I feel an explanation is necessary

[ICantSpellDawg]

The Church's line on condoms is biblically consistent. The rationale is there and it is distinct from secular rationale.

He is not saying that people should have sex without condoms, he is saying that people should not have sex unless in monogamous, committed relationships. Condoms are viewed as false security, coaxing people into engaging in risky behaviour counterindicated by Biblical instruction.

It's a catch 22.

If people would actually listen and adhere to the message, they wouldn't need condoms. It is a The perpetually aghast secular critics claim people adhering to the message are the problem when it is precisely the opposite.

[Fragony]

he is saying that people should not have sex unless in monogamous, committed relationships.

He sure says that but why wouldn't you.

[Don Corleone]

I'd like to take a moment to recognize Mousapherre being such a thoughtful and considerate fellow to start a thread like this in the first place. If anybody's religion gets based around here, it would be his. For him to then take the time to start a "no offense intended thread", that speaks volume about the depth and quality of his character, no matter how unnecessary it was, as it wasn't his original post or his discussions in the course of the locked thread that gave offense in the first place.

I think that's what Frag was on about, but I'm not 100% what he meant.

As for insults & barbs... one thing I think we the believers need to remember is that there's scant reason to take offense (no, not being a hypocrite, I am indeed looking in the mirror when I say this). If God is God, what could the creator of the universe possibly care about some swarmy zinger levelled against Him/Her in an online forum dedicated to the discussion of a series of strategy/simulation of a martial & historical theme? Ditto for the Pope. If he really is God's annointed chief agent here on Earth, why do we let ourselves get so worked up? (Yes, me included). Contradict,where appropriate, illuminate facts in error... but I think we all need to remember the scope of the discussion. If we the churched are correct, it's the equivalent of two fleas arguing over whether the elephant they're riding on really exists.