home
RSS
June 21st, 2012
09:40 AM ET

Harsh anti-gay preaching alarms gay rights supporters and Christian conservatives alike

By Richard Allen Greene, CNN

(CNN) - The little boy with a buzz cut shows no sign of nervousness as he sings in front of the church congregation.

Dressed in a pressed white shirt and blue sweater vest, he holds the microphone and sings that the Bible is right, then lets loose the line that brings whoops from the congregation: "Ain't no homo gonna make it to heaven."

Next to him, an adult beams as worshippers rise to their feet and cheer.

The scene was captured on video and anonymously posted online, receiving hundreds of thousands of views on YouTube since the end of May. It appears to show a service at the Apostolic Truth Tabernacle in Greensburg, Indiana.

The church quickly posted on its website that its pastor and members "do not condone, teach, or practice hate of any person for any reason."

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

But the chubby boy with the buzz cut isn't the only one going viral with harshly worded anti-gay pronouncements in church.

In recent weeks, Pastor Charles Worley in North Carolina preached that lesbians and gay men should be fenced in and left to die out, while Pastor Curtis Knapp in Kansas said the government should kill homosexuals.

"They won't, but they should," Knapp said, according to a recording of his sermon posted online. Worley’s sermon was captured on video and also went viral.

The incidents drew outrage and condemnation from gay rights supporters.

But they also left many Christians uncomfortable - even those who call themselves conservative.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

One leading expert on American Protestantism has a simple explanation for why some pastors preach against homosexuality while others go further, encouraging violence against gay people.

"There is a significant percentage who think it's a sin," Ed Stetzer said of homosexuality. "And there are a small minority who are stupid."

Stetzer is president of LifeWay Research, which is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. Worley and Knapp both belong to Independent Baptist churches and are not part of the Southern Baptist Convention, which is the second largest Christian denomination in the United States.

Many conservative Christians would agree with pastors such as Worley and Knapp that homosexual behavior is fundamentally wrong, Stetzer said.

But that doesn't mean they support them or their sermons, he added.

"If you asked, they would say that's really unhelpful and stupid," he said.

But the Rev. Robin Lunn said these preachers are much worse than that. She calls such pastors "genocidal."

Opinion: Why some Christians focus on gays

"If someone is talking about rounding up me and all my kind in a pen, what is the difference between that and what is happening in Syria and Sudan and what happened in Germany and Poland during World War II?" asked Lunn, executive director of the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists.

"We are talking about people who believe somehow that the Second Coming is connected to a Final Solution," said Lunn, a lesbian, using the Nazi term for the mass murder of Jews in the Holocaust.

"I think these men expressed something that many Baptist preachers think," Lunn said. "We need to stand up and denounce this powerfully."

Her group campaigns for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender inclusion across all Baptist churches. It has its origins in the American Baptist Churches movement but is not connected to any one Baptist group or denomination, she said.

"It seems to me that this is an opportunity to show some solidarity around the belief that all people are children of God regardless of what you think about someone's 'lifestyle,' " she said.

Opinion: The Christian case for gay marriage

One of the most respected voices in conservative Christianity agrees with Lunn, up to a point.

"The Gospel does not condemn homosexuals, it condemns homosexuality," said R. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. "The Bible makes clear that homosexuality is a sin, in the context of making clear that every person is a sinner."

What preachers such as Worley and Knapp are doing wrong, he said, is that they are "not merely rendering a moral judgment on homosexuality but extending it to the condemnation of people. They are speaking with a certain venom and hatred."

He called their sermons "reprehensible."

And, he said, "they are doing grave harm to the cause of conservative Christianity by speaking messages of hate that obscure the message of the church."

"What you're seeing here is a very dangerous fringe that does not represent conservative Christianity in America," he said.

About one-third of Protestant pastors talk to their congregations about homosexuality several times a year, while another third do so "rarely," data from LifeWay Research suggests.

The rest do so anywhere from never to several times a month, according to a 2008 telephone survey of 1,002 Protestant pastors across the country and a wide range of denominations.

Half of the pastors who preached about homosexuality several times a year identified themselves as "very conservative," while a quarter of those who did said they were liberal or very liberal.

LifeWay’s Stetzer argued that it was important to remember that many Americans - not just Christian pastors - think homosexuality is wrong.

A Gallup Poll last month found that 54% of Americans saw homosexuality as "morally acceptable," while 42% said it was "morally wrong."

"This is not a small minority," Stetzer said. "Are all of those people going to be tarred by the comments of a few pastors?"

The sermons of Worley, Knapp and those like them do not have a great influence, Stetzer said, calling them "isolated."

"I've never heard of or seen a violent confrontation" that resulted from Christian preaching, he said.

But Ross Murray, director of religion, faith and values at the gay rights group Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, or GLAAD, said it's not that simple.

"When pastors preach they want people to listen to their words and pay attention to them," he said. "It's an exhortation to believe and think and act in accordance with the Gospel."

And he said he's not worried only about people who might act on violent preaching they hear in church. He said he's also concerned about young churchgoers grappling with being gay or lesbian themselves.

"You get brought to church; you have told nobody about this and you hear your pastor preaching or this child singing. What this tells you is that the church is not a safe place, not a place where you are going to experience love and grace," he said.

Pastors such as Worley and Knapp "give Christianity a bad name," he said.

And more than that, they are dangerous, he said. There were a record number of murders of members of sexual minorities in the United States last year, he said, citing a study out this month by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs.

He conceded that no link has been proven between preaching and attacks on homosexuals, but he argued that preaching matters.

"To say that people shouldn't take you seriously when you say something violent is disingenuous. Our words have consequences," Murray said. "Our words have real meaning."

- Newsdesk editor, The CNN Wire

Filed under: Christianity • Homosexuality

soundoff (1,795 Responses)
  1. I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

    This issue illustrates the fundamental paradox with Evangelical Protestantism – the struggle to harmonize orthodoxy with the notion of finding an individual path to God through study of the scripture.

    Those who support orthodoxy (like Mr. Mohler) know that unambiguous hate speech coming from the pulpit is inconsistent with a consensus view of the teachings of Christ and they can't fix it. It also begs the question, what other stupid hateful messages do these people preach in the name of Jesus? By definition, Evangelical Protestantism endorses an individual interpretation of scripture with zero trained theological oversight.

    This vile hate speech is protected. It is undiluted freedom of religious expression. It shows up Evangelical Protestantism for what it so often can be: arbitrary interpretation of myths by the ignorant and hateful.

    June 21, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Accurate.

      Alas freedom means having the right to hate whomever you choose.

      Belief systems aren't swept away, they are eroded. It takes time 😦

      So just keep urinating on any church you see, and soon enough they shall fade into antiquity where they belong.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:25 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @William Demuth,

      I am compelled to disagree with your last sentences. I don't think that attacking churches and people who hold a religious faith is right. Deeply held beliefs deserve respect – even when they require cognitive dissonance on the part of the believer.

      I do think there is a responsibility to point out hypocrisy in the actions of people where those actions differ from the religion they profess – which is essentially what this article avoids. It is the elephant in the room.

      We need to lead by example and demonstrate that people who place their faith in the measurable, repeatable and predictable approaches of the scientific method can lead full and moral lives, without resorting to myth as a code of conduct.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:35 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Idealism and Atheism seem to go hand in hand.

      That is why they have never held power.

      We owe it to future generations to put an end to the stupidity by any and all means.

      Theists have slaughtered your ancestors because they were passive, but I do not intend to let me or mine suffer the same fate.

      Theists are slowly and inexorably dragging the human race to the brink, and I intend to take an active stance against them, for the sake of my nation, my world and my children

      June 21, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
    • Primewonk

      @ not a GOPer – you said, "Deeply held beliefs deserve respect – even when they require cognitive dissonance on the part of the believer."

      I disagree with this statement. The pastors mentioned in the article call for the internment of gay citizens, and the governmental extermination of gay citizens. There is absolutely no reason to respect these beliefs.

      Half of all republicans in Mississipp said interracial marriage should be illegal. I would hazard a guess that 90+% of these people are fundamentalist christians. There is absolutley no reason to respect those beliefs.

      Half of all US citizens – the overwhelming majority who are fundamentalist christians believe the earth and universe are less than 10,000 years old. This flies in the face of actual facts. Again, these beliefs deserve no respect.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Viva la revolución, amigo.

      I'll take my chances and try not to sink to their level.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @PrimeWonk,

      did you read my second sentence, where I said there is a responsibility to point out hypocrisy?

      Perhaps you misunderstand the notion of respect. You can respectfully disagree with a bigot without respecting bigotry. Nor is it effective to resort to name-calling and reductio ab adsurdum arguments. These approaches that are all too common here, just make people with a serious point to make look silly.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Ok, so here is the plan.

      We stoke the flames of hatred between the groups and make them paranoid by supporting theocracies and religious dictatorships the world over

      We then finance and fight wars in religious areas, and send our most religious citizens to die in them.

      Perhaps we even put a member of a lesser cult into the Whitehouse, further disenfranchising Protestants.

      Just a few nudges like this, and the Fundies may get the Armageddon the baby Jesus promised them for Christmas!

      June 21, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • William Demuth

      I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      I find it pleasent that the reduction to the absurd argument is used against us.

      Of all the uses it has had in history, the Christian permutation of that thought process into the idea of hell, and the TRILLIONS of idiotic humans that have bought into it have been an endless source of joy for me!

      Do as I say or you shall be damned!

      Jeez, are we stupid or what? Maybe reality would be better place without us!

      June 21, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @William,

      I truly understand the frustration and have no argument with you.

      But to say, "I reject your reality and insist on replacing it with mine" inevitably hits a wall and just makes that wall stronger.

      The key is in weakening the wall. Only by illuminating their own cognitive dissonance by highlighting the hypocrisy of religious adherence can we erode the bulwark entrenched by "I believe because I believe".

      June 21, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • William Demuth

      I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Well, give it a shot, but I suspect it is genetic.

      The only way to stop it, is to prevent it from happening.

      Thats why I support Medicaid funded abortions, but only in the South. Plus they seem vulnerable to the whole Rah Rah America thing, so I figure we can get them killed in Iran.

      Plus hard times mean more taxes, so if we need to raise cash, we can tax the church.

      Starve the beast of cash and recruits, and it, like all other infections may pass.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • Todd

      The thing that gets me is there are so many different types, or sects of christians and they all disagree with each other. Why? Because their manual is a 1st century, symbolic text story book. Any one verse can mean 100 different things. These people are a disease.

      June 21, 2012 at 7:52 pm |
  2. Jesus Christ

    Top Ten Signs You're a Christian; and I have to apologize that I created them...
    10 – You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
    9 – You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
    8 – You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
    7 – Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
    6 – You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
    5 – You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
    4 – You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs – though excluding those in all rival sects – will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
    3 – While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
    2 – You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
    1 – You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history – but still call yourself a Christian.

    June 21, 2012 at 11:54 am |
    • The Knight of God

      Don't play like that man. Some things you say are true some aren't but that shows that you don't know much about a true Christian. If I called myself an atheist but claimed to believe in God at the same time am I still an Atheist? No... but I would persist with the belief that I am an atheist... point is, even though one calls himself a Christian means they abide by teh Word. If they don't then, are they really christian? Now, can we bunch all the atheists in one group? We got militants, peaceful ones, moderates, etc.... now what if I believed all of them were like Stalin and the rest of USSR, trying to overthrow religion and enact state atheism? Wouldn't be a logical conclusion. So first, learn what the Word truly means before spouting off the handle about things you have no idea about.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
    • The Knight of God

      By the way, God answers our prayers 100% of the time 😉

      June 21, 2012 at 12:13 pm |
    • Dyllis

      JC, what a great post.

      And you exist! (unlike the Christian Jesus, who has been dead for a very long time)

      June 21, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
    • joshuastringer

      Strawmen based off good questions. Even legit questions that deserved to be answered and honestly explored. But ultimately those are massive over-generalizations and strawmen arguments that won't be won or lost on a CNN message board.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
    • Huebert

      @Knight of god

      Please don't resort to the old "God always answers prayers he just usually answers no" argument. If that is the case you can get the same result you get by praying to god by praying to my cat. The only real difference is that my cat is real.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • An Atheist

      Knight,

      You seem to be reasonable so I am not hacking on you personally, but your say "even though one calls himself a Christian means they abide by teh Word." I assume, by 'Word' you mean Jesus. All the people you say don't live by the "Word", say they do. You can claim your interpretation is correct BUT they can too. Just take the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus contradicts himself a couple of different times. You would need to be able to show your interpretation is objectively true, and that is just not possible in religion, interpretation by definition is subjective.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:23 pm |
    • The Knight of God

      Oh the ol' "My cat is real..." type argument. This is assuming you know everything and then if that was the case, maybe we should worship you since you seem to know that God definitely don't exist, so what's the meaning of life oh great sage of wisdom? Free me 😀

      June 21, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
    • The Knight of God

      @An Atheist

      Now you I most respect... intelligent and respectful... that's the only kind of atheists I enjoy talking to. To be honest, I completely understand why people don't like "Christians" and what you say is definitely true. That's my goal, to prove what I'm saying is true not just have people believe it. Since this is a public forum and so many badgers from all sides, I am not going to waste time here and do that. I just tend to comment and that's it. But people like you, I would love to just sit down and talk with. Even if you don't believe, I would feel it was a civil and productive discussion. My mission is not so much for you though... I have to focus on these self professed Christians and show them why they are wrong and they need to refer back to the Word and study. But you do have wisdom... thank you.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • An Atheist

      Knight,

      I appeciate your kind words but I have to admit I can be mean and nasty, I tend to respond in kind to the person posting. I do like to have civil conversations more than throwing barbs. I understand your point of not wanting to get into it here but this issue of religious subjectivity is the main reason I am an atheist. Truth is not opinion and all religion is opinion. I don't have a problem with the gereral philosophy of Jesus but that philosophy is not original to him.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
    • The Knight of God

      @An Athiest

      You're a prime example of something I've been preaching myself... some atheists act more christians than the christians themselves. Like I said, I won't get too deep into the faith itself here but this must be said. Religion is subjective, its man's imagination to create their own god and make them feel whole. That's what I believe and to most people that's like a contradiction because I am a Christian. I understand that, believe me I do. I may be Christian but I do understand how the world thinks.

      My faith in Christ is not based off tradition of men, nor the man from the pulpit. One can call this religion still but I believe not only because of I've been taught that but because of my own experiences with God. And I love science and when it comes to anything, I am not one to be like well God did it. True He is in control of everything but things are in place as to the exact reason how it happened. I don't fully believe in the idea that faith in blind. Some things can be proven from God or otherwise in the world. God is objective even when religion is subjective. That's who I go to for wisdom, I lost faith in Christian religion a long time ago, my faith in Christ alone... not sure if you know what I mean but that's my grasp from what Christ came to do. It wasn't to create religion but to be free from it.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      No Knight we don't claim to know everything. We claim to know what we know. What we've discovered. This entire notion posed by believers is a curious one. Mankind is imperfect...of that we have no argument. Man is as advanced as our discovery allows. We are at times base, crude and ignorant just as we can be lofty, inspired and altruistc. As brainy apes we've progressed quite far but no one would presume to say we have or ever will reach perfection in any aspect. What is questionable is the presumption that perfection like you suggest exists at all? Just because we aren't perfect what makes you think that a perfect being exists? The concept is equivalent to saying that since we can't build a motor that is 100% efficient then somewhere out there is a super advanced being is churning out perpetual motion machines. Just because we can identify our own shortcomings doesn't lead us to willing a being without those shortcomings into existence.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
    • Huebert

      @Knight

      The meaning of life, that's easy. Life creates meaning. All living creatures decide their your own meaning.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
    • An Atheist

      "God is objective even when religion is subjective."

