Sin and the Astrophysics of the Almighty

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

~zonker~

Golden Member
Jan 23, 2000
1,493
0
0
The God singularity really has no sexual inclination, I think God being described as Father or He is a metephorical condescencion (JN 4:24).

In this view, the human masculine prescence of God as Jesus colliding with the singularity of God the spirit does not imply a collision of like sexes, merely as an example of God's instruction for men and women to be one with that spirit.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
One of the principal driving forces of nature is the instinct to procreate. Two human members of the same sex can't create a new life. Therefore it's my opinion that god wants her inhabitants to reproduce. The only way that can happen, in most cases, is through opposite sex coupling. Heterosexuality is natural and proper. Homosexuality isn't natural but not necessarily improper. I agree it's a "choice" for intelligent, free-thinking life forms. It's simply the "wrong choice" in the eyes of god/nature.
 

RaDragon

Diamond Member
May 23, 2000
4,123
1
71


<< Heterosexuality is natural and proper. Homosexuality isn't natural but not necessarily improper. >>



that statement holds true (or close to the truth) in our day and age. eons ago (try going back to check on your greek history), homosexuality was as normal as you pissin' standing up. ;)
 

JPT

Senior member
Jan 23, 2000
419
0
0
I guess the only means we have to test all this right now is to put homosexual and heterosexual couples in a particle accelerator and see the outcome...
Also accelerating a few priests independently might be the closest we can get for a calibration curve...


Great post, WW!!!!
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,745
6,762
126
All I could figure out was that Dennil has a pulsar in his pants and the X-rated rays it's giving off have collapsed all reasoning that mattered. Your thesis, WW, while it may be sound astrophysically will not, I fear, prove so aerodynamically. :D

So nice to see you posting.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,745
6,762
126
WW, one is the result of the other. I have the equipment to recognize the work of the Great Attractor.
 

dennilfloss

Past Lifer 1957-2014 In Memoriam
Oct 21, 1999
30,509
12
0
dennilfloss.blogspot.com
As long as I got a pulse, I will beacon my Canadian bacon in a dazzling auroral (or oral) display towards the Oklahoma Nebula. I need some Betelgeuse in my Big Dipper, as true as Castor is French for beaver. And I don't want nocturnal light pollution to interfere as I leave my equipment unattended. Amazingly, I think that a flash would dilate my exit pupil and make lunar features stand out boldly, increasing the visibility of my tail and coma. I'm always in the mood for a tantalizing view of the Martian pink sphere and a couple of white ovals on the Jovian creamy disc, just above the north equatorial belt against a black-velvet background. I am hungry enough to eat the Cr&ecirc;pe Ring near Cassini's Division. Just let me measure the span of the Keeler Gap to check if Titan would fit within it while Andromeda browses Messier's Secret Catalogue for additions to her Double Cluster. I'm no Dumbbell and I know how to savour open star clusters, especially those that are well separated with a strong concentration to the centre. But none are like the glorious globular clusters hidden under the Veil Nebula. I like it when they are unveiled, their Rosette ready to be explored and only Bootes are left towards Fornax. I peer at the Local Group in Triangulum and move from the Trifid to the Lagoon of Virgo.

:)

Sunny (Bobby Hebb)
 

GroundOO

Senior member
Mar 14, 2000
553
0
0
Does this include lesbians? I like lesbians! And what are the consequences of 3 or 4 (or 10) 'particle' collisions? Seeing as God disapproves of all this 'bad stuff', maybe those thrown out of orbit while attempting collision will end up orbiting the bad dude? There collisions would be accepted and, most likely, encouraged. I don't know about you guys, but I can only take about 4 or 5 collisions in one orbit. This defecit of momentum would send us all careening into the bad dude's gravity well, for one final 'group collision,' deepening the well further. As more and more of the original orbiters collide till they drop, the escape velocity of the chasm reaches approx. 300,000 km/second (186,000 miles/sec). Consequently this is the speed of light and any form of information can no longer exit this 'event horizon.' We are now in the proverbial closet. As more and more swingers (uh I mean 'particles') pile into our love nest (uh I mean 'near infinitely dense appocalyptic collapse') they shed their protective electron layer. We now have 'unprotected &quot;collisions&quot; with many annonymous partners.'* This lack of protection gives way to the complete obliteration of all the involved paticles, who says sailors have more fun? But we gotta be somewhere right? We're particles for god's sakes! Obviously my equation has become moot, maybe I forgot to carry that two....

See you in Hell,
Chris

(Disclaimer:: I do not claim to be a satanist, psychologist, homosexualist, mathamatist, botonist, philosophist, agriculturalist, or astrophysicist but I would be a swinger and a sailor if I could dance and didn't get sea-sick.)

*Gotta give credit to Austin Powers with that quote.
 

Pretender

Banned
Mar 14, 2000
7,192
0
0
I think that only proved that god doesn't want 'holy men' (e.g. priests, all those disciples in the bible, etc) to be homosexual. Either way, that was very funny. :)
 

Pretender

Banned
Mar 14, 2000
7,192
0
0


<< Isn't a tampon a fish? >>

I thin he brings up a (not really) valid point, which should be addressed to ensure the integrity of this theory.
 

GroundOO

Senior member
Mar 14, 2000
553
0
0
A tampon is only a fish if it is used carelessly in a swimming pool. It resembles a dead, misshapen jellyfish.

Chris
 

Mday

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
18,647
1
81
um, i have a problem understanding this xyz space. Why are we dealing with euclidean geometry ie, cartesian coordinate system.

space is 4 dimensional to say the least. And there are other dimensions of which we should take into account when discussing this God person of which you speak...

and would not this point mass God be of such density as to violate conceptual space as to cause it to become a black hole, which means with the ongoing gravitational forces involved, the entire universe including said sinner would be sucked into God causing the unraveling of existence, ala reverse big bang.

This would likely disprove the existence of heaven and hell as separate entities, or rather inertial reference frames, meaning that heaven and hell exist in the same inertial reference frame which with Einstein's theory of relativity would cause religious understanding as we know it worthless...

more directly, this can actually disprove predetermined fate as with the twin paradox...