home
RSS
February 24th, 2014
08:20 AM ET

soundoff (729 Responses)
  1. believerfred

    The gay issue is nothing more than a political and spiritual attack on the Word of God. The serpent is revealed in his deception of good being displayed as evil. Obedience to God results in inward and outward character that reveals love which is good yet the drumbeat of those who march to the serpent is that sin and those obedient to God are hypocrites, haters and a stain upon society.
    Unfortunately the gay issue brings out the worst in believers and non believers where the truth is not evident on either side.

    February 24, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      and you, a person in the 21st century, can honestly read that cult-speak that you just wrote and not shake your head and think "hang on, what the heck am I doing here?!?!"? You can't look at that fantasy, fairy tale magical voodoo paragraph you just penned and think, "wait a minute, this bears no resemblance to reality, It must be just years of indoctrination making me write this stuff"?

      February 24, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
      • believerfred

        And can you not see the truth in how the issue brings out the worst in people?

        February 24, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
      • believerfred

        Dyslexic doG
        "a person in the 21st century"
        =>Attacks against the Bible from Colin and the like are launched from sarcastic lies concerning valuable truths from the ancients passed down generationally to this very day forming who we are. I am not aware of any truths from the ancients arising from the godless ones. Even atheists accept and live by the truths arising from God fearing cultures. Establishing truths based upon a temporary period of immorality in the 21st century can only make sense to those currently immoral.
        Any person of the 21st century who understands and correctly applies the truth about the serpent, the tree and mans desire, that is greater than a love of God(real or imagined matters not since we are speaking of an absolute truth) at any moment, will see the purpose of the Bible. All others can and will only see that which they have intentionally limited themselves to see.

        February 24, 2014 at 6:00 pm |
    • colin31714

      fvck you're stupid.

      February 24, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
      • believerfred

        I don't know stupid so exactly how would I do that?

        February 24, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
        • doobzz

          Just be yourself, honey.

          February 24, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
    • igaftr

      fred
      "The gay issue is nothing more than a political and spiritual attack on the Word of God."

      Unless you can show that your bible actually is the word of god, which I know you can't your point is rejected for being baseless.
      Take your bible elsewhere when discussing laws, it has no place in our laws.

      February 24, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
      • believerfred

        If God has no authority and the Bible presents the word of God why does it have such power 6,000 to 10,000 years after it was given. Why do you and Colin take time out your very important real world if the laws of this book are not the reality in why you exist.
        You have yet to escape the reality that is God (real or imagined matters not) and our laws have not escaped the authority of God. You appear to be living out your existence under the deception of the serpent blind to the reality that you yourself acknowledge.

        February 24, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "Why do you and Colin take time out your very important real world if the laws of this book are not the reality in why you exist."

          It might have something to do with the 1.5 billion followers of the book who are trying to rewrite history and attempting to either convert, destroy or discredit any who disagree with their version of it.

          February 24, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
        • igaftr

          fred
          one more time
          Unless you can show that your bible actually is the word of god, which I know you can't your point is rejected for being baseless.
          You may blindly accept the words of men that is your bible, but I see nothing indicating that the wild, often impossible things from the bible are reality.

          Please show the basis for your assertion that your book is the "word of god" and don't bother referening the bible to do it, Circular logic is not logic.

          February 24, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
        • believerfred

          neverbeenhappieratheist
          "1.5 billion followers of the book who are trying to rewrite history and attempting to either convert, destroy or discredit any who disagree with their version of it."
          =>How is it the followers are rewriting history? A great deal of history of the Hebrew is in the Bible. Studies have shown if nothing else these peoples were accurate at the keeping and recording of the Bible. The New Testament was not a revision but the fulfillment of the hope, the promise to Abraham and nothing was revised in the New. Jesus fulfilled some parts such as the sacrificial system other than that the way Jesus had brought was the same way of the ancients.
          =>The way of Christ is exclusive so yes other faiths have a problem
          =>as to conversion if we actually have touched the kingdom of God why would we not want everyone to experience the same present joy and life in Christ?

          February 24, 2014 at 3:41 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "if we actually have touched the kingdom of God why would we not want everyone to experience the same present joy and life in Christ?"

          Thank you for proving my point. Every religion claims to have "touched" the kingdom of their God. Every religion claims to have the exclusive track to the mind of God. Not a single religion has any more proof of their claims than any other and therefore all are equal in viability or non-viability. Until one of them can come up with even a tiny spec of empirical evidence the only logical position is one of doubt and skepticism. However, it requires no faith and no religion to live a good and moral life. It requires no God to be a generous, loving, caring human with empathy for your fellow man. So really, what is the point of standing around in doubt and skepticism when taking responsibility for your own actions and living your life the best you can as a human for other humans is the most fulfilling and rewarding life you can live and requires no deity, religion or faith.

          February 24, 2014 at 4:46 pm |
        • believerfred

          igaftr
          "Please show the basis for your assertion that your book is the "word of god"
          =>1.5 billion Christians take their general notion of God from the Bible. Before you scream ad populum we are speaking about the use of term and such definitions are dependent on popular understanding at a given point in time.
          =>1.62 billion Muslims use a holy book that in AD 650 was derived by combining text from the Books of the Bible. Regardless of right or wrong combination the general notion of God was based on the Old Testament.

          Now, the notion of God is and has been in the heart, soul and or mind of the believer as the object of worship flowing from the oral/written words that came out of that codex. Given that notion is by and between the body of believers it cannot be argued that the Bible is not "the word of God" to them. Your thoughts are of no relevance since the word and belief are in the same subset while your thoughts are out of a different subset.

          What are we to make of non believers? Non believers form their belief upon their source. If your source, however acquired, claims the word of God to be something different then you must give your source greater authority than believers have given theirs. Believers may just buy into your source accepting its authority in which case the Bible is no longer the word of God to them.

          February 24, 2014 at 5:40 pm |
        • believerfred

          neverbeenhappieratheist
          Yes, however you were not presented with 5 different kingdoms thereupon rejecting all others. Which kingdom have you touched that you have rejected out of logic?

          February 24, 2014 at 6:20 pm |
      • believerfred

        "Take your bible elsewhere when discussing laws, it has no place in our laws."
        =>reality check, the footprints of the Bible are evident in every states laws. Even the U.S. Constitution specifically provides that our Bible cannot be touched by the governments including the NSA

        February 24, 2014 at 7:59 pm |
        • hotairace

          Then you should be trivially able to quote "chapter & verse" showing us where The Babble is mentioned.

          February 24, 2014 at 8:02 pm |
        • observernow

          believerfred,

          FORTUNATELY, our laws are not based on the Bible.

          Number of occurences of the following words in the Const-itution is ZERO. ZIP . NILL. NONE:

          God. Christ. Christian. Jesus. Bible.

          February 24, 2014 at 8:08 pm |
        • believerfred

          Observer
          Unlike today all citizens were brought up with the Bible in the days of our founding. No need to mention it and enough respect not to trash others faith.

          February 24, 2014 at 8:13 pm |
        • observernow

          believerfred,

          Why should anyone respect a book that advocates beating children, supports slavery, discriminating against women, gays and the handicapped?

          February 24, 2014 at 8:20 pm |
        • believerfred

          Hotairace
          The word of God is written on the heart of believers where no one can take it away. Jesus said every letter of the law will be carried out.
          Your only hope is that we evolved out of a rock which to this day still is based on speculation not science while my hope is in the reality that is known.

          February 24, 2014 at 8:22 pm |
        • believerfred

          Observernow
          "Why should anyone respect a book that advocates beating children, supports slavery, discriminating against women, gays and the handicapped?"
          =>Until you can understand one of the topics it is useless with you to again go over 5 topics that you do not understand. The pattern is very clear in that you do understand just how backwards you have these topics in your mind. Perhaps you really have some other ax to grind either with Christians, sin or someone who abused you. You do not strike me as a bad person so I really do not understand where you are coming from.
          Spend a little time trying to understand what your motive is in looking for the worst possible scenario to bash Christians and the God they love over and over again night after night day after day.