      Knight,

      I don't exactly aggree with this unless you mean that the truth of god's existence is independent of what people actually believe. You say "Some things can be proven from God or otherwise in the world." I have to ask, name one that can be objecively proven.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Huebert –

      Well said. Cultivation of compassion and its expression through service seems to be a nearly universal way of creating "meaning" for our species. I've never understood why some think meaning must be an imposed concept.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
    • The Knight of God

      @An Athiest

      Name one thing that can be objectively proven that is from God? Prophecies of the bible can be objectively proven, if they couldn't they would be prophecies we could rely on :p Now there are many of those but you need to check those out yourself. Israel is a good example, every prophecy regarding things in the past were predicted years before their time in detail how it would happen. Another thing would be any sort of archelogical evidence of things that happened. We know Christ existed due to records and things left behind. I mean there are many things we can look to as far as that. Now personally, aside from that, I know He exists based off my own experiences. I cannot prove those to you like I can't prove that when I was four I use to do this or that. I can't prove personal experiences, I just know what I had seen. Witnesses can be used as evidence but of course backed up with further evidence and as far as that, that can also be given.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @The Knight of God –

      Not one of your posts in this thread provides a single shred of evidence for your beliefs and assertions. In fact, most of your posts are simply excuses for why you accept unsupported claims. Can you provide something of substance?

      June 21, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • The Knight of God

      I just said I am not going to elaborate on evidence here lol there would be no point trying to win an argument in on online forum :p people are too busy braising each other than actually discussing. But I do encourage you, IF you are really that interested, to research some of the stuff I mentioned and look at the Berean Call website that might help out some. I am not trying to prove anything here, just leaving a comment. Also not trying to get into the attack here.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Braising?! I would NEVER braise a human! Sauteeing in clarified butter is the ONLY way to prepare it!

      June 21, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @The Knight of God –

      Good enough...honest reply. You don't, however, expected your comment to be taken seriously if you provide nothing but plati'tudes, right?

      June 21, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • Huebert

      Really-O

      I think people want meaning to be imposed on them because they are then absolved of the responsibility of creating it for themselves. It Isn't easy to rely on no one but your self for meaning.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
    • An Atheist

      Knight,

      Even if what you are claiming is true (and it is by far from objective) there is no connection to a god except by assertion. Just because an effect is demonstrated does not prove the cause of the effect.
      I really don't have a beef with you but if you say you have objective proof of something and don't I will respond.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
    • The Knight of God

      lol like everyone else I am simply expressing my opinion. To go any deeper than that, would require cool, calm and collective heads. We have too many hot heads from both sides at the moment. I don't expect to be taken serious here. Not sure if you seen my original posts, but my comment was originally directed at these crazy "brothers" and "sisters" of mine. Not you guys specifically. A Christians adheres to the Bible so that is our evidence along with everything that would come second to that. While I use the bible for all my witnessing... to talk Atheists though, I do the same but the conversation is different so my approach is different. Like religious folk, you don't talk to one in the midst of a mass of em lol

      June 21, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
    • An Atheist

      Knight,

      Thanks for the conversation. Opinion is by definition not fact. I don't claim to 'know' a god does not exist, though the god of the bible can be demonstated to be false as an omniscient god would know how his message would be confused and would therefore work hard to be perfectly clear. and the bible is clear as mud.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:30 pm |
    • The Knight of God

      @An Atheist

      He did know... that's why he said the natural man will not understand the things of the Spirit. Only when the Holy Spirit is inside you'll understand it. And even then, that don't mean everything will be clear to you. IF God existed, you really think the creation will understand everything about its Creator? Then roles would be reverse if that was the case. I am content with that, at least I can understand what I really need to know

      June 21, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
    • Just Claims, No Truth

      "IF God existed, you really think the creation will understand everything about its Creator?"

      Knight,

      The first part of your response is a circular argument, "you don't know till you believe." Name one other area of the human experience where belief come BEFORE evidence? It doesn't, it is bad wisdom and should be rejected on that basis alone.

      No I don't think IF a god existed we would understand anything about him. But christians seem to think they understand a LOT about he creater from a flawed, forged, contradictory collection of books and that is just absurd.

      June 21, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Huebert – "I think people want meaning to be imposed on them because they are then absolved of the responsibility of creating it for themselves. It Isn't easy to rely on no one but your self for meaning."

      Again, well said, and I agree; however, personally I find the meaning (and enjoyment) I derive through action far surpasses that derived from thought (although in no way am I disparaging thought...it's one of my favorite pastimes).

      Cheers

      June 21, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
    • Servant of God

      Dyliss Jesus name is more alive than any of us an it has been for more than 2000 years. Try again, His name can never be silenced. Look at the impact he is having this very day lol keep trying keep trying

      June 21, 2012 at 6:29 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Dyliss Jesus name is more alive than any of us an it has been for more than 2000 years. Try again, His name can never be silenced. Look at the impact he is having this very day lol keep trying keep trying"

      Actually that is not true the number of Christians hasn't changed in centuries in relation to the population. It's actually gone down 3%. Only 32% of the people on this planet are Christians. Plus CNN just did a piece on how many people are leaving the church and many in the younger generation don't believe in your god.

      June 21, 2012 at 6:33 pm |
    • Jake

      Your points do apply to some Christians, but not all Christians. For example, a large number of Christians do not find humor in others' beliefs, nor do they feel outraged when someone denies the existence of their God. They may not agree with the other person's beliefs, but they are not outraged by them. By the way, not all Christians believe that the earth is only a few generations old.

      August 4, 2012 at 2:32 am |
  3. The Knight of God

    While I don't agree with hom o se xuality... this is beyond ignorant... shouldn't be in a church. There's a way to preach about that without going to such a degree... it gets to a point where ya are just being ignorant. It is true that a person who practices hom o se xuality will not enter (like if a person practice lying, sleep ing around with women, hating, etc.), but a g ay person can still be saved. The attraction was not the sin God spoke of, it's the act. Being in a sinful nature means that a person may have such and you really cannot change what you like... you can have self-control with what you sleep with however. But no, the bible would never condone such actions from self-professed believers... woe to them that causes a little one to stumble (That is is the gospels said by Jesus Himself)... this church will face God as well along with those they condemned.

    June 21, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • Dyllis

      So you disagree with the natural state of a significant fraction of the animal kingdom? I hope you get eaten by a gay gray wolf or a gay grizzly.

      At least read the National Geographic sometime. Gay population and behavior of fraction of many species is well docu.mented there. Denial of reality seems to be a big part of your supersti.tion.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
    • The Knight of God

      lol well I am not the one spouting hate eh? I wonder if I get any rights as far as putting people like you in jail for threats (even imaginative ones?). Point is, you might hate how I think but the facts remain. I never said gay people don't exist... I said they can be saved and exhibit self-control. That's a human trait. We aren't animals... well... maybe you are but I'm not :p

      June 21, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • Primewonk

      This is just one more thing (in a long list of things) that your version of a god got completely wrong. Or rather, what the nomadic, scientifically ignorant, bronze-age shepherds got wrong, when they invented myths to explain things they didn't understand.

      Being born gay is a normal natural variant of sèxual orientation. It occurs in 1500+ species of mammals, fish, birds, insects, etc. It is no more "wrong" or immoral" than being born left-handed or black. And it wasn't all too long ago that religious fundiots said that being born left-handed was a sign of the devil, and being black was the mark of Cain.

      If you want to be ignorant, that is your right. But wearing that ignorance as a badge of honor is just sad.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • Primewonk

      " We aren't animals"

      Yes we are. We are mammals. We are primates. We are members of the Great Ape family along with our cousins the orangutans, gorillas, and chimps/bonobos.

      This is another example of you choosing to be ignorant about science. It goes a long way to explaining your homôphobia and bigotry.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "I said they can be saved and exhibit self-control."

      Gays deserve to have the same loving intimate relationships as straights. Gay couples deserve to have the same civil rights as straights to protect their families. Marriage was defined as a civil right by the U S Supreme court. These rights include:

      Tax Benefits
      -–Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
      -–Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

      Estate Planning Benefits
      -–Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
      -–Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
      -–Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
      -–Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse – that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

      Government Benefits
      -–Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
      -–Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
      -–Receiving public as-sistance benefits.
      -–Employment Benefits
      -–Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
      -–Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
      -–Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
      -–Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

      Medical Benefits
      -–Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
      -–Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

      Death Benefits
      -–Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
      -–Making burial or other final arrangements.

      Family Benefits
      -–Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
      -–Applying for joint foster care rights.
      -–Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
      -–Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

      Housing Benefits
      -–Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
      -–Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

      Consumer Benefits
      -–Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
      -–Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
      -–Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
      -–Other Legal Benefits and Protections
      -–Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
      -–Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
      -–Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
      -–Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
      -–Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
      -–Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Let's see Wonkers, it took millions upon millions of slithering slime to slowly inch their way through the hot sands near the oceans ... onward and forward ... on their own, no food, no water, scorching, blazing sun beating down on them, inch by inch, mile by mile until thousands of years later, this one slime ball made it to shaded areas away from the beach's surf and sun so hot, billions of your slime buddies were fried ... and you believe you were the fittest of the slime to exist?

      And this is what you consider logical thinking. LOL ... Those professors could have sold you that bridge over in Brooklyn, time and time again.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @HeavenSent

      You know nothing about evolution, and you really should stop showing your own ignorance.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
    • Peter

      @HawaiiGuest

      I believe this same ignorant poster posts under other names as well, their uneducated remarks shows a pattern off trolling. AKA – just sayin, herbie, chad, bob, pepsi, topher, etc..etc…

      June 21, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      HawaiiGuest, you posted "@HeavenSent, You know nothing about evolution, and you really should stop showing your own ignorance"

      Answer: I know when the bull is being thrown, this site is famous for it. Besides, now we know why non-believers are so fried. It happened during the thousands of years, no food, no water, NO daddy's credit card or mommy's box lunch, blazing sun beating down on you, frying any gray matter slop that could have oozed.

      Hawaii, I'll wait for my handle to get hijacked after telling you fools, you are fools.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:18 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @HeavenSent

      Perhaps you should actually study what the current evolutionary model states instead of random irrelevant babble.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:22 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      HawaiiGuest, perhaps some day you'll get an invite to the beach front property at the Hamptons by those that feed you that slop. Bring your tan guard, so the sun doesn't fry you. LOL.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Why do fundiot (fundamentalit îdiot) trolls like HeavenSent, and alll his/her fake ID sockpuppets, who purposefully choose to be ignorant about science, come onto internet message boards and demonstrate that ignorance for all to see?

      June 21, 2012 at 3:44 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      Hurrah for more irrelevant babble from HeavenSent.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:47 pm |
    • The Knight of God

      Um... Heavensent has a point lol That's how scientists explain the story of evolution :p So we came from slime that turned to fish... that turned to crawling fish O_O then it transformed into a walking creature thingy with arms, then it played a song, TRANSFORMERS ROBOTS IN DISGUISE!!!!!!! TRANSFORMERS!!!!! then it turned into a monkey like thing with a big brain, then cavemen (basically), then *heavenly song* into hom o sapiens like you and me... that's far more plausible than being created by God. 😀 Thanks! I am offically an Atheist! Called me Knight of Stupid... no.... I am joking guys take a joke... laugh guys laugh!

      June 21, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @The Knight of God

      Another who doesn't understand evolution.

      June 21, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
    • The Knight of God

      @HawaiiGuest
      Aw man, come on you know it was funny 🙂 smile too many people got heated over the fact heaven made a lil fun of evolution. You are right, Evolution is complicated to explain. So let me explain it because I really do believe in Evolution (note: word believe lol), I mean I know its true (even though I never seen it happen). So basically millions and millions of years ago, there lived a blob of bacteria. In this blob, there lived an individual named Spongebob, now Spongebob had a plan to get over all the rest and rule the planet. He had two friends... Pinky and the Brain!... ok Imma stop, imma stop... lol you guys make fun of us all the time, suck it up and laugh :p

      June 21, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @The Knight

      You seem to be equating belief and faith, which are two VERY different things. You must not like google, a quick search will bring you to studies and tests that have demonstrated evolution.

      June 21, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
    • The Knight of God

      Belief: to consider to be true or honest
      Faith: something that is believed especially with strong conviction;

      I have faith in evolution then? would that be better for you? lol Oh wait, you equate faith with religion? So you have no faith in mankind eh? What kind of optimist are you if you are one at all? No faith in your parents, son, daughter, family period? No faith in our country?... see this applies to more than just religion my friend... go study a little :p

      June 21, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      All the non-believers ancestor have all been condemned, as you are and as will be your future generations for spreading lies against Jesus' truth. Those that spread the lie: Isaiah 3:9

      Therefore, repent for your sins, ask Jesus if you can get closer to Him, then sin no more ... or else. no eternity for you.

      June 21, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @The Knight

      There are many definitions of faith, some religious some not. The one that I use most often is belief that is not based on proof. With your definition, faith is merely a synonym for conviction, and seems fairly useless. By your definition though, I would have "faith" in evolution, although the word itself is loaded with other kinds of baggage, mainly from religions.

      June 21, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
    • The Knight of God

      On a serious note: The evidence of evolution is subject to interpretation. Just because that's what they say, don't mean it is... or are the scientists not fallible? Are they our new gods? Have you tested and examined evolution yourself? I think not... but you accept it because some people told you, showed you a few things, explained it with big words and whala! TRUTH!!!... no that is not practicing the scientific method you brag on. I can explain something just as elaborate and make people believe it by interpretating evidence my way. But is that verifiable truth that you give or studied? no...

      June 21, 2012 at 4:51 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @The Knight

      The evidence of evolution is available for the general public to peruse at their leisure. The peer-reviewed articles, studies, and methodologies are also available. You don't need to take my word for it, or any single evolutionary biologist. There's a vast amount of evidence that supports evolution, all you need to do is look.

      June 21, 2012 at 4:56 pm |
    • The Knight of God

      And that's my point: I want you to prove it Hawaii. It is something you hold true, so you should be able to prove it. If I can prove that my God is real and that my faith is true then you should be able to do the same. I seen this "evidence" and such of evolution and all of it is open to interpretation. I could easily attribute it to the Creation theory of how the world was created. Now how does one dispute that? Easily if its false, but not so much if its true. You must prove this yourself. Or do you simply believe what you see in books, what's told by scientists, what you touch in a museum? Then you are no better than the religious folk who say the same and spout the same non sense. Have you personally ever seen a species evolve into something else? And no I am not talking about adaption. I am talking about from fish to dog type thing. Have you ever seen it?

      June 21, 2012 at 5:05 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @The Knight

      Fish to dog is a gross oversimplification of evolutionary theory, and if you've done any actual study on the matter as you claim, then you are purposefully misrepresenting the process of evolution in order to try and discredit it. I'm not going to debate with someone who cannot hold honest conversation, and misrepresents what a scientific theory states.

