home
RSS
Pope Francis: Church could support civil unions
Pope Francis speaks at St Peter's square on December 11, 2013.
March 5th, 2014
10:04 AM ET

Pope Francis: Church could support civil unions

By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
[twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN']

(CNN) - Pope Francis reaffirmed the Catholic Church's opposition to gay marriage on Wednesday, but suggested in a newspaper interview that it could support some types of civil unions.

The Pope reiterated the church's longstanding teaching that "marriage is between a man and a woman." However, he said, "We have to look at different cases and evaluate them in their variety."

States, for instance, justify civil unions as a way to provide economic security to cohabitating couples, the Pope said in a wide-ranging interview published Wednesday in Corriere della Seraan Italian daily. State-sanctioned unions are thus driven by the need to ensure rights like access to health care, Francis added.

A number of Catholic bishops have supported civil unions for same-sex couples as an alternative to marriage, including Pope Francis when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires in 2010, according to reports in National Catholic Reporter and The New York Times.

Behind closed doors, pope supported civil unions in Argentina, activist says

But Wednesday's comments are "the first time a Pope has indicated even tentative acceptance of civil unions," according to Catholic News Service.

Later on Wednesday, a Vatican spokesman sought to clarify the Pope's remarks.

"The Pope did not choose to enter into debates about the delicate matter of gay civil unions," said the Rev. Thomas Rosica, a consultant to the Vatican press office.

"In his response to the interviewer, he emphasized the natural characteristic of marriage between one man and one woman, and on the other hand, he also spoke about the obligation of the state to fulfill its responsibilities towards its citizens."

"We should not try to read more into the Pope’s words than what has been stated in very general terms," Rosica added.

Pope Francis, who marks his first year in office on March 13, has sought to set a more tolerant tone for his 1 billion-member church and suggested that a broad range of topics are at least open for discussion.

In January, the Pope recalled a little girl in Buenos Aires who told her teacher that she was sad because "my mother's girlfriend doesn't like me."

"The situation in which we live now provides us with new challenges which sometimes are difficult for us to understand," the Pope told leaders of religious orders, adding that the church "must be careful not to administer a vaccine against faith to them."

The Vatican later denied that those comments signaled an opening toward same-sex unions.

Last June, Francis famously refused to judge gay priests in comments that ricocheted around the world. He has also said that the church should not "interfere" in the spiritual lives of gays and lesbians.

Pope Francis' greatest hits of 2013

Support of same-sex unions of any type is fiercely contested by many Catholic church leaders.

In Wednesday's interview, Francis also addressed several other controversial issues, including the Catholic Church's ban on contraception, the role of women and the devastating clergy sexual abuse scandal.

On contraception, the Pope praised Pope Paul VI for having the "courage" to "go against the majority" when restating the ban in 1968. But, Francis said, the church must also be "merciful" and "attentive to concrete situations."

Contraception and church's ban on divorced Catholics receiving holy communion, will likely be addressed at major meetings of Catholic bishops in Rome in 2014 and 2015.

“We must give a response. But to do so, we must reflect much in depth,” the Pope said Wednesday.

On the role of women in the church, an issue of particular concern to Catholics in the United States, the Pope hinted that changes could be in the works.

"Women must be present in all of the places where decisions are taken," Francis said in the newspaper interview, but the church must consider more than "functional" roles for women. To that end, Catholic leaders are engaged in "deep reflection" on women's role in the church, he said.

On the sexual abuse of children by Catholic clergy, a scandal that has rocked the church in the United States, the Pope said the abuse has left "very deep wounds" on victims.

In response, the church has done more than other institutions to be open and transparent about sexual abuse by its employees, Francis said. “But the Church is the only one to be attacked."

A United Nations panel criticized Catholic leaders last month in a hard-hitting report on clergy sexual abuse.

The report said the Vatican "has not acknowledged the extent of the crimes committed, has not taken the necessary measures to address cases of child sexual abuse and to protect children, and has adopted policies and practices which have led to the continuation of the abuse by and the impunity of the perpetrators.”

The Vatican said it would study the U.N. report.

Kick out those who sexually abuse children, U.N. panel tells Vatican

On Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, who has surprised church-watchers with public appearances after saying he would live a cloistered life in retirement, Francis said he considers his predecessor a "wise grandfather."

"The Pope Emeritus is not a statue in a museum," Pope Francis said. Rather, the two men have decided that Benedict should participate in the church's public life rather than live a shuttered life.

"I thought about grandparents who with their wisdom, their advice, strengthen families and don't deserve to end up in an old folks home," Francis said.

Finally, he may sometimes wear a cape, but don't call Pope Francis a Superman, the popular pontiff said.

"To paint the Pope as a sort of Superman, a kind of star, seems offensive to me," Francis told Corriere della Sera. "The Pope is a man who laughs, cries, sleeps soundly and has friends like everyone else. A normal person."

Earlier this year, graffiti depicting a muscle-bound and flying Francis appeared on walls near Vatican City, but the Pope said Wednesday that he doesn't like the "mythology" surrounding his papacy, which marks its first anniversary on March 13.

For instance, Francis debunked the idea that he sneaks out of the Vatican at night to feed the homeless.

"It never occurred to me," he said.

(CNN's Delia Gallagher assisted in translating Pope Francis' remarks from the Italian.) 

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Catholic Church • Christianity • Culture wars • Discrimination • Gay marriage • Gay rights • Pope Benedict XVI • Pope Francis • Vatican

soundoff (3,591 Responses)
  1. guidedans

    Christians believe that ho.mos.exuality is a sin. That fact will not change. What should also be noted however is that, in Christianity, there are many, many sins. Jesus says, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart," and "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment."

    It is not easy to live a sinless life. In fact, only one person did it and that was Jesus himself. You are not going to get a Christian to admit that ho.mose.xuality is not sinful. It is a part of our religion.

    The important thing to note here is that Jesus did not come to condemn us by the law but to save us from our sin that we committed by breaking the law. John 3:17 says, "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."

    If you have Jesus in your heart as your Lord and Savior, you don't have anything to worry about. That is not to say that Christians should continue to sin, but we should recognize that we are all human, we all make mistakes, and we all need Jesus.

    March 13, 2014 at 8:58 pm |
    • bostontola

      Obviously, being a sinner doesn't disqualify a person from marriage. So we should be ok with same se.x marriage, right?

      March 13, 2014 at 9:02 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      You can think it is a sin all you want.

      As long as you don't use your religion to try and deny individual rights to others you are welcome to any personal delusion you can convince yourself of.

      March 13, 2014 at 9:03 pm |
    • Doris

      "Christians believe that ho.mos.exuality is a sin. That fact will not change. "

      What Blessed said, plus I'll make this prediction. One day soon, you'll find yourself being looked at oddly for your beliefs in the same way that you might look at someone today if they refuse lobster you offer them because they claim it's a sin and against their religion. Keep in mind, my prediction is based on current scientific findings.

      March 13, 2014 at 9:15 pm |
    • sam stone

      "f you have Jesus in your heart as your Lord and Savior, you don't have anything to worry about"

      I am an atheist and I don't anything to worry about. It seems to me that those who fear judgement are those who are more likely to worry.

      "That is not to say that Christians should continue to sin, but we should recognize that we are all human, we all make mistakes, and we all need Jesus."

      Sin is a man made concept, as are god, satan, heaven and hell

      March 14, 2014 at 6:36 am |
      • sam stone

        "....and i don't HAVE anything to worry about..."

        is the way it was supposed to read

        March 14, 2014 at 6:38 am |
  2. myweightinwords

    PeaceAdvocate,

    Our thread got a little long in the tooth and difficult to navigate. Perhaps we can start again? You want to focus in on your main point. Let's start by specifying that clearly so that it can be addressed.

    It seems you are concerned somehow that children are being abused and given this illness? Is that your point? Can you articulate it a little bit better?

    March 13, 2014 at 8:01 pm |
    • bostontola

      "First, my concern is if we allow the concept..."

      That sums it up pretty well. Once you rule out a concept by fiat, a full conversation is precluded, and likely truth is as well.

      March 13, 2014 at 8:59 pm |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        Not to mention that people being born gay isn't a "concept"...

        March 13, 2014 at 11:53 pm |
    • Peaceadvocate2014

      My,

      I have said enough. You have said enough. Further discussions are futile.

      We will have future discussion. For now, let it sit and soak.

      March 15, 2014 at 8:31 pm |
  3. Doris

    Why is it that many Christians ignore science?

    Why do some Christian scientists tell two different stories about dating methods, even selling both to try to both remain relevant, but also satisfy the beliefs of young-earth creationists?

    Why do some of them (evangelists) travel to other places and incite violence against other people?

    Why do they (evangelists, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Catholics) promote the jailing of people or remain complacent about their fellow Christians who do the same?

    Why does the Anglican Communion demote the one person who tried to quell the violence against people in Uganda?

    Why are they not listening to people from the National Institutes of Health?

    Why do they ignore biologists?

    ==============================================

    Biology

    The following is from the article:

    Homosexuality ultimately a result of gene regulation, researchers find (12/11/2012 – LiveScience)

    [ The search for a "gay gene" may be off-target, new research finds. Another process called epigenetics that switches genes on and off may explain why homosexuality runs in families.

    Epigenetics are heritable changes caused by factors other than DNA. Instead of traits getting passed down through the genes, epigenetic change happens because of the way genes are regulated, or turned on and off.

    These genetic regulators may be the reason homosexuality persists in nature despite the fact that gay people are less likely to reproduce, suggests the new study published in the [Dec, 2012] journal The Quarterly Review of Biology.

    "These things have evolved because they're good for the parents, but they sometimes, not [with] high frequency, but sometimes carry over" into offspring, study researcher William Rice, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, told LiveScience. In a male fetus, Rice and his colleagues write, an epigenetic change that benefited the mother may lead to "feminization" of sexual preference — homo- or bisexuality. The same may be true for epigenetic changes passed down by dad to a female fetus. (The terms feminization and masculinization of sexual preference refer to sexual orientation only — not to physical or personality traits of the offspring.)

    The findings add to past research suggesting gay men haven't died out, because female relatives of gay men tend to have more children on average than other females. The study researchers specifically found that two genes passed on through the maternal line could produce this effect.

    Hormones, epigenetics and orientation

    Rice and his colleagues focused on epi-marks, which are molecular changes that act like temporary "switches" to turn genes on and off. If a gene is a blueprint, the epi-mark is the construction foreman who makes sure the product gets built. An epi-mark also determines when, where and how much a gene is expressed, according to the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis.

    These molecular switches are usually erased very early in the developmental process, but they can be passed down from generation to generation, too, Rice said.

    Some epi-marks are particularly important during fetal development, when they promote normal physical development in the sexes despite natural variations in testosterone during pregnancy. Researchers know that fetal exposure to too much testosterone can masculinize the genitals, brain or behavior of a genetically female fetus. Likewise, too little testosterone can make a genetically male fetus more feminized.

    But here's the catch: There's lots of overlap between the levels of testosterone male and female fetuses get exposed to. That means there must be another side to the story, Rice and his colleagues wrote.

    That side appears to be epigenetics, Rice said.

    "Early in development, we think these epi-marks are laid down so that girl fetuses will be relatively insensitive to testosterone and male fetuses will be relatively sensitive to testosterone," Rice said.

    Biological behavior

    Thus, if an epi-mark that kept a mother from getting exposed to high testosterone in development gets passed on to her son — the opposite sex — it could desensitize him to testosterone, contributing to his sexual preference for men. Similarly, if a male-specific epi-mark from dad gets passed to a daughter, it could "masculinize" her sexual preference, making her more interested in women.

    These findings could explain why twin studies show that homosexuality runs in families, but no "gay gene" can be found, Rice said. In identical twins, there's about a 20 percent chance that if one twin is gay, the other will be too. If genetic change were responsible for homosexuality, you'd expect a much higher match, Rice said. Epigenetics, however, can explain the heritability without the need for a specific genetic change.

    The hypothesis could be tested by examining epigenetic marks in parents of kids with gay versus straight offspring, Rice said. There are, of course, concerns that this knowledge could be used by parents who want to avoid gay offspring, Rice said, but that concern already exists around certain hormonal conditions in utero, which are known to contribute to an increased chance of offspring being lesbians.

    "That cat's already out of the bag," Rice said. He added that an understanding of the biological underpinnings of homosexuality could help emphasize that same-sex behavior is not "unnatural."

    "In fact, it's a major part of the natural world," Rice said. Fourteen percent of Western gulls raise chicks in female-female pairs, he pointed out. And 8 percent of male sheep show zero interest in fertile ewes, but get sexually excited by other rams. ]

    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

    Psychology

    The American Psychological Association states "there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people", and says most people's sexual orientation is determined at an early age. Research into how sexual orientation in males may be determined by genetic or other prenatal factors plays a role in political and social debates about homosexuality, and also raises concerns about genetic profiling and prenatal testing."

    Professor Michael King states: "The conclusion reached by scientists who have investigated the origins and stability of sexual orientation is that it is a human characteristic that is formed early in life, and is resistant to change. Scientific evidence on the origins of homosexuality is considered relevant to theological and social debate because it undermines suggestions that sexual orientation is a choice."

    The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated in 2007:

    "Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice."

