• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Dad disowns his gay son in handwritten letter

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Yes. See prisons and college life for some prime examples.
Every definition and I've ever read, including the one I posted here, says the opposite, that the act as well identifies a person as one OR the attraction.

I guess you're right, and the rest of the world is wrong... or you're lying to yourself, which you are. Whatever floats your boat.


Yes. If this is somehow shocking to you or a totally unexpected revelation then I'd say you've led a very sheltered life, and have little insight into how things truly are.
What's shocking is how you're ignoring evidence to the contrary showing gays can certainly choose to become that way through sexual behavior equally as one born with the attraction. I'm not surprised to get this sort of idiocy from you... many like you will say anything to make this acceptable.. even disregarding how the word "homosexuality" is defined. Not knowing something = ignorance. Blatantly disregarding it = stupidity.

Unlike what goes on in your fantasy world, people can still choose what actions they take no matter what predisposed traits are present within them.

As was noted earlier, people can decide not to drink and/or get drunk even if they are predisposed to alcohol. People decide not to hurt people if they are, what research terms them "disposed to violence". But with homosexuality, the choice is made for them. yeah... :rolleyes:
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Why do you care so much?
Why do you care that I care so much?

to answer you, some people need to "man up" to the things they do and stop running to get a scientific/biological excuse for their behavior. Granted, there are a lot of things that can influence human behavior, but we are the ones that ultimately have to choose the right thing(s) to do and fight against things that may lead us down a wrong path... such as drunkenness and violence against our fellow man, for example.

We are humans, not machines programmed to act a certain way all the time.
 
Last edited:

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Every definition and I've ever read, including the one I posted here, says the opposite, that the act as well identifies a person as one OR the attraction.

I guess you're right, and the rest of the world is wrong... or you're lying to yourself, which you are. Whatever floats your boat.
No, they do not say the opposite. Lots of men, both young and old, experiment with homosexual sex but who are actually not attracted to men in any permanent or systemic way.

What's shocking is how you're ignoring evidence to the contrary showing gays can certainly choose to become that way through sexual behavior equally as one born with the attraction. I'm not surprised to get this sort of idiocy from you... many like you will say anything to make this acceptable.. even disregarding how the word "homosexuality" is defined. Not knowing something = ignorance. Blatantly disregarding it = stupidity.

Unlike what goes on in your fantasy world, people can still choose what actions they take no matter what predisposed traits are present within them.

As was noted earlier, people can decide not to drink and/or get drunk even if they are predisposed to alcohol. People decide not to hurt people if they are, what research terms them "disposed to violence". But with homosexuality, the choice is made for them. yeah... :rolleyes:
"Become" homosexual? No, that doesn't really happen. People discover through experience and inner reflection who they're attracted to... some are equally attracted to both males and females, and everyone else is some degree less or more attracted to one gender. That's the attraction piece of the equation.

As for the actions people make, again, actions regarding sex are driven by many factors.. of which underlying attraction is only one. Prison inmates sometimes have homosexual sex because there are often no other options. Young men sometimes have homosexual sex because they're discovering and coming to terms with the sexual aspect of life. These are not opinions, these are facts.

The bottom line is that "homosexuality" is sexual attraction to the same gender. "Homosexual" as a word can refer to many things, but one cannot assume that someone who has had homosexual sex is someone who consistently has the sexual attraction to the same gender, nor can one assume that having a consistent sexual attraction to the same gender means that person only has homosexual sex.
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Try posting the complete definition. Unless you want to be seen as intellectually dishonest.
Huh? I was not defining anything. I was simply showing that assumptions are required at the base of all science. Are you disputing this and thereby saying Isaac Asimov did not know what he was talking about?
 