          February 25, 2014 at 12:10 am |
        • observernow

          believerfred,

          I really don't care at all if people want to worship anything as long as they do it in the privacy of their own homes and places of worship, with ONE exception. They have no excuse to try to use their religion to deny others equal rights. The dim bulb Christian HYPOCRITES are doing that in Arizona. That is why I tell Christians about all the parts of the Bible that they IGNORE. I can see why you don't like to be unable to censor what the Bible ACTUALLY says.

          February 25, 2014 at 12:16 am |
        • hotairace

          fred, why are you dragging the origin of life up? You made a claim about The Babble and The Const!tution, and that's all I asked about. I can only assume you were lying.

          February 25, 2014 at 12:16 am |
        • believerfred

          hotairace
          We know the position of those who unanimously signed the U.S. Declaration of Independence ad they stated in the opening that man was endowed by his creator and before signing asked for Gods approval. There is your authority. The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" was put in because history has shown the likes of the Church of England will arise again as they always have to establish mans religion not Gods truth. God typically allows man to deal with man so the details of secular law reflect the ways of man not God. You cannot legislate the love of God or the obedience to God that arises out of that love.

          February 25, 2014 at 1:03 am |
        • observernow

          believerfred

          "man was endowed by his creator"

          Yep. "Creator" could be God, Zeus, the Great Pumpkin, etc. WHATEVER they wanted. Not ONCE did they use the word "God". Did they forget his name?

          February 25, 2014 at 1:09 am |
        • believerfred

          observernow
          The foundation of these 56 representatives leaves no doubt that the creator was God as taught to them in their youth.

          February 25, 2014 at 2:00 am |
        • believerfred

          observernow
          The use of God was not necessary due to common knowledge. The risk of splintering support over the use of the word "God" was unnecessary since the unanimous understandings of God in 1776 was Creator.

          February 25, 2014 at 2:05 am |
        • observernow

          believerfred,

          If they WANTED to say "God", they would have.

          It's OBVIOUS they chose a more GENERIC word to show respect for other religious beliefs.

          Get REAL.

          February 25, 2014 at 2:10 am |
        • observernow

          believerfred

          "The foundation of these 56 representatives leaves no doubt that the creator was God as taught to them in their youth."

          NONSENSE. They didn't all believe in the same "God" that you do that had a son named Jesus.

          February 25, 2014 at 2:17 am |
    • Anthony Crispino

      "The gay issue is nothing more than a political and spiritual attack on the Word of God. The serpent is revealed "

      I think you're onto something there. My nephew Toolie's gay friend has a car that broke down on our street last week. We called Joe the mechanic over and he cursed something like the serpent snapped or something like that. I guess Satan could have been nearby with him cursing like that but no one saw him. We wound up having to have it towed. I think next time that happens, we'll call this other mechanic we know over in Elizabeth – I've noticed he's always carrying a Bible with his tools.

      February 24, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @fred
      As many Christians point out, you are no longer under the old Jewish covenant – therefore the OT proscriptions against ho/mose/xuality do not apply.
      In the New Testament, the terms used in the original Greek that are sometimes translated as "hom-ose.xual" are 'malakoi' and 'ar.senkoitai'.
      'Ar.senokoitai' referred to male prosti.tutes for Paul and Christians until the 4th century.
      Until the Reformation in the 16th century and in Roman Catholicism until the 20th century, malakoi was thought to mean "mas.turb.ators."

      February 24, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
      • believerfred

        No, the translations are generally correct and we are addressing sexual perversion. Sexual perversion has not changed as it is central to what is pure desire verses what is an impure desire. Homosexuality is just a hot button that drives the flames of charged emotions when any desire is labeled as sin. The root of the problem is sin not homosexuality. Homosexuality became the most surprising death nail to strike the truth and authority of the Bible.

        Perhaps it should not have been so surprising since sex and impure sexual desire was a trigger point since the earliest of the Chosen Ones of the Bible. Sex was just the most obvious and easiest of impure desires to understand in the lessons of desire that brings separation from God.

        Any focus on homosexuality at a minimum becomes a smoke screen. The topic is often listed in the middle of a bunch of sin such as drunkenness etc. Why aren't Christians called on the carpet for stand against drunkenness. Why did you not twist the Hebrew or Greek words for drunkenness to present that social drinker who gets a real good buzz on yet is the most kind and loving of humans. I mean it is acceptable for two grown adults to get drunk and party down right?

        February 24, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
    • Alias

      You go Fred!
      My favorite parts of the bible are about how to buy people. Please continue your crusade so that onew day my children will be able to purchase your children and grandchildren.

      February 24, 2014 at 3:10 pm |
      • believerfred

        Wake up. Children have been put into slavery and oppressed during all known history. Lego land will trap next generation of children and put them into the slavery of materialism. Do you actually believe those who oppress will purchase slaves for 30 shekels? That was the reflection of a culture in a time and place
        Now, you can apply the truth of Gods word concerning slavery but you are not interested in that. You are only interested in the lie so you bring up slavery in the wrong context and wrong time period.

        February 24, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
  2. colin31714

    The debate raging in the USA at the moment over the death penalty is whether lethal injection is a humane enough way to take a life. The death penalty is only ever imposed for murder and then, in only some states, and then in only rare circ.umstances. Imagine a society that imposed the death penalty for

    Working on the Sabbath or any other holy day
    Blasphemy
    Being gay
    The worship of other gods
    Enticing intimates to worship other gods
    Being a stubborn and rebellious son
    Adultery
    Se.x with an engaged virgin
    Striking one’s father or mother
    Cursing or saying cruel things to one’s father or mother
    Practicing as a medium or a fortune-teller

    Only a primitive, brutal and bloodthirsty book like the Bible is capable of requiring the death penalty for such pecadillos.

    February 24, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
    • bootyfunk

      if our society actually followed and lived by the bible, we'd have a second coming - of the Dark Ages.

      February 24, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        !!!nemA

        February 24, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
    • believerfred

      Colin I know you understand the Bible and you know full well that the way you have presented your posts has only one purpose which is to discredit God, the Bible and believers. I find it continually more difficult to pray for your salvation as you are causing many little ones to stumble by your deliberate misdirection of truth.

      These laws and methods had purpose in their time as did established hunting order for running down a woolly mammoth did in its days. I don't think anyone other than the deranged follow woolly mammoth hunting laws in or day.

      February 24, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
      • bootyfunk

        good point.
        the bible is useless as a guide to modern living as it was written 2k years ago by people that thought the earth was flat.

        February 24, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
      • hotairace

        fred, please stay away from the little ones. They will do just fine without your voodoo.

        February 24, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
    • believerfred

      Colin loves to deceive our little ones who love God by misstating facts to present the wrong conclusion. The scientific community believed completely in these facts as written in their book of knowledge:

      1. Vulcan was a planet scientists believed to exist between Mercury and the Sun
      2. Life arose from the elements without being formed through a seed, egg, or other traditional means of reproduction.
      3. The Earth was forever increasing in volume
      4. All combustible objects contain an element called phlogiston which makes combustion possible
      5. The Martian canals were a network of gullies and ravines
      6. The aether, aka "the ether", was a mysterious substance through which light was transmitted through the universe.
      7. Theory of the blank slate, or tabula rasa, argues that people are born with no built-in personality traits or proclivities.
      8. Phrenology claimed individual character traits (intelligence, aggression, ear for music) were localized parts of the brain.
      9 The size of the universe was an unchanging constant
      10 The theory of cold fusion states that such a reaction is possible at room temperature

      Given evidence and understanding within the scientific community that accepted facts are always proven wrong we should begin to mock scientist and revert to existence in caves.

      February 24, 2014 at 7:30 pm |
      • observernow

        "The scientific community believed completely"

        Total nonsense. The scientific community is always questioning ideas.

        February 25, 2014 at 1:18 am |
        • believerfred

          Christians believe and the Apostles believed yet they also questioned God.
          The scientific community builds a consensus yet just as with Christians this never stops an inquisitive mind. The Big Bang is the prevailing cosmological theory as is evolution the prevailing theory on origin of life out of the last universal ancestor. Any honest scientist will set you straight if you think what we know today will be correct in a distant future. The only fact we have is that we do not have the facts.
          Based upon all evidence known to man there has never existed proof concerning the origin of life or termination of that life process. Science can only speculate as to beginning, end and remains silent as to purpose.
          The Bible is the only Holy Book that gets it right: "in the beginning God". We have nothing entering on the back of a turtle or by means known or knowable by man. This science has confirmed by exhaustive effort concluding with we don't know. 6,000-10,000 years ago the first Hebrew already knew this and taught this fact to succeeding generations.

