Some hold that morals are guidelines that prevent harm and do good for others and self. As such, science and morality are interrelated.
Take as an example, adultery. (defined loosely as a person in a committed relationship cheating)
The application of the scientific method would show if there was harm done by adultery. Also if there was harm done by faithfulness. Science could tell you what is greater.
Another example is smoking around babies. Is second-hand smoking bad for baby's health? Does it convey benefits?
Drinking or drug use while pregnant? ditto.
As to religion* and morals, from the attitude of the 'faithful,' religion, by exposition, has the right to define right and wrong. (Note, I am not arguing that is correct 'morally' or not, just that is part of the definition of religion)
Also, most religions that teach 'Heaven,' teach 'God as Creator'. So following that exposition, pappa knows best.
So here is where religion and science can meet. A scientist can take the moral tenets of a religion and test their rightness or wrongness (are they harmful or not) i.e. Adultery or 'Love thy Neighbor' or 'Kill the Infidel'
So, what do you think of that argument?
*Religion defined as 'a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.')
Ok, you did help me with something. Every living person's dad's dad's dad's...dad is YcA. Every person's mom's mom's... mom is ME
Correct?
So, My Mom's Dad is 'half-brothers' with my Dad
And my Mom and my Dad's Mom are 'half-sisters'
I think there is some more there... is there?
Did I get that right? Moving back in time, As that approaches the limit, (like in calculus) how closely related (at least) are all humans alive today to each other, if 1 equals full siblings?
I also see on the website you linked that the example of how ME could come about entailed a genetic bottleneck. Wouldn't the same apply for YcA?
Even that website said that:
The existence of the Mitochondrial Eve is NOT a theory; it is a mathematical fact (unless something like a multiple-origins theory of human evolution i.e. the human species arose independently in different geographically separated populations, and that the present-day ease of interbreeding is the result of a remarkable convergent evolution, is true. Few people subscribe to the multiple-origins theory, and the Mitochondrial Eve observation is a refutation of multiple-origins).
So the commonly held view among scientists is that there is also one geographic origin for humans. Or did I misread?
I also read in the RSOH/RAO wiki page that the consensus of scientists is that humans have Monogenesis. And the near consensus that all humans come from one group of people originating in East Africa.
If you're the same AP, then all the genetic differences we have and all the cultural differences we have come from one pair of humans and much later, one group of humans? Do I have the correct understanding?
So when you said (if you are same AP):
the anthropological fact of human genetic diversity and cultural adaptation to every part of the world is more than sufficient to conclude that humankind could not have started with a mere two individuals.
does your argument above agree with science? How so? Or do I misunderstand? I am more than willing to admit a not complete understanding of any specific scientific theory. Help me understand.
In Jesus' time, arranged marriages were common. Look no further than his parents. Same thing with alliances between kingdoms by arranging marriages at birth.
Still not Jesus' explicit view. Still waiting.
You have some nice strawmen though.
So, choices: [ ] Book Chapter:verse
[ ]Jesus didn't say anything about pedophilia through marriage, thus making it not a sin.
As for the definition of fornication. The Greek word transliterated is porneia. The book, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by W. Bauer, second English ed., by F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker, Chicago and London (1979).
defines porneia as “prostitution, unchastity, fornication, of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse.” There is that word unlawful again. We have already learned what unlawful means.
Pornography is a strawman and your definition is not complete. Porneia in the strictest sense means to buy. As in a prostitute (and the definition is broader in reality, see above). (Even that is between two consenting adults and in private.) '-graphy' means to tell or to write, or record. Recordings of fornication. Not the same thing as fornication.
Even the loosest modern meaning of the word is sex between unmarried persons. And we're talking about Jesus' view, not yours. (Remember your original 'Appeal to Authority')
David and Solomon are also strawmen. Jesus explicitly said in Mt 19 that the intervening definition of marriage was no longer valid. And yes, by Jesus' definition they were fornicators.
So, Did Jesus condemn porneia as a sin? (provide references)
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
What does porneia when Jesus uses it mean? (provide references)
You never answered if it was ok with Jesus if a man married a infant. Nor did you answer about Jesus' condemnation of fornication. To both those questions you answered a question but not mine. I am still waiting for the answers to my questions.
But Meve and Yadam do tell us that every male alive came from one man and one woman. Genetic diversity? I think that they call that a bottleneck, or two. Same with culture. All tribes of earth now, from Zulu to Inca to Japanese have the same mom. Like I said, I am not here to argue Evolution. But don't lie and say humans living today have myriads of non-common origins.
This whole discussion is not one of personal belief, but one of what the Bible says about what Jesus said or didn't say about same sex marriage. For the sake of brevity, I left out 'the Bible says/teaches/etc' or suchlike quite a few times. I am not here to promulgate Creationism. Or disparage Evolution. Although it is interesting to note that the Jesus as explained in the Bible believed in creation. Be sure to share that next time some "Christian" tells you evolution is in the Bible.
And again, if you want the freedom from 'Christendom' trying to coerce you through law, use John 17:15, 16 and John 18:36. Any who do that are not actually following the example or teaching of Jesus.
1)Bible Cannon. Ok, there are many books that claim to be inspired, sure. But to take your example, Gospel of Thomas, in it 5 year old Jesus miraculously kills another child because the boy runs into Jesus. Sound anything like Jesus from the four Gospels in the Bible Cannon? Me neither. Yes, there are some bits in the four found in KJV and Textus Receptus that are generally considered not original. You know why? Those passages are not found in the oldest manuscripts. Pretty good evidence, wouldn't you say?
2.Lawful what is allowed by law. Unlawful is everything else. Illegal is forbidden by law. I.e. in the US, the federal government is only allowed to do what the constitution says it can. Everything else is unlawful. So, which would apply to Marriage? Jesus said in Mt 19 that God created man, woman, and marriage. The marriage God created was Man and Woman. That was Lawful. He didn't create any other marriages. Man created other marriages, like multiple wives, etc. Are any other marriages lawful for Christians? Note Mt. 19:3, 'Lawful' was in the question. Note Mt 19:8, last phrase: (NIV) "But it was not this way from the beginning." Thus, the beginning creation of marriage is the only one authorized by Jesus. All else is like divorce, (other than on grounds of fornication) not authorized. IOW, if you want to be in a marriage that Jesus recognizes, it has to be in the manner of God's first marriage.
3.
as a society we have put away such notions as "fornication". The standard now is "two consenting adults."
Tell that to Jesus. What is Jesus' definition of Fornication? Not modern society's. This answer concedes the original point.
a)universal negatives are hard to prove. Do you mean the efficacy of such things as 'Do unto others...' or 'Love thy Neighbor...' OTOH, maybe it's the Trinity or Hellfire or Christmas, or Christendom in politics or war. I'll give you a hint, all those OTOH are not in the Bible. Really, no!
b)People in other parts of the world also live by basically the same ideals as Christianity as exemplified by Jesus, including marriage.
c)True, you are what you worship. But even Roy Zimmerman said Jesus wasn't like that. And Jesus said he was just like his Dad. So, who does Christendom worship?
Especially vs 17 and vs 20. 17 says God's (the Father) word is truth and 20 says Jesus' followers were to believe based on the message of Jesus' united disciples.
So Jesus said listen to Peter, and Peter said that Paul wrote from God, whose word is truth. And Paul wrote Romans. Which jives with the rest of God's words.
So, instead of "I think" or "I feel" a Christian would remember the heart is not to be trusted for correct guidance. (not meaning the literal heart, but the figurative heart, or inner person, one's motivations) Note Matthew 15:19, 20.
So, that being the case, I offer no opinion, but to recommend that the answer is in that verse. (Romans 1:26) Regarding the Bible, I don't deal in opinions.
So you are correct in saying that Jesus didn't explicitly forbid same-sex marriage. But you still haven't answered my question (1) about unlawful and illegal. It's not the joke, it's a real question. And you still didn't reply about (2) Jesus condemning 'Fornication' which by all scholarly definitions would include homosexual acts. And here is one more question for you, (3) Until a same-sex marriage is obtained, wouldn't all sex in that relationship be under 'pre-marital' sex. That is also universally defined as part of fornication. And (4)your set theory about marriage would permit Bestiality and Pedophilia through marriage.
So answer those four questions/statements and I will answer yours.
First off, it's highly debatable whether or not the book of Genesis is incompatible with evolution.
