By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Editor
(CNN)–In the face of withering criticism over a sermon he apparently delivered on homosexuality in the 1990s, the Rev. Louie Giglio has withdrawn from giving the benediction at President Barack Obama's inauguration.
Giglio informed inauguration officials Thursday morning of his decision to withdraw from the ceremony, an inauguration official told CNN.
"I am honored to have been invited by the president to give the benediction at the upcoming inauguration on January 21," Giglio said in a statement delivered to the White House and the Presidential Inaugural Committee. "Though the president and I do not agree on every issue, we have fashioned a friendship around common goals and ideals, most notably, ending slavery in all its forms."
"Due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15-20 years ago, it is likely that my participation, and the prayer I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda a focal point of the inauguration. Clearly, speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past fifteen years. Instead, my aim has been to call people to ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ."
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
Giglio, a pastor and the leader of the Passion Movement, was chosen to deliver the benediction because he's a "powerful voice for ending human trafficking and global sex slavery" and due to his work in mobilizing young people in that effort, an inauguration official said earlier in the week when the reverend's selection was first announced.
Criticism over the selection swirled after the liberal website Think Progress posted a sermon that it said Giglio gave in the mid-1990s, a speech the site called "vehemently anti-gay."
A spokeswoman for the Presidential Inaugural Committee said the committee was "not aware of Pastor Giglio's past comments at the time of his selection and they don't reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this Inaugural."
"As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration's vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans," said PIC spokeswoman Addie Whisenant.
In an audio copy of the sermon posted on the Think Progress website, a voice identified as that of Giglio's called homosexuality a sin. "That's God's voice. If you want to hear God's voice, that is his voice to this issue of homosexuality. It is not ambiguous and unclear. It is very clear."
"If you look at the counsel of the word of God, Old Testament, New Testament, you come quickly to the conclusion that homosexuality is not an alternate lifestyle... homosexuality is not just a sexual preference, homosexuality is not gay, but homosexuality is sin. It is sin in the eyes of God, and it is sin according to the word of God."
The recording continues: "The only way out of a homosexual lifestyle, the only way out of a relationship that has been ingrained over years of time, is through the healing power of Jesus."
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
"We've got to say to the homosexuals, the same thing that I say to you and that you would say to me... it's not easy to change, but it is possible to change," he can also be heard saying during the sermon.
Giglio is a rising voice in evangelical Christianity. Last week, the Passion conference, which he founded, wrapped up its annual event for college students in Atlanta, with more than 60,000 students attending and vowing to end global slavery. They raised $3 million for charities that work to stop slavery and aid its victims.
Giglio said Thursday that he and his team don't feel "it best serves the core message and goals we are seeking to accomplish to be in a fight on an issue not of our choosing; thus I respectfully withdraw my acceptance of the president's invitation."
"I will continue to pray regularly for the president, and urge the nation to do so. I will most certainly pray for him on Inauguration Day," Giglio's statement to the White House continued.
"Our nation is deeply divided and hurting, and more than ever need God's grace and mercy in our time of need," it concluded.
Giglio took to his church blog Thursday to further explain his position to his congregants at Passion City Church in Atlanta.
"The issue of homosexuality (which a particular message of mine some 20 years ago addressed) is one of the most difficult our nation will navigate. However, individuals' rights of freedom, and the collective right to hold differing views on any subject is a critical balance we, as a people, must recover and preserve," he wrote.
He asserted that his main goal as a pastor was to love people.
"I'm confident that anyone who knows me or has listened to the multitude of messages I have given in the last decade would most likely conclude that I am not easily characterized as being opposed to people - any people. Rather, I am constantly seeking to understand where all people are coming from and how to best serve them as I point them to Jesus."
Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said Giglio's decision to withdraw was the right one.
"Participants in the inaugural festivities should unite rather than divide. Choosing an affirming and fair-minded voice as his replacement would be in keeping with the tone the president wants to set for his inaugural," Griffin said in a statement.
Giglio represents a new type of evangelical leader who "doesn't like to get involved in the culture war because it blurs the larger points he wants to make," said Michael Cromartie, the vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington.
"What I want to remind his critics is he's not being named to a Cabinet position," Cromartie said. "He was being asked to deliver a prayer. All sorts of people deliver prayers who we don't agree with on a number of issues."
"It's unfortunate that this kind of political correctness doesn't allow people who are doing great work to pray at inauguration," he added.
CNN's Athena Jones contributed to this report
I'm starting to be convinced that defending a certain stance is not tolerated even in mass media......
It's kind of disconcerting at first, isn't it?
"defending a certain stance is not tolerated even in mass media......"
When the "certain stance" is an approval for r a p i n g children, should it be given equal credence? If the "certain stance" is supporting the discrimination against women seen often in Arab nations, should it be given the same platform as the stance against discrimination by the media?
The "certain stance" supporting discrimination against fellow humans who do no more than show love for others, albeit their same gender, should not be given the same rights, platform or validity that those standing up against discrimination get. They should be sidelined, castigated and reproached for their ignorant and hurtful discrimination by everyone including the media.
You said, "I'm starting to be convinced that defending a certain stance is not tolerated even in mass media......"
You are free to defend it. You just have to bring rational arguments. If you elect to publicly announce a stance, you should expect to get called on it in public.
The problems tend to arise when a indefensible stance is put forth.
“The problems tend to arise when a indefensible stance is put forth”
=>Twenty years ago the pastor gave a sermon about sin. Sin is an offense against God. The Pastor had the authority and the right to give that sermon in his church. If there is no sin there is no need for redemption and certainly no need for Christ to give His life in atonement for sin. There is then no church or need for church as there are no christians.
His stance is defensible.
Exactly. And very well said :)
Here's something I posted yesterday, in a similar vein:
Eventually, we'll be seeing not just anti-gay references anathematized, but anti-sin references as well. Think about it. For certain types of people (whose numbers are increasing daily) nothing is "sin." For them, the concept of sin is outmoded. Clearly, nowadays, things such as adultery, lechery, fornication, lust, greed, anger are not seen as sins, but as signs of power, strength and potency: as freedom. Instead of sin, we'll have things that are seen as being "counterproductive and non-conducive to the smooth running of Society", a society that has been remade in the Image of the Beast. Drug add-iction, alcoholism, child abuse, spousal abuse, se-xual abuse, self abuse, gluttony, sadism, masochism will cease to be sins, but only maladaptive modes of living. In fact, we're already seeing this. Many of the most popular TV shows nowadays (for example Weeds, Hung, Dexter, Nurse Jackie, The Shield, The Sopranos, and many many others) are about people living secret, sinful lives. And getting away with it. We've become a society that Roots for the Bad Guy. Or at the very least, a society that is seeking to redefine (or eliminate?) the very concept of "bad" (i.e., sin.)
In a world governed by Relativism (cultural, moral, etc) value judgments of "good" or "bad" will be viewed as hate speech...
The sad part is we are all warned about deception and the form it would present itself. The Bible and the Prophets have been warning us for at least 3,400 years and the oral warning has been heard since the day of Adam.
We actually have ourselves to blame. Perhaps there is still time to change who we are as Christians. Our error has been to fight against unbelief with words and politics. We need to go out and become the people that are the light and salt of the earth by serving and loving others. That can only happen with the filling of the Holy Spirit and few of us are willing to allow that. We will not do what Romans 12 says we should do.
You said, "Twenty years ago the pastor gave a sermon about sin. Sin is an offense against God. The Pastor had the authority and the right to give that sermon in his church."
His authority is limited to his church. His authority does not extend, even one inch, outside it.
You said, "If there is no sin there is no need for redemption and certainly no need for Christ to give His life in atonement for sin."
Rational evaluation of all available evidence, inevitably leads to rejection of that nonsense.
You said, "There is then no church or need for church as there are no christians."
Since there is no rational case to be made for it, there really is no need for it.
You said, "His stance is defensible."
Within the irrational church doctrine, perhaps. Freedom of religion means that, in the real world, religious arguments are irrelevant. Religious arguments only apply to those that subscribe to the religion. So, unless you can also make the argument entirely, and exclusively, with secular reasoning, it is indefensible.
Now, had Giglio, prior to this shit storm, acknowledged his mistake and asked forgiveness for it, he might have been an OK choice. As far as I know he didn't. While he may not be the worst offender, there are far better choices available.
By your logic prayer should not be part of proceedings to begin with. Reality check is that it is. Given that the watered down prayer or address is worthless from a Christian standpoint when only that which affirms godlessness can be spoken I actually agree with you. I don't recall Jesus being politically correct in public so we are not following our own example.
What you fail to understand is that you can kill of God off real or delusional but mankind will fill the void with something. You simply want to replace my God with your god.
So fred wants even more divisive and exclusionary prayers for his denomination. Just goes to show, that to christians, freedom of religion merely means "freedom for me to put my religion everywhere, and freedom of you to shut the fuck up about it".
Such a fair and tolerant viewpoint.
You said, "By your logic prayer should not be part of proceedings to begin with."
Of course. Might as well thank the Tooth Fairy for that quarter at the inauguration.
You said, "Reality check is that it is."
I realize that millions of Americans are unable to tie their shoes without asking for divine guidance. It is far easier to appease them by going through the motions, than to deal with the fall-out for not pretending to give a shit.
You said, "Given that the watered down prayer or address is worthless from a Christian standpoint when only that which affirms godlessness can be spoken I actually agree with you."
Every prayer is worthless in every aspect other than to appease the weak of mind.
You said, "I don't recall Jesus being politically correct in public so we are not following our own example."
So, you are saying that you'd prefer to keep prayer out of it?
You said, "What you fail to understand is that you can kill of God off real or delusional but mankind will fill the void with something."
I'm not trying to kill anything, especially something that only exists in the minds of simpletons. I'd settle for some decent education.
I also realize that stupidity is rampant. People are far more likely to be able to understand the simple "goddidit" than a more complicated explanation that may not provide the closure they crave. Every time one set of gods ran out of steam it was replaced with a new set (often by force). That doesn't mean we can't try to help those that have the capacity for rational though to shed the shackles of religion.
You said, "You simply want to replace my God with your god."
Bullshit. Since there no evidence there are any gods, I certainly have none.
Yeah, I am thinking if a Pastor can no longer give an address in public because he actually believes in what he is preaching the worse thing he can do is to water down the truth to appease some fringe group. This is the truth and this is what the Bible says period.
Regarding your “god” I was referring to a core belief. I conduct my life with the belief there is reason and accountability for my existence that extends beyond our current life. As an atheist you have some core belief that you conduct your life by.
You said, "Yeah, I am thinking if a Pastor can no longer give an address in public because he actually believes in what he is preaching the worse thing he can do is to water down the truth to appease some fringe group."
The biggest problem with preaching to the public as opposed to his congregations, is that he doesn't have any truth. He has some bullshit story based on his interpretation of some ancient fairy tale.
While his congregation probably is fully indoctrinated into the same nonsense, the general public is not (even if most are). Anyone who is to address the general public can, and should, have his message tested against reality.
I'm willing to go along with the bullshit in order to appease the religious dimwits, but only to the extend that the message is in accordance with (even when not based on) reality. Having a preacher who marginalized gays at the inauguration, is not a message in accordance with reality.
You said, "This is the truth and this is what the Bible says period."
There is no truth to be found in the bible. Truth is a result of facts. Facts are established by evidence. There is no evidence that there are any relevant facts in the bible. Anything that the bible agrees with reality on is most likely sheer coincidence.
You said, "I conduct my life with the belief there is reason and accountability for my existence that extends beyond our current life."
Whatever floats your boat.
You said, "As an atheist you have some core belief that you conduct your life by."
While I hold beliefs that I conduct my life by, I hold no beliefs because I'm an atheist. I am an atheist because I hold no beliefs in one particular area. I certainly have no need to force anyone to share my beliefs. You are free to believe whatever nonsense you like. So does everyone else. It's only when irrational beliefs are used to cause undue harm to others that I speak up.
Using fairy tales to justify discrimination against gays, and marginalize an entire group is causing undue harm. If your delusion, or that off your preacher, leads you to believe homosexuality is wrong, you are free to abstain. Your delusion has to stay out of the lives of people not afflicted by it.
You see, religion is very similar to smoking. There was a time, in the not so distant past, that almost everyone smoked. As a society we didn't fully understand the harmful effects of it. We've since learned how deadly it is, not only for the smoker, but also those around him/her. While we don't prohibit adults from smoking, we do try to curb its effects on innocent bystanders. We use the force of law to protect those that elect not to smoke (including children), and education to persuade the smoker to reduce, or eliminate, his/her habit.
When it comes to religion we do something similar. The force of law is used to protect the innocent (removal of religious crap from public spaces and removing organized prayer from schools, etc.), and we use education to try to open the eyes of the addicts. Unfortunately, the efforts on religion are lagging behind those on smoking.
“Anyone who is to address the general public can, and should, have his message tested against reality.”
=>the media is the loud speaker to the public not a preacher on a street corner or in a segment of a ceremony such as this one where it is a tradition. When a preacher speaks the audience searches for what they have been brain washed with by the world to expect from a preacher and the message is only heard by believers. I doubt you could hear the message over the noise of the world in your heart even if you sat in the front row.
The media is pounding the liberal indoctrination theme down the throats of children and you remain silent because it is your message. Ho-mo$exualtiy is normal and a better example of love than Christ and the church with their 2,000 year old sheep herder myths. That is the filter now in place covering the ears of our youth.
“Having a preacher who marginalized gays at the inauguration, is not a message in accordance with reality.”
=>reality is the fact that 20 years ago gays and atheists were marginalized. You want to do what they tried with Tom Sawyer with a rewrite to be politically correct. That did not sell as does the white wash approach of political correctness. Talk about intolerance in sheep’s clothing. This preacher is just as enti-tled to his beliefs as Jodie Foster was in her 15 minute pro lesbian speech last Sunday. Standing ovation for one and shipped out of town to the other.
“There is no truth to be found in the bible.”
“There is no evidence that there are any relevant facts in the bible.”
=>”In the beginning God” – First cause or causation remains the prevailing thought
“created the heavens and the earth” – all baryonic matter we know resulted from causation
That is just the first verse of the Bible, do you want me to go on?
“I am an atheist because I hold no beliefs in one particular area.”
=>do you have a soul, what becomes of soul when you die, what is the purpose of your existence, why is there a universe?
Now, tell me how your beliefs are not fully naturalism based upon an illogical extension of biological evolution.
“ I certainly have no need to force anyone to share my beliefs.”
=>not based on all your posts. You expect me to believe the tooth fairy and Jesus fit the same box for example
“So does everyone else. It's only when irrational beliefs are used to cause undue harm to others that I speak up.”
=>then speak up against $exualized indoctrination of children, the slave trade today, violent images and glorification of violence and power by our secular society. The United States is the #1 p o r n producer to the world. The force behind these is a godless base. The Bible and the pastor you toss off the public podium speaks against such common practices our congress refuses to put a hand on. I Can’t wait to see the speaker line up for the upcoming gala event for Obama.
“Using fairy tales to justify discrimination against gays, and marginalize an entire group”
=>the Bible was twisted to justify slave ownership as well yet it was Christians that helped set the record straight. Hitler used the Bible to justify his wrongs as well and Jesus warned us about such twisting admonishing us to be aware.
“If your delusion, or that off your preacher, leads you to believe ho-mo-$exuality is wrong, you are free to abstain. Your delusion has to stay out of the lives of people not afflicted by it.”
=>fair enough so stop pushing your delusion on preachers and believers. In particular you should stop indoctrination of our children with your hopeless view of life, $exualization, violence and the ramifications of an untested godless society on our great grandchildren.
Stop marginalizing preachers and believers.
“You see, religion is very similar to smoking.”
=>what are you smoking and how is it impacting your health. I mean are you really happy or is there someone trapped in your body trying to get out?
" The United States is the #1 p o r n producer to the world. The force behind these is a godless base."
Seeing as 80% of people in America believe in a god then those producing this p o r n are probably believe in a god. Now, lets get into all the other things that are wrong in American's society and the root of it is those that believe in a god.
Translation of fred:
"WAHHH WAHHH The public doesn't like our rhetoric of hate and intolerance anymore, therefore we are being persecuted and marginalized by everyone, nevermind that hate doesn't sell our religion anymore WAHHHH WAHHH".
You said, "When a preacher speaks the audience searches for what they have been brain washed with by the world to expect from a preacher and the message is only heard by believers."
That's exactly what we should avoid like the plague. More of this hate filled garbage being accepted as normal. It is high time we take a stand against the immoral bigotry espoused by these religious "leaders". It's time to take a stand for decency.
You said, "I doubt you could hear the message over the noise of the world in your heart even if you sat in the front row."
I've heard the message far too often to remain quiet when it is passed off as "good" or "tradition". I'm done accepting the hate speech.
You said, "Ho-mo$exualtiy is normal and a better example of love than Christ and the church with their 2,000 year old sheep herder myths. That is the filter now in place covering the ears of our youth."
It's not a filter. Acceptance of everyone, as they are, is far closer to the message of your Christ than anything from the evangelical doctrine.
Feel free to live with the hate that you so vigorously defend. You are free to let it rot you from the inside. You are no longer free to pollute society with it.
You said, "reality is the fact that 20 years ago gays and atheists were marginalized."
It seems that, if it were left up to the likes of you, nothing would change.
You said, "This preacher is just as enti-tled to his beliefs as Jodie Foster was in her 15 minute pro lesbian speech last Sunday."
The difference, of course, is that Jodie Foster's is a message of inclusion and acceptance, and the preacher's one of exclusion and hate. The preacher is entitled to his opinion, just like the KKK and Aryan Nation are entitled to theirs.
You said, "“There is no truth to be found in the bible.”
You claimed there to be truth in the bible. I simply reject that inane claim. The "truths" in the bible are on par with truths in Rapunzel, or Harry Potter.
You said, "”In the beginning God” – First cause or causation remains the prevailing thought"
Just because people are too stupid to comprehend, or unwilling to consider, a universe without gods, doesn't mean there must have been one. Doesn't Rapunzel start with "Once upon a time..."? It doesn't mean any of it is true.
You said, "That is just the first verse of the Bible, do you want me to go on?"
Feel free to take up as many megabytes as you feel like, but don't you think you've spouted off enough nonsense already? If you have something that actually shows anything relevant in the bible is actually true, please share.
You said, "do you have a soul, what becomes of soul when you die, what is the purpose of your existence, why is there a universe?"
How are these questions relevant? But, just to play along, here are my answers. I have no reason to believe I have a soul, and therefor no reason to believe anything will happen to it after I die. I don't see a need, nor a reason, for my existence, or for the existence of the universe.
You said, "Now, tell me how your beliefs are not fully naturalism based upon an illogical extension of biological evolution."
They aren't, but even if they were, so what? I'm not asking you to abandon your silly beliefs. I'm merely suggesting you evaluate them. Rationally.
You said, "not based on all your posts. You expect me to believe the tooth fairy and Jesus fit the same box for example"
No. Jesus was probably just as deluded as you, and equally human. It's his alleged father that is, given all available evidence, on par with the Tooth Fairy. But you don't have to take my word for it, as you are free to believe whatever nonsense you want.
You said, "then speak up against $exualized indoctrination of children, the slave trade today, violent images and glorification of violence and power by our secular society."
I do. Elsewhere. This blog is one of the places I speak out against the cancer that religion is.
You said, "The United States is the #1 p o r n producer to the world. The force behind these is a godless base."
You may be surprised to find how many devoutly religious people partake in the production and consumption of porn. But, as long as it is made and consumed by consenting adults, there is very little reason to ban it.
You said, "the Bible was twisted to justify slave ownership as well yet it was Christians that helped set the record straight. Hitler used the Bible to justify his wrongs as well and Jesus warned us about such twisting admonishing us to be aware."
What's your point? It was used to justify all kinds of horrific actions in the past by christians. The fact that some christians saw the light a little sooner than others doesn't mean christianity is suddenly absolved from those crimes.
It is also used, still, to justify hate and discrimination of gays. There are, luckily, also christians who are taking a stand against that bigotry. But, just because some stand up against it, doesn't mean the behavior of those perpetuating these despicable behaviors is any more palatable.
You said, "fair enough so stop pushing your delusion on preachers and believers."
As long as there are imbeciles that keep insisting that we all live by their rules, I will keep pointing out how demented those are. You want me to stop? Keep your religion to yourself.
You said, "In particular you should stop indoctrination of our children with your hopeless view of life, $exualization, violence"
You said, "and the ramifications of an untested godless society on our great grandchildren."
