Mr. Chen:
Very informative post. I applaud your effort and give you kudos on your response!
Those who worship at the foot of science have to change Gods every 30 or 40 years!
[quote]Traceur wrote:
Roy Batty wrote:
By the way, isn’t the homo group still the highest risk group for AIDS?
Actually no… African American women and Hispanic women are both getting HIV at a much higher rate than gay men.
Actually Men who have sex with men is the highest group it’s just that women specifically african american and hispanic women’s rates are rising the fastest.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Those who worship at the foot of science have to change Gods every 30 or 40 years![/quote]
I think you confuse theories with gods. Just because a theoretical interpretation changes (because the data stack up against a particular theory), does not mean that people have exchanged their worldviews.
You make it seem like a bad thing that people change their minds…
Strange how GOD and the BIBLE is used as a reason why two men cannot love each other or get married. Its a sin. It?s wrong. The BIBLE SAYS SO! The bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. Leviticus. Jacobs: 18:22. Perhaps the people that say its wrong to be homeosexual or that its evil, etc?could answer me the following:
I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. Would that be wrong? Or evil?
My friend at work insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? Is that wrong? Evil?
Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. Guess baseball and football is out forever. Does the whole town really have to be together to stone our local farmer planting different crops side-by-side?
Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing
garments made from two different threads?
Come on people. Open your eyes. God didn?t write the bible, us crazy humans did!
Make your choice. But lets not use the Bible or God to tell us its evil. Everything is evil.
Haha, excellent post icklemoley. Totally agree.
Interesting observation from a leading opponent of gay marriage, Stanley Kurtz:
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_11_09_corner-archive.asp#045566
MARRIAGE IN IRELAND [Stanley Kurtz]
Here?s an extraordinary article on a move to legalize gay marriage in Ireland.
That Ireland may soon adopt gay marriage is important news in itself. But the really interesting thing here is that the gay marriage move is only the opening wedge of a larger effort to equalize cohabitation and marriage. Here?s yet another case where gay marriage is clearly undermining marriage. The gay marriage movement in Ireland is openly trying to create a de facto equation between marriage and parental cohabitation. Europe is disproving the ?conservative case? for gay marriage before our very eyes How many more cases will it take for people to admit that? The ?causal connection? between same-sex marriage and the weakening of the larger institution is playing out in plain sight.
Posted at 10:13 AM
Does the Bible condem lesbians or just gay males?
A counter to Mr. Chen’s Creationism position is addressed in this link and copied below (long):
http://skepdic.com/creation.html
Creationism and Creation Science
Creationism is a religious metaphysical theory which claims that a supernatural being created the universe. Creation Science is a pseudoscientific theory which claims that (a) the stories in Genesis are accurate accounts of the origin of the universe and life on Earth, and (b) Genesis is incompatible with the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution. ?Creation Science? is an oxymoron since science is concerned only with naturalistic explanations of empirical phenomena and does not concern itself with supernatural explanations of metaphysical phenomena.
Creationism is not necessarily connected to any particular religion. Millions of Christians and non-Christians believe there is a Creator of the universe and that scientific theories such as the theory of evolution do not conflict with belief in a Creator. However, those Christians calling themselves ?creation scientists? have co-opted the term ?creationism?, making it difficult to refer to creationism without being understood as referring to Scientific Creationism. Thus, it is commonly assumed that creationists are Christians who believe that the account of the creation of the universe as presented in Genesis is literally true in its basic claims about Adam and Eve, the six days of creation, making day and night on the first day even though He didn?t make the sun and moon until the fourth day, making whales and other animals that live in the water or have feathers and fly on the fifth day, and making cattle and things that creep on the earth on the sixth day, etc.
Creation scientists claim that Genesis is the word of God and thus infallibly true. They also claim that Genesis contradicts the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution. Thus, those theories are false and scientists who advocate such theories are ignorant of the truth about the origins of the universe and life on Earth. They also claim that creationism is a scientific theory and should be taught in our science curriculum as a competitor to the theory of evolution.
