biology, not your subjective "feelings"

quip

BANNED
Banned
:nono: Look at your Houseman quote again. You are the broken. I live here as it were.

Yes. I realize. You came here with your sig all ready and catered. Think about this: You literally (think about that adjective) are against a story, a message of sacrifice. A message of love that goes beyond indifference, ignorance, rejection and pain. How in the WORLD did you find Houseman and where in the weird wide world, did he get off? Look, I defend truth, no apology BUT we Christians don't wind up in prison for our beliefs. We outgive, as a result of our faith, we build tight community as a result of our faith, we cherish life, even the life of those who reject us, more than you do. Try that again: I believe I cherish your life more than you do. I did have to come to grips with my selfishness as an unbeliever. I was egocentric. Look, all around me are divorces. In the last class I taught, out of 45 kids, two had married parents. I immediately attribute my marriage longevity to Christianity. I immediately attribute my children's incredible love for me, to Christianity. I realize we aren't, as communities, accepting of Buddhism per say. When you and I first communicated, you advocated strongly, abortion. Worse? For no better reason than personal convenience. I've watched abortion videos. You will not and can never, after seeing that, erase what I've seen. They are people. Your stance is shockingly atrocious. Whether I was a Christian or not, I'd always take this stance against you. Jesus died for sinners. You are a sinner. This much is clear.





:doh: (not necessarily at you, just frustration). I've told you that TOL is unique. It exists primarily for the argumentative. You know this. As a reminder, not one of my Christian friends or family posts here. You CANNOT expect TOL to reflect all of Christianity in this sense. Please also note, I am a particular person on TOL specifically because of its tenor. It is supposed to be about debate (and not in the classic scholastic sense). In some ways, I'm thankful for that, but please realize it is a microcosm. Christianity is in an adjustment period because, for the first time in about a half a century, we are being challenged. Such takes a lot of trial and error, and prayer.


:nono: 1) I am here for you and others. It is a service, and whether I'm good at it or not, it is fraught with care and concern. 2) I do appreciate some insight at times. TOL has helped hone some of my theology and for that I'm appreciative and thankful. 3) I, probably like you, enjoy some people here. I've given you pos reps at times, lest you forget. You to me? :nono: It isn't a necessity, I'm just trying to help you view me in balance.

Thanks

It's genuinely nice to see your tone becoming more respectful.

Likewise, I'm not asking you to forgo christianity - for all the good things it's brought to your life - but rather stop using it as a weapon...stop using it to justify such animosity and all that's wrought from it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Lon

Well-known member
It's genuinely nice to see your tone becoming more respectful.

Likewise, I'm not asking you to forgo christianity - for all the good things it's brought to your life - but rather stop using it as a weapon...stop using it to justify such animosity and all that's wrought from it.

Well, lest either of us forget, it is TOL and the tenor.... I will endeavor to reach you with what is most effective. -Lon
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
If they (homosexuals) experience stress for having to supress their identity due to ignorance and bigotry, then that is the fault of the ignorant and the bigot.


replace "they (homosexuals)" with pedophiles


makes your "argument" look pretty poorly reasoned, doesn't it?
 

Selaphiel

Well-known member
Lon said:
Er, some promiscuity is worse than other types. You must have missed the part of colon disease? You missed the 'exponential' point? 50% of all STD's comes from less than 1% of the population. That is a giant number. Don't be blind to it.

But is that number due to unprotected anal sex being that more risky than unprotected vaginal sex or is it due to the potential amount of partners in males seeking male partners? That is two people with an underlying biological incentive to seek sexual activity with as many as possible. From what I understand, the risks of STDs of unprotected anal sex and unprotected vaginal sex, excluding all other factors, are not that different. So most of that disproportionate number is due to promiscuity.

Besides, if you agree with promiscuity, without realizing it, if you promote it, you wipe out homosexuality in the process because it is 'sexuality.' No sex = no homosexuality or hetero for that matter

Homosexuality is not necessarily promiscuous. It could be argued that the effort should be put into promoting responsible sexual behavior, that is seeking faithful exclusive relationships and using protection, among homosexuals, not forbidding or repressing homosexuality as such.

"If" is exactly right. That community has been afforded the benefit of the doubt before anything exists. I am absolutely sure, we can choose not to have sex. Abstinence is a choice.

Of course they can choose abstinence, so can heterosexuals. That is not the issue. The issue is that if they choose to express their sexuality, which is no less biological than that of a heterosexual, they experience condemnation for it by ignorants and bigots. That is on the bigots and the ignorants, not the homosexuals.

I believe we should act upon that information in a positive and caring manner. The stats are important. If they weren't currently being censused by national registry, you might question them, but I don't believe you can. They are non-biased stats.

I'm not disputing that we should act on the statistics nor the the accuracy of them. I'm disputing your solution to them, and your explanation of them (being due to homosexuality per se, rather than an accidental feature of it)
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
From what I understand, the risks of STDs of unprotected anal sex and unprotected vaginal sex, excluding all other factors, are not that different.

:doh:

risk-slide4.gif



better stick with philosophy, your ignorance of basic bio is profound
 

Selaphiel

Well-known member
:doh:

risk-slide4.gif



better stick with philosophy, your ignorance of basic bio is profound

Maybe you should learn some basic mathematics. Those differences, even if they are significant, don't account for the discrepancy as large as 50% of all cases being attributes to >1% of a population. Especially when considering that anal sex is performed by heterosexuals as well.

More importantly, these are numbers for unprotected sex. I do not think anyone here is advocating the idea that unprotected anal sex is a smart thing. But is not using protection and being extremely promiscuous an essential part of homosexuality?

And you really shouldn't talk about biology as if it were something that you have any understanding of. You still believe the earth is around 10 000 years old with humans existing from the beginning, right?
 

Lon

Well-known member
But is that number due to unprotected anal sex being that more risky than unprotected vaginal sex or is it due to the potential amount of partners in males seeking male partners? That is two people with an underlying biological incentive to seek sexual activity with as many as possible. From what I understand, the risks of STDs of unprotected anal sex and unprotected vaginal sex, excluding all other factors, are not that different. So most of that disproportionate number is due to promiscuity.
Both. The anatomy is not meant for that and it is harmful in a hetero sense as well. However, the occurrence is prevalent among male as well as females from the 1%. It is also not sterile as is the other, if no STD's are present. There is also a greater harm risk among the minority group. I'm being careful not to describe in any great detail what is of concern. I try hard to keep the PG level on TOL and I think a vagueness is sufficient for conveyance. If any of this is too vague, let me know.



Homosexuality is not necessarily promiscuous. It could be argued that the effort should be put into promoting responsible sexual behavior, that is seeking faithful exclusive relationships and using protection, among homosexuals, not forbidding or repressing homosexuality as such.
It is, like 97%. 1/3 have had over 1000 partners if one statistic is accurate. Lately, studies show that one in three children in homosexual homes are sexually abused. We are going to have to rethink giving free passes to all of society based primarily upon the actual risks of said freedoms. It means roughly one in three homosexuals are also criminal pedophiles. I don't know about you, but when I see .gov and .edu reports like this, the obvious opening the flood gates on this behavior and caving to social pressure rather than solid study, has been a horrible
'move-ahead-as-if' with our heads in the sand. I just can't do that. All the stats are red-level alerts and concerns.


Of course they can choose abstinence, so can heterosexuals. That is not the issue. The issue is that if they choose to express their sexuality, which is no less biological than that of a heterosexual, they experience condemnation for it by ignorants and bigots. That is on the bigots and the ignorants, not the homosexuals.
:nono: The ONLY abstinent homosexuals are actually just celibate Christians at present. I realize that I'm an oddball in being abstinent until marriage but it is the goal of our faith. Most importantly, however, is that we do not cave simply based off of "everybody else is doing it." We need to encourage all orientations to avoid health risk behaviors, whether they do so or not. We are not hormone-police, but we can ensure our voices are heard through policy. What I'm advocating is simply telling homosexuals that the behavior causes ill health and early deaths. I was celibate for a long time. My head didn't explode or anything.


I'm not disputing that we should act on the statistics nor the the accuracy of them. I'm disputing your solution to them, and your explanation of them (being due to homosexuality per se, rather than an accidental feature of it)
Not sure I'm following then. If you agree or at least acknowledge the likelihood of such data as factual, what do you propose? For me: I don't think encouraging 1% of the 1% in exclusive behavior fixes a few of these health concerns. We are only talking about a few thousand at that point. Their partnerships aren't as exclusive as the majority of the rest of marriages, nor is yet, the behavior good for them, no matter how much they protest or march. Their quality of life, including digestive and Depends brand wear later in life, is reduced from the acts. Do we need to do anything that reduces our life? If so, what is acceptable? Would you, for instance, remove suicide from being illegal? The law surely does not stop the behavior, but I really don't want to celebrate suicide with 60% of currently produce media. I wouldn't want any kind of celebrity appointed to the one who will commit suicide, that it'd become a celebrated ritual in America. We, as a nation, chase fads, often blindly, sometimes as a misguided love and desire for another's 'freedom.' I wish we would think more, act less. Who was it who said it is better to "just do it and ask for forgiveness later." I think that guy had no patience and was a victim of impulse. We are very much into instant gratification, but I don't think such is a right. A lot of bad governments were started by lack of patience and throwing out traditional rules and laws. Tyrants are another thing altogether, but I'm saying we should be slow to speak, slow to act, quick to listen, as scripture calls us to do as well. -Lon
 