      June 21, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @The Knight

      If you don't think the scientific method is reliable enough that the published and peer-reviewed articles and studies can be taken as a accurate representation of the observations and the conclusions that can be drawn from them, then what would be the point of trying to prove anything to you? Do you have a better way to try and determine the processes that the world and the universe go through?

      June 21, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
    • The Knight of God

      It was suppose to be simple, there's no reason for me to fully explain evolution to get across to you the idea. You know how evolution works. Don't act like a child whereas I'd have to break things down for you to understand. The scientific method is great, but its far from infallible and this is why we test and retest. One day its right and next day improvement on what's right and alters the original theory. This is the point, science is constantly changing and rarely consistent with past "facts". I remember the time they said Pluto was a planet... now its not lol. Its great to explain things in our universe but to use the method outside our universe to explain things is stupid. Its like trying to put the wrong key in a lock. That key doesn't unlock things pretaining to things outside our universe. Inside though, its a great tool, provided its interpreted correctly. If the universe was made one way or another, it was done by a force outside our universe that we understand little be it God or something less "divine". Science will not and cannot explain that. We can theorize as best we want but we will never know that because we'd have to go outside the box which we cannot do. Great dreams but sometimes dreams can go too far. I am questioning you the same way religious people are questioned... welcome to our world. The bible is our knowledge of Truth and we understand it... you do not therefore you mock it and refuse to try and understand it. Prophets and other eye witnesses told of Christ and many other things... you don't accept that... historical evidence... etc things upon things I can provide but there is no point to a man whose heart is harden to God. So I pose the question back to you... is there any point in trying to prove anything to you? Just because people accept something doesn't make it true (odd coming from a "religious" person huh?) Emperical proof...something tangible...when your heart is set against something, there is nothing going to change but a supernatural power called God.

      June 21, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
    • The Knight of God

      Now... I am not trying to debate you but there is a serious flaw in your thinking. You want to deny everything and only accept what you believe to be true... that called... religious.

      June 21, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @The Knight

      You are now saying that science cannot test for something that is outside of our current universe, and I would agree with you. Here's my question then, does the god you believe in interact with the universe and cause things to happen?

      June 21, 2012 at 6:39 pm |
    • No Jesus Know Peace

      I hope you and one or all of your loved ones are brutally killed. This shouldn't bother you because they will be waiting for you by the lollypop tree in the most fantastical kingdom in the sky. Seems like a win win situation. You go to heaven and we get rid of you and your delusional cult.

      June 21, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
  4. William Demuth

    Topher

    Have you ever heard of Scopes?

    It was a trial long ago.

    In it a lawyer asked a question. Genesis claims God created the the heavens and the sun on the fourth day.

    The heavens and the sun are at the core of the defenition of what a day is.

    How can we have days one two and three before we had the sun?

    June 21, 2012 at 11:47 am |
    • Topher

      Day is a period of time, also. Just because the sun isn't there lighting the earth doesn't mean time wasn't created yet. Also, Genesis 1:3, "And God said, "Let there be light," ... I know you don't believe in God, but IF Genesis is true, then you don't think God can create light before the sun is there?

      June 21, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
    • William Demuth

      Topher

      Rationalize away. You know there are HUNDREDS of them.

      You need to believe because you are afraid either of death, or bucking dogma, but just by your postings it's obvious you have significant doubts.

      In time you will be free of it if you make the effort.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:16 pm |
    • Madtown

      Topher
      Also, Genesis 1:3, "And God said, "Let there be light,"
      ------
      Didn't you say earlier that no one could disprove biblical events, because "they weren't there"? How then is it that we have a Genesis account? No one was there.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
    • Topher

      William Demuth

      "You need to believe because you are afraid either of death, or bucking dogma, but just by your postings it's obvious you have significant doubts."

      Hahaha. You obviously don't know me. I'm a "fundie" as you atheist like to derogatorily call me. I believe the Bible 100 percent.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      No Topher we don't think light would have existed before the sun. To believe as you do would require throwing out everything we know is real in favor of things that are clearly impossible according to the laws of physics. The bible tells stories that detail things that defy explanation by any reasonable measure. A day is one Earth rotation on it's axis...a year is one orbit around the sun. Primitive man was ignorant about many things...even the spherical shape of the planet, or that the Earth was stationary while the heavens turned around us but days and years have always been rooted in astronomical observations.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:35 pm |
    • Topher

      "Didn't you say earlier that no one could disprove biblical events, because "they weren't there"? How then is it that we have a Genesis account? No one was there."

      God was there, first of all, and since the Bible is His word, we can trust it. God gave us the Bible by using men to write it. You can't prove or disprove historical science. Even when you're talking about something not related to the Bible.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
    • Ting

      'God gave us the Bible by using men to write it.'

      The same is true for the Book of Mormon. I assume you are Mormon? No offense to Mormons.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
    • An Atheist

      "You can't prove or disprove historical science."

      Topher,

      Yes we can, but you will deny it all day because if you ever admit it is possible that would crush your belief system that the bible is 100% true. Rabbits don't chew their cud, tell Ray Comfort to have another bannana.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • Madtown

      Topher
      God was there, first of all, and since the Bible is His word, we can trust it. God gave us the Bible by using men to write it.
      ------
      LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! "God's word", sure it is. That's why human beings wrote it. Human beings edited it. Human beings selected the individual works that comprise it. Human beings left out other equally relevant works because those works didn't send the exact message the human beings wanted. And, human beings continually edit it by offering new versions. The hand of man is all over the bible, every single word. But of course, God "used men to write it". How do you know, you weren't there? Oh.........those men that wrote the works told you they were inspired by God to create them? Very convincing. It's not "God's word", it's "man's word – a subset of his opinions about God".

      June 21, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • Topher

      "Rabbits don't chew their cud"

      Grab an encyclopedia. They do.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
    • Topher

      AtheistSteve

      I know you don't believe it. But you have to understand that if there is a God then He could certainly create a light any way He wanted. This is a being that exists outside of space and time.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:05 pm |
    • An Atheist

      Topher,

      No they don't. And why do you ask me to trust an encyclapedia for information when you reject the same encyclipedia when it tells you the earth is 4.5 billion years old? You are an intellectual hypocrit.

      Post a link from an unbiased site that say rabbits chew thir cud.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:07 pm |
    • An Atheist

      "This is a being that exists outside of space and time."

      Can't prove there is an outside of time and space and so therefore that proves god exists.....

      more "you can't prove me wrong so it is easonable to believe it" from Topher.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:12 pm |
    • Topher

      An Atheist

      "No they don't. And why do you ask me to trust an encyclapedia for information when you reject the same encyclipedia when it tells you the earth is 4.5 billion years old? You are an intellectual hypocrit."

      By this same statement you are also an intellectual hypocrit if you deny what Encyclopedia Britannica says about rabbits.

      "Post a link from an unbiased site that say rabbits chew thir cud."

      Britannica is a paid service, so I can't post a link, but here's what it says in a hard copy ...."Some lagomorphs (rabbits and hares) are capable of re-ingesting moist and nutritionally rich fecal pellets, a practice considered comparable to cud-chewing in ruminants."

      June 21, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Topher, you need to look up "comparable". It doesn't mean "same".

      But why not use your time more wisely and tell us how many angels can dance on a pin-head. There are plenty of such right here.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "Cud" is not "fecal remnants" as you'd know if you'd been raised around cattle. It is the contents of the stomach regurgitated into the mouth for a second chewing.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • An Atheist

      ...."Some lagomorphs (rabbits and hares) are capable of re-ingesting moist and nutritionally rich fecal pellets, a practice considered comparable to cud-chewing in ruminants."

      Topher,

      You got this quote off of Living Waters ministry, it is not unbiased and is in fact dishonst. Eating droppings is not chewing cud, you are just equivicating. Provide an unbiased source, there should be plenty to choose from on the internet.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • Topher

      Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "Topher, you need to look up "comparable". It doesn't mean "same". "

      Keep looking for excuses. Which will you use on Judgment Day?

      "But why not use your time more wisely and tell us how many angels can dance on a pin-head. There are plenty of such right here."

      Why does that matter? Will it help you believe?

      June 21, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What's the matter, Tophie? Can't admit you were wrong?

      June 21, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • Topher

      http://www.grisda.org/origins/04102.htm

      Do a search yourself. Science agrees with the above statement.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Poor baby. Pride and lack of humility are hardly becoming for someone who claims to be a Christian.

      Are you going to threaten me with Judgment Day again? Do you really think it's an effective strategy?

      I can tell you it won't work on me, particularly coming from some bozo who has never endured a single hardship more severe than a hangnail.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Posting links to a site that is faith-based? You're even dumber than I thought.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • An Atheist

      Topher,

      I did a search and Loma Linda University is a Seventh Day Adventist school and Leonard Brand is a Seventh-day Adventist young earth creationist, biologist, paleontologist, and author. These are biased. You can't find anyone who agrees with you that is not a Young Earth Creationist, they all have an agenda. If this is actually a fact you should be able to find one source without a dog in the fight that agrees with you but instead I get more dishonesty.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • Topher

      Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Poor baby. Pride and lack of humility are hardly becoming for someone who claims to be a Christian.

      "Are you going to threaten me with Judgment Day again? Do you really think it's an effective strategy? "

      That's not a threat. It's going to happen. And whether you want to believe it or not, you WILL bow your knee.

      "I can tell you it won't work on me, particularly coming from some bozo who has never endured a single hardship more severe than a hangnail."

      Ah, more name calling. Very mature. But how does my lack of suffering mean God isn't real?

      June 21, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Topher

      How does you stating something over and over make it true?

      June 21, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • Topher

      An Atheist

      I admit I didn't look too hard and certainly wouldn't have used an Adventist as a source if I knew that's what he was. I'm sure there's other sources, but I'm not going to waste my time ... when I look things up for you atheists you just want to put me down even more. I provided the most respected encyclopedia in the world and yet you all bark and whine that's not enough. Why should I waste my time when your hearts are so obviously hardened to it? I'm more than happy to continue in this debate with anyone who can be respectful and serious, but denying the reliability of Encylopedia Brittanica as a source is just ridiculousness.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
    • Topher

      HawaiiGuest

      "How does you stating something over and over make it true?"

      It doesn't. I've stated a lot of things on here, so I'm not sure which you mean. Also, you should never go with something I say as truth. My claims should always be backed up with the Bible.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
    • sam stone

      Topher: "God's word" must have not been very clear, as we have how man translations?

      June 21, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
    • sam stone

      man = many

      June 21, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Tophie, you'd better grow a thicker skin. If you're all whiny when you get called on your errors on some anonymous blog, just imagine how you'll react when you run into what real life can dish up?

      If you get your panties in a wad because it was pointed out that you were wrong, and you WERE wrong, then don't get on here and post idiocy.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • Topher

      Hi, sam stone

      Some of it is hard to understand. But the translations exist because we don't all speak those languages. Which translation you use is mearly a preference thing. They all state the same claims.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Topher

      And yet the bible cannot be verified as true, especially in its claims about the supernatural. Quoting it is useless to someone who doesn't already agree with you, and even those of your own religion would argue points about the bible with you, hence the thousands of denominations that all use the same book.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Tophie says: Britannica is a paid service, so I can't post a link, but here's what it says in a hard copy ...."Some lagomorphs (rabbits and hares) are capable of re-ingesting moist and nutritionally rich fecal pellets, a practice considered comparable to cud-chewing in ruminants."

      ----

      Then, when he's told that 'comparable' is not "the same as", he pretends that someone is questioning the reliability of Britannica. Yeah, that's brilliant. I'm going to be sure and pay attention when Tophie interprets the written word from here on out.

      What's being challenged, Tophie, isn't Britannica. It's your reading comprehension and understanding of vocabulary.

      I already explained to you that cud is not fecal matter. Rabbits are not cud-chewers, not that I give a rat's behind whether they are or not. What I DO care about is accuracy and honesty, and you've provided neither.

      And you have the nerve to be huffy when that's pointed out to you.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
    • Topher

      Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "Tophie, you'd better grow a thicker skin."

      Ha! You have to have a thick skin talking to you angry atheists. I've been called just about every name in the book. It's ok, though. It's just more evidence to me you don't have a single valid argument.

      "If you're all whiny when you get called on your errors on some anonymous blog, just imagine how you'll react when you run into what real life can dish up?"

      I can admit when I'm wrong. And posting that as a source was wrong. C'est la vie.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
    • sam stone

      "That's not a threat. It's going to happen. And whether you want to believe it or not, you WILL bow your knee."

      Sort of sad that you appear to be approaching this like a slave. Or, maybe it is funny. Either way.....get back on your knees, Beyotch

      June 21, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
    • Topher

      HawaiiGuest

      "And yet the bible cannot be verified as true, especially in its claims about the supernatural"

      You're right. I can't prove the supernatural claims are true. There is def. an element of faith involved.

      "Quoting it is useless to someone who doesn't already agree with you,"

      Also agree. I've been there. I was an atheist for more than a decade.

      "and even those of your own religion would argue points about the bible with you, hence the thousands of denominations that all use the same book."

      Yes, but we differ on minor things, not the majors such as how to be saved.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      More dishonesty. Posting from the source is not your only mistake, but you still can't admit it. Not surprising. You are typical of the fundies who post here.

      You insisted that rabbits chew cud. You are wrong. They do not. That you can't even admit that you were mistaken in asserting a claim about something so inconsequential indicates you're unlikely to analyze your beliefs about anything substantive.

      That's why your threats don't faze me at all.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
    • Topher

      sam

      Call it whatever you like. Do you think I like being made fun of and called all sorts of vile names? No. But I'm here because I care about you guys. I care what happens to you when you die. And if I think I have the key to eternal life in Heaven with God, how much hatred would I have to have not to share it with you?

      June 21, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      There are denominations that don't even believe in a literal hell, those that don't believe in eternal torture, merely seperation, then theres the anihilists. There are those that believe that all old testament laws are still applicable, and those that believe that only the 10 commandments matter. Catholics took out one of the original 10 commandments (graven images). These are merely off the top of my head, do some research in the different denominations, and you'll see that some things are actually major doctrinal differences.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
    • sam stone

      Topher: How arrogant must one be to feel THEY have the key to eternal life in heaven? How much more is it that they always seem to come with empty proxy threats (or, "warnings", as the pseudo-pious call them)?

      June 21, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
    • sam stone

      Topher: It appears to me that you have a messiah complex

      June 21, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
    • Topher

      HawaiiGuest

      I'm guessing you're talking about "denominations" like Adventists, Witnesses and Catholics. Protestants don't hold that any of these are "denominations." They teach things that are altogether opposite of the Bible. When the differences are minor, we are still brothers. But when they are major, then we must separate ourselves from them.

      As far as the Catholics, we had the Protestant Reformation. This wasn't just us disagreeing with them on a few things, it was the leaders at the time saying the church had gone too far off the tracks into a land of heresy.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
    • An Atheist

      "I provided the most respected encyclopedia in the world and yet you all bark and whine that's not enough. Why should I waste my time when your hearts are so obviously hardened to it?"

      Topher,

      You did not provide Encyclapedia as a source, you CLAIMED it came from there and then said it is a pay site so I would not be able to verify it. But when I searched your quote one of the first listings is Ray Comforts Living Waters website, the same website you refer people to for information. You can't provide an unbiased source and so you then you point the finger at me for not accepting your biased YEC malarky. You claim you like like to discuss honestly and when I do and prove you have no unbiased information you then say you are not going to waste your time. You are dishonest and deceitful.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      ALL religions claim they know the way to eternal life. That's the point. Even you atheists claim to know the truth (it's just that you say there isn't one) so you must admit you have the same arrogance. The question has to be which is true.

      I've not threatened you one time. I'm just telling you that if I'm right, that's what is going to happen.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
    • sam stone

      Yet you assume that I am an atheist.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:12 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Topher

      And yet each of these "denominations" use the same bible, think that they are the ones completely correct, and justify what you would call "teaching the opposite of the bible" with the magic words of "interpretation" and "context". There's no way to differentiate the way that they come to their interpretations and context from any other denominations way of coming to theirs. This is the point I was trying to make.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:15 pm |
    • sam stone

      Topher: Are you seriously claiming that "every knee shall bow" is not an impied threat?

      June 21, 2012 at 3:19 pm |
    • Topher

      HawaiiGuest

      "And yet each of these "denominations" use the same bible ..."

      Yes and no. The Catholics' bible has extra books. The Adventists had a "prophetess" who added her own teachings throughout the Bible so that unless you have a regular one you'd never know the difference. The Mormons had 2 or 3 other books that are supposedly equal to the Bible.

      But yes, there are disagreements on other things. Such as Baptism. Some believe in waiting to Baptize until you are "born again." Others do it to babies. As long as you don't think Baptism saves you, we are still brothers.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      "Topher: Are you seriously claiming that "every knee shall bow" is not an impied threat?"

      How is it a threat? I'm just telling you the Bible says every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord. That goes for believers and unbelievers.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:27 pm |
    • An Atheist

      "How is it a threat?"

      Your god is like a Mafia boss that says "don't make me hurt you" and you claim that is not a threat. Every knee will bend even if he has to break them right? What a great god to worship.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:37 pm |
    • sam stone

      Right....bow or else. How is that not an implied threat?

      June 21, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
    • sam stone

      An Atheist: I think I saw that on an episode of The Sopranos. "Pay me my share....or accidents can happen"

      June 21, 2012 at 3:40 pm |
    • An Atheist

      Sam,

      Exactly,

      "You have a beautiful family......I would hate to see anything happen to them,,,,,"

      June 21, 2012 at 3:47 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Topher

      The differences aren't really the important part. The important part is that every single denomination claims to have interpreted scripture correctly and through the guidance of the holy spirit, and all of these claims are indistiguishable from eachother.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:57 pm |
    • Madtown

      Topher
      ALL religions claim they know the way to eternal life. That's the point. Even you atheists claim to know the truth (it's just that you say there isn't one) so you must admit you have the same arrogance. The question has to be which is true.
      -------–
      I think the answer to that question is: NONE of them are true. Certainly yours isn't, and here's why: not every human being in this world has access to it. If all of God's creations are equal in terms of human value, and there was really only "1 way" to salvation, then it would follow that God would provide this 1 way to all his equal creations. There are millions of human beings in this world now, and there will always be, who will never hear the name Jesus. Never touch a bible, or even know what it is. And, this is through no fault of their own, it's by accident of birth. They happened to be born to a place in this world where christianity isn't prevalent. We don't choose were we're born. These people are your equal, you are not special and deserving of the "great secret". Therefore, since these equal human beings have never heard of the ways you follow, you cannot possibly say that your ways are the "only way". They are just your way.

      June 21, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
  5. Bill

    And they'll know you are christians by your love.

    ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

    June 21, 2012 at 11:44 am |
    • Topher

      Huh?

      June 21, 2012 at 11:47 am |
  6. midwest rail

    No matter which side of this discussion you lean to, I'd like to thank everyone for ignoring the post from snicker. Cooler heads can prevail.

    June 21, 2012 at 11:21 am |
  7. mandarax

    Ignorance and prejudice walk hand-in-hand.

    June 21, 2012 at 11:02 am |
    • Ting

      That can lead to a witch hunt.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
  8. snicklefrits

    I KNEW JESUS BEFORE HE WAS FAMOUS. I HAVE A VIDEO OF HIM GIVING ME A B.J. WHEN HE WAS 15. IF THIS POST GETS 20 REPLYS I WILL PROVIDE A LINK TO THE VID

    June 21, 2012 at 11:01 am |
  9. Colin

    Hey, I've got a great idea. Let's NOT base 21st Century social policy on a collection of Bronze and Iron Age mythology, written by unknown people and cobbled together by unknown people before the Dark Ages, at a point in history where eyeglasse were 800 years in the future.

    June 21, 2012 at 11:00 am |
    • mandarax

      No, Colin, I don't like it. Clearly superstitious and mostly illiterate sheep-herders knew a lot more about the universe than we do. It's not like knowledge is cumulative or anything. Don't be silly.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:11 am |
    • atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with

      Do you know what sin is?

      If one wants to understand old Jewish law one MUST understand it was only meant for early Jews.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:15 am |
    • stanJaames

      its not mytholgoy

      its MYTHe-ology

      June 21, 2012 at 11:22 am |
    • Colin

      So "atheists etc." does it make sense to you that God would create the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies, sit back, wait 10,000,000,000 years for the Earth to form, wait another 3,500,000,000 years for life to slowly evolve then "choose" the Jews to be his favorite subset of his favorite species, h.omo sapiens, and make a deal with them?

      Hmmmm, did God create the Jews or did the Jews creat God?

      June 21, 2012 at 11:22 am |
    • mandarax

      Well, that's a relief. Therefore, since the Old Testament is the only place in the Bible where we see homosexuality condemned and it only applies to the ancient Jews, there's no reason for a gay marriage debate at all. Thanks!

      June 21, 2012 at 11:22 am |
    • atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with

      What does time have to do with anything?

      June 21, 2012 at 11:24 am |
    • mandarax

      "What does time have to do with anything?"

      See the part about knowledge being cumulative.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:30 am |
    • atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with

      You said "billions of years" what does time have to do with anything?

      June 21, 2012 at 11:31 am |
    • theists reject al religions, except the one they grew up with

      Sin is the defiance of God's will. Kinda hard to accept that concept if you don't believe in God. Sin is a completely contrived idea that has no meaning outside your faith.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:38 am |
    • atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with

      Don't you mean "all" not "al"?

      June 21, 2012 at 11:40 am |
    • An Atheist

      Sin allows christians to 'feel' guilty without actually taking responsibility by dealing with the person they hurt.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:55 am |
    • atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with

      Natural human reaction

      June 21, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @theists reject ...

      Yes, "sin" is a word with a religious meaning, but atheists believe in a distinction between and right and wrong. Morality and ethics exist outside of religious grounds.

      Even if you don't want to use the word "sin", wrong-doing is still wrong, and if it's bad enough, evil.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      @I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Morality and ethics have some common ground with the concept of sin but there is a major difference. Secular morality is the end game of a process of weighing the pros versus cons. Essentially finding ways to do the least harm. Many things we consider moral are simply common sense. Don't kill, don't steal etc. Being empathic beings we are able to subjectively put ourselves in anothers shoes so to speak and what we do to others can be related to what we would have done to ourselves. Good or bad behavior carries consequences. What makes Sin different is that it isn't subject to interpretation by weighing pros versus cons but is instead commanded by decree. The example most often given to demonstrate how Biblical morality is faulty is how slavery is considered morally acceptable. Obviously we no longer subscribe to that idea but the scriptures still detail in explicit language how you should treat and punish your slaves. Now we are going through that process again with regard to gays. There is no secular argument against gay marriage that doesn't also apply to hetero marriage. The dictate that being gay is sinful is not beared out by moral evaluation with respect to doing the least harm.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @AtheistSteve,

      I have no argument with your thesis at all.

      Using how moral opinion of slavery changed over time is an apt corollary of the changing moral opinion of gay lifestyles. The consensus is changing. It is only a matter of time. That is why the bible literalists are fighting so hard.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
  10. Colin

    It is a CHOICE. They choose to live like disgusting degenerates, spreading their filth and hatred.

    But enough about Christians, let's discuss gay issues.

    June 21, 2012 at 10:53 am |
    • Huebert

      I read the first line and prepared to unleash the fury with Caps Lock.

      Then I read the second line and I loled.

      June 21, 2012 at 10:57 am |
    • stanJaames

      Lets remember that xtians demonized Jews for a thousand years. Laying the foundations for the holocaust and the election of a madman named hitler to power

      And 55 million died for these churches that claim to protect life.\

      While the lutherans 60% or Germany were just as bad as the catholics – Martin hated jews – they are now very accepting and the evangelical lutherans do gay marriage ceremonies., the other s are generally welcoming, and never show up to oppose gay marriage bills in our MD ledislatrue

      As for the vatican – so opposed to gay marriage – the pope in 2009 UNexcomunnicated a holocaust denier.. Iguess his nightly prayer includes Sieg Heils

      http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-26/world/pope.holocaust.denial_1_bishop-richard-williamson-bishop-bernard-fellay-holocaust-denier?_s=PM:WORLD

      He should be put in an asylum

      June 21, 2012 at 11:05 am |
    • stanJaames

      Colin – I presume you are talking about anti gay almost violent pastors preaching hate against part of gods creation

      June 21, 2012 at 11:23 am |
  11. MennoKnight

    All moral decisions are a choice.

    The problem is many people have no idea on what to base their choices on.
    People are tossed to a fro in the winds of moral relativity because they have no anchor.

    I choose to make my moral decisions based the New Testament because I believe that the New Testament is a historically accurate description of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
    It was written mainly by eyewitness of the events (Peter, Matthew, and John) or else those who got their information from eyewitnesses (Paul, Luke, and Mark)

    June 21, 2012 at 10:53 am |
    • Colin

      No it was'n't. There is not one eye witness account of anything Christ said or did in the New Testament.

      June 21, 2012 at 10:55 am |
    • William Demuth

      I had to break it to you, but Christ is a fabricaion.

      I have spent half a century reading about the subject, and I still see no reason to believe he ever actually existed at all.

      He is nothing more than a glorified Santa Claus, something to keep mental children behaving as told.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:03 am |
    • YeahRight

      "I believe that the New Testament is a historically accurate description of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ."

      The bible has been proven not to be an historical document so your how post is now moot. LOL!

      June 21, 2012 at 11:14 am |
    • Topher

      Which historical fact in the Bible is proven incorrect?

      June 21, 2012 at 11:17 am |
    • MennoKnight

      Colin,
      Thirty years after the death and resurrection of Jesus a trained physician and historian named Luke, in his first scroll, interviewed living eye witnesses about the birth, life, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus.
      He writes about Jesus 33 years on earth.
      These people include Mary and Peter and Jesus half brother James.

      Then in his second scroll he interviews more living eye witnesses of what happened after the resurrection and he records many of the highlights of the first 30+ years of the church. In chapter 18 the narrative changes from third person into first person because Luke then starts writing about his own personal experiences because he shows up on the scene.

      Even if you reject the rest of the New Testament Luke's writings are enough to base the entire Christian Church on.

      I encourage you to try reading Luke/Acts

      June 21, 2012 at 11:18 am |
    • William Demuth

      Topher

      June 21, 2012 at 11:22 am |
    • Bet

      I've debated Menno before. He'll just tell you that you haven't read the bible, or you haven't "read it right". He thinks that being gay is a choice. His big argument is that even if you are attracted to the same s.ex, you "have the choice not to act on it". So, in his world, if you are attracted to the same se.x, you have to just live your life as a celibate and be alone to be a "moral" person.

      In other words, think the way I think or you're going to hell. Same old story.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:22 am |
    • William Demuth

      Topher

      Lets start with Christ, Demons, Angels, Life after death, Heaven, Hell, the Great Flood, The parting of the Red Sea, and the Garden of Eden.

      I can go on with more if you like.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:24 am |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      "Which historical fact in the Bible is proven incorrect?"

      Where to start? How about the flood? Virgin birth? Resurrection? Adam & Eve? Earth creation in 6 days? Just to name a few...

      June 21, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • Topher

      William Demuth

      Yes, sir?

      June 21, 2012 at 11:26 am |
    • Colin

      What? We have no idea who wrote "the gospel according to Luke" (note it is not called "The gospel according it to me" or "My Gospel. This author wrote about 65 years after Christ died and there is no indication he "interviewed" anybody. This author wrote in Greek, was well educated and quite likely wealthy. None of this fits the profile of any of the disciples.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:27 am |
    • Topher

      William Demuth

      "Lets start with Christ, Demons, Angels, Life after death, Heaven, Hell, the Great Flood, The parting of the Red Sea, and the Garden of Eden."

      NONE of these have been proven false. You might not believe in them, but they haven't been disproven.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:29 am |
    • Topher

      "This author wrote in Greek, was well educated and quite likely wealthy. None of this fits the profile of any of the disciples."

      Right. Luke was a physician. He surely was educated and wealthy. And he just said Luke was not a disciple.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:35 am |
    • MennoKnight

      Bet,
      Nice to see you again. You are again putting words in my mouth.
      I apologized to you last time about saying you haven't read your bible. If you look back I took back my words and then I said read it through the lens of historical accuracy.
      Also where in any place did I say you were going to hell?
      Don't be so intolerant to not hear what I have to say just because you disagree.

      It is simply a fact that we choose our moral decisions. You choose who you sleep with, who you love, and who you hate.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:35 am |
    • Primewonk

      Topher wrote, "Which historical fact in the bible is proven incorrect?"

      Jeez, Topher, we've been over this dozens of times. For some reason you lack the cognitive ability to process this information.

      The earth was not created before any stars.

      The sun was not created after the earth.

      Vegetation did not form on earth before the sun.

      Birds did not appear on earth prior to land animals,

      All humans on earth did not desscend from one breeding pair 6000 years ago.

      There was no global flood.

      There was no mass exodus of 2 million Jews from Egypt.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:37 am |
    • Topher

      Primewonk

      Again, none of that has been proven. In fact, you'd have had to have been there and see it. It's all historical science and not provable. You can believe those things happened that way if you want, I won't hate you for it. But the statement was that the Bible is historically inaccurate. That needs proof.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:43 am |
    • William Demuth

      Topher

      You do understand NOTHING can be proven false?

      If I insisted the Incredible Hulk was real, and used comic books and movies as proof, you might think me a fool for still believing, but unless I was willing to grow, I could insist till my dying bed, but I would still be wrong.

      It's time to stop reading the comics and use your mind.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:43 am |
    • MennoKnight

      Topher,
      Thank you. That is exactly what I said.
      And the date issue. Luke wrote before the destruction of the Jewish war and the destruction of the Temple (66 – 70AD)
      This is evident simply due to the fact that Luke the historian he would not have left out the most important event in a generation. We also know this was written during the time of Nero 54 – 68
      Many believe Luke wrote around 62AD.

      The basis for my faith is Jesus Christ and Luke's writings are one of my anchor points.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:47 am |
    • Huebert

      Topher

      1) Their is not enough water on earth to cause a world wide flood. Even if every scrap of ice melted their would still be land.

      2) The ark is described in the bible as 450' x 75' x 30'. It is impossible for it to contain 2 of every animal plus enough food for 40 days and nights. Elephants eat between 300 and 700 lbs of food per day. assuming that these are small elephants that is 24000 pounds of food for the elephants alone.

      3) Noah would have had no way of keeping enough meat fresh in order to feed 2 tigers, 2 lions, 2 grizzly bears, 2 polar bears, actually where would he have gotten the polar bears to begin with?

      That particular myth is so impossible that it is laughable that anyone would actually believe it.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • Topher

      Huebert

      You're right that the animals were probably small. It just makes sense for not only food reasons but for space reasons. Do you realize how massive the ark was? It's def. not that cute little thing we often see in nurserys.

      Noah would not have needed 2 grizzlies and 2 polars ... just two bears.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:57 am |
    • MennoKnight

      Huebert,
      I mentioned the New Testament as my basis for morality. I am not using the Old Testament in this debate. Lets move back to the New Testament please.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:58 am |
    • Smithsonian

      The stories found in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 1-12, such as the flood story, the record is quite different: the time period under consideration is much more ancient. The factual bases of the stories are hidden from our view archaeologically. The stories remain a part of folk traditions and were included in the Bible to illustrate and explain theological ideas such as: Where did humans come from? If humans were created by God (who is perfect and good), how did evil among them come to be? If we are all related as children of God, why do we speak different languages? It must be remembered that the Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science. It contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and mankind. Even biblical history is edited history: events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible. The Biblical writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history; instead they constantly refer us to other sources for full historical details, sources such as "The Annals of the Kings of Judah" (or Israel).

      It is therefore not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy. The only "proof" to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship? In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:00 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Lets move back to the New Testament please."

      Everyone knows the story about Jesus and the woman about to be stoned by the mob. This account is only found in John 7:53-8:12. The mob asked Jesus whether they should stone the woman (the punishment required by the Old Testament) or show her mercy. Jesus doesn’t fall for this trap. Jesus allegedly states, let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her. The crowd dissipates out of shame. That story was not originally in the Gospel of John or in any of the Gospels. It was added by later scribes. The story is not found in the oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Nor does its writing style comport with the rest of John. Most serious textual critics state that this story should not be considered part of the Bible.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
    • Huebert

      Topher

      I know how big the ark was supposed to be. I gave you the measurements that were described in the bible.

      If their were no Grizzly or Polar Bears on the ark then where did those bears come form? Also you still neglected to answer where all the water that would be necessary to flood the earth came from. Nor did you explain how Noah would have been able to keep enough meat from spoiling to feed the large carnivores for 40 days.

      @MennoKnight
      I was addressing Topher

      June 21, 2012 at 12:09 pm |
    • MennoKnight

      YeahRight, I replied to your argument yesterday.

      I am totally familial with what you wrote because what you wrote is in my Bible at the notes at exactly the point of the passage that you write. As is Mark 16:9. All modern translations (NIV, NLT) have this information very visible to anybody who wants to read it.
      And the book of Mark is almost certainly missing the introduction as well as the conclusion because it has been lost. It is common that the beginning and end of scrolls get broken off and lost, and that seems to be the case for Mark.

      Respected authors like Lee Strobel and Timothy Keller opening write about these things.

      This level of intellectual integrity only adds credibility to the New Testament scriptures.

      But if you are stuck reading an Old King James Bible then I guess you don't know these things.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:19 pm |
    • YeahRight.

      "All modern translations (NIV, NLT) have this information very visible to anybody who wants to read it."

      That means it got added doesn't mean it right. Duh!

      June 21, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • Topher

      Huebert

      "If their were no Grizzly or Polar Bears on the ark then where did those bears come form?"

      They were "kinds". Just as a chihuahua and a great dane are both dogs, grizzlies and polars are both bears. Common ancestry. Adaptations to environments.

      "Also you still neglected to answer where all the water that would be necessary to flood the earth came from."

      I don't know, honestly. You expect me to take you at your word you know this for a fact. And maybe you even have a good source. But just because there isn't enough water now doesn't mean there wasn't then. You have to remember we're talking about spiritual forces here.

      "Nor did you explain how Noah would have been able to keep enough meat from spoiling to feed the large carnivores for 40 days."

      I'm not an ark scholar. Also, you say large carnivores, but we've already established they were all likely small. If you're really interested, though, look up Answers in Genesis. They are actually building a full-size replica ark and would likely have some of these answers.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
    • MennoKnight

      YeahRight.
      "All modern translations (NIV, NLT) have this information very visible to anybody who wants to read it."
      That means it got added doesn't mean it right. Duh!

      I guess you missed the point of writing in the disclaimer that this part is most likely not scripture. All modern preachers do not preach from these verses now as it is proven that these are not part of the original text. Some translations simply leave out the passage.
      The New Living leaves it in with the explanation that it is not part of the original text so that when people who are use to reading older translations get to these points they have the explanation why they are not there or why not to read them as scripture.
      Again all good scholarly teachers from Evangelical and Mennonite churches teach this stuff and they have been teaching this for over 40 years.
      But thanks again for showing our instinctual integrity to the original text.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:32 pm |
    • Huebert

      Topher

      Polar and Grizzly bears are different species, Great Danes and Chihuahua are not so that is a false analogy. And the amount of time it would take for a single species of bear, much less 2 bears, to differentiate into all bear species alive today is millions of years. Longer than you believe that earth has been around.

      Other that that all your argument boils down to is that god used his magic powers and it all worked out. I guess if you can believe in magic you can believe in anything since physical rules no longer apply.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • Bet

      Menno

      What you actually said was, "you must not have read it very well". That doesn't sound like you're telling me to put it into "historical accuracy".

      June 21, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
    • MennoKnight

      Bet
      Sorry. Please remember that forums like this can be taken out of context very easily.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:43 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Topher
      According to Genesis, God wiped out all life on earth during the flood, save for those on Noah's Ark.
      Noah was born 126 years after Adam's death at age 930, which brings us to the year 1056.
      Gen 7:6 tells us that Noah was 600 years old when the flood came, which brings us to the year 1656.
      If the Earth is 6,000 years old, minus 1656 gives us 4,344 years since Noah built the Ark.
      The oldest living tree thus far found (measured by ring count) was a Great Basin Bristlecone Pine which was 4,862 years old. That means the tree was around 400 years older than Noah's oldest son Ja.pheth when the flood happened.
      In California there is a colony of Palmer's Oak trees called Jurupa Oak that has been alive 13,000 years through clonal reproduction.
      Professor Frank Vasek confirmed the age of a Creosote bush in the Mojave Desert known as "King Clone" using two different methods. His project counted rings and measured the distance of annual growth, and then used radiocarbon dating on chunks of wood found in the center of the ring. Both dating methods yielded an age of 11,700 years.
      That makes the plant more than 7000 years older than Noah's flood.

      Furthermore, if the Flood story is to be taken literally, that means that 3 breeding pairs of humans repopulated the entire human species almost immediately. Since all of the males were blood relatives, the likelihood of negative genetic reinforcement is quite high.
      How did humanity in all it's diversity (Caucasoid, Ne/groid and Mong/oloid sub-species) come to be in less than 5,000 years with such a limited gene pool from which to start?
      You may deny evolution, but can you seriously deny Mendelian genetics?

      June 21, 2012 at 12:49 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @MennoKnight,

      I dispute that the implication of your assertion that people are "tossed to and fro in the winds of moral relativity because they have no anchor" means they need religion as a moral compass.

      Morality exists independently of religion. It is not absolute and changes with time. Our laws are generally set up based on our consensus of morality, though I would agree that not all laws are moral and that not all moral behavior is enacted in law.

      Religion is not required to define morals. In fact this article pointedly addresses an issue where the religiousity of a radical minority is in conflict with morality. There are times (like in this article) where religion is definitively immoral.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:07 pm |
    • TR6

      @Topher:”Which historical fact in the Bible is proven incorrect?”

      Typical disingenuous Christian question. According to them just because there is not one scrap of evidence supporting a biblical assertion does not “prove it incorrect”. Yet for some reason (according to Christians) this “rule” doesn’t apply to Santa Clause, UFOs or any other god or religion.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
    • TR6

      @Topher:”Again, none of that has been proven. In fact, you'd have had to have been there and see it. It's all historical science and not provable… But the statement was that the Bible is historically inaccurate. That needs proof.”

      So according to Topher every book that makes any claim (no matter how wild or bizarre) cannot be called inaccurate until eye witness testimony to the contrary can be produced. Which means that all books about UFOs sightings must be considered accurate unless there is an eye witness to the UFO not being there. Also anything written about jesus, including his 3 wives and 7 illegitimate children cannot be called inaccurate until eye witness testimony to the contrary is produced

      June 21, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
    • Topher

      So you believe in Santa Clause?

      June 21, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • Topher

      "Which means that all books about UFOs sightings must be considered accurate unless there is an eye witness to the UFO not being there."

      I believe in UFOs. Their very name means we don't know what it is. When you say it is an alien space ship, however, that's when you need proof. Otherwise, it's just a guess. Believe it was an alien if you want, but without evidence it is unfounded.

      "Also anything written about jesus, including his 3 wives and 7 illegitimate children cannot be called inaccurate until eye witness testimony to the contrary is produced"

      No one from that time claimed Jesus was married or had kids. So this argument is just silly.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Topher
      Santa Claus = Saint Nikolaos of Myra, who was present at the Council of Nicea where they decided what bits of the bible would be canonized.
      One of the myths about him is that in the middle of the night, he tossed bags of gold through the window of poor man so that he might have a proper dowry for his daughters.
      Hence Santa Claus brings presents after the kids are asleep...

      Isn't it interesting how the tales of this mortal man have become mythologized over the generations until we have the magic elf who shills Coca-Cola of today?

      June 21, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Topher
      But I see you're conveniently ignoring my point about the impossbility of current genetic diversity stemming from a tiny gene pool less than 4,500 years ago....
      Do you put Mendel in the same category as Darwin?

      June 21, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Topher wrote, "Again, none of that has been proven."

      You again demonstrate your ignorance about even the most basic definitions used in the scientific method. In science, we don't prove things, we explain things. And science has explained that all those things claimed by your bible are false.

      You also wrote, "Noah would not have needed 2 grizzlies and 2 polars ... just two bears."

      And yet, it is you fundiots who claim that there is no such thing as speciation. However, from your answer, it shows that you fundiots have to believe in a super duper double top secret magical hyper macro-evolution. How else did we get from 1 brreding pair of the beetle "kind" to over 300,000 specific different species today?

      Interestingly, we can track changes in the genome of an organism – we can "look into the past" if you will. We track changes in both mtDNA and nuclear DNA. We track genetic diversity. We can tell when (and where) population bottlenecks occur. These are events were the number of breeding pairs of a species are suddenly drastically decreased. For instance the Toba extinction event when the number of breeding pairs of humans dropped to less than 50,000.

      We can track these Topher. Do you think we are stûpid? Do you honestly think scientists just make this stuff up? There were no population bottlenecks of all lifeforms 4500 years ago. And a drop in the breeding pairs of a species to 1 paiir, or 4 pair, or 7 pair, would result in the extinction of that species. We know how many breeding pairs it would take for various species in order to provide enough genetic diversity to continue the species. Your global flood would have resulted in every species becoming extinct.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • Topher

      "Isn't it interesting how the tales of this mortal man have become mythologized over the generations until we have the magic elf who shills Coca-Cola of today?"

      What is your point? The Jesus the disciples believed in 2000 years ago is the same taught in the Bible today. There was no advertising evolution here.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      How would you know, Tophie? Did you find that on grisda, too?

      June 21, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • BRC

      @Topher,
      You don't know what the disciples of Jesus though 2000 years ago, because the stories weren't written for 30-130 years and the religions telling the stories now weren't finalized until even later. You know what the bible says (now). You don't what it would have said at the time of Jesus's life, and you will very likely never know if any of it is true.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • Topher

      "You don't what it would have said at the time of Jesus's life, and you will very likely never know if any of it is true."

      We'll know for sure when we die. And until then I plant my flag with Christ.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • BRC

      @Topher,
      That is a very good point, noone will know for sure till they die. So until then I plan on spending my time and effort living life, and focusing on teh PEOPLE that I share this world with. Appeasing otherworldly beings isn't worth the time or energy.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Topher
      You still haven't addressed the fact that basic mendelian genetic theory disproves the Genesis flood story....

      June 21, 2012 at 2:46 pm |
    • Topher

      BRC

      And you have every right to live your life that way. All I'm saying is that IF I'm right, and you've sinned, you'll be in big trouble on Judgment Day. If you haven't repented and trusted in the savior by then, it'll be too late for you. That'll mean being sentenced to Hell. Dude, I don't want that for you. Consider my reasons for telling you this. I don't want your money and I'm not asking you to attend my church. We all deserve Hell, but despite that, God loved us enough to provide a way to have our transgressions paid for. Jesus' death on the cross was that payment so that God, the just judge of the world, can throw out his case against you. Why in the world would you want to deny such a wonderful gift?

      That is a very good point, noone will know for sure till they die. So until then I plan on spending my time and effort living life, and focusing on teh PEOPLE that I share this world with. Appeasing otherworldly beings isn't worth the time or energy.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Topher

      And what if the Hindus are right? What if the Buddhists, the Muslims, the ancient Greeks, Norse, Romans, or the countless others? What if the Jews are right and god asks, when you die, why you worshipped jesus and convicts you of breaking the first three commandments.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
    • BRC

      @Topher,
      I deny his gift because it is built on a false and stupid premise. You said "All of us deserve hell", that is an ignorant and defeatist outlook to have about life. I know plenty of people, with and without religion, that deserve nothing but reward if there is an afterlife. To say that all SHOULD be doomed to torment inherently form the start is malicious, dogmatic, foolish, and frankly inhuman. Our drive should be to be better people, to do greater works, and to imrpove the lives of the people around us, simply because we want to do well, not because we're naughty creatures born evil.

      I have a one year old son. If you could look at me with a straight face and tell me that he deserves to suffer for eternity SIMPLY for the act of being born, I would walk away laughing, and wouldn't stop until I forgot that I have ever met you. It is downright foolish to believe that. And if you're right, and your religion is right, and "God" believes that children, who trully are born innocent (and I don't even like the noisy little smell factories) DESERVE punishment, because ancestors of uncountable generation, for whose transgressions the world ahs already been repeatedly punished, broke an arbitrary rule that he made up, but he is willing to forgive them if they worship him, I would swiftly move from dismissal and ambivalance of "God" to hatred. That people can follow a religion that commits itself to the worship of such a "God", and trully believes we deserve it, ashames me.

      That's why I would dismiss the gift, even if it was true, because it's not a gift. It's extorsion.

      So tell me, do you really believe that children, on the day they were born, deserve to suffer for eternity?

      June 21, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • Topher

      HawaiiGuest

      "And what if the Hindus are right? What if the Buddhists, the Muslims, the ancient Greeks, Norse, Romans, or the countless others?"

      Then I'd be in big trouble. Of course only one can be right. But then if any of these are right I'm in trouble for another reason. None of these religions provide forgiveness for my sins. Only Christianity does that. And I know I've sinned ... big time.

      "What if the Jews are right and god asks, when you die, why you worshipped jesus and convicts you of breaking the first three commandments."

      I have broken those commandments. I've broken all 10. I need the savior in a bad way. If the Jews are right I still don't have forgiveness of sins.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:15 pm |
    • Topher

      BRC

      "So tell me, do you really believe that children, on the day they were born, deserve to suffer for eternity?"

      You might find this surprising, but no, I don't. There's an age of accountability. What age is that? I don't know. But I think this would also apply to those born with mental disablilities.

      Your 1-year-old would not go to Hell just for being born. We are sent to Hell for breaking God's rules. For lying. Stealing. Blaspheming. Lusting. That's the ONLY reason. Now, the baby IS born with a sinful nature, meaning if they are around long enough, they WILL sin.

      Your theology is a little messed up. We don't get saved from Hell for "believing" in Jesus. The Bible says even the demons know Jesus is the Christ ... and they tremble. Proper theology says that your sins were paid for on the cross. He took the punishment you deserve. So that if you repent of sinning (not just say you are sorry, but turn from those sins) and trust that Jesus can do what He claimed He could do (forgive you and satisfy the judgment against you) that you will be saved. That's a wonderful thing. Why should you hate that?

      "Our drive should be to be better people, to do greater works, and to imrpove the lives of the people around us, simply because we want to do well, not because we're naughty creatures born evil."

      We should do all those things, you are right. But even the best people that ever lived sinned. And they need a savior just like you and I do.

      I've only got a few more minutes to talk with you before I have to go to work. If you are interested in what Christians believe about babies that die, head over to John MacArthur's site at gty.org. He has a great sermon on this in the audio section. I wish I had time to look up the link for you.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
    • BRC

      @Topher,
      Your argument doesn't make any sense. If you're wrong, you're not in trouble because "you're a sinner", without Christianity THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SIN. That religion made it up, even Judaism doesn't recognize original sin. No other religiong regards you as a bad person right from the start, so you wouldn't be in trouble without a savior, because there would be nothing to save you from.

      Now, some of the old timy god swould probably toy with you for picking a different "God" as your favorite, and Yahweh would most deffinitely be mad, but that's the price of betting on a horse, sometimes it loses. Can't lose if you don't gamble.

      June 21, 2012 at 4:00 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Smithsonian copypasta'd directly from the fundiot website AIG. Except he failed to attribute it. AIG is a copyrighted website. In essence, this cretin stole intellectual (gag) material and passed it off as his own. Pretty freaking sad.

      June 21, 2012 at 4:02 pm |
    • BRC

      @Topher,
      My above post was about your reply to Hawaiiguest. I don't really need to reply to your answer to me, becasue you're just giving more examples of what I'm talking about "they were born a sinner". That is simply thoughtless indoctrination. Some people are born with a tendency to do bad things, others born to do good. It is variety in human nature. SIN has nothing to do with it. Withouth CHristianity, sin wouldn't exist. They push their agenda by enforcing this concept that we will all do bad things without the aid of Jesus and it's just not true, and it's not even remotely honest to say it.

      Sin isn't real, there are good people and bad people, and there are bad people who do good things, and good people who do bad things. That's life. Your life is about what you do, and how you live; you do not owe any one a cosmic apollogy so they will save you from one day being your inherently sinful self. That mentatlity is possiblity what I hold against religion the most, it is certainly tone of the worst things about Christianity.

      June 21, 2012 at 4:10 pm |
    • Topher

      BRC

      True. If the athiests are right and there is no God and no afterlife nothing will happen to me. But if I'm right, what will happen to you and others who don't have forgiveness? Yikes.

      Dude, I'd never tell you to believe "just in case" or to get "fire insurance." But I would tell you to look into it more deeply. Atheists don't like for me to quote the Bible or even sources with a Biblical worldview, yet it is ok for them to use secular sources. I say look into both. Only one can be correct. Either there is a God or there isn't. But you have to give both sides a chance. I'm sure you've done things in your life you aren't proud of, even if you don't want to call them sins. And if there is a God, you'll have to answer for those things. Only Jesus Christ provides forgiveness. Please give this some serious thought tonight. None of us are promised another day.

      Just in case I don't have time to reply anymore ... have a great evening. Think about this stuff and we'll talk more tomorrow. God bless.

      June 21, 2012 at 4:12 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Topher

      You're presenting the same false dichotomy that I've pointed out to you earlier. Pascal's Wager only works in your favor if your religion were the only one.

      June 21, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
    • BRC

      @Topher,
      I know you mean well, but it is painful and stunning to me that you don't get this. Jesus is the only one offering salvation, but he's also the only one saying you need it. When the Mob trashes your store, then offers to let you pay for protection so they don't do it again, THEY'RE NOT DOING YOU A FAVOR. They're extorting you. Can you tell me anyway that the setup in Christianity is different? ("God" says you're naturally a sinner who is going to hell, Jesus (who is "God") will save you if you pledge yourself to him).

      June 21, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
    • Topher

      BRC

      Ok, last response, then I've really gotta go. 🙂

      Actually, the Jews say you need it, too. That's what all the sacrificing in the OT was about ... but those sacrifices only "covered" your sins until the Messiah came. That's why John the Baptist called Jesus "the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." He was the true sacrifice.

      I don't like your analogy. I think this one works a bit better, for what it's worth. The Sheriff sets the laws. You break them. But instead of throwing you in prison for it, he pays your bail out of his own pocket.

      June 21, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
    • BRC

      @Topher,
      Whether or not you like it doesn't matter, it's accurate. Yours is not, Sheriffs don't make laws, they enforce the laws made by the elected legislative bodies. But, to make your analogy accurate, you could say it like this.

      The sheriff built a wall around the town so that noone could leave and he could make whatever laws he wanted. He made a law that noone was ever allowed to disagree with him. If you did disagree with him, the punishment was the electric chair. However, because he was a merciful sheriff, he told the town that if they said thank you to him every morning when they saw him, and came together once a week to say thank you as a group, he wouldn't think they were dissagreeing with him, and he would let them live out their lives.

      That's a bit closer to the christian arrangement. See, don't steal, don't raep, don't kill, those didn't come from christianity (or Judaism), they came from societal norms for survival, and the people already enforced them. The part that was unique to Christianity, was worship "God" and Jesus or burn. Fortunately, they had the key to not burning, it was to worship them. Sorry, but that's extorsion.

      June 21, 2012 at 4:39 pm |
  12. atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with

    case closed!

    June 21, 2012 at 10:51 am |
    • midwest rail

      Presumptuous nonsense.

      June 21, 2012 at 10:54 am |
    • William Demuth

      What?

      Me thinks you are a bit confused.

      June 21, 2012 at 10:56 am |
    • BRC

      I was not raised with any religion, I am an Atheist which means I don't believe in any gods, and while I believe there are good people who belong to them, the world would be better off without organized religions (all of them), the good people would still come together to do good deeds.

      Now that you can see it's clearly false, will you change the handle ot something that makes sense, or at the very least explain what you were trying to say?

      June 21, 2012 at 10:58 am |
    • Huebert

      Did that make sense in your head?

      June 21, 2012 at 10:58 am |
    • atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with

      better without?

      you live a fairy-tale world

      June 21, 2012 at 11:00 am |
    • BRC

      @Really long innaccurate name.
      How do I live in a fairy tale world? I understand that your opinion differes from mine, but can you actually explain why we would be worse off without the dividing force of different religions?

      June 21, 2012 at 11:41 am |
    • atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with

      without religion every bad thing will still exist.

      so yes you do live in a fairy-tale world

      June 21, 2012 at 11:56 am |
    • BRC

      @ Copy and past elong name here,
      Interesting, still avoiding specifics I see. The best I can do to answer your statement, is to say no. I think religion is a bad thing. It reduces teh amount of thought people put into their lives, it takes peoples priorities away form the here and and now, and puts them on some mythical beings that can never be proven, and even if they are real don't need anything from us. yes, bad people would still do bad things, but by taking away religiong to take away one of the tools people use for control, adn you force people to start thining for themselves (or at least you try).

      Here's the flip side to your comment, if all the bad things are here anyway, what good does religion do?

      June 21, 2012 at 12:03 pm |
    • atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with

      Got the solution that will end war eh? r.a.p.e as well? suicide as well?

      so yes you do believe a fairy-tale

      June 21, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
    • BRC

      @with up grew they one the, religion one only reject atheists,
      No, I can't end all wars, but I can cut back on a lot of them by having people stop killing each other over who's imaginary friend is stronger. Noone can end all raep, but my answer would be to drop raipsts in a pit of lava; what's your religions answer? I don't see the need to get rid of suicide, secular counciling allows, or even just a friend taking the time to listen can save those who are walking towards the edge, but if someone's mind and will to live are so thoroughly cracked that they've decided to end their own lives, they're going to do it. It's sad but it's not my problem- it's their decision. What's your religion's answer, send them to hell for it?

      So there, you gave me 3 things that will never go away, I gave you my thoughts on them (based very much in reality), care to explain how religion plans on fixing any of it?

      June 21, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
    • Huebert

      @BRC

      Arguing with this troll is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, he is just going to sh!t all over the board and strut around like his victorious.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:16 pm |
    • atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with

      and yet withou religion man will still kill hate etc.

      You know you are powerless,thats why you try so hard because you cant change a race of nearly 7 billion.

      so go ahead keep believing your oh so happy ending fairy-tale

      June 21, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
    • BRC

      @You're almost too exhasusting to keep coming up with these names,
      I understand that. I have agreed with you. I have given my recommendations. Now, what're yours. You value religions so much, you are so sure the Atheist are wrong, and fools for thinking what we do. Support your stance. Tell me how religion will fix any of downer posts you've been making to show me how hopeless life is without it. Tell me how it's better with it, that simple.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
    • BRC

      @Heubert,
      I know, but I look at it this way. If I can learn to play chess with the pidgeon, without trying to use the turd covered board to smash it to tiny little feathery bits, then I can handle almost any conversation, because my mind will be both agile, and patient. I think of it as self improvement, just because they may refuse to improve, doesn't mean I can't.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
    • atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with

      Didnt say anyone was wrong.I only stated how many atheists believe in fairy-tales they lead themselves to believe like we are talking about now.

      You know its not religion but play the denial game.Many religions accept the problem is man and its strange..atheists go the opposite way.So who's in denial and believes the happy ending fairy-tale?

      oh yeah looks like many many atheists out there do in fact believe like so many religious they also have the solution.

      Guess what? all "perfect" societies failed.Every single one

      June 21, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with

      With or without religion man is still a monster.You can be the "good moral person" but than again..a "good moral person" fails.Fails at being "good" everday.A "good moral person" can still murder cheat lie steal etc.

      i will quote something from my own faith "There is none who does good no not one".A book written nearly 2,000 years ago already knew man wont ever change.As seen in history its true.Its not religion the source is man.But we all have the RIGHT to choose.

      Its interesting how you believe the lies of the fanatics killing in the name of "their god" bu i dont

      June 21, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • BRC

      @My name is a long hyperlink to this story,
      It's like you're reading someone else's comments. I NEVER BLAMED RELIGION. Anymore then I blame the bullet when someone gets shot. Form the very beginning I have said good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things. Our existence and quality of life is without question or qualification our own responsibility.

      What I did say, is that religion (which was created by men), is used as a tool, for both good and bad. I believe that the good it does, is not worth keeping it around, because of the ability of people to use it for ill, and becasue of the fundemental effect it has on many people's thought processes.

      That's my argument, that bad and good will continue, but the bad of religion outways the good, and we're better off without it. Instead of trying to skew my statements, or pull in arguments from people that aren't me and have nothing to do with what I'm saying, why don't you adress that point. EXPLAIN, preferably in detail, why the good of religion outweighs the bad.

      OR, at the absolute least, explain how your name makes any sense, when I wasn't raised under any religion, and flatly reject all of them.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:46 pm |
    • atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with

      bad of religion?

      try its man that does the bad.The book doesnt get off the shelf and do the bad things.People do

      and you stupid enough to believe them

      June 21, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
    • atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with

      how can you reject every religion if you do not know every one? you are an atheist correct? So thus you are an atheist for a blind reason.And if your parents were atheist thats usually the start of it

      June 21, 2012 at 1:03 pm |
    • BRC

      @I'll use small words this time.
      Okay, lets ignore everything up until now, just tell me this- what good does religion do?

      June 21, 2012 at 1:05 pm |
    • BRC

      @holy crap you actually read what I wrote,
      This is a good start. I reject all religions because I have researched them, and none of them have any proof or reason for me to follow them. I know that some people follow religions because of comfort and a need for fellowship. I have neither of those desires, so I don't feel the need to join any religion. That simple- they have nothing I need, I don't participate. I am an atheist because there is no proof or even strong evidence of any gods. It's an observation from experience, the complete opposite of being blind (that would be faith).

      And my parents were 1) Atheists/Agnostic 2) Roman Catholic, but my father (thankfully) insisted that I be allowed to choose my own path. I went to a service when I was 5, within 20 minutes I knew they were full of it. I've researched a lot, and gone here and there, but I still don't need or believe any of it.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
    • atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with

      let me flip the question:What good has atheism brought?

      Religion can bring people closer together.Create a sense of community.etc

      but what science is also good and bad.A bad thing is they created a weapon that coul destroy the entire planet.Science not religion built the weapon.

      everything has a good and bad and the sad thing is..you think you have the solution and answer

      June 21, 2012 at 1:10 pm |
    • atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with

      You didnt research all.So thus you cant reject all religions

      June 21, 2012 at 1:12 pm |
    • BRC

      @Oh good I have a chance to show how to answer questions,
      What good has atheism brought? Atheism allows us to see through the lies and mechanisms of control established by hundreds of years of power hungry men using organized religion for their own personal gain. Atheism allows you to examine your life and live by the intrainsic moral code that you know to be right, without constantly having to rationalize it against books that are woefully out of date, and not really good bases for morality to begin with. Atheism allows us to evolve with the times and grow as a society. And atheism places value on thought, not faith. I think those are all good things.

      "Religion can bring people closer together.Create a sense of community"- so can a chess team, a sports organization, a book club, or any social interaction. So yes, religion can do that, but it's not necessary.

      And it is very true, science can build things that are used for violence, death, and destruction, that is a good point. But it also leads all developements in medicine, food, our understanding of the universe and of the human body. What it creates can both take or improve life, and I believe it has improved life more then it has hurt it.

      Religion creates nothing. Religion only gives people the impetus to do something with the tools that science creates. Sometimes it leads people to use those tools for good, othertimes it leads people to use tools for evil. Becuase religion never produces anything good that can't be gotten without it, I don't think it's worth the risk to keep that motivating force for bad things around.

      Never said I had THE solution or answer, I have proposed answer, I have what I think could be a solution. It's open for disucssion and improvement.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
    • atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with

      and yet you are still powerless to do anything.You relay on faith,totally on faith.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, I don't "relay" on faith.

      What a doofus you are.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • Primewonk

      BRC wrote, "If I can learn to play chess with the pidgeon, without trying to use the turd covered board to smash it to tiny little feathery bits, then I can handle almost any conversation"

      You'll never win a chess match against a pidgeon – they cheat. Hummingbirds are worthy opponents, but you have to use a very tiny light-weight chess set.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • BRC

      @And yet you still don't get it,
      I have nothing to do with faith, that's your side. That's the point. I believe life would be better for all if we did away with religion. If we tried it, and I was wrong, I would be willing to admit it. I'd be mad, but I'd admit it.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • Scott

      atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with “case closed!”