Last edited:

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
29,100
13,122
136
Rob is fundamentally a liar. He can easily prove what he says. He can go and have sex with a man by choice. If he can he's actually gay and if he can't he doesn't have choice. What Rob wants to do is admire himself in the eyes of his god by pretending that he is good because he exercises choice to be straight and those bad people choose to be evil. He enjoys his egotistical self image, thus, in two ways. First off, he is going to live forever in heaven, and secondly, he is superior to gay people. This is all about self hating ego, the feeling of being so sinful in reality, that a delusion is required to feel OK. It is lying and moral cowardliness and the trap delusional religion depends on to lock people into a phony faith. Rob has been taught that any deviation from the garbage he was fed will mean he will wind up in hell. Sad, too, because where he is, IS hell. The mental illness he has is to be sick without any hope of repair because to get will he would have to go through hell, he would have to die to all his bull shit ego. What folk like Rob can't credence is that folk like me did that and found the real heaven. He can't know that he is transparent to people with real knowledge.

But the main thing is that while you can see he can't understand at all. This is why we say you can tell a bigot but you can't tell him much. But maybe, just maybe, he hungers for a deeper truth because he likes to debate. More likely, however, he just enjoys practicing and perfecting being sick. Powerfully inculcated states of denial create a condition like a crab with one giant claw. You have this one magnificent implement and you learn to love to use it. You don't get to savor your superior status unless you engage it.
Best post I've read all day. Glad to see you've decided to stick around. :thumbsup:
 

Ackmed

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2003
8,364
364
126
No, he's serious....and ultra religious.
I am serious, but not ultra religious so not sure how you got that.

That fact is, people choose to be gay. Their choice for sure, no problems with that. Just don't go acting like someone is born that way. Again, easy enough.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
I am serious, but not ultra religious so not sure how you got that.

That fact is, people choose to be gay. Their choice for sure, no problems with that. Just don't go acting like someone is born that way. Again, easy enough.
Could you choose to be attracted to men?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,522
4,198
126
I am serious, but not ultra religious so not sure how you got that.

That fact is, people choose to be gay. Their choice for sure, no problems with that. Just don't go acting like someone is born that way. Again, easy enough.
The real fact is that you MUST choose to be stupid because if you didn't choose to be stupid you would not be able to avoid seeing your hateful bigotry for what it really is. As it is with all accusatory and persecutory conservative brain defectives, the inner need to medicate their feelings of worthlessness by pretending to a virtue based on an implied superiority of will generating a purported but delusional sense of righteousness is predicated on the NEED to compared that farcical virtue to the next man's ginned up inner weakness and susceptibility to evil, homosexual self masturbation at its best, becomes an unconscious imperative.

Thus it is that while you are profoundly stupid and obviously stupid to any and all not so affected by this egotistical need for self flattery, you yourself will never see it. You will go through life as the disgusting bigot your inner disgust radiates out of, with complete aplomb, like a skunk that admires its own perfume.

But those of us who see you for what you really are can't blame you as we can't blame folk who are gay. You are as you are, a pathetic bigot because you had to be as a child to survive. It is just one of the sad facts that people of consciousness have to bear in this hideously sick world, that what you were forced to become as a child to survive and is now totally unnecessary, multiplied by the billions of bigots just like you, creates so much pain and suffering for millions of gays. This is why, in the light of day, even though you are disgusting, you can't be blamed.

But, even though you aren't really guilty of anything, just as you try to lay your shit on gay people, you will have to expect that sometimes as here, it will come flying back in your face. Only people who actively choose to be the stupidest people on the planet could believe that being gay is a choice. Nobody could be genetically that stupid and post.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
Huh? I was not defining anything. I was simply showing that assumptions are required at the base of all science. Are you disputing this and thereby saying Isaac Asimov did not know what he was talking about?
The complete definition of "scientific theory". The part you quoted is not the complete definition.

The way you're using "guess" is closer to "hypothesis".
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
You are confused. I was never talking about what a scientific theory is. I was explaining that scientific theories require base assumptions in order to have a place to start. I will repost to show you exactly what was said:

Look up the phrase "scientific theory" on Wikipedia and comprehend it's meaning. It's not just a "guess".
But it is true that science is based on guesses...on faith that these guesses are true. They are needed, for without them nothing can be done, but we have to be honest and say they are there.