          February 25, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
        • igaftr

          fred
          " Science can only speculate as to beginning, end and remains silent as to purpose."
          So does the bible, since they did not know. ignorant men speculating.
          you claim the bible is right...you don't know that, you only want it to be true because that is what YOU believe.
          You don't want truth, you wnat your belief to be true.

          February 25, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
        • believerfred

          igaftr

          "So does the bible, since they did not know. ignorant men speculating."
          =>Think about that, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus and Saul of Tarsus......."ignorant men"? These men established our world view which as of today still remains the prevalent world view. How are you doing as far as setting in motion a new hope that captivates 9 Billion over the course of history to date? Exactly who today can do what Jesus did in 3 years?

          "you claim the bible is right...you don't know that, you only want it to be true "
          =>Actually, why would anyone want to accept suffering and deny self when they can just follow the crowd do what they want then enter a state of non existence?.

          Sounds like you are the one that needs to hang onto your belief.

          February 25, 2014 at 5:12 pm |
  3. bootyfunk

    @ Dalahäst

    so you think christianity doesn't condemn g.ays? you think it's okay for a g.ay man to have s.ex with another g.ay man, as long as it's not in a woman's bed? you really think the bible would support that?

    February 24, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      That is not what I said.

      Christianity has openly g.ay and lesbian leaders, pastors, bishops and members. Most understand that passage describes something, but doesn't mean that g.ays and lesbians are to be put to death.

      I know some denominations that are not as g.ay friendly as mine, and even they don't think g.ays are to be put to death. That passage doesn't tell us to do that.

      February 24, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
      • bootyfunk

        yes, there are g.ay religious leaders. they like to do just what you are doing - change the words of the bible to suit their own personal views.

        so i'm asking you, Dalahäst - according to the bible, is it okay to be g.ay as long as you don't do it in a woman's bed, as you believe lev 20:13 says?

        February 24, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          If you were a Levite priest thousands of years ago, it would have been illegal for you to sleep with a man in a woman's bed.

          I'm not a Levite priest. It is 2014. So your question is fallacious.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          dodged again.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Stop asking loaded questions.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

          Come on, you are not that stupid.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      Dalahäst the dodger ... dodge, dodge, contort, twist, deny, imagine, interpret, reinterpret ...

      February 24, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        doG...doG...he asks loaded questions. dog...is guilty of the complex question fallacy....

        February 24, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
  4. Dyslexic doG

    Gay Christians stop it! You are behaving like an abused spouse!

    oh god really does love me.
    oh he doesn't mean to hurt me, it's my fault that he is going to hurt me.
    oh if I could only stop doing the things he tells me are bad, then he wouldn't have to hurt me.
    oh he really is a loving person

    what an unhealthy relationship you have with an imaginary father figure god that hates you and tells all his followers to hate you. Please consider yourselves cordially invited to leave the bronze age voodoo behind and join us in the real world!

    February 24, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      Gay Christians, don't let this bigot try and tell you what to do.

      February 24, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
      • bootyfunk

        instead, do what Dalahäst does - change the words of the bible until they say exactly what you want them to say.

        February 24, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        yeah, don't let me try and save you. you just stay in your abusive relationship like Dalahast the dodger says!

        February 24, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
    • colin31714

      I agree with the dog. If I were gay, I would abandon this Bronze Age voodoo cult as soon as possible. I could never bring myself to believe in a sky-fairy who hates me because of how he made me.

      February 24, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        (try not to agree with too many dogs ... )

        February 24, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Don't be a joke.

        "The atheist spring that began just over a decade ago is over, thank God. Richard Dawkins is now seen by many, even many non-believers, as a joke figure, shaking his fist at sky fairies. He’s the Mary Whitehouse of our day."

        February 24, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          yeah, yeah, you keep posting that but it makes about as much sense as your bronze age fairy tale book does.

          Post it as many times as you like ... still doesn't make it right.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Right back at you doG. Why not hold yourself to the same standards you hold me to? Is that too hard?

          February 24, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
        • colin31714

          Really, well why is the number of atheists increasing in all of the West? Your sky-fairy is in full retreat. Dawkins has done more than most to expose the silly nonsense of Christianity for what it is .

          February 24, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          "Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion" is a good example of how to set up strawman.

          "If you're smart, you will agree with me. If you don't agree with me, well then you're stupid, cuz I'm smart and I said so."

          Dawkin might be a great biologist – however he tried to write a philosophical book, and frankly, he would fail philosophy 101. Fallacies, strawman, lack of evidence,... he got it all."

          http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.376267-Is-Richard-Dawkins-bad-for-atheism?page=5

          February 24, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Atheism might be growing. But not all are acting like the bigoted and hostile atheists that post on here.

          Thank goodness.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
        • hotairace

          Dalahazz continues to hide behind quotes, this time without attribution. The above was written by Theo Hobson. You can find a review of Hobson's article at:

          http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/the-ultimate-dumb-atheist-bashing-article/

          February 24, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Actually, HOt Air, I got that from this article:

          Richard Dawkins has lost: meet the new new atheists

          http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8885481/after-the-new-atheism/

          Secular humanism is recovering from its Dawkinsite phase – and beginning a more interesting conversation

          Rejecting religion is no sure path to virtue; it is more likely to lead to complacent self-regard, or ideological arrogance.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          There was a joke all right, and the only ones laughing are the religious leaders as they haul giant bags of money to the bank along with the non-believers who are laughing at all the morons who have been throwing their money at these charlatans and then look all hurt and dejected when they find out their charismatic leader/pastor/priest is just another in a long line of swindlers. You would think they would abandon religion after being mistreated, but much like an abused spouse, they often go right saying how eveything will be different and then end up in another abusive relationship.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          Anyone who says "I know all there is to know" about any subject is exhibiting "ideological arrogance."

          Even one who says "I know there is a God" is also exhibiting "ideological arrogance."

          Or one who says "I know there is no God" is doing the same.

          Only the one who says "I don't know" or "I see no evidence of God" can be considered honest.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
        • hotairace

          Dalahazz, I know that and if you would read for comprehension, you would know that too.

          February 24, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I think that was an atheist who said things like "ideological arrogance".

          Not sure you putting down believers in God changes that atheist viewpoint of the hostile atheist movement that is dying.

          February 24, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
  5. Vic

    "FREE COMMERCE" in the "Land of the Free"

    No one shall be denied service for any reason other than misconduct and/or safety hazard.

    Related Previous Post:
    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/02/christians-year-of-living-gay-leads-to-dramatic-change-sparks-controversy/comment-page-24/#comment-1997525

    February 24, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
  6. colin31714

    If you are a gay Christian, please note that Leviticus 20:13 is pretty darn unambiguous. “If a man has se.xual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

    The problem is not with you, it is with this silly religion. If I were gay, I would abandon any faith that mandated my death in its holy book.

    February 24, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
    • igaftr

      The REALLY funny thing is, that unless the man has a va.g.ina, he CANNOT have $ex with a man as he can with a woman, That is impossible, so there should be no issue.

      February 24, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
      • bootyfunk

        a man can have s.ex with another man though - just a different hole. you do understand that?

        February 24, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
        • igaftr

          yes, but to have $ex as with a woman, if you exclude sodomy, is to have pe.nis/va.g.inal $ex..which no two men can achieve.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
        • bootyfunk

          semantics. why exclude sodomy?

          February 24, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        The funny thing is, that is not what the verse really says.

        February 24, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • bootyfunk

          funny thing is, yes it is. you're trying to make it into something else and it's not working.

          February 24, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          It is not my translation.

          February 24, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • igaftr

          dala
          Perhaps, depends on which version you go by, since no one can agree on it. Everyone that I have seen expressly says a man having relations with a man as he would with a woman. The only thing different about a woman would be the va.g.ina, so NO man can have $ex with a man as he does with woman, unless the man has a va.g.ina.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          "And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman's bed..."

