Because hey, as we all know, it HURTS to have to exercise self control and not have to worry about the consequences of sex with whoever happens to walk by, ...

Knox is wrong, but it’s pointless to try to tell him (or anyone in the Obama administration) anything; they don’t listen and do not want to know.  The most closed administration I’ve ever seen.

3 more years

Ask Knox about the reduction in HIV/AIDs reduction in Uganda courtesy of abstinenc instead of condoms. www.hli.org has the stats.

Is Knox a biologist or other life scientist? If not, then he can be quiet now.

Knox, a homosexual Minister, should declare his background and agenda (if he has one) in order that his comments get the respect they deserve.

I would say that Obama and all his cronies are hurting people in the name of the US federal government.

Knox feels fit to contredict the Pope on matters of theology and contredict the scientific expert in his own particular field of expertese, Green being Director at the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard University Center for Population and Development Studies.  Condscending arrogance that is coming to define this administration.  It shows rediculously poor judgment on the part of Obama.  In seeking to secure the gay-vote he shows himself to be unfit for the position he holds.  Knox is another bad choice, jennings and Singer being a couple of other bad Obama choices.

Unfortunately, Knox and the entire administration for that matter, do not believe in personal responsibility. Remember, Obama told us to judge him based on who he surrounds himself with…looking at this current administration, I have yet to find one stitch of personal responsibility anywhere!

Knox is so enslaved to his own sexual sin that he can not possibly see his way out of it, nor can he see how anyone else could not be a slave to sexual sin as well.  Which is why the personal responsibility argument and documented statistics do not work on people like him.  Everyone please pray for him.  He’s been duped by the Devil and he’s helpless because he doesn’t know it.  While we’re at it let’s pray for everyone who is a slave to sexual sin.  Seems like a good place to start cleaning house.

Does anyone expect anything different from a group of people that support the murdering of millions of innocent babies?

Looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, must be a duck….

Pray for their souls; the Pope is.

Eric

A few points: The proper use of condoms can help prevent AIDs.  This should be rue in Africa as well as anywhere else.  That would seem to indicate that education on proper condom use is lacking. Also, this is to “Barbara”:  Is the Pope a biologist or other life scientist? If not, then he can be quiet now.  Simply telling people to exercise self control is excellent, until someone doesn’t exercise control, and an innocent baby is born with the AIDs virus. But then, babies aren’t innocent, are they?

To “Steve Ahlquist”
1- The Pope does not need to be a biologist or a life scientist to use his brain and understand an issue. Like any educated and intelligent person he relies on reason and the information gathered by specialists in the field.
2-the “proper” use of condoms cannot prevent the spread of AIDS. Any one with a basic understanding of risk management can tell you that is impossible to have 100% compliance on the “proper” use of condoms. The lower is the compliance, the more is the usage, then the more is the spread of AIDS.

The Obama Administration: returning science to its rightful place in public policy… unless it contradicts left wing ideology.

This is to “Steve Alquist” :  you stated “it would seem to indicate that education on proper condom use is lacking.”  How much education do people need to know, when condoms fail to prevent the spread of STD 31% of the time WHEN USED PROPERLY?  What else would we apply this line of thinking to?  It is like saying, “there are people who like to play on train tracks.  Thousands are killed every year.  So, we’ll put bubbles around them.  The bubbles will fail 31% of the time, so we need to really educate them, on proper use.  (Doesn’t make one bit of sense, does it?)

The answer, of course, is STAY OFF THE TRACKS!

“...and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”

There will always be a Knox or someone like this. Keep praying and living lives of obedience through faith by grace.

-Tim-

It seems to me like we hired an administration completely lacking a moral center based on the value of “Life”.  For all the good that Obama is capable of, his lack of faith “Hurts all of us” in the name of ignorance.  I will pray for him and our country!

Has anyone compiled a list of competent/scientific/scholarly sources to present formally to the President and Mr. Knox and the media in order to counter their claims? I believe Mr. Know would also say the the African Synod of Bishops is also incorrect.

As much as I don’t want to argue, I would like to point out that my previous comment about the Pope not being a biologist was directed at “David” not “Barbara” as I originally said. That was an error. David seems to think only a biologist or life scientist is fit to speak on this issue, and though they should presumably be experts in their fields, I agree that any well-informed person should be able to voice an opinion, including the Pope.  I was using sarcasm, and I apologize if this wasn’t obvious.  That being said, according to the Center for Disease control, (http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm) “Epidemiologic studies that are conducted in real-life settings, where one partner is infected with HIV and the other partner is not, demonstrate that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection.”  In fact, the rates are 98-99%.  No, it’s not magic, and it won’t prevent all transmission, but it could go a long way in reducing medical costs and deaths that go with AIDs.  Who could possibly be against that, unless they are so blinded by religious belief that they ignore all evidence, and simply search for evidence that confirms their opinions?

Peter:  You asked for a list of “competent/scientific/scholarly sources” well that’s also present on the CDC website:

http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/references.html

How easy is that?

Maybe Mr. Knox should go have relations with an HIV infected
person, trusting the whole while in his condom.

As for everyone else, know that God does not desire men and women
to relate sexually outside of marriage.  Pretty plain and simple,
if you ask me. Only those that wish to defy God with grave sin are also interested in playing Russian Roulette. Now THIS is hurting people in
the name of sin!

In this instance of the use of condoms vs non-use…how is this any different than allowing the use of the pill when it is prescribed for non contraceptive purposes.  If that is allowed ( and I believe the Church does allow) why not the use of condoms for the non-contraceptive purpose of elminating Aides…it is true that not all cases of aides are prevented this way but it would go a long way toward protecting especially the women in these populations where aides is rampant. Of course the disordered practice of homosexuality must continue to be vociferously condemned and perhaps this is really in the Pope’s mind not an acceptable practice ( the use of condoms)as it encourages no doubt this sin against mankind everywhere.

Here is a novel idea! I believe the Pope is challenging all of those “nay-sayers”, who are comforted by the idea that AIDs and how people get AIDs is less of the problem than the “band-aid” approach of the use of condoms. The use of condoms approach tells people that we don’t think they have the will to simply stop engaging in the behavior, which ultimately causes the problem of AIDs.  Instead, we will give you the treatment, not the prevention of AIDs.  This is not to say, that condoms don’t help, but if you don’t want to get burned, you stay out of the fire! This is where faith and religion can help. They help all heal from the inside out, and include our thinking, emotions, spirituality, responsibility, duty to others, to ourselves, and yes to God.  there is no more of a wholistic approach.  The Pope is not saying condoms are bad, he is saying the mentality that we are not worthy enough to make the ultimate sacrifice and change our behavior, is what will continue to allow AIDs to continue.

The Pope is against condoms.  He said, “It (AIDS) cannot be overcome by the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, they increase the problem,”  He is also against the birth-control pill.  Within Catholicism the current consensus is that any use of a condom is morally contraceptive and thus a sin. So sorry Eduardo, the Pope is saying that all condom use is bad.

I LOVE POPE BENEDICT XVI!!!!

