VKmarty

Now, let's see if the gay marriage crowd get this question deleted like they did my answer...

So, "marriage" between a man and a woman only has been the "norm" for as long as "marriage" has existed. Even in societies where homosexual practices were common, marriage was generally reserved for heterosexuals only. Why? Because to produce children and continue to species you need a MALE and FEMALE. Two men can't make a child, neither can two women. Sorry, that's basic biology. It is homosexuality that is "unnatural" because it goes against everything in nature. Sorry, but "evolution" has not created a race of humans that can create offspring by having two of the same sex mate. If you want to blame someone, blame Darwin as according to him it should be possible by now! The objections to homosexual marriage (note "objections" not "hate") are based on the basic biological facts and the religious instructions from "God" that clearly declare that marriage is between a man and a woman only. This isn't just Christianity, but also Orthodox Judaism, Islam, Bah'ai, Mormon and Australian Aboriginal (to name a few). All of these prohibit homosexual marriage, and in most cases any kind of homosexual conduct. I am curious though, you scream because people don't accept YOUR view of homosexual marriage, yet you aren't willing to accept that others may have different views? You scream intolerance, but isn't that view intolerant? One also has to ponder why "marriage" is such a major issue. Statistics prove that the majority of gays are not actually interested in marriage! In Australia there are LESS than 2% of the population that are gay, and only 0.9% of those are believed they would take up marriage if available. So, should we really change legislation for 0.9% of 2% of a country's population? If so, should we also legislate for polygamy or bestiality? After all, don't they deserve the same rights? Most countries give the exact same legal rights to gay couples as heterosexual couples, without marriage. Why then is it necessary for them to "marry"? My wife and I were "de facto" for 16 years and had all the same legal rights as any married couple, we only got married because of changes to religious beliefs, so why is marriage so essential to gays (well, 0.9% of gays)? Gays make the comment that gay couples can have kids, but I defy you to show me ANY gay couple that, without any help, can have a baby together? Please, show me two men or two women that can mate and create a baby. Any? At all? Basic high school biology teaches you need a MALE and a FEMALE to create a baby, do you know something our biology teachers do not? "Two chickens can't make a rooster"."

SO THE QUESTION (wouldn't want to infringe on Y!A policy, now would we!), why is it so important, considering the above, to now push this point? And why is it only the Christians that are slammed for their non-gay marriage views, why not the other religions also? Non-abusive sensible results only please, all others will be reported!

For Pentecostal Christians, I'm curious to know your views and experience with "speaking in tongues".

I'm not debating the Biblical justification, unless you have some strong views you wish to make known, but more so:

1. Do you (or someone you know) speak in tongues?

2. Do you believe/know if it is an earthly language or not?

3. How/when did this start?

4. Do you/friend speak tongues in church, at home or both?

5. What are your (brief) thoughts on tongues?

This is not intended to pick faults or make fun of those who speak in tongues (the atheists here will do enough of that), but rather an honest exchange of information. As I said, I'm not looking for the Biblical justifications for tongues as I already know all that, as well as the general "Pentecostal view" on tongues and the "Protestant view" against it (how you get 2 different views from the same verses we'll leave for another time), but if you have strong views on the Biblical justification feel free to share (preferably in english, unless we have a translator here also!).

Thank you!

The common theme here by the Catholics is that the [Roman] Catholic Church is the only true church, started by Jesus and/or His apostles. But can you provide Biblical evidence of this?

Jesus Christ was a Jewish Rabbi, a fact identified in the Bible. He taught in the Jewish Synagogues using the Jewish Law and Scripture, so I think it is a fair assumption Jesus was Jewish, not Catholic.

John 4:22 - "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews."

Hebrews 7:14 - “For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah,” (where the Jews came from!)

Luke 4:16 - "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read."

Whilst the apostles traveled around preaching the Gospel of Christ after His death, resurrection and Ascension, starting churches in various locations, these remained Jewish Christian churches, a fact confirmed by historians referring to these early people as "Jewish Christians". The church in Rome was actually started by believers present in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost and was visited by Paul, not Peter who is alleged to be the "first pope of Rome".

Romans 1 - "7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world. 9 God, whom I serve in my spirit in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you 10 in my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God’s will the way may be opened for me to come to you. 11 I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— 12 that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith. 13 I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles."

Romans 1, written by Paul, shows how it was Paul that visited and helped the church in Rome, rather than Peter. This was also only ONE of the churches that was endorsed by the apostles following the death of Christ.

So, Catholics please, educate us poor Christians of the following:

1) Do you believe the Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God? (if not no need to continue!)

2) Where in the Bible does Jesus Christ declare a Catholic Church?

3) Where in the Bible do any of the apostles declare a Catholic Church?

4) Where in the Bible are we commanded for worship or adoration of Mary?

5) Where in the Bible are we told praying to Mary will result in answers?

6) Where in the Bible are we commanded to confess sin to a priest?

7) Where in the Bible is Peter appointed as a Pope or even a Bishop of Rome?

That'll do for now. Please, if you are going to say it is in the Bible then give references, but remember, if it is not in the Bible then it is not valid as far as God is concerned as we are commanded not to add anything or remove anything from the Scriptures, so please no "the church manual on page so and so clearly says we shall blah blah blah".

