Poor Aisha

[Medicine*Woman]

Evolution of Homosexuality

Originally posted by okinrus
The homosexual act(this is only what the bible talks about) is not something that God created, but is chosen. And even if certain individuals are predisposed it is only consequence of Adam's choice. Many individuals are predisposed to anger, alcohol and drugs.

Let's see, now--God created human beings who evolved and are still in the process of evolving. God made them male and female. God also made them intergendered and transgendered. God gave the human physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual desires. Should God be condemned when the human desires his or her own gender? No, its much easier to condemn the individual than God..[/B][/QUOTE]

..[/B][/QUOTE] God does not punish every sin in this life. Yes, Lot is a sinner, but he is not wicked. The entire crowd had surrounded his house. Lot had three options.
1. Let the crowd kill him and then rape his daughters and visitors.
2. Hand over the men he had trusted to let stay with him.
3. Hand over his daughters, effectively his property at that time. [/B][/QUOTE]

If God doesn't punish every sin in this life, then God is being inconsistent with its children. God does not punish homosexuals and lesbians because God created them as he wanted them to be. Evolution will continue long after Xianity is gone. Take a look at the bigger picture. You are condemning God's creation. That's blasphemy!

 

[daktaklakpak]

Originally posted by okinrus
The homosexual act(this is only what the bible talks about) is not something that God created, but is chosen.

There are only two cases. Either homo act was built into Adam at the beginning, or it was added later after Adam ate the fruit. Either way God made it happen. So why homo act is not God's creation?

 

[okinrus]

Let's see, now--God created human beings who evolved and are still in the process of evolving. God made them male and female.

God also made them intergendered and transgendered. God gave the human physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual desires. Should God be condemned when the human desires his or her own gender? No, its much easier to condemn the individual than God.

I have many desires. Wealth, fame, looks etc. I do not choose them, but God has allowed us to choose them.

If God doesn't punish every sin in this life, then God is being inconsistent with its children.

As you read in hebrews, some punishment helps us make correct decisions.

God does not punish homosexuals and lesbians because God created them as he wanted them to be. Evolution will continue long after Xianity is gone. Take a look at the bigger picture. You are condemning God's creation. That's blasphemy!

Where did I condemn God's creation? All I said was that the destruction of Sodom and Gommoriah does not directly refer to homosexuality.

Either homo act was built into Adam at the beginning, or it was added later after Adam ate the fruit. Either way God made it happen. So why homo act is not God's creation?

The homosexual act is not build into anyone... Unless if you want to admit that homosexuals are forced into have sex with each other. The predisposition to all sin was the consequence of Adam eating the fruit. Heterosexuals are predisposed to lust, premarital sex, etc. Likewise homosexuals are predisposed to an unhealthy relationship. God did not make it happen because Adam chose to eat of the fruit.

 

[SnakeLord]

Im shocked. Okinrus- wake up, smell the coffee, then go study or something. Personally i think you're beyond help, but it's always worth a try.

 

[Tiassa]

Okinrus

So God didn't know what would happen at Eden?

The problem is that God did know, according to the broader traditions of Christianity. God knows all, sees all. Certes, God may choose to leave "choice" to people, but God already knows the outcome. He knew the outcome at Eden and He chose to go forward anyway. Some sects, such as the Seventh-Day Adventists, apparently see this as a pretty normal thing. Sure, God blesses each life, despite it being inherently unsuitable to Him, and endorses a humanity that is apparently unable to cope for itself and requires God's assistance. And yet we ought to be thankful for our condition ...?

The thing is that Christians have taken too many grandiose doctrinal claims from the Bible and created for themselves a God that is impossible unto itself. While certain religious paradigms might assert this to be the point, I'm of the opinion that Christians see their faith as a little more practical.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[okinrus]

The problem is that God did know, according to the broader traditions of Christianity. God knows all, sees all. Certes, God may choose to leave "choice" to people, but God already knows the outcome.

I think only presbytians and like sects believe this.

He knew the outcome at Eden and He chose to go forward anyway. Some sects, such as the Seventh-Day Adventists, apparently see this as a pretty normal thing. Sure, God blesses each life, despite it being inherently unsuitable to Him, and endorses a humanity that is apparently unable to cope for itself and requires God's assistance. And yet we ought to be thankful for our condition ...?

Well this doesn't make sense. I can't be held responsible for whatever some crazy heresy believes in.

