Same Sex Marriage and the Bible

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Mar 18, 2015 9:04 pm

Asia is not exactly democracy friendly.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:57 am

Smackie wrote:One has to make certain assumptions when trying to reconcile passages that are ludicrous on the surface (using a man's rib as the foundation from which to build a woman?) but are held as absolute truth by some, with at least some science, to interpret what is really being said here. If we assume God created Man, we must also assume God created the DNA contained in the first man's genes. The rib God removed from Adam contained the same DNA as every other cell in Adam's body, and since there's been no recorded evidence I'm aware of to indicate the possibility of a human having DNA that differs from one body part to another, it must be concluded that Eve was the only identical twin of different gender ever - she had to have the same DNA as Adam, right?

I'm sure the Bible says something somewhere about incest - and I'd think fucking your identical twin sister would qualify - but this goes even further. They weren't twins in the conventional sense in that they didn't come from the same mother (since neither she nor Adam had mothers - Western religions are funny like that about completely eliminating the life-giving goddess from creation stories), and were never the same embryo. Eve was more of a female clone of Adam than a sister (in addition, of course, to the whole wife thingy). They are, genetically, identical. Right?

I don't know if she had to have the same DNA as Adam or not.
Jesus came from Mary, yet had no original sin.

My point here...
God was able to create all things just by speaking it.
Things He is able to do are way beyond our grasp of understanding -- and the Bible only tells us... what the Bible tells us.

I wouldn't conclude that just because God took a rib from Adam, He was constrained to use the DNA from that rib to make Eve.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:21 am

You are delusional.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 2:05 am

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him (God) from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:26 am

poptart wrote:
Smackie wrote:One has to make certain assumptions when trying to reconcile passages that are ludicrous on the surface (using a man's rib as the foundation from which to build a woman?) but are held as absolute truth by some, with at least some science, to interpret what is really being said here. If we assume God created Man, we must also assume God created the DNA contained in the first man's genes. The rib God removed from Adam contained the same DNA as every other cell in Adam's body, and since there's been no recorded evidence I'm aware of to indicate the possibility of a human having DNA that differs from one body part to another, it must be concluded that Eve was the only identical twin of different gender ever - she had to have the same DNA as Adam, right?

I'm sure the Bible says something somewhere about incest - and I'd think fucking your identical twin sister would qualify - but this goes even further. They weren't twins in the conventional sense in that they didn't come from the same mother (since neither she nor Adam had mothers - Western religions are funny like that about completely eliminating the life-giving goddess from creation stories), and were never the same embryo. Eve was more of a female clone of Adam than a sister (in addition, of course, to the whole wife thingy). They are, genetically, identical. Right?
I don't know if she had to have the same DNA as Adam or not.
Jesus came from Mary, yet had no original sin.

My point here...
God was able to create all things just by speaking it.
Things He is able to do are way beyond our grasp of understanding -- and the Bible only tells us... what the Bible tells us.

I wouldn't conclude that just because God took a rib from Adam, He was constrained to use the DNA from that rib to make Eve.

I don't really understand why non-believers try to attack the Bible with verbal interpretations. Particularly when you're going all the way back to the creation story. Do you really picture God removing one of Adam's ribs to create a woman (probably his 12th one, enabling Adam to blow himself and rendering the woman useless)? It's allegory. Lighten up.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:34 am

Goober wrote:removing one of Adam's ribs to create a woman (probably his 12th one, enabling Adam to blow himself

You're a dangerous man, Goober.

Upon reading your post, I'd say around 78% of the board members will now seriously begin contemplating removal of said rib.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 10:44 pm

Genesis 1:24-28
[24] And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
[25] And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
[26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
[28] And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

God created animals after their kind (no evolution) -- and created man unique among all created things, in that we are created in God's image.
We, like God, are spiritual and eternal beings.

If you trace the family lines given in the Bible -----> back to Adam, man is around 6,000 years old.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Fri Mar 20, 2015 1:41 pm

Here is my short answer, Jsc...

