You Think You Understand What Leviticus Says Against Homosexuality?

gay wedding

This is the continuation of our look at three interesting articles on same-sex marriage. Part 1 looked at a recommended secret weapon that Christians use against same-sex marriage, and part 2 reviewed an article titled, “How gay marriage harms people.”

In this final post, we’ll critique that article’s remaining three points and review a fascinating analysis of what the anti-gay passages in Leviticus actually meant.

Three more flabby Christian arguments against same-sex marriage

7. “Children long for and tend to be healthier when raised by their biological mother and father.”

And children tend to be healthier in a two-parent rather than single-parent household. So if a divorced lesbian is a single mother with a child and wants to marry another woman, step out of the way. (Or is the health of children just another smokescreen?)

It’d be great if every marriage were strong, divorce was unnecessary, and every family lived in a safe and nurturing neighborhood and had no financial worries. But it’s an imaginary world where every family is perfect, and some children grow up without their biological parents. We need to get out of the way of institutions, like same-sex marriage, that could help.

8. “It should not be surprising that, once gay marriage is declared legal, those who oppose it are seen as enemies of the law.”

How? Because no longer can you write an anti-gay article without risk of prison? I think you just did.

If you want to speak out against same-sex marriage, I will support your right to do so, even as I write articles to show how hateful, agenda-driven, and thoughtless your arguments are. If you don’t like the fact that the public square is a challenging place for those with unpopular ideas, then stay away.

But if your complaint is about the Kim Davises of the world unable to impose their religious views on other people or Christian bakers punished for telling same-sex couples “We don’t serve your kind here” when asked to bake a wedding cake, then I have no sympathy. Christians don’t get an exemption from the law.

9. As Acts 5:29 says, “We must obey God rather than men.”

Do what you have to do. But know that in the real world, the secular Constitution upholds the laws in the U.S. Violate those laws, and you’re punished. Being a Christian and sharing your moral opinions are legal here thanks to the Constitution, not God.

 


See also: Does the Bible Reveal Objective Truth About Homosexuality?


 

If the prohibition in Leviticus was so important, we should understand what it meant

The final article is “When a Man Lies with a Man as with a Woman” by Stephen J. Patterson (published in The Fourth R, May–June 2012). Dr. Patterson is a professor of Religious and Ethical Studies at Willamette University.

This article outlines three meanings of male-male sex in the Ancient Near East. The first meaning was domination during wartime, as seen today in rape in prison. This was violence, not gay sex.

The second meaning was sexual pleasure, something a man would do with a slave or servant in the absence of a female partner. A man wasn’t debased in this activity as long as he acted as a man, not a woman—that is, that he was the actor, not the recipient.

This activity was sometimes considered exploitative, however, both because the servant might not be able to refuse and because it demeaned him to be the recipient in homosexual activity.

The third meaning was religious. In the Ancient Near East, where a successful harvest was uncertain, fertility rituals were common. Priests were the gods’ agents on earth, and fertility was ensured by planting one’s seed in a priest, who was imagined to be androgynous like the god he represented.

In none of these cases of male-male sex from biblical times was homosexuality a factor. Indeed, the opposite was assumed. In the case of rape during wartime, the actor was taking the role of male, humiliating his opponent by forcing him into the feminine role. In the case of recreation, the man is acting as a man, with the servant assuming the role of the woman. And in the case of the fertility ritual, the man is planting his seed in an (imagined) female. While gay sex as we understand it today was likely practiced, it isn’t part of these three meanings and isn’t discussed in the surviving literature.

Given this background, let’s apply it to the prohibition “don’t lie with a man as one does a woman” in Leviticus. Patterson says that most scholars think that this kind of homosexuality is in the third category, the fertility rite, because of the word used to condemn it, “abomination.” This is the word used for religious offense. Judaism had no fertility rite like this, and a rite that called on other gods, as this one did, would obviously be offensive to Yahweh.

What about the issue at hand, using the Bible to criticize homosexual relationships as we understand them today? Patterson says that while we can’t be certain that we understand the original meaning of the relevant passages in Leviticus,

We can say very clearly what the Levitical prohibition does not mean. It does not forbid falling in love with another man and having intimate sexual relations with him. Male-male sex just did not have that connotation in the Ancient Near East. . . . Male-male sex in the Ancient Near East does not mean “I love you.” It means “I own you.” Today, of course, it is different. Male-male sex can mean “I love you.” To such a thing Leviticus offers no comment.

Not only have Christians themselves dispensed with the Levitical ritual laws, but even if they were still in force, they say nothing to inform the Christian on the correct response to modern homosexuality or same-sex marriage.

Christian fundamentalism:
the doctrine that there is an absolutely powerful,
infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity
that is deeply and personally concerned about my sex life. 
— Andrew Lias

Image credit: masterdesigner, flickr, CC

"You can regard mathematical models as theories with a semantic content. In other words they ..."

God Is Love—Does That Make Any ..."
"We are not just made from similar materials, we are made from the exact same ..."

God Is Love—Does that Make any ..."
"Their deepest belief system was that government should be free of religious influence, and that ..."

God Is Love—Does that Make any ..."
"That graphic is not accurate. We share common ancestors with chimpanzees that we do not ..."

God Is Love—Does that Make any ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Ficino

    I like the way the picture at the top shows what looks like two women marrying each other. The OT does not address female-female sex at all, and the one verse in the NT that is usually taken to do so, Rom 1:26, may well have in mind male-female non-procreative sex.

  • firebubbles310

    Ok. If kids want to be raised by their hetero bio parents then why do these people make such a big deal about adoption vs abortion? Why is abortion so evil if adoption isn’t? These religious people have no idea what they are talking about. I was much healthier once my mom divorced my abusive father when I was 12. I had an ulcer from stress at 10 because of him.

    They just ignore real life and stick their fingers in their ears. They are on the wrong side of history and they will see it soon.

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

      If you’ll permit yourself the uncharitable thought that these guys are simply spinning tales that they might not even believe themselves, simply to justify their predetermined conclusion, things might make more sense.

      • Brad Feaker

        Anything to stave off the cognitive dissonance?

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

          There’s always alcohol, I suppose.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Not enough alcohol in the *galaxy* once the scales have dropped from a person’s eyes, though…

    • Ficino

      Their definitions trump your reality. They are forever the adults, and you are forever the toddler.

      • TheNuszAbides

        “somebody’s gotta be the grown-up” — and yet they’ve painted themselves into a corner in which no-one is.

    • eric

      Why is abortion so evil if adoption isn’t?

      Consistency is not one of their hobgoblins.

      But to give credit where it’s due, a lot of them think gay couples adopting children is evil and immoral too.

      • firebubbles310

        That I know. But they have no issue with white, Christian couples adopting normally. But alas you are right. Their consistency is more like a scatter plot than a line graph.

      • Fred Knight

        I’m not sure what world you live in, but I’ve found most pro-life fundamentalists to be extremely consistent in their views and incredible amount of self-sacrifice and adoptions going on…..they put their money where their mouth is, 9 times out of 10. That’s my experience, anyway.

      • TheNuszAbides

        generic consistency isn’t a hobgoblin at all. but it’s true enough that it’s logically impossible to be consistent with The Inerrant[patent pending] Word of Yahwehjesus As A Whole.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Xtian hadith, i.e. ossified codification of prejudices to maintain the existing power structure.

    • rubaxter

      “… and they will see it soon.”

      What, through their coffin lids?

      Kuhn was pretty much on the money in this case.

    • Fred Knight

      “I was much healthier once my mom divorced my abusive father when I was 12. I had an ulcer from stress at 10 because of him.”

      Look, this is dicey, and to be honest, I’m not sure I speak for the lunatic fringe. But, if you will, the basic argument assumes a healthy mother/father for life scenario being the ideal….we all fall short to varying degrees….every church I know of is made up of imperfect scenarios which they make the best of…..I’m not sure it’s meant to condemn anyone who doesn’t fit the perfect mold….they are just saying it provides the best chance for success.

      • Pofarmer

        .they are just saying it provides the best chance for success.

        Which there’s actually very little support for.

        • Fred Knight

          no support whatsoever for healthy intact mom and dad families? What kind of 10,000 year cultural studies are you referring to? Society has already given us a template….perhaps crude in it’s fine points, but nevertheless, history has a way of proving what works the best. How do we know?…, it would not have survived and gained pre-dominance. (ironically, this is the basis of evolutionary biology…it serves a valuable purpose, at least in terms of survivability.) not sure why so many atheists reject this…no religion required

        • Pofarmer

          Good Lord Fred, you couldn’t make a clearer genetic fallacy, and even an invalid one at that. I’d argue that the “one mom, one dad” model is a fairly recent phonomenon. There have been LOTS of ways family units are arranged. That notwithstanding thpugh, a little Google searchin would bring up relevant studies showing that, in fact, children in same sex households fare no worse than, and by some metrics better than, children from “traditional” households.

        • Fred Knight

          “you couldn’t make a clearer genetic fallacy, and even an invalid one at that.”
          haha, goes to show that I cannot even get a fallacy right!!!!! 😀

          A little Google search of all the societies will prove…..alas, I’m one who actually holds that Judeao-Christian-Western Society is unique and exceptional…..you certainly cannot argue that is a logical impossibility?

          But my argument is that certain cultures are inherently better than others….sadly for you, you have chosen to blindly oppose all things religious as if they are all guilty of the same crimes.

          I don’t fall into that logical trap.

        • adam

          “you have chosen to blindly oppose all things religious as if they are all guilty of the same crimes.”

          Yes, worshiping IMAGINARY characters out of mythological stories as real.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b5bd9e1b970416b43f0dcdebb0f07063c20e5d84ef8599c0c9c2974e19ae8954.png

        • Jim Jones

          Of all of the 50 states and the territories, how many have committed to provide prenatal and post-natal care for every pregnant woman and every baby who needs it?

        • Jim Jones

          Yes, hetero relationships are fine. Much better for children than homosexual ones.

          David Creato

    • Pofarmer

      They just ignore real life and stick their fingers in their ears

      Well shit man, that’s religion in a nutshell.

      • TheNuszAbides

        I’d say plenty of religies don’t “ignore” real life, rather that they react to it through shitty arbitrary filters.
        but that’s one of the reasons I don’t rake in the upvotes XD

    • TheNuszAbides

      … they will see it soon.

      pretty optimistic.

  • DennisLurvey

    Leviticus was written in Babylon most likely. Most of it copied almost word for word from the Mesopotamian law found at the city of Ur. Ten commandments as well. They are not biblical texts as much as the constitution of Jewish established govts. It’s is the govt saying have no other gods before me (but after is fine). Few worshiped only one god. Even constantine didn’t convert to christianity, he INCLUDED christianity with his other pagan beliefs.

    Examples:
    Exodus 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
    Hammurabi 196: “If a seignior has destroyed the eye of a member of the aristocracy, they shall destroy his eye.”
    Hammurabi 200: “if a seignior has knocked out a tooth of a seignior of his own rank, they shall knock out his tooth.”

    Prov. 13:24
    He who He who He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him;
    STOLEN from:
    Ahiqar 6:81 “Withhold not thy son from the rod, else thou wilt not be able to save him from wickedness.”

    In Roman times there was a brothel every block and sex was a right whether it be same sex, opposite sex, or incestual (as was St Augustine). In the ruins of Rome they have uncovered these brothels with frescos on the floors and walls of orgies of all manor. Not just in the brothels but in the homes of the rich and poor alike. (It’s in the adult section of the museums if at all).

    Sex wasn’t a sin till Augustine made it a sin in the 5th century. After living a life of sex with most anyone (including his mother) in his later life Augustine felt if he had to stop then everyone should. Aquinas had a hand in that as well, but it sure wasn’t god.

    • Michael Neville

      Da mihi castitatem et continentiam, sed noli modo. “Grant me
      chastity and continence, but not now.” –Augustine of Hippo

      I’ve sometimes wondered if Augustine had been married instead of having mistresses whether he would have had a more rational attitude towards sex.

      • DennisLurvey

        apparently he was a freak from the beginning. I got the impression his first sexual encounter was with a man. I think he felt married to his mother. the wife thing was just for status/show.

        • Pofarmer

          Yeah, it’s kinda sad that the Church’s basis for it’s sexual teaching is from a guy who was monumentally screwed up. If I’m remembering right, I think he and his wife/concubine/whatever drove their daughter to suicide?

        • DennisLurvey

          he did get married but it was just so he could climb the social/church ladder. He probably has sex with the daughter as well, he had no conscience.

        • Pofarmer

          How utterly screwed ip are most of the Catholic “Saints”?

        • DennisLurvey

          I think the recent saint was a priest who ran a fort in california where they imprisoned native indians, taught them to read the bible, taught them to dress like us, talk like us and made them convert to catholicism under threat of death. they stripped them of their own native culture and religion by force. He was sainted for the number of indians he converted with no mention of the indians he hung in the fort for refusing his religion. There were several forts like that, another in st augustine fla. Mass graves of indians at santa fe NM who didn’t want any part of it. and we thought molesting kids was as bad as it gets.

        • Jim Jones

          Almost without exception the natives died under the “tender care” of the religious.

        • DennisLurvey

          I have a book called ‘america’s holocaust’ about how early christians here killed over one million indians because they were ‘heathens’ or non christians, nazi style. It has photos of executions and mass graves.

        • adam
        • Jim Jones

          With rare exceptions, I’d run from all of them.

        • TheNuszAbides

          the standard narrative AIUI [paraphased to leave out leading/retcon adjectives like “illicit” and “guilty”]:
          at age ~19, Augie takes up with a [still-nameless] woman for ~15 years
          they have a son, Adeodatus [when he was actually given this name is unclear]
          Augie’s mother Monica wants the parents to marry; they don’t
          at Augie-age-~32, he and Adeo(~15) finally get Xian baptism; around this time, Monica arranges an 11-year-old fiancee for Augie and he cuts ties with nameless mother-of-Adeo, who gets herself to a nunnery (or the closest such thing that existed at the time)
          Monica, Augie & Adeo live together in a villa; Adeo contributes to a couple of dad’s treatises; Adeo & Monica die within a year or two
          Augie broke off the engagement with the [nameless?] girl arranged by his mother – haven’t seen this on a timeline though.

          it’s easy enough to peg [for major examples] Constantine or Augustine as mama’s boys (at least from the points at which they formally convert to mama’s cult), but the way DennisL throws around uncited aspersions of incest is a bit too gossip-houndy for me to take seriously.

          anyway, the guy was certainly a piece of work, but he tried so damn hard (at least in later life; at least going by his copious writings and his biographer) that he still gets respect even from some of the folks who think he was full of shit. his pretzel logic about sex is probably my favorite inane puzzle out of all theology. did you know that sex was passionless before The Fall? go figure!!

    • Gregory “Wolfe” Woodbury

      Wasn’t Julius Caesar known as “every woman’s husband and every man’s wife?”

      • DennisLurvey

        wouldn’t surprise me. wasn’t there a scene in a movie about him in a hot tub with a naked man? It would be common, normal for those times.

  • Mark Landes

    “Christians don’t get an exemption from the law.’

    But they will do anything including their on values to make that happen including overwhelmingly voting for a man who mostly likely never read the Bible nor quote a statement made by Jebus.

    Especially Matthew 19:24 “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” NIV

    • Dannorth

      But,but… doncha know that the Eye of the Needle was a narrow gate in Jerusalem through which it was possible for a camel to pass even if it was a tight squeeze.

      True story (that someone told me that once that is).

  • guerillasurgeon

    ‘But it’s NOT an imaginary world’? Seems to make a bit more sense to me.

  • Tony D’Arcy

    I have this tin of smoked oysters in the cupboard. What would happen to me if I eat them ? I’m willing to change my mind, but I think some Christians have also changed their minds, certainly in Britain. Hell will no longer be the “fiery lake”, instead just a nice warm bath ? The perfect place for new life to evolve ?

    • Greg G.

      When I was younger, I worked in a gourmet pizza shop and smoked oysters was a topping. They were broken in half and put on when the pizza came out of the oven so they warmed up during the delivery time. They were really good on the artichoke-parmesan pie.

      • guerillasurgeon

        I don’t like fish, but pickled walnuts are good on pizza.

        • Greg G.

          We were putting chipotle peppers on pizza before anybody had heard of them. I liked them with crushed pineapple with a top coating of Parmesan cheese with the honey wholewheat crust.

        • adam

          How gross – wholewheat crust.

          You pineapple heretic…pineapple doesnt go with wholewheat…

        • Greg G.

          Honey and sesame fixes anything.

        • TheNuszAbides

          We were putting chipotle peppers on pizza before anybody White Folks had heard of them

          fixed.

        • Michael Neville

          Oysters aren’t fish. They’re some type of overgrown amoebas or fungus.

        • TheNuszAbides

          aren’t we all?

          EDIT: okay, I guess we’d at least have to add “overfed” as a characteristic.

      • MR

        What I read was: “When I was younger, I worked in a gourmet pizza shop and smoked oysters.”

        • Brad Feaker

          Aren’t those hard to keep lit?

        • MR

          And hard to hold between two fingers!

        • Greg G.

          We had several (Grateful) Deadheads working there. They smoked everything but the oysters.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          The shells make GREAT filtration!!!! 😉

    • Cryny

      I have this tin of smoked oysters in the cupboard. What would happen to me if I eat them?

      You will become seriously ill, maybe even die. You should probably get rid of them. Feel free to mail them to me so I can properly dispose of them.

      • Tony D’Arcy

        Hell they were delicious ! Awaiting Jahweh’s wrath with trembling boots !

  • RichardSRussell

    But if your complaint is about the Kim Davises of the world unable to impose their religious views on other people or Christian bakers punished for telling same-sex couples “We don’t serve your kind here” when asked to bake a wedding cake, then I have no sympathy.

    Public accommodations should accommodate the public, kind of by definition.

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

      You’re eloquent as usual, Mr. Russell.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        And succinct…

    • eric

      What’s more, this is a problem of our (societies’) own making. Our states are the ones that mixed the roles of civil servants and priests together, by doing things like requiring celebrants to legalize a marriage. Now that mixing is causing social disagreements. Well, yeah, of course it is. Because we never should have mixed them in the first place.

      I’d be okay with some small form of a “soft landing.” You want to bake cakes just for straights? Operate a Wedding Chapel on the Vegas strip that only marries straights? Okay…we’ll let you change your for-profit business into a 501(c)(3) organization. You’ll have to completely change your pay structure. Your tax structure. You may have to “suggest donations” rather than fix a price for your products and services. And you’ll still have to act internally consistently with whatever rules you set up – no making cakes for divorced Christians and later claiming you refused service to someone because they were divorced. But we’ll let you set yourself up as a new 501(c)(3) without any legal prejudice. Start a new slate, as it were.

      Of course if you don’t – if you still want to operate as a for-profit business – then you’ll have to obey the public accommodation rules.

  • skl

    “If you don’t like the fact that the public square is a challenging place for those with unpopular ideas, then stay away.”

    I’m OK with same-sex marriage, but even if I wasn’t, I appreciate being able to ask questions and propose points of view on “Cross Examined” which might “challenge”, if that’s the right word, what appears to be commonly held views among the commenters here. Some other moderators at Patheos Nonreligious won’t allow me to do even that.

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

      Because they moderate comments? Because they don’t allow comments? Because you’ve been banned?

      My habit when I see an interesting Christian article is to see if comments are allowed. If not, I’m much less likely to read it.

      • Brad Feaker

        My habit when I see an interesting Christian article is to see if comments are allowed. If not, I’m much less likely to read it.

        Myself as well. No comments? No time wasted reading.

        • Michael Neville

          It’s not just Christian blogs. Today I discovered Galen Broaddus does not allow comments on his nonreligious blog “Across Rivers Wide”. Sorry, Galen, but I won’t be visiting your blog any more.

        • Chuck Johnson

          I was never much interested.
          I found that Galen was too often small-minded and disrespectful.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I haven’t read any of Galen’s stuff for a while, but I didn’t see that when last I read any of it. IMHO, YMMV, etc.

        • Brad Feaker

          I totally understand – if I cannot comment on the post I am not going to read it unless it is very pertinent to my specific situation or is news I really want to know.

      • skl

        “Because they moderate comments? Because they don’t allow
        comments? Because you’ve been banned?”

        The last one.
        They allowed comments, and I participated in commenting on their sites, until I was prevented from doing so.

        • Joe

          until I was prevented from doing so.

          That may be because your ‘comments’ take the form of easily refuted conservative/christian talking points, in the form of innocent questions.

          Then you proceed to feign ignorance when people try to explain the answer in as simple terms as possible.

          I am not surprised others saw through your act.

        • MR

          Yeah, I wouldn’t blame people for banning stupid, disingenuous tactics like skl’s. Give me a sincere and honest Christian. It just seems that there are so few who actually participate. These apologetic types have already sold their soul to the devil as far as I’m concerned. They don’t even make good Christians. Once you’re at deception level, you’ve lost all credibility. And then when they leave and come back as a sock puppet…. Oof….

        • Joe

          He’s either a christian, or a compulsive contrarian like kir, who has to be on the opposite side of an argument no matter what it entails.

        • eric

          Even a decent contrarian won’t use the tactic of “some say…” and then when you blast it, “hey, it wasn’t my opinion…”

        • Susan

          That may be because your ‘comments’ take the form of easily refuted conservative/christian talking points, in the form of innocent questions

          There’s been a spate of that recently.

        • Tommy

          The common denominator is YOU.

  • Brad Feaker

    FFS Bob – you expect Christians to approach this topic with nuance? Good freaking luck with that :)

    • Chuck Johnson

      Some Christians can – – – The progressive ones often can.
      But they also approach it with confusion, and they still retain a superstitious version of God in their minds.

      • Brad Feaker

        With “progressive” Christians I often find they actually possess no clear definition of their deity. It is some vague, nebulous thing that they cannot define for the life of them.

        • Chuck Johnson

          It’s like the Cheshire Cat.
          He gradually disappears until nothing is left but his smile.

        • Brad Feaker

          Except in this case there is not even a smile to find :)

        • Chuck Johnson

          Progressive Christians and people who are “spiritual but not religious” find such a residual smile all the time.
          It’s a psychological need for these folks.

        • Greg G.
        • Brad Feaker

          That is funny as hell 😉

        • Greg G.

          I saw that on Jerry Coyne’s site (he doesn’t like it to be called a blog) a few years ago.

        • Brad Feaker

          Jerry’s site is the only one I actually subscribe to via email. I would love to meet him one day to discuss our shared love of good food :)

      • rubaxter

        I often find ‘progressive Christian’ sounds a lot like ‘functional Agnostic’.

        You might as well talk about a ‘progressive Grand Kleagle’.

  • Mr. A

    Well, you heard it here, folks. Don’t obey men, only God.

    So from now on, I expect all christians to never go to church on the grounds that they are listening to a man preach and not God. If they do not do this, then I will start to think they’re all full of shit.

    • tolpuddle1

      Hopefully, what the preacher says is in accordance with the words and mind of Christ.

      • Jack Baynes

        But since preachers contradict each other, we know that God does not ensure that what preachers say is in accordance with his words and mind.

        So maybe your preacher is, maybe he isn’t

        • tolpuddle1

          Please see my replies above.

        • Michael Neville

          So why is the anti-humanist, misogynist, child-raping Catholic Church better than all the rest?

        • tolpuddle1

          1) Catholic thinkers like Erasmus BEGAN humanism.
          2) The Church isn’t misogynist except in the opinions of the self-deluded.
          3) It isn’t a “child-raping” Church – only people can commit rape, a Church can’t. And why condemn 99% of the clergy (who are innocent) because of the 1% who are guilty ? – because you hate the RCC .in any case.

        • Michael Neville

          Catholic thinkers like Erasmus BEGAN humanism

          And then the Catholic Church decided to go in a different direction. (See, I can make bumpersticker claims as well as you can.)

          The Church isn’t misogynist except in the opinions of the self-deluded.

          Until your church starts ordaining women priests then it’s misogynist.

          It isn’t a “child-raping” Church

          When your church start informing the police and other civil authorities about the child rapists in its clergy then it can claim not to support and protect pedophiles. That hasn’t happened yet.

          because you hate the RCC .in any case.

          I point out some serious flaws about your church and that automatically makes me a hater. Thinking is not something you’re particularly good at or else you’d recognize that there are major problems with your church. Child raping clergy is just one of them.

        • tolpuddle1

          But Erasmus triumphed by 1700 – Christians, Catholics included, no longer wish to persecute each other.

          The task of a priest is to be “alter Christus” (another Christ) – who washed His Apostles’ feet at the Last Supper and the following day was publicly tortured to death. Any priest must be prepared for martyrdom.

          So, not misogynist – misandrist maybe. And in countries like Pakistan, where Christians are persecuted, there are no queues of middle-class feminists demanding the Church should ordain them as priests. The priesthood isn’t a middle-class profession (except in rich places like USA).

        • Pofarmer

          Christians, Catholics included, no longer wish to persecute each other.

          Wow, you really are a brain dead idiot.

        • Michael Neville

          Christians including Catholics still persecute each other. One of the regulars on this blog is Ignorant Amos, who lives in Ulster. Ask him about The Troubles. You’ll find your wishful thinking doesn’t match reality.

          The task of a priest is to be “alter Christus” (another Christ)

          Like the Bishop of Limburg who built himself a palace? I don’t see him as a candidate for martyrdom.

          And in countries like Pakistan, where Christians are persecuted, there are no queues of middle-class feminists demanding the Church should ordain them as priests.

          I’m talking about the Catholic Church, not a third world Islamic country. Nice try at deflection. Better luck next time.

          As I said, your cult is and will continue to be misogynist until they allow women into the priesthood.

        • TheNuszAbides

          will continue to be misogynist until they allow women into the priesthood.

          and very possibly still after that.

        • adam
        • tolpuddle1

          The Church, directly or via prayer, has saved millions of people from Hell.

          No liberal or liberal creed can do the same.

          Only make empty and futile remarks about politics.

        • adam
        • Pofarmer

          mainly because 99% of the Clergy aren’t innocent, for starters.

          IN the U.S., it was something like 10%. In some schools in Australia it has been revealed it was nearly 100%. And then there is the ENTIRE hierarchy, that shielded the guilty for CENTURIES.

          Fuck. You. Asshole.

        • adam
        • tolpuddle1

          Such charges had to be proved in a court of law.

          Cruel, the clergy sometimes were (like all human beings) – framers of innocent people, no.

        • adam

          “Such charges had to be proved in a court of law.”

          A kangaroo court at that.

          “Cruel, the clergy sometimes were (like all human beings) – framers of innocent people, no.”

          Yes, they were merely politicians

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aed33b9dc8e1bbadaedd0c39be635abdb6e92129d311616630c54b00dd99e900.jpg

      • Michael Neville

        When Bishop John Shelby Spong, Pope Francis and Pat Robertson are all Christians who preach different things (each of them doesn’t think the other two are really Christians) then we can safely disregard your non sequitur.

        • tolpuddle1

          Only if you have succumbed to the Protestant Error (that there is no authoritative Church) and heed their remarks.

        • Michael Neville

          But each church claims to be authoritative. So how do we know which church is the authentic, definitive, honest-to-God real church? And if you tell me your church is the real one then expect much disbelief on everyone else’s part.

        • tolpuddle1

          There is only One Catholic Church (since the Orthodox are part of it).

          But 40,000 Protestant churches, and rising.

          Seems a pretty bleedin’ obvious choice to me.

        • Michael Neville

          That is not an answer. Want to try again?

        • Greg G.

          Each of those Protestant churches have a name and most of them have a unique name, so there is one of each of them, too. Each of those Protestant churches have their own unique interpretations and their members love their church. They are as certain that theirs is right as you are that yours is right. And they can point to specific verses that show that the Catholic Church is wrong and they don’t believe it is Christian.

        • tolpuddle1

          Yes, but they oppose all the other 40,000 Protestant “churches” as well !

          Prove from the Bible that the RCC is wrong ? – only to themselves.

          And the 40,000 aren’t Churches, except in their own estimation.

          Christ founded A Church (singular)..

        • Greg G.

          He never made it to Rome so he didn’t found the Church of Rome. Maybe Paul set it up before Peter hijacked it. Maybe the founders just hijacked Peter’s name.

          It is funny when you Christers argue over who is a real Christian and who has a real church. It is all make-believe.

        • Jim Jones

          ‘Christ’ never existed and the gospels claim that he made it clear he had no interest in non-Jews.

        • tolpuddle1

          Clearly He did, as the Gospels record a real person, who said interesting things. Somebody must have ! – why not Jesus ?

          Deny His divinity if you must – but please don’t be so dishonest as to deny his human existence.

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          The gospels are fictional accounts cobbled out of the literature of the day.

          The early epistles only mention Jesus in terms of the Old Testament. Even they don’t mention Jesus as a first century historical person.

        • tolpuddle1

          Wrong. Although Paul met Jesus only in a vision, on his conversion he immediately met Christians who had met Jesus as a living person.

        • Greg G.

          Wrong, you are reading the fictional contradictory accounts in Acts.

        • tolpuddle1

          Wrong. You are asking me not to believe in Acts on your Authority and that of other dim-witted Atheists.

          Which would be absurd.

        • Jim Jones

          Too bad no one wrote a reliable account of those meetings. Paul of Tarsus is the Joseph Smith of Christianity. Or do you believe in Smith’s claimed visions of Moroni, Jesus and Yahweh?

        • Greg G.

          Nobody meets people in visions or dreams. Thinking that they do is a little less than sane.

        • tolpuddle1

          Visions aren’t a mark of insanity or even a tendency towards it.

        • Greg G.

          Actually visions are a mark of insanity. A friend I worked with said he bumped into a guy he went to high school with. That guy had killed his mother and father and wounded his sister because of the visions and voices he heard. My friend told me that his friend said he would hang out in his car in grocery store parking lots and if anyone had spoken to him, he would have killed that person. My friend said it sent chills through him because if he had seen the guy, he would have spoken to him. The guy got some treatment and no longer sees visions so he is no longer considered a threat to society.

          But in a church, if someone starts talking about seeing visions, others get jealous because they aren’t having them when they should be suggesting the person seek professional help.

          If you are having visions that you think are real and normal, please seek help before the visions convince you to become dangerous to those around you.

        • Kodie

          If you can’t tell the difference between reality and your own imagination, you might need to get checked.

        • Jim Jones

          The gospels are fictional. If there was a real Jesus, why didn’t Paul of Tarsus know about him?

        • tolpuddle1

          He did – and at first persecuted Jesus’ followers.

        • Jim Jones

          He didn’t. Try reading the actual epistles and stop making up your own religion.

        • tolpuddle1

          Read Acts of the Apostles.

        • Jim Jones

          Written by the author of Luke (whoever that was) over 100 years after the supposed Jesus – and with no facts known.

        • tolpuddle1

          No one knows who the author of Luke’s Gospel was. Why, it may even have been Luke !

          No one knows when it was written down. And as oral history is often as reliable as written history, it doesn’t matter.

          “No facts are known.” But they are, if Luke’s Gospel is accurate. What makes you think it isn’t ?

        • Jim Jones

          Who wrote the original Robin Hood stories? When?

        • adam

          “What makes you think it isn’t ?”

          What makes you think that Jesus was not gay?

        • adam

          ” but please don’t be so dishonest as to deny his human existence.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ae1afb4336eb43eac4eb6542320889b4c9068fa20364f91b3a3a3b8f6e3a0f88.png

        • adam
        • tolpuddle1

          Protestants have been trying – unsuccessfully ! – to do that for five centuries.

        • adam
        • adam

          Catholics have been trying to do the same for the same amount of time:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/870086376a3039ed8ff43904fc455354e88f434aa1a491d68683492f7a9e351e.jpg

        • Jack Baynes

          Yes, pretty bleeding obvious that the Catholic Church are one out of 40,000 churches. They can’t all be right, what’s the chances that any of them are?

        • tolpuddle1

          The Catholic Church (RC + Orthodox) is THE Church, the One & Only.

          The 40,000 others are “ecclesial associations” , “churches” only by courtesy.

        • Jack Baynes

          Nope, the Catholic church is just one among thousands.

        • Jim Jones

          The RCC is the Sears in a world with Amazon and Walmart.

        • Greg G.

          I think that would be “Sears & Roebuck”. Remember that? The RCC hates to let go of a tradition.

        • tolpuddle1

          Modernity will soon be gone.

          The RCC won’t.

        • Jim Jones

          When it hits 1.4% of the population it’s turn into the Rosicrucians.

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

          You must know something the rest of us don’t. Why will “modernity” soon be gone?

        • Susan

          You must know something the rest of us don’t. Why will “modernity” soon be gone?

          Stupid infidel.

          Because tolpuddle says so, of course.
          .

        • tolpuddle1

          Trump
          Brexit
          Political polarisation and confusion
          Climate change
          Modernity’s ecological non-sustainability.
          Demographic collapse among Western peoples (and their replacement by religious migrants)

          I could go on.

          There are also Unknowns, of course.

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

          In 1917, you’d say: because of the War to End All Wars. In 1942, you’d say: because the Axis is winning the war. In the 50s and 60s, you’d say because nuclear war was imminent (The Doomsday Clock by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, for example). At every point in history you can find the terrible event(s) that are present or on the horizon.

        • tolpuddle1

          The world wars, the Axis and possible nuclear war were unquestionably modern, albeit in hideous forms. Everything was threatened by them, except modernity itself.

          This time, modernity itself is threatened.

          A less terrible threat maybe, but a deeper one.

          But also a liberation.

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

          I’m sure you’re determined to not get it, so just a quick note for any readers: in just about any point in history, you can find some serious reasons for pessimism. Sure, Trump and the rise of nationalism bother me, but nuclear armageddon, which was a threat during the Cold War (to take just one example) was worse. As was WW2. As was the Black Death or Napoleon or even the Industrial Revolution (I’m thinking of the workers’ conditions).

        • adam

          “This time, modernity itself is threatened.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b6b5240f53deb4a0141b0d9196de29540d1f8931a4c8d5713b9547eca65cbd2f.jpg

          AGAIN, didnt we just have an Enlightenment over this very thing?

        • adam

          “The Catholic Church (RC + Orthodox) is THE Church, the One & Only.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/16ff24b0a7ceb21423959ec810a1e8a2520675c1cde50d310879942c65ff9482.jpg

        • adam

          The Catholic Church is composed of 24 autonomous sui iuris particular churches: the Latin Church and the 23 Eastern Catholic Churches.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3cb70ebc9c906ff76ff95ab2f328671605e8b757c39c1f322041ffd4c501d54e.gif

        • tolpuddle1

          All of which accept the primacy of Rome and the truth of Catholic doctrine.

        • adam
        • Jim Jones

          > since the Orthodox are part of it

          Good luck with that claim!

        • tolpuddle1

          The Orthodox churches accept Rome’s primacy in principle – claiming only that Rome has left the rails somewhere en route.

          They are of course, insistent on being called “catholikos.”

        • adam

          “There is only One Catholic Church (since the Orthodox are part of it).”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/259038554dedb056e6189ae6a74d2839e1f9dd99affebd76a55a823b3c0de8e7.jpg

        • tolpuddle1

          The 40,000 can’t be. They survive only by their opposition to Rome.

          Therefore – it’s the Catholic Church; or none.

          Protestantism = Chaos.

        • Michael Neville

          Catholic Church = Immoral bunch of child rapists and their supporters.

        • Kodie

          Catholic Church = Mafia.

        • Michael Neville

          If the mafia found a child rapist he would almost certainly be described in a quote from the movie Pulp Fiction:

          Mr. Soon-To-Be-Living-The-Rest-of-His-Short-Ass-Life-In-Agonizing-Pain Rapist

        • Kodie

          Catholic Church = Mafia

        • tolpuddle1

          Catholic Church (as an ideal) = Jesus Christ = God.

          But the RCC has to exist at ground level too and thus be run by human beings – that’s where problems start; with human beings.

        • Greg G.

          Catholic Church (as an ideal) = Jesus Christ son of an imaginary being = God an imaginary being

          FTFY. You’re welcome.

          But the RCC has to exist at ground level too and thus be run by human beings – that’s where problems start; with human beings.

          It is an organization filled with people who try to suppress their natural sexual desires (which means they are sexual deviants) yet they feel the need to dictate sexual behavior to the followers. What could go wrong with an ideal like that? Then they promote Super Santa Claus and call his assistants “saints”.

        • Kodie

          Yeah, humans are gullible and easily impressed and manipulated to believe there’s a god. You are under a spell, you are brainwashed.

        • adam
        • adam

          “Only if you have succumbed to the Protestant Error (that there is no authoritative Church) and heed their remarks.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/01e3db6d15cd8e9afb63976665ae6fc387c19f7a1440b5a915c88268b2ce67c2.gif

      • Otto

        Since preachers disagree with each other on virtually every theological point how would one know which are communicating the ‘words and mind of Christ’?

        • tolpuddle1

          I’m a Catholic, so the ramblings of Preacher Men are of zero interest to me.

          The Mind of Christ is definitively stated and interpreted by Catholic doctrine.

        • Otto

          I was a Catholic and there is no reason to think their interpretation is any more definitive, that is a load of BS, their ramblings are no different. And BTW making a baseless statement in support of the Catholic Church in no way answers my question.

          The Catholic Church can’t even get the basics of ethics correct.

        • tolpuddle1

          The Catholic Church has got ethics absolutely right – it’s misbehaving priests and prelates that haven’t.

          If the RCC has no valid authority on faith and morals, no one has.

          And all humanity is completely in the dark.

          As some human beings want to be !

        • Otto

          >>>”The Catholic Church has got ethics absolutely right – it’s misbehaving priests and prelates that haven’t.”

          They are part of the Church and the crimes for which they were shielded from was done so right to the very top of the organization. Protecting criminals from the consequences of laws that govern and protect the greater population is unethical…and it is even more so because the reason for the Catholic Church to protect these criminals was to further the interests of the Catholic church.

          >>>”If the RCC has no valid authority on faith and morals, no one has.”

          No one has the valid authority…let’s go with that one.

        • tolpuddle1

          “No one has valid authority.”

          Then only Power and Brute Force are left in the world.

        • Otto

          The statement you made concerned faith and morals…you created a false dichotomy with your conclusion.

        • tolpuddle1

          It’s a true, inevitable and inescapable conclusion.

          No God, no Authority.

          No Pope, no earthly spokesperson for God.

        • Otto

          >>>”No God, no Authority.”

          So going by all indications, like I said…no authority.

          >>>”No Pope, no earthly spokesperson for God.”

          The Pope does not speak for God except in the small delusional world of the Catholic Church. I would think if God actually talked to the Pope, God would have told him to not hide the Criminals and allow them to continue to rape children. That is proof enough that either 1) God does not talk to the Pope or 2) that there is no God.

        • Greg G.

          3) that there is a God who enjoys watching pedo-porn live by men in black robes.

        • Jack Baynes

          God: Hey Frankie, I’ve got another list of priests for you to defrock. You’ve gotta do a better job of keeping up on these. Are you even listening to me?

        • Pofarmer

          You forgot 3) God is evil.

        • TheNuszAbides

          sadly, the Trubes can still fall back on “but Yahwehjesus wants to save their REAL punishment for the AFTERlife cuz that’s what ACTUALLY counts.” of course ‘puddle will still pretend CC-lessness is unmitigated anarchy.

        • Otto

          True…but any being that watches and does nothing despite having the ability to stop it is not moral…just a monster.

        • Michael Neville

          Got any evidence there is a god? You need to justify that claim before you can nominate a spokescritter.

        • Greg G.

          We agree on something! The inescapable conclusions is no god, no authority, etc.

        • adam
        • TheNuszAbides

          you can wrap your head around those very simple ideas, yet you can’t interpret any farther than fearmongering moral panic.

        • Jim Jones

          Gods are impossible.

        • tolpuddle1

          No – a universe without God is.

        • Jim Jones

          We live in a universe with no gods. Clearly you are wrong.

        • adam

          “Then only Power and Brute Force are left in the world.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b6b5240f53deb4a0141b0d9196de29540d1f8931a4c8d5713b9547eca65cbd2f.jpg

          THAT’S how the Catholics got their power originally.

        • Michael Neville

          John Paul the Two Eyes was canonized less than ten years after his death. Less than ten years before his death he was covering up child rapes. You’ll have to do some fancy tap dancing to explain the ethics of an obviously unethical Catholic hierarchy.

        • tolpuddle1

          John Paul didn’t cover up any of the scandals.

          The faults of some of the hierarchy gives you no right to condemn the whole hierarchy.

        • Jack Baynes

          When the hierarchy claims to speak for God, then yes I do fault the whole hierarchy.
          If the Pope didn’t know, he should have (especially from his position as God’s top priest). If he did know, then he should have been firing priests and bishops and turning over to the secular authorities.

        • tolpuddle1

          The hierarchy as a whole – not its individual members – claims to speak for God.

          Clairvoyance isn’t one of the gifts granted to a Pope by God.

          Yes, more priests and bishops should have been fired.

          But turned over to the authorities by John Paul ? – How ? A Pope has precisely zero power outside the 1 square mile of Vatican City.

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

          Clairvoyance isn’t one of the gifts granted to a Pope by God.

          That’s not what the Catholics say. When the pope speaks ex cathedra, he’s infallible.

        • Greg G.

          That’s why the Pope can’t be on Jeopardy. “I’ll take religion for a billion, Alex.”

        • TheNuszAbides

          he’d still have to sabotage the other contestants on every other topic. Aaron must’ve had some good tricks for that, at least prior to the golden calf brouhaha.

        • Jack Baynes

          So as in American Conservative politics, the buck stops anywhere but here.

          If the Pope is at the top of the hierarchy, he’s responsible for his subordinates.

          Pope: Bishop Paul, I have heard that Father Tim has been molesting children. Please provide all information you have about him to the local police. Please support the families of his victims and encourage them to cooperate with the authorities. If you don’t I will fires you and have your replacement turn both you and Father Tim over to the authorities.

          Pope: Bishop Tom, I hear you’ve been hiding the criminal activities of Father Bluto from me. You’re fired, your replacement is at your door with the local police.

          It IS interesting, that God has no interest in helping the Pope find out about these criminal priests, but that’s another matter.

        • adam

          “Clairvoyance isn’t one of the gifts granted to a Pope by God.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ab01346b37b2da80334dd5e891059e07bbb1921f68e3a34c6fa1e37cd584c433.jpg

        • TheNuszAbides

          The hierarchy as a whole – not its individual members – claims to speak for God.

          surely you can figure out exactly how that doesn’t refute, counter or correct

          When the hierarchy claims to speak for God …

          in any way whatsoever. your pretense that you’re setting us straight on details is a bizarre waste of energy, but understandable if you come by the delusion honestly.

        • Kodie

          Why do you follow this silly superstition if the pope doesn’t even have god telling him what’s going on in the organization that he oversees? What’s so special about being a pope? He’s just a fancy man in a dress and a big hat then.

        • tolpuddle1

          God isn’t constantly whispering information into a Pope’s ear.

          The Pope has authority only in abstract matters of faith and morality

        • Kodie

          I’m not the one who clings to whatever the pope says. He’s not my leader.

        • tolpuddle1

          No, satan is.

        • Greg G.

          Now adam will post the graphic about the only thing more pathetic than having an imaginary friend is having an imaginary enemy.

        • tolpuddle1

          The Enemy is “imaginary” ?

          Any news bulletin proves otherwise.

        • Greg G.

          That is your brainwashing telling you that.

        • tolpuddle1

          It is your brainwashing telling you otherwise.

        • Greg G.

          Doesn’t it bother you that if you are right, you will regret posting a reply that is as banal as that forever and ever?

        • Michael Neville

          My right to condemn your church for supporting and protecting child rapists does not go away just because you whine about it. As for John Paul not covering up scandals, why is Cardinal Law still hiding out from a subpoena in the Vatican?

        • Greg G.

          If the rest of the hierarchy knew about it and did nothing, they should be condemned, too. It’s not like they could be remain ignorant of it as prevalent as it was.

        • adam
        • Jim Jones

          Australia’s worst paedophile priest ‘molested every boy’ at school in Victoria

          Gail Furness SC, the counsel assisting the commission, said the Ballarat bishop learnt of Ridsdale’s offences in 1975 but did not suspend him until 1988.

          Ridsdale, along with two other notorious child sex abusers, operated a paedophile ring for years in and around the city of Ballarat, near Melbourne.

          The commission heard that, in 1971, each of the male teachers and the chaplain at the St Alipius primary school was molesting children.

          Philip Nagle, who was abused at the school, held up a photograph of his fourth grade class and said that twelve of the 33 boys had since committed suicide. He said he was abused by a teacher named Brother Stephen Francis Farrell and that he knew the molesting was going to begin whenever he saw Mr Farrell remove his glasses.

          “St Alipius Boys Primary School was a place where there was true evil,” Mr Nagle told the commission.

        • adam

          “The Catholic Church has got ethics absolutely right -”

          “If the RCC has no valid authority on faith and morals, no one has.”

          Obviously then, noone has

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/151925a51e6a55d5bd1418d3a12f8fa99b39d9a82fb1f8468f8e6fcd942470f3.jpg

        • Jim Jones

          Massacre at Béziers – Wikipedia

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_Béziers

          The Massacre at Béziers refers to the slaughter of the inhabitants during the sack of Béziers, an event that took place on 22 July 1209, and was the first major military action of the Albigensian Crusade.

          “Kill them all, God will know His own”.

        • tolpuddle1

          Catholic historians agree that the Middle Ages – and the RCC – took a wrong turning in the 13th century, despite its great achievements.

          It’s obvious that part of the reason for this is that St Dominic and the church hierarchy made a great mistake – and set an evil precedent – in authorising violence against the Albigensians.

          Easy to condemn in hindsight. But they felt (reasonably enough) the same horror about the Manichean faith of the Albigensians that the Western allies did about the Nazis and their Japanese allies, whom they defeated by terrible violence (including fire-bombing children, which St Dominic and his friends didn’t wish to do).

        • adam

          “Catholic historians agree that the Middle Ages – and the RCC – took a
          wrong turning in the 13th century, despite its great achievements.”

          It started earlier than that:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5dec59a3b2da3b71063b6c8261446f996d4593cdad46165888de05326c67b600.jpg

        • Jim Jones

          Excuses, Excuses, Excuses.

        • adam
        • adam

          “The Mind of Christ is definitively stated and interpreted by Catholic doctrine.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c7b26fa63bd62710b5b0bda13321c325b5f32009b7ac947dd6169bdc88c7b54d.jpg

        • Jim Jones

          Making it all up for 2000 years.

      • adam
      • adam
      • Jim Jones

        Difficult, since he never existed.

      • adam

        “Hopefully, what the preacher says is in accordance with the words and mind of Christ.”

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7ead1dfb33fc5a434455e6d5ffd090caa7b6e7d822229360729a7a9750b56e83.png

  • Jack Baynes

    9. Does God tell you to prevent two men (or two women) from marrying?
    No?
    Well, then I guess obeying God isn’t an issue here.

    • tolpuddle1

      In Gospel of St Mark (10:7-9), Jesus Christ (i.e. God) defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

      • Jack Baynes

        You know that’s a rant about divorce, right. Nothing to do with sane sex marriage.
        God never told you to prevent same sex marriage, so there’s no conflict between man’s law and God’s law

        • tolpuddle1

          Well, not of course a rant, but God’s word from God’s mouth.

          It is, of course about marriage as well as divorce.

          SSX marriage isn’t mentioned, since Jesus believed (as His Church believes) in the Old Testament ban on homosexual acts – making SSX marriage a complete non-starter.

        • epeeist

          Well, not of course a rant, but God’s word from God’s mouth.

          Directly you mean, not through an intermediary? Because we are fairly well used to getting the monkey rather than the organ grinder.

        • tolpuddle1

          Jesus Christ is the “organ grinder.”

        • epeeist

          Jesus Christ is the “organ grinder.”

          But we don’t have any of his words. All we have is reports of what he supposedly said.

        • tolpuddle1

          What makes you think that those reports are wrong ?

        • epeeist

          What makes you think that those reports are wrong ?

          You want to claim that documents written decades after the purported events by those who weren’t there are accurate?

        • TheNuszAbides

          oh, that’s adorable. what sophisticated faith you have!

        • Jack Baynes

          No, it is a rant about divorce. But as a rant about divorce it doesn’t serve your purpose, so you dishonestly try to pull it out of context. Using your god to lie is a violation of your preferred set of moral laws.

          But even if it WERE describing marriage it is NOT instructing anyone to do anything to prevent same sex marriage. So, there still is no conflict between God’s law and man’s law. If you think God has told YOU not to marry someone of the same sex, don’t marry someone of the same sex. But allowing other people to do so does not make YOU in violation of God’s law.

        • tolpuddle1

          Divorce and marriage are questions joined at the hip. To talk about divorce is to talk about marriage, necessarily.

          God regards marriage as sacred, homosexual acts as gravely sinful – thus inevitably such acts are a profanation of marriage and SSX marriage a logical impossibility.

          Society is built on marriage – re-defining it affects us all. Thus we all have a right and a duty to consider the SSX marriage question.

        • Jack Baynes

          Yes, Jesus talks about marriage in the context of divorce. He’s not talking about same sex marriage.

          You think god tells you not to marry someone of the same sex, that’s fine. You haven’t shown ANYWHERE where he says you can’t allow other people to do so. You just keep pulling this favorite verse out of context in order to misrepresent what you consider to be the Word of God.

        • tolpuddle1

          Since homosexuality is always wrong, it follows inescapably that SSX marriage is too.

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

          I think you need to shore up that first premise.

        • Jack Baynes

          That’s fine that you think that way. But that doesn’t require you to prevent anyone from marrying.

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

          God regards marriage as sacred, homosexual acts as gravely sinful

          (1) allow gay marriage. Now homosexuals have a sacred union. Problem solved.

          (2) Who says homosexual acts are gravely sinful? You’re continually dancing away from this question. And BTW, I’ve written extensively about the supposed anti-gay bits of the Levitical laws, Sodom and Gomorrah, and Romans 1. You can look for this and read more.

      • Greg G.

        Mark 10:11-12 has Jesus telling the apostles that women can divorce. Where did that come from? Mark was putting Paul’s words in Jesus’ mouth from 1 Corinthians 7:10-12 where Paul was writing to Greeks where women were allowed to divorce. Pal was going on Deuteronomy 24:1-4 which has no provision for women divorcing their husbands.

        Notice how Matthew 5:31-32 omits Jesus’ mistake and Luke omits the whole conversation while picking up at Mark 10:13 in Luke 18:15.

        • tolpuddle1

          You can prove almost anything by setting text against text, manuscript against manuscript.

          Hence the need for an authoritative, teaching Church to define the meaning of Scripture definitively.

          Which is why Jesus founded one (and only One) such Church; the Catholic Church, headed by the Bishop of Rome, successor to Simon Peter.

          And that Church has always said, and continues to say, that divorce is always wrong and invalid.

        • Jack Baynes

          Which is why Jesus founded one (and only One) such Church; the Catholic Church, headed by the Bishop of Rome, successor to Simon Peter.

          No, Jesus never set forth rules on how the head of the Church would be passed down. The Orthodox churches and Luther and others clearly felt that at some point the Roman church lost its way.

          There is no way to say that they were wrong.

          (You’d THINK that God would do something about that, but I guess he has more important things to do then make sure all Christians are on the right page)

        • tolpuddle1

          The Orthodox churches believe in principle that Rome speaks with the voice of God – but there are painful historical (not doctrinal) reasons why they believe that Rome lost its way.

          The Protestant viewpoint leads to a babel of > 40,000 competing denominations.

          But the Reformation was also providential – it woke up the sleeping, decaying RCC of 1517.

          The wounds of the past are slowly healing and a re-union of Christianity is now a possibility.

        • Jack Baynes

          I agree that the wide array of Christian religions is a problem for Christian theology, but you in no way defended your claim that your religion was the right one.

          As to reunification? There are still Christians who don’t consider Catholics to be Christian, or who consider them to be following Satan, so that’s not happening anytime soon.

        • tolpuddle1

          The disunity of Protestants rules Protestantism out of court.

          The quarrel with the orthodox churches is historical, not theological.

          There will always be a lunatic fringe who hate the RCC – but most Protestants are moving towards Rome.

        • Jack Baynes

          Why does the disunity of Prostestants mean that none of the Protestants religions are the true faith?
          If it does, you could argue that the disunity of Christianity as a whole proves that none of the Christian religions are the true Church. (Actually, I made pretty much that conclusion late in my Christian life, with so many versions of Christianity out there, it was unlikely that any one was totally true. At the time I concluded that God must not care that much about things like the difference between Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation, or infant vs adult baptism, or the need for explicit confession. From there I went on to more basic questioning of my faith)

          So still no reason to think that YOUR favored religion is the true one.

        • tolpuddle1

          The Protestant principle of private judgement – an individual’s right to define the meaning of scripture for himself – prevents Protestants ever agreeing on what a Christian should believe on contentious issues.

          Protestantism is thus intrinsically and inescapably disunited.

          And as disunity is a Scandal and a Sin, so is Protestantism – all of it.

        • Jack Baynes

          So Christianity (lacking unity), is inherently sinful? I’m glad I got

        • TheNuszAbides

          lol, cheap shot, you earned a NoTruX retort but ‘puddle seems to have given up on this thread anyway.

        • Greg G.

          The Protestant principle of private judgement – an individual’s right to define the meaning of scripture for himself – prevents Protestants ever agreeing on what a Christian should believe on contentious issues.

          If there was a God, the Protestants would be more likely to be correct as a god could speak to everyone independently so there would be no need for a Church to define the meaning of scripture for you. There would be no need to rely on tradition because everyone would get the same messages as the church fathers. But since the Protestants cannot agree, there is probably no god that gives a shit what we believe, so both the Protestants and Catholics should reject religion and welcome reality into their minds.

        • TheNuszAbides

          a re-union of Christianity is now a possibility.

          who are you to imply that it was ever not a possibility?
          meanwhile, some people have more important and realistic things to hope for.

        • TheNuszAbides

          but I guess he has more important things to do then make sure all Christians are on the right page

          *yawn*, free will rabbithole. next!

        • Greg G.

          The Bible says that a man only has to write a certificate of divorce to divorce his wife.

          Deuteronomy 24:1-4
          Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; she then leaves his house 2 and goes off to become another man’s wife. 3 Then suppose the second man dislikes her, writes her a bill of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house (or the second man who married her dies); 4 her first husband, who sent her away, is not permitted to take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that would be abhorrent to the Lord, and you shall not bring guilt on the land that the Lord your God is giving you as a possession.

          But then Jesus had some crazy ideas about adultery. He was doing it wrong.

          A church that tells you it was founded by Jesus is running a scam. If they ask you for money, you know it is a scam. I hope you haven’t fallen for it yet.

        • tolpuddle1

          Jesus’ ideas are sanity and truth – the OT only an approach to truth.

          Jesus is recorded as explicitly founding a Church. Which thus isn’t a scam.

        • Jack Baynes

          Decades after the fact, somebody wrote down that Jesus said he would make Peter the head of his church.

          From that Catholics extrapolated the idea that anyone they named the Pope inherited that authority.

          Not a solid rock to base your declaration on.

        • tolpuddle1

          No one knows WHEN the Gospels were first written down.

          Not that it’s relevant – they already existed by word of mouth.

      • Kuno

        No, in that passage Jesus answers a question from some Pharisees that explicitly asked about a husband/wife couple. There is no mention of same-sex couples and most definitely no prohibition of it.

        You’d think if God so much against it, he would made it clearer.

        • tolpuddle1

          Since God has – in both testaments of the Bible – made it extremely clear that all homosexual acts are gravely sinful, it follows self-evidently that SSX marriage is an impossibility.

        • Kuno

          Care to point out some of those “extremely” clear passages?

          Edit: And please don’t think I didn’t notice you ignoring my rebuttal of your original point.

        • tolpuddle1

          1) Google it. You’ll find I’m telling the truth

          2) No rebuttal was made.

        • Kuno

          1) You are the one making the claim, you provide the evidence. If it is so “extremely” clear, that should be no problem for you.

          2) You stated that in Mark 10:7-9 Jesus himself defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, which I pointed out it doesn’t,

        • tolpuddle1

          Though of course, it does.

        • Kuno

          You might have to work on that whole “providing evidence for your assertions”-thing.

        • TheNuszAbides

          “God” “said” it, [assorted Catholic bigwigs] interpreted it, that settles it [for ‘puddle]!

        • Kodie

          Marriage isn’t the domain of the church, it’s the domain of the secular government. Don’t get confused just because the state gives power to priests to officiate weddings.

        • tolpuddle1

          Marraige – and civil government, for that matter – are gifts from God to humanity.

          The only true definition of marraige is that of the Catholic Church.

        • Kodie

          You keep proving what a gullible moron you are. And you wonder why atheists hate listening to pompous lies you repeat!

      • DennisLurvey

        marriage, but not sex.

        • tolpuddle1

          It has always been believed by Christians (as by Jews) that all sex outside marriage is gravely sinful.

        • MR

          Hmmm…, have you read your Bible, because that does not appear to be correct.

        • tolpuddle1

          Where does the Bible disagree ?

        • MR

          I think the others have pointed out various areas. The Bible has numerous mentions of concubines for various patriarchs and other. Not condemned. Judah sleeps with what he imagines was a prostitute and nowhere is he condemned for it. Capital punishment for adultery is between a man and a married woman. Doesn’t say unmarried woman, doesn’t say married man. Women, yes, are punished for sex out of marriage, but men pretty much have a free pass. I think you’re reading your modern morals back into the text.

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

          Can you say “concubine”? Then there are the sex slaves.

          In general, a guy having sex with any woman is fine, just as long as she’s not a woman who belongs to some other man.

        • MR

          Any self-respecting, old school, traditionalist Catholic should know that. They wrote the book on mistresses!

        • TheNuszAbides

          why do you even bother asking that, if you’re already content to handwave contradictions with “you can prove almost anything by setting manuscript against manuscript”? wasting ones and zeroes again.

        • BlackMamba44
      • BlackMamba44

        Mark 10 (NIV)

        Divorce
        10 Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

        2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

        3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.

        4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

        5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

        No defining there. He just quoted OT scripture and told them no divorce. Because divorce is adultery.

        Jesus said no divorce. How’s that working out for the followers of Jesus?

        • Jack Baynes

          To be fair, he’s (or she?) is Catholic, and the Catholic church continues to teach against divorce (though by the logic of point number 9, Catholics are violating God’s law just by living in a country that has legal divorce)

  • Ficino

    As I just posted on another board, I think the Responsum of the Rabbinate of the Conservative Jewish movement is worth reading, and in places is actually moving. They ruled that only male-male anal is biblically prohibited. Therefore, their movement allowed same sex marriages.

    http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/20052010/dorff_nevins_reisner_dignity.pdf

  • Chuck Johnson

    Thanks, Bob for this look into the customs of our ancient ancestors.

    They certainly were a crazy bunch of folks.
    It’s no wonder that modern Christians look like a crazy bunch, too when they try to base their lives and their morality on this so-called “Divine Wisdom”.

    • tolpuddle1

      If you know any code of morality wiser than the Ten Commandments – or any sage wiser and kinder than Jesus Christ – please let us know.

      • Jack Baynes

        Check out the Tenets of the Satanic Temple.

        Much better than the 10 Commandments.

        • Anri

          Beat me to that.

        • tolpuddle1

          Better ? Pleasanter to our Fallen nature, perhaps.

          But as Satan is the “Father of Lies” the commandments of his “temple” are only for those who wish to be deceived and wish to share his infernal home forever.

        • Jack Baynes

          Which ones do you find fault with?

        • Anri

          Ok, that’s two for two – you gotta stop having my thoughts before I have them. Not fair.

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

          Copyright violation, perhaps?

        • TheNuszAbides

          1. they aren’t commandments
          2. it doesn’t ‘belong’ to your imaginary Adversary, it just uses that fictional character as a symbol of defying arbitrary authoritarianism. grow up.

      • Michael Neville

        The Flying Spaghetti Monster’s Eight I’d Really Rather You Didn’ts are wiser than your narcissistic god’s demands. No. 1 is germane to this coversation:

        I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Act Like a Sanctimonious Holier-Than-Thou Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness. If Some People Don’t Believe In Me, That’s Okay. Really, I’m Not That Vain. Besides, This Isn’t About Them So Don’t Change The Subject.

        As for sages wiser and kinder than Jesus, the Buddha’s teachings are more humanistic. He starts where Jesus left off, with the Golden Rule, and explains how to treat everyone, not just one’s neighbor.

      • Otto

        The 10 commandments for the most part are NOT moral. It fails on about 7 or 8 points depending on the version.

        Oh…and Jesus was not that great either.

        • Jack Baynes

          And the commandments that are about morality are hardly new ideas. Don’t murder? Don’t steal? Every society comes up with those rules. Even in the Bible they weren’t new rules. Moses and Cain both knew they were in trouble when they committed murder.
          Don’t commit adultery? That’s kind of bound up in the idea of marriage itself, which predates the Jewish religion and the 10 commandments.

          I guess the thought crimes portion may be new, but those don’t fit the claim of wise morality

        • Otto

          Exactly

        • tolpuddle1

          It is disastrous to human beings if they worship – believe in – anything but God. Believing in anything else – money, pleasure, status, fame, power, aggression etc – pollutes and enslaves the human personality.

          The West now treats Sunday as any other day; the consequences (burn-out, mental exhaustion,impatience, confused short-termism, unforgivingness) are all harmful to us.

          As for the other of the Ten – is it right to kill or inflict violence? To steal or cheat ? To despise one’s parents or the elderly ? To betray one’s spouse ? To perjure oneself ? To be haunted by envy and covetousness ?

          No it isn’t – on all counts. Therefore the Ten Commandments are moral.

          Those who criticise Jesus say more about themselves than Him.

        • Otto

          >>>”It is disastrous to human beings if they worship – believe in – anything but God.”

          There is no reason to think that is true and on top of that it is a ‘thought crime’…thought crimes are easily immoral.

          >>>”The West now treats Sunday as any other day”
          It doesn’t matter what day someone takes to rest…Wednesdays are fine.
          >>>”As for the other of the Ten – is it right to kill or inflict violence?”
          Killing was viewed wrong long before this…but at least it kinda got something right. Violence is not addressed…but whatever.
          >>>”To steal or cheat ? ”
          See above…
          >>>”To despise one’s parents or the elderly ?”
          Some parents don’t deserve respect…and ordering respect is not a good idea in that it forces people to potentially submit to others when it may not be deserved.
          >>>”To betray one’s spouse ?”
          See above..
          >>>”To be haunted by envy and covetousness ?”
          Thought crime.

          Therefore the 10 commandments are NOT entirely moral….neither is Jesus.

        • tolpuddle1

          We are designed to believe in God and center our lives around Him.

          Believing in – and centering our lives around anything else – is thus by its very nature harmful to us, emotionally and spiritually (and often physically too).

          Disobeying God is a sin, not a Thought Crime – God’s commandments being safety regulations, not the edicts of a tyrant.

          And despite your caveats, you have yet to show that any of the Ten is in any way WRONG.

          And in what did Jesus’ (supposed) imperfection consist ?

        • Otto

          >>>”We are designed to believe in God and center our lives around Him.”

          No we aren’t. Most of the world does not believe in the God you believe in.

          >>>”Believing in – and centering our lives around anything else – is thus by its very nature harmful to us,

          No it’s not. If you can make baseless statements, I can just dismiss them out of hand.

          >>>”Disobeying God is a sin, not a Thought Crime”

          It is still a thought crime.

          >>>”And despite your caveats, you have yet to show that any of the Ten is in any way WRONG.

          I gave refutations to your arguments.

          >>>”And in what did Jesus’ (supposed) imperfection consist ?”

          He was bigoted, he expected people to put himself above others, he was necessarily violent, just to name a few.

        • tolpuddle1

          An increasing part of humanity believes in the God of Abraham, though the point I made isn’t about headcount.

          A glance around our secular modern society – a failing society heading rapidly towards its death – proves my point about the wisdom of believing in God.

          Thought crimes are defined by political authorities – sins are defined by God who is Goodness itself and Truth itself.

          Jesus was non-violent and (unlike Mohammed) refused to Take the Sword. Driving a rabble of thuggish moneylenders out of the Temple, doesn’t look like violence to me.

          “Bigoted” : possessing strong and sincere opinions.

          BTW, Jesus is God – therefore above others, don’t you think ?.

        • Otto

          Belief in the God of Abraham is only increasing in the most ignorant populations…not something to be proud of.

          >>>” – proves my point about the wisdom of believing in God.”

          No it really doesn’t.

          >>>”Thought crimes are defined by political authorities – sins are defined by God who is Goodness itself and Truth itself.

          Still a thought crime no matter how you slice it.

          >>>”Driving a rabble of thuggish moneylenders out of the Temple, doesn’t look like violence to me.”

          Why don’t you try it down at your local bank and see what people think.

          >>>”BTW, Jesus is God – therefore above others, don’t you think ?.”

          No I don’t

        • BlackMamba44
        • tolpuddle1

          God didn’t create us with original sin – we have infected ourselves with it, at satan’s prompting.

        • BlackMamba44
        • Jack Baynes

          Speak for yourself.

        • TheNuszAbides

          i don’t think ‘puddle knows how to [even abstractly] extricate itself from The Exclusive Revealed Wisdom Club.

        • Jack Baynes

          BTW, Jesus is God – therefore above others, don’t you think ?.

          Why would we think that?

        • epeeist

          An increasing part of humanity believes in the God of Abraham, though the point I made isn’t about headcount.

          So you are counting Muslims now.

        • Jack Baynes

          When it’s convenient to him. Just like he counts all Christians when it serves his purpose, while otherwise insisting that only Catholicism is true Christianity.

        • epeeist

          while otherwise insisting that only Catholicism is true Christianity.

          In which case he is talking bollocks. Is the number of Catholics increasing? Yes. Is the number increasing at the same or a better rate than population growth? Not from figures I have seen, certainly the percentage of the world population who reported themselves as Catholic went down during Ratzinger’s time as pope.

        • TheNuszAbides

          and even dwindling numbers shouldn’t discourage a member of Martyr Tradition 12B.

        • TheNuszAbides

          An increasing part of humanity believes in the God of Abraham, though the point I made isn’t about headcount.

          so which Interfaith organization are you supporting? or which hardcore Catholic who’s making a serious effort to convert Jews and Muslims?

        • Greg G.

          The sabbath is supposed to be on Saturday beginning at sundown Friday. Taking the sabbath on Sunday is way off.

          Many of the Ten Commandments are irrelevant. We don’t need an old book to tell us that killing or harming someone is wrong, but the 10C doesn’t forbid the latter. We don’t need an old book to tell us that stealing and cheating is wrong, but the 10C doesn’t forbid cheating. We don’t need an old book to tell us that lying is wrong, but the 10C is only about perjury, not lying.

          Who is haunted by envy or covetousness? Not me. the 10C says not to covet your neighbor’s slave, which is a tacit affirmation of slavery. The 10C are not moral.

        • tolpuddle1

          Christians treat Sunday – the day of the Lord’s Resurrection
          – as the sabbath of the New Covenant.

          Only God can define what is right and what is wrong – otherwise they are merely founded on evolutionary biology or (worse) human opinion.

          So the Ten Commandments are necessary confirmation of the promptings of conscience.

          “Thou shalt not kill” condemns all violence and harming (not just murder) just as “Thou shalt not steal” condemns all types of dishonesty (not just theft).

          Commercial advertising is hugely successful. It is based very largely upon human enviousness and covetousness.

        • Jack Baynes

          Christians treat Sunday – the day of the Lord’s Resurrection
          – as the sabbath of the New Covenant.

          So the 10 commandments were so great that Christians had to change them!

        • TheNuszAbides

          two sets of 10 … there are some headdeskworthy editing fuckups in The Good Book, but that one takes the cake.

        • Michael Neville

          So what’s immoral about worshiping other gods? Are Hindus immoral? What’s immoral about saying a name? Is your god so narcissistic that he gets annoyed when someone utters his name in a non-reverent manner? Should abusive parents be respected? Respect is earned and being a sperm donor does not automatically bestow respect.

          You obviously haven’t given your Ten Commandments™ a whole lot of thought.

        • tolpuddle1

          Hindus worship other gods in good faith – in honest ignorance or misunderstanding of Christianity.

          Blaspheming God’s holy name is bad for us – hence forbidden by God.

        • Michael Neville

          What is bad about blasphemy? Be specific. Explain exactly how it is “bad for us” or admit you’re just talking out of your ass.

        • TheNuszAbides

          it undercuts authoritarianism — that kludge that curiously, no Wise God-Guided Priestboy has ever found a workaround for.

        • Greg G.

          Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

        • Jack Baynes
        • adam
        • tolpuddle1

          Very OT – but Pharaoh’s fault in any case.

        • adam

          Nope, try AGAIN….

          New International Version
          But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.

        • adam
        • tolpuddle1

          Pharaoh was a popular tyrant, as tyrants often are.

        • adam

          So your “God’s” best solution is to slaughter innocent children and babies, while hardening Pharoah’s heart.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a18a3237d360e002dbdd901e4a3f5688a3463b7d939dbc595090ceadb5ae4faa.png

        • Michael Neville

          So what? Your god set an unnamed Pharaoh up to fail and, after he failed, your god killed children. According to your own propaganda your god is a sadistic bully who kills people just because he can. He also condones slavery and orders genocide and rape. Might makes right is not a basis for morality.

        • Greg G.

          The Bible story says he was willing to let the Jews go until God hardened his heart so he could show off his powers.

        • Jack Baynes

          and that excuses killing innocent people (including children) how?

        • TheNuszAbides

          Does Not Compute — ‘puddle has no software to handle “God’s excuses”

        • Kodie

          Tyrants aren’t popular!

        • tolpuddle1

          Hitler and Stalin were popular, still are in some quarters.

        • Kodie

          You know they’re not in power anymore.

        • epeeist

          Hitler and Stalin were popular, still are in some quarters.

          Do you do the voice for “Speak your weight” machines? They at least have some backing for the things they say.

        • tolpuddle1

          The crowds enthusiastically applauding Hitler at events, rallies (or simply lining the roadsides to do so), were Faked ?

          Just how ignorant of history are you ?

          And with 10% of the US public now apparently supporting neo-Nazism, of politics too ?

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

          You’re right–Hitler was popular. He knew how to push Lutheran Germany’s anti-Semitic buttons.

          Have you read “On the Jews and their Lies” by Martin Luther? I hear it was quite the influential book in its time.

        • epeeist

          The crowds enthusiastically applauding Hitler at events, rallies (or simply lining the roadsides to do so), were Faked ?

          Nope.

          And with 10% of the US public now apparently supporting neo-Nazism, of politics too ?

          I would want a citation for the 10% figure.

          However, let us ask where these people come from, was Upton Sinclair correct when he (didn’t quite) say “When fascism comes to America it will be carrying a bible and wrapped in a flag”?

        • Jack Baynes

          Or he could have just put everyone to sleep while the Israelites left.
          But, yeah, if God needs to kill, why not just kill Pharaoh?

        • adam
        • TheNuszAbides

          New International Version

          er … you know ‘puddle
          1) doesn’t care how post-KJV bibliolaters phrase things
          2) doesn’t have to double down on inerrant scripture claims because catlicks don’t have those

        • Jack Baynes

          Pharaohs fault that God murdered children? No. It’s all on God. It was HIS idea to murder innocents, he sent his angel to do it. It’s his fault.

          God had many many options to get his followers out of Egypt, he picked killing children.

          Well, That’s how the story goes. We have no evidence the Jews were ever in Egypt.

        • TheNuszAbides

          so the liberation of Yahweh’s Chosen was *dependent* on heathen authorization? really, uh, sharp rationalization there.

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          Thou shalt not kill is not a blanket statement. It is more like “Thou shalt not murder” because killing is sometimes commanded in the Bible.

          Commercial advertising is not about making people covet their neighbor’s wife or slave. It is about making people insecure to create a desire for a product. Religion also makes people insecure about an imaginary soul, then offers an imaginary remedy with a pie-in-the-sky reward that can never be verified, but requires you to keep up the payments in tithes. That is stealing.

        • tolpuddle1

          Christianity points out the obvious (that we have an inescapable choice between Good and Evil) and that this will have eternal consequences.

          The alternative to believing this, is to live in a fool’s paradise.

          There are some crooks among the clergy, though I’ve always found them vastly more honest than the ordinary person. And sincere in their religious beliefs.

        • Greg G.

          The best grifters have their victims defending them. The victims prefer to do that than admit to themselves that they have been taken to the cleaners.

        • adam

          “Christianity points out the obvious (that we have an inescapable choice
          between Good and Evil) and that this will have eternal consequences.”

          Not so obvious, when you look at the book behind christianity:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9fef3e09d4fced201880c6048e47897bc3461d04f1c5de54936408c4560c105b.jpg

        • tolpuddle1

          “Evil” as in political disaster, not spiritual evil.

        • adam

          Evil as in EVIL

        • Jack Baynes

          Christianity teaches you that whether you choose Good or Evil is not important if you don’t pick the right god.

        • TheNuszAbides

          i’m sure when ‘puddle doesn’t back itself into the Condemn the Chaos of Protestantism corner, it bumbles down the primrose path of Sure Someone Might Accidentally Live a Life of Doing Enough of What Lordy Wants.

        • adam
        • adam
        • TheNuszAbides

          Commercial advertising is hugely successful. It is based very largely upon human enviousness and covetousness.

          very true, too bad you’re not having any luck moralizing it into obscurity. you’ll take credit on behalf of priestly inspiration for the abolition of slavery [on paper], though, right? sure you will.

        • TheNuszAbides

          It is disastrous to human beings if they worship – believe in – anything but God.

          no, what’s disastrous is settling your city on a fault line. a God that gave a shit might inspire Jonah to recommend that Nineveh move somewhere safer — but no, moral panic is really where it’s at! oh wait, that didn’t work either.

      • Chuck Johnson

        If you know any code of morality wiser than the Ten Commandments – or any sage wiser and kinder than Jesus Christ – please let us know.-tolpuddle1

        The sort of morality, wisdom and kindness that you are trying to promote here is superstition, ignorance, and blind obedience to authority.

        Your definition of virtue is quite off the mark.
        The God stories of the Old Testament contain very defective versions of virtue.

        The Jesus stories of the New Testament have improved versions of virtue, but the virtues described are still defective and incomplete.

        You are showing us your own ignorance.
        Ignorance is not a virtue, even though your personal version of Christianity seems to value ignorance.

        • tolpuddle1

          You have a superstitious reverence for modern thought; the thought that refers to traditional religious beliefs as “superstitious.” And I would guess, the blind obedience to modern thought possessed by almost all liberal / secular people.

          I have many faults – but ignorance isn’t one of them.

          There has never been and never will be, any moral code (or system of virtues) equal to – let alone superior to ! – that taught by Jesus Christ.

        • BlackMamba44

          The same Jesus Christ that says you must hate your family and yourself to follow him?

          Luke 14:26-27 (NIV)

          26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. 27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

          The same Jesus who’ll return with a sword?

          Matthew 10:34-38 (NIV)

          34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

          “‘a man against his father,
          a daughter against her mother,
          a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
          36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[a]
          37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

        • tolpuddle1

          “Hate” is hyperbole.

          A sword ? Yes, because we have to choose to believe in Jesus or not, to be for or against Him. He was controversial and divisive in His own time and still is.

          Not because Jesus wants to be – but because the evil in human nature refuses to accept Him.

        • BlackMamba44

          Great non-answer.

          Nothing but a bunch of woo from a woo-woo.

        • tolpuddle1

          A have given you a fair and truthful answer.

        • BlackMamba44
        • Chuck Johnson

          You have a superstitious reverence for modern thought; the thought that
          refers to traditional religious beliefs as “superstitious.”-tolpuddle1

          Yes, the ancient religious beliefs are superstitions.
          Those superstitions are a better understanding than beliefs that came before them.

          The modern rational, empirical, scientific understandings are better than the superstitions that preceded them.

          As time goes by, humans are able to invent newer and better understandings of the world around us.

          All this modernization and improvement has been going on for one hundred thousand years or more. This is called cultural adaptive evolution.

        • tolpuddle1

          Knowledge of the natural world and universe has improved. Human personality hasn’t, nor has its grasp of ethics, spirituality or Revealed Truth.

          Science simply doesn’t deal with ethical questions (it can’t tell people how to behave) or with philosophical questions – notably Why Does the Universe Exist ? Why does nature always obey the laws discerned by science ?

          You are using the idea that science contradicts or supersedes religion. But that idea is a Victorian superstition, that many still believe in and hold in awe.

        • epeeist

          Why Does the Universe Exist

          Don’t know, but physicists and cosmologists are working on it.

          Why does nature always obey the laws discerned by science ?

          It doesn’t, the “laws” (really theories) discovered by science are descriptions of the way the world works.

          But in any case “because god” isn’t an answer to “why” questions.

        • tolpuddle1

          Scientists are trying to “work on it” ; but will never succeed, since it is a question wholly outside the province of science.

          Science works on the basis that the universe is usually predictable – that the element Iron won’t turn from a grey metal into, say, a purple liquid, tonight or ever.

          But this is only an assumption by science – not proven fact.

          So yes, nature does always obey its own laws – otherwise science would be impossible.

          God is the ONLY answer to the Why question.

        • epeeist

          Scientists are trying to “work on it” ; but will never succeed, since it is a question wholly outside the province of science.

          Someone I know came up with something he referred to as “the Auguste Comte fallacy”. Comte claimed that we would never know the constituents of stars shortly before the invention of spectroscopy.

          Now it may be that we will never find out why or how the universe came into existence, but the claim that “God is the ONLY answer” is a classic argument from ignorance.

          But this is only an assumption by science – not proven fact.

          But science doesn’t deal in proof, it produces theories which are both contingent and corrigible and provide the best explation.

          As for “proven fact”, was it a proven fact that diseases were caused by humours before the germ theory of disease was accepted?

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

          Scientists are trying to “work on it” ; but will never succeed, since it is a question wholly outside the province of science.

          But it’s not like Christianity will tell us. It’s never taught us anything new about reality.

          Science works on the basis that the universe is usually predictable – that the element Iron won’t turn from a grey metal into, say, a purple liquid, tonight or ever.
          But this is only an assumption by science – not proven fact.

          Not an assumption—a well-tested axiom. And science doesn’t prove anything, ever. Science’s conclusions are always provisional. That’s its strength.

          So yes, nature does always obey its own laws – otherwise science would be impossible.
          God is the ONLY answer to the Why question.

          God answers it no better than Allah or Quetzalcoatl or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

        • TheNuszAbides

          it is a question wholly outside the province of science.

          cluelessly false. your stock answer to the question is what is actually ‘wholly outside the province of science’ — and that’s BY DESIGN.

        • TheNuszAbides

          God is the ONLY answer to the Why question.

          remind us why the papacy took so long to come around on evolutionary theory?

        • epeeist

          remind us why the papacy took so long to come around on evolutionary theory?

          It still hasn’t. Catholics are forbidden to believe in “atheistic evolution”, instead the church preaches “theistic evolution” guided by god. The fact that this adds nothing to the explanatory power or the empirical fit doesn’t seem to matter.

        • TheNuszAbides

          I was only thinking of resistance to the entire concept (vs., yes, parroting it only so far as they can incorporate it into the supernatural shell-game). surely “coming around” [in the full-acceptance sense you seem to be using] would include deferring to methodological naturalism across all disciplines?

        • MadScientist1023

          Oh goodie. Paranoia about modern agreement with concepts like “Democracy”, “Freedom of Religion”, and “the Scientific Method”. That’s new.

          Just because you can’t understand thought processes based on logic, empirical evidence, or human equality doesn’t mean they’re the same as your superstitions. I realize it’s about the only kind of “thinking” you can follow, but not everyone is like you in that way.

        • tolpuddle1

          You’re using a Strawman argument – since the Church accepts all the three concepts that you mention.

        • MadScientist1023

          Where in the Bible are any of them?

        • tolpuddle1

          Where in the Bible is modern medicine ?

        • MadScientist1023


          Did you lose track of what we were discussing? You’re the one who is dismissing modern thought. Why are you bringing up the point that the Bible doesn’t make one single medical or scientific assertion that’s been proven right? That should be my line.

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

          Precisely. The Great Physician in his whole career did as much good as an average doctor does in a year. And he thought that spit would cure blindness and that mental illness was caused by evil spirits.

          And he could’ve given us germ theory. Taught us how to make soap and site latrines and boil water. I guess he was too busy killing fig trees.

        • Jack Baynes

          Strangely nowhere.
          Too bad God couldn’t have saved the time he spent describing the sacrifices he liked and instead used that time to teach his followers something useful.

        • Greg G.

          If God likes the smell of burnt offerings, does that make barbecued steak objectively good?

        • Jack Baynes

          Freedom of Religion?
          Seriously?

          Go read your precious 10 commandments again.

        • tolpuddle1

          Some of the Ten Commandments are taken by the Church as moral and spiritual laws, not forensic and political ones.

          Hence the Church doesn’t lobby for people who worship idols or break the sabbath to be fined or imprisoned.

          Freedom of religion was promulgated by the Second Vatican Council of 1962-5, which uprooted a bad, authoritarian thread within Catholic history.

        • Jack Baynes

          So standard Christian Cherry picking.

          I’m glad the Vatican took a lesson in morality from the secular world in this case. Hopefully they will continue to do so

          Of course, here you are insisting that your religious laws should apply to other people’s marriages. I guess you disagree with the Vatican on Freedom of Religion

        • TheNuszAbides

          a bad, authoritarian thread within Catholic history.

          if you can recognize such a thing then why are you so desperate to pretend “The Church got ethics exactly right”? i hope you don’t get paid for your apologetic flailing.

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

          Yes, it does, because society matured, not because God told them.

          Maybe he just forgot? Wouldn’t it have been nice to cut short some of the barbarity of the last 2000 years of Western civilization by God telling us this stuff?

        • Chuck Johnson

          I have many faults – but ignorance isn’t one of them.-tolpuddle1

          When you say things like this, you are showing us how ignorant you are.

        • Michael Neville

          Also how arrogant he is.

        • tolpuddle1

          Unlike these very humble, undogmatic enemies of Christianity !

        • Michael Neville

          Your arrogance shines through every proclamation you make about the child-raping cult you’re so proud of.

        • tolpuddle1

          Er, no.

        • Chuck Johnson

          There has never been and never will be, any moral code (or system of virtues) equal to – let alone superior to ! – that taught by Jesus Christ.-tolpuddle1

          You have exchanged
          a walk-on part in the war
          for a lead role in a cage.

        • tolpuddle1

          Please explain.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Please explain.-tolpuddle1

          You, I and everyone else are exposed to an amazing and wonderful environment of educational resources. It is our responsibility to make good use of those resources.

          Christianity has caused you to become narrow-minded and obsessive, dismissing this great wealth of human knowledge as being inferior to the Jesus stories.

          Therefore, you ignore the learning resources that are available to you, and you are ignorant of the influences that have made you who you are. – – – Except for the Jesus stories.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjpF8ukSrvk&index=4&list=PLNXMG3vilp1-N1Qsn09-GshwrGfPSjdPQ

        • tolpuddle1

          Off beam – I’m fascinated by learning and secular subjects like politics and political history.

          But Learning cannot guide you in your life or give you hope or help in a tight spot – or in the face of Transience; one’s own mortality, that of loved ones and friends, the transience of all things (our countries and civilisation, even Learning, science and the arts themselves).

          Which is why the Gospel IS superior to knowledge – and in any case has only very rarely impeded knowledge.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Which is why the Gospel IS superior to knowledge – and in any case has only very rarely impeded knowledge.-tolpudle1

          The gospel is knowledge.
          It is just a story among countless other stories.

        • Greg G.

          There has never been and never will be, any moral code (or system of virtues) equal to – let alone superior to ! – that taught by Jesus Christ.

          Have you plucked out an eye or cut off your hand? Have you emasculated yourself? Or are you second-guessing Jesus on those? Why would you assume he was using hyperbole?

        • tolpuddle1

          Because it’s so very obvious that Jesus was making a point via hyperbole, not ordering mutilation.

        • Greg G.

          Matthew 19:12 (NRSV)12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.

          That is not hyperbole, it is an actual recommendation. I think Matthew was misinterpreting Galatians 5:12 and put those words in Jesus’ mouth. Paul was being extremely sarcastic toward the circumcision faction, especially Cephas and James.

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

        • tolpuddle1

          Er, no – any celibate Christian is “a eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven” – though not physically, of course.

        • Greg G.

          That excuse shows how half-hearted you are. You are the kind of Christian that Jesus would say, “I never knew you.” If it meant “they made themselves celibate” it would say that.

        • TheNuszAbides

          wait, it’s obvious? a priest didn’t have to explain that to you?

        • Joe

          There has never been and never will be, any moral code (or system of virtues) equal to – let alone superior to ! – that taught by Jesus Christ.

          Lavayen Satanism and humanism are both superior to what Jesus taught, which in any case was not his own invention.

        • tolpuddle1

          Your first claim is, to put it politely, debatable.

          Much of what Jesus taught was novel. Jewish rabbis will confirm that.

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

          Jesus said nothing to eliminate slavery.

          Sounds like game over right there.

        • Joe

          What’s debatable? Humanism and Laveyan Satanism are more moral than Christianity. Easily. They were built from the ground up to be moral, rather than top-down orders to obey.

          All of what Jesus said was cribbed from the old testament, which borrowed from existing Hebrew codes of behavior, or Greek literature. He said nothing new with regards to morality, only theology.

        • adam

          “There has never been and never will be, any moral code (or system of
          virtues) equal to – let alone superior to ! – that taught by Jesus
          Christ.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ae1afb4336eb43eac4eb6542320889b4c9068fa20364f91b3a3a3b8f6e3a0f88.png

        • tolpuddle1

          The passage refers to servants, not slaves. Please don’t misquote or use mistranslations.

          The servants are us – the human race. Our master is our Creator – God.

          Moreover, Jesus is prophesying (not instructing or commanding) our punishment by God if we fall into evil.

        • adam

          Nope, it is SLAVES

          Remember as “The Father” Jesus says slavery is OK

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

        • tolpuddle1

          Well, Moses says it actually.

        • adam

          Nope,

          Why do you feel the need to Bear False Witness?

          Leviticus 25
          “25 And the Lord spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying,”

          “38 I am the Lord your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, and to be your God.”

          “44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

          45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them
          shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to
          inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: “

        • Jack Baynes

          Maybe Moses was lying! But then, he might have been lying that God gave him the 10 commandments, too.
          A conundrum for the puddle.

        • Greg G.

          No, if Moses was lying about that, he wouldn’t have included “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

        • Jack Baynes

          Nah, being a religious leader has always been about “Do as I say, not as I do.”

        • adam

          How could Moses lie, I mean he was honest enough to write about his own death.

        • TheNuszAbides

          ah, so Moses [allegedly] writing it down [we’ll be charitable and assume that that’s what you meant by “says”] is an important distinction, but The Words of Jesus being passed on orally for a few decades and then written down by still-not-verified authors is just as good as “Jesus said”? cute. but preposterously naive.

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

          God had no problem with slavery in the Old Testament. Read Leviticus 25:44-46. Or search for “slavery” in this blog.

        • tolpuddle1

          The Bible is the mediated Word of God, filtered through human minds.

          Many in OT times couldn’t imagine a world without slavery, just as until c.1600, virtually no one could imagine an Earth that went round the Sun, rather than the reverse.

          “Love your neighbour as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18) is a manifest, if implicit, condemnation of slavery.

        • Jack Baynes

          God was able to tell his followers to not take Israelites as slaves. Are you saying he couldn’t have told them not to keep people of other nations as slaves either?
          Or he could have at LEAST refrained from telling them it was ok to keep slaves.

          And yeah, God COULD have told his followers how the solar system really worked, but decided not to. I agree that’s puzzling, but it’s less about morality.

          “Love your neighbour as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18) is a manifest, if implicit, condemnation of slavery.

          If only the god of the old testament had told his followers that the Canaanites were their neighbors. But then he wouldn’t have been able to tell them to slaughter the Canaanites and take their virgin daughters as slaves.

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

          “Love your neighbour as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18) is a manifest, if implicit, condemnation of slavery.

          Wrong. And you’ve been corrected on this already, right? “Neighbor” means “fellow Jew.” Jeez–learn something about your own holy book.

          Many in OT times couldn’t imagine a world without slavery

          What a shame for God. He’s omnipotent, and yet some puny insignificant race of apes dismantles his perfect no-slavery plan. Must suck being God, I guess.

        • BlackMamba44

          So, if I did something wrong but didn’t know it is wrong, YahwehJesus will still punish me.

          I wouldn’t do that to my own child.

        • adam

          “I wouldn’t do that to my own child.”

          Yes, but you have not been indoctrinated to be so cruel…

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bc3d2f2cc6d56454300f773d819a6ad3a142b9a220646a2efef4b5414944542b.jpg

        • TheNuszAbides

          eh … as far as ‘puddle — who seems to have a strain of WLC stirred into his Proud Original GangsterTradition — is concerned, that’s just you not having the guts of Abraham. or something.

        • adam

          “The passage refers to servants, not slaves.”

          Nope, that is why it says ‘slaves’ in the bible.

          “Please don’t misquote or use mistranslations.”

          then please dont LIE

          “Moreover, Jesus is prophesying”

          Jesus is prophesying beating ignorant slaves?

          You should actually READ your bible.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d6273988cc395e354efbf372cc2c1cd6facf40fcaa9ab7c098dce1856d5e0e54.jpg

        • Greg G.

          The allusion to the beating of slaves as the proper thing to do is an affirmation of the beating of slaves. It shows the author doesn’t even question it. That Christians cannot see that is apparently Stockholm Syndrome. You can get over that.

          PS: Leviticus says that servants, that is indentured servants who are Israelites are not to be treated harshly but that slaves can be treated like slaves. So “slaves” is the proper translation for the verse.

      • DennisLurvey

        10 commandments wiser?
        I am THE LORD THY GOD!
        have no other god before me, under penalty of death (convert or die)
        no graven images (or die)
        not take the lords name in vane (under penalty of death)
        remember the sabbath (under penalty of death)
        honor thy father and mother (or die)
        thou shalt not kill (or you will be killed)

        that is not morality, it’s the law of a state established under Judaism, a constitution where by the Jewish govt can kill you for most any reason.

        That’s not morality, that’s a police state!

        • rubaxter

          That’s Charlie Manson…

        • tolpuddle1

          Well, there was no police – only the community.

          And that community was built around obedience to the Ten Commandments, was unable to survive UNLESS people obeyed the Ten Commandments.

          Under the New Covenant of the New Testament, the community of believers exists within a non-believing world – hence Christianity (unlike Judaism and Islam) isn’t a political religion and doesn’t prescribe legal penalties for unbelief or disobedience to God’s Law.

          You may well say that Christians often have, under the medieval Church or under the Puritans. Yes, since (by the accidents of history) Christianity became inter-woven with Western politics and society from the 4th century AD onwards.

          Until the 1960’s ! – the Death of Christendom was the crucial and underlying event of that decade.

          Christianity has regained its political innocence – at the cost of becoming powerless and increasingly persecuted.

        • Greg G.

          Well, there was no police – only the community.

          A police state without real police is even worse. You end up with overly religious people assuming charge and punishing people based on their superstitions. That leads to old ladies being killed as witches.

        • tolpuddle1

          Only in the crabbed world of 17th century New England or Europe during its collective nervous breakdown (c. 1350 – 1650).

          Only very affluent societies can afford a police force.

          Which then in turn needs to be policed by the public.

        • Greg G.

          Christians are killing children as witches in Africa to this day, still based on religious superstition.

        • tolpuddle1

          Which has much more to do with the pre-Christian African religions than Christianity – which commands kindness towards children.

        • Jack Baynes

          Unless God needs them to die. And by “needs”, I mean it’s the first solution he thought of for some reason, which happens strangely often for a god that’s supposed to love us.

        • tolpuddle1

          Eh ?

          God permits tragedy – He doesn’t desire it.

        • Michael Neville

          Unless God is causing the tragedy (see Egyptian plagues in Exodus, the nuking of Sodom and Gomorrah, bears mauling 42 children, etc.). Then he delights in tragedy. There’s nothing Yahweh likes more than a good smiting.

        • Jack Baynes

          Maybe he doesn’t desire it, but he has no problem with inflicting it (The Flood, the 10th Plague, the Caananite genocides) when he couldn’t be bothered to think of a better idea.

        • Greg G.

          God permits tragedy – He doesn’t desire it.

          If God is omnipotent, he could prevent tragedy, suffering and pain as easily as not preventing it. For an omnipotence, choosing to allow tragedy is choosing for it to happen. If suffering results, it is unnecessary. Suffering exists. That implies that if there is an omnipotence, it is sadistic. Sadism is contrary to benevolence. So there is no being that is both omnipotent and benevolent. Who would want to spend eternity with an omnipotent sadist?

          Fortunately, the universe seems to be completely indifferent to suffering. That is compatible with there being no gods.

        • Greg G.

          Nope, these are Christians doing it, not “pre-Christians”. They are following Exodus which commands, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”

        • tolpuddle1

          But choose to forget that Jesus Christ came to convert sinners, not to slay them. And that He said “Blessed are the gentle, blessed are the merciful.”

          Worse, in accusing children of witchcraft (and on zero evidence) are framing innocent people.

          Not too Christian, such murderous fanatics, are they ?

        • Michael Neville

          But choose to forget that Jesus Christ came to convert sinners, not to slay them.

          You’ve obviously never heard of the Inquisition and auto de fé.

        • TheNuszAbides

          duh, ‘puddle trusts the Whole Hierarchy to have not let that stuff get too out of hand.

        • Greg G.

          Worse, in accusing children of witchcraft (and on zero evidence) are framing innocent people.

          Not too Christian, such murderous fanatics, are they ?

          <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2017/08/think-understand-leviticus-says-homosexuality/#comment-3458027584"Really? They are using your Romans 1:20 strategy of deducing the invisible from the visible. (<- That's a link to your own words. I am pointing out the fact that it is a link because the last time I checked, links were not distinguishable after the renovations of Patheos.) If the children look different from normal children they must not be a normal human being.

        • Kodie

          The reason you are Christian is not because of Jesus but because of an ISIS-like terrorist mission called The Crusades.

        • tolpuddle1

          No, Pope Urban II preached the Crusade to save Europe from Islamic Conquest.

          The Crusades were military missions, which some of the Crusaders disgraced by war crimes.

        • Kodie

          You will do or say anything to hide from the truth and preserve your superstition. That is not morality.

        • tolpuddle1

          By calling Christianity a “superstition” you are proving your dishonesty and that you are hiding from the truth.

          Attacks on Christianity are inherently evil.

        • Kodie

          You have demonstrated amply that you are brainwashed by your cult.

        • tolpuddle1

          You have demonstrated amply that you are brainwashed by fashionable Western hatred of religion, Christianity especially.

        • Greg G.

          You have demonstrated amply that you are brainwashed to think Kodie and others are brainwashed by fashionable Western hatred of religion, Christianity especially.

          There is nobody out there brainwashing people to not believe in God. But there is an organization brainwashing people but they call it “catechism”.

        • tolpuddle1

          The secular media are brainwashing people all the time.

          The Catechism is no more “brainwashing” than any other textbook.

        • Paul B. Lot

          No doubt.

          My AP US History textbook warned of eternal and unending pain, torture, and despair if I didn’t understand the 1800’s Wildcat Banking by the end of the section.

        • Kodie

          You’ve doomed me. I never heard of the 1800’s Wildcat Banking before!

        • tolpuddle1

          Misunderstanding isn’t sin.

        • Paul B. Lot

          And “hell” isn’t real.

          So what?

          Both observations are bedside the point: the rcc’s catechism is infinitely more brainwashing than a text book.

        • tolpuddle1

          A book can’t brainwash anyone.

          But many people have been brainwashed by our anti-Christian society into hating the Catholic Church.

          Yoy seem to be one of the victims of such brainwashing.

        • epeeist

          A book can’t brainwash anyone.

          It can if it is pounded into you every day from when you start at Catholic school…

        • adam

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cfca0255af85259ee0f857563d91ecfc6cb97d776b9e3d512d8ae7e84f4ac9a6.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5dec59a3b2da3b71063b6c8261446f996d4593cdad46165888de05326c67b600.jpg “A book can’t brainwash anyone.”

          Yeah, your really need Church leaders to do that:

          “But many people have been brainwashed by our anti-Christian society into hating the Catholic Church.”

          Although MOST are just convinced by the inactions and actions of the Catholic Church itself.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7ead1dfb33fc5a434455e6d5ffd090caa7b6e7d822229360729a7a9750b56e83.png

        • Greg G.

          Sin is an imaginary concept. Embracing misunderstanding is dumber than misunderstanding itself.

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          Textbooks relay known facts. Catechism makes you think imaginary things are real. If you cannot see the difference, the brainwashing was successful.

        • tolpuddle1

          Well, no – because only God is real, all else being figments of His imagination.

          And it’s only Christianity that teaches the truth about God.

          If you think otherwise, anti-religious brainwashing has been successful and claimed you as its victim.

        • Greg G.

          Why doesn’t Christianity teach how to respond intelligently? You have nothing but denial.

        • adam

          “because only God is real, all else being figments of His imagination.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c4e3bbea2d1e4d81dbd3798980be2ee8b39f893fee5d1d2b81b76b5e7ba184e1.jpg

          Imaginary figments of YOUR imagination

        • adam

          “The Catechism is no more “brainwashing” than any other textbook.”

          Textbooks dont teach MAGIC.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/caa3de188660881f5c11426e7541c2e3f333e8711ca2a8dacf707b99b85bdaa2.jpg

        • tolpuddle1

          Nor does the Catechism; Magic is forbidden by Catholic doctrine.

        • adam

          “Magic is forbidden by Catholic doctrine.”

          Magic is FUNDAMENTAL to Catholic doctrine.

          Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is, according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, the change of substance by which the bread and wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass, become, in reality, the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

          Resurrection is the rising again from the dead, the resumption
          of life. The Fourth Lateran Council teaches that all men whether elect
          or reprobate, “will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear
          about with them”

          The very definition of magic:

          Definition of magic – Merriam Webster

          1a : the use of means (such as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces
          b : magic rites or incantations

          2a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source

        • tolpuddle1

          Magic comes from satan.

          Catholic Christianity comes from God.

          Thus they are only both “magic” if you believe that satan = God.

        • adam

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7ead1dfb33fc5a434455e6d5ffd090caa7b6e7d822229360729a7a9750b56e83.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0448eba69db49e807bec179970f830b0e42028a0c8c2c1ffa23cfab9dba3693e.jpg “Magic comes from satan.”

          Magic is how the bible God works.

          But at the same time:

          “Catholic Christianity comes from God.”

          Then AGAIN, your God is a Monster

          “Thus they are only both “magic” if you believe that satan = God.”

          they are magic because of the definition of magic.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3d5d4a2909d67c62c518e6574ff1a0b42f6295b335ae8fd4039f6f765cefb813.jpg

        • Greg G.

          If a stone drops off a dump truck then bounces up and cracks your windshield, it that Satan’s magic persecuting you for being too Christian, God’s mysterious ways punishing you for not being Christian enough for something you did or didn’t do yesterday, or just an indifferent universe doing what it does? How do you tell the difference?

        • Michael Neville

          You mean magic like the transubstantiation of a cracker into the body of a god and exorcising demons and other magic which the Catholic Church indulges in?

        • tolpuddle1

          Transubstantiation is only “magic” if you believe the power of God is Magic.

          It isn’t.

          Not since the days of the Roman Empire has the occult been so prevalent as today. Some of it (e.g. Harry Potter) is merely playful; though not necessarily harmless.

          Much of it is anything but playful – for the occult involves real and malign spiritual powers, as its practitioners well know, for they’re not people out to waste their time.

          Inevitably, there are many tragic victims of the occult – hence exorcism has never been more necessary than at present.

          “But the occult, like all the supernatural, is the merest bunkum” you may say – though that is a prejudiced (pre-judged) viewpoint. And one that suggests you’ve never encountered the occult, except from films.

        • Michael Neville

          Transubstantiation is only “magic” if you believe the power of God is Magic.
          It isn’t.

          So what’s your evidence that transubstantiation is anything besides a fairy tale given to the gullible to make them think the clergy have a function? I’m talking about evidence, not “St. So-And-So interpreted a Biblical verse.”

          Not since the days of the Roman Empire has the occult been so prevalent as today.

          So you actually believe that nonsense about demonic possession? But I forgot, you’re one of the gullible who think that a cracker becomes a god’s body when the clergy do the hocus pocus over it. The church certainly has you believing in all sorts of bullshit.

          But you’re right in one respect, I’ve never encountered the occult, just like I’ve never encountered unicorns, leprechauns or anal-probing aliens. That’s for the simple reason that none of those things exist except in the imaginations of gullible people like you.

        • Greg G.

          The occult is pretend. Catholicism is pretend. All religion is pretend. Superstition is pretend.

          tolpuddle1, may I present reality. Reality, please meet tolpuddle1. I wish you both a long, fruitful relationship.

        • Pofarmer

          I think tolpuddle1 is ready for some good ole fashioned witch burnings. What fun!

        • adam

          “And one that suggests you’ve never encountered the occult, except from films.”

          And other forms of FICTION.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b914c9ae89d657742ab60de9c6ec87ee18649d8df4086333e70d3eef334774a4.jpg

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

          But it’s lucky for us that we have you to set an example. It’s so rare for Christians to preach that all roads lead to God, but here you are. Very impressive–good for you for going against the popular tide.

        • Greg G.

          Why are you attacking superstition? Knocking on wood is as effective as prayer. If something you like happens, you can pretend it the prayer or the knock was responsible so you have a stronger memory association than if nothing happens or the reverse happens. It’s confirmation bias.

        • MNb

          Then all christians are inherently evil, because they have been attacking each other on religious issues (ie on christianity) since Paulus and Petrus attacked each other on the question whether gentiles should be admitted or not (see Acts).

        • Jack Baynes

          Can’t afford a police force, I guess there’s NO OTHER CHOICE but to kill people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. No other choice but to murder children for being disrespectful to their parents.
          (Of course, they can’t afford a police force, but they CAN afford professional clergy…. Maybe if they rethought their priorities)

          Sorry. You’re wrong. There WERE other choices. Your god (or the people claiming to write for him) just decided to kill people instead.

        • tolpuddle1

          All law and order is based, ultimately, on religion – the Common Law of the English-speaking nations on the Ten Commandments, for instance.

          If not on religion, then law must be based on the laws of the frail human conscience – which for example in India in past days (and now again under Hindu extremists) mandated the human sacrifice of widows on their deceased husbands’ funeral pyres.

          Two other questions arise if law is no longer built on religion:

          1) Since law is no longer based on God’s opinion, it is now based only on society’s convenience or on human opinion.

          So why accept obedience to the law as an ethical necessity ?

          God’s Authority having been denied, no other Authority can possibly fill the gap – and only brute Power is left.

          2) “Thou shalt not get caught” is the only commandment,
          – and only penalty – remaining once you have got rid of God.

          Thus we arrive at the current situation in the West – a society increasingly consisting of unscrupulous people, a great deal of low-level anarchy and whole nations (beneath a thin crust of civilisation) held back from lawless chaos only by well-financed and equipped modern police forces.

          Not a hopeful or stable situation.

        • Jack Baynes

          You’re not explaining your ridiculous assertion that since the Jews couldn’t affford a police force (even though they could afford a professional priesthood) that their only choice was to liberally use the death penalty.

          If not on religion, then law must be based on the laws of the frail human conscience –

          And we’re doing a much better job in America than the law set out in the Bible. Funny how frail human conscience does better than your omnipotent god.

        • tolpuddle1

          The possession of, and willingness to use, nuclear weapons, is doubtfully moral. Ditto the Capitalist system, which boasts of being built on human selfishness (and is !).

          Other examples abound – e.g. the raunch culture (porn, prostitution) which threatens to take over the West.

          And what is good in today’s West is all derived, directly or indirectly, from the Judaeo-Christian tradition.

        • Jack Baynes

          Still can’t defend your claim that since the Jews prioritized a professional priesthood over a police force, they should be excused for excessive death penalties?

        • Greg G.

          I first read that last clause as “they should be executed for excessive death penalties.” Whaaaat?

        • Jack Baynes

          I’m sure it would make sense for puddle, who claims that “Though Shalt Not Kill” is a catchall rule against violence, then defends death penalties for picking up sticks on the wrong day.

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

          Separation of church and state, freedom of religion and speech, democracy, no slavery, separation of powers, and all that stuff that’s in the Constitution–that all came from Christianity?

          I’m curious to find your Bible quotes supporting those (and proof that there are no quotes against them).

        • Jack Baynes

          The only persecution Christians in the Western world have suffered has been at the hands of other Christians.

        • tolpuddle1

          Well, no. Christianity was savagely persecuted by the Roman Empire (and by mob violence, sometimes led by Jewish extremists) at intervals for almost three centuries.

          Non-Christian invaders of Europe – notably Muslims and Vikings (before their conversion) – weren’t noticeably kind to it either.

          And persecution of Christians in Europe – by secular thugs (and in Western Europe, young thugs are anti-religious) and Muslim extremists – is very likely to occur this next few years..

        • DennisLurvey

          When you say ‘unable to survive without the ten commandments’ what you mean is they had to worship YAHWEH or die, be executed. It’s what the commandments said.

          Christians have been about taking over countries and govts since Constantine. They took countries by force in Europe and the Philippines, tried to take over Japan but were stopped. When christians settled here they tortured and/or executed non christians/dissenters and committed genocide against over a million native indians here for not converting to christianity. They locked them in forts (st augustine was one) and raped them of their own culture and religion forcing them to dress like settlers, read the bible, and convert to christianity, or die.

          The christian right was invented in the 1970’s to combat the sexual revolution and attempt to takeover or have maximum power in the american political process.

        • tolpuddle1

          Jewish faith is what held the Jewish community together – disobeying it was thus a form of treason, hence the legal penalties.

          Europe was converted to Christianity by preaching and teaching. Justinian and Charlemagne (both power-brokers as much, if not more, than Christians) set a bad precedent by using force (against the remaining Greek pagans / against the Saxon pagans, respectively), though force was the exception not the rule..

          St Francis Xavier was horrified by the politicking of some of his fellow-missionaries in the Far East – which led in Japan to a hideous persecution of Christians, both missionaries and converts.

          The horrible persecution and massacre of American Indians was motivated very largely by the Greed of settlers, not by religion (though it often used religion as a cloak). Or are you telling me that the Spanish thugs in Latin America, or General Sheridan (when he said that “The only good Injun is a dead Injun”), were motivated by Christian faith ? – a faith that explicitly forbids oppression and murder.

      • Kuno

        Let’s see, no mention of

        slavery
        rape
        child molestation
        polution
        exploitation of workers
        and a large number of other things we today think of as morally wrong

        Yeah, I don’t see it.

        • Greg G.

          Actually, one of the Ten Commandments does mention slavery. One of the things thou shalt not covet is your neighbor’s slave. So that commandment is validating your neighbor’s right to own people. That immorality taints the Ten Commandments.

        • Jack Baynes

          But don’t make any graven images (like tolpuddle’s crucifix), that would be wrong!

        • tolpuddle1

          Slavery is condemned by the OT commandment “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (which precludes owning the poor guy !).

          Rape and child molestation fall condemned under both “Thou shalt not kill” (forbidding violence) and “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (forbidding sexual malpractices).

          Exploitation of workers – “defrauding the labourer of his hire” – is biblically condemned as one of the sins that “cry aloud for God’s vengeance.”

          Pollution not condemned ? – neither is nuclear warfare.

        • Kuno

          You were talking about the Ten Commandments, not the whole OT. And if that commandment against slavery is so important, why do the actual Ten Commandments, as Greg pointed out, accept is a given? Why do other passages of the OT condone it? Why didn’t Jesus speak out against it?

          Killing someone is violence, but not every violent act is killing, the same as adultery is a sexual act but not every sexual act is adultery.

          I wouldn’t call a moral code that uses such strange and nonsensical reasoning “wise”. Or coherent. I hope you warmed up a bit before those mental gymnastics.

          And yet those and the other ones I mentioned aren’t in the Ten Commandments, which you seem to consider the wisest moral code in history. So, is the whole of the OT more wise than the Ten Commandments?

          And I don’t even know why you brought up another thing that isn’t in the Ten Commandments nor the OT. It kind of undermines your point…

        • Jack Baynes

          “Thou shalt not murder (a better translation)” does not forbid violence, or even killing. Otherwise God’s followers would not be able to carry out all the capital punishments and wars the God ordered.

          Too bad God DIDN’T put “Do not commit violence” in the 10 Commandments, then you would have better claim for having the best set of moral rules.

          Slavery is condemned by the OT commandment “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (which precludes owning the poor guy !).

          Slavery is explicitly allowed in the Old Testament.

          “However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you. You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat them as slaves, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way. – Leviticus 25:44-46

        • Greg G.

          Slavery is condemned by the OT commandment “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (which precludes owning the poor guy !).

          “Neighbor” meant a fellow Israelite. Those you could take as an indentured servant for six years and pay them at the end of their indenture. You could trick him into becoming a permanent slave by using family values. You give him a slave wife. At the end of his indenture, the servant is forced to choose between leaving his wife and all of their children or becoming a slave to the master for the rest of his life. Foreigners could be bought as slaves and bequeathed like any other property. They could be beaten to death without consequence if they suffered for a day or two before death. But since the new day started at sundown, they probably only had to suffer to sundown. The only punishment was the loss of property.

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

          Jeez… here we go again educating Christians about their own holy book.

          I’ve written a good summary here.

          (Arg! That “here” is a link, despite appearances.)

      • MNb

        “any sage wiser and kinder than Jesus Christ ”
        Franciscus of Assisi.

        • tolpuddle1

          Inspired by Jesus Christ and led by His teachings.

        • MNb

          And what does it tell you that Franciscus of Assisi, a human like everybody, inspired and led as he was, still was wiser and kinder than the inspirator and teacher?
          What it tells me is that Jesus was not divine but a mere human too. That I have inspired and led my pupils isn’t evidence for my divinity either, is it? Especially not now several of them have surpassed me.

        • tolpuddle1

          But Francis wasn’t wiser than Jesus (from whom he got most of his ideas) nor kinder than Jesus. It was Jesus who died in agony on the Cross so as to save us from Hell.

          And Francis would agree with my comments.

        • BlackMamba44
        • adam
        • Jack Baynes

          I think the idea of the Trinity really screws up the Christian story.
          Without the Trinity, it kind of makes sense. We have vengeful Old Testament Yahweh, ruling over the Jews with his strict and cruel laws. Then along comes his son, Jesus, who disagrees with his father and tries to teach a more pragmatic version of morality. Then he realizes he needs to show his commitment to changing the rules to his father and allows himself to be killed before going up to heaven and trying to mellow Yahweh out.

          With Yahweh and Jesus as two separate and independent beings with their own motives, that kind of makes narrative sense. But once you throw the Trinity in, it’s all nonsense. (Not that the Trinity itself actually makes any sense)

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

          That’s a nice spin on a stupid story. I agree–the Trinity doesn’t help. Just say that you’re polytheistic and leave it at that.

        • adam

          “I think the idea of the Trinity really screws up the Christian story.”

          Well amoung other things, but yeah.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4e5bf0bb965dfea057390a60ed5831b4a71e150c0766d79eca7bf17a4b30f682.jpg

        • TheNuszAbides

          Trinitarianism was an arbitrary compromise to get the already-schismatic Trooo Church on the same page. so weird that we’re “gifted” with things like logic and yet even the Most Wise Representatives of The Champions of Morality can’t think up something better than Mystery Shell Game.

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

          Why did God need a human sacrifice? Do Bronze Age gods just do things for old time’s sake? If God wanted to forgive us, he could do it like you do–just forgive.

        • tolpuddle1

          Which would be arbitrary and contrary to justice.

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

          Just like when you forgive? Is that also an outrageous miscarriage of justice? Or is it only God who’s too insecure to forgive?

          Actually, the Bible has several places where God explicitly forgive and says, “I will remember your sins no more.” God is actually better than you’re painting him as. Read your Bible.

        • tolpuddle1

          Only Jesus’ sacrifice makes any divine forgiveness, of any time, even a possibility.

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

          Only if there’s the divine can forgiveness from the divine be possible. Uh, yeah. Obviously.

          When you want to show us evidence that the divine actually exists, drop by again.

          For example, here’s a Divine that actually exists. It’s rather sad that you can’t provide similar evidence for yours.
          https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9d/Divine_in_Heaven_T-shirt.jpg/200px-Divine_in_Heaven_T-shirt.jpg

        • Jack Baynes

          Punishing an innocent mangod for the sins of another is arbitrary and contrary to justice.

          Would you praise the sense of justice of a judge, who after passing sentence on a murderer, shot his own son and gave the murderer clemency?

        • tolpuddle1

          In this instance, we – humanity – are the “murderers.” Socrates had prophesied that if a truly good man were ever to walk the earth, humanity would kill him. Not very long after, Jesus did walk the earth, and humanity duly killed Him.

          We are absolvable, though this is contrary to justice – because Mercy must overcome Justice if human beings are to be bought out of Hades (good people were there until Christ’s Death and Resurrection) or saved from Hell.

          To achieve this, self-sacrifice is necessary. As it usually is – witness the suffering of innocent Allied servicemen in places like Iwo Jima in the struggle to overcome evil.

          In the case we’re discussing, the self-sacrifice was on God’s part, who took on human nature as Jesus of Nazareth, and in that human nature, suffered and died for us.

        • Jack Baynes

          We are absolvable, though this is contrary to justice – because Mercy must overcome Justice if human beings are to be bought out of Hades

          Ok, so why couldnt’ God just absolve us? Why did he need to kill an innocent?

          Last time we asked you said that would be an affront to justice. But so is murdering Jesus.
          So why not just forgive us?

        • Jack Baynes

          Dying in agony on the Cross was God’s idea. It was what God decided he needed to do in order to forgive us. He deserves no sympathy and no credit for being “kind” for deciding that he needed to endure punishment before he could forgive us our sins.

          If a man I had lied told me “Don’t worry, I can forgive you because last week I beat myself nearly to death so that I can forgive everyone that hurts me”, I would run away, quickly.

        • Greg G.

          It seems to me that if Jesus can heal people instantly and accidentally and cause a tree to die, why didn’t he resurrect the wooden cross back into living tree, heal the nail holes in the tree to free his own limbs, and heal himself, all accidentally?

          There’s a story about some guys burying a comrade next to Elisha’s grave/ The corpse happened to touch Elisha’s bones and sprang back to life. Jesus should have been able to do that much.

        • tolpuddle1

          THere was no other way – other than waving a magic wand – to save us

          God avoids magic wands.

        • Jack Baynes

          Sure there was. God could have just forgiven us.

          But GOD decided that somebody had to die. Don’t expect us to be impressed

        • TheNuszAbides

          our poor Fallen brains can’t get The Message without Serious Spectacle.

        • Jack Baynes

          So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake.

        • MNb

          Perhaps Franciscus of Assisi would agree – and would have been wrong. I never postulated that he was perfectly wise and kind. But he was wiser than Jesus for sure – wise enough to understand that humans should treat animals well. Given the innocent pigs drowned (Marcus 5:13) Jesus didn’t realize that.
          Also he never lost his temper like Jesus did (Mattheus 21:12), so he was kinder.
          Franciscus – Jesus 2 – 0.

        • tolpuddle1

          Jesus let the pigs drown from kindness to the demons who drowned the pigs.

        • MNb

          Irrelevant for my point. It was not kind at all towards the totally innocent pigs. Franciscus of Assisi never showed such cruelty towards animals. So he was kinder than Jesus.
          My conclusion stands tall. This is what we can expect if Jesus was not divine but fully human – just a child of his time and place.

          Now the next one. The code of morality as laid down by utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer is wiser than the Ten Commandments. So is Daniel Fincke’s Empowerment Ethics.
          Christianity is outdated. That’s why so many christians aren’t capable of obeying its moral code.

        • tolpuddle1

          So you’d have sent the demons to Hell ?

          Crueller than drowning.

          History is now in reverse – Bentham, Singer and non-religious people are being left behind by history.

        • Susan

          So you’d have sent the demons to Hell?

          Yahwehjesus won’t send demons to Hell?

          OK.. so.. if a human drowns and is headed for Hell, the human goes to Hell.

          But if a demon drowns, it doesn’t?

          The only way Yahwehjesus could deal with demons was to torture pigs?

          You haven’t really thought this stuff through, have you?

        • Greg G.

          There are no such things as demons. except as a metaphor. There is no such place as hell, except as a metaphor. You take your fairy tales too seriously.

        • Jack Baynes

          So Jesus sent the demons to the pigs, then drowned the pigs, and the demons were free to wander again? What was the point of killing the pigs, then?

          Still can’t come up with any criticisms of the superior moral codes you’ve been shown?

        • MNb

          I wouldn’t have drowned innocent pigs had I had Jesus’ miraculous powers. Neither would Franciscus of Assisi.

          “History is now in reverse ….”
          This is an empty statement that only serves to make silly believers like you feel good. Shrug.
          And again you are trying to shift the goalposts. You asked for a moral code wiser than the Ten Commandments. I answered the question and you refused to address my answer. Telling – it’s telling us how desperately you want to reverse history to the unwise, cruel and unkind state of the Middle Ages, specifically the first half, from the first Gothic invasions (4th Century) to the last Viking ones (end of the 10th one). That time people could not think of anything wiser indeed and had lots more to worry about than being kind to animals. I guess you would have felt totally comfortable back then. Why don’t you start by throwing all modern technology out of the window?

        • tolpuddle1

          History is now in reverse – the world, which was becoming steadily more liberal and secular until c.1975, has since been becoming steadily more religious and more traditional or fundamentalist in its religion.

          The phrase isn’t my own – it has been used by many non-religious and anti-religious commentators.

          Why ? Because it’s true – indeed, a statement of the very obvious.

          Like many others, I regard the morality of Bentham & Singer as having sinister elements – and that it’s largely foolish.

          The Middle Ages cruel and unkind ? Not NEARLY as cruel and unkind as modernity – the blood-drenched 20th century was the true Dark Age, making the Goths and Vikings look humanitarians by comparison.

          Moreover, the Dark and Middle Ages tamed much of the cruelty – which was in any case wild and thoughtless, rather than the truly hellish (and premeditated) cruelty of the 20th century.

          You choose to throw ALL the Past out of the window – I accept the parts of modernity that are OK.

        • MNb

          “I regard …”
          Fortunately what you regard is totally irrelevant.

          “You choose to throw ALL the Past out of the window”
          Nope – just the parts that are as stupid as your comments or are not relevant anymore. Silly Puddle – I just have repeatedly expressed my admiration for Franciscus of Assisi. Already forgotten?

          “- I accept the parts of modernity that are OK.”
          And you of course are the self-declared judge of what’s OK and what isn’t, as the good arrogant christian you are.
          Btw if all human beings, as I suspect, accept the parts of modernity that they think OK history is not in reverse by definition.
          Anyhow, thanks for our little exchange. As you don’t address the initial topic anymore this is my last reply to you in this subthread. You have failed to make your point with that question you thought rhetorical. Your big hero is not the perfect guy you imagine him to be.

        • TheNuszAbides

          You choose to throw ALL the Past out of the window

          conclusive proof you don’t understand what you’re being told.

        • epeeist

          The Middle Ages cruel and unkind ? Not NEARLY as cruel and unkind as modernity – the blood-drenched 20th century was the true Dark Age, making the Goths and Vikings look humanitarians by comparison.

          And yet violence has been in decline for centuries, as Steven Pinker documents in his Better Angels of Our Nature.

        • TheNuszAbides

          and non-religious people are being left behind by history.

          just because you’re behind on your reading doesn’t make your wishful thinking compelling — or worth spewing.

        • epeeist

          History is now in reverse – Bentham, Singer and non-religious people are being left behind by history.

          And yet near me Catholic churches are closing due to falling numbers of congregates and the difficulty of finding priests.

          Here in the UK the RCC claims 4.2 million or so members based on baptisms, and yet it can only muster 800,000 or so regular attendance at mass. This is in line with other statistics showing a marked decline.

        • tolpuddle1

          Anger isn’t of itself cruel.

      • adam
  • King Dave

    God is Santa Claus for adults….

  • Pofarmer

    The Divine Message Of The August Eclipse

    http://www.unsealed.org/2017/06/the-divine-message-of-august-eclipse.html?m=1

    Since this thread isn’t ridiculously long yet, I though you guys might enjoy this.

    Note: Before you continue reading, please realize that this is
    not an end of the world prediction. We actually believe the world will
    never end. We believe that God may be communicating a message through
    this eclipse about the general nearness of Christ’s return.

    I’m not sayin that Jesus is comin back, but he might be. Lol.

    My religiously compromised Catholic BIL posted this on his facebook page. I probably shouldn’t have commented. I feel sorry for their kids.

    • DennisLurvey

      so ur sayin there’s a chance ??

    • Michael Neville

      Fun with numerology.

      • Pofarmer

        And Cherry picking

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

      Isn’t it cute that we have people in modern society who respond to eclipses the same way our neolithic ancestors did, with bafflement and references to the supernatural.

      • Pofarmer

        I rode by a little Church yesterday that had a sign out front “The Eclipse is a sign of the Greatness of God’s creation” or something to that effect. Sheesh. It’s orbital mechanics. Even more OT. There’s a rash on my Facebook feed right now of “Oh look, my Son/daughter survived a routine car crash isn’t God great? The one the kid was driving in the rain and sideswiped a telephone pole. Another one the girl ran a stop sign and got hit right at the front wheel of the vehicle. If God was that great, couldn’t he have told them to get their head out of their ass and watch what they were doing? It’s absolutely nuts that sane adults think this way. And IMHO it’s why kids die, because they think there’s a special force protecting them when they do stupid stuff.

      • Kevin K

        I don’t know about the rest of y’all, but I’m going to throw stones at the eclipse until the moon gives back the sun. You never know!!

        • Jack Baynes

          I’ve got a good feeling about that. I think it will work. Might take a few minutes, though.

        • Michael Neville

          Well, the Battle of Ragnarök might be taking place then, so the eclipse would be the Fenrir wolf eating the Sun. Which brings up an interesting question. After the Sun passes through Fenrir’s digestive tract, would it shine out of his asshole?

        • MR

          Pots. I’m bringing pots to bang.

      • Michael Neville

        Just as a historical note, the earliest historical event which can be accurately dated is the Battle of Halys which occurred on 28 May 585 BCE (Gregorian calendar). A solar eclipse occurred during the battle, which so frightened both sides that they agreed to an immediate armistice. Knowing where the battle took place, astronomers were able to determine the exact date of the battle

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

          Very cool.

          On the topic of surprisingly accurate dating of historic events, geologists found evidence of a massive earthquake around 1700 in the Pacific Northwest. There were no European settlements here, and the American Indians there didn’t keep written records. On the hunch that it would’ve made a substantial tsunami, they checked in Japan and, sure enough, there was one coming from the right direction in that timeframe. With this information, they were able to date the earthquake to the hour, as I recall.

        • Pofarmer

          Science, because it works, bitches.

        • TheNuszAbides

          i’ve been working on an absurdly comprehensive timeline on and off for a while, and have been very sad to discover that i’ll have to learn to read hardcore archaeology journals to get a sense of pretty much anything prior to the ‘negative-2nd’ millennium. the first few dynasties of Egypt are all over the place.

  • tolpuddle1

    This article is special pleading and outright hypocrisy.

    The meaning of the passage in Leviticus is very obvious indeed; and universal in intent.

    • Anri

      Which is why everyone agrees on it.

      ….right?

      • tolpuddle1

        Catholic doctrine agrees about it. And on points of doctrine, the Roman Catholic Church speaks with God’s voice, is God.

        The debates that human beings have about scripture are wholly beside the point; irrelevant and having no religious value or authority.

        • Greg G.

          You need to reject the brainwashing.

        • tolpuddle1

          You need to reject yours, inevitable as it has been in a liberal secular society that sneers and scoffs at traditional religious beliefs.

        • Greg G.

          I hope you sneer and scoff at the traditional religious witch burnings. Have you given those up?

        • Michael Neville

          The Inquisition is now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (or if you prefer, Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei). What more do you want?

        • tolpuddle1

          Wrong – the Inquisition was a bureau (now abolished) that was formerly attached to that Congregation.

        • Michael Neville

          A difference that makes no difference is no difference. In other words, your “rebuttal” doesn’t actually rebut what I said.

        • tolpuddle1

          They were the result of popular fear of witchcraft, not persecution by the Church.

          The objections to burning witches are: (1) it’s cruel, (2) some of those burnt confessed only under torture.

          But NOT that witchcraft doesn’t exist – Wicca, Voodoo etc did and do exist

        • Jack Baynes

          And stoning isn’t cruel?

        • tolpuddle1

          When has Christianity practised it ?

        • Greg G.

          The Romans were into blood sports and torturous public executions yet even they were appalled at the Jewish laws on capital punishment and forced them to use Roman courts. Christianity also rejected the Old Testament laws and adopted the Greco-Roman system.

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

          Are there crimes documented in the Old Testament that are still crimes? Then you should bring along the God-given punishments. It’s not a crime (or sin) if there’s no punishment.

        • Michael Neville

          You’re right. Christianity prefers burning at the stake.

        • tolpuddle1

          Which it stopped doing centuries ago, of its own accord.

        • Michael Neville

          Christianity stopped burning at the stake when the civil authorities outlawed that action. Learn some history before you make a further fool of yourself.

        • tolpuddle1

          Christianity never burned anyone – Church Law forbade it. The civil authorities did the burning.

          The Church became humane before the secular authorities did.

        • Michael Neville

          If the church was so humane then why didn’t they object to the burnings? Oh that’s right, they didn’t. Instead they applauded the efforts of the civil authorities.

          As I’ve told you before, you ignorant twit, learn some history before you make yourself look even more uninformed and cretinous.

        • Greg G.

          They were the result of popular fear of witchcraft, not persecution by the Church.

          Where does the fear come from in Christian society?

          Exodus 22:18 (KJV)
          18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

          The objections to burning witches are: (1) it’s cruel, (2) some of those burnt confessed only under torture.

          Agreed.

          But NOT that witchcraft doesn’t exist – Wicca, Voodoo etc did and do exist

          Those are superstitions. They are no more effective than prayer that relies on confirmation bias. Prayers for healing appear to be more effective when combined with medical treatment but medical treatment has been shown to not be more effective with prayer than with no prayer. Telling someone that you are praying for their recuperation might be the worst thing you can do to them.

        • tolpuddle1

          The Church’s objection to such religions (for such they are) is not that they don’t work, but that they are wrong (because they use spiritual forces other than God, a necessarily evil thing to do, even when it’s well-intentioned).

        • Greg G.

          There are no spiritual forces. It there no end to Catholic superstitions? It is nothing but post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies that are remembered more strongly than when nothing happens. It works the same for all religions and superstitions. Even animals fall for this mental error.

        • TheNuszAbides

          we don’t sneer and scoff at the ones that make sense — which merely shows how unnecessary the supernatural baggage is.

        • Greg G.

          Do you sneer and scoff at the traditional belief that Thor is responsible for lightning?

        • adam
        • tolpuddle1

          You need to reject the liberal, anti-religious brainwashing that has marred you.

        • Anri

          The debates that human beings have about scripture are wholly beside the
          point; irrelevant and having no religious value or authority.

          Which is why Catholics never have religious debates, or rely on human priests to tell them what god is thinking, and would never, never, ever consider anything a mere human said to be infallible.

          …right?

        • tolpuddle1

          Catholics often have religious debates – but only on points not already settled in Church doctrine.

          What any priest says is only valid if in accordance with Church teaching.

          Infallibility is granted to a Bishop of Rome only in rare circumstances. He holds his sacred office by divine appointment – thus in his official capacity is God’s spokesman on earth, NOT a “mere human.”

        • Anri

          In other words:

          Religious debates are worthless – except when they aren’t.
          Men don’t have religious authority – except when they do.
          God’s world doesn’t come from man – except when it does.

          Lots of people claim to speak for lots of gods. Why should I listen exclusively to the ones you want me to? What makes your capacity to discern true religion better than mine?

        • tolpuddle1

          Hinduism aside, “lots of gods” is History.

          In practice, you have a choice between the Catholic Church (= RC + Orthodox), the chaos of Protestantism – and, of course, Islam.

          Thus in reality between the RC Church and Islam.

          Choose which you prefer – life or death, water or fire, respectively.

        • Greg G.

          The choice is between critical thinking and gullibility. You have not chosen wisely.

        • tolpuddle1

          I’m very critical of religious liberalism.

          And am wise to do so.

        • Anri

          There are several other faiths with more than 100 million followers, including, of course, Buddhism. Taoism and Shinto are also pretty major faiths. And why are we automatically discounting Hinduism? Just ’cause you don’t like it?

          And “my choice” also includes not accepting the stories of any people who tell me about their particular flavor of god.

          You didn’t really address why your religious debates, and authority figures, and men speaking god’s word should be taken seriously over anyone else’s. If you don’t care to, that’s fine – you don’t owe me such an explanation – but you might want to at least consider why you didn’t do so.
          As far as the Pope being divinely appointed, do you believe that applied to all of them, or just some? For example, do you think there may have been a Pope or two who might have gotten into the office by influencing the College of Cardinals in some way?

        • Michael Neville
        • tolpuddle1

          Hinduism – Indian, Shinto – Japanese. Neither genuinely universal.

          Buddhism: non-theist.

        • Anri

          Neither genuinely universal.

          Um, ok, so? A religion can only be true if it is widespread geographically? Was Christianity less true when it was regional and became truer as it spread? If a formerly Christian nation becomes majority atheist (or anything else) does Christianity become less true?

          Many varieties of Buddhism are entirely theistic as actually practiced.

          And you still haven’t answered the question. You can save us both a lot of time by just saying you’re not going to, if you’re not going to.

        • Michael Neville

          And on points of doctrine, the Roman Catholic Church speaks with God’s voice, is God.

          It’s only the Catholic Church which believes that. Why is their self-proclaimed opinion any more justified than anyone else’s?

        • tolpuddle1

          Well, if you believe in Christianity, what other Church ?

          And the fact that RCC has lasted many centuries, despite often having such appalling clergy, especially at the top, proves the Catholic claim to be correct !

        • Jack Baynes

          The Lutheran Church has lasted many centuries, the Anglican Church has lasted many centuries, the Eastern Orthodox Church has lasted many Centuries. Just because your church has been around for many centuries doesn’t mean it’s true.

        • tolpuddle1

          Eastern Orthodox = Catholic.

          Church of England – will soon disappear

        • TheNuszAbides

          Eastern Orthodox = Catholic.

          let’s not concern ourselves with the two Great Schisms or anything.

        • Greg G.

          And the fact that RCC has lasted many centuries, despite often having such appalling clergy, especially at the top, proves the Catholic claim to be correct !

          Hinduism is older than the RCC and Christianity. Buddhism is older. Zoroastrianism is older. The ancient Egyptian religion lasted over 3,000 years.

          If anything, the ancient Egyptians were right. We should go back to that.

        • tolpuddle1

          Yes, but they haven’t been repeatedly derailed by their own clergy.

        • TheNuszAbides

          hm, it’s almost like they know more about unity. or persecuting heretics.

        • Michael Neville

          Well, if you believe in Christianity, what other Church ?

          What part of atheist do you have trouble understanding?

          And the fact that RCC has lasted many centuries, despite often having such appalling clergy, especially at the top, proves the Catholic claim to be correct !

          I just responded to a post where you tried to hand wave away burning at the stake. Giordano Bruno wasn’t burned at the stake for any of his scientific ideas. He was a heretic and was treated the way the Inquisition treated all heretics it got its hands on. The only reason why Luther and Henry VIII were able to start new churches is the Inquisition couldn’t get their hands on them. In fact, those two guys, along with John Calvin and John Knox, instituted their own Inquisitions. Calvin was particularly keen on burning Catholics at the stake.

          Here’s a historical tidbit about the Spanish Inquisition. In 1500 it started investigating “heresy” among sailors. particularly in the Mediterranean fleet, which was mostly galleys. Being a galley slave hauled before the Inquisition had to be pretty near the nadir of human existence.

        • tolpuddle1

          Who’s defending any Inquisition ?

        • Michael Neville

          When did I accuse you of defending the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? Your question would mean something if I or anyone else had made that accusation. Since we didn’t, you’re just looking like an whiny child.

        • Jack Baynes

          That MUST be in the Bible somewhere, right? Jesus tells Peter, that whenever he or someone claiming to be his successor speaks about doctrine that becomes the one and only true Christian doctrine.

          Somewhere…

        • Greg G.

          That is in the Catholic Amendments to the Bible.

        • tolpuddle1

          Jesus said to the Apostles, the first Catholic bishops: “Who hears you, hears me.”

          Unless, like the Protestants, you believe Jesus to be so myopic and imbecile as to have created a “one-generation only” Apostolic Church !

          And BTW, Simon Peter was the first Bishop of Rome (or “Pope” to use the everyday term).

        • Jack Baynes

          So, nothing. right?

          Nowhere does Jesus tell Peter that whoever claims to be his successor speaks for God.

        • tolpuddle1

          In which case no one on earth can be trusted to be doing so.

          In other words God, according to your view, is an imbecile.

        • TheNuszAbides

          as is perfectly befitting a ‘perfect’ character invented by imperfect committees over centuries of political fumbling.

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

      you know what you could do? You could give some evidence for your point. Otherwise, we have no choice but to reject it.

      • tolpuddle1

        The evidence is the original biblical text.

        The confusion and obfuscations that the article weaves about it, are typical of liberal dishonesty.

        • epeeist

          are typical of liberal dishonesty.

          Amusing, your screen name might be taken to reflect a group call the Tolpuddle Martyrs who tried to start an friendly society for agricultural workers, the precursor to trades unions, very much liberal organisations.

          And yet here you are decrying “liberal dishonesty” (and in the usual vague and unspecific way at that).

        • tolpuddle1

          Trades unions are working-class, rather than liberal, organisations.

          Committed to winning better pay and conditions for workers, not the advancement of liberal ideas.

        • Greg G.

          But they were liberal when they began. Conservatives oppose unions and seek to weaken them.

        • Jack Baynes

          Better pay and conditions for workers IS a liberal idea, and conservatives continue to work against them in pursuit of better corporate profits.

        • tolpuddle1

          You are confusing middle-class social liberalism with working-class trade unionism or socialism.

          They are very different. Often opposed.

          Many conservatives are libertarain and pro-LGBT / SSX marriage.

          Many liberals are hatefully neo-liberal (i.e right-wing) on economics

        • Joe

          The evidence is the original biblical text

          We don’t have the original biblical text.

        • Greg G.

          Since we don’t have the original biblical text, topuddle1 has no evidence to offer. That is typical of religious dishonesty.

        • tolpuddle1

          Are you seriously telling me that Orthodox Jews are wrong in accepting the present text of Leviticus as faithful to the lost original ?

        • Greg G.

          Yes. There are nothing but handwritten copies of copies of copies from centuries ago.

          See http://www.jstor.org/stable/1453187

          It says there are hundreds of thousands of textual variants in the Old Testament texts. It also mentions that commentators usually ignore them.

          There is no way that anyone could or should say that any particular manuscript is identical to the original. There is no way to measure how faithful they are to the original either.

        • tolpuddle1

          In other words, you want complete Chaos to Reign in the matter.

          Orthodox Jews wholly disagree with that and your comments.

          I side with them; they are sincere and religious and expert – you and others arguing against them, none of those things.

        • Greg G.

          In other words, you want complete Chaos to Reign in the matter.

          You are insane. We are talking about whether current Leviticus is faithful to the original. It’s not. That does not mean I want chaos.

          Orthodox Jews wholly disagree with that and your comments.

          They are making assumptions. They don’t know anymore what the original said then my little toe.

          I side with them; they are sincere and religious and expert – you and others arguing against them, none of those things.

          They are taking the word of every copyist in history that they did a perfect job of copying. We know this is not the case because there are variations.

        • tolpuddle1

          Well, tell the rabbis that they’re fools and liars.

          And if they don’t know – neither do you or Bob S.

        • Greg G.

          Only by religious superstition could anyone think every copy was perfect.

          They even think it was written by Moses. He never existed. Egyptian archaeology shows that there was never a great number of Jews in Egypt. Archaeology in the Sinai shows that there were never large numbers of people living there for forty years. Archaeology in Canaan shows that there was never a major turnover of culture during that time. They do show that many sites had similar cultures except that some had pig bones and some didn’t, which means that the Jews came from Canaanites with an aversion to pork. If they didn’t come from Egypt, there was no Moses and no Abraham. It means all the Bible stories are made up.

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

          Are you seriously telling me that our copy of Leviticus is unchanged in any meaningful way from the original written 2500-3000 years ago?

        • tolpuddle1

          Yes.

          Because the Jews have always been ultra-careful to transmit their Bible completely unchanged, either orally or in writing

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

          That’s your belief, and a stupid one at that.

          What you forgot to provide was evidence.

        • tolpuddle1

          None is available – it has been lost.

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

          So there’s no evidence, but you’re still going to declare that the Old Testament was accurately copied. Uh huh. Thanks for sharing your scholarship.

        • tolpuddle1

          The surviving biblical manuscripts are faithful copies of the lost originals.

          If you disagree (about this OT text in Leviticus) debate it with Jewish rabbis.

        • Michael Neville

          The surviving biblical manuscripts are faithful copies of the lost originals.

          Which Bible are you talking about? The Catholic Bible or the Protestant Bible or the Eastern Orthodox Bible or the Oriental Orthodox Bible. Each one is different and each sect can justify why they include or exclude specific books and parts of books.

        • tolpuddle1

          They’re all very much the same. Not least on the subject of homosexuality.

        • Greg G.

          Yes, it’s like the Bible was written by self-loathing homosexuals.

        • tolpuddle1

          Though obviously it wasn’t.

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

          As this post makes clear, Leviticus says nothing to inform us about same-sex marriage. We’re on our own.

        • tolpuddle1

          As the Bible – in both Testaments – condemns homosexual acts, it is thus opposed to same-sex marriage; since a sinful marriage would obviously be anti-biblical.

          The same is true of all Christian teaching.

          Since you oppose both Bible and Church teaching (other than post-1960 variants !) on this point (thus, perchance on others) what does your Christianity (or idea of it) comprise ?

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

          The Bible isn’t talking about what we know today as homosexual relationships, so it’s no constraint on you. So they’re sinful because they’re outside of marriage? Then create same-sex marriage and solve that problem. You don’t go there, not because God won’t let you, but because of your own biases.

        • tolpuddle1

          The Bible is – very obviously – talking EXACTLY about what we know today as homosexual relationships.

          Which are sinful quite irrespective of SSM.

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

          Wrong.

          (You want a more substantive answer? Then give me something besides an unevidenced statement.)

        • Michael Neville

          So what’s your evidence to support that assertion?

        • tolpuddle1

          There ‘s general agreement on the words of the Bible.

          It’s over interpretation that the arguments arise.

        • Michael Neville

          That’s not evidence. Try again, this time put some thought into your response.

        • tolpuddle1

          It’s true, therefore evidence.

        • Michael Neville

          You haven’t shown that it’s true, so why should I believe you? Give evidence of the truth of your bullshit or else admit you pulled it out of your ass.

        • Greg G.

          Did Jesus react with anger or with compassion when a leper asked to be healed (Mark 1:41)? Most manuscripts say “compassion” but the older, more reliable manuscripts say “anger”. It is thought that a scribe would be more likely to change “anger” to “compassion” than the other way.

        • tolpuddle1

          “Anger” at the disease.

        • Greg G.

          In Mark 3:5 and Mark 10:14, Jesus is clearly angry and indignant with people.

          If Jesus was angry at the disease, I wonder why Matthew 8:3 and Luke 5:13 don’t just say that. They have everything else in Mark. Well, Matthew and Luke also leave out that the leper went and told everybody, like Jesus told him not to.

        • tolpuddle1

          Anger is not in itself a sin.

          Angrily wishing others harm (or inflicting it) is.

          Anger against moral evil is a duty.

        • Greg G.

          There is no such thing as sin because sin is defined as anything that pisses God off, but God is an imaginary concept. But..

          Matthew 5:22 (NRSV)22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire.

        • Jack Baynes

          Why would Jesus be angry at a disease? God MADE that disease.

        • Greg G.

          It’s like God gave the guy an easy-to-cure case of leprosy so Jesus could look good.

        • Jack Baynes

          Daaaaad! I can do this myself, I don’t need you looking out for me like this!

        • tolpuddle1

          No – nature creates disease. Nature has freedom in biological matters.

        • Jack Baynes

          According to your story, God created nature. So God created disease. If God didn’t want there to be disease, there wouldn’t be.

        • tolpuddle1

          Nature has freedom in some respects – it has unrolled as it has unrolled.

        • Joe

          How can you say something is a faithful copy if you don’t have the original?

        • tolpuddle1

          On the authority both of the experts (Orthodox Jewish rabbis) and that of all traditional Christian teaching.

          Good enough for me – and for 99% of Christians.

        • Joe

          Not good enough for anyone else though.

          I won’t accept somebody’s word on the subject. Show me the originals.

        • tolpuddle1

          The originals are lost, almost certainly destroyed.

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

          I’m sure it is good enough for you. You don’t have the common sense God gave a rock.

        • tolpuddle1

          We have a text accepted as true-to-the-original by Orthodox Jews and all traditional Christians.

          Who knows – it may even BE faithful to the original !

          You and the writer of the article certainly don’t know otherwise. No one does or can.

        • Joe

          That’s the point, nobody knows, so don’t pretend you do. It’s dishonest.

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

          As others have noted, we don’t have the original text. Read up a little and find out about the centuries-long gap between New Testament originals and our best copies. What guarantees that no important changes were made—magic?

          Liberal dishonesty? Where I come from, it’s customary to back up a charge with evidence. Got any? Or is that not how Christians do things where you come from?

        • tolpuddle1

          The Catholic Church has pronounced that the present (and almost universally accepted) texts of the New Testament are faithful to the lost originals.

          Do you have any contrary evidence ? No, you haven’t, in fact – only (hopeful !) speculation.

          And as, on such points, the Catholic Church speaks with the Authority of Almighty God, perhaps you would be wise to accept its ruling.

          The best evidence for – or rather, proof of – your dishonesty, is your article. It belongs to an all-too-familiar and all-too-worthless liberal genre.

        • Greg G.

          The Catholic Church has pronounced that the present (and almost universally accepted) texts of the New Testament are faithful to the lost originals.

          Based on what? I accept that the New Testament texts are pretty close to the originals but I am not putting my eternal life on the line because I think the gospel originals were literature and the epistles have been understood in the light of the gospels, which means they are misunderstood.

          Do you have any contrary evidence ? No, you haven’t, in fact – only (hopeful !) speculation.

          We have 25,000 manuscripts, each with their own set of variations. There genealogy can be traced by how the mutations are passed down copy to copy with new errors introduced along the way. But we don’t know how close the master copies that each comes from was to the originals.

          And as, on such points, the Catholic Church speaks with the Authority of Almighty God, perhaps you would be wise to accept its ruling.

          Which is why nobody should take the Catholic Church seriously.

          The best evidence for – or rather, proof of – your dishonesty, is your article. It belongs to an all-too-familiar and all-too-worthless liberal genre.

          Says the most gullible person in the world.

        • tolpuddle1

          Whether you are putting your eternal life on the line by denying the New Testament and the authority of the Catholic Church, I do not know.

          You may be, you may not.

          Only God can read your heart and mind – I can’t.

        • Greg G.

          Many Christians would say you have doomed yourself by selling out to the Catholic Church. I say, “Don’t sweat it. You’ll be dead either way.”

        • tolpuddle1

          Sold out ? No, actually.

          And the wild views of the ultras in Protestantism I disregard.

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

          The Catholic Church has pronounced that the present (and almost universally accepted) texts of the New Testament are faithful to the lost originals.

          Respond to the post that I linked to in my previous comment. Two centuries from originals to our best copies?? Guarantee to me that nothing was changed.

          Can’t do it? Then you can see the uncertain sand your book is built on.

          Do you have any contrary evidence ? No, you haven’t, in fact – only (hopeful !) speculation.

          There are more differences in the New Testament copies than there are words in the New Testament.

          Very few are significant, but the point is that this is just the changes that we know of. Who knows what changes were made that we don’t know of?

          And as, on such points, the Catholic Church speaks with the Authority of Almighty God, perhaps you would be wise to accept its ruling.

          A little levity, perhaps? The Bible and the Catholic church are manmade as far as I can tell.

          The best evidence for – or rather, proof of – your dishonesty, is your article. It belongs to an all-too-familiar and all-too-worthless liberal genre.

          Three strikes and you’re out!

          Seriously, bro—when you have only bluster and no argument, the rest of us can see it. You got nuthin’. Know how I know? Because if you had anything substantial to say in response to my post, you’d have told us!

        • tolpuddle1

          Regarding textual changes in the two centuries, we’re obviously both without supporting evidence. I can’t guarantee nothing was changed, you can’t guarantee that anything was. I regard the RCC as a Rock, not sand, BTW. Whereas you are certainly minus a Rock.

          So where are all these changes in the New Testament ? Certainly not in printed Bibles, that’s for sure – even the Protestant and Catholic ones are very largely in agreement on the words (though not on interpretations !).

          Your arguments could – if accepted – only lead to universal uncertainty, doubt and chaos in the Christian world.

          In other words, to Christianity’s complete meltdown.

          Is that your aim ?

          If the Bible is man-made, as you claim, why should anyone (yourself for instance) pay even a moment’s attention to it ?

          The RCC was founded by Jesus Christ; Matthew’s Gospel: “You are Peter and on this rock I shall build my Church” (NOT “my 40,000 denominations”).

          You say that my posts are bluster, nothing, insubstantial.

          You fail – despite trying – even to make a case for that argument (let alone prove it correct).

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

          Regarding textual changes in the two centuries, we’re obviously both without supporting evidence. I can’t guarantee nothing was changed, you can’t guarantee that anything was.

          I don’t need to guarantee that anything was. I merely need to point out that the enormous claims you are making must reside on a rock-solid base. 200 years of who knows what?? Your base is made of marshmallow.

          I regard the RCC as a Rock, not sand, BTW. Whereas you are certainly minus a Rock.

          I have no certainty. And you have no rock, just wishful thinking.

          So where are all these changes in the New Testament ? Certainly not in printed Bibles, that’s for sure

          No, the differences that scholars know about are in most versions.

          Your arguments could – if accepted – only lead to universal uncertainty, doubt and chaos in the Christian world.
          In other words, to Christianity’s complete meltdown.
          Is that your aim ?

          (1) Christianity isn’t believed on evidence, so it won’t be destroyed on evidence. You could find Jesus’s bones, and believers would still believe.

          (2) Do I want to see a world without religion? Sure.

          If the Bible is man-made, as you claim, why sh ould anyone (yourself for instance) pay even a moment’s attention to it ?

          Someone once told you that there are no stupid questions, but they were wrong.

          Look around you. In the US, Christians are the bull in a china shop, pushing prayers and Creationism and religious-driven policy everywhere. It’s like we’re in a cabin in a dust storm, with stupid Christian attacks on the separation of church and state (precisely what will keep them safe from the dreaded Muslims) coming in every crack.

          The RCC was founded by Jesus Christ; Matthew’s Gospel: “You are Peter and on this rock I shall build my Church” (NOT “my 40,000 denominations”).

          I know. Crazy, isn’t it? The divine message is so ambiguous that new denominations are being made at a rate of 2 per day.

          You fail – despite trying – even to make a case for that argument (let alone prove it correct).

          You have the armor that I can’t penetrate: your fingers in your ears. You refuse to consider new ideas. Doesn’t mean you’re right; just means you’re closed minded.

        • Jack Baynes

          And as, on such points, the Catholic Church speaks with the Authority of Almighty God, perhaps you would be wise to accept its ruling.

          How do we know that the Catholic Church speaks with the Authority of Almighty God? Because the Catholic Church says so, and the Catholic Church speaks with the Authority of Almighty God.

        • tolpuddle1

          If not the Catholic Church, who ?

          40,000+ conflicting Protestant sects aren’t really a serious candidate.

          That leaves the Sunni Muslim authorities as the only alternative to the Catholic Church.

          Take your pick !

          “Neither” you may say.

          Well, we’re really lost in the dark, in that case.

        • Jack Baynes

          So you’re saying that because there are thousands of religions, and YOU want one of them to be speaking with the Authority of Almighty God, your religion must speak with the Authority of Almighty God?

        • tolpuddle1

          No – only THAT I believe it does.

          I can’t mathematical proof of that; nor anyone else of the contrary.

    • Kevin K

      When Christians start picketing Red Lobster, I’ll believe they are sincere. Otherwise, it’s just massive cherry-picking hypocrisy.

      • tolpuddle1

        The OT dietary laws are explicitly set aside – on God’s authority – in the NT (Acts of the Apostles).

        • Greg G.

          God realized the dietary laws were a big mistake so he rescinded them to make the Christianity scam easier to sell.

        • MR

          “Shit, what was I thinking? I’ll never be able to keep them from bacon.”

        • Jack Baynes

          It’s like when you grow up. At first, as a kid, you might think that broccoli is an ABOMINATION and refuse to eat it, but then you grow up and realize it’s your new favorite food.

          God and shellfish were like that, apparently. Except he also demanded that nobody else eat the food he didn’t like. Which is totally unfair, because how else are we supposed to eat our drawn butter?

        • Michael Neville

          Except he also demanded that nobody else eat the food he didn’t like.

          If you can kill anyone just because you feel like it, then your slightest whim becomes a commandment. Might makes right has been the basis for Christian morality for centuries.

        • Greg G.

          I found out that I liked broccoli when I discovered Mom was overcooking it.

        • MR

          I found out that I liked broccoli when I had to cook it. Something about owning it helped me to accept it. Wonder if that would work with kids. I still refuse to cook mashed potatoes, though. 😛

        • Jack Baynes

          I’ll cook mashed potatoes. Somebody else is cleaning the pot, though.

        • tolpuddle1

          No, the dietary laws applied only to One People – the Jews; who alone (before Christ) were God’s People.

          The dietary laws don’t apply to God’s New Israel – the Christians – for whom a New Covenant exists.

        • Michael Neville

          So what other “laws” only apply to the Jews? Give your rationale for each inclusion and exclusion. Or admit that like every other Christian you cherry pick those bits you like and ignore those bits you don’t like.

        • tolpuddle1

          No, some OT laws are set aside by the NT and Church doctrine – not by us.

        • Michael Neville

          I see reading comprehension is not one of your attributes. I told you to tell us which “laws” apply only to Jews and to explain specifically why. You didn’t even attempt to answer that. So do you want to try again or will you just admit that you don’t know?

        • tolpuddle1

          I have referred you to Church doctrine on that point.

          It’s pretty obvious from (almost universal) Christian practice in any case.

        • Jack Baynes

          You realize that only Catholics consider “Church doctrine” to be self-evidently true, right?

        • tolpuddle1

          Yes. There is virtually no idea that all people accept.

        • Jack Baynes

          If you’re trying to argue the validity of a piece of Church Doctrine, saying that Church Doctrine agrees with you is meaningless

        • Michael Neville

          A vague reference to “Church doctrine” does not answer the question about what other laws only apply to Jews. I asked for specifics, not an airy “everyone knows” bullshit response.

          You’re not very good at apologetics. You’re ignorant about your own sect’s dogma and you’re ignorant about the history of the Christian church. Plus you confuse your own opinions and what little you understand about Catholic doctrine for facts.

        • tolpuddle1

          I’m answering at speed and without using references.

          A simplification: dietary & legal rules of the OT don’t apply under the New Covenant. Moral laws (e.g. the Ten Commandments) do.

        • Michael Neville

          Still no evidence. Why am I not surprised? You seem to think that if you make an assertion that constitutes some sort of evidence. All it really does is show that you’re a poor debater.

        • Greg G.

          Most of the Ten Commandments were only given to Jews. There are no prohibitions against slavery in either the Old or New Testament.

        • tolpuddle1

          Christians are the New Israel and thus under obedience to the Ten Commndments.

          Only under the influence of Christianity has slavery ever been abolished.

        • Greg G.

          http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/slavery.html

          Voodoo priests, slave protests and economics were the three powerful factors that brought the age of slavery to an end. These forces battled against organized campaigns that aimed to keep the trade going, with religious justifications centering on the Christian Bible. Christianity and Islam were the two worst-offending religions, and conservative Christians hung on to their slaves for the longest. China never ordained slavery, and the Buddhist Emperor Wang Mang was “probably the first recorded ruler to abolish the slave trade”. There are some early anti-slavery thinkers, such as found in the pagan Zeno’s Stoics (342-270BCE)

          Slavery in the American colonies was originally designed by Christians based on the Old Testament laws.

          Jesus thought it would be absurd to thank a slave for doing his duty.

          7 “Who among you would say to your slave who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, ‘Come here at once and take your place at the table’? 8 Would you not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, put on your apron and serve me while I eat and drink; later you may eat and drink’? 9 Do you thank the slave for doing what was commanded? 10 So you also, when you have done all that you were ordered to do, say, ‘We are worthless slaves; we have done only what we ought to have done!’” –Jesus, Luke 17:7-10

          Compare that to a first century Roman pagan writer who thinks of slaves as friends who should be treated well.

          “‘They are slaves,’ people declare. NO, rather they are men.
          ‘Slaves! NO, comrades.
          ‘Slaves! NO, they are unpretentious friends.
          ‘Slaves! NO, they are our fellow-slaves, if one reflects that Fortune has equal rights over slaves and free men alike. That is why I smile at those who think it degrading for a man to dine with his slave.

          But why should they think it degrading? It is only purse-proud etiquette… All night long they must stand about hungry and dumb… They are not enemies when we acquire them; we make them enemies… This is the kernel of my advice: Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your betters.

          ‘He is a slave.’ His soul, however, may be that of a free man.”
              — Seneca the Younger (4 BC – 65 AD), Epistulae Morales, 47.

        • tolpuddle1

          Slavery was unknown in Britain in medieval and (until introduced back from America) in early-modern times.

          In America it wasn’t “designed” but adopted, almost knee-jerk, from greed first, and racism second.

          Many Christians used the bible to excuse slavery – many other Christians to denounce slavery.

          In your quote from Luke’s Gospel, you are using the word “slave” instead of the correct translation, “servant.”

        • Greg G.

          In America it wasn’t “designed” but adopted, almost knee-jerk, from greed first, and racism second.

          They followed the rules of the Bible. They bought foreigners from foreigners. They owned the children of slaves. They bequeathed slaves to their heirs. They had indentured servants who served six years. These regulations are from the Old Testament. When it didn’t work as smoothly as expected, they made new laws.

          Many Christians used the bible to excuse slavery – many other Christians to denounce slavery.

          It still took a very bloody war to end it.

          In your quote from Luke’s Gospel, you are using the word “slave” instead of the correct translation, “servant.”

          Your quibble only makes it worse. Jesus wouldn’t even thank a fellow Israelite for his service while Seneca was willing to dine with his slaves.

        • tolpuddle1

          The passage from Luke is making a purely religious point – that we are not to be proud of serving, obeying, God – since that is merely our duty.

        • Greg G.

          So what? Using that example is tacitly approving of slavery and servitude and he is not suggesting that people should thank their slaves. He is saying it is ridiculous to even consider thanking a servant. Yet you can’t see that as a problem because your brainwashing makes your cognitive dissonance kick in before you can consider the thought.

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

          It was opposed by the Greek Cynics and Stoics before Jesus. But Jesus wasn’t that advanced and didn’t ban it.

          It’s almost like “Jesus” was constrained by his cultural position rather than speaking of objectively true morality.

        • tolpuddle1

          Jesus came primarily to save humanity and steered resolutely clear of all political and social questions at an explicit level.

          Though by emphasising “Love your neighbour as yourself”, He very clearly banned it implicitly.

          God (i.e. Jesus) doesn’t spoonfeed us – He leaves us to work out the moral implications of scripture for ourselves.

