Church spreading aids

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Schraf, when you feel like making a substantive reply, by all means, do so.

​

While I'm waiting, perhaps I should dress in solid black, wait till dark, and stand on the Interstate and see what happens.

​

Most people get diseases because it is part of their environment. The problem with virtually all cases of this disease is that they get AIDS because they can't keep their pants on or get over their recreational chemicals. It's rather difficult to excuse that behavior. Almost as if they are deliberately out looking for it.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-02-2002]

---

"Just Say No", Gene? Give me a break. Life is more complicated for most of the rest of the world.A great many people, mostly in the Third World, contract HIV because they are ignorant of how to avoid it. Many more are infected by people who didn't know they had it, or by people who had it and they didn't tell their partner.Tell an African woman whose main value as a wife is to produce children to refuse sex with her husband and see how far it gets you. You go ahead and tell her to keep her pants on, Gene.You have of late let a very definite superior tone come through in your posts.I object to your constant moralizing. It is arrogant and irritating.For someone who claims to be a Christian I find you seem to be quite lacking in compassion. You come across as a hard, unbending person.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-10-2002]

quote:

---

"Just Say No", Gene?

---

That's right.

quote:

---

Tell an African woman whose main value as a wife is to produce children to refuse sex with her husband and see how far it gets you.

---

I'm not suggesting they refuse sex with their husbands. I'm suggesting that their husbands should have sex only with their wives, and vice versa.

quote:

---

You have of late let a very definite superior tone come through in your posts.

---

That's because, until as of late, you haven't been on the opposite end.Since I actively began opposing you and others that I had not before, the tone of your posts have changed. They are more condescending, more self-righteous, and arrogant. Apparently believing in God is a mark of intellectual inferiority, and I have been branded.Plus I see that the "respect" I used to see for my posts amongst the old-timers was only skin deep. It never was about the quality of my arguments, only whether or not I agree with you. I see this when we talk about God, politics, and anything which we disagree on. And when we talk about evolution even the other evolutionists have ceased to expound upon my ideas.Of course, this loss of respect works both ways.

quote:

---

I object to your constant moralizing. It is arrogant and irritating.

---

You're entitled to your opinion.

quote:

---

You come across as a hard, unbending person.

---

Well that's unfortunate. The truth is hard sometimes. I'm only the messenger of common sense: that if you control yourself, you're a lot better off. I don't see anything uncompassionate about that, and I don't think I'm callous for but none of the dissenting opinions on my posts surprise me anymore.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-10-2002]

Whether you like it or not shchrafie the "keep your pants on" morality is the only guaranted solution. Unfortunately that's an impossible thing to instill in people. If people would respect the God's laws he has put in place concerning sexuality, we wouldn't even have this epedemic.
I know I'm going to take fire for this but God created sex as a gift to married couples, outside of this intended relationship your on your own. No one likes morals, any more than they like taxes, but they are there for a reason.------------------
saved by grace

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Whether you like it or not shchrafie the "keep your pants on" morality is the only guaranted solution.* Unfortunately that's an impossible thing to instill in people. If people would respect the God's laws he has put in place concerning sexuality, we wouldn't even have this epedemic.
I know I'm going to take fire for this but God created sex as a gift to married couples, outside of this intended relationship your on your own. No one likes morals, any more than they like taxes, but they are there for a reason.

​

---

*You don't have to be religious to state the obvious.I'd like to know why a God would give the ability to use such a 'gift' to pre-teen boys who experience involuntary erections and ejaculate during sleep without masturbation or stimuli. Is this another one of those tests of faith? Or should we be marrying off young children to prevent seed being spilt?Personally I'd go with the animal instinct to procreate from a day when the human lifespan was much shorter. And as for epedemics being averted through abiding to Gods laws, I'd like to now which law we broke to deserve cancer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by David unfamous:
And as for epedemics being averted through abiding to Gods laws, I'd like to now which law we broke to deserve cancer.