 

[Tiassa]

Okinrus

I think only presbytians and like sects believe this.

Sectarian marginalization. Sorry, it's a familiar routine, is all.

It's just that it doesn't change the fact that the idea exists.

I can't be held responsible for whatever some crazy heresy believes in.

On the one hand, thank you for furthering my point.

And because your answer interests me, what about Matthew 25?

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[okinrus]

Im shocked. Okinrus- wake up, smell the coffee, then go study or something. Personally i think you're beyond help, but it's always worth a try.

Repent of all. Repent of not waking up. Waking up is repentance. By waking up you mean the fact that there is not a God right? But that would mean that I would not have soul and so Okinrus would not exist. Since Okinrus is really just a collection of cells serving no one except the evolution of death, Okinrus may stay a sleep.

 

[Tiassa]

Look around

But that would mean that I would not have soul and so Okinrus would not exist

Unless you wish to go absolutely nihilist, I would advise you to look around and realize that many people have no problem existing without whatever it is you call a soul.

Your panic is not warranted.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[okinrus]

Logically, without the existance of the soul, that is the only way to go. For me, it seems that one being, which happens to be me, makes the choices. It does not feel like 100 million cells are making their own choices. So one cell must be making the choices. Yet the problem is that we are so much complicated and our choices are so complex that it leads to me to believe that one cell could never do this.

Another point needs to be made. Anny christian, including muslim, who believes that God knows the future and in free will is being illogical. If God knows the future, then God knows what choices we will make. This implies that we have already made our choices, which is certainly illogical.

 

[SnakeLord]

Repent of all. Repent of not waking up. Waking up is repentance. By waking up you mean the fact that there is not a God right? But that would mean that I would not have soul and so Okinrus would not exist. Since Okinrus is really just a collection of cells serving no one except the evolution of death, Okinrus may stay a sleep.

whatever... we're not in church. I was actually referring to your comments throughout this thread, completely irrelevant to whether a god exists or not. Your:

"Muhammed's first wife was older than him. A pedophile would only prefer younger girls"

"The homosexual act(this is only what the bible talks about) is not something that God created, but is chosen. And even if certain individuals are predisposed it is only consequence of Adam's choice."

There is rarely a time i get to hear such utter tripe.

Furthermore if you want to know what's morally wrong with bonking a 9 year old girl, go study up on human anatomy.

Now that you mention it your last sentence pretty much sums up the 'need' for a god/soul. Without either we're just a "bunch of cells" with no purpose, just born to die. It does sound rather miserable doesn't it. You cope with the knowledge of that however you see fit.

 

[thefountainhed]

Okinrus is making several important points that are unfortunately being missed in the face of Atheism.

Tiassa: what constitutes your moral code? How do u decide what is right and wrong? And also I can't seem to get your POINT, it seems to me you are trying to make--or it appears that way--the insignificance/irrelevance of the Aisha crap is evident. Methinks however that the thread has moved past that.

Just a point on the issue of choice. I believe if you read the history of christian theology, you will see that as with the notion of a trinity, choice is relatively modern--and in direct conflict with the scriptures. Whether or not illogical, God supposedly knows the end. Your path is known. What you do is known. What you will do is known. I know it is illogical, but this what your bible says. What it also says is that since you do not know it, then you must do your best to follow a righteous path. Also illogical. The bible is paradoxical. Religion is paradoxical. Morality is paradoxical. Consciousness is paradoxical. A paradox is paradoxical. I simply say Fuck it. Do your best without fucking another person up if you can.

 

[okinrus]

Well I think at the beginning, the early christians and Jews had a simple faith. That is they knew they were accountable for their actions, but they did not spend to much time thinking about the theological consequences of God knowing the future. From Sirach 15:11 "Say not: 'It was God's doing that I fell away'; for what he hates he does not do. Say not: 'It was he who set me astray'; for he has no need of wicked man. Abominable wickedness the LORD hates, he does not let it befall those who fear him. When God, int the beginning, created man, he made him subject to his own free choice. If you choose you can keep the commandments; it is loyalty to do his will. There are set before you fire and water; to whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand. Before man are life and death, whichever he chooses shall be given him. Immense is the wisdom of the LORD; he is mighty in power, and all-seeing. The eyes of God see all he has made; he understands man's every deed. no man does he command to sin, to none does he give strength for lies." I think that concludes what an all-knowing God meant to the hebrews and early christians. Unfortunatly Martin Luther chose to throw out this book. Leading to latter heresy. Certainly this must have been the work of the devil.

