Commonalities of those who believe in Evolution of Life on Earth

[PsychoSarah]

No, they wanted sex. Murdering sex. They refused the daughter of Lot, and wanted the good looking men.

Daughters, sir, he had 2. Also, I've read this part of the bible a lot. Nothing suggesting that they wanted to murder the angels, but it is implied they wanted to rape them.

-_- also, Lot is supposed to be considered the good person in this place, but he was willing to offer up his daughters to be gang raped. Then, after they have escaped, his daughters get him drunk and rape him because apparently, they can't go whatever period of time it would take to get to another town before being baby makers. -_- this is why that entire story is historically viewed as a jab at one of the Hebrew tribes by basically calling them all inbred products of rape.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Great even though the men of Sodom could have had 2 gals to abuse, they opted for the men.

-_- would it have really been better for them to want to rape female angels? These are the direct messengers of a deity, raping them should be a huge no-no regardless of genitalia... if angels even have them.

True. Indirectly we could look at other places in the bible, where the days of Lot were compared with the days of Noah, The days of Noah were noted for violence.

Kinda makes the whole flood thing pointless, doesn't it? Complete failure to rid the world of human sin, what a waste of animal life.

That is curious. I often wondered if his wife was gay also, since she wanted to go back...what was the draw?

If she was, she wouldn't have been offered salvation. Plus, she just looked back after the angels told her not to. That doesn't mean she wanted to go back at all; you try running away from destruction and not looking behind you. Additionally, it's pretty generic advice to tell someone to not look back as they are fleeing, since it slows you down to do that. None of them were told that there would be a divine punishment if they did it. Though, I have to wonder how anyone knew she turned into salt if they never looked back, and why Lot and his daughters don't bother to mourn her.

I guess it is one thing to be happy they were away from the gay environment, but they went nuts on the baby thing.

-_- did you forget that they were married to straight men? Lot's two sons in laws were offered safety as well, but they didn't believe Lot when he said that god was going to destroy the city. As a result, they get destroyed along with the sinners. The baby thing is pretty nutty, though. Hence the view that it's a smear campaign.

One could derive that I guess, but the main gist of the story seems to be the wickedness and judgment of Sodom.

If the main gist were the wickedness and judgement of Sodom and Gomorrah, then Gomorrah would have been more fully described, and the nature of the sins both populations were committing would have more details. Heck, we likely would see statements such as "even the children were filled with malice and unholy doings". But, only the men of Sodom are even depicted committing immoral acts.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Great even though the men of Sodom could have had 2 gals to abuse, they opted for the men.

...because abusing gals is much less evil than abusing men? (Sorry, couldn't resist).

That is curious. I often wondered if his wife was gay also, since she wanted to go back...what was the draw?

Oh yes! All the gay! So incredibly hot is the gay in Sodom that one is tempted to be defy God himself!

 

[Obliquinaut]

No. The event showed the way the men of Sodom were.

I was just riffing on the maladroit phrasing of your response. I know nothing was meant by it. I was just having fun.

No. First they defy, then fall into various evils.

So we can assume that Mrs. Lot was into all manner of vile stuff, then, eh? You know I personally believe she was a pansexual pervert who relished violating all laws of God and man. I bet she even mixed linen and wool (Lev 19:19. Like EVERY DAY! And then boiled baby goats in their mothers milk (Ex 23:19)

And I bet she ate OWLS all the live-long day (Lev 11:13-19)

Oh I bet she was a wild-woman!

 

[Obliquinaut]

Could be, why else would she love the city in her heart?

You mean by simply turning around to look?

My guess is a lesbo.

Yeah, I bet you do. God's judgement wasn't enough, now we have DAD to back up God!

God set the clear test of not looking back, or that would show they should not have left.

"would show they should not have left"? You mean looking back at a city that was being destroyed would make them want to go back?

That reminds me, since most evo believers seem to embrace things like Sodom lifestyles, they would have been left in the city.

Really? Your generalizations are noted. Of course you are wrong, but most of us aren't as threatened by homosexuals as you are

 

[Subduction Zone]

Could be, why else would she love the city in her heart? My guess is a lesbo.
God set the clear test of not looking back, or that would show they should not have left.

That reminds me, since most evo believers seem to embrace things like Sodom lifestyles, they would have been left in the city.

dad, do you know what it implies when one is excessively homophobic?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are a goodaphobeName calling now myth man?
I believe in creation and a creator that destroyed cities with fury and power partly to warn man against Homosins. If you advocate evil, you are a goodaphobe, Truthaphobe, and bibleaphobe. Sorry myth man, you don't get to set morals here.

No, what you are doing is name calling. I was pointing out a trait of yours.

And why can't I point out your bad morals?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you apparently agree with point 1 and 2 in the poll. Myths about morals or God are not needed. OK myth man?

Why do you think that a god is needed for morals? My morals appear to be far superior to yours.

 

[Non sequitur]

Is the point of this poll to help solidify confirmation biases and selective thinking?

