NationStates Jolt Archive

It doesn't make sense, if God truly hats gay people, why did he make them so? :confused:

Hmmm...why do I have the worst feeling that this will turn into a religious debate thread?

Because he has a sense of humour. a very twisted sense of humour.

uh... because he really doesn't and that is just some right-wing anti-gay propaganda? duh!

Probably because God is playing a cruel practical joke on all the gay-haters.

Did anyone notice there is no female presence in The Holy Trinity? That the Virgin Mary was just a delivery system for Jesus and nothing more? There was no sex involved!

If God hates gays, why did he make them so fabulous?

I just snorted Pepsi all over my shirt. Thanks. Asshole. :D

any watch that "DrawnTogether" episode were God says "oh silly Clara, why would I hate the gays, there so cute".

Probably because God is playing a cruel practical joke on all the gay-haters.

Did anyone notice there is no female presence in The Holy Trinity? That the Virgin Mary was just a delivery system for Jesus and nothing more? There was no sex involved!
Anybody notice the similarities between the story of the impregnation of the Virgin Mary and the Greek myth of Zeus and Danae (who gave birth to the hero Perseus)?

Hmmm...why do I have the worst feeling that this will turn into a religious debate thread?
It is destiny.

It is destiny.
I'm trying my best--after all, most Christians get all twisted when you point out similarities between their core doctrines and myths from other cultures.

It doesn't make sense, if God truly hats gay people, why did he make them so? :confused:

No where in the bible does it note that God hates gay people

God loves humans
He however does not love sin
Lying with another of the same sex is sin according to the bible and it is therefore the action and not the person he is repulsed by though of course the person who committed the sin is responsible for his/her actions...

God did create Bad and Good,
Jus because he has created Bad its not that he likes Bad things.
He created them to test on us.How we choose and understand difference.
God first created a Man then second he created a woman as his life partner( thats how all believe) Not that he created another Man, and LOL reproduction will be impossible and the world would have ended with the first 2 men he created.
and When some people enjoy what they r....they think its fabulous.....or Mayb Sin is easier to do or adopt....so its fabulous.
People enjoy watching Porn......Do they think its something to be proud of or Make their Parents proud???Its easier to steal than to work hard to become rich.
Oh I can see whr the World is Going.
Its ok Justify Urself and Die as U r......God will Judge....he doesnt hate what he has created.....I mean U.......well But he will decide what to do.....He has created Hell and Heaven too....as we all... well most of us Believe.

To piss you off?

It is destiny.

*wheeze* Look into your heart. *gasp* You know it to be true.

The devil reigns on the Earth, and so probably he seduced a man into liking another man just like he seduced Eve to disobey God :P

What causes birth defects? There are many reasons, some are not well understood. Studies suggest that a number of genes, as well as environmental factors, such as drugs (including several different antiseizure drugs and prescription drugs of various affects), infections, maternal illnesses, maternal smoking and alcohol use and illicit drug use, possibly, deficiency of the B vitamin folic acid, omega 3, other types of nutrients etc., are likely to be involved.

I doubt very much that God ‘causes’ these things, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, cleft lip/palate, Autism, Epilepsy, Learning limitations, Hemophilia,

“a birth defect is an abnormality of structure, function, or metabolism (body chemistry) present at birth that results in physical or mental disability, or is fatal”
http://www.protectingourhealth.org/newscience/birthdefects/2004-0501birthdefectspreview.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/bd/nbdps.htm

Birth defects may involve many different organs including the brain, heart, lungs, liver, bones, and intestinal tract. These defects can occur for many reasons including inherited (genetic) conditions, toxic exposure of the fetus (for example, to alcohol), birth injury and, in many cases, for unknown reasons. All parents are at risk of having a baby with a birth defect, regardless of age, race, income or residence.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11042

You can’t really sit around and say God intended environmental and body malfunction conditions causing problems with developing baby bodies.

What causes birth defects? There are many reasons, some are not well understood. Studies suggest that a number of genes, as well as environmental factors, such as drugs (including several different antiseizure drugs and prescription drugs of various affects), infections, maternal illnesses, maternal smoking and alcohol use and illicit drug use, possibly, deficiency of the B vitamin folic acid, omega 3, other types of nutrients etc., are likely to be involved.

I doubt very much that God ‘causes’ these things, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, cleft lip/palate, Autism, Epilepsy, Learning limitations, Hemophilia,

“a birth defect is an abnormality of structure, function, or metabolism (body chemistry) present at birth that results in physical or mental disability, or is fatal”
http://www.protectingourhealth.org/newscience/birthdefects/2004-0501birthdefectspreview.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/bd/nbdps.htm

Birth defects may involve many different organs including the brain, heart, lungs, liver, bones, and intestinal tract. These defects can occur for many reasons including inherited (genetic) conditions, toxic exposure of the fetus (for example, to alcohol), birth injury and, in many cases, for unknown reasons. All parents are at risk of having a baby with a birth defect, regardless of age, race, income or residence.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11042

You can’t really sit around and say God intended environmental and body malfunction conditions causing problems with developing baby bodies.
So are you actually arguing that homosexuality is a birth defect? :rolleyes:

I was arguing with a Christian the other day... he was this crazy old Czech...

"'Ave you effer seen enyfing so discustink? I mean, zey ahh allowed to fweely wolk awound in public, displaying their discustink way off liffe!"

It turns out when he was a teen in Czechoslovakia that he was all into bashing the poor sods up. I asked him that question, if God hates gays, why did he create them? He replied that God didn't create them, that Satan has corrupted them, just as Satan has corrupted punk rockers, communists (and other such freedom-fighters... fancy wanting freedom from the oppression of religion! They must be touched by Satan!), most women, nazis and so on and so forth. I then asked him why God created Satan. He didn't give me an answer to that one.

I doubt very much that God ‘causes’ these things, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, cleft lip/palate, Autism, Epilepsy, Learning limitations, Hemophilia,
Woah, back up there. If God knows all, and created everything, and is omnipotent, then how can these things happen without them being caused by him?

So are you actually arguing that homosexuality is a birth defect? :rolleyes:

I don't have to argue it... genetic research in the field is already revealing it.

I don't have to argue it... genetic research in the field is already revealing it.
Bullshit. Research is revealing a genetic link to homosexuality, but the notion that it's a defect is all yours. And it's disgusting.

I don't have to argue it... genetic research in the field is already revealing it.*calls bullshit*
Time to go back to bio class greeny

Lying with another of the same sex is sin according to the bible ...
Why? God is an omnipotent being, whyever should an omnipotent being care if a couple of people of the same sex get it on?

I dont get why God is supposed to be so darn obsessed with sex. Are we really to believe God is an allpowerful, immortal, omnipotent pervert? If you were omnipotent, dont you think you would find something more interesting and significant to obsess over? What is God supposed to be that bored that he/she would even care who is sleeping with whom? :confused:

Bullshit. Research is revealing a genetic link to homosexuality, but the notion that it's a defect is all yours. And it's disgusting.

Being or not being “Disgusting.” is irrelevant. Pregnant mothers, who have a high estrogen level and perhaps an undersupply, or lack of ability to balance a proper androgen supply for the developing male chromosome fetus, could be a cause. If so, it would have to be considered a 'change' caused by the lack of a needed nutrient during the developing stage of the fetus. Known cause and effect, therefore, birth defect. Politically correct or not, truth is truth.

Being or not being “Disgusting.” is irrelevant. Pregnant mothers, who have a high estrogen level and perhaps an undersupply, or lack of ability to balance a proper androgen supply for the developing male chromosome fetus, could be a cause. If so, it would have to be considered a 'change' caused by the lack of a needed nutrient during the developing stage of the fetus. Known cause and effect, therefore, birth defect. Politically correct or not, truth is truth."chromasome fetus"? "androgen supply"? where do you come up with this jargon? its definately not biology.

where does it say in the bible God hates gays? I no it says it is wrong to be gay, but God certainly wouldnt hate gay people.

“a birth defect is an abnormality of structure, function, or metabolism (body chemistry) present at birth that results in physical or mental disability, or is fatal”

If so, it would have to be considered a 'change' caused by the lack of a needed nutrient during the developing stage of the fetus. Known cause and effect, therefore, birth defect. Politically correct or not, truth is truth.
Your new definition of birth defect doesnt match your earlier definition. I dont see that being homosexual is a birth defect, because it is not a physical or mental disability, and it is not fatal unless combined with crazed violent homophobic persons.....

"chromasome fetus"? "androgen supply"? where do you come up with this jargon? its definately not biology.

Male chromosome fetus = All fetal mammals, have a genetic sex, they are either XX or XY (their genetic sex). The fetus body has gonads and these gonads become (very early in the development of the fetus) either testes or ovaries.

To become a male, androgen must be present. H-Y antigen is supposed to be present if the fetus has a Y chromosome, but what if the mother is not able to produce it or not enough of it, or if her body’s timing is off in producing it when needed?

For genetically male fetuses (when the Y chromosome is present) the genetic development of the fetus calls out to the mother’s body to provide the protein called H-Y antigen, because this protein is needed, normally the protein is secreted very early on in development.

If it does not get secreted though, the theory goes that the ‘genetically’ male fetus body will still develop the gonads etc., but the fetus brain may not become ‘male,’ that it will not be imprinted with the necessary ‘maleness that comes form the presence of androgen.

Having the Y chromosome causes the body to be a boy, but the brain remains in the default ‘female’ mode because it was not ‘male’ imprinted by the androgen when it was required during the development faze. Thus, a person that will be more inclined to homosexual than another male fetus that was satisfied of the androgen requirement/protein.

where does it say in the bible God hates gays? I no it says it is wrong to be gay, but God certainly wouldnt hate gay people.

The passages of the bible on homosexuality are very ambiguous. We already know that the bible talks primarily to men. It says "thou shalt not lie with a man as thou wouldst with a woman" in Levticus 18:22. This passage is clearly talking to men instead of women. What a lot of people forget is that it's also not talking not gays for the same reason it's not talking to women; they were not a dominant force in society. The only thing God has ever condemned is straight men performing homosexual acts. A gay man wouldn't lay with a woman that way anyway, so he's in the clear, and this is repeated throughout the bible, like in Paul's letters. God's directions should be simple from these passages: be true to your own nature. The example He gives is of a straight man acting straight, but it could just as easily be applied to a gay man being gay, a straight woman being straight and a lesbian woman being lesbian. In fact, we already apply this to straight women even though the bible doesn't specifically mention them until Paul's letters.

The section on Soddom and Gommorah are also often taken wrong. The point of the story was the disrespect the townsfolk showed to strangers, something that was considered very wrong in biblical times. One of Jesus' main messages was to take in the stranger, not to rape him. The fact that they were men raping male angels is not the important part of the story. The section with Lot offering his virgin daughter is not meant to show that the men in the city are gay, but rather that they are determined to cause affront to the strangers who have arrived. After all, if they were gay God wouldn't need to rain down fire and brimstone: he'd just have to wait a generation. This is why the term soddomy is miscoined. The story of Soddom and Gomorrah was never meant to condemn homosexuality, but rather to condemn the mistreatment of the stranger or traveller, just as Jesus spoke of the values of taking in the stranger in the Gospels.

Your new definition of birth defect doesnt match your earlier definition. I dont see that being homosexual is a birth defect, because it is not a physical or mental disability, and it is not fatal unless combined with crazed violent homophobic persons.....


If you starve children, their hair turns red. It's a cause and effect. Saying its not a defect to have red hair is not an argument, it ignores the cause of the condition, the result being something you may want (assuming you want red headed children) is irrelevant to the fact that it was caused by a lack of nutrients.

Be homosexual all you want. That is no reason to deprive a fetus from a needed nutrient during it’s development caused by a condition in the mother…

If you starve children, their hair turns red. It's a cause and effect. Saying its not a defect to have red hair is not an argument, it ignores the cause of the condition, the result being something you may want (assuming you want red headed children) is irrelevant to the fact that it was cause by a lack of nutrients.
It was your definition that required some disability or fatality was a necessary condition of 'defect'. Cause and effect do not necessarily mean defect. The cause of my dishes being clean, is my having washed them. Are my dishes now defective?

The fact is if the absence of some nutrient or other results in a condition that does not result in some undesirable effect, then the effect is not a defect.

Be homosexual all you want. That is no reason to deprive a fetus from a needed nutrient during it’s development caused by a condition in the mother…
Irrelevent. You are calling something a defect, even though by the definition you supplied it is not a defect. Whether or not I am, or wish to be homosexual, is not relevent to whether or not you assertion that homosexuality is a defect is consistent with your definition of defect.

Male chromosome fetus = All fetal mammals, have a genetic sex, they are either XX or XY (their genetic sex).
Or some other combination of X, or X and Y.

As for your 'maleness' in the brain....aha, given we have no real notion as to how much of the behaviours particular societies concieve of as 'masculine' or 'feminine', are socially caused, and how much (if any at all) are biologically caused, I find your assertion about 'maleness' in the brain, somewhat questionable.

I don't have to argue it... genetic research in the field is already revealing it.

Yes, but you assume homosexuality is a bad thing by labeling it a birth defect.

As for your 'maleness' in the brain....aha, given we have no real notion as to how much of the behaviours particular societies concieve of as 'masculine' or 'feminine', are socially caused, and how much (if any at all) are biologically caused, I find your assertion about 'maleness' in the brain, somewhat questionable.

He's referring to a study by the University of Ontario and it's abstract goes something like this...

In men, sexual orientation correlates with the number of older brothers, each additional older brother increasing the odds of homosexuality by approximately 33%. It is hypothesized that this fraternal birth order effect reflects the progressive immunization of some mothers to Y-linked minor histocompatibility antigens (H-Y antigen) by each succeeding male fetus, and the concomitantly increasing effects of H-Y antibodies on the sexual differentiation of the brain in each succeeding male fetus. This hypothesis is consistent with a variety of evidence, including the apparent irrelevance of older sisters to the sexual orientation of later-born males, the probable involvement of H-Y antigen in the development of sex-typical traits, and the detrimental effects of immunization of female mice to H-Y antigen on the reproductive performance of subsequent male offspring.


It was the only link he didn't include, because his source of it was probably questionable.

Because he has a sense of humour. a very twisted sense of humour.
Just like he hid and buried all of those dinosaur bones to confuse us about evolution... *wink*

He's referring to a study by the University of Ontario and it's abstract goes something like this...
It was the only link he didn't include, because his source of it was probably questionable.
Well thank you for the additional information. :D



I have to say I find the notion of 'sex linked behaviours' somewhat 'iffy' since we really do not know which (if any) behaviours are 'sex linked' as opposed to 'gender linked'.

Actually I can see what Greenlander is saying. One could indeed consider homosexuality a birth defect, or a congenital condition, or whatever. Whether you infer a negative connotation to "birth defect" is up to you.

I don't know whether some environmental factor while I was in utero caused me to have a reproductive impulse that misfires and causes me to try to reproduce with the wrong gender. Clearly the reproductive aspect is not functioning as it was designed to. I have no bad feelings about that, and nobody I know seems bothered by it either, but I can still quite contentedly consider it a birth defect.

Actually I can see what Greenlander is saying. One could indeed consider homosexuality a birth defect, or a congenital condition, or whatever. Whether you infer a negative connotation to "birth defect" is up to you.

I don't know whether some environmental factor while I was in utero caused me to have a reproductive impulse that misfires and causes me to try to reproduce with the wrong gender. Clearly the reproductive aspect is not functioning as it was designed to. I have no bad feelings about that, and nobody I know seems bothered by it either, but I can still quite contentedly consider it a birth defect.

I'd have to say self contented meanwhile none of the links to the organizations Greenlander provided agree with either of you .

Actually I can see what Greenlander is saying. One could indeed consider homosexuality a birth defect, or a congenital condition, or whatever. Whether you infer a negative connotation to "birth defect" is up to you.

I don't know whether some environmental factor while I was in utero caused me to have a reproductive impulse that misfires and causes me to try to reproduce with the wrong gender. Clearly the reproductive aspect is not functioning as it was designed to. I have no bad feelings about that, and nobody I know seems bothered by it either, but I can still quite contentedly consider it a birth defect.

Defect still implies it's negative.

You don't see people bragging about the defects in their new car, now do you?

Although, that's not to say it's not caused in the same way some defects are.

God made adam and eve not adam and adam. it also states severale times in the bible that the mariage of man and woman was sacred "EPHESIANS 5:31 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and they will become one flesh. Sin is the product of doing the oposite of what God says thus being gay is a sin God does not hate siners but pitties them because we all sin in some way it is natural but gays are not true christins because they no that there chosen life style is sin and do not repent for it. if you think you are fabulous so what i am sure that not all gays are "fabulous" and to whoever stated something about drawn together is sad and should not base life on a cartoon drawn by truely sick peoples.

God made adam and eve not adam and adam. it also states severale times in the bible that the mariage of man and woman was sacred "EPHESIANS 5:31 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and they will become one flesh. Sin is the product of doing the oposite of what God says thus being gay is a sin God does not hate siners but pitties them because we all sin in some way it is natural but gays are not true christins because they no that there chosen life style is sin and do not repent for it. if you think you are fabulous so what i am sure that not all gays are "fabulous" and to whoever stated something about drawn together is sad and should not base life on a cartoon drawn by truely sick peoples.

As before:

The passages of the bible on homosexuality are very ambiguous. We already know that the bible talks primarily to men. It says "thou shalt not lie with a man as thou wouldst with a woman" in Levticus 18:22. This passage is clearly talking to men instead of women. What a lot of people forget is that it's also not talking not gays for the same reason it's not talking to women; they were not a dominant force in society. The only thing God has ever condemned is straight men performing homosexual acts. A gay man wouldn't lay with a woman that way anyway, so he's in the clear, and this is repeated throughout the bible, like in Paul's letters. God's directions should be simple from these passages: be true to your own nature. The example He gives is of a straight man acting straight, but it could just as easily be applied to a gay man being gay, a straight woman being straight and a lesbian woman being lesbian. In fact, we already apply this to straight women even though the bible doesn't specifically mention them until Paul's letters.

The section on Soddom and Gommorah are also often taken wrong. The point of the story was the disrespect the townsfolk showed to strangers, something that was considered very wrong in biblical times. One of Jesus' main messages was to take in the stranger, not to rape him. The fact that they were men raping male angels is not the important part of the story. The section with Lot offering his virgin daughter is not meant to show that the men in the city are gay, but rather that they are determined to cause affront to the strangers who have arrived. After all, if they were gay God wouldn't need to rain down fire and brimstone: he'd just have to wait a generation. This is why the term soddomy is miscoined. The story of Soddom and Gomorrah was never meant to condemn homosexuality, but rather to condemn the mistreatment of the stranger or traveller, just as Jesus spoke of the values of taking in the stranger in the Gospels.

I then asked him why God created Satan. He didn't give me an answer to that one.

satan was first an angel that was created by God. satan then tried to overthrow God but failed so him and the angels he corupted were sent to hell. hell was created for the devil and the angels he corupted but now after sin was introduced is home to all non-beleivers.

As before:

The passages of the bible on homosexuality are very ambiguous. We already know that the bible talks primarily to men. It says "thou shalt not lie with a man as thou wouldst with a woman" in Levticus 18:22. This passage is clearly talking to men instead of women. What a lot of people forget is that it's also not talking not gays for the same reason it's not talking to women; they were not a dominant force in society. The only thing God has ever condemned is straight men performing homosexual acts. A gay man wouldn't lay with a woman that way anyway, so he's in the clear, and this is repeated throughout the bible, like in Paul's letters. God's directions should be simple from these passages: be true to your own nature. The example He gives is of a straight man acting straight, but it could just as easily be applied to a gay man being gay, a straight woman being straight and a lesbian woman being lesbian. In fact, we already apply this to straight women even though the bible doesn't specifically mention them until Paul's letters.

The section on Soddom and Gommorah are also often taken wrong. The point of the story was the disrespect the townsfolk showed to strangers, something that was considered very wrong in biblical times. One of Jesus' main messages was to take in the stranger, not to rape him. The fact that they were men raping male angels is not the important part of the story. The section with Lot offering his virgin daughter is not meant to show that the men in the city are gay, but rather that they are determined to cause affront to the strangers who have arrived. After all, if they were gay God wouldn't need to rain down fire and brimstone: he'd just have to wait a generation. This is why the term soddomy is miscoined. The story of Soddom and Gomorrah was never meant to condemn homosexuality, but rather to condemn the mistreatment of the stranger or traveller, just as Jesus spoke of the values of taking in the stranger in the Gospels.

Gays if they are men are just that men gays are not a new sex it is not like there are three sexes just two and some of those two decided to have sex with there own sex. And the statment that the bible does not refer to gays is just a gays response to being shone the truth.

satan was first an angel that was created by God. satan then tried to overthrow God but failed so him and the angels he corupted were sent to hell. hell was created for the devil and the angels he corupted but now after sin was introduced is home to all non-beleivers.

Well, then sin was a damn silly invention.

Gays if they are men are just that men gays are not a new sex it is not like there are three sexes just two and some of those two decided to have sex with there own sex. And the statment that the bible does not refer to gays is just a gays response to being shone the truth.

I'm not saying there are more than two sexes. I'm saying God talked to men and ignored women all the time. How do you know he didn't just talk to straight men and ignore gay men the same way?

Also, I'm quite straight, thank you.

Well, then sin was a damn silly invention.

sin was not invented and i believe that you are a non beliver of all religions that likes to go around making statements that tie in your need for things that are visible to you and not those that just take faith i make this conclusion when you used the term invention, meaning somone had to come up with the idea of sin. sin is the term we use to describe any bad somone has done even those that dont believe use the term sin for the bad things people do

I'm not saying there are more than two sexes. I'm saying God talked to men and ignored women all the time. How do you know he didn't just talk to straight men and ignore gay men the same way?

Also, I'm quite straight, thank you.

because he said men not straight men he made it clear he was adressing men not women he did not say any thing to exclude gays.

sin was not invented and i believe that you are a non beliver of all religions that likes to go around making statements that tie in your need for things that are visible to you and not those that just take faith i make this conclusion when you used the term invention, meaning somone had to come up with the idea of sin. sin is the term we use to describe any bad somone has done even those that dont believe use the term sin for the bad things people do

The Abrahamic god is supposed to be omnipotent and omnicient. If he didn't want sin around, he'd remove it. If he wanted us all to believe in him of our own free will, he'd make us all believe in him of our own free will. He's all-powerful, he can do ANYTHING, regardless of how impossible it sounds to us.

The Abrahamic god is supposed to be omnipotent and omnicient. If he didn't want sin around, he'd remove it. If he wanted us all to believe in him of our own free will, he'd make us all believe in him of our own free will. He's all-powerful, he can do ANYTHING, regardless of how impossible it sounds to us.

wait how can it be my free will if he made me believe?

wait how can it be my free will if he made me believe?

All-powerful, remember. He can force anyone to to do anything he wants, and it can still be their free will if he wants it to be. An omnipotent being can do ANYTHING.

because he said men not straight men he made it clear he was adressing men not women he did not say any thing to exclude gays.

That's because gays weren't dominant in the society at the time. No one had even heard the terms straight and gay. If you were copying out the bible from what God wanted do you think you would have included words that didn't even make sense to you?

Ignoring the original slant of this thread...

Probably because God is playing a cruel practical joke on all the gay-haters.

Did anyone notice there is no female presence in The Holy Trinity? That the Virgin Mary was just a delivery system for Jesus and nothing more? There was no sex involved!

Actually, the Holy Spirit in technicality is a female entity. It could be considered a dubious statement, but in various texts, the Holy spirit is refered to as "Shekinah". I honestly can't remember what the original word it's derived from is, but Shekinah is the female derivative of it, translating roughly to the concept of someone or something lowering and descending among them.

The Shekinah is attributed to the smiting of the serpent and Adam and Eve, the Tower of Babel, and generally other known "angry" acts of god. She's known to be somewhat volatile. However, like a true mother, she's also known for acts of kindness. The most faithful of her saints that could not be carried away by normal death are taken by her. Some say it's a kiss, others say she just... walks off with them. Versions tell stories of Moses actually being married to the Shekinah and her kiss being his death as he was too pure for death to take him. It parallels the stories of some other gods in other parts of the world.

Some feel that the Shekinah is who "our image" is refering to when God spoke, that there's a bit of a seperation there between Yahweh and Shekinah. Also, some feel the image of the deified virgin mary (as opposed to her just being a chick who pushed out the son of god) came from the concept of the Shekinah. Actually, it came from Asherah which was Yahweh's consort according to Babylonian mythos which is another story altogether. The two sometimes have similarities. Most would know Asherah as Aphrodite, and demonologists would know her as Ashtoroth.


That said... Hi! I just wanted to clear that up and introduce myself as a local religion nerd on the forum. =)


Personally, God didn't make gays fabulous. I've seen plenty of fat or ugly and annoying gays, self conscious gays and hell, I'm interested in my own gender and I'm pugly. Being gay doesn't make you a supermodel. You just were given free-will, which is an entirely different matter altogether.

alot didn't make sense to the deciples but they still wrote it down

God made adam and eve not adam and adam.
Fine and well, but most people are not called either Adam or Eve....


it also states severale times in the bible that the mariage of man and woman was sacred "EPHESIANS 5:31 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Two people of the same sex does not effect the sacredness of anyone's marriage (unless either or both of those two people are married to some 3rd party).

Sin is the product of doing the oposite of what God says thus being gay is a sin
Why? Why does God say 'dont be gay', or 'dont engage in homosexual activities? If sin exists and some things are sinful, then God is what made this things sinful. Whyever would God making engaging in pleasurable acts with another human being, without causing harm to anyone, a sin? Just to be a wet-blanket? Whyever would God care? Do you really think the allmighty is some kind of omnipotent pervert, obsessed with who is sleeping with whom? Really, whyever would God even care, must less decide 'oh that offends me, I'll make it a sin'?

God does not hate siners but pitties them because we all sin in some way it is natural but gays are not true christins because they no that there chosen life style is sin and do not repent for it. if you think you are fabulous so what i am sure that not all gays are "fabulous" and to whoever stated something about drawn together is sad and should not base life on a cartoon drawn by truely sick peoples.
What kind of petty being is God supposed to be, that God would even have an interest in who is poking whom? Really does an omnipotent being honestly have nothing better to do with it's time than obsess over who is in who's bed, like some bored homemaker getting their daily fix of 'The Insider' or gossip colum in their local rag? :confused:

Well, it depends on whether you believe homosexuality is 100% genetic, or actually a result of a combination of trigger factors, especially in early childhood.

If you believe we have free will as ordained by God, then what happens in the world to people, whether good or bad, possibly things that could factor in homosexuality, is usually caused by the decisions of others, and not necessarily by God.

It is not impossible that errors and mutations can occur within the creation, if a God would allow that to happen.

It doesn't make sense, if God truly hats gay people, why did he make them so? :confused:


God hates gays ?? wow didnt know that

God did create Bad and Good,
Jus because he has created Bad its not that he likes Bad things.
He created them to test on us.How we choose and understand difference.
God first created a Man then second he created a woman as his life partner( thats how all believe) Not that he created another Man, and LOL reproduction will be impossible and the world would have ended with the first 2 men he created.
and When some people enjoy what they r....they think its fabulous.....or Mayb Sin is easier to do or adopt....so its fabulous.
People enjoy watching Porn......Do they think its something to be proud of or Make their Parents proud???Its easier to steal than to work hard to become rich.
Oh I can see whr the World is Going.
Its ok Justify Urself and Die as U r......God will Judge....he doesnt hate what he has created.....I mean U.......well But he will decide what to do.....He has created Hell and Heaven too....as we all... well most of us Believe.


I'm proud to watch porn, and I'll share the good stuff with my kids.

Fine and well, but most people are not called either Adam or Eve....

I used adam to refer to men and eve to refer to women if that is the best retort to that statment then you need some help in that department.

Two people of the same sex does not effect the sacredness of anyone's marriage (unless either or both of those two people are married to some 3rd party).

You are breaking the sacredness of something if you ruin it if you go and marry a man ->(or woman if you are a woman)<- then your are not keeping to what is sacred thus disgracing it.

Why? Why does God say 'dont be gay', or 'dont engage in homosexual activities? If sin exists and some things are sinful, then God is what made this things sinful. Whyever would God making engaging in pleasurable acts with another human being, without causing harm to anyone, a sin? Just to be a wet-blanket? Whyever would God care? Do you really think the allmighty is some kind of omnipotent pervert, obsessed with who is sleeping with whom? Really, whyever would God even care, must less decide 'oh that offends me, I'll make it a sin'?

because of the reason above it destroys what he made sacred

What kind of petty being is God supposed to be, that God would even have an interest in who is poking whom? Really does an omnipotent being honestly have nothing better to do with it's time than obsess over who is in who's bed, like some bored homemaker getting their daily fix of 'The Insider' or gossip colum in their local rag? :confused:

well if you made something and then it was ruined by an outside sorce would you not want to know what is contaminated and what is not and he knows you sined the instance you did it without him having to watch you.


