Outrageous Kim Davis: Homophobe and Hypocrite

Outrageous Kim Davis: Homophobe and Hypocrite September 27, 2019

Kim Davis is the county clerk in Kentucky who, following the 2015 Supreme Court Obergefell decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, prohibited her office from issuing any marriage licenses because, “To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage [by which she means straight marriage], with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience.”

That gave her fifteen minutes of fame as the darling of the Right. Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee welcomed her after her five-day stay in jail. She won a “Cost of Discipleship Award” at the 2015 Values Voter Summit.

Today, not so much. She ran for reelection as county clerk, but apparently her constituents had had enough of her shenanigans, and she lost last November. She’s also stuck with $220,000 in legal fees.

Kentucky’s GOP governor claims to still support her actions and yet threw her under the bus by declaring that the state shouldn’t have to pay.

Davis argued that Kentucky should pay, “because Davis acted as a state official for purposes of marriage licensing.” That’s right: Kim Davis the citizen isn’t liable for the bills because the state (in the form of Kim Davis the county clerk) caused the problem. Doing the right thing supposedly guided her actions at some point, but owning the costs she’s incurred is inconvenient right now.

In a further complication, a recent court decision allows Davis to be sued for damages as an individual, and two same-sex couples plan on doing just that.

Kim Davis’s selfish argument

Davis’s choice of God over country seems odd, because as a candidate she never admitted that she’d pick and choose the laws she’d follow. In fact, she promised to “follow the statutes of this office to the letter.”

Davis justified her reversal by arguing that the “So help me, God” tacked on to her oath of office meant that acting on her Christian beliefs was obligatory and trumped the laws she was promising to uphold.

This fails in many ways: that phrase is not part of the official oath (nor is the Bible you might put your hand on), and if she swore to God to uphold the law, she’s now breaking that oath. (A thoughtful analysis of this is by Noah Feldman.)

In addition, the Bible itself makes a clear statement about respecting the government.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves (Romans 13:1–2; see also 1 Timothy 2:2, Titus 3:1, and 1 Peter 2:13).

An easy solution leaps to mind: if your conscience says you can no longer perform your job then quit. You could even make a bold public statement by saying that a government job that pays $80,000 per year isn’t worth compromising one’s principles. But no, she wants it both ways. She imagines that she gets to apply her personal interpretation of Christianity to her job.

Does she imagine every other government official gets to apply their individual religious interpretations to their jobs? The Bible says all sorts of crazy stuff in favor of slavery, genocide, and polygamy; could any such religious belief be applied by any government employee? Are beliefs from Islam, Satanism, and other religions also valid?

I suspect that she wanted to reserve that privilege for herself. We certainly find hypocrisy in her own situation. She wanted to pick and choose which secular laws to follow, and incredibly, she did the same with God’s laws. Jesus said, “Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Matthew 5:32). Davis cast that one aside, since she’s been married four times. And she remarried her first husband, violating Deuteronomy 24:1–4.

Davis began her job in January, 2015, when she knew that same-sex marriage might become legal within months, but she swore her oath of office anyway. She’s like the pacifist who willingly joins the infantry, knowing that killing the enemy was a possibility. With her unit deployed to a war zone, then this soldier decides that she can’t do her job.

Continue with a famous example that shows how a public servant should act here.

[Kim Davis is] applying for the job of martyr.
— seen on Fox News

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 9/8/15.)

Image from Robert Bejil, CC license

.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Jezebel’sOlderSister

    What happened to all those Christians who pledged to defend her choices? Like the Family Research Council, Alex Melusky (who ran for Senate in Arizona, who apparently dropped out of that race), and all these other people: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kim-davis-supporters-say-kentucky-clerk-isnt-breaking-law-defying-n422376

    • kaydenpat

      She’s toxic now. They don’t know her.

      • WallofSleep

        And she’s only toxic to them now because she would cost them money rather than being a false idol they can use for fundraising.

  • kaydenpat

    I’m a little surprised that she is being sued personally. I thought that she could only be sued via the state of Kentucky since she was acting in her capacity as a clerk. Interesting.

    • eric

      AIUI, the court has to find that the civil servant could reasonably have known that the action they were following was against the law, and intentionally did it anyway. If it’s reasonable that you thought the law was otherwise, it’s the government that pays the bills. Likewise if you accidentally or unintentionally did something wrong, it’s the government that gets sued.