Note I was careful to say Genesis doesn't teach evolution. I don't really want to get into an argument about this, but I am aware that people say evolution and Genesis Creation are compatible, but you won't find the explicit teaching of Evolution there. Really, otherwise Bible scholars would have come up with Evolution and not Darwin. I did choose my words carefully in that phrase.
As to the end of the world is near, Note I said when humans conclusively find no [intelligent life] in the universe, (remember, universal negatives are pretty hard to prove) by that time, if Armageddon has not come, I think it will not be coming. 100,000 ly across, (not area) just for Milky Way. 100,000,000,000 stars, and then we got 100,000,000,000 other galaxies in the universe. When we finish that, then we need to go to the rest of the universe, the vast part we can't see from Earth. (As an aside, the complete universe is not 13 or so billion ly in radius, that's just what we can see) And while the Milky Way can basically be measured in area, the universe is measured in volume. Are you familiar with the square-cube problem? Yeah, that fits this search.
So in summation, sure the end hasn't come yet, but will it not come by the end of the survey of all the planets in all the star systems in all the galaxies in the universe?
I was not really making a theological argument, just a 'the universe is too vast to fully chart' argument.
P.S. I do have a Theological question for you. I promise not to argue. Do you think Mt 28:19, 20 is binding upon all Christians today, and what does that mean they should be doing in practical application?
Look, I said from the outset, do what you want. You will never find me interfering with your life by law or physically, nor will I ever lobby for laws that enforce Christianity or it's morals on others. If Caesar says you can have same sex marriage, do what you want. You will not find me at the courthouse protesting. But remember the last half of that statement. God's things to God.
Be careful with your logic. If you go only by Jesus' explicit laws, Pedos are just fine (as long as they marry before they abuse), so is Bestiality, as is Genocide. I mean, really I could marry a goat by your logic.
I agree that practice of premarital sex is wrong in OT, the words of Jesus and the rest of NT. It also will keep a person out of Heaven. So will Greed, Drunkenness, and a few other things.
The reason I brought in the OT is back up my point that homosexuality is always wrong in the whole Bible. Christians have not been bound by the Law since Jesus' death. (Jesus was bound by it though, and remember, OT!=Mosaic Law [here is some more set theory]) So even the 10 Commandments are not for Christians per se, much therein is repeated for them though.
If I had realized from the start your heart is deeply involved with this issue, I would not have brought it up. It was not my intent to offend.
PS. don't think you can surprise me with what's in the Bible. I have read it. I have studied it.
PPS, Jews wore skirts back in the day, both men and women. See: Zechariah 8:23
Look, if you don't want to live life as a Christian, I am not going to threaten you with eternal torture in Hellfire, or proselytize to you here on this forum. I did neither in this whole discussion. And now you come up with this crazy argument. (I am guessing you are the same AC all the way through)
So if you have a real question, I'll answer it, but the driving of the money changers out of the temple had nothing to do with the charging of interest. It had everything to do with profiting (or robbing) from believers inside the Temple, aka House of God.
As to your question regarding transsexuals and the Bible, a careful parsing of Romans 1:26, 27 will give you the answer according to the Christian worldview. Now as to Intersex, I am not qualified to answer that question.
Usury is not always verboten and neither is it a capital sin in OT or NT. I also don't see mortgage lenders on/. proclaiming what they do is just fine with Jesus. I will have a word with them if they do, just for you, OK?
That's why I said learn set theory. Jesus gave one example, a man and a woman.
What is the difference between unlawful and illegal?
Same-sex marriage is not in the bible, so the bible does NOT forbid it.
Ok, for the sake of argument, lets say it would be OK with Jesus that you and your girl got married. Here is some set theory for you: Sex between two people of the same sex is always verboten in the Bible. So you could be 'married' but never have sex because the homosexual sex acts will keep you out of heaven.
BTW, do you view yourself as Christian? It seems that only a believer in Christ would care about what he said...
To me, it is interesting to ponder what finding DNA/RNA life extra-solar system would mean. That would really stand science on its head I think. Not much naturally goes between star systems as I understand it.
According to NIV, Jesus says everything in Mt 19:4-6 except for 'he replied' in vs 4. Which translation are you looking at? (Matthew 19:1 gives Jesus as 'he')
Besides, that would mean the polygamy in the Old Testament was both blessed by god (even commanded by him) and incompatible with one-man-one-woman marriage as described in Genesis, which is contradictory.
