9 Arguments Christians Give Against Same-Sex Marriage

wedding cake

This is the continuation of our look at three interesting articles on same-sex marriage. In part 1, we looked at a recommended secret weapon that Christians use against same-sex marriage.

The second article is “How gay marriage harms people” (2017). Let’s critique the many popular arguments it makes against same-sex marriage.

1. “The Bible says that marriage is rooted in God’s creation of mankind (Matthew 19:4–8).”

The Bible also says that marriage is to be avoided. Paul said, “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry” (1 Corinthians 7:8–9). This is one more example where the Bible is a sock puppet that can be made to say just about anything.

Marriage as one of God’s sacred gifts to mankind is a new idea. Marriage wasn’t a Christian sacrament until 1215, and that was only to give the church the power to annul marriages that made political alliances it didn’t like (more here).

2. “Throughout Scripture, it is clear that marriage is a lifelong, exclusive covenantal union of two people—a husband and a wife.”

Nope. God gives polygamy two thumbs up. God said to David, “I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.” (2 Samuel 12:8). More here.

One response is that God was simply working with the imperfect customs of the time, and that’s why he didn’t prohibit slavery or polygamy. In response, it’s ridiculous to imagine the perfect plan of an omnipotent god hobbled by the primitive morality of an Iron Age people. He didn’t have any problem putting the Ten Commandments into action immediately, with the death penalty for violating most of them.

Second, if “God was bound by the customs of the time” doesn’t constrain you from rejecting slavery and polygamy today, then you’re not constrained to keep other nutty Old Testament prohibitions like those against homosexuality. You can’t have it both ways—God’s clear preferences in the Old Testament either bind you or they don’t.

3. “The production of children requires both a man and a woman. So there cannot be any such thing as gay marriage, because marriage requires husband and wife.”

Well, that was a leap. Children require a man and a woman (no, they don’t have to be married), but so what? Reread the marriage vows—there’s a lot in that commitment, but none of it is about making babies.

And if marriage = babies, why focus on the tangential issue of same-sex marriage? Far more straight couples have a fertility problem than there are potential homosexual couples, and many more straight couples simply don’t want children. Why not complain that they are the ones who don’t understand what marriage is about? Or if you’re fine with childless straight couples, why not be consistent and accept childless gay couples? (The answer for those keeping score at home: they reject only gay childless couples because “marriage is all about the babies” is just a smokescreen.) More here.

Here again, the Bible is no friend to the Christian bigot. Paul says, “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” (1 Cor. 7:1). So much for the celebrated role of procreation.

The Bible also uses marriage as a metaphor for the relationship of Jesus to the church—is making babies the point of this marriage as well, or can marriage be about something more? More here.

 


See also: 20 Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage, Rebutted


 

4. “Homosexual activity is harmful and destructive to oneself and others.”

Why? How? This statement is supported by no argument, so it doesn’t need an argument to be dismissed.

5. “If we abandon the Bible’s teaching on marriage and just make up new definitions as we go, then why couldn’t marriage be redefined in other ways?”

Uh, it has, and in your lifetime. Mixed-race marriage is now legal. Divorce has become no-fault. Marital rape is illegal.

Different states even have different rules defining marriage—whether you can marry your cousin, whether a blood test is required, waiting period, residency requirements, rules for divorced persons, and so on. No, the definition of “marriage” isn’t fixed, so don’t get your knickers in a bunch because marriage has changed again.

6. “The more we move away from the biblical teaching on marriage, the more we’ll have broken homes, because other arrangements simply do not work as well as God’s design.”

In the United States, the Constitution is completely secular. The First Amendment prohibits “because the Bible (or God) says so” from being the basis of any law. This is fortunate since statistics reveal that more religion in Western countries correlates with worse social conditions (more here).

Another problem with your desire to guide America with biblical principles is that the Bible’s punishment for homosexuality is death. You can’t have a crime without a punishment, so your hypocrisy is showing if you tell us that homosexuality is bad because God says so without also demanding God’s punishment.

Finally, and despite your best efforts, this doesn’t affect you at all. If you don’t like gay marriage, then don’t get gay married. If you are honestly concerned about attacks on marriage (rather than being a moral busybody, which is what it looks like), same-sex marriage is the good guy in this story. It is trying to expand and support marriage, not attack it. You want a problem? Divorce is a problem. Focus on why marriages fail if you want to help them.

Continue with the final part, “You Think You Understand What Leviticus Says Against Homosexuality?

Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things.
One is that God loves you and you’re going to burn in Hell.
The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on Earth
and you should save it for someone you love.  
— Butch Hancock

Image credit: Bev Sykes, flickr, CC

"The Führer is our father but not in the same way as a parent father. ..."

What Makes a Good Prophecy (and ..."
"He's like the Godfather, right? He's gotta offer we can't refuse!"

What Makes a Good Prophecy (and ..."
"Sorry, the "I'm rubber you're glue" defense stops working after you reach the age of ..."

When Christianity Hits Reality: the William ..."
"Is using prior experience valid in predicting future outcomes?I'm reminded of this o/p....Reasonable Expectations Based ..."

William Lane Craig Replies to My ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Mark Landes

    Damn you logic and facts. Disproving why I hated myself for 30 plus years.

    Thank you for your support!!

  • RichardSRussell

    “Every Time You See a Rainbow God Is Having Gay Sex” —bumper sticker

  • guerillasurgeon

    Well, numbers 1, 2, 5 and 6 are easily answered by “We don’t believe in your God or your Bible.”

  • Ford Warrick Jr

    Conservative Christians don’t approve of same-sex relationships and look to the Bible for evidence that justifies that belief. Progressive Christians accept same-sex relationships and look to the Bible for evidence that justifies that belief. The belief comes first, then the reasoning, making appeals to the Bible effectively meaningless.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      The Bible is a sock puppet. Everyone should have one.

      • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

        I prefer the analogy of the Rorschach inkblot. There is much which can be seen there by different people.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          That’s a good one, too. Each analogy says something a little different. The reason the sock puppet works for me is that you can use the sock puppet to give authority to your opinions.

          “What’s that, sock puppet? You say that you hate fags? Well, I’ll be sure to pass that along!”

        • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

          They’re valid in different situations, I’m sure, and also not mutually exclusive. So first they may open the Bible, find what they want there (the inkblot) later on using it as a sock puppet to support their view.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          A mirror is another useful analogy.

          “Hey! God hates all the people that I hate! Cool.”

        • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

          That reminds me of this.
          https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrTcX9XbIFZucEA0KeJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTIzc3RlOHNiBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAMxMWQ4M2QzOGM1ODg0N2M2MTZjOGUwOTY5MTMxMmUwNQRncG9zAzY1BGl0A2Jpbmc-?.origin=&back=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3DMirror%2BGod%26fr%3Duh-mail-web%26nost%3D1%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D65&w=742&h=480&imgurl=silenced.co%2F2016%2F02%2Fa-god-who-looks-like-me%2Fjesus_mirror.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fcrossexamined%2F2016%2F09%2Fdoes-the-bible-reveal-objective-truth-about-homosexuality%2F&size=89.5KB&name=Street%2C+road%2C+avenue%2C+boulevard%2C+bypass%2C+cowpath%2C+they%E2%80%99re+all+names+…&p=Mirror+God&oid=11d83d38c58847c616c8e09691312e05&fr2=&fr=uh-mail-web&tt=Street%2C+road%2C+avenue%2C+boulevard%2C+bypass%2C+cowpath%2C+they%E2%80%99re+all+names+…&b=61&ni=108&no=65&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=13die564e&sigb=132h0163u&sigi=11sc9nsni&sigt=129371go2&sign=129371go2&.crumb=/oXki4ntPRF&fr=uh-mail-web

          Someone linked it with another post you did.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I suspect that adam, “Mr. Images,” was that other source.

        • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

          Could be.

        • Cozmo the Magician

          Reminds me of the old joke: A shrink shows a patient an inkblot and asks what it looks like. “Well, thats a couple having sex on a picnic table”. And this one? “Well thats two women having sex in car” . And this one? “Thats a great big orgy at a french nightclub”. The shrink says “It is obvious you are obsessed with sex”. “ME? I’m obsessed? You are the one with all the dirty pictures!”.

        • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

          Yeah, that’s a good one.

      • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

        Haha

    • Greg G.

      David’s relationship with Jonathan gets swept under the rug while everybody knows about David’s relationship with Bathsheba.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        In the case of Bathsheba, hubba hubba! Boys will be boys, amirite, gentlemen?! But no real man would do what the haters claim about David and Jonathan.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          He sinned terribly and admitted it, ever read Psalms 51??? Probably not…

    • Mr. A

      Oh yes. I have heard bible verses used by christians supporting AND condemning the use of slavery. Vagueness is thier weapon.

    • TheNuszAbides

      … making appeals to the Bible effectively meaningless.

      technically meaningless, sure; unfortunately too many of us remain susceptible to invalid and unsound means of persuasion.

  • Michael Neville

    4. “Homosexual activity is harmful and destructive to oneself and others.”

    The bigots keep saying this but they’re woefully weak on evidence to support either of these claims.

    • mordred

      In areas where bigots like them are in power homosexual people come to harm?

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        Are you asking about anti-gay legislation in Uganda, Arab countries, and so on?

        • mordred

          That and our western countries not to long ago!

          It’s absurd when the bigots claim they are only against homosexuality because it’s bad for the people when we see the horror inflicted upon gay people by them and their ideological brothers when they get their way!

    • Ford Warrick Jr

      It can be as easily argued, and has been by Christians, that heterosexual activity is harmful and destructive to oneself and others. Christianity has always perceived sex as dangerous and something that needs to be controlled.

      • Chuck Johnson

        It can be as easily argued, and has been by Christians, that heterosexual activity is harmful and destructive to oneself and others. Christianity has always perceived sex as dangerous and something that needs to be controlled.-Ford

        Absence of sexual activity would be the destruction of a society because no babies would be produced.

        Excessive sexual activities would harm societies because people would ignore their tasks and their duties. Nature can lead people in this direction because sex is so much fun.

        The best survival strategy for humans is to have enough sexual activity to provide children, and to facilitate love, bonding and togetherness.
        But also to limit sexual activity so that the chores can get done.

        Biology and instincts provide much of the attraction which encourages sexual activity.

        Laws, customs, habits, taboos, etc. provide much of the inhibition which discourages excessive sexual activity.

        Our modern laws and customs are more sophisticated and functional ways of producing a balanced life which includes sex.

        The ancient laws and customs ( including Jewish and Christian ones) had some wacky, bizarre, violent, extreme and dysfunctional ways of producing a balanced life which includes sex.

        This is an example of cultural adaptive evolution.
        Today, we have better ideas about human sexuality.

        The ways that sexual activity is dealt with is just one small part of the cultural evolution of human societies.

        • lady_black

          NOBODY thinks sexual activity should be controlled “so chores get done.”

        • Chuck Johnson

          We could come up with a long list of reasons that cultural customs require controls on sexual activity.

          Not letting sexual activity displace other important functions in life is an important reason to keep sexual activity under control.
          People may not give such a reason, but when it comes to sex, a lot of incorrect explanations will be given. Ignorance, embarrassment and dishonesty are commonplace in discussions of sex.

          Some people are diagnosed as having a “sex addiction”.
          Any type of addiction can displace healthy, functional behaviors.

        • lady_black

          How is anyone’s sex life other than yourself, POSSIBLY any of your damn business? Control YOUR OWN life. I’m quite sure you have enough on your plate without being in charge of a stranger’s life.
          Even if sex is causing someone a problem, it isn’t your purview to swoop in and “fix it” and you certainly don’t get to control it.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Control YOUR OWN life. -lady_black

          That’s odd.
          You seem to think that I’m inventing reasons for people to behave one way or another.

          No, I am describing reasons which already exist.
          Human culture invents these ideas, and I just notice them.

          The fact that these motivations are hidden to you and to many others is the problem here.

          Moral codes, customs and laws are always based upon real, practical human needs. All too often, through cultural evolution, the original practical needs become unrecognizable due to exaggeration.

          Sexual taboos have had thousands of years to evolve from practical precautions to bizarre social behavior.

        • lady_black

          Uh, NO. What I’m saying is that if people just engage in sex all the time, to the exclusion of everything else, they won’t do it for long, otherwise their lives will go to shit.
          And there is NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT THAT. It’s none of your business. You can only run your own life.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Uh, NO. What I’m saying is that if people just engage in sex all the
          time, to the exclusion of everything else, they won’t do it for long,
          otherwise their lives will go to shit. -lady_black

          Their lives will go to shit?

          Lady Black, how can you be so judgmental?
          Besides, there is nothing you can do about it and it’s none of your business.
          You can only run your own life.

        • lady_black

          Correct. There is nothing I can do about it. Nor can you do anything about it.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Your understanding of how human societies actually work is very limited.

        • lady_black

          No, as a matter of fact, it’s far superior to yours.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Wrong again, Lady Black.
          That’s a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.
          Learn what the word “fact” means.
          Now you are just arguing because you like to argue.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      The best I’ve gotten is the ancient data that homosexuals had a significantly lower life expectancy. When your move the clock forward (y’know, to today), HIV isn’t that big a deal. Further, HIV infects women and men equally worldwide.

      And it all boils down to: have safe sex. Ah, finally something the Christian fundamentalists and the sensible people can agree on. I love it when that happens.

      • Ford Warrick Jr

        If HIV is divine punishment for immoral behavior, lesbians are God’s chosen people. Just like Mary, mother of Jesus, they often become pregnant without having sex with a man.

      • dala

        Since when is there agreement on that? Pretty sure religious people tend to oppose sex education and condoms.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Of course they do. I was simply trying to point out Christians’ hypocrisy. They worry about homosexuals’ health due to STDs? Great! Get on board with safe sex.

      • Tommy

        and HIV doesn’t discriminate between hetero and homosexuals. Anyone can get infected.

      • Kevin K

        Well, the Christian fundamentalists would alter that just a wee bit. From “safe” to “NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EXCEPT WHEN YOU’RE GETTING YOUR WIFE PREGNANT!!!!!”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And don’t enjoy it much, either.

      • lady_black

        I’m not too certain they are into “safe sex.”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Agreed, but that is where this argument takes them.

        • lady_black

          Actually, I think it “takes them” to “keep your legs closed.”

      • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

        Its fornication Bob… at least according to God, maybe not you. But your opinions will perish one day.

    • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

      Can homosexuals have children? NO. If humans don’t give birth to children does the species continue to live? NO

      What more evidence do you need? I know that you hate evidence, if anything.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        What more evidence do you need? I know that you hate evidence, if anything.

        https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51NL1JO-TYL.jpg

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          A cartoon… That explains your side of story. No medical journals or scientific evidence? I thought you were an athiest who worked on fact? So did Jesus of Nazareth lie in Mark 14:61-62?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          No, not a cartoon–I was sure that scientific evidence would go over your head, so I thought a popular kids book would explain things better. The book shows homosexuals who are (gasp!) parents.

          Get outside your sheltered, hateful Christian bubble.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          No hate towards homosexuals here, your bearing false witness or assuming lies (you pick).

          So did Jesus of Nazareth lie in Mark 14:61-62?

        • Greg G.

          Mark 14:62 repeats Mark 13:26, which is a combination of phrases from Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13. Did the high priest ever see the Son of Man coming with the clouds? No, nobody has. The high priest is dead so he cannot ever see it. So that is a false statement if it actually happened. The statement would be the ravings of a lunatic or a flat out lie. You don’t have to pick either because it is a fictional story.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          At least you provided an answer, I applaud you for not side-stepping. Anyway, read Revelation 1:7. Still feel the same way?

        • MNb

          “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him.”
          Not bad, but there are funnier quotes from my favourite Bible book.

        • Greg G.

          Yes. It is just another writer copying verses from the Old Testament.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Based on what you avoided in your response, I assume you now understand that homosexuals can (and are) parents and that you’ve withdrawn your flabby argument, “Can homosexuals have children? NO.”

          No hate towards homosexuals here, your bearing false witness or assuming lies (you pick).

          No hate toward homosexuals? Then you’re happy to let them have romantic and sexual relationships with whoever they want, the same rights you are happy to see given to straights.

          Thanks for clarifying.

          So did Jesus of Nazareth lie in Mark 14:61-62?

          Say, this is a fun game! I answer your meaningless question, and then you repeat again. It’s like Whac-a-mole.

          Oh, boy. Round 2: here’s my repeated answer: “He’s a character in a story. Jesus told the truth in the same way that Glinda did.”

          Ball’s in your court!

      • Michael Neville

        First of all, you homophobic bigot (I don’t mince words with obvious haters), homosexuals can have children. I know a lesbian married couple where each woman has given birth through artificial insemination, so that shoots down your pretense about homosexuals inability to have children.
        Secondly, homophobic bigot, considering that over-population is a real problem right now for everyone on this planet, you haven’t rebutted my initial statement. Do you want to try again, this time with evidence instead of stupidity?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Not a hater…ever, at anytime, got it? Just trying to show people the truth which has to stop being denied for the hearers benefit.
          Homosexuals can NOT have children; the example you provided involved a 3rd party, so two women did NOT have children. No one ever was born like that in all of human history. Its not how our bodies work. Stop trying to make rock, paper.
          Less than 5% of earth’s landmass is populated… Try moving to North Dakota, Wyoming, or Maine if you don’t have enough space.
          I refuted everything you said, including slandering me.

          “Show me one medical journal where a woman impregnated another woman”.

        • Michael Neville

          You claim not to be a hater but you don’t explain why “homosexuality is a danger to oneself and others” except with some absolute bullshit about continuation of the species. Do you condemn the infertile from their lack of species continuation? Of course no, that would be silly. So why is continuing the overpopulation of the planet a danger? Maybe semi-arid North Dakota is underpopulated but Calicut (aka Calcutta) is not, nor is the rest of India.
          As for your “show me one medical journal” nonsense, that’s on the same lines as the creationists’ “a dog never gave birth to a cat”. I gave an example of two lesbians both of whom gave birth. You didn’t even attempt to deny it, instead you used a creationistic argument, Big yawn. Next time, bigot, try giving a real answer instead of bullshit.
          No, it’s quite obvious that your whines about homosexuals derives solely from you hatred of them. Which is typical of a certain type of Christian. Fundamentalist Christians ignore that bit of Jesus’s teaching about “love one another” and instead focus on who they hate and making their hatred known.

        • epeeist

          No, it’s quite obvious that your whines about homosexuals derives solely from you hatred of them.

          You know what kind of person is perpetually going on about homosexuals don’t you…

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Homosexuality is a “danger” because the people are going against science & biology, in the name of “love”.

          I’m not condemning homosexuals so your infertile analogy was pointless.

          Your population spiel only stated the obvious, that most cities are over populated, but again the land mass of earth is less then 5% inhabited… that means 95% is wide open.

          Your example was frivolous about two women having a child; plain and simple, they needed a 3rd party.

          Slandering me, saying I hate someone when I don’t, is pointless. Again, no hate here. Did you read my post? How do you get hate from this statement?

          “I believe in homosexual rights, I believe they should be treated with decency and fair, I believe homosexuals are important and to be loved. I don’t hate gay people, I don’t think they are causing humanity to go extinct, please read the entire post before you get enraged. The extinction comments are only metaphorical OF COURSE I DON’T THINK THAT EVERYONE WILL BECOME HOMOSEXUAL! ITS NOT A FEAR OF MINE, I’M NOT A HOMOPHOBE…”

        • epeeist

          Homosexuality is a “danger” because the people are going against science & biology,

          So how are they going against “science & biology”?

          The extinction comments are only metaphorical OF COURSE I DON’T THINK THAT EVERYONE WILL BECOME HOMOSEXUAL! ITS NOT A FEAR OF MINE, I’M NOT A HOMOPHOBE…”

          So what you did was raise a straw man big enough to contain an infinite number of Edward Woodwards. Or to put it the way some of the more forthright people here would, what you said was a load of bollocks.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          So how are they going against “science & biology”?
          ANSWER: Males & Females do NOT have the sexual organs or parts to have intercourse with members of the same sex to carry on the species. (aka 5th grade science)

          Its not straw…as stated it was a big picture example of what it really is if drawn out to an extreme.

          Even if you slander me, throw words around, disagree, or choose not to believe what I’m saying… it doesn’t matter, its still true. Truth is not dictated by anyone’s belief, opinions, or feelings.

        • epeeist

          ANSWER: Males & Females do NOT have the sexual organs or parts to have intercourse with members of the same sex to carry on the species.

          Only if you define “intercourse” as meaning sexual congress with the opposite sex. So this is a semantic question rather than a scientific one.

          Oh, and you seem to be constraining it even further, namely only intercourse with the intent to engender offspring counts.

          So you are Humpty-Dumptying, defining words in order to fit your presuppositions.

          Its not straw.

          Making an extreme statement in order to knock it down is the very definition of a straw man, and of course this is exactly what you did.

          Even if you slander me, throw words around, disagree, or choose not to believe what I’m saying… it doesn’t matter, its still true.

          In other words regardless of any counter-evidence you are going to stick to your position, the very definition of a bigot. You see I take a very strong view of truth, a statement is true if and only if it corresponds to the facts.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          You simply hate truth and science…
          Send me the medical journal, just one, where a man got a man pregnant or a female got a female pregnant and then we’ll talk some more.

        • epeeist

          You simply hate truth and science…

          It might be an idea if you read my profile before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

          Send me the medical journal

          So the only time actual intercourse occurs is when a man and woman have a sexual episode with the intention of making a woman pregnant. How very Tolstyian of you.

          Or to put it another way, you are making up a definition of “intercourse” in order to fit your bigotry.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Never said thats the only time “intercourse” occurs, I said it will only lead to life when a Male & female have it. You are ignoring the obvious, building walls, and then trying to topple them as if they we mine.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          “You see I take a very strong view of truth, a statement is true if and only if it corresponds to the facts.” -epeeist

          But you flat out deny that a female cannot impregnate a female?

          Talk about hypocrisy…

        • epeeist

          But you flat out deny that a female cannot impregnate a female?

          Where did I say that? As it is it is perfectly possible for one female to use a turkey baster to make another female pregnant.

          Talk about hypocrisy…

          Says the person who made up a definition of intercourse specifically to exclude the classes of people he is bigoted against.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          3rd party argument again… not a female and female.

          I didn’t make it up… biology/God.

        • epeeist

          3rd party argument again… not a female and female.

          So it is “3rd party”, it still doesn’t stop it being one female another female pregnant.

          Tell me are you against IVF as well?

        • Greg G.

          It is easier than you seem to think. All that is needed is a woman who wants to have a baby, a hand job, and a turkey baster.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          “It is easier than you seem to think. All that is needed is a woman who wants to have a baby, a hand job, and a turkey baster.” -Greg G.

          That sums up your legacy…

        • Greg G.

          Legacy? You go around berating homosexual relationships because they can’t reproduce as a pair when they can reproduce with a willing partner. They can also adopt the unwanted children from heterosexual relationships. Or are you against that, too?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          No, I go around showing you scientific facts in accordance with God’s design and you reject and hate both…

        • Greg G.

          It is a fact that people in same-sex relationships can reproduce. Some of them are Christians.

          What do you think I hate? I don’t hate God for the same reason I don’t hate Zeus – both are fictional characters from fictional religions. Of course, the more intelligent Zeusians have abandoned religion altogether while the dumber ones have taken up other religions like yours.

        • Kodie

          You did no such thing! I hate hateful people like you, and that Christianity has brainwashed you to hate, and also miseducate you.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          I don’t hate you or anyone.

        • Greg G.

          You don’t want gay people to love other gay people. Or is it that you do not want them to love each other more than your religion allows you to love them?

        • Kodie

          You hate that there are gay people, you want them to be straight, you want them to not marry each other, you want them to not have any rights. LIE TO YOURSELF THAT YOUR ATTITUDE ISN’T HATE TOWARD GAY PEOPLE, but your beliefs have an effect, and that effect turns out to be HATE. If you don’t think so, you lie to yourself, and probably not alone. You are influenced to lie to yourself and choose to hide behind your religion pretending that is love.

          For fuck’s sake, you dummy. Why am I an atheist. First of all, religion on the very face of it is marketing toward the gullible and a superstition. Why am I so against it? Because it poisons you against love. It makes you think you are getting a supreme version of love but you are getting an empty lie and spreading those lies. You don’t love anyone. I really don’t think you are capable of being loving, truly, toward other humans. You think everything has to be filtered through Jesus, and you are no longer in full charge of your own emotions or opinions. I think what you are is a damn shame, and I oppose it. I think it is totally wrong and a waste of life. Thankfully, I don’t really have such a belief that life has any purpose, so you can waste your own life if it makes you happy, but your opinion is just silly to me, because I know you have a childish mind. All your attempts to shame people into listening to your uneducated, brainwashed, cult following bullshit is for naught. You don’t love people, you hate them. Love doesn’t mean hugging people and trying to get them to believe in Jesus to stop being gay. That’s fake, that’s empty. You don’t accept people and you don’t want them to have true happiness, you want to sell them on a fake product, and take the commission. You don’t love them, you feel pity for their “condition” and want to save them from being themselves by preaching fucking nonsense at them.

          Already, go fuck yourself, you are a turd of a human being. You shouldn’t be on the internet without your teachermom’s permission anyway.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          First, i don’t hate gays, never will. Just here to tell the truth, hoping it saves at least one from perishing.

          Superstition? You have things in text books that are pure imagination (big bang).

          HERE IS YOUR HYPOCRISY…
          You call people idiots and claim to have truth and base everything on facts and reality, but then turn around and put imaginary things (big bang) in text books and teach it like its facts. Go look for yourself… every big bang explainer video is a cartoon or 3D animation; pure fiction.

        • Kodie

          I don’t know what you mean by perishing. Everyone will die eventually, there is nothing after that, except your superstition – “if you do this, some magical thing will give you favor.” That’s what superstition is.

          I call you an idiot because you are a fucking fucking goddamned fucking idiot. There is no subtext there. I don’t claim to have the entire truth, but I know you are a hateful fool for clinging to your imaginary friend instead of loving real humans who do nothing wrong. You judge them and pretend you don’t because you hug them! But you judge them. If god existed, he wouldn’t need some idiot like you to speak on his behalf. Where is his voice? How do I know when you talk, you’re not just a tool of Satan? How come you’re so sure? You really have no control, you are just led around by others and easily convinced that your fallacious bullshit arguments are the word of god. You are betting on total bullshit and hoping every idiot in the sound of your voice and your keyboard follows you to a path of bullshit and nonsense and idiocy. You don’t care about people, you just want them to be like you.

          WHO IN THEIR RIGHT FUCKING MIND WOULD WANT TO BE STUPIDLY BULLSHIT SUPERSTITIOUS JUDGMENTAL HATING CHILD LIKE YOU??????

          The result of your beliefs is you are a know-nothing bigot pawn of a greater organization. Is that what you intended to come across like?

          [EDIT] I just wanted to add that you can’t avoid how hateful you are by pointing your finger at science. You are a double-idiot if you try that shit. You can’t defend your hate, and then try to deflect? Nice fucking try, dummy.

        • epeeist

          Or are you against that, too?

          Course he’s against that, children should only be born to married Christians (one of each sex) where procreative activity takes place in the dark, fully clothed apart from the appropriate genitalia and in the missionary position. There should be no enjoyment of the procedure.

        • BlackMamba44

          Or are you against that, too?

          The silence on that question is noted.

        • Greg G.

          But you flat out deny that a female cannot impregnate a female?

          There are parthenogenetic lizards that do not need a male. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

          It has been proven to you that gay people can have children. I’m sure you know that some married heterosexuals cannot have children.

          Do you want gay people to marry people they do not love just to satisfy your wishes for them to have children? Is that fair to the other parent of their children?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Lizards, artificial insemination, marry people they do not want to?

        • Kodie

          You are very narrow-minded. Not everyone wants to, or needs to, or can, get pregnant. Should everyone be required to take a fertility test before getting married, and an intensive interview of both partners regarding their wishes to have their own biological children together? What happens to all the rest of the children?

          A woman can’t get pregnant by herself, she does need a couple minutes of a man’s time/effort/fluids. She might need it more than once if she doesn’t get pregnant the first time. But does that mean she has to be in love with that man, married to that man, and fucking that man? She can have a girlfriend or a wife and a donor she knows or one whose sperm was donated at a lab. Maybe she is married to a man who can’t impregnate her, or has a genetic defect he doesn’t want to pass down. Maybe the man is fertile and impregnate another woman called a surrogate, and they need the contributions of a 3rd person too.

          You’re very uptight about what families are and what love is, very warped, and extremely judgmental and unforgiving. These are the clues to your homophobia – when you say what you really feel. You can’t wrap your idiot head around that humans are ingenious and figure out all ways of getting things done. Heterosexual couples are often in the same boat – can’t produce their own biological children, should they be prevented from parenting or getting married?

        • Greg G.

          So how are they going against “science & biology”?
          ANSWER: Males & Females do NOT have the sexual organs or parts to have intercourse with members of the same sex to carry on the species. (aka 5th grade science)

          That is irrelevant. They can love whomever they love and they can reproduce with anyone who wants to reproduce with them. If they can find a gay couple who would like to have a child, it’s a win-win.

          Some women do not wish to marry while they are young but want to have a baby before their biological clock runs out. They need help, too.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          It’s not love… what is loving about going against science, biology, and God?

        • Greg G.

          If a woman desires a baby, she doesn’t need to love a man. She can use science and medicine to have the baby or biology to have the baby. It’s so easy that it happens without even trying to do it.

          So what if she goes against a figment of your imagination?

        • Kodie

          There is nothing in 1 Corinthians 13:1-7 that says love can only be romantic love between one man and one woman. If you are defining all love as fucking to make a baby, then you don’t know shit about what love is.

        • Pofarmer

          Oh his freaking God he’s stupid.

        • epeeist

          As I have remarked elsewhere, breathing and composing messages simultaneously must be hard for some people.

        • Kodie

          So, your idea is populate the whole surface of the earth mindlessly according to one penis, one vagina sexual intercourse but you don’t give any fucks about love.

          So all this humanity without any of the good reasons for living.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          NOPE, start quoting me, rather than typing words and saying they are mine to prove your point.

          Stop redefining “love”…

          Love isn’t a feeling, emotion, or pleasure… according to God in 1 Corinthians 13:1-7

        • Kodie

          More than anything that pisses me off about religion is how it pretends to own the words in the dictionary. All you’ve done here is make large sweeping proclamations and then pretend you didn’t say it, so everyone can see what you said, I don’t need to quote what you said. You know there a street corner somewhere missing its lunatic Christian.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Sorry Kodie, you’re wrong again.

          I have made very pointed statements that contain truth and stood behind them.

        • Kodie

          You hid behind them and argued against reality with them.

        • Greg G.

          Love isn’t a feeling, emotion, or pleasure… according to God in 1 Corinthians 13:1-7

          1 Corinthians 13 is my favorite chapter in the New Testament but if that is what you get from reading the Bible, you should put it down and run away from it.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          ZERO point’s here…

        • Greg G.

          Do you have that bumper sticker that says:

          I said it.
          God believes it.
          That settles it.

        • epeeist

          according to God in 1 Corinthians 13:1-7

          Err sorry, this appears to have been written by someone called “Paul” not by a god of any kind. But there again we are used to getting the monkey but never the organ grinder.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Start quoting me and stop putting words in my mouth and then giving a rebuttal…

          Stop redefining “love”…

          Love is not a feeling, emotion, or pleasure, it is so much better, at least according to God in 1 Corinthians 13:1-7

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          You’re not quoting me when you lined up the statement…

        • Kodie

          I don’t have time to repeat the dumb things you already said for all to see, especially when I see I have made posts that you avoid addressing. We’re not running out of babies on this planet.

        • Greg G.

          Your population spiel only stated the obvious, that most cities are over populated, but again the land mass of earth is less then 5% inhabited… that means 95% is wide open.

          The world’s population has more than doubled since I was born even with most of that population having died off. Do you understand exponential growth rates. In a few hundred years, the human population would consume all of the hydrocarbons on the planet, forcing people to eat each other.

          Your example was frivolous about two women having a child; plain and simple, they needed a 3rd party.

          Each woman needed one sperm. That’s how sexual reproduction works on this planet. How do you do it on your world?

          “I believe in homosexual rights, I believe they should be treated with decency and fair, I believe homosexuals are important and to be loved. I don’t hate gay people, I don’t think they are causing humanity to go extinct, please read the entire post before you get enraged. The extinction comments are only metaphorical OF COURSE I DON’T THINK THAT EVERYONE WILL BECOME HOMOSEXUAL! ITS NOT A FEAR OF MINE, I’M NOT A HOMOPHOBE…”

          Sounds good but it doesn’t explain why you drop in on blogs leading with stupid arguments against homosexuality. So what if it takes a male for a lesbian to reproduce? It is no different than a heterosexual woman making a baby.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          “Sounds good but it doesn’t explain why you drop in on blogs leading with stupid arguments against homosexuality.” -Greg G

          My arguments is a scientific fact, what don’t you get?

          A man cannot impregnate a man…

        • Greg G.

          Do you think forcing homosexuals to marry people they do not (and cannot) love just to have children is a solution?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          NEVER! Forcing marriage should be a crime, if its not already. I think the resurrection of Christ is the solution, everyone should know Him, forget going to church.

        • Greg G.

          It seems to be getting worse. You want them to accept your interpretation of religion so they can be guilted into marrying someone they don’t love.

          Why not just love gay people enough to let them make their own decisions and seek their own happiness? Is it that hard for you to mind your own business?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Your arguing against your own words, because your not quoting me
          “You want them to accept your interpretation of religion so they can be guilted into marrying someone they don’t love.” – YOU (not me)

          Again, love is not a feeling or emotion, its so much better. You are trying to redefine “love” and at the same time go against biology and God.

        • Greg G.

          Again, love is not a feeling or emotion, its so much better.

          That is a stalker mentality. Love is an emotion and it can have physiological attributes but it just within you. It doesn’t mean the object of your affection will or should feel the same way toward you. If they do, it can be mutually beneficial but compatibility is just as important. Too often, incompatible people put too much significance on their bonds of love when they are just not compatible in other areas.

        • Greg G.

          It is not against biology and it is only against figments of your imagination. You imagine there is a god and you imagine the thoughts and feelings of the god, which remarkably align with your thoughts, feelings, and prejudices.

        • Kodie

          You’re the one who is defining love as “fucking to make a baby”.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          I’ve never seen people make up things and say i said them so much as this or an atheist thread. Anyway, here is what I said, you didn’t quote me, ever.

          “Love” is not a feeling or emotion or sexual…its better than temporary pleasure or thought.

          Male & Male cannot produce children…therefor it leads to death.

          Pick one of those, if you want to quote me.

        • Greg G.

          Male & Male cannot produce children…therefor it leads to death.

          You keep saying that but it makes no sense. Everybody dies whether they have children or not.

          But if you mean that their type of sex does not lead to reproduction you are correct. But that is the same thing Kodie is saying that you are saying but she has put it in a succinct and stark phrase. When you see it put that way, you do not like what you are saying.

          Saying something using the word “love” does not mean your underlying intent has any love in it. You say you love gay people while you stab them in the back.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Talking openly and being forthright is not stabbing anyone in the back. I’d be attacked anyway… just read the thread. I just don’t want people to perish…

        • MNb

          People who never have been conceived (like in man @ man having sex) can’t perish, silly, because they never existed in the first place.
          Plus of course “I just don’t want to” is not even an argument.

        • Susan

          I just don’t want people to perish…

          When you first got here, you seemed to be suggesting that homosexuality might lead to human extinction. Then, you explained that is NOT what you meant.

          I don’t know if you know what you mean.

          Who’s going to perish?

          Are you threatening us with the consequences in an afterlife? Of just talking about this life?

          If it’s the afterlife thing, stop worrying. It’s something people made up and some people believe in.

          There’s no reason to believe it’s anything but imaginary. (Unless you can provide a reason, but no one has, so far.)

          If it’s this life, we’re all going to die. It’s been like that for hundreds and hundreds of millions of years.

          Worrying about homosexual human relationships isn’t going to change that.

        • Greg G.

          You are being superstitious. You have no way to distinguish your gods from your imagination. If there is a real god playing hide & seek, it would be more likely to punish those who gullibly believe in a god that would punish people for not believing without evidence.

        • MNb

          “Male & Male cannot produce children…therefor it leads to death.”
          So what? Of course given the fact that the Earth is overpopulated we should actually stimulate couples to get less offspring. We should reward them for helping to decrease birth rates.

          It’s also a meaningless formulation. Male & female who produce children also will die eventually. In the end everything leads to death.
          Also repeating the same lame argument over and over again without addressing any answer is a logical fallacy, one that rather demonstrates your lack of intelligence.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          The earth’s landmass is 95% uninhabited…move if you feel your area is over populated.
          There is no logical fallacy stating male & male cannot produce children so therefore it leads to the death of an entire species (human) (if it were to happen which it will NOT, I KNOW THIS ALREADY).

          Its a scientific fact, but because its true you hate it. You’d rather stick with your imagination telling you nothing exploded/expanded to form rock.

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Ah well, a creacrapper like you can’t be expected to know facts, let alone to understand them.
          Already 3% of the Earth’s landmass is urbanized.
          About one half of the human population lives on less than 10% of the land mass.
          About three quarter lives on 20 % of the land mass.
          Some huge parts (Sahara, the interior of Siberia, Antarctica) are uninhabitable.
          So you’re number is simply dead wrong.
          Actually it is not even wrong.
          Overpopulation is not defined in terms of space.
          It’s defined in terms of raw materials we dug from beneath the Earth’s surface. In terms of water supply. In terms of pollution.
          Moreover you can’t read. I don’t feel that my area is overpopulated.
          Wherever I live, I recognize that the entire Earth is overpopulated. We consume more than the Earth can produce. We are exhausting our natural reserves. And that doesn’t change wherever I live.
          Gays however do contribute to a necessary change by not producing offspring.
          Everyone who doesn’t produce offspring should be rewarded.