:(

satan was first an angel that was created by God. satan then tried to overthrow God but failed so him and the angels he corupted were sent to hell. hell was created for the devil and the angels he corupted but now after sin was introduced is home to all non-beleivers.

Yep Satan was created even Before God created Human.But then God wanted Satan to Bow in front of Human cause he assumed that Human were going to be more smarter......I am only creating these People and Plants and animals that will live on the earth,But Humans are gifted with brain, they can invent things that his other creatures cannot. from the Wheel till This computer.and Satan was jealous of this and challenges that he will lead People against Him.......so Now who is following Satan and going Against God???
People know it But wouldnt agree with it......that they r going against God's will.But that what God tests on us....He let Satan to do what he wants and see if His best creation (Us Human) are worthy His trust.....

How can a human know that God (if exists), hates gays?

By those ancient books written by ancient people? (BTW, people = humans)

Because a guy said it on TV?

Because past night god appeared and told him that? :D

For the same reason everything that's bad for us tastes so good.

and so it begins

I'm proud to watch porn, and I'll share the good stuff with my kids.
well I dunno How many Others are proud to watch porn and with Kids ..... Congratulation on being the best Parent in the world according to ur Kids.....
Sex Education is different from
showing Porn Movies to Kids.( and sex education is given at certain age)......There were sex education in 18th or 19th Century too.....But Film wasnt invented sadly...
How old is Ur Kid somewhat 8? 10 ? or 12?..... well Video shop doesnt allow kids to buy porn even shop keepers know Kids under 21 musnt watch.....
If U become the President of America after Bush......America is blessed.....they will have free Porn on Television ....like Cartoon network.....there will be a Porn Network.

I can't believe this thread survived the night. :confused:

reproduction will be impossible and the world would have ended with the first 2 men he created.


Uh....if he created the first two,what would stop him from creating billions more?

Uh....if he created the first two,what would stop him from creating billions more?
Believe U werent just born on earth......Believe U have a Mother and a Father....
some one to bring U up.

He was tired. It was about Sunday, and He needed to have a rest on his Lay-Z-Deity and watch some D.E.T.

, communists (and other such freedom-fighters...

Ever heard of Solzhenitsyn? Try telling him communists are freedom fighters.

First, let me point out that the passage: "thou shalt not lie with a man as thou wouldst with a woman", no matter how one looks at it, screws over bisexuals no matter what. Secondly, let us theorize that there is a person who does not wish to be gay, but finds himself unable to become sexually aroused by a woman. Is god simply tormenting this fellow? Exspecially if this fellow now must think sinful (gay) thoughts to get hard so that he may lay with a woman. Again, just a theory.

First, let me point out that the passage: "thou shalt not lie with a man as thou wouldst with a woman", no matter how one looks at it, screws over bisexuals no matter what. Secondly, let us theorize that there is a person who does not wish to be gay, but finds himself unable to become sexually aroused by a woman. Is god simply tormenting this fellow? Exspecially if this fellow now must think sinful (gay) thoughts to get hard so that he may lay with a woman. Again, just a theory.
Sounds like he should consider a job in the clergy.

God didn't make them fabulous. They probably made themselves fabulous.

The devil reigns on the Earth, and so probably he seduced a man into liking another man just like he seduced Eve to disobey God :P

Wow, that's reaching.

I'm trying my best--after all, most Christians get all twisted when you point out similarities between their core doctrines and myths from other cultures.

Well don't then just shu'up no1 cares what u think and dont diss christians. Why are we discussing gays shoot the lot :sniper: !

As soon as God starts to strike down: Rapist, Child Molesters, Terrorist, Serial Killers, Politicians, and all the other evils of the Earth...THEN I will reconsider that gay is evil. (Smirk)

Sorry, bigger threats to the goodness of the world than the gays.

The passages of the bible on homosexuality are very ambiguous. We already know that the bible talks primarily to men. It says "thou shalt not lie with a man as thou wouldst with a woman" in Levticus 18:22. This passage is clearly talking to men instead of women. What a lot of people forget is that it's also not talking not gays for the same reason it's not talking to women; they were not a dominant force in society. The only thing God has ever condemned is straight men performing homosexual acts. A gay man wouldn't lay with a woman that way anyway, so he's in the clear, and this is repeated throughout the bible, like in Paul's letters. God's directions should be simple from these passages: be true to your own nature. The example He gives is of a straight man acting straight, but it could just as easily be applied to a gay man being gay, a straight woman being straight and a lesbian woman being lesbian. In fact, we already apply this to straight women even though the bible doesn't specifically mention them until Paul's letters.

The section on Soddom and Gommorah are also often taken wrong. The point of the story was the disrespect the townsfolk showed to strangers, something that was considered very wrong in biblical times. One of Jesus' main messages was to take in the stranger, not to rape him. The fact that they were men raping male angels is not the important part of the story. The section with Lot offering his virgin daughter is not meant to show that the men in the city are gay, but rather that they are determined to cause affront to the strangers who have arrived. After all, if they were gay God wouldn't need to rain down fire and brimstone: he'd just have to wait a generation. This is why the term soddomy is miscoined. The story of Soddom and Gomorrah was never meant to condemn homosexuality, but rather to condemn the mistreatment of the stranger or traveller, just as Jesus spoke of the values of taking in the stranger in the Gospels.
That is so cool. You're awesome. Seriously. Awesome.

Let's try to follow the logic here.

Gays exist not because God created them, but because Satan corrupted them.

Satan exists because God created him, though originally he was good.

Now, would someone please tell me why God in His right mind would create Lucifer/Satan if He's omniscient and knew he would become evil?

My favorite thread title in a long time.

Gays exist because God hates people so much he gives them up to perversions to let them wallow in their own misery and filth.

.

Originally Posted by an ex-NSer who knows the Bible like the back of his hand
Gays exist because God hates people so much he gives them up to perversions to let them wallow in their own misery and filth.

Can you feel the HATE tonight?

Can you feel the HATE tonight?

It's the truth. Crack open a Bible once in awhile, instead of listening to the mindless drivel babbled by politically correct preachers who, more often than not, have never read a Bible in their lives.

Let me address this idea presented by El Caudillo. Barring the fact that your comments have no logical basis, ignoring that you shout aimlessly accusing people who probably have a better education than yourself, and temporarily forgetting your lack of reasoning thoughout your post, allow me to respond. As an atheist, I see no purpose in your insulting of the Christian faith. Their reasoning behind gay rights seems logical to me. In their holy book, they state that the homosexual lifestyle is intolerable. Fine, fair enough, to each their own idea of morality. However, you begin to whine about it, complaining how their morality is unfair, illegal, unjust, or just plain wrong. Thus you attempt to subvert their morality, make it more like your own. This moral imperialism does nothing but make you hypocritical. The Christian doctrine for once makes some sense, hate the lifestyle, love the person. Tell me, what is unjust about loving someone while disagreeing with their lifestyle? I disagree with my sister's lifestyle completely, yet I still love her. Is that a crime, a moral wrong, a sin to hate my sister's lifestyle if I still love her? I say not.
The true Christian doctrine has been polarized, making it into a hateful idea. The true Christian doctrine is one of love, loving of that gay, despite his detestable behavior.

Point 2: why are people gay?
False Christian answer under guise of a knowledgable atheist on this board: Because God hates people and loves to watch the struggle with their sins. God sucks!
True Christian doctrine: Because it is a lifestyle choice, not a born genetic trait. Because all humans are born flawed in some way, thus the curse of Adam.

The truth must be found, stop being stubborn in your atheism and embrace the true ideas of the Bible, then you may refute. A uninformed atheist is no better than a "politically correct preacher who has never read the Bible" in my eyes.
- Brian Chut
Official Religious Emissary

P.S. I have read the Bible, even as an atheist, and the Koran. Have you? How can you speak of something you do not know of? My charge to you all, know your facts and learn before your refutation.

Let me address this idea presented by El Caudillo. Barring the fact that your comments have no logical basis, ignoring that you shout aimlessly accusing people who probably have a better education than yourself, and temporarily forgetting your lack of reasoning thoughout your post, allow me to respond. As an atheist, I see no purpose in your insulting of the Christian faith. Their reasoning behind gay rights seems logical to me. In their holy book, they state that the homosexual lifestyle is intolerable. Fine, fair enough, to each their own idea of morality. However, you begin to whine about it, complaining how their morality is unfair, illegal, unjust, or just plain wrong. Thus you attempt to subvert their morality, make it more like your own. This moral imperialism does nothing but make you hypocritical. The Christian doctrine for once makes some sense, hate the lifestyle, love the person. Tell me, what is unjust about loving someone while disagreeing with their lifestyle? I disagree with my sister's lifestyle completely, yet I still love her. Is that a crime, a moral wrong, a sin to hate my sister's lifestyle if I still love her? I say not.
The true Christian doctrine has been polarized, making it into a hateful idea. The true Christian doctrine is one of love, loving of that gay, despite his detestable behavior.

Point 2: why are people gay?
False Christian answer under guise of a knowledgable atheist on this board: Because God hates people and loves to watch the struggle with their sins. God sucks!
True Christian doctrine: Because it is a lifestyle choice, not a born genetic trait. Because all humans are born flawed in some way, thus the curse of Adam.

The truth must be found, stop being stubborn in your atheism and embrace the true ideas of the Bible, then you may refute. A uninformed atheist is no better than a "politically correct preacher who has never read the Bible" in my eyes.
- Brian Chut
Official Religious Emissary

P.S. I have read the Bible, even as an atheist, and the Koran. Have you? How can you speak of something you do not know of? My charge to you all, know your facts and learn before your refutation.

Ah, just a note. The Bible and the Koran were writen by MAN!!!

(We now return you to your regularly scheduled Gay Bashing. :D )

this thread made me chuckle :)

It doesn't make sense, if God truly hats gay people, why did he make them so? :confused:

I think it's you that are confused. God doesn't hate people. He dislikes sins, and homosexuality is seen as a sin.

...and "hats gay people"? I assume they get fashionable hats?

As soon as God starts to strike down: Rapist, Child Molesters, Terrorist, Serial Killers, Politicians, and all the other evils of the Earth...THEN I will reconsider that gay is evil. (Smirk)

Sorry, bigger threats to the goodness of the world than the gays.

I stand by my quote.

P.S. I have read the Bible, even as an atheist, and the Koran. Have you? How can you speak of something you do not know of? My charge to you all, know your facts and learn before your refutation.

whew! lucky for all us dumbfucks this vastly knowledgable prodigy graced us with his prescence! :rolleyes:

You can’t really sit around and say God intended environmental and body malfunction conditions causing problems with developing baby bodies.

I proved you to be full of crap on this one. I don't know how anyone here can argue that homosexuality is a birth defect. Greenlander, please leave this thread before you make a total fool of yourself. It is just a little advice from someone who knows better.

Let's try to follow the logic here.

Gays exist not because God created them, but because Satan corrupted them.

Satan exists because God created him, though originally he was good.

Now, would someone please tell me why God in His right mind would create Lucifer/Satan if He's omniscient and knew he would become evil?

We exist because satan corrupted us? Man, you people are full of it. You religious fanatics... you really need to get over yourselves. Seriously, we exist because we just are here by natural occurrances. Not some damn human invented icon made us this way.

You people who argue that homosexuality is wrong are such ignorant individuals and I don't even want to deal with you. You say "well it is wrong because the bible says so". Seriously, the bible is all you have. I could easily say "prove god". You need to start using some common sense and respect other people, even if they are gay. I have not seen so much hideous rhetoric in my life when it comes to some individuals in here... the individuals I speak of are blinded by religion and common sense is completely foreign to them. Seriously, you want to think before you spew out the same old rhetoric because it makes you look like a damn fool.

I'm not in a good mood today at all. I'm sick and fucking tired of hearing about people using the same old reasons (being gay is a sin, god says it is wrong, blah blah blah). Can any of you little religious hitlers tell me any reason why homosexuality is wrong without using the following:

1) The bible

2) Your human-invented god

3) Your human invented sin

I didn't think so. So what argument do you have? YOU HAVE NOTHING. NADA. ZIPPO.

We exist because satan corrupted us? Man, you people are full of it. You religious fanatics... you really need to get over yourselves. Seriously, we exist because we just are here by natural occurrances. Not some damn human invented icon made us this way.

You people who argue that homosexuality is wrong are such ignorant individuals and I don't even want to deal with you. You say "well it is wrong because the bible says so". Seriously, the bible is all you have. I could easily say "prove god". You need to start using some common sense and respect other people, even if they are gay. I have not seen so much hideous rhetoric in my life when it comes to some individuals in here... the individuals I speak of are blinded by religion and common sense is completely foreign to them. Seriously, you want to think before you spew out the same old rhetoric because it makes you look like a damn fool.

I'm not in a good mood today at all. I'm sick and fucking tired of hearing about people using the same old reasons (being gay is a sin, god says it is wrong, blah blah blah). Can any of you little religious hitlers tell me any reason why homosexuality is wrong without using the following:

1) The bible

2) Your human-invented god

3) Your human invented sin

I didn't think so. So what argument do you have? YOU HAVE NOTHING. NADA. ZIPPO.

Decaf dude. Decaf. :D

Decaf dude. Decaf. :D

It is called red bull. I normally don't drink the stuff because I know it can't be good for you.. but I had to this morning as I had to get up early.

Also I'm tired of the ignorant snobs in this world (from the religious nazis on this forum to real life [many religious people here are like Fred Phelps]).

For those throwing religion around:

Yep Satan was created even Before God created Human.But then God wanted Satan to Bow in front of Human cause he assumed that Human were going to be more smarter......I am only creating these People and Plants and animals that will live on the earth,But Humans are gifted with brain, they can invent things that his other creatures cannot. from the Wheel till This computer.and Satan was jealous of this and challenges that he will lead People against Him.......so Now who is following Satan and going Against God???
People know it But wouldnt agree with it......that they r going against God's will.But that what God tests on us....He let Satan to do what he wants and see if His best creation (Us Human) are worthy His trust.....

Satan and Lucifer are seperate entities. The idea that Satan was even an evil being or the ultimate evil only spawned after a period of Babylonian captivity that the jews had. Judaic belief actually originally testified that Satan was god-sent to test humans, but after Babylonian captivity and viewing Angra Mainyu, his Babylonian equivalent, their perception somehow changed to him being the ultimate evil and he replaced Lucifer, which is where the confusion came in. After that captivity Satan became God's rival, and the lord of evil.

