God's hi†man

Where did this all start? Surely there has to be some common folklore that started it all.

Examples:

In Hindi, it is also called "the foxes wedding".

In Konkani, it is called "a monkey's wedding".

In Sinhala, it is called "the foxes wedding".

In Bengali, it is called "a devil's wedding".

In Brazil, people say "Rain and sun (chuva e sol), Snail's (caracol) wedding" OR "Sun and rain (sol e chuva), Widow's (viúva) marriage".

In Arabic, the term is "the rats are getting married".

In Korea, a male tiger gets married to a fox.

In various African languages, leopards are getting married.

In Kenya, hyenas are getting married.

I hear so many claims about homosexuality being natural because it occurs in the animal kingdom but what about the following which also occurs in the animal kingdom?

Cross species sex (beastiality or zoophilia)

Necrophilia

Pedophilia

Killing one another within the same species

Killing the offspring of another within the same species.

All these accounts have been documented so why do people use “it’s natural” to argue for homosexuality? Isn’t this argument flawed?

Of these two statements which one is true:

A: Faith is dangerous

B: Faith can be dangerous

Please explain how you derived your answer...

Thanks

A gang of thieves have been terrorizing a community so the community (not sure how many people) took the law into their own hands and beat one of the gang members to death. The question is how do they determine legal punishment? Is it the person with the fatal blow who gets the harsher sentence? What happens to those who took part in beating him? What about the witnesses who just stood by watching?

A crossword is asking for another name for a tango dancer. Can anyone please assist me?

Revelation 20:4-6

4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

I presume this passage means that true believers will rule with Jesus and His future kingdom for a thousand years. After this the rest of the dead will be resurrected and be taught God's ways. I could be wrong.

Who is 'the rest of the dead' referring to?

As a Christian I would just like to know why you think there is always conflict between the two?

Thanks in advance.

Pick a day if you agree...

Either way we must conclude that there is in fact an eternity of something after our lives as being human. Which would you choose?

Can some fellow Christians post some quotes from the Bible regarding patience?

Thanks in advance.

I know your outlook on Christianity but what about Satanists?

It always seems that atheists are more likely to answer most questions around here. Also it usually looks like the crap questions get answered the most (let's see if this is a crap question). Lastly, tell me your secret for always managing to be the first person to answer.

Yup that's right I don't have proof of God but imagine He does exist, would He allow science to find him?

A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles: 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence.

References would be appreciated instead of opinions.

Hi there, my fiance (very soon to be wife) needs to get a prescription for contraceptives aka the pill. She is embarrassed about seeing a gynecologist thinking that she must get naked to be examined. Is this really necessary (to be examined) or is a mere consultation enough to get a prescription?

Thanks in advance

I am a guy just asking when is a woman fertile during her menstrual cycle. We don't want children just yet and want to take extra caution.

Thanks in advance for your answer and could you please add references.

I know scientists don't believe in what they can't prove, fair enough but how much can you prove in one life time? I mean just because today's scientist can't prove something does this mean you have lack of faith in future scientists proving what you couldn't or is science limited to the 'now'.

Seriously now, do people who hate homosexuals really have a phobia of them? I don't think so. And could a homosexual have this phobia? I think this word shouldn't even exist, it makes no sense.

What would you call it?

If science is so limited but at the same time all-knowing then why is there no solid evidence that God does not exist? If science can't even cure AIDs then how can we rely on science to explain life's biggest questions. Atheists are constantly asking for proof of how many grains of sand there are so I think it is time to count them yourselves...