          “Its a scientific fact, but because its true you hate it.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          All the time I have maintained that gays should be rewarded for not producing offspring. So how am I supposed to hate this scientific fact? It works in favour of my argument, but a scatterbrain like you is not capable of even recognizing it, let alone addressing it.
          Also my argument is based on the scientific fact that everybody dies, which makes your stupid “Male & Male cannot produce children…therefor it leads to death” quite meaningless. Two men will die anyway, whether they produce children or not. The children will die too. Of course I can improve your brainless formulation, but I addressed that improved version already, just above and not for the first time.
          You are a stupid scatterbrain who only is capable of repeating a couple of catchphrases over and over again. The argument by repetition totally is a logical fallacy. Of course you’re so stupid that nobody can expect you to be aware of it.

        • Susan

          “Love” is not a feeling or emotion or sexual”

          What is it?

          its better than temporary pleasure or thought.

          What is it?

          Male and male can’t produce children.

          So?

          therefor it leads to death

          No. It just doesn’t make babies. Almost everything we do doesn’t make babies.

          You need a new argument.

        • Pofarmer

          What a fucking maroon.

        • Kodie

          You are a homophobe, you just hide behind your religion to rationalize it to everyone else and lie to yourself.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          NEVER… I’d pass out hugs to any homosexuals. Homosexuality is one of hundreds of potential sins a person could commit. They are to be treated with respect, they are people, like me.

        • Kodie

          I don’t care if you hug gay people. You are arguing against their right to exist, to have rights, to raise children, by adoption or surrogacy or ivf. You are making awful, ugly declarations that oppose their human rights, so why would any of them want you to hug them? You are hating who they are and trying to hug them to stop them doing what you call sin. Nobody gives a shit about your opinion on the matter.

        • Michael Neville

          I think you’re a homophobe for the simple reason that you slander people because of their sexual attraction. The only reason I can think of for you doing that is your fear and hatred of them. And no, bigot, I don’t beleive you were honest with your post.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          You are the slanderer… I stated scientific fact. But I’m OK with all the labeling, because it holds no weight and has no bearing on my life, because its not true. I’m telling people because they are going against science, biology, and God in the name of “love”, but it is leading them to destruction. Proverbs 14:12

        • epeeist

          I stated scientific fact.

          No, what you did was set up a definition of “intercourse” designed specifically to exclude particular classes of people and claim it to be “scientific fact”. This is essentially exactly the same thing as the eugenicists did at the beginning of the 20th century.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          HUH?????
          There are only two kinds of people, Male & Female. Are you just closing your eyes, hitting the keys, and clicking post?

        • epeeist

          There are only two kinds of people, Male & Female.

          Are there, or are you confusing sex and gender?

          As it is there is plenty of evidence for homosexuality both in humans and in a variety of animals, so much in fact there there are actual science books on the subject.

        • Greg G.

          Some males prefer males and some females prefer females. They can have all the babies they want. Fertilization doesn’t require a penis or a vagina, just an egg and a sperm. Pregnancy requires a uterus.

          Do you understand that people do not have to be married for pregnancy and childbirth to occur. Making a baby is easy. It doesn’t have to be intentional.

          Lesbians and homosexuals just have fewer unwanted children.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Wrong…

        • Kodie

          That would be difficult to explain why all these gay parents have all the children they want. You can’t think outside the box.

        • Thanks4AllTheFish

          Ah, if everything was only as black and white as your ancient old book. /s Unfortunately the truth of the matter is that gender and sexual identity are very complex issues.

          http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/917990-overview#a2

          Knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

        • Kodie

          It’s going against science, biology and god to type words into the internet and read them from people all over the world in real time. Get off your computer, get off the internet. God didn’t design it this way to talk to other people, so it’s a sin to go against his design. Throw out your phone, burn your books, you are a filthy sinner communicating your shit ideas so efficiently. God designed mouths and ears but not the computer and not the internet and not the telephone or books or tv. You have been going against god’s sacred design of one-on-one personal communication between one person and another person. Every other way of communicating is a sin. You can’t even use a microphone. If the person can’t hear you talking, they need to sit closer.

        • Michael Neville

          Yes, bigot, you’re correct that two women cannot inseminate each other. So what? That says zip point shit about how homosexuals are “a danger to themselves or others”. My wife is past menopause and I’ve had a vasectomy so I can’t inseminate her. Does that make us a danger to ourselves or to each other? Of course not. Even a hating Christian bigot like yourself wouldn’t say so.
          Your whines about “going against science, biology and God” are pure nonsense and the only, I mean the ONLY, reason you spout that bullshit is your hatred of homosexuals.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          No, I don’t hate anyone. C’mon, im just stating facts, its not an attack. I’m just pointing out its against “nature”, so stop calling it love. These people need helping, and saying calling something “love”, that is “not love”, doesnt do anyone any good.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You don’t hate anyone? Your actions certainly are hateful if you want to overturn Obergefell.

          I’ve already shown you that homosexuality is quite natural, so no, Mr. Slow-on-the-uptake, it’s not against nature.

          How is two homosexuals who love each other inherently different from two heterosexuals?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I’ve already shown you that homosexuality is quite natural, so no, Mr. Slow-on-the-uptake, it’s not against nature.

          You are quite right Bob. In fact, everything that happens as a course of history is natural.

          This came up years ago when I went into a convenience store to buy beer. There was a young woman who worked an evening shift supporting herself through college. She was very insecure and shy and I sensed it was because of her physical qualities. Outwardly, she was not a beautiful woman as defined by pop culture.

          On this particular night, she was bubbly and very extroverted, welcoming me with a hearty “Hi, how are you tonight?”

          She was all smiles and the contrast to her typical demeanor was glaring. So I said, “Fine thanks. How you YOU doing?”

          She proceeded to tell me that everything was GREAT! Life was great, work was great, and school was great. So I asked her what courses she was taking. She responded with a short list of the standard fare, but ended the list with a gleam in her eye and a change in tone saying, “…and human sexuality”

          Bingo!

          So I asked politely if she was taking any philosophy or religious studies courses. She looked at me as if I was mad, so I asked her, “Is truth absolute or relative?”

          She hesitated honestly and thoughtfully. Then, as if suddenly remembering something, she managed a smartly grin and said, “Relative.” Her hesitation and attitude change was telling.

          So I asked her, “So what are they teaching you about human sexuality, the TRUTH?”

          Now she went through the exact same process of thoughtful pondering, searching for the out that was still relatively new to her. But she remembered her lines and with the same smartly grin said, “The facts!”

          “Facts?” I asked “The FACT is… Adolf Hitler murdered millions and millions of people. Some people love their neighbors and other people eat them. How will facts help us determine the truth about what people SHOULD be doing?”

          This young woman’s conscience took over instantly. She almost broke down, but I comforted her by telling her it is okay, but to think about it carefully.

          It was some time before I went back to that convenience store. I was hoping to follow up, but I never did see her again. But I can promise you this… she GOT the point honorably. And I am persuaded that she will remain One Less Scattered after almost taking the bait.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFrbyFwPNv8

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          How will facts help us determine the truth about what people SHOULD be doing?

          What besides facts do we have to work with?

          This young woman’s conscience took over instantly. She almost broke down, but I comforted her by telling her it is okay, but to think about it carefully.

          Try your Christian apologetics on someone who’s a little more seasoned.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          What besides facts do we have to work with?

          The logic needed to put them into a meaningful context. If you were in the business of only staring facts, you would have no opinion on the God hypothesis. You would be agnostic.

          Who do you think you’re kidding?

        • Susan

          She was very insecure and shy and I sensed it was because of her physical qualities.

          Or you were just a weird, creepy guy buying beer on her shift. And she was just trying to make polite, positive conversation.

          This young woman’s conscience took over instantly

          More likely, she realized that attempts to make polite conversation with you was a wasted effort.

          And you interpreted that flinch in your own, deluded head.

          She treated your bombastic ignorance compassionately and professionally. She just needed to get through her shift in order to pay her rent and her schooling.

          Your little self-absorbed anecdote is unconvincing.

          Also, you didn’t respond to Bob’s specific questions.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Nope… you lost her is my guess.

        • Kodie

          You preached at a captive audience and put her in an awkward position, so that means you win? It looks like you are so full of yourself that you could never be shown to yourself how deluded you are. Christians are always pulling these stunts and creeping on people in vulnerable positions as though they need your help, and then whatever happens, you think you won.

          And shove those goddamned videos up your ass. Now you’re posting TWO PER POST?????? Reported for SPAM.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Spam is not for that purpose. But feel frr e to resort to censorship and coercion. It is to be expected and AFFIRMS that you have no arguments and must resort to playing fallacious games. I encourage you to keep it up. Show yourself for what you are.

        • Kodie

          If you keep posting the same videos over and over, you’re spamming videos. You’re spamming your favorite videos. They do not add to anything but knowing what an arrogant fuck you are, and how much you think of yourself, without regard for others. After being asked to reduce videos, you refused! You don’t care how people feel, you don’t have regard, you’re inconsiderate. You don’t need the videos to advertise what a huge wank you are.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Good luck to you Jodie. Permanent block.

        • Kodie

          Your massive ego has to compensate for your lack in the underwear dept.

        • MNb

          Tsssk – haven’t you realized by now that the Universe revolves around Robbie?

        • Michael Neville

          The only people who claim to know “the TRUTH” are the religious. The rest of us know that “TRUTH” is relative. One of the important points of science is that nothing is absolutely true, it’s all conditional and can be changed with the discovery of new data or new interpretations of data. What “people SHOULD be doing” is completely relative. Catholic bishops say that people should not be using contraception, pretty well everyone else thinks that people can use it if they so desire. Pacifists say that people should not be killing other people, soldiers have a different opinion. Intelligent, reasonable, well-meaning people have completely different ideas on whether or not abortion should be allowed.

          Plus, as Susan said, your little story has nothing to do with Bob’s point about homosexuality being natural.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Michael, I need to ask you a question… Is the following quotation the truth?

          The only people who claim to know “the TRUTH” are the religious. The rest of us know that “TRUTH” is relative. One of the important points of science is that nothing is absolutely true, it’s all conditional and can be changed with the discovery of new data or new interpretations of data. What “people SHOULD be doing” is completely relative. Catholic bishops say that people should not be using contraception, pretty well everyone else thinks that people can use it if they so desire. Pacifists say that people should not be killing other people, soldiers have a different opinion. Intelligent, reasonable, well-meaning people have completely different ideas on whether or not abortion should be allowed.
          Plus, as Susan said, your little story has nothing to do with Bob’s point about homosexuality being natural.

        • Michael Neville

          Define “the truth” and then we can discuss whether or not I have given it. Please be rigorous in your definition.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          The law of non contradiction.

          Matthew 5:37 Let your Logos be yes yes, or no no. Anything else comes from evil.

          When you presume to tell me the way things are (As you did in your last statement), you contradict yourself, which means you are lying.

          You may not have realized it. Often our sin is a result of being lost, NOT because we intend to deceive.

          But once pointed out, we have some thinking to do.

        • Michael Neville

          So what’s your definition of “the truth”? Babbles about the law of contradiction (as it’s usually called”) and quotes from the Bible are not even close to a definition. BTW, do you know there’s two other laws of logic (actually axioms) and they’re all equally important for Aristotelian logic?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Since logic is objective, I have adopted the law of non contradiction as my own definition for truth. Or, you could say it adopted me.

        • Michael Neville

          So you ignore the law of identity (A=A) and the law of the excluded middle (either A or not-A) as being inconsequential to “the truth”? Despite what Ravi Zacharias might say, there’s more to logic than the law of (non-) contradiction. Besides, logic isn’t “the truth”. It’s a means of approaching truth but if logic was “the truth” then it wouldn’t have a different name.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Truth is tested in court by cross examination to test for contradiction in testimony. Objective truth is inseparable from the law of non contradiction.

          What confuses you I think, is that there is another category of trutgh that is relative. It is true that chocolate is MY favorite ice cream, but it is a subjective truth.

          Some truths are necessarily objective. Others are necessarily relative. Never conflate those categories.

        • epeeist

          Truth is tested in court by cross examination to test for contradiction in testimony.

          And whether you are talking about testimony or forensic evidence it is inductive in nature (as an example, “every person has a unique set of finger prints” is a generalisation from a limited number of cases). So what you get isn’t truth in the sense of universal, necessary and certain but something that is particular, contingent and probabilistic.

          Objective truth is inseparable from the law of non contradiction.

          And this is so bad it isn’t even wrong.

          Some truths are necessarily objective.

          So are you claiming that there are synthetic a posteriori propositions that are objectively true? An example would be a help.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          So are you claiming that there are synthetic a posteriori propositions that are objectively true? An example would be a help.

          Axioms are not proven epeeist. Your demand for an example is a bad magic trick, smoke and mirrors.

          Rather, try to deny it without contradicting yourself.

        • epeeist

          Axioms are not proven epeeist. Your demand for an example is a bad magic trick, smoke and mirrors.

          And once again you prove you have no clue as to what I am talking about.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          You’re the one playing word games.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          So I speak in terms of objective a priori contingent necessary metaphysical truths, and you challenge that by moving the goalposts, asking me for an example of a synthetic a postoriori proposition?

          Palming the pea does nothing but muddy the waters Mr. Physicist.

          I did NOT know what the terms meant. I had to look them up and listen to a couple videoes about the difference.

          But I assumed you were being honest and asking something in the same context that I was clearly using. That is why I answered as I did.

          This is a perfect example of your dishonesty. You USE your excellent knowledge of philosophy and science to FRUSTRATE communication rather then FOSTER communication.

          You get off on abusively toying with people who are trying to communicate a message.

          Luke 11:52 “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”

          I am not complaint btw. It is my job to EXPECT this kind of behavior and clear the air that you fill with your smoke and mirrors. It is my job to clear the waters and make them safe for drinking. It is my job to simplify all your unnecessary multiplications of entities.

          You are a fraud.

        • epeeist

          I did NOT know what the terms meant.

          Well admitting that is a first.

          I did NOT know what the terms meant. I had to look them up and listen to a couple videoes about the difference.

          And attempting to learn Kant’s ideas from videos is a novelty.

          But I assumed you were being honest and asking something in the same context that I was clearly using.

          A long time ago someone said to me “I only ask because I want to know”. I follow the same course, I asked a straight question expecting you to at least make an attempt to justify your claim.

          This is a perfect example of your dishonesty. You USE your excellent knowledge of philosophy and science to FRUSTRATE communication rather then FOSTER communication.

          Whereas you use gibberish in order to cover up your complete lack of understanding in just about every domain of discourse you have been involved in since you got here.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          And attempting to learn Kant’s ideas from videos is a novelty.

          These concepts are not nearly so difficult as you would like people to believe. You are like the opposite of a teacher. You encourage them to stay in the dark, and that is so they can’t SEE you.

          I see you Mr. Physicist.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HONT41B5KLk

        • epeeist

          These concepts are not nearly so difficult as you would like people to believe.

          They aren’t? I am all agog waiting for you to provide a summary of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          My job is to call your distractions and wild goose chases for what they are, remember? You do love multiplying entities without necessity.

          Keep the pea palmed for your sycophants and peers. They love the showmanship. Me, not so much.

        • epeeist

          My job is to call your distractions and wild goose chases for what they are, remember?

          Whereas my job is to expose your ignorance, misunderstandings and distractions for what they are. It would seem that I have the easier task given that I have so much more material to work with.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett
        • epeeist

          So you ignore the law of identity

          Not quite, he is ignorant of it in exactly the same way that he is ignorant of logics more generally. In exactly the same way he is ignorant of science, philosophy more generally and so on.

        • epeeist

          Since logic is objective

          Here is a simple proposition, “Some dragons are fire-breathing”. Is this true or not?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Yes, if you understand what the metaphor of dragons represents. You certainly ARE one of the fire breathers, as am I.

          Revelation 11:3 And I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.” 4 They are “the two olive trees” and the two lampstands, and “they stand before the Lord of the earth.”[a] 5 If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die.

        • epeeist

          So you have no answer to the simple question I put to you.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          None that you will accept…

        • Kodie

          How can anyone accept anything you say? It is ridiculous…. it’s kind of funny that you are so proud of your turds and want to offer them as gifts, but it only makes you stronger to feel that people don’t want what you have to offer, like, whatever reaction you get, you believe that is a sign that you’re right. If someone vomited on you, you’d hug them and think you just gave them an exorcism. If someone punched you in the face, you’d think they are lashing out against the truth. If someone argued reasonably with you, you think you are manipulating them and leading them to the burn of the truth about Jesus. There is no end to how arrogant you are, with nothing to back it up.

        • epeeist

          So what’s your definition of “the truth”?

          I’ve done this one with him as well, though I must admit I gave him Tarski rather than Aristotle.

          Amusing isn’t it, he rattles on about logic and yet doesn’t know what constitutes truth.

        • MNb

          The definition of truth is the law of non-contradiction?
          Are you a scatterbrain.

        • MNb

          In my definition it is not the truth.
          In my definition the opposite is not the truth either.

          That’s why MN asked you to define “the truth”, something you unsurprisingly failed to do as well.

        • Kodie

          You’re so creepy!

        • BlackMamba44

          I doubt you’ll read this – or if you do, comprehend it – but I’ll post it anyway.

          http://samanthapfield.com/2016/06/15/yes-you-hate-me-christian-homophobia-orlando/

  • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

    Paul says, “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” (1 Cor. 7:1).

    Erm, here’s the full verse:

    Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” (1 Corinthians 7:1)

    Admittedly the quotation marks are not in the Greek, but that merely introduces ambiguity. Just previously Paul was dealing with a view very different from this:

    “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. (1 Corinthians 6:12)

    If these added quotation marks are to be trusted, then Paul would appear to be responding to two radically different groups: one which thinks any sex is fine (recall the Oedipus Rex taboo violated in 1 Cor 5:1–5) and one which thinks all sex is horrible. If Paul truly viewed sex as so terrible, then why would he write later on:

    Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? (1 Corinthians 9:5)

    ? Instead, it seems quite reasonable to think that 1 Cor 7 is largely addressed to a very particular group of problems who could only stand to hear a certain range of things. Just like … all of us.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Oh, yeah–Paul thought sex was pretty terrible (see 1 Corinthians 7:8–9, quoted above).

      • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

        Makes perfect sense:

        The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (1 Corinthians 7:3–5)

  • skl

    From a strictly evolutionary perspective, homosexuality might be seen as a harmful mutation, as in a mutation which is deleterious to the genetic variation provided by reproduction.

    • Joe

      That’s obviously not the case, due to its continued prevalence throughout the animal kingdom.

      At worst, it’s a non-harmful mutation.

    • eric

      It’s really hard to say. Here’s some things to remember.

      1. Helping 2 nieces or nephews survive to adulthood is the same as helping one child survive to adulthood. It’s an ‘equally valid strategy’ in terms of passing on your genes.

      2. Most developmental traits are not ‘one gene one trait’. They’re a combination. If a set of genes is adaptive in most combinations but maladaptive in a few rare combinations, those genes will persist…and it’s good for the population’s survival that they do so! Think malarial resistance and sickle cell anemia; having those alleles in the gene pool mean the population produces successful offspring, even if the rare individual gets an ‘extra dose’ of those alleles which is individually bad for them.

      3. Homosexuality does not prevent having kids. Neither does heterosexuality ensure it. In terms of passing on genes, evolution wouldn’t select against a trait that causes people to want to sleep with members of the same sex, so long as they also occasionally sleep with members of the opposite sex. Given human’s 9-month pregnancy period, ‘occasionally’ here means a gay person might only need to sleep with a member of the opposite sex a couple times a year to produce the same number of children as a straight monogamous couple. I suspect many gay people pre-1960 had straight sex a lot more often than that.

      4. Genetic traits that caused unusually low sperm count or malformed sperm or eggs would be deleterious to the individual in exactly the same way – it would reduce that individual’s likelihood of having children. So, should we prevent such people from marrying? Are we going to practice eugenics, and dole out marriage licenses only to those people we consider to have non-deleterious genes? Because any argument that gay marriage should be prevented citing the maladaptiveness of the trait logically leads to the conclusion that we should also prevent straight people with maladaptive traits from marrying and having kids.

      • skl

        Nevertheless, I would think that over the long haul a population with a high proportion of homosexuals would have less genetic variation provided by reproduction than a population with a small or zero proportion.

        To say nothing about maintaining or growing the population itself.
        I saw yesterday that Cuba is now making moves to get its people to have more babies. http://www.thedailybeast.com/cuba-to-citizens-have-more-sex
        Other countries such as Russia, China, Iran have been trying
        to do the same for years.

        • eric

          But we don’t have a high proportion. Studies of marriage rates in places like Holland, where it’s been legal for decades, provide estimates of around 2%. Keep in mind that before the 20th century, something like 33% of people didn’t make it to adulthood and human populations grew just fine. So 2% of the population not producing is nothing in terms of an evolutionary threat to human survival. We evolved to deal with much higher rates of non-reproduction than what [20th century medicine] + [gay marriage] creates. 60% would be a high proportion. 2% is peanuts. Laughable, evolutionarily speaking. An order of magnitude less impactful than deleterious factors humans successfully evolved to deal with.

          You also still have the problem of my point #4, which is that you seem to only want to consider preventing marriage to gays, not straight couples or individuals that might negatively impact the 2.1 child/couple replacement rate. Unless you’re willing to outlaw their marriages too, outlawing gay marriages is selective and biased.

          Perhaps we should just cut right to the heart of the replacement rate problem. AIUI, the biggest factors reducing the number of children/couple are: letting women get an education; letting women work for equal pay, and; letting women control their sexuality. Those factors result in women choosing to have kids later, which reduces the average number/woman significantly. So if maintaining a 2.1 child/couple rate is an important goal, it seems to me the social policy you should logically be promoting is less education and less equal pay for women. That would bring up the average number of children per household probably a lot more than preventing the 2% of the population that is gay from marrying.

        • skl

          I was under the impression the proportion of homosexuals was higher than your 2% figure. But regardless, I still think that over the long haul a population with a 2% (and possibly growing) proportion of homosexuals would have less genetic variation provided by reproduction than a population with 0%. Also, I didn’t say this would necessarily be an evolutionary threat to human
          survival. Only that it would provide less genetic variation.

          “You also still have the problem of my point #4, which is that you seem to only want to consider preventing marriage to gays…”

          Excuse me? Where did I say that? I am not against gay marriage.
          I merely asked a question about evolution.

          “Perhaps we should just cut right to the heart of the replacement rate problem. AIUI, the biggest factors reducing the number of children/couple are: letting women get an education; letting women work for equal pay, and; letting women control their sexuality.”

          Whatever it is, a lot of countries are concerned they’re not going to have much of a country left in a couple decades. But even if they die out, someone else, or something else, will fill the gap, and evolution will go on.

        • eric

          I still think that over the long haul a population with a 2% (and possibly growing) proportion of homosexuals would have less genetic variation provided by reproduction than a population with 0%.

          No, because you’re assuming (intentionally or perhaps without thinking about it) that everyone not gay has kids. This is not true and has never been true.

          As I said before, prior to the 20th century something over 33% of born humans never had kids; they died before they could. Wikipedia tells me that the childless rate more recently has fluctuated between 10-20%. Assuming for the moment that all gays don’t have kids, you still have to explain to us why you’re concerned about gays but not about the four to ten times more straights that are behaving in exactly the same way to limit human genetic variation. Where is your concern about them? When one ignores the mountain and claims the molehill is a big problem, it speaks to bias.

          The bottom line is that humanity doesn’t need >99% of its born individuals to have kids in order to maintain a healthy gene pool. Such a situation has never been the case, and would not be the case even if there were no gays. And AFAIK its not the case in any other animal species, either. When humans are down to 100,000 individuals and 75% of them don’t have kids and that pattern continues over a ten, fifty, a hundred generations, that will be a problem. 2% of seven billion people not contributing their genetic diversity to our gene pool? That’s not a problem. Arguably it’s a problem the other way – only 2% not contributing is likely to lead to overpopulation problems.

        • skl

          You make some good points.
          I’ll modify my original statement as follows:

          From a strictly evolutionary perspective, homosexuality and
          non-reproductive heterosexuality might be seen decreasing as the genetic variation provided by reproduction.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So what’s your opinion of asexuals, or just people who don’t want to have kids?

          Would you force them to reproduce, sacrifices on your strawman altar of genetic diversity?

        • lady_black

          And I would remind YOU that “gay” and “lesbian” are NOT synonymous with “sterility.”

        • MadScientist1023

          It depends on what kind of diversity you have to give up entirely to weed out the gene variants which cause homosexuality. There are a number of genetic polymorphisms which contribute to homosexuality. You could theoretically get rid of all of them through natural selection, but you’d likely be giving up a certain amount phenotypic and behavioral diversity in the process.
          Also, since we still don’t know the exact biological causes of homosexuality, we can’t rule out the possibility that it’s impossible to entirely breed out the potential for homosexuality. If the in utero environment turns out to be sufficient to determine whether or not someone is homosexual, then there’s just no getting rid of it with any kind of natural selection.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Keep in mind how much difficulty you had with space, the Big Bang, and so on. I hope you’re not relying much on your intuition.

    • Chuck Johnson

      From a strictly evolutionary perspective, homosexuality might be seen as
      a harmful mutation, as in a mutation which is deleterious to the
      genetic variation provided by reproduction.-skl

      Homosexuality only has some relationship with a person’s DNA.
      There are other, non-DNA factors which are important to an outcome of homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, and other variations of sexual attractions.

      • skl

        I could change that to ‘harmful mutation and/or harmful adaptation’.

        • Chuck Johnson

          I could change that to ‘harmful mutation and/or harmful adaptation’.-skl

          No, that still doesn’t fix the misunderstandings that you have about DNA and the ways that it affects the survivability of individuals and populations.

          To declare a gene to be “for ” or “against” homosexuality would be a mistake, although DNA does figure into it.

          You have imagined a simple system of sex-orientation inheritance, but that simple system does not exist. Things are much more complicated.

          Some biological inheritance patterns are simple to analyze and understand with regard to gene variations, but this is not one of those.

          This article from the LA Times helps to explain how complicated the inheritance influences might be:

          http://tinyurl.com/qhujdu2

        • lady_black

          Well, no. Because either way, you are still not merely the sum total of your genes.

    • PacMan

      I remember reading about a study saying that the sisters of gay males tend to have more children, thus passing on those genes.

      Here is a newspaper article from 2004 – https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/oct/13/highereducation.research

      So, overall, the genes (if any) added to the population growth. Very few things in biology are single purpose, nor are they, in general, be given a simple good/bad label.

      • skl

        Please don’t misunderstand. I wasn’t giving anything a “good/bad label”. I was just expressing what would seem to be happening in evolutionary terms. Just what is.

        • PacMan

          “Good/Bad” was probably a bad choice on my part.
          I was heading towards “Advantage/Disadvantage”. A bit like sickle-cell anemia genes.

          For example:
          1 or 2 copies in a female = better fertility
          1 copy in a male = no effect
          2 copies in male = same-sex attraction
          (Note: I know that this is over simplistic and incorrect, there would, as a minimum, be a lot more genes and interactions involved.)

          Is that gene an overall advantage to the species surviving, or a disadvantage?

          If it is an advantage, it “explains” why male homosexuality survives evolutionary pressure.

      • Anat

        Of course I ended up bucking that trend too, but then, trends are not absolutes.

    • Pofarmer

      Gay couples can’t have biological kids together. So if homosexuality is genetic, why hasn’t it died out?

      A study published last week in PLoS One
      tackles the question. It starts with four curious patterns. First, male
      homosexuality occurs at a low but stable frequency in a wide range of
      societies. Second, the female relatives of gay men produce children at a
      higher rate than other women do. Third, among these female relatives,
      those related to the gay man’s mother produce children at a higher rate
      than do those related to his father. Fourth, among the man’s male
      relatives, homosexuality is more common in those related to his mother
      than in those related to his father.

      http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2008/06/sexual_antagonism.html

      Third, if the authors are correct, we’re not really talking about genes for homosexuality. We’re talking about genes for “androphilia,” i.e., attraction to men. The importance of the genes lies in what they do not to men but to women, by increasing reproductive output so powerfully that these women compensate for the reduced output among their male relatives. You can’t isolate gay men as a puzzle or problem anymore. You have to see them as part of a bigger, stronger, enduring phenomenon.

      So it’s actually a reproductive advantage.

      • skl

        “So it’s actually a reproductive advantage.”

        The countries such as Russia, China, Iran, Cuba that are
        worrying about their shrinking populations should encourage more homosexuality! :)

        • Pofarmer

          Or just not worry about it.

        • lady_black

          No. They should quit worrying about their “shrinking population” because globally, human population isn’t shrinking.
          You know what you have to do, Cowboy… And it has nothing to do with forcing unwilling parties to procreate.

        • Otto

          China is worrying about its shrinking population?

          OK…that is news to me

        • skl
        • Otto

          Well maybe they could give all the girl children they don’t want to the gay people so the heterosexuals could have more children

    • Makoto

      Technically, color blindness could be seen to provide an evolutionary advantage (seeing troops in battle isn’t all that different than seeing prey animals in the foliage). Has about as much to do with marriage, too…

    • Michael Murray

      Surely not as bad as monogamy. Homosexuality affects a few percent of the population. Monogamy stops vastly more people from mixing up their DNA.

      • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

        Then it’s a good thing our species isn’t monogamous. (At least not in practice.)

    • MadScientist1023

      Maybe, but there are a couple flaws in that line of thinking.

      For one, if homosexuality were genuinely disadvantageous, you wouldn’t see it up and down the animal kingdom. However, it’s been observed in just about every terrestrial vertebrate and aquatic mammal people have bothered to observe and report honestly. It therefore stands to reason that homosexuality does have an evolutionary advantage, even if it isn’t an intuitively obvious one.

      Also, your premise assumes simple Mendelian genetics are at work here. While studies have found certain mutations increase the likelihood of homosexuality, there also seem to be epigenetic and uterine environmental factors which are involved as well.

    • Kevin K

      From a strictly evolutionary perspective, that’s complete and utter nonsense. There’s no evidence whatsoever that homosexual orientation has any impact whatsoever on the survival of the species. Partner preferences are independent of the drive to procreate.

      • skl

        I didn’t say it might have an impact on the survival of the species.
        I said it might have an impact on genetic variation provided by reproduction.

        • Kevin K

          The math is not on your side. I’d advise you to quit while you’re behind.

    • lady_black

      Evolution doesn’t find a rational need for all members of a species to reproduce in order to produce genetic variation.
      That’s a heavy load of bovine excrement.

      • skl

        What is a “load of bovine excrement” is your misstating my words and meaning.
        I did NOT say evolution needs for all members of a species to reproduce in order to produce genetic variation.
        I said homosexuality might lead to LESS genetic variation provided by reproduction.

        • lady_black

          No, because there isn’t enough of it to affect genetic diversity, plus many gay and lesbian individuals DO have children of their own. Do you get it now?

        • skl

          If you feel there isn’t enough of it to affect genetic diversity, why did you feel the need to add the “plus many gay and lesbian individuals DO have children of their own” ?

        • lady_black

          Because you are incorrect on more than one level.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          skl embodies ‘fractally wrong’

    • Rudy R

      And whom might say that? Any credible biologist?

      Just a side note, do you see your purpose on this blog as the devil’s advocate? Your responses are becoming more inane by the day. You’re starting to become an atheist’s useful idiot like Luke Breuer, et all.

    • Otto

      Many mutations can be harmful depending on the circumstance…or they could help in one situation but not another.

      What’s your point?

    • Cozmo the Magician

      Then how do you explain the fact SOOOO many species have homosexual members. Everything from fruit flies to dolphins.

      • skl

        This was an interesting article. But it concludes
        “We may never find a wild animal that is strictly homosexual
        in the way some humans are.”

        http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals

        • Cozmo the Magician

          We may never find somebody as idiotic as skl, but we could keep looking… Nah , having found one is enough. Bye bye troll, Mr. Block button has met you and said “Yup, thats what I am here for”

        • skl

          If you’re blocking me, I think that’s unfortunate. But it’s your choice. However, if you’re blocking me because the BBC article is strong evidence against your earlier post, that’s even more unfortunate.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re demanding an exact correlation to human sexuality, in a way YOUR KIND would never demand for any other behavioral correlation.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      It’s been studied.

      Homosexual *men* (at least in this study) can be seen as promoting their genes by assisting their siblings children.

      And apparently that confers enough genetic fitness that it hasn’t selected itself out.

  • eric

    So, in summary:

    #s 1, and 2 cite religious proscriptions and thus are not a legitimate basis of law for a pluralistic religious nation with an ostensibly secular government.

    #s 3 and 5 are irrelevant to the question of whether gay monogamous marriage should be legal.

    #4 is a circular argument; assuming/asserting harm as a premise when the point of the article was to demonstrate it.

    #6 mistakes a short-term issue for a long-term one. In the long term, gay marriage can be expected to lead to fewer broken homes as gay people won’t try to get straight married just to be married. In the short term, yes, gay people in straight marriages are more likely to divorce if they have the option to marry another gay person.

    Another problem with #6 is that there may be many factors that correlate with/contribute to broken homes. There is no reason to treat gays any different than straights with those factors (poverty, cultural differences, etc.).

  • Chuck Johnson

    Yes, Bob, the Christians are once again providing us with “arguments from an abundance of evidence”.

    And once again, they are unaware of their own blindness and biases.

  • Kevin K

    This all falls under YKINMK.

    If you don’t want to get gay married, don’t get gay married. Simple.

    • lady_black

      Is YKINMK anything like MYOGB?

      • Kevin K

        Your kink is not my kink.

        • lady_black

          Oh, thanks!

  • https://www.jonmorgan.info Jon Morgan

    It’s not addressed here or in the article you cite, but I think Richard Dawkins (and others) are correct that one of the dangers is when religious people think the society as a whole will be judged based on the behaviour of certain sub-groups in society. Anyone ever heard the “Hurricane Katrina was God’s judgement on a wicked city (read: homosexual supporting)”?

    This means believers feel they have a civic duty to legislate against or condemn the behaviour of others.

    • lady_black

      Katrina negatively affected a lot of cities. Their god has terrible aim.

      • https://www.jonmorgan.info Jon Morgan

        Well, it’s an old debate within Christianity, I think. After many major natural disasters there will be some groups saying “This is a judgement from our God” (though they can’t always even agree what the judgement is for or why that place was targeted rather than another similar place). Other groups will say that it was a natural event and it would be wrong to view it as God’s judgement (Luke 13 is a popular citation, though I’m not convinced they interpret it correctly). And probably many groups trying to pretend it never happened or had no relevance to their religion…

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          This is another example of God being unfalsifiable. The Holocaust would be the ultimate case where some (Corrie ten Boom, for example) have their faith strengthened for some unimaginable reason, and others use it to make a very eloquent proof that God doesn’t exist.

        • lady_black

          Mostly because they make shit up.

      • https://www.jonmorgan.info Jon Morgan

        Actually, I think this also shows the power of narrative. I couldn’t have told you which areas Katrina hit, but I could tell you that plenty of people said it affected New Orleans. The combination of the news cycle focusing on the most important city and fundamentalist outrage probably helped embed the notion that Katrina just affected New Orleans.

        • lady_black

          Katrina did hit New Orleans. But it certainly didn’t just hit New Orleans, and arguably, parts of New Orleans suffered the most devastating damage. Like super-storm Sandy, damage was widespread and multi-state.

    • Michael Neville

      Pat Robertson blamed the 2010 Haitian earthquake on a supposed pact some Haitian revolutionaries made with Satan in 1807. Robertson’s god’s agenda must be very tight.

      • Kuno

        Maybe his god not only has trouble correctly aiming in three dimensions but also in the fourth?

        • Greg G.

          God is OK with temporal collateral damage. How do we know that God isn’t punishing us for something our great-great-great-great-grandchildren are going to do? It would be too late to punish us when it actually happens.

    • Jack Baynes

      So either they never read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, or they figure there aren’t 10 righteous men among the Christians of America.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      How lucky for us that we have the gay-hating clairvoyants like Pat Robertson to tell us what God means by a natural disaster. Will they read goat entrails next?

      • https://www.jonmorgan.info Jon Morgan

        Well, it is similar to the Achan story. There is a disaster to the nation of Israel, it is determined to be one person’s sin that affects the entire people, they draw lots to find out which person that is, conveniently the lot picks the guilty one, him and his family are killed, then suddenly it’s back to making Israel great.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          It’s weird that that doesn’t work today, not even for Christians.

        • Jack Baynes

          So even after they identify the “guilty” party, they still have to kill his whole family just to be sure?

        • https://www.jonmorgan.info Jon Morgan

          That is indeed what sacred scripture tells us. I guess if I were so inclined I could find a way of justifying it (maybe that they were accessories after the fact?), but I’ve heard too much about false confessions to be really happy with confessions extorted after the application of chance to find the guilty party.

        • Anat

          Wife and kids do not have their own identity, they are apparently part of the identity of the head of the household.

    • eric

      Yes, many Christians imply that the Christian God engages in collective punishment. And to be fair, He does that in the bible. What they don’t seem to get is that this directly undermines claims that God is omnipotent, and omniscient and just and merciful. Collective punishment is an imperfect workaround to actual justice practiced when authorities don’t have sufficient information; it’s not a just act.

      • Cozmo the Magician

        And his aim REALLY sux. So many natural disasters hit places where he has the most supporters. OTOH, many of those supporters are hypocritical assholes. On the gripping hand maybe his aim aint so bad after all (;

    • adam
    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      What is funniest about the Katrina example is that The French Quarter, where all the ‘debauched’ behavior occurs, was almost unaffected by Katrina.

      The parts of the city that got hammered were the fundagelical parts.

      • Greg G.

        The parts of the city that got hammered were the fundagelical parts.

        Where there was a church or two on every corner.

      • dagobarbz, fine Italian shoes

        The French Quarter was on high ground.
        Emphasis on the ‘high’ part. I kinda remember visiting there. Kinda.

