You didn't explain anything. You just threw out claims without evidence. That's not how an argument is made.
-
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
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
I read the whole thing and I see nothing in that article about diseases or problems regarding homosexual behavior (or any other behavior) 3000 years ago. Maybe you can explain it to me or give me better evidence?
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Nothing you have said condemning homosexuality, thus far, has stood up to criticism (and typically was devoid of any evidence supporting the claim).
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I didn't say that they were, you do know that don't you?
Off course you do... you just thought you could dodge the actual point being made by making that dishonest remark.
But you know what both hypothesis and theories are? Explanatory models.
Hypothesis that are well tested, are promoted to theory.
Again: every science paper uses such language in its analysis and conclusion forming.
So yes, if such language bothers you then there is very little in science that won't bother you, as all of scientific analysis and conclusion forming uses such language.
It's not a personal attack. It's rather taking your statement and driving it home by pointing out the implications and falsehoods contained therein.
At no point has there been an attack on your person. Pointing out that such language is common in all of scientific analysis and conclusion forming, is directly related to the point you were trying to make and not related to your person at all.
Facts don't require such language.
Explanations and conclusions drawn from a set of facts, does.
leov
Well-Known Member
Israel is special people, cultivated Nation to know God, to spread God's message through out the world to raise world's consciousness from bicameral state to Christlike. The name reflects this. This is what was opened to me.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Do you realise that HIV only surfaced after 1900?
The first human infections of HIV-1 is estimated to have taken place around 1915.
HIV2 is estimated to have infected the first humans around 1902.
It's a rather modern desease.
So your excuse doesn't make much sense I'm afraid.
And if it isn't an excuse and your OP was really not about "today", then it's just stupid, as for all practical intents and purposes (considering millenia of history has past since this supposed "divine revelation"), 1915 pretty much IS "today".
There are potentially even people still alive today that were already born BEFORE the first HIV1 infection in any human.
So, if your OP isn't about "today", then about when is it and how is it relevant since HIV is barely 100 years old.
leov
Well-Known Member
I repeat my opinion, today God does not care of homosexuality, Archons do whatever they want with gay people.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
These "problems" would not be around for more then 2000 years after this supposed law was supposedly given, as human HIV infections only took place after the 1900s onwards. It didn't exist before that.
You make no sense.
Now you're just trying save face because your claims fell apart.
That's something that amazes me... why the first thing people think of about homosexuality is "teh buttsecks". I daresay it's not even the foremost or favorite sexual activity. I think they need to stop watching xtube and tumblr videos.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Just so you know....
I actually just asked God.
He says you got it all wrong. He told me gay sex is just fine and that he doesn't get his followers' obsession with gay sex... He says that it's the love between two people you should focus on, because that's the beauty of a relationship, while the sex is just one part of it - the physical expression of that love.
And he says that the love between two man is just as beautifull as the love between 2 woman or between a man and a woman.
Isn't that awesome?
Glad we finally settled that. Good thing you adviced me to ask God about it. Who knows how many more centuries of cruel homophobia those beautifull gay people would have had to endure if I hadn't asked God for his opinion.
After all, I asked God and he responded. Surely you will now change opinions?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Actually, the first sentence of the article you linked to, literally states that HIV is a BIGGER problem in heterosexual couples....
So it seems that the point you tried to make is undermined by the very source you are trying to use to make your point.
Once somebody has divorced their beliefs and worldview from evidence and reason, they might wind up believing almost anything.
Tom
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Actually, we know quite a lot about sexuality in antiquity....
Can we? Why?
Was it? How do you know?
leov
Well-Known Member
Read my lips: It was just a modern example. I could have used syphilis , for example...
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
And to top it off, he even links to an article that contradicts his point in the very first sentence....
What a bad joke, this thread is.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I think it's kind of logical... There is no vagina, so if there is going to be intercourse, there's only one other place to... well... you know.
But, it wouldn't surprise me that anal sex might be just as prevalent among heterosexual couples as it is among gay couples.
At the same time, sex is also about much more then just penetration.
leov
Well-Known Member
I am waiting for God telling it to me.
Do you think syphilis is more of a gay problem than a straight problem?
I'm asking because lots of Christians seem to think that AIDS is a gay problem, so they refer to it over and over. But it isn't. Syphilis hasn't been lied about as much, so most people realize that it's a problem for everyone.
Tom
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
And a bad one, as the article you linked to undermines the point you try to make in the first sentence.
Sure.
There's plenty of others that you couldn't have used though, as they too would undermine your silly point. Here's a reminder of something I posted earlier in the thread:
Comparative prevalence rates of sexually transmitted diseases in heterosexual and homosexual men. - PubMed - NCBI
Overall, homosexual men were significantly (p < 0.001) more likely than heterosexual men to have gonorrhea (30.31% vs. 19.83%), early syphilis (1.08% vs. 0.34%) and anal warts (2.90% vs. 0.26%) but less likely to have nongonococcal urethritis (NGU) (14.63% vs. 36.40%, p < 0.001), herpes genitalis (0.93% vs. 3.65%, p < 0.001), pediculosis pubis (4.30% vs. 5.35%, p < 0.005), scabies (0.42% vs. 0.76%, p < 0.02), and genital warts (1.68% vs. 6.69%, p < 0.001).
Whoops!