Of course.
But a good method to reduce the spread is to practice safe sex, regardless. Not saying it’s the only effective method. Just a fairly decent one.
-
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
But a good method to reduce the spread is to practice safe sex, regardless. Not saying it’s the only effective method. Just a fairly decent one.
Yes. And make Truvada more widely available.
Agreed. Aggressive science based medical treatment available to all. That’s how we will “beat” HIV/AIDS. Should have done so from the beginning if you ask me.
Phaedrus
Active Member
If it's subjectively personal, then keep it to yourself. No reason to irrationally violate the lives of others with beliefs you cannot objectively or empirically prove to be more than conceptual.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
How come you're so obsessed about this?
Why not be a little more obsesses with the advice "Do not judge"?
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Just a question out of curiosity:
Do you "not like" homosexuals also or is it just you "do not like" homosexuality?
How you reconcile your "not liking" with "love your neighbor as yourself"?
It seems to me you have a problem practising the First Commandment
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
If a statement is recognised as dishonest, there isn't anything wrong with pointing it out.
I've been saying this from the get-go, but you were probably too busy getting on your high horse to notice.
It's the EXPLANATORY MODELS, the data analysis and the concluded hypothesis / theories that require such language. Listing facts is just listing facts. Science papers aren't about listing facts. They are about explaining facts. And explanations require indefinite language.
Correct. The explanation of a set of facts, is not a fact itself - it is an explanation.
Here's the reason why: if tomorrow additional facts come up, they might force you to rethink your previous conclusion / explanation.
So, if that can be the case, how could you call your conclusion or explanation a "fact", when it really is just provisional / tentative / probabilistic?
Yes.
The data suggests that all life evolved evolved.
New data that potentially might surface tomorrow, might force us to rethink that idea.
It's very unlikely that that will happen, given that literally all data uncovered the past centuries suggested evolution. But scientific intellectual honesty posits that it's possible. So you can't state evolutionary theory as being an absolute truth. It's an explanation of the facts. And explanations can be wrong.
Every single scientific paper is written using such language.
How many times must we repeat it?
Go ahead though, find us a publication from the natural sciences that doesn't involve such language.
Who said the words don't mean what they say? They do.
Scientific conclusions are steerd by the evidence. This means that your conclusion might have to change if new evidence surfaces tomorrow. If you know this is the case, then why would you state your conclusion as being an absolute fact today?
No. Instead, the paper looks at the available data and forms a conclusion based on that data. It can't take into account data that hasn't been discovered yet.
And the data available at this time, points to sexual orientation not being a matter of choice.
Just like the data available today in any field points to the explanatory models that are currently accepted by consensus in those fields.
A very likely possibility, with currently no reason to think otherwise. Just like all other explanatory models and science papers.
Sounds like you could use a small course on how science works and progresses.
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
I have contemplated this as a real possibility.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
You don't know what the definition of a "force" is?
I suggest you rise to my challenge and present a single scientific paper that doesn't use indefinite language.
I'm still waiting.
leov
Well-Known Member
I do not care, honestly, I did not like it before as years ago I lived in SF and constantly had it in my face, but now I do not care as I figured out that they just some people in the same boat with me, I just am trying to decode what OT means.
Last edited:
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Thanks. Nicely said. Because of abuse I used to be judgmental (a way to keep them far away I guess). Esp. on RF I also realize we all travel "in the same boat" and all do the best they can (with their emotional loads)
leov
Well-Known Member
I finally understood that my faith also means "judge yourself".
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Your challenge is irrelevant. You say a stated possibility is really a stated fact. I do not see it that way, and that is not how the English language works.
So, believe it if you choose, I think it is POSSIBLE that you believe it, only when it suits your particular views on an issue.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
How convenient for you.
No I haven't. That's a lie.
This is about academic honesty in science, not language.
And I think you just reject whatever science doesn't fit your views on an issue, which is the real reason you reject those scientific papers - it's nothing to do with the language they use. You'll just use any possible method to downplay or ignore any facts that don't confirm your beliefs.
Last edited:
shmogie
Well-Known Member
You presented a set of stated possibilities as being what causes homosexuality.If a statement is recognised as dishonest, there isn't anything wrong with pointing it out.
I've been saying this from the get-go, but you were probably too busy getting on your high horse to notice.
It's the EXPLANATORY MODELS, the data analysis and the concluded hypothesis / theories that require such language. Listing facts is just listing facts. Science papers aren't about listing facts. They are about explaining facts. And explanations require indefinite language.
Correct. The explanation of a set of facts, is not a fact itself - it is an explanation.
Here's the reason why: if tomorrow additional facts come up, they might force you to rethink your previous conclusion / explanation.
So, if that can be the case, how could you call your conclusion or explanation a "fact", when it really is just provisional / tentative / probabilistic?
Yes.
The data suggests that all life evolved evolved.
New data that potentially might surface tomorrow, might force us to rethink that idea.
It's very unlikely that that will happen, given that literally all data uncovered the past centuries suggested evolution. But scientific intellectual honesty posits that it's possible. So you can't state evolutionary theory as being an absolute truth. It's an explanation of the facts. And explanations can be wrong.
Every single scientific paper is written using such language.
How many times must we repeat it?
Go ahead though, find us a publication from the natural sciences that doesn't involve such language.
Who said the words don't mean what they say? They do.
Scientific conclusions are steerd by the evidence. This means that your conclusion might have to change if new evidence surfaces tomorrow. If you know this is the case, then why would you state your conclusion as being an absolute fact today?
No. Instead, the paper looks at the available data and forms a conclusion based on that data. It can't take into account data that hasn't been discovered yet.
And the data available at this time, points to sexual orientation not being a matter of choice.
Just like the data available today in any field points to the explanatory models that are currently accepted by consensus in those fields.
A very likely possibility, with currently no reason to think otherwise. Just like all other explanatory models and science papers.
Sounds like you could use a small course on how science works and progresses.
Possibilities cannot be the truth, they can only be possibilities.
Sounds like you could use a basic course in English, and how it works.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
And more productive; more easy to change myself than to change others. And even trying to change others, mostly results in irritation and some go the opposite way even
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
"Scientists at Johns Hopkins are calling for simultaneous evaluation of both genetic and
epigenetic information in the search to understand contributors to such common diseases as cancer, heart disease and diabetes. Writing in the August issue of Trends in Genetics, available now online, the scientists provide a framework for systematically incorporating epigenetic information into traditional genetic studies, something they say will be necessary to understand the genetic and environmental factors behind common diseases."Epigenetics doesn't underlie all human disease, but we definitely need to develop the technology to figure out when and where epigenetic changes do influence health and disease," says Andrew Feinberg, M.D., King Fahd Professor of Medicine."
What does your link have to do with anything under discussion?
Last edited:
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Where does this opinion come from?
leov
Well-Known Member
May be you should read this more carefully. It is only a start."Scientists at Johns Hopkins are calling for simultaneous evaluation of both genetic and
epigenetic information in the search to understand contributors to such common diseases as cancer, heart disease and diabetes. Writing in the August issue of Trends in Genetics, available now online, the scientists provide a framework for systematically incorporating epigenetic information into traditional genetic studies, something they say will be necessary to understand the genetic and environmental factors behind common diseases.
"Epigenetics doesn't underlie all human disease, but we definitely need to develop the technology to figure out when and where epigenetic changes do influence health and disease," says Andrew Feinberg, M.D., King Fahd Professor of Medicine."
What does your link have to do with anything under discussion?