Non-denominational Christians

[eliasaph99]

it’s not good at all
if you’re going to argue about the morality, argue about the morality
don’t argue about the efficacy esp with cherry-picked figures out of context, used without the necessary scientific knowledge and understanding
and above all, don’t employ the illogical stance that anything less than 100% absolute protection is pointless - I mean do any of you guys dare risk crossing the road???

Ok. You must have missed the post I made earlier.

Here it is again, from the FDA website.

fda.gov/Fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html

The expected pregnancy rate for typical condom use is 14%. That means that among typical sexual encounters where a condom is used, 14 out of every 100 result in pregnancy. Guess what happens when a pregnancy occurs? Prior to it, there was an exchange of bodily fluids and hence a potential for STD infection.

Now, if I gave you a pistol and told you that there was a 14% chance it would go off if you pointed it at your head and pulled the trigger, but that every time it didn’t go off you’d get to have fun, would you do it?

 

[eliasaph99]

I’m confused
I did not say that condoms are perfect at any stage - just that this myth about condoms being full of holes should be stamped out
condoms are efficient in reducing transmission of HIV
even abstinence doesn’t provide absolute protection since HIV is not just sexually transmitted but parenterally transmitted
therefore there are a few ways of contracting HIV thru no fault of your own

Since I made the original comment about condoms having holes large enough for HIV to pass through, let me retract it. It appears that I was quoting outdated information. This appears to have been true at one time (say in the late 80’s to early 90’s), but is not true any longer.

Now, about what you’ve written above, let me say this — huh??

How is a person who is abstaining from sex going to pass an STD to their child? How did they get pregnant if they’re abstaining?

 

[jack_hawkins]

Since I made the original comment about condoms having holes large enough for HIV to pass through, let me retract it. It appears that I was quoting outdated information. This appears to have been true at one time (say in the late 80’s to early 90’s), but is not true any longer.

Now, about what you’ve written above, let me say this — huh??

How is a person who is abstaining from sex going to pass an STD to their child? How did they get pregnant if they’re abstaining?

If a whole generation was abstinent the human race would die out - so I think we can assume that wouldn’t be desirable?Human life is also a sexually acquired condition after all.
HIV isn’t solely sexually transmitted, it is parenterally transmitted. The mother could have had a blood transfusion for example. She could have got it from her husband despite being monogamous herself.
The simple fact is that HIV shouldn’t be blamed solely on lifestyles and used to judge victims. Let’s show Christian compassion and stop using their disease as a stick to beat them with.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Ok. You must have missed the post I made earlier.

Here it is again, from the FDA website.

fda.gov/Fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html

The expected pregnancy rate for typical condom use is 14%. That means that among typical sexual encounters where a condom is used, 14 out of every 100 result in pregnancy. Guess what happens when a pregnancy occurs? Prior to it, there was an exchange of bodily fluids and hence a potential for STD infection.

Now, if I gave you a pistol and told you that there was a 14% chance it would go off if you pointed it at your head and pulled the trigger, but that every time it didn’t go off you’d get to have fun, would you do it?

again using figures out of context
we know condoms used properly work well
figures for sustained condom use reflect use over one year, and consequently several episodes of condom use
14 pregnancies per 100 patient years does not equal a 14% failure rate!!!
plus you can’t take one set of figures and apply them to another population - it’s not scientifically sound
the biggest cause of condom failure is spatial separation - the condom isn’t on!
I am digressing, but it’s interesting that people will take FDA figures for typical pregnancy rates for condoms, but not for natural family planning, which doesn’t do very well at all!

 

[lak611]

If a whole generation was abstinent the human race would die out - so I think we can assume that wouldn’t be desirable?Human life is also a sexually acquired condition after all.
HIV isn’t solely sexually transmitted, it is parenterally transmitted. The mother could have had a blood transfusion for example. She could have got it from her husband despite being monogamous herself.
The simple fact is that HIV shouldn’t be blamed solely on lifestyles and used to judge victims. Let’s show Christian compassion and stop using their disease as a stick to beat them with.

Stressing that persons with HIV abstain from sex is not judging victims. No matter how they contracted the disease, it is in everybody’s best interest that they practise abstinence if they have HIV, from a moral and societal standpoint.

 

[nerfherder]

**I’M SORRY BUT IT MUST BE SAID THAT
FOR THE MOST PART:
WHAT A LOAD OF OLD
CODSWALLOPS!

READ, LEARN, DISCUSS BEFORE YOU MAKE A STATEMENT THAT MIGHT EMBARRASS YOU!**

 

[jmcrae]

If a whole generation was abstinent the human race would die out - so I think we can assume that wouldn’t be desirable?Human life is also a sexually acquired condition after all.

Faithful monogamous parents are not likely to have HIV.