1) While the Bible has elements of science (small) and history (somewhat bigger) within it, it's purpose is this...

Deuteronomy 8:3
man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

John 20:31
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

The Bible was written to show us our salvation -- how we can live.
Apart from God's Word, man dies.
Period.
Full stop.

2) It's my assumption that man is 6,00 yrs old, based on the information given in the Bible.
The age of the earth is not given in the Bible.
We are told that the earth was created... In the beginning.
But we are not told specifically when the beginning was.
For a few reasons, I am open to the possibility that there is a gap of some amount of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

3) I find evidence for evolution entirely lacking, and the concept to be quite preposterous.
To get right down to brass tacks, evolutionists believe their patriarch was -----> a rock.
Yes, they think they came from a rock.
Have you ever really stopped to consider that?

Rain and water sloshed about on a rock for millions of years, and a rock (non-life, of course) somehow came to life.

The rock one day advanced (millions of years later) to become a squirrel, which again millions of years later -----> evolved to become a man.

I know paper, scissors, rock -- but here we have rock, squirrel, man.

Not IN.

In the beginning, God created... is what I believe.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Mar 20, 2015 2:57 pm

Fucking scary to think that there really are a lot of poptarts out there.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Fri Mar 20, 2015 3:07 pm

Oh yes, it's very scary, isn't it...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator...

God is the author of life.

THIS is scary...

Evolutionists believe their patriarch was -----> a rock.
Yes, they think they came from a rock.
Have you ever really stopped to consider that?

Rain and water sloshed about on a rock for millions of years, and a rock (non-life, of course) somehow came to life.

Rock, squirrel, human.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Fri Mar 20, 2015 3:12 pm

No, we came from the monolith.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Fri Mar 20, 2015 8:01 pm

Mikey wrote:Fucking scary to think that there really are a lot of poptarts out there.

And what is equally odd is that folks like you and jsc are church goers, if I have my spreadsheet right.

As batshit crazy as poptah's beliefs are, he is consistent. Fake christians on the other hand, apparently want to be in the club, but just don't want to follow its rules.

If you are an aetheist or, in my case extremely doubtful agnostic, you have room to mock them. You fake christians don't without looking like hypocrites.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Mar 21, 2015 3:03 am

Jsc wrote:Human evolution is not in scientific dispute

Pffft...

It most certainly IS in dispute.

Why do you think we continually see SCIENTISTS debating the issue?

Oh, of course one can be a Christian who believes in evolution.
Faith in the blood of Christ is what is necessary for salvation -- not a recognition that you didn't come from a squirrel.

But a Christian who believes evolution is true is doing something strange with Genesis 1:24-28 in his mind.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sat Mar 21, 2015 6:25 am

smackaholic wrote:
Mikey wrote:Fucking scary to think that there really are a lot of poptarts out there.
And what is equally odd is that folks like you and jsc are church goers, if I have my spreadsheet right.

As batshit crazy as poptah's beliefs are, he is consistent. Fake christians on the other hand, apparently want to be in the club, but just don't want to follow its rules.

If you are an aetheist or, in my case extremely doubtful agnostic, you have room to mock them. You fake christians don't without looking like hypocrites.

After poptart, this has to be one of the more ignorant takes in the history of T1B.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Mar 21, 2015 7:02 pm

How so, mikey?

If you are going to be a "christian", I would think this means you should be a follower of Christ and his operator manual, the Bible. If you believe that a fair bit of what is in the bible is batshit crazy, then why sign on with this club? Why not just join some other religion, or if none suit you, just fukkin' make up your own.

Personally, I think you're in it for the potluck suppers, ya fat bastid.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sat Mar 21, 2015 9:44 pm

smackaholic wrote:How so, mikey?

