Bible vs. Science

Okay I've read a lot of posts but this one I just have to reply to. I want to begin by saying most of the other posts are so angry and hateful the people are not interested in discussion but only demeaning and showing their intolerance and bigotry.
Now on to your post.

The religious hierarchy? Which ones. I was say yes some do play people but others do not. Your argument "presumes" that religious people are "susceptible to believing almost anything" I say this is shallow and ignorant statement. I agree that many people are ignorant of why they believe what they believe. But I can apply that to those who follow political leaders blindly when they know nothing of what that leader truly believes, Just look at the ignorance about what "Hope and Change" meant.. The vast majority were ignorant of what that meant. ( I could debate this point at length but must move on).

Okay gay marriage. There are so many ways to approach this, that an argument is hard to pin down. If you argued in the affirmative on the basis of religion then you have really erred. If you argued from the political then you have a chance of making a good argument.

You are incorrect that your points are unassailable though you fail to list your points here...

First I will address your points in your post then post my view and possible solutions.
1) God doesn't make Mistakes. (though true a poor argument).
When God created man he was not caught by surprise that man would transgress against Him. It was in His plan to redeem fallen man. The fallen Adam introduced the SIN nature to the human race and with this all forms of sin are created in the hearts of men. The point of whether a person was born gay does not excuse them from Gods Law. Many straight people say they were born with overactive libidos and use that as an excuse for premarital sex, multiple sex partners or any of hundreds of sexual fetishes. Are sexual fetishes genetic? The truth is after mapping the human genome NO GAY GENE has been found. Even the American Psychological Association has changed their statement on Homosexuality in light of this, just this past year.
So do people choose to be gay? Myself or any other person that I know would never CHOOSE to be gay. The pain of a gay lifestyle is overwhelming, why would anyone CHOOSE to be gay. I don't think anyone in their right mind would choose it. Its against the very laws of nature, It will NEVER lose its moral stigma, the homosexual sex act is in direct violation of God's law. So I don't think anyone makes a conscious decision to be gay. When did any straight person CHOOSE to be straight. So were they born gay? As of now there is absolutely NO scientific evidence to prove that. However there is no evidence to show that homosexuality is a conscience decision (at least for the vast majority). Homosexuality is most likely the result of nurture over nature. Though my belief that this occurs probably in very early life before a person even becomes sexually aware. Something in their sexual psyche is turned upside down. There are studies showing this (twins who are not gay, no gay feelings before sexual abuse etc.) But no one should ever be hated or rejected for having a same sex attraction. The question here is really about religious freedom not someones sexual identity. The Bible clearly teaches that the ACT of homosexual sex is sin and is against nature. This is incontrovertible no matter how many activists want to twist it to meet their beliefs. But no where in the Bible is same sex affection or love mentioned or condemned, only when that affection crosses the line into sexual lust or sexual acts. THEN is when it becomes a sin.
Now the religious element of this is that no matter how you try to argue it, no society in history has had Gay marriage until the last few years. From a historical perspective even in pagan societies "gay marriage" was not accepted. Primarily marriage has been a religious issue and the historical religious definition of marriage holds the upper hand here. No religion should be FORCED to violate their deeply held values, and forced to recognize a marriage that violates God's law. .. So no God does not make mistakes. MAN made the mistake by transgressing against God and thereby introducing the sinful nature to mankind thus creating a separation between God and man.

2) God did make man in His image. Man was created in Gods image. Perfect and holy, but with free will to do as he pleased. The first man and woman were created perfect. They chose to violate that perfection and thus introduce imperfection to mankind and the earth. This is NOT GOD who did this it is man and his sinful nature. God is not gay because God is not sexual,but he did create sex and he created it for a purpose.. 1) For procreation first and foremost 2) For the purpose of spiritually and physically unifying a husband and wife in a holy union. Neither are accomplished by homosexual sex.

