Evidence for Christianity

[Minimalist]

Minimalist it is still a sin to sell an indulgence.

You better tell that to the fucking bishop. I already think you're a moron so you can't get much traction there.

[dqualk]

You better tell that to the fucking bishop. I already think you're a moron so you can't get much traction there.

You are misreading the article. The Bishop is saying we still use indulgences because there is still sin. He never said we still "sell" indulgences. You earn endulgences for doing good works like praying 10 hail marys or going on a pilgrimage or something.

[Minimalist]

You better tell that to the fucking bishop. I already think you're a moron so you can't get much traction there.

You are misreading the article. The Bishop is saying we still use indulgences because there is still sin. He never said we still "sell" indulgences. You earn endulgences for doing good works like praying 10 hail marys or going on a pilgrimage or something.

Stop being so fucking naive!

"but charitable contributions, combined with other acts, can help you earn one."

Which charities do you think Bi$hop Numbnutz has in mind?

[dqualk]

Aren't you against abortion and contraceptives too?

Yes but I am assuming that diestpaladin is not against them. So I am pointing out how is system does not make sense.

Because children are too young to consent to sex in a fully informed way, and the adult has more power over the child.

Can you prove this or is this just want some pope told us a long time ago? You know people used to say that women were to dumb to consent and that man had more power over woman so the father had to choose who she married to protect her. Do you think a 17 year old can consent? 16? 15? 14? 13? 12? At what point do you draw the imaginary line?

So 'hate the sin, love the sinner?' I'm pretty sure it's an insult to someone's dignity to be considered a sinner with loose morals.

I'm sure it is insulting to a degree but some times the truth hurts. I do beleive it is my obligation to do all I can to bring the truth to people, and insulting people unnecessarily generally does not work. Treating people with respect works much better. For this reason I am very respectful toward homosexuals or promiscuous people, but I will respectfully tell them that I believe there actions will ultimately hurt them and society. Of course I would first earn the respect of the person rather than preaching at them. Once they cared to hear my opinion, I would then kindly tell them my opinion in the way that would serve them and the truth best.

The vast majority of people have enough self-control to keep it in their pants, if they're not in a consensual situation. We don't need rigid rules to control our sex lives. I just can't understand why a lot of religious people (and I'm not referring to you personally, dqualk) believe that we would all rape and molest to our heart's content if God's objective morality and next-life punishments weren't there to stop us.

Heterosexual sex has its dangers too, you can still get STDS, HIV, get pregnant unintentionally etc.. Just use protection, be careful, be faithful to your partner (unless you both agree to some other arrangement), and don't force sex on anyone who doesn't want it (or cannot consent). I don't see why any other rules are necessary.

I agree that the vast majority have self control. However, it is difficult to see how society would behave if we were told our whole lives that sex is absolutely fine in anyway you want. I imagine society would change a great deal. People probably would be far more free with their sexuality. The truth is if you watch the Disney channel today it is full of risqué material that would not have been permitted back in the golden days. MTV is currently getting sued for allowing children to do inappropriate things on camera, shame on their parents too.

However, I believe that we would still find purely rational reasons to restrict sexuality. Personally I think a reaction against the Church and traditional morals is behind the rise of homosexuality, not logically looking at it. It really is a more dangerous life style. The life expectance of a gay man is FAR lower than that of a straight male. Even France, a most secular nation, did a secular study and found that homosexuality was damaging to children so in France it is illegal for gays to adopt, for purely secular reasons. If gays cant adopt I dont think they should be allowed to flaunt their homsexuality because it is more dangerous to society. Personally I would be for a dont ask dont tell for society. I would outright condemn any witch hunting of gay people, and let them do what they do IN PRIVATE. However, I think the State should only support the tried and true form of sexuality and that is within marriage. The State should not go about trying to regulate people's private lives, but I think it should treat fornication (to use an old fashioned word) like it treats ciagrette smoking. The State has not made smoking cigarettes illegal, and it doesnt try to root it out by force, but it restricts cigarette comapanies from advertising and it encourages kids not to smoke. In the same way I think the State should encourage sex within marriage only, and it should restrict any other kind of advertising that encourages any other kind of sexuality. But people should be taught to respect all people, whether they do everything according to the State or not. In the same way we shoudl resepct people who choose to smoke, or fat people who continue to eat, even thoguh the government pushes for healthy life style rather than an overweight life style.

