can't look at this page anymore.

someone--lula or alderic joudain--needs to edit reply #92 to fix it by removing everything between <!-- and--->

ONLY IF abstinance training has caused them to change their mind and decide to practice abstinance does abstinance training work. Every observation, statistic, and empirical study has shown that teaching abstinance only causes LESS abstinance and increases the rate of teen pregnancy and STD transmission, compared to teaching comprehensive sex ed. A person choosing to abstain after getting comprehensive sex ed is not an example of "abstinance only training works", if you honestly think it is, then we have nothing more to discuss.

And for the last time, telling people to have safe sex if they have sex is not the same as telling people not to abstain/commit chastity.

Teenagers aren't all going to be modest and pure little angels anyway. Better to keep them informed so that they're more likely to practice safe sex. Regardless, discussing such matters (or supporting the discussion of such matters) does not mean you oppose chastity. It would only be opposing chastity if you wanted schools to teach pupils specifically not to abstain, and to have sex before marriage.

Yes, that was exactly what I said... .

[sarcasm]Yes, it is ADMITTING there is a problem that causes the problem, if you only ignore it hard enough then it would go away![/sarcasm]

I saw this too, Kingbee. You are right, it needs editing or deleting.  With this new format, I don't know how to do that to someone else's post.  

Taltimer posts:

Not true. Here's one from last April, 2008.

Studies Show Abstinence Education Works: Heritage Foundation Report

By John Jalsevac

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 23, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Abstinence education is "crucial to the physical and psycho-emotional well-being of the nation's youth," concludes a detailed report released by the Heritage Foundation.

The report, "Abstinence Education: Assessing the Evidence", released yesterday, examines 21 studies of abstinence education programs, and concludes that statistics show that abstinence programs are effective in deterring teens from becoming sexually active, thereby reducing the risk of STDs, teen prengnacy, etc. The release of the report preceded today's hearing of the U.S. House of Representative's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which discussed the efficacy of abstinence-only programs and whether or not funding for such programs should be extended.

Abstinence-only programs have received $1.3 billion in government funding over the last decade. Such programs, however, have come heavily under attack from social liberals, who argue that they put young people at risk by not giving a more "comprehensive" view of sexual health issues - that is, by not emphasizing enough contraception, abortion, and so-called "safe-sex." They have also been accused of promoting "gender stereotypes" and of being intolerant towards homosexuals.

The chairman of the house committee, Rep. Henry A. Waxman, in his opening remarks today argued that abstinence-only programs are ineffective, and do not merit continued funding.

"I respect the commitment and intentions of people who run abstinence-only programs. They are doing it because they care about youth and want to counter the sexual messages that are all too pervasive in popular culture," he said. "But we will hear today from multiple experts that after more than a decade of huge government spending, the weight of the evidence doesn't demonstrate abstinence only programs to be effective."

The Heritage Foundation report, authored by Christin C. Kim and Robert Rector, however, disagrees, and demonstrates that a majority of abstinence programs have reported a statistically significant decrease in levels of sexual activity for students who participate in them.

Of 15 sex-ed programs that primarily taught abstinence, 11 reported positive findings, while of 6 "virginity pledge" programs, 5 reported positive findings.

One abstinence program, Reasons of the Heart, reported that only 9.2 percent of virgins who went through the program were sexually active a year later, compared with 16.4 percent of those virginal teens who didn't go through the program.

Another program, called Heritage Keepers, reported, "One year after the program, 14.5 percent of Heritage Keepers students had become sexually active compared with 26.5 percent of the comparison group," making students from the abstinence program about half as likely to become sexually active as those not in the program.

A third program, Best Friends, found that "Best Friends girls were nearly 6.5 times more likely to abstain from sexual activity" than those not in the program. It was also found out, "They were 2.4 times more likely to abstain from smoking, 8.1 times more likely to abstain from illegal drug use, and 1.9 times more likely to abstain from alcohol."

Abstinence programs, observes the report, are admirable in that they are not only about sexual behavior, but "also provide youths with valuable life and decision-making skills that lay the foundation for personal responsibility and developing healthy relationships and marriages later in life."

