February 24th, 2014
08:20 AM ET

soundoff (729 Responses)
  1. theophileo

    OK, here's an example of how this bill could be used in the real world.
    You run a Christian radio station, and a gay dating website wants to buy advertising time on your station. Do you legally have to conduct business with anyone able to buy air time?

    February 27, 2014 at 8:45 am |
    • Doris

      Gee – don't you think the "gay dating website" in your example are the ones providing the services?

      February 27, 2014 at 8:52 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Media outlets have always been able to choose which advertisers they'll air.
      For example, there are 2 radio stations in Washington who have refused to air advertisements from a Native American group who are arguing that the "Redskins" sports franchise is racist.

      February 27, 2014 at 8:56 am |
      • theophileo

        "Media outlets have always been able to choose which advertisers they'll air."
        Sure, the idea though is that they are not forced to violate their convictions.

        Here's another example,
        Let's say you run a Christian print shop where you make evangelical witnessing tracts, T-shirts, pamphlets, and the like. And a gay organization wants to use you to make T-shirts for an upcoming rally in Washington. Do you legally have to conduct business with anyone who comes in the door?

        February 27, 2014 at 9:02 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          A publishing or advertising company cannot be forced to publish something with which they do not agree.
          That isn't the argument here.

          A more accurate scenario would be:
          You run a Kosher deli and someone wearing a cross comes in to buy a sandwich.
          Should you be allowed to deny that person lunch based on what you think is their religion?

          February 27, 2014 at 9:18 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Should Ken Ham's Creation Museum be permitted to ignore accessibility laws and/or deny service to the visibly handicapped based on Leviticus 21:17?

          February 27, 2014 at 9:24 am |
        • Doris

          Yes Doc, something that probably occurs daily without incident in NYC and many other places I would imagine.

          February 27, 2014 at 9:25 am |
        • Doris

          (my last reply regarding the sandwich, and now I have a craving for a Reuben and it's only 9:30 here, uggh)

          February 27, 2014 at 9:26 am |
        • theophileo

          The problem is when the act of doing business can be seen as an endorsement of that which violates their conscience.

          February 27, 2014 at 9:28 am |
        • theophileo

          "Should Ken Ham's Creation Museum be permitted to ignore accessibility laws and/or deny service to the visibly handicapped based on Leviticus 21:17?"
          How do the laws regarding the Levitical Priesthood affect modern men when we have no temple and there are no priests?

          February 27, 2014 at 9:31 am |
        • Doris

          Good grief, if you're open for business to provide goods or services to the public,



          open to the public to provide goods or services to the public.
          If you think you might face situations in a potential business that you won't be able to handle because of your religious beliefs,


          don't go into that business. If the scene changes drastically around you when you're already in business, then either get out of that business or relocate. Sheez.

          February 27, 2014 at 9:33 am |
        • igaftr

          "The problem is when the act of doing business can be seen as an endorsement of that which violates their conscience"

          So, by their conscience, they should also not ACCEPT any goods and services, because then their money is supporting them as well, right.

          Think long and hard about the consequences of that, and see how quickly you change your mind when you cannot listen to the radio, or watch tv or movies, or live in their houses or buy groceries or get power to their houses...because gay people are providing those goods and services.

          If they deny THEIR products to those people because they are supporting them, then they are supporting them MORE when they purchase goods and services from them.

          If they accept goods and services from the same people they are denying, they are HUGE hypocrits...common for the christianicus domesticus americus ( the common domesticated american christian)

          February 27, 2014 at 9:40 am |
        • theophileo

          "So, by their conscience, they should also not ACCEPT any goods and services, because then their money is supporting them as well, right."
          As I said, that's up to them and what their conscience will allow.

          February 27, 2014 at 9:43 am |
        • igaftr

          So if a place denies service to someone who is gay, they should accept when the gay people then deny them services as well. So the power company should have no issue truning off their power...since the power company employs gay people who's conscience will not allow them to provide the electricty to one hwo denies them their services, right?

          Face it. $exual orientation is federally protected. Denial of services is illegal, and should remain so Otherwise, trunabout should be allowed. If they do not want to provide services equally, they need to find another line of work. If they choose to work where services are provided, they agree to provide them equally.

          February 27, 2014 at 10:14 am |
        • observernow


          "How do the laws regarding the Levitical Priesthood affect modern men when we have no temple and there are no priests?'

          Leviticus did not just apply to Levitical Priesthood. it also applied to the laity.

          February 27, 2014 at 10:25 am |
    • igaftr

      If you want to deny services based on religious bigotry, are you then also going to not ACCEPT any goods or services from gay people. Are you going to turn off the radio when you hear an Elton John song, or not watch any tv or movies, because there is likely someone who is gay somewhere on it.
      Are you going to check your power company, make sure there are no gay people there or you should not accept electricity.

      Grow up theo. your religious belief do not trump civil rights.
      These "christians" who clearly hate their brother have definitely not learned a thing from their Jesus.

      If you deny services, then you should not accept any services based on the same bigotry. Check where everything you have comes from. If there is a gay person involved with any good or service you have, then deny yourself that good or service, since it is a gay person supporting you.

      Your at!tude is as anti christ, but so wholly christian.

      February 27, 2014 at 9:00 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        You can never be too careful.
        I heard that The Gay is an airborne virus.
        That's why I boil all my designer label clothes before wearing them.

        February 27, 2014 at 9:04 am |
        • igaftr

          I think they fear World War G.

          February 27, 2014 at 9:16 am |
  2. dandintac

    The Arizona bill is foul, rank bigotry at its worst. It's utterly indefensible and unAmerican. If it's signed into law by the Governor, I plan on joining any boycotts of that's state's products or business, and will encourage others to do so as well.

    If anyone wants to still claim that religion is benign, and does no harm, this is now my Exhibit A.

    February 26, 2014 at 10:09 pm |
  3. jedclampett

    They need to quit saying that "Conservative" groups come out in favor of this legislation. The truth is that "Religious Conservative" groups have come out in favor. Fiscally conservative groups have rebuked it.

    February 26, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
    • kenmargo

      You have to admit the two groups are joined at the hip. They tend to stand together (especially when bashing Obama)

      February 26, 2014 at 5:00 pm |
    • dandintac

      Just what is a "fiscal conservative?" I call it someone who believes we need to keep our revenue stream roughly in line with our expenses. In other words, taxes should roughly match spending. I don't believe it necessarily means you don't spend anything, or that you don't spend money on programs that help old people, unemployed people, poor single mothers, etc. I also don't believe it necessarily means that you just cut taxes over and over again while swimming in a fantasy thinking it will magically shrink "big gov'mint". I say "fiscally conservative" means you pay as you go, with spending levels determined through a negotiation amongst the American polity, with taxation rates that match this spending.

      Cutting taxes to levels that cannot keep pace with our fiscal commitments–such as multiple trillion dollar wars, a vast military-industrial complex, a huge chunk of our population aging, and drawing social security and Medicare, while letting the dirty, politically unpopular job of trying to figure out what to cut fall on the next Democratic president–this is not "fiscally conservative". It is not "fiscally responsible" either. It is fiscal lunacy. Yet it's the strategy employed by the Republican party under Bush.

      February 26, 2014 at 10:06 pm |
  4. myweightinwords

    When even Mitt Romney is encouraging you to veto a bill like this, you have to realize that just maybe the bill is wrong.

    February 26, 2014 at 10:23 am |
    • kenmargo

      Give Romney time. He'll flip flop.

      February 26, 2014 at 5:01 pm |
  5. joeyy1


    February 25, 2014 at 11:23 pm |
  6. observernow


    Jesus said that any woman who divorces and remarries is an ADULTERER (see Ten Commandments).

    Why aren't the Christian HYPOCRITES in Arizona complaining about their fellow Christian ADULTERERS in their businesses?

    Do you have ANY answer other than HYPOCRISY?

    February 25, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
    • kenmargo

      The real answer is BIGOTRY. Plain and simple.

      February 25, 2014 at 5:03 pm |
    • transframer

      Maybe but we don't know them. They (the adulterers) are not walking around in public display so anyone can see who they are. It's the same reason why they won't complain about thieves, terrorists whatever

      February 25, 2014 at 6:01 pm |
      • observernow


        Yep. You don't CARE about Christian adulterers.

        It's all PICK and CHOOSE HYPOCRISY. You could CHOOSE the Golden Rule but don't.

        February 25, 2014 at 6:11 pm |
        • transframer

          If you are talking about the Golden Rule from Bible, what make you think that I didn't?

          February 25, 2014 at 7:06 pm |
        • observernow


          You apparently have CHOSEN to follow negative verses about gays rather than CHOOSING the MORE IMPORTANT Golden Rule when dealing with them.

          February 25, 2014 at 8:18 pm |
        • transframer

          Sorry, I don't understand what you are talking about. If that's really an issue maybe you want to explain.

          February 25, 2014 at 8:30 pm |
      • In Santa We Trust

        Did you boycott Limbaugh and Gingrich to name a few?

        February 25, 2014 at 6:22 pm |
      • kenmargo

        "They (the adulterers) are not walking around in public display so anyone can see who they are."

        Not all gays and lesbians are out of the closet.

        February 25, 2014 at 6:36 pm |
    • observernow


      In reading your comment over again, I think I may have misinterpreted it as trashing gays for public displays. If that's the case, I am sorry and apologize.

      February 25, 2014 at 8:57 pm |
    • theophileo

      Christians are against divorce. I, myself preach against it, and have counseled against it as has my pastor and others I know. The only reason that Christians seem to be laser focused on the ho.mo.se.xual issue right now is because that is the sin of the age. It is one of the biggest issues facing us today. We didn't bring it up, but since the topic has been brought up, we will preach against it.

      February 26, 2014 at 7:18 am |
      • hotairace

        Is it a bigger issue than about 700,000 believers per year in the USA having abortions despite their cult's rules? Are you ok with the proposed law being used to deny services to believers who have had abortions, or unwed mothers?

        February 26, 2014 at 7:36 am |
        • theophileo

          As I said in another place below:

          I never said that it was right OR it was wrong to refuse to do business with someone on a religious basis. I said it should be their right to do so.

          If a Christian's conscience will not permit him to conduct business with someone openly living a sinful lifestyle because he feels that he might be endorsing that sin, then fine, don't do business with him. If his conscience allows him to conduct business with that person even though he disagrees with his lifestyle, then conduct the business.

          It should be up to the individual, and what his conscience will allow.

          February 26, 2014 at 7:43 am |
        • hotairace

          That sounds like a very wimpy yes, you be ok if "persons having abortions" and unwed mothers are discriminated against. How nice. What if members of your cult are the ones being discriminated against – still ok?

          February 26, 2014 at 7:58 am |
        • theophileo

          Actually, I believe that anyone having an abortion should be arrested and tried for pre-meditated murder.

          February 26, 2014 at 8:03 am |
        • hotairace

          Have you tried that, or even suggested that, within your own cult, or do you want us to believe that none of your members have had abortions? What about people who counsel others to have an abortion, perhaps the father or husband, is it ok to discriminate against them and would you have them charged with murder too?

          Where do you draw the line between acceptable and non-acceptable discrimination?

          February 26, 2014 at 8:10 am |
        • theophileo

          is it ok to discriminate against them and would you have them charged with murder too?
          I don't know that I would use the word discriminate, because that indicates that you are making accusations against an innocent party. If someone condones the murder of an innocent human being for the mere sake of convenience, then, they are not innocent, and yes, they would be partakers in the crime.

          Where do you draw the line between acceptable and non-acceptable discrimination?
          Once again, it isn't "discrimination" if there is no innocent party against whom an accusation is made.

          February 26, 2014 at 9:02 am |
        • igaftr

          "Once again, it isn't "discrimination" if there is no innocent party against whom an accusation is made."

          Flat out false, once again.

          In countries where all abortions are illegal, there are MANY women who have been charged with murder, when their only "crime" was to have a miscarriage. They could not prove they didn't cause the miscarriage, so off to prison for them. This is doen in the name of the very same immoral god you think is so special. God causes the abortion, the woman goes to prison.
          Such silly belief bringing some of the worst injustices the world has ever seen.

          Try researching the horrible effects laws like what you propose ACTUALLY do to societies, before making decrees out of your blind ignorance.

