[johnnyburst79]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

There is a religious elitism in that statement that rings false. It implies that without religion and a belief in God there can be no morality. That can very easily proven to be untrue.

Pyrite, I made that point earlier but he skipped right over that. To those who give up control of themselves to something else, having any sort of personal interest or responsibility with regards to morality is completely illogical.

I'm out. Have a great night!

[LANMaster]

What? No comment on my dogs?
That was comedy gold, right there.


Going home now.
I will do my best to answer you both tomorrow.

Take care

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by johnnyburst79

Pyrite, I made that point earlier but he skipped right over that. To those who give up control of themselves to something else, having any sort of personal interest or responsibility with regards to morality is completely illogical.

I'm out. Have a great night!

Yeah I've been making that point for years but to no avail.

Good night Johnny!

[LANMaster]

I simply do not agree with your conclusion.
That's okay, you don't agree with mine either.

[johnnyburst79]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I simply do not agree with your conclusion.
That's okay, you don't agree with mine either.

I don't think you can fathom what it means to simply be a good human being, and using a phrase I used long ago, a moral humanist. People can be "xyz" religion and still beat their spouses and abuse their children while attending church and tithing the 10%. And those who choose not to believe in a religion can love their children with ruthless abandon and honor their common-law spouses like nothing you've ever seen before.

It is about being an upstanding individual to your fellow human being. Religion has nothing to do with it, nor morality.

[LANMaster]

First of all, we all sin. But a person who beats their wife and claims to be a Christian is not being obedient to the tenants of the faith, nor to the marriage covenant vows.

I agree with you that one does not require a faith-based set of moral commandments in order to lead moral lives. People still murdered in the colonial days. People still sinned then. But perhaps not to the extent they do today.

I do respect your opinions, Johnny & Pyritechips. And I do not think they are illogical in the least.

I simply have come to a place in my life where I am far more cautious to please God than I ever had been before. Not that I was a bad person. I loved my family, gave to charity, and concerned myself with my fellow man.
Its hard to explain, but my charity now has a much higher purpose than it did before. I used to act on my own authority, now I try to act on the authority God has over me. I am accountable to an higher power than myself. Selfishness is a point if disobedience to my God.

I hope that clarifies.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

There is a religious elitism in that statement that rings false. It implies that without religion and a belief in God there can be no morality. That can very easily proven to be untrue.

Quite the opposite of elitism.

You perport to be moral based on your own goodness.
I perport that there is no way I can be good without God because He is the only one that is truly good.
But you can claim that you're good by choice, and that, IMO, is the elitist position.

[iltos]

so....about abstinance....

oh yeah....that


i don't believe it is solely a "religious" position, nor is it specifically about "morality"
it can certainly be engrained in children as a "rule", but it can also be reasoned out...as a "stance" in the world of adolescents, it strikes me as being more successful the more free and open the parents -and by extension, society- are to discuss sexuality with their kids.

to present it as one option among many in "sex education" in school is fine, but completely insufficient, be your views religious or secular....as with everything else in school, the only things taught to an individual in school are the things that individual wants to learn.....which is perhaps why sex education is being taught to the very young....their minds are still absorptive in the classroom environment.

if the program is a failure -and there's no reason to think it isn't- it reflects more on our ability to express our attitudes about sex and intimacy on a consistent and thoughtful basis, than on our ability to fight a war against teen hormones.

[NICK G]

Has US abstinence policy failed?
Policy has nothing to do with it. It's called human nature.
The World birth rate is over twice that of its death rate.
Only Europe has a death rate that exceeds the birth rate.
Blackmirror listed a real-time site once that listed births and deaths as they happened.
Pretty unique.
Maybe she will add it to this.

[bomb #21]

I don't think that reducing the overall population was ever an objective of abstinence-only sex education programmes.

[Fyzbo]

Originally Posted by bomb #21

It's not uncommon to read in here about the liberals' agenda to indoctrinate kindergartners w/r/t homosexuality. And then there's the whole question of sex education in schools.

Saw this a couple of days go:

US lawmakers are investigating whether to cut government funding for health education programmes that promote sexual abstinence until marriage.

but I've not seen anything in here about "a report earlier this year from America's leading health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which revealed one in four teenage girls has a sexually transmitted disease".