---

Cancer? Why stop there?What did we do to deserve smallpox? Influenza? Malaria? Hookworms? Downs Syndrome? Hydrocephalus? Dysentry? Come on funk, surely you have the master list?And what did cows do to deserve Mad Cow Disease? Or anthrax?What did cats do to deserve feline leukemia?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
I know I'm going to take fire for this but God created sex as a gift to married couples, outside of this intended relationship your on your own. No one likes morals, any more than they like taxes, but they are there for a reason.

---

Actually, sex was a gift to be used inside polygynous married groups and between the patriarch and sex-slaves called concubines.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

So they're bitter, and they hate morals.I used to disbelieve the Fundie stereotype of atheists, but it seems to be getting more and more accurate all the time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
So they're bitter, and they hate morals.

​

I used to disbelieve the Fundie stereotype of atheists, but it seems to be getting more and more accurate all the time.

---

This follows from my synopsis of the cultural conditions described in the OT?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

This follows from my synopsis of the cultural conditions described in the OT?

---

How do you know God approved of those cultural conditions?

1) Viruses may bear to space IN TIME e-m fields
2)and go to other Forum location herein- Humphries Ideas on Starlight and Time could explain how Kant go the mophology correct BEFORE the rest of the world translated into English as word "systematic constitution" BEACUSE THE IDEA WAS ALREADY IN THE BIBLE
3)I am extending from Eisntein's RigiD sphere former Maxwell's "imaginary" sphere INTO man-made metrics of electro-pollution
4)All this is irrelevant if you feel that you can not understand the difference of special and general revelation of relativity-- Poincare returns points Cantor makes this dense IN ITSELF
5)We do not need to be pedagogically sold out to the Greeks (witnes current international mood)
6)you may have mis evaluged the centre of the internal evidence because the ceter of a proportion may not be the ratio to centric empirics which short of GOD is all we can know.
7)I do believe.
8)The word "membrane" was what I heard when I was about to be arrested when I was straining to read the words on the Baton Rouge captial building for trespassing but during the pattern of legal action in US the enforcement ment in fact on my question to not have interest in arresting a jogger who AT THE SAME TIME would have then be violating the same space and yet I had to retreat for fear of the law.
9)people are more afraid of the law than what they know
10) that is wrong
11) teach what is right.
12)you may be correct.
13)just my two lincoln memorials I earned.
14)I am not Catholic

No John again you are mistaken on your OT. Did you every notice how well polygamy worked out for those men who tried it. Hell on earth, can't imagine anyone wanting more than one wife anyway. I don't believe God ever condoned these things. The people in the OT disobeyed God just as we do now. Doesn't make what they did right just because it's recorded in the bible. I think alot was recorded just to show us what doesn't work.------------------
saved by grace

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

quote:

---

This follows from my synopsis of the cultural conditions described in the OT?

---

​

How do you know God approved of those cultural conditions?

---

Well, he didn't tell anyone to stop and in fact blessed the participants in those cultural practices. All of the patriarchs were polygamists, I believe. Most were at any rate. Gideon, Solomon, David, Abraham... all had multiple wives. The Bible flaunts it. It is pretty clear.In Exodus 21:10, you have instructions pertaining to the taking of a second wife.Deuteronomy 21:15 has rules for dealing with two wives, one loved and one hated.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
No John again you are mistaken on your OT.

---

The Bible is pretty clear on this, funk.

quote:

---

I don't believe God ever condoned these things.

---

Why is that? Does God complain about it, or punish anyone? No. Does god bless the patriarchs with many wives? Yup. Does God give Nathan wives? yup!! 2 Samuel 12:8.Christ implies his approval when he tells a tale involving ten brides and one bridegroom. Matt. 25:1.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

No it's not really clear on it. It doesn't say go ahead and mary 18 wives. Don't misrepresent things here. Just because something happens in the bible doesn't mean it's something God condones. Though you would very much like to draw this conclusion for your continued blasphemy.------------------
saved by grace

The bible's a badly translated copy of early myths, what possible relevance does it have to an aids epidemic?. Would you consider cave paintings to be a rational basis for modern morality, they are no more or less reliable as sources of information go.