this went downhill fast

The point is that these folks have their own decisions that they obviously have enough intelligence to make on their own but now some self righteous old fuck has the foolishness to impart his own foolishness to make them feel like shit or 'sinners' for doing.  I have a hard time thinking that GOD would have made sex feel good just for reproduction.  Anyway, from my own experience with observing the Catholics in action I have noticed that they think women are for reproduction and 12 year old boys are for fun.  I think that is wrong but hey, what the fuck, there's damned sure a bunch of them getting away with that and homosexual shit.  I for one think condoms are fine.  Hell, maybe someone needs to feel one up and smack the guy that came up with not using one right upside the head.  If the pope said cut off your dick would you do it?  
Would you?

Dumbasses.

Quoted: Some people refuse to see logic.

Excuse me? So your religious opinion is LOGIC?!

I don't think so. I will REFUSE to consider religion logic. It's personal BELIEF.

I will put a gun barrel into my mouth before I ever follow what someone else believes is the "right thing to do."

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No, I would stop having sex with her.  Keep in mind these are 3rd world countries.  These people don't take on resposibility the same way you and I do. SGatr15 What dumbass statement. I'm from a Third World country, I'm also a U.S. citizen, and 'these people' take on responsibility in all realms of life just as much as here in the U.S., if not more so. Which country? Was it the African continent?  If so, why don't YOU tell us about the Aids situation is like and what the Catholic Church is REALLY doing to help these people. Please...I value your input. SGatr15 Sgatr15

The Dominican Republic. Not the African continent, but the Caribbean has the next highest density of HIV+ people so it may serve as an appropriate comparison. The Catholic Church is not actively doing much of anything. They do preach abstinence, which is the safest sex. However, it's Dominican NGOs and USAID that is doing the most to thorougly educate people on HIV/AIDS and the importance of safe sex. They are the ones actively doing something. Granted, condoms are not 100% effective, but they are about 98-99% effective; using condoms is the most realistic advocay in a world where the vast majority of people have sex with more than one person at one time or another.

Also, from what I've observed in the D.R., even the people who proclaim to be Catholic and go to church, etc., are still having sex with more than one person and/or out of wedlock. Not being proper Catholics....
Yet when one of these Catholics sins and becomes HIV+ the Catholic church shuns them and congregations are pressured to do the same. So, people stay in their homes and die slowly without the support of the Catholic church.

My bottom line relating to the your statement I quoted is that while (Third World) people are doing dumb things like sleeping around unprotected, once they are educated on how life saving a condom can be (and they can still be human and have sex), they genereally protect themselves. On the other hand, the Catholic church says to not use condoms and abstain from sex if not married, but not much more. I'm not against the Catholic church per se, just trying to give you input from my experience/observations. For what it's worth: I used to work for UNICEF in the D.R., and collaborate with many other public health institutions.

Quoted: Newsflash: condoms without Nonoxynol(sp?)-9 DO NOT protect against HIV. Based on my reading, wearing a hat during sex with an HIV+ person will do exactly as much good as wearing an ordinary condom. The Magisteruim is right on this one.

Newsflash, dumbass, the N-9 actually makes it MORE likely that you will transmit HIV.  The "Magersteruim", whatever/whoever that is, is full of shit.

This has been a known problem for at least two years now.  20 or so years ago, they saw that N-9 inactivated a lot of the HIV virus in a test tube.  Unfortunately, they didn't bother to test much further than that;  they spread a lot of bullshit about how it helped prevent AIDS and a lot of idiots grabbed onto it as a liferaft.

Then they did more testing, and found out that N-9 causes human tissue to become "cratered" -- basically chemically burns the skin or vaginal wall or penis head -- making it much more easy for the virus to get in.

The net result is that today, they warn AGAINST using condoms with N-9 on them, because while it might or might not stop some of the virus, it makes it much more likely to infect people.

Second newsflash, dumbass:  the latex barrier of condoms blocks the virus from getting past the condom, unless the condom breaks or semen otherwise leaks around it (say from dumping it out in her for laughs, or having her swallow the contents for fun).  The "pores" in the latex aren't relevant, because the HIV virus doesn't float around freely for long;  it is inside T-cells for most of its "life" cycle.  The "pores" nonsense was scare-tactic bullshit that some dumbass in a church dreamed up to scare people away from using condoms.