HIV isn’t solely sexually transmitted, it is parenterally transmitted. The mother could have had a blood transfusion for example. She could have got it from her husband despite being monogamous herself.

Aren’t men supposed to be just as responsible for being chaste as women are?

The simple fact is that HIV shouldn’t be blamed solely on lifestyles and used to judge victims. Let’s show Christian compassion and stop using their disease as a stick to beat them with.

Nobody in this thread has done that. Nobody has said that it is a sin to have HIV. But it is a sin to use a condom.

A person with HIV needs to take responsibility not only for his or her own physical, mental and moral health, but also for the health of those around him or her.

Part of this responsibility includes abstaining from sex. Sex is not a necessity of life. No one with HIV will ever die from lack of sex.

 

[eliasaph99]

again using figures out of context
we know condoms used properly work well
figures for sustained condom use reflect use over one year, and consequently several episodes of condom use
14 pregnancies per 100 patient years does not equal a 14% failure rate!!!
plus you can’t take one set of figures and apply them to another population - it’s not scientifically sound
the biggest cause of condom failure is spatial separation - the condom isn’t on!
I am digressing, but it’s interesting that people will take FDA figures for typical pregnancy rates for condoms, but not for natural family planning, which doesn’t do very well at all!

I incorrectly phrased my middle point. However, 14% of women who wished to prevent pregnancy in a given year, failed when they used condoms as their primary method. This still means that out of 100 women using condoms as their primary method in a given year, at least 14 of them were exposed to the bodily fluids of a partner. Hence were potentially exposed to STD’s.

Seeing as how these statistics were compiled solely based on pregnancy rates, I think it reasonable to assume that the rate of actual bodily fluid contact was higher. This is reasonable because not every breach would result in pregnancy.

Now plainly, not every breach would result in STD contraction. First, the partner would have to be infected, and second, the virus or bacteria would have to be in the bodily fluid and not be defeated by the potential infectee’s immune system.

So fine, I incorrectly mistated a figure. I still believe that these numbers show that it is irresponsible to counsel people that condoms will keep them safe. From the above, we can see that about 14% of partners will be exposed to eachothers fluids. How many infections will result from that exposure?

I don’t know, but more than would result from abstinence.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

**I’M SORRY BUT IT MUST BE SAID THAT
FOR THE MOST PART:
WHAT A LOAD OF OLD
CODSWALLOPS!

READ, LEARN, DISCUSS BEFORE YOU MAKE A STATEMENT THAT MIGHT EMBARRASS YOU!**

You mean like your post?

Iowa Mike

 

[eliasaph99]

If a whole generation was abstinent the human race would die out - so I think we can assume that wouldn’t be desirable?Human life is also a sexually acquired condition after all.
HIV isn’t solely sexually transmitted, it is parenterally transmitted. The mother could have had a blood transfusion for example. She could have got it from her husband despite being monogamous herself.
The simple fact is that HIV shouldn’t be blamed solely on lifestyles and used to judge victims. Let’s show Christian compassion and stop using their disease as a stick to beat them with.

First of all, I haven’t judged anyone.

Second of all, what is the rate of non-sexually acquired or drug-use acquired AIDS? In the U.S. the rate is about 2% of AIDS victims. I expect that the rest of the world will be somewhat higher, but not that much.

So, for the vast majority of those infected with HIV/AIDS, behavior is the primary vector. For most, it is their own behavior. For others it may be the behavior of their spouse, or partner, or rapist.

The behavior is what must be changed to stop the spread of the disease.

I believe wholeheartedly that abstinence before marriage and monogamy during marriage is the answer to this problem. That is to say, I believe that a fundamental change in behavioral patterns is what will change the disease.

If we break the primary transmission vector, the rate of new infections will drop dramatically.

True Christian compassion is to speak the truth with love. The truth is their behavior is killing them.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

I incorrectly phrased my middle point. However, 14% of women who wished to prevent pregnancy in a given year, failed when they used condoms as their primary method. This still means that out of 100 women using condoms as their primary method in a given year, at least 14 of them were exposed to the bodily fluids of a partner. Hence were potentially exposed to STD’s.

Seeing as how these statistics were compiled solely based on pregnancy rates, I think it reasonable to assume that the rate of actual bodily fluid contact was higher. This is reasonable because not every breach would result in pregnancy.

Now plainly, not every breach would result in STD contraction. First, the partner would have to be infected, and second, the virus or bacteria would have to be in the bodily fluid and not be defeated by the potential infectee’s immune system.

So fine, I incorrectly mistated a figure. I still believe that these numbers show that it is irresponsible to counsel people that condoms will keep them safe. From the above, we can see that about 14% of partners will be exposed to eachothers fluids. How many infections will result from that exposure?

I don’t know, but more than would result from abstinence.

Why are you all going on about the effectiveness of condoms…or any other artificial contraceptive?

