God Commands You To Kill Gays

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Through one man, Adam, sin entered the world. Before Adam, there was no sin - no stealing, no adultery, no theft, and as a result of no sin, there was no death.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

God's creation, originally, had no death because there was no sin. When Adam sinned (disobeyed God) death entered into the world.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by Totakeke]

reply to post by Totakeke


Oh, hold on Sparky! That's not what the passage says! It says "in that day", as in within that 24 hour period. Now, according to Genesis, Adam and Eve not only lived, but went on to bear children. So...

On the same note, we are all the product of incest, since their sons would have no choice but to reproduce with either their mother or their sisters, which would doom the race to begin with. Nice try, but...

reply to post by JaxonRoberts

Oh, hold on Sparky! That's not what the passage says! It says "in that day", as in within that 24 hour period. Now, according to Genesis, Adam and Eve not only lived, but went on to bear children. So...

If it meant "in that 24-hour day", Adam and Eve would have died right then and there but they didn't. But they did die.

reply to post by Totakeke


"in that day" is pretty clear. It's your passage. It's very concise. No wiggle room. And you never answered the carnivore question. Let me guess, before Eve gave Adam the apple, they were all vegans!

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Are you serious???????

Yes, I'm 100% serious, and you're simply making a fool of yourself.

It only takes 1 to shoot this God crap out of the sky.

This is your opinion, I honestly couldn’t care less.

1 species of animal exhibiting homosexual behavior kind of kills this little story about gay being a product of original sin. Were you not paying attention?

Actually, if you believe what Totakeke does, it doesn’t. Were you not paying attention?

Secondly, you seem to be mistaking the word "many" for the word "most." There is a difference. 2000 of anything is many. 1 is not many. 2 is a couple. 3 is a few. Where do you decide something is many?

When compared to something that totals 3-30 million, the number 2,000 is not an accurate representation of “many.” In fact, if my math is correct it is less than 1%. So logic should tell you that you can compare it to the number or variable you already know.

dictionary.reference.com...

If you were were chased by a pack of 30 feral dogs. Would you say many dogs were chasing you? I sure would. There are a lot more than 30 dogs around though eh? You cannot correct me on the subject matter so you thought you would take a stab at grammar? Idiot move.

If I were chased by a pack of thirty dogs, I would say a pack of thirty dogs chased me. Yes, there are a lot more then thirty dogs around, but since I know the exact number that were chasing me, I would state that number. Contrary to your belief I am not here to correct you on this subject matter, nor did I make the statement to take a stab at grammar. I took a stab at your premise, not your grammar, please do yourself a favor and try to at least grasp the difference before you reply again. However I will correct you in a certain area, and you’ll see it at the end of this post.

Lastly, new species of animals are discovered each and every day. Are you trying to tell me that you have personally studied each and every species of animal exhaustively (including the ones yet undiscovered somehow) and determined how many of them exactly had any homosexual traits?

It is obvious you know nothing about this subject. Did JaxonRoberts have to personally study anything when he or she gave the 1,500 number? Better yet, have you yourself personally studied ANY species to determine if homosexuality was practiced? No, yet you made the claim you did, why is that? So if you must know, research has been conducted by various scientists and organizations, and the results are that it has been observed in 1,500-2,000 species. However, there is a review by Nathan Bailey and Marlene Zuk outlining homosexuality and they believe it extends to all animals. This would actually support Totakeke and his/her belief that animals also felt the sting of sin.

Thank you for your response. It was one of the dumbest things I have ever read here.

Not quite as dumb as your premise, but we are both entitled to our opinions right? Now I will correct you. If you desire true understanding, it would be wise to cease being emotionally attached to the subject and taking offense at what people say.


[edit on 31-8-2009 by EMPIRE]

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Totakeke

 

"in that day" is pretty clear. It's your passage. It's very concise. No wiggle room. And you never answered the carnivore question. Let me guess, before Eve gave Adam the apple, they were all vegans!

There's no dispute among Christians: Adam and Eve ate the fruit, fell into sin, and death entered into the world. But you can look up the Hebrew for "in that day" and see into what it really translates, if you'd like.

Yes, before the fall Adam, Eve, and all of the animals were vegetarians.