That said: Satan is actually god-sent to test us according to original belief. Wrap your head around that.

I almost forgot:

because he said men not straight men he made it clear he was adressing men not women he did not say any thing to exclude gays.

No, he said thou. You just assume he was talking to men.

satan was first an angel that was created by God. satan then tried to overthrow God but failed so him and the angels he corupted were sent to hell. hell was created for the devil and the angels he corupted but now after sin was introduced is home to all non-beleivers.
Uh, no. Satan is not Lucifer. Satan (more properly hasatan) is Hebrew for "The Adversary", and is a job title, not a name. The angel that holds the post of hasatan is the one that YHWH uses to cause plagues and natural disasters and such. The identity of hasatan is generally considered to be Sammael, the Venom of God, and one of the Angels of Death.

Incidentally, hasatan isn't the Serpent, either. In Hebrew tradition, the Serpent was just that, a serpent. In Islamic tradition, the Serpent was Iblis/Azazel.

*points Cthulhu back to http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9534676&postcount=90 * =) Already covered that.

It's the truth. Crack open a Bible once in awhile, instead of listening to the mindless drivel babbled by politically correct preachers who, more often than not, have never read a Bible in their lives. Mindless drivel. Like…
"Judge not, lest ye be judged."
"Love thy neighbour as thyself."
"Look to the beam in thine eye before the mote in thy brother's."
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

ALL sin is an abomination before God. You and I have probably both defiled God's world and presence today.
Btw, I'm incredibly politically incorrect.

It's the truth. Crack open a Bible once in awhile, instead of listening to the mindless drivel babbled by politically correct preachers who, more often than not, have never read a Bible in their lives.

I'm not going to read filth that was written by men who think they know what is better for the rest of us.

*points Cthulhu back to http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9534676&postcount=90 * =) Already covered that.
Just noticed it. You only beat me because I spent about 20 minutes trying to find the source that stated hasatan's name, as I had forgotten it.

I'm not going to read filth that was written by men who think they know what is better for the rest of us.

Then who are you to speak on it? Even if you don't believe it, what you do not read you can't speak on knowledgeably. The same way you can't claim to know any other book's quality, good or bad, without opening it. I study religion, obviously, but that doesn't mean I'm picking one over the other. Still, you can't sit there with your thumb up your butt and go "well I won't read it but I still have my opinion." - you can have an opinion, but it's an uneducated opinion.


Also, for Cthulhu--

The serpent is considered by some to be Nechustan. ...I might have spelt that wrong, actually. It's a cross of two hebrew words that makes my brain hurt, but they're the words "brass" and "serpent". The symbolism of the serpent shows up repeatedly through the old testament. In Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism for 40 year old + men, not the kind you pick up a red bracelet for) based alchemial aspects, the serpent climbs the tree of life, guiding you toward divinity. It's called the "brazen serpent". It also guards the tree of life, and is considered an ouroboros becoming brazen to "rise up" out of its chain. An ouroboros being the serpent that guards the tree of life and keeps the cosmic waters in check, an eternal symbol of death, life, rebirth, etc etc. These same features are shown throughout the world in things like Jormungand and a lot of stuff I won't get into. But overall, he actually is more than just the serpent.

The serpent is sometimes equivalated to anyone from Lucifer, to Satan, to Asmodeus. I have no idea where the last one came in from, but I've read it; IMO that's because sometimes Asmodeus is confused with Lucifer and Satan.

Then who are you to speak on it? Even if you don't believe it, what you do not read you can't speak on knowledgeably. The same way you can't claim to know any other book's quality, good or bad, without opening it. I study religion, obviously, but that doesn't mean I'm picking one over the other. Still, you can't sit there with your thumb up your butt and go "well I won't read it but I still have my opinion." - you can have an opinion, but it's an uneducated opinion.

I can speak about it all I want because that is my right. I have read it before and personally I don't find it to be decent at all. I find it to be contradictory, hideous and idiotic. I can talk all I want and I have a very educated opinion on this topic because I know more about homosexuality then little religious hitlers do.

The serpent is sometimes equivalated to anyone from Lucifer, to Satan, to Asmodeus. I have no idea where the last one came in from, but I've read it; IMO that's because sometimes Asmodeus is confused with Lucifer and Satan.
Asmodeus is a corruption of Asmo Daeva, one of the servants of Ahriman in the Zoroasterian (sp) mythos. The ancient Hebrews picked that up and made Asmo Daeva the chief of the demons.

Edit: The Serpent may be an angel of some sort anyways, as the Seraphim were originally winged serpents. This would give sense to the 'crawling on belly' curse.

I'm not going to read filth that was written by men who think they know what is better for the rest of us.

This isn't a thread on the Constitution.

...sorry, I couldn't resist.

Alright, Mesatecala. Here's a little game I like to play.

I consider myself pagan, if only because that's such an encompassing spectrum and I've branch past being only a goetist. However, that doesn't mean I don't know my bible from study. I like to think I know my bible as well as, or better than the average Christian.

Tell me what part you think contradicts something else, and if you manage to stump me you earn brownie points back for the completely unnecessary swearing in this debate.

C'mon folks, challenge the pagan to bible knowledge!

This isn't a thread on the Constitution.

...sorry, I couldn't resist.

Maybe if you got your head out of the sand, you would realize the bible is setting up a religion. The US constitution just simply envisions a free country and allows us to live freely. I don't mind someone saying that I am free to be who I am.

It doesn't make sense, if God truly hats gay people, why did he make them so? :confused:

Its simple...God is GAY :) His only son was concieved without original sin..ie with out sex =historic methods of artifical insemination because he doesn't like women in that way....He made nature etc which is beautiful..could a straight guy colour co-ordinate like that? I don't think so
In his commandments it only says tho shall not covet thy neighbors wife(I think) see noting about coveting thy neighbors husband.

Probably because God is playing a cruel practical joke on all the gay-haters.

Did anyone notice there is no female presence in The Holy Trinity? That the Virgin Mary was just a delivery system for Jesus and nothing more? There was no sex involved!

The holy ghost is feminine.

Alright, Mesatecala. Here's a little game I like to play.

I consider myself pagan, if only because that's such an encompassing spectrum and I've branch past being only a goetist. However, that doesn't mean I don't know my bible from study. I like to think I know my bible as well as, or better than the average Christian.

Tell me what part you think contradicts something else, and if you manage to stump me you earn brownie points back for the completely unnecessary swearing in this debate.

C'mon folks, challenge the pagan to bible knowledge!

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

I have a bit of a list I usually tell people to look at.

But as far as swearing.. I just about had it with hearing people using the same old reasons to discriminate against gay people.. Fred Phelps protesting military funerals was the last straw.

Tell me what part you think contradicts something else, and if you manage to stump me you earn brownie points back for the completely unnecessary swearing in this debate.

Genesis 1 and 2.

(Note that these do not technically contradict each other, although I doubt that you'll know why.)

Asmodeus is a corruption of Asmo Daeva, one of the servants of Ahriman in the Zoroasterian (sp) mythos. The ancient Hebrews picked that up and made Asmo Daeva the chief of the demons.

Edit: The Serpent may be an angel of some sort anyways, as the Seraphim were originally winged serpents. This would give sense to the 'crawling on belly' curse.

Oh trust me, I know Ashmedai very well. Like I said in the post before i saw your message, I'm involved in goetics. He's actually my main guy. =) Hence my confusion over his inclusion.

Aeshma(-Daeva) was one of Ahriman/Angra Mainyu's chief servants, but Ahriman is who equivolated to Satan. How he translated into Asmodeus is confusing. He is a very ... large astral and others do respect him, but I don't find him somehow being the chief of all evil and/or temptation.

And yes, I think it was the seraphim that was a winged serpent, but it might have been cherubim. I get scrambled on references. They said they hid their feet with their wings, but some think that was a reference to genitalia. Hah. IMO I don't think so, because it would have had feet to begin with if it had to be cursed to crawl. I'm almost thinking this is what the old dragon myths came from. Wings, feet, snake body.

[QUOTE=PopularFreedom]
Lying with another of the same sex is sin according to the bible QUOTE]

where in the bible does it say this? sorry, can you quote? i hate it when people claim something is 'according to the bible' but don't back it up.

--and you guys give me like... a few hours to type up Cthulhu's thing and the list that got sent. That's a BIG list.

Alright, Mesatecala. Here's a little game I like to play.

I consider myself pagan, if only because that's such an encompassing spectrum and I've branch past being only a goetist. However, that doesn't mean I don't know my bible from study. I like to think I know my bible as well as, or better than the average Christian.

Tell me what part you think contradicts something else, and if you manage to stump me you earn brownie points back for the completely unnecessary swearing in this debate.

C'mon folks, challenge the pagan to bible knowledge!

okay....hmm....lesse.

Does it say gays are bad?
How does it say gays are bad?
Who says gays are bad? (I.e if it says it in John, then John says it.)
If gays are evil, and god created good and evil, not for man but for himself, as learning of good and evil was a sin. Why do we consider it evil? What gives man the right to declare the creations of God Himself evil? If evil was made for Him, then gays are His. And that my friends means that God does not hate Gays.

Who wrote the bible? That's what it comes down to. Think about it...

where in the bible does it say this? sorry, can you quote? i hate it when people claim something is 'according to the bible' but don't back it up.

I updated my little rant since I last had to post it. Piglantia or whatever pointed out something that the original version didn't cover. Enjoy:

The passages of the bible on homosexuality are very ambiguous. We already know that the bible talks primarily to men. It says "thou shalt not lie with a man as thou wouldst with a woman" in Levticus 18:22. This passage is clearly talking to men instead of women. What a lot of people forget is that it's also not talking not gays for the same reason it's not talking to women; they were not a dominant force in society. Note that God never directly says he is talking to men. He uses "thou" and leaves it for us to decide. The only thing God has ever condemned is straight men performing homosexual acts. A gay man wouldn't lay with a woman that way anyway, so he's in the clear, and this is repeated throughout the bible, like in Paul's letters. God's directions should be simple from these passages: be true to your own nature. The example He gives is of a straight man acting straight, but it could just as easily be applied to a gay man being gay, a straight woman being straight and a lesbian woman being lesbian. In fact, we already apply this to straight women even though the bible doesn't specifically mention them until Paul's letters.

The section on Soddom and Gommorah are also often taken wrong. The point of the story was the disrespect the townsfolk showed to strangers, something that was considered very wrong in biblical times. One of Jesus' main messages was to take in the stranger, not to rape him. The fact that they were men raping male angels is not the important part of the story. The section with Lot offering his virgin daughter is not meant to show that the men in the city are gay, but rather that they are determined to cause affront to the strangers who have arrived. After all, if they were gay God wouldn't need to rain down fire and brimstone: he'd just have to wait a generation. This is why the term soddomy is miscoined. The story of Soddom and Gomorrah was never meant to condemn homosexuality, but rather to condemn the mistreatment of the stranger or traveller, just as Jesus spoke of the values of taking in the stranger in the Gospels.


For those of you just beginning to notice, I post the same general paragraphs everytime and wait for people to refute it. Then I take their refutations and incorporate it into the paragraphs, till eventually I have an unstoppable paragraph. Mwuhahaha!

Because he has a sense of humour. a very twisted sense of humour.

No kidding.
The one guy, who understands a girl the best.
Knows how they feel. Knows then they want to shop.
Knows the feeling of, "It just clashes."

Is gay.

No kidding.
The one guy, who understands a girl the best.
Knows how they feel. Knows then they want to shop.
Knows the feeling of, "It just clashes."

Is gay.

A bit of a stereotype huh?

Anybody notice the similarities between the story of the impregnation of the Virgin Mary and the Greek myth of Zeus and Danae (who gave birth to the hero Perseus)?

It was actually REALLY common to have virgin birth stories back in those times... the fact that Jesus was a virgin birth just fit into the culture of the times. I believe Alexander the Great was a virgin birth, as well. :P

http://www.evilbible.com/

This is why I dont read the Bible much. Scary Stuff. :eek:

And yes, I think it was the seraphim that was a winged serpent, but it might have been cherubim.
The cherubim are bodiless masses of eyes and wings.

IMO I don't think so, because it would have had feet to begin with if it had to be cursed to crawl. I'm almost thinking this is what the old dragon myths came from. Wings, feet, snake body.
Ah, but if it originally had wings it would fly, and not crawl. If it lost its wings, then it would crawl.

Edit:

Aeshma(-Daeva) was one of Ahriman/Angra Mainyu's chief servants, but Ahriman is who equivolated to Satan. How he translated into Asmodeus is confusing. He is a very ... large astral and others do respect him, but I don't find him somehow being the chief of all evil and/or temptation.
I'm no expert on this, but my guess would be that the ancient Hebrews didn't like the idea of dualism, so instead of using Ahriman, they used the next highest ranking entity. Of course, since they identified YHWH as both good and evil, it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that they considered Ahriman to be a facet of YHWH.

Meh, so the Christian God hates gays. So what? The Christian God likes impregnating 14 year old girls. The Christian God protects and saves men who get drunk and have sex with their virgin daughters. The Christian God orders His followers to rape and enslave women and children. The Christian God feels that a rape victim should be put to death if she didn't scream loud enough, unless of course her rapist can be made to marry her, at which point everything is cool.

Anybody who's looking to the Christian God for sex advice has problems bigger than homosexuality, quite frankly, and they should deal with that shit before trying to tell other people what to do.

The holy ghost is feminine.
Wait, but the Holy Ghost is who impregnated Mary...so I guess that means God is both a gay man and a lesbian!

http://www.evilbible.com/

This is why I dont read the Bible much. Scary Stuff. :eek: Aye, but after thousands of years of translating, mistranslating, losing, half-burning, corroding, rediscovery and alteration… things are bound to happen. It's naïve to think that even the word of God can survive unchanged during the ravages of time.

Oh and Bottle, there's no reason to assume Mary was 14, and Lot was technically raped by his daughters.

Oh and Bottle, there's no reason to assume Mary was 14, and Lot was technically raped by his daughters.
1) All current historical evidence suggests that the OLDEST Mary could have been was 14. She was more likely even younger.

2) Yeah, that's usually what child molesters say. "That 12 year old girl seduced me! I was drunk! It wasn't my fault! She took advantage of me!" Sorry, but if a man has sex with a minor child, he's a rapist. If a man has sex with his own minor daughter, he's an incestuous rapist. It's ok, though, since the Christian God specifically orders people to rape many times, so being a rapist doesn't mean the Christian God won't like you. As long as you are taking advantage of a little girl, God loves you...just don't have consenting sexual relations with an adult of the same gender, because then you're a filty pervert!

