homosexuality and the Bible

So then you're NOT a creationist? From your statements, I can deduce that you must not believe your God to be omnipotent nor omniscient since you assert that events happen against His will. Is this true? If my deduction is inaccurate, then these statements of yours are false. It is nothing of the sort. I know plenty of homosexual life-partners who display deeper love for eachother than many heterosexual couples. I can't say that I've ever seen a gay man with a black eye given to him by his partner, though I've seen plenty of women abused by their husbands. No, the pressure from the homosexual community to recognize homosexual marriage is an attempt to bring that aspect of society out of the dark ages from whence came your religion. How in the world do you infer THAT from it? Project much? Homosexuals express and receive this type of love all the time. Didn't you just say that it wasn't about who is in charge? Why then did you go on to make several declarative statments establishing a ranking heirarchy? According to your initial assertion, we should disregard your subsequent statements. (Don't worry, I'm more-or-less doing that already) Your opinion is noted. Thankfully, we do not have to accept your opinion, and frankly, it reveals more about your ignorance than anything. Which God are we talking about again? I can't seem to tell. From your opening statements in this post, it seems you're not speaking of the God of the Bible, or the one commonly believed by Christians.BTW - Did this God of yours intend for us to receive herniated intervertebral disks as a consequence of the imperfect function of the vertical spinal column? Again, you must not be a Christian creationist if you do not believe that God imparted out genetics unto us (Where would Adam get his genes if not from God?). If you DO believe that, and that thereby humans have been imparted with defective or faulty genes (according to you), it should be this God of yours apologizing to us.Also, while I certainly enjoy sex, it is not "LORD" of my life. There is no "LORD" of my life but me.Blessings,::

Perhaps, yet it also reveals firm grasp on rational thinking on my part. ...and the stereotype continues to propogate... Dan Carroll already provided you a stellar example of your own internally inconsistent statements. I'll assume you meant "serpent" and not Satan in order to honor your insistence on literalism. Regardless, in a perfect universe no possibility for imperfection can exist lest it was not perfect to begin with. You're special pleading in the case of the serpent. A "perfect" serpent would not tempt Eve. I suspect that you believe that without sin no death would exist. Is that the case?In addition, you failed to address the incompatibility of your assertions with the omni-capabilities presumed of your deity from my last post. Nothing happens against the will of an omnipotent and omniscient being. My statements simply compared you to the majority of Christians I've encountered. Most of them hold that God created this universe. You stated that you didn't believe this, therefore I reasonably deduced that you are not a Christian according to the common definition of the term. This is easily falsified by tracing back Ancient Egyptian history which continues uninterupted for nearly 10,000 years or more into the past. (Of course, I'm assuming you hold to a belief in a 6000 year old earth, and that the flood happened 2500 years before present) Actually, the story of a global flood was falsified geologically some 100 years ago by Chrisitian geologists who set out to seek evidence for it. Is that a veiled threat of fire and brimstone? I honestly hope it is. I haven't had a good laugh at Christian scare tactics in a long time.Blessings,::

Why would I need to that if you insist it should be read literally? Doesn't it literally say "serpent"? Where does Genesis literally say "Satan"? Then why would you or I need a concordance? Is the concordance part of the original Bible texts? Not at all. I believe hard evidence excavated by modern archaeologists and the various independant dating methods that place them in history exactly in accordance with written Egyptian history over an account which shows no evidence of ever having occurred as you describe it. Maybe, but thankfully the Pharoahs didn't write the histories, and we can corroborate them with present day excavation and independant and precisely calibrated dating methods. Supply the evidence of which you speak. Yeah and the Noachian flood tale reads a lot like a rip-off of the Gilgamesh story. So what?Blessings,::

I said:

quote:

---

(Of course, I'm assuming you hold to a belief in a 6000 year old earth, and that the flood happened 2500 years before present)

---

I intended to say "...that the flood happened 4500 years before present" as is commonly held by the likes of AiG. That would place the flood at 2500 BC.EDIT: LOL. I suppose I should correct my symbology a bit too. Instead typing "4500 ybp" I should type "4500 ybp" lest I give the impression that the flood might have happened up to 4500 years in the future. D'OH!!!Blessings,::[This message has been edited by ::, 08-22-2003]

:::thundering applause and cheers::::Well done! Good show! Hear! Hear!Seriously A_Christian, reducing your only comments to insults when your beliefs are challenged will not get you far in convincing others to hold your beliefs too.Blessings,::

Neither is it silly to fear the composition of sentences which contain vowels if one read's Mammathus' posts and believes him to be the sole infallible channel between us and the giant four-assed galactic monkey. We're all shakin' in our boots... I have hope for a hereafter, too. We're not too different in that regard. My hoped-for model, however, doesn't include eternal damnation for roughly half of the entire populous of the planet earth. Why would I hope for that?Blessings,::