Who's trying to change sexual mores? The 'progressive sexual standards' that society's trying to promote are just about sex education, awareness of the risks, and respect for sexual differences. 'Pride parades' are the attempt of a long oppressed group of people to be noticed, acknowledged and accepted. Once the party is over, I'm sure they get back to their normal lives and aren't constantly 'crazy' and 'slutty' or trying to convert others to homosexuality.

I'm sure most of them want stability too, like most people. Not allowing them to marry or adopt or even be intimate with each other is not exactly helping them in their quest for a stable family life.

Well I feel like homosexuals and free sex people are changing the traditional sexual mores by trying to force us to accept their sexuality as normal and good. Once again I am for a dont ask dont tell kind of approach. If they do deviant sexual things just keep it to themselves. Well long oppressed groups should not abuse their newly gained freedom. The shoudl have respect for those with different sensibilities who find it troubleing to see a man in a bikini with things hanging out everywhere.

I would be for allowing people to be more intimate whether same sex or not, so long as they keep their sexual life private. I would even possibly allow for two men or two women under certain conditions to adopt so long as they kept their private life private, and did not try to act like homosexuality is completely normal and healthy. I believe the empirical data and nature tells us that homosexuality is neither. Once again I think the only kind of sexuality that should be encouraged is sex within marriage, marriage being a life long exclusive union between one man and one woman.

I understand that these are difficult issues so I respect those with different opinions.

---

Stop being so fucking naive!

"but charitable contributions, combined with other acts, can help you earn one."

Which charities do you think Bi$hop Numbnutz has in mind?

Probably any charitiable service. But obviously charitable contributions are good actions and worthy of praise, however, you cannot recieve an indulgence for giving money alone. If you happen to give money while doing a charitable act or while praying or whatever, that is your business but the Church does not sell indulgences. It is not a matter of being naive its a matter of reading the facts.

[Ashendant]

How does people being gay hurt society? how does people having sex hurt society anyway

---

Can you prove this or is this just want some pope told us a long time ago? You know people used to say that women were to dumb to consent and that man had more power over woman so the father had to choose who she married to protect her. Do you think a 17 year old can consent? 16? 15? 14? 13? 12? At what point do you draw the imaginary line?

It's all subjective, my line of consent is maturity, while at 14-15 i think it mature enough to have consentual sex, this of course only applies in the industrial world because at this age most of the teenagers, already know the full responsibility sex can bring due to schools, of course there are some people over 30 that i believe aren't mature enough to have sex

I agree that the vast majority have self control. However, it is difficult to see how society would behave if we were told our whole lives that sex is absolutely fine in anyway you want. I imagine society would change a great deal. People probably would be far more free with their sexuality. The truth is if you watch the Disney channel today it is full of risqué material that would not have been permitted back in the golden days. MTV is currently getting sued for allowing children to do inappropriate things on camera, shame on their parents too.

America is too strict about sex, violence in movies is okay, but damm them if a teenager under 18 sees a nipple, thank god this is far more relaxed in europe, not the violence trough that is far more strict

However, I believe that we would still find purely rational reasons to restrict sexuality. Personally I think a reaction against the Church and traditional morals is behind the rise of homosexuality, not logically looking at it. It really is a more dangerous life style. The life expectance of a gay man is FAR lower than that of a straight male.

[Citation Needed]

Even France, a most secular nation, did a secular study and found that homosexuality was damaging to children so in France it is illegal for gays to adopt, for purely secular reasons.

[CITATION NEEDED]

If gays cant adopt I dont think they should be allowed to flaunt their homsexuality because it is more dangerous to society. Personally I would be for a dont ask dont tell for society. I would outright condemn any witch hunting of gay people, and let them do what they do IN PRIVATE. However, I think the State should only support the tried and true form of sexuality and that is within marriage.

Oh and your form sexually is the true form of sexuality?

The State should not go about trying to regulate people's private lives, but I think it should treat fornication (to use an old fashioned word) like it treats ciagrette smoking. The State has not made smoking cigarettes illegal, and it doesnt try to root it out by force, but it restricts cigarette comapanies from advertising and it encourages kids not to smoke.

Because smoking besides damaging themselves also damage others around it, in fact recent studies shows that after 30 minutes of smoking you already cancer chemicals in your body.

In the same way I think the State should encourage sex within marriage only, and it should restrict any other kind of advertising that encourages any other kind of sexuality. But people should be taught to respect all people, whether they do everything according to the State or not. In the same way we shoudl resepct people who choose to smoke, or fat people who continue to eat, even thoguh the government pushes for healthy life style rather than an overweight life style.

Because being gay is unhealthy

Well I feel like homosexuals and free sex people are changing the traditional sexual mores by trying to force us to accept their sexuality as normal and good. Once again I am for a dont ask dont tell kind of approach. If they do deviant sexual things just keep it to themselves. Well long oppressed groups should not abuse their newly gained freedom. The shoudl have respect for those with different sensibilities who find it troubleing to see a man in a bikini with things hanging out everywhere.

Well this lashing out at homosexual is pretty recent, fifty years ago homosexuality was far more acceptable, and the media making deviant sexuality a label that can't expect

I would be for allowing people to be more intimate whether same sex or not, so long as they keep their sexual life private. I would even possibly allow for two men or two women under certain conditions to adopt so long as they kept their private life private, and did not try to act like homosexuality is completely normal and healthy. I believe the empirical data and nature tells us that homosexuality is neither. Once again I think the only kind of sexuality that should be encouraged is sex within marriage, marriage being a life long exclusive union between one man and one woman.

Homosexual animals exist and they raise their childrens just fine, are you saying that humanity as a whole is worst than freaking flamingos?

God is too liberal on what it considers the marriage

"It is between one man and his sister, and her rapist, Kitchen Condiment, a gal who's kidnapped and raped, a few more women, an adulterer and a pack of raped whores, 700 wives, 300 hundred concubines, and the help, and a son who has murdered his brother".
True story from the bible

[OnlyNatural]

Because children are too young to consent to sex in a fully informed way, and the adult has more power over the child.

Can you prove this or is this just want some pope told us a long time ago? You know people used to say that women were to dumb to consent and that man had more power over woman so the father had to choose who she married to protect her. Do you think a 17 year old can consent? 16? 15? 14? 13? 12? At what point do you draw the imaginary line?

This is exactly why morality is not objective and absolute. It evolves as we discuss moral issues. We realize that our past behaviour was morally reprehensible and attitudes change. The age of consent today differs from place to place, but in most Western societies it is about 16.

What do you mean 'some pope told us?' I'm sure the clergy said nothing of the sort, and obviously a bunch of them couldn't care less about the age of consent, at least when it comes to their own behaviour.

I'm sure it is insulting to a degree but some times the truth hurts. I do beleive it is my obligation to do all I can to bring the truth to people.

I think the State should only support the tried and true form of sexuality and that is within marriage.

The State should not go about trying to regulate people's private lives, but I think it should treat fornication (to use an old fashioned word) like it treats ciagrette smoking.

I think the State should encourage sex within marriage only, and it should restrict any other kind of advertising that encourages any other kind of sexuality.

Who says you possess knowledge of the truth? Whatever truth you have seems to correspond to the 'holier than thou' attitude of the Catholic church, that Biblical truth is somehow morally superior. This is why the church and the state need to be kept separate, because religious groups all feel that they have the obligation to push their version of the 'truth' on other citizens.

What advertising are you referring to that 'encourages' certain kinds of sexuality? I see ads calling for respect and acceptance of sexuality diversity, but nothing that says 'Be gay, it's awesome! ' or 'Go have an affair!' or 'Have sex before marriage, all the cool kids are doing it!'

it is difficult to see how society would behave if we were told our whole lives that sex is absolutely fine in anyway you want. I imagine society would change a great deal. People probably would be far more free with their sexuality.

Even in secular society, no one ever says that any kind of sex is fine. There are restrictions (age of consent, laws against rape and molestation, etc.) that limit harm and do not require religion.

And personal freedom of sexual expression does not invariably lead to forcing oneself or one's sexuality on others.

Even France, a most secular nation, did a secular study and found that homosexuality was damaging to children so in France it is illegal for gays to adopt, for purely secular reasons.

Post a link or a source for this study, please. Otherwise, I don't believe it.

I dont think they should be allowed to flaunt their homsexuality because it is more dangerous to society.

Please tell me, why is it dangerous to society?

I feel like homosexuals and free sex people are changing the traditional sexual mores by trying to force us to accept their sexuality as normal and good.

They are not 'forcing' you to accept it, they just don't want to be persecuted or discriminated against because of it. You don't have to believe that it's normal and good. But you must realize that this is only your opinion, and that they don't deserve to have their rights limited by the opinions of religious people.

Well long oppressed groups should not abuse their newly gained freedom. The shoudl have respect for those with different sensibilities who find it troubleing to see a man in a bikini with things hanging out everywhere.

No one has the right not to be offended. Just like certain Muslims whose 'sensibilities are troubled' when they see cartoons of Mohammed. If you don't like it, look away.

I would be for allowing people to be more intimate whether same sex or not, so long as they keep their sexual life private. I would even possibly allow for two men or two women under certain conditions to adopt so long as they kept their private life private, and did not try to act like homosexuality is completely normal and healthy.

How charitable of you. So a gay couple can't hold hands or kiss in public because that's deviant and they should keep it to themselves. Think about how that would make you feel, if this was the person you love. Would you like others telling you to keep your relationship a secret? Homosexuals deserve the same rights as everyone else.

I believe the empirical data and nature tells us that homosexuality is neither [normal or healthy]. Once again I think the only kind of sexuality that should be encouraged is sex within marriage, marriage being a life long exclusive union between one man and one woman.

What empirical data do you have that says homosexuality is not normal or healthy? Include sources, so we know that you're not just stating your opinions and beliefs.

[dqualk]

This is the best article on why homosexuality is bad for society that I have read.

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/why_ca...rriage.htm

It makes ample reference to various social reasons and health reasons as to why homosexuality is wrong. Also, the guy who wrote it was a gay man at one time. So he knows first hand some of the problems. I'm not saying that makes him right. But it is an interesting persepective and the data is compelling.

When I say it is unnatural I am not saying that animals do not do it in nature. As a matter of fact we do not look exclusively to animals to decide what is natural human behavior, and thank God. Animals do lots of stuff that would be unnatural for a human, like fling poo and murder each other.

Also, the world has condemned homosexuality from the earliest times. Yes there were times and places where it was tolerated, but for the most part it was seen as evil, in all cultures. The thing is myths do not just develop out of nothing. Almost always there is a kernal of truth. The truth that homosexuality is unhealthy has been passed down in various myths in various cultures.

They are not 'forcing' you to accept it, they just don't want to be persecuted or discriminated against because of it. You don't have to believe that it's normal and good. But you must realize that this is only your opinion, and that they don't deserve to have their rights limited by the opinions of religious people.

I am for a dont ask dont tell mentality. I dont want to persecute or discriminate anyone, so long as they do not "air their dirty laundry."

How charitable of you. So a gay couple can't hold hands or kiss in public because that's deviant and they should keep it to themselves. Think about how that would make you feel, if this was the person you love. Would you like others telling you to keep your relationship a secret? Homosexuals deserve the same rights as everyone else.

I never said men and women shouldnt be able to hold hands or kiss. I think they should be decent about it if they choose to do it. Which means dont be making out, whether between a man and a woman or two of the same sex. It is sad that holding hands and kissing has become a sign of sexuality. It shows how aggressive and all consuming sexuality is in our culture. You know in the Lord of the Rings Tolkien had Frodo and Sam kiss at the end of the book, but it was kiss between friends, to show their deep intimicay for each other, but it was NOT AT ALL sexual. Where are those days, when sex did not consume all. I fear for the day that one cannot kiss their own parent for fear of being called incestuous. I dont mean to get all preachy lol so ill get back to the point and that is that kissing and holding hands shouldnt be about sex anyway. Now there is a certain kind of kissing that happens during sex, but that kind of internse sexual kissing should be left to the private sector.

[OnlyNatural]

This is the best article on why homosexuality is bad for society that I have read.

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/why_ca...rriage.htm

It makes ample reference to various social reasons and health reasons as to why homosexuality is wrong. Also, the guy who wrote it was a gay man at one time. So he knows first hand some of the problems. I'm not saying that makes him right. But it is an interesting persepective and the data is compelling.

Wow, that is one long website. I fully plan to read it, as soon as I have time. However, this is from a site called CatholicBridge.com which has a strong Catholic bias, obviously. Truly empirical evidence would not have such a bias, and would involve actual studies and use scientific journals as sources. If you can find something like that, that supports the hypothesis that homosexuality is harmful, I would be impressed.

[Ashendant]

This is the best article on why homosexuality is bad for society that I have read.

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/why_ca...rriage.htm

It makes ample reference to various social reasons and health reasons as to why homosexuality is wrong. Also, the guy who wrote it was a gay man at one time. So he knows first hand some of the problems. I'm not saying that makes him right. But it is an interesting persepective and the data is compelling.

When I say it is unnatural I am not saying that animals do not do it in nature. As a matter of fact we do not look exclusively to animals to decide what is natural human behavior, and thank God. Animals do lots of stuff that would be unnatural for a human, like fling poo and murder each other.

Also, the world has condemned homosexuality from the earliest times. Yes there were times and places where it was tolerated, but for the most part it was seen as evil, in all cultures. The thing is myths do not just develop out of nothing. Almost always there is a kernal of truth. The truth that homosexuality is unhealthy has been passed down in various myths in various cultures.

Legalized Gay Marriage was the result of 20 years of lobbying, court orders, and the marginalization of Christians for their protectiveness of marriage. Yet it was more of a political tool, a trophy. And "straight" Canada negotiated away it's most precious institution for this mocking of the building block of it's culture. The next trophy will be polygamy which is now all over the gay press.

And that source isn't biased, and because some want to be polygamous slut doesn't mean all gays wants to be polygamous sluts, and the fact is that we murder each other and it's not unnatural, at least animals have the sensibility of murdering their own species when they absolutely need it, we murder for less, paedophilia is also perfectly natural, doesn't mean it's morally acceptable, and about the fling poo thing there are people with scatophilia, so you can literally shit that argument out.

Tell that to the Spartans and the Vikings which had successful societies, in fact the spartans were successful because their gayness made bond and soldiers that fuck together stay together, someone once told me that the best solution to have a efficient military is to have the soldiers fucking each other, and he was a technocrat

I am for a dont ask dont tell mentality. I dont want to persecute or discriminate anyone, so long as they do not "air their dirty laundry."

You want to live in a boring world, we don't, my opinions are also probably a nightmare to you

[dqualk]

And that source isn't biased, and because some want to be polygamous slut doesn't mean all gays wants to be polygamous sluts, and the fact is that we murder each other and it's not unnatural, at least animals have the sensibility of murdering their own species when they absolutely need it, we murder for less, paedophilia is also perfectly natural, doesn't mean it's morally acceptable, and about the fling poo thing there are people with scatophilia, so you can literally shit that argument out.

Tell that to the Spartans and the Vikings which had successful societies, in fact the spartans were successful because their gayness made bond and soldiers that fuck together stay together, someone once told me that the best solution to have a efficient military is to have the soldiers fucking each other, and he was a technocrat

Both the Spartans and Vikings were soundly wiped away from this earth. And I disagree with the soldier who said that, but that is my opinion.

Of course he is biased. We are all biased. However, I feel that he does not pull punches, nor does he intend to insult.

because some want to be polygamous slut doesn't mean all gays wants to be polygamous sluts

I do not think that that is his arguement. He is saying rather that society must draw the line some where. Male and female sex within marriage is a good, tried and true line. Once we begin moving the line we will not know where it will ultimately rest, perhaps polyamorous relationships will be seen as a good thing, perhaps the age of consent will be drastically lowered, but once we start the ball rolling toward a more liberal sexuality its hard to argue as to where we should stop. Once again I do not think that we need a nanny police that is investigating what people do in their private time, but I think the government should only endorse one kind of sexuality, and that is the kind that produces good, healthy children, that will be the next citizens and workers of our nation.

---

I should have looked at that site again. I forgot that it is also argueing against fellow Christians. I should have just cherry picked where he talks about the French study that say homosexuality was harmful for kids, and about the STD problem and the death rate and so on. I recomend ignoring the Bible thumping parts, those parts are for us Bible thumpers lol. Although you may find it interesting. The main thing I meant to present to you is the parts that show statistics of depression and secular studies and so on. But there is also really interesting social problems that arise like people who disagree with homosexuality are silenced and seen as bad people who look down on others. Anyway, hopefully you can get the meat of the article.