  • lady_black

    Another way I have seen the definition of marriage change within my lifetime is the repeal of coverture laws.
    These (for you younger folks) were state laws that had the nasty little effect of subsuming a married woman’s legal identity into that of her husband, so that she could not own separate property, hold a bank account, or obtain credit in her own name. Her husband would be free to take and dispose of her property, including real property, as he alone saw fit.
    These laws far outlasted laws against interracial marriage. I believe the last one fell in the late 1970s.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Thanks for that addition. I should’ve put that in!

      From Wikipedia: ““Head and Master” laws were a set of American property laws that permitted a husband to have final say regarding all household decisions and jointly owned property without his wife’s knowledge or consent, until 1979 when Louisiana became the final state to repeal them. Until then, the matter of who paid for property or whose name was on the deed had been irrelevant.”

      And in a separate article: “Coverture was first substantially modified by late 19th century Married Women’s Property Acts passed in various common-law legal jurisdictions, and was weakened and eventually eliminated by subsequent reforms. Certain aspects of coverture (mainly concerned with preventing a wife from unilaterally incurring major financial obligations for which her husband would be liable) survived as late as the 1960s in some states of the United States.”

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      On a tangential note, I was watching The Game Show channel the other night and a 70s/80s episode of Card Sharks came on. It was shocking how overt the mysoginy was, particularly whenever innuendo came up.

  • Mr. A

    … so the first three arguments boil down to : “Because my favorite book says so”. Yeah, okay. Doesn’t really convince anyone who doesn’t like that book that gayness is horrible.

    Let’s see here… 4 is an assertion with nothing to back it up (including peer reviewed studies), 5 has already been done and we’re doing fine, and 6 is another assertion.

    These arguments are horrible.

  • Clayton Gafne Jaymes

    I’m pretty sure that God allows even same sex ppl to live in agreement with their own ‘free will’ even when ti goes agains God’s morals for humankind. Many other ppl carry out sin that they ought not be doing. These ones are in no better a place before God thant the same sex individuals.

    What same sex abwsoutely cannot do is claim to belong to God and be practicing or even deeper in that line of sin is be ‘married’ to another person of the same sex. As far as Scripture and God are concerned there is no such thing as a ‘christian’ that is ‘walking in sin’ or ‘practicing’ sin. Same sex practice is a matter of ‘fornication’ or ‘sexual immorality’. As one can imagine, if the act of same sex is condemned why would the marriage not also be?

    Like many other sorts of sins that others practice before becoming followers of Jesus, they must ‘repent’ of their sin and walk in a way that glorifies God. In trun glorifying God will lead to the person being ‘glorified’ as well.

    What all of us must understand is that God will never accept anyone who is intentionally walking.living in their sin/s. Those who love God ‘do’ as He says.

    • Jack Baynes

      What same sex abwsoutely cannot do is claim to belong to God and be practicing

      Of COURSE they can, because the Bible can be read to say anything you want, so Christians can justify being accepting of homosexual activity.

      even deeper in that line of sin is be ‘married’ to another person of the same sex.

      They’re not ‘married’, they’re married. Doesn’t matter what you think your God thinks of the matter.

      What all of us must understand is that God will never accept anyone who is intentionally walking.living in their sin/s. Those who love God ‘do’ as He says.

      As long as it’s not too inconvenient, like when he says to give away all their possessions and follow him.

    • Joe

      Sin is imaginary. So your post is hypothetical, I assume?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Gay sex/romance wasn’t discussed in the Bible. See tomorrow’s post for more.

      Those who love God ‘do’ as He says.

      Do they? God says that slavery is OK, and yet Christians today reject slavery. So why not disregard the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexuality?

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Well, there’s some pretty suggestive text between King David & Jonathan 😉

        • Greg G.

          Are you suggesting that kissing and rolling around in the dirt to say goodbye wasn’t just the way they said goodbye back then?

    • eric

      What same sex abwsoutely cannot do is claim to belong to God and be
      practicing or even deeper in that line of sin is be ‘married’ to another
      person of the same sex.

      AFAIK gays are not demanding that religious sects which reject them sanctify their unions as holy in the eyes of those sects’ gods. Nobody is demanding that a conservative catholic priest must declare a gay marriage holy in the eyes of their conservative catholic God. This is all about what the state does as a matter of civil law.

      As one can imagine, if the act of same sex is condemned why would the marriage not also be?

      Condemn it all you want with your free speech. Nobody is trying to take that right away from you. We just want it legal. After all, you can condemn lying even while accepting its legality. You can condemn people picking their noses even while it’s legal. You can condemn someone having a cheeseburger (dairy and meat!) or wearing mixed fabrics, even while accepting that such acts are legal. You can condemn interracial marriage even while accepting that it’s legal. You can condemn drinking alcohol while accepting that it’s legal. What liberals are asking is that, like all those things, you feel free to voice your condemnation of gay marriage while accepting that civil law legally permits it.

      [Edit] I recognize that the situation is complicated by the fact that many people are “dual hatted” – i.e., private individuals who sometimes through work also act as agents of the state. Judges, soldiers, police, teachers, and other civil servants all do that. I am sympathetic to the ethical quandries those folks may face, as I face one of those myself (I do not like research that uses animals…but my job is tangentially connected to it). However the options seem pretty cut and dried to me: (i) act as the state demands while you’re working for the state (and live with the internal frisson that sometimes causes), or if you can’t do that, (ii) find another position (note I’m not necessarily saying quit: many large employers may have other jobs with duties that don’t conflict with ones’ morals.)

    • MadScientist1023

      Your church doesn’t decide what constitutes marriage. It does not own the term or define the term. The state decides what constitutes marriage. Clergy have the right to sign certificates that the state issues, nothing more.

      Why would any of us want to glorify your God? He seems like a total jerk, and that’s putting it kindly.

    • RichardSRussell

      I’m pretty sure that God allows even …

      And I’m pretty sure that “God” doesn’t have a damn thing to say about it (whatever “it” might be) one way or the other. Doesn’t “allow” it (as if there were anything he could do to prevent it), doesn’t “condemn” it, doesn’t “glorify” it, doesn’t “tolerate” it, doesn’t “punish” it — doesn’t do squat.

      The reason why not is left as an exercise for the student.

      • Cozmo the Magician

        Raises hand… “um does not existing have anything to do with it?”

    • Cozmo the Magician

      You start of with a basic false premise. Your entire rant is based on the existence of your imaginary friend. From there you go on to tell us what YOU think your imaginary friend feels about things. You then go on to tell us that we should all behave a certain way based on your fairy tale. Sorry, as we say in World of Warcraft ‘EPIC FAIL’.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        LEEE ROYYYY JENKINSSSS!!!!!!!

        • Greg G.

          Oh, you’re not referring to the televangelist Leroy Jenkins, who recently began pining for the fjords. A 77 year old widow had hit the lottery for $6 million and her husband died. Three weeks later, Leroy married her to take care of her so nobody would take advantage of her with her dementia. Fortunately, the wedding was annulled.

    • adam

      “What all of us must understand is that God will never accept anyone who is intentionally walking.living in their sin/s. Those who love God ‘do’ as He says.”

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dc554b74af68425056b8a4228b7f09490a1e80f6c6bf14f85bbce2e8015a0bfb.jpg

      • dagobarbz, fine Italian shoes

        Thing is, followers are told what god wants by preachers, thus saving them the trouble of reading.

      • j316

        Those laws only applied to a particular group of people for a particular purpose throughout a designated time period in history. If you knew anything about the Bible you would know that those laws have not been applicable for over 2000 years.

        • adam
        • adam

          “Those laws only applied to a particular group of people for a particular purpose throughout a designated time period in history.”

          Not according to Jesus.

          ” If you knew anything about the Bible you would know that those laws have not been applicable for over 2000 years.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/89d230f179881be8275da4101e50e5e24d2a0bb95addba201026fbc36fa9a751.jpg

          Heaven and earth has not passed.

          so you can continue to worship Paul and ignore Jesus all you like.

          Just be honest, dont call yourself a Christian, call yourself a Paulian, if that is who you are going to follow.

        • j316

          Sorry your one cherry picked verse does not apply here

        • adam

          but it does.

          No need to be sorry, you are one worshiping Paul and ignoring Jesus.

        • MNb

          Ah – J316 gets to decide which of Jesus’ statements apply and when.
          Lovely, such unchristian arrogance coming from a christian.

    • Melissa Garhart

      that’s great and all, now explain why someone who isn’t a believer in the Christian faith should care what the bible says.

      • Clayton Gafne Jaymes

        Hello to you Melissa

        No one has to care if they choose not to. Though it would be wise for all to take some time to learn Scripture and determine whether or not they accept the truth of the Bible or not. As the Bible is the place to go to learn about the ‘true God’ who brings the Savior to the earth to give life to all sorts of ppl who repent and come to true faith in the name of Jesus. To say no to Jesus is to choose the grave that none of of such ones will come out of. Then ther are many other good things that come with trusting inGod and following the teaching of Scripture which are from God.

        • adam
        • Kevin K

          Look at this guy who thinks we haven’t read their books of myths…

        • j316

          Wow, you read the whole thing from cover to cover? How long did it take you?

        • adam

          The first time?
          The second time?

          Or all the reading needed to demonstrate that believer typically know less about the book than atheists.

          The Pew Forum on Religious Religion and Public Life released a survey on religious knowledge today. Atheists and Agnostics scored higher on it than anyone else, closely followed by Jews and Mormons.

        • Kevin K

          Yes. I skipped the begats — boring. My official review is that it’s a clunky compilation of myths, legends, highly revisionist Jewish history, and dietary guidelines for people without ice. Some of the smutty poetry is nice. David and Jonathan were as gay as rainbow sprinkles on a feather boa.

        • dagobarbz, fine Italian shoes

          Hah. I used to read the bible for fun. Didn’t take long to learn about what an asshole that ‘true god’ is.

          Your god makes Lucifer appealing by comparison.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      **Assume I included some rude personal insults here**

      Your ‘god’ has no evidence supporting it that you would accept for any other proposed supernatural entity.

      So I don’t believe in your ‘god’ any more than I do anything else ‘supernatural’.

      Until you can demonstrate your ‘god’, stop trying to use it to commit such occult magicks.

    • Kevin K

      You know, back when the whole gay marriage thing was making its way through the courts, North Carolina passed a Constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriage. And the state was sued by many groups — one of which was the Church of Christ. Which complained that the prohibition was an infringement on that church’s right to perform gay marriages.

      So, you can’t claim that your god declares anything at all about the issue, when you have denominations in direct opposition to one-another, each claiming biblical authority. Get back to me when every Christian denomination everywhere agrees on the issue. Until then…fuck off.

      • j316

        What a particular denomination chooses to do has NOTHING to do with what is God’s will. Unfortunately there are many people walking around calling themselves Christians even though they’re really not, and yes, even church leaders. They are still human and humans are fallible. Your argument is so weak it almost wasn’t worth a response.

        • adam

          “What a particular denomination chooses to do has NOTHING to do with what is God’s will.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/96f7282d507681a8f2d9b1e0df55dadf5d1ee80173cca0745ada61eda096d945.jpg

          “Unfortunately there are many people walking around calling themselves Christians even though they’re really not, and yes, even church leaders.”

          Yes, just like YOU do:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b44c99f495406f1f80b97716ec7951aa63f124a9698cbfc51f2758edfdb3404d.jpg

        • j316

          I’m not sure what I did to you that inclined you to insult me.

        • adam

          “I’m not sure what I did to you that inclined you to insult me. ”

          You spouted stupidity.

        • Greg G.

          people walking around calling themselves Christians even though they’re really not

          If you are going to be that way, substitute “Christer” for “Christian”. There are Christians who don’t consider you to be a Christian. We are not that picky. The word “Christer” means anybody who calls him/herself a Christian though other Christian may disagree.

        • j316

          No, because I am not going around investigating everyone’s backgrounds and beliefs.. if somebody is calling themselves a Christian it is not up to me to say that they definitely aren’t- that is between them and God. It is not my job to call out individuals who are Christian or not. It is just a fact and general statement that there are many who call themselves such but Whose actions are counter to the core beliefs of Christianity. And not to say that a Christian is perfect, but it is the act of wanting to be perfect and being truly sorry for when we do sin that separates a said-faith from a true faith.

        • Greg G.

          If you are going to mention people who call themselves Christians but you cannot, or have not, determined that they are real Christians™, then “Christer” is the a good word to use.

        • j316

          That is a made up word in which the sole purpose is to insult someone.. thanks for the advice but like I said it is not for me to decipher who is what.. it’s not like I go around in real life addressing people by their religious beliefs.

        • Greg G.

          No, the word is to be able to refer to people who call themselves Christians with people who deny that others are Christians. Do you have a better word to use?

        • j316

          I see what you are saying now.. no, I don’t have a better word. I myself will probably just stick with Christian as it is not for me to say specifically who is and who isn’t. So do you meet people out in the real world and call them a christer to their face? Again I could only see that being an instigating remark.. I’m not out to belittle or antagonize anyone.

        • Susan

          I’ve looked it up in three dictionaries and can’t find Hermit’s definition.

          All the definitions seem to be disparaging.

          e.g. A sanctimonious or ostentatiously pious Christian.

          From https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/christer

          If that’s its general usage, then I see why j316 might object.

        • Greg G.

          I think it may have started out that way but it is useful in Hermit’s way. Some denominations got their names from that usage. I learned in Methodist Sunday School that they were called “methodists” because they did things according to their methods, so they adopted it.

          Oxford’s definition would be applicable to anyone who said another person or sect were not real Christians.

        • Susan

          I think it may have started out that way but it is useful in Hermit’s way.

          I’m a big fan of usage. It’s mostly how words work.

          I agree we need some term for everyone who claims that Jesus and/or Yahwehjesus is superspecial for whatever reason.

          Given the (fairly recent origin) and general meaning of the term, I’m not sure “Christer” works.

          Oxford’s definition would be applicable to anyone who said another person or sect were not real Christians.

          It seems fair to use the term for people who invoke the “No True Christian Fallacy”.

          As j316 hasn’t done so yet, I understand that he has a problem with the term.

          It was only Hermit’s recent explanation that gave us the idea that it might be something other than disparaging.

          All definitions I’ve found so far are disparaging. Premature attacks on an interlocutor.

          We can reserve it for people who employ the No True Scotsman fallacy.

          Which is most of them but not necessarily j316, at least, not yet.

          I hope that sounds fair and reasonable.

        • Kodie

          If they call themselves a Christian, I have no problem calling them a Christian. If they are going to use the No True Scotsman fallacy and say other people who call themselves Christian aren’t really, I mean, j316 seems to believe they are only sticking the label on themselves without thinking sincerely about following Jesus, in the same way that Christians all think atheists believe in god but only deny god because we want to live hedonistically and be our own gods, it’s just a lie they believe so they stick with that church. On the other hand, all these Christians also know that billions of people worldwide call themselves a Christian, so whenever it’s convenient, they ignore that most of these people are doing Christianity wrong, according to themselves and their minor denomination.

          The whole “we’re not all like that”, or the belief that there is a true version none of us have been exposed to yet, a better argument or different kinds of evidence, they all sound about the same to me, so I wouldn’t necessarily differentiate among them, except where some may be creationists and others accept evolution and other science, or that some denominations are totally bigots (and still say they hate slavery and the holocaust and deny Hitler is a Christian, and say the KKK or WBC is not representative of any Christianity they recognize) and legislate/teach against women working outside the home or quiverfull shit or pretend their white supremacy is just “pride”, and break the law by banning their cakes or hotels serve gay couples, etc., and that other kind of progressive, inclusive, hippie Jesus kind of Christianity that thinks if they get with the times, they are following god’s commandments to love thy neighbor, and all that crap, and that they need a reason like Jesus to organize and be charitable, and that atheists aren’t generous at all, well they all think there’s a war on Christmas any time someone says Happy Holidays, and don’t understand the 1st amendment separation of church and state when they want to keep some prayer flag at their football games or play some Veggie Tales in the public school.

        • Kodie

          The core beliefs of Christianity are entirely that Jesus died for your salvation. You can then take any part of the bible to act according to your emotions, culture, society, and the power of suggestion of how exactly to conform to the teachings of the bible, and call yourself a Christian honestly. As long as you believe the magical salvation part, you can do anything and god loves you. There are no other core beliefs of Christianity. They all believe as sincerely as you do that they are doing it right, and maybe you are doing it wrong, because their way does not conform to your way. I don’t believe that many people only call themselves a Christian without doing their faith the way they think god approves of. They are as sincere as you are that they are doing it right.

        • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

          My facebook feed is hilarious. In my life I have known a great number of religious people from Fundamentalists to the most liberal of Christians and they are always calling each other not true Christians. As a nonbeliever I can only last.

        • j316

          To be clear, I am not calling out any individual as being a non Christian.. I am just saying that there exists people in the world who claim to be Christians but their hearts and actions are questionable.. it is not my job to determine who they are. Individuals have the choice of questioning their particular church authority or finding a new church or denomination. Also, there are essential and non essential doctrines of Christianity. So it is true that there are some things that are up for debate. God knows that we do not live in isolation and that we are influenced by the world around us. He also knows if it is in our hearts that we WANT to do the right thing.

        • Jack Baynes

          He also knows if it is in our hearts that we WANT to do the right thing

          And yet he rewarded Abraham for being willing to murder his son…

        • j316

          I see what you are saying. The problem with that view point is trying to hold God , creator of the universe, to human standards. God was testing Abraham, which I’m sure you already know that. Abraham was rewarded for placing trust in God, not for being murderous.

        • Jack Baynes

          Yes, God was testing Abraham.
          By asking him to kill his son.
          God failed.
          Then Abraham failed by showing he was willing to murder his son.

          An evil God rewarded a man for being willing to murder. The Bible doesn’t say what God would have done if Abraham had wanted to do the right thing instead.

        • adam

          “God was testing Abraham, which I’m sure you already know that. Abraham
          was rewarded for placing trust in God, not for being murderous.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/73a4f0f1c72a49d8724b747333e9e34a19846e8916aaf92b146d08edf984b950.jpg

        • Kodie

          If god asked you to smash your child to death, would you?

        • adam

          “To be clear, I am not calling out any individual as being a non Christian..”

          But you have been and you are

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b44c99f495406f1f80b97716ec7951aa63f124a9698cbfc51f2758edfdb3404d.jpg

        • adam

          ” He also knows if it is in our hearts that we WANT to do the right thing.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/86effa5e2bc761ae95f687bf44f1632c13ebd40a54b07502d779f242a887cc3e.jpg

        • adam

          “He also knows if it is in our hearts that we WANT to do the right thing.”

          Then why dont you do it?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dc554b74af68425056b8a4228b7f09490a1e80f6c6bf14f85bbce2e8015a0bfb.jpg

        • Jack Baynes

          If God can’t be bothered to correct his church leaders when they’re wrong, it can’t be that important to him.

        • j316

          That is just an empty istatement because we know that the world doesn’t work that way. That God doesn’t work that way. I certainly can’t speak to what is important or bothersome to God, but I surely know that we need him more than he needs us. All Christians should test what is true in light of scripture and if something is being taught in their church that is contradictory then it is up to them to hold their leaders accountable.

        • Greg G.

          That is just an empty istatement because we know that the world doesn’t work that way. That God doesn’t work that way.

          God doesn’t work any way but as a function of imagination.

        • j316

          we are all entitled to our opinions.

        • Jack Baynes

          The Bible says God spoke directly to his followers, so yes, the Bible does say God works that way. But you’re right that in reality he doesn’t. That should tell you something

        • j316

          Yes He already HAS spoken and we have that in writing.. yes, Jack, you are entitled to your opinions and views, but in addition to my own personal experiences I have thousands of years of human history backing mine. That should tell you something.

        • Jack Baynes

          So if you believe the Bible you believe God talks to his people, but then you claim that he DOESN’T talk to his people.

        • Kodie

          We have a myth in writing. You choose to take it seriously, without any evidence.

        • Greg G.

          It is one’s own responsibility to align one’s opinion with reality but there is nothing wrong with stealing the opinions of someone smarter than oneself.

        • j316

          Glad to see we agree on something 😉

        • Myles

          You are entitled to believe whatever foolishness you choose, but don’t try to push that stupidity on the world.Don’t expect anything but derision and scorn as well. Respect for views requires they be based on facts not lies and greed.

        • adam
        • adam

          “we are all entitled to our opinions.”

          But not your own facts.

        • Kodie

          We’re not, really.

        • Jack Baynes

          Who do they hold accountable when the Bible is contradictory to itself?

        • adam

          “That is just an empty istatement because we know that the world doesn’t work that way. ”

          Which is how we understand that the bible is merely myth, and that “God” is IMAGINARY.

        • Kodie

          Everything everyone is taught in church works when they try to test it. It’s how superstitions work – the power of suggestion is very powerful.

        • Myles

          Since gods exist only in the minds of the mentally ill, isn’t it about time you sought treatment.
          Still, if you happen to be one of the leeches who benefits from that scam, which death-cult are you shilling for?

        • j316

          ” since god’s exist only in the minds of the mentally ill”

          Upon what facts and research studies have you arrived at that conclusion? Please enlighten me.

          Not sure what you mean by death- cult.

        • adam
        • j316

          Adam, can you even think for yourself?

        • adam
        • Susan

          Upon what facts and research have you arrived at that conclusion?

          I don’t know of any.

          Not sure what you mean by death cult.

          I think that’s about the requirement of human sacrifice in order to make things right in the universe with some being that requires a human sacrifice to do what any decent human would do without requiring that human sacrifice.

          I disagree with Myles about having to be mentally ill to believe it.

          But I agree with the “death cult” description.

        • Greg G.

          I think that’s about the requirement of human sacrifice in order to make things right in the universe with some being that requires a human sacrifice to do what any decent human would do without requiring that human sacrifice.

          There is also the heaven/hell thing that makes death more important than life.

        • Susan

          Since gods exist only in the minds of the mentally ill

          I disagree. People can be wrong without being mentally ill.

          if you happen to be leeches who benefit from that scam

          There are scads of leeches who benefit from that scam but they only benefit because more people buy into it.

          It appears to be a pyramid scheme based on claims of post-death benefits and penalties.

          People who participate in pyramid schemes are not necessarily mentally ill or leeches.

          They only have to be gullible. .

        • j316

          When you speak of leeches and scams, again you are talking of fallible humans creating man-made institutions, which again proves my point that one can say they are a Christian, such as a false teacher trying to take advantage of people,, without being a Christian at heart.

          One does not HAVE to belong to a church to be Christian. Not everyone has Become a believer by being under the influence of another person or group.

        • Susan

          When you speak of leeches and scams, again you are talking of fallible humans creating man-made instituions

          Yes. I am.

          I only noted that fallible human-made institutions are not composed entirely of predators.

          which again proves my point

          I don’t see how it does

          one can say they are a Christian, such as a false teacher trying to take advantage of people, without being a Christian at heart.

          When people believe stuff without good reason, it is easy to take advantage of them.

          Not everyone has Become a believer by being under the influence of another person or group.

          Which would explain all those isolated cases around the world of people believing in Yahwehjesus before being influenced by another person or group.

          Can you provide a single example of someone believing that Yahwehjesus exists without being influenced by another person or group?

        • Kodie

          All the churches are man-made institutions teaching man-made superstitions.

        • Kevin K

          And yet you responded with the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy.

          The point is, who is deciding what your god’s will is and what it isn’t? You say gay marriage is sinful. Another church (several, actually) declared that your god is OK with it. Unless and until you can get all of the denominations to agree with one-another, it’s just your word against theirs as to who is correct. And me … who doesn’t believe in your god in any event, so there is no “god’s will” to be had anywhere at any time … can safely ignore it.

        • j316

          Please objectively demonstrate how my statement is a fallacy.

        • adam

          God.

          Pretending that your God is anything but IMAGINARY.

        • Greg G.

          Kevin K: “So, you can’t claim that your god declares anything at all about the issue, when you have denominations in direct opposition to one-another, each claiming biblical authority.”

          j316: “many people walking around calling themselves Christians even though they’re really not”

          That is the No True Scotsman fallacy. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

          Here is the biggest prayer failure ever recorded:

          John 17:20-23 (NRSV)20 “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

          That is Jesus praying for the unity of all Christians to be so impressive as to make the world would believe. But we see dissent between Paul and the circumcision faction* even before the Gospel of John was written and the divide has grown.

          * Galatians 5:12 (NRSV)I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!

          * Galatians 5:12 (NIV)As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

        • j316

          Sorry, Greg, but your favorite “no tru Scotsman fallacy ” doesn’t even come close to applying here.. suppose you have someone who has been attending alcoholics anonymous classes for 15 years, goes to the meetings, has all the books and brochures, tells all his family and friends that he’s A recovering alcoholic, yet in the privacy of his own home he continues to sneak some whiskey. He might say he’s recovered but he’s really not. So what I said is truly not even debatable – regarding there being ones who call themselves Christians but may not be at heart .. I truly don’t know what is so hard to understand about that .

          Regarding different denominations, again those are man-made, not made by God. Some are going to hold true to Scripture, and some aren’t. The fact that there are false or misguided teachers out there does not negate the existence of God or the validity of the Bible. As far as a denomination claiming to have biblical authority, that can always be tested by reading scripture.

          “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
          ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭7:22-23‬ ‭KJV‬‬
          http://bible.com/1/mat.7.22-23.kjv

          So as you can see this is nothing new, Jesus predicted such occurrences would be like this over 2000 years ago.

        • adam

          “Regarding different denominations, again those are man-made, not made by God.”

          Man-made from men just as God made them.

          Why is YOUR ‘God’ so impotent?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9370bdaaa4ce47ef14fd6ff4ae1eeedf100948a5914eb7992c570698c1cbafcf.jpg

        • adam

          ” … does not negate the existence of God or the validity of the Bible.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/831e274b356c03b8778b1d9672b8ab244560e2fda7a4cd57b0436d5bda02694f.jpg

          The bible does enough to negate its validity.

        • Michael Neville

          Regarding different denominations, again those are man-made, not made by God. Some are going to hold true to Scripture, and some aren’t. The fact that there are false or misguided teachers out there does not negate the existence of God or the validity of the Bible. As far as a denomination claiming to have biblical authority, that can always be tested by reading scripture.

          Every single Christian denomination claims to be “true to Scripture”. That’s every one, without exception. For you to claim some group of Christians aren’t real Christians is exactly what the No True Scotsman fallacy is about, especially if they make the same accusation towards you. In the past month I’ve seen a Catholic denounce almost all Protestants as not being Christians and a fundamentalist, evangelical Protestant say that Catholics are false Christians. As a non-Christian I see claims like those as petty squabbling but it’s a distraction in this conversation. We don’t care if you think the Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Reformation of 1879 are Christians or not. So stop playing No True Scotsman. It’s not a subject of any importance to atheists and we’re the people you’re talking to right now.

        • Greg G.

          Sorry, Greg, but your favorite “no tru Scotsman fallacy ” doesn’t even come close to applying here.. suppose you have someone who has been attending alcoholics anonymous classes for 15 years, goes to the meetings, has all the books and brochures, tells all his family and friends that he’s A recovering alcoholic, yet in the privacy of his own home he continues to sneak some whiskey. He might say he’s recovered but he’s really not. So what I said is truly not even debatable – regarding there being ones who call themselves Christians but may not be at heart .. I truly don’t know what is so hard to understand about that .

          If you have an objective definition, then it would not be the NTS fallacy. But with Christians, there is always Matthew 7:22-23 so you cannot be certain if someone else is a real Christian™ or even if you are a real Christian™ and that assumes that Christian is not an imaginary construct.

          Regarding different denominations, again those are man-made, not made by God. Some are going to hold true to Scripture, and some aren’t. The fact that there are false or misguided teachers out there does not negate the existence of God or the validity of the Bible. As far as a denomination claiming to have biblical authority, that can always be tested by reading scripture.

          But Jesus prayed that there would not be different denominations just to impress everybody else enough into believing. That is not the situation and you point out the differences. If there is no unity in Christianity, how is that going to impress anybody? So the prayer is a failure. Christian unity has never existed and you don’t seem to think it is possible. Remember, the unity must be significant enough to impress the world.

          So as you can see this is nothing new, Jesus predicted such occurrences would be like this over 2000 years ago.

          One place says he predicted it and one place said he prayed for the opposite. Apparently he didn’t have faith the size of a mustard seed.

        • Pofarmer

          So.

          Much.

          Weapons grade.

          Stupid.

        • Pofarmer

          What is it with you theists and absolute shit analogies.

          This isn’t about someone doing something wrong and knowing it. This is about groups that absolutely think they are as correct as the next group. For every scripture you cite, they can call up 3 more. That’s the problem. They are just as much Christians at heart as you are.

        • Susan

          again, these are man-made, not made by God.

          But they all claim they are made by God Yahwehjesus.

          Some are going to hold true to Scripture and some aren’t

          But they all claim that they “hold true” while others don’t.

          The fact that there are false or misguided teachers out there does not negate the existence of God Yahwehjesus or the validity of the Bible any of “the bibles”

          .

          No one has to negate it. Most of us aren’t trying to.

          We’re asking why anyone should believe any of the variations of any of the bibles.

          Until you explain why anyone should and why you do, you might as well be quotiing Nostradamus as Jesus.

        • j316

          “But they all claim they are made by God Yahwehjesus.

          – no, most do not. They are simply groups of people coming together to worship together.
          That comment is a little nonsensical

        • Susan

          something you’ve made up in your head and pulled out of your ass.

          I apologize. I didn’t write that clearly. What I meant is that they all claim to be worshipping a deity that called them to worship. None of them can show that there’s even the slightest part of it that isn’t man-made and they will all tell you what the deity they claim exists “truly” means when they talk to you.

          That is what you mean by “hold true to Scripture”, isn’t it?

          They are simply groups of people coming together to worship together.

          No. They tend to have opinions about what that deity is and wants. Based on human writings/ that are indistinguishable from human writings about scads of other deities.

          You don’t seem to be an exception to that.

          And they have all matter of contradictory opinions about it.

          And not a single one can distinguish their deity from other human claims of completely different deities.

          .

        • Kodie

          Isn’t the whole hook of Christianity that you can be an imperfect human and god still loves you, as long as you believe Jesus died to save you?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So then how do you decide who/what is a Christian?

        • j316

          That’s not my job. But KNOWING scripture and testing what people say and do in light of scripture generally helps.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You sure seem to have made it your job. Reread your previous comment: “Unfortunately there are many people walking around calling themselves Christians even though they’re really not.”

          Apparently j316 knows who’s who.

        • adam
        • Kodie

          NO. You believe your own interpretation, fed to you by other humans and the great power of suggestion. What you see others doing is following what their church leaders fed to them. You think they are not sincere just because they are not following the beliefs of your own/your clergy’s bible interpretations. You are a gullible fool and an arrogant snob. God didn’t talk to you or your clergyperson, they are just digesting whatever they’ve been fed before and denying other interpretations. Every belief you had came from another human and what do humans know. You wouldn’t follow any of it if you thought it ultimately came from just some dumb human, you think it is all validated by god! Why do you think you are exempt from being fooled!

          That’s the real question, not why do you think other Christians aren’t real or sincere, but why do you think they are fallible gullible humans who were lied to and fooled, but you’re not.

    • adam

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dc554b74af68425056b8a4228b7f09490a1e80f6c6bf14f85bbce2e8015a0bfb.jpg “I’m pretty sure that God allows even same sex ppl to live in agreement
      with their own ‘free will’ even when ti goes agains God’s morals for
      humankind. ”

      Then why command that they be killed?

      • j316

        Please tell me where in the New Testament God commands homosexuals to be killed.. I don’t think you will find any such verses.

        • adam

          God commands people in the Old Testament.

          So in YOUR WORLD, Jesus is NOT God?

          Here is what Jesus says about the Old Testament:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/89d230f179881be8275da4101e50e5e24d2a0bb95addba201026fbc36fa9a751.jpg

        • j316

          You cannot cherry pick isolated verses from scripture and claim to be an expert. You cannot understand the whole of the Bible without understanding the individual parts, and conversely you cannot understand individual verses of the Bible without understanding the whole. I do not have enough time or crayons here to explain to you the difference / transition between the Old and New Testament laws.

        • Jack Baynes

          Is the Old Testament God not also the New Testament God? Why should we excuse him for the evil laws he set down in the Old Testament?

        • adam

          “You cannot cherry pick isolated verses from scripture and claim to be an expert.”

          Then dont claim yourself as an expert.

          “You cannot understand the whole of the Bible without understanding the
          individual parts, and conversely you cannot understand individual verses
          of the Bible without understanding the whole.”

          Of course, so instead of worshiping Paul and Paul’s words while ignoring Jesus’s words makes you a Paulian, not a Christian.

          ” I do not have enough time or crayons here intellect and honesty to explain to you the difference / transition between the Old and New Testament laws and explain why worshiping Paul is so much easier than following Jesus”

          FTFY

        • Kodie

          You are certain that your version is correct, and you’re not the kind of Christian who would fall for a charismatic lie.

        • Joe

          Considering the Bible is made up of separate books, you don’t need to understand the whole Bible to critique individual parts.

          In future, dos this mean Christians can’t quote Bible passages at us?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Thats is VERY TRUE AND ACCURATE! Thanks for posting…

          But Christians become dead to it, Galatians 2:19 was written by the most Zealous Pharisee ever, have you considered that? What you referenced is God’s standard of judgment for the NON-believer. Galatians 2:16 explains even more about Justification.

        • Greg G.

          Paul says that Leviticus 19:18 is the summation of the Old Testament law.

          Galatians 5:14
          For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

          James 2:8-10 (NRSV)
          8 You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 9 But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.

          James is responding to Paul’s claim in Galatians, insisting that one cannot break anything in the law without breaking the whole law. James seems to think Paul is saying Christians can get away with murder because he follows that up with:

          James 2:11-13 (NRSV)11 For the one who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.

          James goes through Galatians refuting parts in order from Paul’s argument of Abraham’s faith with a point about Abraham’s works, Paul’s point about the faith of Sarah with a point about the works of another woman, Rahab. This goes to about the end of Galatians, then doubles back to hit some missed points.

          Paul responds to James with a repetition of Leviticus 19:18, followed by the scripture commandments James cited and points out that those are covered by the Leviticus verse.

          Romans 13:8-10 (NRSV)8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Paul was the apostle to the gentiles according to the scriptures.

        • Greg G.

          Paul is discrediting the “pillars” in Galatians, accusing them of being “human authorities” as he rails against human authority. He disagrees with them big time over circumcision, following the law, and they seem to have told the Galatians that there was no crucifixion as he has to re-explain that in chapter 3. So they must have been horning in on his franchise. We see similar problems in 1 Corinthians 9 where somebody appears to have suggested they not support him with their own “human authority”. When people exercise human authority for what Paul considers the Lord’s authority, he calls them “brothers of the Lord”, as in 1 Corinthians 9:5 followed by the “human authority” charge three verses later and in Galatians 1:19 after a big rant in Galatians 1:1 and in Galatians 1:11-12 about not getting his information from human authority before making it more explicit that he didn’t get it from Cephas and James by mentioning that he spent time with them, immediately after his claim.

        • adam

          Then WHY arent YOU stoning gays and adulters to DEATH?

          Plus those working on the Sabbath, YOU have become dead to it.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Does your flavor of Christianity have no use for the Old Testament? Is it not binding on you?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Of course its not binding (the Old Testament) to me. How can it be binding when I am dead to it??? Galatians 2:19. One faith…

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The OT was binding on Jesus (but what does he know?).

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Jesus is Christ, Christ isn’t His last name Bob. Christ fulfilled the law… You still haven’t read Galatians Ch 2?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yes, it was! And his middle initial is H.

          Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

          Jesus never repudiates Judaism.

          You still haven’t read Galatians Ch 2?

          Why? What will I find there? I do see how he disdains the “pillars” of the church–is that your point?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Nope again and again Bob. Bricks and air balls are all you shoot. YES, Jesus kept and fulfilled the law and will uphold it when he judges humanity, no Christians are not under it… Read Galatians 2. What’s not making sense.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Meta observation: next time you have a comment with insults, be sure that it also has some high-quality evidence as well. Your comments are best left on the playground.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          The veil was torn at the Crucifixion, what does that mean Bob? Galatians 5:18

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.”

          How does this help? All it does is raise new questions: if this is the way to go, why wasn’t it the way to go in Abraham’s time? Did it slip God’s mind? He was billions of years old, after all; maybe he was going senile.

          The Bible can be used like a sock puppet to say just about anything.

        • Greg G.

          The veil was torn at the Crucifixion, what does that mean Bob?

          Josephus described of the temple veil in Jewish War 5.5.4 as having the universe as they knew it painted on it. This is an allusion to Mark 1:10 where Jesus got his start as the Son of God when he came up out of the water and the heavens parted with the Spirit coming down on him and a voice coming out of the sky, like he was the One Millionth Baptism customer.

          It has nothing to do with tearing up the Old Testament contract.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Ok, why did Jon the Baptist say he wasn’t worthy to baptize Jesus then?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          That’s not the interesting question. The interesting question: why did it make sense for Jesus to seek baptism?

          I know why the gospels say so, but that’s not the question. I’m asking: from within Christianity, why did this make sense?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          To start His earthly ministry and to leave an example to follow…

        • Greg G.

          JtB had a good business going there until Jesus made a good example of him, which got JtB beheaded.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And that’s why it makes sense for a sinless god to be baptized for the forgiveness of sin?

        • Greg G.

          Mark clearly says that John’s baptism was for the remission of sins. Jesus didn’t know what to expect in Mark. God appeared when Jesus emerged from the water. The later gospels made Jesus a pre-existent divine being so the baptism in Mark was embarrassing. John had JtB merely saying he witnessed it, not that he did it. Matthew has JtB apologizing for the idea of baptizing Jesus but Jesus says, “No problem. This is just to create some self-fulfilling prophecies.” Luke obfuscates the issue by bringing up JtB’s arrest immediately before the baptism.

