> that job many times harder than it should be, and should have been. In
>> my
>> opinion, such groups and churches are directly responsible for the
>> accellerated infection rate.
'
>So the Church is responsible because people want to have sex? What don't
>you get? Condoms aren't the solution! Condoms reduce the risk.
That is right, and they do it to a very great degree. That is why
they should be used.
The
>solution comes with the acceptance of sexual morality. If you follow God
>and remain chaste for your whole life (chastity within marriage is a healthy
>sexual life with your wife free from artificial contraception), then you
>have nothing to worry about. Encouarge sexual morality and you encourage
>the destruction of this disease.
But you do not prevent the disease, because people are going to
continue to have sex; and, without condoms, the disease will continue
to spread. It is infinitely more likely that people will be convinced
to use condoms then that they will limit themselves to either celibacy
or one partner. You and the Catholic Church are insisting on a plan
that will guarantee more disease.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
thomas p
>
>"James" <sh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:117d7ed...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Do you sleep better at night thinking that all the ails of the world come
>> from the sins of man? That the universal cure for what ails ye is the
>> glory of God, and that we could all live in peace and harmony if we just
>> broke from Satan and heard the words of Truth you whispered so delicately
>> into our ears?
>
>On the contrary, this isn't my opinion at all. I recognize sickness and
>suffering to exist not only because of the sins of man, but because of the
>frailty of the human body and mind. The universal cure for all suffering is
>still, in the end, God's glroy. Short-lived sufferings mean nothing in
>light of eternal glory. There will be no peace and harmony on this world,
>for all attempts at peace in this world render short-lived peace. Rather,
>to live for God is to embrace heavenly peace, eternal peace, eternal joy.
>
>> The rest of the world tries to deal with these problems while you
>> rationalize them away.
>
>You are mistaken in feeling this, when the Catholic Church is one of the
>largest resources for relief in the world,
Of suffering that they helped to create in the first place.
hence the point of this
>thread-master.
>
>-RS
thomas p
>
>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:stbd7159ub8pj3ud3...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 02 May 2005 18:10:27 -0400, The Etobian <pdcor...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 02 May 2005 18:22:49 GMT, "Andrealphus"
>>><OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It's only fair, since the Catholic Church is primarilly responsible for
>>>>the
>>>>spread of HIV. (No Condoms!)
>>>
>>>What about the responsibility of those who choose to have sex outside
>>>of marriage?
>>
>> They would use condoms - except that the church lies about their
>> effectiveness.
>
>You do not understand the culture. They will not use condoms. The vast
>majority of men in that culture consider the use of a condom, or the
>suggested use of a condom, very insulting to their manhood.
>
That makes no sense at all. You claim they won't use condoms anyway
because of their culture, but you then claim that encouraging them to
limit their sex to one partner is going to be effective. Which is
more likely; that they can be convinced to use condoms; or that they
can be convinced to limit their sex to one partner?
The Etobian
<d...@suespammers.org> wrote:
>"James" <sh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:117d7ed...@corp.supernews.com...
>> RS wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Talk about sanctimonious bullshit. That's one big ol' paragraph of crap.
>> If your church gave a flying rat's ass about AIDS, it would embrace the
>> use of condoms as an effective tool at preventing transmission.
>
>Well, it's not surprising. They still hang on to their 'abstinence only'
>delusion despite its historical 100% failure rate.
>
>[snip]
>
And if the Church endorses and gives out condoms, and the condoms fail
and someone contracts AIDS, who's at fault?
The Etobian
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 02 May 2005 18:10:27 -0400, The Etobian <pdcor...@msn.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 02 May 2005 18:22:49 GMT, "Andrealphus"
>><OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote:
>>
>>>It's only fair, since the Catholic Church is primarilly responsible for the
>>>spread of HIV. (No Condoms!)
>>
>>What about the responsibility of those who choose to have sex outside
>>of marriage?
>
>They would use condoms - except that the church lies about their
>effectiveness.
Is the church is sole repository of AIDS and condom information?
Should it be?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Mon, 02 May 2005 18:55:15 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 02 May 2005 18:10:27 -0400, The Etobian <pdcor...@msn.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 02 May 2005 18:22:49 GMT, "Andrealphus"
>>><OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It's only fair, since the Catholic Church is primarilly responsible for the
>>>>spread of HIV. (No Condoms!)