One of the main leaders of creation science is Duane T. Gish of the Institute for Creation Research, who puts forth his views mainly in the form of attacks on evolution. Gish is the author of Evolution, the Challenge of the Fossil Record (San Diego, Calif.: Creation-Life Publishers, 1985), Evolution, the Fossils Say No! (San Diego, Calif.: Creation-Life Publishers, 1978), and Evolution, the Fossils Still Say No! (Spring Arbor Distributors, 1985). (For an answer to the question about gaps in the fossil record, see Missing Links: Evolutionary Concepts and Transitions Through Time by Robert A. Martin.) Another leader of this movement is Walt Brown of the Center for Scientific Creation. Despite the fact that 99.99% of the scientific community considers evolution of species from other species to be a fact, the creation scientists proclaim that evolution is not a fact but just a theory, and that it is false. The vast majority of scientists who disagree about evolution disagree as to how species evolved, not as to whether they evolved.
Scientific creationists are not impressed that they are in the minority. After all, they note, the entire scientific community has been wrong before. That is true. For example, at one time the geologists were all wrong about the origin of continents. They thought the earth was a solid object. Now they believe that the earth consists of plates. The theory of plate tectonics has replaced the old theory, which is now known to be false. However, when the entire scientific community has been proved to be wrong in the past it has been proved to be wrong by other scientists, not pseudoscientists. They have been proved wrong by others doing empirical investigation, not by others who begin with faith in a religious dogma and who see no need to do any empirical investigation to prove their theory. Erroneous scientific theories have been replaced by better theories, i.e., theories which explain more empirical phenomena and which increase our understanding of the natural world. Plate tectonics not only explained how continents can move, it also opened the door for a greater understanding of how mountain ranges form, how earthquakes are produced, how volcanoes are related to earthquakes, etc. Creationism is not a scientific alternative to natural selection any more than the stork theory is an alternative to sexual reproduction (Hayes 1996). The theory has not led and is unlikely ever to lead to a serious understanding of biological phenomena in the natural world.
Darwin & Gish
Darwin?s theory of how evolution happened is called natural selection. That theory is quite distinct from the fact of evolution. Other scientists have different theories of evolution, but only a negligible few deny the fact of evolution. In the Origin of Species Darwin provided vast amounts of data about the natural world that he and others had collected or observed. Only after providing the data did he demonstrate how his theory accounted for the data much better than the theory of special creation. Gish, on the other hand, assumes that whatever data there is must be explained by special creation, because, he thinks, God said so in the Bible. Furthermore, Gish claims that it is impossible for us to understand special creation, since the Creator ?used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe.? Thus, Gish, rather than gather data and demonstrate how special creation explains the data better than natural selection, must take another approach, the approach of apologetics. His approach, and that of many other creation scientists, is to attack at every opportunity what they take to be the theory of evolution. Rather than show the strengths of their own theory, they rely on trying to find and expose weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Gish and the other creation scientists actually have no interest in scientific facts or theories. Their interest is in defending the faith against what they see as attacks on God?s Word.
For example, creation scientists, mistaking the uncertain in science for the unscientific, see the debate among evolutionists regarding how best to explain evolution as a sign of weakness. Scientists, on the other hand, see uncertainty as an inevitable element of scientific knowledge. They regard debates on fundamental theoretical issues as healthy and stimulating. Science, says evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, is ?most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old information may be explained in surprisingly new ways.? Thus, through all the debate over evolutionary mechanisms biologists have not been led to doubt that evolution has occurred. ?We are debating how it happened,? says Gould (1983, 256).
“creation science” and pseudoscience
Creation science is not science but pseudoscience. It is religious dogma masquerading as scientific theory. Creation science is put forth as being absolutely certain and unchangeable. It assumes that the world must conform to its understanding of the Bible. Where creation science differs from creationism in general is in its notion that once it has interpreted the Bible to mean something, no evidence can be allowed to change that interpretation. Instead, the evidence must be refuted.
Compare this attitude to that of the leading European creationists of the 17th century who had to admit eventually that the Earth is not the center of the universe and that the sun does not revolve around our planet. They did not have to admit that the Bible was wrong, but they did have to admit that human interpretations of the Bible were in error. Today?s creationists seem incapable of admitting that their interpretation of the Bible could be wrong.
