Tamar,

>>>So, if sexually transmitted diseases are the consequence for not being sexually faithful, what are all the diseases about? The ones that are transmitted through the air or from bad sanitation or whatever?
>>>
>>>Also, why is it that so many of the same people who want to convert others to their faith also want to control other people's sex lives?
>>>
>
>>
>>I don't quite 'get' the part in your question that says, "what are all the diseases about?"
>
>You figured it out anyway. I accidentally omitted the word "other".
>
>>As far as other diseases... Well, from where I sit they are all a result of man's disobedience to God and His laws.
>
>I'm stunned. Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. The existence of disease is a punishment from God. Is it individual or a group punishment?

No, not at all in that sense. It's about natural and normal consequenses, not punishment. Let me give you an illustration that might help.

Let's call it "The Law of Fire". Like the Law of Gravity it has 'properties', 'methods' <g> and 'features' that help us to understand how it acts and reacts to what is around ut.

In the case of The Law of Fire we would, for all intents and purposes, find ourselves arriving where we'd think that Fire is intrinsically neither good nor bad. What makes it 'good' or 'bad' is how it is used. I think it's the same with sex. It can be an absolutely holy and beautiful thing or a totally ugly and depraved thing - depending on how it is used.

Parents tell their children about Fire, "Don't touch that!"

God tells mankind about sex, "Don't do this or that."

If the child disobeys their parent and touches the fire they receive the natural and normal consequence of receiving a burn. Equally so, when mankind disobeys God regarding sex and does "this or that" there are also natural and normal consequences. STDs are one kind of consequence. Broken marriages are another. I could go on but I think you get my point.

Additionally, asserting that God is someohow 'unfair' or 'mean' when there are natural and normal consequences to the rules being disobeyed is on par with an child blaming the parent for the results of being burned after they disobeyed their parent and put their finger on the hot stove or in the fire. It is simply childish or on the level of a child.

My assertions are nothing more than a repetition of some of God's rules regarding the 'propereties' and 'methods' (no I'm not assuming the position of a pretzel. <g>) of sex that I believe to be true. Others may differ. My only response is to ask them to look at reality. I'd say my assertions are true in this case. Again, if mankind would choose (they will not as I have said before) to be faithful then within one generation all STD would disappear. I still stand by that assertion. People just don't like the implications of the'link' I am stating as fact.

It's not really much more complicated than that - other than where you derive these said 'rules' from. It is here that people turn off their brains. When the link is made between the notion of God and certain 'rules (whatever they may be) it is here that folks 'lock up'. The sad facts are that people do not want to acknowledge this 'link' as it implies personal responsibility - the corrolary of what is causing the trouble in the first place.

The 'child' telling its parents, "No!", Just like we say to God. That is, in its essence, the definition of sin. It's the attitude. not the actions that flow from the attitude. It's lusting after a woman in one's heart that is adultry, not the act itself for example.

>That is, when someone gets a communicable disease, is it because God is punishing him?

No, but they will eventually get a STD and that is a normal and natural consequence.

> If it's merely the existence that's a punishment to mankind as a whole, then are saying that individuals are punished for the behavior of the group? The God you believe in would do that?

Well, since I don't agree with your premise I don't agree with your conclusion.

The God I know of grieves over the consequences man has inflicted upon himself.

>
>And what about the progress of medicine in all this? Today, someone who gets scarlet fever generally survives. A hundred years ago, that person would have died. Are people today more deserving of survival? (Yes, I know there are new diseases, but overall, people live longer today than in the past.)

Medicine is a great thing. I have no problem with it at all. I have seen God miraculously heal people and I've seen God use the skill of a physician as well. Both are IMO equally good.

>
>Taking it another direction, people in 3rd world countries are more likely to die of things that people in 1st world countries would survive. Is God punishing the 3rd world countries?

No. Again, your premise about God's nature is incorrect so I'd disagree with this conclusion.

>
>Sorry, I can't buy any of this. Disease just is. People have minds in order to be able to attack problems like disease. (FWIW, one of the main principles of Judaism is "tikkun olam," which translates as "repairing the world.")
>
>Tamar

Well, you're trying to buy something I'm not selling. <g>

This is a constant problem people like myself happen. We always seem to be responding to the incorrect premises' that find the initial source in the minds of those who are, by nature, non-comprehending of our position.

Goes with the territory. <g>