$1.5bn tax dollars wasted eh?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7368219.stm

Want to explain how your first paragraph of homosexuality ties into the rest of the post or the article?

The title of the article is very misleading. The controversy is over abstinence only sex education, not sex education that promotes abstinence. It is completely right. What is the point in paying for a sexual education class that doesn't teach basics like stds, birth control, condoms, safe sex. You don't need money to stand in front of a class and say "Don't have sex!".

I think the problem is there are people who refuse to teach safe sex/birth control as it admits that some kids may not be practicing abstinence. The fact of life is, some kids will have sex, it's always been that way and it always will be.

[NICK G]

Originally Posted by bomb #21

I don't think that reducing the overall population was ever an objective of abstinence-only sex education programmes.

Of course, but abstinence-only or birth control methods that are practiced and adhered to
would certainly help the world pop explosion.
Boys will be boys and girls will be...I'm not old enough to have knowledge of what girls
will be/are.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by iltos

so....about abstinance....

oh yeah....that


i don't believe it is solely a "religious" position, nor is it specifically about "morality"
it can certainly be engrained in children as a "rule", but it can also be reasoned out...as a "stance" in the world of adolescents, it strikes me as being more successful the more free and open the parents -and by extension, society- are to discuss sexuality with their kids.

to present it as one option among many in "sex education" in school is fine, but completely insufficient, be your views religious or secular....as with everything else in school, the only things taught to an individual in school are the things that individual wants to learn.....which is perhaps why sex education is being taught to the very young....their minds are still absorptive in the classroom environment.

if the program is a failure -and there's no reason to think it isn't- it reflects more on our ability to express our attitudes about sex and intimacy on a consistent and thoughtful basis, than on our ability to fight a war against teen hormones.

Wow. This post was a pleasure to read. I agree with you on this.

However, I still hold to my belief that PART of the rampant lack of abstinance can be correlated with the decline of divine moral authority in society.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Wow. This post was a pleasure to read. I agree with you on this.

hehehe....our batting average might be getting close to .250, then, LAN

However, I still hold to my belief that PART of the rampant lack of abstinance can be correlated with the decline of divine moral authority in society.

without offering you too much support ....i will say i probably agree with this....but disagree as to the necessity of your particular views regarding "divine moral authority".....imo, if this country hopes to remain the centerpiece for freedom on this planet, it's imperative that we accept that "divine moral authority" is inclusive of people who don't adhere to any widely accepted or organized religious belief system....and that includes the rationalists -the atheists- who'll jump in now and say that the problem is in the word "divine".....and then i'll agree with 'em, and sound all wishy-washy and stuff

but the truth in it for me is that human beings seek guidance through the adoption of those belief systems that seek to place our -conciousness, for lack of a better word- into the scheme of things....it is those belief systems that reinforce within us our capacity for reflection.....religion is one road, atheism is another....sheesh, even the gaia theory does it

and it is that ability to reflect on our state of affairs that is the source of a moral code, imo.

the prob seems to stem from the fact that our fears are not completely allayed by an outside belief system, and we are -many of us are, at any rate- stuck between opening our hearts and our heads to the diversity of our own species....and trusting that those differences are not automatically dangerous, and adhereing to a set of rules because they bring US comfort, and we imagine it would be the same for everybody.....

peculiar little creatures

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Quite the opposite of elitism.

You perport to be moral based on your own goodness.
I perport that there is no way I can be good without God because He is the only one that is truly good.
But you can claim that you're good by choice, and that, IMO, is the elitist position.

Yo
You really don't have a clue about how logic works, do you? I am moral bott choice and also due to the upbringing given to me in the absence of any religious indorctrination.To follow the moral code instilled in me by them is not elitism, it's merely doing good. If you wish to discuss "ethics" that is an entirely different topic and before you do you had better do your homework.

If you personally think you can't be good without God then you are just a slave to religious brainwashing. Your logic fails when you support your argument by stating "He is the only one that is truly good." I can challenge that on two points:

1) If you use a qualifier like "truly" then I have the right to ask you to define it and how it impacts your claim.

2) I can also ask that you support your argument that "He is the only one...". It is a definitive claim, yet despite the profundity of it, you offer no evidence or argument to support it.