Genesis 1:29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by Totakeke]

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Totakeke

 

"in that day" is pretty clear. It's your passage. It's very concise. No wiggle room. And you never answered the carnivore question. Let me guess, before Eve gave Adam the apple, they were all vegans!

What if it means they died a spiritial death? Moreover, if you consider what a lot of Christians believe about days (a thousand years being as a day etc) it would make sense because Adam is said to have lived 900+ years so he would have died in that "day."

Also, have you looked at the hebrew wording of the verse presented? Maybe that will shed light on the subject.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by EMPIRE]

Originally posted by Totakeke
But you can look up the Hebrew for "in that day" and see into what it really translates, if you'd like.

So now you are admitting that there are translation errors in the Bible. In that case, you are admitting to the possibility that your interpretations are wrong due to said translation errors! This would include the sections that this whacko 'preacher' in Tempe is using to justify killing gay people!

As to the vegetarian part, He must have known that they would eat the apple before 'creating' species such as lions, since they are not 'designed' to be so. And if He knew that they were going to eat of it, what a cruel bastard for creating them in the first place, knowing that the rest of us would have to pay for these two yo-yo's screw up! And if He didn't, then He isn't an all-seeing, all-knowing God, now is He???

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

Originally posted by Totakeke
But you can look up the Hebrew for "in that day" and see into what it really translates, if you'd like.

So now you are admitting that there are translation errors in the Bible. In that case, you are admitting to the possibility that your interpretations are wrong due to said translation errors! This would include the sections that this whacko 'preacher' in Tempe is using to justify killing gay people!

You're using fallacies, and that is not what he is saying.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts

So now you are admitting that there are translation errors in the Bible.

No, I'm just saying that I believe what the Bible says in that specific verse. You can look up the Hebrew if you're really interested in seeing what the original Hebrew says, but I know what the writer of Genesis is trying to say with that verse.

As to the vegetarian part, He must have known that they would eat the apple before 'creating' species such as lions, since they are not 'designed' to be so. And if He knew that they were going to eat of it, what a cruel bastard for creating them in the first place, knowing that the rest of us would have to pay for these two yo-yo's screw up! And if He didn't, then He isn't an all-seeing, all-knowing God, now is He???

www.gotquestions.org...

Originally posted by EMPIRE
Yes, I'm 100% serious, and you're simply making a fool of yourself.

You are a hoot aren't ya!

This is your opinion, I honestly couldn’t care less.

Then why bother replying?

Actually, if you believe what Totakeke does, it doesn’t. Were you not paying attention?

Huh? This is how you avoid actually addressing what I said? When did I say I was part of a team or representing anything anyone else thought? My point stands. If one species out of all of them has gay members, then that means that you are saying that species of animal is also being punished for original sin and therefore has a soul and goes to hell. 1 species. That is all. If you cannot debate many, fine. 1.

When compared to something that totals 3-30 million, the number 2,000 is not an accurate representation of “many.” In fact, if my math is correct it is less than 1%. So logic should tell you that you can compare it to the number or variable you already know.

dictionary.reference.com...

Thank you so much for this link you obviously did not read.

man⋅y  /ˈmɛni/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [men-ee] Show IPA adjective, more, most, noun, pronoun
Use many in a Sentence
See web results for many
See images of many
–adjective 1. constituting or forming a large number; numerous: many people.
2. noting each one of a large number (usually fol. by a or an): For many a day it rained.

–noun 3. a large or considerable number of persons or things: A good many of the beggars were blind.
4. the many, the greater part of humankind.

–pronoun 5. many persons or things: Many of the beggars were blind. Many were unable to attend.

Please try and keep up. You provided the link. It does not say that many is a majority, larger proportion of, or considerable percentage. It says that many is a lot of things. 2000 is a lot of things. This is not about relativity. Many is not Most. Try reading your links before so arrogantly posting them and making yourself look stupid.

The point was that it was said that all of creation is paying for original sin and that homosexuality is a punishment from god for original sin. Either way, either one of you is claiming that animals are subject to God's laws and die sinners and go to hell.

Anyone going to address the carnivores diet before death?

reply to post by EMPIRE


And where exactly does it say 'spiritual death'? You are just making it say whatever you need it to. Crap logic leads to crap argument. Pure, plain, simple!

