Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. This is a thread bashing conservative Christians that believe the Bible. Your post was piling on.
2. And would it make a difference if I did answer your question or anyone else's? Almost 500 pages have gone by and no one has paid attention to what any Christian has said on this forum. Instead, we've been told we hate homosexuals.
1. No. It was a statement of fact about the term "fundamentalist" in response to a post by DRob, followed by a question as to what term he would prefer in its place. You just chose that post at random to make an irrelevant response once again saying that you are being picked on.
2. Yes, it would make a difference because then it would be a post that you made that said something more than that others are picking on you.
Some of us, Christians and non, have taken the time and effort to write long, thoughtful posts on this thread about why we don't believe that Bible literalism should be used in the way it is used when it harms and excludes and marginalizes other people. I have spent a great deal of time doing this sometimes, choosing my words carefully, only to get the "you're just picking on conservative Christians" response.
2. And would it make a difference if I did answer your question or anyone else's? Almost 500 pages have gone by and no one has paid attention to what any Christian has said on this forum. Instead, we've been told we hate homosexuals.
Tell us, BF, What is the appropriate Christian state of mind about someone you believe is an abomination????
You just can't accept that there are real consequences to ppl who engage in this type of sexual behavior. Your post is an amazing desperate attempt to try to shift the focus away from very clear FACTS. The vast majority of HIV contractions in the US continue to be in the gay community. That fact destroys the claim that heterosexuals do it just as much.
Yourself and "SuperSoul" tend to cite these statistics in the wrong way. You then get corrected on it. So you run out of the thread and come back into a new threads weeks or months later making the same errors.
HIV is a risk and consequence of _any_ sexual behaviour pretty much. Some behaviours are more risky than others however. Specifically Anal Sex.
The problem is from thread to thread you cite statistics related to Anal Sex but you claim again and again you are citing statistics about homosexuals.
To make your error explicit therefore: You are pretending there is a 1:1 synonymous relationship between Anal Sex and Homosexuality. There is not. Many heterosexuals engage in anal sex. I know I do with my girlfriends. Many homosexuals do not do it at all. In fact in some areas - and you have been cited links to this effect in the past - it is a minority practice in the homosexual community.
You also ignore quite intentionally the specific groups of homosexuals who do not skew the statistics in the direction you want. Such as lesbians. Why is it when anti-homosexuals cite disease statistics to support their agenda - do they leave out lesbians? Either you are comparing the heterosexual community to the homosexual community - or you are not. If you are - then compare them to the _whole_ community. Not just the ones you particularly dislike.
Even the researchers you cite do not make the error you work hard to make. In that they specifically created a group called "MSM" to parse the disease statistics. This group includes - for example - heterosexual men who have sexual contact with men for reasons other than their own sexuality. Prostitution is one such group for example and that very much is going to skew the statistics on disease - as prostitution tends to do. And it includes only men who engage in anal sex. So that is to say the group "MSM" is itself also not synonymous with "homosexual men". It is a very specific subsection of the homosexual community as a whole. And statistics related to it should not _ever_ be used - as you contrive to do every time - as representative of homosexuals as a whole or even homosexual men as a whole.
I simply have never seen you even attempt to cite or discuss statistics on disease in an honest fashion on this topic anywhere on this forum ever. When you compare groups of _average_ heterosexuals who are not sex workers and not having sex outside their preferred gender for other reasons - and groups of _average_ homosexuals who are not sex workers and not having sex outside their preferred gender for other reasons - the statistics do not support the campaign you are on at all.
On top of all that however I think you are using HIV as an argument of opportunity. In other words it is a retrospective argument in that your hatred of homosexuality comes first - and your justification of that hatred comes second by latching on to something like HIV in retrospect.
What I mean by this is I suspect if we could press a big red button and delete HIV/AIDS from the world tomorrow - so that it was simply wholly and entirely gone - you would find homosexuality no less hateful or immoral than you do now. That is what "srgument of opportunity" means. An argument used to justify a position that you would hold just the same if that argument disappeared.
Nope, there is only one true set of beliefs. The others are all of the things Jesus and Paul spoke of, following false apostles, prophets, etc. What you are speaking about is fulfillment of prophecy, which is why so many calling themselves "Christian" live immoral lives.
That's funny, because almost every religious person on the planet says the same thing... You can't all be right, since you can't all be part of the "one true set of beliefs".
Point being, saying that there is "only one true set of beliefs" means nothing. Fundamentalists think their version is the one true set of beliefs, liberal Christians think theirs is, muslims think theirs is, atheists think theirs is, pantheists think theirs is.....
