Do God hate samesex relationships?

[penkitten]

That place was full of homosexuals, in fact, they wanted to even have sex with angels, probably anything that moved.

 

thats when god said " stop you moron a55holes , you will not desire my angels for they are holy and you also cant do these things: rape your neighbors wife while he is in a field, rub your cow in strange ways, pay small children to bend over for you, pimp your daughters out for sheep, you can have ten wives and impregnant them all and name them all names that you will never learn to spell however those wives can not have a threesome with you and then decide they dont desire you anymore and cut you out of the picture because thats not how i can populate my beautiful brand new world, oh and stop calling your body part a snake because the snake is evil. and another thing, get off you lazy butts and go plant something in the field, i didnt make you to sit around all day and complain."

 

but i forgot which chapter that was...........

[penkitten]

No, Adam and Eve made Cain, and Abel.

 

 

 

they didnt just have two children.

cain killed abel.

and then there was seth( the appointed one), who is the line of which jesus comes from .

and then adam and eve continued to have children and then cain married his sister and they had babies and seth married another sister and they had babies

 

and you know what? eve was still having babies when her great grandchildren were. didnt those people live like 700 years back then? could you imagine 700 years and no birth control???? wonder where they all lived?

[Nicholas]

The creation of a living cell from base compounds by accident is itself worthy of laughter.

 

Why scientists are supposed to feel threatened by nonscientists laughing at their claims is beyond me. Laughing at something is not refuting it. I challenge you to go ahead and try.

 

How many scientists were able to construct a living cell from base elements?

 

Why is that a significant question? It applies to Creationists just as well as it does to evolution. How many were there to observe Creation? None. Of course, you could say God was there, but in that case, one could equally assert that God was there to observe abiogenesis.

 

Scientific method requires reproducible results, and I haven’t seen those results. If you cannot satisfy the requirements in scientific method, then it is nothing more than faith.

 

If scientific method requires reproducible results, then you are conceding that Intelligent Design is not science. This is fantastic news. On the other hand, it's important to note that abiogenesis, the claim you're attempting to refute by working around, is not integral to evolution. Evolution deals with living organisms and how they change, and not how life arose from nonliving matter. Therefore, your nonsense about how this question stumped Darwin is irrelevant.

 

That place was full of homosexuals

 

Authors cannot write about things they don't know about. Homosexuality was not addressed in the Bible, our understanding of it is modern, and your understanding of it is nonexistent.

 

If I gave you a bucket of transistors, do think it would assemble itself into a self-replicating and self-sustaining supercomputer? Most computer architects don’t leaving something like that to chance.

 

Texas Sharpshooter -- Chance is not the driving force in evolution; ergo, it's not unreasonable to assume that the first abiogenetic event was not random.

 

You cannot put a conservative upper limit on events that took eons to unfold. The event you're analyzing depends on multiple concurrent events. In that case, it's unreasonable to assume just one favorable sequence is possible. Abiogenesis is hypothetical, yes, but it is not a guess.

 

You are missing the point. The first two people were an example of marriage proper, and they reproduced offspring.

 

I have never seen textual evidence that Adam and Eve were married.

 

Additionally, you are projecting limits on God, not me. The Bible explicitly states that "Anything is possible with God," correct? In that case, it is possible, though unlikely, for homosexuals to produce offspring.

 

Regardless, homosexaulity is not merely about sex, and it's not something that was understood when the Bible was being composed, edited, or interpreted by early scholars.

[Admiral Thrawn]

That place was full of homosexuals

 

Authors cannot write about things they don't know about. Homosexuality was not addressed in the Bible, our understanding of it is modern, and your understanding of it is nonexistent.

 

That is not true. It is addressed in the Bible. This is even elementary Bible knowledge. Homosexual lust & sex is known as 'sin'. You need a Bible reference for that?

[penkitten]

That is not true. It is addressed in the Bible. This is even elementary Bible knowledge. Homosexual lust & sex is known as 'sin'. You need a Bible reference for that?

 

can you offer one that does not consist of prositution of children or rape that speaks of homosexuality?

[Nicholas]

Admiral, homosexuality is not sodomy.

 

If you think Biblical authors understood the concept of sexual orientation, you're disillusioned about your own faith--but, more importantly, you're mistaken.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Admiral, homosexuality is not sodomy.

 

If you think Biblical authors understood the concept of sexual orientation, you're disillusioned about your own faith--but, more importantly, you're mistaken.

 

It would be extremely naive to believe that sodomy is not going to exist within the context of a homosexual relationship.

[Outcast]

That is not true. It is addressed in the Bible. This is even elementary Bible knowledge. Homosexual lust & sex is known as 'sin'. You need a Bible reference for that?

 

'Men lying with men' is called an 'abomination'. So is eating seafood. So if you like your lobster, you're going straight to hell. Buh-bye.

[Nicholas]

It would be extremely naive to believe that sodomy is not going to exist within the context of a homosexual relationship.

The condemnations of sodomy are not condemnations of homosexuality. Homosexuality is a modern concept, and consulting (as a moral guidebook) things that were written before we understood sexual orientation has little utility in analyzing moral object.

 

Frankly, I doubt you're qualified to speak about homosexuality.

 

Are you a homosexual? Do you know any? Seen pictures? Read books?

 

Besides sex, what exists in homosexual relationships, if anything?

 

If it is just sex, is that more immoral than heterosexuals who behave with the same hedonism? Less because of the possibility of children?

[Admiral Thrawn]

The condemnations of sodomy are not condemnations of homosexuality. Homosexuality is a modern concept, and consulting (as a moral guidebook) things that were written before we understood sexual orientation has little utility in analyzing moral object.

 

Nonesence. You can dress it as much as you like. Sin is sin.

 

Frankly, I doubt you're qualified to speak about homosexuality.

 

Are you a homosexual? Do you know any? Seen pictures? Read books?

 

Besides sex, what exists in homosexual relationships, if anything?

 

Besides sex? When people condone homosexual relationships, then you have a slippery slope, you are also condoning sodomy, and other related types of sins. I'm qualified to talk about whatever I want, thank you very much.

If the Bible says something about a subject, then I'm going to post it.

 

If it is just sex, is that more immoral than heterosexuals who behave with the same hedonism? Less because of the possibility of children?

 

Pre-marital sex and Extra-marital sex is both sin.

[Nicholas]

Nonesence. You can dress it as much as you like. Sin is sin.

 

I'm not dressing anything. I was under the impression that Biblical authors didn't understand modern concepts, because they weren't alive. Now I'm under the impression that both Biblical authors and Admiral Thrawn are unaware as to what 'homosexuality' means, and the advancements surrounding the development of that concept. You have no excuse though.

 

The trouble with fundamentalist christianity is it opposes itself to certain truths, and then takes any effort to correct them as an attack on their belief system--attacks which only strengthen their devotion because of "persecution".

 

The truth is that sin is not absolute. This is why you're free to chow down on bacon, wear mixed fabrics, and enjoy a number of freedoms that were bestowed on humanity because our morals moved with human knowledge, instead of against it.

 

I'm talking to a brick wall. The only reason I keep posting is because I'm certain that I am not alone--religion is not an opponent of intelligence, and I will always maintain that.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Nonesence. You can dress it as much as you like. Sin is sin.

 

I'm not dressing anything. I was under the impression that Biblical authors didn't understand modern concepts, because they weren't alive. Now I'm under the impression that both Biblical authors and Admiral Thrawn are unaware as to what 'homosexuality' means, and the advancements surrounding the development of that concept. You have no excuse though.

 

The concept was always around AFTER Adam and Eve ate the fruit and messed up the human race. As with any imperfection arising from sin - being different from what God originally intended.

 

The trouble with fundamentalist christianity is it opposes itself to certain truths, and then takes any effort to correct them as an attack on their belief system--attacks which only strengthen their devotion because of "persecution".

