Religion of peace via their man made "submission" strikes again

[PoliticalChic]

"We do agree on that - that's #1 on our 10 "commandments" (freedom/free speech)"

But you just told me what I have to say...
"You are "bigoted" against gays unless you will say that you've moved beyond the gay-hatred in the Bible and now support gay rights..."



You're not too good at this are you.

Ok, obviously you won't say it, that's clear to me now.

I blame god/Jesus for being bad role models for you. What you need is some belief system that loves gays enough to stand up to god/Jesus/Allah's hatred of innocent people (gays).

"I blame god/Jesus for being bad role models for you."

Nothing could be more clear about your.....disability.

Isn't a role model of love (SH) a better role model than one of hatred (god/Jesus)?

PS "god/Jesus" say some good stuff, as well, and we like those parts of the Bible - the Golden Rule is #4 of the SH 10 "commandments", for example.

When you said that Jesus said to kill gays.....was that because you lie all the time, or because you were unaware of Matthew 19:18?


And that prevarication problem you have.....doesn't seem like much of a recommendation for the group you represent.
Does it?

Jesus never spoke up for gays, and sends them to hell (based on the Bible) - or else he's not god (and some OTHER god sends them to hell, uh, er, in which case the Bible is wrong about him being god!)

'Jesus never spoke up for gays,'

....but you said he wanted to kill them.

.... reminds me of nothing so much as Confederate General Wise, chased by Union General Cox, referring to his retreat a 'retrograde movement' of his troops.

Nice retrograde movement, there.

 

[Joy4Uall]

[

You are "bigoted" against gays unless you will say that you've moved beyond the gay-hatred in the Bible and now support gay rights and would let gays into heaven and avoid hell if that were up to you. What say you, PChic?

You are "bigoted" against biology unless you will say you've moved beyond that idea that those who cannot procreate are equal to those who can in familial structure.

"Reality" is the biggest enemy of the left.

Biology does indeed say that gays, on their own, by themselves, can not have kids - but because of surrogate programs, etc., they can be just as loving of parents as straight parents. If I could change biology so that gays could directly have kids with each other would I do that? I'd say "yes" - sounds like the loving thing to do....god/Jesus have not done that obviously (more bigotry on their part), so I'm proud to say that yet again Scientific Humanists have moved to a higher level of morality than god/Jesus have. We don't claim to be perfect, just have moved to a higher ethical level.

 

[MrShangles]

I hope they put the monsters on trial and punish them to the fullest extent of their law.

A huge crowd from what I see in the video as it happened. Governors who call for blasphemy laws to be reformed and their families are not safe either.

Wonderful Word Today: Blasphemy, killing in the name of their god

They executed one of the killers according to the original link you posted.

Luckily for the KKK, there were no camera phones during those lynching days........

Can't blame KKK for this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Joy4Uall]

Ok, obviously you won't say it, that's clear to me now.

I blame god/Jesus for being bad role models for you. What you need is some belief system that loves gays enough to stand up to god/Jesus/Allah's hatred of innocent people (gays).

"I blame god/Jesus for being bad role models for you."

Nothing could be more clear about your.....disability.

Isn't a role model of love (SH) a better role model than one of hatred (god/Jesus)?

PS "god/Jesus" say some good stuff, as well, and we like those parts of the Bible - the Golden Rule is #4 of the SH 10 "commandments", for example.

When you said that Jesus said to kill gays.....was that because you lie all the time, or because you were unaware of Matthew 19:18?


And that prevarication problem you have.....doesn't seem like much of a recommendation for the group you represent.
Does it?

Jesus never spoke up for gays, and sends them to hell (based on the Bible) - or else he's not god (and some OTHER god sends them to hell, uh, er, in which case the Bible is wrong about him being god!)

'Jesus never spoke up for gays,'

....but you said he wanted to kill them.

......

What I said was that the Bible, the main book about Jesus, says to kill them (Lev 20:13,) and that barbaric verse is still in the bible today that Christians give their impressionable young children - teaching utter hatred for innocent people. Have they no shame?

 

[Joy4Uall]

Ok, obviously you won't say it, that's clear to me now.

I blame god/Jesus for being bad role models for you. What you need is some belief system that loves gays enough to stand up to god/Jesus/Allah's hatred of innocent people (gays).

"I blame god/Jesus for being bad role models for you."

Nothing could be more clear about your.....disability.

Isn't a role model of love (SH) a better role model than one of hatred (god/Jesus)?

PS "god/Jesus" say some good stuff, as well, and we like those parts of the Bible - the Golden Rule is #4 of the SH 10 "commandments", for example.

When you said that Jesus said to kill gays.....was that because you lie all the time, or because you were unaware of Matthew 19:18?


And that prevarication problem you have.....doesn't seem like much of a recommendation for the group you represent.
Does it?

Jesus never spoke up for gays, and sends them to hell (based on the Bible) - or else he's not god (and some OTHER god sends them to hell, uh, er, in which case the Bible is wrong about him being god!)

.........

.... reminds me of nothing so much as Confederate General Wise, chased by Union General Cox, referring to his retreat as a 'retrograde movement' of his troops.

.......

Good post.

 

[Joy4Uall]

I gotta say, I do admire your tenacity on this forum. I wish I had your level of energy.

Remember when I asked this:
"What rights do gays need that they don't have?"

Still no answer?

They don't have the right to marry in many nations around the world. In some nations they are killed (that's not as bad as god/Jesus torturing them forever, but still horrific.) They also are discriminated against in the book that people give their children and say it's the best book of all time (Bible, and Qur'an, etc.) - Scientific Humanism has moved beyond those ancient hatreds, fortunately. I'm so proud of our belief system.

But not in my country?
So...y

None? Please realize that the world is more than America - in many nations gay activity is illegal, or punishable by death, due to religious texts. As those nations become more Scientific Humanist, that will end.

Soooo.....there are no rights that gays don't have in my country?

And....you're from Uganda???

And you love all people except some?

And you hate Jesus, Christians and God?


Ever wonder why you're so lonely?

I don't hate Christians - I love them more than you do, as I can clearly say here and now that the gays Christians I would let into heaven and avoid hell. Can you join me in loving gay Christians enough to say that as well, PChic?

"I don't hate Christians - I love them more than you do"


But you said this: "Will you do the Scientific Humanist thing to do and condemn those Christians in Uganda who were in favor of this law -"



So you only hate those Christians who don't agree with you?

Wait....you claimed your cult believes in free speech and free thought.


You seem kinda confused.

I can love them and condemn their belief at the same time. For example, I love my children, but if they dare to become Chicago Bulls fans then I have an obligation to condemn them!

No, seriously, I love Christians so much that I want to show them a better way, a more loving way. Again, love does not equal 100% acceptance of their hateful beliefs. If my dad had KKK sympathies, say, I could still love him (wouldn't be as easy as I'd like however), but of course I'd "condemn" those beliefs (a better phrase might be "strongly disagree", actually.)

I've decided not to have children.





.......

Oops, I might have talked you into being gay. Didn't mean to do that.

 

[Joy4Uall]

[

You are "bigoted" against gays unless you will say that you've moved beyond the gay-hatred in the Bible and now support gay rights and would let gays into heaven and avoid hell if that were up to you. What say you, PChic?

......

"Reality" is the biggest enemy of the left.

Reality is the biggest enemy of religion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"I blame god/Jesus for being bad role models for you."

Nothing could be more clear about your.....disability.

Isn't a role model of love (SH) a better role model than one of hatred (god/Jesus)?

PS "god/Jesus" say some good stuff, as well, and we like those parts of the Bible - the Golden Rule is #4 of the SH 10 "commandments", for example.

When you said that Jesus said to kill gays.....was that because you lie all the time, or because you were unaware of Matthew 19:18?


And that prevarication problem you have.....doesn't seem like much of a recommendation for the group you represent.
Does it?

Jesus never spoke up for gays, and sends them to hell (based on the Bible) - or else he's not god (and some OTHER god sends them to hell, uh, er, in which case the Bible is wrong about him being god!)

'Jesus never spoke up for gays,'

....but you said he wanted to kill them.

......

What I said was that the Bible, the main book about Jesus, says to kill them (Lev 20:13,) and that barbaric verse is still in the bible today that Christians give their impressionable young children - teaching utter hatred for innocent people. Have they no shame?

You claimed that murdering them was Jesus's perspective.

I destroyed that by pointing to Matthew 19:18

 

[Joy4Uall]

Isn't a role model of love (SH) a better role model than one of hatred (god/Jesus)?

PS "god/Jesus" say some good stuff, as well, and we like those parts of the Bible - the Golden Rule is #4 of the SH 10 "commandments", for example.

When you said that Jesus said to kill gays.....was that because you lie all the time, or because you were unaware of Matthew 19:18?


And that prevarication problem you have.....doesn't seem like much of a recommendation for the group you represent.
Does it?

Jesus never spoke up for gays, and sends them to hell (based on the Bible) - or else he's not god (and some OTHER god sends them to hell, uh, er, in which case the Bible is wrong about him being god!)

'Jesus never spoke up for gays,'

....but you said he wanted to kill them.

......

What I said was that the Bible, the main book about Jesus, says to kill them (Lev 20:13,) and that barbaric verse is still in the bible today that Christians give their impressionable young children - teaching utter hatred for innocent people. Have they no shame?

You claimed that murdering them was Jesus's perspective.

I destroyed that by pointing to Matthew 19:18

If Jesus would have spoken up enough, "hey guys, I love gays so don't have any wording that discriminates against gays", then Lev 20:13 would not be included in the Bible.....I'd have said that....would you have said that, PChic? It would be the loving Scientific Humanist thing to do....would you?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Jesus never spoke up for gays, and sends them to hell (based on the Bible) - or else he's not god (and some OTHER god sends them to hell, uh, er, in which case the Bible is wrong about him being god!)

As an agnostic I should perhaps not comment on this, BUT my understanding is that the key to being saved is that acceptance of Jesus as lord and savior. HENCE your claim that "Jesus sends homosexuals to hell" is patently false. Your claim appears to be based only upon your bigotry with zero fact to back it up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

You are "bigoted" against gays unless you will say that you've moved beyond the gay-hatred in the Bible and now support gay rights and would let gays into heaven and avoid hell if that were up to you. What say you, PChic?

......

"Reality" is the biggest enemy of the left.

Reality is the biggest enemy of religion.

"Reality is the biggest enemy of religion."


Really?
Let's see.


Now...about the origin of the universe.....and the fact that modern science now accepts the very same order of events as Genesis.....

1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.



2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.


a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dryland appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54. What a coincidence….or confluence.


Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….



3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.


a. Genesis 1: 11-12 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on; in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of autotrophs, or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth



4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion- the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’


Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it? But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’


Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.

a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect


b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . . I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf

....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.

How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?

That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?


What are the odds?



5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science.


a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing- but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.


b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?


7. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.


The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.


“ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.” What do scientists think about religion?

 

[PoliticalChic]

When you said that Jesus said to kill gays.....was that because you lie all the time, or because you were unaware of Matthew 19:18?


And that prevarication problem you have.....doesn't seem like much of a recommendation for the group you represent.
Does it?

Jesus never spoke up for gays, and sends them to hell (based on the Bible) - or else he's not god (and some OTHER god sends them to hell, uh, er, in which case the Bible is wrong about him being god!)

'Jesus never spoke up for gays,'

....but you said he wanted to kill them.

......

What I said was that the Bible, the main book about Jesus, says to kill them (Lev 20:13,) and that barbaric verse is still in the bible today that Christians give their impressionable young children - teaching utter hatred for innocent people. Have they no shame?

You claimed that murdering them was Jesus's perspective.

I destroyed that by pointing to Matthew 19:18

If Jesus would have spoken up enough, "hey guys, I love gays so don't have any wording that discriminates against gays", then Lev 20:13 would not be included in the Bible.....I'd have said that....would you have said that, PChic? It would be the loving Scientific Humanist thing to do....would you?

So, as a nut-cultist, your demand is that Jesus should have itemized every single group, preference, scenario, etc.


Pretty weak.


How about you post Matthew 19:18 and let's see if it answers your objections.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Biology does indeed say that gays, on their own, by themselves, can not have kids - but because of surrogate programs, etc., they can be just as loving of parents as straight parents.

They cannot procreate. Homosexuality ensures that the genetic code of the host is not propagated to future generations. Simply put, homosexuality is evolutions little way of saying "get the fuck out of the gene pool."

If I could change biology so that gays could directly have kids with each other would I do that? I'd say "yes" - sounds like the loving thing to do....god/Jesus have not done that obviously (more bigotry on their part), so I'm proud to say that yet again Scientific Humanists have moved to a higher level of morality than god/Jesus have. We don't claim to be perfect, just have moved to a higher ethical level.

Yes, if make believe were equal to reality, you would choose fantasy. You are indeed a humanist, but there is nothing even remotely scientific about you.

 

[Joy4Uall]

[

You are "bigoted" against gays unless you will say that you've moved beyond the gay-hatred in the Bible and now support gay rights and would let gays into heaven and avoid hell if that were up to you. What say you, PChic?

......

"Reality" is the biggest enemy of the left.

Reality is the biggest enemy of religion.

Really?

Now...about the origin of the universe.....and the fact that modern science now accepts the very same order of events as Genesis.....

1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.


.......

The earth is not 6000 years old (Adam/Eve to Jesus was 4000 years) science now shows us, and Jesus believed in Adam/Eve, so if we are going to the have the most scientifically-correct belief system (our children deserve that!) then we can't bring the divine Jesus forward - but we can bring secular, non-divine things Jesus said as a PHILOSOPHER, such as the Golden Rule.

The Golden Rule is good stuff. But Buddha said equally as good of things, so we can't only be Christian, we have to bring the great Buddhist stuff forward. Buddha said the Golden Rule in a bit different way.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What I said was that the Bible, the main book about Jesus, says to kill them (Lev 20:13,) and that barbaric verse is still in the bible today that Christians give their impressionable young children - teaching utter hatred for innocent people. Have they no shame?

THAT is a level of ignorance that renders all else you post moot.

You don't know why, do you?

 

[Joy4Uall]

Biology does indeed say that gays, on their own, by themselves, can not have kids - but because of surrogate programs, etc., they can be just as loving of parents as straight parents.

The cannot procreate. Homosexuality ensures that the genetic code of the host is not propagated to future generations. Simply put, homosexuality is evolutions little way of saying "get the fuck out of the gene pool."

If I could change biology so that gays could directly have kids with each other would I do that? I'd say "yes" - sounds like the loving thing to do....god/Jesus have not done that obviously (more bigotry on their part), so I'm proud to say that yet again Scientific Humanists have moved to a higher level of morality than god/Jesus have. We don't claim to be perfect, just have moved to a higher ethical level.

Yes, if make believe were equal to reality, you would choose fantasy. You are indeed a humanist, but there is nothing even remotely scientific about you.

If you could change biology so that gays could directly have kids with each other would you do that? If so, then you would be more loving than god/Jesus/Allah are.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

You are "bigoted" against gays unless you will say that you've moved beyond the gay-hatred in the Bible and now support gay rights and would let gays into heaven and avoid hell if that were up to you. What say you, PChic?

......

"Reality" is the biggest enemy of the left.

Reality is the biggest enemy of religion.

At least in the case of the absurd religion you are preaching.

 

[Joy4Uall]

What I said was that the Bible, the main book about Jesus, says to kill them (Lev 20:13,) and that barbaric verse is still in the bible today that Christians give their impressionable young children - teaching utter hatred for innocent people. Have they no shame?

THAT is a level of ignorance that renders all else you post moot.

You don't know why, do you?

Could I ask you to summon the moral courage of Scientific Humanists and remove that verse from your Bible? That would be the loving thing to do - to once and for all say that you support gays, and hold no hatred towards them, like Scientific Humanists do. I believe in you - you can do this!

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

You are "bigoted" against gays unless you will say that you've moved beyond the gay-hatred in the Bible and now support gay rights and would let gays into heaven and avoid hell if that were up to you. What say you, PChic?

......

"Reality" is the biggest enemy of the left.

Reality is the biggest enemy of religion.

Really?

Now...about the origin of the universe.....and the fact that modern science now accepts the very same order of events as Genesis.....

1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.


.......

The earth is not 6000 years old (Adam/Eve to Jesus was 4000 years) science now shows us, and Jesus believed in Adam/Eve, so if we are going to the have the most scientifically-correct belief system (our children deserve that!) then we can't bring the divine Jesus forward - but we can bring secular, non-divine things Jesus said as a PHILOSOPHER, such as the Golden Rule.

The Golden Rule is good stuff. But Buddha said equally as good of things, so we can't only be Christian, we have to bring the great Buddhist stuff forward. Buddha said the Golden Rule in a bit different way.

You missed this?
The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science.


So says the Book of Genesis

 

[Joy4Uall]

Jesus never spoke up for gays, and sends them to hell (based on the Bible) - or else he's not god (and some OTHER god sends them to hell, uh, er, in which case the Bible is wrong about him being god!)

'Jesus never spoke up for gays,'

....but you said he wanted to kill them.

......

What I said was that the Bible, the main book about Jesus, says to kill them (Lev 20:13,) and that barbaric verse is still in the bible today that Christians give their impressionable young children - teaching utter hatred for innocent people. Have they no shame?

You claimed that murdering them was Jesus's perspective.

I destroyed that by pointing to Matthew 19:18

If Jesus would have spoken up enough, "hey guys, I love gays so don't have any wording that discriminates against gays", then Lev 20:13 would not be included in the Bible.....I'd have said that....would you have said that, PChic? It would be the loving Scientific Humanist thing to do....would you?

So, as a nut-cultist, your demand is that Jesus should have itemized every single group, preference, scenario, etc.


Pretty weak.


........

But he's had 2000 years to do it, and he's never done that - so we have to assume that he's either not real, or does indeed hate gays (which is of course the attitude of the Bible.)
I would if I was in that position, because as a Scientific Humanist, especially if the main book that people associated with me said to KILL GAYS(!), I "love everybody equally" - and that includes gays. I'm not sensing as much love on this forum as when I converse with Scientific Humanists, but I know that we can change that, eventually. I have faith....in humanity.....I have faith in love.