>>>
>>>What about the responsibility of those who choose to have sex outside
>>>of marriage?
>>
>>They would use condoms - except that the church lies about their
>>effectiveness.
>
>Is the church is sole repository of AIDS and condom information?
>Should it be?
Did I say anything that implied that? Hint: no.
It actively opposes the only practical way of slowing down its spread.
By doing this it caused it to be widespread in third world countries.
And one of the ways it did this was by lying about their
effectiveness.
But then we all know the Popes, RS's and possibly your religious
consciecnces override anybody else's.
Which is the real root of the problem.
Dennis Kemmerer
news:tikf71leh57fomgv9...@4ax.com...
Condoms have a failure rate of somewhere between 1% and 5%. The method that
the church currently endorses has a failure rate of 100%.
Christopher A. Lee
<d...@suespammers.org> wrote:
>"The Etobian" <pdcor...@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:tikf71leh57fomgv9...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 02 May 2005 21:59:21 GMT, "Dennis Kemmerer"
>> <d...@suespammers.org> wrote:
>>
>>>"James" <sh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:117d7ed...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> RS wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>> Talk about sanctimonious bullshit. That's one big ol' paragraph of
>>>> crap.
>>>> If your church gave a flying rat's ass about AIDS, it would embrace the
>>>> use of condoms as an effective tool at preventing transmission.
>>>
>>>Well, it's not surprising. They still hang on to their 'abstinence only'
>>>delusion despite its historical 100% failure rate.
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>> And if the Church endorses and gives out condoms, and the condoms fail
>> and someone contracts AIDS, who's at fault?
>
>Condoms have a failure rate of somewhere between 1% and 5%. The method that
Not if used properly. It's an education thing that you actively oppose
because it goes against the church's evil doctrines.
Evil because they lead to untold sufferiing and death.
Which you don't even care about.
>the church currently endorses has a failure rate of 100%.
Hardly. People have sex. Period. In spite of your wishful thinking.
But then you blame the victims for not abiding by your conscience
because you imagine that applies to everybody.
curtsybear
><d...@suespammers.org> wrote:
>>"James" <sh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:117d7ed...@corp.supernews.com...
>>delusion despite its historical 100% failure rate.
> and someone contracts AIDS, who's at fault?
Ahh. So the idea is not to actually stem the tide of HIV infections.
It is to cover the church's ass by making rules which, although
they have a much higher failure rate than condoms, push the "fault"
outwards. Screw the idea of saving lives. Just make certain you
can all call the failures "sinners" and then you've got the whole
thing solved. It is brilliant.
Maybe they could just say that breathing is a sin. Then they'd
REALLY be covered. You can't go catching ANY disease unless you
are a sinner who dares to act in the manner in which most diseases
are spread. Yeah. That's what the new pope's going to declare
tomorrow. I just gotta get him on the phone before his nap and let
him in on this.
--
"...and even when she went on vacation we rooted thru the whole
house and didn't find no evidence of any sin. Now THAT's what I
call love and forgiveness!" -- don't go letting Lurlean Tucker plan
*YOUR* next vacation.
Dennis Kemmerer
news:hnof71pplmcg4jndu...@4ax.com...
Read the post and watch who you're attacking. I'm the one arguing _against_
the church's position.
Andrealphus
No, but the church is a very influential source of AIDS and condom
information. When the church lies, therefore, the effect is great.
Andrealphus
Is the church garaunteeing a 100% success rate? Nobody is doing that.
Your arguments don't even make sense. Condoms have a proven 99.23% success
rate when blocking STD's, compare that with the almost 100% failure rate
that the church now enjoys with its "Abstinance only, no birth control"
policy.
Is this about saving lives, or is it about your church saving face?
RS
"Douglas Berry" <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:ri2f71lei064qnp97...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 2 May 2005 20:36:28 -0400, "RS" <rsw...@bu.edu> drained his
> beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed
> the following
>
>>So the Church is responsible because people want to have sex? What don't
>>you get? Condoms aren't the solution! Condoms reduce the risk. The
>>solution comes with the acceptance of sexual morality. If you follow God
>>and remain chaste for your whole life (chastity within marriage is a
>>healthy
>>sexual life with your wife free from artificial contraception), then you
>>have nothing to worry about. Encouarge sexual morality and you encourage
>>the destruction of this disease.
>
> If everyone followed this suggestion humanity would be extinct in a
> century.