    March 13, 2014 at 7:08 pm |
    • colin31714

      Christians ignore science for the same reason that science fiction writers have to ignore many of the laws of physics. You can't have one if you are faithful to the other.

      March 13, 2014 at 9:17 pm |
    • meatheist

      It's because Christians have their own special FAITH-BASED science.You should be careful not to confuse it with actual science, where not only beliefs but "facts" and "theories" can be thrown out if sufficient evidence is put forth to do so. It's not the same thing, but Christians are easily confused on the subject and think they are the same thing.

      March 14, 2014 at 12:15 am |
  4. Peaceadvocate2014

    Myweigthinwords,

    You are turning things around. You are blinded by your own emotions because you are gay. I do not have a problem with it. Thats why i waited a while before i exchange posts with you. I want meaningful exchange of thoughts, not confrontation. We could accomplish more by doing so.

    First, my main concern is if we allow the concept that a child is born gay and threat the boy as a girl or a girl as a boy, in my opinion is wrong. These are kids, innocent, we cant impose our perception that a kid is gay. It is called abuse. Dont compare gaynes to religion different outcome.

    Second, i am not suggesting that gay should be persecuted , rounded up to be cured. What i said was gays are victims and to show compassion and tolerance.

    Third, i am not suggesting i am a better person morallity than you. You may have followed gods teachings better than me as a believer. I dont know.

    Fourth, union does not mean s.ex.,it means the unseparable bond between two beings. The question whether union between humans and animals or humans and money as an illness.

    Fifth, you can call me a bigot, your prerogative, i have to share my point of view like you do.

    I have seen your posts as well as others and frankly (not being rude as others may think) it sound like a cry for symphathy because of the ridicule from our society. It does not mean we are ent:tled to abuse others.

    March 13, 2014 at 6:20 pm |
    • Peaceadvocate2014

      I will always be your brother. Peace.

      March 13, 2014 at 6:21 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      I responded to this below.

      March 13, 2014 at 6:27 pm |
    • Jaymes

      The poster answered this already down below, use your scroll button. I tried reposting it but it didn't go.

      March 13, 2014 at 6:28 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      As I said below:

      You are turning things around.

      No, actually, I'm asking YOU to turn things around. To look at what you are saying objectively, without the emotional response to someone calling you a name.

      You areblinded by your emotions because you are gay.

      I'm not gay. And I'm not blinded by emotion. I am bi-sexual, which means I am attracted to both genders. In fact, I'm not actually attracted BY gender at all, but by who a person is.

      I am not saying I never react emotionally, because I'm human. However I do not lot my emotional reaction blind me to reason, dialog or conversation.

      I do not have any problem with it. thats why i waited a while before i exchange posts with you again. I want to exchange thoughts, not confrontation.

      Was I confrontational? I don't recall being confrontational. I was attempting to engage you in conversation and examine what you were saying. You seem to have taken offense to my trying to get you to see a point of view different than yours.

      First, my concern is if we allow the concept that a child is born gay and threat the boy as a girl or a girl as a boy.

      Okay, let's stop right there. Being gay does not mean a boy is treated like a girl or vice versa. That would be transgender. A transgender person may also be gay or they may be straight.

      For example, my nephew is transgender. He will transition to female. At that time she will be a lesbian, because she is attracted to women.

      Being gay isn't about being feminine or butch. It isn't about playing with dolls or trucks or climbing trees or having tea parties.

      Being gay is about who you are attracted to, who you fall in love with...it's about the type of person you think about spending your life with.

      These are kids, innocent, we cant impose our perception that a kid is gay. It is called abuse.

      Gay kids are just as innocent as straight ones. Does that mean that imposing your perception that a kid is straight is abuse?

      Let me ask you this, when you were small, did you play "house" with other kids? Did you think about what your future life would be? Was your "partner" of the opposite gender? Why?

      What would you say about a boy who at 5 years old playing "house" ALWAYS chose a boy to be his husband? Who if you asked him who he wanted to marry when he got older said a man's name?

      It is an innate part of you, part of who you are. You can't fathom what it is like to be attracted to the same gender. Most gay folks can't imagine what it is like to be attracted to the opposite gender.

      March 13, 2014 at 6:31 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Second, I am not suggesting that gay people be persecuted, rounded up to be cured. What i said was gays are victims and to show compassion and tolerance.

      I never said that you suggested that. What you suggested was that gay people are sick. That implies that there is something wrong with them, and whether you suggest it or not, someone who believes that is going to believe that they should be put away from the rest of society.

      And, to put not too fine a point on it, the medical establishment, you know the people who have studied and have degrees and such, have said that it is NOT a disease. It is NOT an illness. So continuing to insist that it is, is stubborn and displays a willingness to remain ignorant.

      Please note, I AM NOT CALLING YOU IGNORANT, I am pointing out that the behavior you are displaying could be considered that way.

      Thrid, i am not suggesting i am a better person than you. You may jave followed the teachings of God better than me as a beliver. I dont know.

      No where did I think that you were suggesting that. I'm not sure why you would think I would think that? I think maybe you are projecting some personal issues into my words.

      Fourth, union does not mean s.ex. It means the unseparable bond between two beings.

      I'll admit, I didn't see that as your meaning. Most people, when discussing what's wrong with being gay focus solely on the sex part. So, mea culpa.

      If you honestly think that two men or two women can't be in a union that is the exact same thing as a man and a woman, then you can not possibly know what love really is...you can never have seen a soldier coming home from a year away to the man who has waited for him, or a woman getting down on one knee to propose to the woman she has lived with, in a state of union, for over 50 years.

      Love transcends gender.

      Fifth, you can call me a bigot ,your prerogative, i have to share my point of view like you do.

      Where did I call you a bigot? I believe, if you read what I said carefully, I said I would not call you a bigot. That doesn't mean that your point of view isn't a bigoted one. And it is a bigoted point of view, not because it's "against gays" but because it has been proven false and you still cling to it and use it to exclude people from the group of those who are "okay".

      I have seen your posts as well as the others and frankly it sound like a cry for symphathy because of the ridicule from our society. It does not mean we are ent:tled to abuse others.

      Again, please point out where I have abused anyone on this forum? I may occasionally fall into the trap of sarcasm, but I work at speaking from a place of compassion and sharing my experiences. I'm sorry if you are offended by my disagreement with you, but I can not let bad information pass when that bad information causes harm to so many people.

      March 13, 2014 at 6:35 pm |
      • Peaceadvocate2014

        Abuse is pertaining to my main concern. Not here in this blog site. Focus.

        March 13, 2014 at 7:00 pm |
        • myweightinwords

          Perhaps you should attempt to be a little more clear in your communication.

          Who is being abused?

          And if you weren't accusing me of being abusive, what were you trying to say?

          March 13, 2014 at 7:03 pm |
        • Jaymes

          The abuse you are trying to use is what I would call bullying and we all know that people who bully are usually insecure uneducated people who don't understand the meaning of love.

          March 13, 2014 at 7:04 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          My/ james,

          Stop making excuses and evading my point. My main concern regarding the abuse of kids in my original post.

          March 13, 2014 at 7:16 pm |
        • Jaymes

          The abuse I see towards gays and lesbians is what I am describing the abuse you are trying to use, as an excuse doesn't really exist. I loved playing dress up with my sister and I played with dolls but my parents didn't treat me as gay. I will ask my friends who are gay and lesbians if their parents treated them that way but I doubt it since most of them didn't come out till later in high school or college. I think what you are missing is when parents raise their children in a loving environment, makes your point completely moot.

          March 13, 2014 at 7:25 pm |
        • Doris

          "Stop making excuses and evading my point."

          Rewrite your concern in English, and then we'll see if you have a point.

          March 13, 2014 at 7:30 pm |
    • Jaymes

      I have to say the fact you reposted this looking to be confonted on it saya more about your ego, than the actual post. Christ would not support such action or much of what you posted. Remember treat others the way you would wanted to be treated, your condemnation of gays and lesbians does not come from the holy spirit.

      March 13, 2014 at 6:37 pm |
      • Peaceadvocate2014

        I admit , i was accused a bigot which im not. I did not condemn gays or lesbians. I said h0mos.exually in my opinion is an illness. Look at my main concern, that is why i want answeres. Abuse of kids.

        March 13, 2014 at 6:55 pm |
        • Jaymes

          Did you even try to understand this issue at all? The kids are jut fine and there is research to backup that claim. What is not fine is the kids and adults that bully others because of their own insecurities and target groups they don't understand. The abuse comes from those who are not educated. It's so saddening to see when it comes to the treatment of gays and lesbians Christian all of sudden forget the teachings of Christ and fail in understanding the true meaning of love.

          March 13, 2014 at 6:59 pm |
        • myweightinwords

          How is it abusing a child to allow the child to be who he or she was born to be?

          Why do you continue to hold the opinion that being gay is an illness when the medical establishment does not agree with you?

          March 13, 2014 at 7:01 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          James,

          Do you honestly believe that at birth a boy or a girl is born gay.

          March 13, 2014 at 7:02 pm |
        • Akira

          Peace: do you honestly think that boys and girls are born hetero? Why or why not?

          March 13, 2014 at 7:06 pm |
        • Jaymes

          Do you know nothing about se.xuality? I don't think a child knows either way but they do develop it at a young age most of the gays and lesbians I have talked with say they knew at a very young age. The medical research like the other poster is trying to point out states it's not an illness or a disease. I would say your ego is getting in the way of Christ's love and understanding, it's OK to admit you are wrong, to forgive yourself for such negativity towards others.

          March 13, 2014 at 7:09 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          My,

          Because the definition of gay is in question let me rephase that question do you believe at birth a boy or a girl is born gay. Do you believe at birth there is attraction in same s.ex for marriage. How do you know the child could do that? I did not know about loving the opposite s.ex until puberty.

          Medical science? I guess if some believe in the bible you could believe on that too.

          March 13, 2014 at 7:10 pm |
        • Doris

          "Do you honestly believe that at birth a boy or a girl is born gay."

          Yes, dufus. 🙄

          March 13, 2014 at 7:10 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Akira,

          Simple answer look between your legs.

          March 13, 2014 at 7:12 pm |
        • Doris

          "Medical science? I guess if some believe in the bible you could believe on that too."

          Yes, well we do have people that let their kids die rather than seek medical care for them because of their religious belief.

          March 13, 2014 at 7:13 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Doris,

          Dont deviate, focus, my main concern.

          March 13, 2014 at 7:19 pm |
        • Doris

          First of all, dufus, rewrite your main concern in English.

          Who knows what the following mess means:

          "... if we allow the concept that a child is born gay and threat the boy as a girl or a girl as a boy, in my opinion is wrong. These are kids, innocent, we cant impose our perception that a kid is gay. It is called abuse. Dont compare gaynes to religion different outcome."

          March 13, 2014 at 7:25 pm |
        • myweightinwords

          Peace,

          Because the definition of gay is in question

          Who is questioning the definition of gay? How do YOU define the word "gay"?

          let me rephase that question do you believe at birth a boy or a girl is born gay.

          Unequivocally, yes. I believe our orientation is innate. It is a part of who we are, just like the color of our eyes, our bone structure, the shape of our head. I was born bi. I didn't understand that for a very long time. But looking back at it, my first crush was on a girl. I didn't equate it to what I thought love was at the time, because I had no concept of love. That came later.

          Do you believe at birth there is attraction in same s.ex for marriage.

          At birth, none of us are thinking about marriage, same gender or not. At birth however, we are born with our orientation already a part of who we are. If this were not true, how in the world do you describe all of the gay people born and raised in straight families?

          How do you know the child could do that? I did not know about loving the opposite s.ex until puberty.

          Sure you did. You just didn't realize it. Look at your family. Who were your examples for "grown up" love? Were your parents a man and a woman? How about your teachers? Did they have opposite gender spouses? Who was on your TV?

          Medical science? I guess if some believe in the bible you could believe on that too.

          What? I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say.

          March 13, 2014 at 7:31 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Now you are the granma opps grammar police. Focus stay on the issue. My main concern.9

          March 13, 2014 at 7:32 pm |
        • myweightinwords

          Peace, you said to Akira "Simple answer look between your legs."

          Now you are the one conflating love or "union" with sex. Love has nothing to do with genitalia.

          March 13, 2014 at 7:34 pm |
        • Doris

          No, dufus, this isn't a simple case of grammar or spelling. Your point, whatever it may be, is not clear at all.

          March 13, 2014 at 7:36 pm |
        • Akira

          Peace, that doesn't answer the question of heterosexuality at birth, that answers gender at birth.

          Answer. The. Question.

          March 13, 2014 at 7:38 pm |
        • myweightinwords

          Doris, it benefits no one to call someone names. It certainly doesn't contribute to the conversation. In fact, it actively detracts from the conversation as it puts a person on the defensive and makes it difficult for them to weigh the actual merits of what is being said.

          While I realize I am nothing and no one to you, it would please me if you would reconsider your approach.

          March 13, 2014 at 7:42 pm |
        • Doris

          I'm starting to think PA is a poe of sorts intentionally acting idiotic just to get a rise from anyone.

          March 13, 2014 at 7:42 pm |
        • Doris

          OK, mw, I will try. If there is anyone here who deserves to be shown the same respect given, it is you.