          Your use of “advanced” betrays your liberal, “progressive”, evolutionary bias – so unconscious and deep-rooted that you don’t even notice, let alone question, it.

          What is good in the modern world is 99% (100%?) derived directly or indirectly from the Gospel – i.e. from Jesus Christ.

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

          That’s it! Just put your fingers in your ears when you hear something that makes you sad or questions your worldview.

          Your teachers must be so proud. God, too, though he probably wonders why he gave you a brain that you weren’t going to use.

        • tolpuddle1

          Yeah, not like Humility Bob.

        • tolpuddle1

          Yes, but Christians are the New Israel – a sort of wacky Jewish sect (which is certainly what the Church began as).

          “Love your neighbour as yourself” clearly prohibits slavery – though the dull minds of Fallen humanity took a long time to figure that out.

        • Jack Baynes

          It didn’t help that God told the dull minds of Fallen humanity that they were allowed to keep slaves, as long as they weren’t Israelites (their neighbors)

        • Greg G.

          “Thou shalt not own people” would be a clear prohibition of slavery.

          Leviticus 25:44-46 (NRSV)44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

          This shows that they were clearly permitted to own people. There are more verses that regulate slavery, even allowing the master to beat a slave to death with punishment limited to that loss of property.

          Read what the Bible says about slavery. Pay no attention to what Christians say the Bible says about slavery unless you like being lied to.

        • adam

          “”Love your neighbour as yourself” clearly prohibits slavery”

          God/Jesus clearly endorses slavery:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fc08e92607fbb10ca5d9fec66168d9bf582a2748fa716fdb4283c37e046c25e1.jpg

          Of course only after mass murdering a bunch of innocent children and babies.

        • Jack Baynes

          The Bible says slaves are perfectly fine, as long as they’re not Israelites.

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

          Some laws don’t apply anymore? How do you know that “God hates fags” isn’t one of them?

        • tolpuddle1

          But no one (except those imbeciles in Kansas City) is saying that “God hates fags.”

          God is love (says the bible) thus can’t hate.

          But that doesn’t mean God is Soft on Sin. He loves sinners (i.e. the lot of us, LGBT people included) – but not our sins (which includes the sexual ones, all gay sex being included).

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

          But no one (except those imbeciles in Kansas City) is saying that “God hates fags.”

          But you are saying that God hates homosexuality. When someone is a homosexual, that’s getting pretty close to home.

          God is love (says the bible) thus can’t hate.

          Read the whole Bible. You’ve already been corrected on this.

        • Jack Baynes

          God is love (says the bible)

          Evidence that the Bible is not inerrant.

        • tolpuddle1

          If God wasn’t love, neither we nor the universe would exist.

          If He wasn’t very Merciful, we’d already be in Hell.

        • BlackMamba44
        • tolpuddle1

          Atheists are happy to take the risk that they will go to Hell for their sins, notably that of rejecting Jesus Christ.

          Christians warn them of that danger, try to rouse Atheists from the fatal spiritual sleep – the unreality they are trapped in.

          This seems hateful to Atheists; being told the truth – that you are in danger of eternal loss – hurts.

          Christians love Atheists – but hate their sick, awful, abhorrent beliefs, the Atheist state of delusion.

        • BlackMamba44
        • tolpuddle1

          Sin is a spiritual cancer.

          No one can be cured of any sort of cancer without being told that they’re suffering from it.

        • BlackMamba44

          Oh, fuck you. If your god hates it so much then he can get up off his lazy ass and say something.

          But all we get are sex obsessed assholes who think they have the vagina to speak for their god. Puny human.

        • Pofarmer

          That was the correct response several days ago when he was covering for Pedophile priests.

        • BlackMamba44

          This dude is downright creepy. Why are they always so creepy? I would be afraid to leave a child in this one’s care.

        • Pofarmer

          Because people who are deeply religious are disconnected from reality. Even the “nice” ones are dangerous.

        • Michael Neville

          God is love (says the bible)

          The first born of Egypt might not agree with that claim.

        • Jack Baynes

          Sinful, fallen humanity simply can’t understand the “Goodness” of God’s “Love” in murdering the first born of Egypt.

        • tolpuddle1

          The only way God could save His people.

        • Jack Baynes

          Other than trying pretty much anything else….

        • Kevin K

          Ha. According to someone who never saw Jesus except as an hallucination. You’re going to have to do a lot better than that!

          THUS SAYETH THE LORD!!!

        • tolpuddle1

          Visions aren’t hallucinations.

        • Michael Neville

          How can you tell the difference? Be specific.

        • Kevin K

          Yes, they are. Reproducible in the lab. In Paul’s case, temporal lobe epilepsy is the most-likely clinical diagnosis.

          You’ve been following the ravings of someone with a damaged brain all these years. Comforting, isn’t it?

        • tolpuddle1

          Paul was a great intellectual and heroic man of action.

          We need more “brain damaged” people like him.

        • Greg G.

          Paul never got married and recommended that people don’t get married (unless they wanted to have lots of sex) because Jesus was coming any second now.

          Paul gave no advice for raising children as he didn’t expect them to grow up. All they had to do was obey their parents. He wasn’t about ending slavery because it would be ended soon enough. All the slaves had to do was obey their masters.

          Whenever he spoke of the coming of the Lord, he always used the first person plural regarding the living and the third person plural about the dead.

          If he couldn’t get his pronouns right, why do you think he was right about anything else?

        • tolpuddle1

          Because his letters show him to be a wise person – which is why the Church adopted them as Holy Writ.

          He set no date for the Second Coming of Jesus; and warned others not to.

        • Paul B. Lot

          He set no date for the Second Coming of Jesus; and warned others not to.

          Of course!

          Making *concrete* is a rookie mistake: doofus charlatans do it all the time, and then try to salvage their reputations after they fail.

          Only the sophisticated charlatans are clever enough to [keep people enthralled] while committing to only *nebulous* predictions.

          It’s a lesson that even someone like you can grasp, however dimly. This

          carefully estimated the Apocalypse as 2060 AD

          is much less definite than “December 21, 2012”.

          Muuuuch more room for face-saving squirming.

        • Greg G.

          Because his letters show him to be a wise person – which is why the Church adopted them as Holy Writ.

          Paul was a bit of a hypocrite. He opens Galatians with a rant about being sent by the Lord and not by human authority, then points out that James sends people places, like he is the Lord’s brother. But Paul sends people places, too. He sent Timothy many places to deliver letters.

          He set no date for the Second Coming of Jesus; and warned others not to.

          He included himself and others as being alive when the Lord came so he set the date as before he died.

          1 Corinthians 15:51-54
          51 Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled:

          “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

          Guess what. They all died. They were all changed, not in the twinkling of an eye, but by gradual decay.

          1 Thessalonians 4:15-17
          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, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 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.

        • tolpuddle1

          Since Paul WAS sent by God (in the Church’s opinion, not just his), he had a right to make requests of his lieutenants.

          1 Corinthians 15 – a prophecy of the general Resurrection at the Last Judgement; hasn’t happened yet – will do, though.

          1 Thessalonians – was true when Paul wrote it. Again, it prophesies the End; which NOW does indeed draw nigh, as all people, except human ostriches, know.

        • Greg G.

          1 Corinthians 15 – a prophecy of the general Resurrection at the Last Judgement; hasn’t happened yet – will do, though.

          Paul prophesied that they would not all die. They fact that it hasn’t happened yet means it will never happen. They all died. It didn’t come true and cannot come true.

          You have the same problem with 1 Thessalonians. They all died. Your religion is built on false hopes. You pay them to lie to you just so you can feel good about your hatreds. Your kind is why young people despise religion.

        • Kevin K

          Paul was a brain-damaged loon. Were he alive today, he’d have more in common with Jim Jones and David Koresh than any other religious leader you care to mention.

        • tolpuddle1

          JJ was a mass-murderer, DK a wacky enemy of US law. whose followers toted guns – whereas St Paul was a heroic martyr; he and the other Christians in Rome didn’t bear weapons.

          The writings of St Paul show him to have been an unusually intelligent and clear-headed person.

        • Kevin K

          “Don’t marry unless you’re inflamed.”

          This is a man who thought the world was going to END in his lifetime. He was every bit a lunatic as Koresh.

        • tolpuddle1

          Many Jews did. Many Romans did.

          They were half-right; THEIR world did end in the tumults of Roman and Jewish history in the years 60 – 80 AD.

        • Kevin K

          No no no. You don’t get to do that. Paul thought the world was literally going to end in his lifetime and the lifetimes of those who followed his ravings. Literally. End.

          The Jewish Wars had precisely and exactly zero squat nothing to do with Paul’s ravings. And the world did NOT literally and actually end. The Jews were defeated in a war and they were forced to relocate.

          And the Romans went along just fine for several hundred years after that, thank you very much. Longer than the current American republic has lasted. The last of the Roman emperors was not overthrown until 476 ACE.

        • tolpuddle1

          The world continued – a world, the biblical world, didn’t.

          Paul’s later letters show his awareness he was soon to be martyred and that the world would outlast him.

          His writings aren’t rantings – they differ in that respect from yours.

        • Greg G.

          Paul’s later letters show his awareness he was soon to be martyred and that the world would outlast him.

          If you mean 2 Timothy 4:6, it’s not a later letter from Paul. 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus are second century forgeries.

        • Kevin K

          “The biblical world”? What is that supposed to mean? When was “the world” every biblical? At the time Paul was writing, the “world” was almost exclusively Pagan. The Mediterranean was dominated by the Roman Empire. Northern Europe was mainly Norse Pagan and Druid. East of the “Middle East”, Hinduism was the dominant religion, with the non-deistic animism being the dominant religion of the Chinese people. The “biblical” world was the smallest sliver of a sliver of a sliver.

          But again…Paul was an apocalyptic preacher. He taught that the world was literally and actually coming to an end. Not metaphorically as you’ve just claimed. Actually and literally ending. So, in that regard, he was a false prophet, and completely and utterly deserving of being stoned to death — according to the rules laid down in your guide book.

        • John Clay

          The “Victorian world” was restricted to Britain – yet only quibblers would object to its use.

          Similarly, to refer to St Paul as a “false prophet” – when his writings have been adopted as being holy by the Christian Church – is beyond absurd.

        • Kevin K

          And yet, he failed in his prophecy of a world coming to an end within the lifetime of the people who he was writing to. Otherwise, why counsel them to avoid marriage and sex?

          Whether or not gullible dupes fell for his ravings is completely and utterly besides the point. The point is, that he was a false prophet.

        • Kevin K

          BTW: I do object to the use of “Victorian world”…not the least of which is because that’s … well … not a phrase that conveys any meaning. No historian I’m aware of would speak of Victorian “world”. The Victorian Empire, perhaps, or specifically the culture of Victorian England. But 1 billion Chinese could not care less about Queen Victoria or her mores. So, to speak of it as being “the world” is unbelievable narrow-mindedness. It was nothing of the sort.

        • Kevin K

          BTW: If having your writings adopted as “holy” by a church is all that’s required in order to establish someone as a prophet … then what of Mohammed? Or Joseph Smith? They must be prophets as well.

          Methinks that argument stinks.

        • adam
        • tolpuddle1

          Until the jot and tittles are fulfilled.

          Which in Jesus Christ they are – thus, under the New Covenant, the old dietary laws are (like circumsision) no longer relevant.

        • Jack Baynes

          That’s not what “Till all be fulfilled mean” How is a commandment or law fulfilled? That doesn’t make sense.

          Heaven and Earth have not passed, all is not yet fulfilled, so the laws are still in full.

          Even if somehow you COULD fulfill a commandment or law, they haven’t ALL been fulfilled. Or has the laws against homosexuality ALSO been fulfilled? If not, then ALL has not been fulfilled.

        • tolpuddle1

          The coming of Jesus Christ fulfils the biblical Law – since He Himself is that Law in person !

        • Greg G.

          Why didn’t Jesus Christ come to the Garden of Eden instead of Adam? Then everything would still be perfect.

        • tolpuddle1

          Fair question – but God is libertarian, thus has allowed humanity to make its mistakes.

        • Jack Baynes

          God imposed the death penalty for working on the Sabbath and you call him a libertarian?

        • tolpuddle1

          But we CAN ignore the Sabbath; we aren’t puppets.

          The Commandments are timeless, the legal penalties attached are OT.

        • Jack Baynes

          A libertarian would not make a law saying you can’t work on Saturday. God made that law, and provided a punishment for it, indicating that it wasn’t just a suggestion.

          Are you saying God has changed and is NOW a libertarian?

        • Greg G.

          Did Jesus make mistakes? Did Jesus have the ability to make mistakes?

        • tolpuddle1

          Yes, Jesus was human in all things except sin.

          A mistake isn’t a sin.

          In one Gospel passage, Jesus slightly misquotes an historical passage from the OT.

        • Greg G.

          In Luke 4:18-19, Jesus walks into a synagogue in Nazareth and starts reading from Isaiah 61:1-2, the Septuagint version! The Hebrew version doesn’t have the part about “giving sight to the blind”.

          There are no known early first century synagogues in Galilee. We are told Nazareth was so small that we can’t find it but it was big enough to support a synagogue yet not even Josephus mentioned it when he talked about all the cities in that area. But did would they have a Greek Septuagint?

          It is more evidence that Luke wrote fiction.

        • Jack Baynes

          You mean God had to blame humanity for HIS mistake in placing the Tree in the garden where the humans could reach it, and refusing to teach them that it was wrong to disobey him…

        • tolpuddle1

          He didn’t force them to sin – and had warned them against doing so.

        • Jack Baynes

          And they didn’t know it was wrong not to listen to him. Because God didn’t WANT them to know right from wrong, that’s why he forbid them from eating from the tree.

          It’s a stupid story, and doesn’t paint your god in a good light.

        • tolpuddle1

          They knew God was good, and their Creator.

          They chose to disbelieve Him and believe the Cosmic Serpent instead.

        • Jack Baynes

          How would they know God was good without eating from the tree that taught them what good and evil was?

        • Greg G.

          The sin was eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If they had knowledge of good and evil, they would have obeyed. If they didn’t have teh knowledge, they had no knowledge that disobeying was evil and not good. It’s a silly story when you think about it. You should probably try thinking the Bible stories through to their logical conclusions instead of thinking about gay sex so much.

        • tolpuddle1

          It is a story, using imagery to make a universally valid point – we are all Adam or Eve, we have all disobeyed God, we have all lost Eden

        • Greg G.

          It’s a fictional story. It’s like an ancient Twilight Zone.

        • Jack Baynes

          If by “till all is fulfilled”, Jesus meant, “Until the coming of Jesus fulfills the Law”, why did he talk about it like it was the future.
          Why say “Not a jot or tittle will pass from the law, until right now”? Why not just instead say which parts of the law he was abolishing (which he never got around to saying at all)

        • tolpuddle1

          But His disciples – guided by His Holy Spirit – state it in the NT (Acts of the Apostles).

        • Jack Baynes

          But why did JESUS say the law wouldn’t pass “till all is fulfilled” if his coming had fulfilled all the laws (whatever it means to fulfill a law…)

        • tolpuddle1

          The dietary laws ( & some other OT regulations) were fulfilled, thus are now to be set aside, by Jesus’ establishing a New Covenant. And are abrogated in the NT.

          The moral laws of the OT – the Ten Commandments and the ban on homosexual behaviour, for instance – are re-enacted in the NT and are thus still in force.

        • Jack Baynes

          So ALL has not been fulfilled.
          Gotcha.

        • Jack Baynes

          Though it does not make sense. Laws are not fulfilled. Laws can be enacted. They can be obeyed. They can be broken. They can be amended. They can be abolished.
          They are not fulfilled. You fulfill prophecies, not laws.

          “Till all be fulfilled” is not talking about the laws.

        • tolpuddle1

          It is talking about the Law of God, though

        • adam

          “Which in Jesus Christ they are”

          Nope, Jesus was very clear what the signs would be, and they havent happened yet.

        • tolpuddle1

          The Gospel makes it clear that certain pre-conditions (notably the return of the Jewish people to their ancient homeland and the preaching of the Gospel to all nations) have to be fulfilled before the Second Coming of Jesus at the end of the world happens.

          Those pre-conditions have now been met – and the Second Coming of Christ draws near.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Those pre-conditions have now been met – and the Second Coming of Christ draws near.

          Oh.

          Oh dear.

          You’re one of those.

          Welp, here’s a thread I can almost certainly safely ignore. Cheers!

        • tolpuddle1

          “One of those” – like St John Paul II and Pope-Emeritus Benedict XVI, both of whom stated publicly their belief that we are already in what St Paul called “The Last Days” (meaning a number of years, but not a large number of years).

          Which is all pretty obvious from the News bulletins too (and I’m not thinking just of Mr Trump / N Korea).

          Today’s cartoon on the front of The Daily Telegraph (of London) shows a man who’s walking along with a “The End is Nigh” placard saying anxiously to his wife alongside him: “What’s alarming me, is that people are no longer looking at me as if I’m crazy.”

        • Paul B. Lot

          like St John Paul II and Pope-Emeritus Benedict XVI

          I love that you reference their names and titles as if they matter.

          The names and titles of two men….both of whom presided over the largest sex abuse cover-up ever known. The first of whom was personally chummy with the serial rapist priest & founder of the “Legion of Christ”?

          Yes, like them.


          Mr Trump / N Korea). Today’s cartoon on the front of The Daily Telegraph (of London) shows a man who’s walking along with a “The End is Nigh” placard saying anxiously to his wife alongside him: “What’s alarming me, is that people are no longer looking at me as if I’m crazy.”

          You do realize, don’t you, that NK has no ability to cause a nuclear holocaust….right?

          You do realize that [an exchange between the US and NK in 2017] has nothing like the implications of [an exchange between the US and USSR in 1962]….right?

        • tolpuddle1

          Maciel ? No, they didn’t know the truth about him until too late.

          God will bring about the End of the World at the precise moment that He has already chosen.

        • Paul B. Lot

          God will bring about the End of the World at the precise moment that He has already chosen.

          Is that the right conjugation? Isn’t your “god” always in a state of nowness, such that at all times it is choosing to create the universe and destroy the world?Lol,
          nm, feel free to treat that as a rhetorical question.

          The Earth will become uninhabitable for humans at some point in the future: this is true.
          Unlike your vacuous, unfalsifiable, cowardly psuedo-prophecies, however, scientetists actually put skin in the game.

          https://www.space.com/22471-red-giant-stars.html

          Maciel ? No, they didn’t know the truth about him until too late.

          Funny how the authority figures you choose to worship are good reservoirs for your credulity and trust….until it’s too late.

        • tolpuddle1

          I believe in the Church and its teaching, not authority-figures. Are you an Anarchist ?

          They aren’t MY prophecies ! – they’re God’s: speaking through St John and his visions on the isle of Patmos (the Book of Revelation)

        • Paul B. Lot

          I believe in the Church and its teaching, not authority-figures.

          That’s odd. How do you expect us to reconcile this claim about yourself with the fact that you made an appeal to figures which [you consider authoritative]?


          They aren’t MY prophecies ! – they’re God’s

          Oh, really? Did “god” say that there’s a good chance that the world might end in 2060….or did you?

        • Pofarmer

          They write among us.

        • Greg G.

          The Gospel makes it clear that certain pre-conditions (notably the return of the Jewish people to their ancient homeland and the preaching of the Gospel to all nations) have to be fulfilled before the Second Coming of Jesus at the end of the world happens.

          The Jews returned to their homeland about 24 centuries ago. Nothing happened so religious nuts have been saying “nothing happened YET” ever since.

          The creation of Israel in 1948 was a man-made deal with the collusion of Christians trying to force Jesus into the Second Coming. Like that would work.

          Those pre-conditions have now been met – and the Second Coming of Christ draws near.

          Ho-hum. zzzzz. Christians have been coming up with new excuses to believe that since they were pre-Christian Messianic Jews.

        • tolpuddle1

          The worldwide Second Exile of the Jewish People from their Homeland (from 70 AD / 135 AD until the 1917 Balfour Declaration establishing Zionism as political fact) is obvious historical reality.

          1948 – the very secular President Harry Truman and US Political Establishment (who all had approx zero interest in the Second Coming of Christ) twisting the tail of the British Lion until it agreed to leave what then became the state of Israel.

          The imminence of the Second Coming of Christ has often been forecast by various crackpots within the Christian world this last 2,000 years – but never by Church doctrine or mainstream Church authorities, Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant.

        • adam

          “Those pre-conditions have now been met”

          Not according to Jesus.

          But worship Paul all you want.
          Paul has the Easy Button

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/78c238a8fdac57c3bb855616ad55fbd78f3dc526cd6d2a22046ad574b30f4edf.jpg

          Jesus was clear, that there is only one easy button.

          Matthew 19
          “Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.”

          But really almost no one will find the path:

          Matthew 7
          13“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
          14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

          21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
          22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’
          23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

        • tolpuddle1

          What an absurd comment of yours, as I’ve made clear above.

        • adam

          You’ve made only one thing clear, you worship Paul and ignore Jesus.

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

          Near? Like how near? As near as it’s been for the last 2000 years (which is not very near)?

        • tolpuddle1

          Much nearer, now that Israel again exists (since 1948) and the Gospel is being preached to ever more of the nations.

          Sir Isaac Newton (expert on biblical prophecy as well as great scientist) carefully estimated the Apocalypse as 2060 AD.

          Seems a good guess – not least because The End is coming soon anyway (global warming, WMD’s etc).

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

          That’s a fun mix of fantasy, myth, and bullshit. Bold yet vague claims with no downside for you. Must be fun, I guess.

        • tolpuddle1

          If it was fantasy it wouldn’t be frightening.

          And use who use their brains, are frightened.

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

          A horror movie is frightening. It’s also made up.

        • tolpuddle1

          The End of the World won’t be fiction.

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

          Ooh! Scary!

          Hey–I’ve got an idea! Why don’t you back up your claims with evidence? See, cuz it looks like you’re just making shit up or simply passing along your dogma. Why should I accept your dogma? You don’t accept any other religion’s dogma unevidenced.

        • Jack Baynes

          So all has not been fulfilled, then.

        • tolpuddle1

          THe OT Law has.

        • Jack Baynes

          So we’re free to have homosexual sex, then?
          Awesome.

        • tolpuddle1

          No; for one thing, it’s forbidden in the NT. For another it’s forbidden by the Church

          I.e. by God.

          The New Covenant incorporates the moral teachings (as opposed to dietary and legal) of the Old Covenant.

        • Jack Baynes

          Then I guess ALL the law wasn’t fulfilled. So it’s all still in place.

          You can’t have it both ways.

        • tolpuddle1

          But it isn’t ALL in place in Christianity is it ?

          Some is, some isn’t.

        • Jack Baynes

          Can’t be. Jesus said it would all stay in place till all is fulfilled.
          In your inane claim that “all is fulfilled” is Jesus fulfilling the law, then it’s all still in place, or it’s all fulfilled and no longer in place.

        • tolpuddle1

          Parts of it were fulfilled by His Incarnation and His establishment of the New Covenant – other parts are not.

        • Jack Baynes

          So then every jot and tittle is still in place, then.

          By the way, it’s the Sabbath, you’re violating your precious 10 commanedments.

          Edit: Fix horrible unacceptable abuse of the word you’re

        • adam

          “ ‘the sun will be darkened,
          and the moon will not give its light;
          the stars will fall from the sky,
          and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.”

        • TheNuszAbides

          wait a MINUTE … that stuff (at least metaphorically) happens, like, on the regular!

        • adam

          “Which in Jesus Christ they are”

          Nope, Jesus was VERY CLEAR on the signs of fulfillment:

          “the
          sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars
          will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.”

          So CLEARLY, Jesus says that the jots and tittles are YET to be fulfilled.

          “under the New Covenant, the old dietary laws are (like circumsision) no longer relevant.”

          This is Paul’s New Covenant, not Jesus’s.
          So you are worshiping Paul and DENYING Jesus.

        • tolpuddle1

          No, those are the signs of His second Coming – not the signs of the fulfilment of the OT Jewish Law, which was fulfilled by His First Coming 2,000 years ago.

          You are claiming that the teachings of Jesus and of Paul are at variance with each other. They aren’t, despite repeated (failed) attempts by enemies of Christianity to prove that they are !

        • Kevin K

          Nope. Not until “ALL” things are fulfilled. Jesus hasn’t come back with a flaming sword coming out of his mouth…has he?

  • rubaxter

    “…As Acts 5:29 says, ‘We must obey God rather than men.'”

    You forgot the second part of that statement:

    “And, as YHWH seems to have stopped tweeting from his morning toilet break, WE will tell you what ‘obey’ means.” (in a World where everyday conveniences would have been the Work of the Devil when the original He-Man-Gurl-Haters Club rules were written)

  • Fred Knight

    is there a good secular argument for the active promotion of homosexuality? I understand why the literal bronze age prohibition is offensive, but let’s look at it objectively. Is it really that outrageous to say that active elevation of homosexuality (and joined at the hip promotion of transsexuality) is really not somehow a moral high ground and boon for society?

    • Greg G.

      It’s just freedom. It means that everybody can do what they want as long as they are not harming others. Freedom is more than what your neighbor considers to be freedom.

      • Fred Knight

        classic libertarianism, that is my view as well, but at some point, there is a difference between actively promoting (as if all is equal) and live and let live. I’m sorry that we all can’t be right and #1….sh*t, I’m a minority in many ways…..but I don’t impose that upon the larger society and demand that they cater to my views. I don’t recognize it as dogma, but I do recognize that established cultural norms are there for a reason.

        • Greg G.

          The price of freedom is responsibility, otherwise freedom collapses into arbitrariness. Some cultural norms establish the responsibilities but some are just cultural norms for no good reason.

        • Fred Knight

          agreed, and where cultural norms need to be looked at, they will. freethought has it’s place, but I think it’s more of a counter-balance role than a primary one…it keeps things honest.

        • MNb

          “where cultural norms need to be looked at”
          But only after you examined them – if those norms are “traditional and healthy” and hence provide “a solid cultural ground” they are untouchable and you want governmental protection against evil gays and liberals threatening them.
          Not too much freethought, please. Freethinkers must know their place or FredK will call the cops.

        • Michael Neville

          You upvoted your own comment. That’s not done, old man.

        • Joe

          His kind always do. I’m surprised he doesn’t have a couple of sock puppet accounts upvoting him and agreeing with his posts.

        • Fred Knight

          I would argue there are solid cultural grounds for not openly endorsing same-sex marriage. (ask me this about 4 years ago and I’d fought tooth and nail the other direction because I saw this as religiously based bs) Typical atheist/freethought lacks perspective on this, because it’s so focused on “religion” that it can’t see that maybe some harm could come to the wider society. As much as it pains me, maybe traditional religion gets it right once in a while, even if for bad reasons.

        • Joe

          I would argue there are solid cultural grounds for not openly endorsing same-sex marriage.

          Such as?

        • Fred Knight

          larger society has a vested interest in the family unit, the healthy stable raising of children to become productive members of society. How is this best achieved? Stable home life, balanced male female (discipline/nurturing) roles in their life. Look, I understand that to suggest such things is totally neanderthal on my part, but I believe in traditional gender roles…..I think it’s healthy…..not to be rigidly enforced or brow-beaten, but it’s good. I think traditional religion bears witness to the evolutionary evidence as well. The fact that atheists tend to be unduly progressive on these matters suggests to me that there is an agenda that goes beyond the science.

        • Joe

          larger society has a vested interest in the family unit, the healthy stable raising of children to become productive members of society. How is this best achieved? Stable home life, balanced male female (discipline/nurturing) roles in their life.

          Why do the parents have to be male and female?

          Should we outlaw divorce or premarital sex?

          Why are you so called libertarians happy to flip to fascism at the drop of a hat?

          Look, I understand that to suggest such things is totally neanderthal on my part, but I believe in traditional gender roles…..I think it’s healthy…..not to be rigidly enforced or brow-beaten, but it’s good

          Why? Without an appeal to tradition, please.

          think traditional religion bears witness to the evolutionary evidence as well.

          What the fuck does that mean?

          In fact, spare me this undercover christian bullshit. It’s old and tired.

        • MR

          A morphed version of skl with a political agenda. Sigh….

        • Joe

          I had a ‘revelation’ to a question I’ve posed a few times before: Why do we see so many theists posing as atheists/agnostics on these forums?

          My guess is that it’s down to their perceptions of persecution, and the historical accounts of Christians hiding from authority, meeting in secret in basements and back-rooms to spread the faith to a fearful flock. They possibly see themselves in that mold, where it’s permissible to lie in order to achieve their goals which are seen as ultimately good.

          Or, they’re just lying assholes? Who knows?

        • MR

          Meant to respond more, but only had time for a couple quick likes last time. I kind of have my own theories about what’s going on, too. Some of them do seem to be apologetic types taking a different tack. Some of these are clearly sock puppets, and maybe even some tag teaming. And some of this seems to me to be a more concerted effort on a broader scale. We seem to have a few that aren’t here necessarily about the religion. I smell some culture-baiters and science-baiters, for lack of a better term. They’re not here to discuss, debate, or defend so much as sow doubt, yank chains and disseminate their own agendas.

        • Joe

          Those are the ones that end up blocked by me.

        • MR

          On the undercover theist side (vs the baiters), this is always so fascinating to me. Here you have a message from the supposed Master of the Universe, the very definition of morality, yet the message as is isn’t good enough that you feel you have to pretend to be something you’re not in order to make the message more palatable. This. Is. Deception. These are not moral actions!

          And then, are you really so stupid that we can’t see through that ruse?! You’re undercutting and demeaning the message.

          These are just further clues that it’s all bunk. Human beings being human. Objective morality my ass.

        • TheNuszAbides

          he seems closer to barry than skl. skl never stops dancing; barry lets the bigotry slip fully. Fred seems in-between those (so far).

        • Greg G.

          But barry is clearly a hard-core atheist. It is not clear that skl and Fred are not theists working undercover.

        • TheNuszAbides

          oops, true. i was only thinking of the JAQ-off scale.

        • Fred Knight

          “Why do the parents have to be male and female?”

          is this a novel idea to you? you do get there is a difference between men and women, right?

          “Should we outlaw divorce or premarital sex?”

          no, of course not, but should we endorse these as a positive? We are making moral arguments here, not legal ones.

          “Why are you so called libertarians happy to flip to fascism at the drop of a hat?”

          wow, total non-sequitur and off the mark, project much?

          “Why? Without an appeal to tradition, please.”

          traditional science, traditional ethics, traditional thought….tradition got there for a reason dude…..or are you willing to buck it blindly?

          “In fact, spare me this undercover christian bullshit. It’s old and tired.”

          :I hope you are not serious. Stop being defensive and listen to what I’m saying.

        • Joe

          is this a novel idea to you? you do get there is a difference between men and women, right?

          In parenting ability? No.

          no, of course not, but should we endorse these as a positive? We are making moral arguments here, not legal ones.

          Premarital sex is positive. Who’s morals?

          traditional science, traditional ethics, traditional thought….tradition got there for a reason dude…..or are you willing to buck it blindly?

          So, you can’t off anything other than ‘it’s traditional’. Thanks for coming.

          :I hope you are not serious. Stop being defensive and listen to what I’m saying.

          What you’re saying, in this and other posts, seems to correlate exactly with conservative Christian viewpoints, which we’ve heard a thousand times before. The faux-indignation, projection, arrogance and evasion are all trademarks of wannabe evangelical apologists.

          What makes your arguments any different?

        • Fred Knight

          “In parenting ability? No.”
          sorry, but how many struggling single moms would love for their teenage boys to have a healthy male role model? How many single dads would love to have a healthy female mothering role in their kids lives…..this is not some kind of political argument, this is grass roots realism.

          “Premarital sex is positive. Who’s morals?”
          – multiple partners, no love, no bonding, it’s all good, all the time….do you have daughters?

          “So, you can’t off anything other than ‘it’s traditional’. Thanks for coming.”
          tradition kicks ass! it’s awesome! (bows deeply)

          “What you’re saying, in this and other posts, seems to correlate exactly
          with conservative Christian viewpoints, which we’ve heard a thousand
          times before.”
          But yet I’m a non-believer! The difference is, I’m willing to grant a valid point, NO MATTER who brings it.

          “The faux-indignation, projection, arrogance and evasion are all trademarks of wannabe evangelical apologists.”
          Since I also hate that shit, please show me how I’ve EVER endorsed anything like it……sincerely, as I’m mystified that you project that into my posts.

        • Susan

          Premarital sex…. no love, no bonding.

          Then, you were doing it wrong.

          multiple partners

          Premarital sex is not synonymous with multiple partners.

        • Fred Knight

          “Then, you were doing it wrong.”

          so there is a wrong in this equation….be careful, you might be on the path of making a moral judgment.

          “Premarital sex is not synonymous with multiple partners.”

          of course not, but who’s to say where the line should be drawn? you? again, be careful lest you cast some kind of moral judgment upon others….and if you do, then welcome to the fundamentalism you reject.

        • Susan

          so there is a wrong in this equation

          My point was that premarital sex is not synonymous with no love and no bonding.

          of course not

          All right. Then, stop implying that they are.

        • Greg G.

          but who’s to say where the line should be drawn?

          Who’s to say a line should be drawn?

        • Joe

          who’s to say where the line should be drawn?

          You, apparently.

        • MNb

          “The difference is, I’m willing to grant a valid point.”
          The only problem is that “I believe in traditional, healthy things” is not a point at all.

        • Susan

          is this a novel idea to you?

          I doubt it. But we can note that you didn’t answer Joe’s question.

          of course not, but should we endorse these as a positive?

          Whent they’re postive, yes.

          traditional science, traditional ethics, traditional thought

          What do you mean? You are talking about very broad concepts in the fuzziest of ways and just sticking the modifier “traditional” in front of each of them as though that will let you wriggle out from a very obvious and very old logical fallacy..

          Joe is asking you to provide something non-fallacious.

          Stop being defensive and listen to what I’m saying.

          He was listening.

        • Fred Knight

          hey susan,

          “I doubt it. But we can note that you didn’t answer Joe’s question.”

          so, how am I dodging? seriously, let’s get it all out on the table for examination. which part is less significant, men’s roles or women’s roles in society? or is all equal, all the same? let’s be clear on which part I’m failing to address.

          “Whent they’re postive, yes” – so multiple partners, lack of commitment, divorce, unwanted pregnancy, all of the ramifications, we are to believe that “when it is positive, yes.” – this falls into the regrettable category. This was pretty much the position of Planned Parenthood and the Pro-Choice movement about 2 years ago….of which I agree…..these are hard things to defend, but regrettably they occur…..this is not the same thing as saying they are noble and laudible. Do you grant me this, or am I making an unfair point?

          “What do you mean? You are talking about very broad concepts in the fuzziest of ways and just sticking the modifier “traditional” in front of each of them as though that will let you wriggle out from a very obvious and very old logical fallacy..”

          stop hiding behind the logical fallacy bs….I was somewhat joking, but ok, I’ll double down…I’m being practical, I’m making a valid real world point that traditional values are there for a reason, and you guys are wrangling over words, looking for loopholes to evade my obvious points…..who is wriggling!!!!

        • MNb

          “which part is less significant, men’s roles or women’s roles in society?”
          Roles you just declared traditional, healthy and a solid cultural ground without any further do. This is a typical case of a loaded question. When was the last time you beat your wife?

        • Joe

          When was the last time you beat your wife?

          I don’t think that would be a loaded question in Fred’s case.

        • Susan

          so, how am I dodging?

          Joe asked you: “Why do the parents have to be male and female?” and you have yet to provide any sort of answer.

          stop hiding behind the logical fallacy bs

          Stop using blatant logical fallacies when trying to make points.

          I’m making a valid real world point that traditional values are there for a reason

          You haven’t said what the reason is and by definition, a fallacious argument is not a valid one.

          I’m not looking for loopholes. I’m looking for substance and you haven’t provided any yet.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Where’s the Beef?

        • Fred Knight

          hey susan, kinda hate to rain on y’all’s parade, but truth runs deep. it’s not some kind of bullet point “logical fallacy” argument where you can take down an opponent in one fell swoop (easy kill)….I’m asking some deeper questions, for those who have ears to hear (yes, it’s biblical, and a damn good one.)

          I want to ask all the knee jerk atheists, why does it bother you that a good idea comes from the religious community? (it’s a good question for the religious as well, not picking on any one group.)

        • Greg G.

          why does it bother you that a good idea comes from the religious community?

          A good idea is a good idea, no matter what the source. It’s a little annoying when the religious community tries to say it was God’s idea. It is more annoying when the religious community steals a good idea from the real world and claims they came up with it. Some religious communities seem to think nobody thought murder, stealing, and lying were wrong until the Ten Commandments came along.

          Can you name some good ideas that came from religious communities that bother atheists?

        • Susan

          kinda hate to rain on y’all’s parade, but truth runs deep.

          There’s no parade and you haven’t shown any sort of truth.

          not some kind of bullet point “logical fallacy” argument where you can take down an opponent in one fell swoop

          I pointed out that you have no argument, just a handwaving toward “tradidtion”.

          I’m asking some deeper questions.

          No, you’re not. You’re bringing up pretty standard stuff.

          I want to ask all the knee jerk atheists

          My responses to you haven’t been knee-jerk, nor have those of anyone else here, as far as I’ve seen. Don’t be a jerk.

          why does it bother you that a good idea comes from the religious community?

          I never said it did. Why do you change the subject and attack your opponent?

        • Fred Knight

          hey susan,

          I’m not sure how intellectually honest you are being, at this point….
          from my point of view, you are attempting to wrangle me in with well-worn atheist bullet points and apologetics……while I’m trying to move us all beyond that. For you, that means I’m “wriggling”….nice assumption on your part….address the substance, please

          “I never said it did. Why do you change the subject and attack your opponent?”
          So good arguments CAN come from the religious community? Please elaborate on that.

          I’m not changing MY subject, but apparently I’m changing yours.

          My agenda is honest and clear…and actually quite modest…if you’d give me half a chance.

        • Susan

          Hey Fred,

          I’m not sure how intellectually honest you are being

          .

          Show me where I was intellectually dishonest.

          from my point of view, you are attempting to wrangle me in with well-worn atheist bullet points and apologetics.

          There is nothing atheist about pointing out that you haven’t made a case when people asked you honest questions. Nothing atheist about pointing out that you can’t appeal to “tradition” as support for an idea. It is an ancient logical fallacy for which I provided a hyperlink.

          It is ancient because no valid argument can be based on it and that’s all you provided when people asked honest questions in an effort to have a discussion. . If “tradition” sufficed, we would both accept slavery and wife rape.

          So good arguments CAN come from the religious community? Please elaborate on that.

          Nothing much to elaborate on. You asked me why it bothers me (atheists) if good ideas come from the religious community. I said it didn’t if they do.

          I’m not changing MY subject but apparently I’m changing yours.

          No. You changed your subject. The one to which I responded. You still haven’t answered Joe’s question nor acknowledged that your foggy appeal to tradition is fallacious and therefore, useless.

          If you have a good argument for the subject you brought up and have now abandoned, I’d love to hear it.

          My agenda is honest and clear

          It’s not clear at all. But if you’d like to appear honest, answer Joe’s question.

          If you’d give me half a chance.

          I’ve made several efforts to discuss things politely.