I think that the problem is that Harry Knox either is ignorant of, or refuses to listen to, the Pope’s underlying message when he responded to the AIDS question. Orthodox Christian teaching has always been that promiscuity and sex outside of marriage is sinful. That is the message that Benedict XVI is trying to convey. Now I have no idea where Harry Knox gets his information from, or his level of information literacy, but his comments do leave me wondering if actually read the transcriptions of the Pope’s remarks about the overall efficacy of condom use in fighting the spread of AIDS, or did he just read Western media reports of the in-flight Q & A. The Pope was also speaking from a spiritual and holistic point of view, something that the Western media’s reporting completely missed.

God bless Pope Benedict XVI. May He live long and serve well as the “Servant of the Servants of God”

God Bless our Holy Father

Again, to “Steve Alquist”  He said, “It (AIDS) cannot be overcome by the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, they increase the problem,”

Pope B16 is right!  This idea that we are all just “slaves to our hormones,” is nonsense.  Peoples lives are at stake here!  Put your “money where your mouth is” so to speak.  Would you have sex (inside or outside of marriage) with someone you KNEW to be HIV infected with the protection of a condom?  You KNOW you wouldn’t!  You’d be foolish to.  So why is that the answer you’d give to someone else?

In response, the St. Michael Society is circulating a petition online, asking for the immediate resignation of Harry Knox. You can find, and sign, the petition at:
http://stmichaelsociety.com/2010/02/03/video-obama-advisor-will-not-back-off-comments-attacking-pope/

Steve Alquist stated: ‘In fact, the rates are 98-99%.  No, it’s not magic, and it won’t prevent all transmission, but it could go a long way in reducing medical costs and deaths that go with AIDs.  Who could possibly be against that, unless they are so blinded by religious belief that they ignore all evidence, and simply search for evidence that confirms their opinions? ‘
That means that if you have 50 sexual relations using condoms you have a safety rate of 36% and if you have 100 sexual relationships your safety factor goes down to 13%. Do you know that car manufacturers ask for their electronic safety components a safety rate of 99.99% over a period of at least 10 years?

Kathy, with all due respect, you’re being foolish.  Most of the time, these people don’t know that their partner (or themselves) in HIV positive.  Condoms help to prevent disease in the event that one of them is.  Also, there are many committed, loving couples in the world in which one partner is infected with HIV (maybe through a blood transfusion, so the act is truly innocent of the taint of sex) and yet the partners still engage in safe sexual practices, within marriage, using condoms.

The idea that we are going to introduce celibacy and monogamy to Africa instead of condoms is a little sad.  What do you say to someone who contracts AIDs in a society in which there are no condoms?  Sorry, It’s your own fault, keep it under control next time?  There is no next time.  I know you feel religiously obligated to believe the way you do despite all evidence, but your basing your beliefs on simplistic religious belief instead of hard won knowledge and thought.

This is not about the Church and AIDS, it is about Knox and the Church. Does anyone really think that his concern is for those suffering with AIDS in Africa? His concern is HIMSELF - he simply doesn’t like what the Church teaches on contraception, or maybe he harbours disdain for the Church generally. Don’t forget that even Judas was able to show concern for the less well-off - at the Last Supper, he would have sold the precious ointment (for considerably more than our Lord was worth, apparently). However, his concern was not really the poor - he controlled the apostolic purse & was stealing from it. Don’t be fooled into thinking that Mr Knox is concerned with the bigger picture regarding AIDS; he is merely concerned with the Mr Knox picture.

To Cristiano:
So, you’re talking about people who have fifty to one hundred sexual partners.  That can hardly be considered normal behavior.  But still, allowing that such people exist, and allowing that your math is correct, that’s still a reduction in AIDs, for a very cheap cost.

But let’s imagine a person who is AIDs free.  The one hundred people they have sex with won’t all be AIDs infected.  Let’s be generous and say half of them are.  That cuts your disease spread in half, so instead of 36% and 13% we get 18% and 6.5%.  Given the low cost of condoms, even these numbers are better.  And prevention decreases the pool of infected, so over time its possible that the odds will be ever greater in favor of people without the disease.

Compare it to the swine flu vaccine.  Also about 99% effective, and not everybody gets the shot.  Still, the overall reduction in the disease occurs if even some people are vaccinated.

Don’t let religious arguments rule your life.  Find real information and make your own decisions.

To Niall,

Knox may well be more concerned with himself than with Africa.  Who can really say?  But maybe the same could be said about the Pope, being more concerned with his vision of sexual purity and religious observance than he is with actually saving lives.  Maybe we need to look at your motives for posting here, or mine.  The fact is, you’re judging the man, Knox, and not his statements.  You want to take the focus of what he said, and put the focus on why he said it.  This is a classical and false argument, in Latin “ad hominen”, and it is without merit an beneath you.

Steve Ahlquist:
“So, you’re talking about people who have fifty to one hundred sexual partners.  That can hardly be considered normal behavior.  But still, allowing that such people exist, and allowing that your math is correct, that’s still a reduction in AIDs, for a very cheap cost.”

No! Ia am talking about a person using 50 condoms and 100 condoms. The math is independent of the number of partners. We are talking about the safety rate of the condoms. By the way my math is correct and if you want to quote numbers you should know the basics otherwise it is the blind leading the blind with statements that are not factual.

Condoms are to ‘relations’ as seat belts are to driving.

Christiano:
If one hundred people with one hundred condoms were to randomly have sex with one hundred people in sub-Saharan Africa, where the rate of AIDs is currently 26.1% in the most affected country of Swaziland (all other countries have lower AIDs rates) then the chances of transmitting AIDs under this scenario is about one half of one percent.

Which is pretty damn good.

(http://www.avert.org/subaadults.htm)

To “Steve Alquist”.  I don’t pray at the alter of Science as you do.  Science can not fix the problem of humanism.  The humanist view of “Nothing is ever wrong. Sex at anytime, with any partner is perfectly fine…”, is the root of the AIDS problem.  Celibacy, that is “Sex only within the bonds of sacramental marriage”, is the only real fix for the global AIDS problem. 

Your prophylactic fix of using prophylactics to battle AIDS is a clear and present danger to humanity.  You and your ilk hurt and kill people by your simplistic utterances.  You may sit down now!

Jay,
Thank you for letting me sit down.  I don’t pray at the altar of science.  I do, however, use my brain to come to rational decisions.  I never said “Nothing is ever wrong. Sex at anytime, with any partner is perfectly fine…”
That would be a gross and foolish misrepresentation of my views. 

The truth is, condoms can diminish the spread of AIDs.  That’s all I’m saying.  The Pope, in using the research of Harvard researcher Edward Green, either mistakenly or deliberately misrepresented his research. Green himself stated, “I believe condoms should be made available to everyone. It should be, and as you say, the ABC strategy: Abstain, Be faithful, use a Condom.”

That’s good advice, but the Pope only wants to use the first two.  Like I said, when mistakes happen (and in this world we all occasionally fail spiritually) condoms may prevent true misery and pain.

One final thing.  The Pope is a very intelligent man, and I can’t believe that he read Green’s research and didn’t understand it.  That being the case, when the Pope misled people about the research, was he lying?

Steve Alquist, with all due respect, I am being honest and sincere.  You dismiss sanity for religious piousness.  You have to understand that what you believe IS your religion.  Your religion is Secular Humanism, and you follow the teachings of your religion very well.

