Christianity ruins families.

[Robert]

1. Yes smoking is bad for you. It's a fact that I'm sure 99% of people can agree with. I smoked for almost 40 years and quit 2 years ago.

2. Having protected sex with guys is bad is not an established fact. Having unprotected sex is probably not a good idea.

These two things can not be compared.

When I was younger, I was a Catholic and was considerably homophobic. I was quite intolerant. But then I actually met and got to know some gay people. One became a really good friend. I learned that gays are just like any other group. There are good ones and bad ones.

To not see this because GOD tells you they're bad, and use that to deny them basic liberties is wrong. There should be no debate to that.

Thanks

[Robert]

Another ostrich.


Are there any non-religious nuts that feel this way? Do you have to believe in imaginary beings in order to "get" Ben?

It's always important to 'get' your opponent.
It's always important to understand the source of the arguments of the other.
That's the base of mutual tolerance and respect. And it's also the base of any sane discussion.

I actually get both sides of the argument here, and I agree with the 'gay' people, eventhough I do understand Ben. Does that make me a nut?

I understand where fascists muslim terrorists come from, I understand their reasoning. I completely disagree with them and condemn all their actions. But we will never be able to end muslim fascist terrorism if we won't be able to understand them first.

And if you want to change Ben's opinion, and of those who agree with Ben, then you MUST first understand them. Same with Ben, if he wants to change your mind, especially the minds of gays, he must understand them first. He must understand first how it is to be gay and to be condemned by others. How it is that the core of your being is being questioned by people based on believes you don't share. He must understand how it is to have this true love for people of the same gender, and being told that it's a sin anyway.

As long as you guys don't bother to understand each other, then every debate is pointless and ends in an unrational brainless yell-fest.
And of course you can then make things even more simplistic by saying things as I quote you above.

But for the record, there are very smart scientists who even understand the behavior of monkeys. They understand where monkeys come from, why they do what they do. If even people who are 1000 times as smart as you are try to understand monkeys with whom they're not even debating, then you should at least try to understand just another human being, without thinking that such a thing would be for nutcases only.

[rah]

1. Yes smoking is bad for you. It's a fact that I'm sure 99% of people can agree with. I smoked for almost 40 years and quit 2 years ago.

2. Having protected sex with guys is bad is not an established fact. Having unprotected sex is probably not a good idea.

These two things can not be compared.

When I was younger, I was a Catholic and was considerably homophobic. I was quite intolerant. But then I actually met and got to know some gay people. One became a really good friend. I learned that gays are just like any other group. There are good ones and bad ones.

To not see this because GOD tells you they're bad, and use that to deny them basic liberties is wrong. There should be no debate to that.

[giblets]

Éventhough I disagree with the RCC condom rule (a lot), their point is consistent and valid.
They say that if sex is only consumed with 1 partner, then there's no risk for sexual deseases, and no need for a condom.

That totally makes sense. It makes no sense to believe that catholics who ignore the 1-partner doctrine of the church will live up to the no-condoms doctrine. Like: "Oh, I'm going to hell if I commit adultery without a condom, but I'm ok if I use one while commiting adultary"

I don't think followers of a religion will either live up to every single teaching or none of them. Even if discouraging sex outside marriage is a good thing, teaching people that contraception is intrinsically evil is harmful.

[Robert]

I don't hate you. I hate your intolerance. Well OK, I guess that makes me dislike you intensely also. Your dishonesty in debating is strike two. Do you not recognize your own intolerance?

Hating intolerance is in itself inconsistent.
Hating = intolerance.
Everybody is intolerant to some groups or doctrines.
Most of hate nazis, KKK, fascist islam, murderers, crusaders, maoism, etc.

If it's about the gay issue, then I think that both sides are equally honest or dishonest in the debate style. Both sides try to ignore questions/arguments from the other side that don't fit their monologue.

In the end you guys will never be able to understand each other because you have different starting positions.
Ben believes that God has a certain doctrine.
Some of you don't believe that God exists.
That will never come together. Either Ben must lose his faith or the others must gain Ben's faith. As long as none of that happens, you will not be able to communicate with each other. Which has already factually been proven.

And both sides are equally responsble for that.
The one question the Ben-haters can raise is if Ben is allowed to have such an opinion, and if he's allowed to use freedom of speech to express it.

And Ben has to ask himself is he accepts that not everybody agrees with his religion and his doctrine. Is he willing to accept that, and is he willing to respect that.

But blaming each other for a dishonest debate is pure nonsense. You both ignore each other's arguments and questions. Proof:

rah to Ben:

Do you not recognize your own intolerance?

no answer.

Ben to rah:

Ok. Lets say I said that smoking was bad for you. Having sex with guys is also bad for you.

Which one of these statements is intolerant?

No answer either.

If you guys would be consistent with your own teachings, you would say to each other something like:

Ben to rah: Yes, I have an intolerance to certain people, based on what I believe God teaches me.
rah to Ben: None of them are intolerant, the 2nd one is quite dumb though, because it can equally been said that sex with girls is bad for you as well, in that case.

But since you guys aren't able to use ratio to debate each other, it's only a flame fest.
And I start to approach the point where I say: "Start a vB of your own and have your flame fest there. I'm getting sick of it."

[Imran Siddiqui]

They say that if sex is only consumed with 1 partner, then there's no risk for sexual deseases, and no need for a condom.

That totally makes sense.

Unless you don't want 15 kids .

[Robert]

Ben
Nikolai
Plomp

Is that the list? Anyone else care to have their name added?

What kinda list is that? A list of christians? Then it's an incomplete, but good list.

