Pope: Saving world from homosexuality like saving rainforests

[OphidiaPhile]

Are you certain woman was not made from man? Can you, with full authority and knowledge of EXACTLY what happened make that statement? You were there when it happened? When a woman first came into existence you know what occurred?

Yes I can say without a doubt that woman was NOT made from man.

I'll remind you that you said "Woman was not made from man." Did nothing to qualify the statement just threw it out there as factual. So then since woman was not made from man I'll ask you again how did woman come to be, exactly. I eagerly await your firsthand account.

The same way any other female species of animal comes about. Women have the more important and stable genetic makeup, the Y chromosome is destined to be extinct within the next few thousand years.

 

[Braunwyn]

Are you certain woman was not made from man?

Yes, I am certain.

Can you, with full authority and knowledge of EXACTLY what happened make that statement? You were there when it happened? When a woman first came into existence you know what occurred?

I do not believe in magic. You do. All you have on your side to argue such a ridiculous notion is magic. Humans were created from dust whole. lol If Eve was made from Adam, than why don't women have a Y chromosome? Oh, I know. Magic!

 

[b&wpac4]

And what about the scientists who disagree with the scientific "community"? Are they not scientists?

What about Christians that reject the Word of God and Jesus? Are they not Christians?

 

[ChaliceThunder]

There wasn't a single point was what I was getting at. Noah + 3 sons + multiple wives each = many different points.

Your support of polygamy is noted - but seems questionable to your viewpoint, when you are arguing that marriage is a certain thing.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Science "proves" creation could not have happened?! Proves? Nonsense. It has proven nothing of the sort. It's proven a lot of things, but it hasn't proven creation impossible. If it had done that every church in the world would have been shut down and we'd all be atheists.

As a scientists, you know there's no need to make a foolish remark like that. You know perfectly well it hasn't proven anything of the sort.

It is not foolish at all, what is foolish is that no matter how much evidence piles up proving creationism is nonsense Christians will never believe it.

What "evidence" have "we" been shown that being gay isn't a choice? Is it not a choice to act out your desires? I don't doubt an attraction, but the choice to deny your flesh or not is always yours.

Being gay is far more that just sex just exactly the same way heterosexual is more than just sex. And yes science has shown that it is not a choice to be gay which is something bothe scientific and Psychiatric communities agree on.

 

[Braunwyn]

And what about the scientists who disagree with the scientific "community"? Are they not scientists?

There is either consensus within the community based on evidence or not. There will always be outliers.

I have no idea what EM is.

Ethics&Morality forum

 

[bsd13]

MAJOR disconnect.

Jesus Christ called my partner and me into faithful relationship 24 years ago, and it is blessed by him, and precious in his sight.

All your belly-aching won't ever change the truth of that.

Is your a partner the same sex as you?

Is it a sexual relationship?

If so how do you work around what the Bible says about man lying with man or woman lying with woman being an abomination and those who do it will never inherit the kingdom of heaven?

I'm genuinely curious. I know several gays a few of whom once claimed to be children of God. They "quit" (as if that were possible, as if Christ could lose one of His own) because they could not get around scriptures that clearly teach against homosexuality.

 

[Braunwyn]

It is not foolish at all, what is foolish is that no matter how much evidence piles up proving creationism is nonsense Christians will never believe it.

To be fair, christians != YEC or most ime.

 

[bsd13]

Your support of polygamy is noted - but seems questionable to your viewpoint, when you are arguing that marriage is a certain thing.

So now because I recount what the scriptures say happened that means I support polygamy? I honestly don't get you. You claim to be a Christian yet anything that the Bible says you discount. Very strange.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

And what about the scientists who disagree with the scientific "community"? Are they not scientists?

If they have no evidence to back up their hypothesis and it is not accepted under peer review then all it is is personal opinion and that is not science.

So the vast majority of the scientific community agrees that creationism is nonsense and an extreme minority believes otherwise and you believe the extreme minority that has no valid evidence to back up their assertions.

 

[gwenmead]

Then why do so many want to mandate that churches have to perform marriages?

Source?

I don't expect a non-Christian to act like a Christian but I do expect them not to insist that churches do something contrary to their faith. That is to marry homosexuals.

I certainly don't want to see churches compelled to marry GLBT folks, when GLBT marriage is legalized.

One way to deal with the issue might be to remove civil authority to marry any couple from religious entities altogether. Make every "marriage" a civil union (gay or straight), with the authority to bestow such a legal designation reserved to the state and denied to religious entities. Churches could still perform religious marriage ceremonies, but such would carry no legal weight, and priests/pastors/rabbis/etc. would not have the legal authority to officiate a civil union.

