Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism
| 4668 | 1390230 |
I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done.
I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
- 4,668 Replies
"rophylactics" does not equal "condoms"
In many instances, and almost always when speaking in terms of sex, it does. It's a more 'distinguished' term for it. Literally it just means 'barrier', so it could be applied to female condoms as well. We all know that given the context of the comment, though, that 'condom' is the only alternate meaning that would even apply.
On the side note sexual promiscuity, along with mass vaccination, is blamed for the initial spread of AIDS. Mass vaccination moved a lot forward and is ethically beneficial as an implementation process, though the route is still open and can't be closed.
Yes, that is quite true. Sexual promiscuity is human nature though, and really can only be helped by indoctrination (as the Pope is attempting) or cultural change. Both of which are only marginally effective and take a very long time to implement. Not a feasible solution, especially in the long short term, when dealing with an incurable and deadly disease.
As for mass vaccination, that was prior to our knowledge of, or any understanding regarding, HIV and related viruses. While we can't go back and fix that we can and do take precautions so that vaccinations and other medical procedures are no longer a method of transmission for this virus.
Condoms promote sexual promiscuity, and <-THIS is the problem Pope speaks of.
This is utter BS. Having condoms available does NOT cause one to be promiscuous. If one is going to be sexually active, regardless of how many partners they desire, they are going to whether there are condoms or not. This is the type of mentality that is literally killing people. If you give someone who doesn't want to have sex a box of condoms they don't all of a sudden go "hey, I have condoms. I think I'll go and use them."
This is an assumption borne of utter ignorance and it is taking precedence over facts which could be saving lives and I can't believe that you and those who share in this stupidity can even live with yourselves knowing that your spreading of these misinformed ideas are causing the deaths of your fellow human beings.
I have reached the point where I am so sickened by this behavior that I can no longer be bothered to even talk to you about this. You have proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are willfully, and blissfully ignorant and you have no desire for understanding, but only the propagation of your counterproductive and lethal ideology.
If behavior and attitudes like what you display is what your God wants of humans then I think he is the most hateful, ignorant, bigoted piece of trash to ever exist. Thank goodness for us, though, that he's just a figment of your imagination.
You can't prove that condoms are a cause of sexual promiscuity - there are hundreds of other possible factors at play as to why there are a supposedly increasing number of sexually promiscuous people around. Tell me though - is it better to teach/make them practice 'abstinence-only'? Because that doesn't work. If people are going to have sex, which they inevitably are, then it's best to tool them up with condoms at the very least.
If you give someone who doesn't want to have sex a box of condoms they don't all of a sudden go "hey, I have condoms. I think I'll go and use them."Agreed, but if you happen to meet a person who wants to have sex but has no condoms and is afraid to employ his desire because of say possible AIDS infection, you are giving him open road to have sex, and that person will say this phrase. The Pope also spoke about self-restraint (self-denial) which is a prerequisite to living as a Christian (the principle itself is a prereq, not its application. One can't say "I do what I want to" and be a Christian).
Sexual promiscuity is human nature though, and really can only be helped by indoctrination (as the Pope is attempting) or cultural change.Well, poligamy is animalistic intention indeed so it is indeed "natural", and these are indeed ways to inhibit this behavior. But you might see that all of the pop culture promotes the opposite, ruining social barriers that were keeping this attraction on a leash. In fact the problem that Pope speaks of is the sexual promiscuity itself, not its relation to condoms. I don't tolerate condoms in marital sex, and I don't tolerate other ways of sex because I am taught that they are sin, but I can say that if you would want to sin having sex, get some safety precautions - this might give you more time to repent for them
In many instances, and almost always when speaking in terms of sex, it does.You assume that free sex is allowed, if this, then there are only condoms that are left being actual barriers between the infected and uninfected. My mother told me that there are cures for AIDS ("SPID" in Russian, no cyrillics accepted here) named "SPIDOMA" and "SPI-1", with respective meanings to be "sleep at home" and "sleep alone" - these are limitations to sexual behavior.
is it better to teach/make them practice 'abstinence-only'? Because that doesn't work. If people are going to have sex, which they inevitably areYep, abstinence-only approach will never work, since we'd die if we'll not have any children. The main practice to teach is fidelity to one and only sexual partner, which, if employed in entire society, will ELIMINATE STDs, there will only be intranatal transmission available, as well as will severely reduce AIDS transmission, given that 70% of these are through intercourse of various ways.