          February 26, 2014 at 9:07 am |
        • theophileo

          They could not prove they didn't cause the miscarriage, so off to prison for them
          But your argument here is against a corrupt legal system. With that argument I am in agreement with you.

          February 26, 2014 at 9:11 am |
        • observernow


          "Actually, I believe that anyone having an abortion should be arrested and tried for pre-meditated murder."

          So if your wife/daughter/sister/mother needed an abortion to save their life, you'd tell them "tough luck" or do you SUPPORT ABORTION?

          February 26, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
        • hotairace

          So you are ok with each person or business owner judging each person on their own and punishing them by withholding services without due process. Everyone could say something like "I believed the person I denied service to had premarital s3x or had an abortion." and that is good enough to deny services?

          February 26, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
        • transframer


          I'm not exactly a pro-lifer but I think I can answer that question. Removing an ectopic pregnancy is not considered abortion for medical, logical and legal reasons. See for example legislation in Ireland where abortion is illegal but surgical removal of ectopic pregnancy is allowed.

          February 26, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
        • observernow


          Nope. Not even close. Abortions are sometimes performed to save the life of the mother.

          Playing games with words gets you nowhere. Deal with REALITY.

          February 26, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
        • transframer

          Yes, these cases are called ectopic pregnancies and the goal is to save the life of mother.

          February 26, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
        • observernow


          ABORTION: (noun) the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy,

          Please use a dictionary. Double-talk doesn't change the fact that it's an ABORTION.

          February 26, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
        • hotairace

          Regardless of the precise definition of abortion, would it be ok for someone to deny service to one or more of the 700,000 believers who have abortions each year in the USA?

          February 26, 2014 at 3:21 pm |
        • transframer

          For some reasons my posts don't appear. I didn't use any "magical" word that would trigger rejection. Let's see this one

          February 26, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
        • transframer


          Exactly. However we are not talking about abortions. The medical community doesn't call terminating an ectopic pregnancy "abortion" but "treatment" and of course they know better.

          February 26, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
        • hotairace

          I don't think there is a "message with no intelligent content" filter but maybe your posts trigger one.

          February 26, 2014 at 3:38 pm |
        • observernow


          Use whatever double-talk you want to avoid the FACT that some ABORTIONS ("the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy") occur to save the mother.

          Feebly trying to rationalize by avoiding the word ABORTION doesn't change the purpose or outcome of the operation one bit. If you feel more comfortable lying to yourself, go right ahead.

          February 26, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
        • transframer


          Define what is "OK" ? In my opinion these kind of restrictions don't help but I can see their rationale (I have one myself) and I think it's probably in the same line of thought for those who seek g_ay restrictions to also seek restrictions for other sinners too.

          February 26, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
        • transframer


          OK, let's forget the terminology and use abortion word only. The fact remains that some abortion is allowed by both civil and religious communities.

          February 26, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
        • observernow


          "same line of thought for those who seek g_ay restrictions to also seek restrictions for other sinners too."

          Please tell us how many Christian HYPOCRITES are trying to get laws passed to eliminate the MILLIONS and MILLIONS of fellow Christians being ADULTERERS because they can legally divorce and remarry?

          Number please.

          February 26, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
        • observernow


          EVERYONE is "pro-abortion" if things get horribly bad enough.

          EVERYONE is "pro-life". It just depends if that life is the mother or fetus.

          The opposing sides are PRO-CHOICE and ANTI-CHOICE.

          February 26, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • hotairace

          Ok in the context of this bill means acceptable under the law if it passes and to those supporting passage of the bill.

          February 26, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
        • transframer


          By "eliminate" I guess you mean, "not allowed in their businesses". As I said earlier, the reason you don't see this is practical: because they are hard to spot, for any practical reason they are already not doing businesses with them. I am sure everybody hates pedophiles. How many businesses have you seen restricting pedophiles? Or extraterrestrial aliens?

          February 26, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
        • observernow


          No, I meant allowing adultery by allowing women to divorce and remarry. it is NOT all adultery.

          Please tell us how many Christian HYPOCRITES are trying to get laws passed to eliminate the MILLIONS and MILLIONS of fellow Christians being ADULTERERS BECAUSE THEY CAN LEGALLY DIVORCE and REMARRY?

          Number please.

          February 26, 2014 at 6:33 pm |
        • transframer


          I already answered. What exactly you think you achieve by repeat asking the same question? Want to prove Christians are hypocrites?

          February 26, 2014 at 10:30 pm |
        • observernow


          You didn't answer the question at all.

          Women who divorce and remarry are considered ADULTERERS. That's easy to identify.

          Try again.

          February 26, 2014 at 10:42 pm |
        • transframer

          OK, so what's your point?

          February 26, 2014 at 10:57 pm |
        • observernow


          The point is obvious. Christians there are advocating changing the law so that they can discriminate against gays supposedly because of their religion and desire to stop sinners. But the REALITY is that these HYPOCRITES just pick and choose what sins and sinners they want to pick on and which ones (usually concerning their fellow Christians) that they want to ignore. If they ACTUALLY cared about sins, they'd work on the MUCH MUCH GREATER numbers of their fellow Christians who violate the Ten Commandments when it comes to ADULTERY.

          February 26, 2014 at 11:29 pm |
        • transframer

          OK, I got it. It seems that adultery is the only other sin that it bothers you, more exactly the re-married people that you consider as adulterers. When I was answering your questions I didn't think of them. First of all they were once on the same position as g ays now, if you remember divorce was not allowed in the past so you can't say they are totally ignored. For better or for worse divorce was allowed and now is not considered such a sin, even most of the churches allow people to re-marry. There are good reasons for that. The most important one is that is not an unforgivable sin: you sinned once, maybe more but you stopped, you ask for forgiveness and it is given. Even the criminal that was on another cross with Jesus was forgiven. However, as a g ay you don't stop sinning , you are committed to a life of sin.

          February 26, 2014 at 11:57 pm |
        • observernow


          Adultery through remarriage is just one of several examples of world class HYPOCRISY by people using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry. It just offers a simple and effective example.

          "However, as a g ay you don't stop sinning , you are committed to a life of sin"

          Bad example. Being divorced and remarried leaves you in a "life of sin" as long as you are married. Just PICK and CHOOSE the sins you want to make an issue of and IGNORE the rest, especially if they apply to family and friends..

          February 27, 2014 at 3:48 am |
      • TruthPrevails1

        "It is one of the biggest issues facing us today."

        It's not facing you because it doesn't affect you. You are making it your issue when in fact it isn't your issue to be had! It doesn't matter that you think it is a sin, the numerous studies done since your bible has been written have shown that these people are born this way and do not have a choice. Texas and Oklahoma have both now declared it unconstitutional to deny equal rights to LGBT-you're losing ground on this, just as you lost ground on the abortion issue...what's the next personal matter you're going to pick on? You're running out of them! Keep your nose and your bible out of the personal lives of other people...if it has no direct impact on you (and LGBT doesn't), then you need to learn to tighten the vocal chords and not say a word.

        February 27, 2014 at 4:14 am |
  7. sargentchorizo

    God what special rights will the gay demand next? The right to vote? The right to freedom of assembly? Where will it end?! http://imvotingteaparty.com/design/gaysvote/

    February 25, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
  8. kenmargo

    This is much about nothing. The law will be overturned because it's discriminates against gays and lesbians. I hope she signs it to expose the bigots for what they are and anyone that runs against them can use the ruling against her and the rest of those bigots.

    Gay people got here the same way straight people got here. If a parent wanted an abortion, These religious whack jobs will quote the bible. If the baby turns out gay all of a sudden the baby is the devil. Puhleeeze.

    February 25, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
  9. theophileo

    OK, Rush brought up something interesting regarding this today... In 2007, the issue was brought up that Muslim cab drivers in New York refused to give rides to people who were drinking alcohol – based on their religious convictions... Were they forced to give them rides? No.

    So why is THIS an issue? Because the media refuses to condemn Muslims, but they will for sure condemn Christians.

    February 25, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
    • igaftr

      This actually happened in many places...were they force to give rides...no , they could quit...otherwise in most places they were and are forced to give cab rides, or choose another profession.

      February 25, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
      • igaftr

        By the way, if you are going to listen to guys like Rush, you'd better be checking for facts, since they don't.

        February 25, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
      • theophileo

        Actually I don't normally listen to him as I'm not a politically minded person. I was just flipping through the stations and happened to catch him.

        Here's my question. Is there a law that you HAVE to do business with anyone who walks into your door?

        I went into a "For Nature's Sake" with a girlfriend one time growing up and I was wearing a leather jacket, and they got quite angry at me and told me to leave. Is that illegal?

        February 25, 2014 at 3:10 pm |
        • igaftr

          Since wearing leather is not a civil rights issue, yes...likely legal, depending on local and state ordinances.
          The issue comes into play when it becomes civil rights vs. religious rights. This country has shown by several laws that civil rights trump religious rights every time.

          February 25, 2014 at 3:21 pm |
        • theophileo

          It's not civil rights. It's a sin.
          Besides, don't atheists claim "seperation of church and state" all the time? OK, well, it goes both ways. If you don't want Christians influencing the non-believing masses, then don't expect the non-believing masses to influence Christians.

          February 25, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
        • theophileo

          Here's the problem. Culture is gravitating to the point where they don't want Christianity in the schools, in work, in the public arena of politics... So, if we're to be equal, and if secular society refuses to let Christianity into certain areas, then no one should be suprised if certain Christians refuse to take part in secular society. And if some people feel that part of removing themselves from secular society means that they only do business with people they want to, then so be it.

          A Christian doing business with a person who is living a sinful lifestyle might feel like they are endorsing that lifestyle, which would be putting them in that sin. So no, they have the right to do business with whomever they want.

          February 25, 2014 at 3:34 pm |
        • sam stone

          Sin is a man made concept and does not apply to anyone outside of the religion

          February 25, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
        • igaftr

          Everyone has a different version of what sin is. Since I am an athesit, I do not accept the concept of sin. I also consider christianity immoral.

          Refusing service of anyone based on recognized groups afforded civil rights is illegal.
          You don't like "sinners" but by your own dogma, everyone is a sinner, so you would not allow yourself to serve anyone who you think is a sinner.
          I do not understand why so many "christians" love to go so far against the alleged words of your "savior".

          I do not have the time required to explain to you the incredibly immoral thinking behind your post, but you are what I have come to expect from christians. Hypocritical to the last.

          February 25, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
        • theophileo

          OK, let me get this straight, culture is supposed to dictate how Christianity is lived by its adherants, and Christianity cannot have anything to say about that culture? Because that's what you're ultimately saying.

          February 25, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
        • theophileo

          The Word of God tells me to preach the word in season, and out of season, and to root out sin wherever it may be found. That means that if I have to call out ho.mo.se.xuality, then I'll do that. If I have to call out divorce, I'll do that. If I have to call out liars, I'll do that. And I don't care what culture calls it – whether it's a civil rights issue or not, God calls it sin.

          February 25, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
        • sam stone

          No, larry, the word of iron age man says that

          February 25, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
        • igaftr

          Unless you are a complete hypocrit, I expect you to completely bow out of society.
          That computer and keyboard you are typing on. Was not made by christians, they were likely made by Buddhists in China, or muslims in the philipines.

          The education you received...don't use it...likely you were taught by atheists, divorced people, and various other sinners.

          Don't use any of the roads, or goods brought by rail...many of the railroads were made by heathen asians the roads and many skyscapers made using pagan Native Americans.

          When you refuse to serve ALL equally, you have either chosen the wrong profession, or you need to refuse service BY AND FROM the same groups.

          Jesus taught you to love others as yourself....you must either hate yourself, or you have learned NOTHING from you Jesus.

          Let me know how that works out for you.
          By the way, as soon as you reply, you will be using a device that was made by many of the very same people you would refuse service to. So you shpould pack up your computer, and rid yorself of it....since it clearly offends you so much.
          Search your house and rid yourself of ALL things that were made in any muslim or Buddhist countries. Don't use electricity...likely not all of them are such upstanding christians like you are....matter of fact, don't use ANYTHING society has provided, since they are so offensive to you.

          So what'll it be? You'll prove you are a major hypocrit if you post again on this site, or you can re-think yourself, and realize it is in our diversity that makes us strong.

