Homosexual Discussion ForumHomosexuality and the BibleI forgot about the earlier post I meant to comment on by the way... Untrue. Medical opinions are definitely based on peer-reviewed studies. If it weren't, the medical profession would be an absolute failure. For the second half, please cite? Even if true, would the reason be inherent to homosexuality, or rather from any cultural influences from people who are against it? I'd have to know the studies you refer to in order to respond. That's not true. You are assuming the universe was created. There is no reason to believe this. It is most logical to think that the universe has existed for all time: a conclusion which is not refuted by the fact that cosmology postulates a discrete beginning, since time itself is also postulated to begin at that point. After all, given a choice between "the universe has existed for all time" and "God has existed for all time", the former is obviously more logical. After all, we cannot observe any empirical evidence of a time where the universe has not existed, whereas we cannot observe any empirical evidence that God has ever existed. There is a great deal of evidence on the origin of life, but a better point is to invalidate your theory if it is indeed the Biblical account. Science has conclusively shown that the sequence of events depicted in Genesis is totally wrong. It doesn't take very long; look at the first page, where it describes the days and nights being separated by the cycles of light and dark on Day One, but the Sun is not created until Day Four. What did these people think the cycles of light and dark were created by, if there was no Sun around? Not to mention vegetation being created first; every conceivable cosmological model has the Sun vastly predating any vegetation on Earth, not the other way around. In any case, THIS kind of discussion could go on for years, and it's probably better on a separate thread to get into detail. No..I'm NOT wrong actually. They profess to believing in the same god as the Torah describes. They even accept all of the prophets including Jesus. They simply believe Mohammed was the LAST prophet and supersedes them all. If that's not enough to qualify as an "offshoot" I don't know what is. (He's debating from the premise of the Bible being all correct in regards to history and truth with absolutely no objective evidence supporting it, and he accuses ME of spouting fairy tales?) As I mentioned in another post regarding the same issue, it's a FACT that the church stood DIRECTLY in the path of science by saying their belief was correct. How do you explain this?: In 1992, Pope John Paul II (reluctantly) formally apologized for the persucution of Galileo. They finally admitted that they, the Catholic Church and all the Popes since the beginning of the Church, were wrong, and that Galileo was right. For fifteen hundred years they had argued that every word in the bible was true-- that it was the perfect word of God, true in it's history and in all of its sciences. They were wrong. They threatened, tortured and killed people who disagreed with this error in the most brutal ways imaginable. So why did you not admit I was correct instead of trying to offset my very valid accusation? |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame