why i'm a christian

[moth]

You are still missing the point.

What is 'unscientific' about abstinence ?

 

Nothing unscientific about abstinence.

What is unscientific is ignoring the failure rate of preaching abstinence to slow the spread of STD's.

[iNow]

Nothing unscientific about abstinence.

Except for the fact that evidence demonstrates its teaching to be largely ineffective (to the point of being inversely proportional) at preventing teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/

[MigL]

The ATTEMPT at abstinence is ineffective.

Abstinence itself is extremely effective.

[dimreepr]

The ATTEMPT at abstinence is ineffective.

Abstinence itself is extremely effective.

 

 

Tell that to the children that suffered because of the Catholics insistence that priest’s attempt such a practise.

[John Cuthber]

 

What they are against is the promiscuity ( ?? ) that condom use brings with it as opposed to abstinence ( ?? again, not my opinion, but I understand theirs ).

 

I don't see how that is against ( or what it has to do with ) scientific progress ?

Because science actually checked.

Condoms don't produce promiscuity.

(actually, science didn't really need to check it- if people didn't screw around there would be a lot less demand for condoms)

And science also found that the "abstinence based" programmes that the church promotes do not work (in terms of reduction of unwanted pregnancy or STD rates).

That might be because people are inherently stupid- but that's the way it works. We are quite often quite dumb. We can't fix stupid, so we mitigate the consequences.

 

Promoting a programme of behaviour that real people simply don't follow is unscientific and morally wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

And 'people have sex' is just rubbing it in now.

 

 

That is a reasonable summary of the mechanics of the process.

 

Or were you saying that not all people have sex?

Well, that's true enough, but plenty still do (not all the time of course, that would be silly)

[Robittybob1]

 

Nothing unscientific about abstinence.

What is unscientific is ignoring the failure rate of preaching abstinence to slow the spread of STD's.

Maybe the Christians can practice abstinence, but the others should use condoms.

[ydoaPs]

All I'm suggesting is that the allegorical book which we call the Bible is not meant to be a historical or factual text, but rather a guideline as to how we should lead our lives.

And as such, it is perfectly valid.

So, we ought to kill unruly children?

[MigL]

To be honest, being over 50 and single ( never married ), I try NOT to practice abstinence as often as possible.

Sadly every year that passes, I fail more and more. Must be the church's fault and their preaching.

 

But seriously, abstinence, by definition, cannot fail, while a condom can.

If you stick your lower appendage in an unsavoury place, whether covered or not, there is a small possibility that you`ll catch something. If you don`t stick it in at all, its impossible to catch anything ( apologies for the graphic language ).

 

The point you guys are trying to make is that, being human, we fail at the strict adherence to abstinence.

So while abstinence may be unrealistic, that doesn`t mean it cannot work.

 

And yes, ydoaPs, unruly children get punished. But again the Bible ( or other religious texts ) are not to be taken literally. I think I`ve stated that several times already.

[Endy0816]

 

If you stick your lower appendage in an unsavoury place, whether covered or not, there is a small possibility that you`ll catch something. If you don`t stick it in at all, its impossible to catch anything ( apologies for the graphic language ).

 

Not just lower appendage... otherwise your point is valid.

 

 

I think the issue is that there are many who do claim the Bible to be the literal truth.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism

 

Parts are fine to look to for moral guidance, other parts are detrimental to society yet people remain dead serious about.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Endy0816

[dimreepr]

To be honest, being over 50 and single ( never married ), I try NOT to practice abstinence as often as possible.

Sadly every year that passes, I fail more and more. Must be the church's fault and their preaching.

 

But seriously, abstinence, by definition, cannot fail, while a condom can.

If you stick your lower appendage in an unsavoury place, whether covered or not, there is a small possibility that you`ll catch something. If you don`t stick it in at all, its impossible to catch anything ( apologies for the graphic language ).

 

The point you guys are trying to make is that, being human, we fail at the strict adherence to abstinence.

So while abstinence may be unrealistic, that doesn`t mean it cannot work.

 

And yes, ydoaPs, unruly children get punished. But again the Bible ( or other religious texts ) are not to be taken literally. I think I`ve stated that several times already.

 

 

 

I’d be surprised if sex in the animal kingdom, other than simple survival (and not always even that in some cases), isn’t the strongest instinctive drive; so to suggest we simply think our way out of said drive may be possible for some, hunger strikes as a protest does happen as does abstinence but it’s very very rare and is a consequence of extreme motivation.

Edited November 10, 2015 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

 

But seriously, abstinence, by definition, cannot fail, while a condom can.

 

True, but irrelevant because it's not the church as such that's abstaining.

The church is advocating a policy of abstaining.

And that policy fails a lot.

 

So, the church is advocating a policy, which it knows will fail, when there are better policies to hand.

While science would advocate the better policy (if you can't be good, be careful).

