Evidence for Christianity

[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.