Assumptions in formulating theories
An assumption is a statement that is accepted without evidence. For example, assumptions can be used as premises in a logical argument. Isaac Asimov described assumptions as follows:
...it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either (If there were, it would no longer be an assumption). It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality...Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible.[33]
I meant to say "correct" instead of "true", but the way I used true is in the manner of the word correct...for it would be stupid to assume your base assumption is not correct. Faith is the belief that something is true (or correct in this frame of reference) without any proof of it. The belief that an assumption is correct, therefor, a faith based belief.

Now that you understand this, you will understand why I only included the part about scientific theories requiring faith, as explained by Isaac Asimov and agreed to by Stephen Hawking...both of which know a great deal more about scientific theories than either you or I know.
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,522
4,198
126
You are confused. I was never talking about what a scientific theory is. I was explaining that scientific theories require base assumptions in order to have a place to start. I will repost to show you exactly what was said:



But it is true that science is based on guesses...on faith that these guesses are true. They are needed, for without them nothing can be done, but we have to be honest and say they are there.


I meant to say "correct" instead of "true", but the way I used true is in the manner of the word correct...for it would be stupid to assume your base assumption is not correct. Faith is the belief that something is true (or correct in this frame of reference) without any proof of it. The belief that an assumption is correct, therefor, a faith based belief.

Now that you understand this, you will understand why I only included the part about scientific theories requiring faith, as explained by Isaac Asimov and agreed to by Stephen Hawking...both of which know a great deal more about scientific theories than either you or I know.
Because you can quote what other people say about something means does not mean you understand what they mean or inject those opinions of other as they should be injected to mean something. Personally, I feel that you are off base and do not apply the word faith in any way it is commonly understood. Science works like this, in my opinion.

One steeps oneself is some subject one is interested and learns everything one can, one reaches the limits of what is known. From that point one is able to ask intelligent questions and see the kind of questions to which we have no answers. At this point, based on a huge body of data and expertise, on can actually formulate an intelligent question to which one would like to know the answers.

It is at this point, when the mind is full of data, that the subconscious mind will began to churn and if one is lucky, inspiration will come. It is this that the scientist seeks, the place where fact disconnected come together as a theory, an inspired revelation as to what a deeper truth may be. The only faith involved is not in the correctness of the answer. That will come via experimentation, but that this process has yielded results in the past.

What we have faith in is the scientific method for producing insights into nature. It's not the ideas but the process in which we have faith, nor are any of these theories related to a guess. The unconscious mind is a giant computer that works even when we sleep. It is knowledge and experience coupled with fixation that produce the Eureka moment.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Because you can quote what other people say about something means does not mean you understand what they mean or inject those opinions of other as they should be injected to mean something. Personally, I feel that you are off base and do not apply the word faith in any way it is commonly understood. Science works like this, in my opinion.
You feel this way because you strive to be wrong about things. Instead of your usual obfuscation, try discussing facts this time. Here is the definition of the word fath (using the relevant line item):

faith

   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPA


2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t

Here is what an assumption is, as used in science:

Assumptions in formulating theoriesAn assumption is a statement that is accepted without evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Now argue against that instead of ignoring the facts, as you usually do.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
29,100
13,122
136
You feel this way because you strive to be wrong about things. Instead of your usual obfuscation, try discussing facts this time. Here is the definition of the word fath (using the relevant line item):


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t

Here is what an assumption is, as used in science:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Now argue against that instead of ignoring the facts, as you usually do.
I bolded the important part for your blind ass (taken directly from your own link):
Assumptions in formulating theories
An assumption is a statement that is accepted without evidence. For example, assumptions can be used as premises in a logical argument. Isaac Asimov described assumptions as follows:
...it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either (If there were, it would no longer be an assumption). It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality...Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible.[33]
Certain assumptions are necessary for all empirical claims (e.g. the assumption that reality exists). However, theories do not generally make assumptions in the conventional sense (statements accepted without evidence). While assumptions are often incorporated during the formation of new theories, these are either supported by evidence (such as from previously existing theories) or the evidence is produced in the course of validating the theory. This may be as simple as observing that the theory makes accurate predictions, which is evidence that any assumptions made at the outset are correct or approximately correct under the conditions tested.
Conventional assumptions, without evidence, may be used if the theory is only intended to apply when the assumption is valid (or approximately valid). For example, the special theory of relativity assumes an inertial frame of reference. The theory makes accurate predictions when the assumption is valid, and does not make accurate predictions when the assumption is not valid. Such assumptions are often the point with which older theories are succeeded by new ones (the general theory of relativity works in non-inertial reference frames as well).
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Please provide me the evidence that the speed of light did not increase at one point in time and then decrease down to what we see today. Or are you going to admit there is a faith based assumption that the speed of light has always been constant?

