Bishop:- Gays caused by pregnant women having anal sex.

[shmogie]

Please, science has been touting that they are on right track for 65 years.

If one actually reads the material, and follows the progress the track goes nowhere.

Many in the OOL community are now saying the bio chemical route is probably a dead end

For those 65 years the media has touted great breakthroughs and the ignorant public believes as you do.

However, if one reads the journals regarding these great breakthroughs, , most of the time they aren't regarded as such.

James Tour, a biochemist and eminent OOL researcher has written two books and made many presentations to groups of scientists and others regarding the non productive status quo and his frustration with the fact the OOL community will not address the real problem, biochemistry has failed in advancing significantly in identifying how abiogeneisis occurred.

You probably have never heard of him

Like most evolutionists, when you believe a cherished belief might actually be challengeable, you personally attack the challenger, parse words, split hairs, anything to discredit the messenger.

No problem.

Tell you what, why don`t you and I have a detailed conversation regarding abiogeneisis ? You will be able to showcase the vast knowled ge you say you have, you then 2ill really e able to showcase my ignorance and support your contention that I am a doofus.

The usual suspects will jump to your aid, and together you can really drag me through the mud.

Up for it ?

Just cite the science that has led you to believe abiogeneisis occurred and we will talk about it. Then I get to cite some science.

Or, would you just rather attack me personally, without proving any of your assertions ?

It's incredible, until you see 'em actually writing and saying this jibberish.

It's just primitive bigotry, this junk, including any and all self-righteousness about folk's individual sexuality.

The idea that these extremists claim to be Christians is either gob-smackingly dishonest or crazy. The only real Christians imo are those who understand what love and understanding are.

I don't have to believe to be able to acknowledge communal love, where they have it.

But... Hey! Let's look at the bright side. Many Churches are reviewing the real messages for Christianity and progressing forward towards love and understanding for all....... the others can wither away .... would be best.

Did you know Christ said the word repent more times than He said love ?

Repent of what one wonders ?

Isn´t His emphasis on repentance truly outdated ?

Now itś just understanding and love.

 

[oldbadger]

Historically some of the worst examples of religious hate are when two sects of the same religion disagree with each other. In Great Britain and Ireland it was the Protestants and the Catholics. In Arabic countries it is wars between Sunni and Shia. Buddhists have their own history of wars. There is something about religious beliefs that tend to bring out the worst of humans at times.

And Football.
A typical example could be Rangers and Celtic. But then, The Catholics support Celtic, and the Protestants support Rangers.

Humans just do divide, join cliques, and cause conflicts.

 

[oldbadger]

Did you know Christ said the word repent more times than He said love ?
Repent of what one wonders ?
Isn´t His emphasis on repentance truly outdated ?
Now it's just understanding and love.

You don't really get what the Baptist, and then Jesus, were doing. You don't get it.
You never will, methinks......

Many many thousands of working Jewish families were trekking to Jerusalem for cleansing and redemption, where they got fleeced for bed and board by the locals, got fleeced at the currency exchanges, got fleeced for the Temple chatrges, got fleeced for sacrificial lambs etc (their own were condemned if they had brought them). They were insulted by having to touch and hold images of Baal, and graven images, and the abbreviated name of caesar (on the coinage). And the Priesthood was a corrupted hypocrisy.

And so the call went out to the people to come and REPENT, BE CLEANSED, BE REDEEMED..... FOR NOTHING!
Jesus used to call out 'Mercy before Scarifice'....!
See? Through their LOVE and UNDERSTANDING of the people's needs and struggles the Baptist and Jesus offered REPENTANCE, CLEANSING and REDEMPTION FOR NOTHING!
It ALWAYS WAS ABOUT UNDERSTANDING AND LOVE.......... and not the manipulated mess that Paul stuffed down your throats.

 

[shmogie]

You don't really get what the Baptist, and then Jesus, were doing. You don't get it.
You never will, methinks......

Many many thousands of working Jewish families were trekking to Jerusalem for cleansing and redemption, where they got fleeced for bed and board by the locals, got fleeced at the currency exchanges, got fleeced for the Temple chatrges, got fleeced for sacrificial lambs etc (their own were condemned if they had brought them). They were insulted by having to touch and hold images of Baal, and graven images, and the abbreviated name of caesar (on the coinage). And the Priesthood was a corrupted hypocrisy.

And so the call went out to the people to come and REPENT, BE CLEANSED, BE REDEEMED..... FOR NOTHING!
Jesus used to call out 'Mercy before Scarifice'....!
See? Through their LOVE and UNDERSTANDING of the people's needs and struggles the Baptist and Jesus offered REPENTANCE, CLEANSING and REDEMPTION FOR NOTHING!
It ALWAYS WAS ABOUT UNDERSTANDING AND LOVE.......... and not the manipulated mess that Paul stuffed down your throats.

LOL, pick and choose, the easy way. Christ said there are two roads, one wide and easy, the other narrow and difficult.

They easy road leads to death.

Paul was an Apostle, he was accepted by the other Apostles as one of that august group. They approved of Pauls teachings. Everything you read about Christs life was written by an Apostle.

Christ said to deny yourself and follow.

The pickers and choosers substitute their paltry wisdom for that of God, and create a false Christianity where there is no sin, no accountability, just do what you want.

They are happily following that wide, smooth, easy road, for now. There will come to the end of their journey, and as Christ says of them, they will proclaim themselves as having done many wonderful (loving) things in His name, and He will tell them to leave his sight, He never knew them.

 

[Jainarayan]

To play the devils advocate, you know this for a fact ?

Can you cite any studies that disproves it ?

When something occurs, and the cause is not known, all kinds of ideas are bandied about as to cause. A strange light becomes a UFO or a ghost, most likely a floating log becomes a lake monster.

It’s a stupid idea.Some UFOs and lake monsters can be explained away, some can’t. What can’t be so easily explained away is the ignorance this cleric is showing in the year 2019. A woman having anal sex causes homosexuality? If you think there’s merit to his spew, have at it.

 

[shmogie]

It’s a stupid idea.Some UFOs and lake monsters can be explained away, some can’t. What can’t be so easily explained away is the ignorance this cleric is showing in the year 2019. A woman having anal sex causes homosexuality? If you think there’s merit to his spew, have at it.

There is no merit to it, I know that intuitively , but can you objectively prove him wrong ?

 

[Jainarayan]

There is no merit to it, I know that intuitively , but can you objectively prove him wrong ?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Most individuals, unless they have a regular habit of fasting periodically, harbor intestinal parasites and their eggs. The eggs of course ride out of the tube they're born in and move out of the body with stool or anal sex. Some deposit their eggs directly on the anus....

You can take supplements that kill and clear them, but most people are simply completely unaware of having them.They are infected by these from improper food handling and cooking, especially if they eat out much.There are no outward symptoms --- the parasites cohabit and hitch a free ride without causing any problem that you'd notice. But, occasionally, when you get sick or have other issues it becomes a problem.

Anyway, nothing to be terribly alarmed about -- but, anal sex activity will increase your exposure and can certainly also cause UTI.

I'm wondering about the name of the parasites....

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm wondering about the name of the parasites....

Herbert, Jim, David, . . .

 

[Mindmaster]

I'm wondering about the name of the parasites....

There are a bunch:

CDC - Parasites

But, the most common are pinworms, hookworms, tapeworms, and roundworms.

 

[oldbadger]

LOL, pick and choose, the easy way. Christ said there are two roads, one wide and easy, the other narrow and difficult.
...............................................
He never knew them.

It's the other way round.

Both the Baptist and Jesus offered cleansing and redemption for NO CHARGE.

That is how the Temple takings crashed and Antipas was instructed to go out and bring 'em in. He got the Baptist, but Jesus got clear out in to the wastes.... was there well over a month, you know......

Paul didn't know a thing about Jesus's campaign, and thus never made mention of it. It's staring you in the face.

 

[shmogie]

It's the other way round.

Both the Baptist and Jesus offered cleansing and redemption for NO CHARGE.

That is how the Temple takings crashed and Antipas was instructed to go out and bring 'em in. He got the Baptist, but Jesus got clear out in to the wastes.... was there well over a month, you know......

Paul didn't know a thing about Jesus's campaign, and thus never made mention of it. It's staring you in the face.

Christś campaign ? Was this a military, or political campaign ?

The very people who wrote the Gospels that you seem to believe accurately represent Christś life, who knew and were taught by Christ, said that Paul totally reflected the teachings of Christ.

Here you come, 2,000 years later, and you arbitrarily decide they didn´t know what they were talking about.

Of course Christ offered redemption for no charge, and Paul makes this abundantly clear in his discussions of Grace.

However, you seem to think repentance is some kind of payment for grace. Repentance simply means the decision to change the direction one is taking toward sin.

One cannot have redemption if they feel they don´t need it. Conviction of the flaws in their life, sin, drives them toward Grace (repentance), which provides them redemption.

Christ does not have any interest in saving people in their sin ( any act or even mindset that brings them into disharmony with God) He wants to save them FROM their sin.

