Would God approve homosexual "unions"

[McBell]

just a point of fact

Except you have not established it as fact.

 

[Walter Russell]

Except you have not established it as fact.

The universe establishes it as fact. Name any species that doesn't have both sex organs to procreate that doesn't require the opposite sex to procreate.
Even elements require opposite sexed conditions in order to be created. Russell breaks this method down in scientific detail.

This is the way creation was created in order for the first half of the infinite life/death cycle to work.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Not at all as an insult, just a point of fact not one of morality.
All of creation is nothing more than 2 halves of the samething. They are sex pairs. I mean everything, even elements.
Male/Female are 2 halves of a whole and are divided as such in order to unite and re create.
Male/Male or Female/Female is not a universally speaking balanced pair as intended.
This has nothing to do with hating on anyone. I accept everyone. It is simply a universal truth.

Thank you. Life isn't always the "perfect pair". Structuring life in those limitations is structuring how I define god. I understand in regards to actions when people say male/male and female/female are imbalanced because, in regards to creation only, those specific actions (not touching. Not kissing. Just that one action) is not meant for what the body is supposed to do. I understand that.

However, I didn't see you mentioned actions just male/male and female/female. A lot of us do not have that type of intimacy for whatever reason. We don't see it as imbalanced because we are not doing anything that is against creation and the natural order.

I think people against homosexuality are mistaking how some homosexuals are intimate with each other. I know it's personal, but it is best in a general sense to really ask. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation rather than an action. I can see why the actions may be perceived as imbalanced but not the sexual orientation.

The Bible (on note of OP) speaks about actions. So, I never understand why GBLT are accused of these actions. Actions are choices. S people are not excluded.

In other words, the argument doesn't make sense.

 

[McBell]

The universe establishes it as fact. Name any species that doesn't have both sex organs to procreate that doesn't require the opposite sex to procreate.
Even elements require opposite sexed conditions in order to be created. Russell breaks this method down in scientific detail.

This is the way creation was created in order for the first half of the infinite life/death cycle to work.

You have not established homosexuality as an imbalance.
You have merely declared it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In case you haven't figured it out, the Bible holds no power over me.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Which, like I said, is fine for those of you who choose to follow the Bible.
The problem is that it does not hold water to those who do not follow the Bible.

I wonder:

1. Out of 37,886 posts you've made on this forum, how many have been used explaining the above to Christians;
2. Why do they still not understand the Bible carries as much weight for us non-Christians as Harry Potter & the Philosopher's Stone does for them on matters of morality?

 

[Walter Russell]

Thank you. Life isn't always the "perfect pair". Structuring life in those limitations is structuring how I define god. I understand in regards to actions when people say male/male and female/female are imbalanced because, in regards to creation only, those specific actions (not touching. Not kissing. Just that one action) is not meant for what the body is supposed to do. I understand that.

However, I didn't see you mentioned actions just male/male and female/female. A lot of us do not have that type of intimacy for whatever reason. We don't see it as imbalanced because we are not doing anything that is against creation and the natural order.

I think people against homosexuality are mistaking how some homosexuals are intimate with each other. I know it's personal, but it is best in a general sense to really ask. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation rather than an action. I can see why the actions may be perceived as imbalanced but not the sexual orientation.

The Bible (on note of OP) speaks about actions. So, I never understand why GBLT are accused of these actions. Actions are choices. S people are not excluded.

In other words, the argument doesn't make sense.

You have not established homosexuality as an imbalance.
You have merely declared it.

I didn't declare anything, just pointed to the non negionable rule for the natural order of creation.
Your welcome to ignore it but you can't change it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I didn't declare anything, just pointed to the non negionable rule for the natural order of creation.
Your welcome to ignore it but you can't change it.

The natural order of creation doesn't have an order. We place order on it so we can live with structured and planed life. We also find order because, say like working in a cluttered office, we cannot think among disorder-its distracting. A lot of people place "order of creation" so high as to say it comes from god.

However, I see natural order as something from us. If we stop labeling and trying to find connections and see things for what they are, we will see some animals actually do eat their cubs. We will see that some animals (can't think of the right word; it's not animals) have to sexes. We will see that not everyone can procreate. We will see that not everyone shares the same likes and dislikes. We will see that all of this is part of the natural order because life is not based on us.

We are not the center of the universe.

So, it makes sense that homosexuality (sexual orientation) is part of the natural order just like all I mentioned above. What's part of life is not imbalanced. We just see it that way because it doesn't fit into our way of thinking. Since we are not the center of the universe, there is no way for it to fit into. All we can do is go with what is morally right (however we define it), do not judge whether respectful or not, have healthy bias, and just know that topics like this you are not talking about a subject, you are talking about people. It's the same with religion. When people talk ill about Catholicism, they are talking about the people.

That I would call an imbalance. Since not everyhing in nature is ordered the way we define it, I wouldn't call our attractions imbalanced just because we want to be wih the person we love not just physically, but mentally, emotionally, and spiritually as well.

Where is the imbalance in love? And how is it define only within heterosexual relationships?

I read a quote that said, "it's a misconception that heterosexuals love and homosexuals have sex" .... this is to anyone reading, but it's true. Our bias get the best of us. That I would consider imbalance not the love and marriage between two individuals.

 

[Walter Russell]

The natural order of creation doesn't have an order. We place order on it so we can live with structured and planed life. We also find order because, say like working in a cluttered office, we cannot think among disorder-its distracting. A lot of people place "order of creation" so high as to say it comes from god.