      Typical Christian. Head shoved up his a_ss so far, for so long, he can’t even remember what the real world is like

      June 21, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • BRC

      @Primewonk,
      I would never play chess with a humming bird. You may want to get into a contest with a self propelled dart, but I for one say no thank you.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with

      Oh you do have faith.You are the correct right? Do you have proof to prove you are right?
      No?

      than yes you do have faith.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • TR6

      @atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with:” how can you reject every religion if you do not know every one? “

      How can Christians reject every other religion in the world if they haven’t studied every one? How can they say their god is the only one that answers prayer unless they have prayed to every other god that is claimed to exist? How can Christians claim to know they are heteros-exual unless they have tried h0mos-exual s-ex?

      June 21, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • BRC

      @Your name has more content than many of your posts,
      Help me out here, what are you saying I have faith in. I truly don't understand what you think I'm taking on faith. Give me a couple items you think I believe in based, and I'll tell you if I actually feel that way.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
    • atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with

      faith you are correct.Everyone else is wrong.

      takes faith

      June 21, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
    • BRC

      @You're not getting off that easy,
      Oh no, that was a completely BS cop-out reply. WHAT did I calim to know deffinitively that everyone else was wrong about? Tell me where I said I'm right and everyone else is wrong.

      June 21, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
    • atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with

      by being an atheist you deny every single god or gods out there.so you made a limited choice.You basically say you are correct and everyone else is wrong

      June 21, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • DG

      "You basically say you are correct and everyone else is wrong"

      History has always proven believing in fake Gods is wrong. There's new Gods being invented even today.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
    • BRC

      @Apparently you don't understand what cognitive thought is,
      It is true, I don't believe in any god. But that's not based on faith, it's a determination made based on the totality of evidence. there is NO proof of any deity, there isn't even strong evidence for one. SO, I don't believ ein them, because I DO NOT have faith. I'm not saying everyone else is wrong, I'm saying that they don't have any proof that they're right. If you provide me PROOF that there is some god, I will stop being an atheist (because my belief is rational, not based on faith).

      June 21, 2012 at 3:22 pm |
    • atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with

      and yet YOU cannot disprove ANY of them?

      so yep you do have faith.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:30 pm |
    • BRC

      @Please don't make me use the FSM example,
      I don't need to disprove them to make my decision without basing it on faith. I checked under my bed and in the closte often when I was a kid, and there were never any monsters, or monster tracks, or left behind monster pieces, so no matter how creepy the dark room may have been, the fact that there WAS NO EVIDENCE meant THERE WERE NO MONSTERS. That's not faith, that's an informed deduciton. I've looked, EVERY religion has spent huge amounts of time looking and so far ther is NO EVIDENCE that there are any gods, no matter how dark and scary you think the universe is. That means that I can make the informed deduction, that there are no gods. It's not faith, it's deduction, it's using your mind. They are two very different things.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:40 pm |
    • atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with

      why do you even care?

      June 21, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @atheists reject

      Beliefs inform actions, and when beliefs lead to action that marginalize the rights of others, or causes divisive, and hateful actions then those beliefs should have to provide evidence to their validity.

      June 21, 2012 at 4:32 pm |
    • BRC

      Pretty much what Hawaii said.

      That and a long tirade about how your religion causes people to live hopeless defeatist lives that dismiss the here and now for the promise of ungaruanteed eternal reward, but that's above, so no need to repost it.

      June 21, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
    • atheists reject only one religion, the one they grew up with

      yet you are powerless to stop?

      June 21, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
  13. Logic

    It's always the god-nuts. Always. You people are so fvcking stupid. I am sorry, but there is no other word for you. small minded simpletons.

    June 21, 2012 at 10:51 am |
  14. Reality

    Only for the new members of this blog and also all the Abrahamic rednecks of the world:

    o "Abrahamics" believe that their god created all of us and of course that includes the g-ay members of the human race. Also, those who have studied ho-mo-se-xuality have determined that there is no choice involved therefore ga-ys are ga-y because god made them that way.

    To wit:

    1. The Royal College of Psy-chiatrists stated in 2007:

    “ Despite almost a century of psy-choanalytic and psy-chological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heteros-exual or hom-ose-xual orientation. It would appear that s-exual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of ge-netic factors and the early ut-erine environment. Se-xual orientation is therefore not a choice.[60] "

    2. "Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab state in the abstract of their 2010 study, "The fe-tal brain develops during the intraut-erine period in the male direction through a direct action of tes-tosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hor-mone surge. In this way, our gender identi-ty (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and s-exual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender ident–ity or s-exual orientation."[8

    3. See also the Philadelphia Inquirer review “Gay Gene, Deconstructed”, 12/12/2011. Said review addresses the following “How do genes associated with ho-mose-xuality avoid being weeded out by Darwinian evolution?”

    Of course, those gays who belong to Abrahamic religions supposedly abide by the rules of no adu-ltery or for-nication allowed.

    And because of basic biology differences said monogamous ventures should always be called same-se-x unions not same-se-x marriages.
    To wit:

    From below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, ga-y s-exual activity is still mutual mas-turbation caused by one or more complex s-exual differences. Some differences are visually obvious in for example the complex maleness of DeGeneres, Billy Jean King and Rosie O'Donnell.

    Yes, heteros-exuals practice many of the same "moves" but there is never a doubt who is the female and who is the male.

    As noted, there are basic biological differences in gay unions vs. heterose-xual marriage. Government benefits are the same in both but making the distinction is important for census data and for social responses with respect to potential issues with disease, divorce and family interactions.

    June 21, 2012 at 10:51 am |
    • MennoKnight

      Sigmund Freud's views on hom.ose.xua.lity were once seen by psychology as the basis for all scientific fact. The vast majority of Psychologists held his views and they ridiculed Christians for their stupidity. They said things like the case was closed.

      And now modern psychology correctly says Freud was wrong, and they have come up with their own theories to explain hom.ose.xua.lity. And some how if the majority say that they agree there is no room for augment. Case closed.

      Let me break it to you gently, Psychology is not a science. It is a philosophy. And currently it is a philosophy that bases much of its understanding of human behavior on the behavior of great apes like chimpanzees and then transfers them to humans.
      While Psychology and Sociology at times are good tools on helping human behaviors, they are not science.

      And your arguments are not based on science. They are based on philosophy that has no anchor and that is toss to an from by the winds of political correctness and popularity.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:29 am |
    • Primewonk

      @ MennoKnight – I always find it hilarious when folks who purposefully choose to be ignorant about science start claiming that things they don't understand are not science.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:42 am |
    • MennoKnight

      Primewonk,
      Nice defection. So when you are given a good argument you just deflect?

      Psychology is not a science, it is a philosophy.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @MennoKnight,

      All science is philosophy, natural philosophy. We still confer doctorates in the sciences as a PhD (doctor of philosophy).

      Science differs from the other branches of philosophy that deal with the study of myths by looking at what is measurable, repeatable and predictable, in some branches more exactly than others. (Certainly psychology is an inexact science at best.)

      Neverthess science does try to answer the question of 'where do we come from'. 'Why are we here', and 'where are we going' are unanswerable by measurement or any rational system.

      Absolute truth is unknowable, yet people hunger for it, so much that they will believe practically anything to satisfy that desire.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
    • MennoKnight

      But the problem is that in much of Psychology you cannot apply the scientific principles of cause and effect in the same way you can with the true sciences such as physics, astronomy, chemistry, and biology.

      Psychology and Sociology are "soft" sciences because these strict standards of the hard sciences often do not translate into the arenas of human moral behaviors.
      This is why Psychology is tossed to a fro with the wind of political correctness and popularity. It did in the past and it does today.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "Let me break it to you gently, Psychology is not a science. It is a philosophy. And currently it is a philosophy that bases much of its understanding of human behavior on the behavior of great apes like chimpanzees and then transfers them to humans.
      While Psychology and Sociology at times are good tools on helping human behaviors, they are not science.

      And your arguments are not based on science. They are based on philosophy that has no anchor and that is toss to an from by the winds of political correctness and popularity."

      In 1993, the National Institute of Health’ Dean Hamer illustrated that homosexuality might be inherited from the mother by her sons through a specific region of the X chromosome (Xq28). Hamer demonstrated this by noting that 33 out of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers whom he studied showed the same variation in the tip of the chromosome.

      – Hamer DH, Hu S, Magnuson VL, Hu N. and Pattatucci AML. A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science 1993; 261:320-326.

      A June 2006 Canadian study published in the journal, “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,” said that nature, instead of nurture, explains the origins of homosexuality. The study’ author, Prof. Anthony F. Bogaert, at Brock University in Ontario, explored the causes behind what is known as the fraternal birth order. The research showed a correlation between the number of biological older brothers a man has and his sexual orientation. Dividing his sample of more than 900 heterosexual and homosexual men into four groups, Bogaert examined the impact of all types of older brothers, including step and adopted siblings, and the amount of time brothers spent together while growing up.His research found that only the number of biological brothers had an impact on sexuality, regardless of whether the boys were raised together.

      – Bogaert, A.F. 2006. Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men’s sexual orientation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103 July 11 2006.

      A study released in May 2006 by Swedish scientists demonstrates that biology plays a key role in determining a person’ sexuality. The research shows that the portion of the brain that helps regulate sexuality — the hypothalamus – reacted the exact same way in straight women and gay men when exposed to male pheromones, which are chemicals designed to provoke a behavior, such as sexual arousal. The same area of the brain only became stimulated in heterosexual men when introduced to female pheromones.

      – by Ivanka Savic article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, (PNAS) “Brain Response To Putative Pheromones In Homosexual Men,” (Vol. 102 No. 19) May 10, 2005.

      In 2005, Dr. Brian Mustanski of the University of Illinois at Chicago published a study in the esteemed biomedical journal Human Genetics, claiming he identified three chromosomal regions linked to sexual orientation in men: 7q36, 8p12 and 10q26.

      “A Genomewide Scan of Male Sexual Orientation”, Human Genetics, Vol. 116, No. 4, pp. 272-278, 2005.

      In 2003, University of Texas psychoacoustics specialist Dennis McFadden found that when measuring the way the brain reacts to sound, lesbians fell in between heterosexual men and straight women, meaning they are exposed to higher than normal levels of male hormone in utero.

      – Loehlin, John C.; McFadden, David. “Otoacoustic emissions, auditory evoked potentials, and traits related to sex and sexual orientation”. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 1 April 2003.

      In 2003, University of Liverpool biologist John T. Manning found that the lesbians whom he studied have a hand pattern that resembles a man’ more than a straight female’. Manning concluded from his study that this “tells us that female homosexuals have had higher levels of exposure to testosterone before birth.”

      – Neave, N., Laing, S., Fink, B., Manning, J.T (2003) Second to fourth digit ratio, testosterone, and perceived male dominance. Proceedings of the Royal Society B (Lond), 270, 2167-2172.

      A 1991 study by Dr. Simon LeVay found that a specific region of the hypothalamus is twice as large in heterosexual men as it is in women or gay men. This shows the role of biology in sexual orientation.

      – Levay, Simon “A difference in hypothalamic structure between homosexual and heterosexual men” Science. 1991 Volume 253, Issue 5023, pp. 1034-1037.

      Another 1991 study by scientists Richard Pillard and John M. Baily studied homosexuality among brothers and found that 53 percent of identical twins were both gay. In adoptive brothers, 11 percent were both homosexual. Of non-twin biological siblings, 9 percent were gay. Again, this points to solid evidence that homosexuality is a matter of nature.

      – Bailey JM, Pillard RC (1991). A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48, 1089-1096.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:02 pm |
    • MennoKnight

      YeahRight,
      Cut and past much?

      June 21, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
    • MennoKnight

      YeahRight,
      Instead of just cutting and pasting how about thinking for yourself.

      June 21, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
  15. Topher

    "The Gospel does not condemn hom.ose.xuals, it condemns hom.ose.xuality," said R. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. "The Bible makes clear that hom.ose.xuality is a sin, in the context of making clear that every person is a sinner."

    As usual, Al Mohler is the voice of reason. Thank you, sir.

    June 21, 2012 at 10:44 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, Topher. This is Mohler's interpretation. Not all theologians agree.

      June 21, 2012 at 10:45 am |
    • Topher

      That doesn't not make him the voice of reason. The Bible is quite clear on this subject. The act is a sin. If you're not acting on those urges and following Christ, you, too, can be saved.

      June 21, 2012 at 10:48 am |
    • Primewonk

      A celibate gay person is still – *gasp*gay*gasp*.

      Also, your bible claims that "lusting in your heart" is the same as actually doing it. Gay folks have the same degree of sèxual ideation as straights.

      Also, again, those verses you use to denigrate against gay folks don'tmean what you think they mean. This has been explained to you ad nauseum. But your cognitive dissonance prevents you from understanding this.

      Also, what your version of a god thinks about gay folks is irrelevant, since he has no standing in our laws.

      June 21, 2012 at 10:55 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So you can be lusting, Topher, as long as you're not actually "doing it"? Hmmmm. Didn't you tell me that hatred in your heart was "murder" according to Jesus?

      June 21, 2012 at 10:58 am |
    • Topher

      Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, you can't lust. Jesus said looking at someone with lust is adultery in the heart. Just because you have that proclivity doesn't mean you have to act on it. Choose God, not hormones.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:01 am |
    • Huebert

      Topher

      So are you saying it is a sin for a gay person to find another person se.xually attractive?

      June 21, 2012 at 11:04 am |
    • Topher

      Huebert

      To be honest, I'm not sure if you just think a person is se.x.ually attractive. For instance, women will often comment on how attractive other women are, but they aren't les.b.ians. Or a guy could say "if I were a girl I'd be into him." However, I would say that if the thought crossed the line into imagining the person naked or in a se.xual act, yes, that's a sin.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:11 am |
    • HotAirAce

      So Topher, do you support gay marriage provided they don't engage in sinful acts?

      June 21, 2012 at 11:22 am |
    • Topher

      I don't support it at all because of what the Bible says marriage is ... between a man and a woman.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:32 am |
    • Scott

      I don’t hate Christians, I hate Christianity. If Christians would just abstain from all of their vile religious behavior they would be just as acceptable as regular human beings

      June 21, 2012 at 11:43 am |
    • Madtown

      Topher
      I don't support it at all because of what the Bible says marriage is
      -------
      Well, that's nice. The men who wrote the bible would be very proud of you, that they've convinced you to carry forward their opinions and beliefs. Of course, you don't carry forward the opinions and beliefs of God, because those things are unknown, and certainly NOT contained in the human-written bible.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:01 pm |
    • Topher

      Madtown

      You have a bias and presupposition against the Bible. That's fine. But the question is, is it true? You claim the Bible was written by men ... that's partly true. God wrote the Bible through men. It's like when you write a letter. Who gets credit as the author? You or the pencil? Of course you do. You made the pencil write what you wanted. That's how it works here. Don't believe it if you want. But perhaps you should be tolerant of my beliefs, too. If I'm right, I do know the will of God as revealed in His word.

      June 21, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
    • Madtown

      Topher
      You have a bias and presupposition against the Bible. That's fine. But the question is, is it true? You claim the Bible was written by men ... that's partly true
      -----
      No, it's actually COMPLETELY true the bible was written by men. It's an inarguable fact. Did sections of the word "poof" into existence overnight? Each word was written, and written by men. Were those men "inspired" by God to write what they wrote? I don't know, just as you don't know. That's my answer for all of these questions, because the vast majority of them are unknowable. What I will say I do know for certain, is that human beings are a flawed and imperfect species. As such, anything human beings create naturally contains error and flaw, including the bible. It's inescapable, no matter what you'd like to believe. To call it the "word of God" is intellectually insulting. I'd even venture to guess that God would not be pleased to have such a violent, judgemental, and flaw filled volume of writing be credited to him.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:05 pm |
    • Topher

      I agree it was written by man. Duh. But inspired by God.