          That makes more sense.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • colin31714

          Oh garbage. Typical apologist BS. Reinterpret, reinterpret, reinterpret to suit the argument at hand.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
        • igaftr

          dala
          ""And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman's bed..."

          You think that makes more sense?...it doesn't say that they are having $ex though, so it really doesn't address the issue at all, now does it? They could just be napping.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
        • Alias

          And that is the problem with many translations.
          People approach the task with preconceived notions as to what it says instead of translating it to try to figure out what it means.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
        • Anthony Crispino

          "And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman's bed..."
          How does that make sense. I mean even two short people don't always get along in a queen-sized bed. And if you have a dog forget about it already. even if you're living on a budget, you can usually find a used king somewheres for crying out loud.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      Gay Christians can understand context, history and the revelations that Jesus brought. They don't have to accept your understanding. What if that passage is referring to a married man who is breaking his vows to be with a man?

      "And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman's bed, both of them have made an abomination. Dying they will be put to death; their blood is on them."

      "This is the correct translation of Leviticus 20:13. It can be seen that, rather than forbidding male h-mos-xuality, it simply forbids two males to lie down in a woman’s bed, for whatever reason. Culturally, a woman's bed was her own. Other than the woman herself, only her husband was permitted in her bed, and there were even restrictions on when he was allowed in there. Any other use of her bed would have been considered defilement. Other verses in the Law will help clarify the acceptable use of the woman's bed. (Lev. 15.)

      http://hoperemains.webs.com/leviticus2013.htm

      February 24, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
      • bootyfunk

        you're making excuses and trying to make that disgusting bible passage not sound disgusting. what you put down is NOT the correct translation.

        this website has a word by word translation of this verse in it's original hebrew: http://hoperemains.webs.com/leviticus2013.htm

        ואיש אשר ישכב את זכר משכבי אשה תועבה עשו שניהם מות יומתו דמיהם בם
        V’ish asher yishkav et-zachar mishk’vei ishah to’evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d’meihem bam.

        And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman's bed, both of them have made an abomination. Dying they will be put to death; their blood is on them.

        you're making excuses for the horrors found in the bible.

        February 24, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          "And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman's bed, both of them have made an abomination. Dying they will be put to death; their blood is on them."

          Get it? It is a man cheating on his wife (in the woman's bed) with a man. And the people who followed these rules, signed up for them. Not all were asked to follow this "holiness code." Just the Levite priests.

          February 24, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
        • bootyfunk

          where does it say the man being condemned is married? where does it say anything like that? YOU are adding and subtracting what you want from the passage. it says he's in a woman's bed, not his wife's. it does NOT say he's cheating at all. it says he is having s.ex with a man in a woman's bed. please stop making excuses.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          http://hoperemains.webs.com/leviticus2013.htm

          February 24, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        • hotairace

          So it must be ok for a male to lay down with a male in a male's bed without any fear of being put to death. I suppose that is some progress.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
        • bootyfunk

          haha, that the same website i listed above and does nothing to support your claim.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Did you even read it all????

          "It can be seen that, rather than forbidding male h-mos-xuality, it simply forbids two males to lie down in a woman’s bed, for whatever reason. Culturally, a woman's bed was her own. Other than the woman herself, only her husband was permitted in her bed, and there were even restrictions on when he was allowed in there. Any other use of her bed would have been considered defilement. "

          February 24, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        Dodge, dodge. Slide, slide. Reinterpret. Twist. Contort. ... look, this bible verse says exactly what I want it to say! 🙂

        February 24, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You are doing the same thing. 🙂

          February 24, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • bootyfunk

          no, we're reading the passage without changing or twisting the words. you don't like what it says so you make it mean something different.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          No, you are doing the same thing you accuse me of. You are being a hypocrite.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • colin31714

          Oh bulls.hit he is being a hypocrite. He is reading what it says and how it was interpreted for 2,000+ years – until it became politically inexpedient for Christians to be anti-gay. Then, and only then, was it reinterpreted. You're not fooling anybody.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
      • In Santa We Trust

        Most, if not all, translations say
        13 ‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.'

        February 24, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          “‘Do not mate different kinds of animals." – Mules are a sin

          “‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed." – Crop rotation is a sin

          “‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." – Your poly-cotton blend shirt is a sin

          Why do some only cherry-pick the g.ay reference? Yet don't think my shirt is a sin?

          Because they are mistaken?

          February 24, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          I don't think it is a reference to cheating – doesn't rule 6 (or 7 depending upon which version you use) cover that?

          February 24, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
      • colin31714

        So, putting people to death for lying in the wrong bed makes more sense to you, does it?

        February 24, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
        • hotairace

          As long as they are Levite priests, it must be ok. I don't think so, but I don't make up the rules for believer cults.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Not really.

          But if you realize it is part of the "holiness code", than it does. It was their attempt to make priests holy.

          No where does it say it was a good idea. Just that it happened that way.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
        • hotairace

          So, there are some bad ideas in The Babble! I can't wait for The True Babble a Humpers to jump in here and straighten Dalahazz out.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
    • bootyfunk

      yeah, i don't understand how any g.ay person can get past some of those atrocious passages from the bible. they have to make excuses and cherry-pick. i know a g.ay man that does just that. his brother, who was also g.ay, committed suicide because he couldn't deal with it all. their parents sent them both to christian "don't be g.ay" school, but it obviously didn't work for either. it's hard to break the mental brainwashing, even for g.ays that can clearly see their own religion condemns them to death.

      February 24, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        They learn the truth, that it doesn't condemn g.ays like the atheists and right-wing fundamentalists insist it does.

        February 24, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • bootyfunk

          lol, yes it does. you're making excuses.

          how about the other h.omophobic passages? those are misunderstood too?

          Lev. 18:22
          ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

          that also misunderstood?

          February 24, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          "And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman's bed, both of them have made an abomination. Dying they will be put to death; their blood is on them."

          I'm not a Levite priest, but if I were one and married, it would be against the law for me to sleep with a man in her bed.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • bootyfunk

          but not against the law to sleep with another woman? lol. come on. it's obvious they are talking about g.ay relations. why specifically point out that it is wrong for a male to have s.ex with another male? why not say with a man OR a woman? why not just leave out "with a male" so that it means both?

          February 24, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
        • colin31714

          I love it when you Bible defenders resort to lying. I guess the Bible doesn't condone genocide, murder, r.ape or slaver either, right?

          February 24, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          Dalahäst the dodger strikes again.

          dodge, dodge, contort, twist, deny, imagine, interpret, reinterpret ...

          February 24, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      I believe so strongly in the inerrant and unchanging morality of the Bible that I got Leviticus 19:28 tattooed on my left butt cheek.

      February 24, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
  7. Doc Vestibule

    When the American south was forced to rescind Jim Crow laws and accept racial integration, it was Christian bigots who most strongly opposed equality.
    Wallie Criswell, an extremely popular and influential Southern Baptist Minister famously said "Let them integrate! Let them sit up there in their dirty shirts and make all their fine speeches. But they are all a bunch of infidels, dying from the neck up."
    Scarcely half a century later, the zeitgeist has shifted so radically that such open racism is considered abhorrent to the very same Christian sect that spouted scripture to justify insti.tutionalized bigotry.

    The condemnation of ho.mose.xuality will soon be viewed with the same sense of shame that the memory of segregation elicits.

    February 24, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      It was a Christian, Martin Luther King, JR, who led the peaceful civil right movement. With a lot of other Christians supporting him.

      The same Bible that the predecessors of Mr. Falwell and Mr. Robertson used to keep white churches white is the source of the inspiration of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the social reformation of the 1960’s.

      The same Bible that anti-feminists use to keep women silent in the churches is the Bible that preaches liberation to captives and says that in Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free.

      And the same Bible that on the basis of an archaic social code of ancient Israel and a tortured reading of Paul is used to condemn all h-mos-xuals and h-mos-xual behavior includes metaphors of redemption, renewal, inclusion and love – principles that invite h-mos-xuals to accept their freedom and responsibility in Christ and demands that their fellow Christians accept them as well. peter gomes

      February 24, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
      • colin31714

        Exactly, one can find support for the full range of behavior in that grossly overrated book of mythology. One can find verses supporting genocide, rejecting genocide, supporting r.ape, condening r.ape, supporting murder, condemning murder, mandating the death penalty for the trivial, mandating forgiveness for serious offenses.

        In short, it is 100% self-contradictory and hardly the work of a superior being. Anybody who thinks the silly tome was divinely inspired either so desperately wants to believe it is that (s)he ignores contrary evidence or grossly ignorant as to its contents. 99% of Christians I know suffer from both afflictions.

        February 24, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          One can find support for the full range of behavior in other areas of life, too. Even atheists who totally reject religion act grossly ignorant.

          Perhaps that is the point of the Bible. To describe people as they sometimes act: hypocritical, judgmental, ignorant and immoral. Even God's "chosen people" were described as seriously flawed and wrong.

          February 24, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
        • bootyfunk

          it's funny when brainwashed christians make up excuses for the awful passages in the bible. the bible is very clearly anti-g.ay but you twist the words until they are almost pro-g.ay. if you don't like what you read, just make it mean something else, twist it until it says the opposite of what it actually meant. it's very disingenuous and underhanded, but it's what the religious are taught to do - make excuses.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
        • hotairace

          See how clever Daladazz is, using someone else's behavior to excuse the crap in The Babble?

          February 24, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        The best part about citing God as your ethical authority is that He is never around to correct you.
        If the Bible can be used to bolster either side of an argument, doesn't it make one re-consider its value as the sole and inerrant source of morality?

        I could say that God hates left handed people and find some bible passages to support it.
        "A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left."
        – Ecclesiastes 10:2

        "The right hand of the lord doeth valiantly, the right hand of the lord is exalted."
        – Psalm 118 vv15,16

        Remember southpaws, you have a choice not to act on your wicked left-handedness and live a godly life!

        February 24, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          “Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way.” – MLK Jr citing God as his ethical authority.

          February 24, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          "Thank God for the tsunami, and thank God that two thousand dead Swedes are fertilizing the ground over there [in Asia]. How many of these two thousand, do you suppose, were f.ags and dy.kes? This is how the Lord deals with His enemies. And the Lord has got some enemies. And Sweden heads the list. You filthy Swedes. You filthy Swedes!"

          – Pastor Fred Phelps, citing God as his moral guide

          We can go back and forth like this all day.
          The Bible is such a gargantuan collection of contradictions that it can be used to bolster either side of just about any argument.

          February 24, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
        • joey3467

          The fact that the bible can be used to support slavery and to not support slavery makes it virtually useless.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
  8. TruthPrevails1

    Isn't this like turning the clock back 50 years to when segregating 'blacks' was common place? I don't see what the difference will be, outside of pleasing the small minded bigots who came up with this.

    February 24, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
  9. Dalahäst

    "Fortunately, those who speak for the religious right do not speak for all American Christians, and the Bible is not theirs alone to interpret. The same Bible that the advocates of slavery used to protect their wicked self-interests is the Bible that inspired slaves to revolt and their liberators to action.

    The same Bible that the predecessors of Mr. Falwell and Mr. Robertson used to keep white churches white is the source of the inspiration of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the social reformation of the 1960’s.

    The same Bible that anti-feminists use to keep women silent in the churches is the Bible that preaches liberation to captives and says that in Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free.

    And the same Bible that on the basis of an archaic social code of ancient Israel and a tortured reading of Paul is used to condemn all h-mos-xuals and h-mos-xual behavior includes metaphors of redemption, renewal, inclusion and love – principles that invite h-mos-xuals to accept their freedom and responsibility in Christ and demands that their fellow Christians accept them as well.

    The political piety of the fundamentalist religious right must not be exercised at the expense of our precious freedoms. And in this summer of our discontent, one of the most precious freedoms for which we must all fight is freedom from this last prejudice.:

    February 24, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      do you think that the bible is the word of god? and if so, shouldn't the word of an all powerful god be absolutely precise and not able to be misinterpreted by any of the 41,000 sects of your religion?

      If a god that could create a universe set himself to write a book to pass on his one message to his creations, don't you think he would have done a better job?

      I am not being rude. This is a legitimate question.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        I think the Bible is inspired by God. It is written by people. It takes an education, understanding and context to undestand what the stories reveal.

        It often describes the people, not just God. And the people were mostly described as being seriously flawed. And despite those flaws, God still used them. Just like today.

        God doesn't just reveal himself through a book. But the book points to God. It is not GOd.

        February 24, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
  10. Dalahäst

    "Christians opposed to political and social equality for h-mos-xuals nearly always appeal to the moral injunctions of the Bible, claiming that Scripture, is very clear on the matter and citing verses that support their opinion. They accuse others of perverting end distorting texts contrary to their “clear” meaning. They do not, however, necessarily see quite as clear a meaning to biblical passages on economic conduct, the burdens of wealth and the sin of greed.
    Nine biblical citations are customarily invoked as relating to h-mos-xuality. Four (Deuteronomy 23:17, 1 Kings 14:24, I Kings 22:46 and II Kings 23:7) simply forbid prost-tution by men and women.
    Two others (Leviticus 18:19-23 and Leviticus 20:10-16) are part of what biblical scholars call the Holiness Code. The code explicitly bans h-mos-xual acts. But it also prohibits eating raw meat, planting two different kinds of seed in the same field and wearing garments with two different kinds of yarn. Tattoos, adultery and s-xual intercourse during a woman’s menstrual period are similarly outlawed.
    There is no mention of h-mos-xuality in the four Gospels of the New Testament. The moral teachings of Jesus are not concerned with the subject.
    Three references from St. Paul are frequently cited (Romans 1:26-2:1, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and I Timothy 1:10). But St. Paul was concerned with h-mos-xuality only because in Greco-Roman culture it represented a secular sensuality that was contrary to his Jewish- Christian spiritual idealism. He was against lust and sensuality in anyone, including heteros-xuals. To say that h-mos-xuality is bad because h-mos-xuals are tempted to do morally doubtful things is to say that heteros-xuality is bad because heteros-xuals are likewise tempted. For St. Paul, anyone who puts his or her interest ahead of God’s is condemned, a verdict that falls equally upon everyone.
    And lest we forget S-dom and Gomorrah, recall that the story is not about s-xual perversion and h-mos-xual practice. It is about inhospitality, according to Luke 10:10-13, and failure to care for the poor, according to Ezekiel 16:19•50: “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.” To suggest that Sodom and Gomorrah is about h-mos-xual s-x is an analysts of about as much worth as suggesting that the story of Jonah and the whale is a treatise on fishing.
    Part of the problem is a question of interpretation. Fundamentalists and literalists, the storm troopers of the religious right, are terrified that Scripture, wrongly interpreted, may separate them from their values. That fear stems from their own recognition that their “values” are not derived from Scripture, as they publicly claim.
    Indeed, it is through the lens of their own prejudices and personal values that they “read” Scripture and cloak their own views in its authority. We all interpret Scripture: Make no mistake. And no one truly is a literalist, despite the pious temptation. The questions are, By what principle of interpretation do we proceed, and by what means do we reconcile “what it meant then” to what it means now?” "

    – Peter Gomes

    February 24, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
    • bostontola

      “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (NIV, Matthew 5:17–18)

      February 24, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Yes, great point. He fulfilled them so we don't have to.

        Christians are not living under the ceremonial law, but the spirit now.

        February 24, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
        • bostontola

          Has everything been accomplished?

          February 24, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Basically, we are not under written laws from God like the Israelis. We now have Jesus.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law

          "The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) is one of the New Testament texts to address this theme. The passage concerns a dialogue between Jesus and an "expert in the law" or "lawyer". As described in verse 25 ("a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him saying, Teacher what must I do to inherit eternal life?," NKJV), the intent of the dialogue was to trap Jesus into making statements contrary to the law. Jesus responds by posing the question back to the lawyer, as already having knowledge of the law, ("What is written in the law?" verse 26) The lawyer quotes Deuteronomy 6:5 "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind and your neighbor as yourself.", NKJV) and Leviticus 19:18. The question "Who is my neighbor?", that follows in verse 29, is described as being asked with the goal of self-justification.

          It is then that Jesus responds with the story of a man beaten by robbers who is ignored by a Priest and a Levite, but then rescued and compassionately cared for by a Samaritan. Priests and Levites were Jews whose qualifications and duties were very meticulously set forth in Mosaic law, (Leviticus 10, and Numbers 5-8) while Samaritans were descended from Jews who had intermarried with their Babylonian captives and had been forced to establish a sect with an alternative interpretation of the Law. In the story, both the Priest and Levite follow their prescribed regulations dutifully, yet do not help the injured traveller, even crossing to the other side of the road to avoid possible rule violations. The Samaritan, whose very existence is based on a refutation of Jewish law, (specifically Deuteronomy 12 which speaks to the proper place of worship which Samaritans had replaced the Temple in Jerusalem with Mount Mariah) goes above and beyond simply tending to the injured man. He takes him to an inn and gives money for the man's care, promises and then actually does return to inquire about the man, and pay any overage incurred. Jesus concludes by asking him which of the men was a "neighbor" to the beaten traveller, to which his reply was "the one who showed compassion"."

          February 24, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
        • bostontola

          Dalahast,
          That evaded my question.

          February 24, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Everything was accomplished in regards to following the spirit, not the law. That is what that posting tried to demonstrate.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
  11. ogamidiagoro

    Private owners of a business should be able to reserve the right to serve who they want and who they don't want.
    Just like a woman gets to decide what to do with her body , religion and the government should have no say in this.

    February 24, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
    • igaftr

      So you are all for segregated lunch counters, water faountains, schools, make black people sit at the back of the bus...nice...when is your next Klan meeting?

      February 24, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
  12. igaftr

    The best response to this was a shop owner that reserved the right to not serve Arizona lawmakers.

    February 24, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
  13. Dyslexic doG

    I often think that religion is just an excuse for the part of human nature that makes many people unable to stop themselves judging others. The christian religion for example says that only their god can judge people but christian's lives are taken up with endlessly judging others and working out ways that these others are NOT doing the right thing according to their bronze age book and telling them that they are going to hell for these supposed errors but telling them that they will pray for the sinners in an effort to somehow feel superior to the ones they are judging.

    such infantile, bullying, self absorbed behavior

    February 24, 2014 at 12:10 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      Unfortunately people with no religion judge others. And also display infantile, bullying, self absorbed behavior. And rationalize feeling superior to the ones they are judging, too.

      Perhaps just blaming "religion" is far too simplistic. Especially if you imagine rejecting "religion" turns you into a mature, tolerant and selfless person.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:32 pm |
      • joey3467

        So are you going to join us in calling out this law as bigoted or are you just going to point to bad behavior by others to try and excuse it?

        February 24, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I'm not sure who "us" is, but I've been joined with other Christians who support equal rights for all and have taken steps to welcome people who have been traditionally discriminated against.

          February 24, 2014 at 12:47 pm |
        • joey3467

          "us" would be all non bigoted people in the world.

          February 24, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You don't speak for all the non-bigoted people in the world.

          February 24, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
        • joey3467

          No I don't. But anyone who supports this law is a bigot.

          February 24, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\ : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

          I know some people on here who hate or refuse to accept the members of a particular religious group. I think they are bigots.

          February 24, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
        • joey3467

          Great, what does that have to do with the article. Do you think this law is a good law, or not? Would you serve gay people or not?

          February 24, 2014 at 1:12 pm |
        • joey3467

          I am all for discussing the law, but pointing to the fact that atheists can be bigoted doesn't excuse bigoted behavior by some other group. Pointing to bad behavior by others leads me to believe that you support this law. Is that the case?

          February 24, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I'm saying there is a lot of bigots who happen to be atheists on this blog.

          Yes, I would serve g.ay people. I have an openly lesbian pastor, ok? We are standing up for equal rights, probably more than most atheist groups in my community do.

          February 24, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
        • joey3467

          Your particular sect of Christianity may support equal rights for everyone, but Christianity as a whole has a long way to go.

          February 24, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Most religious people support marriage equality.

          Some non-religious people oppose it.

          http://www.freedomtomarry.org/resources/entry/marriage-polling

          February 24, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • hotairace

          Dalahazz's standard arguing tecniques include hiding behind quotes, sometimes without attribution, and finding an exception or minority case, such as pointing out that others do whatever someone is doing or is accused of doing. It is a vain attempt to appear impartial and intellectual but in fact is evidence of personal weakness and an inability to think for itself. In other words, it is just a slimy, delusional believer. Have a nice day.

          February 24, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I am so glad Hotairace doesn't charge me rent for all the space he rents out for me in his head.

          February 24, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          From the person who posts the most on this blog.

          February 24, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • hotairace

          Dalahazz's narcissism and duplicity far exceed the time I have spent, or even could spend, pointing out its stupidity.

          February 24, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        as an atheist I am quite happy to let people live and worship whatever imaginary figure they like, except where that religion threatens my life and my family and my freedom.

        There are thousands of religions in the world that I am quite happy to see people following. No danger to me.

        Christianity though, in America, is a poison and a cancer and threatens me and threatens my family. Your doomsday cult pushes the country toward a dangerous theocracy, little by little, by changing laws like this.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Now that is bigotry.

          February 24, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Dalahast,
          Bigotry generally arbitrarily has the dislike; many christians in this country do behave in a way that threatens the rights of non-christians; this law is just one example. It is not bigotry to resist the push to a theocracy. It is interesting to note that these same christians would not want a theocracy if it were not their religion.

          February 24, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I oppose all religious bigotry.

          And anti-religious bigotry.

          They are both bigots.

          February 24, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          My point was that I don't consider it bigotry to resist those that would push towards theocracy.

          February 24, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
        • hotairace

          It is not bigotry to oppose ideas. I oppose religion. I oppose those trying to impose their silliness on others through laws. I don't care what believers do provided they keep it within their cult's clubhouse and among consenting adults.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
        • joey3467

          AS long as there are Christians who feel that everyone should live like them I will consider Christianity to be dangerous to America. Perhaps the people who don't want everyone to be Christian should come up with a new name for themselves so that I can tell them apart. For now, however, if you say you are Christian I will consider you to be suspect until you prove otherwise.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "Christianity though, in America, is a poison and a cancer and threatens me and threatens my family. Your doomsday cult pushes the country toward a dangerous theocracy, little by little, by changing laws like this."

          DD should have prefaced it with "Much of" because there is a small section of Christians in America who are all for letting people live as they wish and is not trying to force their beliefs onto others as Dalahast points out. However, the vast majority of Christians in America are attempting to push "the country toward a "... "theocracy" much like they have in Iran where Christianity gets to make the rules and there will be punishment for those who blaspheme against their god. I believe that is the poison DD is speaking of. And the dislike of it has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with personal freedoms being infringed upon. To call it bigotry would be like calling a Christian in Iran who won't accept their religious rules a bigot.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
  14. Dyslexic doG

    The US Government has invented a time-travel device that can transport an entire country back to the middle ages.

    They’re calling it ‘christianity’.

    February 24, 2014 at 12:07 pm |
    • bostontola

      Isn't it curious that there are some Christians today that have a regressed world view from some Christians during the Enlightenment period.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
  15. Alias

    Gays are not asking for any special priveledges, like not paying taxes for example.
    All theywant is the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else.

    In Arizona they seem to think jesus said, 'love those who are just like you.'

    February 24, 2014 at 11:33 am |
    • bostontola

      I think there is a valid clash of rights in this case. I am atheist and believe in freedom of religion (not just freedom from religion). Gays also should have the same rights as all other individuals. There are many cases where rights clash or have limits. We have freedom of speech, but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater for no reason. I think the SC would rule in favor of gays in this case since the law is too broad. There may be a narrowing of the law's scope that could be upheld. This will be a great lesson in Consti.tutional government. It is so much better than a theocracy.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:42 am |
      • Alias

        Religions already have the right ot not allow marriages they don't approve of in their churches. This extends way beyond that and tells people what they can do in other places.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
  16. tempe

    RFPA should not be allowed to pass as it is discriminatory,

    Catholic priests must perform gay and lesbian marriages and have no right to define which marriages they will and wont.

    Jewish and Muslim eateries must serve pork meat, who are they to decide what is clean or unclean. A person who is hungry has the right to be fed some good 'maple and mustard glazed ham'.