1) All current historical evidence suggests that the OLDEST Mary could have been was 14. She was more likely even younger.

2) Yeah, that's usually what child molesters say. "That 12 year old girl seduced me! I was drunk! It wasn't my fault! She took advantage of me!" Sorry, but if a man has sex with a minor child, he's a rapist. If a man has sex with his own minor daughter, he's an incestuous rapist. It's ok, though, since the Christian God specifically orders people to rape many times, so being a rapist doesn't mean the Christian God won't like you. As long as you are taking advantage of a little girl, God loves you...just don't have consenting sexual relations with an adult of the same gender, because then you're a filty pervert!
1] I thought a virgin was someone who had not had sex… must be wrong.

2] Getting someone drunk specifically to have sex with them and then doing so makes you a rapist. The youngest conviction age for rape is 11. Therefore, Lot's daughters raped him.

DUDE. I'm just gonna post what I have so far. I'm gonna do the rest, don't worry, but I'm only like 1/3 done and it's gonna take me a bit. I want you to know I'm already working on it.

--And I've always considered YHVH a neutral/dual entity. Kinda like a kid with an antfarm.

Genesis 1 and 2.

(Note that these do not technically contradict each other, although I doubt that you'll know why.)

It technically says that none of the plants had grown yet around when Adam popped up, but that's a petty gripe. The land may have produced vegetation in the first chapter, but vegetation includes things down to seeds. It also states that the animals are reformed. However, given God made them on one day, he can just as easily make them on another day. The Bible makes it look like sneezing. Or it could be a figurative representation for how he mystically drew them towards Adam, just like how the animals somehow knew to go to Noah's Ark.

STUFFSTUFFSTUFFSTUFFSTUFFSTUFFSTUFFSTUFFSTUFF

no seriously, in response to:

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

You have to look back to the rest in context: Jeremiah 12:14-17; it's regarding people damaging his chosen people. They're like his children. He's also saying how he'll give them mercy in that preceeding passage. You can't take one verse.

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

...That's just petty. The first regards Moses having split the Red Sea, it's a tribute to the Lord for protecting his people. You know, when there was a blaze of chariots and arrows and OMFG ARMY chasing after them? Kind of like how you go to war when you need to go to war.

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

The first is a figurative term for anyone who knows their bible beyond trying to pick at it. Jacob was well back in the line, just like David was. When someone says Jesus would be "of the line of David", you don't think "OMFG INACCURACY".

MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

The constant is that Mary Magdeline was there. No book denies that Mary Magdalene was there, in fact. One says more people was there. If one book states the names of three people in a crowd as opposed to just one of the people in a crowd, you're not going to pick out the book for it, because you aren't looking for the book's inaccuracies, are you? Mary Magdalene was there. We know this. It's likely that his mother probably came, given she's his mom, and two books say this.

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

I and my pinky finger are one. But my pinky finger is lesser than I. The concept of the Trinity is actually never mentioned in the Bible. Dig for it. Scrounge for it. It came in after running through other religions, I can't honestly remember right now off the top of my head. It does say in the bible, there is a Father, there is a Son, and there is a Holy ghost. It does say the Father and he is one. It does not say how equal they are. In fact, it does say he stands at the side of his throne, somehow signifying that he doesn't have rights to the throne, but just holds a high quarter.

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

See my thing above to CthulhuFhtagn.

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

"They went two and two into the ark", meaning they went in pairs side by side. This doesn't mean they were limited to the number two. We could easily have an oddball lingering behind. The plurality of the "two and two" could easily justify it. In my translation, it just says that pairs entered the ark. I'm looking as I do this. I do have an NIV though, and it's simplified. Even so, the two and two holds a repetitive/plurality to it. This, I will say is a bit of a stretch, but no more than most of these stabs at verses have been.

KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

Generally, in biblical writings, once you get into the thousands you don't bother. They count millions by thousands of thousands, in revelations, because this was just how things were back then. How many did he have? A LOT, which started with a four.

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

There is much grief in much wisdom and knowledge. The world is full of bad things, idiots, and things you don't ever want to see. Anyone should be aware of that. It's a very WISE thing to say that, and I'm sure that when that was written, someone had come to that revelation. However, without wisdom, you still fail in the world.

-- the Corinthians verse, in context, is that God makes foolish the wisdom of the WORLD. That anything we know is sort of, well, useless. Go read the verses around it. From, I dunno, 18-25.

ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2:30 is distinctly about DAVID, not Joseph. David is several generations before Jesus. David's line bore Jesus. David didn't impregate Mary. Again, in-context.

No where in the bible does it note that God hates gay people


Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with another man as though it were a woman for that is an abomination.

Also, look up the cities of Soddom and Ghemorrah. Both were destroyed because everybody there commiting vagrant acts of homosexuality. :fluffle:

I don't hate gays and God doesn't hate gays but the issue is what they do, what they fantasize about. If they can restrain from it then they may have a good shot at Heaven.

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
The first is God's revenge on Babylon. The second are laws being put out amongst the, you know, people. Unless you want to live in a land where your dad/son/sister/whatever can rob someone and you get shot in the head for it legally.

LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

The bat would have been labeled as an avian in the time simply because it, well, flew. Which is easier to say to people "Don't eat that thing that looks like a bird but is actually a mammal here let me give you a science class in the middle of our law and sanitation issues being presented.", Things also might not have even been classified at that time period. Consider how long ago this was. Do you think, in the middle of the desert, these people had the time to shoot down an animal and disect it, going, "Hm, this has a different skeletal frame than the LAST birds we shot with arrows. I wonder what that means." Come ON. To them, it was a bird. Just like scientists in modern times still now and then realize they categorize things wrong, if even less blatantly. Get over it.

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
'Gerah', the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated 'chew the cud' in the KJV is more exactly 'bring up the cud'. Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.

Okay, they bring it out and chew on it. How the begeezus do we know what their definition of "cud" was back then? Was cud only barfed up? It can't be pooped out? This has to be the most petty gripe I've ever seen.

LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

"Goeth on all four" is a well known expression for crawling. Do you have a problem with this? I've seen translations where Hebrew words couldn't even be translated properly so they had to say the trail of God's robe filled an entire room. Considering it starts "goeth upon all four" and "creeping" then bans "flying" things, it's obvious they allow crawling bugs. It's obvious the translation struggled at verse 23. I'll try to dig up the translation of this somewhere, sometime, for a more plausible explanation. For now, let me bookmark this for myself. I have the whole old testament in hebrew somewhere around here.

PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

...You know, I'm sitting and looking at a lot of these "contradictions". "Contradictions" in the bible are supposed to be things that, you know, contradict something else in the bible. I don't see how a snail melting contradicts anything else in the bible, or how a bat being a bird causes trouble for a scripture passage, or how bugs crawling on four legs interfere with any of the continuity. Most people read books about unicorns and dragons and don't gripe, so what the hell?

PS: Ever seen a snail with salt? It withers. Snails also sometimes meld into the ground and look like they're melting. Many statements in the bible are figurative, but we know that.

GEN 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

"Fowl from waters or ground?" is the question, but I don't even see where this contradicts. The second chapter says he formed every beast of the field and fowl of the air. For the reading-inept, a beast of the field implies: rabbits, buffalo, stuff like that. You know, stuff that moves ON THE FIELD? Thanks.

GEN 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

It's not odd. If you go back to verse 34, it covers that there were already a bunch of those already and they were trying to seperate those from the flock. Genetics and mutations happen. Didn't anybody go through science class here?

ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Astromical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.

It says the earth is a circle. Would "Sphere" have suited you better? That was certainly ahead of its time compared to anybody else.

The gripe falls flat due to the fact that high entities can be in more than one place at once. Considering the idea of God's omnipresence, he's not even the only one who can manage this feat. If you wish to doubt me, I've had experience myself, although not with YHVH; it probably sounds insane to you, but I stand by my practices and other people have witnessed the same thing at the same time in different locations. Sometimes they like doing that. Also, considering the fact that, say... Diana is called upon by thousands or millions of people each day, and she still has a tendancy to show up, it shows their ability to be pretty much anywhere.

You might say from that statement that the bible is wrong because it states a one and only god. That's incorrect. Christians took to that view. AFAIK, the jews weren't so much convinced of that as that their god was the right one. When YHVH said "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", that would clue us in on the fact that there are other gods.

Moving on.

GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

...Has the person who wrote this article never heard of figurative statements? If I said "eat my dust", would you really think I expected you to eat it?

JOB 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
JOB 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Foundation could be anything noted in early genesis. Point? This is getting droll and repetitive, boring jabs in the dark by an author who obviously had nothing better to do with his time. The foundation of a world could be like the foundation of a company. What was its starting point and what is its end? Really, there's no contradiction here. It's a matter of what you're looking for.

JOB 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.

"Heaven supported too" is the argument. ...and? This means what? This doesn't even show any kind of contradiction, this line shows no idea what kind of pillars it is, and it's like they're trying to just discredit it further. I'm just getting bored typing this. It was a fun challenge at first but it's getting redundant as the person begs to try to sink their claws into more hoping the audience has been baited by now.

ECC 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
JOB 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

Storehouses are not part of the cycle

...Oh my god. The second one isn't even anywhere near a full attempt at a hydrological cycle, and somehow the person tries to nitpick at the first one in the same way?

...Am I going to be expected to keep at this or will someone be merciful and end the brainrot and boredom this is causing? It's a poorly thought out, redundant article.

God doesn't hate gays. Fred Phelps thinks differently though.

God hates their SIN, not gays....c'mon...

God doesn't hate gays. Fred Phelps thinks differently though.

God hates their SIN, not gays....c'mon... No, according to Fred Phelps, God hates small bags of gunpowder used for aiding burning, often with burning at the stake.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with another man as though it were a woman for that is an abomination.

Also, look up the cities of Soddom and Ghemorrah. Both were destroyed because everybody there commiting vagrant acts of homosexuality. :fluffle:

I don't hate gays and God doesn't hate gays but the issue is what they do, what they fantasize about. If they can restrain from it then they may have a good shot at Heaven.

The passages of the bible on homosexuality are very ambiguous. We already know that the bible talks primarily to men. It says "thou shalt not lie with a man as thou wouldst with a woman" in Levticus 18:22. This passage is clearly talking to men instead of women. What a lot of people forget is that it's also not talking not gays for the same reason it's not talking to women; they were not a dominant force in society. Note that God never directly says he is talking to men. He uses "thou" and leaves it for us to decide. The only thing God has ever condemned is straight men performing homosexual acts. A gay man wouldn't lay with a woman that way anyway, so he's in the clear, and this is repeated throughout the bible, like in Paul's letters. God's directions should be simple from these passages: be true to your own nature. The example He gives is of a straight man acting straight, but it could just as easily be applied to a gay man being gay, a straight woman being straight and a lesbian woman being lesbian. In fact, we already apply this to straight women even though the bible doesn't specifically mention them until Paul's letters.

The section on Soddom and Gommorah are also often taken wrong. The point of the story was the disrespect the townsfolk showed to strangers, something that was considered very wrong in biblical times. One of Jesus' main messages was to take in the stranger, not to rape him. The fact that they were men raping male angels is not the important part of the story. The section with Lot offering his virgin daughter is not meant to show that the men in the city are gay, but rather that they are determined to cause affront to the strangers who have arrived. After all, if they were gay God wouldn't need to rain down fire and brimstone: he'd just have to wait a generation. This is why the term soddomy is miscoined. The story of Soddom and Gomorrah was never meant to condemn homosexuality, but rather to condemn the mistreatment of the stranger or traveller, just as Jesus spoke of the values of taking in the stranger in the Gospels.

(Times posted on this thread: four)

We exist because satan corrupted us? Man, you people are full of it. You religious fanatics... you really need to get over yourselves. Seriously, we exist because we just are here by natural occurrances. Not some damn human invented icon made us this way.

You people who argue that homosexuality is wrong are such ignorant individuals and I don't even want to deal with you. You say "well it is wrong because the bible says so". Seriously, the bible is all you have. I could easily say "prove god". You need to start using some common sense and respect other people, even if they are gay. I have not seen so much hideous rhetoric in my life when it comes to some individuals in here... the individuals I speak of are blinded by religion and common sense is completely foreign to them. Seriously, you want to think before you spew out the same old rhetoric because it makes you look like a damn fool.

I'm not in a good mood today at all. I'm sick and fucking tired of hearing about people using the same old reasons (being gay is a sin, god says it is wrong, blah blah blah). Can any of you little religious hitlers tell me any reason why homosexuality is wrong without using the following:

1) The bible

2) Your human-invented god

3) Your human invented sin

I didn't think so. So what argument do you have? YOU HAVE NOTHING. NADA. ZIPPO.

:eek: Whoa, man! Take it easy; I'm on your side! I was playing along with the Christians here - they say that Satan corrupted gays, and God made Satan. *I* wanted to know (assuming that both of these statements are true, which of course is a huge assumption) how God could be so stupid as to create Satan when He knew he would become evil. I can see how you misinterpreted my post - I'm sorry it angered you. :(

No, according to Fred Phelps, God hates small bags of gunpowder used for aiding burning, often with burning at the stake.

Fred Phelps is a moron who uses the bible as a turd stool for his personal agenda.

God doesn't hate gays. Fred Phelps thinks differently though.

God hates their SIN, not gays....c'mon...

That's pretty rich. I mean some god would put me on this planet just to condemn me? That's exactly why I'm not christian. Or theist at all.

Amerfi, thanks for going through that entire list of contradictions without actually addressing the points made. That's a good one.

1) All current historical evidence suggests that the OLDEST Mary could have been was 14. She was more likely even younger.

2) Yeah, that's usually what child molesters say. "That 12 year old girl seduced me! I was drunk! It wasn't my fault! She took advantage of me!" Sorry, but if a man has sex with a minor child, he's a rapist. If a man has sex with his own minor daughter, he's an incestuous rapist. It's ok, though, since the Christian God specifically orders people to rape many times, so being a rapist doesn't mean the Christian God won't like you. As long as you are taking advantage of a little girl, God loves you...just don't have consenting sexual relations with an adult of the same gender, because then you're a filty pervert!


you sick pervert next you put something like that on a thread make it is accruate I've read the bible and nowhere does it say that God approves of that!

you sick pervert next you put something like that on a thread make it is accruate I've read the bible and nowhere does it say that God approves of that!

Prove it.