The report complains that while an enormous amount of effort is being put into teaching "comprehensive" sexual education, very little effort is put into teaching abstinence. "Today's young people face strong peer pressure to engage in risky behavior and must navigate media and popular culture that endorse and even glamorize permissiveness and casual sex," write Kim and Rector. "Alarmingly, the government implicitly supports these messages by spending over $1 billion each year promoting contraception and safe-sex education - 12 times what it spends on abstinence education."

"Although 80 percent of parents want schools to teach youths to abstain from sexual activity until they are in a committed adult romantic relationship nearing marriage - the core message of abstinence education - these parental values are rarely communicated in the classroom."

Instead, says the report, "In the classroom, the prevailing mentality often condones teen sexual activity as long as youths use contraceptives. Abstinence is usually mentioned only in passing, if at all."

The Heritage Foundation's report concludes urging that, "When considering federal funding for abstinence education programs and reauthorization of Title V abstinence education programs, including maintaining the current definition of 'abstinence education,' lawmakers should consider all of the available empirical evidence."

To read the Heritage Foundation report, see:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1897.cfm

AEORTAR POSTS:

That's exactly the point I made...

Obama fully supports what is called comprehensive "safe sex" education whose programs are on the basis or context that anticipates or assumes that "since kids are going to engage in sexual activity" anyway, they therefore must teach them to engage in responsible sexual behavior by using condoms or birth control devices.

Most of the sex ed curriculum uses materials, videos, activities and services provided by advocacy organizations like Planned Parenthood or its spawn, SIECUS who have a common political, ideological agenda and is financially vested in providing sex education programs. Most comprehensive sex ed programs require a smidgeon of abstinence education and by abstinence, I mean it emphases abstinence until the boy or girl decides that they are ready and birth control is used.

Sex education, since by design, is "value free", is not about teaching kids to abstain from sexual activity or about being chaste, not at all...rather it teaches students how to be sexually involved "safely"......

But you don't give kids enough credit.

A Nov. 1977 reader's Digest article quoted Eunice Kennedy Shriver, "For more than 25 years I have worked with teenage girls in trouble. And I have discovered that they would rather be given standards than contraceptives. No where do I hear a suggestion that teenage intercourse can be controlled, that teenagers themselves might want to control it. Society itself may be encouraging teen sex and then hypocritically condemning its results."

Character based abstinence education programs have the potential of helping the school, the parents, the kids, and the greater community solve the most pressing problems that our youth are afflicted with today, not doling out birth control devices to them.

By your own admission it's "value free" - it is not passing a judgement against abstinance/chastity. Hence why your "thou shalt not commit chastity" does not appear backed up by anything. Now if instead it had said 'thou shalt practice safe sex' or 'thou shalt not cause teenage pregnancies' etc. you'd have a point.

Amusing, since I can recall that in response to a study that covered ~50 abstinance programs, those in favour of such programs argued it was too small a study - yet they're offering up studies that look at ~15  programs to support their view?

PS. For the record I never received abstinence training. I moved to the USA midway through 10th grade in highschool.

no disrespect really but.....no duh!  The government schools are all about comprehensive sex ed and abstinence is not part of their plan.  Abstinence training is mainly taught in private schools or individual families and it works.  My kids were taught the same as you.....the only abstinence training they got was from their parents and it worked. 

The kids in the public schools are being dumbed down.  They're not given the respect nor the correct training to make up their own minds.  They're being taught they're all a bunch of hormonic animals that can't resist the urge so they throw condoms at them and tell them to be careful. 

Actually I live in texas, I never got sex ed in school in texas. My younger brothers DID, they got abstinance training. Which they laughed at, so did all the other students their age, who went on to all fornicate each other at age 13.

sounds like a bunch of animals. 

So who's to say that God didn't grant the doctors the knowledge to perform abortions to help him carry out some of these short time clocks.  Maybe God is working thru the doctors or the women involved.  Maybe God told some of these women that they should get an abortion so that they can do something in their lives before having children.  Just a thought since you claim that God works in mysterious ways, maybe this is just another one of those mysterious ways.

El-D

God isn't going to go against his word.  He's never going to tell a woman to go get an abortion.  That would make God a liar.  He tells us when we are faced with a life and death situation like this that we should choose life.  If not sure, we should always err on the side of life. 