If someone has AIDS and is having sex, a condom is going to be a hell of a lot more effective than the estimated 50-50 risk of transmitting HIV every time they don't use one, even when you worry about breakage, leakage, dumbass game-playing, and so on.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Gee, I have 4 children and my wife and I have decided to take a break, maybe not have anymore at all.  By keeping track of her cycle, we have avoided getting her pregnant for over 2 years, WITHOUT the use of condoms, the pill, etc. Then you're lucky, considering a woman can get pregnant at just about any time of her cycle - including menstruation. This isn't birth control, it's birth avoidance. It works about as well for contraception as drinking olive oil after sex is for abortion. Once again, a little self control, like not getting any for a couple days out of the month takes care of that problem. And why bother? No thank you, I'd rather be able to regulate my own business. Since when should religion regulate copulation with a man and his wife? Damn I must really be lucky, cause my wife is about as fertile as they come.  No pun intended.   BTW that method IS a proven method of birth control. I've got over 2 years of proof right here.

Maybe that chlamydia she caught from the milkman made her sterile.

What you've "got" is two years of luck.  The "rhythm method" is partially effective, but it's like playing Russian Roulette with one loaded round instead of two.

BTW,please allow me to suggest the ultimate birth control, Method #69.

Um, the Roman Catholic church has always professed that all forms of "safe sex" are a sin.

I don't think they should be telling anyone anything about sex, last i heard over 11,000 children had been molested by priests and other clergy. Someone should wake the fuck up and throw these child molesting pieces of shit in a federal prison, so the rest of the decent people in that religion can begin  recovery.

Monoxyl-9 IS a spermacide, HOWEVER, there have been many in vitro studies that suggest it also has some anti-viral properties. A condom w monoxyl-9 is safer than one w/out. Latex condoms help reduce the risk of aids. The pores in the "natural" sheepgut condoms let the virus through.
Since condoms reduce the risk of HIV transmission, but do not eliminate it, I'd still avoid promiscuity.
As Sam Kinison said," If you don't trust the p@$$y, why are you f@#*&g it!"

IMHO, and HIV+ person should not be having sex with anyone HIV-, period! Condom or no condom.

This may sound callous, but if these dumb fucks don't understand that sexual intercourse outside of a monogomous relationship WILL lead to a premature death due to AIDS or STDs, then they deserve what they get.

Greywolf's solution to AIDS - stop fucking everything in sight and stay monogomous.  If not, you may die, and you'll get no sympathy from me.

I swear to God, this is THE most preventable disease in human history.

Quoted: Monoxyl-9 IS a spermacide, HOWEVER, there have been many in vitro studies that suggest it also has some anti-viral properties. A condom w monoxyl-9 is safer than one w/out. Latex condoms help reduce the risk of aids. The pores in the "natural" sheepgut condoms let the virus through. Since condoms reduce the risk of HIV transmission, but do not eliminate it, I'd still avoid promiscuity. As Sam Kinison said," If you don't trust the p@$$y, why are you f@#*&g it!" IMHO, and HIV+ person should not be having sex with anyone HIV-, period! Condom or no condom.

Nope, nope, nope.  Check the latest stuff from the condom folks.  N-9 damages the tissues that it comes into contact with, and makes infection MORE likely.  The safest is just to use a plain old lubricated rubber.  They've decided that the viricidal properties are outweighed by the increased vulnerability.

BTW, they've also started warning not to screw anyone up the pooper more than once per day with a condom with N-9 on it, because it does too much damage to the rectal tissues.

Sorry, if it's in the Guardian I just don't believe it.

GunLvr

Quoted: god damn, how ignorant can a person really be?

SgtAR15, your argueing with someone with no faith. Their mind is made up and won't change.

Quoted: Quoted: god damn, how ignorant can a person really be? SgtAR15, your argueing with someone with no faith. Their mind is made up and won't change.

Yeah I know.....




Plus I try to point out what the Church really stands for, not just what the Bishop say...


Then I point out that the church is pro-family, pro-life, and many other things.


Yet it gets labeled as an evil empire on pare with Islam.