          March 13, 2014 at 7:44 pm |
        • Doris

          Maybe some translator can chime in and tell us what the following means:

          "Dont compare gaynes to religion different outcome."

          March 13, 2014 at 7:48 pm |
        • myweightinwords

          Doris, thank you.

          March 13, 2014 at 7:56 pm |
        • sam stone

          What do you have to support that illness hypothesis, peaceadvocate?

          March 13, 2014 at 7:57 pm |
        • sam stone

          "Do you believe at birth there is attraction in same s.ex for marriage."

          Do you believe at birth there is attraction in oppoite s.ex for marriage?

          March 13, 2014 at 8:03 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Doris,

          No need to re-write. It is incredibly incomprehensible to you, i could only speculate the reasons why.

          March 13, 2014 at 9:58 pm |
        • Doris

          Well give it your best shot. Since it's not a sentence, maybe you can start by forming it into a real sentence.

          March 13, 2014 at 10:04 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Sam,

          I takes generations....it is up to us to determine if it is curable.

          March 13, 2014 at 10:08 pm |
        • Doris

          "I takes generations....it is up to us to determine if it is curable."

          Where are you taking generations? Which generations? What is "it"?

          March 13, 2014 at 10:10 pm |
        • Doris

          Also, PA, if by "it", you mean homosexuality, then you did not answer sam's question. Sam's question was not about some potential "curability.

          March 13, 2014 at 10:14 pm |
        • Doris

          ..."curability".

          March 13, 2014 at 10:15 pm |
        • observernow

          Peaceadvocate2014,

          The TENS of thousands of professionals in APA do not consider h0m0s3xuality to be an illness.

          Since they know FAR MORE that you ever will about it, why not spend time improving your education instead of spreading IGNORANCE?

          March 13, 2014 at 10:15 pm |
        • myweightinwords

          Peace,

          I takes generations....it is up to us to determine if it is curable.

          It has already BEEN determined. It is not an illness. It is not curable. Attempts to "cure" being gay leads only to irreparable harm to those being "cured".

          March 13, 2014 at 10:17 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Sam,

          Why do support the hyphothesis of illness?

          Our society. The ridicule of indifferent beings it has effects.

          March 14, 2014 at 12:56 am |
        • observer

          Peaceadvocate2014

          "The ridicule of indifferent beings it has effects."

          It is the mindless ridicule of BIGOTS that causes the damage.

          March 14, 2014 at 12:58 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          My,

          The cure is the change our society. Tolerate and show compassion to our differences or inequalities. It is a working progress. We are analitic beings, I am confident we will figure it out. Through our daily lives. As we move from generations to generations.

          Let us start by not abusing a child. The weak, the helpless.

          There is no bigotry there. Its my honest opinion.

          March 14, 2014 at 1:04 am |
        • observer

          Peaceadvocate2014,

          Jesus had plenty to say about the s3xual activities of heteros and much of it was bad, but HYPOCRITES don't care.

          What did he say about gays?

          March 14, 2014 at 1:16 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Observe,

          Precisely! Ridicule of bigots ( the illness effect h0mos.exually ) that need to change, the cure. I keep emphasizing not to abuse a child, the weak, the helpless.

          Honestly, i have not read the entirity of the bible nor the medical science regarding h0mos.exually. I do not why gays are not mentioned. I could only suggest based on my belief of this one God who sent Jesus is everybody is accepted who follows the teachings of God as shown by Jesus example.

          March 14, 2014 at 1:42 am |
        • observer

          Peaceadvocate2014,

          Again, you maintain your IGNORANCE. The PROFESSIONAL EXPERTS say you are wrong.

          What is your educational background with psychology? Degrees? Professional psychological experience?

          Why do you pretend you might know more than TENS of THOUSANDS of PROFESSIONALS?

          March 14, 2014 at 1:47 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Observe,

          Does not matter. 1000, 100000000, point is their hyphothesis confirm our differences not what we think. Thinking at an early age that we want to be married to the same s.ex.

          March 14, 2014 at 2:12 am |
        • myweightinwords

          Peace,

          The cure is the change our society. Tolerate and show compassion to our differences or inequalities.

          The cure to what? How does this relate to what you keep saying is your main concern?

          It is a working progress. We are analitic beings, I am confident we will figure it out. Through our daily lives. As we move from generations to generations.

          What is it we are figuring out? Medical professionals have already determined that homosexuality is not an illness, not a disease. You admit to not having read any of the studies or done any real investigation here. Perhaps it is time that you do.

          Let us start by not abusing a child. The weak, the helpless.

          You still haven't articulated who is being abused and how.

          There is no bigotry there. Its my honest opinion.

          You keep bringing this up when talking to me. I never called you a bigot, so I'm not sure why you keep denying you are one.

          March 14, 2014 at 7:46 am |
        • myweightinwords

          Does not matter. 1000, 100000000, point is their hyphothesis confirm our differences not what we think. Thinking at an early age that we want to be married to the same s.ex.

          I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what you mean. Do you honestly think that we think gay children are born thinking "I want to marry someone with the same sex organs as me"?

          It isn't that blatant. Kids grow into an understanding of what adult relationships are. However, they understand at an early age whether they are drawn to those of the same or opposite genders.

          March 14, 2014 at 7:50 am |
        • joey3467

          I could only suggest based on my belief of this one God who sent Jesus is everybody is accepted who follows the teachings of God as shown by Jesus example.

          Then you my friend are in big trouble.

          March 14, 2014 at 9:44 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          My/Jaymes/Sam/Observe/Doris,

          Final thought.
          I would like to clarify h0mos.exually (gay for short) as an illness. If a gay person is the perpetrator for someone to be a gay person. The gay perpetrator has an illness. The reason for my main concern, a child perceived as gay being abused. Child abuse, the same accusation handed to the Roman Catholic Church. Who is being a hypocrite now? The cure. Stop abusing a child, the weak, the helpless.

          If society is the perpetrator by the ridicule of indifferent beings causing the indifferent being to transform in a society that would accept them, then society has an illness. The cure. Tolerance and compassion toward indifferent beings.

          I will alway be your brother. Peace.

          March 14, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Correction:
          Indifferent=different

          March 14, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Different = unique
          I think thats better. As to not be accused of being insensitive.

          March 14, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
        • midwest rail

          Once again, unless it is by choice, it is simply not possible to be this ill-informed in the information age.

          March 14, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Mid,

          You could have all the information you could find to support your belief, like the bible but you would have a hard time convincing me that anybody could know what a child want for marriage at birth or at an early age.

          March 14, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
        • midwest rail

          Your obsession with marriage, coupled with your refusal (inability ?) to read the multiple replies that have repeatedly addressed all your supposed concerns, leads to one of two conclusions :
          1. You wish to remain ill-informed by choice so that you can maintain your faux concern.
          2. You are being deliberately obtuse to see what reaction you can generate.
          Take your pick.

          March 14, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Mid,

          I read and understood other peoples posts does not mean i have to agree with it. If your post have merit i'll acknowledge it. Yours does not have merit but i replied just to let you know i heard you.

          March 14, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
        • myweightinwords

          Peace,

          I would like to clarify h0mos.exually (gay for short) as an illness.

          Based on what criteria?

          If a gay person is the perpetrator for someone to be a gay person.

          Gay people do not make other people gay.

          The gay perpetrator has an illness.

          Perpetrator of what?

          The reason for my main concern, a child perceived as gay being abused.

          In what way? Give me specifics here so I can understand what you mean.

          < Child abuse, the same accusation handed to the Roman Catholic Church.

          Oh, so you're not talking about gay people at all. You're talking about pedophiles. Maybe this will help:

          Straight Man = Attracted to Women.
          Straight Woman = Attracted to Men.
          Gay Man = Attracted to Men.
          Gay Woman = Attracted to Women.
          Bi Man = Attracted to both Men and Women
          Bi Woman = Attracted to both Men and Women
          Transgender = Person with the physical genitalia that does not match internal gender. Can be any of the above.
          Pedophile = Adult Man or Woman attracted to children.

          Of these, only the last is a crime, only the last is the manifestation of a mental illness.

          Who is being a hypocrite now?

          No one. You clearly don't actually even know the basic definitions of the words you're using. That doesn't make you a hypocrite or a bigot. It makes you ill informed.

          The cure. Stop abusing a child, the weak, the helpless.

          Who is abusing a child here? You are clearly conflating several concepts and trying to paint everyone who identifies as gay as a child abuser.

          If society is the perpetrator by the ridicule of indifferent beings causing the indifferent being to transform in a society that would accept them, then society has an illness. The cure. Tolerance and compassion toward indifferent beings.

          I will alway be your brother. Peace.

          March 14, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          My,

          Perpetretor/s could be you or me. All im saying is stop child abuse and stop bigotry. Ingredients to stress my point is secondary.

          March 14, 2014 at 6:04 pm |
        • midwest rail

          " Yours does not have merit ..."
          This from someone who has yet to articulate a single valid point, despite repeated attempts at conflating being gay with being a pedophile. In the future, you may wish to raise a cogent point before dismissing others.

          March 14, 2014 at 7:10 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Mid,

          Arguement lost is when start attacking the messenger. Peace out 🙂

          March 14, 2014 at 7:21 pm |
        • midwest rail

          Pointing out that the messenger hasn't articulated a single valid point does not consti.tute an attack. It merely states the obvious. Do try again.

          March 14, 2014 at 7:23 pm |
        • myweightinwords

          Peace, so basically, your entire argument boils down to re-defining words to suit your own meaning, ignoring proven medical science, stating that accepting a child as gay is abuse and conflating gay with transgender and gay with pedophilia, then sticking your fingers in your ears and telling everyone who has been attempting to converse rationally with you that you have nothing more to say on the subject?

          Because that is essentially what I got out of this conversation.

          Please understand that my attempts to get you to clarify what you were saying were not attacks, but merely my attempts to really understand where you were coming from. The fact that you evaded each and every attempt I made to understand your meaning confounds me.

          I genuinely hope that you have peace and love in your life. Have a pleasant weekend.

          March 14, 2014 at 7:38 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Ditto hapi friday 🙂

          March 14, 2014 at 8:26 pm |
    • Doris

      Next time, try answering the questions posed, dufus.
      ===========
      Also, MidwestKen asked:

      @Pe,
      "Why "treat boys as girls"? Why not treat them as boys who happen to be gay?"

      March 13, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
      • Peaceadvocate2014

        Nice. At least its not a cut and paste. You are starting to think for yourself. Excellent 🙂

        March 13, 2014 at 6:48 pm |
        • Jaymes

          I am sorry did I miss something didn't your copy and paste start this new/old conversation?

          March 13, 2014 at 7:01 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Read it again james its not a cut and paste. Why r u so incline to discredit me?

          March 13, 2014 at 7:04 pm |
        • Jaymes

          It's basically the same thing as what you posted below, you fixed your typos and added a few words. You wanted to be confronted on it again, you got what you wanted but Christ did say you should not be as others but as he wants you to be.

          March 13, 2014 at 7:14 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Basically the same thing..... Not the same.

          March 13, 2014 at 7:22 pm |
    • sam stone

      "Allow the concept"?

      "Treating boys like girls and girls like boys"?

      This must be a POE

      March 14, 2014 at 6:47 am |
  5. ausphor

    Just a reminder that replying to obvious trolls like Salero21 or our dearly departed Austin is futile. I have from time to time found the comments so offensive that I have responded, mea culpa. But if everybody ignored the attention seeking troll it may slither away, squeezing the head of a snake just produces more venom.

    March 13, 2014 at 5:14 pm |
    • TruthPrevails1

      Does anyone know what happened to Austin? Did he maybe finally go off the deep end and end up in jail or the psych ward?

      March 13, 2014 at 6:02 pm |
      • Akira

        I had a problem with my posts not posting; Mr. Burke said it was because my posts were going into the spam folder for some reason. Maybe this happened to Austin, also. Mr. Burke did mention that it happened to a number of posts.

        March 13, 2014 at 6:12 pm |
      • Doris

        Maybe he's just having an extra long dream. Then again, maybe homeland security started paying attention to some of that stuff he was yammering about recently.

        March 13, 2014 at 6:13 pm |
  6. bostontola

    believerfred:
    "The Sadducees and Pharisees in the day put Jesus on trial yet did not present any of the 26 reasons Jesus did not meet minimum requirements for a 'Kosher' stamp of approval. That would have been very important at trail and local PR yet it was ignored. Matthew, Peter and Paul whose mission field was the Jew did not address this defensively. It was actually obvious that many expected Jesus to be very different and Jesus made it clear the Jews where the ones who got many things backwards. .........have a good evening."

    fred,
    The accounts of the trial come from the NT. You accept that as fact, I don't. It is also not a transcript of the trial, i.e. the NT account obviously left out parts it did not find important. There is also scholarly analysis that finds errors in the NT accounts (e.g. direct and specific violations of the rules of the Sanhedrin, indicating that the author was not well versed in the court).

    Bottom line is, the NT account is suspect in fact and completeness, but it wouldn't matter anyway, the OT is clear and Jesus failed to meet the simple criteria defined by Yahweh.

    March 13, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      I'm amused that I was reading this, my Spotify (randomly shuffling through my collection), started playing Judas Zealotes from Jesus Christ Superstar.