          February 25, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
        • sam stone

          Foks like Larry/theophieo are the reason i think that preachers should be ridiculed whenever they attempt to preach in public. What fvcking arrogance to think that you speak for god.

          February 25, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
        • theophileo

          I never said that it was right OR it was wrong to refuse to do business with someone on a religious basis. I said it should be their right to do so.

          If a Christian's conscience will not permit him to conduct business with someone openly living a sinful lifestyle because he feels that he might be endorsing that sin, then fine, don't do business with him. If his conscience allows him to conduct business with that person even though he disagrees with his lifestyle, then conduct the business.

          It should be up to the individual, and what his conscience will allow.

          February 26, 2014 at 7:24 am |
        • theophileo

          I didn't say that Christians SHOULD always avoid doing business with those living an openly sinful lifestyle.... I just said that it should be their right to do so if they feel it would violate their conscience.

          February 26, 2014 at 7:31 am |
        • igaftr

          "openly sinful lifestyle.... "
          Like a christian lifestyle. That , to me, is openly "sinful", immoral. You want the right to refuse service? Then those bringing YOU goods and service should have the RIGHT to know you are refusing THEM, and should then be allowed to not deliver electricity and water to your house,allow YOU to buy groceries from them...on and on.

          What you are asking is flat out ridiculous and bigotted.
          Fine example of the common hypocrit immoral christian...

          February 26, 2014 at 8:13 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          "It's not civil rights. It's a sin."

          Wrong again! It is civil rights. You're not stopping it and as much as I understand you don't give a damn about anyone's rights in the 21st century, you either join it or get left behind.
          LGBT are doing no harm in this world, are just as equal as you and far less damaging to this world than people who base everything off of the bible. Tell us how many slaves do you own? How often do you stop your wife from speaking? Oh right, you don't care about your wife...you'd put an unborn fetus before her any day.
          People like you are who bury your belief system...keep it up, you help the Civil Rights movement in the grand scheme of it.

          February 26, 2014 at 8:22 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          In traditional Mormon theology, dark skinned people are said to be the descendants of Cain and merit lesser Earthly privilege because they were "fence-sitters" in the War in Heaven.
          They taught that there is a direct link between skin colour and righteousness.
          In the mid 20th century, LDS leaders were of the opinion that ""From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Neg.roes are not ent.itled to the full blessings of the Gospel."

          Given their deeply held religious convictions, should they be allowed to treat dark skinned people as inferiors?
          Should a Mormon shop keeper be allowed to have a "No Darkies" sign on his storefront?

          February 26, 2014 at 8:43 am |
        • theophileo

          If pedophiles come out and say that they were born this way and start demanding civil rights, should we grant it to them?

          February 26, 2014 at 8:56 am |
        • colin31714

          Pedophiles WERE born that way. The difference is, the pedophile who acts on his urges does damage to the child. Gays in a voluntary relationship do not. Simply being "born that way" is neither a reason to exculpate the acting pedophile nor a reason to demonize a gay person.

          February 26, 2014 at 9:01 am |
        • theophileo

          Pedophiles WERE born that way.
          I'm glad that we both agree in the existence of a sin nature that we all are born with.

          The difference is, the pedophile who acts on his urges does damage to the child.
          No, not in all cases. I have seen cases where the child was a very willing participant in the relationship. At that point, if there are no moral absolutes with which to judge, then the idea of whether or not the action was wrong is merely one of opinion.

          Gays in a voluntary relationship do not.
          Since when are the ideas of "right" and "wrong" solely dependant on if another person is injured or harmed? Hating somebody is wrong, but you're not actually harming that person.

          Simply being "born that way" is neither a reason to exculpate the acting pedophile nor a reason to demonize a gay person.
          But it is cause for repentance. We are all born with a sin nature that pull each of us towards a particular "bent." With one, it might be alcoholism, another it might be theivery, and another might be ho.mo.se.xuality.

          February 26, 2014 at 9:09 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          You totally failed to answer the question I posed.

          But in answer to your pedophile postulate, a child is incapable of giving informed consent.

          February 26, 2014 at 9:27 am |
        • theophileo

          Race is a non-existent condition. Therefore to make a judgment based on that is mere opinion. This really begs the question of where we get our morals from? Are our morals absolute, or does society demand what our morals are? If society demands what morals are, then if it deemed that het.er.o.s.e.xuality is wrong, would you divorce your wife? If not, why not? If morals are determined by the individual alone, then why is anything wrong? If morals are determined by something that is outside of ourselves, then we owe it to ourselves to discover what that is.

          My conviction is that morals are determined by God. Not someone's interpretation of God. Therefore, no, judging someone based on an imaginary condition such as race is foolish. And if their conscience is being violated based on a false understanding of morality, that just shows why it is so important to understand where morality comes from, and what that is.

          February 26, 2014 at 9:35 am |
        • theophileo

          "But in answer to your pedophile postulate, a child is incapable of giving informed consent."
          I've met PLENTY of adults who weren't capable of giving informed consent... Have you ever been to New York? But even still, as I have said, I've seen cases where the child of 16 was a very willing participant. So how do you judge that?

          February 26, 2014 at 9:37 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Up here in Canada, gay marriage has been legal for a decade or so.
          There has been no slide down the slippery slope fundamentalists seem to fear.
          Nobody has tried to make pedophilia, zoophilia legal.
          No hetero marriages have ended because gays can get married.
          No clergy have been forced to perform a marriage ceremony that is counter to their faith.

          After the initial celebration by the rainbow flag brigade, people very quickly stopped giving even the slightest of sh1ts.
          The only difference now is that a traditionally maligned group of people have been given equal rights and protections under the law.

          February 26, 2014 at 9:39 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          There are existing laws in place pertaining to informed consent and mental capacity.
          There is no need to re-write the laws or re-define what informed consent means.
          In many states, 16 is the age of consent for hetero relations. Are you implying it should be different for gays?

          February 26, 2014 at 9:43 am |
        • igaftr

          "Pedophiles WERE born that way.
          I'm glad that we both agree in the existence of a sin nature that we all are born with.

          I don't know what the heck you are talking about you sick freak, but I am not a ped0phile, and I am also not a sinner

          How horrible that you actually see humanity this way.
          You want to call yourself a sinner, I'm sure you would know, but since I reject your ridiculous idea of sin, I cannot sin, for there are no gods.

          I have no idea why you say all are born ped0philes but we are NOT all like you.

          February 26, 2014 at 9:44 am |
        • theophileo

          "I don't know what the heck you are talking about you sick freak, but I am not a ped0phile, and I am also not a sinner"
          I never said that we are all born pedophiles... Just that we are all born with a sin nature. That sin nature pulls each individual towards a sin – the sin may be different to each individual.

          If you are going to retort, do not do so with a non sequitur.

          February 26, 2014 at 9:48 am |
        • theophileo

          "Up here in Canada, gay marriage has been legal for a decade or so.
          There has been no slide down the slippery slope fundamentalists seem to fear.
          Nobody has tried to make pedophilia, zoophilia legal.
          No hetero marriages have ended because gays can get married.
          No clergy have been forced to perform a marriage ceremony that is counter to their faith."
          Regardless, it's still sinful. And the faithful Christian will always preach against sin, no matter what it happens to be, and whether or not the civil government calls it legal or not.

          February 26, 2014 at 9:51 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          The discussion isn't about what you want to preach against.
          It is about equality for all under the law.
          You're still avoiding the question I asked you about our hypothetical fundamentalist Mormon.

          February 26, 2014 at 10:03 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Sorry – Just saw you did kind of answer it.
          But your answer doesn't address secular laws, only your own ideas of morality.
          Morality does not come from God.

          hether you admit it to yourself or not, moral relativism is a truism.
          Morality is a covenant by and for people that enables us to live together.
          Murdering each other isn't conducive to community building.
          We are selfish creatures by nature, yet our survival depends on cooperation. In order to balance these two conflicting instincts, mankind has had to develop rules that allow room for both.
          These rules are not the same for all communities – hence we've had so many different types of religion and government throughout history.
          Religion binds communities by giving a common frame of reference.
          Shared fears (like divine retribution), hopes (like going to heaven) and rituals allow the instinct for self preservation to extend beyond one's self and immediate family.
          Effective cooperation is a learned skill and the successful religions recognize this. Christianity reveals this truth about ourselves most poignantly in the character of Jesus Christ. His message is one of peace, charity, modesty and forgiveness – the traits most important to develop when living in a society.
          A prime example of the reality of moral relativism is cannibalism.
          Our culture has a very strong cannibalism taboo, but it cannot be "human nature" or something "written on our hearts by God" to feel repulsed by it as virtually every branch of the human species has praticed it at some point in their development.
          The Aztecs believed in transubstantiation. They consumed their human sacrifices in the belief that the dead literally became a part of the God to whom they were given.
          Binerwurs in India ate the sick amongst them to please Kali.
          The Karankawa, an indigenous Texan tribe, ritualistically consumed their enemies to gain their strength.
          The Wari, The Kuru, Fore, Caribs, Fijians, Popayans, Serengipeans, are all fairly modern examples (within the last 500 years).
          Indeed, Christians from the 1st Crusade consumed the fallen Arabs at Maarat.

          If belief in God and hope for posthumous reward/fear of posthumous punishment are the hallmarks of morality, how do you explain the results of the Journal of Religion & Society's study on religious belief and social well-being?
          It compared18 prosperous democracies from the U.S. to New Zealand.
          #1 on the list in both atheism and good behaviour is Ja.pan.
          It is one of the least crime-prone countries in the world. It also has the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy of any developed nation. Over eighty percent of the population accept evolution.
          Last on the list is the U.S. It has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy and homicide rates are at least five times greater than in Europe and ten times higher than in Ja.pan.

          Morality is a covenant by and for human beings that allows us to live as a cooperative group.

          February 26, 2014 at 10:07 am |
    • In Santa We Trust

      Rush also comdemned drug addicts until it was revealed that he was a drug addict and apparently obtaining his drugs illegally from abroad.

      February 25, 2014 at 6:25 pm |
  10. colin31714

    I am going to bed. I leave you with my favorite quote of the day (apart from the squirming of Dalahast who wants to pretend believing prayers are answered is somehow "sophisticated" or "deep" rather than a childish excursion into never-never-land).

    "Gays will go to hell."

    Ya gotta love it when a Christian scorns you with the admonishment that you will "go to hell".

    Out of all the silly superst.itious beliefs of the Christians, I think the myth of hell is my favorite. Think it through. One doesn't have to kill, doesn't have to steal, hell, they don't even have to litter. All they have to do is express love for a fellow human being based on the genetic cards they were dealt and God will inflict a grotesque penalty upon them an infinite times worse than the death penalty. And he loves them.

    Let's subject this "cherished Christian doctrine" to the probing light of say.......fifth grade mathematics.

    Approximately one hundred and ten thousand million (110,000,000,000) people have lived on Earth. Given all those who have, over the centuries, rejected the Christian god, or who have otherwise committed mortal sins, there must be literally thousands of millions of people burning for all eternity in the cosmic oven of hell set up by their all-loving god. Some must have been burning for thousands of years by now.

    About 100,000 people die every day. There must be a constant stream of thousands of forlorn souls every day into the one way pit of hell their “all-merciful” god set up and maintains.

    But, far, far worse than sheer overwhelming numbers is the extent of the punishment. There is no way out, no parole, no time off for good behavior. You don’t just burn, you burn for all eternity. Billions of people and thousands of daily new arrivals burning for all eternity!

    No criminal justice system in the history of the Human race, even those established by the most despotic of tyrants, comes close to matching the unfathomable barbarity of their “infinitely benevolent” god.

    Hitler murdered six million Jews in his concentration camps, but compared to the Judeo-Christian god, Hitler was a bleeding-hearted wimp. A goose-stepping girlie-man. Their “all-caring” god not only burns billions more than Hitler, Pol Pot and all other dictators and tyrants added up, he keeps doing so to them for all eternity! I would not wish a bad sunburn on a person simply because they have a different religion to me, let alone fry them for all eternity.

    It is also odd that their all-loving god is also all-knowing and knows which souls will go to hell before they do. He even knows it before they are born, and yet he still creates them. He is worse than a psychopathic teenager who breeds litter after litter of kittens so he can slowly roast them in ovens.

    That is the problem with using the same deity to be both the carrot and the stick. It gets really silly really quickly.