          Answer Joe’s question. YOU brought the subject up.

        • Fred Knight

          “Nothing atheist about pointing out that you can’t appeal to “tradition” as support for an idea.”
          Just because I defend a healthy view of tradition does not mean I’m committing the appealing to tradition fallacy. You are jumping to that conclusion and I’m just not biting.

          “no valid argument can be based on it”
          you are using apologist tactics, focusing on legalistic arguments rather than common sense – this is my very point….I’m choosing not to play that game….wrangling/wriggling, attempting to beat your opponent with some kind of checkmate logic (this is what the Christian apologists do as well.) – MY point is that is a lot of posturing and bs – let’s be real with each other and actually tell the truth, in plain language, not using tactics.

          “Nothing much to elaborate on. You asked me why it bothers me (atheists) if good ideas come from the religious community. I said it didn’t if they do.”
          again, examples please.

          “I’ve made several efforts to discuss things politely.”
          I don’t perceive you as being impolite, but clearly you are not getting my point….or not willing to admit that I might have one.

          “Answer Joe’s question. YOU brought the subject up.”
          I like Joe, he gets frustrated with me, but he and I are capable of sorting out our differences. Truly, I’m not trying to mess with y’all, but I’m not willing to abandon my point of view simply because you don’t understand it or don’t like it.

        • Susan

          Just because I defend a healthy view of tradition does not mean I’m committing the appealing to tradition fallacy.

          You haven’t defended anything. You just mumbled “tradition” which is exactly appealing to the fallacy. Did you click on the link I provided? If so, how did you do anything but appeal to tradition?

          Also, you have done nothing to define “healthy view” nor support it.

          This is simple stuff, Fred. Show your work.

          you are using apologist tactics, focusing on legalistic arguments rather than common sense

          No. Apologists appeal to tradition all the time. It’s a fallacy. If you have something to say, make a case for it.

          let’s be real with each other and actually tell the truth, in plain language, not using tactics.

          I’ve been real with you. I’ve told the truth. I’m not using tactics. Make a case. I’m running out of patience.

          I dont perceive you as being impolite.

          The fact is that I haven’t been impolite and I’ve made efforts to allow you to make a case. You said “Give me half a chance.” and I’ve given you several.

          What are you trying to say? And how do you support it without appealing to ancient fallacies?

          I like Joe.

          So do I. But that’s got nothing to do with me asking you to answer Joe’s question. You still haven’t.

          I’m not trying to mess with y’all.

          I don’t care.

          I’m not willing to abandon my point of view simply because you don’t understand it or don’t like it.

          You haven’t made a point. That you think you have is your problem.

          What are you claiming and how do you support it?

        • Fred Knight

          “I’ve been real with you. I’ve told the truth. I’m not using tactics. Make a case. I’m running out of patience.”
          as am I, perhaps we are incompatible, hey it happens….best of luck to you, but it’s time I bid you goodbye, take care.

        • Susan

          as am I

          You’ve tried to advance an argument fallaciously and assumed that me calling you out on that was due to me being an atheist and not giving you half a chance.

          I’ve attempted to politely explain all the problems with those unsupported assumptions.

          perhaps we are incompatible

          Incompatibility has nothing to do with it.

          it’s time I bid you goodbye

          Good-bye. Please come back when you can show your work.

        • comix4dinner

          .I’m being practical, I’m making a valid real world point that traditional values are there for a reason

          The traditions evolved for a reason. But we should continually ask ourselves. Was it a good reason? Is the reason still applicable?

          If the tradition becomes the only reason to continue a practice, and that practice is hurting people, then the tradition needs to go.

        • Fred Knight

          “If the tradition becomes the only reason to continue a practice, and
          that practice is hurting people, then the tradition needs to go.”
          Actually, I super agree with you on that!

          But there is also a positive case to be made for tradition. It’s not a bad word. norms, standards, habits, rules of thumb, traditions, institutions, (sadly) dogmas, – this is all part of a social process…..some of it is simply bs and deserves to be trashed…but much of it gets there for a reason….religion capitalizes on it and claims it as divine…..that’s not what I’m saying at all….but let’s not be so anti-religious that we can’t admit a valid point when it comes along.

        • Joe

          traditional values are there for a reason

          What reason?

        • Greg G.

          I’m making a valid real world point that traditional values are there for a reason

          Sometimes traditions need to change. Slavery was a tradition.

          A young mother was teaching her daughter how to cook a ham. She explained how to cut the ends off. The daughter asked why she did that.

          “It’s how my mother taught me to do it,” she replied.

          “Why?” the daughter asked.

          So the next day, they went to visit Grandma to ask her why they cut the ends off the ham.

          Grandma replied, “Because that’s how my mother taught me to do it.”

          The next day, they went to visit Great-Grandma and asked her why they cut the ends of the ham off before cooking it.

          She began to reminisce, “Well, when me and your great-grandfather got married, we lived in a very small apartment with a very small kitchen with a very small oven. The biggest pot that would fit in the oven was too small for a ham to fit in it so I always had to cut the ends off so I could cook it.”

        • MR

          Great story!

          –Musical interlude–

          [TEVYE]
          Tradition, tradition! Tradition!
          Tradition, tradition! Tradition!

          [SONS]
          At three, I started Hebrew school. At ten, I learned a trade.
          I hear they’ve picked a bride for me. I hope she’s pretty.
          The son, the son! Tradition!
          The son, the son! Tradition!

          [DAUGHTERS]
          And who does Mama teach to mend and tend and fix,
          Preparing me to marry whoever Papa picks?
          The daughter, the daughter! Tradition!
          The daughter, the daughter! Tradition!

          —-

          Think of all the traditions we’ve given up and have a better life because of it, and all the naysayers who through a hissy. If something doesn’t work out, life has a wonderful way of self correcting. Imagine what life would be like if we had to give up all the progress we’ve made because of the naysayers and traditionalists.

        • Michael Neville

          “Why are you so called libertarians happy to flip to fascism at the drop of a hat?”

          wow, total non-sequitur and off the mark, project much?

          Maybe not all libertarians but you certainly want to impose your “morality” on others by legal means. That’s fascistic since SSM doesn’t affect anyone other than the married couples.

        • tolpuddle1

          The ONLY alternative is for supporters of SSX marriage to impose their “morality” on those who disagree with it.

        • Jack Baynes

          No morality is being imposed on you. You’re free to be as immoral as your god tells you to be.

        • tolpuddle1

          God is Goodness, thus never immoral. The RCC’s doctrine reveals His mind and will to us.

          SSX marriage – being public – imposes liberal “morality” on the public, on us all as citizens.

        • Jack Baynes

          God is Goodness, thus never immoral.

          Nonsense, the Bible is full of God’s immoral actions.

          The Bible may SAY that God is Good, but that doesn’t make it true.

        • tolpuddle1

          Examples, please.

        • Jack Baynes

          The Flood. the 10th Plagues. The genocidal wars he commanded. Demanding human sacrifice (still immoral, even if he changed his mind at the last minute).
          Have you read your book?

        • Michael Neville

          What is wrong with “liberal” morality, besides the point that a bunch of elderly, supposedly celibate bachelors have convinced you that you don’t like it?

        • tolpuddle1

          Much of it (I have some liberal beliefs regarding politics) is anti-Christian and harmful to individuals and society.

          And the liberals have become very aggressive and noisy (nay, fanatical) in recent years – one needs only think of PC.

          Which is why such “liberals” lost it for Hillary.

        • Michael Neville

          In other words besides being a Catholic you’re a conservative. Big yawn. You fail to mention any specifics, giving me the idea that yet again this is a topic where you have strong opinions without any rationale or justification for them.

        • Jack Baynes

          one needs only think of PC

          You mean like when Trump started paying lip-service to a Christianity he obviously has no interest in because he knows it was necessary to get votes?

        • Greg G.

          Those who disagree with same sex marriage have an alternative. They can mind their own business and keep their noses out of other people’s business. Why be so fascinated by it? It’s like you are jealous. I have no interest in same sex marriage so it doesn’t bother me at all. I expect that those who are married, in same or different sex marriages, have no interest in my marriage. And that is fine with everyone.

        • tolpuddle1

          I wasn’t even thinking of the subject until I read this article — which clearly seeks to undermine traditional Christian teaching against homosexual behaviour (and thus against SSX marriage).

          It’s the moving of goalposts, the attempt to re-define Christianity, that irritates (and concerns me as a Christian) more than SSX marriage (with its re-definition of marriage).

        • Greg G.

          People have been partnering up since before there was marriage. There was marriage before there was Christianity. Christianity has no right to define marriage for others. If you don’t like gay sex, then stop having it and stop thinking about it.

        • tolpuddle1

          Marriage is a gift from God to the human race, thus defined solely by Him.

          Who best discerns the Mind of God ? – Christianity, the Church.

          This is a political and religious debate – not a sexual one.

        • Greg G.

          Religion needs marriage more than marriage needs religion. Religion exploits what people do anyway, either claiming it as a religious rite or forbidding it to impose guilt and fake redemption.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Marriage is a gift from God to the human race, thus defined solely by Him.

          that explains the dozen centuries or so it took His Wise-Ass Representative on Earth to make it an official sacrament of His Indispensable-To-Humanity Church.

          This is a political and religious debate – not a sexual one.

          this is not a “sexual debate”?
          i suppose it shouldn’t be surprising that your rhetoric is even worse when you venture out of the Doctrine Parrot bubble.

        • adam
        • Jack Baynes

          Yes, only YOU are allowed the define Christianity as exclusively the province of the Catholic Church.

        • tolpuddle1

          Others are entitled to disagree with me – I’m not the Inquisition.

          But I can and should state what I believe to be the truth.

        • Michael Neville

          Actions which don’t affect anyone else are not immoral. Just because your church has declared homosexuality to be immoral doesn’t mean it is. I consider child rape to be immoral but your bishops have a different opinion.

        • tolpuddle1

          Child rape is fiercely condemned by Jesus in the New Testament and by Church doctrine.

          The failure of some (a small minority of) bishops to uphold the doctrine in practice (though they accept it in theory) is their fault and problem, not the Church’s.

          The liberal doctrine (for such it is !) that you are preaching – “Do anything as long as it is consensual and doesn’t hurt anyone” – is false; since we have no right to hurt or harm ourselves, least of all spiritually.

          And doing so necessarily has consequences.

        • Michael Neville

          Back when he was head of the Inquisition Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Benny Ratzi (he was Joey Ratzi then) sent a letter to all the bishops reminding them that under the Crimen sollicitationis (crime of solicitation) doctrine, any bishop who referred a cleric accused of a civil offense to the civil authorities could be excommunicated. Thus it was official Vatican policy not to inform the police about child rapists. I understand that Pope Francis has reversed that policy.

          Over a 40 year period Norbertine Fr Brendan Smyth (1927-1997) raped over 140 children in Belfast, Dublin and the US. Smyth was moved from parish to parish and between dioceses and countries whenever allegations were made. In all cases, the Norbertine order did not inform the diocesan bishop that Smyth had a history of sexual abuse and should be kept away from children. He abused children in parishes in Rhode Island, North Dakota and Boston as well as Belfast and Dublin. In 2010 the Archbishop of Armagh, Seán Cardinal Brady, faced pressure to resign after he admitted that in 1975 he witnessed two teenage boys sign oaths of silence after testifying in a Church inquiry against Smyth. Brady resigned as archbishop in 2014 when he reached 75, the mandatory age for a bishop to retire.

          I understand that statistically there will be sexual predators in any large group of people. That’s bad enough. What makes it deplorable is the church’s policy for dealing with child rapists made it obvious the the church was more concerned with its prestige and dignity than with the welfare of children. Simultaneously the church pretended to be the highest moral authority on Earth. The church had two choices, either be a moral authority or act in a blatantly immoral manner. It’s obvious which choice your church made. The flagrant hypocrisy of the RCC is what makes me most angry.

        • Jack Baynes

          An omnipotent God who “Loves the little children” simply would not stand for his Priests, supposedly the people on this planet representing him, leading his people in their faith. He would not stand for these Priests abusing his children. He would not stand for these men claiming to be his Priests and tarnishing his name like that.

          But He doesn’t do anything to stop it. He doesn’t miracle the priests away, he doesn’t tell the Bishops and the Pope who the priests are so THEY can take care of them. He doesn’t do any of that.

        • Michael Neville

          You’re making it sound almost as if God didn’t give direction to the Catholic Church. But our resident Catholic is insistent that the Pope has God whispering in his ear on all “matters of faith and morals”. Are you saying tolpuddle1 might be talking out of his ass mistaken?

        • Jack Baynes

          He complained that God doesn’t give the Pope clairvoyance when I suggested that God should tell the Pope which of his priests are child molesters.

        • tolpuddle1

          Only when the Pope and/or Bishops make formal statements of doctrine and teaching.

          And only then.

          Certainly not on daily or other policy.

        • Michael Neville

          So when are the Pope and bishops going to make formal statements of doctrine and teaching that supporting and protecting child rapists is not a nice thing to do?

        • Jack Baynes

          “You’ve got child molesters and people who protect child molesters in my church. DO something about it” is not simply “daily policy”

          If God can tell the Pope that it’s more important to avoid the use of condoms than to curb the spread of AIDS, then God can tell the Pope to protect His children from His priests.

        • tolpuddle1

          Why didn’t God stop large numbers of children being persecuted and killed by Hitler and Stalin ?

          Like yours, this is a fair question.

          To which the answer can only be – because God believes in human free will, giving people (even bad people) a free rein; therefore doesn’t (directly or immediately) intervene in human history.

        • Jack Baynes

          therefore doesn’t (directly or immediately) intervene in human history.

          Except when he killed almost all of them in a flood. Or he got pissed off that his creations were working together and made them all speak different langauges. Or he freed his people from Egypt. Or he ordered his people to kill the Canaanites and steal all their land.
          Nope, God doesn’t intervene in human history….

          Got couldn’t possibly inform the Pope of the criminals in His Church.
          But he SURE is interested in what types of birth control his followers might use.

        • tolpuddle1

          God worked through climate, through political agents (Moses v Pharaoh).

          The Tower of Babel is a reproach to human pride, not human co-operation.

          God lets people use contraceptives – i.e. be sexual deviants – if that’s what they want.

          The resulting spiritual damage is their choice as well.

        • Jack Baynes

          YOU claimed that God didn’t intervene in history. I showed that you were mistaken.

          God worked through climate, through political agents (Moses v Pharaoh).

          So he can work through Moses, but he can’t work through the Pope? Nonsense.

        • Jack Baynes

          God lets people use contraceptives – i.e. be sexual deviants – if that’s what they want.

          Absolutely nothing wrong with contraception. It’s not even forbidden in your Bible. That’s just a rule your church made up because they want you to make more Catholic babies.

        • adam
        • tolpuddle1

          Church doctrine is made by God.

          Church policy(s) is made by human beings – i.e. by sinners and imbeciles, in many cases.

          Yes, the RCC’s employees (servants, which is all the bishops and popes are) chose to overlook their consciences in favour of a misplaced (I use a mild word) loyalty to the Church as an institution.

          But the Church is not only an institution – it is a divinely-created Mystery; which is the only reason it has survived these last two millennia, despite all the crimes, sins and follies of its clergy and laity,

          Like the Show, the Church goes on – the sinners, hypocrites etc don’t; they die and (like all human beings) give account of themselves to God.

        • adam
        • adam

          “Child rape is fiercely condemned by Jesus in the New Testament and by Church doctrine.”

          Nope

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d450afc215bc8072fb8f6e52f592d6f7e75b209f815f55ef048d449996a9e1f4.gif

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

          Do you attend all marriages? Because I’m having a hard time seeing the imposition.

        • tolpuddle1

          EITHER the traditionally religious (which includes many Muslims and Jews) impose their view (no SSX marriage) on others.

          OR the socially liberal impose their view (SSX marriage is OK) on the traditional religious believers.

          It really is, as Lenin said “Who, Whom ?” – either/or.

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

          Incredible. How clueless are you? Or do you actually realize how stupid this sounds, but this is just the best argument that you can find?

          There is no parallel here. SSM is no imposition on you. You do know that you’re not obliged to get gay married, right? If someone else is doing something that you wouldn’t do, who cares? There’s a lot more than gay marriage going on in society that doesn’t hurt you even though you wouldn’t do it.

        • tolpuddle1

          SSM affects every member of a society that practises it. It is POLITICS.

          Use your head.

        • adam

          “OR the socially liberal impose their view”

          Again being socially liberal means equal rights for human beings.

          I can see where this is a problem for fundies who believe that they are ‘special’….

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/49ee4ba4ad5022f9e462b55374323dfe6e70e21b0365a5c0edf83e35b9d58955.jpg

          King James Bible
          Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

        • adam

          “The ONLY alternative is for supporters of SSX marriage to impose their “morality” on those who disagree with it.”

          The morality of equal rights for human beings.

          I can see where religious fundies might not like this, as they believe that they are ‘special’ and everyone else is sub-human.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1e284ecfcf8f4a4da8adb8c8992def60d555414158c237b83a5d3f4c4ffb2fa2.jpg

        • Joe

          That’s why I said ‘so-called’.

          True libertarians do exist, but in today’s political climate it is often a smokescreen for “freedom for the individual except on things that I personally disagree with”.

        • MNb

          “I believe in traditional gender roles”
          Got it. What you declare to be tradition and healthy is by definition a solid cultural ground.
          Thanks for answering my questions above.

          “there is an agenda that goes beyond the science.”
          Suggests? Maybe you should open your eyes. Atheists advocating equal rights never have been smug about this agenda.

        • Joe

          I’ve stated elsewhere, if Fred is not a conservative evangelical Christian, he may as well be with the views he has.

        • Greg G.

          Forcing gay men to marry women and lesbian women to marry men is not the answer. We don’t need more people on this planet, anyway. Furthermore, children of gay couples fair better than children of a bad marriage.

        • adam

          “larger society has a vested interest in the family unit, the healthy
          stable raising of children to become productive members of society. ”

          Ok, how being homosexual and married interfere with this?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3363c7bfa073832e3794ffe64475ad0717e8b19441fe9c2d900594ba2ab61ee4.jpg

        • Fred Knight

          Technically, it doesn’t, but in reality it does. It seems that a significant portion of our society go with “trends” – right now the trans movement is all the fad….and ultra progressives are having an alarming influence on our culture…where basic biology itself is in question. Where it’s unacceptable to point out that gender constructs are largely rooted in biological differences. And this is a problem for science based atheists as well….but this is not just about the science, is it?

        • Greg G.

          How does keeping gays from marrying change anything? They have relationships without marriage. They don’t marry someone they are not attracted to just so they can be married. They want to have the relationships they have now with the benefits that come with marriage, like being able to visit their loved ones at the hospital instead of the bigots the partner is related to preventing that.

          They can still make babies and raise families if they decide to, married or not.

        • adam

          “right now the trans movement is all the fad.”

          Your ignorance and zenophobia is showing.

          ” Where it’s unacceptable to point out that gender constructs are largely rooted in biological differences. ”

          And those biological differences are a spectrum, which you seem afraid of.

        • Fred Knight

          actually, the biology itself is pretty binary…..how many genders are there, biologically speaking?

          please enlighten me, if you can.

        • adam

          “actually, the biology itself is pretty binary”

          Not at all, you are demonstrating your ignorance.

          “please enlighten me, if you can.”
          I can easily, if you can read and comprehend:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

        • MR

          If the hardware can get mixed, why not the software?

          https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2214/2510190212_927f27b929.jpg

        • Greg G.

          What is that sculpture? The picture looks familiar but I never noticed the genitalia before.

        • MR

          Always a surprise for museum goers!

          I know of at least two hermaphrodite statues similar to this. I’m not sure where this one is from. Of the two I know about, one is in the Prado in Madrid and one in the Uffizi Gallery in Florence. There are probably others. I figured a statue would be less offensive than posting a picture of an actual hermaphrodite.

          Adam noted that biological differences are on a spectrum. Fred stated that biology is binary, but that’s simply not true. Actual living human beings sometimes carry both sets of genitalia. My point is that if a person can have a penis, breasts and a vagina, why can’t a person also have other blended male and female characteristics?

          [Edit to add]:

          The Sleeping Hermaphroditus (< link): ""is an ancient marble sculpture depicting Hermaphroditus life size…. It represents a subject that was much repeated in Hellenistic times and in ancient Rome, to judge from the number of versions that have survived…."

          And from The Prado (< link): "Son of Hermes and Aphrodite, Hermaphrodite was a singularly handsome youth. According to Ovid, Salmacis, the nymph from a lake in Caria, was enthralled by his beauty and passionately embraced him while he was bathing. Their two bodies merged as one, with double gender."

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

          I figured a statue would be less offensive than posting a picture of an actual hermaphrodite.

          Thank you for your attention to decorum. This is a family program, after all.

        • MNb

          Culture is manmade.
          Hence man can change culture, including those “solid cultural grounds” (another unspecified expression).

        • adam

          “that it can’t see that maybe some harm could come to the wider society. ”

          And MOST likely this ‘harm’ is IMAGINARY, like the God the religious base their hatred on.

        • Fred Knight

          “And MOST likely this ‘harm’ is IMAGINARY”

          sorry, the world, as it really exists, doesn’t work that way. Ideas matter, and have a real world effect – for good or ill…..nothing “imaginary” about that. stop burying your head in the sand by beating the same note over and over again…ironically, your denials point out that you are clinging to some form of imaginary reality.

        • Greg G.

          Heterosexuals have relationships with heterosexuals. Homosexuals have relationships with homosexuals. Heterosexuals can get married. How is allowing homosexuals to call their relationships marriage going to change heterosexual relationships and marriage?

        • Fred Knight

          you are asking good and valid questions, none that I would argue with or don’t have myself. But the thing is, humanity is not that cut and dried……even in the Mckinsey Scale it showed a variance of choice…..some have relatively little choice (in their orientation) and others quite a lot…..so how do we address the wider spectrum for the best outcome? This idea of Gay or Straight is absolutely fixed is a myth every bit as much as full free choice is. So how do we best address it without resorting to religious dogma or extreme secular progressivism? Sadly, most can’t be objective on this.

        • Greg G.

          We address it by giving everyone equal rights and not force people into pigeonholes. It’s not always easy for people to figure out what they like and harder for other people to figure out what the individual likes.

        • TheNuszAbides

          *Kinsey

        • adam

          ” your denials point out that you are clinging to some form of imaginary reality.”

          Yes, the IMAGINARY reality that YOU can actually demonstrate the ‘harm’ you claim.

        • eric

          For me, allowing SSM is “live and let live.” Denying it is imposing ones’ rules on others, and demanding that those other people cater to your views.

          Besides which, making gay marriage legal does not “impose it” on me or you any more than having drinking legal “imposes” beer on me.

        • tolpuddle1

          SSX “marriage” DOES impose on society because it is PUBLIC marriage, not private.

        • Greg G.

          Only in the same way that heterosexual marriage imposes on society because it is also public.

        • tolpuddle1

          Society is largely heterosexual even today.

          Do the victors in an election “impose” (!) their candidate on society ? (Forget POTUS, Nov 16 !)

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

          Yeah! And when the couple isn’t attractive, in public, that’s just gross. How can they do that when there’s a chance that I might see?

          Let’s say that it’s no same-sex marriage, and no ugly marriage, because it’s all about making illegal your imposing on me.

          If you can think of other ways people gross me out that I can make illegal, let me know.

        • tolpuddle1

          But it isn’t about my personal likes and dislikes, is it ?

          It’s about the Bible and Christian doctrine.

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

          UH, no, it’s completely about your personal likes and dislikes. God is your sock puppet.
          “Golly, those gays really creep me out, God.”
          (in a squeaky voice) “Yes, Puddle, they’re pretty gross!

          The OT supports slavery. But you don’t like slavery, so you imagine that it’s not there. The OT also supports homophobia, and that one you’re on board with. You could reject it like slavery, using some bullshit excuse like, “Ah, well, God’s hands were tied, don’t you see? Slavery [or homophobia] was part of the culture. Omnipotent God had to work with what he had.”

          Or, you could use the data in this post to show that what we think of as a homosexual relationship is never critiqued in the Bible. But no, God the Sock helps support whatever your biases are.

        • adam

          “It’s about the Bible and Christian doctrine.”

          And that doctrine is to KILL certain people because of their behavior.

          How many gays have you stoned to death?
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e175855d2521662ec6e3d364f0151d6c85662e903907482a05f8e3c8c0f3d9be.jpg

        • Jack Baynes

          And yet people were STILL pulling a quote out of context form Jesus’s rant about divorce in order to defend Kim Davis for refusing to do her job.

        • adam

          It is simply amazing the amount of hypocrisy that religion distills in people.

        • Greg G.

          Your right to swing your fist ends at the next person’s nose. Your right to swing your religion ends at the end of your nose. Keep it out of other people’s business.

        • tolpuddle1

          But it’s the public’s business. I am a member of the public.

          Therefore I have a perfect right – indeed, duty – to “stick my nose” into the matter.

        • Greg G.

          Have you published your sexual activities? Does the public have a right to know? If you don’t think so, then keep your nose out of other people’s sex lives.

        • tolpuddle1

          If I go to register a marriage, the public have a right to know.

          Marriage, unlike sex, is public and a political act.

        • Greg G.

          Public marriage is for tax breaks and property rights. People can make babies without marriage and they can have marriage without babies.

          You are pre-occupied with the kind of sex other people have. Stop thinking about. If you can’t stop thinking about it, then come out of the closet.

        • Greg G.

          Yes, if you care to do so, you can check the public records. But whether the couple has sex and the kind of sex they might have is not your business yet it seems to be your main concern. Knowing about the marriage does not give you the right to discriminate against them.

        • adam

          “Marriage, unlike sex, is public and a political act.”

          Marriage is ONLY a civil CONTRACT

        • Jack Baynes

          You have the right to know, but since the concept offends you, why do you want to know?
          Are you going to the courthouse to check marriage records just so you can offend yourself?

        • Greg G.

          Are you going to the courthouse to check marriage records just so you can offend yourself?

          Puddles can’t be happy until he is unhappy.

          I wonder if he confesses how much he obsesses over homosexuality.

        • adam

          It’s a PUBLIC civil CONTRACT.

        • MNb

          But you are OK with imposing majority stuff on the rest of society?

          “established cultural norms are there for a reason.”
          And what reason would that be regarding the very unspecified “active promotion of homosexuality”?

    • Kevin K

      Well, if the ancient Greek sexual mores had managed to hold sway for 2000+ years instead of the ancient Hebrew sexual mores, the question we would be asking ourselves is something like “is there a good argument against the notion that men should take young boys under their wing and show them how to be men…including using them for pleasure when the need arises.” Were that the case, every man would be in NAMBLA or some such other organization.

      It’s all culture. Ancient cultures had different attitudes toward sexual activities. The group that says “teh gey iz bad” is currently a loud, noisy voice in a modern culture that, frankly, doesn’t care one bit. The notion that homosexuality is a thing to be abhorred is not shared by the majority of people in the western cultures. And the younger the person you ask, the least likely they are to hold anti-gay views.

      • tolpuddle1

        Because of migration, and low Western birth rates, the West is ceasing rapidly to be Western in the sense you mean.

        Thus London, for example, has in the last decade become more religious – and more “homophobic.”

        • Joe

          Ah, you’re racist as well as homophobic? I should have guessed?

        • Greg G.

          It comes with the package when you don’t question religion at all.

        • tolpuddle1

          Racist ? Well, no:

          1) Because I’m quoting facts, without personal comment.

          2) Because now that the majority UK (white) population is non- or anti-religious, I cannot (though white) for a moment regret or lament its ageing and likely disappearance.

        • Joe

          Yes, you’re racist. Again, you embody a lot of hateful traits, but the dangerous thing religion can do is give you false justification that those traits are somehow ‘righteous’.

        • tolpuddle1

          No, I don’t mourn the death of white Britain – it’s become secular, so good riddance.

          Perhaps that’s reverse-racist of me.

          And you’ve yet to show how your slander of me is justified in any case – unless it’s “racist” to state universally-accepted facts that any Brit, of any race or opinion, will confirm.

        • Kevin K

          You’ve quoted no facts. You’ve made an assertion.

        • tolpuddle1

          Yes, a factual one.

          BTW stop all those political people from making “assertions” (boo, hiss !).

          And stop singing all those dreadful assertions in national anthems, sports stadia etc.

        • Kevin K

          If you make a factual assertion, it is common practice to actually, you know, reference the source for your assertion. You’ve made the claim, several times now, without providing the evidence that the claim is real.

        • Kevin K

          Citation required. According to The Guardian, people of “no religion” outnumber Christians in England and Wales.

          https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/23/no-religion-outnumber-christians-england-wales-study

        • tolpuddle1

          Yes, but through immigration and higher birth rates, the religious part of the population is constantly growing – notably in the big cities.

          The non-religious UK population is ageing, failing to reproduce. Will in a couple of generations shrink to vanishing point

        • Kevin K

          Again, bullshit. That’s merely your bigoted opinion, which is not backed up by the DATA that says that the country is getting LESS religious overall.

          Unless you have a point to make and can back it up with clear and convincing EVIDENCE, I think we’re done here. You have a nice day.

    • comix4dinner

      Who is actively promoting homosexuality?

      • Fred Knight

        gay/trans activists for starters…who are literal darlings in today’s media and certainly those of the progressive Left. It’s off the charts…..look, I’m for gay rights……and I was hit hard for saying so about 10 years ago…..but now the climate has changed and since I’m more cautious on the topic I’m a homophobe…and atheists/freethinkers are awash in the cultural drift, every bit as much as liberal Christianity and pop-culture is. Showing me that atheism is in no better equipped to judge objective morality than any of these groups.

        • Joe

          They’re not fighting for equal rights and recognition, they’re ‘promoting homosexuality’?

        • Fred Knight

          “They’re not fighting for equal rights and recognition, they’re ‘promoting homosexuality’?” – at this point in history, Joe, (at least in the West) I’d legitimately question whether it’s about equal rights and recognition. Since when do freethinkers have to be ultra-progressives?

        • Joe

          I’d legitimately question whether it’s about equal rights and recognition.

          Have you asked any of these protesters?

          Since when do freethinkers have to be ultra-progressives?

          They don’t.

        • Fred Knight

          “They don’t.”
          good, because I’m not

          Each one has a personal story, but at the end of the day, public policy has to reflect the greater good. do you disagree with that?

        • Joe

          public policy has to reflect the greater good. do you disagree with that?

          As an absolute, yes I do disagree. Public policy also has to take into minority groups and the disenfranchised. Do you agree with that?

          What’s this ‘greater good’ that you seek to achieve? You still haven’t been able to offer anything other than ‘tradition’.

        • adam

          ” I’d legitimately question whether it’s about equal rights and recognition.”

          To which you admit you oppose.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/948bbee85684416937d11e71f4509fc3314c74387f77e33f79ada049b28efe10.jpg

        • Fred Knight

          adam, you are being silly. I’m actually putting on my moral thinking cap and asking hard questions of us ALL. (it may surprise you, but I actually think we are all in this together, and if our society/culture falls, we ALL fall together….if it gets to that point, your/my faith/non-faith is not worth a hill of beans)

          “To which you admit you oppose.”

          Actually, I was once a staunch supporter, but now I’m questioning…not based upon the individual, but for the good of the culture….”equal rights” has been hijacked for political purposes and various agendas…as such, you are right, I admittedly oppose dishonest use of perfectly good terms.

        • adam

          “..”equal rights” has been hijacked for political purposes and various agendas…”

          Nope, equal rights hasnt been hijacked, ZENOPHOBIA has been, and that is what you are running with. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5fc7ae814c0160c0c443e448af14c3b39fb8f9c14da1a96d478544a03093bbba.jpg

        • adam

          ” I’m actually putting on my moral thinking cap and asking hard questions of us ALL.”

          Then YOU should be able to detail out the moral ‘harm’ you are claiming, right?

        • MNb

          So this is actively promoting heterosexuality?

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55P6v1wqnac

          If no, what’s the difference?
          If yes, you are not for gay rights.

        • Fred Knight

          “So this is actively promoting heterosexuality?”

          heterosexuality vs homosexuality – I don’t think they are equal, at least in the percentages of human behavior. I love the fact that I’ve listened to thoughtful gay and trans people who admit that the wider culture should not cater to them and de-normalize heterosexuality, and indeed the basic one man, one woman for life in order to raise children in a stable home environment. Please stop blaming Christians for coming up with this (granted, some of their dummies claimed they invented it, but it’s actually just a matter of healthy evolution and societies over time.)

          “If yes, you are not for gay rights”
          If it means saying all is equal and equally best for society, then I suppose I’m not. This is where the rabid progressivism has gone off the rails in recent years, they seem to be over-reaching to me, and literally become the bullies they accuse the homophobes of.

        • adam

          “If it means saying all is equal and equally best for society, then I suppose I’m not.”
          ” they seem to be over-reaching to me, and literally become the bullies they accuse the homophobes of.”

          All because you want to bully homosexuals….so they dont have the same rights as you….

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5fc140339a5cfbd2fde420569a6f54301242803d0f0a6bee87a7662257de4eac.jpg

        • Fred Knight

          “All because you want to bully homosexuals….so they dont have the same rights as you….”
          adam,
          you don’t know me from, well, adam, as the saying goes. I cannot tell you how ironic this charge is considering how many bullets, accusations and barrages I’ve taken for the “team” on religious boards who were equally dogmatic against me DEFENDING homosexuality – look, I get it, for many it has some serious emotional triggers in both directions…..but for me, it’s not a cut and dried issue….the concerns of individual liberty vs the protection/stabilization of the wider culture will always be a debate as to where the best line should be drawn, even in democratic societies.

        • adam

          “.the concerns of individual liberty vs the protection/stabilization of
          the wider culture will always be a debate as to where the best line
          should be drawn, even in democratic societies.”

          but you cant seem to demonstrate your ‘protection/stabilization’ of your queer baiting.

        • Michael Neville

          Where does morality enter the picture? Consenting behavior which does not affect anyone else is not immoral. I don’t consider someone whining “I think that’s icky” to be an adverse effect.

        • tolpuddle1

          Homosexual behaviour is proven medically to be physically dangerous (it shortens lifespan).

          Thus is self-harming; which (insofar as it is voluntary) is immoral.

        • Greg G.

          Is it physically dangerous because multiple partners increase the risk of disease? Then it is the fault of those who have restricted same sex marriage. That makes you and your ilk the immoral parties.

        • tolpuddle1

          Multiple partners make it even deadlier. But if taken to intercourse, it is always harmful.

          BTW, the controversy is over public marriage – if two LGBT people want to have a private wedding ceremony and marriage, it is between only them and God. Whereas the defined public meaning of marriage is a matter for public and political debate.

        • Greg G.

          Heterosexuals get the same rights and benefits in a public marriage whether or not they are in a real relationship. When I was in the military, I knew several people who were married to a roommate of the opposite sex just so they got extra pay and housing. Why the hell would you begrudge the rights and benefits of public marriage to anyone else? It ain’t your business unless you are jealous?

        • tolpuddle1

          Jealousy ? No – feelings of pity.

          So SSX marriage is one more scam ?

        • Greg G.

          I doubt gay people want or need your pity. You have the problem and deserve pity.

          Stop thinking about it. Find a church that doesn’t talk about it. Get over it.

        • tolpuddle1

          I dislike liberal ( = dud & doomed) churches.

          Gay sex is a problem, whether its victims are aware of that or not.

        • adam

          “I dislike liberal ( = dud & doomed) churches.”

          but you LOVE the Church with a rich history of homosexuality?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e837665e20b0f559722113ef2ddaa0c4b5cb92de117ddba6e3d9af6d7f6c282a.jpg

        • Greg G.

          You dislike churches that don’t talk about gay sex?

          You really sound like you loathe yourself for your desires but the church has told you it is wrong.

        • adam

          “No – feelings of pity.”

          Why should we care about your self-pity?

        • Susan

          Homosexual behaviour is proven medically to be physically dangerous

          Citation, please.

        • tolpuddle1

          Citation, please, for your evident belief that it is not.

          That oral / anal sex (gay or straight) are harmful is universally accepted.

        • Paul B. Lot

          That oral / anal sex (gay or straight) are harmful is universally accepted.

          I do not accept it, therefore “universally” is incorrect. Quite apart from the fact that billions of others also do not: one would suffice.

          Also: citation, please.

        • tolpuddle1

          It IS universally accepted that the world is round. Flat Earthers and other crackpots, can be ignored when truth is obvious.

          Therefore – citation for your weird beliefs, please.

          BTW “billions” of people in the world oppose LGBT sex

        • Paul B. Lot

          It IS universally accepted that the world is round

          No it is not. “Universally” means “without exception”.

          ETA: I can imagine that part of your confusion about the meaning of the word “universally” stems from the fact that the RCC calls itself a “universal” church, despite the fight that reality puts up.

          Flat Earthers and other crackpots, can be ignored when truth is obvious.

          They can be dismissed when attempting to ascertain the true nature of the Earth’s shape.

          They cannot be dismissed when attempting to describe the propositional beliefs of all humans.


          Therefore – citation for your weird beliefs, please.

          Complete non-sequitur.


          BTW “billions” of people in the world oppose LGBT sex

          Lol, wut?

          Again, total non-sequitur. I mentioned that I disagree with you, which was in and of itself enough to put the lie to your statement. ADDITIONALLY, though, it is not merely I who disagree with you, but also billions of others.

          The point was not to have a pissing contest or an argumentum-ad-populum, you silly pompinjay, but rather to point out just how inept your use of “universally” was.

        • tolpuddle1

          Rather like your use of the word “billions.”

        • Paul B. Lot

          1) You think my use of “billions” is inappropriate? Why?
          2) Supposing you’re right about #1…so what? At best this is a tu-quoque appeal: your use of “universal” was incorrect, and you haven’t the stones to accept it.

          Typical religious asshole.

        • Jack Baynes

          What is harmful about oral sex?

        • tolpuddle1

          Bad posture for such a strenuous act, the use of the mouth (which isn’t designed by nature as a sex organ), the spread of harmful micro-organisms.

        • Jack Baynes

          It doesn’t take THAT long, posture isn’t important.
          What’s wrong with the use of the mouth? It wasn’t designed as a sex organ? So?
          Micro-organisms are spread through vaginal-sex, too.

          What’s harmful about it?

          Honestly, I think maybe your problem is you need a blowjob.

        • BlackMamba44

          I bet this one is real fun in bed.

          /s

        • Pofarmer

          “Come Hither Woman, and Lie before me.”

          Or something, I dunno, sheesh.

        • Greg G.

          My mind’s eye is cursing you for that image.

        • Pofarmer

          Honestly, I think maybe your problem is you need a blowjob.

          I lol’d.

        • tolpuddle1

          Which is a sexual perversion.

          And not a good idea anyway.

          I’m not Bill Clinton, BTW.

        • Jack Baynes

          Why isn’t it a good idea?

          You know that Bill Clinton isn’t the only person to enjoy oral sex, Don’t you?

          Why should I care if the a bunch of celebate (supposedly) bachelors disapprove of oral sex?

          Vaginal sex has caused far more health problems than oral sex.

        • adam

          “Which is a sexual perversion.”

          How would you know?

        • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

          I really hope this guy isn’t married. If he is, I feel very sorry for his poor wife, since he thinks oral sex is wrong.