That is a wild claim. Right now the number of births doubles the number of
deaths on average. So, let's take a look at the claim of the Church:
No sex outside of marriage.
Anyone with sexual diseases that are uncurable should not engage in sexual
intercourse (less people will die).
There should be no use of artificial contraception within marriage.
Adultery is a crime.
So here is the society:
only married couples are having children. Anyone else is chaste until
marriage. This would create stronger family units (less adultery, stronger
families).
The birth rate will decrease... how does this mean extinction of the human
race, since our birth rate is higher than our death rate?
This will also cause a decrease in international population. Areas that are
too overpopulated to support themselves will decrease. Unemployment will
disappear, and there will be enough food for all. This planet, I hate to
say it, is being strained by 6.4 billion people.
100 years of sexual morality will hardly cause the extinction of humanity,
but it would solve so many problems. Since when has someones' dedication to
sexual morality went wrong? Is there something fundamentally wrong with a
loyal husband and wife who have children enough that they can support well?
No. Is there something fundamentally wrong with 16 year old girls having
babies and not knowing who the fathers are? Yes. Is there something wrong
with a person who knowledgably has HIV to continue to have sexual
intercourse with others, even with the use of a condom? Yes.
Enough said.
The Church doesn't lie about condoms. There is a natural rate of failure on
condoms. Every so often, a condom breaks. Consider it a Poisson process.
When a condom breaks, it becomes useless, exposing both people to whatever
disease they may be trying to avoid. Condoms are 99% effective, but in the
long run, incorporating the amount of people having reported being infected
because a condom broke or was defective, they become much less effective.
Condoms reduce the risk. That isn't a solution to this disease, since it is
like installing sprinklers in a house. It is like putting sprinklers in an
apartment building. A fire may be started and sprinklers may diminish the
amount of damage, but that won't prevent the fire. HIV isn't like fire,
however. When you are caught in a burning building, you can still survive
by crawling out or being rescued from a window. When you get HIV, you are
going to die from complications caused by it.
-RS
RS
"thomas p" <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:8ulf71tr1oek8olju...@4ax.com...
> But you do not prevent the disease, because people are going to
> continue to have sex; and, without condoms, the disease will continue
> to spread. It is infinitely more likely that people will be convinced
> to use condoms then that they will limit themselves to either celibacy
> or one partner. You and the Catholic Church are insisting on a plan
> that will guarantee more disease.
You are right. We do not prevent the disease. Only one persons' dedication
to sexual morality (two in the case of marriage) can prevent the disease.
The Church offers people a plan of morality if they want to avoid this
disease. Many listen. The Church isn't responsible for those who don't.
The Church promotes a plan that will destroy the risk for individuals who
dedicate themselves to sexual morality. People outside of marriage should
not be having sex. Don't only listen to the Church's teachings, either.
Look at her actions for aid and support. In the case of the more poor areas
of Africa, men are less likely to use a condom unless they are first taught
that promiscuous sexual intercourse can mean death for them and their
children. Once they realize that on a regional level, they will be in the
same boat as North America and Europe. I am thinking about wiping out this
disease. Look in North America. The disease is still here, regardless of
what you might say. Condoms are sold in every corner store, supermarket,
and handed out at any planned parenthood. The Church isn't talking about
reducing the disease so much that it becomes a mere whisper. The Church is
talking about offering a plan of sexual morality to where uninfected people
will remain just that.
-RS
Dennis Kemmerer
[snip]
> The Church promotes a plan that will destroy the risk for individuals who
> dedicate themselves to sexual morality. People outside of marriage should
> not be having sex.
What part of '100% failure rate' don't you understand?
[snip]
Dionisio
>Therefore, if an
>individual doesn't desire to contract HIV (who does), then that individual
>must understand that the only sexual act he should perform should be with a
>wife and only with a wife (the wife should be HIV negative).
>
<chuckle>
<chortle>
<snigger>
<Gasp> I know you're trying to be as serious as you can. (Which makes it
all the more funny.)
But, "if a man doesn't want to get AIDS from his wife, he should make
sure she's HIV Negative"?
Um, "HellooOOO!!!"
<snicker>
<Guffaw>
> People with
>HIV should be prosecuted if they have sexual relations with anyone without
>letting that person know they are HIV positive. There is nothing different
>between that and giving someone a drink with poison in it. If everyone
>stops having promiscuous sex, then many problems will be solved:
>
>STD's will disappear
>Families will be stronger
>The international culture will regain sexual morality.