      March 13, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        Simon Zealotes, rather. My computer is being cranky and keeps skipping stuff I'm typing.

        I got frustrated and typed the wrong name. MY bad.

        March 13, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
      • bostontola

        Definitely must be a sign ; )

        March 13, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
    • Howie

      You don't sound Jewish neither do you sound Christian.

      What makes you think that you can have an intelligent conversation about a topic you have zero knowledge about?

      No Christian or Jewish follower would be interested in talking to someone like you who fervently searches "debunking Christian " sites looking for fodder.

      March 13, 2014 at 5:35 pm |
      • TruthPrevails1

        That's quite the judgement call. Many non-believers were in fact believers at one point. Just because they don't follow a specific religion doesn't mean they don't have knowledge of it. It's not inconceivable for someone to use the INTERNET to do so research and educate themselves...in fact more christians should do it.

        March 13, 2014 at 5:59 pm |
      • Akira

        You sound male, Howie, although I'll bet you feel qualified to give an opinion on women.

        March 13, 2014 at 6:16 pm |
      • bostontola

        Howie,
        Look it up, atheists scored higher on religion tests than Christians.

        Not to mention that uneducated religious people comment on science even though they are unqualified, and that isn't a matter of opinion.

        March 13, 2014 at 8:50 pm |
  7. Doris

    “The problem with religion, because it's been sheltered from criticism, is that it allows people to believe en masse what only idiots or lunatics could believe in isolation.” –Sam Harris

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

    March 13, 2014 at 3:14 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      In The End of Faith, Harris suggests that religious dogma is flawed in that such beliefs are based on faith rather than on evidence and experience.

      Harris should probably talk to a believer or two. He may find that they believe because of experience.

      March 13, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
      • igaftr

        Most likely, if you examine those experiences, you will find people attributing things to "god" when there are many possibilities that could explain those experiences.
        If you think you had an experience that you then attribute to "god", how do you know it wasn't Satan, or zeus, or aliens, or delusion, or co-incidence.
        You will find people claim things to be god, but there is no actual cause/effect relationship...just wishful thinking being used to bolster belief.

        March 13, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          Could be anything is possible, but I don't believe so.

          March 13, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
        • igaftr

          So you don't know, yet you believe and I assume act accordingly...so what if it is Satan? He's supposed to be tricky.
          I fit is Satan, aren't you destined for an afterlife in hell? Without knowing, you risk what you believe to be all, don't you?

          March 13, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          “Know” is a strong word. In the spirit I can say, I know God, I know I’m redeemed, and I know in whom I have believed. In the flesh, I can have fear and doubt. I haven’t met anyone who is 100% yielded to the spirit 100% of time. I don’t think we can be, until we literally lay this flesh down.

          March 13, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
        • igaftr

          Know is not a strong word...distinguishing the difference between belief and knowledge is the hard part for most believers.

          Similar to a fan saying " I know my team is going to win"...they win, he claims he knew it, they lose, and it proves he didn't know at all.

          March 13, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
        • ausphor

          RB
          Of course the experiencer will believe in what they experienced, what does that prove, that is not evidence. Some silly girls say they saw the virgin Mary and the church turns into a myth, someone claims that they were abducted by aliens and operated on, had a chip implanted but no evidence ever appears. You claim that jesus had access to the supernatural, until you can replicate any of those miracles are possible, it is all myth, like all the other gods.

          March 13, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
        • ausphor

          RB
          You do not know that you are redeemed, you have convinced yourself that you are through faith, zero evidence just belief in a god that sounds pretty ridiculous if you look at the claims of what that god has doe. Terrible god you have there that will only give everlasting life if they believe in him the rest can go to hell. John 3:16

          March 13, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
      • the0g0to0the0t

        Think you missed the first part. It's evidence and experience. Personal experience alone isn't enough.

        March 13, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          I think personal experience is pretty good evidence to the experiencer.

          March 13, 2014 at 3:41 pm |
        • the0g0to0the0t

          By that logic all beliefs/experiences should be given equal weight and I don't think that's a rational way to go, especially when they can be in direct conflict with each other. That's why so many look to the scientific method, it takes this subjectivity into account and attempts to reach a consensus on what objective phenomenon is being experienced.

          March 13, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
        • bostontola

          Robert,
          That is precisely where we diverge. Personal experience is not reliable evidence, ask any magician. Human perceptions are limited and distorting. There is a lot of tests that show how easy it is to fool a person, and how easy it is for a person to fool themselves.

          March 13, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
        • joey3467

          So if someone told you that they had experience being abducted by aliens you would then believe aliens have visited the planet? After all someone fdid experience it.

          March 13, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
        • ausphor

          RB
          So would you rely on the personal evidence of say Austin or Salero21, they claim to believe, would you say that was pretty good evidence or delusion, perhaps.

          March 13, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          I’m sure we all have varying levels of skepticism or gullibility. I think most humans are fairly skeptical. In the bible record people reportedly saw Jesus perform miracles and still rejected him. The same would be true if he were on earth today. If someone does something that is seemingly impossible, we would immediately think, “what is the trick?” So, I think all who have had experiences with what they believe to be God, have thought about and questioned those experiences. Have you guys had experiences that you once attributed to God and no longer do, or are you expressing thoughts on experiences others have shared?

          March 13, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
        • bostontola

          Robert,
          Like I said, there is a whole body of scientific tests showing how easily a person is fooled. Our senses and expectations can result in false experiences.

          March 13, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
        • bostontola

          Robert,
          I recommend you view the NatGeo show "Brain Games". It goes over the flaws in our perception systems pretty well.

          March 13, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
        • igaftr

          Robert
          I have never attributed anything to any gods.
          To do such a thing would require me to disregard logic and reason with belief in something that there is no evidence for.

          Do you attribute the lack of fish and plants in Loch Ness due to the monster, or due to the dark water that does not grow enough fish or plants to support such a creature. Did Nessy eat everything, or is it just the natural state of a cedar lake?

          March 13, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          I agree Bostontola and think it is also a two-edged sword, so to speak. Do you think there is anything unbiased?

          March 13, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • Doris

          "the natural state of a cedar lake?"

          Oh, I didn't know that. Might be a good place for a picnic – I would think a lot of bugs would avoid being near it.

          March 13, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
        • bostontola

          Robert,
          I don't think anyone is unbiased. Bias is a survival skill, we wouldn't survive without it. The scientific method was devised to best deal with that. By requiring multiple independent tests and peer review, the results are distorted the minimum amount yet possible by humans. The evidence of that is the extraordinary edifice of science and technology that relies on that science that works incredibly well across the board.

          March 13, 2014 at 4:35 pm |
      • joey3467

        The problem is that two people who don't believe in the same god will describe the exact same experience and attribute it to two different gods, and there is no way to tell who is right and who is wrong, or if they are both right, or if they are both insane. Basically saying you experienced something that you can't then demonstrate to others is pretty meaningless.

        March 13, 2014 at 3:38 pm |
        • myweightinwords

          Or even one person who has believed in different gods at different times.

          I have had experiences as a Christian and as a Pagan that were the same and offered the same level of personal validation of what I believed.

          March 13, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
      • kudlak

        Robert Brown
        That would be "experience" that they need faith to believe points to God. I have no doubt that believers experience something. I did when I was a believer, and I accepted the explanation that it was God that I got through indoctrination.

        I am no longer under the spell of that indoctrination, and I recognize that my experience was actually no proof of God at all. It's exactly like hearing a new sound for the first time in the middle of the night. You can just blindly accept when someone tells you that it's the sound of Bigfoot, or you can investigate it for yourself. If you were told, or just personally assume, that something could be evidence only for God then you are taking a leap of faith in accepting that conclusion uncritically.

        March 13, 2014 at 7:08 pm |
  8. Doris

    Why do some Christians ignore science?

    Especially the young-earth variety.

    One only need search for "young earth geology" on youtube to get a plethora of videos from a Dr Snelling who was referenced a few times by Ham in the 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.

    "(A) PRIORITIES

    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.

    (D) GENERAL

    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.
    SNELLING 2

    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?

    POSTSCRIPT

    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.
    ===============

    [If] the nature of... government [were] a subordination of the civil to the ecclesiastical power, I [would] consider it as desperate for long years to come. Their steady habits [will] exclude the advances of information, and they [will] seem exactly where they [have always been]. And there [the] clergy will always keep them if they can. [They] will follow the bark of liberty only by the help of a tow-rope." –Thomas Jefferson

    March 13, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
    • midwest rail

      The most effective way to hide your money from a televangelist is to put it in a science book.

      March 13, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
  9. Salero21

    Idolatry like the one that is practice daily in the RCC by the leaders and their ignorant followers, is also against the natural and Created order of God. The Bible which is God's Word is Very Clear about it!! 😉 It is also a perversion of the mind and from the mind of Corrupt Sinners.

    Is. 44:9-17
    9 Those who fashion a graven image are all of them futile, and their precious things are of no profit; even their own witnesses fail to see or know, so that they will be put to shame.
    10 who has fashioned a god or cast an idol to no profit?
    11 Behold, all his companions will be put to shame, for the craftsmen themselves are mere men. Let them all assemble themselves, let them stand up, let them tremble, let them together be put to shame.
    12 The man shapes iron into a cutting tool and does his work over the coals, fashioning it with hammers and working it with his strong arm. He also gets hungry and his strength fails; he drinks no water and becomes weary.
    13 [Another] shapes wood, he extends a measuring line; he outlines it with red chalk. He works it with planes and outlines it with a compass, and makes it like the form of a man, like the beauty of man, so that it may sit in a house.
    14 Surely he cuts cedars for himself, and takes a cypress or an oak and raises [it] for himself among the trees of the forest. He plants a fir, and the rain makes it grow.
    15 Then it becomes [something] for a man to burn, so he takes one of them and warms himself; he also makes a fire to bake bread. He also makes a god and worships it; he makes it a graven image and falls down before it.
    16 Half of it he burns in the fire; over [this] ½ he eats meat as he roasts a roast and is satisfied. He also warms himself and says, "Aha! I am warm, I have seen the fire."
    17 But the rest of it he makes into a god, his graven image. He falls down before it and worships; he also prays to it and says, "Deliver me, for you are my god."

    March 13, 2014 at 2:45 pm |
    • SeaVik

      You've been proven wrong. Be a man of your word and stop posting this stuff. Or perhaps you have no morals and will continue to refuse to honor your promise.

      March 13, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
      • Salero21

        😀 😀 😀 That you proved me wrong!! HAHAHA You must be smoking something else other than tobacco!!

        March 13, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
    • midwest rail

      One need only compare and contrast this post from Salero and myweight's post from 11:45 a.m. today. Then tell me whose position is more well reasoned and actually embodies the supposed tenets of Christianity.

      March 13, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
      • Akira

        Clearly the one who has left Christianity is much closer to living according to Jesus's tenets...but I am not surprised. MWIW is a wise person.

        March 13, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        While I thank you for the kind words, my expression more accurately embodies my own belief, rather than that of one I left behind decades ago.

        March 13, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
    • Akira

      What were Jesus's thoughts about being gay? You know, the guy who Christianity is based upon? Can you post the chapter and verse where he says anything about gays specifically?I'd like to look up His very clear words.

      Thanks.

      March 13, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
      • Salero21

        Rev. 22:15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.

        March 13, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
        • SeaVik

          So considering you lied and are still posting despite being proven wrong, what does this say about you?

          March 13, 2014 at 3:04 pm |
        • Akira

          I asked what He said specifically about gay people. That verse doesn't say anything about them.

          Thanks.

          March 13, 2014 at 3:09 pm |
        • Salero21

          @Akira the Po.rn star. Your foolishness and ignorance are evident and pathetic.

          FYI words like gay or hom-ose-xual are not ancient. Unknown in those days, just like dinosaur but of relatively recent development. Hom-ose-xual ca. XIX c. combining 2 words from LATIN for Man and s.e.x and gay ca. XIV c.

          In ancient Hebrew and Greek as well as other ancient languages Euphemisms or epithets were use in absence of the aforementioned or equivalents. Also metaphors and similes like "dog" were use to describe the behavior of some people and men. Remember Jesus called his followers sheep and Herod he called a Fox. Jesus sent his disciples as sheep among wolves, and compared unbelievers with swine. That is done even today!! So you posing as not knowing that is extremely hypocritical.

          In very much the same way. Euphemisms were used to describe human actions and activities, like having relations, as "knowing them, her, him" etc. That's why the whole context of the Bible and what is known so far about the development, growth and progression of languages MUST be taken into account when interpreting the Bible. So when the Bible and Christ in the book of Revelation mentions dogs we'll understand.

          I'm sure you may be able to understand that much, if not your are hopeless.

          March 13, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
        • Akira

          Salero:
          Although I am unsurprised that you know all about what person works at what studio in the porn industry, something I don’t know about, I have told you that I am neither that Akira, nor do I work in an office. You repeating this again, knowing it is a falsehood, makes you a liar. And an unrepentant one.

          I didn’t ask you about euphemisms. I asked you what He said about gay people. Please answer with a chapter and verse in which He says anything directly about gay people.