If marriage is and was always defined as "one man, one woman" than the Bible must be in error describing David's and Solomon's mates as "wives."
Slashdot Mirror
Take as an example, adultery. (defined loosely as a person in a committed relationship cheating)
The application of the scientific method would show if there was harm done by adultery. Also if there was harm done by faithfulness. Science could tell you what is greater.
Another example is smoking around babies. Is second-hand smoking bad for baby's health? Does it convey benefits?
Drinking or drug use while pregnant? ditto.
As to religion* and morals, from the attitude of the 'faithful,' religion, by exposition, has the right to define right and wrong. (Note, I am not arguing that is correct 'morally' or not, just that is part of the definition of religion)
Also, most religions that teach 'Heaven,' teach 'God as Creator'. So following that exposition, pappa knows best.
So here is where religion and science can meet. A scientist can take the moral tenets of a religion and test their rightness or wrongness (are they harmful or not) i.e. Adultery or 'Love thy Neighbor' or 'Kill the Infidel'
So, what do you think of that argument?
*Religion defined as 'a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.')
Correct?
So, My Mom's Dad is 'half-brothers' with my Dad
And my Mom and my Dad's Mom are 'half-sisters'
I think there is some more there... is there? Did I get that right? Moving back in time, As that approaches the limit, (like in calculus) how closely related (at least) are all humans alive today to each other, if 1 equals full siblings?
I also see on the website you linked that the example of how ME could come about entailed a genetic bottleneck. Wouldn't the same apply for YcA?
Even that website said that:
The existence of the Mitochondrial Eve is NOT a theory; it is a mathematical fact (unless something like a multiple-origins theory of human evolution i.e. the human species arose independently in different geographically separated populations, and that the present-day ease of interbreeding is the result of a remarkable convergent evolution, is true. Few people subscribe to the multiple-origins theory, and the Mitochondrial Eve observation is a refutation of multiple-origins).
So the commonly held view among scientists is that there is also one geographic origin for humans. Or did I misread?
I also read in the RSOH/RAO wiki page that the consensus of scientists is that humans have Monogenesis. And the near consensus that all humans come from one group of people originating in East Africa.
If you're the same AP, then all the genetic differences we have and all the cultural differences we have come from one pair of humans and much later, one group of humans? Do I have the correct understanding?
So when you said (if you are same AP):
the anthropological fact of human genetic diversity and cultural adaptation to every part of the world is more than sufficient to conclude that humankind could not have started with a mere two individuals.
does your argument above agree with science? How so? Or do I misunderstand? I am more than willing to admit a not complete understanding of any specific scientific theory. Help me understand.
Also, I never appealed to authority
BTW - Jesus never said a word against gays or lesbians. Not one. So do like Jesus would - approve same-sex marriage.
Fail
I'm done here.
In Jesus' time, arranged marriages were common. Look no further than his parents. Same thing with alliances between kingdoms by arranging marriages at birth.
Still not Jesus' explicit view. Still waiting.
You have some nice strawmen though.
So, choices:
[ ] Book Chapter:verse
[ ]Jesus didn't say anything about pedophilia through marriage, thus making it not a sin.
As for the definition of fornication. The Greek word transliterated is porneia. The book, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by W. Bauer, second English ed., by F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker, Chicago and London (1979). defines porneia as “prostitution, unchastity, fornication, of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse.” There is that word unlawful again. We have already learned what unlawful means.
Pornography is a strawman and your definition is not complete. Porneia in the strictest sense means to buy. As in a prostitute (and the definition is broader in reality, see above). (Even that is between two consenting adults and in private.) '-graphy' means to tell or to write, or record. Recordings of fornication. Not the same thing as fornication.
Even the loosest modern meaning of the word is sex between unmarried persons. And we're talking about Jesus' view, not yours. (Remember your original 'Appeal to Authority')
David and Solomon are also strawmen. Jesus explicitly said in Mt 19 that the intervening definition of marriage was no longer valid. And yes, by Jesus' definition they were fornicators.