As for condom use promoting the spread of HIV, look at some evidence (btw, thanks Barbara for posting this very informative site!)

# In Botswana, HIV prevalence among pregnant urban women rose from 27 percent to a staggering 45 percent from 1993 to 2001 as condoms sales tripled.  In Cameroon, adult HIV prevalence rose from 3 percent to 9 percent as condom sales rose from six million to 15 million during the same period [15].

# Cambodia instituted a “100% Condom Program” early on in its fight against AIDS.  Condom use rocketed from 99,000 in 1994 to 16 million in 2001.  Reported HIV infections more than kept pace, soaring from 14 in 1994 to more than 16,000 in 2001 [16].

# When United States Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders was Arkansas Health Director from 1987 to 1992, she pushed condoms by every means possible, including in 24 high schools.  The results were predictable.  The teen pregnancy rate in Arkansas rose 17 percent between 1989 to 1992, the syphilis rate among teenagers rose 130 percent, and the HIV rate rose 150 percent [17].

There were hundreds of examples.  I’ll be happy to post sources if you are interested.

So, Christians are WRONG to say abstinance saves lives, but Secular Humanists are RIGHT to say that condoms save lives?

No, Mr. Alquist, I am not foolish, I am correct, even if the answer does burn your ears.

It is truly amazing how Faith and Reason are complementary.
Correct understanding of compounding probabilities tells us that a 2% failure rate becomes rather large after 50 events. (36% chance of failure)
However, the 2% failure rate is only for perfect usage.
In reality, condom failure is much closer to 25% per event. (based on many studies of actual usage effectiveness)
It wouldn’t take many events to basically be guaranteed of contracting the virus.

In a population with HIV infection rates of 20%+, how in the world could you justify letting people go at it with those odds?
You either are trying to kill people, or you are blinded by your ideology and trying to justify your views with bad science.

Following the church’s beliefs (no sex outside of marriage) is without a doubt the most prudent policy.
Go ahead and try it.
Multiply 0% failure rate as many times as you want.

Secular humanism isn’t a religion the same way that being a vegetarian isn’t a religion. It’s a perspective. Not a faith. Lets keep that straight here. Please don’t confuse what counts as a religion.

“Condoms are to ‘relations’ as seat belts are to driving.”

As seat belts are to drunk driving, perhaps. The potential consequences of non-prophylactic sex between faithful partners are not analogous to a car crash.

@Kathy

Christians (Catholics, you mean) were never wrong for saying abstinence saves lives.

They’re wrong for saying condoms do not.

Ok! Mr. Steve Ahlquist, no one is apparently smart enough to convince you of your error in how you perceive the meaning behind the Popes message. The only way for you to understand, is to humble yourself, and simply learn what God’s message and intent for us, as human beings, is.  I can assure you, no matter what stats you introduce into this argument, the ultimate answer is to stop the sinful behavior causing the problem. Period.  If you love life as much as God, Jesus, and yes the Pope, than you will understand his comments.  Go, read the Bible, study the words of God, expose yourself to Jesus and his teachings, and then come back in a month, or two, or three, and I guarantee you will have a change of heart.  I will pray for your soul.

Barbara:

The site you are referencing (http://www.hli.org/index.php/about/hli-programs/320?task=view) is not exactly neutral in its outlook.  In fact, it’s slanted and pointedly anti-condom, pro-Catholic.  The statistics and sources I used were the CDC, the Center for Disease Control, which is the United States government institution charged with tracking just this kind of information. Your sources are simply a list of anti-condom studies.

That being said, this becomes an intractable argument:  You’ve produced experts I believe are hopelessly biased, and I’ve produced experts you believe are hopelessly biased.  The discussion becomes a stalemate.

But an additional point does occur to me.  You claim that I am dismissive of religion, and that is not completely true.  I just prefer facts and evidence.  In producing your own “facts and evidence” instead of relying on religious truth as given to you by the Church, aren’t you in a sense agreeing with me that facts matter more than religious revelation?  When push came to shove you didn’t believe blindly, you used your brain, did the research, and attempted to prove your point.  I would encourage you to continue this practice.

Steve, I think you have a sexual sin that is enslaving you and keeping you from seeing the truth.  You can’t control yourself because your enslaved to your sin and so you can’t see how anyone else could not be enslaved to it as well.  Which is why you can’t see chastity (which is a virtue and a proper understanding of sexuality) as the only 100% solution and condoms as the false saftey net.

@Jennifer Olson

Are you serious? Chastity is the proper understanding of sexuality? With all due respect, human nature has proven you wrong a million times over.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32884806/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/

At this point, your pipe dream needs to yield to practicality.

Well, this is certainly a reflection on what the non-believers said about Jesus Christ. Jesus worked among the very people they are talking about to get them to “Repent and sin no more”. By any other name a sin against nature is still a sin. Pope Benedict XVI is following in the footsteps of Jesus Christ and has not changed the law since that day some 2000 years ago. One might believe that the advisers are anti-Catholic. I would ask the question, should a Pedifile be welcomed as just another person only different? I think not. Society as a whole knows that the Pope is correct and is only trying to help society.

Steve Alquist, you write:
“In producing your own “facts and evidence” instead of relying on religious truth as given to you by the Church, aren’t you in a sense agreeing with me that facts matter more than religious revelation?  When push came to shove you didn’t believe blindly, you used your brain, did the research, and attempted to prove your point.  I would encourage you to continue this practice.”
From where I stand, the question as asked is hopelessly muddled. You assume that “facts” are one thing and “religious revelation” is something else, that “relying on religious truth” = “believing blindly,” that “using your brain” reduces revelation to secondary significance.
As a Catholic, I don’t know how to appropriate “religious truth” without “using my brain.” Perhaps faith doesn’t work the way you seem to think it does.

“Are you serious? Chastity is the proper understanding of sexuality? With all due respect, human nature has proven you wrong a million times over.”
Assuming we’re both clear on the definition of chastity, how exactly has “human nature” proved that? I see no such “proof” in the url you cite.

Phillip:

First of all, even the anti-condom pro-Catholic website referenced by Barbara (http://www.hli.org/index.php/about/hli-programs/320?task=view)) puts the total failure rate for all condom use at 8.08%.  Your 25% statistic is simply untrue.  And if using them wrong is part of the problem, then instructions on proper use would help decrease that number.  Secondly, my example about the efficacy of condoms was not an exhortation to go out and do whatever you want sexually.  I still think that teaching people about the virtues of monogamy and abstinence are valuable.  But even a 25% failure rate and a 25% AIDs rate only translates to a 6.25% transmission rate.  Without condoms, the transmission rate would presumably be 25%.  So condoms, even using your numbers, reduce AIDs by 75%.

Claiming I want to kill people is rather insulting, because nothing could be further from the truth. I don’t accuse you of wanting to kill people because you want to outlaw condoms.

“But even a 25% failure rate and a 25% AIDs rate only translates to a 6.25% transmission rate.  Without condoms, the transmission rate would presumably be 25%.  So condoms, even using your numbers, reduce AIDs by 75%.”
Isn’t that calculation simplistic without taking risk compensation into account?