          This latest answer proves that you cannot comprehend what you read, and therefore, probably not the best person to interpret the Bible, let alone proselytize about it; your answer proves that you are here to make personal attacks on people who ask you questions.

          March 13, 2014 at 6:32 pm |
    • kudlak

      Salero21
      The Bible is very clear about how wrong it is to eat lobsters, get a tattoo, and mix fabrics in clothing too, but I really don't see much concern for these laws amongst even very conservative Christians.

      You all cherry-pick what parts of the Bible you want to follow, it seems.

      March 13, 2014 at 7:14 pm |
  10. Salero21

    Thought Adultery and Fornication are Sins not against Nature, they will still keep adulterers and fornicators Out of the Kingdom of Heaven. Even if in this world, they have membership in all sorts of Cults, religions and apostate churches.

    So what or who on God's earth can make hom-ose-xuals and their "Friends" think that they are going to make it into God's Kingdom? Does the Fact that they have membership even leadership posts in Apostate churches and Idolatrous religions like that of the RCC, makes them think that?

    It does not matter at all, if they have "Friends" in the highest posts in the land; whether they are political or of any other source. They WILL NOT enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but will go to the other Place that IS NOT Heaven with ALL of their Accomplices/Friends. That's because the Bible Clearly says that some people condemn themselves for what they Approve.

    Membership or leadership posts in Cults, Apostate churches or Idolatrous religions DOES NOT Equates much less guarantees entry to the Kingdom of Heaven. Good Lord in Heaven Not even all Cults, Religions, churches or cultures admits such perversions. You may fool many but not all the people.

    March 13, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
    • SeaVik

      Salero, I thought you agreed to stop with this gibberish if someone proved you wrong, which I did on the previous page.

      Salero: "Prove me wrong or else admit that atheism is Total stupidity.”

      Ok, this is pretty easy:

      Atheists 'have higher IQs': Their intelligence 'makes them more likely to dismiss religion as irrational and unscientific'
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2395972/Atheists-higher-IQs-Their-intelligence-makes-likely-dismiss-religion-irrational-unscientific.html

      Why do you continue to post when you've already been proven wrong? Have you no honor?

      March 13, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
      • Salero21

        Who in hell or from what part of hell, you get the idea that what you say disproves or refutes what I say? You can't prove me a liar neither can't prove me wrong. Even bright people do, make and say all sorts of Stupid everyday. The Media is full of daily examples about it!! And yours is the stuff of what Charlatans are made.

        Are you the devil's child or just another child of the devil?

        March 13, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
        • SeaVik

          It's not that complicated. Calm down and try to absorb this and you'll probably be able to understand it.

          You continue to call atheism "total stupidity". I just provide you a link to a study proving that atheists are more intelligent than religious people. You therefore have been proven wrong. Get it? If not, that's further evidence to support my point that you're not all that bright.

          March 13, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
        • Salero21

          @Seavik,,

          Atheism is Total stupidity yesterday, today and forevermore. The Bible says so!!! 😉

          Studies are made on order (Custom Made) everyday, to please whoever pays for them.

          It all depends who has the money to pay for such "Studies, reports etc.". If you don't know that then you are hopeless.

          Like I said before in this page, even otherwise bright and intelligent people do, make and say all sorts of Stupid things daily. The Media is Full of daily examples of that. Your ridiculous and base presumption that ONLY atheists are all so bright, made on the conclusions of a Custom Made "study". 😀 😀

          Completely disregarding the countless of people who did and do believe in the Existence of God or at least in the Existence of a Supreme Being or Creator. Who are and have been bright intelligent holding degrees in all the Fields of Study and Knowledge. And making all sorts of Contributions towards the betterment, benefits and well being of all mankind.

          Demonstrates yet once AGAIN, that indeed atheism is Total stupidity and you're the Prime Example, you may even be the Paradigm of it!!

          March 13, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          asinine.

          March 13, 2014 at 4:36 pm |
    • Doris

      Of course if you live in the U.S., we don't have to worry too much about your superstition and your reliance on Gullible's Travels OT and Gullible's Travels, NT, since they are not part of our common law. Yes, the framers of the Constitution had their Salero trolls to deal with as well.

      March 13, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
      • Salero21

        Yes, just like living in the good old US of A, is a good reason in part as to why, we don't have the worries of those who live and lived all of their lives, under the atheistic regimes of Stalin, Mao, HO CHI MING, Castro, Pol Pot et al = communism, socialism, fascism etc. Or under the regimes of Idolaters/Cultists such as Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito etc. during WW2. Or more currently Chavez, Putin, Ahmanidejab etc. etc. Of course, I doubt very mucho you will ever understand that, because like I said many times atheism is Total stupidity. 😉

        March 13, 2014 at 4:44 pm |
        • observernow

          Salero21,

          NOT ONE of them came REMOTELY REMOTELY close to killing all but EIGHT people on the face of the earth like God did.

          Oooooops!

          March 13, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
  11. igaftr

    That is not what the bible says first off, and there is nothing tying the bible to anything other than the men who wrote it.

    The bible only mentions lying together, and it says nothing about a female/female relationship.
    It only condemns a man lying with a man as he does with a woman....if you take that to mean $ex, a man CANNOT lay with a man as he does a woman, since no man has a va.gina.

    How sad you feel your god wants you to peddle your bigotry and hatred.
    You have learned nothing from the Jesus character

    March 13, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
    • igaftr

      Meant as a reply to the troll known as Salero21.

      March 13, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
    • Salero21

      Your Ignorance, extreme hypocrisy and pathological lying is Obvious to all men of reason and reasonable men. The complete and whole Context of the Bible Must be taken into account when interpreting it. A text taken out of context is nothing more than a pretext for wrong. Creation itself is a Testimony to the Perversion.

      March 13, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
      • igaftr

        "Your Ignorance, extreme hypocrisy and pathological lying is Obvious to all men of reason and reasonable men"
        As if you speak for any reasonable men...

        By all means, show the "Ignorance, extreme hypocrisy and pathological lying "
        I'm just going by what is in your man-made, man conceived book of propoganda.

        March 13, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
      • Akira

        Sure. Show me exact chapter and verse where Jesus said anything about gay people, Salero.

        March 13, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
        • Salero21

          Oh here we go again!! Akira the Po.rn star of Vivid studios. Was it hard work at the office today?

          Your question proves your Total ignorance of What and Who Jesus Christ is.
          He clearly stated that God Created them Male and Female in the beginning when He was talking about marriage. He ought to know because HE was there from the beginning as HE was there when the Law was given. In the book of HIS Revelation it is Clearly stated who is going to be OUT of the Kingdom of Heaven.

          Rev. 22:15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.

          March 13, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
        • Akira

          Although I am unsurprised that you know all about what person works at what studio in the porn industry, something I don't know about, I have told you that I am neither that Akira, nor do I work in an office.

          I didn't ask what He said about marriage. I asked you what he said about gay people.

          Your answer proves that you cannot comprehend what you read, and therefore, probably not the best person to interpret the Bible, let alone proselytize about it; your answer proves that you are here to make personal attacks on people who ask you questions.

          March 13, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
  12. joey3467

    Because the god described in the bible is a giant walking contradiction, and therefore it is not possible that god, as described in the bible exists, however, it is possible that the Bible got it wrong.

    March 13, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
    • SeaVik

      Exactly. We know for a fact that the Christian god does not exist.

      March 13, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
  13. Vic

    Following the trend of the discussion, I would like to share this thought:

    I believe extremism is destructive in any direction.

    I remember a while back when ABC's Nightline with Ted Kopple was on, Ted Kopple held an episode about something relating to this subject matter, I can't remember the title though, sorry.

    During a Live open Q & A session with the audience, a lady stood up and asked about why the gay community heavily recruits, and boom went the crowd. Immediately, Ted Kopple said something like "apparently, you hit on the heart of the matter."

    We all notice things in life, and I notice that there is heavy recruiting in that direction as though it is a choice. That makes it so difficult for others to look into the matter for what it is.

    March 13, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
    • joey3467

      Exactly how are people being recruited, and can you name a specific example of such?

      March 13, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
    • SeaVik

      It is not "recruiting", it is promoting tolerance and understanding. When a huge number of people are oppressed by the majority for so long, of course there is a lot of pent up passion. You see similar passion / pride from blacks, gays, atheists, etc, when progress is made.

      March 13, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Recruiting? Recruiting who?

      If you're straight, you're straight. No amount of "recruiting" by gay folk is going to change that.
      If you're gay, you're gay. No amount of "recruiting" by straight folk is going to change that.

      Now, if you're bi, you might could be recruited to one side or the other, but you're still bi, you have just chosen a side. And if that's the case, it's the straight side that's been recruiting for centuries, it's about time the gay side win a few.

      Seriously?

      March 13, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
      • lngtrmthnkr

        Myweight, I wish more people would understand what you just said and realize that people are born a certain way and are not swayed in any way to be gay or straight,

        March 13, 2014 at 7:06 pm |
        • Akira

          I wish more people understood that, lngtrmthnkr.

          March 13, 2014 at 9:00 pm |
    • joey3467

      If you can't name any specific examples, it is safe to assume it is all in your head, due to your irrational fear of gay people.

      March 13, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
    • ausphor

      Vic
      It is not recruiting. It is simply that gays feel free to announce their s&xual nature and not live in fear as they have done for centuries. Not that bullying of gays has stopped, the incidence of suicide amongst gays is still far too high. Being accepted is what they desire, hell I even accept a jesus freak like you, peace.

      March 13, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
    • Akira

      Ted left Nightline in 2005. I should hope that in the interim, people would have become more educated.

      Was that lovely misinformed woman a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, perchance?

      March 13, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
    • observernow

      Vic,

      Gays are "recruiting" people who believe in equal rights and will support that.. You should be bright enough to see the difference between that and trying to convince people to turn gay.

      March 13, 2014 at 4:35 pm |
    • Vic

      Unfortunately, this thread is under a lot of rubble, can't pick up from here.

      March 13, 2014 at 9:41 pm |
  14. MadeFromDirt

    Akira, you misunderstood my comment about accountability. I did not say an infant or small child is accountable for their sin. Although we are all born in sin as a result of Adam's fall, God does not hold acccountable those who have not grown into an understanding of their choices.

    March 13, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
    • MadeFromDirt

      Whoops, should have been on page 16.

      March 13, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
    • SeaVik

      All children are born atheists, which I believe is considered a sin by Christians.

      March 13, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
      • kudlak

        I think they believe that it's a sin to leave them as atheists, both upon themselves as parents and upon their children.

        March 13, 2014 at 7:37 pm |
    • joey3467

      Funny you should talk about accountability, since at its core Christianity is all about not being held accountable for your sins, and passing them off to Jesus to be held accountable for.

      March 13, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
      • MadeFromDirt

        Joey, not exactly. God's people are accountable for our sins, we know we don't deserve God's mercy, and because Christ took the punishment for our sins and covers them with His righteousness, out of gratatude we strive to obey His commands.

        March 13, 2014 at 7:49 pm |
    • the0g0to0the0t

      "God does not hold acccountable those who have not grown into an understanding of their choices."

      Biblical reference? Or are you adding your own theology?

      March 13, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
      • ausphor

        the0....
        Apologists have been changing the "word" since apostle Paul compiled the nonsense, no surprise if the faithful are still having to do it now.

        March 13, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
      • MadeFromDirt

        The0gto0the0t, the support can be found throughout Scripture, especially in Psalms, Job, and when Jesus welcomed little children gatheirng around Him and compared them to His Kingdom. If you have true interest in the issue, or for anyone who has struggled with the loss of a child, I recommend the book "Safe in the Arms of God" by John MacArthur.

        March 13, 2014 at 7:53 pm |
        • the0g0to0the0t

          You can interpolate and extrapolate the verses all you want – they don't specify any kind of "age of accountability". It is a piecemeal theology to answer an obvious flaw in Paul's theories of what/who Jesus was and taught.

          March 14, 2014 at 5:37 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      This is, in my opinion, the most destructive part of Christian theology.

      That a child, barely out of the womb, is guilty of sin? That we are born dirty, useless, worthless sinners?

      No. We are born with an amazing capacity to become....and what we become is determined by our genes, by our environment, by our choices, by our opportunities, by the way we interact with the world. We are born beautiful and perfectly awesome.

      Sin is foisted upon us by religion.

      March 13, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
      • joey3467

        and at the same time abortion is bad even though it would grant the child eternal life and safe them from becoming sinners in the first place.

        March 13, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • MadeFromDirt

          Myweightinwords, yes originally man was created by God sinless and bound for glory, but sin entered the world with Adam's rejection of God's order, and as eternal creatures we must face the eternal consequences of any act against Holy God.

          Joey, that's true in a way, but Scripture tells us that God will assign responsibilities in Heaven according to our gifts and service to Him on earth, so it is against God to deny anyone the opportunity to discover and serve Him here.

          March 13, 2014 at 8:07 pm |
        • myweightinwords

          Madefromdirt,

          Myweightinwords, yes originally man was created by God sinless and bound for glory, but sin entered the world with Adam's rejection of God's order, and as eternal creatures we must face the eternal consequences of any act against Holy God.

          I am very sorry that someone has caused you to believe that you are in anyway other than who you were born to be. I'm sorry that your god is so limited by his own creation that he must punish them for simply being who he created them to be.

          It is a great evil to teach a child or any vulnerable person, that they are sinful, that their only hope for salvation hinges on accepting that they are evil and allowing another to die in their place.

          March 13, 2014 at 8:23 pm |
        • MadeFromDirt

          Myweightinwords, thank you for your sympathy, but I don't need it. You do. I am exactly who God created me to be, and for that and by His grace I will be praising and serving Him forever. God created man with a free will, and man chose to disobey Him. God's Holiness requires punishment of that rejection, or else He would not be God. It is not a limitation to punish sin; it is confirmation of His infinite purity and righteousness. Could your projection onto me of falling prey to a deception in fact be your own conscience telling you that you have bought Satan's deception that you are not hopeless before your eternal Holy Creator?

          March 13, 2014 at 8:54 pm |
      • Vic

        While I perceive you as an intelligent person from your posts, I believe you botched up this one.

        Christianity DOES NOT teach that children are sinful and evil as you portray. You are confusing that with what Christianity teaches about the human being born in sin and inherently a sinner due to the fall of Adam and Eve, the 'original sin.'

        Children are born innocent, ignorant and non-recognizing, and they are not held accountable until the age of recognition and accountability, even though they are born in sin.

        March 13, 2014 at 8:56 pm |
        • myweightinwords

          It is still wrong.

          And many brands of Christianity teach that very thing. Maybe yours doesn't.

          It is still the thing that is most wrong with Christianity.

          March 13, 2014 at 9:00 pm |
    • Akira

      This is the original thread:

      Akira
      Babies are not born mired in sin.
      Babies are born innocent.
      People who can honestly look at the beauty of a new-born child and think, "sinner!" quite frankly frighten me; I would fear for the safety of that baby if s/he were born to Carrie's Mama.

      March 12, 2014 at 10:19 pm |
      MadeFromDirt
      Akira, beauty is no proof of innocence, or accountability.

      To which I replied:
      Akira
      Dirt, how worldly can a infant aged 5 minutes be, and what do you want an infant aged 5 minutes to account for, anyway?

      What a wholly evil way to think of a newborn. How utterly creepy.

      March 13, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
    • kudlak

      MadeFromDirt
      If God does not hold accountable those who have not grown into an understanding of their choices, then he cannot hold accountable even adults who have not heard of him whatsoever, right?

      Wouldn't that make the work of missionaries, who introduce this option, somewhat evil?

      March 13, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
      • MadeFromDirt

        Kudlak, those are fair questions. But God commands His people to spread His Gospel, so missionaries who do that certainly are not evil. Regarding adults who never hear the Gospel, Scripture hints that by their observation of the physical creation and the presence of the laws of God written on the hearts of every man (our conscience), they are still held responsible if they reject God's authority and do not have faith in Him. I am thankful that it is not any man's responsibility to judge those people, and that God's righteous judgment is perfect. Be aware that Dante's Inferno is consistent with Scripture about at least one thing - there are levels of hell.

        March 13, 2014 at 8:29 pm |
        • midwest rail

          Scripture is the inerrant word of God, and it HINTS ??

          March 13, 2014 at 8:38 pm |
        • MadeFromDirt

          Midwest rail, Scripture is inerrant as to what God has chosen to reveal according to His will. Scripture invites study and discovery. God has chosen to not reveal all His truth and knowledge, but He has certainly revealed enough for our salvation, and for us to live a life that pleases Him.

          March 13, 2014 at 9:02 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          "God has chosen to not reveal all His truth and knowledge"

          How do you know if it hasn't revealed it?

          March 13, 2014 at 9:07 pm |
        • hawaiiguest

          @Dirt

          So someone in the middle of nowhere in a forest is supposed to look around and automatically think "Dead Jew rose from the dead as a sacrifice to himself to circumvent rules he himself put into effect".
          Are you really that delusional?

          March 13, 2014 at 9:18 pm |
        • MadeFromDirt

          InSantaWeTrust, there you go again. Scripture is sufficient. Obviously you didn't pay attention to the rest of my sentence that you quoted. (And isn't that the way you read Scripture?)

          Hawaiiguest, the full picture is a mystery, and I don't know how specific of a faith someone in the middle of the forest today would have to have to be justified in Christ. Faithful Jews who lived before Jesus are justified by Him even though they did not know all the coming specifics; they had faith that God would send someone to deliver them from sin and permanently reconcile them to Him. I can only conclude that God does not want us to know what is the eternal destination for isolated peoples, but I do know that God will save whoever He chooses.

          March 14, 2014 at 2:05 am |
        • kudlak

          MadeFromDirt
          "the presence of the laws of God written on the hearts of every man (our conscience)"
          Funny, my conscience tells me that your god can be rather evil at times, and that much of Christian doctrine isn't very moral. Following your conscience might also lead one towards another god. Are they still saved?

          You may think that you're not judging, but you have judged God as a "perfect" judge of everyone and, in turn, accepted his judgments. So, either you accept all of his judgments because you agree with them, which is the same thing as judging others, or you just rubber stamp everything that God supposedly determines, not because it's inherently moral, but because he has the power to carry out his sentences. Which is it?

          March 14, 2014 at 11:38 am |
        • kudlak

          MadeFromDirt
          Why should we care to live a life that pleases God? Are we his pets?

          March 14, 2014 at 11:40 am |
        • MadeFromDirt

          Kudlak, those are more fair questions, but on the first one I need you to clarify. What is it about God that your conscience tells you is evil? I suspect you have a false understanding about some aspect of the nature of God, and that the message from your conscience is being filtered by that false understanding.

          The answer to your "which is it?" question is actually both. Your question about judging seems to presume a common misunderstanding that God commands His people to not judge others at all. In truth, the teaching from Jesus about judging is a warning about judging others hypocritically, unfairly, or by a double standard. God expects His people to discern truth from deception, to decide who is a brother and who is not, and to shine His light into darkness, and it is no violation of God's commands for me to judge others in a fair manner consistent with His Word. And I have absolute faith that God is totally sovereign over all His creation, and that His will is inherently righteous, so in a way you can call that a rubber stamp.

          Regarding your third question, in a way you can say we are God's pets, but it is more accurate to say we are His creation. He created us for His glory and for His purposes only, but He bestows His love and delights upon us as part of that. To think anything less or to live a life against God puts you apart from Him, and allied with Satan.

          March 14, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
  15. Doris

    Why is it that many Christians ignore science?

    Why do some of them (young-earth creationists) tell two different stories at the same time (even selling them) about science?

    Why do some of them (evangelists) travel to other places and incite violence against other people?

    Why do they (evangelists, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Catholics) promote the jailing of people or remain complacent about their fellow Christians who do the same?

    Why does the Anglican Communion demote the one person who tried to quell the violence against people in Uganda?

    Why are they not listening to people from the National Institutes of Health?

    Why do they ignore biologists?

    === for instance =====================================

    Biology

    The following is from the article:

    Homosexuality ultimately a result of gene regulation, researchers find (12/11/2012 – LiveScience)

    [ The search for a "gay gene" may be off-target, new research finds. Another process called epigenetics that switches genes on and off may explain why homosexuality runs in families.

    Epigenetics are heritable changes caused by factors other than DNA. Instead of traits getting passed down through the genes, epigenetic change happens because of the way genes are regulated, or turned on and off.

    These genetic regulators may be the reason homosexuality persists in nature despite the fact that gay people are less likely to reproduce, suggests the new study published in the [Dec, 2012] journal The Quarterly Review of Biology.

    "These things have evolved because they're good for the parents, but they sometimes, not [with] high frequency, but sometimes carry over" into offspring, study researcher William Rice, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, told LiveScience. In a male fetus, Rice and his colleagues write, an epigenetic change that benefited the mother may lead to "feminization" of sexual preference — homo- or bisexuality. The same may be true for epigenetic changes passed down by dad to a female fetus. (The terms feminization and masculinization of sexual preference refer to sexual orientation only — not to physical or personality traits of the offspring.)

    The findings add to past research suggesting gay men haven't died out, because female relatives of gay men tend to have more children on average than other females. The study researchers specifically found that two genes passed on through the maternal line could produce this effect.

    Hormones, epigenetics and orientation

    Rice and his colleagues focused on epi-marks, which are molecular changes that act like temporary "switches" to turn genes on and off. If a gene is a blueprint, the epi-mark is the construction foreman who makes sure the product gets built. An epi-mark also determines when, where and how much a gene is expressed, according to the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis.

    These molecular switches are usually erased very early in the developmental process, but they can be passed down from generation to generation, too, Rice said.

    Some epi-marks are particularly important during fetal development, when they promote normal physical development in the sexes despite natural variations in testosterone during pregnancy. Researchers know that fetal exposure to too much testosterone can masculinize the genitals, brain or behavior of a genetically female fetus. Likewise, too little testosterone can make a genetically male fetus more feminized.

    But here's the catch: There's lots of overlap between the levels of testosterone male and female fetuses get exposed to. That means there must be another side to the story, Rice and his colleagues wrote.

    That side appears to be epigenetics, Rice said.

    "Early in development, we think these epi-marks are laid down so that girl fetuses will be relatively insensitive to testosterone and male fetuses will be relatively sensitive to testosterone," Rice said.

    Biological behavior

    Thus, if an epi-mark that kept a mother from getting exposed to high testosterone in development gets passed on to her son — the opposite sex — it could desensitize him to testosterone, contributing to his sexual preference for men. Similarly, if a male-specific epi-mark from dad gets passed to a daughter, it could "masculinize" her sexual preference, making her more interested in women.

    These findings could explain why twin studies show that homosexuality runs in families, but no "gay gene" can be found, Rice said. In identical twins, there's about a 20 percent chance that if one twin is gay, the other will be too. If genetic change were responsible for homosexuality, you'd expect a much higher match, Rice said. Epigenetics, however, can explain the heritability without the need for a specific genetic change.

    The hypothesis could be tested by examining epigenetic marks in parents of kids with gay versus straight offspring, Rice said. There are, of course, concerns that this knowledge could be used by parents who want to avoid gay offspring, Rice said, but that concern already exists around certain hormonal conditions in utero, which are known to contribute to an increased chance of offspring being lesbians.

    "That cat's already out of the bag," Rice said. He added that an understanding of the biological underpinnings of homosexuality could help emphasize that same-sex behavior is not "unnatural."

    "In fact, it's a major part of the natural world," Rice said. Fourteen percent of Western gulls raise chicks in female-female pairs, he pointed out. And 8 percent of male sheep show zero interest in fertile ewes, but get sexually excited by other rams. ]

    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

    Psychology

    The American Psychological Association states "there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people", and says most people's sexual orientation is determined at an early age. Research into how sexual orientation in males may be determined by genetic or other prenatal factors plays a role in political and social debates about homosexuality, and also raises concerns about genetic profiling and prenatal testing."

    Professor Michael King states: "The conclusion reached by scientists who have investigated the origins and stability of sexual orientation is that it is a human characteristic that is formed early in life, and is resistant to change. Scientific evidence on the origins of homosexuality is considered relevant to theological and social debate because it undermines suggestions that sexual orientation is a choice."

    The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated in 2007:

    "Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice."

    =================================

    Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science. –Thomas Jefferson

    "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." –Thomas Jefferson

    "[If] the nature of... government [were] a subordination of the civil to the ecclesiastical power, I [would] consider it as desperate for long years to come. Their steady habits [will] exclude the advances of information, and they [will] seem exactly where they [have always been]. And there [the] clergy will always keep them if they can. [They] will follow the bark of liberty only by the help of a tow-rope." –Thomas Jefferson

    "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved – the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! With the rational respect that is due to it, knavish priests have added prostitutions of it, that fill or might fill the blackest and bloodiest pages of human history." –John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson 9/3/1816

    March 13, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
    • Doris

      Oh how could I forget this one...

      "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution." –James Madison, chief architect of the U.S. Constitution and eleven of the Amendments including the Bill of Rights

      March 13, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
      • believerfred

        I take it you do not approve of Gods plan to bring about a people in His image and likeness?
        Tell me if you were God how would you go about creating intelligence with unlimited creativity that would eternally reflect perfect love?

        March 13, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
        • joey3467

          I see that you just believe whatever you want to believe despite any and all evidence to the contrary? Also if you want anyone to believe that god has a plan you might want to first prove that there is a god.

          March 13, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
        • joey3467

          Also if you think that is what god was trying to do then you have to admit that he failed pretty miserably.

          March 13, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
        • Doris

          fred: "I take it you do not approve of Gods plan to bring about a people in His image and likeness?
          Tell me if you were God how would you go about creating intelligence with unlimited creativity that would eternally reflect perfect love?"

          Well I can't blame you, fred, for asking loaded questions. If I held the belief you have I might do the same. But since I don't hold that belief, your questions are moot. I would say, man's natural continued need to quell fear and gain control of others by trying to explain his existence via creating the concept of a force greater than himself, like other mental endeavors, can have some beneficial side-effects, but also obviously hinders human advancement. Also, I find the Abrahamic notion of a human in the image of a god especially silly and self-serving of those humans that initially concocted such an idea.

          March 13, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
        • believerfred

          Doris
          =>The image of God in man is our unlimited creative capacity together with in infinite capacity to love.
          =>It was our hope in something greater than self which led to our great advancement. Consider it was out of Iraq (Abrahamic God) and out of Christians that science became what it is today.