>
>Rather, people love orgasms more than they love God... it is a sad world,
>but that is exactly what it is... the world... the city of Men... And it is
>ruining the world for everyone. Condoms aren't the solution. Condoms only
>REDUCE the risk. It is like saying "I am going to prevent fire in my house
>by installing sprinklers". Though sprinklers may in essence reduce the
>damage caused by a fire and in some cases, put it out, in most cases it will
>only diminish the fire enough to allow everyone to get out. HIV is the same
>way. Condoms may reduce the risk, but condoms were designed to block sperm
>cells. An HIV virus is much smaller than a sperm cell. Also, if a condom
>breaks it is pretty much useless and exposes the person completely.
>Therefore, the only sound way of avoiding the risk is to avoid sexual
>contact outside of marriage and to require mandatory open testing to all
>couples before marriage.
>
>It isn't that hard to wait until marriage to engage in sexual intercourse...
>it is very pathetic to see that boys and girls (and I call them that even
>though they may be 30 years old) engage in promiscuous sex. It is
>irresponsible and immoral. It exposes them to risk and then they yell and
>complain that the Church is at fault, though the Church teaches to those who
>wish to listen that fornication is wrong and adultery is wrong.
>
>Lust is counted as one of the seven deadly sins for a reason. It is deadly.
>Those who seek to satisfy lust not only put their souls at risk, but their
>bodies too.
>
>Pride
>Envy
>Anger
>Sloth
>Greed
>Gluttony
>Lust
>
>Those who surrender to any of those sins promote not only an unhealthy
>spiritual life, but an unhealthy physical life as well, hence "seven deadly
>sins". The Church is quite clear. When people violate the Churchs'
>teachings and contract this disease, it isn't the Church's fault. The
>teaching on artificial contraception is meant only for married couples. It
>isn't meant for those who are unmarried since men and women who are
>unmarried shouldn't be having sexual intercourse or sexual contact in the
>first place, as per the teachings of the Church. Do not blame the Church,
>however. She is just the messenger. God is the message and His will is the
>creed. If you do not agree with us, take it up with God.
>
>-RS
>
>
>
>
--
The psychotic person knows that 2 and 2 makes 5 and is perfectly happy about it; the neurotic person knows that 2 and 2 makes 4, but is terribly worried about it.
wmech
dangerous. Not using condoms increases unwanted pregnancies, poorly nurtured
children and unwanted serious and life threatening health problems.
If their God does not want people to have sex except under very restrictive
conditions why did their God make the sex drive so strong and compelling?
The church should accept the reality of human cravings and permit modern
means for preventing life threatening illnesses and the poor fate of
unwanted children.
--
Bill
"Dennis Kemmerer" <d...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:xOSde.841$X21...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Dennis Kemmerer
news:JPUde.2738$Q.2...@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> RS wrote:
>
>>Therefore, if an individual doesn't desire to contract HIV (who does),
>>then that individual must understand that the only sexual act he should
>>perform should be with a wife and only with a wife (the wife should be HIV
>>negative).
>
> <chuckle>
>
> <chortle>
>
> <snigger>
>
> <Gasp> I know you're trying to be as serious as you can. (Which makes it
> all the more funny.)
I laughed at first too, but this idiot really thinks he's making sense.
I'd killfile him, but I want to see exactly how far he can wedge his head up
his ass.
[snip]
William T. Goat
RS wrote:
> I think that about sums it... a teaching for all those who follow the
> teachings of the Church, the teachings of God. It is there, take it
or
> leave it. I will continue to teach this, I will continue to spread
this
> truth to anyone and everyone. The sins of men, however, do not
reflect the
> Church that teaches against that sin.
I've heard that sin cannot exist is the presence of God.
If there is sin in the Church, then God is not present in the Church.
--Billy
Mike Painter
> "thomas p" <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
> news:8ulf71tr1oek8olju...@4ax.com...
>
>> But you do not prevent the disease, because people are going to
>> continue to have sex; and, without condoms, the disease will continue
>> to spread. It is infinitely more likely that people will be
>> convinced to use condoms then that they will limit themselves to
>> either celibacy or one partner. You and the Catholic Church are
>> insisting on a plan that will guarantee more disease.