So, Did Jesus condemn porneia as a sin? (provide references)
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
What does porneia when Jesus uses it mean? (provide references)
You never answered if it was ok with Jesus if a man married a infant. Nor did you answer about Jesus' condemnation of fornication. To both those questions you answered a question but not mine. I am still waiting for the answers to my questions.
But Meve and Yadam do tell us that every male alive came from one man and one woman. Genetic diversity? I think that they call that a bottleneck, or two. Same with culture. All tribes of earth now, from Zulu to Inca to Japanese have the same mom. Like I said, I am not here to argue Evolution. But don't lie and say humans living today have myriads of non-common origins.
Please start with Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
All Humans alive come from one Mom and all Men alive come from one Dad. Your basic premise is flawed.
This whole discussion is not one of personal belief, but one of what the Bible says about what Jesus said or didn't say about same sex marriage. For the sake of brevity, I left out 'the Bible says/teaches/etc' or suchlike quite a few times. I am not here to promulgate Creationism. Or disparage Evolution. Although it is interesting to note that the Jesus as explained in the Bible believed in creation. Be sure to share that next time some "Christian" tells you evolution is in the Bible.
Since you don't believe in the authority of Jesus, why do you worry about sin?
Your question is therefore a trap.
It is not relevant because California law has nothing to do with Jesus.
Thank you for answering whether you believe in Jesus.
And finally, regarding unlawful vs illegal: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/unlawful-versus-illegal.aspx
And again, if you want the freedom from 'Christendom' trying to coerce you through law, use John 17:15, 16 and John 18:36. Any who do that are not actually following the example or teaching of Jesus.
1)Bible Cannon. Ok, there are many books that claim to be inspired, sure. But to take your example, Gospel of Thomas, in it 5 year old Jesus miraculously kills another child because the boy runs into Jesus. Sound anything like Jesus from the four Gospels in the Bible Cannon? Me neither. Yes, there are some bits in the four found in KJV and Textus Receptus that are generally considered not original. You know why? Those passages are not found in the oldest manuscripts. Pretty good evidence, wouldn't you say?
2.Lawful what is allowed by law. Unlawful is everything else. Illegal is forbidden by law. I.e. in the US, the federal government is only allowed to do what the constitution says it can. Everything else is unlawful. So, which would apply to Marriage? Jesus said in Mt 19 that God created man, woman, and marriage. The marriage God created was Man and Woman. That was Lawful. He didn't create any other marriages. Man created other marriages, like multiple wives, etc. Are any other marriages lawful for Christians? Note Mt. 19:3, 'Lawful' was in the question. Note Mt 19:8, last phrase: (NIV) "But it was not this way from the beginning." Thus, the beginning creation of marriage is the only one authorized by Jesus. All else is like divorce, (other than on grounds of fornication) not authorized. IOW, if you want to be in a marriage that Jesus recognizes, it has to be in the manner of God's first marriage.
3.
as a society we have put away such notions as "fornication". The standard now is "two consenting adults."
Tell that to Jesus. What is Jesus' definition of Fornication? Not modern society's. This answer concedes the original point.
4. People have feelings. One of those things is 'gender' as you call it. Another is desire for sex. Another is anger. Are the actions of a psychotic moral because they are deeply felt? Is his/her view of himself/herself always the proper one? (note, I am not calling transsexuals or homosexuals psychotic) Some people sincerely feel that they are Jesus. The Bible says he's in heaven. People develop in a way other than natural sometimes. I agree. Neither the Bible nor Jesus allow free reign to what a person wants, just because it is deeply felt. In fact, the Bible calls that sort of thing "sin's law" and it is to be fought against. Romans 7:21-25: (NIV)(21)So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. (22)For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; (23)but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. (24)What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? (25)Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
5. Limits of marriage.
Nowadays, we look at a marriage as a contract...
More modern society views. Like your original argument, show me where Jesus explicitly condemned marrying a 2 year old.
My answer to yours is within above points. Mainly point 4.
a)universal negatives are hard to prove. Do you mean the efficacy of such things as 'Do unto others...' or 'Love thy Neighbor...' OTOH, maybe it's the Trinity or Hellfire or Christmas, or Christendom in politics or war. I'll give you a hint, all those OTOH are not in the Bible. Really, no!
b)People in other parts of the world also live by basically the same ideals as Christianity as exemplified by Jesus, including marriage.
c)True, you are what you worship. But even Roy Zimmerman said Jesus wasn't like that. And Jesus said he was just like his Dad. So, who does Christendom worship?
in YOU[R] opinion.
To follow the Christian way of life would be to follow Christ's example and his laws. If there is a question about something in today's world, then first one would look for explicit laws, failing that, principles. So Romans 1:26 (ISV) says: For this reason, God delivered them to degrading passions as their females exchanged their natural sexual function for one that is unnatural.
Yes I am aware you are unwilling to listen to Paul, but note John 17:17-21 (NIV) (17)Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. (18)As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. (19)For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified. (20)“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, (21) that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
Especially vs 17 and vs 20. 17 says God's (the Father) word is truth and 20 says Jesus' followers were to believe based on the message of Jesus' united disciples.
Sure, Paul did reprimand Peter. Peter was even called Satan by Jesus. But he was to feed Jesus' little lambs. (John 21:15-17) If one would consider theirself a little lamb (follower) of Jesus, then they would accept 'food' from Peter. Food in the Bible can mean teachings or writings. Included in Peter's writings is 2 Peter 3:14-16. Note in NIV: (14)So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. (15)Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. (16)He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
So Jesus said listen to Peter, and Peter said that Paul wrote from God, whose word is truth. And Paul wrote Romans. Which jives with the rest of God's words.
So, instead of "I think" or "I feel" a Christian would remember the heart is not to be trusted for correct guidance. (not meaning the literal heart, but the figurative heart, or inner person, one's motivations) Note Matthew 15:19, 20.
So, that being the case, I offer no opinion, but to recommend that the answer is in that verse. (Romans 1:26) Regarding the Bible, I don't deal in opinions.
So you are correct in saying that Jesus didn't explicitly forbid same-sex marriage. But you still haven't answered my question (1) about unlawful and illegal. It's not the joke, it's a real question. And you still didn't reply about (2) Jesus condemning 'Fornication' which by all scholarly definitions would include homosexual acts. And here is one more question for you, (3) Until a same-sex marriage is obtained, wouldn't all sex in that relationship be under 'pre-marital' sex. That is also universally defined as part of fornication. And (4)your set theory about marriage would permit Bestiality and Pedophilia through marriage.
So answer those four questions/statements and I will answer yours.
First off, it's highly debatable whether or not the book of Genesis is incompatible with evolution.
Note I was careful to say Genesis doesn't teach evolution. I don't really want to get into an argument about this, but I am aware that people say evolution and Genesis Creation are compatible, but you won't find the explicit teaching of Evolution there. Really, otherwise Bible scholars would have come up with Evolution and not Darwin. I did choose my words carefully in that phrase.
As to the end of the world is near, Note I said when humans conclusively find no [intelligent life] in the universe, (remember, universal negatives are pretty hard to prove) by that time, if Armageddon has not come, I think it will not be coming. 100,000 ly across, (not area) just for Milky Way. 100,000,000,000 stars, and then we got 100,000,000,000 other galaxies in the universe. When we finish that, then we need to go to the rest of the universe, the vast part we can't see from Earth. (As an aside, the complete universe is not 13 or so billion ly in radius, that's just what we can see) And while the Milky Way can basically be measured in area, the universe is measured in volume. Are you familiar with the square-cube problem? Yeah, that fits this search.
So in summation, sure the end hasn't come yet, but will it not come by the end of the survey of all the planets in all the star systems in all the galaxies in the universe?
I was not really making a theological argument, just a 'the universe is too vast to fully chart' argument.
P.S. I do have a Theological question for you. I promise not to argue. Do you think Mt 28:19, 20 is binding upon all Christians today, and what does that mean they should be doing in practical application?
Look, I said from the outset, do what you want. You will never find me interfering with your life by law or physically, nor will I ever lobby for laws that enforce Christianity or it's morals on others. If Caesar says you can have same sex marriage, do what you want. You will not find me at the courthouse protesting. But remember the last half of that statement. God's things to God.
Be careful with your logic. If you go only by Jesus' explicit laws, Pedos are just fine (as long as they marry before they abuse), so is Bestiality, as is Genocide. I mean, really I could marry a goat by your logic.