If you are going to be a "christian", I would think this means you should be a follower of Christ and his operator manual, the Bible. If you believe that a fair bit of what is in the bible is batshit crazy, then why sign on with this club? Why not just join some other religion, or if none suit you, just fukkin' make up your own.

Personally, I think you're in it for the potluck suppers, ya fat bastid.

You seem to have a pretty narrow concept of what it means to be a "christian". Are you really that simple minded, or are you just trolling?

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Mar 21, 2015 9:57 pm

Not trolling. Just pointing out that it seems odd to ridicule someone who believes the entire bible, or new testament, not just cherry picking the parts they like.

As for what it means to be a Christian, I take it to mean you believe the whole bit about Christ being the son of g0d and all the fair tales that go along with it. I don't think it means you are just a good person. Plenty of serious shitbags out there claiming to be Christians.

I guess my point is, if you think the Bible is the word of g0d, then you live by it. All of it. If you just pick out the nice parts, well, you really don't believe it is the word of god. You are just a poser.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 2:25 am

Jsc wrote:Pop you simply are flat out wrong. Scientists are not debating whether human evolution occurred. There is overwhelming scientific consensus on that.

Sure, there is debate about the small details. But there absolutely is not scientific debate as to the big picture of human origins. There are no legitimate scientists who claim that God created man in our present form within the past 10,000 years, there is no scientific evidence for that whatsoever.

Your nose is growing.

Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye was a high profile debate last year.
There are on-going scientific debates over this issue.
They are very common.
Search youtube.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 5:38 am

poptart wrote:
Jsc wrote:Pop you simply are flat out wrong. Scientists are not debating whether human evolution occurred. There is overwhelming scientific consensus on that.

Sure, there is debate about the small details. But there absolutely is not scientific debate as to the big picture of human origins. There are no legitimate scientists who claim that God created man in our present form within the past 10,000 years, there is no scientific evidence for that whatsoever.
Your nose is growing.

Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye was a high profile debate last year.
There are on-going scientific debates over this issue.
They are very common.
Search youtube.

There's also youtube videos proclaiming that 9/11 was a government inside job.

Roger_the_Shrubber · Post by **Roger_the_Shrubber** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 9:23 pm

Throwing a sabo into the gears here. (look it up)

Read just the preface to C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. He explains, among MANY other great things, that evolution and The Bible can be pretty much in agreement. Too much to type here, so buy the book. Super intelligent guy, and he logically explains things like this.

Carry on.

Roger_the_Shrubber · Post by **Roger_the_Shrubber** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 9:49 pm

Au contraire, mon frere. Ya need to read up a bit.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:07 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:There's also youtube videos proclaiming that 9/11 was a government inside job.

There's also You Tube videos with cats dressed as clowns playing keyboards. Clearly, youtube.com is the go-to tool for scientific research on the origins of man.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:08 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:
poptart wrote:
Jsc wrote:Pop you simply are flat out wrong. Scientists are not debating whether human evolution occurred. There is overwhelming scientific consensus on that.

Sure, there is debate about the small details. But there absolutely is not scientific debate as to the big picture of human origins. There are no legitimate scientists who claim that God created man in our present form within the past 10,000 years, there is no scientific evidence for that whatsoever.
Your nose is growing.

Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye was a high profile debate last year.
There are on-going scientific debates over this issue.
They are very common.
Search youtube.
There's also youtube videos proclaiming that 9/11 was a government inside job.

But just as there is no evidence to support the bible (or even the historical existence of Jesus), there is no evidence to support the official 9/11 Commission report. So...you seem a bit confused.

Similarly, while there are a few hack shill scientists who will deny Climate Change as a very real event and serious problem, the vast majority of legitimate scientists have no doubt at all--just as with evolution. You're very confused.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:14 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:
Similarly, while there are a few hack shill scientists who will deny Climate Change as a very real event and serious problem, the vast majority of legitimate scientists have no doubt at all--just as with evolution. You're very confused.

I think you're the confused one here. [/KC]

The Theory of Evolution is quite strongly supported by a variety of evidence, including fossil records, which follow a logical path through geographical regions.

The AGW Theory is supported by... failed predictions, and based on a premise that contradicts proven, repeatable astrophysics.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:16 pm

schmick wrote:nothing religious involves logic, religion is the absence of logic

Good God. Why don't you just show us on the doll where Jesus touched you.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:49 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:
Similarly, while there are a few hack shill scientists who will deny Climate Change as a very real event and serious problem, the vast majority of legitimate scientists have no doubt at all--just as with evolution. You're very confused.
I think you're the confused one here. [/KC]

The Theory of Evolution is quite strongly supported by a variety of evidence, including fossil records, which follow a logical path through geographical regions.

The AGW Theory is supported by... failed predictions, and based on a premise that contradicts proven, repeatable astrophysics.

You can say that--just as P-tart can quote the bible--but the fact remains that only a handful of admittedly paid shill scientists deny Climate Change, while the vast majority--who are certainly not shills--are in agreement to its reality. This is a simple fact, despite your auto-response of right-wing radio denial.

Consider if only a handful of scientists supported the theory of evolution. But no, it's the vast majority. And too this is precisely the case with Climate Change.

And if you're bound to your Al Gore and Soros conspiracy theory, explain how they got to this guy..
http://www.theamericanregister.com/clim ... tist/8056/

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:07 am

Jsc wrote:Ken Ham certainly is not a legitimate scientist, and as his wiki page says, "His claim that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is contradicted by evidence from astronomy and from the Earth's fossil and geological records."

lol

Predictable.

CMI list of scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CMI_list_o ... f_creation

But none of them are credible, mind you, because to be "credible," you must believe in the *MAGIC* of... millions of years...

Millions of years...

Millions of years... is so magical that a rock can come to life.
So magic that a squirrel can one day be a human.

No faith involved there.
It's all science -- and it's settled.

Jsc wrote:There are Bible verses that say that the earth doesn't move, and that the sun does move. Furthermore, it took a miracle for the sun to remain still for Joshua. Of course, the church punished Galileo for advancing heliocentrism.

Considering the Scripture, do you believe that the earth revolves around the sun?

I guess it could be an interesting topic - but I have never explored it deeply at all.
I don't find importance in it.
The sun rises, I get up.
It sets, I sleep.

As I noted...

poptart wrote:1) While the Bible has elements of science (small) and history (somewhat bigger) within it, it's purpose is this...

Deuteronomy 8:3
man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

John 20:31
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

The Bible was written to show us our salvation -- how we can live.
Apart from God's Word, man dies.
Period.
Full stop.

"The sun stopped"... and many other things in the Bible are written from man's perspective.

Why do weathermen tell us when the sun will rise?

Don't they know the sun is not moving??

What's wrong with them?

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 1:52 am

Interesting how Popthumper has never really explored those parts of the bible that discredit the whole thing...

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 1:58 am

I'm happy to explore any part you want, Diego.
Very happy.

Pull up the Scripture and ask away.

Jsc wrote:It is basic and beyond dispute: the earth revolves around the sun. To the extent that the Bible says anything to the contrary, the Bible is wrong.

Then the weatherman is wrong when he tells us the sun rises and sets.
Right?

Again, we see things in the Bible which are written from man's perspective -- just as a weatherman describes what will happen from man's perspective.
Why is this a difficult concept?

Again, again... the Bible's purpose is NOT that of a science text.

Jsc wrote:There is nothing to explore deeply at all.

Science is supposed to explore things.
It's what it is, and it will never stop.

Do you not know that there have been MANY commonly accepted "truths," which later became known to be FALSE?

Evolution is dumb in the extreme, imo.

trev · Post by **trev** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 3:14 am

Aren't evolution and bible stories equally lame? Just my opinion. It really comes down to what you believe, since both are bizarre and not proven. Is the earth way more than 6000 years old? If you are logical and not bible driven, that is more believable. But who's to say, since there is no proof, either way. Believe what you want and stop fighting about it.