>
> You are right. We do not prevent the disease. Only one persons'
> dedication to sexual morality (two in the case of marriage) can
> prevent the disease. The Church offers people a plan of morality if
> they want to avoid this disease. Many listen. The Church isn't
> responsible for those who don't.
> The Church promotes a plan that will destroy the risk for individuals
> who dedicate themselves to sexual morality.
It would reduce it, not eliminate it.
I have one that is far, far better and just as effective.
Don't catch it.
Alan W. Craft
Sin surrounded "I AM" whilst He walked the earth as the Christ.
Alan
James
The birth control policy was originally introduced to exponentially
increase the population of Catholics in the world; I learned that much
from watching Monty Python. Nowdays they're more interested in
increasing Catholic population densities by helping to kill off
non-Catholics.
I suppose the logic is valid.
--
James B, master of the tri-pronged scrotal mount
aa #944
"All that belongs to human understanding, in this
deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical,
or at least cautious; and not to admit of any
hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which
is supported by no appearance of probability."
-David Hume
James
<snip>
> No sex outside of marriage.
> Anyone with sexual diseases that are uncurable should not engage in sexual
> intercourse (less people will die).
> There should be no use of artificial contraception within marriage.
> Adultery is a crime.
Your entire argument stems from this innate confidence in the ability of
people to stop screwing each other. I don't know where you get it from,
because it's never been a reality, even for Catholics.
> The Church doesn't lie about condoms. There is a natural rate of failure on
> condoms. Every so often, a condom breaks.
The only reason to discourage condom use is to promote Catholic
doctrine; "all or nothing." It's embarassing to everyone to see your
church using an epidemic to promote it.
Paul Duca
7:57 PM:
What matters is making sure a larger percentage of them are
Catholic....\
>
> 100 years of sexual morality will hardly cause the extinction of humanity,
> but it would solve so many problems.
And provide so few rewards--at least beyond the cheap feel good type
that RS believes are enough to keep one content.
Paul
Paul Duca
8:02 PM:
>
> "thomas p" <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
> news:8ulf71tr1oek8olju...@4ax.com...
>
>> But you do not prevent the disease, because people are going to
>> continue to have sex; and, without condoms, the disease will continue
>> to spread. It is infinitely more likely that people will be convinced
>> to use condoms then that they will limit themselves to either celibacy
>> or one partner. You and the Catholic Church are insisting on a plan
>> that will guarantee more disease.
>
> You are right. We do not prevent the disease. Only one persons' dedication
> to sexual morality (two in the case of marriage) can prevent the disease.
> The Church offers people a plan of morality if they want to avoid this
> disease. Many listen. The Church isn't responsible for those who don't.
>
> The Church promotes a plan that will destroy the risk for individuals who
> dedicate themselves to sexual morality.
Ideally, it will also destroy the population that isn't dedicated to
Catholicism.
Paul
Andrealphus
Albeit murderous.
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."
Albert Einstein
Christopher A. Lee
>RS wrote:
><snip>
>> No sex outside of marriage.
>> Anyone with sexual diseases that are uncurable should not engage in sexual
>> intercourse (less people will die).
>> There should be no use of artificial contraception within marriage.
>> Adultery is a crime.
>
>Your entire argument stems from this innate confidence in the ability of
>people to stop screwing each other. I don't know where you get it from,
>because it's never been a reality, even for Catholics.
>
>> The Church doesn't lie about condoms. There is a natural rate of failure on
>> condoms. Every so often, a condom breaks.
>
>The only reason to discourage condom use is to promote Catholic
>doctrine; "all or nothing." It's embarassing to everyone to see your
>church using an epidemic to promote it.
Embarrassing? Disgusting is a better word. But there isn't a single
one, how about two: utterly evil. By campaigning against condoms, the
church is _deliberately_ causing untold suffering and death because a
few sanctimonious sociopaths feel that their own religious doctrine is
more important than the lives of millions.
Robibnikoff
> news:8ulf71tr1oek8olju...@4ax.com...
>
> > But you do not prevent the disease, because people are going to
> > continue to have sex; and, without condoms, the disease will continue
> > to spread. It is infinitely more likely that people will be convinced
> > to use condoms then that they will limit themselves to either celibacy
> > or one partner. You and the Catholic Church are insisting on a plan
> > that will guarantee more disease.
>
> You are right. We do not prevent the disease. Only one persons'
dedication
> to sexual morality (two in the case of marriage) can prevent the disease.
Are you married? Did you have premarital sex?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist