Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You claim to provide data from the research, and date it as 1997, but you don't have a link?
It is from the study you cited.
Surely you have access to the complete study?
I think you just admitted to not having read the study.
Peacemaker said:
We are discussing what the practice of a certain brand of sexuality causes in the way of negative effects. You are trying very hard to deny them. I do not know how else to explain or characterize what you are saying.
That one is very easy. Because the fact is that homosexuality is the dynamic that causes the vast difference in the STI numbers. Of course if someone wants to obscure that fact because it is inconvenient the suggestion that ancillary or incidental causes are dominant is a way to confuse the issue. As I have stated in this context it is irrelevant.
I am unfamiliar with her. No one obscures simple things as prolifically as you have without a reason. I apologize for the question, but what was the information for?
I do not think so, but there might be some technical truth to that statement, however I believe we are given common sense, the Bible, and a God given conscience to evaluate any conflicting data. Much of histories evils are specifically caused by the suppression of common sense and a moral conscience and then obscuring morality to the point that anything desired can be acted upon. Abortion as birth control is a perfect example.
I was mostly joking.
They are not perfect equals that is true. However both can and have been proven by statistics and by other means. In philosophy a virtually universal conclusion across cultural boundaries and time (even with exceptions) is given a strong chance of being fact (abstract or not).
I do not agree but in the interest of time will comply.
Now who is comparing un equal concepts. Anti-Christianity was never virtually universal, did not cross most cultural boundaries, nor time. Christianity was tolerated in most places and most times but there were extreme exceptions. I think we have left the subject far behind.
What? There is no such well recognized term these days known as militant theism. Atheists do not hold any religious faith that any evangelical wishes to talk them out of. It makes no sense that if I do not believe in aliens yet can't disprove them I should attempt to persuade others they do not exist. It does make sense that if I had been on an alien craft I would want to inform people of that. I do not believe unicorns exist. I do not write books on why "unicorns are not great". I do not make up stuff and put it in a "the unicorn delusion" book. I act as if unicorns do not exist and go on with my life. However none of this was what I was talking about. I was commenting on their methods and motivation. Many are not arguing competently and dispassionately about the existence of God. They hate the very idea and will do anything (true or not, moral or not) to drive out faith. Their motto should be God does not exist and they hate him. Militant atheism is a very well-known modern phenomenon.
1robin said:
My primary objection is religous and the truth of that is indicated by science. I have not really gotten into what I think about the issue morally too much. I have no need. I have absolutely no temptation in this area and am not required to judge anyone directly. The only judgment I have ever made in reality is to be against marriage for homosexuals and service in the military, because I believe it is a holy institution in the first case and no place to experiment in the other. Outside that their actions are between them and God. My point here has been that it's practice increases suffering greatly in general and there is no necessity for the practice. I have no idea what the argument that not all immoral actions have a direct repercussion proves?
Things are rarely that simple.
To point out what I believe all couples should do, and smart couples will do to avoid infection.
Well, I disagree with the Bible part (as you know), but I can point to the fact that Scandinavia is actually doing quite well for itself despite the fact that it's barely religious at all over there. I can point out the fact that pre-Christian Rome did very well for itself, despite the fact that its military and government was responsible for many evils. During the European Dark Ages, the Middle East was in the Islamic Golden Age.
I'm not getting into that one, because abortion is actually a debate worth having, but not here. That one actually is hard.
That's actually two logical fallacies in one, argument from tradition, and argument from numbers.