Yes God did allow these abortions, you speak of, to happen by not stopping them but I wouldn't say that this is God's will nor is God working in the lives of humans to make this happen.  But there are cases where babies do live thru attempted abortions and go on to live productive lives in spite of our desire to kill them off.  For reasons only known to God he had a specific purpose for them and their time was not ready yet. 

Even here, with broken messed up lives that result post abortion God can use this to draw people to himself.  God has a way of taking the bad and making it into something good regardless of our actions. 

This is not the same as God appointing a baby to live only a few days or months.  We all have an appointment with death.  None of us are made to escape this reality.  Some of us are ready for our appointment and some will never be, but it happens nonetheless. 

Taltimer,

I appreciate reading your pov. However, I don't want to see obscenities staring up at me from the pages of my own blog. Please remove it from your from your # 111 post. Thanks.

Oi. Seriously KFC, I was addressing the issue of when you have sex to procreate. Granted, not all the time does it lead to children as is evident with couples who repeatedly try to conceive. I realize that. My point still stands though - when you desire to have children, you have sex, which is the process of reproduction. So Man and Woman (or heck, two men and two women) do in fact create life if they are successful.

I find that to be bollocks KFC, pure bollocks, and yes there is inconsistancies but I won't bother going into them because I know you won't buy them; you will just go on ahead and believe your book - even if I feel it is to be a book of myth and follies. So shall we call it good from here on out?

~Alderic

How do you know that you have already admitted that man cannot possibly understand the actions that God performs so how could you possibly know that he would never tell a woman to get an abortion?

How does war factor into this.  In war we are faced with the choice between life and death and often times the choice must be death.

God's will was to give us free will so that we could make decisions for ourselves whether he agreed with them or not and then we have to live with the consequences.

It does seem contradictory to have a God that gives free will, then sort of pretentiously assume that we will do his will.

Precisely! Either you don't know God's will and/or intentions and as such you cannot say what it is because you don't know. Or you do (assuming you do) and are (in my opinion) presumptious.

~A

I thought he also said something about not visiting the sins of the father on the child, yet went on to do that very same thing (although I guess the difference there is he didn't tell someone to do that, he just did it himself).

only in the loosest sense available.  Only God can create life.  Even nine year olds get pregnant.  It's not that they are creating life.  It's a by-product of sex.  If they could create life they would have by now in a lab and they cannot.  Heck they can't even save every embryo they implant in the IVF process.  Many are lost in the process sometimes before implantation. 

It's really quite interesting to watch our culture because those in opposition to abortion are most of the time ok with war.  Those who are pro-abortion protest war.  Does this make sense?  Well to me the first group does and the second group does not.  From a Christian POV it's all about sanctity of life.  We protect the unborn because of this and we understand also that war is a neccessary evil because of this as well.  War is for protection and defense of the citizens.  When we went to war against Hitler it was to stop the atrocities against mankind.  It had to be done.  Sanctity of life was at stake.  Doesn't that make sense? 

Exactly El-D.  We're in total agreement here.  But the consequences are very steep. 

Why does it seem contradictory?  We can either choose the right way or the wrong way.  We can either choose life or death.  Many would rather choose death because of their pride than to follow the God who created them.  Go figure. 

because of his revealed word to us.  Man's word is one thing.  God's is another.  When he says something it's written in stone.  So let it be written, so let it be done.

Richard Nixon said "I am not a crook".....but he was

George Bush said "No new taxes" ......but there were

Bill Clinton said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"......but he did.

But the word of God stands forever.  He means what he says.  You can bank by his word.   He's not going to tell us to abort babies when he's all about the sanctity of life.  In fact, in one instance when the midwives were told by the Egyptian Government to abort or kill the male babies at birth, they feared God more and did not follow this order.  God blessed them and recognized them for this effort. 

That's ok but how much have you read it or studied it?  I try to encourage everyone (since it's the best seller of all time) to give it one year of complete study before they spout off about it.  At least be confirmed in your own mind, not using the minds of others which is mostly the case. 

Well since I've put in alot of time and effort into this book I'm pretty confident in what it says.  Many who went in, over the years, to try and discredit this book also realized there's more than meets the eye and became convinced of its authority.   How do you know the inconsistencies are not of your mind and not of the book?  I'm not going to buy them (inconsistencies) because I know most of them already and they are nothing but poppycock and easily shown to be so. 

But yes we can agree to disagree.  I'm quite fine with that. 

So far as I know I am of sound mind and intellect. For everyone's sake I guess I should look into that.

I think that will be the norm between us here on JU. I don't seem to be able to convince you and I don't plan on changing my mind drastically either.

They (scientists) are getting pretty close to being able to create life from what i've read. Granted, with every experiment there comes trial and error.

I've actually ready about eighty to ninety percent of it. I went through my own little spiritual crisis years back and studied it and other spiritual texts. My personal favorite is anything Buddhist. They really do seem to have things down fairly pat (somewhat) .

My basis for not going with the bible isn't so much that I'm against the religion or the followers of Christianity, I just don't believe in seemingly mindless faith. I also do not believe in the complete and utter infalliability of a written text. My opinion on the Bible is that one should take it, and glean from it what they can. I admit there are some noble parts in it, like a few of the commandments.I believe that if there is a God or superior being, he would rather we use our heads than just take things on faith.

Since we're on the topic, I myself have reached the point where I "believe in" mpersonal idealism. I believe in the good qualities of the world (Love, hope, compassion, etc...) and promote them as much as I can. That is my faith, if you will, within the constraints and guidelines of logic, and rationality. Simple enough. And guess what, no one has to go to hell for eternity.

BTW:

~Genesis 1:3-5~

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

 ⁴And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

 ⁵And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

~Genesis 1:14-19~

"¹⁴And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

 ¹⁵And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

 ¹⁶And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

 ¹⁷And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

 ¹⁸And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

 ¹⁹And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

(Sorry, I just couldn't resist one more time or so)

I am assuming that your explaination is that the two different lights mentioned in this are the light of day and night, and then stars. Still....I'm curious.

good because I do like to have good conversations with sound intelligent people.    Around here it seems for every 10 Jusers we have 12 opinions and not all of them are of sound mind and intellect IMHO. 

no, not even close.  There's some sort of protector barrier that's stopping this from happening.  It's one thing to clone animals but I doubt we'll ever see this done in humans.  

Who told you it's a mindless faith?  That's a fallacy.  See that's what I mean by listening to others.   All you have to do is pick up the book to see it's not about a mindless faith at all.  It takes alot of brain and thought and study to make sense of this book.  It's a lifetime of study.   God gave us a brain and he does expect us to use it.  He told us to love him with our whole MINDS, hearts and souls.  He never said to check your brain at the door.  So now that I've told you that.......well?  

We take alot of things on faith without even thinking about it.  I sit in a chair and I have faith it's going to hold me.  I buy a can of corn and I have faith corn will be in that can when I get it home.  I go out to my car and I just take it for granted it's going to get me where I have to go.  Heck, I've even driven "mindlessly" sometimes by rote without even thinking lost in a daydream.  Many times we do put faith in mere mortals.....why not a big creator God? 

Promoting the good things of life are commendable but will not get you into heaven.  You'd better do your HW and make sure you're right on this. I've spent many years researching all this stuff and I'm telling ya, nothing makes sense outside of Christ.  But it's your journey and all I'm saying is don't quit checking things out.  It's worth it. 

The light in v3 is not the sun which wasn't created until the 4th day, but some fixed light source outside the earth most likely having something to do with the Glory of God.  The light source of the first day was replaced by the sun and moon.  Their purposes were to distinguish day and night to be signs to mark off the seasons and to give light to the earth.

If you go to the last book you'll see that in the new replaced earth there will be no sun nor moon for light.  So I'm guessing we're going back to that first light source that we saw in v3. 

"and the city had no need of the sun neither of the moon to shine in it for the glory of God did lighten it; and the lamb is the light thereof."  Rev 21:23

If you read the book of John you'd read repeatedly especially there that Jesus is called the Light of the World. 

I apoligize, in my culture (israeli) words are never obscene, only situations or intent. I was thinking of the F word as synonymous for sex and forgot some people get all uptight about it. While I find the notion silly, I respect your wishes: I replaced it with fornicate.

ALDERICJOURDAIN POSTS: # 75

Lula posts:

ALDERICJOURDAIN POSTS:

Your dissembling is indeed playing devil's advocate! There is no inalienable, natural or moral or legal right to abortion. Period.