Is It Wrong to Think Homosexuality is a Sin?

[G.T.]

No. It's because your kind is disingenuous and switching back and forth between the three all the while trying to bring in specific theological precepts for the express purpose of muddying the water.

I've already started establishing that what was created can be used as evidence.

We exist in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. Which means that everything happened for a reason. Otherwise known as cause and effect. Everything has unfolded per the laws of nature. Laws which existed before space and time. Laws which controlled the creation of space and time. We live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that beings that know and create were predestined to exist by the laws of nature. Given enough time and the right conditions, beings that know and create will arise. The potential for beings that know and create existed before space and time were created. All energy and matter which exists today was created when space and time came into existence. Since that time it has merely changed form. Which means that the energy which makes up who we are was present when space and time were created. You can't know what something is by how it starts. You can only know what something is by what it is when it is finished. In this case the product of these rules is intelligence. We live in a universe that is defined by rules. Intelligence is behind rules. Rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, mind has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

We can confirm this in a myriad of a number of ways.

It is certainly the hypothesis of a theist. But the logic is unsupported by fact. You have supposition only. Supposition is not fact.

I've got science all the way back to the beginning (as best we can) and I have reason and logic for before that point and I have what has unfolded since that time and what that tells us.

Yes, but your position is entirely based on supposition. You declare that the Laws of Physics require an intellect to be. I say that the Universe functions based on the Laws of Physics that simply are.

Then everything in science is supposition as supposition can mean theory. So, I'm not sure what your distinction is implying.

Is the universe becoming self aware of itself supposition?

Do you understand the difference between a supposition and a fact?

Bingo.

No, he does not.

Prescriptive vs. descriptive is something I dont think he's sat and pondered much.

 

[Divine Wind]

...But to answer your question more directly, I have given you an explanation for why the universe exists. It is a philosophical answer based on philosophy and science. Specifically, the science around the evolution of matter and what that tells us. The answer to why the universe had a beginning is because that is what was required by the laws of nature for a universe to exist and serve its purpose which is to create intelligence.

More directly, you've given an opinion on why the Universe exists. There is no evidence on why it does exist.

But there is. Creation itself is the evidence.

Creation obviously exists. Now prove what created Creation.

That's not what you asked. You said, there's no evidence on why it does exist. I said there is. Now you are changing it to what created Creation.

Can I use something you create as evidence? If so, what are the things I could learn from it?

The why part is still missing. There is no evidence of "why". The Universe obviously exists and it's existence can be traced back to the Big Bang, but not the why nor what caused the Big Bang. Your theory of tunnels is interesting, but unproved. Not to mention it doesn't say where that tunnel originated.

 

[Divine Wind]

I find religion to be just as convincing as transgenderism.

That's a pretty ignorant statement, especially coming from someone who claims to be conservative. What is so convincing about transgenderism?

Nothing, and that is the point. There is nothing convincing about it for me. My opinion on religion is not "ignorant." I've done a lot of studying into religion. I've read the Bible. I've been to church. I reject those teachings as BS. There is nothing to argue about. You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine.

Except the case for religion is convincing.

Which religion? Judaism? Hinduism? Buddhism? Ancient writings are not necessarily religious.

 

[G.T.]

...But to answer your question more directly, I have given you an explanation for why the universe exists. It is a philosophical answer based on philosophy and science. Specifically, the science around the evolution of matter and what that tells us. The answer to why the universe had a beginning is because that is what was required by the laws of nature for a universe to exist and serve its purpose which is to create intelligence.

More directly, you've given an opinion on why the Universe exists. There is no evidence on why it does exist.

But there is. Creation itself is the evidence.

Creation obviously exists. Now prove what created Creation.

That's not what you asked. You said, there's no evidence on why it does exist. I said there is. Now you are changing it to what created Creation.

Can I use something you create as evidence? If so, what are the things I could learn from it?

The why part is still missing. There is no evidence of "why". The Universe obviously exists and it's existence can be traced back to the Big Bang, but not the why nor what caused the Big Bang. Your theory of tunnels is interesting, but unproved. Not to mention it doesn't say where that tunnel originated.

the term creation itself is a misnomer, as it presupposes a creator

"just is" is a possibility that cannot be scientifically, nor philosophically taken off of the table ~ and so calling the universe a 'creation' is a fallacy.

 

[Divine Wind]

No It has been that way for the last 2000 years. Socialism has always sought to subordinate religion. They seek to replace loyalty to God, Country and Family with loyalty to state. Every socialist movement has had a free love movement going all the way back to the Cathars and beyond.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

Wow- an obscure publication from 1975.

And pointing out the Cathars- victims of a genocidal campaign by the Catholic church- which murdered men, women and children in order to stamp it out.

Particularly fascinating that you selected a religious movement as an example of a 'socialist' movement that 'sought to subordinate religion'

It was not the socialists who moved to criminalize homosexuality in America. It was Christians.

Nope. The most thorough and comprehensive analysis of the calculus of socialism that has ever been done. One that has never been refuted.

Absolutely, religions which were based on socialism attempted to subordinate the dominant religion of the day. No different than today except it is the religion of atheism which is doing it.

'dominant religion of the day'- lol

This is what you claimed;
Socialism has always sought to subordinate religion. They seek to replace loyalty to God, Country and Family with loyalty to state.

The Cathars rejected Catholicism- not religion. They put loyalty to God before loyalty to the Catholic Church- and remember the Catholic Church demanded loyalty to it before country or family.

The Cathars put loyalty to god before any state- which is why so many Cathars died rather than accept the imposition by the Catholic Death squads on the Cathar communities.

That you choice the Cathars as an example of the supposed proof of socialism objection to god.......when the Cathars were wiped out- slaughtered by Christians because of the Cathars religious beliefs....well just shows your own ignorance.

Obviously, you don't know anything about the Cathars.

You are aware of what gnostic is in the Christian religion and how the papacy spent hundreds of years destroying any competition to their realm of control?

Agreed there was a long, historical move to declare all other forms of Christianity as blasphemy, upon penalty of death. The Council of Nicaea, especially 325AD, was tasked with the mission of setting both the mission of the church and the texts used.

 

[Divine Wind]

More directly, you've given an opinion on why the Universe exists. There is no evidence on why it does exist.

But there is. Creation itself is the evidence.

Creation obviously exists. Now prove what created Creation.

That's not what you asked. You said, there's no evidence on why it does exist. I said there is. Now you are changing it to what created Creation.

Can I use something you create as evidence? If so, what are the things I could learn from it?

The why part is still missing. There is no evidence of "why". The Universe obviously exists and it's existence can be traced back to the Big Bang, but not the why nor what caused the Big Bang. Your theory of tunnels is interesting, but unproved. Not to mention it doesn't say where that tunnel originated.

the term creation itself is a misnomer, as it presupposes a creator

"just is" is a possibility that cannot be scientifically, nor philosophically taken off of the table ~ and so calling the universe a 'creation' is a fallacy.

Not necessarily, but, yes, "creation" can imply a creator. What would you call it? "The Beginning? Either way there is still the question of "why?"

 

[G.T.]

But there is. Creation itself is the evidence.

Creation obviously exists. Now prove what created Creation.

That's not what you asked. You said, there's no evidence on why it does exist. I said there is. Now you are changing it to what created Creation.

Can I use something you create as evidence? If so, what are the things I could learn from it?

The why part is still missing. There is no evidence of "why". The Universe obviously exists and it's existence can be traced back to the Big Bang, but not the why nor what caused the Big Bang. Your theory of tunnels is interesting, but unproved. Not to mention it doesn't say where that tunnel originated.

the term creation itself is a misnomer, as it presupposes a creator

"just is" is a possibility that cannot be scientifically, nor philosophically taken off of the table ~ and so calling the universe a 'creation' is a fallacy.

Not necessarily, but, yes, "creation" can imply a creator. What would you call it? "The Beginning? Either way there is still the question of "why?"

the beginning implies it began

thats not scientifically n'or philosophically proven.

the universe as we know it collapses to a singularity if we look at the signatures of its past - but the singularity is not necessarily its beginning

 

[Marion Morrison]

Creation obviously exists. Now prove what created Creation.

That's not what you asked. You said, there's no evidence on why it does exist. I said there is. Now you are changing it to what created Creation.

Can I use something you create as evidence? If so, what are the things I could learn from it?

The why part is still missing. There is no evidence of "why". The Universe obviously exists and it's existence can be traced back to the Big Bang, but not the why nor what caused the Big Bang. Your theory of tunnels is interesting, but unproved. Not to mention it doesn't say where that tunnel originated.

the term creation itself is a misnomer, as it presupposes a creator

"just is" is a possibility that cannot be scientifically, nor philosophically taken off of the table ~ and so calling the universe a 'creation' is a fallacy.

Not necessarily, but, yes, "creation" can imply a creator. What would you call it? "The Beginning? Either way there is still the question of "why?"

the beginning implies it began

thats not scientifically n'or philosophically proven.

the universe as we know it collapses to a singularity if we look at the signatures of its past - but the singularity is not necessarily its beginning

Were you there? No? God made the world and all that's in it.

Prove me wrong.

Go>

 

[G.T.]

That's not what you asked. You said, there's no evidence on why it does exist. I said there is. Now you are changing it to what created Creation.

Can I use something you create as evidence? If so, what are the things I could learn from it?

The why part is still missing. There is no evidence of "why". The Universe obviously exists and it's existence can be traced back to the Big Bang, but not the why nor what caused the Big Bang. Your theory of tunnels is interesting, but unproved. Not to mention it doesn't say where that tunnel originated.

the term creation itself is a misnomer, as it presupposes a creator

"just is" is a possibility that cannot be scientifically, nor philosophically taken off of the table ~ and so calling the universe a 'creation' is a fallacy.

Not necessarily, but, yes, "creation" can imply a creator. What would you call it? "The Beginning? Either way there is still the question of "why?"

the beginning implies it began

thats not scientifically n'or philosophically proven.

the universe as we know it collapses to a singularity if we look at the signatures of its past - but the singularity is not necessarily its beginning

Were you there? No? God made the world and all that's in it.

Prove me wrong.

Go>

i dont have to prove you wrong if you dont prove you right.

there'd be as much to talk about if you said willy wonka did it.

 

[hobelim]

Creation obviously exists. Now prove what created Creation.

That's not what you asked. You said, there's no evidence on why it does exist. I said there is. Now you are changing it to what created Creation.

Can I use something you create as evidence? If so, what are the things I could learn from it?

The why part is still missing. There is no evidence of "why". The Universe obviously exists and it's existence can be traced back to the Big Bang, but not the why nor what caused the Big Bang. Your theory of tunnels is interesting, but unproved. Not to mention it doesn't say where that tunnel originated.

the term creation itself is a misnomer, as it presupposes a creator

"just is" is a possibility that cannot be scientifically, nor philosophically taken off of the table ~ and so calling the universe a 'creation' is a fallacy.

Not necessarily, but, yes, "creation" can imply a creator. What would you call it? "The Beginning? Either way there is still the question of "why?"

the beginning implies it began

thats not scientifically n'or philosophically proven.

the universe as we know it collapses to a singularity if we look at the signatures of its past - but the singularity is not necessarily its beginning

"In the beginning" suggests a fairy tale just like "once upon a time".....

 

[G.T.]

That's not what you asked. You said, there's no evidence on why it does exist. I said there is. Now you are changing it to what created Creation.

Can I use something you create as evidence? If so, what are the things I could learn from it?

The why part is still missing. There is no evidence of "why". The Universe obviously exists and it's existence can be traced back to the Big Bang, but not the why nor what caused the Big Bang. Your theory of tunnels is interesting, but unproved. Not to mention it doesn't say where that tunnel originated.

the term creation itself is a misnomer, as it presupposes a creator

"just is" is a possibility that cannot be scientifically, nor philosophically taken off of the table ~ and so calling the universe a 'creation' is a fallacy.

Not necessarily, but, yes, "creation" can imply a creator. What would you call it? "The Beginning? Either way there is still the question of "why?"

the beginning implies it began

thats not scientifically n'or philosophically proven.

the universe as we know it collapses to a singularity if we look at the signatures of its past - but the singularity is not necessarily its beginning

"In the beginning" suggests a fairy tale just like "once upon a time".....

it also suggests we know something that we dont

 

[Marion Morrison]

The why part is still missing. There is no evidence of "why". The Universe obviously exists and it's existence can be traced back to the Big Bang, but not the why nor what caused the Big Bang. Your theory of tunnels is interesting, but unproved. Not to mention it doesn't say where that tunnel originated.

the term creation itself is a misnomer, as it presupposes a creator

"just is" is a possibility that cannot be scientifically, nor philosophically taken off of the table ~ and so calling the universe a 'creation' is a fallacy.

Not necessarily, but, yes, "creation" can imply a creator. What would you call it? "The Beginning? Either way there is still the question of "why?"

the beginning implies it began

thats not scientifically n'or philosophically proven.

the universe as we know it collapses to a singularity if we look at the signatures of its past - but the singularity is not necessarily its beginning

Were you there? No? God made the world and all that's in it.

Prove me wrong.

Go>

i dont have to prove you wrong if you dont prove you right.

there'd be as much to talk about if you said willy wonka did it.

So you have no evidence aye?

I'm going to say everything works just a little too well in unison and harmony for things to be a coincidence.

All the cells and plants and animals, fish, everything.

 

[hobelim]

The why part is still missing. There is no evidence of "why". The Universe obviously exists and it's existence can be traced back to the Big Bang, but not the why nor what caused the Big Bang. Your theory of tunnels is interesting, but unproved. Not to mention it doesn't say where that tunnel originated.

the term creation itself is a misnomer, as it presupposes a creator

"just is" is a possibility that cannot be scientifically, nor philosophically taken off of the table ~ and so calling the universe a 'creation' is a fallacy.

Not necessarily, but, yes, "creation" can imply a creator. What would you call it? "The Beginning? Either way there is still the question of "why?"

the beginning implies it began

thats not scientifically n'or philosophically proven.

the universe as we know it collapses to a singularity if we look at the signatures of its past - but the singularity is not necessarily its beginning

"In the beginning" suggests a fairy tale just like "once upon a time".....

it also suggests we know something that we dont

How many of you are there?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What do you think?

If you believe you have a right to believe this, and you are offended, is it OK to voice this?

Actually the worst thing is this.

The Bible says things about Homosexuality, and this means that homosexuals shouldn't be considered first class citizens.

The Bible also says things about divorce and many other things, yet the religious people seem to ignore this.

Everyone does not ignore this --- though I'm sure homosexuals do.

President Trump
Adulterer.
Married and divorced twice.

Your dear leader ignored this- and you voted for him.

And the alternative was Hillary "The Abortionist" Clinton who should have been indicted but skated under Barry and who had been selling out the country for years. Trump was a no-brainer choice.

Actually the alternative was vote for anyone else, try and get a better system in place so that people actually get CHOICE when they vote.

 

[G.T.]

the term creation itself is a misnomer, as it presupposes a creator

"just is" is a possibility that cannot be scientifically, nor philosophically taken off of the table ~ and so calling the universe a 'creation' is a fallacy.

Not necessarily, but, yes, "creation" can imply a creator. What would you call it? "The Beginning? Either way there is still the question of "why?"

the beginning implies it began

thats not scientifically n'or philosophically proven.

the universe as we know it collapses to a singularity if we look at the signatures of its past - but the singularity is not necessarily its beginning

Were you there? No? God made the world and all that's in it.

Prove me wrong.

Go>

i dont have to prove you wrong if you dont prove you right.

there'd be as much to talk about if you said willy wonka did it.

So you have no evidence aye?

I'm going to say everything works just a little too well in unison and harmony for things to be a coincidence.

All the cells and plants and animals, fish, everything.

no evidence of what?

and too well in comparison to what...you have no other universe to look at and compare this one to, so.i dont know what you base "well" on? your butt??

the universe as we know it now is BILLIONS of years from its singularity, and beings cant even live longer than a millisecond in comparison to that.......that we know of. is that efficiency???

i dunno, i see no evidence that thats efficient.

 

[G.T.]

the term creation itself is a misnomer, as it presupposes a creator

"just is" is a possibility that cannot be scientifically, nor philosophically taken off of the table ~ and so calling the universe a 'creation' is a fallacy.

Not necessarily, but, yes, "creation" can imply a creator. What would you call it? "The Beginning? Either way there is still the question of "why?"

the beginning implies it began

thats not scientifically n'or philosophically proven.

the universe as we know it collapses to a singularity if we look at the signatures of its past - but the singularity is not necessarily its beginning

"In the beginning" suggests a fairy tale just like "once upon a time".....

it also suggests we know something that we dont

How many of you are there?

in terms of my awareness, or in terms of physical reality.....or in terms of digital reality.....?

its either a malformed question, or.an unanswerable one.

either way, its beyond anyone ive met's power to answer

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually the worst thing is this.

The Bible says things about Homosexuality, and this means that homosexuals shouldn't be considered first class citizens.

The Bible also says things about divorce and many other things, yet the religious people seem to ignore this.

Everyone does not ignore this --- though I'm sure homosexuals do.

Well, you find me someone who thinks gay marriage is bad and will protest against this, and will do the same for divorcees too. I'm sure they're out there.

Also, adulterers don't have their own flag and run around announcing it

So what? Also adulterers don't get treated badly by society, treated like second class citizens, and also adulterers weren't born as adulterers. They had a choice.

But then you have a problem with people who try and gain an identity huh?

There was a time when adulterers- heck even divorced people were treated badly by society.

Now we elect them as President.

Well yes, but the point is about consistency, isn't it? If you're claiming the Bible says something therefore you should act in this immoral way towards them because it's your relijon, then surely you should do the same thing to ALL people the Bible says "fuck you" to.

 

[hobelim]

Not necessarily, but, yes, "creation" can imply a creator. What would you call it? "The Beginning? Either way there is still the question of "why?"

the beginning implies it began

thats not scientifically n'or philosophically proven.

the universe as we know it collapses to a singularity if we look at the signatures of its past - but the singularity is not necessarily its beginning

"In the beginning" suggests a fairy tale just like "once upon a time".....

it also suggests we know something that we dont

How many of you are there?

in terms of my awareness, or in terms of physical reality.....or in terms of digital reality.....?

its either a malformed question, or.an unanswerable one.

either way, its beyond anyone ive met's power to answer

Whenever someone speaks of themselves in the plural I notice. They are either speaking for a crowd or think of themselves as royalty. Either way the prognosis isn't very good.

It seems that a self-negating multiplicity is sitting in the place where an individual identity should be.


In case you really don't know, you are one person with one mind..Take charge of your own life. clean house.

 

[Divine Wind]

You've cited one poster but the fact remains you are still confused; your own postings throughout are a testament to that fact.

Your reading comprehension problem is not the result of any confusion on my part.

It is not my reading comprehension. You believe that as an atheist you can tell another who is a believer what they believe in according to 'your' precepts. In that alone you are the one that is confused.

No- again your reading comprehension is the problem.

As I said- and I am glad to stand by it- It is quite clear that a sizable portion of the posters here at USMB who post negatively about gays- despise gays.

For being gay.

Prove me wrong if you can.

Prove most posters who post negatively against gays despise gays. I'll give you a few days to collect your thoughts.....then never see you post any evidence. .

Please- if you want to challenge me- at least try to be honest enough to use my actual words- rather than make up things I have said.

Here is what I said:
It is quite clear that a sizable portion of the posters here at USMB who post negatively about gays- despise gays.

I challenged all of you to prove me wrong.

Off the top of my head- without evening straining- that includes Stevie the Racist, Tipsy- but I will be glad to share some of the posts of the members of USMB who have cheered the deaths of gays on, or who have suggested that the proper course for gays is to hope that they all die, or are killed- see my signature for that lovely sentiment from Tipsy.

You can't prove your own claim? No surprise there.

Naming a few posters who have said hateful things doesn't equate to such even vague terms like "sizable portion" or equating posting "negatively" with "despise".

Example: It is quite clear that a sizable portion of the posters here at USMB who post negatively about Christians - despise Christians.

Now, like you said, "Prove me wrong".

 

[G.T.]

the beginning implies it began

thats not scientifically n'or philosophically proven.

the universe as we know it collapses to a singularity if we look at the signatures of its past - but the singularity is not necessarily its beginning

"In the beginning" suggests a fairy tale just like "once upon a time".....

it also suggests we know something that we dont

How many of you are there?

in terms of my awareness, or in terms of physical reality.....or in terms of digital reality.....?

its either a malformed question, or.an unanswerable one.

either way, its beyond anyone ive met's power to answer

Whenever someone speaks of themselves in the plural I notice. They are either speaking for a crowd or think of themselves as royalty. Either way the prognosis isn't very good.

It seems that a self-negating multiplicity is sitting in the place where an individual identity should be.


In case you really don't know, you are one person with one mind..Take charge of your own life. clean house.

prove that im one person with one mind.

prove im not a computer.

prove im not a program.

prove im not being operated, by several.....



youre taking leaps as well ~ and mine was merely a freakin expression.