An assumption is supported by evidence, not based on evidence. Newton assumed the effects of gravity were instantly transmitted, undiminished, to every body in the universe. He used this assumption to create his Universal Law of Gravitation. The evidence supported this assumption. We now know the assumption is wrong.

EDIT: I realize it bothers you that the foundation of science is faith, but it is. Accept it and move on.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
I've posted this link many times in an effort to dismiss the erroneous assumption that gays are "normal" just like everyone else.

It's a fact that sexual inversion (or gender role reversal) is much more common in homosexuals than in heterosexuals, and even though it may not be apparent at all times, there is a biological basis for it.



I don't really find that strange personally. Bisexuality is more common in women than in men (while homosexuality is more common in men), and "gay" women (or women that call themselves gay) are famous for sleeping with the enemy. I've been hit on by several lesbians myself..
I don't think that link proves that gays aren't normal, it simply proves they aren't the same as straight people. That there is a part of the brain which corresponds to how much one likes pussy isn't really that surprising, but to prove that gays are abnormal one would have to show that this is a defect or that the change is somehow out of the normal range. Seems to me it merely shows that gay people fall at different places on the normal scale of humanity than do straights. Or in other words, the only way to provide that gay men's brains resembling those of straight women and lesbian women's brains resembling those of straight men is to predefine the deviation as such. If you accept that human brain anatomy, like human sexuality, is a continuum on which straight male, gay male, straight female, and gay female are marked by means around which each deviate, this is not necessarily abnormal.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
You are confused. I was never talking about what a scientific theory is. I was explaining that scientific theories require base assumptions in order to have a place to start. I will repost to show you exactly what was said:



But it is true that science is based on guesses...on faith that these guesses are true. They are needed, for without them nothing can be done, but we have to be honest and say they are there.


I meant to say "correct" instead of "true", but the way I used true is in the manner of the word correct...for it would be stupid to assume your base assumption is not correct. Faith is the belief that something is true (or correct in this frame of reference) without any proof of it. The belief that an assumption is correct, therefor, a faith based belief.

Now that you understand this, you will understand why I only included the part about scientific theories requiring faith, as explained by Isaac Asimov and agreed to by Stephen Hawking...both of which know a great deal more about scientific theories than either you or I know.
Here's the thing though; when most people make a "guess" about something, they're not doing it to formulate a hypothesis or making any of the other steps needed to ultimately prove/disprove a scientific theory.

This sub-conversation all started with Rob M.'s reply (post #219) in which he stated "Evolution? Even Darwin said he can't say factually that's what happened. That's another guess at best. Facts don't support that." One part of my reply was "Look up the phrase "scientific theory" on Wikipedia and comprehend it's meaning. It's not just a "guess".

It was his contention that a theory was just a "guess"; not mine.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,522
4,198
126
You feel this way because you strive to be wrong about things. Instead of your usual obfuscation, try discussing facts this time. Here is the definition of the word fath (using the relevant line item):


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t

Here is what an assumption is, as used in science:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Now argue against that instead of ignoring the facts, as you usually do.
As I suggested. You do not know what facts are so you get into trouble when you think you do. This is one of the defects indicative of a conservative brain. Your brain is frozen by the fact that what you need to learn you already think you know. And because of the egotistical nature of truthiness, the pride the conservative mind defectively needs to take in thinking it knows something it does not, it resists knowledge of its error. This is often seen in children.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
No, they do not say the opposite. Lots of men, both young and old, experiment with homosexual sex but who are actually not attracted to men in any permanent or systemic way.



"Become" homosexual? No, that doesn't really happen. People discover through experience and inner reflection who they're attracted to... some are equally attracted to both males and females, and everyone else is some degree less or more attracted to one gender. That's the attraction piece of the equation.