    Florists, bakers and photographers who use their talents to express their talents have no right to conscience to determine how they will use their talents.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:30 am |
    • Alias

      Nice try.
      I give it a 7/10 for an amature troll.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:34 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      If you look at other places where gay marriage has been legalized, you'll note that NONE are trying to force religious insti/tutions to perform such ceremonies should it be against their beliefs.
      Marriages are not performed only in churches.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:37 am |
    • tempe

      Florists, bakers and photographers who use their creativity* to express their talents have no right to conscience to determine how they will use their creative talents.

      An atheist or non Jewish must be allowed to be the rabbi of a synagogue, it is discriminatory to not allow a non Muslim to lead worship services in a mosque, non Jewish person to run the synagogue or a non Christian to lead church services.

      It is wrong to discriminate against an atheist that excludes them from leading a worship service in a mosque, synagogue or church.IT IS WRONG!

      February 24, 2014 at 11:41 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Kosher and Halal restaurants can't deny other eateries to right to serve pork chops.

        How do you feel about interracial marriage?
        Until a Supreme Court ruling in 1967, it was illegal in many states.
        The ruling says, in part: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ... To deny this fundamental freedom ...is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted"

        And yet up until as recently as the year 2000, some states continued to carry official prohibitions on interracial marriage.
        Alabama's State Consti/tution said "The legislature shall never pass any law to authorise or legalise any marriage between any white person and a Ne.gro or descendant of a Ne.gro."
        When voters finally had a chance to decide whether or not to remove that phrase, the outcome was surprisingly close – 41% of voters wanted to keep it!

        February 24, 2014 at 11:54 am |
    • hotairace

      RFPA should not be allowed to pass as it is discriminatory,

      – Absolutely true, good start.

      Catholic priests must perform gay and lesbian marriages and have no right to define which marriages they will and wont.

      – Name one jurisdiction where a religious person is required by civil law to officiate at a marriage they do not wish to.

      Jewish and Muslim eateries must serve pork meat, who are they to decide what is clean or unclean. A person who is hungry has the right to be fed some good 'maple and mustard glazed ham'.

      – Name one jurisdiction where a business is forced to offer specific goods so that all religions and socio-economic classes are served equally.

      Florists, bakers and photographers who use their talents to express their talents have no right to conscience to determine how they will use their talents.

      – Wrong! Everyone is free to use their talents as they wish on a private basis. If they offer them for sale to the public, the rules are different. Should I be allowed to deny my services to old, fat, white, religious dudes because I'm an atheist?

      February 24, 2014 at 11:48 am |
    • tempe

      The right to religious belief is fundamental and is governed by certain core values and principles of the religious doctrine to which a person adheres to.
      One cannot violate the conscience of another and force them to endorse another's 'non religious' principles, values, way of life or whatever.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
      • hotairace

        Then they should not open a business and make offers to the public.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        You seem to be missing the core point here:
        If a church's religious dictrine forbids gay marriage, said church will not ever be mandated to perform sucha ceremony.
        Do you understand that marriages are not performed exlusively in churches?
        In Canada, gay marriage has been legal for a decade or so.
        Unitarian and Anglican churches frequently perform gay marriage ceremonies.
        Catholic churches do not and nobody is trying to force or coerce them into doing so.

        Can you imagine what it would be like if everything deemed immoral by religion was illegal?

        February 24, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
        • hotairace

          Do you think the delusionals (my word, not yours) understand we are arguing that they should be allowed to keep all of the rights they do have? That to even attempt to implement laws such as this can only hurt their place in society? That they currently enjoy special privileges that might be removed as a result of attempting to impose their beliefs on others?

          February 24, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
      • Alias

        Really?
        So if convert to Southern Baptist I get to own slaves?
        That is, after all, why the split from other baptists in the firsts place.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:28 pm |
      • tempe

        One cannot violate the conscience of another and force them to endorse another's 'non religious' principles, values, way of life or whatever.

        A example would be a nudist who wants a photographer to take pictures of his/her nude wedding. The photographer must have the option to politely refuse to part of the nudist wedding.

        Creative talents are expressions of a person's innate expression of God given gifts. Not all human beings view their individual talents as God given gifts, some just view them as a 'livelihood'. Some of these creative people do not take this talent for granted, they view this as their God given gift which they want to use to glorify God.

        February 24, 2014 at 12:36 pm |
        • hotairace

          I bet there is a photographer's code of conduct that professionally deals with that sort of thing, without ever mentioning religion.

          February 24, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
        • Alias

          Again, the bible allows slavery.
          Can I buy your women? How much for the little girl?
          Or do you have the right to tell me that is wrong and I can't do it?

          February 24, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
        • tempe

          Bottom line is this, some people want to use their creative God given talents to glorify God. According to their religious belief, there are certain expressions that do not glorify God and they want no part of that expression, they should not be forced to be part of that expression which violates their conscience.

          February 24, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          "A example would be a nudist who wants a photographer to take pictures of his/her nude wedding. The photographer must have the option to politely refuse to part of the nudist wedding."

          OK – one more time.
          CHURCHES THAT ARE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE WILL NOT BE FORCED TO PERFORM A GAY MARRIAGE CEREMONY.
          Do you understand?

          Just like how Kosher and Halal restaurants cannot be forced to serve pork.
          They are free to voice their opinions regarding those eateries that do, but they cannot prevent them from having bacon on the menu.

          February 24, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
        • joey3467

          Pretty simple solution, if you don't want to sell flowers for a gay wedding, then you can't sell flowers for any wedding. The problem is these people care more about money than they do their religious beliefs so they would never take that route.

          February 24, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
        • tempe

          CHURCHES THAT ARE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE WILL NOT BE FORCED TO PERFORM A GAY MARRIAGE CEREMONY.

          According to who, you? your word??

          Without RFPA, they are not protected by law.

          February 24, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Every state that has enacted marriage equality provided greater religious liberty protections in those bills than required under the United States Consti.tution.

          New York law states: no clergyman or minister as defined in section two of the religious corporations law, or Society for Ethical Culture leader shall be required to solemnize any marriage when acting in his or her capacity under this subdivision.

          New Hampshire: Members of the clergy . . . or other persons otherwise authorized under law to solemnize a marriage shall not be obligated or otherwise required by law to officiate at any particular civil marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of their right to free exercise of religion

          Vermont: No member of the clergy authorized to solemnize a marriage . . . shall be required to solemnize any marriage in violation of the right to religious liberty

          Conneticut: No church or qualified church controlled organization, as defined in 26 USC 3121, shall be required to participate in a ceremony solemnizing a marriage in violation of the religious beliefs of that church or qualified church-controlled organization.

          District of Columbia: No priest, imam, rabbi, minister or other official of any religious society who is authorized to solemnize or celebrate marriages shall be required to solemnize or celebrate any marriage.

          February 24, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
        • tempe

          That is the point, without a law to protect, religious freedom cannot be upheld for churches or individuals. You just screaming that churches will not be forced to perform gay marriages hold no ground and lacks merit in a court of law when it is not specifically protected by legally enforceable acts.

          The point is this: your right to 'express' yourself should in no way force another to endorse your 'expression' in violation of their religious belief and their conscience.

          February 24, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          " You just screaming that churches will not be forced to perform gay marriages hold no ground and lacks merit in a court of law when it is not specifically protected by legally enforceable acts."

          You're seriously not even paying attention to what I'm saying, are you?
          The legal precedents are set.
          IN EVERY COUNTRY AND STATE WHERE GAY MARRIAGE IS LEGAL, THERE ARE EXPLICIT PROVISIONS PROTECTING THE RIGHT OF RELIGIOUS INST/ITUTIONS TO ABSTAIN FROM PERFORMING OR ENDORSING SAME GENDER MARRIAGE.

          This is not my opinion – this is fact.
          Read it yourself:
          "Charting the Success of Same-S.ex Marriage Legislation"
          Robin F. Wilson, Washington and Lee University School of Law

          http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlufac/132/

          February 24, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
        • hotairace

          If it can be shown, you know with, evidence, actual evidence, not the evidence believers claim for their silliness, that photographers or the like might be forced to be active participants in an activity that their religious views do not permit, then I would support them not being forced to participate, just as I support the right of anyone to not participate in war (although I do wonder why more religious people don't join up). On the other hand, it they are offering a service that does not in any way express support or nonsupport then too bad, so sad.

          February 24, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
        • tempe

          Read it again, this time slowly.

          Your right to "express" yourself does not allow you to enforce another to "endorse" your expression. Without statutes that provides for this protection you will be free to continue enforcing your right of expression on another innocent third party who wants to be no part of your "expression".

          February 24, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
        • hotairace

          Do you really believe that a photographer taking pictures for hire and for the personal use of those paying for them is the same as an artist expressing themselves?

          February 24, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Abortion is legal.
          A Catholic run hospital is not mandated to perform them, nor are they obligated in any way, shape or form to endorse abortion. They are free to voice their protests against abortion, and very often do just that.

          I'll try to use smaller words this time, ok:
          In every place in the whole wide world where same gender marriage is legal, there are explicit protections for religions that don't want to perform or endorse it.
          If you don't wanna do it, you don't hafta.
          If you wanna stamp your feet and say it's wrong and icky, nobody will stop you.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
    • igaftr

      tempe
      So if you have a religious organization, such as The Creativity Movement...formerly The World Church of the Creator, that believes that whites are supreme, and members refuse to serve anyone who isn't white, you think that that should be legal...and if these people bought and had membership that allowed them to legislate with impunity, then they should be able to ban all non-whites from their town?

      February 24, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
  17. bostontola

    Mr. Lee seems like a very intelligent person. He had mostly rational arguments. How can he do that and still not see the flaw in his religion?

    He demonstrated that he did not choose to be gay. He grew up evangelical, considered gay a choice, fought it, eventually accepting the truth within himself.

    How can you remain in a religion that purports a God that created you in a way that is forbidden?

    February 24, 2014 at 11:20 am |
    • myweightinwords

      Actually, I know a fair number of gay Christians.

      They tend to be willing and able to read the bible in the cultural context in which it was written, focusing on the spiritual truths supposedly taught by Jesus as a guiding force for their life, rather than getting stuck in the laws of another era.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:27 am |
      • hotairace

        ... the alleged spiritual truths ...

        February 24, 2014 at 11:29 am |
        • myweightinwords

          Well, yeah. I mean, I'm no Christian, but even I like some of what he supposedly said. 🙂

          February 24, 2014 at 11:30 am |
        • hotairace

          Me too. Especially the bits that were said by others without any connection to any alleged but never proven supernatural buddies.

          February 24, 2014 at 11:37 am |
      • bostontola

        Anyone can study Christianity and incorporate the elements they like into their personal life philosophy. That is different than declaring yourself an evangelical Christian. The degree of "picking and choosing" is quite extreme in Mr. Lee's case in my opinion.

        February 24, 2014 at 11:34 am |
        • myweightinwords

          We all define the labels we chose to apply to ourselves. He likely has a lot of beliefs that are in line with Evangelical teaching.

          It appears he differs on just one thing. Does that one thing mean he can no longer wear the evangelical label? I would think that would be something he would have to decide for himself.

          February 24, 2014 at 11:37 am |
        • bostontola

          He can wear any label he wants. My point was simple, the dude is clearly rational and intelligent, yet fails to see the logical conflict in being in a religion that worships a God that created him with a fundamental characteristic that is explicitly forbidden. He is free to carve out Leviticus, I think it is denial.

          February 24, 2014 at 11:46 am |
        • Dalahäst

          "...(Leviticus 18:19-23 and Leviticus 20:10-16) are part of what biblical scholars call the Holiness Code. The code explicitly bans ho.mose.xual acts. But it also prohibits eating raw meat, planting two different kinds of seed in the same field and wearing garments with two different kinds of yarn. Tattoos, adultery and se.xual intercourse during a woman’s menstrual period are similarly outlawed. "

          I think most h.omos.exual Christians agree with that. And are not delusional or carving out a new understanding.

          Anyway, it wasn't written for Christians to follow.

          February 24, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
        • Alias

          @Dalahast
          Yes, it was written for everyone to follow. Everyone who believed in Moses, Abraham, and worshipped your god.
          It was a stroke of pure genious to write Acts so that christianity could be make to appear acceptable to the masses.

          February 24, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          And than the geniuses were murdered for suggesting God loves people outside of their religion.

          February 24, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
        • Alias

          Withou ACTS very few people who were not born into the jewish faith would have been willing to convert.
          Christianity would have membership number similar to the jews by now.

          February 24, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
  18. hotairace

    I really, REALLY, hope Arozona passes this bill into law! It will be highly entertaining to watch a backward legislature and governor (I did not say state) get corrected, by its own citizens, others around the world and ultimately the US Supreme Court.

    It is a great thing whenever the delusionals pull their heads out their Babbles only to have them taken off (figuratively, not literally, violence is not good). When will they learn to keep their activities within the confines of their own homes and cult clubhouses, and among consenting adults only?

    February 24, 2014 at 10:55 am |
    • In Santa We Trust

      To be fair to Brewer she did veto this the last time it was passed.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:14 am |
      • hotairace

        That is very good to learn. As much as I would enjoy watching Arizona and its delusionals getting slapped down and chased back into their cult clubhouses, it is best that lunacy gets nipped in the bud. I see Senator John McCain's daughter Meghan is vehemently opposed to this law. Where does the senator stand?

        February 24, 2014 at 11:27 am |
    • bostontola

      I agree, I hope Brewer passes it this time so we can have a civics lesson from the SC.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:25 am |
  19. myweightinwords

    Does Christianity teach discrimination?

    February 24, 2014 at 10:36 am |
    • Doris

      Evidently some brands.

      February 24, 2014 at 10:40 am |
      • Doris

        There seem to be a number of them in Arizona. You know the type – three fake blonde hairs away from a Fox pundit.

        February 24, 2014 at 10:42 am |
        • myweightinwords

          I'm not one to tell a person how to follow their chosen religion, and if a person truly feels they can not service someone due to a religious belief, I'm not one to tell them they must, with the exception of life & death situations and/or governmental agencies....however, I also can not see how any one who claims to follow the teachings of Christ can justify denying service to anyone on religious grounds.

          It makes no sense to me.

          Discriminating against gay people is not a sign of Christian devotion, it's a sign that you think being gay is icky and you're afraid it's contagious.

          February 24, 2014 at 10:54 am |
        • Doris

          "Amen", myweight. Your pen will always be mightier than my crude sword.

          February 24, 2014 at 10:58 am |
        • hotairace

          So it would be ok for a business owner to post a sign that says something like "If you are white, christian, black, atheist, gay, straight, male, female, etc. don't bother trying to give me your business, but if you are badly injured or dying, trust that I will render all possible assistance."

          February 24, 2014 at 11:10 am |
        • myweightinwords

          hotairace,

          Do I think discrimination is right or good? No, obviously not. But I also don't believe I have the right to tell you how to conduct your religion.

          In the case of your average business owner, yeah, I think they have the right to refuse service for a variety of reasons, or for none at all. It makes them an asshat, but they should have that right.

          In the case of doctors, nurses, EMTs...pretty much anyone in the medical industry, they sign away their right to protest on religious grounds when they enter the industry. In the case of anyone working for the government, likewise, they voluntarily surrender their right to discriminate when they take the job. Period.

          It gets a little tougher to call in small towns where say there's only one grocery store/drug store/gas station.

          Honestly, I think this is a last ditch effort by the conservative right to try to stave off the inevitable. Even if Brewer signs it, it won't hold up. Equality is happening and the momentum won't be stopped at this point.

          February 24, 2014 at 11:23 am |
        • hotairace

          I actually have a small, very small, bit of sympathy for small business owners but my hatred of discrimination outweighs that. I think it would be a huge step back for society in general to allow an increase in discrimination for any reason. I can only imagine chaos and bitterness would follow, just so that a few delusional throw backs could legally wave The Babble at anyone they think is less than them.

          February 24, 2014 at 11:35 am |
    • Dalahäst

      Like everything, it can.

      My understanding of Christianity does not discriminate against g.ays.

      February 24, 2014 at 12:25 pm |
  20. joeyy1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_F9nIps46w

    February 24, 2014 at 8:35 am |
1 2 3 4
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.