Creation scientists are not scientists because they assume that their interpretation of the Bible cannot be in error. They put forth their views as irrefutable. Hence, when the evidence contradicts their reading of the Bible, they assume that the evidence is false. The only scientific investigation they do is aimed at proving some evolutionary claim is false. Creation scientists see no need to test their theory, since God has revealed it. Infallible certainty is not the hallmark of science. Scientific theories are fallible. Claims of infallibility and the demand for absolute certainty characterize not science but pseudoscience.
What is most revealing about the creation scientists? lack of any true scientific interest is the way they willingly and uncritically accept even the most preposterous of claims, if those claims seem to contradict traditional scientific beliefs about evolution. For example, any evidence that seems to support the notion that dinosaurs and humans lived together is welcomed by the creationists. And the way creation scientists treat the second law of thermodynamics indicates either gross scientific incompetence or deliberate dishonesty. They claim that evolution of life forms violates the second law of thermodynamics, which ?specifies that, on the macroscopic scale of many-body processes, the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease (Stenger).?
Consider simply a black bucket of water initially at the same temperature as the air around it. If the bucket is placed in bright sunlight, it will absorb heat from the sun, as black things do. Now the water becomes warmer than the air around it, and the available energy has increased. Has entropy decreased? Has energy that was previously unavailable become available, in a closed system? No, this example is only an apparent violation of the second law. Because sunlight was admitted, the local system was not closed; the energy of sunlight was supplied from outside the local system. If we consider the larger system, including the sun, entropy has increased as required (Klyce).
Creation scientists treat the evolution of species as if it were like the bucket of water in the example above, which, they incorrectly claim, occurs in a closed system. If we consider the entire system of nature, there is no evidence that the second law of thermodynamics is violated by evolution.
Finally, although Karl Popper?s notion that falsifiability distinguishes scientific from metaphysical theories has been much attacked by philosophers of science (Kitcher), it seems undeniable that there is something profoundly different about such theories as creationism and natural selection. It also seems undeniable that one profound difference is that the metaphysical theory is consistent with every conceivable empirical state of affairs, while the scientific one is not. ?I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know,? writes Gould, ?but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science? (Gould, 1983).
Creationism can?t be refuted, even in principle, because everything is consistent with it, even apparent contradictions and contraries. Scientific theories allow definite predictions to be made from them; they can, in principle, be refuted. Theories such as the Big Bang theory, the steady state theory, and natural selection can be tested by experience and observation. Metaphysical theories such as creationism are ?airtight? if they are self-consistent, i.e., contain no self-contradictory elements. No scientific theory is ever airtight.
What makes scientific creationism a pseudoscience is that it attempts to pass itself off as science even though it shares none of the essential characteristics of scientific theorizing. Creation science will remain forever unchanged as a theory. It will engender no debate among scientists about fundamental mechanisms of the universe. It generates no empirical predictions that can be used to test the theory. It is taken to be irrefutable. And it assumes a priori that there can be no evidence that will ever falsify it.
creationism as a scientific theory
Religious creationism could be scientific, however. For example, if a theory says that the world was created in 4004 B.C. but the evidence indicates that Earth is several billions of years old, then the theory is a scientific one if it is thereby taken to be refuted by the evidence. But if, for example, the ad hoc hypothesis is made that God created the world in 4004 B.C. complete with fossils that make the Earth look much older than it really is (to test our faith, perhaps, or to fulfill some mysterious divine plan), then the religious theory is metaphysical. Nothing could refute it; it is airtight. Philip Henry Gosse made this claim in Darwin?s time in a work entitled Creation (Omphalos): An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot, published in 1857.