[Robert]

I often wish that Ben had been the victim of a Catholic abortion...

You are banned for 1 day based on rule 2 (hate speech based on religion) and Off-topic rule 4b ("Malicious personal attacks, attacks that are deemed to be aimed at driving other users from the site")

[Robert]

Ben: apart from the idea that protection is not needed if someone has sex with 1 partner only, why does the RCC disapprove protection?

I mean, there's no need to wear seatbells either if all car drivers drive according to the rules and pay good attention on what they do. (it's only a fallable example, please don't use it to continue the debate )

[Robert]

Éventhough I disagree with the RCC condom rule (a lot), their point is consistent and valid.
They say that if sex is only consumed with 1 partner, then there's no risk for sexual deseases, and no need for a condom.

That totally makes sense. It makes no sense to believe that catholics who ignore the 1-partner doctrine of the church will live up to the no-condoms doctrine. Like: "Oh, I'm going to hell if I commit adultery without a condom, but I'm ok if I use one while commiting adultary"

People once again are mixing 2 things up; disagreeing with a doctrine and seeting the validity of a doctrine.
Both "Use protection" and "Have 1 partner only" are (for 99%) a sure method to get aids and other sexual diseases out of this world. Both are consistent in itself. The RCC pics the 2nd option, the rest of the world picks the other option.

Once again, I totally and completely disagree with the RCC and Ben here, because I think it's insane to ban protection means, both for rational and theological reasons. But he has a point despite that.

Ming, I'm really sorry, but your last 2 posts make me laugh. There's hardly any logic in there. And then I agree on your base position that one can obviously use protection.

I mean:

No other single religion kills as many...

and of course the big bold letters show that your posts aren't based on ratio but pure on anger and frustration.

[Ming]

Here is a FACT for you Ben...

Catholics KILL 428,810 INNOCENT BABIES A YEAR IN THE US ALONE

That's more than the total population of Miami. One has to wonder just how many more they would kill if it wasn't against the teachings of their religion...

That sure seems significant to me. No other single religion kills as many...

[MOBIUS]

I often wish that Ben had been the victim of a Catholic abortion...

[Ming]

I'm really not sure how you got that out of what I said. Would you trust a condom with your life, and have sex with a WOMAN who is HIV+

And I still have no clue what your question has to do with the point that was being made... as usual, you just make up a BS question that has nothing to do with a point you can't dispute.

Yeah, that whole wait until you get married to have sex, and have sex with only your wife. Condoms are pointless in that situation.

But you have catholics who aren't going along with the teachings... and they are still catholics.
You want to condemn all gays because some have non safe sex... well let's blame all catholics because many have sex outside of marriage. If you want to seperate those that do and those that don't, then you must treat gays the same way.

Catholics are also the largest religious affiliation in the US, so you'd expect them to have the most abortions. I already explained this.

Yeah... we would expect the relgion that outlaws abortions to have the most... HAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
One thing that is a fact... Catholics are KILLING MORE INNOCENT BABIES THAN ANY OTHER RELIGION.
You can't change that fact or make it go away... or even justify it.

Oh, sure, some of them are very selective. Some of us would rather follow what the church teaches.

Then why don't you believe in tolerence... another church teaching... oh, that's right, you are also being selective in which teachings you follow.

Quite the opposite.

Yet another link that doesn't address the real issue. Many catholics don't use birth control, but then have abortions. FACT.

What's the rate of abortion for catholics, Ming? You say that they have more abortions in total, but there are also more Catholics than any other religion affiliation. You've given insufficient information.

I'm talking about killing more innocent babies than any other religion. Catholics have more abortions than any other religion... FACT. What more do I need to prove.

My point is that the problems you talk about are associated exclusively with abortion. No abortion, these problems go away.

Safe sex... and the problem goes away for gays... so what's your point again?

Sure. I'm arguing that they wouldn't have abortions if they followed what the Church taught. You are arguing that if they didn't follow what the church taught that they would be more likely to have an abortion. This isn't true at all.

If gays followed advice to have safe sex, the problem goes away. The problem is, some don't.
The same is true for catholics... if they followed the teachings, the problem goes away... but many don't. So, they are the same.

Sure is.

If that's what you think, then we need to do something about the religion that KILLS THE MOST innocent babies. We all have to agree that by degree, catholics kill far more than anybody else by a long shot.
Something must be done.

Again, according to AGI.

FACT... you may see that as a low number, but catholics kill more innocent babies than anybody else.
You can ignore this by trying to make it seem insignificant, but every one is ANOTHER DEAD BABY.
I'm shocked that you would not be outraged about the actions of your religion...

AGI once more.

So your argument is flawed. We would reduce the Abortion rate by having more Catholic women.

What a moron... you are combining ALL others. NO SINGLE GROUP had a higher rate than Catholics.
You can combine religions... like say all protestants, or combine all other religions, but the facts are clear.... AS A SINGLE RELIGION, none is higher than catholics. Not even the non relgious group is higher.

So your argument is flawed... We would reduce the abortion rate if NO ONE believed in God.

[Berzerker]

Catholics aint supposed to use condoms, that means more babies and more babies means more health problems for women - therefore Catholicism is sinful (or bad), right Ben?

Arguing over what is or isn't healthy within the context of Christianity is kinda pointless, plenty of Christians went to their deaths as martyrs at young ages, including Jesus... In "fact", Jesus said his views would bring discord, even within families turning son against father, etc.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, the dishonest argument would come after I gave you the definition.

I've heard that Roddick lost today in Wimbledon. Amazing upset.