        • Jack Baynes

          His comment on posture (really? Posture?) sounds like an excuse for him to not do the job. His poor neck!

        • adam

          “Bad posture for such a strenuous act,”

          then try it on someone else instead of yourself….

        • Michael Neville
        • tolpuddle1

          Well, no – I don’t want to develop mouth or throat cancer, for one thing.

        • Michael Neville

          That whoosh sound was Williams’ point flying over your head.

        • Greg G.

          Well, no – I don’t want to develop mouth or throat cancer, for one thing.

          Mark 7:18-20 (NRSV)18 He said to them, “Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, 19 since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “It is what comes out of a person that defiles.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Bad posture for such a strenuous act

          so you’re ignorant of the possibilities. not surprising at all.

        • Susan

          That oral/anal sex (gay or straight are harmful is universally accepted.

          So… you made a claim that homosexual behaviour is proven medically to be physically dangerous.

          When asked to support that claim, you changed it to “oral/anal sex (gay or straight) are harmful.”. So, you’re not talking about homosexual “behaviour”.

          And rather than support your second claim, you made a third claim that your statement is “universally accepted”.

          You make stuff up and when asked to support it, you just make more stuff up.

          Please provide citations for your original statement.

        • tolpuddle1

          I’m certainly not making it up (I’ve read it in reputable publications) – but not being a mobile electronic / other library, can’t produce citations.

        • BlackMamba44

          You’re on the internet. Google them and provide the link. It’s not complicated, moron.

        • tolpuddle1

          But it is time-consuming.

        • BlackMamba44

          Then stop making claims you can’t back up.

        • Pofarmer

          You mean you don’t just take him at his word? What’s the chance of a dishonest apologist?

        • Susan

          I’m certainly not making it up.

          K.

          I’ve read it in reputable publications.

          Which publications?

        • Greg G.

          Which publications?

          I sense a conversation from A Fish Called Wanda coming on.

          Otto West: Don’t call me stupid.
          Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I’ve known sheep that could outwit you. I’ve worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you’re an intellectual, don’t you, ape?
          Otto West: Apes don’t read philosophy.
          Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not “Every man for himself.” And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.

        • Michael Neville

          I was thinking of this bit from Raiders of the Lost Ark;

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdjf4lMmiiI

        • MadScientist1023

          Would you, by chance, be thinking of the work by Paul Cameron, the completely discredited “researcher” whose data is based on astonishing techniques like reading the obituaries of gay newspapers? The one who has been censured by every reputable psychological and sociological professional organization on the continent for consistently misinterpreting and misrepresenting sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism? Is that the research you’re thinking of?

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

          HIV incidence worldwide is equally among men and women (about 18 million each). Source: http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/fact-sheet

        • tolpuddle1

          No – I’d never heard of him till your post.

        • MadScientist1023

          Just checking. His work is about the only thing in the primary literature that remotely supports your point, however poorly. Whose work were you referring to, then?

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

          Please provide citations for your original statement.

          Well now, that is just rude. You don’t ask a gentleman for proof that he’s not a liar who has no fucking idea what he’s talking about.

        • adam
        • tolpuddle1

          Citation for your claim in challenge, please.

        • Susan

          Citation for your claim in challenge, please.

          What claim was that?

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

          Oh? Point to modern medical statistics showing that homosexuals in the West have shorter lifespan.

        • tolpuddle1

          No, you ask the life assurance people – they will confirm what I say is true (it is based on reading more than one reliable source proving that).

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

          No links? Don’t make outlandish claims if you can’t back them up.

          The only positive thing I can imagine from your concern is that you’re concerned about unsafe sex. Great–I am, too. Let’s encourage public health education and make condoms widely available.

        • tolpuddle1

          Tu quoque !

          Don’t make YOUR outlandish claims, which you can’t back up.

          Sex education and condoms only make people randier and more reckless – leading to more unsafe sex and unwanted pregnancies.

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

          Tu quoque !

          Dear Lord, what a fucking moron. You made a ridiculous claim, not me. But maybe it’s not so ridiculous . . . if you have the stats to back it up. I won’t bother looking up anything because I’ve already won. When that changes, let me know.

          Sex education and condoms only make people randier and more reckless – leading to more unsafe sex and unwanted pregnancies.

          Yeah—better to have them uneducated and randy than educated and randy.

        • adam

          “life assurance people”???

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

          You mean the one’s who say homosexuals should be KILLED?

        • tolpuddle1

          Point to modern medical statistics showing that they don’t.

          I based the statement on reliable articles I’ve read.

        • BlackMamba44

          Cite the articles.

          You are making the claim. Your burden of proof, moron.

        • tolpuddle1

          Until someone makes the reverse claim. Then the burden is shared.

        • BlackMamba44

          Wrong. Rejection of a claim is not a claim.

        • tolpuddle1

          Wrong: it is a counter-claim.

        • BlackMamba44

          Nope.

          Christian claim: “God is real”
          Atheist: “I don’t believe you. Got any evidence other than a few thousand year old book”?

        • tolpuddle1

          Yes – the universe.

        • Susan

          the universe

          The universe is not evidence for Yahwehjesus.

        • tolpuddle1

          No – but it is for God.

        • Susan

          but it is for God

          Sticking a capital “G” on the word “god” doesn’t make your god (Yahwehjesus) the winner. You know very well that you are talking about Yahwehjesus.

          And no, it’s not evidence.

          Any more than it’s evidence for Immaterial Snowflake Fairies.

        • John Clay

          I’m talikng about the God of Abraham – who is worshipped by Jews and Muslims as well, though they have partially different theologies concerning Him.

        • BlackMamba44

          The universe is evidence of the universe.

          Try again.

        • tolpuddle1

          No God, no universe.

        • BlackMamba44
        • tolpuddle1

          Evidence against my God ? No.

          And please remember Pascal’s Wager.

        • BlackMamba44

          Burden of proof. You make the claim, you back it up. You’ve been told this.

          Pascal’s wager: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/34e223e1f258e18043fa84d31f924295146180d91f51a298ac1036077da019c2.png

        • tolpuddle1

          Atheist sophistry – you are pretending to be occupying a neutral position, not requiring proof. No, that’s a lie.

          God indeed loves all human beings ; but some hate Him (e.g. by denying His existence) and cannot, in all honesty, expect reward.

          Agnosticism and scepticism don’t lead to happiness, goodness or achievement.

        • epeeist

          No, that’s a lie.

          That’s your best shot, accusing people of being liars?

          Agnosticism and scepticism don’t lead to happiness, goodness or achievement.

          And yet if you look at this paper from Phil Zuckerman or this one from Gregory Paul it would seem that the more religious countries are associated with a higher level of social dysfunction. You might also want to check how religious the happiest countries of the world are.

        • BlackMamba44

          Fuck off, woo-woo.

        • adam
        • tolpuddle1

          God loves the damned and the demons.

          They hate God, however – which would make being in Heaven even more unpleasant for them.

          Heaven being the place of Holiness – thus uncomfortable for the wicked.

          “Son” is a symbolic expression – poor Mohammed (an Arab Prophet) made your mistake (taking it literally) too.

        • adam

          “God loves the damned and the demons.”

          You have a VERY CRUEL idea about what love is.

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          The universe is evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

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

          Yes, yes, you’ve already admitted that you’ve got nothing.

          I based the statement on reliable articles I’ve read.

          Which is what you’d say if you pulled them out of your ass or a reliable scholar like Ken Ham or Ray Comfort told you so.

          Next time you are tempted to cite statistics, make sure you can reference them.

        • tolpuddle1

          Quote your stats and cite them. You can’t, since you have none.

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

          God, what a moron.

          You made the claim. Back it up or withdraw it.

        • adam

          “Homosexual behaviour is proven medically to be physically dangerous (it shortens lifespan).”

          then do what your God says to do:

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

          Stone them to death before their lifespan can be shortened.

          Shorten their lifespan LONG before the evil homosexual behavior will shorten it.

          BTW, being left handed has been proven medically to be physically dangerous (it shortens lifespan).

          So you might think about adding ‘lefties’ to your queer baiting concerns.

        • adam
        • tolpuddle1

          Better faithfulness than promiscuity, both physically and spiritually.

          Though gay marriages seem to be even more transient and short-lived than hetero ones are nowadays.

          In any case, this is only about damage-limitation – since oral or anal sex (whether homo or hetero !) are intrinsically harmful, physically and spiritually.

        • adam

          “Better faithfulness than promiscuity, both physically and spiritually.”

          PolitiFact.com estimated in 2012 that the lifelong probability of a marriage ending in divorce is 40%–50%.[30]

          “In any case, this is only about damage-limitation – since oral or anal sex (whether homo or hetero !) are intrinsically harmful, physically and spiritually.”

          but you are not ranting about oral or anal sex (whether homo or hetero !)

          You are gay baiting.

          And you are NOT following what your “God” commands:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fbee2ae71608c49ff6cd3778051384d5ac950eab0a8c65082bd7d40a20822ade.jpg

        • Michael Neville

          You are gay baiting.

          tolpuddle1’s homophobia shines through everything he says on the subject.

        • tolpuddle1

          Stop Crying Wolf.

          Homophobia is violence against LGBT people or locking them up (or supporting / recommending these things).

          I don’t.

        • adam

          “Homophobia is violence against LGBT people or locking them up”

          Nope, it is a fear that YOU cant control your own sexual urges…

        • adam
        • tolpuddle1

          “Yet Mercy triumphs over Judgement” says the Bible Which is why Jews – let alone Christians – no longer apply the Torah’s death penalty recommendations.

          Gay baiting ? – no, I’m not attacking anyone for simply being gay.

          Yes, divorce is destroying marriage and the West – SSX marriage merely piles on the pressure further.

        • adam

          “”Yet Mercy triumphs over Judgement” says the Bible Which is why Jews –
          let alone Christians – no longer apply the Torah’s death penalty
          recommendations.”

          Yet, Jesus is clear
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/89d230f179881be8275da4101e50e5e24d2a0bb95addba201026fbc36fa9a751.jpg

          “Gay baiting ? – no, I’m not attacking anyone for simply being gay.”

          Of course you are and you are being hypocritical at the same time:

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

          “Yes, divorce is destroying marriage and the West”

          Nope, it was abusive marriages throughout history that were the problem:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/88bf7da1da5821e9baded052e03d77d3265d44c3529c59d8b689049fec30ae36.jpg

        • tolpuddle1

          Mercy was always possible at the Law’s discretion.

        • adam
        • Jack Baynes

          But he just feels better about being merciful after having himself murdered?

        • adam
        • Michael Neville
        • comix4dinner

          No really, who is promoting homosexuality? In what specific ways?

        • BlackMamba44
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I see no evidence of objective morality (though we might differ on what that means).

          If there’s a zero-sum situation–as the gays benefit, the rest of us lose–then we should be cautious. But in the case of same-sex marriage, what’s not to like?

          And I’ll echo other commenters who wonder what active promotion of homosexuality you’re talking about.

        • tolpuddle1

          Active promotion of homosexuality – by the very loud, powerful and dogmatic LGBT lobby throughout the developed world.

          Or are you wilfully deaf and blind ?

        • Jack Baynes

          Asking for equal rights is not “promoting homosexuality”.

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

          Or are you wilfully deaf and blind ?

          I dunno. Maybe I’m just stupid.

          Active promotion of homosexuality

          Meaning what? Specifically, what does “promotion of homosexuality” mean here?

          All I see is homosexuality being no longer demonized, and homosexuals being treated as regular members of society. I’m straight, and this doesn’t negatively affect my life at all.

          But then I’m stupid. What do I know?

        • tolpuddle1

          There is a middle-ground between demonizing homosexual behaviour and granting it Equality.

          As always, social liberals (in which category I include gay activists) are fanatics.

          Your apparent unawareness of the Homintern (the near-global LGBT lobby) is either wilful or stupid or ivory tower.

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

          When you sidestep or ignore my rebuttal, I’ll just interpret that as you throwing in the towel.

          Thanks. I like winning.

        • adam

          “There is a middle-ground between demonizing homosexual behaviour and granting it Equality.”

          Why should they not have equality?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4d13619b3ac0d17b32770ee151935462cade37c1c9734749144fd4cbbf530d40.jpg

          do you believe that if the world finds out how homosexual the Catholic Church IS and HAS been that it will destroy them?

        • tolpuddle1

          Because gay sex is in every respect inferior to heterosexual sex.

          And thus can never be granted equality whatever any legislature or court pretends.

          Yes, some of its clergy have driven the RCC into a ditch – as they have previously done in history.

          But God always lifts His Church out of the ditch.

          Many gays in the clergy ? – yes, that’s the root of the whole problem; it is the main thing that has let Satan take up squatting rights in the Church.

        • BlackMamba44

          Because gay sex is in every respect inferior to heterosexual sex.

          Maybe you just didn’t do the gay sex right. Did you all forget the lube?

        • Greg G.

          Because gay sex is in every respect inferior to heterosexual sex.

          How do you know? Have you done a side-by-side comparison?

        • Pofarmer

          Front to back? Up and down? Over and under?

        • Pofarmer

          Many gays in the clergy ? – yes, that’s the root of the whole problem;

          That’s some funny shit right there. depending on the study, it’s estimated that between 30-60% of priests are gay or have homosexual tendencies. Run them out of the Church and you don’t have any church left. Which is fine by me………………………..

        • adam

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/65b51a914367249f1fd520e931d29188c14c827b7462e26b4f1560c5ae20d920.jpg “Because gay sex is in every respect inferior to heterosexual sex.”

          Then you have to be speaking from experience:

        • tolpuddle1

          You clown ! – I was referring to health, emotional and spiritual considerations, all of them obvious to everyone.

        • adam

          “all of them obvious to everyone.”

          Obviously not to you, else you could spell them out and defend them.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c04112ee9a7ba0649d0fd9409a68fa1c7d95d4b9d523272819641d52f45edf2e.jpg

        • Greg G.

          The emotional problems have more to do with having to interact with people like you, especially within their own family.

        • tolpuddle1

          No – they have to do with LGBT people following the advice and opinions of profoundly foolish and irresponsible people like you.

        • Greg G.

          That is the most profoundly foolish and irresponsiblestatement I have heard all year (excluding statements made by elected officials).

        • adam

          ” all of them obvious to everyone.”

          Not obvious to anyone, that is why you need to back up your claims with evidence.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9f23f1dc214bb10f4e66703e18abbc3c9a6350ce0e2bc03ceb20568d1e9ae551.jpg

        • BlackMamba44
        • tolpuddle1

          No, because the picture deals with private matters.

          Whereas gay lobbying and its agenda are political matters.

        • BlackMamba44

          “Gay lobbying”

          Bwahahahahahaha!

        • tolpuddle1

          No Gay Lobby ?

          Humbug – the West is being destroyed by powerful lobbies, the LGBT and gender-fluidity ones not least.

        • BlackMamba44

          Did I say there was no gay lobby?

          It’s a stupid term. They are human beings and some of them are fighting for the right to use the bathroom in public because of goddamn assholes like you.

          So obsessed with gay sex. It’s actually a little creepy.

        • tolpuddle1

          You also.

        • BlackMamba44

          Also?

          In trying to insult me, you just admitted to being a creepy, gay sex obsessed asshole.

          Good job. :)

        • Pofarmer

          Isn’t it funny, that folks like the above are more obsessed with Gay sex than actual Gays are?

        • BlackMamba44

          I know a gay couple.

          They have never discussed sex at all in all the times we’ve hung out.

          I have a gay facebook friend. He never talks about it either. Hes on FB constantly.

          The only one who do are the homophobes.

        • tolpuddle1

          As have you, on that basis.

        • BlackMamba44

          Nope. Couldn’t care less about gay sex. I have no interest in what people do in their bedrooms (or any other rooms in the house), as long as there is consent.

          Just do it already. Give in to your desires. You know you want to. That’s why you fantasize about it so much. Leave Narnia. Give in to your secret desires.

        • BlackMamba44
        • tolpuddle1

          Nor have I any interest in what people do in their bedrooms.

          But when some of them afterwards emerge, congregate and shout about how wonderful gay sex is and how equal it is with straight sex any day of the week – then I get annoyed.

          Not because they are LGBT (which makes me feel sorry for them):

          But because they are liars motivated by arrogance and unadmitted guilt.

          Their support of gay equality & SSM places them under the biblical Curse: “Woe unto him who calls evil good”

        • BlackMamba44

          But when some of them afterwards emerge, congregate and shout about how wonderful gay sex is and how equal it is with straight sex any day of the week – then I get annoyed.

          Bwahahahahahaha!! Thats that you hear? Seriously? If that’s all you hear, then, yes, youhave an obsession.

          Dude, you are so deep in the closet.

        • John Clay

          An obsession ? – yes, with politics.

          What people do privately doesn’t interest me.

        • BlackMamba44

          Then why all the crying about gay sex? That has nothing to do with their politics. Gay people aren’t fighting to have gay sex in public; they’re not forcing straight people to have gay sex. They do it privately. They just want the same rights that you have.

          The gay sex is your obsession, not theirs.

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          You are the epitome of Haggard’s Law. You don’t have to come out of the closet all at once. I hear they have a “Bi Now, Gay Later” plan for people like you.

        • adam

          “But because they are liars motivated by arrogance and unadmitted guilt.”

          So THAT’s why YOU LIE?

        • tolpuddle1

          No, I was talking about YOU and all your noisy fellow-homosexuals.

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

          Or Haggard’s Law.

        • tolpuddle1

          Yes – yours.

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

          because they are liars motivated by arrogance and unadmitted guilt.

          And you’re doing your best to make them feel guilty. Every gay suicide must give you a little surge of pride.

          My suggestion: find a more constructive hobby.

        • tolpuddle1

          Gay suicides are caused by the real horror and real guilt of sexually-active homosexuality.

          The only remedy is for LGBT people to at least attempt a reconciliation with Jesus Christ – who is infinitely merciful to the troubled, even those who are unrepentant.

          You see, Bob, it’s people like you who are responsible for the terrible suicide-rates among LGBT people.

          You encourage them in their lies and vices, thus slaughtering them wholesale.

        • Greg G.

          The first step in fixing your problems is to admit that you have a problem. The first problem you need to work on is projecting your problems to others.

        • tolpuddle1

          Every human being has many problems.

          You have made clear both that you have; and that you project them onto others.

        • Greg G.

          Thank you for demonstrating your projection.

        • tolpuddle1

          As you have demonstrated yours, you mean ?

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

          Gay suicides are caused by the real horror and real guilt of sexually-active homosexuality.

          Why are there no suicides due to knitting? It’s because knitting is not stigmatized. You don’t tell knitters that they can’t be who they are or that they’re terrible for having the desires they do.

          But you do say that to homosexuals. Take responsibility for the consequences of your position. I hope you remember this conversation the next time you read about a homosexual driven to suicide.

          The only remedy is for LGBT people to at least attempt a reconciliation with Jesus Christ

          Your anti-gay attitude is manufactured. Neither Jesus nor the Bible support it.

          At least show me that you’re consistent. If you imagine that the Bible is anti-homosexuality (it’s not), show me that you support the Bible’s stand on slavery (the OT is quite pro-slavery).

          I assume that homosexuals are OK as long as they stay celibate? Show me that you love the sinner: be celibate yourself in solidarity. Otherwise, you (again) look hypocritical by being sexually active while demanding that they not be.

          You see, Bob, it’s people like you who are responsible for the terrible suicide-rates among LGBT people.
          You encourage them in their lies and vices, thus slaughtering them wholesale.

          Nice Pathetic try. I’m simply observing that the “vice” is like being black—that is, no vice at all. Murder causes harm, while consensual sex (of any kind) doesn’t. See the difference?

        • tolpuddle1

          Knitting isn’t self-destructive; homosexual activity (like all sexual activity outside heterosexual monogamy) is self-destructive.

          Both Testaments of the Bible oppose homosexual activity; as did Jesus, who was in most ways a traditional Jewish rabbi.

          Bible on slavery ? : “Love your neighbour as yourself” (ergo, don’t enslave him).

          As a single person, I’m commanded by the Church to be celibate.

          Likewise, all homosexual people (including those who are “married”) are.

          Not easy, of course. But it must be attempted.

          My quarrel is not with those LGBT people who try, but fail, to be celibate – but with those LGBT people who noisily insist that they have a right to be sexually-active; and with those, like yourself, who encourage them in that disastrous belief.

          Thus, when I read of a homosexual suicide, I shall remember you.

          Homosexual activity is foolish, voluntary and immoral. Being black is none of those things. You are being racist.

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

          Knitting isn’t self-destructive; homosexual activity (like all sexual activity outside heterosexual monogamy) is self-destructive.

          Yeah, except that it’s not.

          Both Testaments of the Bible oppose homosexual activity; as did Jesus, who was in most ways a traditional Jewish rabbi.

          So then you have no New Testament argument against homosexuality.

          Bible on slavery ? : “Love your neighbour as yourself” (ergo, don’t enslave him).

          Bible on slavery? “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.” That’s God speaking, by the way.

          You lose.

          As a single person, I’m commanded by the Church to be celibate.

          Publicly declare that you’d remain celibate for the rest of your life in solidarity with your homosexual brothers and sisters.

          My quarrel is not with those LGBT people who try, but fail, to be celibate – but with those LGBT people who noisily insist that they have a right to be sexually-active; and with those, like yourself, who encourage them in that disastrous belief.

          All this blather, and you’ve not shown any objective harm to homosexuality. Or does “baby Jesus cries” count?

          Homosexual activity is foolish, voluntary and immoral. Being black is none of those things. You are being racist.

          Idiot. Some people are born black, and some people are born homosexual. It’s who they are.

        • tolpuddle1

          Homosexuality harms homosexual people – that it does physically and emotionally, is proven medical fact.

          You persist in being either dim or dishonest. Why else would you confuse homosexual orientation (which is sometimes inborn, more often inflicted in upbringing) with homosexual behaviour ?

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

          Homosexuality harms homosexual people – that it does physically and emotionally, is proven medical fact.

          Yay! Yet more blanket claims without backup. I’ll dismiss them the same way.

        • Greg G.

          But if a thought pops into Puddles head, it is from God, so it has to correct. Why do you doubt?

        • epeeist
        • adam

          “Homosexuality harms homosexual people”

          Religion harms people, it is a provable medical fact.

        • adam

          “Thus, when I read of a homosexual suicide, I shall remember you.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/576b5354eb99d2993f45ae1c298d7ea1beb6be63a081a92e69a99632f9b856b3.jpg

        • adam

          “Thus, when I read of a homosexual suicide, I shall remember you.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/51d896ac1e97dd8dc947aa106dced45602107c45658b9b232c2ac6daf3b5d340.jpg

        • adam

          “Thus, when I read of a homosexual suicide, I shall remember you.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1fbd8b0b77116e25863711be48c1cc50266f926bf18ca4f8f1f398a88c2b69b1.jpg

        • adam

          “Thus, when I read of a homosexual suicide, I shall remember you.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/786aa041db474d7281572474c8a28d1d8731be60a715708aaf2f858ea4bc78c2.jpg

        • Greg G.

          My quarrel is not with those LGBT people who try, but fail, to be celibate – but with those LGBT people who noisily insist that they have a right to be sexually-active; and with those, like yourself, who encourage them in that disastrous belief.

          If two people want to have any sort of intimacy with one another, that is there business. That you give it a second thought appears to be jealousy and suggests Haggard’s Law.

          Let it go.

        • tolpuddle1

          Jealousy ? No, pity.

        • adam
        • Susan

          Knitting isn’t self-destructive.

          Not as far as we know. That is, no one’s produced evidence that it is.

          homosexual activity (like all sexual activity outside heterosexual monogamy) is self-destructive.

          Not as far as we know. That is, no one’s produced evidence that it is.

          Homosexual activity is foolish, voluntary and immoral

          Not as far as we know. That is, no one’s produced evidence that it is.

          You are being racist.

          No. You are being an asshole.

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

          😀

        • Jack Baynes

          Thus, when I read of a homosexual suicide, I shall remember you.

          homophobes like you and the hateful teachings of your Church share significantly in the blame for most suicides among homosexuals.

          It is being rejected by their families, kicked out of their homes, told they’re sinful for their love, and other harsh treatment by people who should love them, or they’re taught they should trust that often leads to suicide.

        • tolpuddle1

          But I’m not a homophobe – I oppose homosexual behaviour and homosexual militancy, not homosexuals as such. Stop your slandering !

          Rejection by families, kicked out of their homes, harsh treatment ? – all such behaviour is very un-Christian and those who treat homosexuals like that will answer to Almighty God for their cruel behaviour, which is hating the sinner, not the sin. The RC Catechism insists that homosexual people be treated with kindness and respect.

        • Jack Baynes

          So hate the sin, the people discriminating against homosexuals, rather than the victim.

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

          This is random, but we often have Christian commenters who have difficulty making sense. I came across this handy checklist by which we can conveniently say goodbye to someone incapable of a rational conversation.

          https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kCtIJI94XAc/WY9ZgdmodhI/AAAAAAAACKY/hf7ZomvYZGM7s_6wxCM4LsOze36WKx1awCLcBGAs/s1600/twitter_withdrawal.jpg

        • tolpuddle1

          The Church doesn’t tell homosexuals that they are “terrible.” In your fantasy-world, there is nothing between Fundie condemnation and liberal exoneration.

          The Church says that homosexual behaviour is sinful – like all sexual activity other than heterosexual vaginal intercourse within monogamous marriage.

          I don’t accept that the Bible is pro-slavery; neither did the (devoutly Bible Protestant) Abolitionists.

          Homosexual behaviour inflicts massive damage on homosexuals themselves – and, when accepted by society as being morally OK, on society as a whole.

        • Rudy R

          Homosexual behaviour inflicts massive damage on homosexuals themselves

          How so?

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

          The Church doesn’t tell homosexuals that they are “terrible.”

          In other words, “Be a homosexual all you want—just don’t be homosexual.” That is, be a same-sex attracted person all you want, just don’t act on it.

          Right. That’s very loving and accepting.

          The Church says that homosexual behaviour is sinful

          Sure, the church can have its head up its ass all it wants. Luckily society isn’t led by the church.

          like all sexual activity other than heterosexual vaginal intercourse within monogamous marriage.

          List all the sex acts that are “sinful” and give me the Bible verses making them so.

          I don’t accept that the Bible is pro-slavery

          This is the “La la la!” with your fingers in your ears, right? God must be so proud at how you defend him no matter how ridiculous or evil his actions are.

          neither did the (devoutly Bible Protestant) Abolitionists.

          Go back in time and ask them about slavery in the Bible. I’ll bet they’d tell it like I do.

          Homosexual behaviour inflicts massive damage on homosexuals themselves

          Citation needed, moron. But then I repeat myself, don’t I?

        • tolpuddle1

          Yes – your fingers are stuck in your ears.

          But then, you’re an Atheist; that is, constantly and wilfully blind to the fact of God’s existence.

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

          No evidence for what little you said, and you ignored most of what I said.

          But then you’re a Christian, unable and unconcerned that his pronouncements–including the ones he says are the most important of all–are based on nothing.

        • adam

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dc554b74af68425056b8a4228b7f09490a1e80f6c6bf14f85bbce2e8015a0bfb.jpg “The Church doesn’t tell homosexuals that they are “terrible.” “

        • adam

          “I don’t accept that the Bible is pro-slavery”

          It doesnt matter, Bible God does:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/86effa5e2bc761ae95f687bf44f1632c13ebd40a54b07502d779f242a887cc3e.jpg

        • adam

          “But when some of them afterwards emerge, congregate and shout about how
          wonderful gay sex is and how equal it is with straight sex any day of
          the week – then I get annoyed.”

          Why? Do you believe that gay sex is actually better than straight sex?

        • Greg G.

          I think he gets annoyed that he wasn’t invited.

        • adam

          And obviously the kind of sex he gets himself must leave much to be desired.

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

          Do you believe that gay sex is actually better than straight sex?

          Maybe Puddle is jealous.

        • adam

          “So obsessed with gay sex. It’s actually a little creepy.”

        • adam

          “West is being destroyed by powerful lobbies, the LGBT and gender-fluidity ones not least.”

          No the west is being destroyed by deliberate IGNORANCE and believers of IMAGINARY beings

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4ee57cb233d671c38fb55fe6e7f6f030457fc4070e7ae4a15a1e148e58eba246.jpg

        • tolpuddle1

          What absolute nonsense – it was the Catholic Church that BUILT the West and it was Roman Catholics alone who saved it from Muslim conquest.

          The West – now it is post-Christian – will soon be post-existent.

        • adam

          “The West – now it is post-Christian – will soon be post-existent.”

          No the west will still be The West, and you will still be desiring homosexual sex.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f891bfb4934b62927d8fa4cf8b6feef95c445c8fbd3cf44aba1256bb97d8489b.jpg

        • tolpuddle1

          Your belief that I’m homosexual, testifies only to YOUR homosexuality and homosexual lust.

          For demographic reasons, the West will soon no longer be the West; and for other reasons, still less the affluent and liberal west that we have known.

        • adam

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/14b6fd281112db827abe30fd5ae5d048cb8ac097e8a1cbde287b56626ba5cb26.gif “Your belief that I’m homosexual, testifies only to YOUR homosexuality and homosexual lust.”

          No, it testifies to YOUR POSTS.

          “still less the affluent and liberal west that we have known.”

          No, we are actually getting more liberal the more we push ignorance back to the backwaters.

        • tolpuddle1

          More liberal – with more and more Muslims (and traditional Christians) settling in the West ?

          In your dreams !

        • adam
        • tolpuddle1

          You’re on the wrong side of history. And in any case, it’s only religious people who reproduce > replacement rate.

        • adam

          ” it was the Catholic Church that BUILT the West”

          And made it pedophillia as well, then.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/870086376a3039ed8ff43904fc455354e88f434aa1a491d68683492f7a9e351e.jpg

        • tolpuddle1

          Well no – the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity by the Church stopped most of the paedophilia that was rife in that Empire.

          Boniface VIII is accused by Dante of selling Church offices.

          The quote you give is of course mere rumour.

        • adam

          “Well no – the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity by the
          Church stopped most of the paedophilia that was rife in that Empire.”

          Nope, and you have no evidence other than your gay baiting.

          “Boniface VIII is accused by Dante of selling Church offices.”

          Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that,
          in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from
          the possibility of error “when, in the exercise of
          his office as
          shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme
          apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to
          be held by the whole Church.”[1][2]

          So THIS IS the Church

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/caa3de188660881f5c11426e7541c2e3f333e8711ca2a8dacf707b99b85bdaa2.jpg

        • Greg G.

          Then everything you believe about the history of Catholicism “is of course mere rumour”.

        • tolpuddle1

          Not if it’s generally accepted by historians.

        • BlackMamba44
        • tolpuddle1

          Its homosexual activists and propagandists – not homosexuals for whom it’s a private matter – whom I oppose.

        • BlackMamba44

          I see. It’s only the ones fighting for the same rights that you have. Got it.

          So, the average, minding his own business, LGBTQ john/jane doe can walk with his same sex partner down the street holding hands, share a kiss, and that’s ok with you. It’s a private matter for them. They’re not asking anybody to join them.

        • tolpuddle1

          There is no such thing as SSM – it’s merely a legal fiction.

          Which I oppose.

        • adam

          “There is no such thing as SSM – it’s merely a legal fiction.”

          but there is, marriage is merely a civil contract that you want religiously artificially limited to people you dont like.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/151925a51e6a55d5bd1418d3a12f8fa99b39d9a82fb1f8468f8e6fcd942470f3.jpg

        • BlackMamba44

          Great non-response. Are you replying to the wrong comment?

        • MadScientist1023

          So you don’t oppose the people who get a gay marriage, but you oppose the ones who want gay marriage to be legal.
          You don’t oppose gay kids who get bullied in school, but you oppose the people who have a problem with the bullying being tolerated in the first place.
          You don’t oppose gays who want to buy cakes, dresses, flowers, etc, but you oppose gays who want to be able to shop like any other couple, without getting doors slammed in their faces.
          You don’t oppose gay couples raising kids, you just oppose kids seeing gay couples raising kids in any form of media or entertainment.
          You don’t oppose gays in the work environment, but you oppose gays who have a problem with letting anyone fire them for letting people in the work environment know they’re gay.
          You don’t oppose gays yourself, but you oppose gays having any kind of legal defenses against the people who do oppose gays. Does that about cover it?

        • tolpuddle1

          1. I detest all bullying. I want it all to stop – the homophobic type included. How does SSM stop it ?
          2. I dislike the idea of LGBT people raising kids
          3. I dislike unfair dismissal of employees, including if it is for disclosing they’re gay

          SSM isn’t a defence against anything. Certainly not homophobia.

        • adam

          “2. I dislike the idea of LGBT people raising kids”

          Then dont have kids.

        • tolpuddle1

          But I’m not LGBT, you idiot.

        • adam

          Deny it all you want.

          Me thinks thou doth proteth too much…

        • MadScientist1023

          You said you oppose LGBT activists and propagandists. The things I mentioned are things that gay rights activists do. They fight against things like bullying and for things like workplace protections. You said you oppose them and all they do. I’m trying to get you to think about what all they do and what kind of things you’re opposing.

        • tolpuddle1

          The gay activists infest the public square, blowing whistles and waving flags, and demanding that everyone and all legislation should obey them and accept all their ideas.

        • MadScientist1023

          The same could easily be said of Christian activists.

        • Greg G.

          Their ideas are for equality. You have to hate to oppose that.

        • BlackMamba44

          The gay Christian activists infest the public square, blowing whistles and waving flags, and demanding that everyone and all legislation should obey them and accept all their ideas.

          FTFY

          Edits

        • Jack Baynes

          I dislike the idea of tolpuddle1 raising kids. I don’t want him spreading his hate to growing minds.

        • tolpuddle1

          I dislike the idea of non-religious people raising kids; spreading their evil opinions to growing minds.

          And even worse, leading those kids to believe that there is no such place as Hell – making it much likelier that those kids will, after their adulthood and death, end up in that tragic place.

        • Jack Baynes

          Your God would send people to hell just because they never learned they were supposed to believe in him?
          What a monster you worship! What a monster you are for worshiping that monster.

        • tolpuddle1

          You’re carefully missing the point:

          1) God doesn’t send anyone to Hell – unrepentantly evil people gravitate there

          2) Human beings are more likely to be unrepentantly evil if they imagine that Hell doesn’t exist, that there are no consequences after Death for how one has lived one’s life.

        • Jack Baynes

          If God doesn’t sent anyone to Hell why does anyone go there?

        • tolpuddle1

          For the wickedness.

          Stupid ? – yes; like destroying oneself by drugs, drink, over-eating, worry, dangerous driving and all the other umpteen ways in which most people destroy themselves.

        • Greg G.

          I don’t do any of those things. But I seem to be destroying myself by aging. What religion can I join to stop that?

        • Jack Baynes

          If people willingly go there it just be a nice place

        • tolpuddle1

          No – it’s horrible; but their craving for evil overcomes their common sense.

        • Jack Baynes

          And then if they’re not happy there, they leave.

        • tolpuddle1

          They could – if they were prepared to turn over a new leaf or admit their mistakes or ask for God’s Mercy or simply shout “Help !”.

          But are, and will be forever, too (totally) evil, too stubborn and too arrogant to do any of those things.

        • Jack Baynes

          Sounds like you’re just trying to rationalize your god’ s evil

        • tolpuddle1

          Sounds like you’re pretending human beings can’t be.

        • Jack Baynes

          No, you made up this ridiculous idea that people would willingly go to hell and stay there even though it’s horrible, because the alternative is saying that God sends people there.

        • tolpuddle1

          No, the souls of the unrepentantly wicked “descend into Hell” – are drawn down by the weight of the evil in them.

          “God wills that everyone be saved” (1 Timothy)

          Ridiculous to stay in Hell ? – yes, human beings are ridiculous.

        • Jack Baynes

          If God wills that everyone be saved, then everyone is saved.

        • tolpuddle1

          Unless they refuse to be.

          Human free will overcoming God’s wishes.

          Omnipotence ? – but God has CHOSEN to respect our liberty.

        • Jack Baynes

          You’ve changed your story, before you said the unrepentant willingly go there. Now they’re pulled down there.

          Who made the universe in such a way that people cannot escape hell? We’re back to God sending people to hell.

        • Greg G.

          I have no craving for evil, let alone a craving that overcomes my common sense. Are you accusing me of something?

        • tolpuddle1

          Our cravings often ARE evil – our lusts for pleasure, power, money, status, fame are evil (in addition to being addictive and enslaving) and lead many people to becoming evil permanently.

          Apart from Jesus Christ and His Mother, there has never been a human being who did NOT crave evil in one or more of these forms.

        • Jack Baynes

          His Mother? Did God violate Mary’s Free Will to prevent her from ever craving evil?

        • adam

          “Did God violate Mary’s Free Will to prevent her from ever craving evil?”

          Must have happened right after God grabbed her by the pussy.
          (you know, they let you do that when you are famous like God)

        • adam

          “Apart from Jesus Christ ”

          Jesus got over his cravings for evil, by creating EVIL in the first place…
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9fef3e09d4fced201880c6048e47897bc3461d04f1c5de54936408c4560c105b.jpg

        • tolpuddle1

          Evil in 45:7 = practical disaster, not spiritual evil.

          Lucifer (now fallen and called satan) and his rebel angels created evil.

        • adam

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/398eee168a95a1c3714d1513e1274d5c0eb7136e6f5206bb94180f68ef55410d.jpg “Evil in 45:7 = practical disaster, not spiritual evil.”

          Same thing – doing harm

          “Lucifer (now fallen and called satan) and his rebel angels created evil.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/05cafdf4e54d70a9410dfd45f846304eb9891592e53b7561d59d1be03b899362.jpg

        • Greg G.

          Taking pleasure is not evil as long as you don’t harm others. That is your stupid religion talking. I work for my money. Even churches want money. I don’t care for power (except for electricity for my computer, refrigerator, AC, and things like that), fame, or status.

          Apart from Jesus Christ and His Mother, there has never been a human being who did NOT crave evil in one or more of these forms.

          Your religion has really done a number on you. You should have seen through it when you were young and ran away as fast as you could.

        • tolpuddle1

          I did – partly because it was taught harshly, partly because I lived in a very secular town (London), partly because I was young and selfish.

          On becoming older and wiser – and realising how sad the world is – I returned to the Church.

        • adam

          “Our cravings often ARE evil – our lusts for……..money,”

          And the richest organization who has craved the most money?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/49ee4ba4ad5022f9e462b55374323dfe6e70e21b0365a5c0edf83e35b9d58955.jpg

        • tolpuddle1

          Formerly it was the United States of America – now it’s the Chinese Communist Party or the Saudi Kingdom.

        • adam
        • Jack Baynes

          The Catholic hierarchy is nobly taking the burden of wealth on their own shoulders, selflessly damning themselves as rich men so that the poor people can make it to heaven

        • BlackMamba44
        • adam

          “No – it’s horrible; but their craving for evil overcomes their common sense.”

          So THAT is your fundamental problem.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f488e0c02baa291ceffcdb8e4f96261951bf94043a0dbb44de063d7e59a97715.jpg Just like I suspected:

        • tolpuddle1

          Where did I say that all – or most – of the souls in Hell had been LGBT when on earth ?