Originally posted by Totakeke
Yes, before the fall Adam, Eve, and all of the animals were vegetarians.

Genesis 1:29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by Totakeke]

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

try backing up a few verses.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

reply to post by K J Gunderson

If one species out of all of them has gay members, then that means that you are saying that species of animal is also being punished for original sin and therefore has a soul and goes to hell.

I never said that. Animals are definitely affected by sin (that's why they harm each other) but the Bible doesn't talk specifically about animals and whether or not they actually have souls. This page goes into more depth about animals: www.gotquestions.org...

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Jump forward one verse.

Genesis 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Originally posted by Totakeke
I never said that. Animals are definitely affected by sin (that's why they harm each other) but the Bible doesn't talk specifically about animals and whether or not they actually have souls. This page goes into more depth about animals: www.gotquestions.org...

Stop offering up this same lameass link over and over and over and over. Questions have been posed to you as a reaction to things that YOU are saying. You should either try answering or find something else to do. We have all seen your link now. Do you work for that website? Trying to gin up traffic? The link has been shown. ATS is not for spamming every post with a link to your favorite copout.

The bible does not talk about any of this stuff you are all talking about. It does not say animals suffered from original sin. It does not say whether or not they have souls. It does not say anything about any of this. What it does say is the things you so conveniently missed just 3 verses back.

Personally...I hate religion. I believe in God (in one form or another), but religion has bastardized God into something...dare I say it...EVIL. One of my favorite quotes is "My love for God dictates my hate for religion".

However, what religion is supposed to teach is morals...rules to live by. So what bothers me is when people say that the bible and it's morals are outdated and don't apply to today's world. I don't get that. Has this society become so obscene that morals from long ago need to change? Isn't killing still wrong, isn't honoring your Mother and Father still the "right" thing to do. I guess what I'm saying is...aren't we (as a society) only sick of what the bible teaches because is spoils our fun?

As much as I believe that some of the old "rules" sound stupid, if we all lived by them, the world would be a better place. For example...if marriage is supposed to be forever...or else...is that really such a bad thing? Knowing that, ahead of time, would likely result in better choices, a decrease in broken families, a decrease in "problem children" from divorces, etc. Or for that matter...sex outside of marriage. Yeah, that would really suck and kill everyone's fun...but wouldn't it result in a better world and a lot less problems?

What I'm saying is that the old "rules" aren't really wrong...they are just too inconvenient for today's people. And if so...that really says something negative about our society. IMHO.

Originally posted by Totakeke
No, I'm just saying that I believe

In other words, speculation...

what the Bible says in that specific verse. You can look up the Hebrew if you're really interested in seeing what the original Hebrew says, but I know what the writer of Genesis

Moses, and he wrote it 3,000 years after the fact, according to the biblical timeline...

is trying to say with that verse.

Now you're claiming to be a time traveling mind reader!

www.gotquestions.org...

This link just supports my position of your 'God' being a sadistic bastard! If I knew my future 'child' was going to be the next Hitler, and his children would pay for the rest of time for his crimes, I would be a complete jackhole to have him anyway!

reply to post by K J Gunderson

Stop offering up this same lameass link over and over and over and over. Questions have been posed to you as a reaction to things that YOU are saying. You should either try answering or find something else to do. We have all seen your link now. Do you work for that website? Trying to gin up traffic? The link has been shown. ATS is not for spamming every post with a link to your favorite copout.

I answered your question with the link. I posted the link again because I didn't know whether you saw it or not.

No, I don't work for gotquestions.org but they're a great resource. Often they can explain things a lot better than I can.

It does not say animals suffered from original sin.

All of creation suffered from original sin. Creation is no longer in the state in which it was at the beginning when God created it.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by Totakeke]

Originally posted by Totakeke
No, I don't work for gotquestions.org but they're a great resource. Often they can explain things a lot better than I can.

You mean spin the words in the Bible better than you can. It's pure opinion and speculation on what they think it means. Not the literal meaning of the words.

All of creation suffered from original sin. Creation is no longer in the state in which it was at the beginning when God created it.

Because your 'God' punished all of 'Creation' for the actions of two individuals! More proof of Him being a sadistic bastard!