leov
Well-Known Member
That was just an example, modern example, of the danger of mixing homosexuality with growing a special nation, infections the had then (may be different names for infections).
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God and homosexuality.
- Thread starter leov
- Start date
Phaedrus
Active Member
The problem was never homosexuality. HIV/AIDS is a big enough problem on its own without adding irrational religious baggage to it.
leov
Well-Known Member
You mean one sleeps with a man, gets infected, passes infection,to his wife and the future children? Without any means of controlling infection?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
That is the language of science. You'll find that language in EVERY single science paper. And the reason is that science doesn't deal in absolute certainty.
Look up a paper on germ theory. It will have the same language: "data suggests germs cause dease".
It doesn't say "germs cause desease" as being an absolute trueism.
If this is your "objection" to these papers, then I got news for you: this logic "works" against ALL OF SCIENCE.
Because the authors are honest with some intellectual integrity.
Meanwhile, the point I made still stands and remains unaddressed: yes, there very much is a scientific consensus that sexual orientation of individuals is NOT a matter of choice and rather something deterministic from other factors, very likely related to their biological makeup.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Not so. If a A seems to support B it is not A supports B.
So, apparently, seems to mean to you, does.
I speak English, I have a pretty solid grasp of the nuances of the language.
If, in any scientific article, indefinite terms are used, the object of the language is indefinite.
As an example, one may read of the functions of DNA in relation to RNA in a cell. I have yet to read an article that says DNA seems to be encoded with information that controls the cell.
DNA may control the cell, is not the same as DNA controls the cell.
I literally can accept any scientific article, for what it literally says.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
you might want to learn the difference between listing the facts on the one hand and then attempting to explain the facts on the other.
One of both will be using indefinite language. Can you guess which it is?
This goes for EVERY explanatory model (or "theory" or "hypothesis", to use the jargon) that science comes up with and gets published in papers.
It's because such models seek the truth. They don't declare the truth.
Again, it's called intellectual honesty / integrity.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
No, it means "this is what the evidence indicates, but since absolute certainty cannot be created by evidence and inference, we cannot state definitively that this is true".
It's the language used by honest people when talking about complex issues.
Then please find a scientific article which uses absolutely no indefinite terms.
But you're unwilling to accept anything based on inference, apparently, since any scientific conclusion based on anything other than absolute proof (i.e: literally all scientific theories) can be dismissed.
If you reject science because of the language it uses, then you don't accept science. Either accept the conclusions of the scientific studies and what they suggest, present counter-examples of studies which suggest otherwise, or admit that you are anti-science,.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Your response is simply in error. Many scientific publications use non specific language for hypotheses.
That is the language of science. You'll find that language in EVERY single science paper. And the reason is that science doesn't deal in absolute certainty.
Look up a paper on germ theory. It will have the same language: "data suggests germs cause dease".
It doesn't say "germs cause desease" as being an absolute trueism.
If this is your "objection" to these papers, then I got news for you: this logic "works" against ALL OF SCIENCE.
Because the authors are honest with some intellectual integrity.
Meanwhile, the point I made still stands and remains unaddressed: yes, there very much is a scientific consensus that sexual orientation of individuals is NOT a matter of choice and rather something deterministic from other factors, very likely related to their biological makeup.
Theories on the other hand are usually discussed in specific terms.
Einstein doesn´t say that objects seem to effect space time. He says they do effect space time within the framework of his theory.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Hypotheses and theories are not the same, you do know that don´t you ?
Anti science because I understand that indefinite language is different from definite language ? Not hardly.
Another classic example of turning a discussion into a personal attack, replete with accusations based upon the suppositions of the poster.
Because of what seems to be gravity, an object released may fall to the ground.
Is that more scientific for you ?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It's the old mistaken idea by those that do not understand science that it "proves" something. And yet @shmogie of all people should understand this. In a court of law there is no absolute proof either. There is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But perhaps, like some in the prosecuting part of the law business, he was merely over zealous. One can see cases where rapists were shown to be not guilty by DNA tests and yet the prosecutors still swear by their convictions. At any rate those that tend to deny science do not understand why scientists must keep an open mind and that indefinite language is a must in the sciences.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
One can use definitive language when speaking of something within a theory or hypothesis that supports it. But when it comes to conclusions applied to the real world once again an open mind must be kept and indefinite terms are de riguer..
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
No. Anti-science because you reject any scientific study that includes indefinite language.
It's not a personal attack. Find me a single scientific paper or study which does not include indefinite language.
Gravity is the name we give to the force that causes the object to fall. Papers that actually explain and elaborate on what this force is are replete with indefinite language.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Gravity
I suggest you read the theory of relativity, then report back to me as to how much indefinite language Einstein used.
Gravity actually isn ´t a force, it is the result of an object bending the fabric of space time.
I suggest you read the theory of relativity, then report back to me as to how much indefinite language Einstein used.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Gravity
I suggest you read the theory of relativity, then report back to me as to how much indefinite language Einstein used.
Gravity actually isn ´t a force, it is the result of an object bending the fabric of space time.
I suggest you read the theory of relativity, then report back to me as to how much indefinite language Einstein used.
So, He must like strict and monogamous female homosexuality instead, right?
Which would entail He does not dislike homosexuality, per se.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
If that is His goal, all He has to do is wipe out disease. Not to speak of the huge percentage of miscarriages that happen and happened. Together with the great baby and mother mortality of the past.
I suppose He does not like kids, either. Probably He hates them more than gays, according to the historical numbers.
Ciao
- viole
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
There are means of controlling the infection today. And there are many ways to get HIV. I'm sure you understand this, but conveniently ignore this so that you can pass all the blame on gays and feel justified in doing it.
Then you accept no scientific paper. You depend on journalists who use that definite language; so you depend on the wrong source for your information.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You seem to think that if you assert that God believes a thing, then it is true.
You seem to know a lot about the musings and mind of a God which you cannot demonstrate the existence of.
If God created all there is, as you assert, then that God created homosexuality. There's no way around that. It doesn't matter what anybody else thinks about natural processes or whatever. That's just a diversionary tactic on your part.
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Oh no.
See, everything that they like and agree with, God created.
Everything they don't like was created by the Devil or by sin.
See? Simple!
See, everything that they like and agree with, God created.
Everything they don't like was created by the Devil or by sin.
See? Simple!
Their paper does not say what you are saying. It does not say that 'Israel' translates to 'He who sees God'. Its saying Israel is one who sees God, but its not calling that the translation. The translation remains 'He wrestles with god' or something like that. The 1917 Jewish Enclyclopedia online for free says it translates to "he overpowered Elohim." JACOB - JewishEncyclopedia.com