Steven D. Greydanus:

I couldn’t agree with you more.  Belief without reason is thin gruel.  But previous to presenting facts, Barbara and others on this site seemed to simply depend on truth being whatever the Pope said it was, and name calling those who disagreed.  I was careful to use the words “religious revelation” instead of “faith” for a reason.  Faith is something I would never think of questioning in someone else.  But beliefs that impact the world and lives of others need to be rigorously decided through science and logic.  These should not be bad words around here:  Barbara attempted to use science and logic, and so have many other people commenting.

@Olson

Whatever ideals we have about waiting for the right time and fighting urges is just a grandiose dream. What you said is like saying that going to college is the proper understanding of survival. It’s one choice, certainly the best choice out of many, but how is that any kind of standard to set? Sexual education and the use of condoms do more to fight the spread of STIs than abstinence education does alone simply because you can never expect everybody to see sex the same why you do and then hold themselves to the standards you believe in.

Steve, until you read Pope Paul’s encyclical “HUMANAE VITAE”, Pope John Paul II’s essay “Theology of the Body” and Pope Benedict’s encyclical “DEUS CARITAS EST”, and then really understand them, I would entreat you not to chastise Catholics or the Pope about anything concerning the Church’s moral teaching and prohibition of the use of condoms…especially on a Catholic board.

You do not know what you do not know, but act otherwise. 

The use of condoms promotes un-safe sex practices and unhealthy attitudes towards sexuality in general.  Sex outside sacramental marriage is a recipe for physical, mental, and spiritual ailments.

“Isn’t that calculation simplistic without taking risk compensation into account?”
No, it’s a fair assessment. It gets simplistic when you imagine that there are tons of people perfectly happy with celibacy until they hear about condoms and then think everything is safe now. It’s infinitely more likely that people who are already engaging would begin to use condoms and provide each new partner protection from the disease they may or may not be already carrying.

Steve Alquist:

While I acknowledge I haven’t been following this discussion, it looks to me like Barbara’s very first comment cited statistics and didn’t mention the pope. I can’t see that anyone cited the pope regarding the consequences of condom use or non-use prior to your strange first post in which you challenged Barbara, apparently randomly, on whether the pope was a biologist or life scientist. What am I missing?

Steven D. Greydanus:
All the numbers being bandied about here are rather simplistic, and I’d rather not go there, but I opened the can accidentally when I mentioned the CDC’s 2% failure rate for condoms.  (Actually, the CDC says that condoms are 98-99% effective in preventing the transmission of AIDS.)

Adam,
“No, it’s a fair assessment.”
So Green is wrong about the actual statistical results of risk compensation in Africa?

Steven D. Greydanus
In my next post I point out and apologize for citing Barbara when I actually meant Dave.

Before that, the comments were more concerned with Obama bashing and knocking Harry Knox because he was gay.

“So Green is wrong about the actual statistical results of risk compensation in Africa?”

I said nothing even close to that. I read his research and he says that sexual education and “partner reduction” made the biggest and quickest difference in the reduction of HIV/AIDs. This I cannot argue. It was hardly a statement on statistics involved in condom reliability and almost 100% a comment on the use of human resources as a major tool, as opposed to manufactured consumables, in the worlds more hellish regions.

Jay,

Recommending a bunch of books that I need to read before I’m fit to comment here is rather insulting.  Suppose I told you to read Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style and the complete works of Christopher Hitchens before you could claim the right to post here.  As to this being a Catholic forum, it is the forum of a Catholic News Organization, and I feel I have the right to comment when the organization spreads mistruths.

Steve Alquist,
But in your previous post to me you implicated Barbara. Did you mean Dave again?

Steven D. Greydanus

Edward Green himself stated to the BBC, “I believe condoms should be made available to everyone. It should be, and as you say, the ABC strategy: Abstain, Be faithful, use a Condom.”

Yes, the idea that people might engage in riskier behavior if they think they are safe has been measured in the case of condoms and AIDs, but this is a failure of education and information, isn’t it?  Risk compensation when it comes to seat belts (I’ll drive worse when I’m strapped in) can be mitigated by telling me that it’s a bad idea.

Abstain, Be faithful, use a Condom.  I ask again, what’s so wrong with that?

Adam,
“I said nothing even close to that.”
Green has said that risk compensation does impact the effectiveness of condoms in Africa. You seemed to suggest that it was ridiculous to suggest that risk compensation had such an impact. How is that “not even close”?

“Abstain, Be faithful, use a Condom.  I ask again, what’s so wrong with that?”
It’s a good and fair question. Wish I had time to answer it now, but I’m off. Cheers.

religion is a criminal endeavor and you should all be in prison for foisting your infantile fairytale on humanity, all for scamming people out of money, you mendacious, pernicious parasites

Steven D. Greydanus
“Green has said that risk compensation does impact the effectiveness of condoms in Africa. You seemed to suggest that it was ridiculous to suggest that risk compensation had such an impact. How is that “not even close”?”

Just went through his paper again. Condoms still do what they’re supposed to. Whatever impact you’re alluding to never causes the effect of condoms to be a negative one. Only minimally effective in certain arenas. Condoms worked in Thailand and Cambodia. It says so right in his paper.

@ Alquist and Adam
What do you say to someone who contracts AIDs after using a condom?  Sorry I ENCOURAGED you to do it by handing you a condom, and told you it will keep you safe?  There is no next time for them, either.

The mission statement of all Secular Humanists: ” I know you feel religiously obligated to believe the way you do despite all evidence, but your basing your beliefs on simplistic religious belief instead of hard won knowledge and thought.”

What you BELIEVE is your religion, whether you are aware of it, or not.  Secular Humanists believe God doesn’t matter, they will take care of everything themselves.  Sorry, you can’t just dismiss someone’s point of view because of their religion.  You are doing the same here, espousing your own religion.  You have to listen to the merits of peoples arguments on this forum.  Abstinance triumphs over condoms every time, for every reason, even if you don’t like it.

@ Katy, dont you know what you’re talking about? Condoms have shown that by use, STD transfer drops quite a considerable amount. along with responsible actions, africa will be aids free

@ keith
I do know what I’m talking about, you just don’t like the message.
“Condoms have shown that by use, STD transfer drops quite a considerable amount.” Abstinance has shown that by use, STD drops COMPLETLEY.

“along with responsible actions” - now you’re getting closer!

If someone is going to do something, they may as well do it as responsibly as possible. You may disagree with someone else’s choices in their sex life, e.g. pre-marital sex and etc., but the point is that if they are determined to do it then they should protect themselves. Of course not having sex will prevent STDs, you can’t get a sexually transmitted disease without intercourse just like you can’t get a disease that is spread in food if you don’t eat. If you eat you should prepare the food hygienically. If you have sex you should do so with protection. End of story.

“What do you say to someone who contracts AIDs after using a condom?  Sorry I ENCOURAGED you to do it by handing you a condom, and told you it will keep you safe?”

yeah, because right after I get a vaccine i go and roll around on a measles infected child.

you do get some of these women have no say in if they have sex or not with there husbands right? to a vast majority of these men women are simply property. not all. but some.

what about the sex workers? they _will_ be having sex. you can make it illegal all you want. doesn’t matter. it _will_ be happening.

lets see if you can get how this works in the same context.

me: you know, if you drive with a seatbelt you will be less likely to die in a collision.

you: but if you never drive you will be safe entirely!

see how that works?

yes, abstinence is the best policy. yes we should be telling them that. but not providing the condoms and explaining there use and giving them out when asked is plain and simply _STUPID_.

The pope is killing these people. his DIRECT ACTION is leading to deaths. thats no joke. no kidding. no exaggeration. his actions are leading to more people dying then would have died otherwise.

Now if you had a suggestion that _worked_ i would be all for it. until then the correct action is to do what we know works.

May God reward Steven D. Greydanus!  I rarely read these comments, yet I was struck by this article’s.  I find it wonderful to see a National Catholic Register Correspondent answering the call to present true Church Teaching.

The problem is pure and simple, many people do not understand the meaning of sex, if they do, they may change their position of argument. How could someone compare sex with food, if do not eat, you will die within days; but that is not the case with sex, not having sex for life will not kill you. Sex is not a matter of life and death unlike food. Nobody complain about not having sex in Haiti, but they complain of the lack of food, medicine and the initial uncordinated distribution of essentials. Please, let us stop and think for a while.

GOD IS NOT DEAD
-Just never existed

Steve, Jack, Adam & Zabigboga
Simply put you have no faith.  You are all seeped in sin and the Truth will never penetrate your darkness until you ask God for His help.  I pity you because I know there is no way up for you unless God helps you and you four are too proud to ask for it.  You think you are more clever than everyone else here on this blog, and this is evident in every word you wrote.  But in reality what you think is your cleverness, is really the deceit of your sin keeping you forever stuck, which makes you a fool.  Which one of you said you need to set us straight because we are spreading lies and deceiving people?  What arrogance against God!  As if having faith and an intellect is an oxymoron.  God made the world, the universe, and the infinite.  He owns the science, the philosophy, the math, the intellect, and the theology.  So there is zero conflict between what His Church teaches and faith, reason, science, etc.  He is Omnipotent.  He has given us everything we need to know Him.  He is Truth and thus cannot deceive.  Therefore, it is only reasonable to take Him at His Word and trust Him.  You are fortunate He is also patient, considering His will is the only thing keeping your sub-atomic particles in motion.  And by the time you find this out after your death, it will be too late for you.  Sorry to tell you, we don’t all go to Heaven.  God’s Mercy and Justice are one in the same and He won’t make you be around Him if you don’t want to.  So if you reject Him here and are not Obedient in Faith, you will reject Him after you die as well.  He doesn’t send you to Hell, you choose it because being in Hell would be less Hellish for you than being around God.  Isn’t choice wonderful!?!  And that’s why the decision at that point is final.  I give the four of you to Mary now.  Let her intercede for you on your behalf to her son, Jesus Christ.  Gloria in Excelsis Deo!

I think this discussion has failed to make a crucial distinction: The reason condom use is a sin is not the reason why condom use encourages the spread of AIDS and the like. The Church teaches that condoms are wrong for one reason, while Pope Benedict is saying that they allow for the spread of HIV for another.

The reason the Church teaches that Condoms are wrong is not because they kill people…they kill the soul. The end of the sexual act is reproduction not pleasure, and the church teaches that when the sexual act is engaged in merely for pleasure without openness to procreation this is a sin, a perversion of nature consequent to original sin. And even if a condom could save the life of a person engaging in the sexual act…is it better to suffer the death of the body or the death of the soul? But then we’d have to argue an entire encyclopedia of talking points with the materialist.

But this is not what made Pope Benedict say that Condoms are conducive to spreading the HIV virus.  Condoms encourage promiscuity because they promise sexual enjoyment without the dangers of spreading a virus or having kids. People will engage in sex more frequently when the responsibility of raising a child afterwards is removed. And since Condoms don’t provide that 100% foolproof assurance, by encouraging promiscuity they are bound to increase the risks people take facing HIV/AIDS. I think Benedict is using common sense. Condoms encourage habits which are conducive to the spread of the virus. And he says this without reference to the Church’s teaching that condom use is a sin. I actually think that the statistics being evoked are secondary to this discussion which aught to treat men and women as human beings, not merely machines, understanding the more wide spread effects of condom use.

I have a question.  The article states that Pope B16 decided not to PROMOTE condoms in Africa.  Is he actually stopping any governmental agency from doing anything?  Or, is he simply doing his job as Pope, and encouraging people to make the morally, and physically correct choice?

Just heard that Thomas Peters will be on FOX tonight at 9 EST to talk about the attack on Pope Benedict by Harry Knox.

It ought to be interesting!

Marty-That’s the way I read it, too.  SOMEONE has to be supporting the side of reason here.  First and foremost, abstinence IS the ONLY way to keep AIDS from spreading.  Condoms are not 100 percent effective. [Ask a condom-supporter if they would personally don a condom and have sex with an AIDS-infected person ;-]
The Pope is NOT hurting anyone by promoting abstinence.  Put the responsibility where it lies – on the people themselves.  And, if they are victims – help them from being victims.  Don’t just leave them a victim with a condom in their pocket.

May God help us to impeach Obama and his Administration for the corruption and lies he has done to our faith and our country. Amen

OK, last question.  Who are the people on the “panel” behind Knox, and why does one of them have a paper bag over his head?

re Marty

He is funding campaigns that spread disinformation. like that condoms spread aids and he is saying that they do not work and he is spending money to disrupt the distribution of condoms.

He thinks his religion has the right to control others.
He doesn’t seem to get, many of the commentors here don’t seem to get, Catholics do not rule the world. there religion does not rule the world. What you DO rule is many hearts and minds. If he would demonstrate true compassion and advocate abstinence etc etc while ALSO working to save these men women and children then it would be a different story. I would be cheering him on even as i denounce his religion.
The difference is convincing someone ‘this is evil and bad do not do it’, versus ‘this is evil and bad, i will FORCE you not to do it’.
Did jesus go to the politicians to force them to change how people act? or did he….PREACH? which is the appropriate action?

hell, if all he was saying was ‘do not have premarital sex, don’t do these things. they are bad’ I would be all for the guy. but no. he has to lie about condoms. he has to work to stop the work of humanitarians who are protecting people. no he has to actively do things that kill people. that is what he is doing.

Who cares what that POS says?  He will be a bad memory soon.

Arthur claims: “[The Pope] has to actively do things that kill people. that is what he is doing. “
Explain how speaking the truth is “actively killing people.” 
As I see it, handing someone a condom is closer to “actively killing people” than speaking the truth is.  (Especially if the person you hand the condom to is already infected with AIDS.)

re: Arther

“he has to lie about condoms”
Apparently, Arther, you wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you on the nose.

re: Marty

> “Apparently, Arther, you wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you on the nose.”