      "Were those men "inspired" by God to write what they wrote? I don't know, just as you don't know."

      Well, at least you're open to the possibility that God could have inspired them.

      " As such, anything human beings create naturally contains error and flaw, including the bible."

      True. There are errors in the Bible. And we know about them. But none of them change the message or falsify its teachings.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:12 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Topher, I don't have any Babbles in my house and cannot find a definitive statement online. Please tell us exactly where in The Babble it clearly says that marriage is between a man and a woman. Also, please tell us why you want to impose your biblical definition of marriage on everyone. Why shouldn't there be civial marriage, with absolutely nothing to do with any religion, and religious marriage for those that need to believe in imaginary beings and follow a book with no factual foundation?

      June 21, 2012 at 4:58 pm |
  16. Primewonk

    Fundiots (fundamentalist îdiots) purposefully choose to be ignorant about the science of sèxual orientation. Instead they choose to believe the musings of nomadic bronze-age shepherds who were so scientifically ignorant they thought you used a live bird to sprinkle the blood of a dead bird around a house to treat leprosy.

    Until you get rid of this mindset, nothing will change.

    June 21, 2012 at 10:19 am |
    • ANDRES

      Just point out the gene that makes a person gay or straight and then I will believe it.

      June 21, 2012 at 10:27 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Do you know how to read? There's no single 'gene' responsible for any number of traits that are still biologic.

      Do you really think that gays choose their orientation? When did you choose yours?

      June 21, 2012 at 10:33 am |
    • midwest rail

      There is no gene identified thus far for left-handedness. Until one is identified, left-handed people are an abomination, and must be quarantined. ( eye roll )

      June 21, 2012 at 10:33 am |
    • Primewonk

      Andres – in humans there is no single gene responsible for sèxual orientation. There is one in drosophilia. In humans orientation is a biological multivariate based in genetics (not "A" gene, but groupings of genes – and more importantly, how they are expressed, what they code for) along with hormonal baths in utero, neuronal plasticity, neuroanatomy, etc.

      June 21, 2012 at 10:42 am |
    • William Demuth

      So Prime

      Is the consensus of the gay community that the trait is a genetic one?

      Furious argument on BOTH sides. Some believe Choice, some believe nature, and some nurture.

      But if the truth is identified as genetic in a testable and provable way, I suspect we will see a genocide against the unborn gay.

      (As for my beliefs, I suspect a genetic vulnerability probably activated by a virus of some type)

      June 21, 2012 at 10:42 am |
    • Erik

      "Just point out the gene that makes a person gay or straight and then I will believe it."

      All major medical professional organizations concur that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, from gay to straight or otherwise. The American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and European Psychological, Psychiatric, and Medical Associations all agree with this, as does the World Health Organization and the medical organizations of Japan, China, and most recently, Thailand. Furthermore, attempts to change one's sexual orientation can be psychologically damaging, and cause great inner turmoil and depression, especially for Christian gays and lesbians.

      The scientific evidence of the innateness of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism is overwhelming, and more peer-reviewed studies which bolster this fact are being added all the time. Science has long regarded sexual orientation – and that's all sexual orientations, including heterosexuality – as a phenotype. Simply put, a phenotype is an observable set of properties that varies among individuals and is deeply rooted in biology. For the scientific community, the role of genetics in sexuality is about as "disputable" as the role of evolution in biology.

      On the second point, that there is no conclusion that there is a "gay gene," they are right. No so-called gay gene has been found, and it's highly unlikely that one ever will. This is where conservative Christians and Muslims quickly say "See, I told you so! There's no gay gene, so being gay is a choice!"

      The fact that a so-called "gay gene" has not been discovered does not mean that homosexuality is not genetic in its causation. This is understandably something that can seem a bit strange to those who have not been educated in fields of science and advanced biology, and it is also why people who are not scientists ought not try to explain the processes in simple black-and-white terms. There is no gay gene, but there is also no "height gene" or "skin tone gene" or "left-handed gene." These, like sexuality, have a heritable aspect, but no one dominant gene is responsible for them.

      Many genes, working in sync, contribute to the phenotype and therefore do have a role in sexual orientation. In many animal model systems, for example, the precise genes involved in sexual partner selection have been identified, and their neuro-biochemical pathways have been worked out in great detail. A great number of these mechanisms have been preserved evolutionarily in humans, just as they are for every other behavioral trait we know (including heterosexuality).

      There are many biologic traits which are not specifically genetic but are biologic nonetheless. These traits are rooted in hormonal influences, contributed especially during the early stages of fetal development. This too is indisputable and based on extensive peer-reviewed research the world over. Such prenatal hormonal influences are not genetic per se, but are inborn, natural, and biologic nevertheless.

      June 21, 2012 at 10:47 am |
    • William Demuth

      Erik

      I support gay rights, but I must confess that until I see evidence otherwise, thransgenderisim still seems like a mental illness to me. From those I have met, to what I have read, to almost any information I have ever seen, these people have serious mental damage, and are a threat both to themselves and society.

      They need help.

      In fact I believe including the T in the LGBT community does them a disservice

      June 21, 2012 at 11:00 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      How do you explain the cases in which very young children identify themselves as being of the opposite gender?

      June 21, 2012 at 11:03 am |
    • Primewonk

      William, I have no idea what the consensus of gay folks is (I'm straight). The consensus of SCIENTISTS is that orientation is innate and not a choice.

      Also, genetics is but one piece of the whole orientation. Even if we could identify every gene involved, it wouldn't mean a person is gay or straight. Remember, it's how genes are expressed that matters. And that will also tie in with hormonal baths in utero. And it includes how specific regions of the brain develope and function.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:03 am |
    • Rynomite

      I am all for gay rights and do not believe being gay is a sin. That said, I do not necessarily view current science as conclusive in determining whether or not being gay is a choice. My personal belief from what I have read is that it IS a choice at least for some people (bi's for example).

      In my opinion, the issue of choice is irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with being gay even if it IS a choice.

      As a straight man, I see being gay as similar to eating shrimp. I find shrimp to be gross. I do not like the taste. I do not partake of shrimp as a consequence. I do however recognize that others like shrimp. I do not believe I should ban them from eating shrimp just because I do not like it. I may say "ewww" "gross" when someone bites into a shrimp, but I do not believe that the person eating it is in any way harming themselves or others when they eat it. If some silly thousand year old book of fairy tales declared that shrimp was unpure and that I shouldn't eat it, I would not believe that sufficient reason to condemn shrimp eaters. Luckily for shrimp eaters, no such book exists! ...er wait.....ummm ...

      June 21, 2012 at 11:06 am |
    • William Demuth

      Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      They are gay.

      I have few issues with that, it is when they begin self mutilation and hormone treatments that I have an issue.

      Tom, have you ever known one. I have known a few, and they are EXTREMLEY not well.

      It is manifested in MANY ways othr than orientation.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:07 am |
    • Primewonk

      @ Ryanomite – being born bisèxual is no different than being born gay or straight. It's simply another point on the continum from 100% gay to 100% straight. The don't choose to be attracted to both genders anymore than you choose to be attracted to women.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:14 am |
    • myweightinwords

      William, I know a few transgendered folks, some pre-op, some post. Not all of them have significant issues, and those that do, primarily seem to have the problems they do because of treatment at the hands of others who did not understand what it is to be transgendered (abusive fathers, r.ape, beatings, etc).

      I know at least one M to F, post op individual who is probably more stable and together than I am. She's a counselor for LGBT youth and teaches art classes.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:27 am |
    • William Demuth

      Prime

      I suspect you are pretty close, but enviormental factors will definetley be shown to have impact.

      Alas, I suspect a root gene will be identified, and many will choose to abort those children who carry it.

      I am straight as well, but I am fascinated by the politics of this. Even in the gay community they seem unwilling to accept the concept of a genetic link, and many prefer to believe it a choice.

      From my understanding of genetics, I find the idea of advantage easy to understand, but I am at a loss to understand how natural selection dosen't eliminate it.

      It MUST offer some advantage to our species.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:30 am |
    • myweightinwords

      @ Ryanomite

      "My personal belief from what I have read is that it IS a choice at least for some people (bi's for example)."

      As a bi myself, I can assure you that being Bi is NOT a choice. It is simply who I am. Those gay or lesbian folks who say that they choose to be gay, more than likely are actually bi, but are on the same gender side of middle on the spectrum and have chosen to ignore any opposite gender attraction.

      If being gay were a choice, who, in their right mind, would ever have chosen it, especially in the past 200 years, when it leads to ridicule and being outcast at best, to r.ape, beatings and homicide at worst?

      June 21, 2012 at 11:31 am |
    • William Demuth

      myweightinwords

      I am sure societal response does impact them, but I suspect it is not the cause.

      It is still classified as a mental illness suspected of being caused by trauma, but only time will tell.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:38 am |
    • JA

      As a christian, I DO NOT believe being gay is a sin. I use these verses to justify this:

      John 9:1-5 As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man who had been blind from birth. 2 “Rabbi,” his disciples asked him, “why was this man born blind? Was it because of his own sins or his parents’ sins?”
      3 “It was not because of his sins or his parents’ sins,” Jesus answered. “This happened so the power of God could be seen in him. 4 We must quickly carry out the tasks assigned us by the one who sent us.[a] The night is coming, and then no one can work. 5 But while I am here in the world, I am the light of the world.”

      If we act on our temptations to this materialistic world, we commit sin. I believe the act of hom.os.exuality is a sin. Take me for example, and sorry if this gets a little vulgar. I am a 25 year old male in my se.xual prime with a smokin hot wife who is not in her prime. I must not commit the sinful act of ma.sturbation just to satisfy my temptations. I believe God tests us everyday, so that ultimately, we may look to Him in order to deliver us from temptation. Some say, how is it fair that a gay person cannot act that way one's whole life? I believe God created them to be the strongest willed, strongest minded people more than any other human. For they will be dealt with much strife in their lives from others and from this material world. I believe their reward will be greatest. In many ways I look up to the LGBT community. I only wish i had as much courage as they do for the hard times they are going through this day in age.

      June 21, 2012 at 11:40 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "They are gay." They don't identify themselves as females who attracted to other females, William. They identify themselves as feeling male-as if they were born into the wrong physical body.

      And I don't care how many of them you've "known", since anecdotes are hardly proof, and you're hardly an expert.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @William
      My parents are good friends wtih a transgendered couple, both Male to Female.
      One was an inner city police officer for 20+ years and other an NCM in the Signals Battalion of the Canadian Armed Forces (my father is a Lt. Col). They both underwent their transitions after taking off the uniforms.
      One is an indiginous Canadian and a shaman in her tribe who see "two spirited" people as gifted, not cursed.
      They are both good, moral, people comfortable with who they are and proud of their contributions to society.
      Not all transgendered folk are phukked up basket cases.

      June 21, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      JA, you're wrong.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
    • JA

      ok, at least provide me with an explanation as to why please.

      June 21, 2012 at 4:04 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Jude 7

      Those that spread the lie: Isaiah 3:9

      June 21, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
  17. myweightinwords

    "To say that people shouldn't take you seriously when you say something violent is disingenuous. Our words have consequences," Murray said. "Our words have real meaning."

    This is something that needs to be repeated and understood. Words may not seem to have an immediate impact, but words linger, they get inside our heads and live there. They compound with other words and thoughts. They can grow and lead to action.

    We are not careful with our words anymore. We throw around terrible words as if they are meaningless. How many times a week do you say you "hate" something? "I hate this car. I hate my hair. I hate those people." Do you honestly, really hate that much? If you do, perhaps you need to examine why and change your life to fill it with something other than hate. But I'm betting most of us who say we "hate" this or that really only mean that we dislike it, that it doesn't fit with what we're doing, that it is in need of repair/change/moving, or it's inconvenient for us.

    When we speak carelessly, we throw our words out into the world to be heard and interpreted by others. We are responsible for not only how we actually meant those words, as well as how they are heard and to some extent, how they are used by those who hear them.

    June 21, 2012 at 10:17 am |
    • AtheistSteve

      Oddly enough time and time again I'm told by Christians that I don't truly believe that God doesn't exist but that I in fact do believe in God's existence and therefore I must HATE him to reject him. This makes about as much sense as saying "I don't believe in Santa Claus and therefore I hate him".
      I don't hate Christians. I do have an active dislike for Christians who would push the tenets of their faith on others. It's that whole "live and let live" idea. If it works for you then so be it, just keep it away from me.
      I HATE what organized religon(of any stripe) has done to human civilization from the dawn of history. How it has manipulated, coerced and deceived the laity into accepting as true that which cannot be demonstrated as such. Preying on fear and guilt it has convinced vast numbers of people to dispell with skepticism and critical thinking in favor of simply accepting what it says simply on faith. This is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty. Religion does what is equivalent to breaking your leg and then offering you a crutch. Actual healing isn't supposed to occur until after you're dead. How bloody convenient...

      June 21, 2012 at 11:30 am |
  18. Honey Badger Dont Care

    It should be startling. I think that every church that even mentions these kind of biggoted things should have their tax exempt status removed. NO kind of exclusionism like this should be tolerated, and I'm including the attempt to keep women from being able to properly care for their bodies.

    June 21, 2012 at 10:07 am |
    • sam stone

      I think the outside walls of these churches should be designated as public urinals

      June 21, 2012 at 10:16 am |
  19. midwest rail

    The Big Lie as practiced by the modern faux Christian – " love the sinner, hate the sin ". Then they go on their merry way spewing hatred, ignorance, and bigotry.

    June 21, 2012 at 10:05 am |
  20. Joe from CT, not Lieberman

    I am still waiting for someone to point out to me where in the four Gospels Jesus condemns ho mo se xuals and/or ho mo se xuality.

    June 21, 2012 at 9:48 am |
    • BRC

      Grab a book, it's gonna be a long wait.

      June 21, 2012 at 10:05 am |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      Mathew 5:17

      Now go along your biggoted way.

      June 21, 2012 at 10:08 am |
    • BRC

      @Honey Badger,
      I think we have some friendly fire here. I believe Joe is saying that these churches are all off base, because nowhere in the NT does Jesus (the guy they're supposed to be modeling themselves after) actually preach against same gender relationships. Pretty sure he's indicting these churches, not endorsing them.

      June 21, 2012 at 10:21 am |
    • Topher

      Also Matthew 19:4-7

      June 21, 2012 at 10:28 am |
    • But seriously...@Honey Badger Dont Care

      James 5:17 King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
      Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

      What the eff does that explain and where is he being a bigot?

      June 21, 2012 at 10:30 am |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      My bad guys. I thought that this guy was trying to defend these F-tards.

      June 21, 2012 at 10:40 am |
    • William Demuth

      Joe

      I am still waiting for someone to explain why Christians hate gays, when Christ himself was obviously gay.

      June 21, 2012 at 10:44 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Billy Boy, every time you non-believers open your mouths, lies pop out. Christians don't hate gays. We're the only ones that care about their souls. Your lies get them fried. Our truth, saves them.

      June 21, 2012 at 3:46 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Advertisement
About this blog

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.