          March 13, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
        • Doris

          fred: "The image of God in man is our unlimited creative capacity together with in infinite capacity to love."

          Well that's your opinion, fred, but not mine.
          And please, do try to avoid the argumentum ad polulum thingy I feel coming on.....

          fred: "It was our hope in something greater than self which led to our great advancement. Consider it was out of Iraq (Abrahamic God) and out of Christians that science became what it is today."

          Uhhhh no – not a great characterization fred, imho. Now there has always been the likelihood for advancement among any human population throughout history to some degree. Sure there has been a considerably good rate of advancement in some populations where an Abrahamic faith was predominant, but history has shown that this is only the case where free thought doesn't come with a price levied from the predominant religion; where judgment of people for who they are doesn't come with a price levied from the predominant religion. And that's been the case for Christians, Jews and followers of Islam.

          March 13, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
        • Doris

          populum, not polulum

          March 13, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • believerfred

          joey3467

          "I see that you just believe whatever you want to believe despite any and all evidence to the contrary?"
          =>actually there is zero evidence to the contrary.

          " if you want anyone to believe that god has a plan you might want to first prove that there is a god."
          =>If the plan is to bring about the separation of good and evil from the capacity of unlimited awareness and creativity it is the only possible plan. No one has ever proposed a better plan.
          On can disprove god and gods but God is not comparable to anything known to man. We would expect a complete lack of proof that demands absence of the supernatural and is self limited by knowable natural laws.

          "Also if you think that is what god was trying to do then you have to admit that he failed pretty miserably."
          =>As to creation there were two trees in the Garden thus the solution existed before the creation of man. It is a closed loop as is eternity which is the kingdom of God. There is not another perfect plan otherwise we would have a logic conflict thus there can only be one perfect plan. The possibility of a non existent plan was zero upon the beginning of time and space. Science and the natural laws it is built upon has proven beyond doubt that existence is dependent upon source. Source must itself be a function of an independent, dependent or out of the set of such variables. That functional relationship is the essence of plan. You cannot logically escape the existence of plan. This is why any godless thought based upon an accidental existence against impossible odds is without merit.

          March 13, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • believerfred

          Doris
          Stephen Hawking has made his life goal to prove no god needed. I think the influence of religion has proven effect on motivation. At the dawn of man we see intelligence looking to please God, god and gods. The social unit formed around that supernatural something. It was man thinking outside of self

          March 13, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • igaftr

          "At the dawn of man we see intelligence looking to please God, god and gods"
          False. We see men asking questions they do not have the answers for, and making up gods to answer their own ignorance.

          Why is the mountain shaking and spewing smoke? (Many gods created in ignorance to what a volcano is)
          Why does the sky flash and then boom like that? ( many gods created to explain lightning.

          Your god is no different, the product of men's imaginations in answer to their own ignorance.
          If you don't have the answers, make them up, write them down in a collection of books and call it the bible (which means book)

          March 13, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
        • Doris

          fred: "The social unit formed around that supernatural something. It was man thinking outside of self"

          Uh, I doubt that seriously, fred. It seems much more apparent that we are naturally a social species, much in the way that many other species are naturally social and don't just act for their own benefit (species that don't claim to be in God's image by the way). Of course you can claim it's all your God's doing, but the evidence you've presented thus far for responsibility of such coming from a deity is well, just not convincing.

          March 13, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          fred, The evidence against the personal gods as described by their respective religions is overwhelming. There is no evidence for those personal gods outside of the religious texts. You don't believe in Vishnu because you see no evidence, Hindus do not believe in your god because they see no evidence – you're both partially right, except you're blinkered to the shortcomings of your own religions.

          March 13, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
        • believerfred

          Doris
          God put the tree of knowledge in front of Adam of Eve knowing they could not resist the shinny object. In your opinion the tree of knowledge was there by accident as was mans capacity to take of it. In your opinion it was by natural selection that creative capacity came into existence. I suppose you also have an opinion on where that plan (natural selection) originated.

          March 13, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
        • Doris

          Yes, I have opinions too, fred. Mostly fat-free opinions, imho. Superstition from thousands of years ago is like fat or unusable baggage to me. It's like spam. It's difficult to avoid getting it, but it's good to recognize it based on not the message of the spam, but on what you can find out about it, like where it really originated from, etc.

          March 13, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
        • believerfred

          igaftr
          "We see men asking questions they do not have the answers for, and making up gods to answer their own ignorance."
          =>ha you actually got a laugh out me as I visualized this fantasy in your head of Homo erectus ergaster making up gods.
          What silly nonsense to make up. Just because you make things up does not mean any Homo sapiens or any hominids for that matter did. Making up god or gods out of thin air would at best be secondary to other known instincts or cognitive awareness. Thus even your fantasy has its base in awareness of something greater than self. This is the basic instinct atheists lack or cover in deep denial.

          "Your god is no different, the product of men's imaginations in answer to their own ignorance."
          =>God is not comparable to anything known to man and this is one of the reasons the Bible is the only Holy Book that gets it right. The God of Abraham stumps science to this day while the rest have fallen because they were man made.

          "If you don't have the answers, make them up, write them down in a collection of books and call it the bible"
          =>sorry, I would never make up such unbelievable stuff. What makes the Bible Divine is that the truths from 6,000 years continue to ring true to this day. Even the truths of the flood, the virgin birth, Jesus walking on water etc. to this day serve their purpose to strengthen the faith of believers and drive fence sitters into the darkness. The Bible puts the spot light where it belongs while atheists go on and on attempting to squeeze the supernatural, the incomprehensible majesty of God into a box made by man.
          =>take note it is the non believer making stuff up out of thin air without evidence.

          March 13, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
        • believerfred

          In Santa We Trust
          "The evidence against the personal gods as described by their respective religions is overwhelming."
          =>Tell me about this evidence you have against God. Just one or two will do.
          =>Most of the gods from other cultures were shot down by the Prophets or at the latest those filled with the Holy Spirit. A typical example would be creation arriving on the back of a turtle.

          March 13, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
        • believerfred

          Doris
          There is no Kosher Spam.

          March 13, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          fred,
          All the evidence shows that the universe and species were not created as described in the bible. Big Bang, geology, DNA, and evolution are some of the main ones. Your creation myth is no more convincing than creation arriving on the back of a turtle.
          The only "evidence" for your god is in the bible; that is demonstrably incorrect; without its credentials there is nothing to indicate that a god had the power to create a universe and all in it nor to indicate that it did so for us.

          March 13, 2014 at 3:09 pm |
        • igaftr

          hilarious fred
          "Even the truths of the flood, the virgin birth, Jesus walking on water '

          The flood never happened, and there is no evidence of a "virgin bit=rth" or Jesus walking on water.
          Those are not truths, they are myths until PROVEN...the flood has been DISPROVEN by many branches of science.

          March 13, 2014 at 3:16 pm |
        • believerfred

          In Santa We Trust

          "All the evidence shows that the universe and species were not created as described in the bible."
          =>This is false so I will assume it is just a subject sentence.

          " Big Bang"
          =>False. The Big Bang is simply a prevailing cosmological model it is not evidence for or against God nor does it conflict with any portions of the Bible whatsoever. Many attempt to use Big Bang theory to support singularity as in God as causation. It does not. Pre Big Bang cosmology however is beginning to take on supernatural qualities but, all such current work is simply speculation there is no Big Bang or pre Big Bang evidence for or against God.
          If you have an example I would love to hear it.

          "geology"
          =>I assume you are addressing the flood as geology actually provides evidence that the Garden of Eden could well have been the cradle of man 650 million years ago as specified in the Bible. As to the flood you cannot present evidence of natural law to counter supernatural law. At best you could assert that based on current accepted scientific consensus there is no evidence of a Global flood. We both know scientific consensus constantly changes yet this is only the consensus over the past 70 or so years. The evidence only conflicts with the biblical account if you bring in some assumptions. The biggest assumption is that the only natural laws are those laws we know today. Well this assumption is completely false and will be rejected by the scientific community. The next assumption depends upon the flood being local or global which is a theological debate not scientific. The next assumption deals with the time period in question that is totally dependent on the biblical accounts of genealogy which again is theological (most agree no time period given or implied) not scientific.

          "DNA"
          =>evidence supports groupings based on kinds as does the Bible. All other science related to DNA only address the process of one possible methodology of organic formation. The Bible only says God was personally involved in the formation of man out of earth. DNA had its roots in the organic and inorganic particles found in the dust of the earth. Science does not address the personal hand of God.

          "evolution"
          =>evolution as to microevolution is not inconsistent with what we find in the Bible. As to macroevolution there is zero falsifiable evidence as to a mechanism for change in kinds absent manipulation from an intelligent source (lab tec). That does not mean we will not find a mechanism down the road. The Bible is not opposed to evolution as a process resulting in diversity of life since it does not mention process.

          "The only "evidence" for your god is in the bible; that is demonstrably incorrect"
          =>no the evidence is the effect and affect of a living God that continues to have real impact on existence as we know it. Non believers simply are of the opinion that what people believe is of no effect (observable false conclusion) or propose other non verifiable speculation as to cause. In short you have nothing but opinion.

          March 13, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
        • believerfred

          igaftr
          ""Even the truths of the flood, the virgin birth, Jesus walking on water '"
          =>You missed the truths of the flood, the virgin and Jesus. I will just present a few truths.
          The truth of the flood story is that few are devoted to God such that they can hear and follow Gods voice as did Noah. All others continue to run after their hearts desires which absent of God amount to nothing of eternal value and are simply washed away in time.
          The truth of the Virgin Birth is that the miraculous is of God not man.
          Jesus walked on water because the supernatural is not limited by the natural or defined by it.

          March 13, 2014 at 4:35 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          fred, I never said that they prove that there is no god. What I said is that they prove that the creation myths in religious texts are incorrect. Believers claim a god so they need to provide the evidence; the only provided evidence is in those incorrect religious texts, so currently there is no evidence of a god. You may look at the wonder of the universe and feel that it must be the work of a god but that is not evidence of a god. As I said none of us know what was pre-Big Bang but even presuming a god then it is not the personal god of any religion. Which is more logical – not believing in something for which there is no evidence or believing in something for which there is no evidence. Would you believe an alien abductee as there is by definition no objective evidence, wouldn't you expect that the one making the claim provide evidence if they expect to be believed.

          March 13, 2014 at 4:36 pm |
        • believerfred

          In Santa We Trust
          As for me I was blessed with a personal experience with God which validated the words of Jesus. At this point everything Jesus proclaimed that can be validated has been validated. I am still waiting for evidence that one thing Jesus said has been proven false. Although one may not convince me It would make me ask some hard questions.
          There are great truths in the Bible as well as accounts of the supernatural.

          March 13, 2014 at 5:14 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          fred, There is no evidence of a god, there is no evidence of your god, and no evidence that Jesus is the son of any god. There is no evidence that Jesus spoke any of the words attributed to him, so I can't go through the whole NT to compare any such words with subsequent events – perhaps you can give examples of things Jesus has supposedly said and have come true.
          Your personal experience is not objective evidence – there are people who claim a personal experience with Vishnu and others who claim to have been abducted by aliens, also not objective evidence.

          March 13, 2014 at 6:02 pm |
        • believerfred

          In Santa We Trust
          "Your personal experience is not objective evidence":
          =>I have been present at about 200 such conversion experiences. If you and I looked at the effect of the experience would our observation be objective evidence?

          "there are people who claim a personal experience with Vishnu"
          =>That would not change your observation or mine.

          "others who claim to have been abducted by aliens, also not objective evidence."
          =>even if they had needle marks and talked funny afterwards would both of us agree objectively it never happened?

          March 13, 2014 at 7:05 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          fred
          A conversion is not evidence of a god; it may be evidence that an individual became convinced of a god, but not of a god itself. If there were objective evidence of a god I suspect believers would have made it very well known.

          The point about Vishnu is that you do not believe it, yet people claim it; it's an analogy with your claims.

          The point about alien abductees was similar, but as you noted you wouldn't believe it without evidence that it was an alien (whatever evidence that might be). Evidence of change is not evidence of alien abduction.

          The point I was trying to make is that if you look at similar claims to yours you are not a believer of them even though they are equivalent to your claims in that they have no tangible evidence.

          March 13, 2014 at 9:03 pm |
        • believerfred

          In Santa We Trust
          In the beginning was the Word and we see God spoke time and space into existence, "let it be and it was so". Jesus was called the Word and all we have is our testimony. We are called to share the Gospel, pray and love as Jesus did. Life transformation is the evidence, faith is the evidence, the power of belief is the evidence, 3.4 billion followers today of Abrahamic faith is evidence of the power of the Word. The spirit of God has moved through men from the times of Adam. It is evidence of the existence and power in the Word just as the Bible claimed, just as Jesus claimed and just as his followers claimed.
          Exactly what is subjective about this evidence? We are not talking about words from an alien abduction or the words of any other of the thousands of religions. We are speaking about the Word of God rooted in Abraham with that monotheistic hope. The object of our faith is God and our assurance is in God. We do not hear the voice of God in any of the other religions and we do not pray to any other than God and God alone.
          What does an apple orchard in Washington have to do with an orange field in Florida? The existence of apples is completely unrelated to the existence of oranges. It is an objective observation that oranges and apples are not comparable. It is an objective observation that people are effected by the Word of God.
          Yet you ask where is the evidence for God...................Ouch

          March 13, 2014 at 11:46 pm |
        • kudlak

          believerfred
          So, Christian claims are apples and alien abductee claims are oranges? That means that Hindu claims are pears, Scientology claims are bananas, and claims of real vampires are lemons.