Is that what's going on?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is the point of this poll to help solidify confirmation biases and selective thinking?

Is that what's going on?

At best it is merely a veiled attack against those that do not agree with dad.

 

[Non sequitur]

At best it is merely a veiled attack against those that do not agree with dad.

That old chestnut?

It is a classic, if not dated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good for you myth man. You thought I would ask you anything about right or wrong? You don't seem to know what end is up, and think universes pop out from nothing.

dad, you know that I know far more than you ever will. Not due to any inherent talent of mine. No, the main reason that I have learned and you have not is due to your fear.

Ironically your fear keeps you from properly following the teachings of the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure myth man.

If that was not the case why do you so often run away from any sort of scientific debate?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is to confirm creation deniers biases and selective thinking. Also to note commonalities in those that are of that persuasion.

dad, since the creation story was shown to be false a long long time ago there is no such thing as a "creation denier". You are merely being a science denier.

The only bias that the people on the science have shown is a bias towards being correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like when people have a good science case and can discuss it. They are worth straightening out. Some other folks are myth mongers who cannot do anything but blaspheme, insult God, accuse God and show contempt for His word, and a demonic love for blind plunge into deep delusion and lies....with no demonstrated ability to either be honest or discuss issues of science in detail.

LOL!! Oh dad, you do make me laugh at times.

dad, since you do not even understand what evidence is in the world of science you can't straighten anyone out.

But you did get part of your post right. You are the myth monger. You keep insulting God by trying to tell him how he had to make the universe. You as much as call God a liar since he would have had to make all of the evidence that you deny.

Now if you want to begin by learning what scientific evidence is, and what the scientific method is I will gladly help you.

 

[Non sequitur]

It is to confirm creation deniers biases and selective thinking. Also to note commonalities in those that are of that persuasion.

How's your echo chamber been working out for ya? Does it need to be any smaller? Maybe a little denser material to keep out the Boogeyman?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Are a goodaphobeName calling now myth man?
I believe in creation and a creator that destroyed cities with fury and power partly to warn man against Homosins. If you advocate evil, you are a goodaphobe, Truthaphobe, and bibleaphobe. Sorry myth man, you don't get to set morals here.

In a very real sense I fear that Dad may be doing Christianity "right" here. I've always been fascinated by Christians who believe in the God of the Bible, the same Bible of which calls gay people an abomination, but also wants to be loving and accepting of all people. God laid the law down that certain of His creation were "abominations".

THAT, in and of itself, is enough to let me know that the Bible is the work of man. And something to be avoided in terms of how to live your life. (But that's just me, I'm an atheist).

But a Christian who clings to their truth by accepting all parts of the Bible is actually being relatively rational. Sure their God appears to be unpleasant in many aspects, but it is all there in "the Instruction Manual".

I'm glad I am not scared of gay people. I'm glad I'm not busy trying to tally up who is going to Hell because of how they were born. It's a relief not to have to even think about that, but rather to love thy neighbor, regardless of what it says a few books before that point.

 

[Obliquinaut]

No, what you are doing is name calling. I was pointing out a trait of yours.

And why can't I point out your bad morals?

Dad's Morals are beyond reproach. He is a "goodophile". He loves what God loves and dislikes what God dislikes (I'm certain it isn't the other way around).

 

[Non sequitur]

How about you? Answer the poll questions, maybe you are an exception? Ha. You guys say we have commonalities with apes and flatworms. It's about time we look at some of your traits now. Come out of the closet.

I tend to agree partially with evos, they often do share commonalities with monkeys and worms!

Do evos usually believe these things?
1 - They disbelieve strongly in the Scriptural account
Since every study I've been able to find shows that at least 50% of Christians accept evolution, and the US population is ~70% Christian, I'd have to say no.
2 - They embrace same sex marriage, gay rights, and abortion.
I'd say it's mixed, with more leaning toward usually on same sex marriage and gay rights, and not usually on abortion.
3 - They want to leave planet earth, which they think is doomed
Well, earth is doomed: Glacial period, a super-volcanic eruption, hit by an asteroid, gamma ray burst, several extinct events, carbon dioxide starvation, the Sun becoming a red-giant, etc.

I can't say people who accept evolution want to explore elsewhere any more or less than anyone else.

 

[Obliquinaut]

So you apparently agree with point 1 and 2 in the poll. Myths about morals or God are not needed. OK myth man?

Dad, seriously just for a second: do you honestly believe that it is impossible to have a good moral code without Scripture?

You know, if you met most of us atheists on the street you'd likely never know we were atheists. Most of us do what we can to care for people, we try not to harm anyone. Some, like me, almost never partake of alcohol, have never been in jail. Most of us are terrified of lying or misrepresenting something to someone that would result in someone being hurt.

In fact we almost all, to a person, adhere to 9 of the 10 Commandments. It's weird. The things we tend to jettison are those commands to treat someone as an abomination for the way they were born. We also tend not follow commands that tell us to worship a specific god.

And I don't know about anyone else, but I've never met a single person who is "pro-abortion". Not one.