And even if you disagree, at least understand that these people couldn't have better intentions behind what they're teaching. They're only trying to help. And for that, you're tearing them apart. That's not very impressive.
Several of the points described in that blog are backed by basic psychology or other science. Most of the others (and the one posted above) are more opinion-based, but are still valid and logically sound. Like you, I also disagree with any activity that portrays people as deserving to be thrown in the trash, but most of them don't do that.
But hey, if you've already decided that you aren't willing to give me any quarter whatsoever, there's no point trying to force your mind open.

I'm still not seeing the problem. And still, I don't believe you're even trying to understand the point that's being made. Maybe it's just because you feel like you're being personally attacked or something, but the only thing you've done to defend your point is throw nasty words at the people who disagree with you. I hope you understand why I don't find that very persuasive. You've got to move past your basic psychological defenses and instead use the parts of your brain dedicated to real thinking.
The arguments are not designed to make people who have been sexually active to feel worthless. The activity is about the choices the students in the future. I will agree that they should be sensitive to the fact that some of the students have probably already had sexual experiences, and I can understand how such students can feel guilt because of the activity. But it's not meant to shame people for events of the past, it's meant to encourage better decisions in the future.

You mean there's more than just movies? Flip, where have I been?

Only a fool takes offense where offense is not intended. To be offended and feel derogated by a point that is intended to inspire and encourage and empower you is simply stupid. If you don't agree with it, fine. That doesn't mean it's not a valid point that doesn't deserve your attention and consideration.
My feeling remains that what this student did was not remotely heroic. It was weak and cowardly. And I'm kinda disgusted that we're applauding that kind of behavior.
I still don't see how it's sexist though... the metaphor applies to men just as well as it applies to women. The only reason it was viewed as sexist was because the student wanted it to be, because it certainly wasn't delivered with any reference to gender whatsoever.

My first guess was rugby.

Firstly, I think it is dangerous to assume that we know exactly what the reasoning behind this woman's point is. We'd really have to ask her.
But if I were to make her argument for her, I would say that she's not asking for a scientific explanation of how rainbows and sunsets could possibly work without God creating them. I'd say she's asking for an explanation as to why they are so beautful and make us so happy. I think her point is could be rephrased as, "how do you explain that all the little wonders that make life bearable just happened out of chance?"
Granted I still don't personally find that argument particularly persuasive on a general level, I just think some of you guys (particularly whoever made this post) are misunderstanding her point and not giving her enough credit.

I'm just trying to understand how the distinction is made, because I don't see the difference. If a fetus doesn't count as a human being because it can't survive without the nutrients provided by a mother, what's the difference? You say a fetus depends on the nutrients it gets from its mother. Well... so does an infant. If the infant doesn't have someone to feed and protect it, it will also stop growing and die just like the fetus will. If someone can explain to me what fundamental difference between a fetus and an infant classifies the latter as a human being and the former as not alive, please explain. I'm dying to know.
I liked that "It's obvious your opinion is based on religion." Nothing I've said has anything to do with religion...

By that logic, it should also be legal to kill babies who are breastfeeding, no? Most human beings aren't totally independent until they are at least several years old. A newborn sure as heck can't get its own nutrients. That's why I didn't refer to nutrition, but simply said it is genetically unique and develops independently under its own power. The mother's body does nothing but provide nourishment and protection -- the same things it provides until the baby is several years old. If it's not part of her body then, it never was.

It depends on how they're being taught. Simple exposure is inevitable, but if they're being indoctrinated to believe it is okay, that can be an issue. It's not wrong for parents to not like it when other people force opinions they don't approve of on their kids. Granted, if those parents also buy their kids a copy of Grand Theft Auto, their priorities are screwed up.

I don't understand this argument. Maybe with planning the Mars mission that's true, but what about something that requires someone special, like finding the cure for cancer, there are things that not just anybody can do -- they require one special person. And even if someone else could do it, it would take them longer and/or wouldn't be done as well. Like that guy that developed the polio vaccine but didn't patent it so that it would be more accessible. If his mother had aborted him, someine else probably would have developed the vaccine, but odds are that that someone would have patented it and gotten fat off the profits, leaving poor people without the vaccine, and polio would still be a problem today.
The point is: abortion robs the human race of assets. Even if it takes a few years of discomfort, going through with the birth will lead to a lifetime of possibilities. Is it really worth it to abort?

Most pro-lifers aren't opposed to rape abortions. You guys keep playing the rape card as if you think you're making a good point. The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed to extinguish the life of a fetus conceived consensually. That's the big problem here.

Even if they aren't married, it's still his child too.
But no, cobaltwave, it is not her body. It's someone else's. It is genetically unique and develops independently, under its own power. There's really no reason to think that a fetus is just part of the mother's body.

Is guest implying that babies have less rights than an adult? In that case, killing a baby shouldn't be considered as being such a bad thing, so we should extend abortion "rights" to include killing children up to 2 or 3 years old.
A human being is a human being. Obviously a fetus, a baby, a toddler, a child, a teenager, an adult, and a senior citizen are all different, bit they're all human beings and deserve to be treated as such. Besides, those titles are all just subjective labels that we create and apply however we see fit. They don't actually correlate to any real divisions in nature. Making or defending moral decisions based on man-made labels is not a very strong position to take.

darkanhell, the reason we have the world we have instead of one where everyone is forced to be good is simple. As explained, there would be no chance for growth in that world. No one would really be able to choose, no one would develop the strength and independent purity that is needed for whatever it is that God has in mind for us. Yes, we could hypothetically have a world with no bad in it, but then what? What function would that serve? My concept of God is inseparably tied with the idea of improvement and progression. That other world has none of that. That's why God didn't choose it. It's also part of why Satan did, but that's another story.
Just regarding your comment about heaven being a place of 100% good, that's true, but it's also true that every single person there has experienced bad.

Sure, maybe. But then, is it a bad thing to not want someone you care about to eat junkfood? I don't think so.

There is no universal definition of God, darkenhall. I'm sorry to tell you you're wrong, but you're really not in a place to define my beliefs. I don't tell you what you believe, so please try to refrain from describing my God to me. If you want to understand me you gotta listen to me.
Here's my two cents on the above discussion. As I stated, context is the key to understanding. I disagree a little with kayrey in that I don't believe God intended that we all live a sheltered life in Eden. When it comes down to it, I believe one of God's desires is that we develop the strength and independence to stand on our own and fight and win our own battles. Obviously that cannot happen if we never face any difficulties. Muscle is strengthened by being broken down, not by resting in a comfy sling. The same is true for spirits. Obviously not everything that happens will make sense, but only because we don't see the eternal context we're in.

I don't want to drag this on too much -- this isn't an ideal place for lengthy discussion. I'll just say: 1) the definition of God you are working with is definitely not the same as mine.
2) There's a difference between God wanting us to make our own choices and God wanting us to make mistakes. He never wants us to do bad things -- to the contrary, He cries for our sins and suffers for our pains. But without the freedom to make mistakes, we would never learn or grow. He lets His children pass through sorrow so that they can know the good from the evil, and know true happiness. In the context of everything that happened before this life and everything that will happen after, everything that you're confused about makes perfect sense. For now, I can simply assure you that, if we cooperate, God would have us suffer as little pain as possible. The rest was taken by Jesus, but if we refuse to accept Jesus's sacrifice on our behalf, it's only logical that we will have to pay it ourselves.

Because if they were, he wouldn't be God. It would create a logical contradiction. After all, if God exists, Satan does too. And the previous comment about God not being able to control free will exactly explains why it would be illogical to attribute the attacker's actions to God.