3) Born homosexual: I've addressed this, there is no proof as of this time that people are born gay.
"If they accept that it blows a big hole in their religion".. you are most unequivocally incorrect. It does not. As I said God created man perfect, man chose a path of separation from God and a sinful nature. The sinful nature is an inherent part of the Christian religion. Without sin we have no need for salvation and the love of Gods sacrifice of His Son for our sins would not have manifested. So it is the sinful nature that gives birth to sinful attributes, i.e. homosexuality, pride, murder, selfishness or any other sin named in the Bible. From a positional perspective sin is sin. Sin of any type or nature is what separates us from God. Therefore the sin of pride separates us from God just as easily and positionally as does fornication or homosexual sex. So no hole is blown in our belief system. It fits right into it.
4) The Big Bang Theory... this is really another whole argument but again this is an unproven theory. At its core the Big Bang theory is more in line with Judeo-Christian Theology than science likes to admit. Science cannot to this day explain what set off the Big Bang. (I know what did). What you see as "fighting against" is merely nothing more than vetting the evidence. We have a right to question this theory to point out its flaws and to offer alternative explanations. We are not mind numbed robots, but intelligent questioning creatures that desire truth. In my opinion science seems to prove the theory of intelligent design over complexity by random natural processes more and more every day.
I have not to this day seen a valid "threat" to my religion, because science continues to substantiate my view all the time.

Now for my solution.
1) The government should not be involved in Marriage in any way shape or form. This should become a strictly religious ceremony left up to each churches own beliefs and standards.
2) All persons should be able to create "legal partnerships" for the purpose of inheritance, life decisions, and other legal issues. These would basically be contractual relationships that would protect any person and offer benefits and rights to any "partner". Children are already by blood receiving these rights.

Solution 2 if the govt does not get out of the Marriage business.
There will be two types of relationships for all people.
1) Covenant Marriage: this will be traditional marriage as has always been defined, but will be to the extreme. Divorce in a covenant marriage is nearly impossible. The no fault divorce will be a thing of the past. Divorce will only be allowed in the cases of Abuse and Infidelity. Proof must be provided and a long period of marital counseling must be required (except in abuse).
2) Civil Unions: This is for everyone else Gay or Straight. This is more of the typical marriage of today. Same rights but only contractual and can be dissolved easily through legal means.

I hope you can see things from a different point of view with my statements.

I say, shoot all them goddamned faggots and be done with it . . .

You got an extra AK 47 on you? I know where they gather.

Here . . . help me fill some a these banana clips . . . we'll start on your end of the country, and work our way east . . .

We'll let them promise they are going to change back into heterosexuals -- let's give them maybe five minutes? That's the same five minutes they have the epiphany that, hey, I'm gay, so it has to work the other way. They can prove it by keeping their hands still when speaking.

Your argument is flimsy at best. The Ends of the earth argument certainly can be and is uses as metaphor. The circle comment does not disprove spherical. We still hear today the term "disc of the sun" why because it appears as a disc from earth. The same would apply to the earth. If you are going to argue against the Bible I think this is a poor point to use. The Bible neither supports nor denies a flat earth nor spherical, but definitely gives us insight to a circular shape of the earth. Interpretation and understanding of the Bible is going to explain this away. It just doesn't have any meat to it.

That's wicked cruel, Bubba . . . here they would be thinkin' they're home scot free, start chatterin' and . . . BAM ! ! ! . . . they get blowed (all puns intended) to Kingdom Come . . .

There's no Bubbas in California, just Terminators. You know they will be much smarter than that and have brought their own AR 47's which are more accurate so we've had it. Unless we start mincing towards them to ask if they want to go shoot Texans.

the bible is extremly immoral

ok god is supposed to be pure omnipotent all knowing etc but the bible is full of bigotry and their for not the divine work of god

So what if religion is sacred it should be criticised as much as someone criticising the food in a restaurant it does contain errors it is my right and prerogative to not believe in god but it is also my right to question it are you living in a free country or delusion

1 all religion
2 yes
3children with religious parents
4stalin Hitler

says the religious nutcase

Would it be too much to ask you to provide some specific examples?

Are you implying that the bible isn't full of bigotry (and lots of other nasty ****) just because he hasn't listed an example?

To my knowledge God is not in the business of selling books. The bible was written by humans and is not inerrant. Given that, it is the most major history book dealing with ancient times which mankind possesses. As to your list of problems with it...



There is massive and overwhelming evidence of at least one recent and global flood event on the planet. That would include loess, the secimentary rock which covers most of the Earth's land area, marine fossils on mountain tops, and a very long list of other items.



Where? I've never seen that in the bible.



There is in fact a natural explanation for Joshua's long day:

http://tinyurl.com/kvdcvb



Written by people who put their pants on one leg at a time just like you and I do. There is exactly one contributor to the bible whose words you should want to take literally, i.e. Jesus. You won't find Jesus saying that the universe is geocentric.



There were hundreds of witnesses to Jesus' resurection and all of the original desciples went to their deaths rather than deny having seen it.

To those witnesses, whatever they did experience was altogether indistinguishable from having seen Jesus appear in his Earthly body. By the same token however simple logic dictates that had he actually been walking around in a Roman province in a physical and dead human body, Romans would have seen that, seized him, crucified him a second time, and then done whatever was deemed necessary to ensure that he STAYED crucified.

In real life Jesus has no more use for dead bodies than you or I do. If you want dead bodies walking around, the religion you want is Voodoo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a6YdNmK77k

The best description we have of the mechanism for paranormal things is Julian Jaynes' "Origin of Consciousness". Jaynes more or less left open the question of whether any of the things he termed "bicameral" were ever REAL in any sense. The evidence indicates that they can be.

The only one who avoids presenting any evidence is you gunga. Where was the evidence of this global flood. How is loess a proof of anything but wind borne dust and when we have loess deposits right next to arid land erosive areas, how do you explain the missing "Flood deposits"? In order to posit a worldwide flood, youve gotta account for the flood over every inch of the planet at the very same instant in time. That occurs, lets see....... Im gonna say NOWHERE. You just make up thios drap and expect reasonably intelligent folks to buy it. Im not talking aboiut geologists (we call your bluffs routinely and you usually just fade away till your next idiot thread), Im talking about intelligent folks who are trained in other fields but are able to read and understand scientific writing, and, as such, question your logic as "specious" at the very best but fraudulent at worst.

Fossils on mountaintops in sediments that have been slid for hundreds of miles and are separated from other similar fossil bearing deposits by long stretches of non fossil bearing deposits. The simple naivete of how your Creationit friends interpret geologic data is precious. You make yourselves appear intentionally ignorant of how earth processes work just to maintain consistency with your fairy tale.
When fossil bearing mountain top deposits can be shown to be consistently correlated with deposits freom every inch of the planet, then maybe you have something worth talking about. Now stop being such a doofus about geology and either shut the hell up or else try learning something before you open your yap. Its really embarrassing to me that youre this stubbornly dumb. All these years and youve just been closed minded to fact and real evidence.

Ditto.

The major evidence of any kind of flood is the Black Sea where they have found large deposits of pottery, some of it even protected from the highly acidic depths of the water by natural phenomena. The massive flooding was through the Bosporus and occurred about 5600 BC. It's the most likely the origin of a "world wide flood," as the writers of the Bible had no idea the world encompassed another hemisphere and had only explored less than half of their own hemisphere. If the library of Alexandria had not been burned down, there would be more real history to counter the tall tales of the Bible.

The reason that Im a bit disinclined towards any understanding of Gungas position is the fact that weve had these very discussions several times before. MAny of us have related the exploration and excavation work of Sir HEnry Creswicke Rawlinson and his findings along areas marginal but separated from the Black Sea, and the recent work of "Noah's Flood" by Walter Pittman and William Ryan, two geophysicists who reconstructed the post Glacial regional flood from sedimentary deposits that were obviously "flysche" like unsorted deposits that were associated with a catastrophic high water event .

However, the , extension of these local deposits , to a contemporary view of a Worldwide Flood is scientifically unsupportable.

Yet, with gunga, there is no such thing as real learning. He will publish the same mythic garbage and claim that there is scientific evidence to support him . He knows, we know, and he knows we know that hes just a lying sack.