Isn’t the moral implications of using any artificial contraceptive method outside of natural planning more to the point of the discussion?

Catholics object to the use of aritificial contraception on a moral grounds…others believe it is OK, so the effectiveness of any particular method is a side issue.

Where am I wrong?

Iowa Mike

 

[guanophore]

**I’M SORRY BUT IT MUST BE SAID THAT
FOR THE MOST PART:
WHAT A LOAD OF OLD
CODSWALLOPS!

READ, LEARN, DISCUSS BEFORE YOU MAKE A STATEMENT THAT MIGHT EMBARRASS YOU!**

What’s a codswallop? Anyway, people can’t be embarrassed until they realize they are off the wall, or whatever, so people here can talk out of the end all day long (and do, I notice) where the sun don’t shine and don’t feel a bit of embarassment!

I would like to point out that, while this is a very interesting thread, it probably belongs over in moral theology, and has LONG SINCE gone off topic!

I hope you are not calling your fellow members the load of codswallops, because namecalling is not aloud here.

 

[MrS]

I’M SORRY BUT IT MUST BE SAID THAT

FOR THE MOST PART:
WHAT A LOAD OF OLD
CODSWALLOPS!

READ, LEARN, DISCUSS BEFORE YOU MAKE A STATEMENT THAT MIGHT EMBARRASS YOU!

like your comments concerning the limitations of Christ and the morality of contraception etc,

 

[Janet_S]

One last observation here. I find it fascinating that by far the majority of posters have returned again and again to what the Church says, and their understanding of it. There has been virtually no discussion of the pandemic, and its global and humanitarian implications for us as Christians, except in terms of condoms and all that involves.

When you were confronted by the fall of the Twin Towers in New York, how did you react? Was your first reaction to say, wait, wait, let me think about how Christ and the Vatican would tell me to deal with this?

Or do you think those first firemen, many of them Irish and firmly Catholic, raced up those stairs to save as many lives as they could, in the end losing their own lives? They reacted to a crisis, responded, did what they could do, and died doing it.

Who is prepared to die for humanity, as Christ did? Or must we wait for instruction? Must we look to our own souls first, and then the lives and souls of others?

There’s nothing immoral about racing into a burning building to save someone. No Catholic would have to consult with the Vatican about this.

There’s nothing immoral about taking care of sick people, including those with HIV. Catholics have been running hospitals and caring for the sick at least since St Francis’ day. No Catholic would have to consult with the Vatican about this.

However, the use of condoms is immoral–the Church teaching is clear on this. As Catholics, we cannot condone the widespread promotion of condom use to combat the spread the HIV. It doesn’t matter that the intentions are good.

We continue to discuss condom use because you and Jack continue to bring up the subject as you try to “enlighten” us Catholics. The arguments you use (in defense of condom use) are framed the same way as those used to promote any number of morally illicit acts–abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and IVF. You are trying to promote it as a necessary way to relieve human suffering. But as Catholics, we do not look at it that way. A morally wrong act can never be justified no matter what the intention. The ends do not justify the means.

I think you and Jack must be attracted to Catholicism on some level or you wouldn’t be here. I do think it is strange, though, how you are both so unsettled when you come to this Catholic forum and find Catholics **who actually do believe what the Church **teaches. What did you expect to find here?

 

[Janet_S]

G.K Chesterton said something else too: One of the reasons he believed the Catholic Church was true was because “it made a definitive statement first and was proven right later.” I think *Humanae Vitae *is a sterling example of this.

Here’s some more Chesterton:
Why I Am A Catholic

chesterton.org/gkc/theologian/whycatholic.htm

Nine out of ten of what we call new ideas are simply old mistakes. The Catholic Church has for one of her chief duties that of preventing people from making those old mistakes; from making them over and over again forever, as people always do if they are left to themselves. The truth about the Catholic attitude towards heresy, or as some would say, towards liberty, can best be expressed perhaps by the metaphor of a map. The Catholic Church carries a sort of map of the mind which looks like the map of a maze, but which is in fact a guide to the maze. It has been compiled from knowledge which, even considered as human knowledge, is quite without any human parallel.

There is no other case of one continuous intelligent institution that has been thinking about thinking for two thousand years. Its experience naturally covers nearly all experiences; and especially
nearly all errors. The result is a map in which all the blind alleys and bad roads are clearly marked, all the ways that have been shown to be worthless by the best of all evidence: the evidence of those who have gone down them.

On this map of the mind the errors are marked as exceptions. The greater part of it consists of playgrounds and happy hunting-fields, where the mind may have as much liberty as it likes; not to mention any number of intellectual battle-fields in which the battle is indefinitely open and undecided. But it does definitely take the responsibility of marking certain roads as leading nowhere or leading to destruction, to a blank wall, or a sheer precipice. By this means, it does prevent men from wasting their time or losing their lives upon paths that have been found futile or disastrous again and again in the past, but which might otherwise entrap travelers again and again in the future. The Church does make herself responsible for warning her people against these; and upon these the real issue of the case depends. She does dogmatically defend humanity from its worst foes, those hoary and horrible and devouring monsters of the old mistakes. Now all these false issues have a way of looking quite fresh, especially to a fresh generation.

 

[Kevin42]

oh dear - I just had this premonition someone would say that
talk about missing the point altogether
precisely the sort of proud triumphalism I was talking about

Perhaps it is not pride. If something is called “catholic” that means universal. The only reason that the Catholic Church appears to be a denomination is because other people have given their different ideas a title and labeled themselves as a denomination. Thus, at first glance, this is what the Catholic Church appears to be, it is not though…it is the universal church of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the living vine among branches that have been severed and are dying. I don’t mean this in a condescending or mean spirited way, but maybe the person who pointed this out isn’t the one who is missing the point. Perhaps you mistake a truth you don’t like, but that is being proclaimed, as pride. The Church is not about pride. While many of the followers may not realize this, we are only a part of the Church because we are sinners. The Church is here to make saints out of sinners-not to be proud of its message, but to simply speak the truth. Before declaring yourself non-denominational, I’d ask that you make sure pride or egotism is not the reason you are choosing that. It appears these are the reasons why many people choose “non-denominationalism”. I am not sure whether that would include you or not, but it’s worth a thought.

 

[fix]

We continue to discuss condom use because you and Jack continue to bring up the subject as you try to “enlighten” us Catholics. The arguments you use (in defense of condom use) are framed the same way as those used to promote any number of morally illicit acts–abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and IVF. You are trying to promote it as a necessary way to relieve human suffering. But as Catholics, we do not look at it that way. A morally wrong act can never be justified no matter what the intention. The ends do not justify the means.

Exactly. This thread is very much like the abortion folks who claim it should be safe, legal, and rare. I always think why? Why should it be rare if it is morally acceptable? It should happen all the time no one should have any concern at all. If it were really murder then it would never be ok to be safe, legal, or rare.

Similarly with condom use if it is morally good and medically safe why should it be a second best to abstaining? We should not even bother with talking about abstaining. It would be great to just say use a condom it is always acceptable.

The moral reasoning is flawed.

 

[eliasaph99]

again using figures out of context
we know condoms used properly work well
figures for sustained condom use reflect use over one year, and consequently several episodes of condom use
14 pregnancies per 100 patient years does not equal a 14% failure rate!!!
plus you can’t take one set of figures and apply them to another population - it’s not scientifically sound
the biggest cause of condom failure is spatial separation - the condom isn’t on!
I am digressing, but it’s interesting that people will take FDA figures for typical pregnancy rates for condoms, but not for natural family planning, which doesn’t do very well at all!

Hey Jack,

If you’re still out there, I just wanted to share this with you:

hli.org/condom_expose.html

physiciansforlife.org/content/category/11/135/36/

 

[contramundum7]

Did you understand that many people wish to be chaste, and that this was a long and strong tradition in many African communities.

Do you understand that we are well past the missionary stage here: our Churches look just like yours, and ours has a congregation of about 2000, with another being built to hold 2000 by 2010.

The code here on HIV is generally A,B,C: abstain, and if you cannot abstain, be faithful to one partner, and if all else fails, use a condom. That makes sense to me and perhaps to you. That Catholic Churches are of course, in countries like Zambia, teaching abstention, which is by far the safest - along with an HIV test before marriage. But a couple of beers often makes for confusion - and then the condom must come into play. We do not always choose our fate - especially if we are women (see other postings on this).

Can you contemplate that in Zambia, only 10 per cent of the population is in employment, and that 70 per cent of people live on less than one US dollar per day? Job training would not help many - but better clinic training, health visits to schools, more action by churches and other nongovernment organisations on counselling and testing would all help. If you want information on this, write me a private message, and I will send you what you want to know, or direct you to a source that can help to keep you informed.

U say people on this post have been rude, bickering, etc, etc… I have found some to be that way… but it is wrong to lump all Posters into this category. Or do you just read the negative sounding stuff??

 

[contramundum7]

Hey Jack,

If you’re still out there, I just wanted to share this with you:

hli.org/condom_expose.html

physiciansforlife.org/content/category/11/135/36/

thanks for the info on condoms…

But i think the ones passing out condoms 2 third world countries don’t really care about accidental pregnancies because the same people promote abortion, a big $ maker… Also, they couldn’t care less about AIDS because, hey, don’t u know, the world is overpopulated, therefore, doing anything to promote death of “undesirables” (where have we heard that word br?? ) is a desirable thing…