As for the actions people make, again, actions regarding sex are driven by many factors.. of which underlying attraction is only one. Prison inmates sometimes have homosexual sex because there are often no other options. Young men sometimes have homosexual sex because they're discovering and coming to terms with the sexual aspect of life. These are not opinions, these are facts.
The bold is very disturbing to me as a person. I have reasons why I do not approved of same sex sexual relationships, outside my Biblical belief system.

I won't differentiate using gay/straight/homosexual/bi-sexual. I will just say: "Men who have sex with men.

Experimenting is probably the most dangerous thing they can do, seriously, especially if they are young. Young men are known to be complacent and are either uninformed or don't care about STD's (HIV is the highest among Black men who have sex with other men). Whites, not so much. I would venture to say that this spreads HIV (and other STDs) dramatically due to their lack of a monogamous relationship throughout the gay community, and even into the general population if they experiment and find out they're wrong. This isn't the only cause of HIV being spreaded by any means - I'm just focusing on this topic.

Additionally, from what I've read, new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men is more than 44 times that of other men, while the rate of syphilis among men who have sex with men is more than 46 times that of other men.

From what I've read, gay and bi-sexual men account for an estimated 61% of new HIV infections. They are by no means the only reason for the spread of HIV, but they are surely contributing heavily to it.

To be blatantly honest, unprotected intercourse can be very bad if a person is having more than one sex partner, but having anal sex with more than one sex partner isn't helping at all and is worse, IMO.

I don't know why the father disowned his son, but he may know of this information or not... or may just don't like it. Either way, I can surely agree with him about not accepting a gay lifestyle
 
Last edited:

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
The bold is very disturbing to me as a person. I have reasons why I do not approved of same sex sexual relationships, outside my Biblical belief system.

I won't differentiate using gay/straight/homosexual/bi-sexual. I will just say: "Men who have sex with men.

Experimenting is probably the most dangerous thing they can do, seriously, especially if they are young. Young men are known to be complacent and are either uninformed or don't care about STD's (HIV is the highest among Black men who have sex with other men). Whites, not so much. I would venture to say that this spreads HIV (and other STDs) dramatically due to their lack of a monogamous relationship throughout the gay community, and even into the general population if they experiment and find out they're wrong. This isn't the only cause of HIV being spreaded by any means - I'm just focusing on this topic.

Additionally, from what I've read, new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men is more than 44 times that of other men, while the rate of syphilis among men who have sex with men is more than 46 times that of other men.

From what I've read, gay and bi-sexual men account for an estimated 61% of new HIV infections. They are by no means the only reason for the spread of HIV, but they are surely contributing heavily to it.

To be blatantly honest, unprotected intercourse can be very bad if a person is having more than one sex partner, but having anal sex with more than one sex partner isn't helping at all and is worse, IMO.

I don't know why the father disowned his son, but he may know of this information or not... or may just don't like it. Either way, I can surely agree with him about not accepting a gay lifestyle
All the more reason to educate males and females more thoroughly about sex, something that Bible believers such as yourself have been stridently against for many years. Lots of STD's are transmitted throughout the opposite sex community and that's been going on since man first walked the earth.

Abstinence is a nice concept and it will work for a small percentage of teens. It can be taught along side of other birth control and STD education course that is age appropriate. Teaching people that gay is okay is a little tougher. I have higher hopes for my generation and younger; a sizable portion of the older baby boomers will never be comfortable with homosexuality no matter how the subject is broached.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
All the more reason to educate males and females more thoroughly about sex, something that Bible believers such as yourself have been stridently against for many years. Lots of STD's are transmitted throughout the opposite sex community and that's been going on since man first walked the earth.

Abstinence is a nice concept and it will work for a small percentage of teens. It can be taught along side of other birth control and STD education course that is age appropriate. Teaching people that gay is okay is a little tougher. I have higher hopes for my generation and younger; a sizable portion of the older baby boomers will never be comfortable with homosexuality no matter how the subject is broached.
No -- all the more reason to listen to the Bible. It's not even about abstinence, Al.