You can't prove that condoms are a cause of sexual promiscuityI'm not proving this, I'm stating they are one of the factors for this behavior to trigger.
If behavior and attitudes like what you display is what your God wants of humansI'm imperfect, and I can't properly express love to someone living so far away that he can only read words. God wants us to love each and every one of us, and love can be expressed by various means, like not yelling at a person if he'd insult you, or ignoring any swearwords thrown at you. I'm afraid that most of the means of emotional contact between humans is impossible to be transferred by means of this forum. I'm planning to get me a webcam and probably talk with some of you.
Links please? Never heard anything like THIS. Opposing the use of condoms because they are designed to prevent children is one, and arguments of them reducing the risk of AIDS transmission is another. Journalists in fact like baked out sensations, and could say such conclusion ignoring its non-sequitur.
I may have been wrong about the Pope explicitly promoting circumcision as a means of AIDS prevention. But this has been stated for religious reasons before.
http://www.fact-index.com/a/aa/aaron_j__fink.html
http://med-fraud.org/
I take that pic as a lack of arguments.
The picture means just what it says, I don't know what the hell your talking about.
And that WTF stuff is also named lack of arguments.
I guess I should put that into more context. In the movie there is a court room scene where a character from the previous movie is acting as the Ghostbusters layer after they knocked out half the power to the city. The layer addressed the Judge by saying how he doesn't blame them for the black out because one time he turned into a dog and they helped him. The judge just sat there with a WTF expression on his face.
Your statement of "Divine laws are filled with Holy Spirit" sounds equally ridiculous to me.
A yes to what? No counterarguments means your point of "cheery picking the hell out of laws" is false.
I said I'll take that as a yes because your explanation sounds like what I described. Though I doubt you see it that way.
I don't tolerate condoms in marital sex, and I don't tolerate other ways of sex because I am taught that they are sin, but I can say that if you would want to sin having sex, get some safety precautions
It seems you are promoting an abstinence only scenario here with the exception of sex in order to reproduce. Sorry but that's just not realistic and would and has only lead to people having more children then they can care for.
But while talking about abstinence remember that part of the Christian beliefs are 
so you would get way more kids than you could handle.
It seems you are promoting an abstinence only scenario here with the exception of sex in order to reproduce.You know what, there are methods based on innate woman's ability to not conceive in certain periods that allow sex without chances to conceive, however their implementation requires certain periods of abstinence, as well as constant home observation of certain aspects of a woman. Their effectiveness hits 99.8% in terms of delaying conception and ~80% in terms of conceiving when desired, including those couples who have been diagnosed with infertility. (People after certain surgical procedures can't regain fertility of course, but a lot of men and women with other causes of infertility did recover) I have already mentioned Billings method, there are methods based on basal temp measurement, and combinations of the two and some other factors (sympto-thermal methods). If you're interested, go Google it.
But this has been stated for religious reasons before.Sure it was, Old Testament states this as required. However, New Testament renders this obsolete.
I said I'll take that as a yes because your explanation sounds like what I described.Do you mind checking the movie "Pay it forward" as an example of what I'm speaking? I seem to start treading elevated grounds where mot everyone can follow.
And Vesper, are you really going to have me walk out every study conducted on Abstience only proving that it doesn't work and is in fact counterproductive?By all means, try.
H.L Mencken.This kid died in 1956, and in 1962-1965 Catholicism underwent a great reformation, without, however, forfeiting any of the all-time Christian ideals. Now a woman can resort to biology, still indeed, "all sperm is sacred".