          You should engage your brain when you read the Bible. These problems are staring you in the face as you ignore them.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          The new testament doesn’t command homosexuals to be killed anywhere… It doesn’t place any added weight on the “sin” of homosexuality. Homosexuals are not “targeted” in the New Testament. Homosexuality is just one of hundreds of sins that God has called all mankind to repent for and believe in Jesus for forgiveness and salvation.

          One mark of a false witness (false Christian) is there selection of sin. False groups always pick and choose sins. False groups may condemn homosexuals, but they don’t wash feet or take care of the orphans… by all means run away from these wicked.

        • Greg G.

          On the one hand, Christians tell us we are under a new covenant and the old covenant is obsolete. But on the other hand, Christians cite the old covenant to support their prejudices. We need more one-eyed, one-handed, castrated Christians (Matthew 5:29-30 , 18:8-9; 19:12).

        • james

          “On the one hand, Christians tell us we are under a new covenant and the old covenant is obsolete.”

          in the old cov he said murder was a bad thing.

          Samuel B. Smith writes, That is mortal sin,” says Ligori, “which, on account of its enormity, destroys the grace and friendship of God, and deserves eternal punishment. It is called mortal, because it destroys the principle of spiritual life, which is habitual grace, and kills the soul.”

          (Smith, S. B. (1836). A Synopsis of the Moral Theology of the Church of Rome Taken from the Works of St. Ligori, and Translated from the Latin into English. New York: Patterson, Ingram, & Co. p. 20)

          but then god delivers himself to his own divinely prescribed whooping in the new testament. now murder is for the “greater good”

          question :why didn’t jesus publically tell the jews “murder me, there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood”

          murder is key ingredient to cooling off yhwh. murder is good.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Homosexuality is just one of hundreds of sins that God has called all mankind to repent for

          I’ve challenged you to defend this claim (remember, we’re talking about people in loving homosexual relationships in the 21st century). And all I heard were crickets.

          When you abandon an argument, the upright thing to do is to make that clear to all of us instead of slinking away from an argument that backfired, hoping we don’t notice.

        • adam

          King James Bible
          If
          a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them
          have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their
          blood shall be upon them.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Yes, the old testament. What’s your point. Doesn’t apply to homosexuals today, ever. Would you disagree…?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Then why is the OT part of the Christian Bible? What role does it serve?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          It teaches you, you need Christ, so you can be justified by faith. Galatians 3:24-25

        • adam
      • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

        Romans 3:19

  • markr1957

    Having witnessed a Protestant church leader and a Roman Catholic Arch Bishop use exactly the same Bible verse (from Leviticus naturally) to justify each side murdering the other while claiming to be peaceful it seems to me that if interpretation is purely personal what use is the book as a guide to morality?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      The Bible is trivially easy to show as not an objective source of morality. One wonders why they keep riding that hobby horse.

      • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

        Here is a basic lesson in Scripture interpretation for you Bob, I’m sure it will help. Many things are stated in the bible that if you read the verse and close the book, you will walk away ready to burn it, because it has seemingly outlandish sentences at times. For instance, the head of Christianity, Christ Jesus, said to “tear your eye out if it causes you to sin”, if you stop reading their you’re in trouble, but if you keep going it becomes clear that it is a spiritual principal no to look on evil things; which is why 0% of any sect of Christianity actually takes their eyes out (duh). Furthermore, there are things stated in the scriptures that trump everything else pertaining to the same topic, this is why “doctrine” is built to properly divide and interpret the bible; this is why the scriptures command all mankind to study for yourself (2nd Timothy 2:15). Now here is an example for you of a morale verse of scripture that TRUMP’s all other verses that you may consider immoral, that you will likely take out of context anyway…

        Is this scripture in your opinion bad moral advice, it is the golden rule, “Treat others as you would like to be treated” (Luke 6:31)

        QUESTION #1
        Can you find fault in scripture verse Luke 6:31?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Are you saying that not all of the Bible is gibberish? I agree.

          QUESTION #2
          Why are there 45,000 denominations of Christianity, and what does that say about the ambiguity of God’s holy book?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          QUESTION #2
          Why are there 45,000 denominations of Christianity?
          ANSWER 1
          Their isn’t 45,000, only one, the rest are man made, this is self explanatory in the scriptures, had you read you would have known… Ephesians 4:5.

          what does that say about the ambiguity of God’s holy book?
          ANSWER 2
          Nothing, because their is only one, very clear and easy, aka “the way” (John 14:6), aka the one true and living God (John 17:3).

          Any more questions?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Their isn’t 45,000, only one, the rest are man made, this is self explanatory in the scriptures, had you read you would have known… Ephesians 4:5.

          Which one is the correct one? Is it (dare I say it?) your interpretation?

          “what does that say about the ambiguity of God’s holy book?”
          ANSWER 2
          Nothing, because their is only one, very clear and easy, aka “the way” (John 14:6), aka the one true and living God (John 17:3).

          Which doesn’t answer the question. 44,999 “denominations” have it wrong. How inept is your God that he can’t convey his message clearly? It’s almost like this guy doesn’t exist.

          Any more questions?

          You could treat the ones I give you seriously. That would be a help.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          The correct one is the one who Love God and Neighbor… Anyone that contradicts the Apostle Epistles is the wrong one…

          Actually mine hasn’t always been correct, that’s why I search the scriptures…

          Here is a short list of “False Christian” entities, some call them “denominations”, the scriptures don’t. Galatians 1:6-9
          SOME FALSE DENOMINATIONS INCLUDE: The Catholic Church, Mormon, Jehovah Witness, 7th Day Adventist, Westboro Baptist… they all have greatly deviated from scripture and/or were started by known false prophets.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          they all have greatly deviated from scripture and/or were started by known false prophets.

          Uh huh. And they disagree with you. Why should I believe you over them?

          And I notice that you wouldn’t respond to my question. Let me repeat it for your convenience: How inept is your God that he can’t convey his message clearly?

        • adam
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Anyone that contradicts the Apostle Epistles

          What is this? You mean the epistles in the NT?

          Do they take priority over the gospels? And what about the epistles that are pseudepigraphical?

        • adam
        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          You also avoided my question that had nothing to do with me saying the bible isn’t all gibberish (My actual questions is below for the 2nd time). You called into question the moral principals in the Bible in its entirety when you stated…

          “The Bible is trivially easy to show as not an objective source of morality” -Bob Seidensticker

          QUESTION #1
          Can you find fault in scripture verse Luke 6:31?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          ANSWER 1: No.

          What do you make of this? That I made a mistake? You’ll have to point that out to me.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Not here Bob… all clear.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Whoops! I forget we were playing “Simon Says,” and I didn’t follow the rules.

          Hey–next time, let’s play by Jeopardy! rules where every answer has to be in the form of a question!

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          You’ve lost it Bob. Save the peanuts for the fair next time.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Don’t like my response? Then provide a thorough response yourself.

        • Greg G.

          QUESTION #1
          Can you find fault in scripture verse Luke 6:31?

          It’s OK but I think “Do unto others as they would have you do unto them” would be a little more enlightened.

        • BlackMamba44

          Exactly.

          I would prefer to treat others the way they want to be treated.

        • Kodie

          It depends.

  • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

    This is a really disinformative post with terrible Bible interpretation for starters. Aside from an absolute debauch on the interpretation at every turn, how about “dismissing” of all things point #4.
    4. “Homosexual activity is harmful and destructive to oneself and others.”

    Author’s Following Quote “Why? How? This statement is supported by no argument, so it doesn’t need an argument to be dismissed.

    First of all to dismiss this by saying there is “NO ARGUMENT” displays terrible, if not the worst form of ignorance available (point coming soon). Second, before making the point it should be noted that Homosexuals are to be loved, never hated, and treated with great respect. The sin, yes “sin”, of homosexuality is NOT above any other sin in the new testament (James 2:10), but it is one of the most harmful and destructive for sure, which is why people should be turned away from it in love.

    THE POINT (AND ONLY POINT NEEDED AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY)
    1. Homosexuality leads to death. I’m not talking about death from old age which all mankind will experience with the passing of time. I’m talking about human extinction. How can anyone stand against this? Homosexuality lived out by everyone would lead to what??? Extinction. Is extinction destructive or harmful? Yes, most would say. Right now, less than 10% of all mankind would identify as being homosexual. What if everyone were to believe the lie and become homosexual? Extinction would occur in less than 100 years. The bible says this “the wages of sin is death…” (Romans 6:23). Is this point not observable?

    • Greg G.

      In case you hadn’t noticed, the world is reproducing and the population is increasing exponentially. People do not choose to be homosexual. The world population is way beyond maintaining its numbers. Don’t worry about it.

      • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

        You made zero points in relation to my post. I never addressed “choice”, only end result. I never addressed current world population, only what homosexuality leads to if drawn out to its maximum potential; the result is human extinction. Currently less than 5% of the Earth’s landmass is inhabited, do you need more space? Move to North Dakota. Thanks anyway.

        • Susan

          only what homosexuality leads to if drawn out to its maximum potential

          You mean if all human heterosexual sex stops?

          There’s no reason to think that’s ever going to happen.

          So, if that’s the only argument you have, you should give up now.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Your are ignoring the point. One generation of homosexuality ends multiple generations of family heritage. I never argued 100% of earth actually becoming homosexual, only a end result to show what it leads to… you knew that though. Thanks.

        • MNb

          “One generation of homosexuality ends multiple generations of family heritage.”
          And once again you didn’t even try to make clear why that’s a bad thing.
          A bigot like you – and “love the sinner, hate the sin” is a sure sign of bigotry is not going to tell me with whom I can have sex and with whom I can’t.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Its bad because people will perish, its not how anyone got here to begin with, and it is not a positive progression in any way speaking. Since God designed Male & Female, living outside the order is death, I didn’t create anything, just ended up here like you, because a Male & Female came together. The birth of a human will never happen outside Male & Female intercourse/impregnation/birth; it hasn’t happened any other way once and it never ever ever will. Stop trying to make rock, paper. Of course you can have sex with whomever you want, for now, while you are living, but you will surely die. But I bet there is a lot of value to you, you are worth something, and important. You’ve been designed to function differently, stay on the tracks. If one day you had children you would be satisfied perhaps with something more powerful than your emotions…truth.

        • Greg G.

          Everybody is going to perish anyway. For every fertilized egg, there are ten million sperms that perish and the person or persons that would have resulted are not to be.

          You don’t have issues, you have a subscription.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          If Jesus never lied, then in John 11:25-26 said what He said, that makes you wrong… thankfully.

        • BlackMamba44
        • BlackMamba44
        • Greg G.

          Do you believe the Gospel of John? The author makes Jesus the biggest prayer failure of all time:

          John 17:20-23 (NRSV)20 “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

          Not only do Christians not have unity, but the agreement is supposed to be impressive enough to the rest of the world as to make everyone believe. The 45,000+ different denominations make a mockery of Jesus.

        • BlackMamba44
        • MNb

          “Its bad because people will perish”
          That’s a good thing.

          “Since God designed ….”
          God made Homo Sapiens almost disappear one time before. So this doesn’t show that it’s a bad thing.
          Plus there is no god.

          “I bet there is a lot of value to you, you are worth something, and important.”
          I hope so. Still I’m going to disappear anyway. It doesn’t follow at all that mankind has a lot of value, is worth something and is important. This fallacy is called a hasty generalization. My value, worth and importance says exactly zilch about the value, worth and importance of mankind. And that’s what we’re talking about with your etermination non-argument.

          “If one day you had children”
          I have a son. He’s an atheist like me and faces the same dilemma as me 25 years ago: produce offspring or not. It I’ll never be a grandfather so be it.
          You don’t have any point.
          It’s not bad at all if Homo Sapiens disappears from Earth. It’s a blessing for her.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Nice try…

          Be converted so your sins can be forgiven. Evolution is a lie, nothing doesn’t explode. Search the scriptures to find God. Over 100 future predictions with 100% accuracy, made 500 years in advanced, witnessed in writings… read for yourself.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And an evolution denier, too! It keeps getting better.

          Yeah–share one or two of those perfect prophecies with us when you get the chance.

        • MNb

          You’re ignoring all points I made. Is that all you can say?

          “Be converted so your sins can be forgiven.”
          There is no god, so there are no sins that can be forgiven. No need to convert.

          “Evolution is a lie,”
          How unsurprising – another science rejector.

          “nothing doesn’t explode.”
          Yippee! Another christian bigot who wipes his sorry ass with the 9th Command.
          Evolution has nothing to do with explosions.

          “Search the scriptures to find God.”
          Done so. Old Testament: your god is an genocidal maniac.
          Revelation: your god is a character more absurd than anything Monty Python ever did. That book never fails to make me laugh.

          “Over 100 future predictions with 100% accuracy, made 500 years in advanced, witnessed in writings… ”
          Ask BobS. He wrote about it. I’m not interested bar one:

          Marcus 13:30 “Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.”
          Lucas 9:27 ” But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

          That generation has passed. They all have died. Jesus was a false prophet and hence a false messias claimant.

          “read for yourself.”
          Done so. The Bible is a badly outdated book written by ignorants.
          Are you a literalist?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Prophecy proves God.

          I’m sure you have sinned (Matthew 5:28)

          Of course evolution is a lie, nothing doesn’t explode (ever), poooof (big bang), nothing exploding not only never happens, its not observable, so its faith.

          Jesus is the God of the Old Testament, New Testament, and Revelation, say what you’d like, but just know its the same person.

          Your quotes on Marcus and Lucas came true, the fisherman John, who wrote revelation saw all things mentioned their, that’s how revelation was written. (nice try)

          The bible was written over a 1,500 year period, on 3 continents, in 3 different languages, by 40 different people… and it doesn’t amaze you that it seems like it was written all at once by one individual?

        • MNb

          “Prophecy proves God.”
          False prophecy proves false prophet. Jesus was one.
          There is no god.

          “Your quotes on Marcus and Lucas came true,”
          I just showed they didn’t. You don’t even try to address my point. You wipe your sorry christian ass also with Matth. 7:3.

          “I’m sure …”
          You have exactly zilch authority, so shrug.

          “Of course evolution is a lie, nothing doesn’t explode (ever), poooof (big bang), nothing exploding not only never happens, its not observable, so its faith.”
          Merely repeating your nonsense does nothing to improve it. But it’s good to read that according to you faith is a lie.

          “it doesn’t amaze you that it seems like it was written all at once by one individual?”
          No, because it doesn’t seem like that. Not at all. Reading Gen. 1 and 2 already makes clear that it isn’t, except of course for bigots wearing blinkers, like you.

        • Lark62

          Bingo. We have a winner. In every online conversation with christians, sooner or later they will abandon their fake arguments, throw in the towel, and switch to direct or implied threats of eternal torture.

          “Be converted so your sins can be forgiven” isn’t even original.

        • Kodie

          I think you are a total crackpot. Straight people can be child-free, gay people can have babies of their own or adopt or surrogate, your panic is fucking nuts!!!!!

        • BlackMamba44
        • Greg G.

          I knew a lesbian couple who got some sperm from a gay couple and used a turkey baster to do the deed. Even your ridiculous fear is unfounded. Just because someone is homosexual does not mean they do not want to have a family.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          I missed your point that you never made. So did the lesbians need a male??? Its not that homosexuals “don’t want to have a family”, its that they “naturally can’t”. Stop trying to make rock, paper.

        • BlackMamba44

          Yes, same-sex couples can have children naturally, just not with each other.

          Homosexuality doesn’t equal sterility.

          What about a heterosexual couple where one is sterile? They can’t have children naturally (with each other). Are they going to make humans go extinct? Or is it just the “homosexuals”?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          “Yes, same-sex couples can have children naturally, just not with each other.” – BlackMamba44

          You made the worst point of the year in that statement, just read it. Contradiction in line one…

        • BlackMamba44

          And that contradiction is?

          And while you’re at it, you can answer the questions you ignored.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yes, I missed the contradiction as well. At least I have company as I wallow in my stupidity.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          REALLY?!? The contradiction is you said same sex couples “can have children”, but wink wink, they need a 3rd party of the opposite sex.
          Don’t know how you missed that the first time…

          And YES heterosexuals who are sterile will not pass on their gene’s, but most aren’t sterile, so their will be no extinction from that cause.

          Glad I could help you today.

        • Greg G.

          One woman supplies the egg and one man supplies the sperm. How do they do it on your planet? The child is raised by two parents of the same gender.

        • BlackMamba44

          But they can still have children naturally. So, once again, where is the contradiction?

          but most aren’t sterile

          And most people aren’t homosexual, so THERE (not “their”) will be be no extinction from that cause, either.

          EDIT: 12% of american women are infertile. That’s a higher % than homosexuals. Maybe you should be worrying about them.

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/infertility-statistics-stats-about-infertility_us_571f8c0ce4b0f309baee9bde

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Glad I could help you today.

          I need a dose of Christian pomposity every day, so I appreciate that. Thanks.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Honestly, my sincere apologies… The “p” word is not my intent. Internet threads don’t always portray feelings and emotion accurately. Again, no ill-will here.

        • Greg G.

          The contradiction is you said same sex couples “can have children”, but wink wink, they need a 3rd party of the opposite sex.

          Which means your assumption of extinction is ridiculous.

        • Greg G.

          They needed a male for eight seconds. The male was a homosexual. They could have had sex to do it if they wanted to. They didn’t want to have sex with each other. They had a natural baby. Reproduction doesn’t care how the sperm gets to the egg.

        • Lark62

          Now if there were no more turkey basters, humanity might be up a creek. Except of course for the 90% to 95% of humans who massively enjoy the hetero kind.

        • Greg G.

          I wonder how humanity survived before turkey basters. wwwSSi seems think we should be extinct without gay people reproducing.

          Maybe that is what happened to the dinosaurs. There was just one generation of all gay dinosaurs…

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Uh, yeah. We agree that 100% of humans won’t be homosexual. So what’s the point of your thought experiment?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          end game… What people are calling love actually would cause us to go extinct if embraced and practiced by all, so why is it good ever? Is it good because less people perish? I don’t think so…

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Meaningless.

          “If everyone were homosexual, there would soon be no humans!” is true, but so is, “If everyone were female, there would soon be no humans!” So what? And if you’re anxious that a small fraction of the population won’t make children, why not worry about the far larger fraction of heterosexual couples who won’t make children? It’s not just some anti-gay thing on your part, is it?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Your playing games with words in this particular post. Its the non-point point’s your making here.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Let me translate that: “Uncle.”

          Just say what you mean next time so we all understand.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          BTW, I see on your site the claim of 100 biblical prophecies made with 100% accuracy. Share one with us.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Isaiah the 53rd Chapter…read it please. Who does it describe?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Not Jesus.

          My post below about Isaiah 53 … read it please. Once you’ve thought a bit about this “prophecy” and what would make a serious prophecy (one that you would be convinced by if it came from another religion), come back and chat.

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2015/04/isaiah-53-another-failed-prophecy-claim/

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          “Not Jesus” is a specific answer Bob, its just not a good one. Your at best a “side-stepper” in your post about Isaiah 53 too, one of the worst interpretations from any source Ive ever read. Let’s move on to prophecy you can see unfolding, is something written approximately 2,000 years ago thats playing out before our eyes good enough?

          How about Revelation 13:16-18 in light of RFID chip and Bio-metric tatoo technology? You get to see this 2,000 years later with your own eyes…the question is will you remain “willingly ignorant”.

        • Greg G.

          I think the idea of Jesus comes from Isaiah 53 and Zechariah 3, plus some Hosea 6:2. Jesus was invented by the early epistle writers as having existed in OT times and Mark invented the idea of a first century Jesus.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Your at best a “side-stepper” in your post about Isaiah 53 too, one of the worst interpretations from any source Ive ever read.

          You’re really perfected this bullshit thing, haven’t you?

          Maybe things work differently where you come from. Here, you’re welcome and even encouraged to point out errors. But simply saying, “Wow, that sucked!!! Golly, you sure are a moron!!!! I luv Jeebus!!!! :-) ” says nothing except to suggest that all you have is bluster. And when all you have is bluster, that tends to draw a crowd eager to see you get your evidence-less ass kicked.

          Going forward, please give a thorough reason to back up every claim.

          Let’s move on to prophecy you can see unfolding, is something written approximately 2,000 years ago thats playing out before our eyes good enough?

          No, not good enough. Pick one prophecy (I suggest the best one), tell us what it means, and defend that claim.

          As for your Revelation example, ask yourself if this vague reference to tattoos would convince you if this came from a non-Christian. Would it convince you that his religion was onto something?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          You’re ignoring points. Is that all you can say about revelation 13:16-18?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’re ignoring points. I made clear that I didn’t appreciate your trying out Is. 53, seeing that you didn’t score any points with it, and then pulling out yet another one.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          You butchered Isaiah 53 worse than anyone I have ever seen (seriously). You’re ignoring words that were written 500+ years before Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth, that’s what we know at this point. When I asked you who Isaiah 53 described, out of the corner you said, “Not Jesus”…interesting way to side step the passage and then send me to your post about Isaiah 53 which literally butchered every verse in the text. Don’t pour gasoline on yourself and then run into the flames anymore Bob.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You butchered Isaiah 53 worse than anyone I have ever seen (seriously).

          More groundless insults. It’s like an early Christmas!

          Say, you know what would also be fun? If you made a point and then backed it up with evidence. Or is that too out-there?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          I did. I also provided prophetic proof. I also provided natural reasons why homosexual relationships cannot maintain human life. I also asked you did Jesus of Nazareth lie in Mark 14:61-62, which you avoided fast. Get with it Bob. It’s good to have a discussion, but when I realized you ignore plain truth and facts, I’m only left scratching my head as to why you do what you do. I think you care about thread count more than truth. So did Jesus of Nazareth lie in Mark 14:61-62?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Jesus accurately predicted what you Bob, yes you, and all mankind think about… Mathew 5:28.

          Here is another prophecy, I’ll keep them coming…
          Zechariah 11:12-13

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Here is another prophecy, I’ll keep them coming…

          What part of this is hard? Pick one. Just one. Think about it before you do so so that it doesn’t backfire. And stick with it. Maybe we can later move on to another one.

          The gambit I’m trying to avoid is the Gish gallop, where you toss out one crappy “prophecy” after another (the quality of which you’d laugh at if it came from another religion) hoping that I will play along and will conclude from the mountain of bullshit examples that Yahweh really can give pinpoint, incredibly accurate, amazingly prescient prophecies. No, let’s not play that game.

        • Greg G.

          Matthew 5:28 is not a prediction. It is nothing but an observation. It’s even part of the tenth commandment.

          Matthew made up the Judas death from Jeremiah 19:1, 5-6; Jeremiah 32:6-9; Jeremiah 19:1-13; and Zechariah 11:12-13. Many of the New Testament passages were created by picking out elements of the Old Testament to make it look like prophecy. Matthew is the most prone to it.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          How do you interpret the words of Jesus of Nazareth in this passage Bob, Mark 14:61-62, did Jesus of Nazareth lie when He said what He said?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Did Glinda the Good Witch of the South lie when She said that the yellow brick road led to Oz?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          No she didn’t, did you see the movie? How about Jesus in Mark 14:61-62?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          He’s a character in a story. Jesus told the truth in the same way that Glinda did.

        • Greg G.

          Jesus didn’t lie. Mark took the words from Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Another one Bob…
          Psalms 16:8-11
          Acts 2:22-32 actual witnesses gave testimony to fulfillment.

          Do you understand what is happening in all of this??? David wrote Psalms 16 at least 400 years before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. There are documents to prove this, lots of them… what are you missing?

        • Greg G.

          Those Acts verses are mostly quotes from the Septuagint, not eyewitness testimony.

        • Susan

          I never argued 100% of earth actually becoming homosexual

          You said “human extinction”. In reproductive terms, that would require all or nearly all heterosexual sexual activity to stop.

          only a end result to show what it leads to.

          What leads to human extinction? What are you talking about?

          .

          you knew that though.

          No. You’re not making any sense so far.

          Thanks.

          Um.. you’re welcome?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Hi Susan,
          It was only a metaphor to show what homosexuality is if taken to an extreme ( I DON’T THINK EVERYONE WILL BECOME HOMOSEXUAL)
          Homosexuality “IF” embraced by all would lead to extinction (ONLY METAPHORICAL) think about it… male & male and female & female partners cannot bear children; it goes against God design, science, and natural human bodily function in every way. One generation of homosexuality causes people to perish.

          Please read other threads… I’ve addressed the same issue about 10 times now…

          Best.

        • Greg G.

          It was only a metaphor to show what homosexuality is if taken to an extreme

          It’s not a metaphor. It was a projection to try to come up with a reason to reject homosexuality. Most people spend ~99% of their time not engaging in reproductive activity. If that increased slightly, humanity would go extinct. By your logic, we should abandon all non-sexual activities.

        • MNb

          He made a point – the same one as I did. He addressed your “Yes, most would say” with “I say no” and gave a reason for it. Your answer to it is not exactly convincing given all the environmental problems. Did you notice all the hurricanes lately? There has been a steady rise last few decades and they have become more violent too.

          “the result is human extinction.”
          And you again even didn’t try to explain why that’s a bad thing.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Why are you talking about the weather? If earth maintained ideal weather, no life threatening storms (etc.), a homosexual family will perish in one generation. You made no points and missed them all.

        • Greg G.

          Why are you talking about the weather?

          Why are you not talking about the weather? The world would be a better place if you minded your own business and stopped being so preoccupied with other people’s sexuality.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Were are posting in the same thread, concerning the same topic. “Birds of a feather”? I’m really not that preoccupied with this topic, its just sad to see people perishing in the name of love.

        • Kodie

          You have a terrible argument against homosexuality. There are plenty of people, there are too many people. We’re not in danger of extinction from people having sex without procreating. It’s like your religion has interfered with your ability to do math. It for sure has interfered with your ability to handle science. I don’t care if you get sad for pathetic unreasonable reasons.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Kodie,
          if you read the threads… I NEVER SAID WE ARE GOING EXTINCT BECAUSE OF HOMOSEXUALITY!

          Wow, does that help make it clear. I only gave a metaphor to show what it leads to if embraced by all (which I know will never ever ever happen)

        • Kodie

          You brought it up, so deal with it.

        • MNb

          So it’s an imaginary scenario. That leads to an imaginary point hence imaginary argument.
          In my textbook that means that there is no argument.
          You haven’t any and were deluding yourself when you claimed in your initital comment above that you had.

        • BlackMamba44

          THE POINT (AND ONLY POINT NEEDED AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY)
          1.Homosexuality leads to death. I’m not talking about death from old age which all mankind will experience with the passing of time. I’m talking about human extinction. How can anyone stand against this? Homosexuality lived out by everyone would lead to what??? Extinction. Is extinction destructive or harmful? Yes, most would say. Right now, less than 10% of all mankind would identify as being homosexual. What if everyone were to believe the lie and become homosexual? Extinction would occur in less than 100 years. The bible says this “the wages of sin is death…” (Romans 6:23). Is this point not observable?

          Where is the metaphor?

          met·a·phor
          noun

          a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

          ““I had fallen through a trapdoor of depression,” said Mark, who was fond of theatrical metaphors”

          synonyms: figure of speech, image, trope, analogy, comparison, symbol, word painting/picture
          “the profusion of metaphors in her everyday speech has gotten pretty tiresome”

          a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract.
          “the amounts of money being lost by the company were enough to make it a metaphor for an industry that was teetering”

          met·a·phor·i·cal
          adjective

          characteristic relating to metaphor; figurative.

          “many of our metaphorical expressions develop from our perceptions of the body”
          synonyms:figurative, allegorical, symbolic; More

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Hate the point, attack the grammar… sweet tactic.

        • BlackMamba44

          Holy shit, you’re dense.

          Where did I attack grammar? You are claiming that you are using a metaphor in your “point”. I gave you definitions of “metaphor” and “metaphorical” and asked where is the metaphor.

          Ignore the question and give a non-answer…typical tactic.

        • Kodie

          Why did you bring it up then, just rambling from inside your institution?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I only gave a metaphor to show what it leads to if embraced by all (which I know will never ever ever happen)

          So just a trivial aside? Mental masturbation? Tangential thought experiment?

          The way you doubled down on it, it seemed like it was actually a fundamental part of your argument.

        • adam
        • Lark62

          If you are worried about people perishing, devote your energy to stricter gun laws, access to health care and action on global warming.

          If you want to bloviate, go home and shut your bedroom door. We don’t want to watch.

        • MNb

          I’m not talking about the weather. It’s telling that you don’t understand the difference with climate.
          I did not miss your point “Yes, most would say” at all. I specifically quoted it; I told you why I say no.
          Either you’re stupid or you’re a liar; possibly both.

          “a homosexual family will perish in one generation.”
          And you again refuse to tell us why that is a bad thing.
          Your point is void.

        • Kodie

          You are chicken little. The sky is not falling. You’re going to die someday, and you have no control over anyone. That’s the fucking truth. You’re patheitc.

        • adam
        • BlackMamba44

          a homosexual family will perish in one generation.

          Not if they decide to have a family.

        • Greg G.

          At the rate of population growth from a few years ago (I haven’t done the calculation for a while), in a thousand years the weight of the human population would outweigh the galaxy. Of course, that cannot happen but a lot of suffering would go on before that.

          Most people do not have any desire to be exclusively homosexual. If they do, it is none of your business. When someone makes it their business, it raises the concern is that the person is loathing their own feelings and projecting it to everybody. Perhaps you should find a church that would accept you as you are, if that is your problem.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Haggard’s Law, eh? Interesting.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You made zero points in relation to my post.

          Yeah, there’s a lot of that going around.

        • Kodie

          Your exact words were “what if everyone believed the lie and became homosexual?” That implies you addressed homosexuality as though it were a choice. I don’t know what lie you are talking about, but what you think is wrong with homosexuality…… let’s explore your paranoia. You are afraid of extinction? You should be much more afraid of global warming, which I’m betting you deny.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Hi Kodie,

          I never addressed choice. What is wrong with homosexuality is that it leads to people not being able to have a family without a 3rd party and in the end they perish. I’m not paranoid, I don’t hate homosexuals, believe it or not i have homosexual friends, although homosexuality is a sin, it is not worse or greater than any other in the NEW TESTAMENT. I’m not afraid of extinction AT ALL, I was only making a point that whether one couple or all people live in a homosexual relationship people will not be able to reproduce and therefore perish. The planet warms and cools regularly, I live in the Northeast, so right now its cooling.

          I think I covered all your questions or assumptions, let me know if not. Hope the best…

        • adam
        • Kodie

          Your exact words were “what if everyone believed the lie and became homosexual?”

          What “lie” are you talking about? You addressed choice, I don’t know another implication of that sentence you wrote.

          You seem to be panicking about nothing, and coming from out of the blue to rant and rave about nonsense. You are also ignorant of science, and go ahead, live in your biblical fantasy land, worrying about gay people and pretending you know shit about climate change. From where I sit, you are just another gullible moron who wants to hate people while pretending you don’t hate them. Do you bother your gay friends by asking them all the time if they worry about humans going extinct from believing the “lie” and “becoming” homosexual too? Do you tell them they are sinners, and only gay because they believe a lie? Are you sure they are friends with you and not just that they don’t want to get arrested for assault? I mean, what if everyone believed the lie that Christianity clearly is, fearing science and teaching ignorance at your dumbfuck homeschools to 20 kids each heterosexual male and his chattel wife.

          Is that better than being gay?

        • Thanks4AllTheFish

          “I live in the Northeast, so right now its cooling.”

          Having a PhD certainly hasn’t helped you in understanding the difference between local weather anomalies and global warming.

          The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere “behaves” over relatively long periods of time. Global warming is a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth’s atmosphere generally attributed to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants.

          Maybe this will help:

          LINK:Global Warming 101
          LINK: What’s The Difference Between Global Warming and Climate Change?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          SOMETHING IS REALLY FISHY ABOUT THIS…
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbD6XzC9rqQ&feature=youtu.be

        • MNb

          Which has preciously little to do with climate change, stupid ignorant.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          But its what you believe with NO evidence at all and you call it knowledge (science).

        • Greg G.

          You are demonstrating the danger of religion. There is lots of evidence of climate change which you are not just ignorant of, you deny that it exists. Yet this is a threat to human existence but you believe in fairy tales that it can’t happen.

          Religion is horrible when believers favor faith healing over medicine and allow children to die of easily treatable ailments. But your religious blinders allow the election of congress people who are in a position to take steps to prevent a disaster.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          I thought you were talking about over population not climate change. But yes, the climate is changing, we are going into winter now.

          I’m not a religious faith healer. Medicine is good when applicable.

        • Greg G.

          I thought you were talking about over population not climate change. But yes, the climate is changing, we are going into winter now.

          Everybody already knows that you don’t know the difference between seasonal change and climate change. It hardly matters what the topic is, you misunderstand it.

        • MNb

          Oh, but you wouldn’t accept evidence if it danced naked in front of you while wearing a hat, my dear stupid ignorant.

          More interesting at the moment: you don’t post silly comments on the Big Bang anymore. And I still have to answer your question. But first I must give a correct formulation.
          Here we go.

          Why do all physicists today accept that the Big Bang happened several billion of years ago?
          Answer: because they have well working theories and because there are indirect observations that confirm them. And those observations do fulfill even the crappy standards of your creationism: they are repeatable and hence belong to operation science.

          First the basic theory (there are more, but I won’t tire out your limited brain skills). Even you are not stupid enough to deny that the GPS in your car works fine, are you?
          Humans have made it work thanks to a concept called Relativity. You might have heard of the guy who formulated it:

          http://www.doseoffunny.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/albert-einstein-29-1080p-wallpaper.jpg

          Now two other guys, I have mentioned them before, the Soviet commie atheist Alexander Friedmann and the Belgium catholic priest Georges Lemaitre, both did some math on this concept called Relativity. And they found that our Universe in the past was infinitely small. Another atheist, Fred Hoyle, who denied this idea just like you do, called it the Big Bang. How does it feel to side with a staunch atheist?

          Gasp!
          Already in 1929 Edwin Hubble indirectly observed that our Universe is expanding. He didn’t imagine that. Spend some time and money and you can observe it too.
          Now pay close attention. Then you’ll probably get it. Expanding means getting bigger in the future. That means our Universe was smaller in the past. In the far past it was so small that it all was condensed in a point. That point, several billion of years ago, is called the Big Bang.

          Another prediction of Friedmann’s and Lemaitre’s concept – though they didn’t find it themselves – was cosmological background radiation. Gasp again! It was detected in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson.

          The Big Bang happened.
          In exactly the same way I must conclude that you were born from your mother, even if I wasn’t there.
          No imagination, no fantasy involved.

          But hey, don’t disappoint me. Don’t accept what I write. You would force me to conclude that you are smarter than I think now and you wouldn’t do that to me, would you?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Anyone who accepts the “big bang” enjoys there own imagination, more than truth, and sci-fi more than science.

          “Nothing” does not expand to form rock. I thought this was common sense.

        • epeeist

          So how do you explain things like red-shift, element distribution and the cosmic microwave background?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Their foundation is on “NOTHING”.

          “Nothing” expanding to form rock… that’s how.

        • epeeist

          Their foundation is on “NOTHING”.

          You see it’s like this, people make observations and try to make hypotheses which would explain how and why the observed phenomena occur. When they have an hypothesis they have a strong burden of proof to show that it is a good fit to the observations and that it can survive critical testing. Once it gets that far we call it a “theory”. The fact that a theory has strong evidential backing and has passed critical testing doesn’t make it true, it simply makes it a good explanation.

          Now if you don’t think the theory stands up to scrutiny then fine, you have a weak burden of proof to show why it doesn’t. So you need to show that the inferences about red-shift, element distribution and the CMB with its black body distribution are wrong.

          I am afraid to say that ‘”Nothing” expanding to form rock… that’s how’ doesn’t really cut it.

        • MNb

          Ah, our incurable sinner is violating the 9th Commandment again.
          No, their foundation is not on “nothing”, whether capitalized or not.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Easy… they are on the foundation that “nothing expanded to form rock”… which is totally sci-fi…

        • epeeist

          Easy… they are on the foundation that “nothing expanded to form rock”…

          So in other words, you have no fucking clue.

          Let’s try a few more genius.

          The ΛCDM version of the Big Bang is based on Einstein’s general theory of relativity, evidence for this includes the bending of light by the sun and the perihelion precession of Mercury. Other evidence includes Einstein rings, gravitational lensing and micro-lensing and of course the observation of gravitational waves.

          If you want the whole of the Big Bang theory to fall apart then all you need to do is show that Einstein’s theory is wrong and all the above observations can be explained in another way.

          If you can’t do that then you could always show that Big Bang nucleosynthesis is incorrect, the easiest way to do this would be to show that the Standard Model of particle physics is wrong. You presumably know sufficient about quantum field theories to do this…

          Your other alternative is to show that the CMBR is something different to the model initially produced by Alpher and Herman. Of course you are going to have to come up with an explanation as to why it fits the curve for emissions from a black body so closely that the error bars are smaller than the line width in the graph below.

          https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/Cmbr.svg/1000px-Cmbr.svg.png

          OK, there are some hints. Over to you, your Nobel is waiting.

        • MNb

          Easy. Everything you write is the product of your imagination more than science, sci–fi more than science.
          Tthey are on the foundation that “nothing expanded to form rock”… which is totally sci-fi…
          “Nothing” does not expand to form rock. I thought this was common sense.

          Just repeat ad nauseam no matter what you write.

        • epeeist

          Just repeat ad nauseam no matter what you write.

          And if you don’t want to do that then you can always bellow “law of non-contradiction” a few times and attach an irrelevant video to your posts.

          There is a small “joke” in the fencing community – how many sabreurs does it take to reach an IQ in double figures? Answer – all of them.

          I presume I don’t need to spell it out further.

        • Greg G.

          Rocks come from heavy elements. Heavy elements come from fusion of light elements and the process can be observed by looking at the sun and stars. Effects, such as “quantum tunneling”, can be observed and are explained by virtual particles, which by definition cannot be observed directly but the results can be. Virtual particles are pairs of opposite particles like a proton and an antiproton which are essentially two things coming from nothing. So we have examples of all the steps of rocks coming from nothing. You should find a new mantra.

        • Michael Neville

          There is evidence for the Big Bang. There is no evidence that an imaginary critter said “Let there be light.” Which way should I go, with the evidence or with the mythology? Hint: I don’t think some Hebrew priests who didn’t know where the Sun went at night had a clue about how the universe started. Another hint: Your ignorance and incredulity aren’t evidence of anything but your ignorance and incredulity.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          NO EVIDENCE FOR “NOTHING INTO ROCK”… ever; never observed, something created in the mind.

          The scriptures however are just like a sworn, written testimony, similar to a court room. Real people wrote them; what they said was “truth”.

          1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Anyone who accepts the “big bang” enjoys there own imagination, more than truth, and sci-fi more than science.

          Accepting the scientific consensus? Wow–what could be nuttier?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Good to see you again Bob,
          The only thing nuttier than believing “nothing expanded into rock”, is a group of people who claim everything they promote and think is based on “observable reality” and “facts”.

          Never has anyone seen nothing expand to form something, let alone rock Bob.

          Have you seen nothing become something?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Pro tip: If you’re going to lampoon the other guy’s argument, first make sure that your own argument does better. You’re living in a glass house.

          And don’t reject a scientific consensus if you’re not a member of that discipline. Makes you look like an idiot.

        • Kodie

          The scientific consensus argument fails utterly because these losers insist on misunderstanding it. If you don’t take the time to explain it patiently to these simpletons, it just doesn’t sound very good.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yeah, but who’s got the time.

        • Greg G.

          Never has anyone seen nothing expand to form something, let alone rock Bob.

          Have you seen nothing become something?

          The evidence shows that the universe is expanding. It also shows that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. The acceleration is very small on a galactic scale, even clusters of galaxies, but on a super-cluster scale, which is billions of light-years, it adds up to being detectable. The acceleration implies there is a force acting on the galaxies which means there is kinetic energy is increasing. It appears to me to be consistent with Guth’s model of space being equal in magnitude and opposite in sign to energy. Einstein showed that

          E = mc^2

          We are in a different phase of the universe’s creation. Space/energy is still coming into being but a cooler temperature due to the lower density.

        • epeeist

          The only thing nuttier than believing “nothing expanded into rock”, is a group of people who claim everything they promote and think is based on “observable reality” and “facts”.

          Presumably this is the reason that you not answering this post of mine from the other day, nothing to do with you being incapable of doing so.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          I did respond to it.

          nothing doesn’t become rock… your imagination is running wild… total sci-fi.

        • Kodie

          Where did your invisible friend get the materials?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          His word. John 1:1-3

          Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
          Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
          Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

        • Kodie

          That makes no motherfucking sense. You have some nerve bitching about the big bang and spouting ignorance about cosmology and then replace it with that fucking nonsense.

          Berserk!

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          nothing doesn’t become rock

          Unless God’s doing it, and then it makes complete sense.

        • Kodie

          You know, if you don’t understand the science, you surely could look it up and learn more about it, rather than keep shouting how ignorant you wish to remain on the subject.

        • Michael Neville

          It’s interesting how you came here originally to show your hatred of homosexuals (“but my best friend is a homosexual and I don’t spit on him more than once a week”) and some nonsense about homosexuality will cause the extinction of the human race except it won’t but it’s icky and I hate homosexuals even though I don’t spit on my best friend who’s a homosexual not more than once, maybe twice a week. But now you’re trying to pretend you know more than PhD cosmologists about the origin of the universe even though you make it obvious that you know nothing about the Big Bang other than you don’t understand it.

          BTW, it’s Thursday. Have you spit on your best homosexual friend yet this week?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          You’re misquoting me bearing false witness for starters…
          Secondly, men having sex with men produces no children (a scientific fact)… it was only an example to show what it leads to in an effort to steer people into truth and reality and love; the 3 things you seems to hate most…

          I would never spit on anyone, its rude.

        • Greg G.

          Most sex does not produce children. Sex has other functions in human relationships. You are rude to put your nose in other people’s sexual relationships. Mind your own business.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          That’s right I know… “Most sex does not produce children. Sex has other functions in human relationships.” -Greg G.

          That wasn’t even my point.. the point was to show if all people perish if all do it, why is it love when one couple does it?

        • Michael Neville

          There is more to love than fucking to have children. If you knew anything about love you’d know this. But you’re too busy hating homosexuals to understand that simple point.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          the point was to show if al people perish if all do it, why is it love when one couple does it?

          No, the point was to show that if sodium and chlorine produce common table salt, why is it love when one couple does it?

        • Kodie

          What fucked up kind of religion makes you think all people will be gay, and that the definition of love is fucking to make babies. Typical warped Christian!

        • Greg G.

          the point was to show if all people perish if all do it,

          That is very, very stupid. Why do you still bother to type it? If that is the best reason you have for hating homosexuality, then stop hating it.

        • Michael Neville

          While I exaggerated your statement that (and this is a direct quote from you) “…believe it or not i have homosexual friends…” nobody thinks that you actually spit on homosexuals. But you hate them even though you pretend (and it’s a quite obvious pretense) that you don’t. That, you homophobic bigot, is not false witness. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you’d realize this.

          I don’t hate truth, reality and love but I do hate bigots like you, especially stupid, ignorant bigots who hate other people for stupid, ignorant reasons. If you don’t want to be called a bigot there’s an easy fix. Stop showing your hatred of other people and you won’t be called a hater. Even a stupid, ignorant bigot like you should be able to figure that out, given enough hints.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          men having sex with men produces no children (a scientific fact).

          And heterosexual couples having sex also produces no children. Because there are far more of these than homosexual couples, I wonder why you aren’t agitated about them.

          Oh, wait—I forgot. It’s because the whole “no children” thing is just a smokescreen. You’re just struggling to find something bad to say about the gays. Right?

        • MNb

          You don’t think at all. You just parrot a few phrase lines over and over again, lines you have found i some dishonest creacrap sources.
          Plus you have taken over that dishonesty. You asked a question. I had to reformulate it properly for you, because you are too stupid and dishonest to do it yourself. I answered it for you.
          Being dishonest to the core of your bones you now simply neglect everything I wrote.

          Plus of course you are a straightforward liar. What Hubble saw was not the product of my imagination. What Penzias and Wilson saw was not the product of my imagination either. What they saw is repeatable and according to you very own creacrap standard by all means belongs to repeatable, observational science.
          Yup, you betray your own crappy standard.

          It never ceases to amaze me how despisable creationists are.
          But it suits me well. Every neutral bypasser immediately will recognize how void your position is.
          Thanks for not disappointing me.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Yes, the big bang is still to this very day a product of man’s imagination. Your in err at every turn, “nothing never becomes rock”, “deal with it”. Your idols say you came from fish, NO. You worship the creation more than the Creator.

          You slandering me doesn’t make rock from nothing either. You go around calling people idiots for believing in the 100% historical resurrection of Jesus (massive amounts of evidence), but instead would rather cling to nothing expanding to form rock (NEVER OBSERVED).

          He told you… Mark 14:61-62
          Mr 14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
          Mr 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

        • Michael Neville

          It’s not slander to say you’re an ignorant, incredulous idiot who rejects reality because you like a couple of 2500 year old myths some Hebrew priests stole from the Babylonians. If you want us to accept “rocks can’t come from nothing” then first you have to define what nothing is. You’ve been told to do this but you haven’t done it. We all know the reason why you haven’t defined nothing is that you’re too stupid to do so. So instead you keep whining “rocks can’t come from nothing” as if that meant something. That’s dishonest, which means it’s not slander to call you a liar.

          There’s a fair amount of evidence to support the Big Bang. But you don’t know about the cosmic background radiation. You don’t know how inflation solves the homogeneity problem and that inflation is directly observed with galactic redshifts. You’re ignorant about how the lack of metalicity of Population II stars points to the Big Bang. Instead you prefer some myths made up by priests who didn’t know the Earth was round.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          The writings are real https://goo.gl/rDyw73 , you can see them, visit the locations where they are held all over the world. The words they contain predicted the future. The scriptures came by over 40 authors, over 1,500 years, on 3 continents, in 3 languages… and ALL the stories line up.
          This is far from the fiction you describe, its world history.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          All the stories line up? Oh, please. The gospels can’t agree on what day Jesus died on. Matthew quotes Isaiah 7 saying, “And they will call him Emmanuel,” and a couple of verses later, he says, “And then they named him Jesus”! The contradictions are hilarious.

          Zero predictions. Sorry.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          They named Him Jesus, they called Him God.

          John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

          Your err continues…

        • Greg G.

          Where did anybody call him “Immanuel”?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Respond to the points that I make instead of running from them.

          But you can’t, can you?

        • Michael Neville

          So where is the evidence that zombies infested Jerusalem as described in Matthew 27:51-53? Why did Josephus never mention the zombies? Why didn’t Pilate tell Rome about them? How come nobody but Matthew ever talked about the zombies? Could it be that Matthew made the zombies up? That would be my guess, but then I’m not a godsoaked idiot who believes that a collection of myths, fables and lies has any relationship with reality.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Did you mean to ask about Matthew 27:51-53 in reference to zombies?

          Mt 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
          Mt 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
          Mt 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

          Where does it say Zombies?

        • Greg G.

          Where does it say Zombies?

          The “many bodies of the saints which slept arose” part.

          But you knew that but you are trying to dodge the question for as long as possible.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          So say what the scripture says, so we are clear, rather than bearing false witness and using your own/different words.

          Yes, many former dead “saints” testified of the resurrection.

          Lazarus was raised from the dead too.

          Jesus raised Himself from the dead too.

          If these stories were in a book that hasn’t predicted the future over 100 x’s with 100% accuracy, in the world in which we live, they wouldn’t mean anything… but thats not the case. The miraculous is involved for sure…

        • Greg G.

          How does that not make them zombies?

          The word translated as “saints” is “ἁγίων”, a different conjugation of the word translated as “Holy One” in Mark 1:24 and “holy man” in 1 Kings 17:18. Perhaps “Holy Zombie” is a better translation.

          Maybe they are “liches”. I’m not a necrobiologist.

        • Michael Neville

          zombie, n. A revived corpse supernaturally reanimated.

          That sounds exactly like “many bodies…which slept arose and came out of the graves”.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          You know “zombie” is a nonsense term that is only depicted in “the walking dead”, “horror”, or “flesh eating monster” scenarios. The passage isn’t describing that, so when you take what entertains you and insert it into the text to make it say what you think, it ends up corrupted. Which is why your theology is sci-fi.

        • Michael Neville

          Pardon me, sir or madam, but you must have mistaken me for someone who gives a rat’s ass about whether or not you like the term “zombie” to describe the zombies Matthew lied about.

        • Greg G.

          You know “zombie” is a nonsense term that is only depicted in “the walking dead”, “horror”, or “flesh eating monster” scenarios.

          No, that isn’t the only scenarios, it is just movies and entertainment. I see TV commercials and hear radio spots pointing out that home insurance will cover home damage from a zombie apocalypse but not a broken air conditioner. The TV ads just show the zombies simply walking around town and freaking people out, which would be what would have happened if they had entered the holy city, per Matthew 27:53.

          The passage is just another case of Matthew trying to create a prophecy fulfillment from an OT passage.

          Isaiah 26:19 (NRSV)Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise.    O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy!For your dew is a radiant dew,    and the earth will give birth to those long dead.

          Do you suppose their clothes were resurrected, too, or did they walk around naked? Did they just evaporate, drop dead again, or float into space?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Why do you keep saying “trying” to create prophecy fulfillments?
          the witness say otherwise…
          2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

          Seems like Isaiah was right again….

          I don’t know about clothing or whether or not they died or were translated into heaven upon the Son of Gods ascension (Acts 1:9)

          So I can’t speculate anymore beyond what the text says concerning that topic… I believe the scriptures, not my imagination.

          Its good you seem to look into the text sometimes, but you seem to avoid the obvious often and misalign prophetic verses with un-prophetic correlations.

        • Greg G.

          Why do you keep saying “trying” to create prophecy fulfillments?
          the witness say otherwise…
          2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

          The following two verses are offered as proof that they were not following carefully devised myths but it is about Matthew’s version of one of the most obvious carefully devised myths in the New Testament.

          I don’t know about clothing or whether or not they died or were translated into heaven upon the Son of Gods ascension (Acts 1:9)

          So I can’t speculate anymore beyond what the text says concerning that topic… I believe the scriptures, not my imagination.

          Yet you believe Matthew’s imagination.

          Its good you seem to look into the text sometimes, but you seem to avoid the obvious often and misalign prophetic verses with un-prophetic correlations.

          I am pointing out the obvious, not avoiding it. You are believing fairy tales.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          The following two verses are offered as proof that they were not following carefully devised myths but it is about Matthew’s version of one of the most obvious carefully devised myths in the New Testament. – Greg G
          ANSWER: Wrong. Empty statement.

          Yet you believe Matthew’s imagination. – Greg G
          ANSWER: They were eyewitnesses.

          I am pointing out the obvious, not avoiding it. You are believing fairy tales. – Greg G
          ANSWER: Acts 4:20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.

        • Greg G.

          The following two verses are offered as proof that they were not following carefully devised myths but it is about Matthew’s version of one of the most obvious carefully devised myths in the New Testament. – Greg G
          ANSWER: Wrong. Empty statement.

          The verses offering proof for 2 Peter 1:16 not being “cleverly devised myths” are:

          2 Peter 1:17-18 (NRSV)17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” 18 We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain.

          “This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased” is Matthew’s clever devising, which comes from the John the Baptist narrative (Mark 1:11 and Matthew 3:17). Matthew got the rest of the story from Mark 9:2-8. Mark has Jesus doing everything immediately, using the Greek word for it 43 times. But to open this passage, he has him waiting 6 days before going up the mountain with “the pillars” of Galatians 2:6 & 9, his main sidekicks. Why 6 days? Moses waited 6 days before God came to him on the mountain top in Exodus 24:13-18. There God spoke to him out of a cloud.

          Then it all vanished.

          Everything in the passage was cleverly devised from a few Old Testament passages.

          The next verse describes how white Jesus’ clothes were, like in Daniel 7:9. Verse 4 has Moses and Elijah appearing, as if he was getting it from Deuteronomy 18:15, about raising up a prophet to be heeded.

          Verses 5 & 6 is about Peter wanting a tent for each of them, based on Exodus 40:34 having a tent of meeting.

          Verse 7 has the cloud speak as in Exodus 40:34 with a quote from Psalm 2:7 with a bit from Deuteronomy 18:15 for the “listen to him”.

          Yet you believe Matthew’s imagination. – Greg G
          ANSWER: They were eyewitnesses.

          Why would he use a non-eyewitness as a source of information?

          ANSWER: Acts 4:20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.

          A record of eyewitness testimony in a fictional story is not eyewitness testimony.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          “Why would he use a non-eyewitness as a source of information?” – Greg G

          Eyewitness and people who were not one of the 12 disciples (Luke) wrote about the story with precision. God inspired. You claim everyone copied “Mark” or “each other” and then claim the stories contradict each other in places… which is it?

          You reject prophecy and the scriptures and truth in general…

          Does my God, Jesus of Nazareth, know what you think about?

          Matthew 5:28
          But I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

        • Greg G.

          Eyewitness and people who were not one of the 12 disciples (Luke) wrote about the story with precision.

          There is no way you could know how much precision there was. The contradictions are imprecision. You just swallow everything whole because you decided it was precise before you thought about it and never got around to thinking about.

          You claim everyone copied “Mark” or “each other” and then claim the stories contradict each other in places… which is it?

          The other authors didn’t think their sources were precise. They had different theologies. Mark’s Jesus was adopted by God after he was baptized by John the Baptist, whose baptism was for the remission of sins. The other three gospels had Jesus as divine before he was born so the baptism for remission of sins was embarrassing for them, so they had to minimize that for theological reasons. John has JtB only saying that he witnessed it, Matthew has JtB apologizing and Jesus assuring him that it was just to check off some scriptures, and Luke obfuscates it by bringing up John’s arrest just before he says Jesus was baptized. Mark has miracles that take more than one attempt, take time to see results, and use spit. John still has a spit miracle but the rest are jettisoned. What happened to the naked boy in Gethsemane in the other gospels?

          Luke follows Mark’s timeline from the baptism to when Jesus goes to Jerusalem and again after he arrives, but the travel mimics Moses trip toward Judea by following the topics of Deuteronomy in order, in the form of actions, conversations, and teaching with bits of Mark and Matthew added to topics. That should scream “Fiction!” to you.

          You reject prophecy

          Prophecy is just another form of the cold reading scam that is the bread and butter of psychics.

          and the scriptures

          No, I do not reject them, I just don’t accept that they have a divine element nor do I swallow them whole.

          and truth in general…

          No, I am all about truth. I hold it in high regard. That is why I have high standards for what I call truth. I do not accept something as true because it makes me feel good or resonates with my wishful thinking.

          Does my God, Jesus of Nazareth, know what you think about?

          Matthew 5:28
          But I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

          Ha ha ha. That is another cold reading that is sure fit any animal because it is necessary to propagate a species.

          Do you think Jesus really said it? Do you think he meant it? Has it ever applied to you? Have you plucked out your eye or do you think Jesus was just joking about that?

          It has been noted that a lot of Jesus’ words in Matthew are match up with topics discussed in the Epistle of James. For example, the kernel of the idea for Matthew 5:28 can be found in James 1:14-15. The Matthew goes back to Mark. But James never, ever quotes Jesus. It looks like his ideas are inspired by the Old Testament. In fact, James barely mentions Jesus, and then only as a heavenly being. It’s like he didn’t think Jesus’ life on earth was important.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          “In fact, James barely mentions Jesus, and then only as a heavenly being. It’s like he didn’t think Jesus’ life on earth was important.” – Greg G

          You’ve gone off making things up again, your contradicting the witness who left the written testimony.

          Here is what James said for himself…

          James 1:1
          James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

          James was Jesus’ servant, according to himself. In his letter he mentions Jesus as Lord over a half dozen times and God the rest.

        • Greg G.

          You are contradicting me but not making sense. You quote a verse that proves what I told you. He says he is a servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Since God is a heavenly being and Jesus is mentioned in the same phrase, then Jesus is mentioned like a heavenly being. James 2:1 also mentions “Lord Jesus Christ” as an object of belief. Out of 108 verses, Jesus is mentioned twice. Compare that to Paul who uses “Jesus”, “Christ”, or a combination of the two about once for every five verses. So my statement stands with the support of the text of the Epistle of James.

          The Sermon on the Mount Site: James and the Sermon on the Mount by Robert I. Kirby shows that Matthew has Jesus talking about many of the topics found in the Epistle of James. If Jesus had actually said what Matthew says he said, James’ arguments would have been stronger by quoting the Sermon on the Mount with a “Jesus said” attached.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Hello Greg,

          To be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Whatever things are true, whatever things are honest, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

        • Greg G.

          Pretending is not honest. You can only pretend to be spiritually minded. You feel guilt because you imagine a being that you imagine gets pissed every time your biological body injects an idea into your thought stream. That’s a stupid way to live.

        • MNb

          You already admitted that you tend to violate your own 9th Commandment, so there is no reason to accept any of your explanations.

        • Greg G.

          Why do you keep saying “trying” to create prophecy fulfillments?

          They are making up stories. Sometimes the made-up stories are about prophecy attempts from the Old Testament. Sometimes the made-up stories are some random verse that was not supposed to be taken as a prophecy.

          the witness say otherwise…

          There is very little information that can be taken as reliable. John has some reliable information about Jerusalem, like the pool he describes. Perhaps he is correct about Annas being the father-in-law of Caiaphas since Josephus has Annas being high priest for thirteen years, followed by a few others, including a son or two before Caiaphas held it for eighteen years, then some more of Annas’ sons held the office, a total of five sons. It would seem to be difficult for his family to be out of the running for nearly two decades, then get back in the game if they didn’t still have connections.

        • Greg G.

          All the stories line up? Why don’t the epistles mention a teacher/preacher and his teachings/preachings. The early epistles only say things about Jesus that can be found in the Old Testament. They don’t show they know anything about a first century Jesus.

        • MNb

          Observing our Universe expanding and cosmological background radiation is real, even according to the the creacrap standard of “operational, repeatable” science.
          You denying it only confirms your very own admission that you tend to violate your own 9th Commandment.

        • MNb

          Ah yes, Bible quotes always trump what physicists observe.
          Hubble and everyone after him imagined what they saw about the expanding universe. Everyone will from now until eternity.
          Penzias, Wilson and everyone after them imagined what they saw regarding cosmic background radiation. Everyone will from now until eternity.
          Because ScriptureSearch the Ultimately Wise has spoken with a Holy Book in his hand written 2000 years ago by a bunch of ignorants.

          “Your idols say you came from fish”
          They don’t. In the first place I don’t have idols and in the second place no scientist says that.
          I don’t worship anyone. I try not to be ignorant and stupid like you.
          Keep up the good work. With every single comment of yours you discredit creationism better than any scientist or unbeliever ever could.

        • Greg G.

          “Your idols say you came from fish”
          They don’t. In the first place I don’t have idols and in the second place no scientist says that.

          http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/book.html

          Your Inner Fish: A journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body by Neil Shubin, the discoverer of Tiktaalik,

        • MNb

          Creationists can’t accept cladistics, because that presumes common descend.

        • adam
    • MNb

      “I’m talking about human extinction.”
      As Homo Sapiens has wiped out countless species of animals and plants that’s probably a good thing and hence a point pro homosexuality.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      This is a really disinformative post with terrible Bible interpretation for starters. Aside from an absolute debauch on the interpretation at every turn . . .

      Thanks for sharing your comments, but you need to have clear reasons. “Your argument sucks” is no reason. Tell us why.

      4. “Homosexual activity is harmful and destructive to oneself and others.”
      Author’s Following Quote “Why? How? This statement is supported by no argument, so it doesn’t need an argument to be dismissed.
      First of all to dismiss this by saying there is “NO ARGUMENT” displays terrible, if not the worst form of ignorance available

      You’ve got a strong opinion, but you’re backing it with nothing. I can think of nothing to add to the original point in the post, so I’ll await your giving an actual argument.

      Second, before making the point it should be noted that Homosexuals are to be loved, never hated, and treated with great respect.

      Yeah, well, maybe not so much. I presume you’re in the camp that says that homosexuals are just fine in God’s eyes as long as they’re celibate.

      The fact that Christian meddlers are happy to prescribe a remedy that they themselves don’t have to take makes me wonder about the love behind their actions.

      The sin, yes “sin”, of homosexuality

      The Bible says that it’s a sin? Show me. Alternatively, search for “homosexuality” and respond to some of my posts that argue against this claim.

      [Homosexuality] is one of the most harmful and destructive for sure

      Yeah? Citation needed.

      THE POINT (AND ONLY POINT NEEDED AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY)
      1. Homosexuality leads to death. I’m not talking about death from old age which all mankind will experience with the passing of time. I’m talking about human extinction. How can anyone stand against this? Homosexuality lived out by everyone would lead to what??? Extinction.

      Wow. Get out of your hateful Christian bubble.

      Homosexuality is natural. It’s been observed in 500 animals, humans being one of them.

      What if everyone were to believe the lie and become homosexual? Extinction would occur in less than 100 years.

      What if everyone become female? Extinction would occur in less than 100 years. So is being female a problem?

      The bible says this “the wages of sin is death…” (Romans 6:23). Is this point not observable?

      No. The God in the Bible is just pretend.

      You do know that there are a lot of atheists here, right? We don’t see the Bible as being authoritative.

      • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

        Hi Bob,
        All did was prove the point, there was never any bashing or empty statements made…
        “same sex partners cannot bear children by themselves, therefore it leads to extinction if embraced by all”.

        Point 1. Not everyone will embrace this lifestyle (obviously)
        Point 2. The example provided was a metaphor to show you were the lifestyle leads; so if one couple or all people embrace it, it clearly leads to people perishing.
        Point 3. “The Bible says that it’s a sin? Show me.” -Bob Seidensticker
        Really, show you??? C’mon Bob you know better. Read Romans 1:26-28 for starters and from there do a New Testament word search on fornication and tell me how many times its named (homosexuality is included in “fornication” if you didn’t know).

        The bible is NOT condemning homosexuals exclusively ever, it condemns the whole world Romans 3:19, why do you think ALL MANKIND EVERYWHERE is called to repent and believe the Gospel?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          All did was prove the point, there was never any bashing or empty statements made…

          You’ve yet to defend “Homosexual activity is harmful and destructive to oneself and others.” I’ve rarely seen anyone so outraged at a lack of evidence and then give zero evidence to back up the outrage.

          “same sex partners cannot bear children by themselves, therefore it leads to extinction if embraced by all”.

          Who said this, and why are you quoting it here?

          Point 2. The example provided was a metaphor to show you were the lifestyle leads; so if one couple or all people embrace it, it clearly leads to people perishing.

          That’s true. And irrelevant.

          If everyone has no sex but homosexual sex, there will be no naturally conceived babies. And if a huge meteor hits the earth, it will suck.

          Why fret about either of these hypotheticals? They ain’t gonna happen.

          Point 3. “The Bible says that it’s a sin? Show me.” -Bob Seidensticker
          Really, show you??? C’mon Bob you know better.

          Yes, I do know better than you. I know that the passages gay haters parade around have nothing to say about a loving gay relationship. And what they say tangentially about homosexuality is pretty much irrelevant to today’s issues about same-sex marriage and the homosexual lifestyle.

          Read Romans 1:26-28 for starters

          OK, Mr. Deep Thinker, let’s explore that one. “The men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.” So you have straight men having sex, not with women, but other straight men. Yes, indeed, that’s quite unnatural. And that’s not talking about loving homosexual relationships.

          Strike 1. You want some more?

          I suggest you look up “homosexuality” at this blog, read some of the posts, and learn a little bit before you try again.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Bob, most if not all of your points are meaningless. Your making empty statements. I provided natural observable evidence, homosexual’s can never bear children by themselves, so it leads to death.
          Bob, please, by all means, explain to me and everyone in this thread what “fornication” means and if God approves. Also, show me a “loving homosexual relationship” in the scripture, since you are side stepping so much. Please, show us the scriptures that use your lingo…

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Bob, most if not all of your points are meaningless. Your making empty statements.

          Slow learner? Or are you still out on the playground?

          homosexual’s can never bear children by themselves, so it leads to death.

          Homosexuals live a normal-length life, so, no, they don’t die.

          If you’re saying that society dies, you’ll have to explain that. I missed it.

          Bob, please, by all means, explain to me and everyone in this thread what “fornication” means and if God approves.

          Who cares? My questions remain: show me what the Bible has to say about loving homosexual relationships, not homosexual rape (Sodom and Gomorrah), ritual homosexuality (the “abominations” mentioned in Leviticus), straight men going gay (Romans), and so on.

          Also, show me a “loving homosexual relationship” in the scripture

          I can’t. Wow—I guess you’re right! The Bible doesn’t have anything to say about loving homosexual relationships.

          Thanks for correcting me.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          BOB, I did show you. Homosexuality is fornication in the Scriptures. The word appears over 20 times in the New Testament. How do you interpret this verse 1 Corinthians 7:2. Although seeing, you are still blind…

        • Greg G.

          Read 1 Samuel 20. Go back a few chapters for the back story.

        • adam
        • BlackMamba44

          for·ni·ca·tion

          sexual intercourse between people not married to each other.
          “laws forbidding adultery and fornication”
          synonyms: extramarital sex, extramarital relations, adultery, infidelity, unfaithfulness, cuckoldry; premarital sex; informalhanky-panky
          “the nuns warned us about the spiritual price one pays for fornication”

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2014/08/18/what-is-the-bible-definition-and-explanation-of-fornication/

          What is the definition of fornication?
          Fornication is defined as sexual intercourse between people not married to each other (1). Biblically, fornication has a little wider definition. It can refer to prostitution or promiscuous behavior or indulging in unlawful lust by either sex. It can also refer figuratively to committing idolatry (2) (2 Chronicles 21:11; Isaiah 23:15-17; Revelation 17:2).

          What does the Bible teach about sexual fornication?
          The Bible addresses sexual fornication in several places. The most direct explanation is found in

          1 Corinthians 6:13-7:2 as follows:

          Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. (1 Corinthians 6:13-7:5)

          In this passage we are taught that as believers we are joined together with Christ. We also see that sexual relations are the part of a marriage, which makes us physically joined together with our spouse.

          Marriage is the earthly representation of the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:22-33). Since the Holy Spirit lives in us instead of a building (Ezekiel 37:14; John 14:15-20; Romans 8:9-11), we are the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). Therefore physical purity is representative of the holiness of the temple of the Holy Spirit.

          God realizes that not everyone has the gift of being able to remain celibate (Matthew 19:9-12; 1 Corinthians 7:7-9). Therefore, in 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 God tells us that a man should have his own wife and a woman should have her own husband to avoid fornication. He also explains that each spouse’s body is given and belongs to the other spouse and they should do everything physically satisfy each other.

          God finishes by admonishing couples not to withhold their bodies from one another or else they would be taking something that is not theirs. This is because the wife’s body is given physically to the husband and the husband’s body is given physically to the wife. Some people think that this is extreme, but God is teaching us that the focus of each spouse is to please the other spouse physically by using their own body.

          God also tells us that if a couple does withhold their bodies from one another that it should only be with mutual consent for prayer and fasting. Additionally, a time should be set when they will reunite physically so they are not tempted by Satan for their inability to succumb to fornication with someone else.

          Practically speaking, in my experience as a Biblical counselor, some people say they have decided to have a temporary or trial separation. When I hear this I ask them if they will be praying and fasting and if they have set a date to reunite physically. Usually the answer is no, but there are those times where praying and fasting is needed separately by a husband and wife with the intention of drawing closer to God. Even so, reuniting physically must be planned.

          What does the Bible teach about idolatrous fornication?
          Idolatrous fornication refers to engaging in idolatry, unrighteous behaviors, or worship of anything other than God (Colossians 3:1-11). Often it used in the Old Testament in referring to the nation of Israel forsaking God and following other gods or heathen practices. This too is referenced symbolically to the marriage relationship between God as the husband and Israel as the bride (Ezekiel 16).

          An extensive symbolic demonstration of this is found in the book of Hosea. This book tells of the marriage between Hosea and Gomer, a common prostitute. The book represents God’s love for the nation of Israel despite the many times she was unfaithful. Israel’s sin, judgment, and forgiveness by God are presented in a way that strongly ties the story to what can happen when there is an unfaithful spouse in a marriage. Practically speaking, Hosea is an excellent resource to use with couples seeking reconciliation after one or both of them have been unfaithful.

        • Greg G.

          homosexual’s can never bear children by themselves, so it leads to death

          Nobody can bear children by themselves. It takes a male and a female. It doesn’t matter whether they are in love or whether they do it with intercourse. You should have dropped that line of illogic a while ago.

          Also, show me a “loving homosexual relationship” in the scripture

          1 Samuel 20:41 (NRSV)41 As soon as the boy had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times, and they kissed each other, and wept with each other; David wept the more.

          Read the whole chapter and keep in mind that David was married to Jonathan’s sister.

        • BlackMamba44

          BOOM!!

        • adam

          ” if God approves”

          God approves of slavery in the book.
          God approves of genocide in the book
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3e1fd5b21d17ffb7174c2b5d62ef3fbf92a65e14569aa1561044dc9171c7eb99.jpg

        • Lark62

          Bob, please, by all means, explain to me and everyone in this thread what “fornication” means and if God approves.

          1. If you don’t know what fornication means, go home and ask your mommy and daddy.

          2. My invisible pink unicorn approves of fornication, so I don’t actually give flying fuck what your imaginary friend thinks.

          3. The genocidal deity in your precious book of myths approves of slavery, condemns tattoos, and yet never bothers to require that sex be consensual or condemn child marriage. Scripture is worthless as a source of moral guidance.

        • Greg G.

          Point 1. Not everyone will embrace this lifestyle (obviously)

          Then there is no need to get worked up over extinction so there is no need to get worked up at all. Let it go and stop bothering gay people.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          I’m not… But bob is ignoring facts.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          For the love of God, show me.

        • Greg G.

          Why did you bring up extinction as a possible result? Why bring up the possibility of everybody going gay?

        • BlackMamba44

          What are these “facts”?

        • adam

          “Point 2. The example provided was a metaphor to show you were the lifestyle leads”

          And just where does the Abrahamic lifestyle lead?

          We all have read the book, we know how it ends:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cdf1945c329723ddbb7c03a5aa7c5a3ef1bae3c5f93caabe7aed79f438227c78.jpg

          It is afterall a Death Cult.

    • Kodie

      You are so fucked up by your dogma. People don’t become homosexual, there is no “lie”. Fucking a, Christianity is an entire marketing scheme, what if people believed the lie and became Christian? What would become of humanity, probably we’d turn back into monkeys if we are thinking like you idiot Christians. I mean, humans just aren’t that astute, as a species, and if everyone became convinced of Christianity, even though it’s fucking fake, and were so easily manipulated to believe wrong things, what good would any of us be? It leads to utter stupidity and ignorance and resistance to scientific knowledge. At least homosexuality only affects personal decisions who to fuck at any given time, and nothing and nobody else, really. In half a dozen years on atheist blogs, I’ve never even seen a Christian who believed homosexuality was a lie that spread like religion and turned everyone gay instead of Christian. You have beaten the last most stupid expression on the subject, a video of some woman saying isolate gays in concentration camps so they can’t procreate. I mean that’s ugly, but you’re dumber than even that.

      • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

        Hi again Kodie,
        Everything you said is a lie. You’ve terribly misrepresented my position. I believe in homosexual rights, i believe they should be treated with decency and fair, I believe homosexuals are important and to be loved. Perhaps you’ve jumped to conclusions on this one? I don’t hate gay people, I don’t think they are causing humanity to go extinct, please read the entire post before you get enraged and put words in other peoples mouth… you bore false witnesses.

        I was only making a point, its was NOT a literal pattern of humanity is following when I laid out what would happen if men only partnered with men and if women only partnered with women, no one would be able to have children and therefore all would perish…

        THE POINT: If it would cause human extinction if embraced by all (WHICH I KNOW IT WILL NOT), why is it OK if even one gay couple perishes in the homosexual lifestyle?

        • Kodie

          I don’t understand “perishing” in this context. We all die, and some people don’t have children, and some people don’t have biological children. I don’t understand your hang-up.

        • adam
        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Or better yet….
          Now, let me tell you about “nothing” that exploded. And when nothing at all exploded, it was the biggest explosion ever. Also, upon exploding, nothing turned into rock and other particles to form spherical objects we have identified as moons, stars, and planets. And a trillion years after nothing exploded, something crawled off the rocks that exploded from nothing on the planet we call earth only (at least to our knowledge), and then somehow mutated into everything. And then another trillion years went by, and every living species generation, after generation, after generation, after generation for another gazillion years somehow evolved at the exact same rate MALE & FEMALE and bred to keep species going, and thats why we’re here now. What? No we haven’t seen nothing explode, but it happened!@!!$ This is science OK, I have a PhD now… and also, be very very careful when you stand or especially sleep next to nothing, because it might explode someday.

        • adam

          “This is science OK,”

          No, that’s not science or even what science says.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/637bfeb32fe76da958e611fbfd841246baeabb7b96c48f9a41144e316ea0e22d.jpg

          ” I have a PhD now…”

          My old boss had one too, cost him $85 over the internet.

          It didnt improve his ignorance either.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Yes it is liar…go pick up a textbook.

        • Thanks4AllTheFish

          Wow! 121+ comments and you still haven’t said anything. You may hold a record here and that’s saying something.

          The universe didn’t come from “nothing”. The Big Bang is not an “explosion”, it’s an expansion.

          LINK-What Did The Big Bang Look Like?

          Yeah, your whole post sounds like material for a doctoral thesis.

          LINK-The Secret of How Life Began
          LINK-The Story of Life in Under 3 Minutes

          Knowledge is a wonderful thing. It certainly expands the mind and teaches us that the Scientific Method is useful in determining the validity of unknowns within our universe. I’m thinking getting it from religious texts probably isn’t the best source since they start with a conclusion and then work backwards to prove the premise.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          “The Big Bang is not an “explosion”, it’s an expansion.” -Thanks4AllTheFish

          HAHA, ok. Did you see it? “Nothing” doesn’t expand either to form rock.

          Be careful when your standing next to nothing… it might expand.

        • Greg G.

          Alan Guth showed that space and energy/matter can be equal in magnitude and but opposite in sign so the sum is zero. It helps to explain the observed accelerating expansion of space. It has not been overturned in over 35 years.

          Space is expanding around you and inside you but even the attraction of gravity is strong enough to keep things together. We see solar systems, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and super-clusters of galaxies. But at the scale of super-clusters, space is expanding faster than gravity can combine them so they are accelerating away from each other.

          You could know about this if you weren’t totally wrapped up in 500 BC cosmology.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          He is not standing on anything… since “nothing”, never becomes rock.

        • Greg G.

          The way light elements become heavy elements has been understood for decades. Rocks are made from heavy elements collected by gravity. How the light elements come from plasma has also been understood for decades. Guth’s theory stands on the scientific method and mathematics.

          You are sounding like an ignorant street preacher. You do not understand physics at all.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          ATHEIST ANSWER: AND LYING SCIENCE (FALSE KNOWLEDGE) ANSWER:
          “nothing became expanding rock” (larger than comprehension even with current modern technology). – Big Bang Theory and Foundation of Evolution

          RESPONSE: Just stop… are you really thinking this is true? Who has deceived you? Run from those liars and your own vain thoughts.

          ANSWER: The scriptures are a written testimony by real people in times past… a written testimony is still the best way to accurately pass a message on, even with the passing of time. Thats why people write a “will”… you’ll need one, because its been appointed you to die (Hebrews 9:27), but Christ took your place at the judgment in the name of love (Romans 5:8), to receive this gift you should confess your sins, cry out to Jesus for salvation and He will justify you in His sight and adopt you as a child, you will receive the promised Holy Spirit to bear witness with your spirit, your soul will have eternal peace even before you die. Jesus is Lord whether any atheist, non-religious, or religious person believes it or not, the scriptures alone outline that their is only ONE faith and true God (Ephesians 4:4-6, John 17:3) Jesus spoke truth when he said you would die and their is NO OTHER NAME UNDER THE HEAVEN BY WHICH ANYONE CAN BE SAVED (Acts 4:12).

        • Greg G.

          Big Bang Theory and Foundation of Evolution

          One has to do with astronomy and one has to do with biology. Your religion-induced mind-rot is making you quite uninteresting.

          If you edit a post to correct spelling, HTML, or something minor, no problem. If you make a substantial edit, you should make a note to specify changes as a courtesy. The post I am responding to is nothing like the original. Anybody reading your posts should understand that you make unmarked changes, so if a response to one your posts may seem misplaced from you changing the content.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Only minor changes just like anyone…maybe your not looking at the same post… otherwise start screen capturing, I don’t know what your saying otherwise from all the posting going on. Your answers and responses seem frivolous. Your clinging to error, erring at every turn by trying to tell me nothing expanded to form rock. Never, will I ever, be convinced of pure nonsense like the sci-fi theologians you cleave to like god.

        • Greg G.

          Only minor changes just like anyone…maybe your not looking at the same post… otherwise start screen capturing,

          When you hit “Post as”, Disqus sends me an email of your post. It also has a link to the post to facilitate a reply. Your original post was:

          where did the gravity come from?
          before or after “nothing became expanding rock(larger than comprehension even with current modern technology)”

          The post I responded to was:

          ATHEIST ANSWER: AND LYING SCIENCE (FALSE KNOWLEDGE) ANSWER:
          “nothing became expanding rock” (larger than comprehension even with current modern technology). – Big Bang Theory and Foundation of Evolution

          RESPONSE: Just stop… are you really thinking this is true? Who has deceived you? Run from those liars and your own vain thoughts.

          ANSWER: The scriptures are a written testimony by real people in times past… a written testimony is still the best way to accurately pass a message on, even with the passing of time. Thats why people write a “will”… you’ll need one, because its been appointed you to die (Hebrews 9:27), but Christ took your place at the judgment in the name of love (Romans 5:8), to receive this gift you should confess your sins, cry out to Jesus for salvation and He will justify you in His sight and adopt you as a child, you will receive the promised Holy Spirit to bear witness with your spirit, your soul will have eternal peace even before you die. Jesus is Lord whether any atheist, non-religious, or religious person believes it or not, the scriptures alone outline that their is only ONE faith and true God (Ephesians 4:4-6, John 17:3) Jesus spoke truth when he said you would die and their is NO OTHER NAME UNDER THE HEAVEN BY WHICH ANYONE CAN BE SAVED (Acts 4:12).

          I can tell there is a difference. That is not a tweak.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          I agreed on that, but it was a fast edit. I didn’t want to ask you about gravity, only about nothing expanding to form rock. Does that make sense, since its what we were talking about originally.

        • Kodie

          Did he change it back?

        • Greg G.

          I had outlined a quick response to the original but it was gone when I clicked the link. It appears to be the one I responded to now, but who knows what it will be by the time you read this.

        • Kevin K

          I think it’s “Frank” come back to haunt us. It is Halloween or thereabouts.

        • Greg G.

          That is a possibility. His handle has changed recently. It used to start with “www.” It must be a new costume.

        • Kevin K

          Same vapidity. Same argumentation style. If not him, then an intellectual equal, that’s for sure.

        • Kodie

          Frank always said the same things in short one-line posts, but he didn’t make any longer ones like this one does.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’re a hard-nosed skeptic who calls “bullshit” when he reads the scientific consensus? I like skeptics, but I wonder then how you happily swallow the evidence-less Christian story. You seem to apply your skepticism based on an agenda.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Yes, I understand that one… for sure. it was fast swap on my end though, sorry for confusion.

        • MNb

          Unfortunately this one doesn’t count as I’ve managed to break my promise.

        • Kodie

          Where did god get the materials and where did he assemble them?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          You should stop thinking of God like you do man, thats a good place to start. Every humans hairs are numbered on their heads (Luke 12:7), He knows your thoughts (Matthew 5:28), He isn’t called creator for nothing as if He needed a hardware store to build something (Colossians 1:16).

        • Kodie

          Sorry I ask rational questions, but you answer that god isn’t rational. I guess I already knew that.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Rational was not the context, power & knowledge was…

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          His Word… you’ve never read? It all comes down to what is written.

        • Michael Neville

          That’s not an answer. If you’re going to claim that nothing never becomes rock, then where did your god get the stuff needed to make rock? For that matter, where did your god come from? If you’re going to claim that it is eternal then you need to provide evidence for that claim. Remember that the collection of myths, fables and lies called the Bible aren’t evidence for us.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          His Word…
          John 1:1-3
          Colossians 1:16

        • Kodie

          Explain how your invisible friend’s word makes materials, because you keep getting the big bang wrong, and replace it with your superstitious fuckery, as if that alternative is explanatory.

        • MNb

          doesn’t have any authority.

        • Thanks4AllTheFish

          Generally, people who post here have some inkling of what they’re talking about.

          I posted links to articles and videos that seek to increase knowledge about the universe around us. If you have some documented, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to the contrary, we would love to see it. However, if all you have is your confirmation bias, Biblical scripture, and half-baked opinions based on ignorance, then I will block you and you can post your drivel at will and feel good about yourself. It matters not to me.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          You posted links to nonsense and computer animations… How did pure imagination end up in the text books? Answer, because people who use explainer cartoons to explain science thought of it.

        • Thanks4AllTheFish

          Based on what you’ve been posting, I linked an animated version because I thought it would teach to your education level. Perhaps I didn’t go low enough?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Why not just post the real thing? Because it doesn’t exist and never happened maybe?

        • Greg G.

          The information is available to you. It’s hidden in libraries. To understand it, you will need to be good at algebra so you can understand calculus, and you’ll need to become proficient at that to understand differential equations. Then you can start learning the mathematics the scientists use.

          Videos are made for people with a high school science background or so. You seem to be struggling at that level.

        • MNb

          Yup, only six to go! If Greg G dismisses fair play by helping you and making me lose my little bet so can I.

          Why not just post the real video of your grand-grandmother’s birth? Because it never happened maybe and she was an alien, found in a cauliflower and brought by a stork?
          Same question. Exactly as smart or stupid.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          I’m not talking about the original… The concept itself is not reality. Nothing doesn’t expand.

        • MNb

          “Nothing doesn’t expand.”
          Fortunately that’s not what the Big Bang is about either. Four to go! (correction: only three!)
          If you mean this genuinely you can’t be a believer. According to your own favourite Holy Book your god created a universe from …. nothing (Gen. 1). As we can observe it started to …. expand.
          Stupid ignorant, you produced an argument against your own god without even noticing.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Matthew 19:26

        • MNb

          is
          1) part of a textbook that’s not scientific;
          2) if anything confirms that our universe can come from nothing and hence contradicts you. For instance it makes it possible that your god created our universe by means of a Big Bang.

          Only one to go!
          But this is the only answer I received from you today, so my prediction now is that you will cop out.
          From that I will conveniently conclude that your question regarding the Big Bang are not honest; you lack curiosity and intellectual integrity. Very unsurprising of course. People like you never want to learn anything new, but prefer to wallow in their stupidity and ignorance.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          So assumptions are knowledge (science)?

        • Greg G.

          Knowledge based on the justification of meticulous observations, not assumptions based on wishful thing against the fear of death.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          What was observed that led to the conclusion that “nothing can explode/expand”?

        • Greg G.

          That the visible universe is expanding and the expansion is accelerating.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          The big bang concept is imagination. Never been observed. Purely fiction, Science fiction.

        • Greg G.

          The expansion is being observed now.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Things are rotating…

          Who does Zechariah 12:10 describe in your opinion?

        • Greg G.

          Things are rotating…

          Nope. Rotation would result in as much blue-shifting as red-shifting in the spectrum of light from the other galaxies. The further away they are, the more red-shifted they are. Do you understand the Doppler Effect?

          Who does Zechariah 12:10 describe in your opinion?

          The chapter is another Messiah-coming-to-protect-Jerusalem-from-the-bullies prophecy. The compassion is for the defeated nations, those that were thrust through, in the immediately preceding verses.

          That John cites the verse out of context is an indication that he made up the stab wound to satisfy this as a prophecy of Jesus. The stab wound points back to John 7:37 where Jesus talks about the flowing of living waters within believers.

          https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1856

          The link above shows every place the word translated as “pierced” in Zechariah 12:10 is used in the Old Testament. It is almost always translated as “thrust through“. Zechariah 12:10 is the only place where it is translated as “pierced”. It’s like it is translated by Christians trying to make John’s so-called prophecy sound better.

          Edited in first minute: added “is used in the Old Testament” as I originally intended. Corrected an HTML error.

        • MNb

          And bingo! I have won my bet. Again a wrong question! Zach. has zilch authority about science. Sorry. You fail again.
          But unfortunately I noticed that I have broken my promise to specify my hint. So in the name of fair play I need to give you another, last chance. Pay close attention.

          Like I wrote before science uses both deduction and induction. You totally ignored this, thus confirming my suspicion that you don’t know what that means.
          Deduction means accepting some axiomata and using logic to arrive at a conclusion. That’s what Alexander Friedmann (an atheist commie) and George Lemaitre (a catholic pries) did in the 1920’s. And they arrived at the same conclusion.
          Induction means collecting observations and using logic to arrive at a conclusion.

          Perhaps now you are capable of formulating the correct question?
          My bet is no.
          Because you prefer to remain a stupid ignorant.
          That’s how bigots like you sail.

        • Thanks4AllTheFish

          To which assumptions do you allude? Science is based on those things around us that we can observe and test for validity. Science also can make hypotheses on things we cannot observe or test and come to theories based on what we is the most plausible. Science does this by using the Scientific Method. It has been proven to be the most reliable way to ascertain facts and knowledge of the universe around us. The flow chart below demonstrates how this method works.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3fa78c46f88e3a01ef4b5728f81e675c4fc1f11204dca2f49bc3e8a692d06e3e.png

          Science is ever changing. It is an instrument for the accumulation of knowledge. When scientific findings are reviewed and have been found to be in error, the science is changed to reflect the new data and knowledge is expanded. This is how humanity has progressed so that we currently enjoy better medical outcomes, global communication in the palm of our hand, and the ability to explore our universe. What we have learned from science is that we have so much more to learn.

          These are exciting times, and it’s unfortunate that a large portion of human beings are so afraid of the unknown that they are willing to stifle progress for whatever reason.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Ok, and where in that process and order did you come to the conclusion that “nothing exploding/expanding” (big bang) should go from your imagination to the text books?

        • MNb

          Never, because that’s not what according to physics the Big Bang was like.
          If you want honest and correct answers (which I doubt) you should ask honest and correct questions.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          So, do you want to explain how pure imagination ended up in text books?

        • MNb

          No, because it was not pure imagination.
          If you want honest and correct answers (which I doubt) you should ask honest and correct questions.
          Thanks for confirming my doubt. I always appreciate it when bigots like you openly display their ignorance and stupidity. So keep on reformulating; my bet is that you won’t succeed in finding a honest and correct formulation within a dozen times. And every time your attempt fails you will come off worse.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          If its not “PURE IMAGINATION”, show me. Rules… no cartoons or 3D animation, that is nonsense. Do you believe star wars really happened too?

        • MNb

          And again you demonstrate to be incapable of formulating the question in a honest and correct way. This

          “Do you believe star wars really happened too?”
          is also a failure and a display of your ignorance and stupidity.

          “show me”
          As soon as you either give up (so I win the bet) or succeed at formulating your question properly.
          And no, no cartoons or 3D animation will be involved. Only rules. Only two rules: deduction and induction (not that I expect you to understand what these words means).
          But first I like to find out how deep you can sink.
          Hey, you still have nine chances! As I’m a honest guy I’ll give you a hint: part of the answer you can find just underneath. Of course I expect you not to get it, so eventually I will specify this hint a bit.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Has the big bang ever been observed. Answer…NEVER. So its is science or imagination? Answer…imagination.

          That’s how being honest works.

        • Greg G.

          Has the big bang ever been observed. Answer…NEVER.

          Yes, it is being observed by the stage it is in now by the detection of the cosmic microwave background.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

          You are showing how ignorance works.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Nonsense reference…just post the video that doesn’t exist of the big bang that never happened and you’ll be all set.

        • Greg G.

          That is your argument now? It looks like a white flag of surrender.

          Do you have Jesus’ birth certificate? His school pictures? Noah’s family album? The skull of John the Baptist? There used to be one in nearly every church in Europe. There used to be enough splinters of the cross to build the Ark.

          Christians don’t understand evidence.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          What about Simon Greenleaf? Does he know about evidence?

        • Greg G.

          Greenleaf accepted fictional stories as hearsay evidence. Can it get any worse?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Wrong… Greenleaf is the principal founder of Harvard Law school, his rules for examining evidence are STILL in place today, and your calling his methods wrong?

          Yes, it is worse, way worse… people now testify that “nothing” expanded to form rock’s and more…

        • Greg G.

          What is the chain of custody of the evidence? The gospel authors cannot be properly identified even. We can tell that changes have been made to the Bible by accident and intentionally. The earliest was written between 40 and 50 years after the supposed event, and when you compare it to the literature of the day, it is an amalgam of fictional stories originally attributed to others. The epistles only refer to the death, burial, and resurrection in three days as being read in Isaiah 53 and Hosea 6.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          What is the chain of custody of the evidence? -Greg G.
          Answer: The witnesses and the testimony they gave (just like a court system today)

          “The earliest was written between 40 and 50 years after the supposed event” -Greg G.
          Answer: You’re wrong, about 45 AD (approximately 15 years after the resurrection) manuscript evidence exists. Paul was a missionary who walked most everywhere he went, stayed sometimes years at certain places, and then wrote a letter after leaving, so there is space between writings, you have no point.

          “and when you compare it to the literature of the day, it is an amalgam of fictional stories originally attributed to others.” -Greg G.
          Answer: the scriptures were never considered fiction by the people of there time, (except people like you who ignore reality)

          The epistles only refer to the death, burial, and resurrection in three days as being read in Isaiah 53 and Hosea 6.” -Greg G.
          Answer: 1 point, you’re right, 3 days.

        • epeeist

          Answer: The witnesses and the testimony they gave (just like a court system today)

          Hearsay isn’t accepted in today’s courts except in very special circumstances. On top of that one is allowed to cross-examine witnesses.

          So in other words, nothing like “a court system today”.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          The witnesses provided written testimony so you can examine every single word…

        • Greg G.

          The witnesses provided written testimony so you can examine every single word…

          Not one eye-witness provided any written testimony. When one examines the written testimony closely, it appears to be fiction. The authors made up stories around OT passages to say they were prophecies. You would be better off reading tea leaves because they do not deliberately deceive you.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          how do you know they were eyewitnesses?

        • Greg G.

          What is the chain of custody of the evidence? -Greg G.
          Answer: The witnesses and the testimony they gave (just like a court system today)

          You do not have any eye-witness testimony. You have writings based on misunderstood writings of non-eye-witnesses.

          “The earliest was written between 40 and 50 years after the supposed event” -Greg G.
          Answer: You’re wrong, about 45 AD (approximately 15 years after the resurrection) manuscript evidence exists. Paul was a missionary who walked most everywhere he went, stayed sometimes years at certain places, and then wrote a letter after leaving, so there is space between writings, you have no point.

          Paul keeps saying “according to the scriptures” in 1 Corinthians 15. What scriputres is he talking about? Isaiah 53 tells about the Suffering Servant being crushed and buried and Hosea 6:2 talks about the rising in three days. That is what Paul is saying the others saw, not a manifestation.

          “and when you compare it to the literature of the day, it is an amalgam of fictional stories originally attributed to others.” -Greg G.
          Answer: the scriptures were never considered fiction by the people of there time, (except people like you who ignore reality)

          The people of the time of the gospels were a generation too late to be able to know whether they were fiction. They were superstitious religious people.

          The epistles only refer to the death, burial, and resurrection in three days as being read in Isaiah 53 and Hosea 6.” -Greg G.
          Answer: 1 point, you’re right, 3 days.

          Paul never saw Jesus. Everything he says about Jesus comes from the OT. He says he didn’t get his gospel from human sources but from the prophetic writings, which he thought were revelations. He uses the same wording for his “appeared to” for all of the others, which is an indication that he didn’t think their “appeared to” was ay different than his own. He says his knowledge is not inferior to the knowledge of the super-apostles. That would be ridiculous for him to say if he knew that they had spent time with a first century Jesus.

        • Kevin K

          Does this one really think Paul is talking about NT gospels? Wow. Not sure it’s worth engaging in that level of ignorance.

        • Greg G.

          Does this one really think Paul is talking about NT gospels?

          I was taught that when I was a Christian in some Bible study class. I got better.

          Some try to argue that Luke was the first gospel written in the 40s.

        • MNb

          “Has the big bang ever been observed?”
          And that’s five failed attempts. In science we don’t need to observe things to accept them. We have never observed many elementary particles either; we have never observed gravity and electricity; we have never observed democracy; since not so long ago we never had observed germs.
          Only seven to go.
          But I already can tell you that the Big Bang is a well established scientific fact, just like it’s a well established scientific fact that you were born from your mother and not brought by a stork who found you in a cauliflower.
          It’s also heartwarming to see you refusing the help Greg G offers you; he obviously wants me to lose my little bet. How does that feel, an atheist trying to help you against me?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Good day to you,
          For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled

        • epeeist

          For by him were all things created,

          But as every fule kno the first people were called Ask and Embla and were created by Odin, Hoenir and Lodur.

        • Greg G.

          Good day to you,
          For by the Flying Spaghetti Monster were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And, having made peace through the blood of his tomato vines, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked salads, yet now hath he reconciled

          Ramen.

        • BlackMamba44
        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          You err again by adding to the text. What is really written, is still in place. Only in your mind would the text become corrupt and say that. Nazareth is a real place https://www.google.com/maps/place/Nazareth,+Israel/@32.7130708,35.2575109,12z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x151c4e7cf16c0fff:0xd2385b30c1275dd6!8m2!3d32.699635!4d35.303546

        • Greg G.

          There are no records of Nazareth from the time. The area wasn’t populated from the time of the Assyrian invasion until the late first century. The archaeologists that have dug there have been Catholic priests under pressure to find something so the Catholic Church could build a museum on the site.

        • MNb

          Shrug.
          I don’t care about theology.
          The Big Bang happened.
          Deal with it.
          It doesn’t even contradict your god.
          Accept that and you may have a good day too. Don’t that and you will keep on walking in darkness.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          The big bang happened… if by happened you mean a man’s imagination did produce something. It happened on the History channel and Discovery channels 3D animations. It happened through illustrations. It happened in the sense it is in some science textbooks… but it didn’t happen in reality. NOTHING NEVER BECOMES ROCK.

          The God of the Scriptures is asking you…

          Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if you have understanding.

        • MNb

          “if by happened you mean ….”
          No, I don’t. I already told you what I mean. But you of course by your own admission being a sinner who has the strong urge to violate the 9th Commandment you rather keep on lying than addressing what I wrote and meant.

          The god of the Scripture is asking you…
          to stop lying.

          Also he never said anything about the Big Bang.

          “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?”
          Exact Bible quote, please. Because I’m pretty sure nowhere in the Bible this question is asked.
          At the other hand I have a question for you.
          Where were you when the god of the Scriptures created the entire shenanigan?
          Not answering this will be taken as a further admission of your utterly sinful nature – the question “where were you” also contains a lie. Of course that’s to be expected from an incurable sinner like you.

          “the foundations of the earth”
          were laid by means of the Big Bang.
          Lying ScriptureSearch doesn’t search and certainly not Scripture. His theology is such a huge lie that he doesn’t even recognize that it actually agrees with the event of the Big Bang.
          Man, are you creacrappers a sad bunch of stupid liars.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          The text books do say that, I went through school. Your a liar. Check the videos your buddies are posting of 3D animations of the big bang and cartoons, this is just pure imagination, and fiction. Atheist science is sci-fi at best.

        • MNb

          I don’t need any 3D animations or cartoons, whether the ones posted here are imagination and fiction or not.

          “The text books do say that, I went through school.”
          You should get your tuition fees back. Those tekst books sucked and your teachers were even worse.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          Your denying what actually is… never went to high school, just about everyone in the country has “Big Bang” in it. Fiction and imagination is called science.

        • MNb

          No, I never went to high school, because I never went to school in the USA anyway.

          “just about everyone in the country has “Big Bang” in it.”
          Ah, then American education is better than you made it look like. However that’s not what you wrote above. You wrote above that the Big Bang is “nothing exploding/expanding” and that leaves three options.

          1. You didn’t pay attention in class;
          2. You’re lying.;
          2. The textbooks you have seen suck badly.

          See, the Big Bang is not about “nothing exploding/expanding”. These words of you are so wrong that anyone who actually has paid attention and had decent textbooks immediately recognizes the stupidity and ignorance of your pseudo-description. And exactly that makes you incapable of formulating the question in a correct and honest way.
          So that’s four. Only eight to go.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          You’ve misquoted me and made zero points. And science does say that nothing exploded/expanded. Your ignoring that though.

        • MNb

          “You’ve misquoted me”
          These two were directly taken from your own comments:

          1. “just about everyone in the country has “Big Bang” in it.”
          2. “nothing exploding/expanding” (big bang)
          Still it’s possible that I misquoted you. Then the appropriate thing to do is not a false testimony (ie violating your own 9th Commandment) but explaining how I misquoted you. The fact that you don’t suggests, how unsurprisingly, that you’re dishonest.

          “and made zero points.”
          Then your counting is even worse than mine.

          “And science does say that nothing exploded/expanded.”
          Science doesn’t. Yeah, Lawrence Krauss said something like that – and got heavily criticized for it. But I first want to win my little bet before telling you what’s all about it.

          “Your ignoring that though.”
          So you’re stupid enough to not understand the difference between ignoring and denying.

        • adam
        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Bethlehem is a real place…

          Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

          Can you show nothing expanding or exploding now?

          https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bethlehem/@31.7306798,34.9573387,10.42z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x1502d865aec80d67:0xf5c4213de4baf1f8!8m2!3d31.7053821!4d35.2024425

        • adam
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ Bob Seidensticker

          Atheist science is sci-fi at best.

          That’s cute! You invent your own science, so you just figure that atheists must do it, too.

          Nope–there is no atheist science. It’s just science.

        • Thanks4AllTheFish

          I think you are entering a realm of theoretical physics that goes far beyond your comprehension to understand. You still seem to think that something came from nothing. This kind of linear thought is why you deserve to remain in the clutches of dogma instead of working for CERN. So let’s work from your end and you can explain to me how it only took 6 days to create a universe and everything in it, molding humans out of dust seems plausible, and where the edges of this flat Earth are located. Research papers showing how these processes work is preferred. If you want to entertain that conversation, I’ll be happy to oblige you… after I stop laughing.

        • adam
        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info www.ScriptureSearch.info

          So 3D animations and cartoons are science? Seems like your imagination more than anything. Is this how your science (knowledge) works? Think of something in your head, NEVER OBSERVE IT, and right it in text books as fact? What’s next, the spaghetti monster?

        • Thanks4AllTheFish

          I recommend if you are truly interested in how the universe came about according to scientific theory that you pick up a copy of “Introduction to the Theory of the Early Universe: Cosmological Perturbations and Inflation Theory”, by Dimitry S. Gorbunov and Valery A. Rubakov. I’m sure you will find it illuminating.

          P.S. you forgot to upvote yourself on a couple of your posts. We wouldn’t want that confirmation bias count to dwindle, would we?

          Oh,…and you’re blocked so don’t bother to reply. I do this when people don’t present cogent arguments backed up with evidence.. I’m funny that way.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Just imagine that it’s like the ontological argument–just imagine it into existence.

          Anyway, I think that 4Fish is simply helping you out with introductions to the scientific consensus views.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Hi Bob,

          Love without hypocrisy. Detest that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.

        • Greg G.

          I see you have realized you have no rational argument for your lifestyle of imaginary beings. You don’t need a religion to hold to good things and reject bad things.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info
        • Greg G.

          Now it’s a real place.

        • adam
        • MNb

          Ah, but by your own admission you tend to violate the 9th Commandment, so we now may conclude that you overall prefer to love with hypocrisy, enjoy evil and turn away from what is good.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Let every man be a liar… says Gods word.

          But whats your point? I’m not here quoting myself, but the scriptures… Amen.

        • Greg G.

          You are quoting writings from people who didn’t know where the sun went at night. They didn’t know of penguins.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          what have penguins done for you? or the knowledge of them done for you?

        • Greg G.

          The knowledge of penguins and koalas tell us the story of Noah’s Ark is absurd.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          The aftermath is visible… every species, male & female, after there “kind” can still be observed.

          Under the most controlled laboratory test, you cannot breed a monkey and dog, a cat and a pig, and so on… yet evolution says we came from nothing and then everything evolved from a “single organism” to where it is today… but evolution doesn’t address the MALE & FEMALE dilemma.

        • epeeist

          Under the most controlled laboratory test, you cannot breed a monkey and dog, a cat and a pig, and so on

          Which is exactly what the theory of evolution says.

          yet evolution says we came from nothing

          Citation required.

          and then everything evolved from a “single organism” to where it is today

          Citation required

          but evolution doesn’t address the MALE & FEMALE dilemma.

          It doesn’t? Then why are there all these papers on the origin of sexual reproduction.

          EDIT: bad copy/paste

        • Greg G.

          Now you are being stupid. Evolution says no such thing. Evolution is gradual. We know a baby doesn’t turn elderly in a day but they do over time very gradually.

          Evolution does address the development of sexes and it is not a dilemma. Worms have both male and female organs so they can reproduce as males and females, so we know their ancestors were that way. If such a worm has defective female sex organs, it could reproduce as males which requires fewer resources so if the change was genetic, it could be more successful. If the percentage of males increased due to the advantage, then those with female parts would be able to reproduce more than males because they would have more mating opportunities while their male organs would be less useful.

          So they end up as a separate species while the other worms keep doing it the way they always did. The worms with separate genders become vertebrates, then fish, then amphibians, then mammals, apes, then humans.

          You have been lied to by creationists. You should stop repeating their lies until you know what science actually says. You should also leave your lying church.

        • Pofarmer

          Now you are being stupid.

          Just now?

        • MNb

          “Let every man be a liar… says Gods word.”
          Yeah. The difference between you and I though is that I do my best not to lie, while you wallow in your sinful nature and keep on lying.
          By claiming that you were quoting the Scriptures for instance.
          You didn’t.
          And even if you did the point is that you as a sinner tend to violate what Scripture says all the time. Hence you overall prefer to love with hypocrisy, enjoy evil and turn away from what is good. In other words – you wipe your sorry creationist ass with what you quote.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Just saying things doesn’t make them true, nor do I ever attempt to lie.

          Will you pray this or are you too prideful…

          Lord Jesus,
          I was told by a witness of yours that I am blind, but you give sight. The witness said I was evil, even though I say I am good. The witness against my sin damns me, I am a slave to my sin, but Christ sets free. How can the def hear Lord Jesus, unless you open my ears. Because you were resurrected, I can only have faith that saves if you give it to me. I am without strength against death, I ask you for eternal life and to be sealed by your promised Holy Spirit. Adopt me from the devil’s family, into an eternal inheritance with you, now, before my vapor of a life expires from earth.
          In the name of Jesus of Nazareth,
          Amen.

        • epeeist

          Will you pray this

          Praying, how to do nothing and still pretend you are helping.

          or alternatively:

          Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer

        • adam
        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Wrong, many civilizations didn’t want Jesus in there life, because He is Lord. Same reason why you don’t want Him in your life, He is Lord, and doesn’t approve of your sin. His crucifixion and resurrection are your only hope to escape judgment, death is 100% certain for you, it will come shortly, your life is a vapor. You twist the scripture to your own destruction…

          And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe the gospel.

        • adam

          “. Same reason why you don’t want Him in your life, He is Lord, and doesn’t approve of your sin.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/984030700e86062e2deb26f5244a20edfd5d804ca6e1cfaafac40f75368cdb20.png

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e936d3b9451f720cc31cb395e29d663e0b002544c7104ca964476499270530f4.jpg

          “And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe the gospel.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e389054ce6c972f909aee2e1015b3f98cdad7f4e59ed68593237da544ca0616c.jpg

        • adam
        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          NOT NEW TESTAMENT…

          Doesn’t apply to Christians and never has…

          Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

          Fulfilled when Jesus came, died, and resurrected.

          Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

          Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaks better things than that of Abel.

          Christians are dead to that law you quoted

          Romans 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

        • adam
        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Which is why
          Romans 3:19 – 24
          Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
          Ro 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
          Ro 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
          Ro 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
          Ro 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
          Ro 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

        • adam
        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          0% obey the command, what happened? Maybe Christ?

        • adam

          It’s not actually 0%

          I know Paul was ok with abandoning Jesus’s words, as are you.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/89d230f179881be8275da4101e50e5e24d2a0bb95addba201026fbc36fa9a751.jpg

        • adam

          “Let every man be a liar… says Gods word.”

          God is such a liar

          Ephesians 4:25 – Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2ceec26ad7b22af608c85ee0afb846b3763896e7e500d415999fbad78f93e1c2.jpg

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What is this–the game of Bible one-upmanship? You can make the Bible say pretty much whatever you want. It’s still a book of mythology and legend.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Bob,
          I’m 99.53 up, but who’s counting, c’mon…

          The scriptures aren’t dictated by what I believe, only what is written. Thats why Jesus said “it is written”, that way you can see for yourself and it can’t change.

          For instance if you say Jesus is not the Christ or the Son of God and He said, when asked on trial…

          Again the high priest asked him, and said to him, Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am:

          Then you contradicting Jesus makes you a false witness and a liar. Why go against the Son of God?

          I challenge you to pray this Bob…

          Lord Jesus,
          I was told by a witness of yours that I am blind, but you give sight. The witness said I was evil, even though I say I am good. The witness against my sin damns me, I am a slave to my sin, but Christ sets free. How can the def hear Lord Jesus, unless you open my ears. Because you were resurrected, I can only have faith that saves if you give it to me. I am without strength against death, I ask you for eternal life and to be sealed by your promised Holy Spirit. Adopt me from the devil’s family, into an eternal inheritance with you.
          In the name of Jesus of Nazareth,
          Amen.

          Nazareth is a real place https://www.google.com/maps/place/Nazareth,+Israel/@32.7130708,35.2575109,12z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x151c4e7cf16c0fff:0xd2385b30c1275dd6!8m2!3d32.699635!4d35.303546

        • Kodie

          You are super-brainwashed.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Bethlehem is a real place…

          Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

          https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bethlehem/@31.7262002,35.1754831,13z/data=!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x1502d865aec80d67:0xf5c4213de4baf1f8!2sBethlehem!3b1!8m2!3d31.7053821!4d35.2024425!3m4!1s0x1502d865aec80d67:0xf5c4213de4baf1f8!8m2!3d31.7053821!4d35.2024425

        • Kodie

          That’s nice. So what.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Caesar was a real Roman ruler…

          Luke 20:25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.

          https://www.britannica.com/biography/Augustus-Roman-emperor
          https://www.biography.com/people/caesar-augustus-39561

        • Kodie

          Yay, so what.

        • Greg G.

          Yes, we have evidence of Augustus Caesar, lots of it. None for Jesus. The archaeology of Bethlehem shows that it was an active region before and after the first century BC and AD but there has been nothing found to show that it was occupied during the Herod era and after. Luke was using Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews for the names.

          The OT has some verses about the Messiah being a descendant of David from the root of Jesse of Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). John 7:40-42 has a conundrum about how Jesus could be the Messiah if he was from Galilee when the scriptures said he had to be from Bethlehem. Matthew contrived the birth narrative and the genealogy to show this. Luke thought Matthew was full of crap because Matthew’s genealogy makes a big deal of there being three sets of 14 generations, but he left out four names in the second set and the third set has only 13 generations. Luke was apparently horrified that God would allow a bunch of babies to be slaughtered while protecting only Jesus, so a new birth narrative had to be created.

          Matthew’s birth narrative is based on Josephus’ account of Moses’ birth and other passages from Antiquities of the Jews.

        • adam
        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          0% of Christians own slaves…

        • epeeist

          0% of Christians own slaves…

          That may be true now (though one has to wonder how many Christians are involved with modern slavery).

          Was it true a couple of hundred years ago, or in the antebellum South before the American civil war?

        • Greg G.

          But Christians have owned slaves for over 18 centuries after Christianity began and still would if it wasn’t against secular law.

        • adam
        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          ZERO
          number of slaves, Jesus, the apostles, or Christians today own.
          Prove me wrong.

        • adam

          Prove it, dont claim it.

        • adam

          Your claim, your proof.

          Jesus is dead, the apostles are dead, so I wouldnt expect them to own slaves.
          Now prove that all other christians in the world does not own slaves.

        • adam
        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          weird.

        • adam
        • epeeist

          So what.

          The stupidity goes like this:

          P1. The wholly babble says Jesus was born in Bethlehem

          P2. Bethlehem exists as a real place

          C. Therefore Jesus must have existed

          Einstein comes to mind, “Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not yet completely sure about the universe.”

        • Kodie

          It’s really difficult to even deal with this level of separation from reality. I asked direct questions and got space-cadet answers or no answers.

        • epeeist

          I asked direct questions and got space-cadet answers or no answers.

          Well one can only imagine that breathing and answering questions simultaneously must be a challenge.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Nope…
          Who does this describe…

          Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

          Matthew 21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

          There were over 100 written prophecies that came true in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus… that’s why.

          The writings which we KNOW for certain were written a bare minimum 300 years before Jesus’ birth, and thats not evidence?

        • epeeist

          So essentially “Matthew” made sure his story to fitted with Zechariah.

        • Greg G.

          Matthew has Jesus riding two donkeys while Mark had him on one. Matthew had Jesus heal two blind men while Mark had him heal only Bartimaeus. Matthew exaggerates lies.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Let’s see how good you are at Christian trivia. Which gospels have Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, and which have him riding on two donkeys? (I imagine him standing on their backs, like a circus acrobat.)

          And help me understand your position. If you saw someone in another religion look at his ancient holy book, see a prophecy, and then write a fulfillment of that prophecy, you’d point out that that author is biased and shouldn’t be listened to. But then you make the same error yourself. Explain.

        • Greg G.

          (I imagine him standing on their backs, like a circus acrobat.)

          I see a mother and colt of different sizes, so Jesus would be doing the Captain Morgan position.

        • adam
        • adam
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m 99.53 up, but who’s counting

          I don’t get it. Is that your temperature?

          The scriptures aren’t dictated by what I believe, only what is written. Thats why Jesus said “it is written”, that way you can see for yourself and it can’t change.

          Then explain to me why Christians can’t agree on what “Christianity” is. Why are there 45,000 Christian denominations, increasing at a rate of 2 per day?

          Poor Jesus. Was he dyslexic or something? Unable to clearly convey his perfect truth? He must be kicking himself now seeing how inept he was during his ministry.

          I challenge you to pray this Bob…

          You first. Pray that to Satan, then get back to me.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Then explain to me why Christians can’t agree on what “Christianity” is. Why are there 45,000 Christian denominations, increasing at a rate of 2 per day? @BobSeidensticker:disqus

          ANSWER
          Matthew 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

          1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

        • epeeist

          ANSWER
          Matthew 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

          And how do you know that you are following the correct one and are not being deceived?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So we’re in agreement: “Christianity” is ambiguous. Your holy book, delivered courtesy of an infallible god, does a terrible job at making his message clear.

          Why are you hanging around here? It’s your fellow Christians who are your bigger problem.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Ephesians 4:5 – One faith… right in front of your eyes.

        • Greg G.

          But there are thousands of denominations because there is not one faith. You should be trying to unify Christianity rather than convert more diverse opinions to Christianity. Jesus thought that Christians should agree and that would convert the rest of the world. Why not make that your mission? Or do you think Jesus was foolish to pray for that?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’re embarrassing yourself. The Bible claims one faith. Reality claims 45,000 denominations.

          The next time you lament that your life sucks, just remember that God is omniscient and omnipotent, and he couldn’t get his infallible word out clearly. I’m sure baby Jesus cries every time a new denomination is created–which means, on average, twice a day.

          Speech defect, maybe? Autism? If I’m too hard on a guy who has some sort of disability, let me know and I’ll back off.

        • adam

          “The scriptures aren’t dictated by what I believe, only what is written.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/86effa5e2bc761ae95f687bf44f1632c13ebd40a54b07502d779f242a887cc3e.jpg

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Another OT verse, Im not in that religion… in the NEW Testament, Jesus called the pharisee’s hypocrites.

        • Greg G.

          But Jesus sanctioned the beating of slaves which implies that he followed Leviticus 25:44-46, which allows a slave to be treated harshly as long as the slave was a Gentile.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

          Colossians 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

        • Greg G.

          Are you trying to argue that Paul unsanctioned slavery after Jesus sanctioned it? Paul sent Onesimus back to his owner with a letter and a promise to pay for any loss of service. He said he hoped Philemon would welcome him as more than a slave. What does “more than a slave” mean if “there is neither bond nor free”?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Paul never sanctioned or unsanctioned anything… The gospel isn’t something he “made up”…

          Galatians 1:11-16
          1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
          1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
          1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
          1:14 And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
          1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,
          1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

        • Greg G.

          Paul never sanctioned or unsanctioned anything…

          Then why did you quote him after I showed that Jesus sanctioned beating slaves, which also implicitly sanctions slavery.

          The gospel isn’t something he “made up”…

          Romans 1:1-2
          1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures,

          Romans 16:25-26
          25 Now to God who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages 26 but is now disclosed, and through the prophetic writings is made known to all the Gentiles, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith

          Ephesians 3:2-9
          2 for surely you have already heard of the commission of God’s grace that was given me for you, 3 and how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I wrote above in a few words, 4 a reading of which will enable you to perceive my understanding of the mystery of Christ. 5 In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: 6 that is, the Gentiles have become fellow heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 7 Of this gospel I have become a servant according to the gift of God’s grace that was given me by the working of his power. 8 Although I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of the boundless riches of Christ, 9 and to make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things;

          Paul is talking about the revelation being from Jesus through the reading of the prophets. There are other verses that sound like he is saying he got it from the Lord, but there are OT passages that tell him that.

          Somebody told the Galatians that Jesus was not crucified which is why Paul had to go over his reasoning in Galatians 3:6-14. He had just discredited Cephas and James in the previous chapters and continued to rail against the “circumcision faction” through the whole letter, meaning it must of been they who told the Galatians that Jesus was not crucified. Paul made that up on his own. Paul reasoned that one who is under the law is cursed and one who is hung on a tree is cursed, therefore Jesus had to have been crucified.

        • Pofarmer

          Wouldn’t it be interesting to know what the cult in Jerusalem was actually teaching?

        • Greg G.

          I have been comparing Galatians, James, and Romans. I think the Epistle of James is from the James who Paul was discrediting in Galatians and is a response to that letter. Paul quotes Leviticus 19:18, echoing Rabbi Hillel:

          Galatians 5:14 (NRSV)14 For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

          James responds to that by saying that Leviticus 19:18 is a good start but that one must follow the whole law:

          James 2:8-10 (NRSV)8 You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 9 But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.

          James then brings up adultery and murder, as if he thinks Paul is saying that murder is OK if you have faith.

          James 2:11 (NRSV)11 For the one who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.

          Paul appears to be responding to that by mentioning the commandments, starting with adultery and murder. Paul insists that loving your neighbor prevents those things and restates Leviticus 19:18.

          Romans 13:8-10 (NRSV)8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.

          Paul uses Abraham as an example of faith blessing others, including Gentiles, citing Genesis 15: in verse 6 and alluding to Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; and 26:4 in verse 8

          Galatians 3:6-9 (NRSV)6 Just as Abraham “believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” [Ἀβραὰμ ἐπίστευσεν τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην] 7 so, you see, those who believe are the descendants of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.” 9 For this reason, those who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed.

          James thinks Paul is crazy. He says Abraham was justified by his works (binding Isaac) and his faith, also quoting Genesis 15:6:

          James 2:20-23 (NRSV)20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. 23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” [ἐπίστευσεν δὲ Ἀβραὰμ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην] and he was called the friend of God.

          Paul again quotes Genesis 15:6 but thinks it is ridiculous that Abraham would be justified by works.

          Romans 4:1-5 (NRSV)1 What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” [ἐπίστευσεν δὲ Ἀβραὰμ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην] 4 Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. 5 But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness.

          Edit: I just added the Greek for Galatians 3:6 and noticed that the version in Romans 4:3 matches the Greek in James 2:23, rather than Galatians. The Septuagint Genesis 15:6 has [καὶ ἐπίστευσεν Αβραμ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην]. I haven’t reflected on this yet.

          It looks like Paul and James were arguing here. I wish we had their follow-ups.

          But sometimes Paul agrees with James as here on not judging others.

          James 4:12 (NRSV)12 There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy. So who, then, are you to judge [σὺ δὲ τίς εἶ ὁ κρίνων] your neighbor?

          Romans 14:4 (NRSV)4 Who are you to pass judgment [σὺ τίς εἶ ὁ κρίνων] on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

          The word “μακροθυμίας” for “patience” is used four times in the New Testament but this three word combination is used twice. So Paul agrees with James here, too:

          James 5:10 (NRSV)10 As an example of suffering and patience [καὶ τῆς μακροθυμίας], beloved, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.

          Romans 2:4 (NRSV)4 Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience[καὶ τῆς μακροθυμίας]? Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          you missed the point “Paul never sanctioned anything”…

          He wasn’t bearing witness of himself… he received the gospel from a revelation from Jesus Christ… Christ isn’t a last name…

          God himself (Jesus) created a New Covenant/Testament.

          Here ya go…

          Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away.
          Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaks better things than that of Abel.

        • Greg G.

          Matthew 5:18 (NRSV)18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. –Jesus H. Christ

          Paul prophesied this:

          1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 (NRSV)15 For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. 16 For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever.

          These are very obviously Paul’s sources:

          Isaiah 26:19-21 (NRSV)19 Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise.    O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy!For your dew is a radiant dew,    and the earth will give birth to those long dead.20 Come, my people, enter your chambers,    and shut your doors behind you;hide yourselves for a little while    until the wrath is past.21 For the Lord comes out from his place    to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity;the earth will disclose the blood shed on it,    and will no longer cover its slain.

          Daniel 7:11, 13 (NRSV)11 I watched then because of the noise of the arrogant words that the horn was speaking. And as I watched, the beast was put to death, and its body destroyed and given over to be burned with fire.13 As I watched in the night visions,

          I saw one like a human being    coming with the clouds of heaven.And he came to the Ancient One

              and was presented before him.

          Daniel 12:2 (NRSV)2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

          Isaiah 25:8 (NRSV)8     he will swallow up death forever.Then the Lord God will wipe away the tears from all faces,    and the disgrace of his people he will take away from all the earth,    for the Lord has spoken.

          So, it can’t pass away until that happens. Paul thought it would happen during his lifetime, since he used the first person plural for the living and the third person plural for the dead. So, it’s about 2000 years overdue. Maybe Jesus got an infection in heaven and died from it so everything got called off.

          This is interesting. Check out what Josephus says that the Pharisees believed and compare it to Daniel 12:2:

          Jewish Wars 2.8.14
          They [Pharisees] say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, – but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          That is a lot of interpretation…some accurate matches… some terrible… here is where you fit in….

          “So, it’s about 2000 years overdue. Maybe Jesus got an infection in heaven and died from it so everything got called off.” -Greg G.

          2 Peter 3:3-5
          3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
          3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
          3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

          Not one letter on the law did pass away… you blew the interpretation… That’s why the whole world is guilty and we are now saved “by grace” if we receive salvation…

          Romans 3:19
          Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

          Ephesians 2:8-9
          For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
          Not of works, lest any man should boast.

        • Greg G.

          That is a lot of interpretation…some accurate matches… some terrible… here is where you fit in….

          I quoted the entire verse but the writings Paul had were not numbered and divided like the Bibles we know. So Paul was free to pick and choose parts of them. He quoted only the first line of Isaiah 25:8. So you can ignore the parts Paul didn’t borrow. Paul also used the same verses for 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 and a few of them for Philippians 3:20-21.

          2 Peter 3:3-5
          3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

          Yeah, yeah, yeah… 2 Peter was trying to make the case that they were finally in the last days as there were scoffers then as we can see in 2 Peter 1:16.

          Why take Romans 3:19 out of context when the verses that follow make the same point as the Ephesians passage? Even Romans 4:2 has the “boast” message. It’s like the author of Ephesians was borrowing from Paul’s writings to make people think it was actually from Paul, just like the author of 2 Peter was forged.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          “Why take Romans 3:19 out of context when the verses that follow make the same point as the Ephesians passage? Even Romans 4:2 has the “boast” message. .It’s like the author of Ephesians was borrowing from Paul’s writings to make people think it was actually from Paul,” – Greg G

          Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

          Paul did write it…

          You keep bearing false witness, and not ignorantly…

          Want to know God is real Greg G… pray, not say, not mouth, but pray this.

          Lord Jesus Christ,

          Your witness says I am blind, but you give sight. Your witness said I was evil, even though I say I am good. The witness against my sin damns me, I am a slave to my sin, but Christ sets free. How can the def hear Lord Jesus, unless you open my ears. I believe deception, reveal in me your Truth. Because you were resurrected, I can only have faith that saves if you give it to me, quicken me. I am without strength against death, death is certain for me, I ask you for eternal life and to be sealed by your promised Holy Spirit, now. Adopt me from the devil’s family, into an eternal inheritance with you, now, before my vapor of a life expires from earth.

          In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, I pray.

          In Jesus Christ the Son of the one true and living God’s name, I pray.

          Amen.

        • Greg G.

          Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

          Paul did write it…

          You keep bearing false witness, and not ignorantly…

          Would you expect a forged letter to say, “Somebody pretending to be Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God…”?

          Somebody as uninformed as you are should not be calling other people ignorant. Here are some reasons that you may be ignorant of for why Ephesians is generally considered to not actually be from Paul:

          Authorship and Authenticity

          Colossians and Ephesians are very similar to each other in many ways, but both are significantly different from the earlier “undisputed” letters of Paul; yet biblical scholars disagree as to how these differences can best be explained.

          • Some scholars say the differences are the result of shifts in Paul’s thinking as he got older; thus, both letters must have been written late in Paul’s life, just before his death (see Col 4:3-4, 10, 18; Eph 3:1; 4:1).
          • Other scholars say the differences are better explained by considering the letters to be pseudepigraphic; some of his followers wrote after his death to carry on his teachings, applying and adapting them to changing circumstances.
          • The authorship of Colossians is disputed about 50/50 (half of all scholars think it is authentic; the other half think it is pseudepigraphic); on the other hand, Ephesians is almost certainly pseudepigraphic (80/20 divide among scholars).

          When and from where were these letters written?

          • If they are authentic: in the early 60’s, from Caesarea or Rome, while Paul was imprisoned (Phase IV of Paul’s life)
          • If they are pseudepigraphic: in the 80’s or 90’s, probably from Asia Minor (maybe from Ephesus itself?)
          • In either case, the author(s) know(s) some people in these churches, and they know several of the authors’ associates, indicating lots of travel back and forth between the various Pauline communities in Asia Minor.

          Ephesians was almost certainly written later than Colossians, and is literarily dependent upon it.

          • It is placed earlier in the NT in most Bibles today simply because it is longer (Eph has 6 chapters; Col only 4 chapters).
          • In some early manuscripts of the NT, however, Ephesians is first in the group of Paul’s letters, thus functioning like a “cover letter” or introduction to the Pauline corpus.

          http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-Colossians-Ephesians.htm

          •Absence of normal Pauline greetings at the end of the epistle
          •No discussion of eschatology in the letter
          •Ephesians 2:1-10 is written as if the kingdom of heaven has already come
          •Style is sluggish and ponderous, unlike Paul’s volatile style
          •Anachronistic references to the existence of heretical sects
          •Use of key technical phrases differs from the genuine Pauline epistles.
          http://archive.is/B0G8t

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Forged letter… LOL
          Catholic reference (from you)… LOL

          you come to conclusions the same way you do with the “Big Bang”… most of what you said is “speculation” and “imagination” to draw conclusions that the overwhelming evidence does NOT say…

        • epeeist

          you come to conclusions the same way you do with the “Big Bang”.

          And yet when it comes to the actual evidence for the Big Bang you don’t seem to have a response…

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          There is NO evidence of “nothing becoming rock”, only speculation & imagination, get with it…

        • Kodie

          When I asked you where god got materials, you quoted the bible where it says something about words, but you don’t tell us how that works or provide any evidence. You’re welcome to stay as ignorant as you please, but I don’t know what you think you can accomplish by fighting with people who have a basic understanding of reality while you refuse to.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Hi Kodie,

          What “evidence” would you be expecting? A video, picture, or something else? There are miracles in the scriptures among MANY things that we can observe (archeology)(manuscripts)(locations) that cannot be denied are true… No matter who you are you are going to say 1 of 2 things, both of which are faith based…

          1. In the beginning God created everything (coming from writings that have predicted the future over 100x’s with 100% accuracy in the world we live)
          or
          2. In the beginning “NOTHING BECAME SOMETHING” (coming from mans imagination an speculation, both of which contradict reality.)

          Scripture identifies Jesus as Creator.
          John 1:1-3
          1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
          1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
          1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

          Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

        • Kodie

          You have some fucking nerve rejecting something because it sounds imaginary to your ignorant self, and then replacing it with a fucking myth story. You are clearly a wishful thinker, brainwashed as fuck, and delusional about how convincing this story would be to someone outside of your big fat bubble of ignorance. You believe nothing became something, but because your imaginary friend made it so. Why do you think we should even listen to you? Are you too lazy to go stand on a street corner ranting at strangers like the lunatic you clearly are?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Kodie,
          I care about the truth, not the sci-fi lies you have been fed and cling to. Have you ever considered what the gospel is? Your works will not save you, the witness against you is damning. Call on Jesus for forgiveness of your sins and salvation, before you die, which is going to happen soon.

        • adam
        • Kodie

          Your fantasy world is not at all convincing, and neither are your threats. I consider the gospel fiction, and believers idiots.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          I’ve made zero threats… only stated truth that you will face one day, regardless if you “believe” it or not.

        • Kodie

          It’s a threat. You’re threatened by it, so now you crazy loon, trying to get other people to validate your insanity. Sorry!

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Which do you find fault in…

          1. And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them likewise.

          2. Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

          3. But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

          4. That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
          That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love,

        • adam
        • Kodie

          I find fault that you think this is so amazing, only god could tell you.

        • MNb

          1. That christians like you preach this, but hardly practise it;
          2. That christians like you preach this, but hardly practise it;
          3. That Jesus didn’t practise it when he saw those money changers near the Temple;
          4. That I don’t desire glory,
          that his Spirit doesn’t strengthen my inner man but that I rather rely on the science called psychology,
          that Christ is a meaningless word,
          that the only thing I want to dwell in my heart is blood,
          that faith is useless,
          that it’s the other way round – my love is rooted and grounded in me,
          that christians like you preach love and practice hate.
          Quite a lot, don’t you think?

          Christianity like yours is a failure and has been for at least 1700 years.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          And you’re the same person who claimed you prayed the prayer I sent, twice? Can you see its obvious why nothing happened for you, you didn’t pray, not for a second. You have no humility. You deny the reality of your condition. The science of psychology has done nothing for you except leave questions, when Christ is the answer…

          Here is a scriptural response to your prayer efforts… try again when you are willing to repent…

          James 1:6-8
          1:6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavers is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
          1:7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
          1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

        • MNb

          “you didn’t pray”
          Brilliant display of a christianity preaching humility and practicing utter arrogance. You know better what I did and didn’t then I myself.

          “The science of psychology has done nothing for you except leave questions,”
          More christian arrogance – our creacrapper knows better what psychology has done for me than I myself.

          “when Christ is the answer…”
          But thanks for confirming that you’re a science denier.

          James doesn’t have any authority. He was just another ignorant who died almost 2000 years ago.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          MNb HERE ARE YOUR OWN WORDS as a reference, and you are condemning me for saying you didn’t pray?

          “That I don’t desire glory,
          that his Spirit doesn’t strengthen my inner man but that I rather rely on the science called psychology,
          that Christ is a meaningless word,
          that the only thing I want to dwell in my heart is blood,
          that faith is useless,”

          -MNb

          AND THEN I PROVIDED THE SCRIPTURES OWN RESPONSE

          James 1:6-8
          1:6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavers is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
          1:7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
          1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

        • MNb

          “Faith is useless” etc. is a conclusion. I would have abandoned it if something happened after me saying the prayer.
          But you being a lying creacrapper of course prefers to turn everything upside down.
          You are not even honest and clever enough to recognize what my

          ‘the only thing I want to dwell in my heart is blood’.
          means.
          It’s stupid creationists like you, who prefer to stick to ancient mistakes formulated by ignorants, who maintain that hearts do more than pumping blood.
          Thoughts, emotions, instincts and hence faith do not dwell in hearts. They dwell in brains.
          I do wish a lot more than blood dwelling in my brain. Apparently you do not, because you reject science and stick to the false idea that faith results from hearts.
          Anyhow, you just confirmed that your advise was totally circular. First I have to accept your crap (including the idea that your prayer works) and then I will conclude that your prayer works (and that I must accept your crap). Your belief system is build on stupidities and falsehoods. That’s why me saying your prayer didn’t work. Thanks for confirming; your reactions was what I expected.

        • adam
        • adam
        • adam
        • Kodie

          If god were real, why would you be blathering on like an idiot? You did make a threat, and from what truth do you speak? From your ass.

        • MNb

          “I care about the truth”
          Ah, that’s why you keep on lying that “Big Bang = nothing becomes rock = imaginary”.

        • adam

          ” which is going to happen soon.”

          Unless you plan on doing the killing, how do you know?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          If you live for 100 more years and then old age strikes you, what is 100 years in relation to time? I’m here pulling you out of the flames, out of the lies, out of your own corruption… you are perishing… give it some time if you don’t think so.

          Ephesians 3:4-6
          3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
          3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
          3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

        • adam

          “If you live for 100 more years and then old age strikes you, what is 100 years in relation to time?”

          A lot when we only live to an average 74 or so years, so YOU LIED for Jesus?

          ” I’m here pulling you out of the flames, out of the lies, out of your own corruption..”

          Yes, into your flames, your lies and your corruption

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/878b8e07d2b942087c85ac234890ad18b3e8f811594bc275918c5d05cbe88467.jpg

        • MNb

          See that you’re a liar?

          Your point 1 says “God created everything from nothing“. In Latin this means creatio ex nihilo. It’s what Genesis 1 describes.
          Science however doesn’t say at all that “NOTHING BECAME SOMETHING”.

          You are the one who says that nothing became something, not science. And you are the one who prefers imagination and speculation to scientific fact and theory.
          If you care about the truth then President Trump is a communist agent from North Korea.

        • adam

          ” There are miracles in the scriptures among MANY things that we can observe ”

          Same type of miracles occur in Spiderman, Superman, and other fictional stories.

          “Scripture identifies Jesus as Creator.”

          Spiderman stories identify Spiderman having spider senses after being bit by radioactive spider
          Superman stories identify Superman having the ability to fly

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0a534c2021bc73169e9c10f64e398654f51c2ef83711258fb53a5bf8679a4423.jpg

        • epeeist

          There is NO evidence of “nothing becoming rock”, only speculation & imagination, get with it…

          This was the stupidity you came back with before, but when I raised things like red shift, CMBR structure, black body radiation and element distribution you ran away.

          Care to answer this post of mine? The one you avoided before.

        • adam
        • MNb

          Nope. And according to your own Holy Bible, Book Genesis, nothing became rock when your imaginary sky daddy spoke a few words. Genesis is just speculation and imagination. However you refuse to get with it and hence you’re a liar.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m late to the conversation. Is anyone (besides you) talking about nothing becoming rock?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Bob! Good day to you! Where have you been, injecting your right bicep with corn syrup?

          Well, since you left, I debunked the Big Bang, Evolution, and pretty much every false sci-fi claim that your cronies have thrown at me, I also was straightening those who butchered the bible (in your footsteps).

          All that said… how are you?

        • epeeist

          Well, since you left, I debunked the Big Bang, Evolution

          And that was even before you had breakfast.

          What other opportunities are available to such a genius? Oh I know, why don’t you read Stephen Hawking’s Ph.D. thesis and tell us where he went wrong.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          lets start with his belief in “aliens”… totally sci-fi.

        • epeeist

          No, I asked you to tell us where he had gone wrong in his thesis.

        • adam

          Yet, you believe in an invisible Sky Daddy…..

        • Kodie

          Let’s start with your willful ignorance. You don’t care about truth, you care about getting attention for being a streetcorner lunatic with no education who is afraid of his imaginary abuser.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Where have you been, injecting your right bicep with corn syrup?

          Paper, actually.

          I debunked the Big Bang, Evolution, and pretty much every false sci-fi claim that your cronies have thrown at me, I also was straightening those who butchered the bible (in your footsteps).

          Cool! Show me the scientific papers where this debunking occurred. It’d be a shame to keep it to yourself, so I’m sure you’ve run this past the experts.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          “Experts”… experts at what, believe nothing explodes/expands to form rock?

        • adam
        • Michael Neville

          You don’t know enough about the Big Bang, evolution, abiogenesis or anything else of that nature to even attempt to debunk it. Your “rock out of nothing” bullshit just shows your ignorance. Your incredulity and ignorance aren’t arguments against anything, they’re just evidence of your incredulity and ignorance. Learn something about the things your equally ignorant religious masters have told you “go against God’s word” before you pretend that you’ve debunked anything.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m not sure what you’re complaining about. As far as I can tell, you’re saying you don’t understand something, so anyone who says that is an idiot. Is that right?

          Show me a scientist (with an article link) who’s saying whatever it is that’s getting your panties in a twist.

        • Rudy R

          Yes, there is evidence. The rock.

        • Greg G.

          So what if it is a Catholic source. I accept valid arguments no matter what the source. It is an ad hominem fallacy to do otherwise. Show us where the Felix Just is misrepresenting scholars, as a whole.

          What is the “overwhelming evidence” you speak of? Why haven’t you brought any to the conversation? When Christians, especially the creationist types, trot out evidence, the LOLs begin as they show they do not understand what evidence is.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          The written witness… which you twist and corrupt and reject.

          Here is a question I’d like to here from you, show me your ignorance…

          QUESTION:

          When real people, in world history, write an eyewitness account of what they saw and heard with there own eyes, and there is overwhelming evidence they were real, and the letters are authentic…at what point does that become a “religious” document? regardless of its claims…

        • Greg G.

          When real people, in world history, write an eyewitness account of what they saw and heard with there own eyes, and there is overwhelming evidence they were real, and the letters are authentic…at what point does that become a “religious” document? regardless of its claims…

          When there is supporting evidence, we can take the account to fill in the details. If the account has a story about an eagle flying over being an omen from their god, we can discount that part. The losing side may have regarded the eagle as a sign form their god, too, but nobody from the losing side got to write their account.

          But you do not have overwhelming evidence. The gospels are based on the writing that were imitated extensively at the time and throughout history. They were written with the same literary techniques that first century writers of Greek used. So there is not reason to take them as history or eyewitness accounts, and all the more reason to consider them as non-eyewitness fiction.

          The epistles only speak of Jesus in terms of OT passages. You take 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 as an eye-witness account when it specifically says that it is according to the scriptures, telling you that Paul is saying it was read in the scriptures not seen in a vision. Paul is consistent with that. His revelations were from the “prophetic writings” not from first century events.

          Here is what Paul says about Jesus along with places where the information can be found in the OT. Below that are his sources for the Philippians Hymn, which is mostly from Isaiah.

          Past
          Descended from David > Romans 1:3, Romans 15:12* > 2 Samuel 7:12, Isaiah 11:10*
          Declared Son of God > Romans 1:4 > Psalm 2:7
          Made of woman, > Galatians 4:4 > Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 49:1, Isaiah 49:5
          Made under the law > Galatians 4:4, Galatians 3:10-12* > Deuteronomy 27:26*, Habakkuk 2:4*, Leviticus 18:5*
          Was rich, became poor > 2 Corinthians 8:9 > Zechariah 9:9
          Was meek and gentle > 2 Corinthians 10:1 > Isaiah 53:7
          Did not please himself > Romans 15:3* > Psalm 69:9*
          Became a servant of the circumcised > Romans 15:8 > Isaiah 53:11
          For the Gentiles > Romans 15:9-12* > Psalm 18:49*, 2 Samuel 22:50*, Deuteronomy 32:43*, Psalm 117:1*, Isaiah 11:10*

          Was betrayed > 1 Corinthians 11:23 > Psalm 41:9
          Took loaf of bread and wine > 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 > Psalm 41:9, Exodus 24:8, Leviticus 17:11, Isaiah 53:12 (“wine” = “blood of grapes” allusions in Genesis 49:11, Deuteronomy 32:14, Isaiah 49:26, Zechariah 9:15)

          Was crucified > 1 Corinthians 2:2, 2 Corinthians 13:4, Galatians 3:13* > Deuteronomy 21:23*
          Died for sins > 1 Corinthians 15:3, Galatians 2:20 > Isaiah 53:5, Isaiah 53:12
          Was buried > 1 Corinthians 15:4 > Isaiah 53:9
          Was raised > Romans 1:4, Romans 8:34, 1 Corinthians 15:4, 2 Corinthians 4:14, 2 Corinthians 13:4 > Hosea 6:2, Psalm 16:10, Psalm 41:10

          Present
          Sits next to God > Romans 8:34 > Psalm 110:1, Psalm 110:5
          Intercedes > Romans 8:34 > Isaiah 53:12

          Future
          Will come > 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, 1 Corinthians 15:51-54*, Philippians 3:20-21 > Isaiah 26:19-21, Daniel 7:11, Daniel 7:13; Daniel 12:2, Isaiah 25:8*

          * Denotes the NT verse quotes the OT verse

          The Philippians Hymn Sources

          Philippians 2:5-11 (NRSV)

          Isaiah or Deuteronomy Reference

          5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,

          1 Corinthians 11:1
          Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

          6 who, though he was in the form of God,

          Isaiah 52:14b
          his form beyond that of mortals

              did not regard equality with God

          Isaiah 9:6b
          he is named
          Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
              Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

              as something to be exploited,

          Isaiah 53:7
          He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
              yet he did not open his mouth;
          like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
              and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
              so he did not open his mouth.

          7 but emptied himself,

          Isaiah 53:12b
          because he poured out himself to death,

              taking the form of a slave,

          Isaiah 52:13a
          “See, my servant shall prosper”

              being born in human likeness.

          Isaiah 49:5
          and now the Lord says,
              who formed me in the womb to be his servant,

          And being found in human form,

          Isaiah 53:2
          For he grew up before him like a young plant,
              and like a root out of dry ground;
          he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
              nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

          8   he humbled himself

          Isaiah 53:3
          He was despised and rejected by others;
              a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity;
          and as one from whom others hide their faces
              he was despised, and we held him of no account.

              and became obedient to the point of death—

          Isaiah 53:10
          Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with pain.
          When you make his life an offering for sin,
              he shall see his offspring, and shall prolong his days;
          through him the will of the Lord shall prosper.

              even death on a cross.

          Deuteronomy 21:23 (per Galatians 3:13)
          23 his corpse must not remain all night upon the tree;
          you shall bury him that same day, for anyone hung on a
          tree is under God’s curse. You must not defile the land
          that the Lord your God is giving you for possession.

          9 Therefore God also highly exalted him

          Isaiah 52:13
          See, my servant will act wisely;
              he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.

              and gave him the name

          Isaiah 54:5a
          For your Maker is your husband,
              the Lord of hosts is his name;

              that is above every name,

          Isaiah 54:5b
          the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer,
              the God of the whole earth he is called.

          10 so that at the name of Jesus

          Isaiah 49:22
          Thus says the Lord God:
          I will soon lift up my hand to the nations,
              and raise my signal to the peoples;
          and they shall bring your sons in their bosom,
              and your daughters shall be carried on their shoulders.

              every knee should bend,

          Isaiah 45:23a
          By myself I have sworn,
              from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness
              a word that shall not return:
          “To me every knee shall bow,

              in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

          Isaiah 45:22
          Turn to me and be saved,
              all the ends of the earth!
              For I am God, and there is no other.

          11 and every tongue should confess

          Isaiah 45:23b
              every tongue shall swear.

              that Jesus Christ is Lord,

          Isaiah 45:24
          Only in the Lord, it shall be said of me,
              are righteousness and strength;
          all who were incensed against him
              shall come to him and be ashamed.

              to the glory of God the Father.

          Isaiah 45:25
          In the Lord all the offspring of Israel
              shall triumph and glory.

        • adam

          “When real people, in world history, write an eyewitness account of what
          they saw and heard with there own eyes, and there is overwhelming
          evidence they were real, and the letters are authentic…at what point
          does that become a “religious” document? regardless of its claims…”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/831e274b356c03b8778b1d9672b8ab244560e2fda7a4cd57b0436d5bda02694f.jpg

          Where is the ‘overwhelming evidence’?

        • Pofarmer

          You could go to earlychristianwritings.com and learn something. Or you could continue to go on like a moron. The choice is yours.

        • Greg G.

          I’m not sure SS has a choice on whether to continue like a moron.

        • Kodie

          Abracadabra, alakazam

        • Michael Neville

          Or as that paragon of military deportment, Gomer Pyle, would say: Shazam!

        • adam
        • adam

          “He wasn’t bearing witness of himself… he received the gospel from a
          revelation from Jesus Christ… Christ isn’t a last name…

          God himself (Jesus) created a New Covenant/Testament.”

          Same with Joseph Smith and Mormonism.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Ever considered Galatians 1:6-9, in light of Joespeh smith’s revelation from the “angel” moroni over 1,500 years later?

          Galatians 1:6-9
          Ga 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
          Ga 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
          Ga 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
          Ga 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

          With this we know that any “Christian” religion formed after that apostles that deviates from New Testament instructions is “false”. The mormons got a whole new book, a license to commit adultery, and many other wicked acts… and you think Joseph and the Revelation of Jesus are the same?

          Which do you confess; “sin is a reality” or “sin does not exist” ?

        • adam
        • adam
        • Greg G.

          Ever considered Galatians 1:6-9, in light of Joespeh smith’s revelation from the “angel” moroni over 1,500 years later?

          Do you think Paul was addressing Joseph Smith? Just after that, Paul says he did not receive his gospel from human sources, then mentions that he visited Cephas and James, which say he did not get if from them. In Galatians 2:6, Paul expresses disdain for the rank of the “pillars” and said he received nothing from them, then identifies the pillars as Cephas, James, and John three verses later. In Galatians 2:11-12, Paul says James sent two men to Antioch which intimidated Cephas into acting differently and that these men were from the circumcision faction. Paul argues against the need for circumcision several times in Galatians, going so far as to wish the circumcisors would go the whole way and castrate themselves in Galatians 5:11-12. Paul ends the letter by arguing against circumcision in Galatians 6:15 and complaining about people making trouble for him. Notice that the only people mentioned in the letter as making trouble for him is the circumcision group, specifically Cephas and James.

          Did James take that laying down? No. He addressed Paul saying that “loving your neighbor fulfilled the whole law” (Galatians 5:14; quoting Leviticus 19:18) with saying that was a good start but if you break one little bit of the law, you have broken the whole law, and then cites the OT restrictions against adultery and murder, in James 2:8-11. Paul responded to that in Romans 13:8-10, citing the commandments against adultery, murder, stealing, coveting, and any other, saying that they are all covered under “loving your neighbor”. Galatians is all about faith being most important, but

          James thinks Paul is saying that one can commit adultery and murder with faith only, so the Epistle of James argues for the necessity of faith and works, which means following all of the rules in the OT, which Cephas didn’t do in Antioch until James’ agents arrived.

          In Galatians 3:6-9, Paul cites Genesis 15:6 and alludes to Genesis 12:3, insisting that it was Abraham’s faith that was important. But James 2:20-23 quotes Genesis 15:6, too, but says it was Abraham’s works (Binding of Isaac) that was important. Paul responds to that in Romans 4:1-5 where he points out that Genesis 15:6 says it was Abraham believing God that made him righteous.

          We can find places in Romans where Paul agrees with James, too, but it is obvious that they had differences and the were reading each other’s mail to the churches. So the other gospel that Paul was complaining about was coming from James. Paul’s rhetorical question in Galatians 3:1, about who had bewitched them, would be Cephas and/or Paul. That Paul had to explain that Jesus was crucified immediately after that shows that somebody had told them that Jesus was not crucified. Paul used several OT verses in Galatians 3:6-14 to show that Jesus had to have been crucified. He couldn’t just tell them to ask Cephas and James because they appear to be the people he was talking about.

          So the Jews in 1 Corinthians 1:23 (“but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles”) may well be the other apostles.

        • adam

          Thanks always!

        • james
        • adam
        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          yes, some instructions were left for existing slaves, which were not necessarily “Jewish” slaves…

        • Greg G.

          Jesus sanctioned slavery and the beating of slaves, according to Luke. Paul didn’t unsanction slavery.

        • adam
        • adam
        • adam

          “The scriptures aren’t dictated by what I believe, only what is written.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dc554b74af68425056b8a4228b7f09490a1e80f6c6bf14f85bbce2e8015a0bfb.jpg

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Old testament, this is getting boring. OT is not a religion for today and hasnt been since Christ. No “Christians” group, cult or not, applies this teaching, because it doesn’t mean anything…

          Galatians 2:19
          For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Tell that to the anti-gay Christians who bring up Sodom or the Levitical prohibitions against homosexuality.

          Since so many Christians are doing it wrong, I wonder that you have the time to hang out here.

        • adam
        • adam

          “The scriptures aren’t dictated by what I believe, only what is written.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c862151f2f5bdf2af3910632858abe4bc4896f4a6d1d906e92b6825e8d451539.jpg

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Nowadays they either let the rapist go or he does less than 7 years, pays nothing, is fed, clothed, and given a place to sleep, costing tax payers over $25,000+/year.

          God said the rapist pays for his crime equal to cash value, and takes care of the person he raped forever, a life sentence of care for a woman.

          @@disqus_xusoHBL07f:disqus your unrighteous is growing exceedingly…

        • adam

          (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)

          If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not
          engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must
          marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be
          allowed to divorce her.

          Doesnt say he has to take care of her

          Here God demonstrates that rape is just PROPERTY DAMAGE

          (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

          If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed,
          and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of
          the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not
          cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he
          violated his neighbors wife.

          (Judges 5:30 NAB)

          They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a
          damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera’s spoil, an
          ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13282502375d3da24cf6b663f813609c25b2ff6c1bdd9b750a6d095cf6c73c07.jpg

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          When you run out of material… here is your brothers site… http://www.evilbible.com

          Jesus said
          For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

        • adam
        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          How many slaves did Jesus own?

          How many slaves did his disciples own?

        • epeeist

          How many slaves did Jesus own?

          How many slaves did his disciples own?

          I don’t know and further neither do you in that the wholly babble doesn’t say either way.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          k, tell adam.

        • Greg G.

          Jesus didn’t see anything wrong with beating slaves. Maybe he was against beating them in the face because you might knock out a tooth and have to set the slave free.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          How many slaves did Jesus beat? How many were actually beat as a direct command of His (update) by His followers?

        • Greg G.

          How many were actually beat as a direct command of His?

          A lot more than would have been beaten if Luke had Jesus say, “Don’t own slaves.” Christian slave owners took what Luke wrote as full permission to beat slaves and feel like a righteous Christian while doing it.

        • BlackMamba44
        • adam
        • adam

          “When you run out of material… here is your brothers site… http://www.evilbible.com

          My brother has nothing to do with that site.
          So it must be YOUR “God’s” site

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9fef3e09d4fced201880c6048e47897bc3461d04f1c5de54936408c4560c105b.jpg

          God brags about creating Evil Bible…..

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5384be5f51cf510dfcc10cdfe33853ac2af771a7fcfadd6eae4080d22b61519f.jpg

        • Greg G.

          adam is quoting the Bible, the same as you are. He is exposing the verses Christians don’t like to talk about in Church. Have you ever done a responsive reading from Ezekiel 23?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Adam is indeed quoting the OT, a form of religion DONE AWAY with in Christ. The OT doesn’t apply to Christians and NEVER has in any era. Galatians 2:19 was written by a Pharisee, let that sink in.

          Since I have read the bible, in its entirety, some books over a dozen times, I am not surprised when I read anything atheist post. Some of what is being posted is “history”, so are things that are scripted in ways we could never understand, some things are part of religion that was abolished by God himself in Chrsit for believers…

          In case you missed the point

          Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
          Ga 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

          Leviticus 19:18
          Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

          Matthew 22:39
          And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

          Galatians 5:14
          For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

          James 2:8
          If you fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

          Maybe you missed the point. If you aren’t a Jew/Hebrew, why are you focused on the Old Testament? It records religion and world history, both in a way that are not a pattern for life today… how many times has God rained down fire and brimstone on you when you committed fornication? Or any other city for the last 2,000+ years?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Greg,
          Ive read the entire Bible, some books over a dozen times, your questions or misinterpretations or passing on Old Testament verses that have NOTHING to do with Christianity do not phase me… want to take the bible and slander it, copy and paste from this site http://www.evilbible.com
          Want to have Christ in you, the hope of glory, pray this…

          Lord Jesus Christ,

          Your witness says I am blind, but you give sight. Your witness said I was evil, even though I say I am good. The witness against my sin damns me, I am a slave to my sin, but Christ sets free. How can the def hear Lord Jesus, unless you open my ears. I believe deception, reveal in me your Truth. Because you were resurrected, I can only have faith that saves if you give it to me, quicken me. I am without strength against death, death is certain for me, I ask you for eternal life and to be sealed by your promised Holy Spirit, now. Adopt me from the devil’s family, into an eternal inheritance with you, now, before my vapor of a life expires from earth.
          In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, I pray.
          In Jesus Christ the Son of the one true and living God’s name, I pray.
          Amen.

        • Greg G.

          I don’t slander the Bible. I just point out what is says and how Christians have misinterpreted it. I don’t slander God because I don’t believe he exists, so I am not accusing him of drowning the world, sending millions of Hebrews on a 40 year wild goose chase through the desert, bombing Sodom and Gomorrah, and all the other atrocities. You Christians slander your God with those accusations. You should be so ashamed that you give up religion for being foolish.

          I did that prayer twice. Once to Jesus and once to my refrigerator. The refrigerator was there when I started and there when I finished. Jesus… not so much.

        • Kodie
        • BlackMamba44

          Your buybull also said Ruth “cleaved” to Naomi. What were they doing?

          Jesus was just quoting the OT. I think you “yawned” at the OT.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And that’s the best you can imagine for the victim? She’s stuck living with her rapist forever?

          Why does the atheist have to be the one to explain why that sucks?

        • Greg G.

          Deuteronomy 22:23-24 (NRSV)23 If there is a young woman, a virgin already engaged to be married, and a man meets her in the town and lies with her, 24 you shall bring both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help in the town and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

        • BlackMamba44

          So, in other words, your god forces the woman to marry her rapist.

          50 shekels and he can rape her the rest of her life.