 

The truth is that sin is not absolute. This is why you're free to chow down on bacon, wear mixed fabrics, and enjoy a number of freedoms that were bestowed on humanity because our morals moved with human knowledge, instead of against it.

 

 

Sure, and neither is death, the consequence of sin. The consequence of sin is death. Do people really die? Of course, because of Adam's sin, or we would have all been immortal. Jesus had to pay for our sins, so we could have a chance of eternal life. Sin is not a light thing with God.

[Nicholas]

The concept [as in, our understanding of an idea derived from study or analysis] of homosexuality is modern. It may have been around since the dawn of humanity, and, if you care, before that, but the Biblical authors could not have understood the concept.

 

Death is a lame example for why homosexuality is a sin. Death has been a part of life since before humans walked the planet, and therefore, before sin existed.

[Chris777]

can you offer one that does not consist of prositution of children or rape that speaks of homosexuality?

Jude 1:3-23

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:

23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

in the gainsaying of Core.

[Admiral Thrawn]

The concept [as in, our understanding of an idea derived from study or analysis] of homosexuality is modern. It may have been around since the dawn of humanity, and, if you care, before that, but the Biblical authors could not have understood the concept.

 

Death is a lame example for why homosexuality is a sin. Death has been a part of life since before humans walked the planet, and therefore, before sin existed.

 

No, you are wrong. Death occurred after Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Had they obeyed God, the human race would be immortal, and obviously, we would also occupy Venus and Mars and the Moon to contain all the people. (I'm sure God would probably have terriformed these planets for us) Or maybe there would be some other accomidation for all the immortal people.

[penkitten]

in the gainsaying of Core.

again can you give me an example that does not involve rape ?

 

god frowns on rape whether heterosexual or homosexual.

[penkitten]

No, you are wrong. Death occurred after Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Had they obeyed God, the human race would be immortal, and obviously, we would also occupy Venus and Mars and the Moon to contain all the people. (I'm sure God would probably have terriformed these planets for us) Or maybe there would be some other accomidation for all the immortal people.

 

had adam and eve not eaten the fruit, she would not have been punished with childbirth and there would have been no offspring.

 

did you ever watch highlander on tv? none of the immortal characters ever had any offspring.

[Nicholas]

Death occurred after Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

That's not history, that's literature. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm simply saying, explicitly, that it never happened. There's zero evidence of it happening, except the Elohist myth that eventually made its way into modern scripture.

 

The biggest irony is, of course, that even the people who WROTE the Adam and Eve story didn't expect it to be taken literally. Myths have always been important cultural force, and no one back then went around pretending they were historical or scientific accounts.

 

Had they obeyed God, the human race would be immortal, and obviously, we would also occupy Venus and Mars and the Moon to contain all the people. (I'm sure God would probably have terriformed these planets for us) Or maybe there would be some other accomidation for all the immortal people.

 

Yeah, he would have terraformed the solar system, and provided nice little shuttles--*just* so we don't grow overpopulated.

 

Question : Why hasn't God terraformed other planets now? Our overpopulation is well-documented. Is it because we sin too much? That seems to be the retrodictive answer to everything.

[Admiral Thrawn]

had adam and eve not eaten the fruit, she would not have been punished with childbirth and there would have been no offspring.

 

did you ever watch highlander on tv? none of the immortal characters ever had any offspring.

 

God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply BEFORE they ate the fruit.

 

The curse of the fruit was that childbirth would be PAINFUL for the woman.

 

That is why sex may be sweet. But when a baby is being born, there is pain experienced from the mother, commonly known as labour. That aspect of child-birth is a consequence of original sin.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Death occurred after Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

That's not history, that's literature. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm simply saying, explicitly, that it never happened. There's zero evidence of it happening, except the Elohist myth that eventually made its way into modern scripture.

 

The biggest irony is, of course, that even the people who WROTE the Adam and Eve story didn't expect it to be taken literally. Myths have always been important cultural force, and no one back then went around pretending they were historical or scientific accounts.