      IMO, in this case, it’s pretty cut and dried. The State of Kentucky legalized gay marriage prior to her actions. Davis clearly knew this to be the case. So when she refused to follow Kentucky state policy, she met both criteria to be personally sued. Having said that, AIUI it is very typical for courts to give very favorable interpretations to civil servants – especially police officers. In many cases they can get caught red-handed breaking the law in a way that could not reasonably be interpreted as ‘unintentional’, yet courts typically do not say they can be personally sued. So in this case it is surprising Davis lost her case, if for no other reason that it’s historically unusual for any civil servant to lose such cases.

      All IMO…IANAL…

      • kaydenpat

        Thanks for the explanation. I have never seen a case like this unless the person committed a crime or tort. Usually the state is sued and not the individual so Davis appears to have drawn the short straw. Oh well.

        • WallofSleep

          My concern for her hardship can be measured in micro-give-a-poos.

        • Michael Neville
        • 😀

        • TheBookOfDavid

          With the margin of error reaching both the positive and negative sides of the scale.

        • eric

          Yep. I’m not surprised you’ve never seen this before. I can only think of one local case myself. As I said, even with seemingly blatant criminal action it’s extremely rare for the courts to remove the standard protection.

        • RichardSRussell

          Kim Davis drew the same size straw as all the other county clerks in Kentucky. She chose to shorten it all on her own.

  • WallofSleep

    “… and if she swore to God to uphold the law, she’s now breaking that oath.”

    As well as breaking the commandment against taking the lord’s name in vain. Such an odious hypocrite, willing to ‘suffer’ for her faith, until the actual suffering comes. She deserves whatever happens to her, and I hope this whole thing leaves her completely destitute.

    • kaydenpat

      It probably will since she’s being sued as an individual. She should demand support from the vultures who were praising her to the highest heavens. Looking at you, Huckabee.

    • Ed

      No, if man’s laws go against God’s law then God says she should not obey. Read the book of Acts.

      • WallofSleep

        She broke the commandment that forbids taking oaths in god’s name, period. And our nation is not a theocracy, read the Constitution.

        if she didn’t want to do the job she was expected to do, she should have quit.

        • Ed

          There is no such commandment. The nation’s philosophical foundation is based on the laws of God according to the DOI, which says “the laws of Nature and (the laws) of Natures God.” It refers to two sets of Laws. What are they? They are the laws of nature and the Unitarian God’s moral laws as revealed in the Bible. I agree she had other options and that is a possible one. But she decided to stand up for the moral laws that this nation was founded on.

        • WallofSleep

          You’re wrong. The commandment against taking the lords name in vain is specifically about forbidding taking oaths in god’s name.

          You’re wrong about all that other stuff too. The Declaration of Independence is not law. You know what is? The Treaty of Tripoli, in which the very beginning of Article 11 states:

          As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. (Emphasis mine)

          That was written and signed into law by our nation’s Founding Fathers.

          http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vrcpFhgnmUc/T1t_hGvF-ZI/AAAAAAAAA0k/UeDJNTrJyZQ/s1600/willy-wonka-you-get-nothing.gif

        • Ed

          No, if you did not fulfill your oath THEN you were taking His name in vain. That is why Jesus recommended NOT taking oaths because most humans will not fulfill them and therefore commit a serious sin. Read Deut. 6:13. Taking an oath is only for very serious undertakings. That is why the founders required it when testifying in court. Jesus was also reacting to the human tendency to take oaths on trivial matters. So He said not to take oaths. Though even Paul took one oath in 2 Corinthians 1:23. So plainly it was not forbidden. But ideally your yes should be yes and your no should be no as Jesus said. You should have a reputation for fulfilling your word. Actually the DOI IS listed in the American law Code and has been cited in SCOTUS cases as part of eth law of the land. When Oklahoma became a state, SCOTUS said that the Oklahoma Constitution had to be compatible with the principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. As far as the Treaty of Tripoli, I didn’t say that the US was founded on the Christian Religion, only that it was founded on Christian principles and the founders agreed with this.

        • That is why the founders required it when testifying in court.

          “So help me God” or equivalent is not required when testifying in court.

          I didn’t say that the US was founded on the Christian Religion, only Christian principles and founders agreed with this.