          Sick.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Nope… Why does every atheist think the Old Testament is for Christians? You have NO understanding of the New Covenant. Show me New Testament and when you do, I’ll show you how you twist the scriptures and show you the Gospel… for the salvation of your soul… pray this

          Lord Jesus Christ,

          Your witness says I am blind, but you give sight. Your witness said I was evil, even though I say I am good. The witness against my sin damns me, I am a slave to my sin, but Christ sets free. How can the def hear Lord Jesus, unless you open my ears. I believe deception, reveal in me your Truth. Because you were resurrected, I can only have faith that saves if you give it to me, quicken me. I am without strength against death, death is certain for me, I ask you for eternal life and to be sealed by your promised Holy Spirit, now. Adopt me from the devil’s family, into an eternal inheritance with you, now, before my vapor of a life expires from earth.
          In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, I pray.
          In Jesus Christ the Son of the one true and living God’s name, I pray.
          Amen.

        • BlackMamba44

          God said the rapist pays for his crime equal to cash value, and takes care of the person he raped forever, a life sentence of care for a woman.

          50 shekels to rape her the rest of her life.

          Fuck you and your god, asshole.

        • MNb

          Done so twice.

          Nothing.
          Nada.
          Zilch.

          You neglected it twice too.
          Your request is only the gazillionth manifestation of your inveterated dishonesty. Nobody is surprised.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Not mouth, not mumble, not say, not repeat, but pray sincerely as if you were going to receive. I can already tell you are not humble enough to pray.

        • MNb

          “I can already tell you are not humble enough to pray.”
          Yeah, because you can read minds like you claim your god does.

        • Kodie

          Talk to the voices in your head, don’t expect the rest of us to find that interesting.

        • adam

          “but pray sincerely as if you were going to receive.”

          Dont you mean ‘believe’ if first, then you will believe it?

        • Joe

          I can already tell you are not humble enough to pray.

          You can blame your god for making me so awesome.

        • Kodie

          Chanting your little mantra to your imaginary friend doesn’t make it true. If god is real, why would he rely on a dim bulb like you to shout at us like a streetcorner lunatic for Jesus. You can repeat your bullshit, but that’s coming from you, a hating, lying, ignorant fanatic. There are zero reasons for the rest of us to follow the figment of your imagination you keep yammering on about.

        • adam

          “Why does every atheist think the Old Testament is for Christians? ”

          Isnt the CLAIM that Jesus is Jehovah God?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dc554b74af68425056b8a4228b7f09490a1e80f6c6bf14f85bbce2e8015a0bfb.jpg

        • BlackMamba44
        • adam

          ” You have NO understanding of the New Covenant. Show me New Testament
          and when you do, I’ll show you how you twist the scriptures and show you
          the Gospel”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/89d230f179881be8275da4101e50e5e24d2a0bb95addba201026fbc36fa9a751.jpg

        • adam

          “The scriptures aren’t dictated by what I believe, only what is written.” https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3d75f40886a30963d29f96e7ac5c05cad2aeb7bf5d71b350bbea60643eeff355.jpg

        • adam
        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
          Isa 45:8 Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it.
          Isa 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?

          Here is the Hebrew text on “evil”
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c0466f77f180a748de865aa84cd472085ea31aacb4f45e864849682449a15152.jpg

        • adam
        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Amos 5:15
          Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate: it may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph.

        • adam

          Detest that which is evil;

        • BlackMamba44

          You are one ignorant indidvidual.

          Christian homeschooling, perhaps?

        • epeeist

          You are one ignorant indidvidual.

          Ignorant? I classified him as absolutely fucking stupid.

        • BlackMamba44

          I was trying to be nice at the time. As of now, “absolutely fucking stupid” works for me. :)

        • Kodie

          I didn’t bring up extinction, you loser. Perhaps you should shut the fuck up if you’re going to start ranting about something as if it were a valid argument, and then say you never said it. You’re confused, so maybe get your shit together before you keep saying things you have to pretend you didn’t say.

    • BlackMamba44

      Everything you said is a lie. You’ve terribly misrepresented my position. I believe in homosexual rights, i believe they should be treated with decency and fair, I believe homosexuals are important and to be loved. Perhaps you’ve jumped to conclusions on this one? I don’t hate gay people, I don’t think they are causing humanity to go extinct, please read the entire post before you get enraged and put words in other peoples mouth… you bore false witnesses.

      THE POINT (AND ONLY POINT NEEDED AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY)
      1.Homosexuality leads to death. I’m not talking about death from old age which all mankind will experience with the passing of time. I’m talking about human extinction. How can anyone stand against this? Homosexuality lived out by everyone would lead to what??? Extinction. Is extinction destructive or harmful? Yes, most would say. Right now, less than 10% of all mankind would identify as being homosexual. What if everyone were to believe the lie and become homosexual? Extinction would occur in less than 100 years. The bible says this “the wages of sin is death…” (Romans 6:23). Is this point not observable?

      I believe in homosexual rights, I believe they should be treated with decency and fair, I believe homosexuals are important and to be loved. I don’t hate gay people, I don’t think they are causing humanity to go extinct, please read the entire post before you get enraged. The extinction comments are only metaphorical OF COURSE I DON’T THINK THAT EVERYONE WILL BECOME HOMOSEXUAL! ITS NOT A FEAR OF MINE, I’M NOT A HOMOPHOBE…

      You are the one bearing “false witness”, liar. Where’s the metaphor?

      Your comments are evidence of your homophobia.

      EDIT: And you are seriously contradicting yourself.

    • adam
    • Joe

      ’m talking about human extinction. How can anyone stand against this?

      Is the global population increasing or decreasing?

      • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

        Increasing… point?

        I used the analogy to demonstrate what homosexuality would lead to if everyone applied it to life (not that they will). You should read the entire post next time…

        Can a male & male reproduce? Nope. So if one male couple perishes in one generation, why is it good or love if anyone does it?

        • Joe

          You claimed that homosexuality would lead to human extinction.

          I showed you that wasn’t the case. The world is overpopulated.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Never claimed “actual” extinction… You didn’t read my post in its entirety I’m sure of it. But try again.

        • Kodie

          Why do you keep using it as an argument? If you don’t even agree with what you say, why should we pay attention to you?

        • Joe

          So why did you say “extinction”?

        • adam

          “So why did you say “extinction”?”

          Because he cant stop himself from DISHONESTY.
          Dishonesty is at the CORE of ‘faith’

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/01b6bd78be6d24a3bbcbd1fd516e5b17e3b6cbe33b9486712c2b71e6b044c30d.jpg

        • adam

          “Never claimed “actual” extinction…”

          ” I’m talking about human extinction. ”

          You are a LYING HYPOCRITE

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/681785c573e0e941d7e81f66dd2e305bc7671f7e9b41f0b84b263f098be05d79.jpg

        • Kodie

          I would not even go so far as call ssinfo a lying hypocrite. He or she is absolutely too stupid to understand the implications of the actual words in their statements. While careful to avoid certain words or phrases, substituting other words or phrases sets them up to deny they ever said “this” or “that” because they literally think that rephrasing has a magical power to absolve them of this intent or that intent. SSInfo is tutored to avoid the danger words, and repeat the dogmatic beliefs like “nothing becomes rock” or the extinction from homosexuality example, even if they say that will never happen, they keep repeating it as though it’s helpful, but then doesn’t fucking know how synonyms work. Do they hate gays? With their actions and attitudes, very much so. It doesn’t make up for any hugging, but that is such a concept SSInfo cannot grasp.

        • adam

          “I would not even go so far as call ssinfo a lying hypocrite”

          But Kodie, you are much kinder than me to people like this.

          I think we have had this conversation before, but I do believe that people like this and the way they talk about homosexuality is a cover for their inner desires,

          I dont think he actually hates gays, I think he fears his ability to control himself in gay situations.

          Fear is obvious his strongest motivator.

        • Kodie

          I think it’s much more harsh to call someone a deceived gullible puppet than an intentionally lying hypocrite. Being gay is not a bad thing, so maybe we should be more comforting.

        • Kodie

          If it’s not affecting the population in a negative way, then you’re hiding behind a moot point to express your hatred of gay people.

    • adam

      “THE POINT (AND ONLY POINT NEEDED AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY)
      1. Homosexuality leads to death. ”
      ” I’M NOT A HOMOPHOBE…”

      Sure you’re not………..

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f488e0c02baa291ceffcdb8e4f96261951bf94043a0dbb44de063d7e59a97715.jpg

      • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

        What does that have to do with anything? I never followed haggard… Want me to post a pic of a pedophile atheist and say, look that’s who adam gets his belief system from? Your a slanderer adam, who swims in destruction, all your ways are corrupt, you are unstable in all you do, repent and believe the gospel for the redemption of your soul…

        • Michael Neville

          If you’re not a homophobe then why do you spend so much time and effort showing your hatred for homosexuals? My guess is that you’re a bigot who doesn’t want to be called a bigot. And don’t worry about our souls, worry about your own. Jesus told you to love your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:31) but all we see from you is hatred. Don’t you think that Jesus sees the same hatred in you that we see?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          I’m not showing hate, I’m telling the truth so people can turn away from the reality of their torment and eventually what will cause them to perish.

          Call me or label me what you want…

          What you call hate and love don’t match up.

          “love” is not sex or sexual or a sexual attraction or a sexual impulse or a sexual preference.

          Homosexuals are some of the most tormented people groups internally. They have struggled potentially their whole life. With such great internal conflict or wanting to be different (most of the time), and being unable to change, it leads to depression and more. You have never heard me slander, hate, or degrade any homosexual, because I do care. In fact, if you find someone using the bible in the future to slam homosexuals, come find me, its not hard, at scripturesearch.info and I will personally use the word of God to put those people to shame on your (homosexuals) behalf. The gospel is an open invitation to receive the adoption through God’s Spirit and redemption of your soul. You receive eternal life before you die, you don’t need a church or “religion”, you need Christ God.

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Like every single christian bigot SS.info wipes his sorry ass with Matth. 7:3.
          Same gender love is not a torment. Not at all. It’s you who wants to turn it into a torment – that’s why MN calls you hateful. So do I.

          Eternal life in company of hateful bigots like you, that’s what I call torment.

        • Kodie

          Homosexuals are tormented by social stigma and bigotry and abuse and exclusion by assholes like you, so shove that fucking shit back up your ass where it came from. You hate for them to be happy the way they are, and think they need to change to please a figment of your imagination.

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          I know some lesbians that go to a church that accepts homosexuality. You should find one so you can stop loathing yourself and projecting on others.

        • BlackMamba44

          Sounds like SS has some personal issues to deal with.

        • epeeist

          Problems of the Ted Haggard kind you mean?

        • BlackMamba44

          You guessed it. Sounds like he knows those feelings from experience.

        • BlackMamba44

          Homosexuals are some of the most tormented people groups internally. They have struggled potentially their whole life. With such great internal conflict or wanting to be different (most of the time), and being unable to change, it leads to depression and more.

          NARNIA!!!!!!!
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/24643430557527b297a245922d979d8a7080e2487677be5abea6683d311d1e9e.jpg

        • adam

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eafe4502493500dea4e6452065e545ef602f7a21889d0ad499f2c769484b11c2.gif “I’m not showing hate,”

          But you are showing HATE

          ” I’m telling the truth so people can turn away from the reality of their torment and eventually what will cause them to perish.”

          But the ‘torment’ is from hateful religious assholes like YOU.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fbee2ae71608c49ff6cd3778051384d5ac950eab0a8c65082bd7d40a20822ade.jpg

        • BlackMamba44

          Sure. Find us a pic of a pedophile atheist. I’m sure there has got be at least one out there somewhere.

          I’m curious now.

        • Pofarmer

          ur an idiot. Grow up. Wise up. This is pathetic.

        • adam

          My ways are corrupt?
          I’m slandering?

          Get a mirror, asshole.

          It has been my experience that homophobes, theistic or otherwise that are the loudest and most vile like you are secretly AFRAID of your own sexual desires, you know just like Ted.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f891bfb4934b62927d8fa4cf8b6feef95c445c8fbd3cf44aba1256bb97d8489b.jpg

          So give us your best Haggard impression.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Its all in your head…
          I’m not a homophobic as stated and evidenced in real life…
          You are a slanderer, check your post history, its not savory…
          Repent and believe the gospel for the forgiveness of all your sins…

        • adam

          “I’m not a homophobic as stated and evidenced in real life…”

          The evidence is in black and white in your writings.

          “Repent and believe the gospel for the forgiveness of all your sins…”

          You sound EXACTLY like Ted Haggard

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/52f6a768bb55bfc2255e184b243f184cb6af30eb20c3ab445a06d378d786d2d4.jpg

        • epeeist

          “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Not bad epeeist…

          Do you believe “sin” is “real” or “not real”?

        • Greg G.

          No, sin is the theological invention of the imaginary dislikes of an imaginary being.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Have you ever had a moment in your life were you thought about something or committed an act that, internally you thought was wrong either before, during, or after that moment?

        • adam

          “Have you ever had a moment in your life were you thought about something
          or committed an act that, internally you thought was wrong either
          before, during, or after that moment?”

          You mean like regret?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          potentially that too… but that wasn’t the specific asked for. look at the specific question again…

          Have you ever had a moment in your life were you thought about something or committed an act that, internally you thought was wrong either before, during, or after that moment?

        • adam

          “Have you ever had a moment in your life were you thought about something
          or committed an act that, internally you thought was wrong either
          before, during, or after that moment?”

          You mean like regret?

        • Greg G.

          Sure, and I understand why that happens. It’s not because there is a little angel on my shoulder.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          The scripture says God gave you that conscience which is what separates you from animals. (Update monkey) Ever seen a monkey arrest a monkey for committing murder?
          And when you have thought “that’s wrong”, it’s because you were wrong… and not just wrong, but now a criminal before God. Sin is a crime, it is when you break the Law of the Lord, and your conscience bears witness of this…

          Here is what Paul said “And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offense toward God, and toward men.”

          And now here is a passage concerning your personal feeling of doing wrong

          Romans 2:14 – 16
          2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
          2:15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
          2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

          You are going towards the judgment, Hebrews 9:27
          Call on Christ to escape the judgment, John 3:36

        • adam

          “The scripture says God gave you that conscience ”

          And Spiderman movies demonstrate that Spiderman has ‘spidey sense’.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8638fdedfe8fad3b245ca0981085794967c878d6bfba020d03d8b426a1c98936.jpg

        • Greg G.

          The scripture says God gave you that conscience which is what separates you from animals. Ever seen the Zebra arrest the lion for murder?

          I have seen video of a water buffalo executing a lion for attempted murder.

        • adam

          “The scripture says God gave you that conscience which is what separates you from animals. ”

          But we ARE animals

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/637bfeb32fe76da958e611fbfd841246baeabb7b96c48f9a41144e316ea0e22d.jpg

        • Greg G.

          Monkeys arrest monkeys all the time. Humans are part of the monkey clade.

        • Joe

          This poster is really dumb. Poor apologetics and even worse logical thinking.

          Our only challenge, and it’s almost insurmountable, it trying to get them to realize this.

        • Joe

          Ever seen a monkey arrest a monkey for committing murder?

          Are subjects only guilty after they’ve been arrested?

        • adam
        • epeeist

          Not bad epeeist…

          You really don’t have a clue do you? It really would help if you had more than one book in your library.

          Do you believe “sin” is “real” or “not real”?

          Sin? A great device for organisations involved in pyramid selling.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          has your conscience ever told you, you did something “wrong”?

        • Greg G.

          Have you ever had a desire for someone of your own gender but tried to use your religion to remove the thought from your mind?

        • Kodie
        • adam

          Ever seen a grown man naked?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          no

        • adam

          Try honesty, just once.

        • Greg G.

          You didn’t try to remove it from your mind?

        • adam

          “has your conscience ever told you, you did something “wrong”?”

          You mean like regret?

        • Kodie

          Have you ever felt really terrible about something but then realized that the only reason you feel guilty was because people told you to, and not that you’re causing any harm?

          Because it sounds like you want to make people feel guilty for doing nothing wrong, because you said so, and you’re hiding behind your imaginary friend and pretending we’re hurting his feelings and will be severely punished for doing nothing wrong!

          It’s an abusive relationship; seek counseling.

        • Joe

          What does that have to do with sin?

          Is sin in our “nature”, or just how we behave?

        • adam
        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          I wrote that? What scripture verse is that? It says “homosexuals are unnatural”, which is more of a scientific biological truth. Looks like your post and picture…must be yours.

        • adam

          “1. Homosexuality leads to death. I’m not talking about death from old
          age which all mankind will experience with the passing of time. I’m
          talking about human extinction. How can anyone stand against this? ”
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/61325310d98bd683e529dec621a4fa4d4c8b5f5a60a429f7431b90d505a91ab7.jpg

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          epic fail… Old Testament, not the Christian message. Its comes with the new testament to show fulfillment of prophecies and reveal the God you hate in the face of Jesus of Nazareth.

        • adam

          Your worshiping Paul again and ignoring Jesus, you are going to make Jesus cry, if you continue.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/89d230f179881be8275da4101e50e5e24d2a0bb95addba201026fbc36fa9a751.jpg

        • Michael Neville

          Why do you Christians claim we hate your god? It would be silly to hate a figment of someone else’s imagination. I don’t hate your god just like I don’t hate Sauron, Voldemort, Iago or any other fictitious villain. I’m not fond of some members of your god’s fan club but that’s a different topic.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          fair enough… your not the majority saying that though.

        • Michael Neville

          The majority of what? I know of no atheists who say they hate your or any other gods. I can believe the majority of ignorant Christians such as yourself say that we hate gods.

        • Greg G.

          Atheists don’t believe your god exists. None of them hate your god except as a character in a work of fiction. If someone hates your god, then the person is a theist by definition.

        • Greg G.

          Want me to post a pic of a pedophile atheist and say, look that’s who adam gets his belief system from?

          You are saying homosexuality is wrong while adam’s position it that sex between consenting adults is nobody else’s business. If you try to flip the script on adam with pedophilia, it would follow that you have taken the position that pedophilia was OK. Or is that actually your position on pedophilia?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          You take a lot of things and believe a lot of things Greg G, that simply have nothing to do with truth… thats wasn’t my point at all. adam is posting up some random guy “haggard” and talking about some weird sexual stuff and slandering all “Christians” in one fell swoop, When the fact of the matter is that guy is a weirdo, who I personally have no connection to… get it>?

          I have a question for you greg g…

          Which do you confess: “sin is a reality” or “sin does not exist” ?

        • adam

          “adam is posting up some random guy “haggard” ”

          Nope, not random at all, and all explained in Haggard’s Law.

          ” and talking about some weird sexual stuff”

          You mean talking about the same weird sexual stuff that YOU brought up?
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fb3cf31802ee6a04952cbcc243fc939a9c7733dab0b439304cafbbd0cdb0c969.jpg

          ” slandering all “Christians” in one fell swoop,”

          Nope, just you and ‘your kind’ of bigots.

          “When the fact of the matter is that guy is a weirdo, who I personally have no connection to…”

          Then quit coming on to me, I am not interested in your Haggard way of life.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0deec15cee776cf0b4d9b8268333ef0e8a03c74e61a492f067a7b2561839c6c0.jpg

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Just so we are clear… you are piling all “Christians” who confess homosexuality is sin as a bigot right? And you are also saying they are like “Haggard” in the same breath right?

        • adam

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e936d3b9451f720cc31cb395e29d663e0b002544c7104ca964476499270530f4.jpg “Just so we are clear… you are piling all “Christians” who confess homosexuality is sin as a bigot right? ”

          “And you are also saying they are like “Haggard” in the same breath right?”

          I am saying you are acting just as Haggard’s Law describes you.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          the wages of sin are death… your conscience and physical body bear witness.

        • Greg G.

          The wages of suppression of sexual desires yield frustration and more sexual desires.

        • adam

          Everybody dies.

          Sin is IMAGINARY.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Have you ever had a moment in your life where you thought about something or committed an act that, internally you thought was wrong either before, during, or after that moment?

          If Yes, you lie…

        • adam

          “If Yes, you lie…”

          Why?
          Because you can do nothing but lie?

        • Greg G.

          Normal people feel bad, sociopaths don’t. What is your explanation for sociopaths?

        • Joe

          If I said “NO”, how would you explain that?

        • Kodie

          You are skipping a lot of steps. Show your work! You haven’t even told us how an immaterial imaginary friend of yours can make rock out of nothing with no materials, just words.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Or in your world, how it just happens, contradicting REALITY.

        • Kodie

          Contradicting words becoming material because an invisible immaterial eternal spectre tells some peasants to write it in a book?

          That’s fucking psycho. It’s like you don’t even want to learn science so that you can pretend to refute it. You haven’t even made it that far, you just protest like an infant.

        • Joe

          Jesus was sinless and he died.

        • Greg G.

          Just so we are clear… you are piling all “Christians” who confess homosexuality is sin as a bigot right?

          Wrong! Haggard preached against homosexuality yet was found to practice homosexuality with male prostitutes. Other preachers who preach loud and long against homosexuality have been “caught with their pants down,” so to speak, in their own homosexual affairs. Even politicians who run on “Christian family values” have been found to practice homosexuality.

          It seems to be that those who rail about homosexuality are thinking about it too much. It seems to be their own inner, unresolved desires that drive these thoughts. They think the way to suppress the thoughts is to preach against it, to post about it in blogs. They think it is the devil when it is just their nature. If they weren’t trapped by religion that opposes it, they could explore their own sexuality. It is a pity that people end up with so much turmoil.

          Your preaching against homosexuals is like waving a sign that says “I’m repressing my own homosexual desires but I still can’t stop thinking about it!”

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Your speculating… is that a side effect of believing the “big bang”?

        • Greg G.

          No, it is the side effect of the hypocrisy of noted Christians speaking out vociferously against homosexuality, yet simultaneously practicing it.

          Nobody cares about your sexuality. Nobody would have considered your sexuality in any way if you didn’t rant about it so much. Your ranting raises the question of why you bring it up in a forum where any kind of sex is not a typical topic of discussion, yet you have brought it up a lot. It is apparent that you think about it a lot. You think about it a lot more than people who do not suppress their desires.

          Other people’s sex lives are none of your business.

        • adam

          “Nobody cares about your sexuality. Nobody would have considered your
          sexuality in any way if you didn’t rant about it so much. Your ranting
          raises the question of why you bring it up in a forum where any kind of
          sex is not a typical topic of discussion, yet you have brought it up a
          lot. It is apparent that you think about it a lot. You think about it a
          lot more than people who do not suppress their desires.”

          Haggard’s Law in a nut sack.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          did you read the topic of the post? “9 arguments Christians give against same-sex marriage”… I didn’t create the thread. You failed to prove a point and lied all in one breath.

        • adam

          “You failed to prove a point and lied all in one breath.”

          All I did was quote Greg G, and make the obvious conclusion about Haggard’s Law.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/681785c573e0e941d7e81f66dd2e305bc7671f7e9b41f0b84b263f098be05d79.jpg

        • Greg G.

          Bob has written many articles. What attracted you to the one on Same Sex Marriage?

        • BlackMamba44

          It’s about same-sex marriage. You brought up the gay sex part, with your focus on male gay sex.

          Adam is correct.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Female & Female works the same…

        • BlackMamba44

          Fuck off.

        • BlackMamba44

          You don’t comprehend much, do you?

        • BlackMamba44

          Does the girl on girl get you hot? I’m guessing no.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Why is their conscience not clear?

        • BlackMamba44

          Not speculation…

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

          Abstract
          The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          cool study, done in your basement?

        • BlackMamba44

          No. National Institutes of Health. I don’t have a basement in the house I own.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          as stated, im not homophobic in anyway, but thanks for posting a study. adam would like it probably, because he’s big time into a guy named haggard.

        • BlackMamba44

          as stated, im not homophobic in anyway

          You can say this until you’re blue in the face but you’re not going to be believed. Your comments here say otherwise and have provided us the evidence we need.

          But do go on…

        • adam

          Classic Haggard’s Law case.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Labels… dont care

        • adam

          Closeted gay homophobes don’t care about labels.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f891bfb4934b62927d8fa4cf8b6feef95c445c8fbd3cf44aba1256bb97d8489b.jpg

          They project a false witness of themselves all the time.

        • BlackMamba44
        • BlackMamba44

          You know what? You’re right. You’re not a homophobe. You’re an asshole. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6c6b5bd0453dbe855d1e9c09f00fd1f52b5ca86e2c359bb76dad429ba334fbab.jpg

        • adam

          ” adam would like it probably, ”

          I do, as it describes you as it pertains to Haggard’s Law.

          “as stated, im not homophobic in anyway,”

          Yep, Haggard stated the same thing.
          Birds of a feather.

        • adam
        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Amen, thanks adam. I’m here for you!

          And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all, apt to teach, patient,
          In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

        • adam
        • adam

          “Your speculating… is that a side effect of believing the “big bang”?”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f891bfb4934b62927d8fa4cf8b6feef95c445c8fbd3cf44aba1256bb97d8489b.jpg

          I dont think you will get anywhere by coming on to Greg G, either.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Adam,
          Why are you trolling me and Greg G in our discussion? You his minion? I noticed you posted another pic of a guy named Haggard who you for some reason adore enough to have dozens of pictures of him. Need anything else?

        • adam

          “Why are you trolling me and Greg G in our discussion?”

          Why are you trolling at all?

          “You his minion? ”

          You a dishonest asshole?

          ” I noticed you posted another pic of a guy named Haggard”

          After you wanted his number.

          “Need anything else?”
          Yes, but it is something you obviously cant provide – honesty.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/005e3cc247a71fa337e9ec6587b9784cc5277670190f6e9560b279ed14104db9.jpg

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          thorough response.

        • adam
        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
          You still have time, while living, to call upon Jesus for the forgiveness of all your sins. You conscience bears witness, you have sinned.

        • adam

          “You still have time,”

          How?
          I have already blasphemed the Holy Ghost.
          Jesus wont forgive me for blasphemy.

          Jesus would forgive me for raping a baby.
          Jesus would forgive me for killing the baby.
          Jesus would forgive me for cannibalizing the baby.
          Jesus would forgive me for killing the babies mother by decapitation
          Jesus would forgive me for shoving the dead baby down it’s dead mother throat and raping the dead mother.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c5445e273728092c84dc583a4e5d5b4272a1e62c42654b930aa001a7c5c86900.png

          “but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.”

          Do you understand why that is even in the bible?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5187527e742b91e3f0a93cf26afa64df31b76a8d4339974c66c3c8b15c9943dd.jpg

        • adam
        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Why did you feel like you have done wrong in your own mind then?

          Otherwise this might be you too…

          Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron

        • Greg G.

          Humans have a sense of fairness. So do capuchin monkeys. So do dogs.

          There was a study where the monkeys were trained to bring an object to the researcher and would get a piece of cucumber for it. But when the monkey saw another monkey getting a grape, it expected a grape, too. It would throw a fit if it got a cucumber slice, even throw it at the researcher. The researchers were able to determine that the preferences of the monkeys coincided with the prices humans set for the fruits and vegetables at the grocery store.

          A similar experiment was done with dogs that would do a task for no treat. But if they saw another dog receiving a treat, they would want a treat for doing the trick, too. However, dogs didn’t care much about the value of the treat as long as they got one.

          We are more like monkeys that your church wants to believe.

        • Kodie

          I think they know we’re exactly like monkeys! That’s why they say if you wait and be patient and suck it up and behave, you can have much more than a grape! This is at the same time they don’t want some people to have grapes because they don’t even deserve cucumbers. So, heaven is easy to provide, and nobody even really has to deserve it – they can promise it to anyone without giving anyone anything. It is easier to explain to a human than a monkey what heaven is about, but it depends on whether the humans will ask what is this shit you’re talking about, gimme a strawberry. Humans can believe in heaven story or be skeptical and disbelieve, and either way, get fucking nothing. As it is now, instead of nothing, humans get social approval which is cash.

          And it’s so fucking funny to me that Christians think they have some sort of dare to go public with their beliefs that is somehow “brave”. It’s so fucking funny to me that Christians think voicing their beliefs publicly will get them harassed. So, today, I watch on stupid Harry Connick Jr. show, (I hate this stupid show but I think it was a repeat), Yvette Nicole Brown says she puts Christian bumper stickers on her car specifically to keep herself accountable, i.e. rather than give the finger to someone, remember she has Xian BS on her car. BS means “bumper stickers”, lol. Anyway, so she knows those stickers are there and would be embarrassed to behave in some way that represents those feelings poorly. And so HCJr. says people would feel like some sort of shitheel to make trouble with a Xian-stickered car. Christians don’t seem to have a realistic perspective at all. They think if they say how Christian they are, that it might meet with some sort of backlash, and I don’t know what the fuck they are talking about. Christians always stick up for each other, no matter if they dispute various issues within their belief, and atheists can’t say shit without being ganged up on. Anyway, one of the places I go by sometimes is a Catholic Church, so fucking Christ, these assholes think they have license to cut with this attitude of religious privilege. They don’t appear to give a shit about the law, or a shit about the right-of-way, or a shit about the rules of the road – they want to make a left turn out of their church parking lot, they fucking go and expect everyone to cut them some slack. The don’t stop and look before coming out of the parking lot to pick up their kids after school, and don’t feel shitty about cutting you off. That’s “morality” to me – religion sucks at infusing believers with any sense of morality about being socially very shitty. They really are warped to only believe about people they know. Being a nice person is not required – being civil to fellow parishioners is likely much more important because people who go to the same post office as you are fucked, but only people who go to the same church count as fellow humans.

        • BlackMamba44

          My younger brother had to honk at a car that he almost slammed into because they hit their breaks and came to a stop on a busy road. As they turned into their church they flipped him off.

        • Joe

          Why did you feel like you have done wrong in your own mind then?

          For doing what? for stealing, yes. For picking up sticks on the Sabbath, not at all.

        • Greg G.

          I feel bad if I harm someone, even by accident. I don’t feel bad about something you imagine pisses off your god. Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

        • adam

          “Why did you feel like you have done wrong in your own mind then?”

          Because of what my parents taught me.

          Why do YOU believe in IMAGINARY sin?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          I’m certain thats not true… its your God given conscience. People are told NOT to do things by their parents and still do them all the time without a care in the world. Your conscience is your internal guilt, and guilt is the conviction that God will judge you, all the secrets of your life and thoughts.

        • adam

          “. its your God given conscience.”

          Not, it’s my PARENT’S given conscience.

          You’ve NEVER demonstrated that this “God” of yours is ANYTHING but IMAGINARY.

          “Your conscience is your internal guilt, and guilt is the conviction that God will judge you,”
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1e284ecfcf8f4a4da8adb8c8992def60d555414158c237b83a5d3f4c4ffb2fa2.jpg

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Did your parents teach you not to steal?

        • Michael Neville

          Yes, did yours?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Did you steal something anyway?

        • adam

          Did your parents teach you not to steal?

        • Michael Neville

          Yes. Did you? Did you pray to your Jesus for forgiveness and did he give it to you? Did you ask the person you stole from for forgiveness and did they give it to you? Which forgiveness is more important? That of a fictitious critter who only exists in your imagination or that of the person you caused harm to?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Did your parents claim a faith?

        • Michael Neville

          I won’t answer any more of your questions until you answer mine. In case you’ve forgotten, here they are again:

          Did you [steal anything]? Did you pray to your Jesus for forgiveness and did he give it to you? Did you ask the person you stole from for forgiveness and did they give it to you? Which forgiveness is more important? That of a fictitious critter who only exists in your imagination or that of the person you caused harm to?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Hello Michael,
          Yes.
          Yes…and sealed me with His Spirit saving me from religion and death.
          I got caught stealing and was arrested as a juvenile, so I was banned from “Rite-Aid”, without the chance to ask for forgiveness.
          Christ forgiveness is more important… Galatians 2:16
          Your brainwashed by the “faith” of atheism, the deception is on you for thinking the resurrection is fiction. Archeology, the manuscripts, and historical locations all line up, check for yourself.

        • Michael Neville

          So you didn’t ask forgiveness from the people you wronged. You could have sent a letter but that never occurred to you.

          Christ forgiveness is more important

          As usual, you’re wrong. Jesus isn’t affected by your crimes, the victims are. So you should get their forgiveness because they’re the ones you “sinned” against.

          As usual, you try to sneak your proselytizing into a discussion. The discussion we’re having is about wronging others and getting forgiveness, it’s not about whether a myth is true or not. Keep on the topic because I’m going to ignore all your attempts to convert me to believing obvious nonsense.

        • adam

          They did. Did yours?

        • Michael Neville

          Humans are social animals. Most of us have consciences because they help us live together in groups. The fact that different things will prod different peoples’ consciences shows that conscience is personal and nurture as well as nature goes into its makeup.

          There is a good friend of mine who served in the Marines in the Iraq War. He killed people and his conscience has beat him mercilessly about it. I served in Vietnam. I killed people and that has never bothered me. My conscience and my friend’s conscience are completely 180° out from each other concerning killing in war. Who are you and who is your imaginary god to say which of us has the right reaction to us being killers?

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          you are describing EXACTLY what the bible says about you…

          Romans 2:14 – 16
          2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
          2:15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
          2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

          I’m not judging your sin, but God will, secret or revealed, regardless of admission. All sin is forgivable before death, the Lord Jesus will not turn you away…

        • Michael Neville

          Paul wrote Romans to sell his new religion. He made up (as in manufactured or, if you prefer, invented) reasons to believe in his new religion. The whole idea of sin is “you need to believe in my god or the boogeyman will get you for sinning.”

          I agree with Esmeralda Weatherwax about sin: “And sin, young man, is treating people as things, including yourself.” That is the ONLY sin and your god, along with every other god, is not necessary for recognition of that sin.

          I notice how you completely ignored what I wrote about conscience but instead tried to sell your fictitious, imaginary, does not exist except in your head, unreal god to me. I’m still not buying your bullshit.

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          Why didn’t God just make Jesus in the Garden of Eden instead of Adam? Then there wouldn’t have been sin. If he made Mary Magdalene out of Jesus’ rib, wouldn’t she be sinless, too?

        • adam

          But that makes too much sense, and doesnt lend itself to ETERNAL RELENTLESS TORTURE.

        • Kodie

          This is a public forum, are you familiar? Anyone can answer anyone at any time. It’s not a private conversation between you and another person nobody else can see, so if you want to say a bunch of stupid things, prepare for the pile-on. It looks like you can’t help yourself from saying the same bunch of stupid things over and over to anyone and everyone. That’s a lot of work for god’s minion. I thought he was omnipotent, but no! He sends inarticulate, uneducated idiots who don’t even know how internet works. Do you really think god needs your help????? Seriously, look how fail you are. You don’t even agree with your own arguments. You don’t know anything about any science, you are in complete submission to idiocy, and from whom? You think “god”? You never heard anything from god, you are a victim of the power of suggestion and slave to other humans who have apparently complete control over you. You fear your abuser, but you are only privy to hearsay from other humans who are also mistaken.

          I only think you’re just such a fool. There is no graduating from this level. God could not have need of you – you have no grasp of reality at all. You aren’t even half adequate at the marketing of the junk you believe. Do you run a website for this bullshit? What idiots flock to you and validate you that you need to come here and pound your stubby head against a wall – you can’t afford it! Your brain is almost useless, don’t break it entirely. Atheism isn’t death or satanism or anything like that. It means your beliefs are infantile and can’t reconcile with reality. You live in a fantasy world entirely, and from outside of it, you’re so clearly delusional that it almost hurts that humans can be so fucked up in the wrong direction….. but I don’t care like you care. You think if you don’t shout your delusions at us that we’ll fall off the edge and die! Holy shit! You can’t be serious. I am not trying to save you from your delusion, just trying to keep your dumbness away from me. If that’s the life you want to live, I don’t actually care. I do not give one single fuck if you want to be crazy. Your other way around, you care a lot if people reject your beliefs, but not god. You need to win “souls” in order to validate your own idiocy. But if god exists and is worth anything, he would never delegate this responsibility to an idiot like you, for fuck’s sake. .

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          Seems not much has changed since God started with fisherman… Thanks for chiming in Kodie, your comments really add to the discussion.

          Did you answer this question yet…

          Have you ever had a moment in your life where you thought about something or committed an act that, internally you thought was wrong either before, during, or after that moment?

        • Kodie

          I often feel like I’m not good enough, but that is a complex of abuse and wanting to be perfect.

        • BlackMamba44

          Have you ever had a moment in your life where you thought about something or committed an act that, internally you thought was wrong either before, during, or after that moment?

          You mean like regret? (credit to Adam ;))

        • BlackMamba44
        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          you got me…

        • adam
        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          “We dont want you like you want, ya Ted wannabe” -adam

          hahahahah Ted wannabe… its not even a biblical name! hahaha

          You really rolled your sleeves up on that one adam.

        • adam

          “You really rolled your sleeves up on that one adam.”

          And from the sound of it you would really like to drop your trousers.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/432d2d0f061a75e798dd98b009edc524a744a11cab0e268a8d5ec46762c0c7a4.jpg

        • Greg G.

          It’s Ted Haggard. Try to get up to speed.

        • adam
        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          HONESTLY… send it to haggard, not me! Youre right! Wish I had his email or something for you…

        • adam

          ” Wish I had his email ”

          I bet you do.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          get the whole quote slanderer…
          “Wish I had his email or something for you…”

          pic of your slander….

        • adam
        • adam

          What are you mumbling about now?

          Try googling Ted, he is still out there and probably will hook up with you.

        • http://www.ScriptureSearch.info ScriptureSearch.info

          get the whole quote next time…

          “Wish I had his email or something for you…”

          Because your obsessed with the guy, look how many pictures you have of him! Wow…obsessed…your haggards biggest fan.

        • adam

          “Because your obsessed with the guy, ”

          Because you talk just like him about homosexuality?

          “Wow…obsessed…your haggards biggest fan.”

          No, just LOTS of homophobes like you out there ranting about ‘gays’, https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c4227ec3e2041d4e3cf1575f60da4ed65bdc99a5631ba98d7cad67b9841426a6.jpg JUST LIKE TED.

        • adam

          “”Wish I had his email or something for you…””

          I dont do meth either Ted wannabe