Now I understand what Paul was trying to tell me when he said is was dangerous to lump together all the believers of one religion as being the same.


Sgtar15

well condoms aren't 100% at stoppign hiv, especially the sheepskin ones
people that are hiv+ shouldn't be having sex with anyone that is not also +

So let me get this straight. The Catholic church is telling Catholics (only) to get a disease so they can die? Good, Fuck 'em, More room for us protestants! Anyone who follows a secret cult of Roman, Homosexual child molesters gets everything they deserve. William of Orange forever!

If everyone followed Church teachings on premarital sex to begin with, STD's would be as extinct as smallpox in 3 generations.

Instead of ripping the Church for not approving what you folks want to, how about doing some reading on WHY the Church teaches what it does.  

Quoted: So let me get this straight. The Catholic church is telling Catholics (only) to get a disease so they can die? Good, Fuck 'em, More room for us protestants! Anyone who follows a secret cult of Roman, Homosexual child molesters gets everything they deserve. William of Orange forever!

Amazing  


SGatr15

This kinda reminds me of people I've known who got pregnant outside of marriage, and claimed that the reason they did not use birth control was because they were following Catholic teachings.  Just because some people are that stupid, does not mean you can blame the Church.

If you are going to ignore the Church's guidance on abstinence, then it makes sense to ignore the birth control / condom stuff too.

I fail to see how anyone could blame the Church for trying to stop the current mentality that all sorts of casual sex is OK as long as you wear a condom.

Some people just look for any excuse to bash the Church.

Oh, BTW, if your wife is HIV- and you are HIV+, then NO, you SHOULD NOT be having sex.  Even the slight risk that the condom might break, etc. should NOT be worth risking your wife's life.  The Church is not advocating unsafe sex, it is advocating NO SEX when such would be unsafe.

If the Catholic Church was so "controlling" we would not have the problems we have today in most third world countries.

Quoted: If the Catholic Church was so "controlling" we would not have the problems we have today in most third woilrd countries.

Thank you.


SGatr15

Quoted: Quoted: If the Catholic Church was so "controlling" we would not have the problems we have today in most third woilrd countries. Thank you. SGatr15

Dangit, I hate when I get quoted before I can correct my typos .

If I was living in a country as densely populated with AIDs "stricken" individuals as Africa, I would cut my dick off before I fucked someone. No thank you. I don't need AIDs and I'm not that hard up for sex as to risk my life for it. Abstinence, it's a lot more effective than "safe-sex".

Note: I'd like to talk to the dumb fuck that came up with that saying : Safe-sex.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If the Catholic Church was so "controlling" we would not have the problems we have today in most third woilrd countries. Thank you. SGatr15 Dangit, I hate when I get quoted before I can correct my typos .

You'll get used to it...I did.


SGatr15

I think a lot of people here didn't get the point the Catholic church is making.

They are saying don't count on a condem saving your ass from HIV if your spouse is infected. the only way to be safe is to abstain.

But this is somehow a catholic conspiracy to control the world?

I hate that "Whore of babylon" Organization and would like to rant all day. But will just say this, Every time they open their mouths they just dig their hole a little deeper. And attacking them only makes them more defensive and self righteous, so I will keep my mouth shut. [sgtar] YEA!!!![/sgtar]

Quoted: Quoted: Are you going to put her life at risk by not wearing a condom? -Troy No, I would stop having sex with her. SGatr15

Do you really believe that sexual relations with one's spouse is solely about procreation?  It's not.  It's an expression of love and affection in addition to being the means for procreation.  It's not just for making babies.  It's also about becoming "one" with your spouse, both literally and figuratively.  Children are wonderful and sexual relations in marriage are part of the grand sceme of bringing children into this world.  But that's not all it's about.

I also believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong.  But I believe that sex within marriage is right, and it's not solely for procreation--it's also a bonding experience and an opportunity to express love and affection together.

This is a more thourough explaination of their position from the vatican.
The Holy See welcomes the consensus decision of the Special Session and the adoption of the Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS and offers the following statement of interpretation. I would ask that the text of this statement, that includes the official position of the Holy See, as follows, be included in the report of the Twenty-sixth special Session of the General Assembly.