 

That is fine. I am well acquainted by now with your position on matters of interpretation. However, you will at least agree with me that this account is in the Bible, and there is no other account in the Bible that will contradict what I just asserted.

 

I also challenge you to back down you assertations with scripture. There is no 'fine print' in the Bible saying anything is myth, especially of something of that importance. If there is, you are more than welcome to quote it.

 

Had they obeyed God, the human race would be immortal, and obviously, we would also occupy Venus and Mars and the Moon to contain all the people. (I'm sure God would probably have terriformed these planets for us) Or maybe there would be some other accomidation for all the immortal people.

 

Yeah, he would have terraformed the solar system, and provided nice little shuttles--*just* so we don't grow overpopulated.

 

Question : Why hasn't God terraformed other planets now? Our overpopulation is well-documented. Is it because we sin too much? That seems to be the retrodictive answer to everything.

 

Right now there is over-population? People are not evenly spread around the world. More people should live in Canada, or other places where there is less people. The resources should be evenly spread out.

 

The sin is how a few people horde all the wealth, and that it may even be possible for the world to sustain this population, or even double what is one it now, if people learned to live peacefully, cooperate, and even out the distribution of wealth. Due to sin, that is not tenable.

[penkitten]

God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply BEFORE they ate the fruit.

 

where in the bible does it say this ?

 

not here ...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202;&version=31;

 

thats where he created a woman

 

and not here :

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203;&version=31;

in the very next chapter where the fruit is eaten, the sin has been done and they are thrown out.

[penkitten]

and in the very next chapter adam and eve finally got to "lay" together and had a son and then they had a second son.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%204;&version=31;

 

to my understanding, adam and eve didnt know they were naked in the garden or that they never had thoughts of "laying" together to "multiply" until after they ate from the tree.

how could they multiply if they had no thoughts on sex ?

 

 

it doesnt add up.

[Nicholas]

penkitten, try Genesis 1:27-28.

[penkitten]

penkitten, try Genesis 1:27-28.

 

i hate it when it flips so far apart in the stories where it is hard to keep up.

i went to bible gateway.com and i got the links to gen 2 3 4 and i never thought to look in a chapter that preceeded 2 where it talked of the creation of man and woman .

[Nicholas]

I also challenge you to back down you assertations with scripture. There is no 'fine print' in the Bible saying anything is myth, especially of something of that importance. If there is, you are more than welcome to quote it.

 

Creation myths are pervasive in every ancient culture. Myths were never intended to be interpreted as historical facts--the reason there's no "fine print" is because they assumed it was obvious that a creation account was fictional, considering (among other inconsistencies) no one could have possibly witnessed Creation.

 

You are welcome to believe the Creation story really happened, but the historical truth is that even the people who told the stories, wrote the stories down, and consider the stories sacred gifts from God to this day--still don't cheapen them by insisting that they are factual accounts.

 

Right now there is over-population? People are not evenly spread around the world.

 

Overpopulation does not mean simply "too much people"--it's a conflict between resources and populations. In developing countries, it does mean overcrowding, and the solution is to educate women about birth control. In developed countries, it means an undue stress on natural resources, and the solution is a complete dismantling of our way of life.

 

More people should live in Canada, or other places where there is less people.

 

Most habitable land is occupied. Saying that people should just "spread out" is not a solution. For example, it's impossible for a Nepalese person to just walk to Canada and set up camp.

 

You have already stated that God would take responsibility for us if we overpopulate the planet. It's a consensus of modern ecologists that overpopulation has already occured--when will God terraform the other planets like you promised he would?

 

The resources should be evenly spread out.

 

So communism is the answer?

Are you doing your share?

 

The sin is how a few people horde all the wealth, and that it may even be possible for the world to sustain this population, or even double what is one it now, if people learned to live peacefully, cooperate, and even out the distribution of wealth.

 

Ecologists disagree, we're already past that point.

 

But no matter, you speak of that sin like you're above it. Do you eat meat? Do you enjoy electricity? Take this test, and find out how many Earths we'd need if everybody lived like you. I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that we'd need more than just one.