He has a very strong point.

god doesnt exist

It's hard to address a point when there is none. The bat isn't a bird. No kidding? The Snow Leopard isn't a leopard - it's not in the same family as leopards and black panthers, having a varied skull structure. But it's called that anyway for convenience. Half of the crap on that site is utter bullmark, thrown in to detract you from the main point: The person has no real point.

Any verse they took was thoroughly out of context, or just a petty snipe, like definitions about animals or using the word "circle" as opposed to "sphere". Or sometimes, the author speaking unknowingly about the capabilities of high spirits. It's actually amusing to scroll through those lists and see people think they're so high and mighty when they see something "contradict".

I can take a word you've said here, today, and claim it contradicts with something you said in both cases were total truth; how is that? Because you can't just take a few lone words, you have to take the entire instance a word, phrase, or sentence is used in.

I was once approached by someone flailing, claiming the bible was encouraging people to cut off their limbs and throw them into the fire. They didn't read the entire passage, or the book to understand that the large scale of the chapter or book was spoken in figuratively. This was not a literal terminology. When someone says "cut off your hand if it causes you to sin", it means cut yourself off from whatever led you from temptation and throw it away, like when you sever yourself from bad contacts. It doesn't take a scholary man to understand this.

People will poke, jab, and try to shred a religious book they don't agree with because of their personal reasons all they want, but they tend to do it poorly. If you don't study it thoroughly, take things in context and then try to poke your flaws in it, you're going to have a hard time going up against someone who knows what the book says.

Alright, you "have experience in homosexuality". That's great. You drip venom at the very concept of the book because some fundies got to you. I really couldn't care less, but if you're going to make accusations, I repeat, make educated ones. You claim I didn't address the topic, but that's the only counter-claim you make. You fail to point out how I didn't. There was rarely anything to address, and when there was, I did. The website had little to no actual material. It's the equivalent of rifling through paragraphs of fluff text trying to find something of actual substance I'm supposed to respond to. I did my duty, but I swear it gets annoying after a certain point. People can't even make the effort of putting together a good argument, so why bother ripping it apart with a good counter-argument once I've pointed out that it's a weightless, inconsistant blob of crap already?

God doesn't hate gays. He hates sin, NOT the sinner. Plus, God did not make them gay either, as hard as it is to understand, it is purely an act of the will.

It doesn't make sense, if God truly hats gay people, why did he make them so? :confused:

I had to respond to this, God did not make people gay, as he did not make sin, we made sin by making our choices. That being said God doesn't not hate the homosexual, he loves the homosexual, but hates homosexuality. That's why Jesus died on the cross because he loved the sinner, despite the fact that he hated the sin...same goes with any sin though, and homosexuality is no different or worse than say...lying.

It's hard to address a point when there is none. The bat isn't a bird. No kidding? The Snow Leopard isn't a leopard - it's not in the same family as leopards and black panthers, having a varied skull structure. But it's called that anyway for convenience. Half of the crap on that site is utter bullmark, thrown in to detract you from the main point: The person has no real point.

You are really funny. You don't even provide evidence for your nonsense. You provide nothing and that is that. The person has plenty of points. Religion is what has no real points. It is a pile of crap.


Alright, you "have experience in homosexuality". That's great. You drip venom at the very concept of the book because some fundies got to you. I really couldn't care less, but if you're going to make accusations, I repeat, make educated ones. You claim I didn't address the topic, but that's the only counter-claim you make. You fail to point out how I didn't. There was rarely anything to address, and when there was, I did. The website had little to no actual material. It's the equivalent of rifling through paragraphs of fluff text trying to find something of actual substance I'm supposed to respond to. I did my duty, but I swear it gets annoying after a certain point. People can't even make the effort of putting together a good argument, so why bother ripping it apart with a good counter-argument once I've pointed out that it's a weightless, inconsistant blob of crap already?

Don't you ever accuse me of being the same as those fools. I'm tired of it. You are the one who needs to make educated accusations. You provide nothing besides your own biased, hideous rhetoric. You don't provide any evidence. Your argument is crappy, and is weightless. You don't even provide evidence. You are just providing your own opinions. I'm tired of it.

well I dunno How many Others are proud to watch porn and with Kids ..... Congratulation on being the best Parent in the world according to ur Kids.....
Sex Education is different from
showing Porn Movies to Kids.( and sex education is given at certain age)......There were sex education in 18th or 19th Century too.....But Film wasnt invented sadly...
How old is Ur Kid somewhat 8? 10 ? or 12?..... well Video shop doesnt allow kids to buy porn even shop keepers know Kids under 21 musnt watch.....
If U become the President of America after Bush......America is blessed.....they will have free Porn on Television ....like Cartoon network.....there will be a Porn Network.

sin was not invented and i believe that you are a non beliver of all religions that likes to go around making statements that tie in your need for things that are visible to you and not those that just take faith i make this conclusion when you used the term invention, meaning somone had to come up with the idea of sin. sin is the term we use to describe any bad somone has done even those that dont believe use the term sin for the bad things people do

I know this is childish and petty, but is there a Christian doctrine forbidding sentences that don't run on, or punctuation? Is the period really a symbol of the apple that led Eve astray, and thus unclean?

I had to respond to this, God did not make people gay, as he did not make sin, we made sin by making our choices. That being said God doesn't not hate the homosexual, he loves the homosexual, but hates homosexuality. That's why Jesus died on the cross because he loved the sinner, despite the fact that he hated the sin...same goes with any sin though, and homosexuality is no different or worse than say...lying.

WRONG! I did not make the choice to be gay, therefore your argument is debunked. I'm tired of that "we made sin by making our choices" argument. Sexuality isn't a choice. Some may not agree with me on the genetics argument, but they do agree with me that sexuality is not a choice. And who said some god made these rules? The rules you speak of are human invented.

People don't choose to be gay.

I know this is childish and petty, but is there a Christian doctrine forbidding sentences that don't run on, or punctuation? Is the period really a symbol of the apple that led Eve astray, and thus unclean?


how can i say that i love you? let me count the ways. i've been reading the comments and just can't quite grasp why complete and coherent sentences are so hateful. but now to my response.

why should anyone care how anyone else lives their lives? excepting anything else harmful to the community as a whole, i can't see why it needs to be an issue. if you're going to have a same sex coupling, then you will, if you're not....well, then clearly you don't need to define what a coupling is by your precedent.

all this debating is just a way for people to express their fear of change.

You are really funny. You don't even provide evidence for your nonsense. You provide nothing and that is that. The person has plenty of points. Religion is what has no real points. It is a pile of crap.

Don't you ever accuse me of being the same as those fools. I'm tired of it. You are the one who needs to make educated accusations. You provide nothing besides your own biased, hideous rhetoric. You don't provide any evidence. Your argument is crappy, and is weightless. You don't even provide evidence. You are just providing your own opinions. I'm tired of it.

Oh, so I'm guessing my saying "look at verses (insert) through (insert) RIGHT BEFORE IT AND RIGHT AFTER IT." aren't any kind of founding evidence. At all. Not a bit. It doesn't show that the meaning is at all different. Am I supposed to sit here and type it all out for you? I'm bothering to type this crap out for you, the least YOU can do is take the references I gave and get off your lazy butt and pick up a bible. Heck, don't have one? They're on the internet. I'm doing work, you do your part. I'm trying to be decent in this fight and you're just bubbling and seething and the seams like some kind of rabid animal.

Make an effort to be educated, I'm doing it for you. I gave you the references and explanations. It's not hard to pick up a book or take a mouseclick and look for yourself now. See that? Try it. It does a world of good instead of spitting acid at me.

Oh, and about the snow leopard, proof:
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/agarman/snowlep.htm

Although sharing its name with the common leopard, the snow leopard is not believed to be closely related to the Leopard or the other members of the Pantherine group and is classified as the sole member of the genus Uncia uncia. Due to the under-development of the fibro-elastic tissue that forms part of the vocal apparatus the snow leopard cannot give a full, deep roar and this along with differences in skull characteristics help to separate it from its fellow ‘big cats’.

In appearance, the snow leopard is strikingly different from the common leopard. Although it has similar rosettes and broken-spot markings, they appear less well defined and are spaced further apart. . . .

Oh, so I'm guessing my saying "look at verses (insert) through (insert) RIGHT BEFORE IT AND RIGHT AFTER IT." aren't any kind of founding evidence. At all. Not a bit. It doesn't show that the meaning is at all different. Am I supposed to sit here and type it all out for you? I'm bothering to type this crap out for you, the least YOU can do is take the references I gave and get off your lazy butt and pick up a bible. Heck, don't have one? They're on the internet. I'm doing work, you do your part. I'm trying to be decent in this fight and you're just bubbling and seething and the seems like some kind of rabid animal.

You are the one who should make an effort. You are the one who provides very little sources. I'm not going to pick up a bible. I feel it is just a big story book, and I've done enough studying when I was younger. I'm angry at people like you who use the bible as it is infallible.

Make an effort to be educated, I'm doing it for you. I gave you the references and explanations. It's not hard to pick up a book or take a mouseclick and look for yourself now. See that? Try it. It does a world of good instead of spitting acid at me.


You need to get yourself educated. You did nothing as far as refutation of my sources (as you provided no corroboration). You can't do anything for me. You are biased.

This all falls back to the original topic...

...

I use it as though it's infallible?

Sir, I study the religion. I don't practice it. I study any religion I can get my hands on the book of. I'm not saying the religion is flawless, I'm saying the commonly assumed flaws are BADLY PEGGED. If you would read through my posts, you'd see the following things:

I am a pagan. I was a goetist, who expanded my boundaries. This means I do my practice with demons. I'm PRETTY sure this is out of bounds according to the bible, you see.

Now, continuing our reading comprehension courses, I also said you need to fully study the bible to know where the real flaws are, as opposed to taking things out of context. This does not mean I think it is flawless, it means I think people are retards who do the latter as opposed to doing the former.

I provided full resources by listing the exact verses to find it in. If you are not capable of reading the post so long as to find them, it's no wonder you somehow find a way to disagree with my post, given your currently rabid mindset.

You're no better than the people you protest.

I stand in no side in a debate, but rather as a neutral cause that points out when neither side knows what on earth they're talking about. This would be you. I would suggest a tranquilizer right now.

Now, continuing our reading comprehension courses, I also said you need to fully study the bible to know where the real flaws are, as opposed to taking things out of context. This does not mean I think it is flawless, it means I think people are retards who do the latter as opposed to doing the former.

I will not accept your insults of telling me how to read, or what to read. I will point out the links I need to.


You're no better than the people you protest.

I'm very much way better. I'm someone who respects human rights, and I'm not for sending off people to "ex-gay" camps (brainwashing camps).

I stand in no side in a debate, but rather as a neutral cause that points out when neither side knows what on earth they're talking about. This would be you. I would suggest a tranquilizer right now.

You aren't superior to the side that attacks the bible.

satan was first an angel that was created by God. satan then tried to overthrow God but failed so him and the angels he corupted were sent to hell. hell was created for the devil and the angels he corupted but now after sin was introduced is home to all non-beleivers.

... But God still let him hang out in heaven until Jesus came back from his voyage. So, why did he create Satan, being omnipotent and omniscient?

Simple question. :)

I'm superior to someone who does anything blindly, or uneducatedly. Anyone is, if they -- well, don't do so.

And there is a news flash. Not all christians send people to "ex-gay" camps. My mother is a christian, I grew up in a protestant home. Look at me. Hm. Let's not have to rehash who and what I am already, and what my sexual interests are really are of no concern to this forum. But as far as I can see, I haven't been shipped off to an ex-gay camp.

Saying all christians send gays to ex-gay camp is like saying all whites put black people into slavery, or did at one time, regardless of their location in the world. If you want to claim people are being painted with broad brushes, look in a mirror, because you're quite the artist.

I will tell you how to read if it needs to be said. Cool down and go read things without some "oh my god it's a fundie coming to put me in exgay camp!" idea in your head, and make the same effort I did in replying to things. You know exactly what your source is. You say the bible contradicts itself, I sourced the verses it came from. Find yourself a bible online or off and look. If you don't, just concede the argument, because this all started by my saying, "Only the ignorant refuse to look at things while giving a critique" and you claiming you had looked. You're currently refusing to look. What does that say about this entire argument?

... But God still let him hang out in heaven until Jesus came back from his voyage. So, why did he create Satan, being omnipotent and omniscient?

Simple question. :)

This was already answered at reply 90 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9534676&postcount=90) of this thread.

The bible says a great many things but we'll stick to so-called GAY references for a moment...

Firstly, the tale of Sodom referred to gang rape, secondly the term sodomite means 'holy one'

Now to specific references

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination." Leviticus 18:22.

Now this could be interpreted in many ways

(a) No sex with those who identify as men, this means no woman shall have sex with men

(b) Reserve anal sex solely for your relations with men and don't have anal sex with women

(c) No vaginal penetration with men

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them...And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them."

Interpretations

(a) No bisexuality
(b) No threesomes with people of opposite gender present or if so both the woman and man involved have committed an abomination


Now let's consider some other abominations
Waering cotton/linen blends (Deuteronomy 22:11)
Eating Rare Steak (Lev 17:10)
Eating Shellfish (Lev 11:10)
Charging interest on loans (Psalm 15:1-5, Jeremiah 15:10)


Among many others

... But God still let him hang out in heaven until Jesus came back from his voyage. So, why did he create Satan, being omnipotent and omniscient?

Simple question. :)

You know the way when you're doing something and know that a problem will arise, and that you choose not to stop the project but to deal with the problem after the main project is finished?

I'm superior to someone who does anything blindly, or uneducatedly. Anyone is, if they -- well, don't do so.

You are doing things blindly and uneducatedly (SIC).

Hm. Let's not have to rehash who and what I am already, and what my sexual interests are really are of no concern to this forum. But as far as I can see, I haven't been shipped off to an ex-gay camp.

Are you gay or bi?

First off, lets make one thing clear. I've repeatably said religious fundamentalists. I know that moderate christians don't want to do that. But of course you like taking things out of context. And first off, this thread does concern sexuality whether you like it or not.

If you want to claim people are being painted with broad brushes, look in a mirror, because you're quite the artist.

Someone is truly full of sh*t and it isn't me.

You say the bible contradicts itself, I sourced the verses it came from. Find yourself a bible online or off and look. If you don't, just concede the argument, because this all started by my saying, "Only the ignorant refuse to look at things while giving a critique" and you claiming you had looked. You're currently refusing to look. What does that say about this entire argument?