Since the religion based societies are nothing but abject failures, it is time we try something new.
You said, "Stop marginalizing preachers and believers."
Stop believing the nonsense, or at least stop displaying it on a public forum, and I will stop marginalizing you.
Producing P O R N is inconsistent with being Christlike or in Christ. By definition you cannot be correct. Hitler also claimed to be a christian but what he did to innocents was not Christlike or in the image of God.
Christians are human and do wrong so I would hope if they are involved they repent and see the harm it causes.
“More of this hate filled garbage being accepted as normal. It is high time we take a stand against the immoral bigotry espoused by these religious "leaders". It's time to take a stand for decency.”
=>so stop spreading false impressions about God and believers. You are creating hate and stir the darkness from a speech someone made 20 years ago.
“I've heard the message far too often to remain quiet when it is passed off as "good" or "tradition". I'm done accepting the hate speech.”
=>that is the selective hearing I am speaking about. I heard a sermon from a liberal preacher that marries gays and people walked out before she got passed the introductory back drop of Paul’s verses regarding ho-m0$exuals. The assumption was that gay bashing was about to follow and those that walked out had gay children. Too bad they missed a good sermon.
“It's not a filter. Acceptance of everyone, as they are, is far closer to the message of your Christ than anything from the evangelical doctrine.”
=>last time we talked I suggested you go to church, looks you still have not gone. Doctrine is that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. How more inclusive can we get?
“It seems that, if it were left up to the likes of you, nothing would change.”
=>oh, if only I could somehow get more people to follow Christ not just claim how loving he was. We are to be servants and a light on the hill not a club to your head.
“The difference, of course, is that Jodie Foster's is a message of inclusion and acceptance, and the preacher's one of exclusion and hate.”
=>no, her message was I am lost and need to find acceptance and I still have not found it. Jesus and the Church is founded upon acceptance and helping the lost.
“The "truths" in the bible are on par with truths in Rapunzel, or Harry Potter.”
=>on par? You need to adjust your scale or take the blindfold off even if you feel like lady liberty. God transformed the world and with Christ a world view that remains dominate this day. The Holy Spirit transforms lives instantaneously imparting a new life in mind and soul. Sorry that is a fact that happens millions of times a year just as it did to Saul of Tarsus and just as it did to Abraham. You can conjecture all you want as to other possible causes but simply ask those to whom it happened if you need an eye witness report. Harry can only increase popcorn sales.
“You said, "”In the beginning God” – First cause or causation remains the prevailing thought"
Just because people are too stupid to comprehend, or unwilling to consider, a universe without gods, doesn't mean there must have been one. Doesn't Rapunzel start with "Once upon a time..."? It doesn't mean any of it is true.”
=>again you are lost in fiction. Science does not study Rapunzel to falsify the strength of her hair. Science did look at Genesis and say yep it still lines up with what we think today. 300 years ago science was still trying to line up with a 6,000 year creation period. Most of the posters on this sight love to apply (or misapply) science to the Bible. But, go figure they don’t split hairs on Rapunzel.
“If you have something that actually shows anything relevant in the bible is actually true, please share.”
=>I might just take you up on that when the plane lands……then again I need to first figure out how to get past your filter. It might be easier to get you to simply let down your hair (not to suggest all scientifically inclined atheists wear their hair in a tight bun)……
“How are these questions relevant?’
=>prior to my conversion I felt there must be more to existence, something greater out there in the awe of the universe or in the depths of emotion or self awareness. Perhaps I was simply more susceptible to conversion or as I choose to believe chosen by God. Oops hold on I need to rest my head it is getting a bit heavy.
“. I'm merely suggesting you evaluate them. Rationally.”
=>Rationally I would need to consider it simply a great story with great relevance on how to live a life that is honorable, true, and right, worthy of praise and bringing blessings to all lives that one touches.
“I speak out against the cancer that religion is.”
=>starting to sound like Jesus blasting the Sanhedrin
“You may be surprised to find how many devoutly religious people partake in the production and consumption of p o r n. But, as long as it is made and consumed by consenting adults, there is very little reason to ban it.”
=>the production and consumption changes how one views another person. It also changes who they were before extensive consumption or participation. I have rescued a few from the industry and is scary how they target participants.
“ it is time we try something new.”
=>few follow the plan of God or the guidelines set out by Christ. Now that would be something new and the result would be out of this “world”
You said, "You are creating hate and stir the darkness from a speech someone made 20 years ago."
Has he changed his position? Has he asked for forgiveness from those that he insulted? If not, than he is no different than he was 20 years ago.
You said, "Too bad they missed a good sermon."
No sermon is worth listening to if it relies on an infantile belief in imaginary beings. You can get all the good, without any of the bullshit.
You said, "last time we talked I suggested you go to church, looks you still have not gone."
And I won't (other than to admire the architecture). There is nothing of value to be had that can't be had elsewhere.
You said, "Doctrine is that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. How more inclusive can we get?"
For starters, you can accept that those that don't believe the nonsense don't sin. They are not subject to your doctrine.
You said, "no, her message was I am lost and need to find acceptance and I still have not found it."
To me it sounded more about the need for privacy, but if it was about acceptance, you and your ilk are probably in large part to blame for her not finding it.
You said, "Jesus and the Church is founded upon acceptance and helping the lost."
Good luck helping her. She's an atheist.
You said, "You need to adjust your scale or take the blindfold off even if you feel like lady liberty. God transformed the world and with Christ a world view that remains dominate this day...."
Correction. You believe, without a shred of evidence in support, that your god transformed, blah, blah, blah.
Your god is no different from Harry Potter or Rapunzel. They are all creations of the mind.
You said, "Science did look at Genesis and say yep it still lines up with what we think today."
ROTFLMAO. It isn't scientists that accept Genesis as conforming to science, it is religionists that interpret Genesis in such a way that they can defend it as not being proven wrong by science.
You said, "300 years ago science was still trying to line up with a 6,000 year creation period."
I know. Progress is slow. Especially with a boat anchor like religion holding us back.
You said, "But, go figure they don’t split hairs on Rapunzel."
Because there is very little doubt that Rapunzel isn't real.
You said, "prior to my conversion I felt there must be more to existence, something greater out there in the awe of the universe or in the depths of emotion or self awareness. Perhaps I was simply more susceptible to conversion or as I choose to believe chosen by God."
Were you raised in a christian home? Did your parents take you to church growing up? If so, I doubt the order of your beliefs.
You said, "Rationally I would need to consider it simply a great story with great relevance on how to live a life that is honorable, true, and right, worthy of praise and bringing blessings to all lives that one touches."
That isn't rational. The story isn't relevant nor does it bring blessings to all the lives that it touches.
You said, "the production and consumption changes how one views another person. It also changes who they were before extensive consumption or participation. I have rescued a few from the industry and is scary how they target participants."
I didn't say all the effects were good. I simply said that adults should be able to have the freedom to produce and consume it. It is, in that regard, very similar to alcohol, or tobacco, or fast food, or racing cars.
You said, "few follow the plan of God or the guidelines set out by Christ. Now that would be something new and the result would be out of this “world”"
Nobody is preventing you from living your life as you see fit, as long as you allow others to do the same. So how about you start with those that already believe in that nonsense, and try to get them to follow your lead.
“Has he changed his position? Has he asked for forgiveness from those that he insulted?”
=>I don’t know.
The problem is lusts (regardless of how we want to sugar coat it) are specified sins in the Bible. Orientation makes little difference when it comes to the lust of flesh. If $exual lusts are no longer sin then regardless of any excuse we conger up the Bible was wrong. If the Bible was wrong it is wrong not just on this issue but all other issues. I am now in your camp and there is no God.
“For starters, you can accept that those that don't believe the nonsense don't sin. They are not subject to your doctrine.”
=>I have no problem accepting sinners we are all in the same boat. That would be like not accepting myself.
“Were you raised in a christian home? Did your parents take you to church growing up?”
=>dysfunctional and violent home nothing Christian about it. Church was not much different my mom took us there until about second grade. The nuns were abusive and the priest just plain mean.
“So how about you start with those that already believe in that nonsense, and try to get them to follow your lead”
=>That is actually beginning to happen. Not necessarily my lead but a world wide program that continues to pick up momentum to follow Christ’s example.
You said, "The problem is lusts (regardless of how we want to sugar coat it) are specified sins in the Bible."
No, the problem has nothing to do with what it says in your fairy tale. To anyone who has the ability and willingness to use rational though, your bible is irrelevant.
The problem is believers expecting their nonsense to apply to anyone but themselves. It doesn't.
You said, "If $exual lusts are no longer sin then regardless of any excuse we conger up the Bible was wrong."
Again, it's irrelevant what you think your bible says is a sin.
You said, "If the Bible was wrong it is wrong not just on this issue but all other issues."
It is wrong on almost everything. But that doesn't mean you can't still live your life according to your interpretation of it. You just don't get to tell anyone else how to live theirs.
You said, "I am now in your camp and there is no God."
I doubt you are, but if you are; welcome.
You said, "I have no problem accepting sinners we are all in the same boat. That would be like not accepting myself."
You don't seem to get that those that don't subscribe to your religion aren't sinners.
A sin is a violation of a religious rule. Religious rules only apply to those that subscribe to that particular religion. If a rule doesn't apply to someone, that someone can't break it.
To illustrate, here is an example. In Australia the law says you have to drive on the left side of the road. If you drive on the right side in Alabama, are you breaking any laws? No, you aren't because Australian rules don't apply in Alabama, or anywhere outside Australia (except to some extend to Australians). The same applies to religious rules. They simply don't apply outside that religion (no matter how much you want them to).
It comes down to jurisdiction, and religion doesn't have any, outside itself. If you wish to live in a place where religious rules are elevated to laws, I suggest you go live in Saudi Arabia or Iran.
You said, "dysfunctional and violent home nothing Christian about it. Church was not much different my mom took us there until about second grade. The nuns were abusive and the priest just plain mean."
But I suspect you took away a belief in your god, or at the very least "something bigger than us". I suspect the indoctrination of your youth was effective.
I'm glad you got out, though.
“ You just don't get to tell anyone else how to live theirs.”
=>As to sin you are right as we are only to correct our brothers in Christ. The model set by Paul who would publicly denounce the sins in Corinth is not a working model for Amsterdam, Los Angeles or New York as the audience will turn you off at best or deepen their rejection of Christ at worst. We are to be salt and light to a dark and lost world which is easy and has not changed since Christ modeled it. Actually has not changed since Able or Joseph of the OT.
