DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on September 07, 2014, 10:42:39 AM
-
http://mobile.wnd.com/2013/04/anotherkiller-disease-striking-homosexuals/
Promiscuity kills, I don't think that gay marriage is real marriage at all , but would there be less transmission of disease with gay marriage having full recognition than there is now????
Oh wait,...."Los Angeles and New York."
So the new "gay plague" disease is happening where full recognition of homosexual marriage is already accomplished.
Never mind, back to the disapproval and opprobrium I had before.
By the way , I am curious to see whether President Obama spring into action and take effective measures, in exactly the way that President Reagan did not in the early part of the AIDS pandemic.
Reagan got a lot of criticism for acting as if AIDS was not the end of the world.
-
Wait a minute???
If you hit question mark three times you get a smiley with a raised eyebrow???
??? ??? ???
?? ??
Hmmmmm.??? ??????????????????????
Sometimes you do and sometimes you don't, there must be a rule I don't know.
-
Reagan should clearly have paid more heed to AIDS.
It would have been a minimal cost, and lives would have been saved.
I do not think that gay marriage would have any significant effect on the transmission of AIDS.
-
http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/06/fox-news-star-jumps-into-gay-christianity/
Well if Jesus tells me in person that gay marriage is a good idea , that would be different.
-
Jesus is mute. He be lak' de tarbaby. He doan' say nuttin'
-
Jesus is mute. He be lak' de tarbaby. He doan' say nuttin'
Are you sure you have been listening?
-
the issue about these gay illnesses is not all these people are gay and us straight folks will mistakenly believe we`re immune to it. it`s an issue of promiscuity and orientation. that third orientation which both sides refuse to acknowledge is a factor of risk.
-
I don't think anyone who knows anything about AIDS thinks they are immune, whether they are gay or straight. It is not promiscuity that breeds diseases, it is promiscuity with people who are infected. Being married is not in itself something that affects staying healthy or being infected, though the way people might behave differently if they are married could make a difference. Science and morality are not all that connected, after all.
I imagine that if Jesus had something to say and made a public appearance once in a while ti would make a major difference. But for a prophet/messiah, he was not all that communicative. He could have written the Gospel According the Jesus Christ and it would surely have been better than what we do have in the New Testament. People who hear voices others do not hear are, well, hearing voices.
-
Reagan should clearly have paid more heed to AIDS.
It would have been a minimal cost, and lives would have been saved.
I do not think that gay marriage would have any significant effect on the transmission of AIDS.
Really?
Like President Obama is about to do?
I don't think it will make the difference you imagine it will.
You don't think that gay marriage is serious marriage?
-
I believe this illness has a much easier transmission vector(kissing) so straight men simply gonna not makeout with unknown women from now on. How difficult can that posdibly be??
-
I don't think it will make the difference you imagine it will.
Reagan did not address AIDS at all. Following governments have done more, including funding research. I understand that AIDS is no longer a death sentence, and people with AIDS are living decades longer. I had no idea at the time what would be possible, but it turns out that there has been a huge difference, and had Reagan paid attention sooner, probably lives would have been saved.
You don't think that gay marriage is serious marriage?
I don't have a great opinion of marriage for gay or straight people. Any marriage is a serious as the couple can make it, whether they are gay or straight. The biggest obstacle to a permanent marriage is that people change throughout their lives, and much oif the time each member of the couple changes in a way that makes living together quite difficult or even impossible.
I have no idea whether gay married people are more or less faithful or careful with protection against AIDS than straight people. I just think that couple who wishes to marry should have the legal right to do so. I can't imagine what I said that caused you to think that I consider gay marriages "less serious". I have noticed that Rick Scott, aka Governor Skeletor, was once rabidly anti gay marriage and now his ads say nothing about it. His campaign ads accusing Charlie Crist of corruption are so silly and false that he refuses to comment on them.
-
I believe this illness has a much easier transmission vector(kissing) so straight men simply gonna not makeout with unknown women from now on. How difficult can that posdibly be??
I don't have any information on why this outbreak is picking gay persons .
Possibly just the circle of friends that it has hit first and no one is any more or less vulnerable.
In the US AIDS seems to like gay males best, but this might be different , I don't know.
But keeping men from kissing strange women is one of the things wives do, I don't know if husbands keep their husband so in check , I guess my interest isn't all that serious.
-
It's more and issue of percieved threat. Putting the gay label will make people act more careless believing thier somewhat immune becuse thier not gay. I remember many christain groups who are against condom by saying the virus is smaller than the microholes on a condom. This fact is true but they tend forget the fact it does not mean the virus can go throught those holes infect people which it cant. Ex. Water molecules are smaller than viruses and condoms are waterproof.
-
AIDS has affected a greater number of gays in the US because the disease entered this country through the gay male community. The percentage of gay men who were infected was many times greater than the percentage of hetero men. Gay women were far less likely to become infected because gay women are not into anal sex except perhaps with dildos. Gay men do not have sex with hetero women all that often. In Africa, AIDS is at least as common among hetero men and women as it is among gay men. The men who spread it about in Africa tended to be intercity truck drivers, who infected female prostitutes.
I think a lot of fundie Christians continue to see AIDS as some sort of device that God is using for punishing gay sex, just as they always though of syphilis and gonorrhea as a device God uses to punish infidelity and reward chastity. The idea that diseases are divine punishments goes way back, but the fact is that microbes, viruses and germs are not into enforcing morality. They are just looking for a home.
Experts claim that one cannot get AIDS from kissing. I suppose that it is technically possible, as it is a blood borne disease, so if you had bleeding gums and kissed a woman with bleeding gums perhaps transmission is possible. But of course, perhaps saliva prevents this. You are far more likely to catch a flu or mononucleosis from kissing.
-
In Africa Heterosexuals are suffering a lot of Aids. Once in the bloodstream the virus doesn't care who you are.
The bible prohibits a lot of stuff, mostly stuff that is a bad idea.
Supposing there were no scripture , homosexuality and promiscuity would still be a bad idea and the germs that come along with the easy transmission path are only one of several reasons that this is so.
Ebola is a lot more transmissible than Aids , and a faster killer, several of the infected with Ebola recently have been medical missionaries that came to help. There is a scripture about the rain falling on the just and the unjust alike, but it seems that Christian duty can lead a person to run into the rain sometimes .
-
Thier are ways to be promiscus and not get most if not all these illness but that requires alot of structure and like wearing a condom not very fun.
-
Thier are ways to be promiscus and not get most if not all these illness but that requires alot of structure and like wearing a condom not very fun.
I know.
At some point one must say.
What is the point?
-
You need to take a look at all those kosher laws in the Bible. There are seven kinds of locusts, I think three are kosher, but four are not. Then there is the prohibition of wearing fabric that is made of more than one kind of fiber. Cotton, linen and wool are all okay, but if you combine them, God gets unhappy. Lobster and shrimp were banned because the priests though that they were bottom feeders. This is true of lobster, but not of shrimp.
The Bible is a lot like Mexican brujeria (witchcraft). Some things that are banned really are bad for you. Others are not. Some of the herbs actually do cure maladies. Others only seem to have a placebo effect.
Way up in the mountains around Mexico City is a small village called Chalma. Mexicans have a saying about impossible things. "Eso no lo consigues aunque vayas a bailar a Chalma." (You won't get that even if you go to Chalma to dance.) The custom goes back to Aztec times. If you wento to Chalma and danced before a certain idol, any wish you had would be fulfilled. The Church destroyed the idol and replaced him with an image of El Niño Jesús. So many Mexicans have the belief that if you walk to Chalma (it is about 50 miles, much of it uphill) and danced in the courtyard the padres de la iglesia had thoughtfully provided, your wishes would come true. If they didn't, you were not dancing sincerely enough.
If your wishes came true, you were supposed to give a gift and write a testimonial. If they didn't, tough. So over the years, there were lots of testimonials. Some pof the better ones were typewritten and pinned to a large bulletin board thing.
One Saturday, I drove up to Chalma, accompanied by a Jewish psyche major named Charlene. The road was very rocky, and I got a fractured oilpan. We told a passing truck and within an hour or so, a guy came back with a Model A Ford tow truck, which towed us to a village along the way, and we goit a guy to weld the oil pan. So we got to Chalma around 3:00 PM and there were a lot of campesinos dancing in the church patio. There was a guy with an accordion, several flautists and a couple of drummers playing off key. There were a lot of shops where you could buy candles, special candles, very special candles and all sorts of milagros (miracles) which are silver images of legs, hearts, arms, heads, which you buy and pin on a velvet cloth panel and light a candle and pray so that Jesus will fix your leg, arm, heart or head. The Church sells the milagros back to the vendors, so it seems to be a really good business.
We didn't dance or make any wishes. Charlene was, like many psyche majors, prone to various sorts of mental disturbances. One day she curled up in a fetal position in front of the potato chips in a small grocery store, and after several hours, she gave me the name of her psychiatrist, whom I called and she went back to Philadelphia. I never heard from her again.
-
The biggest obstacle to a permanent marriage is that people change throughout their lives,
and much oif the time each member of the couple changes in a way that makes living together
quite difficult or even impossible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fio7T6mjCbI
-
These are rational arguments compared to some I have had.
Women, I have found, use 90% of the toilet paper and I have never known of one to actually put it in the holder. Except for my sister, who does it to watch her cat unspool it in about a minute. She find this to be the most amusing thing ever.