          Huh? What principles? I’m pretty sure that we didn’t get from Christianity: democracy, secular government, separation of powers, and a limited executive; freedoms of religion, speech, press, and assembly; protection from self-incrimination and double jeopardy; speedy and public trial, trial by jury, and the right to confront witnesses; no cruel and unusual punishment; prohibition of slavery; and much more.

        • Ed

          You are correct it was and is not required but most courts and states strongly recommend it due to the Biblical principle of such an oath would likely produce a greater binding on the conscience to tell the truth. This is one of the Christian principles that have influenced our nation and its judicial system.

          bob: Huh? What principles? I’m pretty sure that we didn’t get from Christianity: democracy,

          ed: No, not democracy but a democratic republic, which came from the Presbyterian form of church government. Which was derived from Jethro’s advice to Moses for the people to choose from among themselves respected elders and judges to handle less important issues with Moses handling harder issues. One way for choosing these elders and judges was probably a form of voting. In addition, the early church in the book of Acts the disciples told the congregation to choose from among themselves worthy men to be elders and deacons IOW leaders of the church. This also probably was done by a form of voting. This form of government is one reason why the British called the Revolutionary War, the Presbyterian War.

          bob: secular government,

          ed: The US is not a secular government. We were founded as a theistic government as seen in our philosophical foundational document the DOI. If we had been founded as a secular government we would have done like the French did. Remove the Gregorian calendar from our founding documents and have no special statements such as the President not signing bills on Sundays, not given tax exemption to churches, Congress not publishing Bibles, and etc.

          bob: separation of powers, and a limited executive;

          ed: These concepts were based on what Madison learned about the sinful nature of man from Dr. John Witherspoon his professor. Read Federalist paper no. 51.

          bob: freedoms of religion,

          ed: Comes from the examples of Christ and his disciples not converting anyone by force. Jesus told His disciples that when they evangelize and someone rejects their message just shake the dust off your feet and move on.

          bob: speech, press, and assembly;

          ed; You could argue that these tie into the freedom of religion teaching because Christ and his disciples never tried to silence anyone by force who disagreed with them.

          bob: protection from self-incrimination and double jeopardy; speedy and public trial, trial by jury,

          ed: Yes, these probably do not come from any specific Christian principles though you could argue that they are covered by the Golden Rule.

          bob: and the right to confront witnesses;

          ed: This one you are right is a Roman principle not a Christian principle.

          bob:: no cruel and unusual punishment;

          ed: This comes from the fact that all humans are equal in dignity because all are created in the image of God even criminals and therefore should not be subject to punishment that diminishes that fact such as humiliating punishments that would be cruel and unusual. That is why the ancient jews executed by stoning because generally you were knocked unconscious before you died thereby limiting your suffering. In addition, respect for criminals is also seen in the Christian command to visit prisoners.

          bob: prohibition of slavery; and much more.

          Ed: No, both Judaism and Christianity prohibits involuntary slavery of non-POWs, read Exodus 21:16.

        • This is one of the Christian principles that have influenced our nation and its judicial system.

          It’s a custom popular in a predominantly Christian country. Let’s make a clear distinction between that and the law.

          ed: No, not democracy but a democratic republic, which came from the Presbyterian form of church government.

          The point is that democracy is the very last thing on Yahweh’s mind in the OT.

          ed: The US is not a secular government.

          I believe the Constitution says otherwise.

          We were founded as a theistic government as seen in our philosophical foundational document the DOI.

          The DoI is an important historical document. That’s it. The Constitution is defines the law. It stands alone.

          But if you insist on looking to the DoI, remember that it says that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

          Remove the Gregorian calendar from our founding documents

          That’s your evidence of a Christian foundation? That it has AD in it?

          Again: read the Constitution. You want a religious foundation for a country? Look to Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia, and other very religious countries. That’s how to do it.

          ed: Comes from the examples of Christ and his disciples not converting anyone by force. Jesus told His disciples that when they evangelize and someone rejects their message just shake the dust off your feet and move on.

          Take the 10 Commandments. Which would be declared unconstitutional in the US?

          Take the Constitution. Which principles would not fit in an Old Testament context?

          You’ll hem and haw and find some subset that works in each case. Yes, I’d probably agree. That’s why the secular US Constitution defines a democratic republic, not a Jewish theocracy.

          Ed: No, both Judaism and Christianity prohibits involuntary slavery of non-POWs, read Exodus 21:16.