“You said, "I am now in your camp and there is no God."
I doubt you are, but if you are; welcome.”
=>correct, that applied only if the Bible was wrong about lusts of the flesh or other key doctrine that runs true from Genesis to Revelations. Doctrinal points are made clear the rest is often simply bait to reveal the true heart of the reader.
“You don't seem to get that those that don't subscribe to your religion aren't sinners.”
=>thanks for the examples however if there is God and God established absolute truths that would be the first and final authority. Now, if the Bible is fairy tale which means God as revealed is fictional then you are correct.
The way that would play out in reality is that you are subject to God if there is God regardless of your opinion. You are not subject to God if there is no God. All the other gods and religions are manmade and you are correct we are not subject to them unless we submit to that particular manmade religion.
“But I suspect you took away a belief in your god, or at the very least "something bigger than us". I suspect the indoctrination of your youth was effective.”
=>correct on both counts. As a result I do not trust adults including parents and being a Christian normally is little more than something someone says. Priests and their inst-itutions can be just as evil as the hell they fear and many are corrupt.
Although I rejected God (and Christ by association) from 3rd grade through college I found no fault in Jesus who rescued me through sudden conversion. Later I realized Jesus was a man physically that fully reflected the Glory of God in full radiance of the three persons of the trinity.
Since that day I continue to receive the blessings promised in the Bible. I imagine if you still found change under your pillow the tooth fairy would gain some credibility.
You said, "thanks for the examples however if there is God and God established absolute truths that would be the first and final authority."
Sorry dude, but it is merely your belief that there is such a god. Unless there is some evidence to support that claim, there is no reason to assume it actually exists. It didn't establish any authority.
The US Constitution trumps your bible. Hell, my home owners association R&R trumps your bible. Even the TOS on this site has more authority than your bible.
Ok,have a great week! Catch you latter.
If that is the case why did 56 out of 56 signers to the Declaration of Independence seek Gods approval before affixing their name to the doc ument?
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rect-itude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,.............
OMG they appealed to a higher authority then themselves for guidance and a godly frame of mind.
"OMG they appealed to a higher authority then themselves for guidance and a godly frame of mind."
Yet many of them were adulterers and liars so they weren't of a godly frame of mind. You obviously don't know your history.
All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. The Bible is a true representation of man because it details man’s behavior to be just as you say. Even the greats like Moses, Noah, Abraham, David (ouch), etc etc. were no different than non believers at times. Gads even Paul of the New Testament stood by and watched innocent Stephen get stoned not to mention what he did to believing Christians before his sudden conversion.
Belief in God is the beginning of getting right. What matters is not what a sc um bag I am at the moment but looking up in hope as even the Neanderthal did.
These guys asked for Gods will and blessings on the foundation of our freedom. The result of moving in Gods will was the greatest superpower ever known to man kind. The result was a footing for Gospel to get out into the world. Gods plan has been accomplished. That is the power of looking up in hope.
Is fred still pushing the Christian nation" myth? Oh well, guess if you believe in one myth it just makes it easier to believe in another.
"These guys asked for Gods will and blessings on the foundation of our freedom. The result of moving in Gods will was the greatest superpower ever known to man kind"
Nope. America is not the greatest superpower ever known. You must not travel much. America’s image as the global economic superpower is eroding.
Image is eroding but we remain the leading superpower. That image is slipping at about the same slope as our foundation in God is slipping. (just an observation not a provable corelation)
I never said Christian nation. You just want to pick a fight because you refuse to acknowledge the difference between a group of people within specified boarders that worship God and the form of government that derives its authority from those people.
"Image is eroding but we remain the leading superpower."
We have shared that status with other countries over history, and we didn't just become a superpower as soon as America was created. Your rose colored glasses need to come off. By 2016 we won't be the leading superpower and it has nothing to do with a god, but greed and stupidity, something Christians are good at.
Then what are you saying? "Oh I'm just asserting that they were all christians and they just happened to do some things that agree with gods will, so therefore our country was awesome". Are you saying that's not an implication of the "country founded on christian values" utter bullshit that you push constantly. And if you really want to assert that they were with god's will, then obviously god doesn't give a shit whether we have slaves or not. Because guess what, THEY WERE SLAVE OWNERS! Apparently, your god doesn't care if women aren't considered equal to men. Apparently, those things are part of your gods will! Which just goes to show that I'm justified when I call your god an immoral fuck.
Now, go ahead and do one of your three typical dishonest tactics.
1) Ignore my response completely
2) Give a rambling irrelevant answer based on a single line of my response
3) Give a rambling irrelevant answer that has nothing to do with any part of my post.
Go on fred, those are the only things you're actually decent at.
This is 2013 and if Obama remains in office in 2016 your prediction may come to pass.
America rose because of a firm foundation of faith. That faith demanded a higher standard and a hope in something greater than man. We could well have gone under if not for the God inspired tuff talk (immaterial if God exists or not the motivation comes from the core belief) after Pearl Harbor was bombed. The stories from the fox holes are real as were the prayers these men offered not only for themselves but their country.
When the Soviets were to conquer space America stepped up and landed on the moon. What was said?
On December 24, 1968, in what was the most watched television broadcast at the time, the crew of Apollo 8 read in turn from the Book of Genesis “In the beginning God …..”
Madalyn Murray O'Hair, an atheist, responded by suing the United States government, alleging violations of the First Amendment. The suit was dismissed by the Supreme Court due to lack of jurisdiction
History shows a correlation between a countries unified belief and power.
I am not ignoring you and really do not want to rehash semantics battle over the heart of a Nation verses its legal structure. The vast majority of people who identify themselves as believers and even simply Christian for that matter still represent a majority. 2012 Gallop poll 78 percent of U.S. adults identify with Christianity
100% of the signers of the Declaration of Independence called God our Creator who was self evident and then closed with an appeal to the God. These are just the facts plain and simple.
You need to ask youself why is it so important for you to rewrite history and second guess what was really in their hearts and the hearts of America. You know the answer just roll over.
Oh look, you went for option 3. Amazing.
Oh an added bonus, not only was your post utterly irrelevant to what I said, you added in flat out lies.
fred the Declaration of Indpendence had a purpose. And so did the Mayflower Compact.
But laws we live by today must adhere to the Constitution and its Amendments. You know from these people:
James Madison, POTUS #4, and the chief architect of the U.S. Constitution & the Bill of Rights:
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.
(A Remonstrance . . to the Virginia General Assembly in 1785.)
Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.
(from letters to Edward Livingston and Robert Walsh)
Madison as president vetoed two bills that he believed would violate the separation of church and state. He also came to oppose the long-established practice of employing chaplains at public expense in the House of Representatives and Senate on the grounds that it violated the separation of church and state and the principles of religious freedom. (Library of Congress – James Madison Papers – Detached memorandum, ca. 1823.)
John Adams, POTUS #2:
I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved – the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! With the rational respect that is due to it, knavish priests have added prostitutions of it, that fill or might fill the blackest and bloodiest pages of human history. "
(in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, 09/03/1816)
The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.
(from A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America [1787-1788])
President John Adams and the U.S. Senate on behalf of the U.S.
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;
(from Article 11 of the U.S. treaty ratified with Tripoli in 1797)
Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of the sermons which had been preached at Boyle’s Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them. For the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to be much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.
(from his Autobiography)
Thomas Paine was very Deistic. He witness Quakers being hung in Massachusetts by other Christians:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
Thomas Jefferson had his own Deistic version of the Bible.
Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
(from Notes on the State of Virginia)
Of course Deism holds to the belief of God as the creator of the universe. But many Deists also believed that God did not interfere with the lives of his creation. And many Deists disbelieved in all of the "magic" in the Bible – some of them refuting the Bible and Christianity completely.
Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Paine, Mason & Madison all witnessed the violent persecution between Christian sects in their home states around the time the government was being established. So it is of no surprise that they needed a secular government and they knew the only way to enforce freedom of religion was to keep religion out of the government as much as possible.
Exactly why are you going down this line? I never said it was a christian nation hawaiiguest did.
Why is it non believers cannot understand the difference between the heart and soul of a people and its form of government?
Thought I would grab a few state const-itutions for you. There are 42 States that still claim God is the source in their const-itution. Either the majority of States lie through their teeth or God is in fact the source that allows you to be an atheist:
We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political and religious liberties, and desiring to secure them to ourselves and perpetuate them to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Const-itution
New York Const-itution 2004
WE THE PEOPLE of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our Freedom, in order to secure its blessings, DO ESTABLISH THIS CONST-ITUTION
We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Consti-tution.
We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our const-itutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this consti-tution.
We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our const-itutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this consti-tution
Last I heard this was a republic ..........................assume the position of submission to the proper authority.
No, fred, I don't believe hawaiiguest said this was a Christian nation. You might want to back that up.
My post indicates that several of the key framers were heavily influenced by Deism as evident by some of the quotes I selected.
The notion of God or Creator for a Deist was not anything like the notion of such held today by many fundamentalists.
So long as we have a Union, the states' laws cannot usurp the Constitution and God is not in the Constitution. There may be mention of God in some state const itutions, but as we've seen from history, the more and more a state tries to legislate something on a religious basis, the better the federal Const itution is upheld (the more the 1st Amendment is applied).
Ooohhh the states have words in their constitution. So fucking what. You lied about the signers, and now your just moving on without have the integrity to acknowledge your complete failure. Then again, if you did that, you'd have nothing else to say at this point.
=>You seem to have a good sense on these key Deist’s. What do you think their vision of God was? My thought is it was along the lines of Einstein.
=>Given that it was God who gave the go ahead for secular governments very early on in the Bible my complaint is not with the consti-tution.
=>As to States you can say what you will but when the states are grateful to Almighty God for our consti-tutional liberty as they expressly record at the very top you have acknowledgement of the source of their authority.
Suggest you watch Miracle on 34th street where Santa is declared real because he was recognized by the U.S. Postal service……ha………..well unlike the movie our States acknowledge God.
Now, if 42 states claim God is their authority and cause for their form of government is that proof as to the power of God today and thus Gods very existence?
"Now, if 42 states claim God is their authority and cause for their form of government is that proof as to the power of God today and thus Gods very existence?"
And here's another complete failure. So, did the earth turn from flat to spherical when enough people accepted it?
fred, at one point, those directed by (and frequently editing) the bible thought the earth was flat. Re your 42 states question, obviously, no.
I did not write the Declaration and I was not part of the 100% vote that, as evidenced by their signatures, asked God for approval before establishing our Const-itution.
I did not write the preambels for the States they thanked God for allowing our const-itutions. Take it up with your governor and State senate. Ask them why they attribute their authority to God Almiighty.
Post by 'fred' contains an instance of the ad populum fallacy.
Less than 400 years ago the Scientists that atheists rely upon for their world view believed in a 6,000 year old earth.
Fred, you pathetically stupid and ignorant man:
1. Science is self-correcting, very evidently so. Religion is stuck in dogma that is supposed to be correct for all time. Huge difference. A universe of it, in fact.
2. See above re the fallacy in your post.
3. It is the church that opposed the heliocentric view of our solar system (and note the current name of the system...). Google 'Galileo' and do try to understand.
When evidence shows religious dogma to be wrong, as it so often does, the world is stuck with fools like you who cling to the dogma.
Move on from your dogma, moron.
Creator does not automatically mean "Christian god". You constantly talk about atheists rewriting history, yet you can't even be honest about anything, history or otherwise. As evidenced by the dishonest implication that all the signers believed in your version of god.
And even if that were true, THAT DOESN'T MAKE YOUR GOD REAL. Your consistent fallback to moronic fallacies and your weasely style of "conversation" is so typical of the avergae apologist it's sickening.
fallacy spotting 101
No, it is evidence in fact not a conclusion based on the size or population of the set referenced.
You are the one who reached your assumption about God via ad populum.
Post by 'fred' is a bare-faced lie. His post clearly references the numbers involved with a clear implication that it is being referenced for his 'argument'.
From page 16, I kept seeing the number of comments increasing but wasn't sure where the comments actually were. I'm glad I finally found them here. Seeing the comments from people like mama k, ben, hawaiiguest, etc, I'm reminded of Charles Durning in "Best Little Wh.orehouse in Texas", and his penchant for the sidestep :)
Keep up the good work, Fred. The opposition grows more shrill and ineffectual by the minute :)
“ Science is self-correcting”
=>it must be as it is based on mans knowledge which is sequential. The truth of God never changes as it complete and perfect at all times and further not subject to time as we know it. As to religion I will agree with you.
“See above re the fallacy in your post. “
=>please specify which post as the one referred to by 101 is not ad populum.
“It is the church that opposed”
=>now you’re getting the picture and hopefully see that a church that does not follow God errors at the same rate as man
“When evidence shows religious dogma to be wrong”
=>tell me what evidence do you have where the truth of God is proven wrong? You can fill your trash bin with wrongs committed by the church.
Liar Fred, you've lost the argument. Here is a much better video too:
Fallacy spotting 101
“I did not write the Declaration and I was not part of the 100% vote that, as evidenced by their signatures, asked God for approval before establishing our Const-itution.
=>Go read the Declaration and note 56 out of 56 signers signed below the closing paragraph asking for the approval of the Supreme Judge of the World. It is simply a statement of fact without conclusion except on your part. You must now self destruct.
“I did not write the preambels for the States they thanked God for allowing our const-itutions. Take it up with your governor and State senate. Ask them why they attribute their authority to God Almiighty.”
=>I again do not propose any conclusion based on 42 states that thank God. Prime directive countdown commencing in 5, 4, 3, 2
Well, I suppose you even have to lie to yourself to believe the crap that's in the bible. So, for sure, fred is a liar and he just keeps on proving it.
You said christian nation I did not. I know better because that is hot button for atheists. That is like putting gay and marriage together on this web site.
Fact 78% of Americans are Christian. Fact America's heart and soul is Christian.
Let's pay no more attention to fred. He's been clearly shown to be a liar.
You really can't just admit when you've been caught being dishonest, and need to constantly jump from subject to subject to avoid any kind of intellectual honesty. I can see why you do that here, because it would be way too easy to be called on your utter lack of decency and honesty in person.
Tell me fred, do you do it on purpose in a pathetic attempt to frustrate people enough that they leave, being completely sickened by your utter disdain of reality?
Seriously fred, either address my post, or you're just showing that you can't be anything except a dishonest little toad who is so insecure in his own beliefs that he needs to be as dishonest as possible in any conversation he's in.
Whoever made a post using my screen name a few minutes ago (the mean one after my original nice one), you're just proving what a liar you are. You've not proved it to everyone here, so don't worry. But you've proved it to me and you've proved it to yourself. Shame on you.
Fred, sorry to have opened such a can of worms by voicing my support. Disregard any negative comments you see coming from my screen name :(
Actually, I am fred. Just to clear that up.
fallacy spotting 101
You have two problems. One the size of the population was not used in an argument for deductive reasoning as proof.
Second it is a self contained statement of fact not even used to promote a conclusion one way or the other
Do all atheists simply yell liar liar pants on fire then run out of the room when they are confronted with the truth? I am detecting a pattern
And now do you know what you've done? You've proven yourself a liar to THREE people here: myself, yourself, and fred. Because I'm not fred...
You know you're lying, but you continue to do it. Because you think that it's okay to lie about people who disagree with you. That's incredibly messed up, and petty, and shameful.
Again, shame on you...
"Actually, I am fred. Just to clear that up."
=>great, could you please look at what hawaiiguest is talking about and decode it for me. I have answered all hawii posts honestly and to the point.
Considering you have not addressed my posts, my calling you a dishonest moron is fully warranted. Especially when this is your pattern.
These guys asked for Gods will and blessings on the foundation of our freedom. The result of moving in Gods will was the greatest superpower ever known to man kind.
Then I said
And if you really want to assert that they were with god's will, then obviously god doesn't give a shit whether we have slaves or not. Because guess what, THEY WERE SLAVE OWNERS! Apparently, your god doesn't care if women aren't considered equal to men.
Then you went off about the signing of the declaration of independence.
HOW IS THAT ADDRESSING MY POST!?
“Another lie.You posted:These guys asked for Gods will and blessings on the foundation of our freedom.”
=>not a lie read the Declaration of Independence last paragraph above the signatures:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rect-itude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,
“ The result of moving in Gods will was the greatest superpower ever known to man kind.”
=>That is America as known to this day, the greatest superpower ever known.
The Bible says God will establish Kings and kingdoms according to his will. You yourself accuse God of natural disasters and call him a killer and claim my God does these things. If you are correct and I am correct God established America directly or simply allowed it. Either way it would be in God’s will. Thus the statement is correct.
You and I cannot both be wrong because there either is a God or there is not God. Take your pick what is your choice today?
Can’t have it both ways hawaii
“And if you really want to assert that they were with god's will, then obviously god doesn't give a s-hit whether we have slaves or not. Because guess what, THEY WERE SLAVE OWNERS! “
=>notice you are the one shifting topics again not me. You are wrong because allowing something does not translate into not caring. God says it is wrong not to love or be a blessing to others. The consequences are serious and lead to death unless you accept Christ’s work on the Cross as forgiveness for such hideous sin as treating people like slaves. You forget God rescued his people from slavery and bondage of Egypt
“Apparently, your god doesn't care if women aren't considered equal to men.”
=>God clearly states men and women are equal in his eyes. Verses related to that reflect proper order in relationships. Man is over woman just as Christ is over man and The Father is over the Son. Other verses Christ is the head of the church as husband is the head of the wife. This establishes the head of the church and uses an example that people of the Hebrew faith could understand 2,000 years ago. It is also very clear today unless you pull a verse out of context.
Wow, so now you're even sinking into your dishonesty so much that you will change how my post is presented to make it seem I'm calling just that single quote a lie? Amazing. You really are just pathetic.
You know fred, I'm starting to think you really don't believe what you say you do, but you're so enamored with the easy non-answer of "god done it" that you are willing to say anything to continue trying to force yourself to really believe it. Probably started with a non-critical eye at Pascal's Wager.
So where does the word that is thrown out quite a bit, "TOLERANCE" come into play?
They have an answer for that all ready to go: the Party line is that they tolerate everything but intolerance. But since they have such a broad, self-serving and capricious definition of what intolerance IS, it allows them to be intolerant of whatever they see fit.
Did you see what they did there? ;)
Zeroes for tolerance is a popular doctrine.
Zero tolerance is used by Athena and the Educratists to crucify every rambunctious boy that comes along.
So you also tolerate giving an honor like the opening prayer to the KKK, Neonazis, etc., right? After all, you want all prejudice to be "tolerated," right?
"tolerance" doesn't mean allowing murderers to happily go on murdering, or pedophiles to continue raping
"Christians are losers" (Ted Turner)
Illinois has PUblic Servants that are gung ho on human trafficking.
Zygotes for sale or rent
Wombs to let...fifty cents.
King of da mob.
i'd be glad to do the job since i am ordained. just give me a chance
Americult is definitely proslavery. They teach da wymen that they OWN the child in da womb. Must be mob doctrine.
Hypothesis Traces First Protocells Back to Emergence of Cell Membrane Bioenergetics
Dec. 20, 2012 — A coherent pathway – which starts from no more than rocks, water and carbon dioxide and leads to the emergence of the strange bio-energetic properties of living cells – has been traced for the first time in a major hypothesis paper in Cell this week.
Millions of innocents dead because qu eers crossed moral boundaries? Serious, you bet. Qu eers the people who gave AIDS to the world.
Until recently, the origins of the HIV-2 virus had remained relatively unexplored. HIV-2 is thought to come from the SIV in Sooty Mangabeys rather than chimpanzees, but the crossover to humans is believed to have happened in a similar way (i.e. through the butchering and consumption of monkey meat). It is far rarer, significantly less infectious and progresses more slowly to AIDS than HIV-1. As a result, it infects far fewer people, and is mainly confined to a few countries in West Africa.
In May 2003, a group of Belgian researchers published a report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. By analysing samples of the two different subtypes of HIV-2 (A and B) taken from infected individuals and SIV samples taken from sooty mangabeys, Dr Vandamme concluded that subtype A had passed into humans around 1940 and subtype B in 1945 (plus or minus 16 years or so). Her team of researchers also discovered that the virus had originated in Guinea-Bissau and that its spread was most likely precipitated by the independence war that took place in the country between 1963 and 1974 (Guinea-Bissau is a former Portuguese colony). Her theory was backed up by the fact that the first European cases of HIV-2 were discovered among Portuguese veterans of the war, many of whom had received blood transfusions or unsterile injections following injury, or had possibly had relationships with local women.
Given the evidence we have already looked at, it seems highly likely that Africa was indeed the continent where the transfer of HIV to humans first occurred (monkeys from Asia and South America have never been found to have SIVs that could cause HIV in humans). In May 2006, the same group of researchers who first identified the Pan troglodytes troglodytes strain of SIVcpz, announced that they had narrowed down the location of this particular strain to wild chimpanzees found in the forests of Southern Cameroon . By analysing 599 samples of chimp droppings (P. T. troglodytes are a highly endangered and thus protected species that cannot be killed or captured for testing), the researchers were able to obtain 34 specimens that reacted to a standard HIV DNA test, 12 of which gave results that were virtually indistinguishable from the reactions created by human HIV. The researchers therefore concluded that the chimpanzees found in this area were highly likely the origin of both the pandemic Group M of HIV-1 and of the far rarer Group N. The exact origins of Group O however remain unknown.
HIV Group N principally affects people living in South-central Cameroon, so it is not difficult to see how this outbreak started. Group M, the group that has caused the worldwide pandemic, was however first identified in Kinshasa, in the Democratic Repub lic of Con go. It is not entirely clear how it transferred from Cameroon to Kinshasa, but the most likely explanation is that an infected individual travelled south down the San gha river that runs through Southern Cam eroon to the River Con go and then on to Kin shasa, where the Group M epidemic probably began.
Just as we do not know exactly who spread the virus from Cam eroon to Kin shasa, how the virus spread from Africa to America is also not entirely clear. However, recent evidence suggests that the virus may have arrived via the Cari bbean island of H aiti.
I know that many will try to educate me. I simply don't get why in 2013 we are still blurring the lines between church and state. It seems so ridiculously old-fashioned to me.
You should keep quiet and just ask your hubby to explain it to you. He's the one you're supposed to help, not the commie mommie gubmint.
"just ask your hubby to explain it to you." aka "get back in the kitchen and fetch me another Pabst woman..."
lol?? is simply a troll that had to ride the shortbus to school and could only take his helmet off for bath time.
lol??, you seriously need to learn the definition of the following wqords:
Because you certainly are not the following:
You are in fact, a
The 50's have been over for a long time. Deal with it, you bitter slag.
Less than 1% of the American population is qu eer. The pastor did the right thing by denying that disgustingly sick 1% a forum to voice their whining evil lifestyle. Qu eers the people who gave the world AIDS.
It's always a good day when we get to be entertained by the comedic stylings of the pervert.
Not sure if serious...
"Qu eers the people who gave the world AIDS."
Qu eer lies and BS. Not a whole lot of monkey consumption in San Francisco is there? Qu eers the people who gave the whole world AIDS.
"Qu eers the people who gave the whole world AIDS."
Prejudice doesn't show much reason, and you're a great example of it.
"Not a whole lot of monkey consumption in San Francisco is there?"
I am absolutely convinced that Pervert Alert is a gay as can be, and does this schtick just to make fundies look stupid.
Kudos for the fine work PA.
This is terrible. It seems like progressives and liberals are against freedom of speech for anybody that stands for Judeo-Christian values. Any other religion or worldview is acceptable but not the values of the Bible. I'm tired about this perverted morality trying to be forced and pushed down the esophagus of 50% of Americans, not 1%. Judeo-Christians values will not be silenced. Stand up and call sin, sin. Sin is not happy its destroys individuals, communities and nations.
Hundreds of thousands of experts in this country disagree with you. They have stated, heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."
Like their heterosexual counterparts, many gay and lesbian people want to form stable, long-lasting, committed relationships. Indeed, many of them do and that large proportions are currently involved in such a relationship and that a substantial number of those couples have been together 10 or more years.
Research demonstrates that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners closely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships. Like heterosexual couples, same-sex couples form deep emotional attachments and commitments. Heterosexual and same-sex couples alike face similar issues concerning intimacy, love, equity, loyalty, and stability, and they go through similar processes to address those issues. Research examining the quality of intimate relationships also shows that gay and lesbian couples have levels of relationship satisfaction similar to or higher than those of heterosexual couples.
A large number of gay and lesbian couples raise children. Children and teenagers whose parents provide loving guidance in the context of secure home environments are more likely to flourish – and this is just as true for children of same-sex parents as it is for children of opposite-sex parents. Based on research findings, mental health professionals have also reached a consensus that the quality of relationships among significant adults in a child’s or adolescent’s life is associated with adjustment. When relationships between parents are characterized by love, warmth, cooperation, security, and mutual support, children and adolescents are more likely to show positive adjustment. In contrast, when relationships between parents are conflict-ridden and acrimonious, the adjustment of children and adolescents is likely to be less favorable. These correlations are just as true for children of same-sex parents as for children of opposite-sex parents.
Assertions that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children of heterosexual parents, have no support in the scientific research literature. On the contrary, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has consistently shown that the former are as fit and capable as the latter and that their children are as psychologically healthy and well adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.
It's hysterical that you think two people having a loving committed relationship is perverted. Speaks volumes about your prejudice and bigotry.
Less than 1% of the American people have brains and they are the minority persecuted most.
perhaps you should have stayed out of those bath houses back in the day, perv....
A preacher named Gigolo?
Only Obama could do that.
Hey, bring back old Brother GD America, "Rev." J Wright.
It's G I G L I O, you dork. Hush now.
Benediction at President Barack Obama's inauguration.
Please be seated.
How original ....
Short, sweet, and to the point.
Short, deluded, and pointless.
I can't fathom why you are proud to be an ignorant bigot.
i suppose that's what passes for clever in texas
It's idiots like you that give Texas an sh!tty name. That and that botched abortion Bush.
We put labels on packs of cigarettes warning of the risk of cancer. We had campaigns advising children to "Just Say No", campaigns against drunk driving, and campaigns to reduce obesity in children. Each of these could lead to death. Yet, when we know a man sleeping with a man as he would a woman could lead to HIV, AIDS, and death to both men, we want to keep quiet. Why are we putting the truth in the closet?
Roy, It goes further than that.
In the HIV "poz" world there is a community of gay men called "bug chasers" who intentionally try to get infected
by those with the virus. The health officials wink and nod at this outrage.
In addition, the STDs, including HIV are treated with kid gloves by the health community because of pressure exerted by gay front groups. They believe in "harm reduction" strategies where you allow the AIDS infected to copulate with the uninfected...just as long as you use "protection".
This is madness...but then... it all issues from a reprobate mind as Paul described the gay action he observed in the Bible
Those of us who have no inclination toward the gay life need to accept that hom.ose.xuality is a natural, healthy and moral lifestyle (as, indeed, most of those who are gay insist). As for the Biblical laws against hom.ose.xuality, let's remember that all the law codes in the Middle East in that era allegedly came from God (or a god). The point was that no one was to be above the law. Though well-intended, there were features in these law codes, including the laws God allegedly gave to Moses, that were declared by a later prophet to be "an abomination to God."
Your comment reminds me of the story of the 10-year-old boy who went to the who.rehouse and demanded to see a girl.
"You're kiod of young for this sort of thing," observed the keeper.
"Here's my hundred bucks," countered the boy. "I want a girl, and I want one who has the clap."
"Why in the world would you want that?" asked the keeper.
" I want to get the clap from her," replied the boy. "Then I can pass it on to my babysitter, who will pass it on to my dad, who will pass it on to my mom, who will pass it on to the mailman. And that will serve the sob right for stepping on my pet turtle this morning."
google "hiv awareness ads"
Oh, bullsh!t, Doug. Paul was said to be gay himself. Those thast b!tch the loudest are usually latent themselves.
Well, he can alway get a job down at the KKK.
Ellen is the new Jesus.
If you are an atheist, then please don't say Ellen is the new Jesus. It totally ruins her. I believe she is America's sweetheart.
Christians have always been people of the book. Some things in scripture are so plain that you either say that they are true and believe them or no I reject what the bible says because I know better. Christians are not given the option of rejecting the main and plain things in the bible. Rev. Giglio is just being an honest Christian and the President is not. I say this having voted for President Obama. We should all respect Rev. Giglio for not wanting to cause a distraction on Inaguration day. I sense that the Pastor respects the President and does not want to draw the focus towards himself.
NOBODY believes every word of the Bible, so what is your point?
Christians are people who never read their book. The number of theological misconceptions we regularly see hare are just staggering. Most clearly have never read it, and very very few of those who have understand it.
Obama could learn from Giglio.
He threw Rev. Wright under the bus...and now he throws Rev. Giglio under the bus.
True Christians grate against Obama's "advisers".
What tears are shed for the children ripped to shreds by mistaken drone attacks?
They are human beings too...just like the angels slaughtered at Sandy Hook!
Bush talked to God all the time. He also started a $1,000,000,000,000 war for false reasons and sent 4,000 Americans to die as well as tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. He was in charge while the worst attack ever happened on our soil and one of the worst disasters ever. He left us losing over a half million jobs each month and with the stock market plummeting.
Maybe it's better that the president isn't so religous.
So Bush and Obama are both play acting like Christians...no argument with that.
True Christians follow the Bible...not focus group trends and high paid policy wonks.
As Douglas rightfully said, Obama threw Rev. Wright under the bus...and now he throws Rev. Giglio under the bus.
And there is only one thing to do: send Obama a lot more buses!
Only problem is that contrary to the media smear against both Rev. Wright and Rev. Giglio,
both men were professing their faith in the face of a sinful nation...that practices and celebrates
racism and fornicating behavior.
Rev. Wright and Rev. Giglio ARE true Christians.
Fighting racism, slavery, and gay fornication is the Christian thing to do!
True Christians would skip all their hypocrisy and follow the Golden Rule. Doesn't happen.
As long as you and everyone else is just picking and choosing what you like from the Bible, why not select the Golden Rule? If you aren't going to pick on Christian (remarried) adulterers and Christians who eat seafood and Christians who have tattoos and the Three "Wise Men" who brought abominations to baby Jesus, then don't pick on gays.
For someone who, from appearances, is not a Christian, you sure mouth off a lot about what Christians should and/or shouldn't be. Kinda interesting.
Regardless of that, since you bring up what "True Christians" would or wouldn't do, can I interest you in the "No True Scotsman Fallacy"?
I report what the Bible says. Ever read it?