    How they believe this utter garbage in the 21st century completely eludes me.

    February 25, 2014 at 1:08 am |
    • Dalahäst

      Ironically you have to most infantile understanding of prayer I have ever heard. I thought you were joking at first. Like, tongue and cheek when you made the derogatory statement about Christianity.

      But you were serious.

      Consider this:

      “Prayer is not asking. It is a longing of the soul. It is daily admission of one's weakness. It is better in prayer to have a heart without words than words without a heart.”
      ― Mahatma Gandhi

      “The function of prayer is not to influence God, but rather to change the nature of the one who prays.”
      ― Søren Kierkegaard

      “I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had no where else to go. My own wisdom and that of all about me seemed insufficient for that day.”
      ― Abraham Lincoln

      Better men and women than I have used prayer. And they certainly prove your claims wrong.

      February 25, 2014 at 1:27 am |
      • colin31714

        You still have no explained what I got wrong. Indeed, below, you admitted I was correct. You believe that when you pray, a god reads your mind and, if it is so minded, will intervene to alter what would otherwise be the course of history to answer them. No quotes from others, not dodging, no flowery language about souls or people changing will alter that fundamental fact. And that is childish. That is why you hate seeing it described exactly the way it is . It reveals how utterly ridiculous the whole notion is.

        PS: What % of your thoughts are original and what % are copied and pasted from others? When you speak in person, do you express original ideas, or are you just a sock puppet for the ideas of others. You bore me. I'm going to bed.

        February 25, 2014 at 1:37 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Prayer is about changing the person doing the praying. Not about a god who reads your mind and, if it is so minded, will intervene to alter what would otherwise be the course of history to answer them.

          I was posting points of views of other people's beliefs on prayer. Not everyone is going to agree with your opinion. You can call all people who disagree with you infantile... but ironically that is very infantile on your part.

          February 25, 2014 at 1:47 am |
        • colin31714

          You said, “Prayer is about changing the person doing the praying. Not about a god who reads your mind and, if it is so minded, will intervene to alter what would otherwise be the course of history to answer them.”

          So, you must not believe that things external to the person praying can be altered by prayer. Things like the health of a loved one, for example. You must also reject the idea of a person’s physical health being improved through prayer. Things such as the fundamental cell chemistry of a person being altered to make a cancer go away.

          So, all those thousands upon thousands of people who trek to Lourdes, Fátima and other places in hope of a miracle, all those millions who pray each year that a loved one will overcome an illness, must be simply wasting their time.

          This is very inconsistent with the teachings of Christianity and the Bible itself, that clearly holds that prayers for such matters can and often will be answered. Jesus even said, Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.”John 14:13-14 and “Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.” Mark 12:24 Likewise, 1 John 5:14. “And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him”

          But, let’s face you, you do believe that matters such as a cancer riddled person’s fundamental cell chemistry and the health of a third party can be altered by prayer, don’t you? It is not just about “changing the person praying.” That is just a cop out to avoid admitting how silly your belief is.

          February 25, 2014 at 7:12 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Ok, that is a common misunderstanding. When Jesus says "ask in my name...." he doesn't literally mean that he will grant all your desires if you ask in his name. If you read all the verses you will see Jesus teaches how to pray. Think of it as praying according to his character and not just a 'blank check' promise to meet the prayers demands.

          "your kingdom come,
          your will be done,
          on earth as it is in heaven."

          Thanks for sharing your views on prayer. I certainly know everyone has their own view. I'm not sure why you feel the need to insist yours is right, but that is your issue. I know it works. And I know men and women who I have a lot of respect for, some that are not even religious or Christian, that believe in prayer.

          February 25, 2014 at 9:39 am |
        • Dalahäst

          "This statement by Jesus has been mistranslated by those not understanding the relationship between Jesus and his disciples – those he was addressing in this statement.

          Many ecclesiastical Christian teachers like to take this and other statements by Jesus out of context of his audience, circ-mstance and surrounding statements. They propose that Jesus is saying that we can ask Jesus for anything – be it wealth, fame, success in one's job or winning a football game – in Jesus' name, and it will be done.

          This teaching is not only self-centered. It diametrically opposes Jesus' teachings. It is erroneously putting Jesus – God's representative – and therefore God Himself into a position of being our servant. As if our position is the enjoyer and and God's position is to serve us. We just order up some wealth or success from God and His representative and it will be delivered to us. As if God and Jesus were our waiters.

          This absolutely contradicts Jesus' teachings that we are God's servants and our natural position is to love and serve God (do His will). This position of doing God's will means that we do what He wants, not that He does what we want."


          February 25, 2014 at 9:52 am |
        • colin31714

          So, again, you contradict yourself. When cornered you insist that prayer does nothing more than "change the person praying" but then turn around and claim it can alter external events. So you DO believe in the whole idea of mindreading by a being with magic powers to alter the laws of physics at its whim – and that is infantile.

          February 25, 2014 at 10:10 am |
        • Dalahäst

          You imagine I'm cornered? By what? Your opinion?

          Here: I don't agree with your opinion. Not everyone does. I even know atheists that don't care for religion that would disagree with you.

          February 25, 2014 at 11:01 am |
      • observernow

        “My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have
        become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."
        - Abraham Lincoln, to Judge J S Wakefield, 1862

        February 25, 2014 at 1:46 am |
        • Dalahäst

          "I am much indebted to the good christian people of the country for their constant prayers and consolations; and to no one of them, more than to yourself. The purposes of the Almighty are perfect, and must prevail, though we erring mortals may fail to accurately perceive them in advance. We hoped for a happy termination of this terrible war long before this; but God knows best, and has ruled otherwise. We shall yet acknowledge His wisdom and our own error therein. Meanwhile we must work earnestly in the best light He gives us, trusting that so working still conduces to the great ends He ordains. Surely He intends some great good to follow this mighty convulsion, which no mortal could make, and no mortal could stay."

          – Abe Lincoln 1864

          February 25, 2014 at 1:59 am |
        • Doris

          Lincoln did seem to have a deep respect for Christians that supported him. With regard to his personal belief, it is still debated today. Some historians believe he was a Deist. John Remsburg, in his book Six Historic Americans (1906), cites several of Lincoln's close associates:

          "After his assassination Mrs. Lincoln said: 'Mr. Lincoln had no hope and no faith in the usual acceptance of these words.' His lifelong friend and executor, Judge David Davis, affirmed the same: 'He had no faith in the Christian sense of the term.' His biographer, Colonel Lamon, intimately acquainted with him in Illinois, and with him during all the years that he lived in Washington, says: 'Never in all that time did he let fall from his lips or his pen an expression which remotely implied the slightest faith in Jesus as the son of God and the Savior of men.'"

          February 25, 2014 at 2:51 am |
        • observernow


          Politicians (especially in this country) have to make positive religious statements to survive in office. (Even in Germany, Hitler did that). It is the PERSONAL comments outside of public pronouncements that COUNTS to see what a person really believed.

          February 25, 2014 at 3:08 am |
        • Dalahäst

          "When I left Springfield I asked the people to pray for me. I was not a Christian. When I buried my son, the severest trial of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg and saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there consecrate myself to Christ. Yes, I do love Jesus." AL

          February 25, 2014 at 3:10 am |
        • observernow


          I'm sure Christians can take comfort in knowing that for 17 months out of his 54 years, Lincoln may have been a Christian.

          February 25, 2014 at 3:18 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Well, he definitely believed in prayer and wasn't an idiot.

          February 25, 2014 at 3:22 am |
        • observernow


          I'm sure Christians can take comfort in knowing that for 17 months out of his 56 years, Lincoln may have been a Christian.

          February 25, 2014 at 3:22 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I really don't take comfort in it. But I do appreciate what he said about prayer.

          February 25, 2014 at 9:41 am |
  11. Doris

    Poster trasframer writes: "I tend to believe more the PhDs from creation.com that claim something else and explain it."

    One Andrew Snelling used to be with Creation Science Foundation which is now Creation Science Ministries. Youtube has a plethora of videos featuring the geologist.

    And he was referenced a few times by Ham in the recent Ham-Nye debate. But what story is this Dr Snelling telling? Another geologist, Dr Alex Ritchie has some interesting insight.

    Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?

    Dr Alex Ritchie, The Skeptic, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp 12-15

    Dr Alex Ritchie received his BSc. (Hons) in Geology and a Ph.D at the University of Edinburgh. He worked as a palaeontologist at the Australian Museum from 1968 to 1995 where he is currently a Research Fellow.

    For several years, Australian creationists, representing the Creation Science Foundation Ltd, [now Answers in Genesis] have been publishing articles and addressing school and public groups on the topic of the age of the Earth. The theme of these articles and talks is that there is scientific evidence that the geological features of Australia are explicable within the context of an Earth which is only some 6-10,000 years old and that most such features can be attributed to a world-wide flood which occurred more recently still. The author of these claims made them with the authority of a BSc (Hons) in Geology and a PhD. However, in a recently published paper, this same author makes some very different claims about the age of geological features of the Australian landscape.

    These remarkably contradictory, and unexplained, claims by one of the very few Australian creation 'scientists' who has genuine scientific qualifications, calls into question whether anything said by this group on the subject can be taken seriously.

    Dr Alex Ritchie, palaeontologist at the Australian Museum, takes up the story.

    There appear to be two geologists living, working and publishing in Australia under the name of Dr Andrew A Snelling. Both have impressive (and identical) scientific qualifications – a BSc (Hons), in Geology (University of NSW) and a PhD, for research in uranium mineralisation (University of Sydney).

    Curiously, both Drs Snelling use the same address (PO Box 302, Sunnybank, Qld, 4109), which they share with an organisation called the Creation Science Foundation (CSF), the coordinating centre for fundamentalist creationism in Australia.

    But the really strange thing about this is that the views of these two Drs Snelling, on matters such as the age of the earth and its geological strata, are diametrically opposed. This article, the result of my extensive searches through the literature, highlights this remarkable coincidence and poses some serious questions of credibility for the Creation Science Foundation and for either or both of the Drs Andrew A Snelling.

    For convenience I refer to them below as follows:

    (a) Dr A A Snelling 1 – creationist geologist, a director of CSF and regular contributor to, and sometime editor of, the CSF's quarterly magazine, Ex Nihilo (now CREATION ex nihilo).

    (b) Dr A A Snelling 2 – consulting geologist who works on uranium mineralisation and publishes in refereed scientific journals.

    Snelling 1 seldom, if ever, cites articles written by Snelling 2 and Snelling 2 never cites articles written by Snelling 1.
    Snelling 1

    For the past ten years Dr Andrew Snelling BSc, PhD, the CSF's geological spokesman, has been the only prominent Australian creationist with geological qualifications. His credentials are not in question here, only his influence on science education in Australia.

    Snelling 1 writes articles for creationist journals and lectures throughout the country in schools, public meetings and churches. Although his geological credentials are usually highlighted in creationist publications it would be more accurate to describe Snelling 1 as a Protestant evangelist, not as a geologist. Some CSF literature openly refers to him as a 'missionary'.

    Why should Snelling 1's activities concern the scientific and educational communities? To appreciate this, one needs to analyse his published articles to see how geological data and discoveries are misused and reinterpreted from a Biblical perspective.

    CSF members subscribe to a lengthy, very specific Statement of Faith. Apart from purely religious clauses, not relevant here, several clauses carry serious implications for those in scientific and educational circles, especially for those in the Earth (and other historical) sciences. As the extracts below reveal, to a dedicated creationist, scientific evidence is always subservient to Biblical authority.


    1. The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator and Redeemer.

    (B) BASICS

    3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life.

    5. The great flood of Genesis was an actual historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect.


    The following attitudes are held by members of the Board to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture

    (i) The scripture teaches a recent origin for man and for the whole creation.

    (ii) The days in Genesis do not correspond to Geological ages, but are six
    (6) consecutive twenty-four (24) hour days of creation.

    (iii) The Noachian flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

    (iv) The chronology of secular world history must conform to that of Biblical world history."

    These statements reveal 'creation science' to be an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, based on religious dogma (and a simple minded dogma at that). Despite its name, 'creation science' has little to do with real science and, in fact, represents the antithesis of science.

    Everything in his creationist writings and activities indicates that Snelling 1 subscribes fully to CSF's Statement of Faith. Where this clashes with scientific evidence, the latter is always secondary to the former and his message, although often cloaked in scientific jargon, is simple and unequivocal; indeed one of his favourite lecture topics is "Why, as a Geologist, I Believe in Noah's Flood".

    From the Gospel according to Snelling 1, the Earth is geologically young, created ex nihilo ("from nothing") by a supernatural being, during a short, well defined construction period of only six days. This miraculous creation event, usually dated some 6000 years ago (around 4004 BC), is not the end of the story. The Earth we live on today is not the same as the original created model, which was almost totally destroyed and remodelled some 1,600 years later (around 2345 BC) by an irate Creator who conjured up an unique, world-wide Flood to do the job.

    This Flood, lasting just over one year, tore down all previous land surfaces, rearranged the continents and thrust up all existing mountain chains. It also destroyed all pre-existing life forms, plant and animal – except for a chosen few saved on Noah's Ark. Thus all of the remarkably complex geology of the present day Earth's crust formed during the one year of Noah's Flood and all the innumerable fossil remains of former animals and plants were all buried and preserved by the same Flood.

    Snelling 1 (1983a) presented his views on Flood chronology in an article, Creationist Geology: The Precambrian. After reviewing mainstream views on geology and evolution, he remarked:

    "On the other hand, creationists interpret the majority of the fossiliferous sedimentary rocks of the Earth's crust as testimony to Noah's flood....Creationists do this because they regard the Genesis record as implying that there was no rain before Noah's flood, therefore no major erosion, and hence no significant sedimentation or fossilisation."

    "However the flood was global, erosional and its purpose was destruction. Therefore the first major fossilisation commenced at this time, and the majority of the fossils are regarded as having been formed rapidly during this event. Creationists therefore regard sedimentary strata as needing to be classified into those formed during the time of creation week, pre-flood, flood (early, middle and late), post-flood and recent" (p. 42)

    Snelling 1 then quoted one J C Dillow, a creationist writing on the Earth's supposed pre-Flood "vapour canopy":

    "It should be obvious that if the Earth is only 6000 years old, then all the geological designations are meaningless within that framework, and it is deceptive to continue to use them. If, as many creationist geologists believe, the majority of the geological column represents flood sediments and post-flood geophysical activity, then the mammoth, dinosaur and all humans existed simultaneously .... Some limited attempts have been made by creationist geologists to reclassify the entire geological column within this framework, but the task is immense." (Dillow 1981, "The Waters Above". Moody Press, 405-6)

    Snelling 1 criticised Dillow and other creationists for restricting Flood strata to Phanerozoic rocks (Cambrian and younger) and claimed that most Precambrian rocks are also Flood deposits:

    "It is my contention that those who do this have failed to study carefully the evidence for the flood deposition of many Precambrian strata and have therefore unwittingly fallen into the trap of lumping together the Precambrian strata to the creation week. The usual reason for doing this is that the evolutionists regard Precambrian as so different, so devoid of life in comparison with other rocks, that creationists have simply borrowed their description." (1983, 42).

    Snelling 1 thus pushes the earliest limits of Flood strata far back into the Early Precambrian (early Archaean) times , before even the first appearance of fossils resembling blue-green algae:

    "What I am contending here is that fossils, whether they be microscopic or macroscopic, plant or animal and the fossil counterpart of organic matter, along with its metamorphosed equivalent graphite, are the primary evidence which should distinguish flood rocks from pre-flood rocks, regardless of the evolutionary 'age'." (1983, 45).

    Lest there remain any doubt, Snelling 1 (1983, 42) stated:

    "For creationists to be consistent the implications are clear; Precambrian sediments containing fossils and organic remains were laid down during Noah's flood. Creationist geologists need to completely abandon the evolutionist's geological column and associated terminology. It is necessary to start again, using the presence of fossils or organic matter as a classification criterion in the task of rebuilding our understanding of geological history within the Biblical framework."

    It is difficult to believe that the writer of the foregoing article has a BSc (Hons) and PhD in geology! However an examination of other articles by the same author in Ex Nihilo reveals that, to Snelling 1, everything geological (Ayers Rock, Mt Isa ore deposits, Bass Strait oil and gas, Queensland coal deposits, Great Barrier Reef, etc.,) can be explained as the result of Noah's year-long Flood.

    DOOLAN, ROBERT & ANDREW A SNELLING, 1987. Limestone caves ...a result of Noah's Flood? Limestone caves... a result of Noah's Flood? (4), 10-13.
    READ, PETER & ANDREW A SNELLING, 1985. How Old is Australia's Great Barrier Reef? Creation Ex Nihilo. 8(1), 6-9.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1982. The Recent Origin of Bass Strait Oil and Gas. Ex Nihilo 5 (2) 43-46.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1983. Creationist Geology: The Precambrian. Ex Nihilo 6 (1), 42-46.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1983. What about Continental Drift? Have the continents really moved apart? Ex Nihilo 6 (2), 14-16.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1984. The recent, rapid formation of the Mt Isa orebodies during Noah's Flood. Ex Nihilo 6 (3) 40-46 (cf. also abstract 17-18).
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1984. The Origin of Ayers Rock. Creation Ex Nihilo 7 (1).
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1986. Coal Beds and Noah's Flood. Creation Ex Nihilo 8 (3), 20-21.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1989. Is the Sun Shrinking? Creation Ex Nihilo (pt. 1) 11 (1), 14-19. (pt. 2) 11 (2), 30-34. – The Debate Continues. (pt. 3) 11 (3), 40-43 – The Unresolved Question.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A & John Mackay 1984. Coal, Volcanism and Noah's Flood. Ex Nihilo Tech. J. 1, 11-29.

    If we now turn to the scientific articles published by the other Dr A A Snelling, consulting geologist (also from PO Box 302, Sunnybank QLD, 4109), we find a remarkable contrast, both in approach and content. None of them mention the Creation or Creation Week, Flood geology or the need to revamp the classic geological timescale.

    The latest paper by Snelling 2 (1990, 807 -812) is a detailed technical account of the "Koongarra Uranium Deposits" in the Northern Territory. It appears in an authoritative two volume work on "Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australia and Papua New Guinea" (ed. F E Hughes), published by the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne. The references list eight earlier papers by Snelling 2 in refereed journals (or symposium volumes) on aspects of uranium mineralisation; three as sole author and five as junior co-author.

    In discussing the regional geology (p. 807) and age (p. 811) of the Koongarra uranium deposits, Snelling 2 describes their geological history in fairly technical terms, however, to avoid the charge we lay against the creationists, of taking quotations out of context, I will quote Snelling 2 verbatim from the paper (p. 807):

    "The Archaean basement consists of domes of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5 km to the north. Some of the lowermost overlying Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during amphibolite grade regional metamorphism (5 to 8 kb and 550° to 630° C) at 1870 to 1800 Myr. Multiple isoclinal recumbent folding accompanied metamorphism."

    For the benefit of lay readers, this statement is summarised and simplified here:

    "The oldest rocks in the Koongarra area, domes of granitoids and granitic gneiss, are of Archaean age (ie to geologists this means they are older than 2500 million years). The Archaean rocks are mantled by Lower Proterozoic (younger than 2500 million years) metasediments: all were later buried deeply, heavily folded and, between 1870 and 1800 million years ago, were subjected to regional metamorphism at considerable temperatures and pressures."

    There is no question here of "abandoning the geological column and its associated terminology", and the term Myr refers unequivocally to millions of years.

    One further quotation (p.807), "A 150 Myr period of weathering and erosion followed metamorphism.", is self explanatory.

    There are several further references to ages of millions and thousands of millions of years, and to commonly accepted geological terminology, throughout the paper but, to spare the lay reader, I will only summarise them here:

    1. During Early Proterozoic times (from 1688-1600 million years ago) the area was covered by thick, flat-lying sandstones.

    2. At some later date (but after the reverse faulting) the Koongarra uranium mineral deposit forms, perhaps in several stages, first between 1650-1550 million years ago, and later around 870 and 420 million years.

    3. The last stage, the weathering of the primary ore to produce the secondary dispersion fan above the No 1 orebody seems to have begun only in the last 1-3 million years.

    Nowhere in this, or in any other article by Snelling 2 is there any reference to the creation week, to Noah's Flood or to a young age for the Earth. Nor is there any disclaimer, or the slightest hint, that this Dr Snelling has any reservations about using the standard geological column or time scale, accepted world-wide. The references above to hundreds and thousands of million of years are not interpolated by me. They appear in Dr Snelling 2's paper.

    The problem is obvious – the two Drs A A Snelling BSc (Hons), PhD (with the same address as the Creation Science Foundation) publish articles in separate journals and never cite each other's papers. Their views on earth history are diametrically opposed and quite incompatible.

    One Dr Snelling is a young-earth creationist missionary who follows the CSF's Statement of Faith to the letter. The other Dr Snelling writes scientific articles on rocks at least hundreds or thousand of millions of years old and openly contradicting the Statement of Faith. The CSF clearly has a credibility problem. Are they aware they have an apostate in their midst and have they informed their members?

    Of course there may well be a simple explanation, eg that the two Drs Snelling are one and the same. Perhaps the Board of the CSF has given Andrew Snelling a special dispensation to break his Statement of Faith. Why would they do this? Well, every creation 'scientist' needs to gain scientific credibility by publishing papers in refereed scientific journals and books and the sort of nonsense Dr Snelling publishes in Creation Ex Nihilo is unlikely to be accepted in any credible scientific journal.

    I think that both Dr Snelling and the CSF owe us all an explanation. WILL THE REAL DR ANDREW SNELLING PLEASE STAND UP?


    Several years ago, in the Sydney Morning Herald, as one geologist to another, I publicly challenged Dr Snelling (the young-earth creationist version) to a public debate, before our geological peers, on a subject close to his heart – Noah's Flood – The Geological Case For and Against.

    I've repeated the challenge several times since then and it still stands.

    For reasons best known only to himself, Dr Snelling has declined to defend the creationist cause.

    In the light of the above I suggest the reason is obvious. In his heart, and as a trained geologist, he knows that the young-earth model is a load of old codswallop and is totally indefensible.

    It seems our Dr Snelling has sold and will sell young-earth creationists what they want to hear....

    February 25, 2014 at 12:09 am |
    • Doris

      Correction – the poster mentioned initially was "transframer".

      February 25, 2014 at 12:20 am |
      • colin31714

        I have found that there are two types of young Earth creationist. One has never really given it a lot of thought and, upon explanation of basic natural history they think it through and quickly abandon the infantile nonsense of the Bible story. The second type are either (i) too fvcking stupid too understand science or (ii) too obstinately invested in their "six days and a talking snake" theory to abandon it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

        Only the first category are worth spending time on.

        February 25, 2014 at 12:26 am |
  12. Dalahäst

    "For many people, God is a frightening idea. Asking God for help doesn't seem
    very comforting if we think of Him as something outside ourselves, or capricious,
    or judgmental.

    But God is love and He dwells within us. We are created in His image,
    or mind, which means that we are extensions of His love, or Sons and Daughters of God. . . .

    Rather than accepting that we are the loving beings that He created, we have
    arrogantly thought that we could create ourselves, and then create God.
    We have made up a God in our image. Because we are angry and judgmental,
    we have projected those characteristics onto Him.

    But God remains who He is and always will be:
    He is the energy, the thought of unconditional love.
    He cannot think with anger or judgment. He is mercy and compassion and total acceptance."

    – Marianne Williamson

    AAAAAAaaaaamen! I know that is right.

    February 24, 2014 at 11:19 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      Amen. That is meaningless drivel. There is nothing in our brains that has not been seen on MRI's and PET scans. Neuroscience knows how brains work. There is no god in there. None.

      "We are created in the image of god"... nope. If horses had gods, their gods would be horses.
      Your "image" junk is simply anthropmorphism, at it's worst. Nice poetry, but meaningless.
      The concept of "god" is an invented projected notion to explain the unexplainable. In 2014, it just means "the best that is in us". The idea of a "being" out there somewhere, is preposterous, and self-refuting.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:33 pm |
      • Dalahäst


        That is funny.

        February 24, 2014 at 11:37 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        " There is nothing in our brains that has not been seen on MRI's and PET scans."

        🙂 uhhh.... whhut?

        February 24, 2014 at 11:38 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Are you really that stupid ?

          February 24, 2014 at 11:40 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          No. I really think there are aspect of our brain that are not visible via MRI's and PET scans.

          That is not stupid.

          February 24, 2014 at 11:43 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          "With nearly 100 billion neurons and 100 trillion connections, the human brain remains one of the greatest mysteries in science and one of the greatest challenges in medicine. " 🙁 This article must be written by a delusional Christian.


          February 24, 2014 at 11:41 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          No one said they had cures to all the brain disorders. They DO know how the brain works, and EVERY part has been mapped in detain. There is no deity in there, or needed to exppain anything.
          You really ARE that ignorant of Neuroscience, I see.
          (And BTW, Obama is no brain scientist .. nor is anyone in his administration.)
          Keep laughing. You're making a fool of yourself.

          February 24, 2014 at 11:45 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          And BTW, your "mystery" argument is just another pathetic "god of the gaps" argument.

          February 24, 2014 at 11:47 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          lol. 'We didn't see God in your MRI, that proves without a doubt he doesn't exist. End of story.' said no scientist ever.

          February 24, 2014 at 11:48 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I don't have a "god of the gaps" argument.

          Come on, kid. Ugh.

          February 24, 2014 at 11:49 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Nice try at changing the subject, and moving the goal posts.
          No scientist ever said (as YOU tried to assert), there was a possibility deity in a brain.

          And BTW, if "god exists" that means she does not ... not exist. She (would have to) "participate" ONLY in existence.
          That means for as long as your goddess existed, Reality consisted in BOTH existence AND non-existence.
          Reality is thus greater than your deity. Your deity thus cannot be the creator of a Reality in which it is REQUIRED to participate in, only partially. .

          February 24, 2014 at 11:54 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          You DO have a "god of the gaps" argument. You said "mystery". THAT is something you can't explain, and YOU use god to fill it.

          February 24, 2014 at 11:55 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Scientists admit there are mysteries to the brain!

          I seriously do not have a God of the gaps. You are silly.

          February 25, 2014 at 12:02 am |
        • realbuckyball

          Prove it. Science says there remain "unknowns" yet to be figured out in the brain. Not the basics. You saying your "mystery argument" is not a god of the gaps" does not make it something else. YOu are trying to say the unknows that remain leave room for a god. THAT IS a "god of the gaps. It is YOU that is "silly".

          February 25, 2014 at 12:06 am |
        • Dalahäst

          That mystery statement was a quote from the article about our scientific understandings of the brain.

          You can write the author of the article to find out what they meant. There is also a good chance they believe in God, so you can also tell them how stupid they are.

          February 25, 2014 at 12:18 am |
    • colin31714

      No, you don't know that is right. You believe it is right, or, more likely, desperately want it to be right. But you can't know. You can't know because there is nothing to know. Your god is a figure of literature; a figment of Bronze Age Jewish imaginations. He exists only in the minds of people like you.

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

        I share my understanding.

        You seem desperate to prove you are superior to others. Your IQ statement was HILARIOUS earlier today. Although, I think you were being serious which is sad. 🙁 Oh, well, looking forward to one of your demonstrations of fallacious logic in the form of a series of questions and answers!

        February 25, 2014 at 12:01 am |
        • colin31714

          It is actually true. If you believe that beings exist that read your mind and alter what would other wise be the course of history to meet your desires, you are an idiot. If you believe that there is a place where people go to live happily ever after they die, you are an infantile fool. If you believe that a god impregnated a Greco-Roman Jewish virgin with himself to give birth to himself, so he could sacrifice himself to himself to forgive the sins of a species based on rules he himself made, you are a childish fool with a very, very paper thin understanding of the Bible.

          I'm sorry if the core tenets of Christianity are simplistic and foolish, but, hey, I didn't make this garbage up. Christians did.

          February 25, 2014 at 12:08 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I don't believe those things.

          If you honestly think that is what I believe.... dude. I don't know what to say. I'm glad I don't live in your imagination.

          That is kind of funny, though. Do you mind if I share that with some Christian friends? ,The tenets of Christianity as told by a hostile atheist with a poor understanding of Jesus.

          Thank you. I love it. 🙂

          February 25, 2014 at 12:14 am |
        • colin31714

          Really, and what did I get wrong about the core tenets of Christianity?

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

          +If you believe that beings exist that read your mind and alter what would other wise be the course of history to meet your desires, you are an idiot. +

          I can't tell if you are being serious. I think basic Christianity teaches we are to deny ourselves, and follow the way of Jesus. Our desires lead us to arrogance, greed, lust and hypocrisy. Instead of believing that God meets our desires like some kind of magical sky fairy, we change and try to meet God's desires for us. That is called repentance.

          "...the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."

          That is how God wants us to live.

          February 25, 2014 at 12:25 am |
        • colin31714

          So Dahalast, you do not believe that prayers are answered, hey? That puts you at odds with Christianity then, doesn't it?

          February 25, 2014 at 12:28 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I don't think it puts me at odds with Jesus. And most lessons I learn about God is that he is not a magical sky fairy who watches our every move waiting to condemn us when we make mistakes. Or that we can somehow gain favor with this sky fairy if we believe the right thing or say the magical words. Somehow that understanding exists, but is not very accurate.

          If it puts me at odds with your understanding of Christianity that doesn't really trouble me.

          February 25, 2014 at 12:34 am |
        • colin31714

          So, do you believe prayers are answered or not? For example, if I am a Christian who prays for something, like, for e.g., my wife overcoming a dangerous illness, do you believe that God listens and may answer my prayer? Or do you believe that nature will take its course irrespective of my plaint?

          February 25, 2014 at 12:36 am |
        • colin31714

          And, do you believe in heaven and hell? And, do you believe Jesus died for the original sin of Adam and Eve?

          February 25, 2014 at 12:38 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I believe prayers are answered. Sometimes that answer is "no". I've suffered tragedy and prayed like hell to get what I wanted. And I didn't get it. But I persevered. And have lived to help others through the same tragedies I've experienced.

          February 25, 2014 at 12:45 am |
        • colin31714

          Well, if you believe prayers are answered, you must believe that a being reads your mind (how else would it know what your prayer is) and intervenes to alter what would otherwise be the course of history to answer them – because that's what answering a prayer means.

          So, I was correct. You just didn't recognize it because I called a spade a spade and didn't dress it up in flowery nonsense. And that is an infantile belief, no more sophisticated than a child who thinks their teddy bear keeps monsters away. The difference is, you are a grown adult. You have just traded your earthly security blanket for a magic man in the sky.

          Game over. Next....

          February 25, 2014 at 12:51 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Uh hu. Nice circular reasoning. I should've known better. I'll check and see if any theology matches up with your... uh... mature and sophisticated beliefs.

          February 25, 2014 at 1:14 am |
        • colin31714

          I don't hold those beliefs – as you well know. You do; and yes I agree, they are simple and childish. An all powerful, universe creating god reading the minds of human beings and interfering with nature to answer them. What utter, mind numbing, childish rot. Rubbed any lanterns looking for a genie lately? Ridiculous Christians, you don't even realize how silly your own beliefs are

          February 25, 2014 at 1:30 am |
        • Dalahäst

          That is not what I believe, it is what you imagine and insist I believe.

          "Superiority complex is a psychological defense mechanism in which a person's feelings of superiority counter or conceal his or her feelings of inferiority." – wiki

          Your rants say more about you than me.

          February 25, 2014 at 1:34 am |
        • colin31714

          Look at your post at 12:45 AM. You said, "I believe prayers are answered." So, if you don't believe your god reads your mind and intervenes to alter what would would otherwise be the course of history, how does it all work?

          February 25, 2014 at 1:40 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I don't believe prayer is infantile. I know it works for me. I don't think God is changing history for me. But he does help me overcome difficulties in my life.

          God answering prayers doesn't mean that beings exist that read your mind and alter what would other wise be the course of history to meet your desires.

          You used circular reasoning and loaded questions to support your opinions.

          February 25, 2014 at 1:53 am |
      • believerfred

        Amazing how a figment of imagination 10,000 years ago has capacity to express authority upon the signers of the Declaration of Independence. In AD 1776 the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America acknowledged our Creator and would not sign that declaration without approval from God: "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"

        February 25, 2014 at 12:40 am |
        • observernow

          "The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."

          — Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried UNANIMOUSLY by the United States Senate with many members who were founders of the U.S. and signed into law by President John Adams.

          February 25, 2014 at 12:46 am |
        • colin31714

          believerfred, I have no intention of debating with you. You are so wrapped up in your sky-fairy fan.tasy that the conversation is predictable and boring. Every time you are forced into a logical inconsistency, your answer will be "God is magic and can do anything." Anytime a Biblical absurdity is pointed out to you, you will warp and misrepresent the passage to try and say means something other than it does and every time basic, middle school science disagrees with you, the science will be bad. Now go away and stop responding to me.

          February 25, 2014 at 12:46 am |
        • Dalahäst

          hahaha. I love when Colin insists his "skyfairy understanding" must be everyone else's understanding.

          Is he a parody of a superior atheist? Or is he for real?

          "Superiority complex is a psychological defense mechanism in which a person's feelings of superiority counter or conceal his or her feelings of inferiority." -wiki

          February 25, 2014 at 1:31 am |
        • believerfred

          It is you who is predictable in your expression of the worst form of evil that goes after the innocent little ones as Jesus referred to them. You have read the Bible so you know this to be the worst of all strikes against God. The young minds cannot withstand your seasoned style of lacing truth with lies that penetrates vulnerabilities as did Hitler when he drew the youth into his hate for the Jew. Your evil is deep seated and not of ignorance but with malice directed at innocence. What Jerry Sandusky did with his overt seduction of children you do with subtle enticement.
          The impact on the innocent is the same after your chipping away of the foundation of love for God. The child is left exposed by the embarrassment of having believed in Christ, Moses and Abraham out of a pure and humble heart.
          Once exposed you offer only the emptiness of a godless existence in a cold accidental universe. That is the darkness which was before God said let there be light and generations past saw hope in that light. May God have mercy on your soul.

          February 25, 2014 at 1:51 am |
        • observernow

          The Bible is full of commands to kill children and to beat them with rods. At one point, God killed EVERY child.

          February 25, 2014 at 1:59 am |
  13. Dalahäst

    “The battle for the Bible, of which h-mos-xuality is the last front, is really the battle for the prevailing culture, of which the Bible itself is a mere trophy and icon. Such a cadre of cultural conservatives would rather defend their ideology in the name of the authority of scripture than concede that their self-serving reading of that scripture might just be wrong, and that both the Bible and the God who inspires it may be more gracious, just and inclusive than they can presently afford to be.”

    - Peter Gomes

    February 24, 2014 at 11:06 pm |
    • ddeevviinn

      Here's the thing: As a christian, morality is not determined by the current ebb and flow of cultural acceptance. Less than 5 years ago the current POTUS repeatedly stated on record that " marriage was between a man and a woman" and that he was opposed to g ay marriage.It seems more than obvious that his moral persuasion was influenced, if not determined, by present cultural conditions and political expediency. I don't mention this to get into a political debate of which I have no interest, but rather to think about how morality is established.

      I have spoken with many atheists over the years who have reje cted and ridic uled the bible because of it's "into lerant" stance on ho m o s e x uality, While we obviously disagree on the conclusion, I have a certain level of respect for them in that they clearly recognize the teaching. It is this nons ense that because God is loving and compassionate he therefore cannot be judgm ental or express an ger that I find disconcert ing. Perhaps this is SOME God, just not the one revealed in scripture.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:48 pm |
      • observernow


        The morals of the Bible support slavery.
        The morals of the Bible say that women can be prizes of war.
        The morals of the Bible say that handicapped people shouldn't be in God's churches.
        The morals of the Bible say that fathers can sell their daughters into slavery.
        The morals of the Bible support discrimination against gays.

        At least the level of intelligence and morality in it is consistent.

        February 24, 2014 at 11:58 pm |
        • ddeevviinn


          I understand your position, you've expressed it multiple multiple times.

          I do, however, like the revision to your username. Adds a little extra class 🙂

          February 25, 2014 at 12:03 am |
        • observernow


          I'm not sure I like you new lisping name as well as the old one. 🙂

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

          I guess you are misinformed.

          February 25, 2014 at 12:17 am |
        • ddeevviinn


          I must have been caught up in a temporal time warp when I typed in my new name.