A person cannot choose a sinful life, with the feeling that they can happily continue in that life, knowing it is contrary to Gods will, and be redeemed. A person must turn away and seek redemption FROM that life.

That is why Christ used the word repent so often. He saw people drowning in sin, and they didn´t care if they were.

To quote Paul, ¨the wages of sin is death¨. You can accept your penalty for yourself, and be dead forever, or you can repent and have Christś death substitute for the one you have earned.

You seem to put a lot of emphasis on John the baptist. A great man no doubt. However his role in the mission of Christ was very limited. He preached redemption and baptism. He wrote no books of the Bible, he established no Christian doctrines, his role was to announce the coming of Christ. He himself said he was not fit to tie the Christs shoes.

He was not a political agitator or zealot, his concern was being right with God, and he knew his cousin, Christ, had come to open the avenue for that.

 

[oldbadger]

Christś campaign ? Was this a military, or political campaign ?

The very people who wrote the Gospels that you seem to believe accurately represent Christś life, who knew and were taught by Christ, said that Paul totally reflected the teachings of Christ.

Here you come, 2,000 years later, and you arbitrarily decide they didn´t know what they were talking about.

Of course Christ offered redemption for no charge, and Paul makes this abundantly clear in his discussions of Grace.

However, you seem to think repentance is some kind of payment for grace. Repentance simply means the decision to change the direction one is taking toward sin.

One cannot have redemption if they feel they don´t need it. Conviction of the flaws in their life, sin, drives them toward Grace (repentance), which provides them redemption.

Christ does not have any interest in saving people in their sin ( any act or even mindset that brings them into disharmony with God) He wants to save them FROM their sin.

A person cannot choose a sinful life, with the feeling that they can happily continue in that life, knowing it is contrary to Gods will, and be redeemed. A person must turn away and seek redemption FROM that life.

That is why Christ used the word repent so often. He saw people drowning in sin, and they didn´t care if they were.

To quote Paul, ¨the wages of sin is death¨. You can accept your penalty for yourself, and be dead forever, or you can repent and have Christś death substitute for the one you have earned.

You seem to put a lot of emphasis on John the baptist. A great man no doubt. However his role in the mission of Christ was very limited. He preached redemption and baptism. He wrote no books of the Bible, he established no Christian doctrines, his role was to announce the coming of Christ. He himself said he was not fit to tie the Christs shoes.

He was not a political agitator or zealot, his concern was being right with God, and he knew his cousin, Christ, had come to open the avenue for that.

Read the gospel of Mark again. Slowly.
And bear in mind the available evidence about the Temple, the coinage, the systems, the corrupt priesthood.

Paul was a spin artist, and the other gospels were compiled in the third century.

And then you may just start to grasp what happened. At this time you are just wrong.

 

[shmogie]

Read the gospel of Mark again. Slowly.
And bear in mind the available evidence about the Temple, the coinage, the systems, the corrupt priesthood.

Paul was a spin artist, and the other gospels were compiled in the third century.

And then you may just start to grasp what happened. At this time you are just wrong.

No, actually the Gospels were in circulation by 150 AD.

So Paul was in total error, and the Gospel writers didn´t know what they were talking about,

Then why do you read or quote any of it ?

By the third century, the temple was gone, the Jewish monetary system was gone, The system of Jewish worship was gone, and the Jews were sent all over the world in the first diaspora.

So, you claim that documents you say were written in the third century, two centuries after the events, yet you believe them accurate.

You are trying to make the case that Christ was a zealot, a political revolutionary. Interestingly, He specifically stated He was not, Pilate specifically said He was not, He stated that Christ was guilty of no crime.

There are some whose own motives block them from seeing what is the truth, both Christ and Paul spoke about this.

You are free to believe whatever you choose, as Christ said, that wide easy path attracts many, the most.

Sometimes,

 

[shmogie]

View attachment 31373

You don´t get the point I am making, obviously.

When an unknown exists, people, even the looniest, come up with crazy ideas about what the unknown is.

Till the unknown is objectively known, there is no way to empirically prove them wrong.

You say this guy is wrong, I say he is wrong, most people will say he is wrong, though many will believe him.

Can he be proven wrong, I don´t think so.,

This phenomena of the human psyche leads to outlandish conspiracy theories, Alien green men designing aircraft in area 51, a whole host of weird stuff.

That is my point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don´t get the point I am making, obviously.

When an unknown exists, people, even the looniest, come up with crazy ideas about what the unknown is.

Till the unknown is objectively known, there is no way to empirically prove them wrong.

You say this guy is wrong, I say he is wrong, most people will say he is wrong, though many will believe him.

Can he be proven wrong, I don´t think so.,

This phenomena of the human psyche leads to outlandish conspiracy theories, Alien green men designing aircraft in area 51, a whole host of weird stuff.

That is my point.

Poor @shmogie , the point is that the burden of proof lies upon the person making the positive assertion.

 

[oldbadger]

No, actually the Gospels were in circulation by 150 AD.

The stories and individual anecdotes were, and the gospel of Mark was (without its additions).
Oral Tradition held up many of the reports and stories, but compilation happened later. For instance, we know that G-Mark's last verses were added, as well as titles such as 'Son of God' even in the very first sentences.

So Paul was in total error, and the Gospel writers didn´t know what they were talking about,

Paul had never mentioned any stories about Jesus or his campaigns, only the resurrection and communion. I don't think Paul had any interest in the stories about Jesus, for he never bothered to record them.

Then why do you read or quote any of it ?

Because large chunks of it happened, only the Christian manipulations have to be edited out.

By the third century, the temple was gone, the Jewish monetary system was gone, The system of Jewish worship was gone, and the Jews were sent all over the world in the first diaspora.

Yeah...... you see? Jesus would have felt that the demise of the priesthood and Temple was just. The Baptist would have, as well. That fits with the history just fine.

So, you claim that documents you say were written in the third century, two centuries after the events, yet you believe them accurate.

I believe that quite a lot of the gospels were accurate, even single sentences standing alone can ring true and be useful.
There are hundreds of examples, but to pluck one innocuous sentence out of G-John, we actually can guess at Judas's full name.

You are trying to make the case that Christ was a zealot, a political revolutionary. Interestingly, He specifically stated He was not, Pilate specifically said He was not, He stated that Christ was guilty of no crime.

Pilate like him! Pilate was often in contention with the Priesthood and anything which embarrassed it pleased him just fine.
You do realise that Jesus Son-of-the-Father was actually released by Pilate at the behest of the people? It was all there in the original bibles.
Another Jesus was crucified, but he may have been taken down alive. It's all there. Just read it.

There are some whose own motives block them from seeing what is the truth, both Christ and Paul spoke about this.

Yeah, but you don't claim that it is CERTAIN, do you?
Paul was a manipulating person who founded Christianity on his own terms. Cephas didn't like what he was doing. G-Mark is probably a collection of the memoirs of Cephas.

You are free to believe whatever you choose, as Christ said, that wide easy path attracts many, the most.

Sometimes,

Students of early first century Palestine history do not believe, they simply consider the evidence available upon the balances of probability and possibility. Thus, new evidence could adjust their viewpoint., They try to be Objective.

Christianity is not objective it's subjective, imo.

And most sadly, the more extreme Christians don't seem to want to agree that the Greek Orthodox Bishop who claims that Gays are born of mothers who indulged in anal sex is a total nutter. He's also dangerous because the mothers of gay sons could be attack by self-righteous homophobic mobs.

Christianity in its extreme form bears no resemblance to what Jesus wanted.

Finally, in answer to that rubbish about how the Baptist and Jesus were cousins, how come that the Baptist did not know him?

Luke :{7:19} And John calling [unto him] two of his disciples sent [them] to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another? {7:20} When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?

 

[shmogie]

The stories and individual anecdotes were, and the gospel of Mark was (without its additions).
Oral Tradition held up many of the reports and stories, but compilation happened later. For instance, we know that G-Mark's last verses were added, as well as titles such as 'Son of God' even in the very first sentences.


Paul had never mentioned any stories about Jesus or his campaigns, only the resurrection and communion. I don't think Paul had any interest in the stories about Jesus, for he never bothered to record them.


Because large chunks of it happened, only the Christian manipulations have to be edited out.


Yeah...... you see? Jesus would have felt that the demise of the priesthood and Temple was just. The Baptist would have, as well. That fits with the history just fine.


I believe that quite a lot of the gospels were accurate, even single sentences standing alone can ring true and be useful.
There are hundreds of examples, but to pluck one innocuous sentence out of G-John, we actually can guess at Judas's full name.



Pilate like him! Pilate was often in contention with the Priesthood and anything which embarrassed it pleased him just fine.
You do realise that Jesus Son-of-the-Father was actually released by Pilate at the behest of the people? It was all there in the original bibles.
Another Jesus was crucified, but he may have been taken down alive. It's all there. Just read it.


Yeah, but you don't claim that it is CERTAIN, do you?
Paul was a manipulating person who founded Christianity on his own terms. Cephas didn't like what he was doing. G-Mark is probably a collection of the memoirs of Cephas.


Students of early first century Palestine history do not believe, they simply consider the evidence available upon the balances of probability and possibility. Thus, new evidence could adjust their viewpoint., They try to be Objective.

Christianity is not objective it's subjective, imo.

And most sadly, the more extreme Christians don't seem to want to agree that the Greek Orthodox Bishop who claims that Gays are born of mothers who indulged in anal sex is a total nutter. He's also dangerous because the mothers of gay sons could be attack by self-righteous homophobic mobs.

Christianity in its extreme form bears no resemblance to what Jesus wanted.

Finally, in answer to that rubbish about how the Baptist and Jesus were cousins, how come that the Baptist did not know him?

Luke :{7:19} And John calling [unto him] two of his disciples sent [them] to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another? {7:20} When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?

Your last sentence, first. Christ was not unknown to His cousin John, but His revelation He was the Messiah did not come till he was in his 30ś and John had been off doing his own thing. This is the basis of Johns question.

There are extant pieces of the Gospels and other Biblical books that are dated to around 100 AD. There are letters from the church fathers who refer to the books of the Bible, including virtually all we have today that are dated around 150 AD some around 200 AD

There is one, written by a Church father, who knew Polycarp, who studied under the Apostle John that pretty much destroys most of your conceptions of the Bible, and what Christ taught.

Christianity with itś basic fundamentals has existed for 2,000 years, and those basic fundamentals have never changed from what Christ taught. You may disagree but that certainly doesn´t make you right.

My training in Church history, knowledge of the Bible and continuing study makes it clear to me that you are dead wrong. Which is your right.

Lets just agree, to disagree.

 

[oldbadger]

Your last sentence, first. Christ was not unknown to His cousin John, but His revelation He was the Messiah did not come till he was in his 30ś and John had been off doing his own thing. This is the basis of Johns question.

Only Luke (no witness at all) played with the idea that the Baptist and Jesus were related, and to do this he had the young pregnant Mary going walkabout far from her home, through early first century Palestine. Luke's amazing attempts to spin the person of Jesus in to the prophecies are charming, but crazy.
However, Luke did record stories which have throw light on to the true situation. As I say, many anecdotes have been helpful, but sadly, Luke was using them as truth-pills.

There are extant pieces of the Gospels and other Biblical books that are dated to around 100 AD. There are letters from the church fathers who refer to the books of the Bible, including virtually all we have today that are dated around 150 AD some around 200 AD

I reckon that G-Mark was written circa 50-60 CE, but it got messed with.

There is one, written by a Church father, who knew Polycarp, who studied under the Apostle John that pretty much destroys most of your conceptions of the Bible, and what Christ taught.

John was no witness. He had this bunch of stories and records, many of them real accounts, but he had NO IDEA of where to place them in to a true timeline, so he had Jesus demonstrating in the Temple in an early part of his campaign rather than in the last week...... and on..... but many of his stories are just made up. I have read that Patmos and Ephesus had a native fungus with hallucinogenic characteristics, growing wild. I have often wondered whether John was taking these during some of his experiences

His 3 year timeline is drivvle. Jesus picked up John's campaign and took it on for about 11 months before his last week.

Christianity with itś basic fundamentals has existed for 2,000 years, and those basic fundamentals have never changed from what Christ taught. You may disagree but that certainly doesn´t make you right.

Christianity sure has existed for 2000 years, but it bears no likeness to Jesus's and the Baptist's campaigns against the priesthood corruption and Temple greed.

My training in Church history, knowledge of the Bible and continuing study makes it clear to me that you are dead wrong. Which is your right.

Sure. You studied Church history and the bible. You needed to study much more than that. A massive chunk of seriously important information which helped throw light on to what happened came from a society in Australia! The detractors of Christianity wrote criticism which actually helped to prove the real Jesus story.

But sadly, the bible was withheld from the common people for millennia, and to question the Church's ideas usually meant a terrible public death. So much for Christian openess.

Lets just agree, to disagree.

For sure.

 

[ecco]

You see life being created from dead chemicals pray tell where. The womb doesn´t count.

Forum:
HomeForums>Everything But the Kitchen Sink>The Social World>Sexuality

Topic:
Bishop:- Gays caused by pregnant women having anal sex.

Question:
Why is anyone talking about abiogenesis?

Answer:
Shmogie couldn't resist jumping to his favorite topic by making an analogy between Gays caused by pregnant women having anal sex and abiogenesis.

I guess shmogie felt he needed to deflect from the topic of the OP which shows, once again, how really ridiculous some Christians are.