Take Texas, had the highest level of funding for abstinence only funding for it's schoolsMEGALOL for the "funding" word. You must know that funding alone does not do a thing. Compared: Recently $1 billion was invested into Russian OS project, but researchers claim that 90% code will come from freeware Linux/Debian family. Compared again: $9 billion is said to be invested in Sochi-2014 project - to be reviewed by millions of people, I expect that it'll result in less than what Vancouver did. Funds require hands that will do the work for funds, and require minds to create work for hands. Such a bad result of funding indicates only wrong methods implemented in particular region or community.
I've learned as a child that the more you tell a kid that he/she can't do something the more he/she feels like they need to prove you wrong. If you tell me i'm to small to eat a triple bacon burger, i guarantee you the burger will be gone in 20 min. But, when you let kids be aware of what they're doing and let them decide, then they'll be safe. I remember having a sex class where they didn't tell us not to have sex but instead, how to do it safly. That's what every school should be doing.
I don't know where your getting those numbers from but he rhythm method has a notoriously high rate of failure and offers no protection from STDs, unlike condoms.The rhythm method is developed in the 1930s and is already obsolete. I'm speaking of this primarily, and here (finally) is some physiological info about the sympto-thermal method I'm speaking about. There are also certain restrictions to the period when you can have sex without fear of pregnancy, but if you abide by them, you have only 0.2% chance of failure. If you won't abide by them, your results may vary.
About STDs - well, fidelity of both makes STDs absent from a couple as the first factor, so living by this does not require any other method of protection. AIDS you say? What about this?
And since your concerned with embryos having souls.A lot of specualtions unbacked by any data. First of all, "might" be a bad idea, and "might" not survive - we never know until it did. "As many as 50% of conceptions may not survive long enough even to disrupt menstruation, Bovens says." - this looks like an entirely thought-out statistics. All of the following text about rhythm method is based on this assumption. There is sometihing that I can add here, if a woman's post-ovulation period doesn't last 9 days, she is in danger of embryo loss. But with calendar methods you'll never get this information, as well as you don't get this if you never practice any of the NFP. So this claim of Bovens is equal to claim that women were losing their embryos in the medieval age up to 50% of the time. Such women didn't have a burden of a sin, because for an action to be sinful you are required to know the consequences that can happen. Back there no one knew, but now here we know what can happen.
Rhythm method criticised as a killer of embryos
I've learned as a child that the more you tell a kid that he/she can't do something the more he/she feels like they need to prove you wrong.Nice point, and this effect is enhanced if you yourself do things you told the kid to not to do.
I remember having a sex class where they didn't tell us not to have sex but instead, how to do it safly. That's what every school should be doing.
Sorry, what's your last name? I want to make it a religion. You are a God, buddy. :>
Thank life that I've met someone who knows how to put something straight! Too many times over I've seen teachers or something go about ANYTHING the wrong way and it all breaks loose. How? Yeah man, in this case it isn't too important (I mean, underage sex isn't incredibly bad, it's natural to many other animals) but the how or the reason is so much more important than the command "don't do it"! :>
In the end, the best way to treat them is to give them the freedom of choice but to always give them the full picture (and hopefully your honest opinion). If I don't believe someone is doing the right thing (or the right way to go about it), I point it out, if they don't listen, I don't mind but whenever I feel someone is biased towards my argument I look at it and think whether or not it is biased itself. If it is, I make sure they know, many things I say are biased (although in philisophical and ethical debates like these? Not that much) because they're from my perspective. I tell people how I see something and more often or not they can agree.
I went off-topic. :>
Then again, I think this whole thread has in one way or another.
And since your concerned with embryos having souls.
Let me just say. And this is dang terrible as way (even for me O:O).
There is no reason a soul should exist, right now we are an incredibly long term result of a (maybe rare) reaction. At least, that is what I believe and not unreasonably - following this, souls are not a grand and intended thing. I know how my brain is succeptible to things and how it could literally form my personality - therefore I take no belief in that of souls as split-brain patients (as well as that guy who had a pole shoot through his brain a couple hundred years back) have shown a different behaviour after they lost portions of their brain.
It doesn't mean we lack identity or control. Being self-aware of what you are vulnerable to helps this greatly, and the fact that people choose what they choose (although sometimes the answer is obvious due to bad parenting etc) through free will is what defines a person. I was always making sure everything I did was the right thing - since the age of 6, even. I didn't need to think about religion, I didn't want to either - I focused merely on what I believed and hell, I find myself more unique in some ways than anyone else I know (in real life, not on the internet) because they paid no such attention to morality or ethics etc.
Even if I point it out, they shut out the reason - and that I believe is the sad part.
- H
You say no insults, but you insult the religions of others. You have no valid point that Christianity is superior in any other religion.
this is a prime example of your closed- mindedness.[/quote]
Who are you to say that the Bible wasn't written by some old man with too much time on his hands and a good folk tale in his heart?
You say no insults, but you insult the religions of others. You have no valid point that Christianity is superior in any other religion.
this is a prime example of your closed- mindedness.
Who are you to say that the Bible wasn't written by some old man with too much time on his hands and a good folk tale in his heart?
... Lol :>
We're way off that topic now ClammmyPants... nice to laugh though
Okay, basically we're talking about a couple things which I haven't delved into for a while now. But this thread has gone much deeper than the simple "Religion vs w/e" thread.
- H
The rhythm method is developed in the 1930s and is already obsolete. I'm speaking of this primarily, and here (finally) is some physiological info about the sympto-thermal method I'm speaking about. There are also certain restrictions to the period when you can have sex without fear of pregnancy, but if you abide by them, you have only 0.2% chance of failure. If you won't abide by them, your results may vary.
As far as I can tell this method can only be effective with strict adherence. Not very practical for the average person.
A lot of specualtions unbacked by any data. First of all, "might" be a bad idea, and "might" not survive - we never know until it did.
Terms like might are not always terms of speculation in science. There is a source sited at the bottom if you would like to further investigate.
What about this?
There is a strong and definite correlation between being HIV positive and AIDS developing in later years.
There is an evolutionary advantage for the virus to be slow to kill the organism.
It is unfair to compare HIV to other deadly viruses, like Ebola or the like, because it is completely different. AIDS creates immunodeficiency, and people can live for quite some time even with AIDS (more than Ebola). Ebola viruses and most other quick-killing deadly viruses are hemorrhagic fevers.
I also noticed another inaccuracy in the paper - it says that AZT will "roduce the symptoms of AIDS all by itself" which is false. AZT is a reverse transcriptase inhibitor, and AIDS is caused by HIV, a retrovirus. AZT also is a chemotherapeutic agent, and it destroys cells unselectively.
AIDS however, lowers Helper T cells gradually over the course of several years until the counts fall to the point that tumors and opportunistic infections become rampant. So AIDS doesn't actually "kill" the person - it's the infection that results from the severe immunosuppression.
stupid tab throwing me off edit window
As far as I can tell this method can only be effective with strict adherence. Not very practical for the average person.Agreed, however it doesn't require more than waking up in roughly equal time, and exploring her organism once a day, and providing benefits as early diagnostics of reproductive system disorders and learning about pregnancy before any test can determine it. Also this method allows practice in perseverance, what we Catholics are constantly reminded of doing. It also acts as an example of why perseverance works and why it's needed to continue building yourself.
There is a source sited at the bottom if you would like to further investigate.I can't reach the cited papers, unless they will be on the Internet. There is no hyperlink on that source to check quickly.
Bristol Palin is a prime example of Abstinence only not working.AE does not equal abstinence practice. There are too many examples over TV, Internet and neighborhood for those teens to fall to this temptation, and while the child is fed controversial information, he's unable to choose sides and will likely try both approaches, nullifying the effect of AE.
It fails
sorry, ran out of time. Einfach, could you please return several pages back, where our dialogue's track stopped? I'll answer this post as well.
You must be logged in to post a reply!