          A tendency towards evil is inherent in all human beings – and (to judge by your comments) in you more than most.

        • adam

          “A tendency towards evil is inherent in all human beings – and (to judge by your comments) in you more than most.”

          Something about judging others from the bible and your hypocrisy.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dce00e1b0c43782bfbcf1ba8e1da4341b9da950f351d709a11c00a4c1f7e54d8.jpg

          No, the tendency towards evil is inherent in people like you, who false believe that mythology is truth.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c8d01ed1b9f53173e882c769fa69e63c3584d87fd6bca730bcd98beca9e5c76c.jpg

        • tolpuddle1

          I was judging your comments, as I made clear.

          You believe that your anti-Christian, Atheistic mythology is truth. And that IS dishonest, evil.

        • adam

          “. And that IS dishonest, evil.”

          No it is honest and good.

          You’ve become a cruel person from worshiping a cruel God, THAT is EVIL.

        • adam
        • tolpuddle1

          Or destroying others by recommending that they practise sexual deviations (e.g. LGBT) that are disastrous to body, mind and soul.

        • adam

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/be20eada2b37de3b894e21e212219efb332ad17f65d067662b58455f5a644fd6.gif But like with your imaginary ‘God’, you’ve failed to demonstrate what you CLAIM is actually true.

          You know just like The Church:

        • TheNuszAbides

          You’re carefully missing the point:

          even if that were true, it would be better than your carelessly missing dozens on this page.

        • Greg G.

          1) God doesn’t send anyone to Hell – unrepentantly evil people gravitate there

          2) Human beings are more likely to be unrepentantly evil if they imagine that Hell doesn’t exist, that there are no consequences after Death for how one has lived one’s life.

          God attracts fear.

        • tolpuddle1

          No – Hell does. Those there are damned because they hate God – God loves them

        • Jack Baynes

          So anyone who doesn’t know your god, and thus can’t hate him are safe, and the missionaries spreading knowledge of God are evil for exposing people to the possibility of hell

        • tolpuddle1

          No, God is real; and present in (and to) every human heart, even that of the sincerely-convinced Atheist.

          Thus even the person who has never heard of Jesus Christ (or who died in BC times) has to take a final and eternal decision – to be His friend or His enemy, to love Him or to hate Him.

          Because that decision is taken at a much deeper level that that of reason and intellect. It is a decision, not of the mind, but of the soul.

        • Jack Baynes

          No, God is real; and present in (and to) every human heart, even that of the sincerely-convinced Atheist.

          Just because Paul said it, doesn’t make it true. And this is demonstrably false.
          Otherwise, Judaism would have been worldwide.

          Thus even the person who has never heard of Jesus Christ (or who died in BC times) has to take a final and eternal decision – to be His friend or His enemy, to love Him or to hate Him.

          Fine, don’t have anything to worry about for now, then.

        • adam

          “God is real”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c4e3bbea2d1e4d81dbd3798980be2ee8b39f893fee5d1d2b81b76b5e7ba184e1.jpg

          “and present in (and to) every human heart, even that of the sincerely-convinced Atheist.”

          Nope

          “Because that decision is taken at a much deeper level that that of reason and intellect. ”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b4daa8eb8f6cdde7dc6cef1fd33a8d0acc554ea42510fdbeea6ee4c3b3b5a9c2.jpg

        • Susan

          even worse, leading those kids to believe that there is no such place as Hell

          What a dreadful thing it is to not teach children that an imaginary place of eternal torment exists.

        • tolpuddle1

          Dreadful, because Hell isn’t imaginary but real.

          We are partly-supernatural beings; we have a choice between good and evil, are responsible for our actions (animals aren’t), can choose between being holy and being evil.

          War between good and evil rages in the soul of every grown person. In God’s mercy, this tormenting war isn’t everlasting, but ends with a person’s death: either in Victory (holiness and Heaven) or Defeat (wickedness and Hell).

          Cause & effect.

        • Susan

          Hell isn’t imaginary but real.

          That’s just you spouting more RCC crap without supporting it. You haven’t provided a single reason to believe it.

          Nor has anyone else.

          The rest of your post is more of the same.

          Adults should know better than to terrorize children with imaginary horrors. There are enough real horrors in the world.

          .

        • epeeist

          Adults should know better than to terrorize children with imaginary horrors.

          As the NSPCC notes deliberately trying to scare a child counts as emotional abuse. However doing so as an element of religious indoctrination gives you a free pass.

          I was brought up Catholic but my mother’s family was culturally Church of England. The priest at the church I went to assured me they were going to hell because they weren’t Catholic. I leave it to your imagination what effect this had on a small boy.

        • tolpuddle1

          Thankfully, there are now very few Catholic priests who believe or preach that, or similar.

          If a priest mentions Hell, he must at the same time mention God’s infinite Mercy – as Pope Francis has said.

        • Greg G.

          You claim that other Christers aren’t True Christians. Do you think they are going to hell? If God has “infinite Mercy” then nobody has anything to worry about. If you claim that God is just, then he cannot show mercy. If he has “infinite Mercy”, then he is not just.

        • tolpuddle1

          Just ? Yes ,because Jesus Christ squared the circle – reconciled Mercy with Justice – by dying on the Cross, paying the penalty demanded by Justice in our stead.

          That was the object of the exercise.

          Those who refuse God’s Mercy won’t receive it. God won’t force Mercy on those who don’t want it.

        • tolpuddle1

          Hell isn’t imaginary, though, except in the mistaken opinion of yourself and others of like mind.

        • Greg G.

          Do you have evidence that supports that hell is not imaginary or excuses for why you can’t produce such evidence?

        • Pofarmer
        • Jack Baynes

          But it’s ok, you also teach them that they can do whatever they want and not go to hell because Jesus. It’s just their Jewish, Muslim and atheist friends who will go to hell no matter how good they are.

        • Susan

          you also teach them that they can do whatever they want and not go to hell because Jesus. It’s just their Jewish, Muslim and atheist friends who will go to hell no matter how good they are.

          There are catholics who argue that that’s not what their church teaches but I remember priests and teachers who taught me that that’s what their church teaches.

          Apparently, they were “badly catechized” catholics.

        • Michael Neville

          My 8th grade religion teacher, Br. Louis Meinhardt SM, believed in Hell and that everyone, no matter how good they were, deserved to go there.

        • tolpuddle1

          All adult people DESERVE to go to Hell, in God’s strict Justice.

          But God is infinitely Merciful and “Mercy triumphs over Judgement” when a sinner repents.

        • Michael Neville

          How do you know that? What’s your evidence? Why are you right and Brother Louis was wrong?

        • tolpuddle1

          The Cathechism of the Church is avaialable in all good bookshops.

        • Michael Neville

          You are really good at not answering questions. I ask again, why are you right and Brother Louis was wrong?

        • tolpuddle1

          Oh, gosh, you’re slow !

          Because the RCC Catechism agrees with what I’ve said, not what Bro Louis said.

        • Michael Neville

          Why should I believe you about what the catechism says? You’ve already made outrageous and even stupidly false assertions. So how do I know that you’re not pulling shit out of your ass again?

        • adam

          “Because the RCC Catechism agrees with what I’ve said, not what Bro Louis said.”

          Does it cover ‘child fucking’?
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cfca0255af85259ee0f857563d91ecfc6cb97d776b9e3d512d8ae7e84f4ac9a6.jpg

        • tolpuddle1

          Yes – condemning it as gravely sinful.

        • adam
        • adam

          “The Cathechism of the Church is avaialable in all good bookshops.”

          Does it cover ‘child fucking’?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7ead1dfb33fc5a434455e6d5ffd090caa7b6e7d822229360729a7a9750b56e83.png

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

          Why not the children and babies?

          Why indeed? God had no problem murdering millions during the Flood.

        • adam
        • tolpuddle1

          Indeed. Read the RCC Cathechism.

          Catholic doctrine has wrong recognised that many non-Catholics are in a state of “invincible ignorance” concerning Catholic Christianity – thus, if of good character, will be Saved despite rejecting it; since they haven’t rejected Jesus Christ except unwittingly.

        • Jack Baynes

          So sounds like the best thing the Christian churches can do is go away. Since God can forgive us as long as we don’t knowingly reject Christ, it only does harm to spread the knowledge of Christ

        • tolpuddle1

          I didn’t say MOST non-Catholics would be saved; only that many (though a minority) would be.

        • Jack Baynes

          So you’d rather all non-Catholics go to hell for not believing your story?

        • Greg G.

          1. I detest all bullying. I want it all to stop – the homophobic type included.

          Then stop doing it and stop supporting those who do.

          How does SSM stop it ?

          Anit-SSM is bullying.

        • tolpuddle1

          Anti-SSM isn’t bullying.

          Oh, I forgot – anyone who DARES disagree with you is a “bully.”

          LOL

        • Michael Neville

          Gays want to be treated like everyone else, with the same rights and privileges as everyone else. You don’t want them to have rights, which is why we can say you’re a homophobic bully.

        • Greg G.

          When you are trying to fuck with people’s lives and happiness, it is bullying.

          I am accustomed to being disagreed with. I don’t consider it being bullied. Most people can articulate their reasons for disagreeing. You seem to be having an argument within yourself and making everybody else listen.

        • BlackMamba44

          1. I detest all bullying. I want it all to stop – the homophobic type included.

          Yes – I’d be likely to hit them, cudgel them or rant at them.

          Fucking hypocrite.

          But then you are still in the closet, so unhappy, not able to live out your gay agenda. No wonder you’re jealous of the ones who have the courage to come out.

        • adam

          “Its homosexual activists and propagandists ”

          So you are afraid you wont be able to control yourself around men you KNOW are gay?

        • tolpuddle1

          Yes – I’d be likely to hit them, cudgel them or rant at them. I detest gays who propagandise.

        • Michael Neville

          But you have no problem with your own propagandizing. How typically hypocritically Catholic of you.

        • tolpuddle1

          Gay propaganda is Evil.

          Catholic propaganda is Good.

          See the difference ?

        • Michael Neville

          So what’s your evidence for the evilness of gay propaganda and the supposed goodness of the propaganda of an immoral, anti-humanist, misogynist, homophobic cult? Be specific.

        • Jack Baynes

          Gay “propaganda” makes Christian “love” look bad by comparison.

        • Greg G.

          Catholic propaganda in Africa that condoms cause AIDS has made the epidemic much worse.

        • Greg G.

          Why don’t you love them and turn the other cheek like the Bible says?

        • tolpuddle1

          I do love them – which is why I pray for their salvation and restrain myself from violence against them.

          I didn’t say I hated them – which would indeed be un-Christian. I said I detested them; that is, intensely dislike them – which is perfectly consistent with Christianity.

          Christians detested Nazis and Communists – was that un-Christian ?; no, a Christian duty.

          Similarly with activist or militant homosexuals (& the free love & gender-fluidity crowds) – spiritually, they are a graver threat.

        • Greg G.

          Detest = Love

          Catholic brain damage.

        • adam

          ” I detest gays who propagandise.”

          You mean speak the truth?

          What’s to propagadise more than your zenophobic idiocy?

        • John Clay

          That’s the last thing they do.

        • tolpuddle1

          Speak the truth ? – that’s the very last thing they do.

        • adam
        • adam
        • tolpuddle1

          That is the Accepted Wisdom among homosexuals and their liberal co-agents.

          It’s called projection.

        • adam

          I see your projection.

          It is obvious to every one here that you are afraid you cant control your desires around homosexuals.

        • Jack Baynes

          As long as homosexuals know their place as second class citizens, you have no problem with homosexuals…

        • tolpuddle1

          They aren’t second class – but yes, their sexual behaviour is; and they must accept that; it is, after all, the truth.

        • Michael Neville

          So what’s your evidence that “it is, after all, the truth”? Your fear and hatred of GLBTs is not evidence of anything except your fear and hatred of GLBTs. Similarly your cult’s hatred of GLBTs is merely evidence of their hatred of GLBTs, which is a facet of Catholicism’s general anti-humanism.

        • tolpuddle1

          Catholicism is the only true protector of humanity – the austerity of some of its doctrines are proof of that: nothing is crueller than telling people “Do what you like, whatever you want to do..”

          The Church doesn’t hate homosexuals – it warns them of the spiritual damage that flows, quite inevitably, from homosexual behaviour.

          It does hate, as I do, the Gay Equality agenda.

          And fears that ghastly agenda’s disastrous effect on society and, still more, individual souls.

        • Michael Neville

          Catholicism is the only true protector of humanity

          Yet another unevidenced assertion. Got any evidence for this boastful bullshit besides your personal opinion and indoctrination? Remember that you’re trying to convince a bunch of non-Catholics that your bluster has the merest hint of being somewhere near a possibility of maybe being in the vicinity of almost being slightly true?

          The Church doesn’t hate homosexuals

          His ex-Holiness, Benny Ratzi, declared GLBTs to be untermenschen (a word that he’s familiar with). Pope Frankie did the same thing with transsexuals. If that isn’t hatred then you don’t have a clue as to what is. But then you’re pretty clueless.

          It does hate, as I do, the Gay Equality agenda.

          So you agree with Pope Palpatine’s declaration of homosexuals as untermenschen. You’re a true Catholic lickspittle.

        • John Clay

          Catholicism is the only valid Christianity, Christianity is (directly or indirectly) the sole source of human progress and well-being.

          Stop misquoting and misrepresenting what Benedict and Francis have said about homosexuals.

        • tolpuddle1

          (the above is a post by tolpuddle 1)

        • Michael Neville

          So what’s your evidence that Catholicism is the only valid Christianity? Millions of other Christians would disagree with that claim. Why are you right and they’re wrong?

          Too bad that Benny Ratzi made his opinion on homosexuality quite plain:

          Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity

          Pope Frankie was not shy about giving his opinions on transsexuals:

          Today, in schools they are teaching this to children — to children! — that everyone can choose their gender…This is terrible.

          The difference between Pope Palpatine and Pope Frankie is summed up in Peter Townsend’s “Won’t Be Fooled Again”: “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” Frankie is more charismatic than Benny (not a hard achievement to fulfill) but is just as conservative, just as reactionary, just as anti-human as his predecessor.

          The Catholic Church has always been anti-humanist, misogynist and homophobic. Doesn’t that make you proud to be a Catholic?

        • BlackMamba44

          Bwahahahahahaha!

        • Pofarmer

          It’s glorious to behold in a stark, raving, mad kind of way.

        • BlackMamba44

          It’s the only response I can come up with.

          I just don’t speak raving religious lunatic.

        • Pofarmer

          Whereas gay lobbying and its agenda are political matters

          Isn’t it rather odd to see a religious nut complain about political lobbying? Holy cow.

        • Michael Neville

          Catholicism is the only true protector of humanity

          Except for children, women, GLBTs and anyone else the Vatican decides they don’t care about.

          the austerity of some of its doctrines are proof of that

          Those doctrines are authoritarian and anti-humanistic. “Do as we say or else the boogeyman in the sky will punish you forever.”

          The Church doesn’t hate homosexuals

          Reality says otherwise. Gays are excluded from the priesthood because the Vatican conflates homosexuality with pedophilia. The two are different but the church doesn’t acknowledge it.

          it warns them of the spiritual damage that flows, quite inevitably, from homosexual behaviour.

          Spiritual damage is such a nebulous phrase. It means “we can’t show any physical or mental damage caused by something we don’t like so we’ll toss out spiritual damage because nobody can see it, nobody can measure it, but nobody can say that it isn’t real.”

          The only evidence that homosexual behavior is “spiritually damaging” is the say-so of a bunch of homophobes.

          It does hate, as I do, the Gay Equality agenda.

          You and the Vatican both hate the idea of treating gays as normal people with the same rights as everyone else. This shows that both you and the Vatican are anti-humanistic.

          And fears that ghastly agenda’s disastrous effect on society and, still more, individual souls.

          Society treating people as being equal is ghastly to someone who prefers to hate others for being “other”.

        • Jack Baynes

          What disastrous effect? People might see that homosexual relationships are perfectly normal, and wonder what else the church lied to them about?

        • tolpuddle1

          But they aren’t normal and never will be.

        • adam

          “But they aren’t normal and never will be.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/151925a51e6a55d5bd1418d3a12f8fa99b39d9a82fb1f8468f8e6fcd942470f3.jpg

          If the Church is your measure of what is normal, I say GREAT for homosexuals not being normal.

        • adam

          “Whereas gay lobbying and its agenda are political matters.”

          Exactly like church lobbying and its agenda are political matters.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/49ee4ba4ad5022f9e462b55374323dfe6e70e21b0365a5c0edf83e35b9d58955.jpg

        • Michael Neville

          So what is immoral about LGBTs demanding to be treated like people? Be specific.

        • tolpuddle1

          As people, in the West they HAVE equality; they are, thankfully, no longer treated as criminals.

          But Marriage isn’t a universal human right like life, liberty & the search for happiness.

          “But SSX marriage is a search for happiness” – yes, but in the wrong direction, since homosexual acts are always damaging to the couple involved, not least physically.

        • Michael Neville

          But Marriage isn’t a universal human right

          Fortunately the Supreme Court decided otherwise.

          homosexual acts are always damaging to the couple involved, not least physically.

          What’s your evidence for this bit of outright homophobia?

        • Susan

          What’s your evidence for this bit of outright homophobia?

          What”s the evidence for any of @tol@tolpuddle1:disqus ‘s statements?

          So many claims and not a speck of evidence.

        • tolpuddle1

          I’m not the British Library or Library of Congress.

          If you disagree with me, cite YOUR evidence for doing so.

        • Michael Neville

          If you make a claim and, when asked for evidence, fail to support it then we will disregard that claim. It is not our job to disprove your claims, it’s your job to justify them. As I said before, you aren’t good at debating.

        • tolpuddle1

          So what ? There is a world outside America – most people in the world don’t accept the authority of the Supreme Court (i.e. the current crop of politicised legal B___’s on its Bench).

          Homosexual intercourse is physically damaging (oral and anal sex always are). Homosexual relationships (male especially) are very unstable.

        • adam

          “Homosexual intercourse is physically damaging (oral and anal sex always are). ”

          As are sugar and fat intake, pollution, senseless wars and Crusades, and too much water.

          What’s your real point?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f891bfb4934b62927d8fa4cf8b6feef95c445c8fbd3cf44aba1256bb97d8489b.jpg

        • BlackMamba44

          What’s your evidence for this bit of outright homophobia?

          Personal experience?

        • adam

          “But Marriage isn’t a universal human right like life, liberty & the search for happiness.”

          BTW, life, liberty and the search for happiness are not universal rights either, think the Catholic church supporting AIDs in Africa by lying about condoms.

        • tolpuddle1

          Condoms:

          1) Encourage reckless sexual behaviour – and thus AIDS.

          2) Encourage fornication among the unmarried – fornication often leads people to Hell, which isn’t a happy place.

        • adam

          Condoms are latex, rubber or sheep intestines, they dont encourage anything.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/86d67dd43db49661e9f035cd95c56a836e9553556662d3b95e5bbce3dfe333a1.jpg

        • tolpuddle1

          The use of them does.

          Magic comes from Hell, Miracles from Heaven.

          Think there’s no difference ?

        • adam

          “The use of them does.”

          No it doesnt, condoms have no input on the matter.
          The whole idea that YOU believethat you do, demonstrates your delusional thinking.

          Magic comes from Hell, Miracles from Heaven.

          Think there’s no difference ?”

          Both are IMAGINARY, there is no difference, otherwise you could demonstrate such.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/66a160199586083737e3545d423dd5a367cb4d7ececffba31ddd17f6c8b255cb.jpg

        • tolpuddle1

          Imaginary ? Only in your imagination.

        • Jack Baynes

          They both do exactly the same thing. Nothing

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          Showing me that atheism is in no better equipped to judge objective morality than any of these groups.

          Why do you think there is objective morality? If there is objective morality, how are we to gain knowledge of it? What if being social and civilized is objectively immoral? What if we find that it is objectively moral to murder and objectively immoral to not murder? I do not want to be murdered and I commit all the murders I want, which is none. So I would prefer my subjective morality over an objective morality if that was the case.

        • Pofarmer

          Showing me that atheism is in no better equipped to judge objective morality than any of these groups.

          Yeah, probably because there’s no such thing.

        • Fred Knight

          so, you hold there is no such thing as objective reality?…I’d be interested to see how far you take that concept….shaky ground indeed.

        • Pofarmer

          Morality. And no, I don’t think it’s ever been demonstrated. Objective morality, that is. Daniel Finke of Camels with Hammers thinks it’s a thing. But his definition doesn’t meet the theistic definition, imho.

        • Fred Knight

          “Morality. And no, I don’t think it’s ever been demonstrated.”
          so objective reality is within our grasp, but objective morality has never been demonstrated.

          Sorry, but that sounds like a load of crap to me. Hide behind apologetic terms, but if atheism is strong, it can demonstrate both…if Christianity is strong, it can demonstrate both…..let’s not be coy on this subject…..otherwise take a back seat and admit no one really knows for sure and stop the bashing.

        • Pofarmer

          so objective reality is within our grasp, but objective morality has never been demonstrated.

          I don’t think I ever claimed the former, and don’t know what it has to do with the later.

          Atheism actually has nothing to do with either.

        • adam

          “but objective morality has never been demonstrated.”

          YEAH, you finally got one right!!!!!

          Congratulations.

        • adam

          “gay/trans activists for starters…who are literal darlings in today’s media”

          I dont care, because I’m not gay, and it wont make me gay.

          I do have gay family members, as you most certainly do as well.

          So what are YOU afraid of?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f488e0c02baa291ceffcdb8e4f96261951bf94043a0dbb44de063d7e59a97715.jpg

        • Fred Knight

          “I dont care, because I’m not gay, and it wont make me gay.”
          so, if it turns out that there are negative consequences for MANY gay people and according to their own confession it has deep rooted problems that are not easy to live with – would you also advocate for those gay folks? (this is just like pro-choice movement, so concerned about women’s rights – they somehow ignore all the conservative women in their agenda)

          “I do have gay family members, as you most certainly do as well.”
          of course, you are preaching to the choir on that one.

          “So what are YOU afraid of?”
          Laugh out loud funny, do you not get how anti-gay that assumption is? To call on me to question my own sexuality as being the root of my motivation, as if that would provide any more merit to my argument (in either direction)

        • adam

          “To call on me to question my own sexuality as being the root of my
          motivation, as if that would provide any more merit to my argument (in
          either direction)”

          Yep, FEAR

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f488e0c02baa291ceffcdb8e4f96261951bf94043a0dbb44de063d7e59a97715.jpg

        • Fred Knight

          Super Looow Hanging fruit, makes me stoop to your level, how old are you? This is some pretty adolescent bs.

        • adam

          “Super Looow Hanging fruit, makes me stoop to your level,”

          No, I stooped to your level for this.

          “how old are you? ”
          Social security age.

          “This is some pretty adolescent bs.”

          Too close to the truth for you, I see…

        • Fred Knight

          Adam,

          “No, I stooped to your level for this.”

          ok, I’m going through the posts one by one….if you still feel this way after today, let me know….

          “Social security age.”:
          that does surprise me a bit as I perceived you as a younger man….I’m not trying to get in a dig, just to say that perhaps in the heat of internet debate we can form opinions that are less than accurate. not looking for a fight brother, truly I’m not (at least unnecessarily) I’m hoping we can make some headway, are you open to that?

        • adam

          “if you still feel this way after today, let me know….”

          I do

          “just to say that perhaps in the heat of internet debate we can form opinions that are less than accurate.”

          You can clear that up by defending facts that contradict that.

          “‘m hoping we can make some headway, are you open to that?”

          Give it your best shot!

    • eric

      Freedom of expression is a moral boon for society. Equal rights are a moral boon for society. Fair rules for all citizens protects us from civil unrest and generally make people happy (though not all people).

      And whether one agrees with the state on this or not, most states through their tax and other policies have long expressed the opinion that people getting married is a social good. It probably does that for selfish reasons – the state wants people to settle down into stable lives, maintaining a job, improving the land, building things, etc. But venal reasons or not, that’s what many state policies imply. So yes, gay marriage in that case would be a social good in the exact same “state self-interest” way straight marriage is a social good, in that it encourages gays to (like straights) settle down and become happy little producers for the state.

      • tolpuddle1

        But at the cost of re-defining marriage in a radical way, thus undermining it and thus human society.

        • Jack Baynes

          How does allowing same sex marriage undermine marriage or human society?

          I can tell you, that seeing homosexual couples having to fight for their right to marry has made me value my own marriage more, realize that I shouldn’t take the right to marry for granted.

          If two people of the same sex getting married makes you value your marriage less, that’s very sad, but it’s YOUR problem. One you’ve made for yourself and will have to learn to deal with.

          I wish you and your spouse (if you have one) the best and hope you get through this.

        • tolpuddle1

          I wasn’t referring to any particular marriage – but to marriage as such.

          Which is weakened and made absurd by SSX “marriage.”

          BTW, Marriage is a sacrament of fruitfulness (not merely a lifelong commitment) – whilst a homosexual relationship is inevitably sterile.

        • Jack Baynes

          How is marriage weakened by same sex marriage?

          Sterile heterosexual couples are not prevented from marrying, why would sterility prevent homosexuals from marrying?

        • tolpuddle1

          Heterosexuals don’t enter into a wilfully sterile relationships (except in rare cases of wilful childlessness) which the Church condemns).

          Homosexuals entering a relationship are entering into a wilfully sterile, fruitless, relationship.

        • Jack Baynes

          How does sterility, voluntary or involuntary, weaken marriage? Remember you’re claiming that it doesn’t just weaken the marriage of the sterile couple, it weakens marriage itself.
          How?

          Marriage is about more than just children.

        • tolpuddle1

          But it isn’t about No-children.

        • adam

          “But it isn’t about No-children.”

          It is ONLY about a civil contract.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/02196a7c2d98acba7f1052d39836fc4d3ec454989a084962c43b055e30336fe9.jpg

        • Jack Baynes

          Right, nobody is saying married couples shouldn’t have children. Whether they have them or not, their marriages are valuable.

        • tolpuddle1

          Not if they’re wilfully sterile.

        • Jack Baynes

          No. As you’ve pointed out, I am willfully sterile and my marriage is still valuable.

        • adam

          “Not if they’re wilfully sterile.”

          So the only value marriage has is to provide a child pool for The Church to molest, makes sense.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e837665e20b0f559722113ef2ddaa0c4b5cb92de117ddba6e3d9af6d7f6c282a.jpg

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cb8bacc3a48ee1276d73b5f2cef9beda8c65426fe4638f944175aa8abc66c042.jpg
          Except that almost all the abuse is wilfully sterile.

        • Greg G.

          But it isn’t about No-children.

          That’s classic Catholic brain damage.

        • adam

          “(except in rare cases of wilful childlessness) ”

          So is THAT punishment death?

        • tolpuddle1

          Church law doesn’t anywhere prescribe the death penalty.

        • Jack Baynes

          We ARE glad that the Church threw out God’s law

        • tolpuddle1

          It didn’t – the legal penalties are from Moses; which is why not even Orthodox Jews now prescribe them.

        • adam
        • adam

          But it’s “God” certainly does.

          How dishonest of your to deflect.

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

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

          I hear you, brother. If they’d only be honest to the Bible, amirite?

          What good is a crime without a punishment? And luckily the Old Testament has loads of punishments (pretty much all the same–death).

        • Jack Baynes

          Christians replaced it with one punishment for everything, hell.

        • Greg G.

          Death, then hell.

        • tolpuddle1

          It’s the NT I’m interested in.

          Debate these points with an Orthodox rabbi.

          Your attempt to water-down Leviticus was an obvious attack on traditional Christianity as well as Judaism.

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

          It’s the NT I’m interested in.

          Oh? Then tell us where the anti-gay stuff is in the New Testament.

          Your attempt to water-down Leviticus was an obvious attack on traditional Christianity as well as Judaism.

          I make a point, and I provide evidence. In response, you whine and provide nothing.

          The lurkers are watching. And laughing at you.

        • Jack Baynes

          You’re only interested in the New Testament, but You’re upset over an “attack” on Leviticus.

          I guess I didn’t read the passage where Jesus said “Forget all that garbage my Father told you, you should have known those were bad laws. Except for that part about the gays!”

        • Paul B. Lot

          a homosexual relationship is inevitably sterile.

          http://i.imgur.com/HFWQges.png
          http://i.imgur.com/VdIcWHA.png

        • Michael Neville

          So a heterosexual marriage where one of the spouses is infertile is automatically “weakened and made absurd.” My wife is past menopause, should I set her aside for a newer model?

        • tolpuddle1

          Neither of the two cases you quote are of WILFUL sterility.

        • Jack Baynes

          I had a vasectomy. I intend to stay married to my wife.
          This doesn’t weaken marriage or make it absurd.

        • tolpuddle1

          It does make it wilfully sterile, thus vasectomy & sterilisation are opposed by the Church.

        • Jack Baynes

          But they’re not trying to argue that marriage of sterile couples, or vasectomy, should be illegal.

          So sterility is not a valid argument to use against the legitimacy of marriages.

        • adam

          ” thus vasectomy & sterilisation are opposed by the Church.”

          While the Church clearly supports pedophilia

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/38105552a1ee7bdfd6f9024d3e27ed0f405887ee3fd5341d468f517d8fdaf963.jpg

        • tolpuddle1

          No – stupid, crooked members of the clergy do.

        • Jack Baynes

          And the church has only even started to do something about it when people outside the clergy demanded it.

          Strange that it was man, not God, driving the church to take care of its moral problem.

        • tolpuddle1

          Not strange at all – God lets humanity run the world.

        • Jack Baynes

          Except when he doesn’t, examples of which fill the Bible. But protecting children? Nah, not worth God’s time.

        • tolpuddle1

          When Jesus Christ was on earth, He made very clear His (i.e. God’s) kindness, affection and reverence towards children.

          This is recorded in the Gospels.

          If people choose to ignore or disobey the Gospels, how is that God’s fault ?

        • Jack Baynes

          So it isn’t worth God’s time to stop his one and only church from ignoring his direct commands?

        • John Clay

          Almost all of it obeys those commands – 99% or so of the laity, for instance.

          A few clerics haven’t.

          God works through human insrtuments – e.g. Allied forces to defeat Hitler, investiagtive reporters to bring to light the scandals within God’s Holy Church.

          For the Church – unlike some of its clergy and laity – always is Holy; since it is Jesus Christ.

        • Jack Baynes

          We’re talking about the case of priests abusing children and bishops and popes enabling that acticity.

          If your god doesn’t care that the head of its church blatantly hurts and endangers his children, then either he doesn’t exist, or he doesn’t actually care about those children.

          You god could easily do something about it. He doesn’t.

        • adam

          “God works through human insrtuments – e.g. Allied forces to defeat Hitler,”

          HItler was Catholic, btw……

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/69dfaafdcb040cffbbfb1a5c3775b45ea938d77c63f2bbfc5f0c2fcdc56ee9df.jpg

        • Greg G.

          God is supposed to be omnipotent. Children are harmed by bad people. An omnipotent being could prevent those people from being in contact with their victims. “Free will” is interrupted all the time by traffic jams and detours.

        • adam

          “When Jesus Christ was on earth, He made very clear His (i.e. God’s) kindness, affection and reverence towards children.”

          So do so many of the Church’s Popes and leaders

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e780e3fba463dc2437ca895f0af2713159ae2deed85f8013ea836348b281b2da.jpg

        • tolpuddle1

          Correct.

          I see you place a religious faith in that notoriously unbalanced crackpot, Sam Harris.

        • adam
        • tolpuddle1

          Everyone has to believe in something, put their faith in something – whether it be the Bible or the rantings of Dawkins and Harris.

          Human beings are intrinsically religious.

          In our secular society, many put their faith in Atheism and Atheist books – which is misguided indeed !.

        • epeeist

          Human beings are intrinsically religious.

          Says you, speaking ex cathedra from your belly button.

          But as I have demonstrated, certainly in developed countries religion is gradually being marginalised, congregations are falling, churches and seminaries are closing, priests are becoming fewer and older. All of this makes your claim look rather dubious.

          And in any case, even if it was true then it is the usual piece of equivocation meant to cover the fact that all religions are minority religions compared to the population of the world.

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

          I have no use for faith. I don’t need it–I follow the evidence.

        • adam

          “God lets humanity run the world.”

          then your “God” is useless and impotent.

        • tolpuddle1

          No, because God always has the last word notwithstanding.

        • adam
        • adam

          No- stupid the Church does.

        • tolpuddle1

          An organisation cannot commit rape. Physical fact.

          Though who knows what can happen in your strange dreams ?

        • adam

          “An organisation cannot commit rape.”

          And yet they did as an organization.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/870086376a3039ed8ff43904fc455354e88f434aa1a491d68683492f7a9e351e.jpg

          Popes DEFINE doctrine:

          Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error “when, in
          the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,

          he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.”[1][2]

        • Greg G.

          But the employees of the church have to take a vow of celibacy and Jesus recommended becoming a eunuch.

          You have the freedom to walk away from that lunacy yet yo embrace it.

        • tolpuddle1

          I thousand, thousand better the “lunacy” taught by the Church than the pernicious lunacy taught by secular Western society.

          You have the freedom to walk away from it yet you embrace it.

        • adam

          “It does make it wilfully sterile, thus vasectomy & sterilisation are opposed by the Church.”

          Because it reduced the children pool from which they molest:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/870086376a3039ed8ff43904fc455354e88f434aa1a491d68683492f7a9e351e.jpg

        • adam
        • adam
        • tolpuddle1

          2 homosexuals cannot produce a child – ergo are sterile.

        • adam

          Homosexuals are not sterile.

        • Greg G.

          whilst a homosexual relationship is inevitably sterile.

          Which shows that gay people are smarter than you. I met a couple of lesbians with a child. I was told that they had some sperm donated by a gay couple and used a turkey baster.

          So you can quit worrying about them being infertile.

        • Jack Baynes

          On the other hand, I know a heterosexual married couple who have no intention of having children. I guess THEY’RE the ones that puddle needs to worry about weakening marriage.

        • tolpuddle1

          Well, yes – they are weakening marriage.

        • Jack Baynes

          How?

        • tolpuddle1

          Though they still are, in fact. Two homosexuals can’t produce a baby without the help of a third person.

          In vitro fertilisation is opposed by the Church on other grounds too.

        • Greg G.

          Though they still are, in fact. Two homosexuals can’t produce a baby without the help of a third person.

          Do you understand reproduction? One person can reproduce with a second person.

          The idea that marriage is for reproduction is silly, too. In 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, Paul says that it is best that people should not get married. The only reason he thought they should get married is to have sex if they couldn’t resist it. He never says anybody should have children. Paul thought the coming of the Lord was imminent and people should be preparing for that, not starting a family.

          In vitro fertilisation is opposed by the Church on other grounds too.

          AIUI, the Catholic Church is concerned about the in vitro method because many fertilizations happen but most are not raised. So what, that is just like regular sex. Most fertilizations fail without anyone knowing it happened.

          The Church has out-lived its usefulness. Its out-dated superstitions harm people.

        • tolpuddle1

          Two people of the same sex cannot reproduce.

          Your last sentence will delight devout Muslims, since:

          The post-Christian West is out of road.

          Non-religious people don’t reproduce.

          Liberal churches die.

          So it’s the RCC or Mecca.

        • adam

          “Your last sentence will delight devout Muslims, since:”

          Like they care?

          “Non-religious people don’t reproduce.”

          You are an IDiot………..

        • tolpuddle1

          Muslims DO care – Islam is a missionary religion which believes it has a duty to convert all humanity and that it will indeed do so.

          Non-religious populations have very low birth rates; hence are all ageing and will soon be gone.

        • adam

          ” Islam is a missionary religion which believes it has a duty to convert all humanity and that it will indeed do so.”

          Christianity is a missionary eligion which believes it has a duty to convert all humanity and that it will indeed do so.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cd298430ec0142a27d3b4df489113b880b74231c62c045d6d9b1effe70165e2d.jpg

        • Michael Neville

          Non-religious people don’t reproduce.

          Then how do you explain my daughter? My atheist wife and I didn’t find her under a cabbage plant nor did the stork make deliveries. We had her the old fashioned way, we had sex.

        • tolpuddle1

          Non-religious people have very low reproduction rates, well below replacement level.

        • Michael Neville

          “Non-religious” is the fastest growing group in the West but not because we’re breeding new members. Rather more and more people are rejecting religion because of its anti-humanism, its hatred and its irrelevance.

        • tolpuddle1

          In the USA, it’s due partly to the alignment of much of US Protestantism with the political Right.

          Overall, it’s due to the death of the (more Christian) older generation, its replacement by generations who have been led astray by selfish, corrupt Western societies and their corrupting anti-religious state education.

        • Michael Neville

          Please do me a favor. Take your conservative hatred of the real world and shove it where the Sun don’t shine. I thank you in advance.

        • Susan

          rejecting religion because of its anti-humanism, its hatred and its irrelevance.

          Most importantly, there is no reason to believe its silly claims.

        • adam

          “Non-religious people have very low reproduction rates, well below replacement level.”

          It is because the religious need children to molest.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6e2565900b7ef6446c3378d68882448ba1b5f3b2598a635dd81ab599c58e05c0.gif

        • Greg G.

          The post-Christian world has more to offer than Christianity or Islam.

        • tolpuddle1

          Well, it might, possibly, if it were going to survive.

          It isn’t.

        • Greg G.

          “The Messiah is coming! The Messiah is coming! Very soon!” –Daniel, 2nd century BC

          “The Messiah is coming! The Messiah is coming! Very soon!” –Paul, 1st century

          “The Messiah is coming! The Messiah is coming! Very soon!” –Christianity, 1st century to the 21st century

        • tolpuddle1

          1. Daniel was correct – the Messiah came not long after.

          2. The Church hasn’t spent centuries prophesying the imminent return of the Messiah (such prophesying shows ignorance of the relevant Biblical passages).

        • Greg G.

          1. Daniel was correct – the Messiah came not long after.

          Here is what Daniel predicted. It didn’t happen. It’s part of what Paul got his eschatology from. Paul’s didn’t happen either.

          Daniel 7:11a, 13a
          11a I watched then because of the noise of the arrogant words that the horn was speaking….
          13a As I watched in the night visions,
          I saw one like a human being
              coming with the clouds of heaven….

          2. The Church hasn’t spent centuries prophesying the imminent return of the Messiah (such prophesying shows ignorance of the relevant Biblical passages).

          They have been predicting it, even before they invented Jesus.

        • adam

          “The Church has out-lived its usefulness. Its out-dated superstitions harm people.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bbbfb46b3930cd6ad80c0b10225136ede06f1b47aaf0618c0a1a3850561f211a.gif

        • adam

          ” Two homosexuals can’t produce a baby without the help of a third person.”

          So?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/46bdac61c5745ebc4082c344822e63894e85f90de0a86f686b47d20cba19d774.gif

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

          Don’t tell Puddle that there are far more straight couples who are childless than there are gay couples. He’ll freak.

        • tolpuddle1

          There are gays (married or not) who molest children.

          Most don’t.

          Nor do 99% of priests.

        • Pofarmer

          Actually it’s 6-10% of priests. Nearly 100% in some Orders in Australia.

        • Greg G.