          No, Yahweh has no problem with slavery for life, read Leviticus 25:44-46.

        • Ed

          ed: This is one of the Christian principles that have influenced our nation and its judicial system.

          bob: It’s a custom popular in a predominantly Christian country. Let’s make a clear distinction between that and the law.

          ed: True, but none of the founders had any problem with it. So they did not consider this a secular nation. This would have never been allowed in the French Republic which was a real secular nation.

          ed: No, not democracy but a democratic republic, which came from the Presbyterian form of church government.

          bs: The point is that democracy is the very last thing on Yahweh’s mind in the OT.

          ed: Not a pure democracy but a type of democratic republic appears to be His favored and recommended form of government as I have demonstrated in my previous post.

          ed: The US is not a secular government.

          bob: I believe the Constitution says otherwise.

          ed: Where? Besides our theistic foundation already covered in the DOI, the other reason God was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution was because all the state Constitutions already mentioned Him and stated that they were based on His principles especially the Biblical teaching of human equality and His moral law code.

          ed: We were founded as a theistic government as seen in our philosophical foundational document the DOI.

          bob: The DoI is an important historical document. That’s it. The Constitution is defines the law. It stands alone.
          But if you insist on looking to the DoI, remember that it says that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

          ed: The concept of the consent of the governed comes from John Locke, Christian philosopher, who derived it from the Calvinist and Hebrew concept of the Covenant with the people and God. The DOI is listed in the United States Code Annotated, under the heading “The Organic Laws of the United States of America”. And as I stated earlier it is utilized in several rulings by SCOTUS.

          ed: Remove the Gregorian calendar from our founding documents

          bs: That’s your evidence of a Christian foundation? That it has AD in it?

          ed: No, but since the French Republic was a true secular state, they redid the calendar removing all references to God, ie got rid fo the Gregorian Calendar. The American Republic did no such thing because it was not secular.

          bs: Again: read the Constitution. You want a religious foundation for a country? Look to Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia, and other very religious countries. That’s how to do it.

          ed: No, they are Muslim nations which derive their principles from the Koran which is a horrible document and therefore these countries are basically Hades holes compared to Christian principled nations, which provide all the great freedoms we enjoy.

        • So [the founders] did not consider this a secular nation.

          And yet they defined a secular nation with the Constitution. Weird—it’s almost like it was intentional.

          Not a pure democracy but a type of democratic republic appears to be His favored and recommended form of government as I have demonstrated in my previous post.

          What do you get when you cross a republic with a theocracy? Not a republic.

          Yahweh defined a republic in the OT? You’re a funny guy.

          bob: I believe the Constitution says otherwise.
          ed: Where?

          You haven’t read the Constitution so I have to coach you through it?

          Article VI says no religious test for public office, and the First Amendment defines church/state separation.

          Besides our theistic foundation already covered in the DOI

          Let me repeat my point: The DoI says, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from . . .” Anyone? Anyone?

          They derive their “just powers” from “the consent of the governed.” Not from God. We’re very clearly out of Jesus territory here.

          the other reason God was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution was because all the state Constitutions already mentioned Him and stated that they were based on His principles especially the Biblical teaching of human equality and His moral law code.

          And yet all those godly clauses are now unconstitutional and unenforceable. Most have been removed, and those few that remain are just sad reminders of more primitive times. Whoops.

          ed: The concept of the consent of the governed comes from John Locke, Christian philosopher, who derived it from the Calvinist and Hebrew concept of the Covenant with the people and God.

          . . . which does what to undercut the point that the DoI makes clear that God isn’t the foundation?

          Look, bro, we’re in charge. You and me and everyone else. There is no God who never drops by to even validate his existence. No ephemeral existence who kind of exists to govern everything but really doesn’t. The Constitution faces reality squarely, declares that we’re in charge (not God), and demands that we get on with it. Kind of empowering, right?

          as I stated earlier it is utilized in several rulings by SCOTUS.

          As opposed to the actual Constitution, which is used in pretty much every single one.

          ed: No, but since the French Republic was a true secular state, they redid the calendar removing all references to God, ie got rid fo the Gregorian Calendar. The American Republic did no such thing because it was not secular.

