If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I'm going to make a point here of saying that I'm not going to grace this with an answer. I'll get nowhere.
But as far as I'm considered, 'his' God is my God, and the God of everyone else too for that matter. And my God definitely doesn't 'suck'.
Think what you will.
The chances are you're not going to change my mind, no. However, that's only one part of debating on a message board - you may well make headway with other people reading.
If your God existed he would totally suck, reading the Bible tells us so in no uncertain terms.
Does it not bother you that the Pope, a man who holds a list of odious views as long as my arm, heads up the world's large Christian church? That a man who believes condoms are likely to increase the problem of AIDS in Africa is allegedly God's highest mortal representative?
Cheers.
I was never intending to change your mind. I'm not that much of an idiot. But there is no sense in trying to make you see that not everyone who believes in God is a raving lunatic.
Excuse me, but where did you get the idea that this might not bother me? I have never suggested anything of the kind. In fact, it outrages me and disgusts me. And that, I'll thank you, is why I'm not a Catholic.
Not a problem.
It's useless just expecting eeryone in Africa to suddenly withhold sex prior to marriage. It just doesn't work like that I'm afraid....
You don't need to make see that, it's a belief I already hold. However, I never claimed that people who believe in God are raving lunatics, and you're still to put forward a rebuttal to my initial claim that religion isn't innocuous.
Probably from here:
but I'm starting to fear you were talking in a more non-denominational, wolly-edged sense.
This particular incident, or at least the Pope in general, is the reason you're not Catholic?
I don't agree with the Pope. Jesus should be at the head of any church, not a fallible human being. And yes, this incident and others.
I am under contract with another party in which one of the terms calls for exclusivity on the usage of each one's love gun. Therefore the time and place is decided by mutual consent.
Well, sort of.
So what has that got to do with the Pope and his notion that condoms are spreading AIDS? Are you saying that only married or partnered people should be having any sort of sex?
You both have a "love gun"? I didn't realise.
I was answering your personal question.
I do not care much what sexual activities people get up. I was pointing out earlier that I thought abstinence wasn't such a bad idea when the enviroment one was in is apparently awash with sexual disease. That is a choice one has to make.
I tend to see love guns as counterparts. The clitoral glans is homologous to the glans penis, as is the clitoral hood to the foreskin.
That's a bit of a moot point, isn't it? I don't see how it contributes to the discussion on what the Pope had to say.
Very good. Very good. But I don't know why you felt the need to tell me that. I was talking about 'if'.
Yes I suppose it is.
However my response was a reply to your personal question about "time and place" which appeared moot to me at the time.
In an attempt to avoid "mootness" I will hypothesize on what might be going on under that little skull cap of the Roman Catholic club.
If one was to use the topical analogy of financial institution bailouts as an example, one could put forward the argument that the protection given (the bailout) is a bad thing because it encourages more of the same behaviour by those recipients of the bailouts. A policy of "carry on with the same irresponsible behaviour as before because you will be offered protection of sorts against the consequences of those actions".
The main reported official causes of aids/hiv in Africa for example is the use of prostitutes and general promiscuity. The Pope allegedly said that "the distribution of condoms CAN EVEN increase the problem". If he did say that, where is he in error ?
The bailouts CAN EVEN increase the problem. The problem is too much debt yet the powers that be want to encourage more of the same from both the institutions("they must start lending" mantras) and the debtors ("the economy will improve if people start spending").
Does anyone think aids/hiv infection will decrease if people are encouraged into whoremonging and poking the next door neighbour so long as you have a packet of three in your pocket/purse ?
I have my doubts.
Well, I want clarification what you were trying to say because you seem to enjoy writing posts as figuratively as possible. So it wasn't 'moot' by any means.
Because there is no research to suggest that using condoms does increase AIDS? The Pope has come to his own uninformed opinion. People obviously 'whoremonger' in spite of not using condoms otherwise there wouldn't be an AIDS epidemic. But at least condoms give them a pretty good insurance that they will not contract the virus more easily.
And I do believe that if everyone DID use condoms, then AIDS would not be as prolific as it is now. Sure, it will not be wiped out altogether but it it will decrease.
By the way, I am attempting to engage in friendly debate with you. I am just trying to understand where you are coming from in your arguments.
I never doubted it ! My "mootness" comment was more of an apology of misunderstanding than than perhaps the sarcasm it has been perceived as.
Cool! Thanks.