Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[shmogie]

Happily. Two of the most recent books, written by well qualified geologists are; " The Global Flood: Unlocking Earths Geologic History" John D. Morris. "The Rocks Don't Lie" David Montgomery

re Sodom and Gomorrah, A good overview of he archaelogical search is in the article in the Washington Post, 10/16/2015 titled " The Long Quest to Find the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah". A great article on the work of Steven Collins at Tall El Hamman can be found in the UK paper, "The Daily Mail" 12/18/15. Collins has worked at this site for 10 years. He has discovered a very large and sophisticated bronze age city, with thick walls, towers in the area where the city/s were thought to be, there is significant evidence of very fast abandonment. The archaeologist believes he has found the city/s. A number of Archaeologists agree with him. His work has been published in a number of journals, Of course there is criticism of his claims, in archaeology there always is. However the position held by some of the singularities, spoken in their deep knowledge, "there is absolutely no evidence", is like many of their proclamations, ludicrous nonesense

 

[shmogie]

Where did you get the mistaken idea that a sexual orientation such as homosexuality could be an act? Who one is attracted to is not a choice, and there are plenty of homosexual virgins.

Pedophiles say their sexual orientation is attraction to children. They are not imprisoned for believing this, they are imprisoned for molesting children, the physical act. A person who believes they were born a homosexual, attracted to the same sex, could go a lifetime without committing the physical act. The Biblical verses would not apply to them. I might see a Ferrari with the keys in it, and think what fun I could have if I got in it and drove off. The law doesn';t care what I think, if I don't take the car. The only caveat is that Christ made it clear that obsessive thought about sex is wrong for anyone

 

[johnhanks]

I never said it supported my case, I made no case.

Post 4551: "Actually, according to the Biblical Archaeology Review, the sites for Sodom and Gomorrah have been found. There is evidence of a global flood, many Christian and Jewish geologists make very detailed, rational and reasonable hypotheses on the matter. It has been clearly established by secular science that every human on the face of the earth descended from one man and one woman, clear genetic proof, that until it is declared in error, if ever, is true." This sounds very much like someone making a case, and as it was in direct response to Shadow Wolf's #4547 ("there is very little evidence to support Biblical claims of history") it is reasonably clear what the case was. Your attempts to bluster your way out of it now are as unconvincing as they are undignified.

 

[sojourner]

Pedophiles say their sexual orientation is attraction to children. They are not imprisoned for believing this, they are imprisoned for molesting children, the physical act. A person who believes they were born a homosexual, attracted to the same sex, could go a lifetime without committing the physical act. The Biblical verses would not apply to them. I might see a Ferrari with the keys in it, and think what fun I could have if I got in it and drove off. The law doesn';t care what I think, if I don't take the car. The only caveat is that Christ made it clear that obsessive thought about sex is wrong for anyone

Pedophilia is, indeed an orientation. Having sex with underage people is illegal, because underage people 1) can't consent, and 2) are not yet physically and/or emotionally ready for those kinds of relationships. IOW, those kinds of relationships are abusive to the minor in question. However, in cases of adult, consensual relationships, homosexuality is not abusive, and can be said to be beneficial. So, how do the two equate, again?

The only case you have is that "the bible says so." Which is ridiculous, since, according to the bible, guys married (multiple) underage girls on a routine basis. The whole "biblical morality" thing is nonsense.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Even without the knowledge no supporter of intelligent design would believe that evolutionists would use the names because they believed these ancestors were the literal Adam and Eve

That makes no sense. First, there are no "evolutionist." No more than there are "gravitationists," or "germists," or "plate tectonicists," or "dopplerists," or "magnetists." Second, it makes no sense as to claim they wouldn't have chosen these commonly known and easily understood names just because they are contradictory to their views. Naming cosmic bodies after Greek and Roman deities used to be the trend even though the ones doing the naming did not themselves believe in the Greek or Roman mythos.

You people are the best I have ever seen at creating something from nothing because you want so badly for it to be the case. I have named the cabal, "the Singularities"

Evolution does not make such a claim. It deals with how life has changed during its existence, while natural selection gives us a concept for how it came to be in its current state. Evolution has nothing to do with biogenesis, which is how life began, and neither of those have anything to do with how the universe came into existence. And because you are apparently unaware of this, many religious people of many different religions, including Christianity, do not dismiss evolution. They accept it as readily as gravity. But they do not believe the universe came from nothing.

 

[shmogie]

Post 4551: "Actually, according to the Biblical Archaeology Review, the sites for Sodom and Gomorrah have been found. There is evidence of a global flood, many Christian and Jewish geologists make very detailed, rational and reasonable hypotheses on the matter. It has been clearly established by secular science that every human on the face of the earth descended from one man and one woman, clear genetic proof, that until it is declared in error, if ever, is true." This sounds very much like someone making a case, and as it was in direct response to Shadow Wolf's #4547 ("there is very little evidence to support Biblical claims of history") it is reasonably clear what the case was. Your attempts to bluster your way out of it now are as unconvincing as they are undignified.

Then pound sand, it is irrelevant to me what you think. I deal with the exact literal meaning of words as in the law, which is my area of expertise, bluster is a stupid word to use. Bluster is a manner a person uses, a physical manner. You infer from words that do not say what you infer............... "This sounds very much like" which is BS. What is undignified is the stupid game of gotcha" you and the rest of the singularities play, stupid and childish

 

[sojourner]

Then pound sand, it is irrelevant to me what you think. I deal with the exact literal meaning of words as in the law, which is my area of expertise, bluster is a stupid word to use. Bluster is a manner a person uses, a physical manner. You infer from words that do not say what you infer............... "This sounds very much like" which is BS. What is undignified is the stupid game of gotcha" you and the rest of the singularities play, stupid and childish

Problem is: he DID "gotcha." And one whose "area of expertise" is law should know and acknowledg that fact, instead of trying to shift blame.

 

[shmogie]

That makes no sense. First, there are no "evolutionist." No more than there are "gravitationists," or "germists," or "plate tectonicists," or "dopplerists," or "magnetists." Second, it makes no sense as to claim they wouldn't have chosen these commonly known and easily understood names just because they are contradictory to their views. Naming cosmic bodies after Greek and Roman deities used to be the trend even though the ones doing the naming did not themselves believe in the Greek or Roman mythos.

Evolution does not make such a claim. It deals with how life has changed during its existence, while natural selection gives us a concept for how it came to be in its current state. Evolution has nothing to do with biogenesis, which is how life began, and neither of those have anything to do with how the universe came into existence. And because you are apparently unaware of this, many religious people of many different religions, including Christianity, do not dismiss evolution. They accept it as readily as gravity. But they do not believe the universe came from nothing.

Here we go again., Yes, there are evolutionists, macro and micro, I am a micro evolutionist. I didn';t say they wouldn't use the names, I said they wouldn't use the names as a literal confirmation of the Bible story. What claim are you speaking of ? I know of no macro evolutionist who does not believe that life began by the spontaneous generation of life from inert materials, and that these earliest life forms were the foundation of all life through the evolution process. The leading cosmological theory, the big bang, postulates the rapid expansion of energy was proceeded by a singularity, one that cannot be identified because the laws of physics cannot be applied to it. Therefore, the alleged singularity is a guess, nothing more. Physics can only identify the bang, not the bomb

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, there are evolutionists, macro and micro,

Those are both evolution, and did you not see the part of my post showing that we do not attach this "ist" to other scientific theories? This term, evolutionist, it does not even exist in a scientific lexicon. It didn't even exist until Conservative Christians were trying to dismiss evolution as "just a theory," and they attached the "ists" in order to make evolution look more like a belief. But that suffix is used for not one other single scientific theory.

I know of no macro evolutionist who does not believe that life began by the spontaneous generation

Spontaneous generation was disproven a long time ago (so if you know anyone who does believe in it, they are very wrong), and I just explained to you that evolution and biogenesis are two totally different things. I even explained the difference. I also just explained to you that even many religious people accept the fact of evolution, both macro and micro (a distinction that is really only ever emphasized by those who are opposed to evolution).

The leading cosmological theory, the big bang, postulates the rapid expansion of energy was proceeded by a singularity, one that cannot be identified because the laws of physics cannot be applied to it.

The part I highlighted is not true. And the Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. It isn't even closely related to it like biogenesis.

Physics can only identify the bang, not the bomb

Probably because there is no bomb according to the theory.

 

[johnhanks]

Then pound sand, it is irrelevant to me what you think.

So irrelevant you feel compelled to post yet another self-exoneration.

I deal with the exact literal meaning of words as in the law, which is my area of expertise ... You infer from words that do not say what you infer

So let's deal with the exact literal meaning of these words:

• the sites for Sodom and Gomorrah have been found
• there is evidence of a global flood
• It has been clearly established by secular science that every human on the face of the earth descended from one man and one woman

Now, I infer from these words that you believe the sites for Sodom and Gomorrah have been found, that there is evidence of a global flood, and that every human on the face of the earth descended from one man and one woman; and as all of this was written as direct rebuttal of another poster's "there is very little evidence to support Biblical claims of history", I infer that you believe in - were, indeed, making a case for - the existence of such evidence. What is puzzling is that you are now so anxious to deny that you were making any such case.

............... "This sounds very much like" which is BS. What is undignified is the stupid game of gotcha" you and the rest of the singularities play, stupid and childish

My. That's all of the toys, all of the way out of the pram.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

another poster's "there is very little evidence to support Biblical claims of history",

I suppose, for the sake of clarity and not having that twisted around, by "very little evidence," I mean we can't dismiss everything in the Bible. We know many of the places such as Rome and Babylon certainly existed, we know there was a Ceasar and the Jews were enslaved by a bunch of different people, but there is much of the Bible that has no evidence at all. Even with things such as the Exodus, in which we would expect to find the remains of soldiers and chariots in the Red Sea had it happened, but we don't find this. The Bible claims all the worlds languages originated from one single point and time in our history, but the facts we have do not support such a hypothesis. We've found physical evidence of the Minoan eruption, and have records in Egypt and China that may even be referencing the event, but we've found nothing of a global flood. We've found evidence of severe flooding in the Middle East during ancient times, but we've not seen anything that indicates that a truly global flood happened.

 

[shmogie]

So irrelevant you feel compelled to post yet another self-exoneration.
So let's deal with the exact literal meaning of these words:

• the sites for Sodom and Gomorrah have been found
• there is evidence of a global flood
• It has been clearly established by secular science that every human on the face of the earth descended from one man and one woman

Now, I infer from these words that you believe the sites for Sodom and Gomorrah have been found, that there is evidence of a global flood, and that every human on the face of the earth descended from one man and one woman; and as all of this was written as direct rebuttal of another poster's "there is very little evidence to support Biblical claims of history", I infer that you believe in - were, indeed, making a case for - the existence of such evidence. What is puzzling is that you are now so anxious to deny that you were making any such case.
My. That's all of the toys, all of the way out of the pram.

You quoted wrongly, go back and look, the sites of Sodom and Gomorrah MAY have been found, there IS evidence of a global flood. Yes, as I understood the hypothetical genetic argument humanity can be traced back to a male and female. I even asked you to clarify the issue for me, since you are more knowledgeable on the matter than me. You didn't respond, instead you chose this path. The whole thing was in response to a question about language. If humanity shares a common female ancestor, it is reasonable to INFER, that her descendants, probably to the F1 - F3 generations at least,shared a common language. The context and the inference

 

[shmogie]

I suppose, for the sake of clarity and not having that twisted around, by "very little evidence," I mean we can't dismiss everything in the Bible. We know many of the places such as Rome and Babylon certainly existed, we know there was a Ceasar and the Jews were enslaved by a bunch of different people, but there is much of the Bible that has no evidence at all. Even with things such as the Exodus, in which we would expect to find the remains of soldiers and chariots in the Red Sea had it happened, but we don't find this. The Bible claims all the worlds languages originated from one single point and time in our history, but the facts we have do not support such a hypothesis. We've found physical evidence of the Minoan eruption, and have records in Egypt and China that may even be referencing the event, but we've found nothing of a global flood. We've found evidence of severe flooding in the Middle East during ancient times, but we've not seen anything that indicates that a truly global flood happened.

You keep referring to we, do you have a little person in your pocket, or are you an archaeologist ? Otherwise a reasonable response

 

[viole]

Well, Jesus taught to not throw stones, lest you have no sin. Since we are all fallible, would stand to reason He felt no one is in a position to condemn anyone to death. People do interpret Scripture as they wish...sometimes, for bad.

Well, even though I think that sentence was a late addition, i always wondered why He did not initiate the stoning party. Being without sin. Allegedly. i ask because it does not sound like it is wrong to stone adulterers to death. It is perfectly admissible, under the sole premise that you are without sins.

Of course, the logical consequence is that death sentences are a Christian no go. In general.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Here we go again., Yes, there are evolutionists, macro and micro, I am a micro evolutionist. I didn';t say they wouldn't use the names, I said they wouldn't use the names as a literal confirmation of the Bible story. What claim are you speaking of ? I know of no macro evolutionist who does not believe that life began by the spontaneous generation of life from inert materials, and that these earliest life forms were the foundation of all life through the evolution process. The leading cosmological theory, the big bang, postulates the rapid expansion of energy was proceeded by a singularity, one that cannot be identified because the laws of physics cannot be applied to it. Therefore, the alleged singularity is a guess, nothing more. Physics can only identify the bang, not the bomb

I think the naming "micro" vs. "macro" evolutionists quantifies in reality the knowledge they possess about the theory.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shmogie]

I suppose, for the sake of clarity and not having that twisted around, by "very little evidence," I mean we can't dismiss everything in the Bible. We know many of the places such as Rome and Babylon certainly existed, we know there was a Ceasar and the Jews were enslaved by a bunch of different people, but there is much of the Bible that has no evidence at all. Even with things such as the Exodus, in which we would expect to find the remains of soldiers and chariots in the Red Sea had it happened, but we don't find this. The Bible claims all the worlds languages originated from one single point and time in our history, but the facts we have do not support such a hypothesis. We've found physical evidence of the Minoan eruption, and have records in Egypt and China that may even be referencing the event, but we've found nothing of a global flood. We've found evidence of severe flooding in the Middle East during ancient times, but we've not seen anything that indicates that a truly global flood happened.

See post 4643

 

[shmogie]

So irrelevant you feel compelled to post yet another self-exoneration.
So let's deal with the exact literal meaning of these words:

• the sites for Sodom and Gomorrah have been found
• there is evidence of a global flood
• It has been clearly established by secular science that every human on the face of the earth descended from one man and one woman

Now, I infer from these words that you believe the sites for Sodom and Gomorrah have been found, that there is evidence of a global flood, and that every human on the face of the earth descended from one man and one woman; and as all of this was written as direct rebuttal of another poster's "there is very little evidence to support Biblical claims of history", I infer that you believe in - were, indeed, making a case for - the existence of such evidence. What is puzzling is that you are now so anxious to deny that you were making any such case.
My. That's all of the toys, all of the way out of the pram.

Post #4643

 

[shmogie]

Well, even though I think that sentence was a late addition, i always wondered why He did not initiate the stoning party. Being without sin. Allegedly. i ask because it does not sound like it is wrong to stone adulterers to death. It is perfectly admissible, under the sole premise that you are without sins.

Of course, the logical consequence is that death sentences are a Christian no go. In general.

Ciao

- viole

Really, why do you believe death sentences are a "no go" with Christians in general ?

 

[shmogie]

I suppose, for the sake of clarity and not having that twisted around, by "very little evidence," I mean we can't dismiss everything in the Bible. We know many of the places such as Rome and Babylon certainly existed, we know there was a Ceasar and the Jews were enslaved by a bunch of different people, but there is much of the Bible that has no evidence at all. Even with things such as the Exodus, in which we would expect to find the remains of soldiers and chariots in the Red Sea had it happened, but we don't find this. The Bible claims all the worlds languages originated from one single point and time in our history, but the facts we have do not support such a hypothesis. We've found physical evidence of the Minoan eruption, and have records in Egypt and China that may even be referencing the event, but we've found nothing of a global flood. We've found evidence of severe flooding in the Middle East during ancient times, but we've not seen anything that indicates that a truly global flood happened.

see post #4643

 

[viole]

Really, why do you believe death sentences are a "no go" with Christians in general ?

Because I make the assumption that there are no extant Chrstians who are sin free.

Ciao

- viole