Judgement day...

First topic message reminder :

Do you believe there will be a judgement day for each and every one of us?...

I mean with all this talk of gays and homophobia God is supposed to love everyone right?...

Amd if he can forgive rapists and murderers for their awful sins,then surely he can 'forgive' a person for being gay surely?

I see a few contradictions in the things folk write.

So are we all going to have our own judgement day and stand in front of God, before he decide ps wether or not we can enter heaven?

I think it's nonsense myself like,  but I do believe in spirits.

Still waiting for an answer  :D 

Was attraction created by your deity HF?

Eilzel wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

logic escapes you as always...

you chose because of something that happened to you..

heterosexual is the normal, homosexual is the deviant..

as i said evolution would not make any sense of homosexuality.. :D 

Really? And what exactly happened to me all-seeing Father?   

As I see it my upbringing, shocking by (get this) 'straight' parents was pretty much as standard as any others- I just knew, from quite a young age, that girls did nothing for me. Sorry HF but you know nothing on this subject (and not much on any as far as I can tell).

you chose the life you will have to live it, the percentages show heterosexuals are the norm...and again evolution would have no point with homosexuality..

So by your ill founded logic, you think that albino people are not normal people then?

heavenly father wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Really? And what exactly happened to me all-seeing Father?   

As I see it my upbringing, shocking by (get this) 'straight' parents was pretty much as standard as any others- I just knew, from quite a young age, that girls did nothing for me. Sorry HF but you know nothing on this subject (and not much on any as far as I can tell).

you chose the life you will have to live it, the percentages show heterosexuals are the norm...and again evolution would have no point with homosexuality..

Evolution does a pretty good job at explaining variation in general- however that is irrelevant to the point. I do live with it; and am extremely happy to be doing so   

Anyway, as fascinating a little character as you are I'm tired and this is going nowhere (as these things do)- how I wish I could cross examine you IRL, you are a strange thing   

Night all  

Eilzel wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

you chose the life you will have to live it, the percentages show heterosexuals are the norm...and again evolution would have no point with homosexuality..

Evolution does a pretty good job at explaining variation in general- however that is irrelevant to the point. I do live with it; and am extremely happy to be doing so   

Anyway, as fascinating a little character as you are I'm tired and this is going nowhere (as these things do)- how I wish I could cross examine you IRL, you are a strange thing   

Night all  

evolution would not explain homosexuality, it would have no need for it no benefit.. :D 

PhilDidge wrote:So by your ill founded logic, you think that albino people are not normal people then?

how do you suppose evolution would produce an albino.. :D 

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:So by your ill founded logic, you think that albino people are not normal people then?

how do you suppose evolution would produce an albino.. :D 

How so indeed, which does not answer my question, do you think they are abnormal people?

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

how do you suppose evolution would produce an albino.. :D 

Ho so indeed, which does not answer my question, do you think they are abnormal people?

of course it is not normal is it...

do you think albino's strengthen or weakens the idea of evolution... :D 

Also I am still waiting on your answer on your belief if your deity created the felling attraction?

You know when we are attracted to someone we cannot control that attraction, we can just be hot under the collar but we are still attracted to them, and have no control over the fact we are.
Thus if attraction is not within our control and men are attracted to other men, it is as normal as I am attracted to women, because none of us can control who attracts us

heavenly father wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

you chose the life you will have to live it, the percentages show heterosexuals are the norm...and again evolution would have no point with homosexuality..

Evolution does a pretty good job at explaining variation in general- however that is irrelevant to the point. I do live with it; and am extremely happy to be doing so   

Anyway, as fascinating a little character as you are I'm tired and this is going nowhere (as these things do)- how I wish I could cross examine you IRL, you are a strange thing   

Night all  

evolution would not explain homosexuality, it would have no need for it no benefit.. :D 

Actually, there's science that says it does:

For several years, studies led by Andrea Camperio Ciani at the University of Padova in Italy and others have found that mothers and maternal aunts of gay men tend to have significantly more offspring than the maternal relatives of straight men. The results show strong support for the "balancing selection hypothesis," which is fast becoming the accepted theory of the genetic basis of male homosexuality.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/why-are-there-gay-men_n_1590501.html

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Ho so indeed, which does not answer my question, do you think they are abnormal people?

of course it is not normal is it...

do you think albino's strengthen or weakens the idea of evolution... :D 

So you think albino's are abnormal and not normal people then?

How about people with Ginger hair?

Or disabled people?

People without certain limbs, are they also not normal?

take your time on that one buddy and ask if they are all normal to your deity in his eyes?

I've a question here..Does God  have any problems with a black person marrying a white?

Or a Muslim marrying a Christian?..would that be a sin against the Christian God?

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

of course it is not normal is it...

do you think albino's strengthen or weakens the idea of evolution... :D 

So you think albino's are abnormal and not normal people then?

How about people with Ginger hair?

Or disabled people?

People without certain limbs, are they also not normal?

take your time on that one buddy and ask if they are all normal to your deity in his eyes?

God loves everyone that's why he is God...

why such a worry over a term, normal is only set by numbers and percentages really, so God loves gays if they repent the same as everyone else...

he is not worried about, colours, limbs or sexuality just that you accept him in faith.. :D 

Joy Division wrote:I've a question here..Does God  have any problems with a black person marrying a white?

Or a Muslim marrying a Christian?..would that be a sin against the Christina God?

Why would he, god created all equal according to the bible?

Thus if all are equal and he has formed beliefs and diversity, then why would he object to unions he has created.

Joy Division wrote:I've a question here..Does God  have any problems with a black person marrying a white?

Or a Muslim marrying a Christian?..would that be a sin against the Christina God?

it does say do not mix creeds and do not be unequally yoked...

so i would guess no to both..

heavenly father wrote:

Joy Division wrote:I've a question here..Does God  have any problems with a black person marrying a white?

Or a Muslim marrying a Christian?..would that be a sin against the Christina God?

it does say do not mix creeds and do not be unequally yoked...

so i would guess no to both..

But the bible says not to breed with other races though?

Joy Division wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

it does say do not mix creeds and do not be unequally yoked...

so i would guess no to both..

But the bible says not to breed with other races though?

There is only one race, the human race, so how is that breeding with other races, when they are the same race? Biologically humans are one race, this would mean this deity was saying bestiality was wrong, correct?
Now we know biologically humans are one race, so is now god wrong again by this logic?

Joy Division wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

it does say do not mix creeds and do not be unequally yoked...

so i would guess no to both..

But the bible says not to breed with other races though?

yes that's what i mean as it says do not mix creeds and do not be unequally yoked so no you should not mix creeds or religions..

heavenly father wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


But the bible says not to breed with other races though?

yes that's what i mean as it says do not mix creeds and do not be unequally yoked so no you should not mix creeds or religions..

Yes the bible teaches to commit genocide when people do, including animals also when Moses and Joshua were on the march

So anyway to Joy's point there would be no issue with different ethnicity pairing or faith, as did Jesus spurn people of other faiths like the Samaritan woman?
Something no Jewish man would do, but Jesus did, showing he would cross boundaries, where people thought it was taboo, so why did Jesus mix with people of not the same creed or religions?

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

yes that's what i mean as it says do not mix creeds and do not be unequally yoked so no you should not mix creeds or religions..

Yes the bible teaches to commit genocide when people do, including animals also when Moses and Joshua were on the march

So anyway to Joy's point there would be no issue with different ethnicity pairing or faith, as did Jesus spurn people of other faiths like the Samaritan woman?
Something no Jewish man would do, but Jesus did, showing he would cross boundaries, where people thought it was taboo, so why did Jesus mix with people of not the same creed or religions?

he mixed with them, he did not marry them ... :D 

PhilDidge wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


But the bible says not to breed with other races though?

There is only one race, the human race, so how is that breeding with other races, when they are the same race? Biologically humans are one race, this would mean this deity was saying bestiality was wrong, correct?
Now we know biologically humans are one race, so is now god wrong again by this logic?

Didge, please calm down... you know I meant blacks and whites, race was just a figure of speech I used...and so do some other people.

heavenly father wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


But the bible says not to breed with other races though?

yes that's what i mean as it says do not mix creeds and do not be unequally yoked so no you should not mix creeds or religions..

...ah!

Joy Division wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


There is only one race, the human race, so how is that breeding with other races, when they are the same race? Biologically humans are one race, this would mean this deity was saying bestiality was wrong, correct?
Now we know biologically humans are one race, so is now god wrong again by this logic?

Didge, please calm down... you know I meant blacks and whites, race was just a figure of speech I used...and so do some other people.

Calm? mate you read me all wrong, words do that, I am calm and you are barking up the wrong tree if you think I thought that was what you were saying

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Yes the bible teaches to commit genocide when people do, including animals also when Moses and Joshua were on the march

So anyway to Joy's point there would be no issue with different ethnicity pairing or faith, as did Jesus spurn people of other faiths like the Samaritan woman?
Something no Jewish man would do, but Jesus did, showing he would cross boundaries, where people thought it was taboo, so why did Jesus mix with people of not the same creed or religions?

he mixed with them, he did not marry them ... :D 

So why did he break taboo's to mix with them, if as you claim not to mix with the different creeds or religions?

That shows again a contradiction, as Jesus did mix with both, why did he allow a tax collector into his followers, with the view seen of them at the time, or people named as Zealots, what were revolutionaries?
That is called mixing big time, even more so with Mary Magdalene being unmarried?

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

he mixed with them, he did not marry them ... :D 

So why did he break taboo's to mix with them, if as you claim not to mix with the different creeds or religions?

That shows again a contradiction, as Jesus did mix with both, why did he allow a tax collector into his followers, with the view seen of them at the time, or people named as Zealots, what were revolutionaries?
That is called mixing big time, even more so with Mary Magdalene being unmarried?

mix as in marry them, he didn't say do not talk to them or try to save them... :D 

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

So why did he break taboo's to mix with them, if as you claim not to mix with the different creeds or religions?

That shows again a contradiction, as Jesus did mix with both, why did he allow a tax collector into his followers, with the view seen of them at the time, or people named as Zealots, what were revolutionaries?
That is called mixing big time, even more so with Mary Magdalene being unmarried?

mix as in marry them, he didn't say do not talk to them or try to save them... :D 

You are making things up again, mix is to be in the company of, play together, talk together, marriage is just one aspect of mix.
It makes me laugh, you claim Jesus changed everything and where I show he does, you then try to counter what you claim to back, it is hilarious.
He changed no laws, but he changed perceptions and who you could mix with or more to the point accept into his deities faith. You are not a Jew are you, so he broke away with perceptions did he not?

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

mix as in marry them, he didn't say do not talk to them or try to save them... :D 

You are making things up again, mix is to be in the company of, play together, talk together, marriage is just one aspect of mix.
It makes me laugh, you claim Jesus changed everything and where I show he does, you then try to counter what you claim to back, it is hilarious.
He changed no laws, but he changed perceptions and who you could mix with or more to the point accept into his deities faith. You are not a Jew are you, so he broke away with perceptions did he not?

lol i am not making anything up at all, the idea of not mixing creeds is about not marrying ...do not be unequally yoked is a reference to not marrying someone of a different religion.. or did you think you would actually be yoked together to do some ploughing..lol

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

You are making things up again, mix is to be in the company of, play together, talk together, marriage is just one aspect of mix.
It makes me laugh, you claim Jesus changed everything and where I show he does, you then try to counter what you claim to back, it is hilarious.
He changed no laws, but he changed perceptions and who you could mix with or more to the point accept into his deities faith. You are not a Jew are you, so he broke away with perceptions did he not?

lol i am not making anything up at all, the idea of not mixing creeds is about not marrying ...do not be unequally yoked is a reference to not marrying someone of a different religion.. or did you think you would actually be yoked together to do some ploughing..lol

Of course you are making things up, just like your born again concept of Christianity, God created all as equals, he then would be thus contradicting this point by saying they are not by not mixing and mixing is many aspects, not just marriage.
Every counter you avoid so many points, it is comical and show how little understanding you have even of the bible,
So again why did Jesus Mix with people it was taboo to do so with?

Answer the question for once lol

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

lol i am not making anything up at all, the idea of not mixing creeds is about not marrying ...do not be unequally yoked is a reference to not marrying someone of a different religion.. or did you think you would actually be yoked together to do some ploughing..lol

Of course you are making things up, just like your born again concept of Christianity, God created all as equals, he then would be thus contradicting this point by saying they are not by not mixing and mixing is many aspects, not just marriage.
Every counter you avoid so many points, it is comical and show how little understanding you have even of the bible,
So again why did Jesus Mix with people it was taboo to do so with?

Answer the question for once lol

lol, born again is a very biblical..lol

Great, that did not answer my question did it?

So again why did Jesus Mix with people it was taboo to do so with?

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:



Great, that did not answer my question did it?

So again why did Jesus Mix with people it was taboo to do so with?

lol, born again is a very biblical..lol[

as i have said he mixed with who ever needed saving, but he did not marry them.. :D 

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

as i have said he mixed with who ever needed saving, but he did not marry them.. :D 

So he mixed with anyone, odd as surely all need saving when they do not know his faith yet?

Thus he mixes against taboo's changing your first view point, proving again the bible contradicts

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:


as i have said he mixed with who ever needed saving, but he did not marry them.. :D 

So he mixed with anyone, odd as surely all need saving when they do not know his faith yet?

Thus he mixes against taboo's changing your first view point, proving again the bible contradicts

what!!! bless you.... :D 

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


So he mixed with anyone, odd as surely all need saving when they do not know his faith yet?

Thus he mixes against taboo's changing your first view point, proving again the bible contradicts

what!!! bless you.... :D 

Still no answer then, hilarious

 :D 

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

what!!! bless you.... :D 

Still no answer then, hilarious

 :D 

you don't really want answers so I thought i won't disappoint you.. :D 

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Still no answer then, hilarious

 :D 

you don't really want answers so I thought i won't disappoint you.. :D 

PMSL are you for real, again still no answer more waffle

heavenly father wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Evolution does a pretty good job at explaining variation in general- however that is irrelevant to the point. I do live with it; and am extremely happy to be doing so   

Anyway, as fascinating a little character as you are I'm tired and this is going nowhere (as these things do)- how I wish I could cross examine you IRL, you are a strange thing   

Night all  

evolution would not explain homosexuality, it would have no need for it no benefit.. :D 

Yes it do the gene that causes homosexuality in men creates women that are hyper attracted to men (i.e sluts) that bare more children over their life time, the fact that the gene is likely to be in one of the sluts brothers/cousins means that in a tribal situation she would have a non breeding male (so his best hope of making sure his genes survive is through his nieces and nephews) that would help her look after the excess children.

Perfect evolutionary sense, you must remember for advanced social species like humans evolution is working for the survival of the species it is numbers games, not all traits benefit the individual.


I have not heard about the gene that causes lesbianism but it would probably be opposite, leaving the female with more male tendencies and attraction to females. So her brothers are probably hyper masculine playas with half a dozen kids to half a dozen women.

veya_victaous wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

evolution would not explain homosexuality, it would have no need for it no benefit.. :D 

Yes it do the gene that causes homosexuality in men creates women that are hyper attracted to men (i.e sluts) that bare more children over their life time, the fact that the gene is likely to be in one of the sluts brothers/cousins means that in a tribal situation she would have a non breeding male (so his best hope of making sure his genes survive is through his nieces and nephews) that would help her look after the excess children.

Perfect evolutionary sense, you must remember for advanced social species like humans evolution is working for the survival of the species it is numbers games, not all traits benefit the individual.


I have not heard about the gene that causes lesbianism but it would probably be opposite, leaving the female with more male tendencies and attraction to females. So her brothers are probably hyper masculine playas with half a dozen kids to half a dozen women.

yet still no gay gene, and if they find the gay gene, it could be removed leading to a lasting cure...

but alas no gene as it is just choice..

heavenly father wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Yes it do the gene that causes homosexuality in men creates women that are hyper attracted to men (i.e sluts) that bare more children over their life time, the fact that the gene is likely to be in one of the sluts brothers/cousins means that in a tribal situation she would have a non breeding male (so his best hope of making sure his genes survive is through his nieces and nephews) that would help her look after the excess children.

Perfect evolutionary sense, you must remember for advanced social species like humans evolution is working for the survival of the species it is numbers games, not all traits benefit the individual.


I have not heard about the gene that causes lesbianism but it would probably be opposite, leaving the female with more male tendencies and attraction to females. So her brothers are probably hyper masculine playas with half a dozen kids to half a dozen women.

yet still no gay gene, and if they find the gay gene, it could be removed leading to a lasting cure...

but alas no gene as it is just choice..

How many times do I an others have to prove you wrong and yet you still hold to views without any backing.

Again is attractiveness a choice? You see someone and you find them attractive, how do you switch off this attractiveness? Or do you accept you have no control and are attracted to them?

Sorry for interrupting the current discourse but, it's in answer to something said yetserday on an earlier page.

Good morning folks. It’s calm and bright here today, a lovely day to resume our combat in sorting out what is fact, what is fallacy. So, first of all let’s clear out the way the most obvious fact: Christianity is based on Biblical teachings and of course with Christianity that beginning is Genesis.

Fallacy: Genesis 7 v.19 ‘and the waters overwhelmed the earth so greatly that all the tall mountains that were under the whole heavens came to be covered.’ v.20: ‘Up to fifteen cubits the waters overwhelmed them and the mountains became covered.’

As most of you know I’ve often mentioned the height of Everest which is currently approximately 5 miles and 21 feet high. The Indian plate is pushing the Himalayas up by about 2 cm a year so, going by Creationists reckoning of Creation about 4,000 BC, Everest will have still been about 4 miles and 90 feet above sea level. Genesis 7. V.24: ‘And the waters continued overwhelming the earth a hundred and fifty days.’ This is confirmed in 8. V. 3: ‘…and at the end of a hundred and fifty days the waters were lacking.’

Now consider if you will, with the planet being covered by that much water, for so long, absolutely nothing would have survived, not a worm, a gnat, nor any living creature. When the animals, and humans, came off the Ark there would have been absolutely nothing to eat and starvation and death would have ensued. I suppose someone will say ‘well Noah had provisions for them all on the Ark,‘ which is my next favourite contradiction. Stay tuned folks.

...afternoon Stars my friend


I know nothing of religion Stars, your post on flooding was quite interesting though...

The Noah's ark teckle seems far fetched to me too, and just not logical, however, even if the mountains were overwhelmed with floods, rising oceans etc, wouldn't there still be some land and aquatic creatures, bacteria and microorganisms that would survive?...

David Attenborough would say yes  

Even in the most hostile environments such as snow , ice and severely low temperatures.

stardesk wrote:Sorry for interrupting the current discourse but, it's in answer to something said yetserday on an earlier page.

Good morning folks. It’s calm and bright here today,  a lovely day to resume our combat in sorting out what is fact, what is fallacy. So, first of all let’s clear out the way the most obvious fact: Christianity is based on Biblical teachings and of course with Christianity that beginning is Genesis.

Fallacy: Genesis 7 v.19  ‘and the waters overwhelmed the earth so greatly that all the tall mountains that were under the whole heavens came to be covered.’ v.20: ‘Up to fifteen cubits the waters overwhelmed them and the mountains became covered.’

As most of you know I’ve often mentioned the height of Everest which is currently approximately 5 miles and 21 feet high. The Indian plate is pushing the Himalayas up by about 2 cm a year so, going by Creationists reckoning of Creation about 4,000 BC, Everest will have still been about 4 miles and 90 feet above sea level.  Genesis 7. V.24: ‘And the waters continued overwhelming the earth a hundred and fifty days.’  This is confirmed in 8. V. 3: ‘…and at the end of a hundred and fifty days  the waters were lacking.’

Now consider if you will, with the planet being covered by that much water, for so long,  absolutely nothing would have survived, not a worm, a gnat, nor any living creature. When the animals, and humans, came off the Ark there would have been absolutely nothing to eat and starvation and death would have ensued. I suppose someone will say ‘well Noah had provisions for them all on the Ark,‘ which is my next favourite contradiction. Stay tuned folks.

hi stardesk, did you ever find that report your friend did... :D 

JD, we know that many organizms can survive in the most hostlie environments, take the Ice Fish of the Antarctic, instead of blood in their veins they have a substance very much like anti-freeze which helps them survive in freezing waters. But all land life would have perished, even worms and insects and other organisms that live on the ground. For a start that amount of water above sea level would have depleted the oxygen content, again leading to death. For anything that did survive it would only have been for a few days as their food supply would have perished.

Hi HF, would you care to refresh my memory as to what report you mentioned, what was the subject?

stardesk wrote:JD, we know that many organizms can survive in the most hostlie environments, take the Ice Fish of the Antarctic, instead of blood in their veins they have a substance very much like anti-freeze which helps them survive in freezing waters. But all land life would have perished, even worms and insects and other organisms that live on the ground. For a start that amount of water above sea level would have depleted the oxygen content, again leading to death. For anything that did survive it would only have been for a few days as their food supply would have perished.

Hi HF, would you care to refresh my memory as to what report you mentioned, what was the subject?

not surprised you forgot, it was something a friend of yours had done concerning the water involved in the flood but it's ok, I never expect to see it.. :D 

I see HF is doing his usual avoiding the points, where did all, the flood water go?

DOH

Did god drink it?

 :D

PhilDidge wrote:I see HF is doing his usual avoiding the points, where did all, the flood water go?

DOH

Did god drink it?

 :D

if God made all the water appear i'm sure he could make it all disappear, don't you think...? :D 

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:I see HF is doing his usual avoiding the points, where did all, the flood water go?

DOH

Did god drink it?

 :D

if God made all the water appear i'm sure he could make it all disappear, don't you think...? :D 

Hilarious, so why did he need to make it rain for 40 days if he can make it all disappear in one go but needs forty days to create this amount of water?

Whoops

You see nothing you says has any savvy to it, it is balderdash

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

if God made all the water appear i'm sure he could make it all disappear, don't you think...? :D 

Hilarious, so why did he need to make it rain for 40 days if he can make it all disappear in one go but needs forty days to create this amount of water?

Whoops

You see nothing you says has any savvy to it, it is balderdash

lol because it is his choice... :D 

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Hilarious, so why did he need to make it rain for 40 days if he can make it all disappear in one go but needs forty days to create this amount of water?

Whoops

You see nothing you says has any savvy to it, it is balderdash

lol because it is his choice... :D 

PMSL and you have just proven your deity is not that bright then, when he could do all in the matter of hours


DOH

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:


lol because it is his choice... :D 

PMSL and you have just proven your deity is not that bright then, when he could do all in the matter of hours


DOH

the fact that God would not do it your way must prove he is smart as you clearly are not... :D