Basically, what the Church should say is "don't have sex, but if you do, use a condom" (only requiring my incantation after others because you see unable or unwilling to understand this). This way they satisfy their particular ideological need whilemaking sure that damage isn't done if this doctrine is ignored. I thought that modern Christian teaching had moved away from blatant victimisation. They have knowledge they are not expounding - knowledge that could help people. By refusing to acknowledge it to the Africans, they cause them damage and harm. Such an action goes against their basic moral code. Saying "don't have sex, or use contraception, and if you do thus you deserve whatever you get because you disobeyed our hallowed and God proven axiomatic lies", which has been the
implicit tone of much said, is essentially a form of revenge - indirectly allowing someone to come to harm because they did something you think wrong. Wrath is a cardinal sin.
The teaching of self-discipline is probably one of the most important factors in enabling individuals to make healthy lifestyle choices. Also, condoms are useless if individuals choose not to use them.
No shit. As said, individuals' choices not to use them are greatly influenced by the Church's so-called 'teachings'. Why is this hard to grasp? This places significant responsibility on the Church. An individual can be a slave to their ideology (and I think many Africans may be close to this state of being).
Also, you asked another if they would jump off a cliff if you told em so? Let's put it in realistic terms. I am a person/org with great power. You have utter faith in me, you cling to every phoneme I breathe, you consider me your Lord, master and see obedience as necessary. Moreover, without me you will suffer (as you think) in eternity, the worse fate possible. Now, if I told you to jump of a cliff because of
X [insert doctrine/invocation of divine proclamation], would you do it? Maybe not, but their would be a greatly increased chance of this eventuality. Also, think about the uses of martyrdom (persuading people to die for faith) or crusades (persuading people t fight and die for faith) and some of thos suicide cults. It is not at all absurd that such blind obediance should occur.
Fact: Claims that the Bible is unverifiable are unverifiable.
No, by its nature the Bible is unverifiable. Claims that some of the more general and less specific points of faith (primarily the existence of God) are outright
false are unverifiable. Saying that the Bible is unverifiable is simply stating the truth - we have no reliable documents or scientific proof to verify the Bible (Fact) so it is thus.
Fact: Historians class the Bible as an historical document. Although it is true that it is a debatable topic, it will always be classed as an Historical document.
Irrelevant and evidently not thought through. Herodotus' histories are an "historical document". If Herodotus tells me that flying snakes exist (as he does), do I believe him? Tacitus, Livy, Polybius, Ammianus Marcellinus etc have all written what are classed as 'historical documents'. If they tell me morality drives causation, do I believe them? If a revisionist denies the Holocaust in an historical book, which may be defined as an 'historical document', do I believe him? Similarly, if the Bible (which, due to its religious and incredulous nature, for which we have no other proof or verification, cannot be believed by itself, taken as reliable source
for the existence of God , or seen as being
necessarily trustworthy. It also throws around a lot of allegory/metaphor/deceptive language. Its status as an 'historical document' doesn't mean shit.
Fact: I never said we didn't evolve.
Fact: Individuals have free will.
Have you considered that indiviudals may be slaves to their own emotions and urges, and that they may not be able to contain or control them? Pure free will is once again a Biblical concept in the sense you use it, it is not an proven fact. If anything, it is a theory asserted as fact.
There is just as much evidence supporting the integrity of the Bible as their is against it. Also wouldn't it be common sense to abstain from sex until marriage in a society that is riddled with HIV/AIDS?
Integrity of the Bible in relation to what? It has many uses (for example, the history of the Jews). You have just thrown another Christian dichtomy into the mix.
In a similar vein to your idealism about intra-marital only, I could say, "isn't it common sense that we should stop destroying each other with wars?" Granted, the aim (in my instance, not yours) may be noble or (in both) practical, but 'common sense' would also tell you that these are not achievable and we cannot go against our nature and conditions.
My way of proving this comes from the Bible and everything it tells us about sex. Since you question the Bible then I doubt you will accept this as proof. Once again, you also have no way of proving that it is not.
Again my opinion reflects the ideas expressed in the Bible. In genesis we see that man was made in God's image and not in the image of the animals. Man is distinct from the animals and thus sex should not merely be seen as an animal instinct.
As said by others, it is wrong for you to assert such morals on others who disagree. Throw away your bedside book of after-dark lies. It is interesting you should quote genesis, because this is one part of the Bible that science has disproved (viz. contruction of the planet from elements made only in supernovae, dinosaurs, evolution...)