It’s ‘Arthur’ and apparently you can’t bother to do any research:

  1. CDC. Condoms and Their Use in Preventing HIV Infection and Other STDs.  Atlanta, GA: CDC, 1999.
  2. CDC. Male Latex Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Atlanta, GA: CDC, 2002.
  3. Hatcher RA et al. Contraceptive Technology, 18th rev. ed. New York: Ardent Media, 2004.
  4. Holmes KK et al. Effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted infections. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2004; 82:454-461+.
  5. Hogewoning CJA et al. Condom use promotes regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and clearance of human papillomavirus: a randomized clinical trial. International Journal of Cancer 2003; 107:811-816.
  6. de Vincenzi I. A longitudinal study of human immunodeficiency virus transmission by heterosexual partners. New England Journal of Medicine 1994; 331:341-346.
  7. Wawer MJ et al. Declines in HIV Prevalence in Uganda: Not as Simple as ABC. Presentation at the 12th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, February 22-25, 2005, Boston, Massachusetts; http://www.retroconference.org/2005/CD/Abstracts/25775.htm; accessed 3/2/2005.
  8. Walboomers JMM et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. Journal of Pathology 1999; 189:12-19.
  9. Weinstock H et al. Sexually transmitted diseases among American youth: incidence and prevalence estimates, 2000. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 2004; 36:6-10.
  10. American Cancer Society. What Are the Key Statistics about Cervical Cancer? Washington, DC: The Society, 2004.
  11. Winer RL et al. The Effect of Consistent Condom Use on the Risk of Genital HPV Infection among Newly Sexually Active Young Women, presented at the 16th Biennial Meeting of the International Society for Sexually Transmitted Diseases Research, July 10-13, 2005, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  12. Baldwin SB et al. Condom use and other factors affecting penile human papillomavirus detection in men attending a sexually transmitted disease clinic. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 2004;31:601-607.
  13. Chin-Hong PV et al. Condoms Prevent Incident Anal Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Infection in Men: the Explore Study, presented at the 16th Biennial Meeting of the International Society for Sexually Transmitted Diseases Research, July 10-13, 2005, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  14. Bleeker MC et al. Condom use promotes regression of human papillomavirus-associated penile lesions in male sexual partners of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. International Journal of Cancer 2003; 107:804-810.
  15. Chaya N, Amen KA. Condoms Count: Meeting the Need in the Era of HIV/AIDS. Washington, DC: Population Action International, 2002.
  16. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Condom availability for adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health 1996; 18:380-383.
  17. Guttmacher S et al. Condom availability in New York City public high schools: relationships to condom use and sexual behavior. American Journal of Public Health 1997; 87:1427-1433.
  18. Blake SM et al. Condom availability programs in Massachusetts high schools: relationships with condom use and sexual behavior. American Journal of Public Health 2003; 93:955-962.
  19. Furstenberg FF et al. Does condom availability make a difference? An evaluation of Philadelphia’s health resource centers. Family Planning Perspectives 1997; 29:123-127.
  20. CDC. Condom availability as a prevention strategy. CDC Update 1997 (February):[1-2].
  21. American Academy of Pediatrics. Condom availability for youth. Pediatrics 1995; 95:281-285.
  22. American Medical Association. Update on AMA Policies on human sexuality and family life education [H-170.974] HOD Policy 1997. Chicago, IL: AMA, 1997.
  23. Committee on Prevention and Control of Sexually Transmitted Diseases. The Hidden Epidemic: Confronting Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997.

Yes abstinence is 100% safe (well not according to christians =-D sorry couldn’t resist) but shouldn’t we be doing everything we can do reduce the problem? or at LEAST not make things worse? Advocating that the people shouldn’t be havign sex is a NOBLE goal. I have nothing against this. It would be nice if he did things that are suggested by science that improve things (like comprehensive sex education programs) but it’s against the catholic religion. I get that. Want I _don’t_ get is why anyone things there religion gives them the right to spread false information, manipulate governments, and spend money to directly cause the pain and suffering of others. This isn’t trying to bring people to your religion. This isn’t love the sinner hate the sin here. This is hate the sin, decide to manipulate and force the sinner even if it means people die.

The pope thinks he is right (that is fine) and he thinks that gives him the right to do things which end up killing people. That is not.

re cheryl:

> “Explain how speaking the truth is “actively killing people.””

That doesn’t. When he says abstinence is the only sure way not to pass the decease on, he isn’t lying. he is being 100% absolutely completely and utterly correct.

That’s not what I have an issue with.

What i have an issue with is when he puts pressure on governments so they will not spend as much on aids prevention in areas because he doesn’t like condom use. I get it. not part of your religion. That is fine. More power to you. That kind of stand up ethic will at least let people know you follow and believe your religion and might even gain you some converts.

how is that helping the woman now who _must_ by _law_ be willing to have sex with her aids infected husband? how does that help?

how does it help when he says, despite all scientific evidence which shows him to be wrong, that condoms make the situation WORSE?

> “(Especially if the person you hand the condom to is already infected with AIDS.)”

The person we MOST want to have a condom is the infected individual who will be having sex no matter what anyone says. You don’t think there are selfish self centered and reckless individuals in the world? you don’t think they will be having sex no matter who or how it hurts people?

could we at least TRY and get them to be a little safer? just maybe?

Here is the question. do you offer assistance to those in need who do things you think are wrong all the while informing them that they are wrong and need to stop (wow sounds something like a famous preacher once did, who was that again?). do you tell them they are doing something sinful but don’t hinder or help them. or do you actively do things which will cause them to die while also telling them they are sinners.

guess which one i vote for. guess which one would be rude but at least a moral stance. guess which one the pope is for.

Re: Arthur

Thank you for your exhaustive list.  However, it is a list of “promiscuis behavior with condoms VS promiscuis behavior without condoms.”

Our discussion here is “teaching abstinance vs. handing out condoms” in trying to stop the spread of HIV.

If you are still reading this post, I will attach an equally exhaustive list that supports PROMISCUITY as the PROBLEM, and handing out condoms simply encourages promiscuity. Teaching abstinance is the BEST method for stopping the spread of HIV.

I find your personal attacks on the Holy Father very inflamitory.  He is right, whether you can see it or not.  You think that because he is not FUNDING condom distribution, he is hurting ppl? He is not the polical leader in any African country.  Those who would listen to him, would be safe.  Those who would not listen, can get their condoms from the gov, and continue to spread the disease, and kill themselves and others.  Who is “helping the sinner” more?  To help doesn’t mean to condone what is wrong, and enable the sinner to continue.  To help means to show the sinner that he/she is wrong, why they are wrong, and show them a better way for them to CHOOSE.  THIS IS LOVE THE SINNER, HATE THE SIN.  Your position is “the sin is ok, the sinner is ok, so let’s put a bandaid on the natural effects of the sin.”

I ask: “Explain how speaking the truth is “actively killing people.”
Arthur’s reply: “That doesn’t. When he says abstinence is the only sure way not to pass the decease on, he isn’t lying. he is being 100% absolutely completely and utterly correct. That’s not what I have an issue with.”
So, Arthur actually agrees WITH the Pope…but then he says, “...he [the Pope] has to lie about condoms.”
That kind of “logic” baffles me.

Arthur adds: “What i have an issue with is when he puts pressure on governments so they will not spend as much on aids prevention in areas because he doesn’t like condom use. I get it.”
No, Arthur, IS NOT getting it.
See, the Pope is NOT advocating doing NOTHING.  He IS supporting AIDS prevention – REAL prevention.  Prevention that WORKS.