Eagerly awaiting your response and education.

God Bless!

We know that Satan brought sin into our world when he tempted Adam and Eve and they believed him, but how did sin first enter the scene? Obviously evil and sin existed before Adam and Eve as there was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Satan was an Angel, created by God, so we have 2 possible options:

1) Angels were also created with free will, and this is what caused Satan (and some other Angels) to "rebel"; or

2) God also created sin.

What is your view on this, and why? Please, atheists with a simple "doesn't exist" answer stay out of this debate!

I am Christian, and I know what I believe to be true, but this is also a huge question that Christians are asked all the time, so my intention here is to prompt some honest discussion by Christians on this topic.

Thank you.

Job 26:7 "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing." This was written around 3,000BC, in sharp contrast to the fantastic imaginary notions which the rest of the world taught or believed at that time.

Isaiah 40:22 points out that God sits upon "the circle of the earth." long before it was widely believed the earth was round.

The oldest extant copies of the most famous Greek poems and essays are from 800 to 1,000 years newer than the original manuscripts. However, we wouldn't think that these Greek classics are unfaithful to the original & should be thrown away. In contrast, the oldest copies of many Old Testament books are only 200 years newer than the original. And the oldest copies of some New Testament books are dated only 50 - 80 years later than the originals. On the basis of that information, the Bible should be trusted at least as much as the Greek literature, which is so revered today.

Recent discoveries have validated the historical integrity of the Bible, causing many archaeologists, who have had a poor regard for the Bible, to turn from a bias against it to a scientific respect for it. For example, in Genesis 15:20 a people called the "Hittites" are mentioned. For centuries, people laughed at the Bible for making up a whole group of people. But a few decades ago, the ruins of a city located in the country of Turkey, north of present-day Israel, was discovered which proved to be the ruins of a main Hittite city.

The Bible tells about things before they happen. The prophet Isaiah talks about the Persian king Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1), who would eventually restore the nation of Judah. Persia was a great kingdom, located in what is now the country of Iran. Isaiah wrote during the reign of the Judaean king Hezekiah, who died in 687 B.C., but Cyrus did not begin to reign as king of the Persian empire until after 600 B.C., more than 80 years after Isaiah left the scene.

Many historical prophecies of Jesus Christ were given 1,000 years before His birth. Every Old Testament book of the Bible refers clearly to Jesus. For example, notice the detail of Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, and Micah 5:2.

Over 25,000 sites have now been discovered that pertain to the Bible. As Nelson Glueck, renowned Jewish archaeologist said, "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference." Even though archeology does not prove spiritual truth, archaeological confirmation is an amazing testimony to the accuracy of the Bible.

Another key fact is the manuscript evidence itself. Recognizing that there are no known original manuscripts in existence for the Bible or for any other ancient writing, let's examine the Bible. For the New Testament, there are over 24,000 handwritten copies or portions thereof from antiquity now extant. This is far more than other ancient books. For example, the second most available ancient manuscripts are from Homer's Iliad, for which there are 643 manuscript copies, while most ancient documents have fewer than 25 existing copies.

Important is the time interval between the actual events, the date of writing, and the earliest known manuscript copy. For the Bible, manuscript copies or portions thereof exist that were written within 35 to 160 years after the originals. Recent dating of one manuscript of a portion of the Gospel of Matthew (the so-called Magdalen text) suggests that it was written in about A.D. 50—a mere 17 years after the crucifixion of Christ. If these findings hold up, it means that the Gospel of Mark, which predates the Matthew Gospel, was written as early as A.D. 40—only seven years or so after the crucifixion.

The interval between the historical events and the written evidence is far better for the New Testament than any other ancient manuscript. For example, the first account of Buddha's life was written 700 years after his death. The earliest copy of Caesar's works is 950 years after being written, and the earliest available copy of Plato's works is dated 1250 years after the original. Yet we do not question the authority of these other works!

Even more impressive is the degree of textual variance in existing copies. Considering the enormous number of ancient New Testament manuscripts, there are only nominal differences in the various copies. The data for the New Testament is impressive. Only 40 lines, or 1/5 OF 1% are in question, and none of these variants effect Christian doctrine. This compares to large textual variances in other ancient writings. For example, the New Testament is 25 times more accurately copied than the Iliad, which was also "sacred" and is considered one of the best copied works of antiquity.

What about Noah;s Ark? It has been found and photographed on Mt Ararat, exactly as described by the Bible thousands of years earlier!

When a Christian asks a serious question about their religion or a problem, why do atheists insist on posting totally unhelpful answers that do nothing but show their intolerance towards others with different beliefs?

If an atheist asked a question and Christians answered it with "you need God" you would all complain loudly, yet this is what you are doing any time a Christian posts a serious question about their faith. Is this because you are trying to force conversion of religious people to atheism, or are you simply more intolerant than those you label as intolerant?

1 Timothy 2:12 says "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

So my question is simple, as a Christian do you believe a woman should not be allowed to teach (i.e. be a Pastor, etc) or not? If so, why? If not, why not?