2000 years from now, religion will pretty much be extinct. Suck on that, if you will.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 3:33 am

Mgo wrote:There's also You Tube videos with cats dressed as clowns playing keyboards. Clearly, youtube.com is the go-to tool for scientific research on the origins of man.

Youtube has videos about everything.

Within that everything, there are hundreds (thousands?) of videos of debates (and other info) between scientists on the topic of creation and evolution.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 8:39 am

poptart wrote:
Mgo wrote:There's also You Tube videos with cats dressed as clowns playing keyboards. Clearly, youtube.com is the go-to tool for scientific research on the origins of man.
Youtube has videos about everything.

Within that everything, there are hundreds (thousands?) of videos of debates (and other info) between scientists on the topic of creation and evolution.

I bet your other source of factual information is Wikipedia.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 9:26 am

I don't know what kind of point you think you just made.

Scientist have REAL debates on this issue.
They are filmed -- and just happen to end up on youtube, where we can view them.

Is the evidence both sides present discredited because people view the debates on youtube?

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 2:59 pm

R-Jack wrote:
schmick wrote:nothing religious involves logic, religion is the absence of logic
Good God. Why don't you just show us on the doll where Jesus touched you.

Yep, that one will rack.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 5:40 pm

3th the R-jack rack.

As for arguing the validity of religion, why do you fukks keep at it. You will not convince poptah that the entire bible is a crock of shit anytime soon. Just let it go.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 6:24 pm

Seems to me you are contradicting yourself.

You start out saying you think the bible is not entirely full of shit. You then say that if you lie over trivial stuff in court, your credibility goes out the window.

Well, if the bible really is "the word of god" and parts of it can be shown to be complete idiocy, why buy any of it? Was g0d just fukkin' with us when it comes to the batshit crazy parts?

So, to re-iterate, if you buy the whole story, well, you might be batshit crazy, but, you are consistent. If you claim to be a christian but only on the parts you like, you are full of shit.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 10:55 pm

tWhether or not they had the technology is irrelevant. The bible is allegedly the word of g0d. I take this to mean some dude basically took dictation from Him.

So, either He told these fukkers a bunch of whoppers, or they all made a bunch of shit up.

The smart money is on the latter.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:29 am

R-Jack wrote:
schmick wrote:nothing religious involves logic, religion is the absence of logic
Good God. Why don't you just show us on the doll where Jesus touched you.

Yeah, nice one.

Jerkovich · Post by **Jerkovich** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:34 am

All this from our board theological scholars who have barely cracked a bible, much more then attempted to read and contemplate it.

Now that's absurd.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:44 am

Jsc wrote:Likewise with poptart. He can't even admit that the earth revolves around the sun

It's my assumption that such is the case.
I think it does.

YOU don't know for sure if it does or not.
You believe it does, because that is what you've been told for all the years of your life.

The sun rises, I get up.
It sets, I go to bed.
I'm good.

Jsc wrote:Big Bang and evolution (poptart can't admit)

The big bang -- where nothing exploded, and created everything.

How could I be so silly as to not admit the truth in that?
lol

Rock *poof* comes to life, with millions of years of water sloshing on it.
Rock becomes squirrel, with that magic -- millions of years -- ... and squirrel becomes man -- after more millions of years.

How could I be so silly as to not admit that?
lol

Jsc wrote:Pop, when people learn that, they think you are a fool. And your sincere message is much much more difficult to convey. You are trying to convert people to your religion, and you mean well. But with your denial of scientific facts that are known and understood by most 4th graders, you are shooting yourself in the foot.

Creation of life from non-life, absent a Creator, is asinine.

A rock eventually becoming a human being -- is so far beyond asinine that I should never have to take the time to type it.

Think for yourself one of these days, Jsc.

You've been spoon-fed a shit-ton of bullshit.