Arthur again: “Here is the question. do you offer assistance to those in need who do things you think are wrong all the while informing them that they are wrong and need to stop…do you tell them they are doing something sinful but don’t hinder or help them. or do you actively do things which will cause them to die while also telling them they are sinners.”
The Pope IS addressing the AIDS problem.  The thing he IS NOT doing, however, is offering FALSE HOPE with condoms – as they DO actively cause people to die.
Arthur - you imply that the condom promoters DO explain to the people that “they are wrong and need to stop.” Do they REALLY pass along the message that abstinence and chastity are the only way to overcome AIDS?

So many have written about the plight of a wife who is married to an AIDS infected man, suggesting that she can be safe through the use of condoms.  There are two major problems with this logic.  The first is the belief that because she has condoms he will use them.  It has been well documented that this rarely happens.  The second problem is that by the time anyone knows that he has AIDS, she has probably already caught it.  So how is handing out condoms going to do her any good at all?

I would love it if we had a national forum where we could just laugh at these rediculous statements so people could see that they are hollow. More and more I just burst out laughing when I hear such things. I think that is the kind of response that Hilaire Belloc was suggesting when he said the arguements and fight against the truth of the faith should be fought with ridicule and the truth made fashionable. laugh at the sillyness of the statement but not the sinner who made it. for him, and ourselves, we prey.

@ michael konieczny:
You suggest that there should be some sort of national forum where the faithful can simply laugh at the opinions of those who hold opposing views on a national forum where the faithful can laugh at the opinions of those who hold opposing views. 

Also, reviving the specter of anti-Semite, anti-capitalist, and anti-evolutionist Hilaire Belloc to bolster the argument that argument is unnecessary since the faithful can simply laugh away dissent does little to make the case that you actually have any case to make.

Finally: Though I don’t take much stock in the theories of Freud, you did make a delightful and revealing Freudian Slip when you used the word “prey” instead of “pray”.  Those of us who feel that religion does more harm than good in the world often feel preyed upon by the vast majority of people in the world who believe in irrational concepts such as God and miracles.

I read what you posted in reply and I can’t make much sense of it. You state the obvious by saying that I said a forum would be nice but seem to miss the point. And then you do it again by pointing out that I credit Belloc with the notion, though I didn’t elaborate, and appear to try to discredit Belloc. But again, you don’t really make any sort of point. Just name calling. I have not seen anything to suggest Belloc is an anti-Semite. If you might direct me to it I will review it. Though I figure your understanding of whatever he might have to say on the matter is as poorly considered as the anti-capitalist comment. Not that he is not critical of capitalism but that your understanding of his criticism is not well thought out.
Why a miss spelling would be understood as a Freudian slip in this context is a reach. Especially in the manor in which make it so.

@ michael konieczny:
I never condescended to name calling.  I was simply pointing out the irony I saw in your comment.  This website is a national forum, and you are calling for a national forum on a national forum, apparently without realizing it.

Hillaire Belloc, in a book entitled The Servile State, advocated an economic system he termed distributism in opposition to both capitalism and socialism. He was in fact opposed to capitalism. On the anti-Semetic accusation there is mixed evidence.  Many feel that Belloc liked Jews on a personal level, but disliked the group as a whole.  Here’s an actual Belloc quote, “I’m not an anti-Semite. I love ‘em, poor dears. Get on very well with them. My best secretary was a Jewess. Poor darlings — it must be terrible to be born with the knowledge that you belong to the enemies of the human race.”  So in high minded, condescending style he considered Jews to be the enemies of the human race, because of the crucifixion.

Finally, the Freudian slip comment was a little joke.  You can prey upon people, or pray for people.  You wrote ‘For him, and ourselves, we prey”, Which could be interpreted either way.  Like I said, a joke.

You made a statement that you wish religious people possessed a forum to laugh at the stupidity of those who don’t believe, and in so doing revealed yourself as being worthy of being laughed at.  When I poked fun at your statements you revealed that you live in a glass house, able to dish out derision but unable to handle it when directed at you.

And that’s funny.

Steve, you are really funny. That was good stuff. I can see the irony now in your Freudian slip joke. You are actually funny, where I typically only think I am funny, most times. And I often, as you pointed out, live in a glass house. This is a national forum, but not as public as I have in mind. The audience is limited, I think, and mostly the choir. You didn’t take advantage of my poor grammar in the last one. Thank you for that charity.
Belloc strikes me as very generous in his assessment of things. His portrait of culture and civilization is in gradations, as I understand them. He puts them in terms of closer to or farther from Catholic; farther being less desirable. That being the case would he not be accurate in his comment on Jews? It might equally apply to heresy. And apply to all my own derisiveness and stone throwing, as you pointed out.  At this point in our history it does seem that jewish would be a culture and religion that is not supposed to be because it was incarnate in Christ and should now be the Chruch, no? And an enemy to the human race? It might be a statement lacking qualifiers but not wholly inaccurate. Not as clearly understandable as GK Chesterton’s response to the reporter who asked him was what was wrong with the world? To which he replied, “I am what is wrong with it.” However, I think there might be more in what Belloc is saying then it appears. It does sound harsh, but some of your comments about my statements where harsh but looking at them I think are more true then it first appeared to me. So do you think he is an anti Semite in the negative sense that the term usually implies or in a true sense that Jewish is not something that should be encouraged, but that the full truth in Christ should?  Is your general assessment of Belloc a negative one? Who might you be partial too? I kind of like the chap.

Ahem, Steve…secularists DO NOT have the market cornered on lower-order beliefs (beliefs based on reason and evidence). As example, religious worldviews can usually explain free-will, consciousness, conceptual thought, the self, and the rationality of the universe with much more reasonable and rational arguments than secularists can. [Case in point, atheist Daniel Dennett’s ‘scientific’ explanation of consciousness: Consciousness does not exist. People are not conscious and consequently have no feelings and intentions.]
All worldviews, secular AND religious, contain higher-order and lower-order beliefs.  Just because a religious worldview might include a higher-order belief in miracles, one cannot excuse the lower-order beliefs (such as the existence of human nature or an objective moral order) of said religious worldview.  Also, many would say claim belief in God to be a lower-order belief, based on ability explain God through use of reason.
(By the way, doesn’t your logic seem to dismiss atheism using the “more harm than good” criterion?)

This guy needs to be dismissed from his job.

It’s like putting Lenin in charge of the President’s Committe to Build Capitalism.

What’s sad is that Obama approves of his view.  Hurry up 2012!

“(such as the existence of human nature or an objective moral order)”

ROFL human nature sure. objective moral order? point to it please. morality is SUBJECTIVE it always has been. it’s not objective and it’s easy enough to show. TOUCH objective morality for me would you? TASTE it would you? SMELL it would you? LOOK at it would you?

it’s IN THE MIND that means it’s subjective. It’s even subjective in the second sense of the word. as in it changes over time. don’t agree? when was the last time you stoned someone to death? when was the last time you DIDN’T cut your hair? when was the last time you DID cut your hair (don’t know what i’m talking about? read your bible your both shameful if you fail to cut your hair and sinning if you DO)

Don’t confuse subjective with useless though. They are not the same thing.

“No, Arthur, IS NOT getting it.
See, the Pope is NOT advocating doing NOTHING.  He IS supporting AIDS prevention – REAL prevention.  Prevention that WORKS. “

so he is promoting condom use?

and maybe pushing for governments to change laws about forcing women into sex with there aids infected husbands? or maybe he is pushing to educate people about how they shouldn’t have sex with virgins unprotected in order to ‘cure’ themselves?

no?

oh yeah he is instead spending it on abstinence only education and pushing to stop condom programs.