I'm not conceding anything to someone who is blinded by their own ignorance. Refusing to look at what? What argument? You don't have an argument.

When was Jesus born?
According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). Herod died in March of 4 B.C., so Jesus had to have been born BEFORE that time.


But . . .


According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This census took place in 6 AD and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.



After Jesus was born where did Mary, Jesus and Joseph go?
According to Matthew, Jesus was born in a house in Bethlehem. (Matthew 2:11) They immediately left in a panic to Egypt because an angel told them that Herod was going to try to kill Jesus. (Matthew 2:13) Afterwards, they are going to return to Bethlehem, but decide to go to Nazareth instead to avoid danger. (Matthew 2:22-23)


But . . .


According to Luke, Mary and Joseph were from Nazareth and went to Bethlehem only for a census. (Luke 2:4). Instead of being born in a house, Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room in an Inn. (Luke 2:7). After the birth, they waited only for Mary to go through ritual purification, whereupon they went to Jerusalem to sacrifice two birds. (Luke 2:22-24). After that, they went immediately home to Nazareth. (Luke 2:39)


Who was Joseph's father?
It was important to Luke and Matthew to establish that Jesus' bloodline went to King David, so that He would fulfill prophesy. Of course, since Joseph was not Jesus' father, any genealogy starting with Joseph seems somewhat pointless, but this didn't stop our imaginative authors. The only problem is: their family trees don't correspond.

"And JACOB begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus." (Matthew 1:16)


But . . .

"And Jesus being the son of Joseph, which was the son of HELI." (Luke 3:23)



Where was the "Sermon on the Mount" held?
While we commonly think of the sermon being held on a mountain (from its name alone), truly the New Testament is better than Conde Nast when it comes to choosing locations!

"And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...." (Matthew 5:1-2)


But . . .

"And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..." (Luke 6:17-20)



What were Jesus' last words on the cross before He died?
"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" [Psalm 22:1] ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." (Matt. 27:46-50)


But . . .

"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." (Luke 23:46)


But . . .

"When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." (John 19:30)



On the third day after Jesus' death, who first came to the tomb?
Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1)

But . . .

Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1)

But . . .

Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1)

But . . .

Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary, the mother of James, and other women (Luke 24:10)


What happened to Judas?
Matthew 27:5 states that he threw down his silver, ran from the temple, and hanged himself.


But . . .


Acts 1:16-19 states, however, that he bought some land with his money, and that he had a fall, causing him "to burst open in the middle" so that his "bowels gushed out. And it became known to all of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akaldama, that is, Field of Blood."



How are we saved?
"For by grace are we saved through faith...not of works" EPH 2:8-9.


But . . .

"...and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and
they were judged every man according to their works" REV 20:13.


But . . .

"Ye see then that by works a man is justified, not by faith only. For as
the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead
also" JAMES 2:26


When giving His disciples tips on how to accessorize their outfits:
When Jesus summons the twelve disciples to send them out to proclaim the kingdom of God, he lists the things the disciples should not take with them.

In Matthew 10:9-10 and Luke 9:3-5, a staff is included in the list of things not to take.

But . . .

In contradiction to Matthew and Luke, Mark 6:8 makes a specific exception - the disciples may take a staff.



Paul and his fabulous trip to Jerusalem:
Paul denies that he was involved in the persecution of Christians in Jerusalem. In fact, he claimed that it was three years after his conversion before he traveled to Jerusalem, at which point he met only Cephas and James, "and not any other apostles" (GAL 1:18-19)

But . . .

Luke, who wrote Acts, not only has Paul engaged in persecution in Judea, he has Paul going to Jerusalem immediately after his conversion, and there meeting all the apostles (ACTS 9:27).

Ummmm... God didn't make "gays" nor does he hate them.... Homosexuality is a choice, not something you're made with.... God doesn't hate anyone... He hates sin, not the person... Homosexuality is a sin... But the salvation of Jesus Christ is for all.

Ummmm... God didn't make "gays" nor does he hate them.... Homosexuality is a choice, not something you're made with.... God doesn't hate anyone... He hates sin, not the person... Homosexuality is a sin... But the salvation of Jesus Christ is for all.

No it isn't. Homosexuality is not a choice, like heterosexuality. I mean how the hell can people make statements that it is a choice?

Uh huh. And how do these contradictions change the nature of Christ's teachings? Does it matter when and where and how Jesus was born? No. Does it matter where He gave His teachings? No. What matters is why He was born and what His teachings are. In Chinese your actions could be safely classified as 本末倒置 - placing the unimportant facts first and entirely missing the point.

:rolleyes: This is a waste of a board. There's nothing wrong with gay people!

When was Jesus born?
According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). Herod died in March of 4 B.C., so Jesus had to have been born BEFORE that time.


But . . .


According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This census took place in 6 AD and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.



After Jesus was born where did Mary, Jesus and Joseph go?
According to Matthew, Jesus was born in a house in Bethlehem. (Matthew 2:11) They immediately left in a panic to Egypt because an angel told them that Herod was going to try to kill Jesus. (Matthew 2:13) Afterwards, they are going to return to Bethlehem, but decide to go to Nazareth instead to avoid danger. (Matthew 2:22-23)


But . . .


According to Luke, Mary and Joseph were from Nazareth and went to Bethlehem only for a census. (Luke 2:4). Instead of being born in a house, Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room in an Inn. (Luke 2:7). After the birth, they waited only for Mary to go through ritual purification, whereupon they went to Jerusalem to sacrifice two birds. (Luke 2:22-24). After that, they went immediately home to Nazareth. (Luke 2:39)


Who was Joseph's father?
It was important to Luke and Matthew to establish that Jesus' bloodline went to King David, so that He would fulfill prophesy. Of course, since Joseph was not Jesus' father, any genealogy starting with Joseph seems somewhat pointless, but this didn't stop our imaginative authors. The only problem is: their family trees don't correspond.

"And JACOB begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus." (Matthew 1:16)


But . . .

"And Jesus being the son of Joseph, which was the son of HELI." (Luke 3:23)



Where was the "Sermon on the Mount" held?
While we commonly think of the sermon being held on a mountain (from its name alone), truly the New Testament is better than Conde Nast when it comes to choosing locations!

"And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...." (Matthew 5:1-2)


But . . .

"And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..." (Luke 6:17-20)

THANK YOU. These are the kinds of things I look for when someone challenges any kind of religious text. Not "the bat is not a bird". I kind of find it funny that my point about the modern snow leopard not being related to the leopard and yet generally assumed/included in that group was overlooked and just spat over regarding that. The bat being included as an avian does not affect the flow of the religious script. When you take the whole of the cases in question like you have here, however, that's a whole other story. There's a fine line between just blindly slashing at something and picking at something with a fine-toothed comb. This is someone who knows their history, too.


I'd cover the others but, some are actually counterable and some are redundant. It's unnecessary. The point is, the ones above are the kinds of things I look for and actually appreciate seeing. Like, if you lived near me I'd bake you cookies or something.

It technically says that none of the plants had grown yet around when Adam popped up, but that's a petty gripe. The land may have produced vegetation in the first chapter, but vegetation includes things down to seeds. It also states that the animals are reformed. However, given God made them on one day, he can just as easily make them on another day. The Bible makes it look like sneezing. Or it could be a figurative representation for how he mystically drew them towards Adam, just like how the animals somehow knew to go to Noah's Ark.

How did you miss the completely different order of creation? The creation of humans and animals is completely different in each chapter.

Cthulhu: I generally don't see the two chapters as repeating themselves. I just find it a rolling introduction for what happens next. But genesis overall I take as a figurative scope. Considering the earth was formless and empty but supposedly had waters to hover over already in this vast sea of nothingness, the entire text reeks of figurative speech. But "it's all figurative" is a pretty lame copout, isn't it?

--And for the acidic Mesatecala's happiness: I've dated both genders, but found myself discontent with the opposite. I overall consider myself asexual, actually, as I have no interest in coupledom. My greatest interest is in my own gender, but I wouldn't completely rule out the aspect of the opposite gender given enough incentive. I'm "bi" under your terms, but with a heavy slant towards my own gender. Thank you.

Uh huh. And how do these contradictions change the nature of Christ's teachings? Does it matter when and where and how Jesus was born? No. Does it matter where He gave His teachings? No. What matters is why He was born and what His teachings are. In Chinese your actions could be safely classified as 本末倒置 - placing the unimportant facts first and entirely missing the point.

Insane man. Well mmm... I can talk further of the bullshit in the bible, all I am saying is that is is wrong to persecute gays and not those who eat shellfish or wear cotton/linen blends.

It is ridiculous to suggest that being gay is a sin anymore than eating shellfish as the bible says they are both abominations.

TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHICH BITS OF MOSAIC LAW YOU WILL FOLLOW IS FUCKED.

REMEMBER FOLLOWING "GOD's WORD" IS HARD, HATE IS EASY!

Further...Jesus *NEVER* taught homophonia opr anti-queer teachings

Find me a quote where JESUS said somthing against GAYS or ANAL SEX and I will be eternally gratified.

It is ridiculous to suggest that being gay is a sin anymore than eating shellfish as the bible says they are both abominations.

TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHICH BITS OF MOSAIC LAW YOU WILL FOLLOW IS FUCKED.

REMEMBER FOLLOWING "GOD's WORD" IS HARD, HATE IS EASY!

If you want me to find it, in the New Testament there is a reference where all foods are now considered "clean" and wholesome to eat. I believe it was John or Paul it was shown to, it'd take me a bit to find said reference due to said uncertainty. But I'm just pointing it out as a friendly reminder in case you've ever heard the fact before.

I did get mad... and I apologize for that. I'm not having a good day.

If you want me to find it, in the New Testament there is a reference where all foods are now considered "clean" and wholesome to eat. I believe it was John or Paul it was shown to, it'd take me a bit to find said reference due to said uncertainty. But I'm just pointing it out as a friendly reminder in case you've ever heard the fact before.

I appreciate the concept of the New Testament, however I am constantly astonded that people continue to propagate such archaic principles, to the best of my recollection there is nothing about repealing the fibers law, so I would simply out it down to hypocrisy for any christian to condemn gays on the basis of the bible

I did get mad... and I apologize for that. I'm not having a good day.

Neither am I. RL side, I'm facing "find 1200 dollars by Wednesday or be out on the street". I try to keep my aggression away from people though, but if it seeped out through this, sorry.

Apology accepted.

I appreciate the concept of the New Testament, however I am constantly astonded that people continue to propagate such archaic principles, to the best of my recollection there is nothing about repealing the fibers law, so I would simply out it down to hypocrisy for any christian to condemn gays on the basis of the bible

I just like to point out little things people miss; supposedly all food is up for grabs now.

Considering they've always talked about the sanctity of the marriage bed yet fight tooth and nail against gay marriage, it is astounding. Even in my christian days (albeit liberal christian) I supported the idea of "Well, if it's the marriage bed, why not let homosexuals do the whole chastity-until-marriage thing and get married, as opposed to banning their marriage?" -- funny little thing. I poke at ideas a lot. Of course, that was before I studied religion a lot, I was pretty young. And kind of biased.

I know this is childish and petty, but is there a Christian doctrine forbidding sentences that don't run on, or punctuation? Is the period really a symbol of the apple that led Eve astray, and thus unclean?


*giggle* I'd begun to notice that all the people who just popped in to say that God hates gays for their actions and not for their beings have trouble with simple words like 'you,' one which I learned before I even began attending school. OHMIGOSH! This must mean the forum is awash with 4 year olds!

I am pretty fab eh! How cool is that...I wonder if Jesus had an 'experimental' experience.

God doesn't hate gays. Where you got that information from is beyond me. Many people use the Old Testament against Christians - they twist and manipulate what it says, interpreting completely out of context. In the New Testament, it is obvious to those who have read it (i find it interesting that most people here make judgements about the Bible and Christianity when you haven't actually read it in its proper context. The reason you dont read it, or even want to, is because you dont want to have to be responsible for your actions. Jesus tells us our actions are our actions and can't be blamed on anyone else) that homosexuality is seen just as bad as greed, lust, theft, lying and so forth. The reason it is addressed so bluntly is because it has always been an issue and needed to be clarified - homosexuality is a sin just like any other disobedience to God. Passages that people interpret to mean that God hates gays simply mean that a homosexual fully aware of his/her actions and chooses to continue living this way is living in sin. We all live in sin and must seek forgiveness. Forgiveness for lying and greed, for example, is just as necessary as the need for forgiveness for homosexuality. Homosexuality IS NOT worse a sin in God's eyes than any other.

I would ask why you insist on petty attacks on my writing style, but it is of no consequence. Also, for the record the writing style of others on this board is less the reputable. The idea of "God hating gays" is vastly overplayed. Throughout Christian Doctrine, there is a thing called the "New Covenent". This idea was brought about by Jesus, showing the old laws and the old ways of the OT are now moot and that his laws are the final decision. This was referenced earlier, but I bring it about again. In the New Testament, Peter sees an angel of the Lord who offers him forbidden foods of the Jews. Peter declines, but the angel tells him to eat it, for the new laws are upon them. This shows a breaking with the old laws and an embracing of the new.
The idea of controlling of marriage is, to me, preposterous, arrogant, and absurd. However, the disagreement with the lifestyle of gays is perfectly acceptable. Why would anyone say differently?
- Brian Chut
Official Religious Emissary

Gayness pwns you.

I am pretty fab eh! How cool is that...I wonder if Jesus had an 'experimental' experience.

Woah.... Godly gay powers???

However, the disagreement with the lifestyle of gays is perfectly acceptable. Why would anyone say differently?

Why would anyone say differently, you ask? Maybe because we're not all as religiously indoctrinated and/or close-minded as you are?

It doesn't make sense, if God truly hats gay people, why did he make them so? :confused:

A. God doesn't hate gays.

B. Gays aren't fabulous. Far from it, in fact.

LMAO at the original post, then laughed harder as the inevitable crash ensued. :D

atheist: Doesn't His Holiness love all of His creatures?

christian: No. Jesus kills fags dead.

Classic NS.

God doesn't hate gays. Where you got that information from is beyond me. Many people use the Old Testament against Christians - they twist and manipulate what it says, interpreting completely out of context. In the New Testament, it is obvious to those who have read it (i find it interesting that most people here make judgements about the Bible and Christianity when you haven't actually read it in its proper context. The reason you dont read it, or even want to, is because you dont want to have to be responsible for your actions. Jesus tells us our actions are our actions and can't be blamed on anyone else) that homosexuality is seen just as bad as greed, lust, theft, lying and so forth. The reason it is addressed so bluntly is because it has always been an issue and needed to be clarified - homosexuality is a sin just like any other disobedience to God. Passages that people interpret to mean that God hates gays simply mean that a homosexual fully aware of his/her actions and chooses to continue living this way is living in sin. We all live in sin and must seek forgiveness. Forgiveness for lying and greed, for example, is just as necessary as the need for forgiveness for homosexuality. Homosexuality IS NOT worse a sin in God's eyes than any other.