glassjester

Well-known member
Would you, for instance, remove suicide from being illegal? The law surely does not stop the behavior, but I really don't want to celebrate suicide with 60% of currently produce media. I wouldn't want any kind of celebrity appointed to the one who will commit suicide, that it'd become a celebrated ritual in America.

Give it a couple years.
 

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
Way to misunderstand what I'm talking about. You may very well claim that Paul was against it (although the theological dispute is quite a lot more complicated than this simplistic nonsense), but that only shows that Paul was against it, which in itself is not an argument of general reason which everyone can relate to.

Believe the same person says something about women being silent, and that they shouldn't be teaching men.

Actually you show you dont understand scripture, AGAIN. (we both know you know this, but would rather cast doubt on scripture and God rather than admit youre wrong- says much for your heart condition)

You do know thats about women and men (women who for the first time was allowed to hear the scripture teachings) were calling (across to the husbands since the women and men sat on opposite sides of the meetings) and were calling out loud to their husbands - so they were told to ask their husbands their questions at home, not to disrupt.

In other words women were empowered and could hear the word along with the men, and like all students (all men learing torah were told to learn in silence and submission to their teachers and were forbidden to teach while a student also.

Then you have women could openly prophecy in the church and conditions given, one at a time etc.. cant prophecy if you cant speak, show you show your ignorance right there.

Shameful how you try to trick others when you know what it says, slighting the Lord, for your flesh.
 

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
I have a 6 year university degree in theology, so I'm familiar with it. If speaking from a qualified position is the same as being 'wise in your own eyes', then that is a lousy saying..... I would rather say that those who speak from an unqualified position as if what they were saying were the absolute undisputable truth are the ones that are wise in their own eyes.

Like you deliberately misrepresenting the silence thing?
 

Lon

Well-known member
{re:women to be silent in the church} about women and men (women who for the first time were allowed to hear the scripture teachings) were calling (across to the husbands since the women and men sat on opposite sides of the meetings) and were calling out loud to their husbands - so they were told to ask their husbands their questions at home, not to disrupt.

In other words women were empowered and could hear the word along with the men, and like all students (all men learing torah were told to learn in silence and submission to their teachers and were forbidden to teach while a student also.

Then you have women could openly prophecy in the church and conditions given, one at a time etc.. cant prophecy if you cant speak, show you show your ignorance right there.
:first: I think this an excellent treatment from scripture study. I've come to some of the same conclusions but forgot that in synagogue, women were separated from men. :up:
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
...We need to encourage all orientations to avoid health risk behaviors, whether they do so or not...

As a Christian you should encourage all that are going against God's design for human sexuality (one man, one woman, united in matrimony) to seek spiritual and if need be, psychological help.

While you're at it: Tell those Trump supporters who pretend that they're conservative, that they're not fooling anyone.
 

Lon

Well-known member
As a Christian you should encourage all that are going against God's design for human sexuality (one man, one woman, united in matrimony) to seek spiritual and if need be, psychological help.
Would not have said otherwise. My point is all of society needs to be concerned, whether they share our Christian values or not. It is logically and physically a harmful way of life.
While you're at it: Tell those Trump supporters who pretend that they're conservative, that they're not fooling anyone.

On this, I don't tend to think that politics express our Christianity well. Rather, we aim for what we believe is the better.

I have a very hard time voting Democrat these days because of their pendulum swing on separation of church and state.
So, rather than voting with allegiance, I vote thinking of specific issues that need to be corrected or addressed. I voted for the senator from Tennessee. I don't begrudge Christians who voted for others as their convictions were voiced. We tend to get really odd ideas that politics somehow reflect one's sincerity or viability as Christians. I rarely see that as being the case. Rather, bad judgement or voting for something beside what I am voting for, or what have you. Just a thought or two -Lon
 
Top