Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[viole]

Goodness,. I clearly stated I used the term singularities as a name for the members of the cabal posting on this thread, a joke. Cosmology has not rejected the term when referring to the center of a black hole or the alleged state before the bang. I stated that you and your pals, the singularities, and your views on evolution and the spontaneous generation of life, were all the same, not a cosmological singularity. Absolutely, my approach to religion is static and non changing, no problem there, data is data, is data, unless it leads to conclusive proofs. Yes, the big bang has been challenged, the steady staters and the closed universe believers still exist, but the bang is still the overwhelming predominant theory. Many many millions hold views exactly like mine, as do many biologists, and geneticists. Science is not the final arbiter of reality, it is one, along with philosophy and theology and other disciplines. And unlike some who pretend otherwise, it is not a single monolithic support for any view, it is malleable and sometimes fractured. I suggest your view on Darwin and his theory is ignorant, meaning lacking information. There are a plethora of books and papers written by highly educated and qualified scientists that explore many failings and shortcomings of the theory based upon sound scientific principle. I am willing to bet you have made no effort to explore these. Your very own Richard Dawkins has expressed discomfort with it. Science, as practiced by many, is as dogmatic as any religion, as are their conclusions.

Look, you do not need a lot to see evolution as being true. Just look in the face of a gorilla, and you will see evolution staring you in the eyes.

Unless the creator of man is so fond of apes to make creatures in His image, and His own son, look so suspiciously similar to them to be actually classified as (great) apes themselves.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Well of course I agree, he was making his point quite clearly, we are all sinners. Does that mean sin is an acceptable state to live in ?, no. You must understand the atonement and sanctification for the reason for the no. Further, habitual, cherished, continually practiced sin is never acceptable. He did say, "go and sin no more"

That has nothing to do with my point. If Jesus meant we are all sinners, then he also meant that nobody should throw the first stone. And therefore no stones at all.

What I asked is: do you agree with Jesus that only people without sin should throw the first stone? If you do, but accept that this can be overruled when civil law is present, do you agree that civil law can be different, albeit still morally acceptable, from Jesus law?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And the problem with that is.....?

Ciao

- viole

It proves whales are the smart ones for getting away from this land crap. Their ancestors saw how bad the land is, dove back in, and didn't come back.

Unless the creator of man is so fond of apes to make creatures in His image, and His own son, look so suspiciously similar to them to be actually classified as (great) apes themselves.

There is also our internal structure. Funny that it looks nearly identical to that of a pigs, and some, such as horses and pigs, have organs that are alike enough that they can be transplanted into us. And once you consider that we can process some sunlight into vitamin D, and that we have a bit of similar DNA in us as some plants, to me it screams that we all life on Earth shares a common ancestor.

 

[shmogie]

That has nothing to do with my point. If Jesus meant we are all sinners, then he also meant that nobody should throw the first stone. And therefore no stones at all.

What I asked is: do you agree with Jesus that only people without sin should throw the first stone? If you do, but accept that this can be overruled when civil law is present, do you agree that civil law can be different, albeit still morally acceptable, from Jesus law?

Ciao

- viole

Civil law may or may not be moral when compared to the law of Christ, which is the definition of morality. Civil law is to be obeyed, provided it does not conflict with a moral law. If it does, one must agree to the moral law and reject the civil law. The civil law does not define morality. It defines a set of laws designed to enable society to function, allegedly. As an example, abortion past the first trimester of pregnancy may be protected by the civil law in some jurisdictions,, but morally, I view it as murder. Therefore, if I were a healthcare provider I would not perform an act of murder, regardless of what the civil law said. To take it even further, civil law may legally accept the murder of an innocent child, but protect the life of a convicted first degree murderer. The moral law protects the innocent child, and does not protect the murderer from capital punishment, if that is what the civil law prescribes.

 

[shmogie]

Look, you do not need a lot to see evolution as being true. Just look in the face of a gorilla, and you will see evolution staring you in the eyes.

Unless the creator of man is so fond of apes to make creatures in His image, and His own son, look so suspiciously similar to them to be actually classified as (great) apes themselves.

Ciao

- viole

Well, a gorilla is a gorilla, it is not a human. If you see a human, because it has similar physical design, so be it., Where are the ape like creatures in the intermediary stages, or just about human. They don't exist. Yes I know, part of an ancient skeleton here, part of a skull there, that lived " hundreds of thousands of years ago" comprise the basis for the neat progressive drawings of creatures slowly becoming human., However, the drawings are fantasy, most of those creatures might be represented by a single jaw bone, or nothing at all. They may have been a species of ape now extinct. There are SERIOUS flaws in the theory of evolution (macro), pointed out by hundreds of very qualified scientists, some who do not accept intelligent design, are atheists, but honest about what they see. The great American naturalist and author, who passed away a few years ago ( sorry I just don't remember his name) was one of these. He saw the flaws, and said he was "very worried" about them

 

[shmogie]

And the problem with that is.....?

Ciao

- viole

It doesn't tweak evolutionists as much as cats turning to dogs does. It begs the question, why did they have to return to the sea, they got too fat ? They are mammals, they share mammal traits, including pelvic bone structure. That doesn';t mean they were walking around on land. Dolphins are small mammals, they didn't get too fat, why did they quit their earthly treks and jump back into the sea ? If there is a basic design for mammals, and they were created as mammals to live in the sea, there was no need for them to jump out, then "millions of years later" jump back in

 

[shmogie]

I've already pointed out to you (and I see another poster did as well) that the version of spontaneous generation that Aristotle proposed (where fully formed organisms arise from nonliving matter), was discarded over a century ago, and is not at all what we are talking about in any current discussion of abiogenesis, biogenesis or evolution.

You may have pointed it out, regardless, Aristotle believed combinations of mud and water and dust combined to form living creatures. you believe water and minerals and chemicals life combined to form living whatever's., Same idea, same process, same result. A rose by any other name may still stink.

 

[InChrist]

It proves whales are the smart ones for getting away from this land crap. Their ancestors saw how bad the land is, dove back in, and didn't come back.

There is also our internal structure. Funny that it looks nearly identical to that of a pigs, and some, such as horses and pigs, have organs that are alike enough that they can be transplanted into us. And once you consider that we can process some sunlight into vitamin D, and that we have a bit of similar DNA in us as some plants, to me it screams that we all life on Earth shares a common ancestor.

Or that all share one Creator in common.

 

[shmogie]

Or that all share one Creator in common.

If a basic design works, why not stay with it, ?

 

[shmogie]

You may have pointed it out, regardless, Aristotle believed combinations of mud and water and dust combined to form living creatures. you believe water and minerals and chemicals life combined to form living whatever's., Same idea, same process, same result. A rose by any other name may still stink.

A MAJOR problem. The theory that the "building blocks of life' were created in the "primordial sea'. These building blocks are destroyed in an oxygen rich atmosphere, and no one disputes the sea and atmosphere would have been rich in oxygen. So, the building blocks are created, then destroyed., How could they survive long enough to create life, life that processes oxygen ?

 

[InChrist]

If a basic design works, why not stay with it, ?

That's how I see it. The commonality reveals God's fingerprints through all His creation.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Or that all share one Creator in common.

Only if this creator wants to take full responsibility for the countless flaws and errors that happen, as well as the grotesque and barbaric nature of many species. Such the parasitic wasps that Darwin pointed out, a creature that feeds within the living bodies of caterpillars, and how he wrote he could not be persuaded that a beneficent and omnipotent god would have intentionally designed such a thing. We don't get to see it that much, but nature is actually very cruel and savage.

 

[shmogie]

Only if this creator wants to take full responsibility for the countless flaws and errors that happen, as well as the grotesque and barbaric nature of many species. Such the parasitic wasps that Darwin pointed out, a creature that feeds within the living bodies of caterpillars, and how he wrote he could not be persuaded that a beneficent and omnipotent god would have intentionally designed such a thing. We don't get to see it that much, but nature is actually very cruel and savage.

No, creation, all of it has been compromised, it is not as created. Nature is savage because it has been savagely corrupted

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, creation, all of it has been compromised, it is not as created. Nature is savage because it has been savagely corrupted

And then the question is why did your god do nothing about it? And why would god make everything suffer because of the faults of just two people? Why didn't he stop this corruption? Why did he allow to continue?

 

[InChrist]

Only if this creator wants to take full responsibility for the countless flaws and errors that happen, as well as the grotesque and barbaric nature of many species. Such the parasitic wasps that Darwin pointed out, a creature that feeds within the living bodies of caterpillars, and how he wrote he could not be persuaded that a beneficent and omnipotent god would have intentionally designed such a thing. We don't get to see it that much, but nature is actually very cruel and savage.

Yes, nature can be savage and humans can certainly be cruel and savage. I can agree with you that an benevolent, omnipotent Creator would not design it so. According to the scriptures, humans are responsible. The fall and sin have damaged God's good creation with the savagery and destructiveness you have highlighted and much more.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, nature can be savage and humans can certainly be cruel and savage. I can agree with you that an benevolent, omnipotent Creator would not design it so. According to the scriptures, humans are responsible. The fall and sin have damaged God's good creation with the savagery and destructiveness you have highlighted and much more.

But why didn't god fix it?

 

[InChrist]

And then the question is why did your god do nothing about it? And why would god make everything suffer because of the faults of just two people? Why didn't he stop this corruption? Why did he allow to continue?

Those are good questions. I believe God has valid and reasonable answers to those "whys". I don't think God minds that we ask those questions with sincerity and the right attitude.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Those are good questions. I believe God has valid and reasonable answers to those "whys". I don't think God minds that we ask those questions with sincerity and the right attitude.

But why does he not give us the answers? Surely he would have foresaw us asking such questions, and prepared the answers in advance. Why should it be that all of creation would suffer and become corrupt just because of the actions of two?

 

[InChrist]

But why didn't god fix it?

Well, I think for one thing this world is not IT. I mean that God created people for eternity. If it wasn't the first two people that messed up it would be another two or you or me. So God had to let the consequences of sin and its damaging effects play out so all can see the negative reality of it and choose to pay attention and agree with God's wisdom and goodness instead.

 

[InChrist]

But why does he not give us the answers? Surely he would have foresaw us asking such questions, and prepared the answers in advance. Why should it be that all of creation would suffer and become corrupt just because of the actions of two?

I think God does give answers, but He wants us to come to Him trusting for the answers without assuming we are know-it-alls who already are more knowledgeable than He is. I have found that the more I really seek answers from God the more He gives.