It’s simple people. His religion is more important then these peoples lives. thats fine. it’s his religion. don’t pretend he is helping though. he is DIRECTLY causing death and suffering because of his pushing against condom use. he could just shut up about this. but no. his religion and getting people to follow it is worth more then a few peoples lives.

@ Arthur
Surprised to still find you here.

Just a few thoughts as I read your 2 recent posts.  Have you ever thought about what will happen to you when you die?  It’s simple, really.  Heaven or hell.

Do you TRY to follow God’s precepts, or do you think you are more cleaver than God himself, and rail against His word?

Here’s a slice of objective morality for you.  Those who hate God, choose by their own volition to go to hell.

“TOUCH objective morality for me would you?” The licking flames will burn you.

“TASTE it would you?” No, no taste in hell.  Not even a drop of water to quench the thirst.

“SMELL it would you?” Sulfer so strong it burns the eyes and nose.

“LOOK at it would you?” You wouldn’t want to see.  Writhing tortured souls.

You forgot “Hear it would you?” Don’t forget the unending screams.

If you do not change your ways, and find yourself in hell, do you think you’ll believe in objective morality then?

“Truth in it’s essence is not something, it is somebody; his name is Jesus Christ.”

<sigh> Kathy. no thats called a false dichotomy. here watch. have you thought what happens after you die? It’s simple really, sheol or hates, or the abyss, or an infinite number of possible options. or nothing because I won’t exist. that truly is what i expect to happen. nothing. i will stop being. The I that I am will not experience anything because I will not exist.

“Do you TRY to follow God’s precepts, or do you think you are more cleaver than God himself, and rail against His word?”

No, Like darth vader I think he is fictional. I think I’m more cleaver then your god because I don’t think he exists. I don’t rail against his word because I don’t think he HAS a word. I don’t try to follow or rebel against his precepts because I don’t think he HAS any precepts. see? do you mean am I a good person? well sure, a sight better then most, not as good as some.

I love this ending part. fear fear fear now you should believe!

“TOUCH objective morality for me would you?” The crushing depths of Poseidon’s realm will convince you.

“TASTE it would you?” You will drown forever in the endless salt water of Poseidon’s realm.

“SMELL it would you?” the smell of salt and fish will forever be what you smell.

“LOOK at it would you?” The depths are dark and you will never see beyond them.

You forgot “Hear it would you?” the crushing depths will allow no sound, endless nothingness.

If you do not change your ways, and find yourself in Poseidon’s realm, do you think you’ll believe in objective morality then?

you don’t seem to get it. Fear does not sway me. a reasonable rational argument combined with evidence might (i’m after all human and subject to my own biases as well, i’m just better then most at this). We are starting from different assumptions. YOU are assuming jesus christ exists/existed that god exists/existed and yata yata yata so on and so forth. I’m _not_ starting with these assumptions. THOSE are what you need to convince me of. Just like your not going to convince a hindu by flat out saying ‘well jesus said so therefore you do it’. I know you may never have talked to someone who didn’t have the same brain washing as a child as you so you may never have had to try these arguments but thats what will be what is required to convince me. not fearmongering.

Lets try this another way. Say I where to assume objective morality DOES exist and more over your god exists.

IF there is an objective morality, is it because it is a trait of god? or is it what god decrees? if it is a trait of god then it exists INDEPENDENTLY of god, and your claims of god being the source of morality fails. IF instead it’s DECREED from god then it’s not objective, it’s subjective. it just happens to have the biggest stick behind it. in which case if the devil where more powerful then HE would have objective morality and the one decreeing it.

see a problem here?

furthermore IF god has it as a TRAIT then god is forced to do only good to neutral (despite what the bible says about him doing and causing evil).

even the most cursory glance at this shows the holes. the problems are these concepts of mutual absolutes that conflict.

Arthur, why are you here on this website “railing” against us?  “I don’t try to follow or rebel against his precepts” is what you said in your previous post yet here you are.  Says it all doesn’t it.  Because you are here, I don’t think anyone needs to convince you of the existence of God.  You came here of your own free will.  And if I were a psychologist, I’d say it’s because your subconscious wants to be convinced.  But I digress; you have an arrogance about yourself that is most offensive and very unattractive.  So if you are here to try to pull us knuckle dragging, superstitious, stupid people away from our faith, you’re failing miserably with the tone of your comments.  I’m not going to pretend to be smarter than you, Arthur, because I’m probably not.  And you know what, I don’t care.  Because in all your knowledge and wisdom you still haven’t figured out how to grow enough in virtue to live side by side with people you don’t agree with and talk about our differences without having a condescending discussion with endless posts rationalizing endless and uncontrolled mind wanderings about your opinions based on your subjective thoughts, that reveals how stupid you think all of us people of faith are.  If you really want to be convinced of God’s existence then go read some info from some other sources where you won’t be tempted to harass people of faith instead of exercising your muscles on people you know you can beat up with your ranting and wanderings, you bully.  And if converting all of us is your goal, then don’t try to take the high road and say you’re not railing against God, because to rail against people who do believe in Him, specifically because they do believe in Him, is to rail against Him in a roundabout way.  Don’t you have something better to do?  We’d like to be able to have freedom of assembly so we can discuss what matters to us.

Jennifer O. that was very well put!

Thanks Marty, I’m growing increasingly impatient with the endless posts by these people railing for homosexuality, contraception and abortions on our website.  It’s good to engage them in these talks, but at some point one has to assess their intentions and whether any common ground has been found or not.  When they go on and on with endless posts, and their points start to go round and round, it becomes apparent to me that they’re just here to exhaust everyone, disrupt the conversation and not really work toward any understanding.  Reminds me of my teenager.  I am very sorry for them that their sin is so great that they can’t see their way out of it.  I hope the Lord has mercy on them.  But continuing to harass everyone here by preventing us from having meaningful discussions about our faith and what our Lord wants us to know, and not allowing us freedom of assembly to commune with our fellow Catholics (all Christians) is unjust.  I hope the Lord will be merciful towards me if any of my words have been unkind to them, but justice demands temperance from them too.

Nicely done Jennifer. You have a much better grasp of tact and eloquence than I.  I would have simply called old “Arthur the Arrogant Troll” an idiot.  He is a typical liberal.  When I use the word liberal, I cannot adequately express my contempt for them in text.  I see these liberals as directly responsible for the moral decay of this once-great nation and our down-ward spiral into chaos.  THAT is what liberals do.  They degrade, attack, deconstruct, destroy any institution they can.  They are heartless and hollow inside…devoid of character.  I’m not quite sure of what Arthur’s hidden agenda is or why he’s on this site in the first place, but I sense an absence of hope in him.  How sad it must be to be him.  The amount of time and energy he spent trying to show how smart he thinks he is speaks volumes toward the kind of person he is and his place in society.  Arthur, I think I speak for everyone here when say “take your bile elsewhere”.  The problem with arrogance is that those who are arrogant cannot accept the fact that they are not as smart or insightful as they think they are. They, like Arthur, just say and think we all are too stupid to be in their world.