As demonstrated by the calling of this Special Session, and revealed by the due attention given to the pandemic, the Family of Nations has stated their resolve to address the needs of those whose lives have been ravaged by this horrible disease. The Holy See, in taking part in these discussions joins in that resolve and commitment.

The Holy See, in conformity with its nature and particular mission, reaffirms all of the reservations that it has previously expressed at the conclusion of the various United Nations Conferences and Summits, as well as the Special Sessions of the General Assembly for the review of those meetings.
Nothing that the Holy See has done during the discussions leading up to the adoption of the Declaration of the Commitment on HIV/AIDS should be understood or interpreted as an endorsement of concepts that it cannot support for moral reasons.

Regarding the term "sexual health", "reproductive health" and "sexual and reproductive health", the Holy See considers these terms as applying to a holistic concept of health, which embraces the person in the entirety of his or her personality, mind and body, and which fosters the achievement of personal maturity in sexuality and in mutual love and decision-making that characterize the conjugal relationship in accordance with moral norms.

The Holy See wishes to emphasize that, with regard to the use of condoms as a means of preventing HIV infection, it has in no way changed its moral position.

The Holy See regrets that not enough emphasis has been given to an understanding of the relationship between the promotion and protection of human rights based upon the recognition of the human dignity in which all human beings share, and the ability to be protected from the irresponsible behaviour of others. It is only through respect and mutual understanding that people can truly be empowered to protect themselves and others from HIV infection.

The Holy See also regrets that irresponsible, unsafe and high-risk or risky behaviour were not adequately discussed and addressed in preparing this Declaration.

Finally, the Holy See continues to call attention to the undeniable fact that the only safe and completely reliable method of preventing the sexual transmission of HIV is abstinence before marriage and respect and mutual fidelity within marriage. The Holy see believes that this is and must always be the foundation of any discussion of prevention and support.

The Holy See asks that this statement of interpretation be included in the report of this Special Session.


The emphasis was not supposed to be on condoms as ineffective. It was supposed to be about high risk behavior, and that ther is no 100% effective way except abstinence to prevent the spread of HIV.

Do you really believe that sexual relations with one's spouse is solely about procreation?

When did I ever say it was??


Sgtar15

Quoted: Do you really believe that sexual relations with one's spouse is solely about procreation? When did I ever say it was?? Sgtar15

That's the impression I got from these two posts of yours.

Quoted: No, I would stop having sex with her. SGatr15

Quoted: SOme couples fail to understand that the main goal of marriage is to have children. Otherwise what's the point? Just to fuck? SGatr15

Your statement hear implies that the "point" of marriage is to procreate.  Or, are you saying that it's just the "main" purpose of marriage?

Quoted: Quoted: Do you really believe that sexual relations with one's spouse is solely about procreation? When did I ever say it was?? Sgtar15 That's the impression I got from these two posts of yours. Quoted: No, I would stop having sex with her. SGatr15 Quoted: SOme couples fail to understand that the main goal of marriage is to have children. Otherwise what's the point? Just to fuck? SGatr15 Your statement hear implies that the "point" of marriage is to procreate.  Or, are you saying that it's just the "main" purpose of marriage?

No, his statement implies that he wouldn't put the life of his wife at risk just to satisfy his own physical needs.

Quoted: Gee, I have 4 children and my wife and I have decided to take a break, maybe not have anymore at all.  By keeping track of her cycle, we have avoided getting her pregnant for over 2 years, WITHOUT the use of condoms, the pill, etc. Once again, a little self control, like not getting any for a couple days out of the month takes care of that problem.

Quoted: Damn I must really be lucky, cause my wife is about as fertile as they come. No pun intended. BTW that method IS a proven method of birth control. I've got over 2 years of proof right here.

You do realize the hypocracy in this don't you?  The Catholic church teaches that the use of condoms, birth control pills, etc., is a sin.  Why?  It appears that the reason stems from a belief that birth control is evil.  Yet what you are doing is exactly that.  You stated so yourself.  The reason you are using the rythm method of BIRTH CONTROL is so that you can still have sex without having children.  You are admittedly using this method to curtail pregnancy.  How is that any different than a monogomous husband and wife in the very same situation using condoms to acheive the same results?