There is a pslam where David says something like God knew my actions before I made them. I cannot accept the testimony of human beings as absolutly truthful. I know that God may know some of our choices. He knows the condition of our heart and could allow us to be tempted past our abilities. But this is only to bring to us repentance and greater awareness of ourselves in prayer that leads us to humbleness before God. The concept of God knowing the complete future comes from greek philosophy, which, by the way, Paul warns us of.

 

[thefountainhed]

The concept of God knowing the complete future comes from greek philosophy, which, by the way, Paul warns us of.

Careful. How? Why? If so then the concept of a SINGLE God (monotheism) comes from where? The issue is THE BIBLE says unequivocally that God knows your future and your end. This is "the word of God", according to you. Theologians will always find creative interpretations of the bible as time and society permits.

 

[okinrus]

Show me where in the bible. The only other passage that I can think of is the God's elect. In fact is a term used in the non-canonial book of Enoch. Of course this book was lost before Calvin and so Calvin corrupted his own thoughts. It does not have anything to do with God choosing someone before birth. The fact is that it is that God does not know the complete future. All those conversations where God spoke to someone would be God talking to himself and repentance would be non-sensical. It cannot be believed in and no one really believes it anyways.

"God's word" is the bible, but writings of humans can be easily misunderstood. Despite what people say, the testimony of human beings cannot be accepted. Only by trusting in the spriit of truth can we have any way of knowing what is truth. And all truth comes from God.

The writing of the bible must be taken in context of those writing it. It must be studied with respect to the time it was writen. How can we say that the authors of the bible even understand the concept of time? When they said all-knowing we have to take into context that they did not have warped thoughts about time travel or anything like that. What I do know is that St. Jerome, St. Aquinas, and St. Augustine were famaliar with Greek thought. I believe that all three conceded that we have freewill though.

 

[thefountainhed]

I'm certain you understand what OMNISCIENT IS SO I WILL NOT EVEN QUOTE GENESIS.

The paradox exists. Like I said, theologians exists to mold or fit the bible in their times. Predestine--foreknown...How much man has argued about these

Romans 8:28-30
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Acts 17:24-28 NKJV) "God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. {25} "Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. {26} "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, {27} "so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; {28} "for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Romans 3:10-12)

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. (Ephesians 2:8)


plainly see that the Scripture says here:
Eph. 1:4 ...He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world...
Eph. 1:5 He predestined us to adoption as sons...
Eph. 1:9 ...His will ... which He purposed...
Eph. 1:11 ...having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will

John 15:16 “You did not choose Me, but I chose you, and appointed you..."

 

[Tiassa]

Fountainhed

Tiassa: what constitutes your moral code?

In the abstract it has to do with harmonizing self-maximization with the benefit of the species. In potential, it is the best interest of my daughter. In practice, I'm currently standing off my partner on a few issues, leaving me clinging to moral neutrality at best.

How do u decide what is right and wrong?

A lot of it is visceral, but I do apply a dose of moral relativity. In the end the stupid sometimes offends me more than the atrocious. Atrocities happen, and will until humanity learns better. There's no excuse for stupidity, which causes atrocities.

People have been f@cking children since the beginning of time. Right now I'm trying to figure out what, aside from visceral revulsion, makes people look down on it. I'm not entirely sure I want the answer.

For every child- or sheep-f@cker in one corner of the world, there exists an equivalent in the next.

And also I can't seem to get your POINT, it seems to me you are trying to make--or it appears that way--the insignificance/irrelevance of the Aisha crap is evident. Methinks however that the thread has moved past that.

Perhaps it has. I'm getting sick of these flea-ridden, dumb-assed topic starters, though. People ought to have a point, or, and here I'll happily use myself as an example, like me, admit when they don't. I tried being sarcastic with the lightning topic, but that didn't go well. I should have gone with my policy of admitting it was a pointless topic, but no ... I had to be cute.

In the meantime, I will continue to make the point that I'm sick of these utterly vomitous topic starters.

Aside from that, I'm interested in your take on Okinrus' points.

I believe if you read the history of christian theology, you will see that as with the notion of a trinity, choice is relatively modern--and in direct conflict with the scriptures.

Modern and political. Free will (choice) and Trinity do not reconcile well with the Bible, imho.

Whether or not illogical . . . .

I believe I'm with you on all counts.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[SnakeLord]

"God's word" is the bible, but writings of humans can be easily misunderstood. Despite what people say, the testimony of human beings cannot be accepted. Only by trusting in the spriit of truth can we have any way of knowing what is truth. And all truth comes from God

What makes you so sure all truth comes from god? After all, writing of humans can be easily misunderstood and despite what people say, testimony of human beings cannot be accepted. You have taken the writings of ancient people, (which is easily misunderstood), and listened wholeheartedly to your parents, priests and buddies even though their testimony can't be accepted....

You say the bible is "gods word"... who says?

 

[okinrus]

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Jesus says, "Many are called, but few are chosen." So if God really did predestine someone before birth to damnation why would he call out to them. He know that they will not be chosen. WHy waste his breath on man. Now the predestination here is clearly after death. However Jesus specifically says that he did not come to earth to judge. This clearly means that there was no judgement on who would go to heaven. The last judgement itself implies that there is something to judge. The theology of Calvin is illogical. Can God judge himself? Now back to the elect. Those who are elect are predestined to the resurrection of life. How do you become elect. Well Paul says at the beginning "God works for the good of those who love him". Also if Paul really meant what you are interpreting this as, then there would be no point in Paul writing it. You might want to read http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/ot/pseudo/enoch.htm
Compare what Paul says to this
"2 Blessed are ye, ye righteous and elect,
For glorious shall be your lot.
3 And the righteous shall be in the light of the sun.
And the elect in the light of eternal life:
The days of their life shall be unending,
And the days of the holy without number."

Numbers 16:4 "When Moses heard this, he fell prostrate. Then he said to Korah and to all his band, 'May the LORD make known tomorrow morning who belongs to him and who is the holy one and whom he will have draw near to him! Whom he chooses, he will have draw near him."

Acts 17:24-28 NKJV)

I don't see a contradiction here. Yes, God is in control of somethings. The old testament describes how each country had a guardian angel. Michael is guardian of Israels. Paul also says that Jesus must put everything underhim. The reality shown by this passage where Jesus must put everything underhim is that an all powerful God can give his creatures some power also. I'm not sure why this so hard to understand. Protected mode operating systems give processes freedom to run, while at the same time stoping them from destroying and crashing the system.

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Romans 3:10-12)

This was written by Isaiah. I don't see any contradiction here. God is refering to those who do not seek and love God. Otherwise this passage makes no sense. An overly literal intepretation would mean that Isaiha did no good which is certainly flawed.

Modern and political. Free will (choice) and Trinity do not reconcile well with the Bible, imho.

I'm not sure what bible you are reading. I don't see God making our choices for us and then blaming us. As if we even exist if he makes all of our choices. Sometimes I think people throughout common sense when they read... Also I don't see it being modern. Yes the technical terms are modern, but even cave man know that they have freewill. Freewill is obvious and self evident and if it were not for those who wrongly interpret and throw out books of the bible, predestination would not exist. Did you read my quote from Sirach? This is a jewish scribe well versed in the Torah dated to 200BC. If you want to continue to argue against the weakest interpretation without proving the weakest interpretation is correct then so be it. You will prove that Christianity is inconsistant. The problem is that we do not exist as a person without freewill. There is no me or you, but just a collection of cells. Now the Trinity was theologically developed in 325AD. I can refer to works of 100AD that refer to Jesus as God and Jesus basically says that he is God anyways. The early christians surely believed that the Father was God. We have in place, Jesus is God and the Father is God. Along with what Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" and we see the start the doctrin of the Trinity. Man cannot serve two masters, so God is one. Jesus describes the Holy Spirit that is desribed in John, not as himself or the Father but another person. And yet we are certainly to assume that the Holy Spirit is divine, because the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary before she gave concieved Jesus. But why even look in the New testament? Numbers 11:25 says "The LORD then came down in the cloud and spoke to him. Taking some of the spirit was on Moses, he bestowed it on the seventy elders; and as the spirit came to rest on them, they prophesied." So if God is only the Father, then how can he take himself? There are also other ideas of Christianity. The concept that God is Love or that God creates through Love means that God is at least two persons. One person could not be Love because Love requires another. I might also add that Love requires a choice. To believe that God could love an instrument is nonsense. I think even human love is beyond this sort of thing.

 

[Mucker]

ever heard of pedophilia? Are you one of those pedophilic RCC priests...

What do you mean?? What's a paedophile? :bugeye: