That is precisely the point that groups like Accepting Evangelicals are making. Saying that God doesn't want gay people is not only harmful to them, but also insulting to God, as it implies that He made a mistake when creating them. Christians like Aardvark who want to maintain the traditional view are forced to treat homosexuality as some kind of choice to avoid this conclusion. But I notice that Aardvark in another thread has switched to treating it as a form of diabolical possession! You could argue that that's a step forward in a way ;-). It shows he doesn't believe it's a choice any more.

Jam my understanding of term "reincarnate" is something that goes back to matter that has weight and occupies space. :D Thus, it cannot depend on whether heaven is above or below. Right?

I'd suggest that it's best to leave "judgment" to God Himself. If He wishes to judge, He will do it.

Meanwhile, you're free to take actions such as to avoid contact with those people, or to keep them away from your children, and so on. Or, if you prefer, you can accept them.

If God has a particular stance on the issue, He will make His opinion known in His own good time and will deliver whatever judgment or damnation He sees fit. That's His job, and His prerogative.

And, I think, He makes it pretty damned clear that "it is not Yours." You're a fellow passenger on Planet Earth and that's your position and your role. Do not "sin against" any person, even if you do not agree with that person. Even if you are vehemently opposed to how that person acts as a Fellow Passenger.

A woman who thought she was about to be stoned probably expected "the Son of God" to "righteously punish a violation of His own law" even when her accusers had left the scene. But ... He didn't. Instead, he showed mercy. He cared for the woman as a person. He never passed any judgment at all concerning her alleged infidelity. Sometimes He revealed that, as a prophet, He fully knew of a woman's indiscretion, but once again did not condemn.

"My thoughts are not your thoughts. My ways are not your ways ..."

I I think science has this wrong too, no onething can exist forever but existence of change and suff... :D

Added an (also) as it didn't imply the fairy-tale heavens I wanted to imply (finally.)

Exactly what manner of "science" has anything to say about "forever"?

So in your view, God has a penis?

Theory often is religion or just an absence of knowing or even should at times accept no answer needed...
a theory of everything? :rolleyes:

Supposedly, elementary:

Quote:

2) Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

:hattip:

Was the <snip> getting back to why circumcisions, religious or science?

Heheh. It was all I could do to stop myself from a terrible pun regarding bris.... but I reconsidered thinking it "cheesy".

Don't bring that trade dish in here... :doh::D

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Highsmith.jpeg

I voted in this poll about 8 or more years ago, at the time I chose 'firm believer'. If I were to vote today, I'd choose 'atheist'.

As a kid I prayed for world peace before I realized we have to do that sh!t!

I'd vote: "agnostic," as is more scientific... ;)

Just to be clear, agnostic is not "more scientific". Contrary to popular belief it IS possible to prove a negative. Either think on that or look it up. Then say if it isn't true. ;)