I'm not playing a game here. I used to participate years ago in a nondenominational Bible study at work at lunchtime. On the 61st floor of One World Trade Center, as a matter of fact.
There were participants who called themselves fundamentalist Christians. Later I came to understand better what that meant because the history the fundamentalist movement is on the Internet and I read about it.
Christianity has been divided since it started. Yes there are Christians and non, but about one hundred years ago, a group set themselves up as fundamentalists, declaring their belief in a list of things in a document called The Fundamentals. Hence the name.
Not all Christians agreed with them then, and not all do so now.
Who's playing games?
Again - people do the dividing, not Christ. See 1 Corinthians 1:13-16.
Jesus wanted unity among His people. See the end of John 17. He prayed for that specifically - that we are one.
1 John 5:11-12 - If you have the Son, you have the life. If you don't have the Son of God, you don't have the life.
That's it.
See above. Then comes the question... how does a person get the Son?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zthatzmanz28
no, the question is how do one true christians "judge" who has or has not the son?
Do you need someone to share with you how one has a relationship with the son?
Spoiler
All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
It's a matter if a person actually possesses the Son within Himself. The presence of the Son is sent to people by God from heaven under specific circumstances.
Here, you said there were just Christians and non-Christians, implying that all Christians believe the same things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
Serious answer...
there are only Christians and non-Christians
you chose to create your own "divisions"... I think that was one of the terms (or a derivative) used to describe bigotry that you agreed with
Here is a simple description of how the Fudamentalist movement got started and how it is different from other denominations of Christianity. Clearly, not all Christians believe the same things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
1. No. It was a statement of fact about the term "fundamentalist" in response to a post by DRob, followed by a question as to what term he would prefer in its place. You just chose that post at random to make an irrelevant response once again saying that you are being picked on.
2. Yes, it would make a difference because then it would be a post that you made that said something more than that others are picking on you.
Some of us, Christians and non, have taken the time and effort to write long, thoughtful posts on this thread about why we don't believe that Bible literalism should be used in the way it is used when it harms and excludes and marginalizes other people. I have spent a great deal of time doing this sometimes, choosing my words carefully, only to get the "you're just picking on conservative Christians" response.
Now, you've changed your story. Instead of saying there is just one kind of Christian, you are saying Jesus wanted unity. That's not really the same thing at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
Who's playing games?
Again - people do the dividing, not Christ. See 1 Corinthians 1:13-16.
Jesus wanted unity among His people. See the end of John 17. He prayed for that specifically - that we are one.
With many thousands of denominations of Christianity, that doesn't seem to have worked out very well. Each one of those denominations believes something different from the others.
Yourself and "SuperSoul" tend to cite these statistics in the wrong way. You then get corrected on it. So you run out of the thread and come back into a new threads weeks or months later making the same errors.
HIV is a risk and consequence of _any_ sexual behaviour pretty much. Some behaviours are more risky than others however. Specifically Anal Sex.
The problem is from thread to thread you cite statistics related to Anal Sex but you claim again and again you are citing statistics about homosexuals.
It never ceases to amaze me how your side can take very clear DIRECT facts and distort them. Y
Quote:
According to the CDC, men who have sex with men made up almost 67 percent (39,782) of the 50,000 people who contracted HIV in the United States in 2016; of these, 26,570 contracted the virus specifically as the result of male-to-male sexual contact.
If my math is correct, that's 66% infections caused directly by male to male sex acts with the gay demographic. Anyone who denies that gay male sexual activity has no bearing on HIV rates is either being stubborn headed or refusing to accept reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
To make your error explicit therefore: You are pretending there is a 1:1 synonymous relationship between Anal Sex and Homosexuality. There is not. Many heterosexuals engage in anal sex. I know I do with my girlfriends. Many homosexuals do not do it at all. In fact in some areas - and you have been cited links to this effect in the past - it is a minority practice in the homosexual community.
The numbers show there is a relationship. So what if heterosexuals engage in it? Certainly not at the level of homosexuality or we would be seeing straight people at the top of the stats. Instead 4% of the population are dominating the chart here! The only weak thread you got here is the possibility that
the high stat is more a result of extreme promiscuity. If you want to go that route, it still shows me that it is a sinful lifestyle where you have given yourself over completely to physical lust.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
You also ignore quite intentionally the specific groups of homosexuals who do not skew the statistics in the direction you want. Such as lesbians. Why is it when anti-homosexuals cite disease statistics to support their agenda - do they leave out lesbians? Either you are comparing the heterosexual community to the homosexual community - or you are not. If you are - then compare them to the _whole_ community. Not just the ones you particularly dislike.
Oh so focusing on lesbians somehow erases the clear facts about gay men and HIV? Yeah, and I ignored that fish have a low contraction rate too. So what? All you are doing is desperate deflection here. Lesbianism has its own share of consequences
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
Even the researchers you cite do not make the error you work hard to make. In that they specifically created a group called "MSM" to parse the disease statistics. This group includes - for example - heterosexual men who have sexual contact with men for reasons other than their own sexuality. Prostitution is one such group for example and that very much is going to skew the statistics on disease - as prostitution tends to do. And it includes only men who engage in anal sex. So that is to say the group "MSM" is itself also not synonymous with "homosexual men". It is a very specific subsection of the homosexual community as a whole. And statistics related to it should not _ever_ be used - as you contrive to do every time - as representative of homosexuals as a whole or even homosexual men as a whole.
Again, the fact that 4% of the population is making up nearly 70% of the cases tells me that most gay men are not remaining monogamous and avoiding risky sexual behavior. They are giving into their lusts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
I simply have never seen you even attempt to cite or discuss statistics on disease in an honest fashion on this topic anywhere on this forum ever. When you compare groups of _average_ heterosexuals who are not sex workers and not having sex outside their preferred gender for other reasons - and groups of _average_ homosexuals who are not sex workers and not having sex outside their preferred gender for other reasons - the statistics do not support the campaign you are on at all.
I posted clear direct facts. What do you offer? NOTHING. Just typical garbage from you. All you do is rant that I'm so wrong, and yet you don't give me a single shred of evidence to back an alternative explanation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
On top of all that however I think you are using HIV as an argument of opportunity. In other words it is a retrospective argument in that your hatred of homosexuality comes first - and your justification of that hatred comes second by latching on to something like HIV in retrospect.
What I mean by this is I suspect if we could press a big red button and delete HIV/AIDS from the world tomorrow - so that it was simply wholly and entirely gone - you would find homosexuality no less hateful or immoral than you do now. That is what "srgument of opportunity" means. An argument used to justify a position that you would hold just the same if that argument disappeared.
If you knew the cause of a disease, why on earth would you encourage people to continue to engage in the cause? HIV treatments costs billions and that is a burden on everyone. All we got here is another pathetic desperate attempt to make me look like the bad guy even though all I'm doing is repeating exactly what the CDC is reporting. Pretending like the problem doesn't exist is stupidity.
Again - people do the dividing, not Christ. See 1 Corinthians 1:13-16.
Jesus wanted unity among His people. See the end of John 17. He prayed for that specifically - that we are one.
It's the fundamentalist that continues to divide and separate humanity. This oneness applies to ALL humanity (ALL PEOPLE), not just you or those of you who have created this "us" and "them" mentality. It doesn't matter how self-righteous you have become, there is no one greater-than or less-than anyone else.
If my math is correct, that's 66% infections caused directly by male to male sex acts with the gay demographic. Anyone who denies that gay male sexual activity has no bearing on HIV rates is either being stubborn headed or refusing to accept reality.
The numbers show there is a relationship. So what if heterosexuals engage in it? Certainly not at the level of homosexuality or we would be seeing straight people at the top of the stats. Instead 4% of the population are dominating the chart here! The only weak thread you got here is the possibility that
the high stat is more a result of extreme promiscuity. If you want to go that route, it still shows me that it is a sinful lifestyle where you have given yourself over completely to physical lust.
Oh so focusing on lesbians somehow erases the clear facts about gay men and HIV? Yeah, and I ignored that fish have a low contraction rate too. So what? All you are doing is desperate deflection here. Lesbianism has its own share of consequences
Again, the fact that 4% of the population is making up nearly 70% of the cases tells me that most gay men are not remaining monogamous and avoiding risky sexual behavior. They are giving into their lusts.
I posted clear direct facts. What do you offer? NOTHING. Just typical garbage from you. All you do is rant that I'm so wrong, and yet you don't give me a single shred of evidence to back an alternative explanation.
If you knew the cause of a disease, why on earth would you encourage people to continue to engage in the cause? HIV treatments costs billions and that is a burden on everyone. All we got here is another pathetic desperate attempt to make me look like the bad guy even though all I'm doing is repeating exactly what the CDC is reporting. Pretending like the problem doesn't exist is stupidity.
So what, Jeff? What does this have to do with anything?
What do you propose to do about it?
What does your side want to do about it?
Do you want to keep ostracizing these human beings, or accept them into society? What does your side want to happen to homosexuals?
Have you invited any of them into your church? Have you asked them to come sit in your pew with you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