          Thing is, they're all fruit, right? You seem to be saying that there is nothing similar to them at all, but they do all belong to the same category: things that people believe without good evidence.

          March 14, 2014 at 10:22 am |
        • believerfred

          kudlak
          If you expand the set to include belief without evidence then yes as even atheists believe there is no God without evidence. Evidence comes in many forms some must certain standards to be accepted in say support of scientific facts. The evidence for the power in the Word of God and effect of the Word of God in transforming lives to the point of transforming our entire existence as we know it. The evidence is overwhelming yet some use extensions of philosophical games of debate or denial of the fact scientific evidence is of a particular nature that applies only to scientific method as determined by consensus in a given field.
          Do you honestly believe the evidence supporting the power of the Word of God is somehow comparable to evidence supporting the existence of vampires?

          March 14, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
  16. Peaceadvocate2014

    I am a bigot? Now, thats offensive.

    March 13, 2014 at 11:56 am |
    • observernow

      Peaceadvocate2014,

      Sadly, it could be the case when someone IGNORANTLY suggests that h0m0s3xuality is a mental illness.

      March 13, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
      • Peaceadvocate2014

        Observe,

        If it is, it is not gays fault they are victims but to deny the possibility that it could be caused by influences growing up is ignoramous to the max. We have our freedoms good but we should not abuse it. I sound pious but i dont pretend to be, i make mistakes too.

        To say that at birth, we are not pre-programmed is hard for me to believe. Why do we have male or female organs? Is it for us change it?

        It hurts. I know. But i think its worth to be heard.

        I'll leave with this final though regarding the subject, you teach a child to hate, it would hate, teach a child to kill, it would kill, teach a child to love it would love.

        March 13, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
        • Akira

          You may certainly believe whatever you'd like about the sexuality of people you do not understand, or whose lives will never impact you in any meaningful way.
          If that comforts you, so be it.

          When did you decide you were hetero? When did you decide what gender to be attracted to?

          What? It wasn't a conscience choice, you just were?
          It hurts. I know. But the truth is it isn't a choice. One is attracted to whom one is attracted to. You can act on it, or not; that's the choice; but having those feelings in the first place isn't.

          Regarding your last paragraph, do you think people are teaching their children to hate, kill, and BE GAY??

          March 13, 2014 at 12:28 pm |
        • SeaVik

          The way that one becomes gay is irrelevant. The fact that you call it an illness is what makes you a bigot. Even if it is a choice (which I know it isn't because I know I couldn't make that choice), it's not an illness. You are the one labelling it in a derogatory way. Get it?

          March 13, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
        • igaftr

          Teach a child to not eat, they will starve and not be able to do it, teach a child to not breathe, they will not be able to do it, try to teach a gay child to be attracted to the opposite $ex, they also will not be able to do it. Your analogy is wrong.

          It is not an illness, and it is in the overwhelming majority, they are born that way.

          March 13, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
        • Jaymes

          I wouldn't call the mental health professionals ignorant on the subject they have been studying it for years and they state it's not a mental illness but a normal part of being human. People like you make excuses all the time trying to justify their own ignorance on the subject. I am friends with many gays and lesbians, there is no way they became that way based on their childhood, they are smart, successful, caring, loving and generous people who have an inner strength greater than you because they have to deal with ignorant hate of others in our world.

          March 13, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
        • igaftr

          " they have to deal with ignorant hate of others in our world."

          Often that hate is projected by people who claim to be advocates for peace, yet teach hatred and bigotry, based on their own ignorance.

          March 13, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
        • observernow

          Peaceadvocate2014

          "you teach a child to hate, it would hate"

          Excellent advice. I hope you will read your own words.

          March 13, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
        • joey3467

          Keep digging, buddy, keep digging.

          March 13, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
        • kudlak

          Peaceadvocate2014
          People have also argued over whether being left-handed was something people are born with, or something influenced by environment, but does that give anyone the right to call lefties "wrong"?

          March 14, 2014 at 12:32 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Step back from the emotion for a moment, Peace, and examine it.

      Consider your point of view from the outside. Turn it around. What if I said that heterosexuality was an illness? That it isn't your fault, but it still must be cured?

      Homosexuality was once considered a mental illness, but it was studied intensively and it was determined to not be an illness at all, but a natural part of humanity.

      Are you a bigot? I probably wouldn't label you one, but your point of view, your insistence on labeling a natural state of being as an illness is certainly a bigoted one.

      March 13, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
      • Peaceadvocate2014

        My,

        You are turning things around. You areblinded by your emotions because you are gay. I do not have any problem with it. thats why i waited a while before i exchange posts with you again. I want to exchange thoughts, not confrontation.

        First, my concern is if we allow the concept that a child is born gay and threat the boy as a girl or a girl as a boy. These are kids, innocent, we cant impose our perception that a kid is gay. It is called abuse.

        Second, I am not suggesting that gay people be persecuted, rounded up to be cured. What i said was gays are victims and to show compassion and tolerance.

        Thrid, i am not suggesting i am a better person than you. You may jave followed the teachings of God better than me as a beliver. I dont know.

        Fourth, union does not mean s.ex. It means the unseparable bond between two beings.

        Fifth, you can call me a bigot ,your prerogative, i have to share my point of view like you do.

        I have seen your posts as well as the others and frankly it sound like a cry for symphathy because of the ridicule from our society. It does not mean we are ent:tled to abuse others.

        March 13, 2014 at 5:35 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @Pe,
          Why "treat boys as girls"? Why not treat them as boys who happen to be gay?

          March 13, 2014 at 5:53 pm |
        • myweightinwords

          Peace,

          You are turning things around.

          No, actually, I'm asking YOU to turn things around. To look at what you are saying objectively, without the emotional response to someone calling you a name.

          You areblinded by your emotions because you are gay.

          I'm not gay. And I'm not blinded by emotion. I am bi-sexual, which means I am attracted to both genders. In fact, I'm not actually attracted BY gender at all, but by who a person is.

          I am not saying I never react emotionally, because I'm human. However I do not lot my emotional reaction blind me to reason, dialog or conversation.

          I do not have any problem with it. thats why i waited a while before i exchange posts with you again. I want to exchange thoughts, not confrontation.

          Was I confrontational? I don't recall being confrontational. I was attempting to engage you in conversation and examine what you were saying. You seem to have taken offense to my trying to get you to see a point of view different than yours.

          First, my concern is if we allow the concept that a child is born gay and threat the boy as a girl or a girl as a boy.

          Okay, let's stop right there. Being gay does not mean a boy is treated like a girl or vice versa. That would be transgender. A transgender person may also be gay or they may be straight.

          For example, my nephew is transgender. He will transition to female. At that time she will be a lesbian, because she is attracted to women.

          Being gay isn't about being feminine or butch. It isn't about playing with dolls or trucks or climbing trees or having tea parties.

          Being gay is about who you are attracted to, who you fall in love with...it's about the type of person you think about spending your life with.

          These are kids, innocent, we cant impose our perception that a kid is gay. It is called abuse.

          Gay kids are just as innocent as straight ones. Does that mean that imposing your perception that a kid is straight is abuse?

          Let me ask you this, when you were small, did you play "house" with other kids? Did you think about what your future life would be? Was your "partner" of the opposite gender? Why?

          What would you say about a boy who at 5 years old playing "house" ALWAYS chose a boy to be his husband? Who if you asked him who he wanted to marry when he got older said a man's name?

          It is an innate part of you, part of who you are. You can't fathom what it is like to be attracted to the same gender. Most gay folks can't imagine what it is like to be attracted to the opposite gender.

          March 13, 2014 at 5:57 pm |
        • myweightinwords

          Peace, Ugh, my computer's being all glitchy and ate my response to the second half of your comment. Trying again...

          Second, I am not suggesting that gay people be persecuted, rounded up to be cured. What i said was gays are victims and to show compassion and tolerance.

          I never said that you suggested that. What you suggested was that gay people are sick. That implies that there is something wrong with them, and whether you suggest it or not, someone who believes that is going to believe that they should be put away from the rest of society.

          And, to put not too fine a point on it, the medical establishment, you know the people who have studied and have degrees and such, have said that it is NOT a disease. It is NOT an illness. So continuing to insist that it is, is stubborn and displays a willingness to remain ignorant.

          Please note, I AM NOT CALLING YOU IGNORANT, I am pointing out that the behavior you are displaying could be considered that way.

          Thrid, i am not suggesting i am a better person than you. You may jave followed the teachings of God better than me as a beliver. I dont know.

          No where did I think that you were suggesting that. I'm not sure why you would think I would think that? I think maybe you are projecting some personal issues into my words.

          Fourth, union does not mean s.ex. It means the unseparable bond between two beings.

          I'll admit, I didn't see that as your meaning. Most people, when discussing what's wrong with being gay focus solely on the sex part. So, mea culpa.

          If you honestly think that two men or two women can't be in a union that is the exact same thing as a man and a woman, then you can not possibly know what love really is...you can never have seen a soldier coming home from a year away to the man who has waited for him, or a woman getting down on one knee to propose to the woman she has lived, in a state of union, for over 50 years.

          Love transcends gender.

          Fifth, you can call me a bigot ,your prerogative, i have to share my point of view like you do.

          Where did I call you a bigot? I believe, if you read what I said carefully, I said I would not call you a bigot. That doesn't mean that your point of view isn't a bigoted one. And it is a bigoted point of view, not because it's "against gays" but because it has been proven false and you still cling to it and use it to exclude people from the group of those who are "okay".

          I have seen your posts as well as the others and frankly it sound like a cry for symphathy because of the ridicule from our society. It does not mean we are ent:tled to abuse others.

          Again, please point out where I have abused anyone on this forum? I may occasionally fall into the trap of sarcasm, but I work at speaking from a place of compassion and sharing my experiences. I'm sorry if you are offended by my disagreement with you, but I can not let bad information pass when that bad information causes harm to so many people.

          March 13, 2014 at 6:23 pm |
  17. myweightinwords

    It seems to me that religious leaders and their followers spend a decidedly large quantity of time contemplating things about their neighbors private lives that really aught to be none of their business.

    In particular there is a ridiculous hang up about the sex lives of others. Talking with some of them, I have to wonder if they honestly believe that gay folks think about or engage in sex all the time, as though the fact that they are attracted to someone of the same gender is the only thing that defines them and they couldn't possibly be anything other than gay.

    I am fortunate to live in an area where most LGBT folks feel safe enough to be open about who they are. I talk to a lot of them. I work with some, I volunteer with some, I hang out with a few, I'm related to a few. Here are some of my observations about LGBT folks.

    1) They go to school and learn stuff.
    2) They make dinner
    3) They work for a living.
    4) They go on dates
    5) They wear clothes.
    6) They watch movies (that aren't porn...though some may watch them too) and read books.
    7) Some of them have doctorate degrees in things like Literature and Divinity
    8) They talk about sex, on average, less than straight folk. Significantly less than straight Christian folk.
    9) They have dreams they want to accomplish
    10) They want a better world for their children.

    March 13, 2014 at 11:45 am |
    • Akira

      You mean they don't have green scaly skin and a rhinoceros horn to easily identify themselves? You mean they look and act...normal?? Gasp!

      March 13, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        They live among us, hiding in plain sight. By which I mean, living their lives.

        Scary, isn't it?

        March 13, 2014 at 12:04 pm |
        • Akira

          Lol. My mom, who is 86, wonders what all the BS is about. She's says, "Eh. As long as they're not doing it on my front lawn, I don't care what ANY couple, gay or straight, does."

          She's awesome.

          March 13, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
  18. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    The Bible: proof that gullible people will believe any dumbass thing that you tell them

    March 13, 2014 at 11:24 am |
  19. Akira

    Dirt, how worldly can a infant aged 5 minutes be, and what do you want an infant aged 5 minutes to account for, anyway?

    What a wholly evil way to think of a newborn. How utterly creepy.

    March 13, 2014 at 11:20 am |
  20. SeaVik

    Salero21 says, “Prove me wrong or else admit that atheism is Total stupidity.”

    Ok, this is pretty easy:

    Atheists 'have higher IQs': Their intelligence 'makes them more likely to dismiss religion as irrational and unscientific'
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2395972/Atheists-higher-IQs-Their-intelligence-makes-likely-dismiss-religion-irrational-unscientific.html

    Now that you’ve been proven wrong, let’s see if you have enough character to admit it and stop posting idiotic gibberish.

    March 13, 2014 at 10:49 am |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      If he stopped posting idiotic gibberish... he wouldn't have anything else to say...

      But we have to assume Jesus wants him to continue his hateful idiotic comments

      March 13, 2014 at 11:23 am |
      • SeaVik

        Well, he hasn't responded, so maybe he's finally accepted reality.

        March 13, 2014 at 11:28 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.