Originally posted by ZahlanziThis strikes me more as an argument in favor of incest rather than homosexuality.
for all you "christians" saying homosexuality is an abomination before god, here is a little tidbit of information:
god made eve from the rib of adam
therefore eve had the same DNA as adam
therefore eve had the same sex chromosome as adam
therefore eve was a dude
a dude who had sex with adam
therefore eve and adam were gay incestous twins.
...[text shortened]... e same gender, stop to think that the first humans were adam and steve and they were in love.
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhy would any intelligent person want to make something complicated
"Making Eve from Adam's rib does not necessarily mean a clone, nor a genetical twin."
what do you think it means?😀 did God forget how to make a man? did he needed a blueprint? why a rib? wouldn't an eyelid be enough? did steve have adams rib for all his life? wouldn't be uncomfortable to have a rib larger than the others since steve was a woman? or wa ...[text shortened]... care by what 2(or more, the more the merrier) random simians from earth do in the bedroom
from scratch when he could make it more quickly with already tested
material?
Originally posted by RJHindsImplying that it's somehow easier for an omnipotent, infinite and magical being who is in the process of creating the entire universe to make a human being from a bit of dead flesh rather than some clay?!
Why would any intelligent person want to make something complicated
from scratch when he could make it more quickly with already tested
material?
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatthe clay seems to be immaterial, for example when Jesus Christ healed a blind man, he
Implying that it's somehow easier for an omnipotent, infinite and magical being who is in the process of creating the entire universe to make a human being from a bit of dead flesh rather than some clay?!
first made a poultice with his saliva and clay, neither of which could have had any
'magical properties', in themselves whatsoever.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI congratulate you on achieving an erudite and evidently thoughtful response without even so much as alluding to approaching the point. Jolly well done indeed.
the clay seems to be immaterial, for example when Jesus Christ healed a blind man, he
first made a poultice with his saliva and clay, neither of which could have had any
'magical properties', in themselves whatsoever.