Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It will be your choice. It is not God's will that any should perish.
It's not? Does that really make sense? I'll take the free will argument. We choose to sin. Whatever. But it's not God's will that we perish? Who's is it then? If God doesn't want us to suffer, why don't we just not suffer? If he's not putting people in hell, who is? Do we go into hell willingly? Is someone else doing it and wouldn't that mean that whoever that someone else is, is more powerful, since God doesn't want us to perish?
Surely you see the hole in that logic you just used. If not... well, I pity you.
The passage in question describes earth as a circle. That's an English word (which by the way is a two-dimensional figure and still technically flat) translated from Hebrew, the original language this passage would have been written in. The word that we replaced with circle was 'chug' a word that is to describe a tool used to make circles, a compass. When one looks at the horizon from a high elevation, the surroundings seem to encircle them... thus the English translation of the 'circle of the earth.'
ll?
Where would your vantage point have to be to see the earth as a circle? To describe the heavens as "stretched out like a curtain" and ignore the possible interpretation as an expanding universe is a bit unimaginative.
Explain all you want. Marriage isn't about procreation at all and is irrelevant to the topic of Marriage Equality. Thanks.
You just said marriage wasn't about procreation, but now it is? Make up your mind, please.
Having kids has NEVER been a requirement of marriage and it baffles my mind that you seem to think so.
I will try to explain it one more time...
Marriage isn't only about procreation... not all married couples have children.
However, only a male/female couple can have children (the natural way). It's impossible for homosexual couples to have children (the natural way). Is that clear enough?
Prove that wrong using any thing published before 50 years ago when the revisionist history deception began in earnest.
If you're automatically disqualifying any sources of information you don't agree with and labeling them as "revisionist" I am not sure what the point of the endeavor would be. Are you saying there is only one correct recording of history? That our view of it cannot or should not be changed as new facts, interpretations and hypothesis are unveiled? What a terribly limiting and unenlightened position to hold.
As I said, you don't know the difference between a crack pot website (especially a religious based anti-gay one like the FRC) and an Academic Journal.
The Regnerus study (funded with $850,000 k by the Witherspoon Institute, an ultra conservative anti-gay religious organization) didn't even study gay and lesbian couples as parents. All it ended up showing was that some people who were 'possibly' gay and lesbian, shouldn't marry straight people in mixed orientation marriages because they are likely to get divorced - and divorce is not great for kids.
Pure irony. I'm sure that's not what the Witherspoon Institute was looking for when it paid Regnerus to rustle up something damaging against same-sex marriage they could use before the 2012 election.:
Almost from the moment it was released, the 2012 New Family Structures Study raised red flags among family scholars for its results that suggest that children are less likely to thrive when raised by gay and lesbian parents than if raised by straight parents. The study is a clear outlier among 30 years’ worth of social science that suggest that children thrive equally well in two parent households, regardless of the genders of their parents. It was soon revealed that Regnerus’s study utterly failed to control for error. The study’s so-called “straight” households featured heterosexual parents in committed, long-term relationships, whereas the so-called “gay” households failed to feature same-sex couples in comparable relationships.
“There has always been a dark cloud over the Regnerus study, yet this debunked study is now being touted by anti-LGBT organizations around the country and around the globe,” said Ellen Kahn, M.S.S, of the Human Rights Campaign. “Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the public has a right to know how junk science gets published in a scholarly journal.”
It also proved just how lacking in integrity and honesty the anti-gay crusaders are- especially the religious ones.
Yes, of course... your links are 100% iron-clad accurate and mine are "crackpot!"
Quote:
Now where is that 'study' showing vampires exist?
It was not meant to be taken seriously! Amazing some of the posts I see on here.
The passage in question describes earth as a circle. That's an English word
(which by the way is a two-dimensional figure and still technically flat)
translated from Hebrew, the original language this passage would have been
written in. The word that we replaced with circle was 'chug' a word that is to
describe a tool used to make circles, a compass. When one looks at the horizon
from a high elevation, the surroundings seem to encircle them... thus the
English translation of the 'circle of the earth.'
And expanding
universe? Hardly what was being described. They saw the sky as a dome covering a
flat earth. It 'stretched' over the earth. It was not expanding. It even
compared the heavens to a tent, which does not get larger upon
placement.
That passage is a terrible excuse for scientific knowledge in
the Bible.
The world rests on the back of a giant turtle. And what's holding up that turtle? Other turtles!
It's turtles all the way down.
He is merciful. All you have to do is confess your sins and ask forgiveness.
Oh, so just... submit?
"I'm so sorry... I love you, and will listen to everything you say. It doesn't even slightly bother me that you flooded the entire earth because you were upset... your so loving.'
If I die and meet God, I'm giving that sociopath the finger and walking myself into hell. I'm not worshiping a murderer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi
Where would your vantage point have to be to see the earth as a circle?
It's like you didn't read a thing I just said.
The word 'circle' from the Isaiah quote you mentioned was translated from 'Chug,' a Hebrew word that describes a compass. A compass makes circles. From a high elevation, you can see all the surroundings. The horizon seems to encircle you. Bear in mind what encircle means. It does not describe the earth as perfect round or even remotely spherical. It just surrounds them.
Circle, in the context of Isaiah, did not mean spherical or even round. It just described the horizon around them. Circle on it's own, not even in the Biblical context, is a two-dimensional (flat) geometric shape. There is nothing scientific about that passage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
