Why Should Jesus Love Me?

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#491360 Feb 20, 2013
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>You're welcome. Let's not get it twisted, though.
The prohibition wasn't solely against the act just because the act proved one idolatrous, or was only associated with an idolatrous practice. Even though this is the case at Romans 1, it's still written that these people were given up to "vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly." Regardless of the reason these people chose to behave as such doesn't change the fact that the practice was considered unnatural and unseemly.
Like the eating of horse, dog or cat in the USA.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#491361 Feb 20, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct. It is in a text that was rejected by the Jews and Chrisitans alike.
Christianity is a religion that bases much of it's "Word of God" on things that it claimed were NOT the "Word of God".
That's pretty interesting. Where did the whole 1/3rd of all the angels thing come from?

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#491362 Feb 20, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe that was a misinterpretation of an actuality. One probably handed down through many generations, of a group that were indeed different from common people who were incapable of their physical and mental stature, and therefor thought of as "supernatural". Scripture and other ancient writings bear out their existence in actuality.
[ANG] was a race of individuals who possessed a shimmering blue radiance, superior knowledge, and the ability to become transparent and even invisible to the common people throughout history...one going back at least 60,000 years. Take the story of Abraham and Sodom for example. The characteristics are identical(just 1 instance). As related, they were ANG/[EL]=the shimmering/glowing messengers of EL(god), and were recognized immediately for who and what they were by Abraham... and at that, had abilities above and beyond that of the common people(including the chosen Abraham himself).
Both the Greek and Hebrew words translated as "Angel" simply mean "divine messenger" there is no reason to believe they were more than human.

Another case of making words mean whatever one wants...usually far from what the original author intended.

"Moby Dick was a USO" LOL

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#491363 Feb 20, 2013
Qu_innocence wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong... Australia?
"HIV transmission in Australia occurs primarily through sexual contact between men. Around 65% of people newly diagnosed with HIV in 2009 were among men who have sex with men; 28.7% were exposed through heterosexual contact; 2.3% were due to injecting drug use; and a further 3% were men with a history of both injecting drug use and sex with other men."
http://www.avert.org/aids-hiv-australia.htm
Good point. Allow me to rephrase as "Wealthy countries show differing patterns of HIV transmission than impoverished ones."

Second, the important phrase above is "sexual contact between men." Homosexuality is a sexual identity that involves more than just same sex sex. Importantly, straight men sometimes engage in same sex sex - this happens in prisons, on sports teams and police forces, etc. Where ever you find an absence of one sex and some sort of hierarchy among the men.

That's why US prisons have 5X the public rates of HIV - lots of unprotected sex going on, since most jails don't offer condoms to inmates. I don't specifically know about Australia, but would guess a similar situation in its prisons.

Here's a question for you: why do men seek out lots of unprotected sex?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#491364 Feb 20, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Unicorns are in the Bible, and Satan is a dragon, in the Bible.
A Christian may very well believe in the existence (past or present) of unicorns and at least one dragon.
Wow! My mistake.

Any Christians care to comment on whether they believe in Unicorns or dragons?

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#491365 Feb 20, 2013
I strongly suspect my neighbor is a witch. She's old, ugly, and has a large cauldron in her back yard. Sometimes at night I can see heavy smoke billowing up from above the fence. When I see her, she gives me the evil eye. It could be because of how many times I've alerted the homeowners association about her violations, but it's more likely that she knows that I am a Christian, and hates me for it, as witches must, for who they work for (Satan!!!).

I receive a newspaper every Sunday. I pay in advance, and I always pick it up out of the yard soon after it's arrival. Last Sunday, I walked out to my front yard to discover no Sunday newspaper. At least, there wasn't one in my yard, but there did appear to be one on my neighbor's porch, so my first thought was, "Oh, well, mine should be around here somewhere too." I looked everywhere. I walked out to the mailbox, surveyed the area, then I looked back to the house to check the roof. Nothing.

I began to think, "I don't recall ever seeing a newspaper delivered to my neighbor. The old hag probably can't even read." I sat on my front porch rocking chair and I rocked, and I thought, and I rocked, and I thought. "I bet that's MY newspaper.", I said quietly to myself.

I stood up, resolute, and walked directly towards my neighbors shabby porch, avoiding the thorny bushes and broken pottery. Quietly as a mouse, I bent over, checked to make sure that the newspaper was the one I subscribe to, found that it was, and picked it up. Satisfied that this must be my newspaper, I tucked it under my arm and began to stroll, quite leisurely, back towards my own property, when suddenly I heard a loud creak. It was the alarming squeal of a heavy door on rusty old hinges. My spine tingled, my hair stood on end, my face turned to chalk, and I shakily turned around.

"What do you think you're doing with MY newspaper?", the shrill old voice queried. There she was, standing at the doorway, and holding an old broom no less. I would have laughed had I not been so afraid.

"Um, no, see this is my newspaper.", I answered, almost sure that I had said the wrong thing. I reached up with my left hand and took the end of the newspaper, not quite sure yet what I was going to do. As she scowled at me, I began to illustrate the situation as I saw it. Her face grew tighter and tighter as I spoke. Clearly she was not amused, and quite frankly, I was close to crying just from being stared down.

Before I could find the words to escape the situation, she lifted her wrinkly old finger and did something I'll never forget. She placed a curse on me!

It took me a few moments to realize what she was doing, but as soon as I did, I dropped that newspaper, and I ran, sprinted rather, back to my own house, not bothering to look back as I lunged in through the front door. I kind of slid in, and shut the door with a kick from a scampering position.

I can't tell you what I dreamt about that night. I could, but won't... can't.

I awoke thinking the whole thing was rather silly, until I opened the door to leave for work. There on the porch was a newspaper. I thought for a moment that this might be my actual newspaper, delivered a day late, but when I opened it, I knew better.

Written in, what I can only assume was blood, were the details of the curse that was cast upon me. I felt sick. My nightmares had not prepared me for at all. My only consolation was written very clearly on top of the comics, "Blaspheme the Holy Spirit, Christian, and I will lift this curse."

Needless to say, I called in sick, though I didn't elaborate to my boss. I went into my study, locked the door, and began to panic, sweat, cry, and pee my pants a little. I'm not ashamed. You'd pee your pants too if you had read what I read... in blood!

After a fresh change of clothes, I decided to consult the Bible for guidance. A few hours of reading finally gave me what I was looking for. I never saw smoke coming from my neighbor's yard again, I mean, you know, after...

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#491366 Feb 20, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Of course we are. We are "gods", and "god" is us...only not the way it is portrayed on the religionist sense. IMO
Agreed.

Heard a Rabbi give a good story of why and how we are 'gods". It centered on creative vs creator motifs. Very enlightening.

I think what scares most people about their deities is that they are too much like themselves.
Doctor REALITY

Little Rock, AR

#491367 Feb 20, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text>that so sad and tragic on so many levels.
he disgrace the olympics, he disgrace nelson mandela, he disgrace s.africa, he destroy a young girl with her whole life ahead of her, and he destroy himself.
he fall from so high so fast I no know if he know what hit him yet.
Be quiet,Shrink.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#491368 Feb 20, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to learn to read a chart.
Total homosexual HIV 28,782
Total homosesual w/IV use 1,443
Total heterosexual HIV 12,875
Total non-sexual IV use HIV 3,766
30 gay to 15 straight
Your arguement crumbles at your feet.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/ba...
It's actually not "gay to straight" but same sex sexual contact to opposite sex sexual contact. The men who have sexual encounters with men slot includes sexual violence and prisons.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#491369 Feb 20, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If I may ask, what do you mean when you say you were "on the path to" homosexuality?
Possibly, like most people at some point in their life, he had a "crush" on someone of the same sex.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#491370 Feb 20, 2013
Qu_innocence wrote:
<quoted text>Europe, where sex is a lot more liberal homo-, bi-, hetero-... holding even.
40% Aids transmission through hetero and 39% Aids transmissiion through homo.
http://www.avert.org/hiv-aids-europe.htm
Thank you Qu! You're backing up my point about HIV traveling along the lines of discrimination.

There you go - well done! You see what I mean? Our societies (almost all human societies) set up unequal access to scarce resources (health, money, food, sex). Those with the least access are the most at risk for health issues - they get taken advantage of by those with access (African: men with money, women without), while being unable to afford or have the power to use the technologies that would protect them (condoms).

So HIV and TB and so on spread through these groups, highlighting where our inequalities lie. That's what HIV is - an indicator light that the affected population is living under unfair, structurally violent conditions.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#491371 Feb 20, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
WOW
So you when you said they would try to coerce children within a family what you really meant what the total opposite and would engage in an adult consensual relationship once the child reached adulthood?!
LOL
So it went from coercing children to have sex which is rape to a consensual adult relationship!
It is unbelievable the games you guys play
I find it difficult to fathom the way in which you can completely misconstrue written words that I provided for you, in detail, that show I did not say what you claimed I did, and then you still continue on with the same type of accusation, changed in context a bit, but still completely in error and misrepresenting what I said, when it was explained, and pointed out, referenced with links to the posts made and clearly showing you were in error in what you claimed I said.