I agree that practice of premarital sex is wrong in OT, the words of Jesus and the rest of NT. It also will keep a person out of Heaven. So will Greed, Drunkenness, and a few other things.
The reason I brought in the OT is back up my point that homosexuality is always wrong in the whole Bible. Christians have not been bound by the Law since Jesus' death. (Jesus was bound by it though, and remember, OT!=Mosaic Law [here is some more set theory]) So even the 10 Commandments are not for Christians per se, much therein is repeated for them though.
If I had realized from the start your heart is deeply involved with this issue, I would not have brought it up. It was not my intent to offend.
PS. don't think you can surprise me with what's in the Bible. I have read it. I have studied it.
PPS, Jews wore skirts back in the day, both men and women. See: Zechariah 8:23
Don't you mean:
The US has lots of money, but it's not distributed very broadly or fairly. Only a few Americans are actually wealthy.
Look, if you don't want to live life as a Christian, I am not going to threaten you with eternal torture in Hellfire, or proselytize to you here on this forum. I did neither in this whole discussion. And now you come up with this crazy argument. (I am guessing you are the same AC all the way through)
So if you have a real question, I'll answer it, but the driving of the money changers out of the temple had nothing to do with the charging of interest. It had everything to do with profiting (or robbing) from believers inside the Temple, aka House of God.
Now as to same sex couples in the Temple, see Deuteronomy 23:18, NIV: You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute [a] into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both. Footnote: [a] Deuteronomy 23:18 Hebrew of a dog
So yet another command in the Bible against homosexuality.
As to your question regarding transsexuals and the Bible, a careful parsing of Romans 1:26, 27 will give you the answer according to the Christian worldview. Now as to Intersex, I am not qualified to answer that question.
Usury is not always verboten and neither is it a capital sin in OT or NT. I also don't see mortgage lenders on /. proclaiming what they do is just fine with Jesus. I will have a word with them if they do, just for you, OK?
Tell that to texas schoolkids... Oh wait, you can't.
That's why I said learn set theory. Jesus gave one example, a man and a woman.
What is the difference between unlawful and illegal?
Same-sex marriage is not in the bible, so the bible does NOT forbid it.
Ok, for the sake of argument, lets say it would be OK with Jesus that you and your girl got married. Here is some set theory for you: Sex between two people of the same sex is always verboten in the Bible. So you could be 'married' but never have sex because the homosexual sex acts will keep you out of heaven.
BTW, do you view yourself as Christian? It seems that only a believer in Christ would care about what he said...
To me, it is interesting to ponder what finding DNA/RNA life extra-solar system would mean. That would really stand science on its head I think. Not much naturally goes between star systems as I understand it.
I notice that's in Matthew's words, not Jesus's.
According to NIV, Jesus says everything in Mt 19:4-6 except for 'he replied' in vs 4. Which translation are you looking at? (Matthew 19:1 gives Jesus as 'he')
Besides, that would mean the polygamy in the Old Testament was both blessed by god (even commanded by him) and incompatible with one-man-one-woman marriage as described in Genesis, which is contradictory.
If marriage is and was always defined as "one man, one woman" than the Bible must be in error describing David's and Solomon's mates as "wives."
Polygamy in OT was allowed and regulated. Sin was too. True justice in the Bible requires all sinners to die in the day of their sin. But only some sins incurred the death penalty in Mosaic Law. Polygamy was 'commanded' only in case of 'Brother in law marriage' that I can recall. But note the very interesting words of Jesus there in Mt 19:8: Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
Like I said in other reply, Read the whole passage. Jesus was even correcting the ideas of his apostles. Really, Christianity is different than Judaism as expounded in OT. Jesus brought something better according to Heb 7:22, Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.
Put simply, Jesus was re-instituting one man one woman marriage that was the original definition.
as a side note, Solomon broke the command for kings and wives found at Deuteronomy 17:17: He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold. And his heart was led astray.
But would not an intelligent ET have continuous (or near continuous) pinging? OTOH, if ET is anything like Humanity, maybe they're hiding too...
May be that is what happened to our system :) In which case someone will eventually show up and ask for rent.
Yeah, his name is Jesus. (please realize this is a joking correlation between your post and common belief of many 'Christians')
At least human males don't kill their stepchildren.
[citation needed]