-
You need to take a look at all those kosher laws in the Bible. There are seven kinds of locusts, I think three are kosher, but four are not. Then there is the prohibition of wearing fabric that is made of more than one kind of fiber. Cotton, linen and wool are all okay, but if you combine them, God gets unhappy. Lobster and shrimp were banned because the priests though that they were bottom feeders. This is true of lobster, but not of shrimp.
There are hundreds of types of shrimp, an exhaustive list of shrimp types would be bigger than the bible and separating the bottom feeding shrimp from the shrimp that eat seaweed would be challenging, requiring close examination of each one.
If you can't stand seven types of grasshopper , how would you feel about an hundred categories of shrimp?
The Bible includes a lot of hard to understand stuff , but no mistakes.
That is a miracle on its own, dancing or not.
I know why I would not have danced , but why didn't you?
-
but is it a sin to eat the lobster if you are on an island and the easiest food to get is lobster and other foods are just simply very dangerous to get.
-
I should not pretend to be an expert on Kosher, I am not under that law and my study of it is casual.
That being said , David was forgiven for eating the ShewBread.
The sacred bread was not so forbidden that he would better starve.
Eschewing swine , bats, lobsters and catfish might have spared the observant many worms.
But that was never the point.
The vision of Paul to accept Swine eaters as Christians made it a lot easier to convert .
Germans and Filipinos and Scots
But that was never the point either.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2021&version=NIV
-
I do believe it was less of an issue then but today these dietary laws has gotten so extreme that I really think my island scenario will be a question of the strength of faith sometimes.
I think these were never meant as religious doctrine but highly practical things to do but as time go on thing got abit carried away. ex. I was super sick awhile back couldn`t eat anything but my belief on how safe kosher food is so strong I never questioned eating it. I have no rational reason for doing this. but still
I`m not even jewish. I blame those Hebrew national commercials
-
The statement that there are no mistakes in the Bible is simply a statement of belief that the Bible is in some way divine.
The Bible is chock full of nonsense. If you can't see that, you have not read it with the same critical eye you would read any other book. The Bible is a compendium of good advice, tribal customs, ancestor tales and advice that may have served a purpose at some time, but no longer does. Like wearing fabric made of different fibers. That is not so much a mistake as it is just silly.
Bible "study" starts with the premise that the Bible is divine and contains only truth than the word of God and seeks to prove how every element in it is true and HOW it is true. It is not different in thus than Koranic "Studies".
I think the Bible was written by men who were sincere in their beliefs, but sincerity proves nothing.
In the case of admitting the uncircumcised and the pig eaters, Paul believed that converting everyone required ignoring all the ancient laws that were obstacles to conversion. Paul was a fanatic, but a very pragmatic one. I can admire his salesmanship to the degree that salesmanship can be admired, but the guy was still a fanatic. We no longer live in Paul's time. What made since to the Old Testament prophets, who needed to separate their tribe from all the other tribes, no longer made since to Paul, who lived in a time in which contact between Jews and Gentiles was daily and inevitable, so he changed the rules. In modern times they do the same thing: the stuff formerly called "pink slime" has been changed by altering the process, but it still is marketed sold and eaten. The names used to describe it have changed.
I am reminded of the debate in which someone asks some fundie what would change his mind about the Biblilical view of the world, and he says "Nothing!"
Bill Nye, asked the same question, responded "Evidence!".
And that is the difference between science (which is a process by which we discover the truth,. recognizing that we will never know it all), and religion, which claims to know it all because a God who knows it all told us in this book filled with ambiguous and cryptic stuff.
-
The statement that there are no mistakes in the Bible is simply a statement of belief that the Bible is in some way divine.
Yes, quite so.
The Bible is chock full of nonsense. If you can't see that, you have not read it with the same critical eye you would read any other book. The Bible is a compendium of good advice, tribal customs, ancestor tales and advice that may have served a purpose at some time, but no longer does. Like wearing fabric made of different fibers. That is not so much a mistake as it is just silly.
No.
I can't pretend to understand the entire Bible but I have faith that I will be given the understanding I need as I need it.
A lot of what is called nonsense or mistake is really just not understanding the context.
The mixed fibers is an easy one to explain , it is a close cousin to the adjuration to use honest weights.
If you buy wool you pay a wool price for it , if you pay for linen you should get linen.
During the Civil War one of the famous cheats that "profiteers" used on the government was selling "wool" blankets to the US Army that would fall apart in use due to their being made of the lowest quality cloth that could be conceivably be called "wool".
Putting aardvark into the beef , putting grass into the salad, putting ground hair collected from barbershops into the soy sauce, putting melamine into the milk , although not specifically on the forbidden list , would seem non-kosher to me in this same theme.
There are several places in scripture where sellers , buyers , producers and consumers are encouraged to avoid cheating each other. I consider this, the sprit of this rule.