I rarely use the word "believe", personally, in my day in and day out life, but you have forced me to say:

I cannot believe that this person is so set on wanting another persons words to say what he wants, he'll continue on in the same way even after being shown to be wrong in the assumptions made, and act as if it's myself being the disingenuous one here.

I don't believe it. <<<(Mark that down, my friends)

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#491372 Feb 20, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
If he was trying to make everything good, he didn't do very good work then, did he?
What makes you say that the good in the world is from the god, and the bad from man. It could just as easily be the other way around. How could you tell if it were?
Interesting postulate.

However, Christianity has two main Gods, the Evil One currently having the greater power and intelligence.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#491373 Feb 20, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
EDIT scaritual
I take it back, you did say "once they reach adulthood"
Thanks for the.. apology?

I gather you took the time to read what I did say and not gallop off with what you thought I said or wanted me to have said. I'm not sure which it might be at this point.

You know all it takes is a little bit of effort to look at what was said and then reason the import of what I did say or mean. You needn't go off on some tangent that is completely off mark and then run with whatever dreaded and/or feared imaginary situation you've got brewing in that noggin.

You really can't blame me for being frustrated and somewhat irate with this exchange so far.
Skombolis wrote:
What is your logic on that.
I think you should carefully consider and read what a person responds to you with, and don't place your personal spin upon what was said. Think about it. I mentioned nothing about rape, pedophilia, gays, etc.. and yet you mentioned all of those topics and didn't notice I specified >>"once they reach adulthood"<<, and >>consenting adults<<.

You know you could have mentioned ALL of those concerns, and mentioned that I did specify "consenting adults" as the defining principle or line of demarcation, but you didn't.

WHOOPS!....Look at what I just did, I took your thought and went off in a direction that you meant to apply to the question below, but I added my own spin.

Lets look at the question below.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#491374 Feb 20, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
So you are saying they would rape children
Back to the same thing, huh? Just read whatever you like into what I said, and ignore what I did say.

No, I didn't mention raping children.

First of all, I did not say "they would" be coerced or pressured. That may seem to be a minor point to you, but my actual words were there "might be the possibility" of coercion or undue pressure.

I can't say that would certainly happen or not happen, however, that is the motivation behind some of the laws, but not all, and in looking at the laws, almost all cite the increased likely hood of some bottle necking of genetic disorders within a familial group as being a concern. I notice many laws are somewhat religiously motivated in some instances too.

Yet the bible had multiple examples in the myth in which is was accepted and condoned, and other instances where it was taboo.

This is an issue that is very complex, since in reality, if consenting adults make a conscious and deliberate or self-aware decision to engage in an incestuous relationship, and there is no chance of birth defects arising from offspring produced from that union, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to.

<<<< But then there is the issue of coercion,>>>> and while you take that to mean a forcible rape or some similar scenario, my thoughts don't run to that extreme, but more along the lines of acceptance of a request or plea, by a family member, that even as an *adult only* encounter(not pressured as a child), another adult might succumb to that familial pressure to accept a suggestion.

The example I can provide, not at all the same, but similar, is when a crime has been committed by a family member, and in any other instance you would turn a stranger in.

But, you don't because it's a brother, a sister, or a parent etc...

That really isn't a good example, because it associates criminal activity with incest, and based upon what you've read into what you thought I said but didn't, I feel compelled to be as descriptive as I can be in explaining my thought process to you in this instance and on this subject.

So, indulge the length of this reply.

I could also use as an example where your family member asks to borrow money and you lend it to them, all the while knowing you shouldn't for whatever reason but you do.

Or you're approached with a business venture that you know cannot succeed, but, because it's a relative, you try to honor the blood ties of family and going that extra distance - because in some families - if a family member asks, you are almost expected, or there is an onus upon you to agree >>> just because <<< "it's family".

I happen to be from Appalachia, and there is a very strong family code/honor/system of placing a family members requests or needs at an almost unquestioned priority, above your own needs, at times.

A request by a member of the family is one of the most sacred things there are within this culture, and it's the same for many people, not just Appalachia.

I also should point out that blood lines and relatives are very delineated here, and that is done to eliminate the possibility of incest, and that has been done >>> in the past<<< because of relatively small populations = genetic stock diversity - within a region.

Where I grew up there were only 10,000 people, total, in my entire county. It's changed now.

The most common questions asked of a teen when the stage of dating began were; "What's her family name? Is she from over in this area? Is her Grandpa this branch of *Smiths*, or the *Smiths* on the east end of the county?

"I reckon it's okay.... As long as shes not *Tom Smiths* daughter, he married that Jones girl and she was kin to your great Uncle Leo and......"

It was a very detailed process, and once it was determined you were not related or even closely related, all was fine.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#491375 Feb 20, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
they would instead pressure children as they were kids to make them more likely to have sex as adults?
I mentioned that possibility, for both children and adults. I didn't say it was a certainty or exclusive to either a child or an adult, and the considerations that might come into play. I covered that extensively, above.
Skombolis wrote:
What scientific basis do you have for saying that?
A scientific basis? Actually there is some info, not entirely confirmed, that points to there NOT being a possibility of that happening, but only in a narrow range of circumstance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermark_effec... The flip side of that is if it's outside of that narrow range, it appears as if there is no scientific reason that prevents incest, inherently.

Except for...

There is the genetic factor, that can be a consideration, and that is a consideration, especially so if incest becomes a "family tradition", or commonly practiced within a family.

An accumulated propensity for genetic defects can be a concern involving incest and offspring resulting from that arrangement. That is supported scientifically, but it isn't as dire as it may seem. Even though if a child was born with a genetic defect, solely because of an incestuous relationship and for no other reason, that'd...suck, no?

That has happened, too.
Skombolis wrote:
Granted it is a little different than raping them as children but not a whole lot better if you are saying they will indoctrinate them to the point that they will give into it upon reaching a legal age. To me that is really no different than rape
I addressed that, above, and I think I made a pretty good case that family ties can compel people to do or accept things they might not normally accept, and it doesn't require rape or "force" to accept those situations.

I'm not sure it would even require "indoctrination" as a prerequisite to consider entering into an incestuous relationship, and that relationship might not be something one person involved would choose, if not for the others insistence or plea.

Can what was just pointed out be called indoctrination? I'm not sure it can be.

Humans form strong ties, we make friends, and those friends can be like family. Family ties tend to be the strongest, and they ARE family, and sometimes a family member can be a best friend too. Complicated, and emotionally charged and motivated at times.

I could envision many scenarios in which you might entertain the concept of incest, and as long as you freely and without coercion or pressure chose to do so, I don't personally see it as a problem.

At the same time, I think it may be best to err on the side caution in preventing those coerced situations. Being an adult and making that decision freely and without pressure makes all the difference, in my opinion.

Ensuring that is the circumstance(freely chosen) is the problem, I think.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#491376 Feb 20, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a socioeconomic problem, complicated by stigma and hatred. That is exactly what we see in Africa, and to a lesser degree right here in the US. Until these problems are addressed, we will not overcome these deterrents to society.
At least we need to investigate such matters instead of using them as arguements for stereotyping an entire minority group.

I think it is humerously ironic how some men get a "bug up their ass" over homosexuality.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#491377 Feb 20, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
I am still admitting my error as I didn't see the part that said "once they reach adulthood", I just said they would "coerce children"
Yeah, and that was an error on your part. You needn't mention it anymore, unless you continue to misstate what I say or write, and I'll eventually not engage you. If that is your ultimate goal, just go ahead and state that, plainly.

The interaction will change.
Skombolis wrote:
But do you think people who are gay do that?
I don't think there would be an increased propensity or inclination for either a homosexual person, or a heterosexual person to coerce children into a incestuous relationship. I think the odds would be exactly even as far as an intended or methodical desire or approach is concerned.

I think you're looking to demonize a specific group here, and making the unfounded conceptual leap to the conclusion that people of the same sex would be more likely to engage in incest, and that that somehow attaches a more serious or sinister component to incest.
Skombolis wrote:
Find someone underage that is gay and indoctrinate them and coerce them so once they reach legal age they will engage in homosexual sex with them?
The way your question is phrased is not coherent. It exhibits a misunderstanding of many concepts being discussed within this conversation.
Skombolis wrote:
You are arguing semantics in my opinion.
I've found that many times, the semantics of a situation or discussion is where the actual solution or enlightenment can be found.

Except for the most simplistic of issues, blanket statements and grand proclamations and stances are generally futile and end up producing divisions, contributes very-little-to-no-understandin g or awareness of a topic, and does not benefit society or the individuals within a society at all.
Skombolis wrote:
I do apologize for implying you were had been dishonest although my questions remain the same.
I wasn't being dishonest. My response remains much the same, too, just much more detailed in explanation.

I feel I must be very descriptive in order to avoid what happened with you before. The issue was with you and not grasping what was plainly said.
Skombolis wrote:
Do you think people who are gay indoctrinate underage gay youth?
hahaa, lemme see....

Do I think.

A gay person.

Could indoctrinate.

A gay youth?

What? To be "more gay"?

Surely you don't mean that, that would be ridiculous.(I could go off on an unrelated assumption and act as if that's what you meant, like you did with my comments, but I was clear in my statements, you, not so much, just read the question as you stated it)

Or to engage in an incestuous relationship more so than a straight person? You meant that, yes?

No, I don't, and here's why; The percentages of heterosexuals and homosexual people within the population is much lower for homosexual people, proportionately.

I have to think that an incestuous relationship would be more likely to occur between heterosexuals and initiated more often by heterosexuals, just because of that lower percentage of homosexuals, proportionately, in the population.

As I said earlier, if you have reputable information that can dispute that or evidences otherwise and in specific, please provide that.

I hope I've represented this subject as evenly and fairly as I can, even though it is only my personal views, after all.

Forgive the voluminous post(S).

I felt it was needed.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#491378 Feb 20, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> It is a known fact that multiple blood transfusions develops antibodies which create the symptoms of immune deficiency(although it is not classified as HIV).
True, HIV is only one of several auto-immune diseases.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#491379 Feb 20, 2013
Qu_innocence wrote:
@ G, speaking of which... like HFY had stated initially that men are twice as likely to give HIV/AIDS to women rather than women giving it to men... of that 12,875:
4,416 hetero- males compared to 8,459 of hetero- females who got infected. "Twice as likely" in this case also.
What is being left out of here is the amount of sexual activity and if bi-sexual. Obviously, it is passed on to women at a quicker rate. I believe the jump from homo- to hetero- "initially" came through an intermediary.. bisexuals ... and that is how heteros- got infected and started to infect each other. Even though hetero's are infected and a majority in the U.S. are heteros-, it's amazing that it is still mainly in the lgbtq community here in the U.S.
Yeah, you're right about women.

I'm not convinced you're correct about where HIV began or how it spread into both sexes. That's more of a discussion about the origin of HIV - Africa, very likely colonial mining conditions. There's a bit of dispute about the origins of HIV, some suggest poorly structured vaccinations, but I'm convinced of the colonial mining conditions for a number of reasons.

In either case, it would most likely have begun in straight men, spread through their sexual networks and eventually got into men who have sex with me. You see, all scenarios for the origin of HIV have it spreading through needle use, not sex. Once it gets into the human population, sex drives it.

Let's pretend that Western concepts of sexuality are universal to African peoples for a moment. If you give vaccinations to your laborers, you're going to be overwhelmingly giving them to straight men, who then infect their dependent women. Eventually some of them will also have sex with men who are gay or just more flexible about who they sleep with. Then it travels up the socio-economic ladder in the wealthy-nation's people who sleep with the locals.

Importantly, the Western sexual construct of gay/straight is not universal, so my above picture is oversimplified. Where the lines between same and opposite sex are blurred (or not noticed), the virus spreads between the sexes faster.

HIV could not have begun as a "gay disease." It began as a disease of extremely poor working conditions plus a reliance on cheap vaccinations for inexpensively keeping workers working. It becomes a "gay disease" under certain social contexts and discrimination against homosexuals - but, as you've been browsing the literature, the medical watch-dogs have altered their language to a neutral position "sex between men" rather than "homosexual sex" because they recognize that blaming an identity doesn't actually help identify how HIV spreads.

If you "know" HIV as a gay disease, you're going to miss where "straight" people have sex with the same sex, engage in drug use, discrimination against women, and so on, allowing HIV to continue spreading. When you remove your value judgments, focus on behavior and inequalities, you can actually track the movement of HIV (as you cease restricting your vision).

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 6 min Joe Fortuna 88,380
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 9 min Michael 665,472
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 12 min truth 45,848
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 21 min Peter Ross 625
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 41 min Ricky F 184,769
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 51 min onemale 284,623
Liberals say INCEST marriage is okay 58 min guest 5
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Gabriel 977,432
Secular Humanism VS Christianity 2 hr Lonestar 255
More from around the web