Is it because you don't believe that condom users have any "self control"?  I'm trying to understand the basis for one's position that the rythm method is okay, but an otherwise faithful husband and wife using condoms is sinful.... Explain that one to me.

We are biological beings.  As such, sexual reproduction is key to our existence.  In a larger sense, it is WHY we exist.

Whether you believe agnostically that life is a collection of DNA, or religiously that life is a gift from God, nobody can deny that procreation is a critical element.

Procreation results in children, and children are best raised in families - like that "old fashion" concept of a husband and wife.  Thus the foundation of the most basic element of the continuation of our species is MARRIAGE.

Living like dogs makes no sense biologically or religiously for the long-term survival of the human species.

Quoted: No, his statement implies that he wouldn't put the life of his wife at risk just to satisfy his own physical needs.

That's what the first statement suggests, and I can fully understand and empathize with that.  I also would think real hard before engaging in sexual relations with my wife if there was a chance I could infect her with HIV.  

I don't think anyone should ever put their own physical needs above another innocent person's health and well being.

You didn't address the second statement.  It still seems to me that he is implying that sexual relations are only about procreation.  Of course, like I mentioned in my first post, he could simply be stating his believe that procreation is the primary purpose of sexual relations.  Until he chimes in, I don't know.

Quoted: Quoted: No, his statement implies that he wouldn't put the life of his wife at risk just to satisfy his own physical needs. That's what the first statement suggests, and I can fully understand and empathize with that.  I also would think real hard before engaging in sexual relations with my wife if there was a chance I could infect her with HIV.   I don't think anyone should ever put their own physical needs above another innocent person's health and well being. You didn't address the second statement.  It still seems to me that he is implying that sexual relations are only about procreation.  Of course, like I mentioned in my first post, he could simply be stating his believe that procreation is the primary purpose of sexual relations.  Until he chimes in, I don't know.

The POINT of Catholic marriage is to create the right environment in which to raise children.  In other words, have Catholic families.

Marriage might make sense from a legal or economic standpoint or for other reasons - but such marriages of convenience are both a biological dead end and contrary to Catholic belief.

Quoted: nobody can deny that procreation is a critical element. Procreation results in children, and children are best raised in families - like that "old fashion" concept of a husband and wife.  Thus the foundation of the most basic element of the continuation of our species is MARRIAGE. Living like dogs makes no sense biologically or religiously for the long-term survival of the human species.

You're preaching to the choir here, Adam_White.  I firmly believe that the most fundamental and important unit of society is the family.  I also believe that chastity before marriage and total fidelity in marriage is key to real happiness and strong families.  However, I also believe that the purpose of sexual relations in marriage is not limited to procreation.

However, I fail to see how condom use in marriage is considered a sin when the rythm method is just fine.  Both are tools by which a couple curtails pregnancy.  I could see the logic in someone saying that all forms of birth control are wrong.  I don't agree with that position, but at least it's consistent.

Neither of the posters that I quoted have chimed in to respond, so anything else at this point is just speculation about what they believe.

Sgtar15:

Do you get the feeling they are wanting all of us Catholics to start singing the "Every sperm is sacred" song?

Adam_White,

You seem to be the only Catholic sticking around here so I'll ask you the question.  But first, let me say that I think we have a lot more in common that it may seem.  Apparently, we both believe that the family is the fundamental unit of society and that chastity and fidelity are essential virtues.

However, the question I have for you is this.  On what basis does the Catholic church believe that the rythm method is okay, but condoms are not?  It's a simple question.  Can you answer it in 50 words or less?  I'm not trying to be confrontational here.  If you don't know, just say so.  I'm just curious about this and haven't ever heard the reason for this.

Quoted: Quoted: Gee, I have 4 children and my wife and I have decided to take a break, maybe not have anymore at all.  By keeping track of her cycle, we have avoided getting her pregnant for over 2 years, WITHOUT the use of condoms, the pill, etc. Once again, a little self control, like not getting any for a couple days out of the month takes care of that problem. Quoted: Damn I must really be lucky, cause my wife is about as fertile as they come. No pun intended. BTW that method IS a proven method of birth control. I've got over 2 years of proof right here. You do realize the hypocracy in this don't you?  The Catholic church teaches that the use of condoms, birth control pills, etc., is a sin.  Why?  It appears that the reason stems from a belief that birth control is evil.  Yet what you are doing is exactly that.  You stated so yourself.  The reason you are using the rythm method of BIRTH CONTROL is so that you can still have sex without having children.  You are admittedly using this method to curtail pregnancy.  How is that any different than a monogomous husband and wife in the very same situation using condoms to acheive the same results? Is it because you don't believe that condom users have any "self control"?  I'm trying to understand the basis for one's position that the rythm method is okay, but an otherwise faithful husband and wife using condoms is sinful.... Explain that one to me.

Because I'm Not having sex and stopping the natural act of procreation with an unnatural means.  What I am doing is not having sex during that time because I know that she is fertile, which is a Natural means of birth control.

Quoted: Quoted: nobody can deny that procreation is a critical element. Procreation results in children, and children are best raised in families - like that "old fashion" concept of a husband and wife.  Thus the foundation of the most basic element of the continuation of our species is MARRIAGE. Living like dogs makes no sense biologically or religiously for the long-term survival of the human species. You're preaching to the choir here, Adam_White.  I firmly believe that the most fundamental and important unit of society is the family.  I also believe that chastity before marriage and total fidelity in marriage is key to real happiness and strong families.  However, I also believe that the purpose of sexual relations in marriage is not limited to procreation. However, I fail to see how condom use in marriage is considered a sin when the rythm method is just fine.  Both are tools by which a couple curtails pregnancy.  I could see the logic in someone saying that all forms of birth control are wrong.  I don't agree with that position, but at least it's consistent. Neither of the posters that I quoted have chimed in to respond, so anything else at this point is just speculation about what they believe.

The birth control issue has nothing to do with what the thread is about - and is greatly debated internally within the Church itself.

Still "The rhythm method" does not involve the act of intercourse - so it is not "sinful" to those who believe that such acts should be done only to procreate.

None of that has to do with the subject matter of this thread.

This thread is about the Catholic Church warning people with HIV not to have sex even with condoms, and the original poster (who, based on his other posts today, seems to have an anti-Catholic axe to grind)  twisted the story to make it sound like the Church was telling HIV+ people to sleep with their spouse with no protection.  This is not true - the Church was telling them to quit sleeping together, period.

Quoted: Adam_White, You seem to be the only Catholic sticking around here so I'll ask you the question.  But first, let me say that I think we have a lot more in common that it may seem.  Apparently, we both believe that the family is the fundamental unit of society and that chastity and fidelity are essential virtues. However, the question I have for you is this.  On what basis does the Catholic church believe that the rythm method is okay, but condoms are not?  It's a simple question.  Can you answer it in 50 words or less?  I'm not trying to be confrontational here.  If you don't know, just say so.  I'm just curious about this and haven't ever heard the reason for this.

I was typing while you posted this, but I believe both nascar3n8fan and myself have answered your question.  Have we?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Gee, I have 4 children and my wife and I have decided to take a break, maybe not have anymore at all.  By keeping track of her cycle, we have avoided getting her pregnant for over 2 years, WITHOUT the use of condoms, the pill, etc. Then you're lucky, considering a woman can get pregnant at just about any time of her cycle - including menstruation. This isn't birth control, it's birth avoidance. It works about as well for contraception as drinking olive oil after sex is for abortion. Once again, a little self control, like not getting any for a couple days out of the month takes care of that problem. And why bother? No thank you, I'd rather be able to regulate my own business. Since when should religion regulate copulation with a man and his wife? Damn I must really be lucky, cause my wife is about as fertile as they come.  No pun intended.   BTW that method IS a proven method of birth control. I've got over 2 years of proof right here. Maybe that chlamydia she caught from the milkman made her sterile. What you've "got" is two years of luck.  The "rhythm method" is partially effective, but it's like playing Russian Roulette with one loaded round instead of two. BTW,please allow me to suggest the ultimate birth control, Method #69.

Are you speaking from personal experience with your wife, because I don't have to worry about the fidelity of mine.  If so, I pity you.  (Maybe it has something to do with your performance!)

And guess what, if she would happen to get pregnant, then she does, we would just be the recpient of  another blessing from God.