          February 25, 2014 at 12:45 am |
        • observernow


          It looks like there were a bunch of us who had so much hassle signing up again that it was just easier to try to find new names. The change was a good idea, but what a nuisance.

          February 25, 2014 at 12:49 am |
        • ddeevviinn


          As one of my 24 year old underlings at work said to me the other day, a word I had no idea what she was talking about, TRUDAT

          February 25, 2014 at 1:00 am |
        • observernow


          "dat true" for dyslexics.

          February 25, 2014 at 1:05 am |
      • Dalahäst

        Some Christians swore they were following the Bible when they discriminated against non-white races and women.

        But there were examples of people who didn't carry out such actions back then. And I believe today we have the same thing happening.

        February 25, 2014 at 12:09 am |
        • ddeevviinn

          Yep, christians are and have not been immune from stupidity. I know it's en vogue to equate the current g a y rights issues with that of the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's, but I have yet to find in scripture any indication that it is s infull or imm oral to be either black or female.

          As I mentioned earlier, in that we live in a pluralistic society governed by laws, I recognize those laws and will respect their content. I even acknowledge the fact that ours is a republic and not a true democracy, in which case edicts from judicial legislators can trump the will of the majority.

          February 25, 2014 at 12:39 am |
        • observernow


          The Bible says it is IMMORAL for a woman to divorce and remarry.

          So where are all the Christian HYPOCRITES who want to refuse to serve CHRISTIAN ADULTERERS?

          February 25, 2014 at 12:43 am |
        • ddeevviinn


          We've discussed this before and I indicated that it is one of the FEW topics upon which we are in total agreement. So no need to bark at me anymore, you're preaching to the choir.

          February 25, 2014 at 12:51 am |
        • ddeevviinn


          And by the way, I wish you had been in church with me for the last two Sundays. Are pastor was speaking on the biblical teaching of divorce and remarriage and how contemporary christianity has hypocritically looked the other way all the while blowing the trumpet on other sins ( sorry to use that word, I'm sure it jacks up your blood pressure).

          Good nite.

          February 25, 2014 at 12:56 am |
      • joey3467

        Morality is in fact determined by the ebb and flow of cultural acceptance, but Chirstians are just unwilling to admit it.

        February 25, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
  14. Dalahäst

    The religious leaders were offended that Jesus spent so much time with sinners. Today some people are offended that I believe God's grace extends to gays and lesbians.

    “This is exactly, when it comes down to it, why most people do not believe in grace. It is f^cking offensive.”

    ― Nadia Bolz-Weber

    February 24, 2014 at 10:59 pm |
  15. observernow

    This is an excellent example of how religion can go so wrong. Christian HYPOCRITES are using their pick-and-choose verses from the Bible to deny equal rights to others. The concept of the Golden Rule is totally ignored by them.

    February 24, 2014 at 10:56 pm |
  16. Doris

    From CNN:


    From a sheep ranch in Western Australia comes the oldest slice of Earth we know.

    Scientists say they have dated an ancient crystal called a zircon to about 4.4 billion years, making it the earliest confirmed piece of the planet's crust. The findings - the first to describe the zircon - were published in the journal Nature Geoscience on Sunday.


    Now let's see – where are our young-earth creationists tonight? Oh I see, with head buried in the sand resting. OK, how about the other type – oh I see they are busy crunching new factors into their calculations to make everything jive with Gullible's Travels, Part 1. OK, carry on....

    February 24, 2014 at 9:43 pm |
    • transframer

      I'm not saying that's not true. However, as I recently learned, the process of geologic dating is far from an exact science. So, unless someone shows an infallible method of dating we can only speculate.

      February 24, 2014 at 10:20 pm |
      • MidwestKen

        Not so. Used properly with proper procedures radiometric dating is very reliable, and keep in mind that a margin of error is not an error, it is an understanding of how precise a method is and how it can be used.

        February 24, 2014 at 10:27 pm |
      • Doris

        Well I understand it is not an exact science. But how far off can you think it's off? What is more troubling to me is some of these people who will date something very important for a agency involved with radioactive materials and then turn around and sell quite a different answer that someone wants to hear from one of these young-earth groups. Andrew Snelling is one such person.

        February 24, 2014 at 10:28 pm |
      • transframer

        Oh, speaking of truth and accuracy. Doris (CNN?) claimed that:
        "The findings – the first to describe the zircon – were published in the journal Nature Geoscience on Sunday".
        I assumed that this was a recent Sunday, however something is wrong. Findings about zircon were published in 1986 by Nature:
        "In 1986 the world’s leading science journal, Nature, announced that the most ancient rock crystals on earth, according to isotope dating methods, are 4.3 billion years old and come from Jack Hills in Western Australia".
        Also there is actually an article on creation.com which explains the problem with the reliability of these findings, here: http://creation.com/flaws-in-dating-the-earth-as-ancient

        February 24, 2014 at 10:51 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          trans, You really need to read more – those sites misinform. Dating techniques result in a range and are much more accurate than the YEC would have you believe. It's basically the same science that makes a GPS accurate – it needs an accurate atomic clock which is using the same scientific basis as the dating techniques. So are you also saying that GPS is not accurate?

          February 24, 2014 at 10:57 pm |
        • Doris

          I don't doubt that there is some margin of error using such methods, but please, can you provide something as evidence of your opinion that does not come from a creationist site such as Creation Ministries International?

          February 24, 2014 at 10:59 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          "By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." (http://creation.com/about-us)

          February 24, 2014 at 11:02 pm |
        • transframer

          Of course I need to read more. I would also recommend everybody to do this, with an open mind. This is out of my field of expertize but I still can recognize logical arguments when I see them. People much more qualified than me (and I guess most of you) answered these questions and all I can do is give some credit and at least have doubts about current dating methods

          February 24, 2014 at 11:17 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          trans, One of many http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
          That is from 2001 here is most of the text

          Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating:

          The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.
          Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.
          Scientists can check their accuracy by using different isotopes.

          The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was billions of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates. A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rock’s age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.
          There is only a 1% chance of error with current dating technology.

          Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so.
          The strict rules of the scientific method ensure the accuracy of fossil dating.


          The fossil record is fundamental to an understanding of evolution. Fossils document the order of appearance of groups and they tell us about some of the amazing plants and animals that died out long ago. Fossils can also show us how major crises, such as mass extinctions, happened, and how life recovered after them. If the fossils, or the dating of the fossils, could be shown to be inaccurate, all such information would have to be rejected as unsafe. Geologists and paleontologists are highly self-critical, and they have worried for decades about these issues. Repeated, and tough, regimes of testing have confirmed the broad accuracy of the fossils and their dating, so we can read the history of life from the rocks with confidence.

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

          Scam artists, priests, charlatans, shamans and liars are all very good, even experts, at making up very believable stories for the gullible. In science, it is quite easy to determine if a story is likely to be valid: it will have been published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal, there will be sufficient information and detail so that other competent scientists can reproduce and verify any experiments and conclusions, and the initiating scientist will welcome and encourage their results to be challenged.

          Do you really believe creation.com fits into the above?

          February 24, 2014 at 11:34 pm |
      • Doris

        "the first to describe the zircon "

        This was in regard to the article linked from page 1 (the link might have been relocated since then). But notice they are saying "the" zircon – I would take that to mean the first to describe this specific find.

        February 24, 2014 at 10:55 pm |
        • transframer

          Yes, the Nature article was about the zircon (please read the creation.com page linked):
          "W. Compston and R.T. Pidgeon (Nature 321:766–769, 1986) obtained 140 zircon crystals from a single rock unit ..."

          February 24, 2014 at 11:02 pm |
        • Doris

          Evidently this specific find referenced by the cnn article pertains to "The crystal was found in an arid region north of Perth, Australia, in a low range of hills called the Jack Hills, in 2001." So evidently this is a different find for which dating methods have since been applied.

          February 24, 2014 at 11:31 pm |
        • transframer

          Actually I think it's the same thing:
          "In 1986 the world’s leading science journal, Nature, announced that the most ancient rock crystals on earth, according to isotope dating methods, are 4.3 billion years old and come from Jack Hills in Western Australia. " Plagiarism?
          Once again, please read the linked page on creation.com

          February 24, 2014 at 11:41 pm |
        • Doris

          So you're accusing cnn of plagiarism? OK well let me dig around a little further...

          February 24, 2014 at 11:44 pm |
        • Doris

          This article posted from the Sydney Morning Herald which has quite a graphic page also claims this particular find was in 2001 (Reuters). Still thinking cnn is plagiarizing?


          February 24, 2014 at 11:52 pm |
        • transframer

          I'm not accusing, just notice. But where is that cnn link?

          February 25, 2014 at 12:02 am |
        • Doris

          Looks like they've relocated it. I saw it on page 1, and things are very temporary there.

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

        How do you trust anything from an organization that, apparently, disregards evidence.

        "By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." (http://creation.com/about-us)

        February 24, 2014 at 11:00 pm |
        • transframer

          Apparently maybe. If you read their articles you will find plenty of evidence.

          February 24, 2014 at 11:09 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          You don't mind that they basically *define* away evidence that disagrees with their preconceived notions?

          February 24, 2014 at 11:13 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          trans, Do you have any evidence for creationism? I don't know if you've noticed but those sites do not present any new science, they just misinterpret science with the intent of inferring that Bronze Age Middle Eastern goatherders had it right all along. Almost all of their "science" has been discredited, for example at the Dover School Board trial. Small unknowns in evolution do not disprove the theory and it especially does not provide any evidence for creationism.

          February 24, 2014 at 11:16 pm |
      • realbuckyball

        Wrong again transformer. ALL the dating methods have a small percent of uncertainty, as ALL scientific numbers have. They ALL agree however, to the range. Ice cores, dendritric dating, DNA dating, ALL the various forms of isotope dating. NONE of them give a "Young Earth" date, whatever the uncertainty. The probability that they are all wrong, and all wrong in the exact same way, in order to wrongly produce the SAME WRONG date is Zero. 0. Nada. Zip. The Bible is WRONG about the dating. Period.

        February 24, 2014 at 11:26 pm |
        • transframer

          Sorry, I don't know you but I tend to believe more the PhDs from creation.com that claim something else and explain it. If you have something concrete to say, ask them and come back with the answer so we all know.

          February 24, 2014 at 11:55 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          I can't help it if you're brainwashed.
          There is NO University science department on the Planet that would hire ONE of your Creationists.
          You read them ONLy because of Confirmation Bias. You NEED
          to maintain your faith, as you cannt tolerate ambiguity. You NEED black and white answers. It's not a question of science or religion. It's a question of psychological NEEDS.
          I'm not "coming back" with anything. If you choose to immerse yourself in ignorance, and go "lalalalalala", and plug your ears to reality, it's not my problem.

          February 25, 2014 at 12:03 am |
        • transframer

          Actually I don't have faith. All I have is a brain.

          February 25, 2014 at 12:09 am |
        • realbuckyball

          A brain with NO education. At all.
          I repeat ... no real university on the planet would hire a "creation" scientist.
          You can't even argue the point. All you do is say "go read the creation nonsense".
          Seriously ?? You call THAT a "brain".

          February 25, 2014 at 12:14 am |
        • transframer

          Well, I have a technical, not scientific education. When it comes to science all I can do is just quote somebody else, such as people from creation.com. But you do the same, quoting well known people or other sites. And I have the same question for you: have you actually read something from that site? Also, have you read the Bible? Have you understood it?

          February 25, 2014 at 12:25 am |
        • colin31714

          I have transfarmer and Genesis is nothing special. It is actually, in large part, a plagiarism of earlier mythology from the region, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Enuma Elish and the saga of Adapa and Ev.

          February 25, 2014 at 12:43 am |
        • redzoa

          "have you actually read something from that site?"

          Just did. As noted before, these "articles" are simply negative arguments of incredulity. I didn't see any positive supporting evidence presented. For example, here are two featured articles:



          Neither article provides the standard portions of a legitimate scientific article, i.e. methods, results, conclusions. Rather, these are opinion pieces targeting actual science papers, offering only conclusory statements based on an a priori religious belief.

          If creation science had something to offer, it would publish in mainstream scientific journals. Contrary to creationist claims of being excluded, every journal and every scientist understands that it is the paradigm-shifting work that generates downloads and citations. If a creationist could actually produce the work that undermines mainstream physics, chemistry, geology, biology, astronomy, they would have their pick of top-tier journals. In light of the many, many years of "research" one might think ID/creationism would have gained a little traction with mainstream science, or at least within the many court cases addressing ID/creationism in public science classrooms. Also very telling is the inability of ID/creationism to find any useful applications beyond apologetics. Contrast this to the direct application of mainstream science to address real world problems, ranging from where to locate oil/mineral reserves to the precise identification of genes responsible for developmental defects via phylogenetic comparisons between humans and other forms. The proof is in the pudding as it were, and our modern technological world is the direct product of the science which ID/creationists claim is so hopelessly flawed as to be effectively useless.

          February 25, 2014 at 12:45 am |
        • redzoa

          "Also, have you read the Bible? Have you understood it?"

          To answer the first question, yes. To answer the second question, I presume you mean, was it read with sufficient faith to ignore the various discrepancies, not least of which are the moral discrepancies, e.g. 1 Sam 15:3, Lev 25:44-46, among many others . . .

          February 25, 2014 at 12:48 am |
  17. ddeevviinn


    Yep, been there done that. I've been in churches in which I have walked out shaking my head. For me, it only reinforces the notion that all of humanity is flawed, chrisitans or those proclaiming themselves to be so, included. Unfortunately, I need to put myself on top of the list of flawed human beings, which is the primary reason I do not consider my own rational thought a trustworthy barometer for moral truth.

    February 24, 2014 at 9:00 pm |
    • ddeevviinn

      Sorry, was meant for a previous post.

      February 24, 2014 at 9:01 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      Yes. I agree. I make people shake their heads, too.

      February 24, 2014 at 9:03 pm |
  18. Salero21

    What!! More evidence on top of more Evidence of the Total stupidity of atheism/evolutionism and idolatry!! Well, since their belief of the non-existence of God eventually leads to the non-existence of absolute Truth. Then of course there is no need to heed the laws of God neither the laws of nature or its normal processes.

    February 24, 2014 at 8:41 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      There is not a shred of evidence that the Theory of Evolution is flawed in any major way. There is NOT ONE science department in the world that doubts it. No one.

      The absence of belief, is not belief in absence you idiot.

      As far as "nature's usual ways", goes, same se'x behaviors ARE the "usual" way.
      Try not to make such a fool of yourself.


      February 24, 2014 at 9:18 pm |
      • transframer

        Actually there are serious flaws in evolutionism. I'm not the most qualified to explain them but quite a few scientists (Christian or not) showed. If you want to know more, go to creation.com where many of these flaws are exposed.
        Regarding same-s3x behavior in animals, that research is probably right: yes, it exists. And yes, it exists in humans too. However we are not animals, we do control our actions.

        February 24, 2014 at 10:08 pm |
        • hotairace

          transformer, the following is from creation.com. Why would you put any faith in the scientific claims of an organization that claims these things:

          (A) PRIORITIES
          The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.


          (B) BASICS
          The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

          February 24, 2014 at 10:16 pm |
        • transframer

          It's not my faith, it's my rationale. While those assertions that you cited may come from faith and/or be seen as axioms, if you read their articles you'll see that they have a very solid logical and scientific foundation

          February 24, 2014 at 10:26 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          trans, There's no science there just faith. Evolution is fact. We may have gaps in the knowledge regarding mechanisms etc. but there is nothing that conflicts with the theory.

          February 24, 2014 at 10:51 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Actually there are none. A biased web site such as "Creation" is never going to give anyone the truth. Dr. Jerry Coyne from the University of Chicago has excellent videos on the subject. Anyone who actually is so ignorant that they doubt Evolution, (which is proven and demonstrated EVERY HOUR of every day of the week in every hospital lab in the world, AND by DNA, is just too ignorant to even talk to.

          February 24, 2014 at 10:59 pm |
        • hotairace

          With principles like those, it is clear that the scientific method will not be followed. The outcome of any scientific investigation is compromised before it even starts.

          February 24, 2014 at 11:03 pm |
    • transframer

      Using such harsh language can only lead to the same in return. The problem with evolutionism is not the stupidity of people involved (and there are a lot of very bright and honest scientists) but more to the framework in which they live, learn and work. Many of them don't even know that something else exists. Myself, for example, didn't know until very recently. It may be better if you just present some facts or valuable knowledge instead of exchanging acid rhetoric.

      February 24, 2014 at 9:58 pm |
      • In Santa We Trust

        Do you have any evidence for creationism?

        February 24, 2014 at 10:52 pm |
        • transframer

          This is too large subject to discuss here, as much I'd like it. You can find some of them here: http://creation.com/created-or-evolved.
          For you and others: you may try to actually read some of the articles there and respond factually, not just dismiss the whole site apriori. You will be surprised by the richness and solidity of scientific subjects and the level of presentation you will find. It is not a religious site, even if religious quotes are everywhere. I'm not saying that everything is right there but at least you can see the world in a different way.

          February 24, 2014 at 11:35 pm |
        • hotairace

          transframer, please point to a single scholarly article published in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal that successfully concludes with "some god did it."

          February 24, 2014 at 11:41 pm |
        • tallulah131

          In other words, no, transframer does not have proof. transframer has a website created by people with a known bias. transframer has a website that tells him/her how to think so that he/she doesn't have to think for him/her self.

          February 24, 2014 at 11:46 pm |
        • transframer

          So, have you read anything on that site?

          February 25, 2014 at 12:05 am |
  19. derado8

    Ok I don't know if this even needs to be said because it's really obvious. Less straight couples, means less babies means less drain on the resources available for everyone.


    February 24, 2014 at 8:41 pm |
    • Salero21

      Think if you are able to think rationally for 5 seconds; how did you come into existence?

      February 24, 2014 at 8:58 pm |
      • derado8

        Salero. I know how we all got to exist. If I'd ben given a choice in the matter I wouldn't exist. Now I know that is a shock to hear, but I am here now and I pose the statement that given environmental conditions, and the unsustainability of planet earth that maybe less people should be conceived.

        February 24, 2014 at 9:02 pm |
      • derado8

        Think of the number zero.

        It is the number of abortions needed by gay married couples.
        It is the number of murderers that gay married couples brought into the world.
        It's the amount of pollution caused
        It's the amount of bullying caused
        It's the amount of available land utilized.
        It is the number of tears shed

        As you are religious then you can also think if it as the number of persons who will taste either death or hell.

        Because they never were.

        February 24, 2014 at 9:21 pm |
      • realbuckyball

        Too bad you know NO science. The answer to a question for which you have no answer is not :
        "Oh Jebus did it", (because I'm too uneducated to come up with the real answer).
        Nice "god of the gaps" ya got there.

        February 24, 2014 at 9:21 pm |
        • realbuckyball


          February 24, 2014 at 9:23 pm |
        • redzoa

          @rbb – Thanks for the vid link. Szostak = awesomeness . . .

          February 25, 2014 at 12:22 am |
        • derado8

          Did you intend this post for me? It doesn't follow what I posted.

          February 25, 2014 at 5:42 pm |
        • redzoa

          @derado8 – I believe the vid was posted in response to Salero's "how did you come into existence?" comment . . .

          February 25, 2014 at 11:33 pm |
  20. ddeevviinn

    We live in a pluralistic society, if individuals want to engage in a behavior or lifestyle that I may personally consider im moral, that is their absolute right and privilege. What I do find disturbing is this recent trend to somehow rationalize and justify it based on the biblical literature. Perhaps one of the most illogical attempts at this is to argue that h om os e xuality must not be an issue with God in that Jesus himself never once mentions it in the gospels. Using that rational, we should probably go ahead and give a wink and a nod to pe d o philia, in c est, bes t i ality and computer fra ud while we're at it.

    February 24, 2014 at 7:34 pm |
    • observernow


      The Bible supports beating helpless children with rods, so it's no surprise they don't mention those other crimes.

      February 24, 2014 at 7:41 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      pe d o philia, in c est, bes t i ality and computer fra ud usually infer a crime being committed against another person or creature. Usually an unwilling participant.

      February 24, 2014 at 7:41 pm |
      • ddeevviinn

        My apologies, not really sure what bearing that has on my point. Perhaps I've missed something?

        February 24, 2014 at 7:53 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I can understand why we shouldn't tolerate pe d o philia, bes t i ality and computer fra ud: there are innocent victims. It is evil.

          I can't inherently say that about gays and lesbians.

          February 24, 2014 at 7:55 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          For me, the criteria for determining moral truth is not " does it hurt anyone." As a christian, my moral authority is not subjective or dependent upon my own "sense" of right and wrong.

          But again , my original point was not to compare and contrast the degree of wrongfulness in behavior, but rather to show that the absence of its condemnation does not condone it.

          February 24, 2014 at 8:09 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          One of the lousiest preachers I ever witnessed stated that if society allows gays to have equal right, we are basically opening the floodgates to allow pe d o philia and bes t i ality to eventually become acceptable. No.

          February 24, 2014 at 8:28 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          I could list numerous things that are unmentioned in the bible. For example, e-commerce. Is it moral? Immoral? Amoral? How do you know?

          February 24, 2014 at 8:29 pm |
        • ddeevviinn


          Obtaining the label "preacher' is no guarantee that you will have the corner market on truth. Even a cursory flip with the remote of TV "preachers" will make this point glaring.

          February 24, 2014 at 8:35 pm |
        • ddeevviinn


          It is without question that e-commerce is immoral, I'm now required to pay taxes on ALL my Amazon purchases!!!

          February 24, 2014 at 8:38 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I know, ddeevvinn. Unfortunately I saw that in person. Followed by an weird attempt to say Jesus was Republican. Hu?

          February 24, 2014 at 8:42 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          First, all the crimes mentioned above are crimes because there is a participant (victim) who is either unwilling or unable to legally consent to be a participant in a carnal act. Because of this it makes them illegal in our society which recognizes many rights of those who are unable to speak for themselves (animals, children, viable fetuses, etc.). Allowing two consenting adults to engage in any personal and private activity whether it's wrestling, weightlifting, pillow fighting or pillow biting is none of our concern.

          "For me, the criteria for determining moral truth is not " does it hurt anyone." As a christian, my moral authority is not subjective or dependent upon my own "sense" of right and wrong."

          You point to the elephant in the room here which is "We don't expletive care about how you and other religious people want to determine moral truth! We do not live in a theocracy!"

          You see, as a citizen of the United States of America I do care about whether something might "hurt anyone" or not and this is the primary basis for making the laws of the land. It is why we have speed limits and traffic laws and tax law and civil laws, all of them based primarily on creating a society where everyone no matter what race, religion or creed, may live in relative confidence that the law is there to protect its citizens from unwarranted injury. The law of this nation is not, however, there to be a reminder of a specific religion or a divine standard to uphold. It is the civil law of a civil nation. If you want theocratic law for a theocratic nation you might try Iran.

          February 24, 2014 at 9:06 pm |
        • ddeevviinn


          " We do not live in a theocracy"

          There are really only 2 options here:

          A. You did not read my post.

          B. You are extremely lacking in reading comprehension.

          Knowing that it is the latter, I will again state unequivocally that " it is their right and privilege." It is also my " right and privilege" to hold my own thoughts on moral truth.

          February 24, 2014 at 9:16 pm |
        • Sungrazer


          Why can't you answer the question?

          February 24, 2014 at 10:49 pm |
    • observernow

      The Bible is full of incest. God used it TWICE to populate the earth. It was his ONLY method.

      February 24, 2014 at 7:44 pm |
    • Salero21

      Most cases of pedophilia and some of incest are in fact ho-mo-se-xual in nature. Things are going to get worse not better. Once a civilization and culture is in decline it only gets worse with each new generation. All through History one civilization was replaced by another. In the case of Sparta this appeared to be one of the reasons.

      February 24, 2014 at 8:56 pm |
      • observernow


        "Most cases of pedophilia and some of incest are in fact ho-mo-se-xual in nature."

        There are ZERO reliable statistics about that. As usual, you have NO FACTS to back up your nonsense.

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

          In fact studies have shown that there is no connection between pedophilia and ho.mo.s3xuality, except in the minds of liars.

          February 24, 2014 at 10:29 pm |
      • In Santa We Trust

        Where is your source for the Sparta reference?

        February 24, 2014 at 10:34 pm |
1 2 3 4
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.