Now, since the church is getting in the way of the better policy here, the church is responsible for at least some of the deaths from HIV adn for the unwanted pregnancies- because it could have prevented them.

 

But it refuses to do so.

 

I think that's evil.

Would you disagree?

So, we ought to kill unruly children?

Don't forget about the handy hints on where to get your slaves from.

[MigL]

I wouldn't go as far as calling it evil.

Misguided perhaps ?

[John Cuthber]

I wouldn't go as far as calling it evil.

Misguided perhaps ?

It's not that they are unaware that they are doing it, nor that their reasons for doing it are, at best, debatable.

[Robittybob1]

True, but irrelevant because it's not the church as such that's abstaining.

The church is advocating a policy of abstaining.

And that policy fails a lot.

 

So, the church is advocating a policy, which it knows will fail, when there are better policies to hand.

While science would advocate the better policy (if you can't be good, be careful).

Now, since the church is getting in the way of the better policy here, the church is responsible for at least some of the deaths from HIV adn for the unwanted pregnancies- because it could have prevented them.

 

But it refuses to do so.

 

I think that's evil.

Would you disagree?

Don't forget about the handy hints on where to get your slaves from.

These issues will seem trivial unless modern society solve global warming and the population explosion. Resources are running out and there seems to be no real solution.

[John Cuthber]

These issues will seem trivial unless modern society solve global warming and the population explosion. Resources are running out and there seems to be no real solution.

Science has provided the means to solve the population explosion.

If only religion would get out of the way.

 

The only "help" that religion has offered for the issue of global warming is the notion that prayer will help. Oddly, that never seems to have worked in the past, yet they keep on at it.

It's another of their essentially evil policies.

[Moontanman]

May not be completely on topic but I have been outed to my family as an atheist, should be interesting considering most of them are creationist evangelical fundamentalists... The suspense is killing me

Edited November 11, 2015 by Moontanman

[moth]

Off-topic some more, but now we'll know which is worse: a broken jaw or being identified as a non-christian.

I think there may even be some correlation between the two.

keep us updated.

Edited November 11, 2015 by moth

[MonDie]

These issues will seem trivial unless modern society solve global warming and the population explosion. Resources are running out and there seems to be no real solution.

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but sickness wastes medical resources, and death is a waste of human resources.

May not be completely on topic but I have been outed to my family as an atheist, should be interesting considering most of them are creationist evangelical fundamentalists... The suspense is killing me

If they make you an apology cake, don't eat it!

[MonDie]

Tell that to the children that suffered because of the Catholics insistence that priests attempt such a practise.

Molesters pretty much either have pedophilia, a personality disorder (like sociopathy), or both.

~1/3 have pedophilia, higher for non-incestuous and/or repeat offenders.

I've never seen data regarding sexual repression.

Probably hoped God would fix them, then figured God made them that way. :\

Edited November 12, 2015 by MonDie

[Robittybob1]

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but sickness wastes medical resources, and death is a waste of human resources. ....

 

 

Can't argue against that, but it won't solve the problem.

[dimreepr]

Molesters pretty much either have pedophilia, a personality disorder (like sociopathy), or both.

~1/3 have pedophilia, higher for non-incestuous and/or repeat offenders.

I've never seen data regarding sexual repression.

 

 

No me neither and I have no doubt your figures are correct (so I haven’t checked).

 

 

Probably hoped God would fix them, then figured God made them that way. :\

 

 

 

Sociopaths and probably paedophilia’s would never consider they needed fixing; so given the percentages and the instinctual drive involved, your average priest is far more likely subject to the latter.

[Robittybob1]

 

 

No me neither and I have no doubt your figures are correct (so I haven’t checked).

 

 

 

 

Sociopaths and probably paedophilia’s would never consider they needed fixing; so given the percentages and the instinctual drive involved, your average priest is far more likely subject to the latter.

How would you "average" priests?

[dimreepr]

How would you "average" priests?

 

 

That's kind of my point; you tell me.

[MonDie]

 

 

No me neither and I have no doubt your figures are correct (so I haven’t checked).

 

 

 

 

Sociopaths and probably paedophilia’s would never consider they needed fixing; so given the percentages and the instinctual drive involved, your average priest is far more likely subject to the latter.

 

You're wrong.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14789940903174188

It's unfortunate that there is no cure yet.

I'm not familiar with The Church's document outlining the procedures for handling molesters, but basically when a molester preist was reported, they put him through some kind of ineffective "treatment", then moved him to another church. In doing so, they affected even more kids/people, and probably delayed progress by keeping these individuals out of the mental health system. Nobody knew it couldn't be cured, but they might have known it sooner.

 

One effect is hypersexuality. Religion only seems to be good for making people feel guilty.

[Robittybob1]

 

 

That's kind of my point; you tell me.

I wonder if "majority" would be a better word?