You don't Have to agree with anything I've said in this thread.  I was simply trying to help explain the views of the Catholic Church in regard to contraception.  If you don't like it that's fine, this is a free country and you're entitled to your beliefs, but so am I.

edited for sp

Quoted: I was typing while you posted this, but I believe both nascar3n8fan and myself have answered your question.  Have we?

Yes, thank you.  That makes sense to me.  

Quoted: This may sound callous, but if these dumb fucks don't understand that sexual intercourse outside of a monogomous relationship WILL lead to a premature death due to AIDS or STDs, then they deserve what they get. Greywolf's solution to AIDS - stop fucking everything in sight and stay monogomous.  If not, you may die, and you'll get no sympathy from me. I swear to God, this is THE most preventable disease in human history.

Tell that to a girl I worked with, who was infected after being bled on following a bad car crash. She had many scrapes and the infected blood was transferred to her that way.

FYI: A puncture wound is less likely to result in infection actually, because of the back-pressure. An abrasive or laceration - type injury can be fr more vulnerable to viral infection in many cases.

Here's a quick history of the Catholic church. #1 They are NOT the original and true church. Peter was NOT the first pope! Originally christianity was a "confedaracy" with each region having it's own head, leaders kept in contact with letters but there was no Hierarchy as the RCC has today. In fact once Christianity became the official religion of the Romans The Emperor was the head. Heres a breif context of that time. In 330 AD the Emperor Constantine decided two things, to move the capitol to Greece and name the city Constantinople and to make Christianity the only scantioned religion. The Bishop of Constantinople was the nominal "head" of the church but the emperor had the final say in matters of faith. Rome at this time had a bishop but he was NOT considered the head of anything except Rome the city. Also at this time Rome had become a Backwater. Prior to this from 33 AD to 330 AD Jerusalem and Antioch were considered the "center" of christiandom. People looked to those leaders to guide in matters of faith. But an extremely bad thing happened, the roman empire got split in two. Roman west, Greek East. So people about 450 AD (in the west) people began looking to the Bishop of Rome for protection and guidance. While people in the east stuck to Constantinople and the "patriarch". So today the eastern people are known as "orthodox" and in the west "catholic". So where did the "papacy" come from? It came from about the time of the official split in the 7th century. It was during this time that the Pope was first created with his own Army and lands. Then he sent "official" missionaries to northern Europe. Actually Christianity had reached north europe before but these early "christians" owed no allegiance to Rome. They had'nt even heard of the pope. Something the pope had to correct! Now naturally every chuch belives itself to be the 'True' church so the RCC began so-called "traditions". in Other words, It is so because we say it is so!! This is when they made all kinds of claims like Peter was the first pope (Actually if you read the bible Peter spent all his time converting Jews only and as far as we know never went to Rome) That the hierarchy of the church was what God wanted even if it's not in the gospels. All kinds of BS. Also it got much worse during the middle ages when basically so much "CRAP" got tossed on top of the belief system that it spawned the Protestant Revolution. In fact although they are small in number, there are many Independant churches that are still around that were founded by "jewish-christian" missionaries which had no connection at all to either Rome or Constantinople. These include Ethiopian Orthrodox, Nestorian, Syraic, Coptic, Gnostic, Armenian etc. Scientists have proven that these Churches foundings go back to well before 330 AD, to a time before the first pope ever exsisted. So are they "heretics?" because they refuse to bow the Rome? No. My whole point here is this, as protestants don't think that the RCC was the "original" church founded by Jesus but because of later corrupt leaders we had to Break away. It was an institution that grew up out of the dark ages and the history of that time. They are no more Bona fide than any of the other ancient churches. And that "pointy headed king, what sits on his throne in Rome" has no more right to tell people how to live than anyone else. The Scripture is your guide, not some Italian Eunich.