If we would have "fled from fornication" (1 Cor 6:18) we would not have had people unmarried having sex with someone who had sex with someone else and so on. Hence, martial unfaithfulness or sex outside of marriage led to the spread of STDs as well. Sex should only have been limited to marriage.. not "teens" or unmarried persons. If sex was ONLY practiced in the marriage arrangement, no STD would be spread.

AIDS is spread through blood as well (Act 15:29), and that says "abstain from blood". We didn't listen. People got infected through blood transfusions and sharing of needles (drugs, too) and through other blood-related contact.

God warned against homosexuality (Lev 18:22) where it says men "should not lay with men" as with a woman. We did it, and guess what? The disease is spreading.

If we took this seriously from the jump, then there would probably be no need for STD prevention. The Bible isn't fictional or "outdated". Those passages I posted now are useful. But now we're too far into our stupidity and hardheadedness.

Are you saying that fighting off deadly diseases was a better alternative than abstinence?? People thought abstinence was "strict". Can you see why? It saves people from needless sickness.
 
Last edited:

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
No -- all the more reason to listen to the Bible. It's not even about abstinence, Al.

If we would have "fled from fornication" (1 Cor 6:18) we would not have had people unmarried having sex with someone who had sex with someone else and so on. Hence, martial unfaithfulness or sex outside of marriage led to the spread of STDs as well. Sex should only have been limited to marriage.. not "teens" or unmarried persons. If sex was ONLY practiced in the marriage arrangement, no STD would be spread.

AIDS is spread through blood as well (Act 15:29), and that says "abstain from blood". We didn't listen. People got infected through blood transfusions and sharing of needles (drugs, too) and through other blood-related contact.

God warned against homosexuality (Lev 18:22) where it says men "should not lay with men" as with a woman. We did it, and guess what? The disease is spreading.

If we took this seriously from the jump, then there would probably be no need for STD prevention. The Bible isn't fictional or "outdated". Those passages I posted now are useful. But now we're too far into our stupidity and hardheadedness.

Are you saying that fighting off deadly diseases was a better alternative than abstinence?? People thought abstinence was "strict". Can you see why? It saves people from needless sickness.
Sickness and diseases have multiple sources, not just sex whether in or out of wedlock. You think that all those concubines in the OT were disease free? Improperly prepared food, water-borne bacteria, viruses carried by birds and insects, etc.; these are just a few of the ways that diseases get passed on to humans. Nothing in your Bible would have stopped those. Of course, since G-d "created" everything, that means he created viruses, bacteria, STD's, etc. Hmm, imagine that.

There is considerable debate among Biblical scholars as to the meaning of Lev. 18:22. Some say it doesn't refer to homosexuality, others say it does. It really doesn't matter one way or the other. Lots of Biblical rules are broken every day and a large percentage are broken by Christians. You all can straighten out your own house first, and keep it that way for say, 50 generations. Then and only then might you have some kind of credibility and right to speak to the rest of us about what we're doing wrong.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Sickness and diseases have multiple sources, not just sex whether in or out of wedlock. You think that all those concubines in the OT were disease free? Improperly prepared food, water-borne bacteria, viruses carried by birds and insects, etc.; these are just a few of the ways that diseases get passed on to humans. Nothing in your Bible would have stopped those. Of course, since G-d "created" everything, that means he created viruses, bacteria, STD's, etc. Hmm, imagine that.

There is considerable debate among Biblical scholars as to the meaning of Lev. 18:22. Some say it doesn't refer to homosexuality, others say it does. It really doesn't matter one way or the other. Lots of Biblical rules are broken every day and a large percentage are broken by Christians. You all can straighten out your own house first, and keep it that way for say, 50 generations. Then and only then might you have some kind of credibility and right to speak to the rest of us about what we're doing wrong.
We are talking about STDs... not other sicknesses.. which I am well aware of. In the OT, there wasn't AIDS, HIV. But still, they should have listened as well.

Oh well, like I said earlier, you are free to choose what you will listen to.

I guess fighting off AIDS, and other STD's is what you want you future generation to do as well.

You're more than welcome to that. I'd rather not even catch those STD's.

Good day!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY