Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

But that makes no sense. If his creation was good, and he is omnipotent and omniscience, how could his creation have been doomed to fail?

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.

I don't to be or try to be a know-it-all. But I do know there are no answers for many of my questions. The Bible says the son will not pay for the sins of the father, but Cain and Abel were punished by being born into the corrupt world and being brought into a corrupt nature because of what their parents did. Why?

 

[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 am really sorry. I want to continue this conversation, but Just realized the time and have to go. Briefly, I think one reason God allows sin to continue here n earth for now is so it can be experienced and dealt with now, so that it will not exist in or for eternity. I thank God that He will deal with sin and all the destructive and painful consequences it brings so that eternity will be free of it.

 

[shmogie]

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?

I believe that this planet is a focal point of good and evil for the entire universe. It is a living example of free will run amok. It is a sad display of opening the door to evil, and experiencing in totality the result. We are being soberly watched by beings not of this world, and they are seeing first hand what can happen. Suffering is terrible, pain is terrible and I could go on, but in the cosmic scale of time, the suffering and pain will have occurred in an instant. I don't know if the story of the fall is literal, or allegorical to humanity at the time, it doesn't make any difference. Why doesn't God stop it ? He will. The "disease" hasn't run it's full course yet, it is going to get much worse. The lesson must be be fully taught, so it will never have to be taught again. It will end, and will begin again once more, as originally intended

 

[shmogie]

But that makes no sense. If his creation was good, and he is omnipotent and omniscience, how could his creation have been doomed to fail?

I don't to be or try to be a know-it-all. But I do know there are no answers for many of my questions. The Bible says the son will not pay for the sins of the father, but Cain and Abel were punished by being born into the corrupt world and being brought into a corrupt nature because of what their parents did. Why?

Is God completely omniscient ? If yes, then he created evil, because he would have known before he created him, who the agent of evil would be. He could simply not have created him. The theological construct called "the open view of God" says God doesn't know what will happen before it happens. However, he is perfectly prepared to deal with whatever might happen. The only exception is prophecy, where God reaches into history to bring about what he says will occur. So, at creation he did not know what would happen with the evil one, but he had a plan to deal with what might happen. He cannot be accused of knowingly creating evil

 

[johnhanks]

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.

Like these?

A is an ape; N a modern human. And no, no-one is claiming that B-M represent a linear sequence in between - humans did not evolve from other apes, as you must know; we and they share a long-extinct ancestor. But fossils B-M show plenty of the "ape like creatures in the intermediary stages" that you asked for.

 

[johnhanks]

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

It's hard to tell whether the argument in this post is dishonest or just hopelessly confused.

You say "If ... they were created as mammals to live in the sea, there was no need for them to jump out"; but the idea that "they were created as mammals to live in the sea" is your position, not evolution's, and so therefore is the absurdity you are trying to demonstrate.

"... why did they quit their earthly treks and jump back into the sea?". No terrestrial mammals ever "jumped back" into the sea: that is a distinctly feeble straw man. When a niche becomes available, populations pre-adapted to do so are likely to evolve to exploit it: the terrestrial ancestors of cetaceans evolved to exploit with increasing efficiency the oceanic niche they were living next to, until their remote descendants had become wholly aquatic. Fossils of intermediate stages in this process are well known.

 

[johnhanks]

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 ?

In fact, pretty well everyone working within the field disputes that the early atmosphere was rich in oxygen. Only with the emergence of oxygenic photosynthesis did elemental oxygen become abundant in the earth's atmosphere.

 

[shmogie]

In fact, pretty well everyone working within the field disputes that the early atmosphere was rich in oxygen. Only with the emergence of oxygenic photosynthesis did elemental oxygen become abundant in the earth's atmosphere.

No, that is not true., the Oparin-Hakdane - Urey models of a non oxygen atmosphere are relatively old, and are wrong on two counts, at least., Experiments by NASA have resulted in identifying a process called photo disociation. Simply put, when exposed to ultraviolet light, the alleged primal atmosphere very rapidly turns into oxygen. So, unless there was no ultra violet light, massive amounts of oxygen would have been present. Further, the ozone layer which protects us from UV light depends on an oxygen layer in the upper atmosphere, without that layer no ozone layer would exist, the earth would be bombarded with UV light and no life could exist. This is true for primal earth as well

 

[shmogie]

It's hard to tell whether the argument in this post is dishonest or just hopelessly confused.

You say "If ... they were created as mammals to live in the sea, there was no need for them to jump out"; but the idea that "they were created as mammals to live in the sea" is your position, not evolution's, and so therefore is the absurdity you are trying to demonstrate.

"... why did they quit their earthly treks and jump back into the sea?". No terrestrial mammals ever "jumped back" into the sea: that is a distinctly feeble straw man. When a niche becomes available, populations pre-adapted to do so are likely to evolve to exploit it: the terrestrial ancestors of cetaceans evolved to exploit with increasing efficiency the oceanic niche they were living next to, until their remote descendants had become wholly aquatic. Fossils of intermediate stages in this process are well known.

Please, apparently you have no spark of humor in you, and your accusatory and judgemental tone proves you to be very insecure. I know the argument, I was injecting a little fun into it. I question the presence of fossilized intermediate stages, please reference a publication where I could explore the evidence. You sir (madam) need to untwist your underwear a little and lighten up. Your not so subtle indirect name calling serves no purpose but to expose you as arrogant and schoolyard childish. They left the sea, they returned to the sea, after being terrestrial animals. That is YOUR position, and regardless of niche filling and competition, it is an inane reach way too far to logically to succeed.,

 

[shmogie]

Like these?

A is an ape; N a modern human. And no, no-one is claiming that B-M represent a linear sequence in between - humans did not evolve from other apes, as you must know; we and they share a long-extinct ancestor. But fossils B-M show plenty of the "ape like creatures in the intermediary stages" that you asked for.

Where are they TODAY ? my general response is, So ? Have you ever seen the skull of a person with acromegaly ?, hydro encephalitis, micro enciphalitis ?, the disease the elephant man had ?, Neanderthals ? Different species of Primates ?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.,

The physical characteristics are striking enough, but we also share most of our DNA with them as well.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

Where are the ape like creatures in the intermediary stages, or just about human. They don't exist.

They do exist:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/#

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.

You already tried this claim with Lucy to which I pointed out to you that she was much more than a single jaw bone or a drawing and that scientists have found the remains of over 300 Australopithecus afarensis individuals.

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

Organisms evolving over time is a fact. Biology does not work without evolution being a fact.

What kinds of "serious flaws" are you talking about?
There are still quibbles among scientists as to how evolution has taken place (for instance, the punctuated equilibrium versus gradualism debate), but they don't disagree that evolution is a fact of life.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Nobody in the mainstream scientific community is talking about Artistotle's version of spontaneous generation when they talk about abiogenesis today. Fully formed lifeforms appearing out of dirt or muck or whatever is not a part of mainstream scientific thought these days. It is an obsolete body of thought. Chemical interactions producing amino acids and proteins is not spontaneous generation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Why do the poor caterpillars have to pay the price for a sin they never committed?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I believe that this planet is a focal point of good and evil for the entire universe. It is a living example of free will run amok. It is a sad display of opening the door to evil, and experiencing in totality the result. We are being soberly watched by beings not of this world, and they are seeing first hand what can happen. Suffering is terrible, pain is terrible and I could go on, but in the cosmic scale of time, the suffering and pain will have occurred in an instant. I don't know if the story of the fall is literal, or allegorical to humanity at the time, it doesn't make any difference. Why doesn't God stop it ? He will. The "disease" hasn't run it's full course yet, it is going to get much worse. The lesson must be be fully taught, so it will never have to be taught again. It will end, and will begin again once more, as originally intended

To me, this view greatly diminishes the human experience and the very real suffering that millions of people experience around the world at any given time.

 

[shmogie]

To me, this view greatly diminishes the human experience and the very real suffering that millions of people experience around the world at any given time.

Aren';t you glad we live in a country where we can freely express our views ?

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, that is not true., the Oparin-Hakdane - Urey models of a non oxygen atmosphere are relatively old, and are wrong on two counts, at least., Experiments by NASA have resulted in identifying a process called photo disociation. Simply put, when exposed to ultraviolet light, the alleged primal atmosphere very rapidly turns into oxygen. So, unless there was no ultra violet light, massive amounts of oxygen would have been present. Further, the ozone layer which protects us from UV light depends on an oxygen layer in the upper atmosphere, without that layer no ozone layer would exist, the earth would be bombarded with UV light and no life could exist. This is true for primal earth as well

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB030_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035_1.html

 

[shmogie]

Nobody in the mainstream scientific community is talking about Artistotle's version of spontaneous generation when they talk about abiogenesis today. Fully formed lifeforms appearing out of dirt or muck or whatever is not a part of mainstream scientific thought these days. It is an obsolete body of thought. Chemical interactions producing amino acids and proteins is not spontaneous generation.

They may be described differently, but chemical interactions leading to proteins and amino acids don't produce living organisms. They produce more chemicals. What was in the primordial sea to even produce these ? I can't get a straight answer. The fundamental premise of Aristotle and today's abiogenesis are very similar, if you logically take them to the obvious conclusion

 

[SkepticThinker]

Where are they TODAY ?

They've died off. Why isn't your great-great-great cousin still alive today?

my general response is, So ? Have you ever seen the skull of a person with acromegaly ?, hydro encephalitis, micro enciphalitis ?, the disease the elephant man had ?, Neanderthals ? Different species of Primates ?

Do you think scientists aren't aware of them?

 

[SkepticThinker]

They may be described differently, but chemical interactions leading to proteins and amino acids don't produce living organisms.

And you know this .... how? Proteins are the building blocks of life.

They produce more chemicals. What was in the primordial sea to even produce these ? I can't get a straight answer. The fundamental premise of Aristotle and today's abiogenesis are very similar, if you logically take them to the obvious conclusion

Living organisms are made up of chemicals.

Aristotle's spontaneous generation is nothing at all like what we mean today when we talk about abiogenesis. No mainstream scientist is proposing today that complex life forms arise fully formed out of the air or mud or a pond or whatever.

 

[shmogie]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB030_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035_1.html

Fine for certain chemicals under certain conditions. Those conditions are not always present, and life cannot exist when bombarded by UV light. So, the certain conditions existed, chemical compounds may have been produced under those conditions, THEN, an ozone layer appeared to protect life that was being produced by the ozone layer that didn't exist when the chemical compounds were being produced. Further, unless the chemical compounds were produced exactly in the correct state and conditions needed, they would be destroyed by oxygen., Really ?