Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[sojourner]

I didn't say that what ever disability or disease the God causes makes a person immoral.

Choosing what God doesn't want makes it immoral.

People don't choose homosexuality.

 

[sojourner]

re the ark,


No, not quite. They were born unable to reproduce. God is no more responsible for that than someone born with MS, asthma, or a shriveled leg. We are back to the issue that will never be resolved, or has been resolved in some peoples minds, wrongly. At the risk of hearing the shrieking, name calling, and indignation, here we go. Homosexuality is an act, that is contrary to the design and function of males and females. Regardless of what is in someones mind, can they refrain from an act ? yes. There is your answer, yours to accept or reject as you choose, the choice is completely yours. As the young people of today say, it is what it is. As we said when I was young, different strokes for different folks. Everyone is perfectly free. If the woods are dark and scary, or just smell bad to you, go around

No, homosexuality is an orientation.

 

[leibowde84]

I din't say they were, I simply said they used the two names

So, you admit that the use of the name has nothing to do with your argument?

 

[shmogie]

So, you admit that the use of the name has nothing to do with your argument?

It is called irony

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is called irony

It's not called irony. It's called you being wrong, you trying to make a claim that bends, twists, and distorts a scientific claim into something that fits into your religious view, even though this claim does not at all back up, support, or verify your religious claim. And when called out on it, you dismiss it as irony?

 

[leibowde84]

It is called irony

How so?

 

[SkepticThinker]

re the ark,


No, not quite. They were born unable to reproduce. God is no more responsible for that than someone born with MS, asthma, or a shriveled leg. We are back to the issue that will never be resolved, or has been resolved in some peoples minds, wrongly. At the risk of hearing the shrieking, name calling, and indignation, here we go. Homosexuality is an act, that is contrary to the design and function of males and females. Regardless of what is in someones mind, can they refrain from an act ? yes. There is your answer, yours to accept or reject as you choose, the choice is completely yours. As the young people of today say, it is what it is. As we said when I was young, different strokes for different folks. Everyone is perfectly free. If the woods are dark and scary, or just smell bad to you, go around

You can refrain from the "act" but you'll still be gay, since homosexuality itself is a sexual orientation and not an act.

 

[johnhanks]

Homosexuals can't multiply when God commanded man to multiply, replenish the earth, and subdue it.

Therefore it is immoral.

Monks and nuns are the immoralest of all, then, aren't they?

 

[JoStories]

You say, "it has not, it has not, it has not" You are simply in error, you are wrong

So are you. Shadow is correct that there is no evidence for a worldwide flood anywhere. Nor has anyone found Sodom, nor can we be traced to two people.

 

[JoStories]

God made them infertile but it is still immoral as God intended male & female to reproduce.

So God made them immoral?? Do you have any idea how ridiculous this sounds?

 

[JoStories]

I didn't say that what ever disability or disease the God causes makes a person immoral.

Choosing what God doesn't want makes it immoral.

Yes, actually, you did. This is what you stated:

God made them infertile but it is still immoral as God intended male & female to reproduce

God made them infertile despite that being immoral. What don't you see about what you wrote?

 

[shmogie]

So are you. Shadow is correct that there is no evidence for a worldwide flood anywhere. Nor has anyone found Sodom, nor can we be traced to two people.

Yeah, right. as hitler said , tell a lie enough times, people start to believe it. You have convinced yourself of the lies. enjoy

 

[shmogie]

It's not called irony. It's called you being wrong, you trying to make a claim that bends, twists, and distorts a scientific claim into something that fits into your religious view, even though this claim does not at all back up, support, or verify your religious claim. And when called out on it, you dismiss it as irony?

Really? I simply stated what the science said. I made no religious claim, you have though. I simply stated what the geneticists have said. How can you "call me out" on a true statement ? You can't" call me out" on what you THINK I said, connections you THINK I made. Truly you should be calling yourself out. Irony ? Oh yes, look

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Really? I simply stated what the science said. I made no religious claim, you have though. I simply stated what the geneticists have said. How can you "call me out" on a true statement ? You can't" call me out" on what you THINK I said, connections you THINK I made. Truly you should be calling yourself out. Irony ? Oh yes, look

You took the scientific "Adam and Eve," and misrepresented it as a religious claim of a literal Adam and Eve who lived together and are the first two human beings. But the reality is these two didn't even live during the same time period, and the "Adam and Eve" is nothing more than an abstract idea to convey the idea that all living people today can ultimately trace their lineage back to this Adam, or, as they call him "y-chromosome Adam," who lived about 60,000 years ago, and "mitochondrial Eve," who lived about 100,000 years ago,

 

[shmogie]

You took the scientific "Adam and Eve," and misrepresented it as a religious claim of a literal Adam and Eve who lived together and are the first two human beings. But the reality is these two didn't even live during the same time period, and the "Adam and Eve" is nothing more than an abstract idea to convey the idea that all living people today can ultimately trace their lineage back to this Adam, or, as they call him "y-chromosome Adam," who lived about 60,000 years ago, and "mitochondrial Eve," who lived about 100,000 years ago,

I didn't misrepresent anything, do you have trouble reading ? I made no religious claim. 60,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago, were you there when these two are alleged to have lived ? Are genetic markers like tree rings, you can just count them up, and they give you the number of years ago Adam and Eve lived ( once again, to try and get it through somehow to you) I didn't choose the names, for whatever reason the geneticists did. I misrepresented nothing, I simply stated the fact, READ slowly, maybe then you won't be compelled to make stuff up.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I didn't misrepresent anything, do you have trouble reading ? I made no religious claim. 60,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago, were you there when these two are alleged to have lived ? Are genetic markers like tree rings, you can just count them up, and they give you the number of years ago Adam and Eve lived ( once again, to try and get it through somehow to you) I didn't choose the names, for whatever reason the geneticists did. I misrepresented nothing, I simply stated the fact, READ slowly, maybe then you won't be compelled to make stuff up.