I'm afraid Stiffler has a very valid point, observer. Christians regularly tell others what they should be doing based on scripture, but they themselves totally violate many other scriptures. If being gay is wrong, then so is not selling your goods and giving the proceeds to the poor, or being wealthy, or not doing unto others, or not turning the other cheek, casting the first stone, and all the other behavior we regularly see Christians do that totally defies Biblical instructions.
Why should we listen to Christians when they are hypocritically violating many many other of their own rules? In other words, the behavior of Christians totally discredits Christianity.
NO ONE believes every word of the Bible. They just pick and choose what they like and ignore the rest.
It's all pick-and-choose HYPOCRISY. I am just pointing pointing out the hypocisy. I'm no different when it comes to picking and choosing except I'll be the FIRST to admit it.
Are you sure you didn't mean that the other way around, Brucey Lenn?
As in: "I'm afraid Observer has a very valid point, Stiffler."
Oh damn, I mixed that up. Observer has the valid point, Stiffler is the dingbat cross-sucker braindead loser.
Ben describes his set as the "main and plain". You can no more get two people to agree on the main and plain as you can get a cow to jump over the moon. And so it goes – it's always been like that – since the beginning. We know the decisions on what to include in the Bible caused rifts between sects when it was being assembled, and yet we don't have hardly any information on exactly who authored much of it. And you want to judge people on details? Please.
Observer, you said (a little further down the page) the following:
The Bible supports slavery. So tell us how you support slavery."
That's rather like saying "The medical profession supports bleeding by leeches."
You have a rather high opinion of yourself. For a prejudiced, snide and pompous prevaricator...
And in answer to your question, yes, I've read the bible. Enough to know that you're not nearly as objective an "Observer" as you'd like all of us here to think...
No problem. It's a good way to finish my night.
btw, do you realize that you have violated the FIRST RULE of Blogging: Never apologize. Instead ignore any questions or else just bail out and try to pretend you never saw the response. :)
I kinda thought you mixed that up Brucey based on the rest that you wrote. I'm glad you cleared that up.
Speaking of a "prejudiced, snide and pompous prevaricator", if you actually had read the Bible you';d know it supports slavery and even tells how much you can hurt your slaves without punishment..
Read it sometime....
And I think Douglas the bigot should know that my reply to Ben is directed at him.
Okay, I'll follow the rules: I'm sorry I ever said I'm sorry . . . uh, oh damn, this is harder than I thought.
Observer, if you're going to be intentionally dense, there's no need in talking to you. Or did you honestly not understand the comparison I made?
i.e., doctors used to routinely bleed with leeches and cupping. they no longer do.
the old testament (specifically, the Mosaic laws) did indeed have rulings on how one could treat slaves, since in Moses' time there were slaves. Slavery is now illegal in all Christian nations. By you saying "The Bible supports slavery" is a prevarication, much akin to (as I mentioned) implying that doctors still encourage bleeding by leeches.
If you had said "The Bible supported slavery" you'd be speaking a bit closer to the truth, but then you could not have asked Douglas about how he supports slavery.
And you DO throw out that "I've read the bible. Have you?" bit rather a lot as well. Which is where the pomposity I mentioned comes in.
I'm sorry that you're sorry that I'm sorry, but I'd better not apologize.
Actually, I do apologize when I am wrong. I have a very high regard for truth.
"If you had said "The Bible supported slavery" you'd be speaking a bit closer to the truth, but then you could not have asked Douglas about how he supports slavery."
WRONG. Nowhere does the Bible say that slavery is over. Wishful thinking doesn't work.
Like so much nonsense in the Bible, people don't support slavery or discimination against women and the handicapped because they are SMARTER than that and don't blindly follow what the Bible said..
I'm not pompous when I tell Christians to read the Bible. I am 100% in favor of ALL of them reading the Bible.
And you DO throw out that "I've read the bible. Have you?" bit rather a lot as well. Which is where the pomposity I mentioned comes in.
@Stiffler – Your analogy falls apart when you realize that those horrid and cruel and sick old covenants were from God, not humans. That makes it very different from the development of medicine that went through some very strange techniques. God should have known better, whereas doctors were groping in the dark and using bad logic (good thing for the scientific method, yeah?).
Your point actually supports the position that God and the Bible are man-made, because the great laws of god are as backwards and inhuman as leeches, and they developed as well. A perfect god would never have had laws like that.
Thanks for proving our side for us.
@Observer: I'm soryy you are sorry that I am sorry that you are sorry that I . . . oh go fuck off!!!
Ooops. I left two lines in from a copy and paste that should have been deleted.
So do you trot out all this slavery info for your Jewish friends, Brucey? Assuming you have any, that is? Do you attack them for what's in the Torah, and in the commentaries on it (the Talmud)? Or do you choose to focus all your virulent hatred only on Christians?
And for the record, by your logic it would seem to be impossible (or pointless) to have a rational discourse on the matter of God, Christianity, and the Mosaic Laws. In your view, either they (the Mosaic laws) are from God (in which case God is evil) or from man (in which case God doesn't exist, since he wouldn't allow such evil to take place in His name.) Nice SILENCING, that.
And for the record, maybe you could do with reading the bible. Just a bit:
Sorry – I have to throw this in, for others so that they can think about the recent responses in light of what someone else said a couple hundred years ago when Christian sects were feuding with one another in his home state:
(James Madison, chief architect of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, 4th POTUS – from A Memorial and Remonstrance delivered to the Va. General Assembly)
Hmm. Pretty much seems like not much has changed in two hundred years with these "Christian" sects
You're grasping at straws. For real. Here's a quote:
Me: "If you had said "The Bible supported slavery" you'd be speaking a bit closer to the truth, but then you could not have asked Douglas about how he supports slavery."
You: WRONG. Nowhere does the Bible say that slavery is over. Wishful thinking doesn't work.
Are you seriously contending that, since a 2000 year old (or so) book doesn't somewhere in there say "OKAY FOLKS, SLAVERY IS OVER WITH" that it currently condones and approves slavery?
I'm speechless. Your selective, disingenuous debate BS boggles the mind. You are fooling no one. Other than (perhaps?) yourself.
Are you a troll? Have I been trolled? I'd like to think so, rather than believe that someone can be as deliberately deceptive and prejudiced as you...
Speaking of "selective, disingenuous debate BS", NOWHERE does the Bible or God say that slavery is WRONG and must be stopped. Instead it tells how much you can injure your slave WITHOUT PUNISHMENT. It also says you can marry her and she has NO CHOICE. Oooops. So much for how important marriage is to God.
Obviously you haven't read much of the Bible. I'll bail out now so you can maybe spend time reading the Bible so you'll have a much better idea what you are trying to talk about.. Good luck.
"Instead ignore any questions or else just bail out and try to pretend you never saw the response."
At least you're consistent...
Odd how you supposed Christians say you have to do what the Bible says, but then pick and choose what's convenient for you. Christianity is a New Testament religion, but you use the Old Testament to spew hatred. If you were that adamant about following the Bible, especially the Old Testament, you've give yourself up to be stoned to death for cooking a meal on Sunday. Masturbation was grounds for death in the Old Testament. Would hate to see the line of people up for death by stoning for violating that one.
Stiffler: "Slavery is now illegal in all Christian nations."
So what changed? What changed since the Bible that convinces a "Christian" (well what you would call a Christian to keep things simple since that part never is) to:
A. accept that slavery is wrong, while
B. ignoring the text regarding slavery in the Bible as standard protocol
Off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure that nowhere in the bible is masturbation mentioned. If you are speaking of Onan, his sin was "coitus interuptus" (i.e., he was having s-ex and he "pulled out" before ejaculating, which very much goes against the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply." And which, arguably, would seem to have been punished rather harshly. And would still leave a lot of us in trouble. It is part of the rationale that Catholics use for being against birth control.)
Every sperm is sacred . . . .
I could barely figure out your question, since it's worded so oddly. But now that I've (I think?) figured out what you're asking of me, my answer would have to be:
"I have no idea".
Since you've asked the question of me, though, I'm assuming you have an answer to it? Would you care to share it with us?
Well I thought you were the Christian, Stiffler. Maybe I was wrong. You don't know why the Christian religion no longer condones slavery? Wow. OK. Well think about that a bit. Then run the whole thing back through with widows and then again with gay couples. But there must be some history and justification that all of Christianity now endorses a slave-free existence that would explain why the way of life some 2000 years ago is not appropriate now. Give that puzzle a shot.
@ mama k-
well then you're very foolish indeed, because I never said I was a Christian...
No matter, Stiffler, the puzzle is still good regardless of your own religion. Of course, you also have many options as we all do – you could say you also refute the entire Bible, or you refute the NT, or your neither of those. Maybe you're not spiritual. Maybe you're religion is brand new. But that's why I asked the question that way. Because it applies really to anyone trying to live their life, but also trying to interpret ancient writings and judging other based on said writings. It shouldn't be that difficult a question to answer. But if you are unable to, I'll ask it from some others later in the morning.
You're kind of talking in circles. And being rather stupidly coy. My confusion may still lie in how weirdly you are wording yourself. Is English not your primary language? Did you not attend college? Or are you perhaps drunk, or on medication? Because, yes, your sentences are kind of odd. About the kindest thing I can say of you is that it is as if you're attempting to seem a bit more clever and intelligent than you really are. Why all the mystery? You've asked me what is (at best) a rather pointless and uninteresting question, one that I am rapidly losing interest in, and (at worst) a question that I'm beginning to wonder if you actually have an answer to. Or, if you have an answer to it, will I (or ANY of us, at this point) care about it when you unveil it with a whoosh of showmanship (sorry, showwomanship.) Seriously. You're losing probably your only audience (me) at this point. Get this tedious discussion over with, if it's even worth it at this point....
Oh well, I'm officially bored with you. Sorry.
A page or so back, Jean Baptiste, Hobby Lobby, Pete Smith and Simian Style-itis have some interesting things to say, if you're still looking for someone to spar with. Auf Wiedersehen.
The "drunk/English not your first language" thing is not only a cheap shot, it is an embarassment to you. She is far more articulate and clear than you.
Be embarassed that you went for such a lame and self-defeating schtick.
160 years ago many good "Christians of the book " said that their god wanted them to own black people. 60 years ago many good "Christians of the book" said that no "colored" folks could marry white folks, and those "colored" kids should just be glad we let them go to their own schools. Even today there are many God 'Christians of the book' who say that women should be subserviant to men.