If the age or scientific dating techniques of fossil evidence is disputed, but considered relevant to the truth of the religious theory and is prejudged to be consistent with the theory, then the theory is a metaphysical one. A scientific theory cannot prejudge what its investigative outcomes must be. If the religious cosmologist denies that the earth is billions of years old on the grounds that their own ?scientific? tests prove the Earth is very young, then the burden of proof is on the religious cosmologist to demonstrate that the standard scientific methods and techniques of dating fossils, etc., are erroneous. Otherwise, no reasonable person should consider such an unsupported claim that would require us to believe that the entire scientific community is in error. Gish has tried this. The fact that he is unable to convert even a small segment of the scientific community to his way of thinking is a strong indication that his arguments have little merit. This is not because the majority must be right. The entire scientific community could be deluded. However, since the opposition issues from a religious dogmatist who is not doing scientific investigation but theological apologetics, it seems more probable that it is the creation scientists who are deluded rather than the evolutionary scientists.
metaphysical creationists
There are many believers in a religious cosmology such as that given in Genesis who do not claim that their beliefs are scientific. They do not believe that the Bible is to be taken as a science text. To them, the Bible contains teachings pertinent to their spiritual lives. It expresses spiritual ideas about the nature of God and the relationship of God to humans and the rest of the universe. Such people do not believe the Bible should be taken literally when the issue is a matter for scientific discovery. The Bible, they say, should be read for its spiritual messages, not it lessons in biology, physics or chemistry. This used to be the common view of religious scholars. Allegorical interpretations of the Bible go back at least as far as Philo Judaeus (b. 25 BCE). Philosophical analyses of the absurdity of popular conceptions of the gods were made by philosophers such as Epicurus (342-270). Creation scientists have no taste for allegorical interpretations.
creationism and politics
Advocates of creation science have campaigned to have their Biblical version of creation taught as science in U.S. public schools. One of their successes was in the state of Arkansas, which passed a law requiring the teaching of creationism in public schools. This accomplishment may seem significant but it must be remembered that until 1968 it was illegal to teach evolution in Arkansas! In 1981, however, the law was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge who declared creationism to be religious in nature (McLean v. Arkansas). A similar Louisiana law was overturned by the United States Supreme Court in 1987 (Edwards v. Aguillard). In 1994, the Tangipahoa Parish school district passed a law, under the guise of promoting ?critical thinking,? requiring teachers to read aloud a disclaimer before they taught evolution. This dishonest ruse was thrown out by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1999. Another tactic was tried by creationist biology teacher John Peloza in 1994. He sued his school district for forcing him to teach the ?religion of evolutionism.? He lost and the the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there is no such religion. In 1990 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that school districts may forbid the teaching of creationism since it is a form of religious advocacy (Webster v. New Lenox School District). Many religious leaders support this ruling. They recognize that allowing school districts to teach creationism is to favor one group?s religious views over the religious views of others and has nothing to do with critical thinking or fairness in the science curriculum.
Creation scientists may have failed in their attempts to have evolution banned from the classroom and to have creationism taught alongside evolution. However, politically active creationists have not given up; they have just changed tactics. Creationists have been encouraged to run for local school boards to try to gain control of the teaching of evolution that way. School boards can determine what texts the schools may and may not use. Creationists who complain to school boards about the teaching of evolution are more likely to be successful in their efforts at censoring science texts if the school board has several creationists.
In Alabama, biology textbooks carry a warning that says that evolution is ?a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. . . .No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life?s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.? In Alabama, it seems, if you wake up to snow on the ground, but no one saw it snowing, then you may only propose a theory as to the origin of the snow.
In August of 1999 the Kansas State Board of Education rejected evolution and the Big Bang theory as scientific principles. The 10-member board voted six to four to eliminate these topics from the science curricula. The Kansas Board did not ban the teaching of evolution or of the Big Bang Theory. The Board simply deleted any mention of evolution and the Big Bang theory from the science curriculum and from the materials used to test graduating students. Creationists, such as Board Member Steve Abrams, a former head of the state Republican Party, hailed the decision as a victory in the war against evolutionists. A new Board restored the scientific theories to their previous place in February 2001. Creationists want children to believe that God made them and every other species individually for a purpose. They do not want children to think that a divine power might be behind the Big Bang or evolution of species.
At the same time that militant creationists are trying to censor textbooks that treat evolution properly, they complain of censorship against creationist works.* This tactic of fighting fire with fire has led creationist Jerry Bergman to argue that evolution (unlike Genesis?) teaches that women are inferior to men. The goal of militant creationists is to debunk evolution wherever possible, not to forward scientific knowledge. (See Revolution Against Evolution.) One of their favorite tactics is to blame all sin and crime on lack of proper Bible study and the teaching of ?godless? theories such as evolution and the Big Bang theory. Marc Looy of the group Answers in Genesis says that the 1999 Kansas vote was important because
students in public schools are being taught that evolution is a fact, that they’re just products of survival of the fittest. . . .It creates a sense of purposelessness and hopelessness, which I think leads to things like pain, murder, and suicide.
That there is no scientific evidence to support these claims is a matter of indifference to those who believe them. When science does not support their beliefs, they attack science as the handmaiden of Satan. I wonder what Mr. Looy has to say about Christian Identity (Buford Furrow Jr.) or Erich Rudolph or Operation Rescue (Randall Terry) and other Bible-loving groups that preach hatred and inspire violence and murder. What would he say about Matthew and Tyler Williams who, in the words of their mother, “took out two homos” because that’s what God’s law [Leviticus 20:13] demands? (Sacramento Bee, “Expert: Racists often use Bible to justify attacks,” by Gary Delsohn and Sam Stanton, Sept. 23, 1999.) These killers have certainly found a purposeful existence, but there is clearly no connection between purposefulness and the end of pain, murder, or suicide. Had more people been forced to read Biblical quotations on their schoolroom walls or in their textbooks, for all we know, there would be more, not less pain, murder, and violence.
The desperation of many creationists is evident from the fact that despite numerous corrections by evolutionists, they still try to get the public to identify evolution with Social Darwinism. This straw man tactic is common and is exemplified in the following letter to the Sacramento Bee. The letter was in response to an article on an expert who claims that racists often use the Bible to justify their hate.
It is Darwinian evolution, not holy Scripture, that justifies racism… evolution teaches survival of the fittest, including (as Hitler recognized) survival of the fittest “branch” of the human family tree. Genuine evolution has no place for true equality. This same evolutionist thinking underlies the hatred that racist groups display toward homosexuals. They view homosexuals as defective and thus inferior. (-------10/3/99)
The view that Darwin?s theory of natural selection implies racism or inequality is a claim made by one either ignorant of Darwin’s theory or by one who knows the truth and thinks a lie spread in the name of religion is a morally justified lie.
militant creationism evolves
The creation science folks accept microevolution but not macroevolution. This allows them to account for development and changes within species without requiring them to accept the concept of natural selection.
Macroevolution is the direct attempt to explain the origin of life from molecules to man in purely naturalistic terms. In doing so, it is an affront to Christians because it deliberately tries to get rid of God as the creator of life. The idea that man is a result of millions of happy accidents that mutated their way from slime through the food chain to monkeys should be offensive to every thinking person (Sharp).*
What should be an affront to many Christians and non-Christian creationists is the insinuation that if one does not adhere to this Christian?s interpretation of the Bible, one is offending God. Many creationists believe that God is behind the beautiful unfolding of evolution (Haught).* There is no contradiction in believing that what appears to be a mechanical, purposeless process from the human perspective, can be teleological and divinely controlled. Natural selection does not require that one ?get rid of God as the creator of life? any more than heliocentrism requires one to get rid of God as the creator of the heavens.
There are many references linked within the article and following the article for any further investigation.
It is funny how all of those that oppose the Bible usually don’t understand how it is meant to be understood. For instance The OT which is what most of the anti-Bible people use was meant to show us how everything we do is wrong. That there is a huge gap of wrong that we would have to overcome to earn a pass to Heaven off of what we do. The NT is meant to show us that by God’s grace we can get there.
Real simple!
We are all sinners, and God is offering us grace.
So we are all evil (this includes Homos, liars, murders, cheats, thieves, druggies, Straight people, Greedy people, and a list that covers all of humanity.)
So if you don’t believe in the Bible that is fine, but please don’t try to tell me that I am over looking something in it(i.e. Biblical Interpretation). You sound just as bad as the guy on the far right saying it is Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!