Well put. :)

Why would anyone say differently, you ask? Maybe because we're not all as religiously indoctrinated and/or close-minded as you are?

You sound fairly close-minded yourself.

God doesn't hate gay people. He hates their sin. He hates all sin. Not just gay people's sin.

(ducking and running for cover as we speaK) :)

It doesn't make sense, if God truly hats gay people, why did he make them so? :confused:

God doesn't hat gay people, that's Gucci's job.

About homosexuality being a sin... only in Leviticus does it say that "lying with a man as you do a woman" is an "abomination".

Now, also in Leviticus does it say that eating pork and shellfish are sins, and that sitting where a menstruating woman sat makes you unclean, as does touching the skin of a pig. When Jesus came around, he made a new covenant, and said that all the old laws are outdated and should not be regarded anymore by his people (Christians).

Please feel free to disagree, but this is what it says in the Bible, and I have more where that came from.

God bless.

God doesn't hate gay people. He hates their sin. He hates all sin. Not just gay people's sin.

(ducking and running for cover as we speaK) :) Done more succinctly than any of us. :fluffle:

A. God doesn't hate gays.

B. Gays aren't fabulous. Far from it, in fact.
Sure they are ... all depends on your point of view

About homosexuality being a sin... only in Leviticus does it say that "lying with a man as you do a woman" is an "abomination".

God bless.

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Romans 1:26, 27. That's in the New Testament, by the way.

Some gay people are fabulous. Some aren't.

Some straight people are fabulous. Some aren't.

It's just the way it is.

Sure they are ... all depends on your point of view

They are to themselves, I'll grant you that. ;)

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Romans 1:26, 27. That's in the New Testament, by the way.

Can you define "unnatural", though? I would personally interepret this to mean that straight people were doing things with members of the same sex, and this is not natural for them, and is therefore sin, I agree.

It's like all the 12-year-old girls who say they're bisexual just to get their little boyfriends off nowadays... well, that's how I see it.

I don't have to argue it... genetic research in the field is already revealing it.

you know about jesus and lazarus, right?

it then follows that jesus was born with a serious birth defect.

hrmmmn.

which eye colours are birth defects?

Can you define "unnatural", though? I would personally interepret this to mean that straight people were doing things with members of the same sex, and this is not natural for them, and is therefore sin, I agree.

.

You're starting to sound like Bill Clinton now. "It all depends on what 'is' is." :p I think the meaning of the passage is quite clear. To try to justify yourself semantically may work here on earth, but I wouldn't count on it fooling God.

After dumping Adam & Eve out of Eden onto Earth, God realized that the Earth wasn't FABULOUS enough, so HE/SHE invented us gays to spruce the place up a bit.

:cool:

You sound fairly close-minded yourself.

If the guy I was quoting can't even understand how anyone could find disagreement with gay lifestyles to be unacceptable, then I don't see how he *couldn't* be close-minded or religiously indoctrinated. If I'm wrong, please tell me how.

You're starting to sound like Bill Clinton now. "It all depends on what 'is' is." :p I think the meaning of the passage is quite clear. To try to justify yourself semantically may work here on earth, but I wouldn't count on it fooling God.
That’s ok he is an awesome guy and will forgive me regardless

Until then I am going with my god given instinct on this one and making love to fabulous boys

I think arguing about wether its right or wrong is pointless. Its happens, its not going to go away, and theres nothing you can do about it.

They are people just like everyone else so why not let them live there lives like that want.

You're starting to sound like Bill Clinton now. "It all depends on what 'is' is." :p I think the meaning of the passage is quite clear. To try to justify yourself semantically may work here on earth, but I wouldn't count on it fooling God.

Alright, granted, my interpretation probably does sound a little (or a lot) hokey. But really, a lot of things were lost in English translation, and even changed to reflect translators' views. I would really love to be able to read the origninal scriptures, rather than reading the Bible through partially clouded eyes... though that doesn't seem plausible at all.

Male chromosome fetus = All fetal mammals, have a genetic sex, they are either XX or XY (their genetic sex). The fetus body has gonads and these gonads become (very early in the development of the fetus) either testes or ovaries.

To become a male, androgen must be present. H-Y antigen is supposed to be present if the fetus has a Y chromosome, but what if the mother is not able to produce it or not enough of it, or if her body’s timing is off in producing it when needed?

For genetically male fetuses (when the Y chromosome is present) the genetic development of the fetus calls out to the mother’s body to provide the protein called H-Y antigen, because this protein is needed, normally the protein is secreted very early on in development.

If it does not get secreted though, the theory goes that the ‘genetically’ male fetus body will still develop the gonads etc., but the fetus brain may not become ‘male,’ that it will not be imprinted with the necessary ‘maleness that comes form the presence of androgen.

Having the Y chromosome causes the body to be a boy, but the brain remains in the default ‘female’ mode because it was not ‘male’ imprinted by the androgen when it was required during the development faze. Thus, a person that will be more inclined to homosexual than another male fetus that was satisfied of the androgen requirement/protein.

presuming that this is valid, it explains transexuality and not homosexuality.

gay men come in all types....from the ultra feminine to the ultra masculine. one must remember that there's not just somebody taking it, there's somebody pumping it as well, and a lot of the time gay men enjoy both sexual positions. similarly, lesbians come in both male-hating butchy types and super girly britney spears types as well as an assortment of points in between.

Yes umm hasn't it been basically shown that homosexuality is caused by either a genetic trait, or a lack of a certain protein in the fetus o_O. Therefore its no one's faults but that damn sperm and their evil EVIL MEIOSIS, or its the evil women trying to whipe out man kind!!! GOD IS TRYING TO GET RID OF MEN!!! OMG!!!!

:D by the way i'm gay, so i can say it isnt a choice ;)

edit: and the theory saying its a girl in a boys body totally isn't true...... That only explains 1 in 10,000 men, which is the ratio of transexuals to heterosexuals. If you go around asking gay people if they want to be a women, many will say NOT IN A MILLION YEARS :P

I am sick and tired of the generalization of homosexual Fabulosity. I, a straight male, am absolutely fabulous! As a result, am often lumped in with the homosexual males. This really burns my britches. (Though they do not, nor have they ever flamed...) I hvae no issue with homosexuality, and have many gay friends (Some would say fabulously gay). Just because I have fashion sense, can dance, cook, sew, decorate, write poetry, sing, listen to show tunes and like the occasional drink with a little umbrella in it does not mean I am gay.
Pretty sure God hates me though...
I think god does not hate Gays, I think he hates Fabulous!
Oh the burden I bear...

Gays if they are men are just that men gays are not a new sex it is not like there are three sexes just two and some of those two decided to have sex with there own sex. And the statment that the bible does not refer to gays is just a gays response to being shone the truth.

there are actually four naturally occuring human sexes - men, women and two different kinds of hermaphrodites......men with both sex organs and no breasts and women with bothg sex organs and breasts.

you cannot argue that these are creations of god. so, the bible must have been a little less than comprehensive.

how many genders exist is another question as gender is mental and not physical. i may point out that many societies on earth consider there to be upwards of 15 or 20 possible gender characterizations.

presuming that this is valid, it explains transexuality and not homosexuality.

gay men come in all types....from the ultra feminine to the ultra masculine. one must remember that there's not just somebody taking it, there's somebody pumping it as well, and a lot of the time gay men enjoy both sexual positions. similarly, lesbians come in both male-hating butchy types and super girly britney spears types as well as an assortment of points in between.

Agreed.

Oh...And a previous post i read stating that there is no third gender. I take some issue with that. I know two true hermaphrodites. Call it a birth defect or whatever, they exist...
So who are they allowed to have sex with in order to escape God's omnipresent frown?
Just curious...

I am sick and tired of the generalization of homosexual Fabulosity. I, a straight male, am absolutely fabulous! As a result, am often lumped in with the homosexual males. This really burns my britches. (Though they do not, nor have they ever flamed...) I hvae no issue with homosexuality, and have many gay friends (Some would say fabulously gay). Just because I have fashion sense, can dance, cook, sew, decorate, write poetry, sing, listen to show tunes and like the occasional drink with a little umbrella in it does not mean I am gay.
Pretty sure God hates me though...
I think god does not hate Gays, I think he hates Fabulous!
Oh the burden I bear...

You're lucky to be naturally FABULOUS. I have to work at it.. ;)

I don't think God hates fabulous, I think God hates pretentious fabulousness.

Oh...And a previous post i read stating that there is no third gender. I take some issue with that. I know two true hermaphrodites. Call it a birth defect or whatever, they exist...
So who are they allowed to have sex with in order to escape God's omnipresent frown?
Just curious...

No one, I would assume, according to many people's interpretations... hermaphrodites are confined to celibacy, I guess. Though I really don't know anything on the subject...

You're lucky to be naturally FABULOUS. I have to work at it.. ;)

I don't think God hates fabulous, I think God hates pretentious fabulousness.
I can sense fabulous from a mile away...You my friend do not need to work at it at all.
Glad to hear from you.
Ash

What if gays hate God, is God allowed to hate gays back?
What about one gay hating God, can God then hate that gay?

What if gays hate me, can I hate gays?

No one, I would assume, according to many people's interpretations... hermaphrodites are confined to celibacy, I guess. Though I really don't know anything on the subject...
What a waste! All of that equipment, and nothing (Or noone) to do...
I suppose that anyone who would sleep with them would automatically be considered homosexual...So should they join a monestary or convent?

Nothing wrong with gay people in my opinion

What a waste! All of that equipment, and nothing (Or noone) to do...
I suppose that anyone who would sleep with them would automatically be considered homosexual...So should they join a monestary or convent?

Yes, exactly! n_n But then they'd probably be turned away because everyone seems to think they choose to be that way...

What if gays hate God, is God allowed to hate gays back?
What about one gay hating God, can God then hate that gay?

What if gays hate me, can I hate gays?

God can hate whoever he/she wants.
You can hate whoever you want.
And I can hate you for hating someone who hates you.
Then you can hate me for hating you for hating someone who hates you...
Then we can all get together and hate god for putting all of this annoying hate all over the place.
Doesn't sound like much fun though...
(Hands Hemmingsoft a pretty flower)
Don't hate the players, hate the game.

If the guy I was quoting can't even understand how anyone could find disagreement with gay lifestyles to be unacceptable, then I don't see how he *couldn't* be close-minded or religiously indoctrinated. If I'm wrong, please tell me how.

Because you obvioiusly can't see his point of view, namely, that disagreement in this area can exist. And in case you haven't noticed, there IS quite a bit of disagreement here.

I think god does not hate Gays, I think he hates Fabulous!
I couldn't agree more, Him being a jealous guy, and all that. I'm sure he's the bitchy,moody, artistic type (being the creator, you know). He probably doesn't like having His fabulosity challenged by the daring-dos in His creation.

Alright, granted, my interpretation probably does sound a little (or a lot) hokey. But really, a lot of things were lost in English translation, and even changed to reflect translators' views. I would really love to be able to read the origninal scriptures, rather than reading the Bible through partially clouded eyes... though that doesn't seem plausible at all.

I took New Testament Greek. Most English translations aren't that far off from it. My point, however, is that we all more or less know what the Bible teaches on morals, and whether or not we decide to obey those teachings is entirely up to us, although if there are consequences for disobeying, the responsibility is entirely our own.

That’s ok he is an awesome guy and will forgive me regardless

Until then I am going with my god given instinct on this one and making love to fabulous boys

Hey, I'm not the one you have to convince! I have heard, however, that forgiveness isn't given without true repentance. Food for thought. ;)

Hey, I'm not the one you have to convince! I have heard, however, that forgiveness isn't given without true repentance. Food for thought. ;)
That’s alright I heard he is understanding and loving and such … I am sure he will sit me down and have an honest discussion with me and we can make a totally informed decision as to my future

I mean any financial consultant will provide me with that courtesy I am sure god will afford me the same.

God loves humans
He however does not love sin
Lying with another of the same sex is sin according to the bible and it is therefore the action and not the person he is repulsed by though of course the person who committed the sin is responsible for his/her actions...
The book from which PopularFreedom got that piece of information also tells us that God is repulsed by the act of eating pig meat. However, God doesn't mind people owning slaves, as long as they're from neighbouring nations. Also you're allowed to brutally slaughter people who are from a different religion. It's all in the Good (?) Book.

Also keep in mind that God tends to change His opinion every now and then. That is, if we take the Bible literally, a book filled with contradictions and errors.

The book from which PopularFreedom got that piece of information also tells us that God is repulsed by the act of eating pig meat. However, God doesn't mind people owning slaves, as long as they're from neighbouring nations. Also you're allowed to brutally slaughter people who are from a different religion. It's all in the Good (?) Book.

Also keep in mind that God tends to change His opinion every now and then. That is, if we take the Bible literally, a book filled with contradictions and errors.

Silly you. We just don't understrand it properly yet....

That’s alright I heard he is understanding and loving and such … I am sure he will sit me down and have an honest discussion with me and we can make a totally informed decision as to my future

I mean any financial consultant will provide me with that courtesy I am sure god will afford me the same.

Like I said, I'm not the one you have to convince. I do believe, however, that the Bible is His way of informing us of the way he would prefer us to live our lives, and in this country, regardless of whether one believes in God or not, we all are more or less aware of what the Bible teaches on various subjects, even if we've never read the book!

You may think that God will cut you some slack, and, for all I know, he may, but he did say "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:13-14.) More food for thought. ;)

Like I said, I'm not the one you have to convince. I do believe, however, that the Bible is His way of informing us of the way he would prefer us to live our lives, and in this country, regardless of whether one believes in God or not, we all are more or less aware of what the Bible teaches on various subjects, even if we've never read the book!

You may think that God will cut you some slack, and, for all I know, he may, but he did say "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:13-14.) More food for thought. ;)
Naw it does not do it for me … the bible to me does not feel like gods word
I can hardly force myself to believe in something I find wrong

Naw it does not do it for me … the bible to me does not feel like gods word
I can hardly force myself to believe in something I find wrong

You'd better hope, for your sake, that you're right, then. :)

Silly you. We just don't understand it properly yet....
That is your answer to everything, right?