Quoted: Here's a quick history of the Catholic church. #1 They are NOT the original and true church. Peter was NOT the first pope! Originally christianity was a "confedaracy" with each region having it's own head, leaders kept in contact with letters but there was no Hierarchy as the RCC has today. In fact once Christianity became the official religion of the Romans The Emperor was the head. Heres a breif context of that time. In 330 AD the Emperor Constantine decided two things, to move the capitol to Greece and name the city Constantinople and to make Christianity the only scantioned religion. The Bishop of Constantinople was the nominal "head" of the church but the emperor had the final say in matters of faith. Rome at this time had a bishop but he was NOT considered the head of anything except Rome the city. Also at this time Rome had become a Backwater. Prior to this from 33 AD to 330 AD Jerusalem and Antioch were considered the "center" of christiandom. People looked to those leaders to guide in matters of faith. But an extremely bad thing happened, the roman empire got split in two. Roman west, Greek East. So people about 450 AD (in the west) people began looking to the Bishop of Rome for protection and guidance. While people in the east stuck to Constantinople and the "patriarch". So today the eastern people are known as "orthodox" and in the west "catholic". So where did the "papacy" come from? It came from about the time of the official split in the 7th century. It was during this time that the Pope was first created with his own Army and lands. Then he sent "official" missionaries to northern Europe. Actually Christianity had reached north europe before but these early "christians" owed no allegiance to Rome. They had'nt even heard of the pope. Something the pope had to correct! Now naturally every chuch belives itself to be the 'True' church so the RCC began so-called "traditions". in Other words, It is so because we say it is so!! This is when they made all kinds of claims like Peter was the first pope (Actually if you read the bible Peter spent all his time converting Jews only and as far as we know never went to Rome) That the hierarchy of the church was what God wanted even if it's not in the gospels. All kinds of BS. Also it got much worse during the middle ages when basically so much "CRAP" got tossed on top of the belief system that it spawned the Protestant Revolution. In fact although they are small in number, there are many Independant churches that are still around that were founded by "jewish-christian" missionaries which had no connection at all to either Rome or Constantinople. These include Ethiopian Orthrodox, Nestorian, Syraic, Coptic, Gnostic, Armenian etc. Scientists have proven that these Churches foundings go back to well before 330 AD, to a time before the first pope ever exsisted. So are they "heretics?" because they refuse to bow the Rome? No. My whole point here is this, as protestants don't think that the RCC was the "original" church founded by Jesus but because of later corrupt leaders we had to Break away. It was an institution that grew up out of the dark ages and the history of that time. They are no more Bona fide than any of the other ancient churches. And that "pointy headed king, what sits on his throne in Rome" has no more right to tell people how to live than anyone else. The Scripture is your guide, not some Italian Eunich.

Are you happy now?

Adamwhite: Are you happy now?

Oh hell yes! Dude you have no idea! Although I'm Methodist, my grammy sent me to catholic school to get "a better education". And when i was only 7 or 8 the nuns explained that all those who were not Catholics were destined for hell. Beliving in Jesus not withstanding!! Then when I was like 12, 13 a little older and more "savvy" I noticed that some of the Brothers were "flamers". I mean totally limp wristed, lisp and all!! Yet they lectured us on Morality and how sex was evil!! Total Hypocracy! I knew something was up but this was the late eighties and the Molester scandals had yet to break. And the Naive, conservative parents who sent their children there, were TOTALLY BLIND to it! So when it did start to make headlines I was'nt suprised at all. But I just thought the men would just diddle themselves!! Even I dared not think that they were interested in children. So yes, I have a big beef with the RCC and I make no apologies about it. They did mental harm to me and a lot worse to other children. Pope John Paul Rot in hell.

Quoted: How dare you point out that the Catholic church is full of shit.

fixed it for ya, (note the smiley) some people have no grasp of sarcasm.

This position is probably what one church, or maybe a backwater African diocese said and suddenly, It's a decree from the Pope. Do you Catholic bashers have any idea how HUGE the Catholic Church is? The Catholic church has a hierarchy but it is hardly as cohesive as the military. For example the Pope has been pretty anti-war and ant-iraq war but there are priests who think the war is just. Think a little bit before you make some crap topic and claim it's the policy of the Church.

How come Catholics never make some "Baptists are heretics thread", why is it that everytime somebody is bashing Catholics, Where does this hate come from?

Quoted:  Or, are you saying that it's just the "main" purpose of marriage?

One of the main purposes.  No way in hell I would have sex with my wife is I was HIV+!


As for as sex inside the mariagge goes you can do it as many times or ways you want....but if she gets preggers you KEEP THAT BABY!

Everything else you said about sex inside of marriage was pretty much spot on.


SGatr15