Considered in context, the rule against mixing fibers is pretty easy to understand , but it can seem like nonsense by someone who is reading the scripture in a hypercritical manner , that is, with more skepticism than would be applied to any other reading .
Have you heard of http://www.blasphemersbible.com/ ?
This guy went on for years parsing scripture with the theme of proving every bit of the Bible to be wrong .
I think he has run out of motivation , but he carried on for quite a while .
I think that there is hope for this guy , he has inadvertently perused a lot of scripture and probably remembers it . He is ripe for an epiphany
This one is just getting started.http://tapastic.com/episode/43943
Taking the view that the Bible is worth illustrating.
It is going to take some imagination to make the lists of antecedents into an amusing cartoon.
-
Actually, I have read that many learned rabbis have never figured out a motive for the ban on mixing fibers. The Bible did not say "do not deceive people by mixing fibers and selling 30% linen as 100%." It says not to weave such fabric in the first place, even if the buyer knows exactly what it is. It is not easy to buy clothes made from a single type of fiber. Fibers are routinely mixed to improve the texture, durability, appearance and utility of the fabric. It is NOT an easy one to figure out. It is more like God in the Book of Job torturing Jobs just because he feels like it. It was not a contest between God and the Devil, because God knows everything. He knows he will win.
The Bible is what it seems to be: a compendium of wisdom, folklore, history, tribal customs and nonsense. If God can do all things, then he can write a book that can be understood by all who read it. Apparently, he did not feel like doing this, just as Jesus did not feel like writing his own Gospel.
I certainly would not say that there is not some wisdom and good advice in the Bible. But it is not all wisdom and good advice.
The blasphemers bible is clever. Tapastic also seems worth the trouble. The Bible is perhaps worth illustrating, just as Moby Dick and Tale of Two Cities are worth illustrating. Worshiping it, on the other hand, well, no. It does have the Koran beat. The Koran is boooooooring. Even more so than the Book of Mormon. I read the Book of Mormon because I had heard that there is a mention of God;s wife (aka Mrs God) somewhere in it. The fact it that there USED to be a mention of Mrs God. One of the prophets heard that it was in error or something and they took it out. The Book of Mormon gets edited all the time, I hear, but only the editor and the prophets know about it.
-
Well if you don't like the simple explanation, I have another.
There were certain ceremonies in which the wear of wool was forbidden.
Ezekiel 44:17 “‘When they enter the gates of the inner court, they are to wear linen clothes; they must not wear any woolen garment while ministering at the gates of the inner court or inside the temple.
It might have been dangerous to wear wool in this circumstance, if mixed fabric was common it might become hard to ensure that there were no wool fibers, perhaps this was a worry of the priests and forbidding this mix made it easy to avoid the wool.
I don't know why it was necessary to forbid priests from wearing wool in the vicinity of the Ark of the Covenant.
But I know exactly why and could explain to you if you want, why the Air Force forbids me to wear wool when I am handling squibs.
-
Wool could cause more static electricity, but gunpowder was not used in the Temples. Candles and lamp oil are unlikely to combust because of sparking.
-
But sparking is a turn off and you would assume the person wearing it woukd have common sense to stop it ,so likely a rule was made to stop those sparks.
-
That does not address the issue of why it is forbidden to wear clothes of mixed fibers. The possible materials then were cotton, linen and wool. I suppose that camel hair, goat hair and sheep's wool were available.
And of course, if all the kosher laws make so bloody much sense, why did Paul decide to abolish them all at once?
I am convinced that Paul simply saw that there was a far greater possibility of converting pagans and other Gentiles, rather than Jews, who are very resistant to change in their religion. Jesus himself had practically no contact with anyone but other Jews.
-
And of course, if all the kosher laws make so bloody much sense, why did Paul decide to abolish them all at once?
I do not think it was Paul's idea , If you have to get knocked off your horse and struck blind to achieve a change of mind, you cannot claim to have been sensitive to new ideas later.
Abolishing the law is not exactly what happened , there is subtlety involved and the law still exists .
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8%3A1-39&version=ESV
Also...
I think an over emphasis on the letter of the law was one of the disagreements Jesus had with the Pharisee.
http://biblehub.com/luke/11-46.htm
-
The law may still exist, but Paul, James (Jesus' brother) and Peter argued about this for quite a while, Paul says that the laws need not be obeyed.
Jesus said that healing people on the Sabbath did not violate the commandment about keeping the Sabbath holy.
I think that Paul had an obsessive personality and actually felt that his mission was to snare the maximum number of converts. He was very, very good at it. But charisma is one thing and does not mean that God actually spoke to him. He just heard voices. Obsessed people have been hearing voices since forever.
I do not doubt Paul's sincerity. L just think he was full of crap.