In response to midwest_man:
No Evolution does not require God to not exist. But for the Christian, and Christ to be the Son of God it is required that Genesis is true. If you want answers check out the link plenty of articles on why the Diety of Christ rest upon the Genesis account.
[quote]ILOVEGWBUSH7 wrote:
Actually Men who have sex with men is the highest group it’s just that women specifically african american and hispanic women’s rates are rising the fastest.
[/quote]
So does that mean I can start hating homosexuals again? Now do I still have to hate Hispanic and African American women, or is that only when they overtake homosexual men as the greatest proportion?
Why won’t anyone address my questions about the bible condoning racial segregation or the idea that women are second class citizens?
Your explanations are appreciated.
[quote]haney wrote:
But for the Christian, and Christ to be the Son of God it is required that Genesis is true. If you want answers check out the link plenty of articles on why the Diety of Christ rest upon the Genesis account.
[/quote]
Which Genesis account? See #25 in the following link:
haney, just curious, are you a fundamentalist?
This is my last entry in this thread since the original topic was the anti-gay marriage vote. Hopefully I’ve provided some information that provoked increased thought for some readers.
jnd:
I think it’s a good thing that people change their minds (I have something in common with John Kerry. I was in favor of science before I was against it. kidding…).
The problem I have is when people elevate science beyond its logical place of importance, and many do!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
jnd:
I think it’s a good thing that people change their minds (I have something in common with John Kerry. I was in favor of science before I was against it. kidding…).
The problem I have is when people elevate science beyond its logical place of importance, and many do!
[/quote]
What exactly is its logical place of importance? I might argue that it deserves the highest importance because, without it, we could not exist (i.e., medical advances, etc.).
I am unclear on what deserves higher placement than the field that sustains us.
jnd
jnd:
Science may “sustain us” physically, however it does not lift us up morally. And it’s not supposed to!
[quote]Midwest_Man wrote:
haney wrote:
But for the Christian, and Christ to be the Son of God it is required that Genesis is true. If you want answers check out the link plenty of articles on why the Diety of Christ rest upon the Genesis account.
Which Genesis account? See #25 in the following link:
haney, just curious, are you a fundamentalist?
This is my last entry in this thread since the original topic was the anti-gay marriage vote. Hopefully I’ve provided some information that provoked increased thought for some readers.[/quote]
I guess you could say I am.
I have come across the two accounts in Genesis, and this whole question would be answered of two accounts if you take it back to the Hebrew. For the interested here is a link to help clear the “problem” up.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
The bible teaching on homosexuality is that it is a perversion of nature. There is no legitimate science to back up the idea that homosexuality is genetically determined.
…a prostitute, drug dealer, or a homo. None is any worse than the other in my book.[/quote]
your book is for you, not me. don’t use your book to make laws to those that don’t care for it.
as for genetically determined, i have no idea and really don’t care. it is a preference. some people like chocolate ice cream and don’t like vanilla, come vice versa. some like both. and being gay isn’t a black or white issue, it is more of a continuum of varying degrees.
you are very narrow minded and prejudiced. would you want to be able to refuse people because they are black or hispanic? because they have a different religion? how about if i want to refuse to rent to flat-earther godheads like you? how would you feel?
One of you Bible scholars who devote your life to the good book please tell me:
Does the Bible condem lesbians along with gay males?
I haven’t been able to get a clear answer in two years of asking.
[quote]icklemoley wrote:
answer me the following:
I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. Would that be wrong? Or evil?
[/quote]
It gets old answering people who just parrot criticisms and difficult texts that they haven’t even read.
The verse above is for the purpose of marrying the girl. If you read the verse following, you could see that.
Regarding the other Old Testament verses, I already stated in my previous post that the New Testament Christian is not under these laws. Anyone with a basic knowledge of the bible should no this.
[quote]doogie wrote:
One of you Bible scholars who devote your life to the good book please tell me:
Does the Bible condem lesbians along with gay males?
I haven’t been able to get a clear answer in two years of asking.[/quote]
Just read it once and you’d have the answer yourself. Don’t be lazy now.
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.