A bit extreme, perhaps, but it might increase the necessary divide between church and state, and help ensure that no church is compelled to perform a wedding ceremony for someone whom they deem objectionable. A compromise position might be to allow churches to perform civil unions only for individuals who are active members of their congregation.

I don't really know though, I'm just throwing ideas out there.

 

[Braunwyn]

If they have no evidence to back up their hypothesis and it is not accepted under peer review then all it is is personal opinion and that is not science.

So the vast majority of the scientific community agrees that creationism is nonsense and an extreme minority believes otherwise and you believe the extreme minority that has no valid evidence to back up their assertions.

I came across data about a year ago and found that 0.15% of 'scientists' buy into YEC and that number includes computer, social, etc scientists.

 

[Braunwyn]

One way to deal with the issue might be to remove civil authority to marry any couple from religious entities altogether. Make every "marriage" a civil union (gay or straight), with the authority to bestow such a legal designation reserved to the state and denied to religious entities. Churches could still perform religious marriage ceremonies, but such would carry no legal weight, and priests/pastors/rabbis/etc. would not have the legal authority to officiate a civil union.

I think that's a good idea.

 

[b&wpac4]

Is your a partner the same sex as you?

Is it a sexual relationship?

If so how do you work around what the Bible says about man lying with man or woman lying with woman being an abomination and those who do it will never inherit the kingdom of heaven?

I'm genuinely curious. I know several gays a few of whom once claimed to be children of God. They "quit" (as if that were possible, as if Christ could lose one of His own) because they could not get around scriptures that clearly teach against homosexuality.

When you use the word "abomination" you are pulling from the Old Testament, or Torah as Jews would call it. The word in Hebrew is "to'evah" and it also applied to other actions, such as eating shellfish. If you are going to use the word, you must also call yourself one if you have ever eaten shellfish or gone against any of the other dietary orders.

However, you will counter and tell me that Jesus lifted those. That's fine, and I can agree with you. So, stop using the word "abomination" please. Thanks.

 

[gwenmead]

I think that's a good idea.

Right on. Thanks.

It'd probably put a lot of churches out of business though, so I doubt they'd go for it.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Then why do so many want to mandate that churches have to perform marriages? I don't expect a non-Christian to act like a Christian but I do expect them not to insist that churches do something contrary to their faith. That is to marry homosexuals.

Rubbish. Please show where gays "want to mandate that churches have to perform marriages." Cite and links are appropriate here, otherwise, you should retract the statement.

Churches CANNOT be mandated by US law to perform any sacrament for anyone. It just can't happen.

There are certainly gay Christians who want the sacrament available to us, and we are working on educating people and developing rites...have been for over 30 years. It's a slow process, but it's happening all the same.

But I am challenging to cite even one case where gays are trying to have this become law. It's completely anti-First Amendment...it would never survive the scrutiny of SCOTUS - nor should it!

 

[Braunwyn]

Right on. Thanks.

It'd probably put a lot of churches out of business though, so I doubt they'd go for it.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I don't understand why conservative christians have state-sanctioned marriages at all. It makes no sense.

 

[bsd13]

What about Christians that reject the Word of God and Jesus? Are they not Christians?

On the surface your question seems simple. Because if you reject Christ it is impossible to be a Christian. That is the single element which is necessary to call yourself a Christian. So if they reject Christ then no they are not Christians.

Now by "Word of God" I'm assuming you mean the written word, the Bible and not the Logos, Christ? If that's the case scripture teaches you have to believe on Christ for your salvation. Period. So rejecting the teachings of the Bible does not preclude one from salvation as long as that person has faith in Christ. Being a Christian means you are a follower of Christ.

If on the other hand "Word of God" means Jesus then no. You can't reject Jesus and be a Christian.

 

[b&wpac4]

On the surface your question seems simple. Because if you reject Christ it is impossible to be a Christian. That is the single element which is necessary to call yourself a Christian. So if they reject Christ then no they are not Christians.

Now by "Word of God" I'm assuming you mean the written word, the Bible and not the Logos, Christ? If that's the case scripture teaches you have to believe on Christ for your salvation. Period. So rejecting the teachings of the Bible does not preclude one from salvation as long as that person has faith in Christ. Being a Christian means you are a follower of Christ.

If on the other hand "Word of God" means Jesus then no. You can't reject Jesus and be a Christian.

Well then, you can't reject science and be a scientist.

 

[Braunwyn]

Is your a partner the same sex as you?

Is it a sexual relationship?

This is what I find odd with some of you. You're so interested in other people's sex lives. FYI...It's perverted of you.