However, I see natural order as something from us. If we stop labeling and trying to find connections and see things for what they are, we will see some animals actually do eat their cubs. We will see that some animals (can't think of the right word; it's not animals) have to sexes. We will see that not everyone can procreate. We will see that not everyone shares the same likes and dislikes. We will see that all of this is part of the natural order because life is not based on us.

We are not the center of the universe.

So, it makes sense that homosexuality (sexual orientation) is part of the natural order just like all I mentioned above. What's part of life is not imbalanced. We just see it that way because it doesn't fit into our way of thinking. Since we are not the center of the universe, there is no way for it to fit into. All we can do is go with what is morally right (however we define it), do not judge whether respectful or not, have healthy bias, and just know that topics like this you are not talking about a subject, you are talking about people. It's the same with religion. When people talk ill about Catholicism, they are talking about the people.

That I would call an imbalance. Since not everyhing in nature is ordered the way we define it, I wouldn't call our attractions imbalanced just because we want to be wih the person we love not just physically, but mentally, emotionally, and spiritually as well.

Where is the imbalance in love? And how is it define only within heterosexual relationships?

I read a quote that said, "it's a misconception that heterosexuals love and homosexuals have sex" .... this is to anyone reading, but it's true. Our bias get the best of us. That I would consider imbalance not the love and marriage between two individuals.

There is a natural order. Its what keeps this planet from nose diving into our sun or being hurled further out into space and its responisble for the creation and destruction of every material body in the universe.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I didn't declare anything, just pointed to the non negionable rule for the natural order of creation.
Your welcome to ignore it but you can't change it.

If we're being pedantic, humans evolved tool usage, thus our tool usage is natural. And parthenogenesis is something completely possible within our tool usage. So the male sex is not truthfully necessary for our continuation.
As for homosexuality, heterosexual coitus is also not necessary for the continuation of our species. Insemonation can be done with a tool as simple as a turkey baster. So even if the entire human population of Earth became gay and lesbian, the human race would be just fine.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Name any species that doesn't have both sex organs to procreate that doesn't require the opposite sex to procreate.
Even elements require opposite sexed conditions in order to be created. Russell breaks this method down in scientific detail.

This is the way creation was created in order for the first half of the infinite life/death cycle to work.

Worms and many types of snails are asexual with no distinguished sex. They don't require partners.

Polarity in elements? I don't understand what your saying here. Elements are not sexually active.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There is a natural order. Its what keeps this planet from nose diving into our sun or being hurled further out into space and its responisble for the creation and destruction of every material body in the universe.

If cubs mothers eat their young and people are born with two sexes, is that part of the natural order?

I wouldn't say natural order. That's placing a structure on parts of life and disregarding what to doesn't fall into that order imbalance.

Instead, see it all as part of life. Whether or not we call it an order, it is still natural and it still has a patter regardless if we can recognize it or not. It's just life. Saying life has an order is creating a fix on the role of creation.

Yet, you have blood cells that turn into cancer cells. You have the the neurons that are "supposed" to function one way but 1 out of 26 people like myself, it just decides to go off course ever so often in a mixture of ways.

Is that a imbalance? To doctors, yes because it causes things like seizures. To life, no because that is what life is supposed to do. Who can fixate life all because we define order into something, by its very definition lacks it.

 

[McBell]

There is a natural order.

I understand if you say it enough you will convince yourself.
The problem is that you are conversing with people who need more than you merely repeating it in support of it.

 

[morphesium]

Yes.
There were homosexual gods in some cultures.

Unfortunately, the (those) lonely God is not so fortunate enough.

 

[Walter Russell]

If we're being pedantic, humans evolved tool usage, thus our tool usage is natural. And parthenogenesis is something completely possible within our tool usage. So the male sex is not truthfully necessary for our continuation.
As for homosexuality, heterosexual coitus is also not necessary for the continuation of our species. Insemonation can be done with a tool as simple as a turkey baster. So even if the entire human population of Earth became gay and lesbian, the human race would be just fine.

Tools were not created in order to procreate and isn't a valid comparison.
Have fun with your turkey baster though, I won't hate on it...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hates drop off conversations. @C-Faith and @Walter Russell do ya'll at least get what I say?

 

[Walter Russell]

Worms and many types of snails are asexual with no distinguished sex. They don't require partners.

Polarity in elements? I don't understand what your saying here. Elements are not sexually active.

Thats because worms have both organs required to reproduce. I stated in my original post with this exception.

Refer to Russells book Secret if Light for a detailed walk through on how opposing "sexed" conditions of electric light create the various elements.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@C-Faith a straight forward and one sentence answer to your OP: Yes, if God defined us by who we are rather than what is between our legs.

 

[Raahim]

Hates drop off conversations. @C-Faith and @Walter Russell do ya'll at least get what I say?

OP seems to not be interested in debating much, at least not with a Muslim. (Judging that he/she ignored me completely after my first post here).

 

[Walter Russell]

If cubs mothers eat their young and people are born with two sexes, is that part of the natural order?

I wouldn't say natural order. That's placing a structure on parts of life and disregarding what to doesn't fall into that order imbalance.

Instead, see it all as part of life. Whether or not we call it an order, it is still natural and it still has a patter regardless if we can recognize it or not. It's just life. Saying life has an order is creating a fix on the role of creation.

Yet, you have blood cells that turn into cancer cells. You have the the neurons that are "supposed" to function one way but 1 out of 26 people like myself, it just decides to go off course ever so often in a mixture of ways.

Is that a imbalance? To doctors, yes because it causes things like seizures. To life, no because that is what life is supposed to do. Who can fixate life all because we define order into something, by its very definition lacks it.

I would catagorize all of the above as effects equal to the imbalances. Void the imbalance=Void the effects of the imbalances.