You are the one who tried to say this "one man one woman" thing is true, and you construed it as a religious argument, along with trying to say there is evidence of a global flood, and that Sodom and Gomorrah have been found. You said everyone descended from the same one man and one woman, and went on about them being called "Adam and Eve," as if that is actually relevant. It's just as relevant to the claim as the Australopithecus afarensis fossil being named "Lucy." And it is a misrepresentation because the scientific claim is that everyone alive can trace their lineage back to this "Adam and Eve," not that they are the first or there were any before them. Scientifically, it makes no sense to claim those two "established" humans as we know there were many hominis in existence for at least two million years. But we can't trace our lineage back that far - we can only trace it back with the y-chromosome about 60,000 years and with mitochondrial DNA about 100,000 years.
That is how "secular scientists" approach it, and why trying to pass it off as "proof of one-man and one-woman" fails, especially when it's attached to other religious mythos that have no evidence of ever happening.

 

[leibowde84]

I didn't misrepresent anything, do you have trouble reading ? I made no religious claim. 60,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago, were you there when these two are alleged to have lived ? Are genetic markers like tree rings, you can just count them up, and they give you the number of years ago Adam and Eve lived ( once again, to try and get it through somehow to you) I didn't choose the names, for whatever reason the geneticists did. I misrepresented nothing, I simply stated the fact, READ slowly, maybe then you won't be compelled to make stuff up.

Why does it matter what they were named when it was made explicitly clear that no connection could be made between these two early humans and the biblical Adam and Eve? I'm still trying to figure out why you mentioned the name in the first place. Can you explain?

 

[shmogie]

You are the one who tried to say this "one man one woman" thing is true, and you construed it as a religious argument, along with trying to say there is evidence of a global flood, and that Sodom and Gomorrah have been found. You said everyone descended from the same one man and one woman, and went on about them being called "Adam and Eve," as if that is actually relevant. It's just as relevant to the claim as the Australopithecus afarensis fossil being named "Lucy." And it is a misrepresentation because the scientific claim is that everyone alive can trace their lineage back to this "Adam and Eve," not that they are the first or there were any before them. Scientifically, it makes no sense to claim those two "established" humans as we know there were many hominis in existence for at least two million years. But we can't trace our lineage back that far - we can only trace it back with the y-chromosome about 60,000 years and with mitochondrial DNA about 100,000 years.
That is how "secular scientists" approach it, and why trying to pass it off as "proof of one-man and one-woman" fails, especially when it's attached to other religious mythos that have no evidence of ever happening.

I think you have a comprehension disability. There is evidence of a global flood, books by geologists have been written on the matter, According to a research paper, published in a peer reviewed journal, The cities have likely been found, To Adam and Eve, I simply said geneticists have come to the conclusion that humans can be traced back to them, which is true. I said nothing else, period. Since you are incapable of understanding irony, the irony is the names they selected. Years, and years, and years, guesses, nothing more. Lucy is a partial skull said to represent an entire species............................... Don't respond on this issue, I am done with your constant sniveling whining misrepresentations, you cant grasp the simple words that combine to make a simple combination without adding your own meaning above and beyond the words.

Why does it matter what they were named when it was made explicitly clear that no connection could be made between these two early humans and the biblical Adam and Eve? I'm still trying to figure out why you mentioned the name in the first place. Can you explain?

Very simple, I find it ironic

 

[leibowde84]

I think you have a comprehension disability. There is evidence of a global flood, books by geologists have been written on the matter, According to a research paper, published in a peer reviewed journal, The cities have likely been found, To Adam and Eve, I simply said geneticists have come to the conclusion that humans can be traced back to them, which is true. I said nothing else, period. Since you are incapable of understanding irony, the irony is the names they selected. Years, and years, and years, guesses, nothing more. Lucy is a partial skull said to represent an entire species............................... Don't respond on this issue, I am done with your constant sniveling whining misrepresentations, you cant grasp the simple words that combine to make a simple combination without adding your own meaning above and beyond the words.

Very simple, I find it ironic

How is it ironic?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Findings can be criticized, and usually are that doesn't mean they are in error. If you are interested in some specific geology books that refute your assertion that there is no evidence for a global flood, I would be happy to give you a reading list. One man, one woman has been proven., It doesn;'t inherently disprove the Bible, either., Evidence here, evidence there, this discipline, that discipline, leads to a reasonable conclusion. Chronic denial leads to conclusions too, especially when you have programmed yourself that it must always be employed

Did they have "Welcome to Sodom and Gomorrah" signs? You need the names before you can conclusively prove it.

Homosexuals can't multiply when God commanded man to multiply, replenish the earth, and subdue it.

Then why aren't we abolishing the civil rights of infertile people?

I believe in obeying God. I don't believe in thinking about what God says and doing the opposite of what he says.

This is as close as we're going to get with Jesus and gays:
Matthew 19

12For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Do you believe in Jesus? Does this sound like he is against them? He's telling you to be cool with these people, whether they made themeselves that way or not.