We get it. Many god "Christians of the book" can only feel good about themselves when they hate some other groups.
Who decides what the "main things" are in the bible. Let's see. I'm a Christian, and I can just disregard everything in the bible that I don't agree with because it's not a "main thing," but for those things I decide are "main things" I can proclaim them as immoral and evil acts. It's called cherry-picking you axx-wipe.
Ben, you are so right that people don't read the Bible. I'm certain that you avoid shellfish, don't cut your hair, stone disobedient children, sell your daughter into slavery, etc. That's all in the Bible too. Marriage as defined by the Bible includes polygamy, concubines, rapists marrying their victims, and more. If you'd like to advocate for the Biblical definition of marriage, make sure you advocate for ALL of the definitions, or else you're being a hypocrit.
I think you "forgot" that Jesus said the second greatest commandment was to love your neighbor as yourself.
Yes, christianlady – that kind of gets to the heart of the question I asked very late last night at:January 11, 2013 at 2:38 am. (above). I see that "Stiffler" coudn't come up with a good answer, and chose to wait and sneak in a jab after I retired. But this gets to the heart of what people who try to pretend the Bible is "the Word" do not want to face.
Stiffler: not the sharpest crayon in the box.
What part of HE pulled out of it don't you understand?? The President didn't throw him under the bus, you bigot. S T F U.
Go Brother Giglio!
You exhibit true Christian principles!
You fight against the enslavement of human beings
and agaijnst the satanic sinful practice of gay coitus.
You should be nominated for a Nobel Prize!
God knows what you do and he will reward you for being a faithful and trusted servant.
Stand up to the enslavers and fornicators.
We are fully in support of you and your mission!
Crazy, just plain crazy. It is truly sad to see how very crazy and hate-filled Christians are.
Christians: The most hate-filled evil group of people that ever existed. Pigs in human form.
"agaijnst the satanic sinful practice of gay coitus."
The scriptures actually say nothing about homosexuality as a psychosexual orientation. Our understandings of sexual orientation are distinctly modern ones that were not present in the minds of Scripture writers. A few passages of Scripture (seven at the most) object to certain types of same-sex expressions or acts. The particular acts in question, however, are sexual expressions which are exploitative, oppressive, commercialized, or offensive to ancient purity rituals. There is no Scriptural guidance for same-sex relationships which are loving and mutually respecting. Guidelines for these relationships should come from the same general Scriptural norms that apply to heterosexual relationships.
Since the Bible prohibits gay coitus and gay relationships the idea of gay marriage can only
be seen for what it is...an affront to God.
Sin is nothing to celebrate. It is time to repent.
The Bible supports slavery. So tell us how you support slavery.
Doug, the reason why America is making gay marriage legal is because so many people now realize that the bible is full of garbage and God doesn't exist. Since God doesn't exist, it's not an affront; it's called equality.
Observer...you are wrong again.
In the New Testament Jesus declared that no man is a slave...but that he is greatest is the one who is ready to serve.
He said this as he washed the feet of his apostles...but then as an atheist you don't get it.
Repent Observer...your salvation is at risk!
The Bible not only supported slavery, it gave rules on how badly you can HURT your slave without punishment.
Read it sometime.
A lot of Christians happen to disagree with you Douglas. There are quite a number of churches of different denominations performing gay marriages in the United States and elsewhere (to now include Washington National Cathedral). But like many Christians, I guess its easier, more natural for you to look at another Christian, pick out your favorite difference and say that they are not a Christian. Sadly, for many, that's the Christian way – all the way back to the very beginning.
Although what you said can be considered something that was written in the Bible some may think you are implying that it was ok to hurt a slave. God always reminded the chosen ones that they were oppressed slaves in Egypt. God was saying be nice con't be like Egypt or the people around you.
The Bible says you can hurt your slave enough so that if they recover in two days, everything is fine. Do you treat your wife that way?
Actually, now that I think about it I am offended that you would intentionally insult my Lord by accusing Him of condoning slavery. At first I gave you the benefit of the doubt because some are honestly mistaken on the slavery issue. You are not mistaken as you know the Bible perhaps better than I do. What you read is limits that were placed on the barbaric nature of man. God limits evil and we should be thankful for that.
Next time you pull verses out of context, out of their time, out of their place and out of context from the authors intent and audience get out another nail and pound it into the hands and feet of Christ.
– Leviticus 25:44-46 “As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.”
Exodus 21:20-21 “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property” [God]
God warned them I am the Lord your God who delivered you out of Egypt. These people to whom these laws were directed just came out of 430 years as oppressed slaves. They were warned not to oppress others as they were oppressed ruthlessly. We have no idea why these few rules were pulled out of the many cases Mosses presided over but what we do know is they never condoned harming others rather set punishment and warning against it.
You act as if the labor economics 3,400 years ago resembled modern times. You pluck 6 verses out of 28,000 and put a condescending spin on it contrary to the nature of God and writing style of the Hebrew.
Because that's precisely what fundamentalist Christians do to make one of their points, fred; points that they rarely agree with among other Christians. Sorry, that's the nature of the beast.
repent? from what? violating the likes and dislikes of iron age sheep boinkers?
Douglas says, "......Repent Observer...your salvation is at risk!".................... Nope, he doesn't have anything at risk. 'Sides, to repent or rethink means one could think in the first place. Now, original Israel seriously lost it.........."1Cr 14:21 In the law it is written, With [men of] other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord."....The A&A's can always listen to janice joplin..." Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose".
"Since the Bible prohibits gay coitus and gay relationships the idea of gay marriage can only
be seen for what it is...an affront to God."
No it doesn't only prejudice people read it that way. The scriptures actually say nothing about homosexuality as a psychosexual orientation. Our understandings of sexual orientation are distinctly modern ones that were not present in the minds of Scripture writers. A few passages of Scripture (seven at the most) object to certain types of same-sex expressions or acts. The particular acts in question, however, are sexual expressions which are exploitative, oppressive, commercialized, or offensive to ancient purity rituals. There is no Scriptural guidance for same-sex relationships which are loving and mutually respecting. Guidelines for these relationships should come from the same general Scriptural norms that apply to heterosexual relationships.
James sayz, ".......There is no Scriptural guidance for same-se x relationships which are loving and mutually respecting......" There are no guidelines found in scripture for loving relationships for the people of the planet Jabberwocky.
You are very wrong about that. The Bible is clear about $exual lusts. If you wish to carve out an exception for ho-mo$exual conduct you may as well burn the Bible. In short the only thing that would be left of the Bible is what Jefferson attempted to do in constructing the good thoughts and ways of Jesus. This makes all non believers happy as now what we have left is just another real good natured guy that none would throw darts at.
Kumbi Ya to all
Finally fred said something of value..."you might as well burn the bible". Congrats fred, you've taken your first step
Let me ask you, fred – do you think anyone who is true to their faith, and who follows the Bible as not only true, but the basis for their belief, should feel that slavery is wrong (regardless of the current laws in their home country)? (I'm not limiting this question for just Christians.)
You know your Bible! That is one of the themes beginning with first of mankind. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Anyone that thinks Christians or the Chosen ones had a leg up on goodness needs to read the Bible. The Chosen were swatted down by God over and over again because they refused to do as their own God demanded. Christians had it easier as they were given the Holy Spirit that dwelled inside of them to continue in the way of Christ. But, we all fall short which brings us to our knees asking for forgiveness once again. Not a complicated story at all really.
All the writers of the Bible over 1500 years pointed to the same thing. We are ugly without Christ (i.e. God) and exist in a fallen state when we get off the way that was made for man.
I can imagine an existence where everyone stayed on that path. We need to wait for the new heaven and the new earth as promised because it’s not going to happen here.
Well excuse me if I missed it, fred, but I don't see an answer to my question there.
Without getting into an exhaustive definition of what is slavery, it is wrong to mistreat anyone. In the Old Testament the ancients like Able, Abraham, Noah, Joseph etc. were prime examples of men that had a heart inclined towards goodness. Those of Abraham’s household (even servants) were part of the household and treated as such. Jesus came to serve not to be served.
My employees are not my slaves even though I can be task master at times. Everyone is to be treated in a loving way as you would want to be treated according to Christ. To those that still somehow are hung up on the OT or Quran (extracted from the Talmud) God also made it clear you are not to be like Egypt (symbolic of the world around you) in your treatment of others. The kindness and giving nature of Able, Abraham and Joseph are very clear.
OK – thank you for your response, fred. I have asked the question again of others on page 16 to see what others think. I will leave this thread and observe possible other responses there.
“Well excuse me if I missed it, fred, but I don't see an answer to my question there.”
=>I was responding to your previous post earlier when I had a conference call come in which delayed hitting the reply button. I was responding to:
“mama k: Because that's precisely what fundamentalist Christians do to make one of their points, fred; points that they rarely agree with among other Christians. Sorry, that's the nature of the beast.”
Looks like Philip Douglas has a new catch phrase. "Gay coitus". Come out of the closet, Mr. Douglas, it's time you got some air!!!
The A&A's have a very over valued opinion of their opinions.
In God We Trust wasn't added to money until the nineteenth century, almost a century after the SECULAR Const. was signed. How are we a Chri stian nat ion again??? Oh, that's right...we're not. :/
1957, to be exact
In God We Trust – test
Failed test. Adding those words in the 1950s only made America worse.
@Results: Completely agreed. I was testing to see if CNN would allow me to post those words, because I had attempted to make a post about five times, and the post failed to upload every single time.
See my above comment regarding it.
The ti.t in Consti.tution did you in.
You said, "I was testing to see if CNN would allow me to post those words, because I had attempted to make a post about five times, and the post failed to upload every single time."
CNN uses WordPress blogs for their opinion pieces, and they use automated censoring that looks for words, or fragments of words, that are considered offensive. If your post doesn't show up, it most likely had a forbidden word in it.
On the Belief Blog, repeat posts, even those that were previously censored and not displayed, will show a message stating that you posted it before.
The following words or word fragments will get your post censored (list is incomplete):
arse as in Arsenal
cock as in cockatiel
coon as in cocoon
cum as in circumstance
homo as in homosexual
rape as in grape
sex as in homosexual
spic as in despicable
tit as in constitution or title
vag as in vague
To circumvent the filters you can break up the words by putting an extra character in, like: consti.tution (breaking the oh so naughty "tit").
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.