          America did no such thing because who the hell cares? Yes, AD/BC is messed up, but so what? You’ve got to have a zero in there somewhere. It’s arbitrary, but it works. Like English units—messed up, but they more or less work. The French Republic corrected that as well, but the metric system is also no clue that the US is religious, either.

          bs: Again: read the Constitution. You want a religious foundation for a country? Look to Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia, and other very religious countries. That’s how to do it.
          ed: No, they are Muslim nations which derive their principles from the Koran which is a horrible document and therefore these countries are basically Hades holes compared to Christian principled nations, which provide all the great freedoms we enjoy.

          Sure, that . . . or you could actually respond to my point. Going to try again?

        • MR

          Anyone for going back to the cubit system? Anyone?

        • God’s own units! I’m flooded by a sense of calm …

        • Ed

          bs: So [the founders] did not consider this a secular nation.

          And yet they defined a secular nation with the Constitution. Weird—it’s almost like it was intentional.

          ed: No, if they wanted a purely secular nation it would have been modeled after the French constitution. Not using the Gregorian Calendar and not allowing the President to have Sundays off. Not allowing the states to have state churches or Constitutions that mention God, not have a founding father say in a letter to a church, “True religion affords government its surest support.” George Washington. Congress printing Bibles and having them shipped out west for the Indians and settlers. And I can name many, many, more similar examples.

          ed: Not a pure democracy but a type of democratic republic appears to be His favored and recommended form of government as I have demonstrated in my previous post.

          bs:What do you get when you cross a republic with a theocracy? Not a republic.
          Yahweh defined a republic in the OT? You’re a funny guy.

          ed: Yes, democratic republics are governments based on law, ie democracy within a framework of mostly unchanging laws or principles. In the case of the ancient Hebrews it was Yahweh’s laws and in the case of the US, the laws of nature and the laws of natures God, ie the Unitarian God. This is how it is different from a pure democracy, where there are no unchanging framework of laws or principles, it is just whatever the majority wants.

        • Ed

          bob: I believe the Constitution says otherwise.
          ed: Where?

          bs: You haven’t read the Constitution so I have to coach you through it?
          Article VI says no religious test for public office, and the First Amendment defines church/state separation.

          ed: The NT teaches freedom of conscience and religion, so allowing unbelievers serve in the government as long as they dont violate God’s moral laws is also a biblical teaching. The First Amendment says Congress/the government cannot influence or favor a particular religious group, but it does not say that the church cannot influence the government to follow the laws of the Christian God. In fact, the founders meant for religion and especially Christianity to have an influence on the government in order for it function properly, see my quote from Washington my previous post and I could many more from many different founders.

          ed: the other reason God was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution was because all the state Constitutions already mentioned Him and stated that they were based on His principles especially the Biblical teaching of human equality and His moral law code.

          bs: And yet all those godly clauses are now unconstitutional and unenforceable. Most have been removed, and those few that remain are just sad reminders of more primitive times. Whoops.

          ed: Only because the establishment has been taken over by secular humanists since at least the 1930’s and intentionally want to remove any Christian influence on government.

          ed: The concept of the consent of the governed comes from John Locke, Christian philosopher, who derived it from the Calvinist and Hebrew concept of the Covenant with the people and God.

          bs:. . . which does what to undercut the point that the DoI makes clear that God isn’t the foundation?
          Look, bro, we’re in charge. You and me and everyone else. There is no God who never drops by to even validate his existence. No ephemeral existence who kind of exists to govern everything but really doesn’t. The Constitution faces reality squarely, declares that we’re in charge (not God), and demands that we get on with it. Kind of empowering, right?

          ed: The founders just like Locke and Calvin considered all governments should make a covenant or contract of the people with God. The DOI and the Constitution are very similar to those biblical covenants and especially the ones that the Puritans made 150 years earlier. The Constitution was to “secure the blessings of Liberty” as stated in the Preamble. The DOI was to explain who and how we originally were given those blessings?

          ed: as I stated earlier it is utilized in several rulings by SCOTUS.

          bs:As opposed to the actual Constitution, which is used in pretty much every single one.

          ed: I didn’t say it was A law, only part of the law, ie the reason why we have laws, to secure God’s blessings of Liberty.

          ed: No, but since the French Republic was a true secular state, they redid the calendar removing all references to God, ie got rid fo the Gregorian Calendar. The American Republic did no such thing because it was not secular.

          bs: America did no such thing because who the hell cares? Yes, AD/BC is messed up, but so what? You’ve got to have a zero in there somewhere. It’s arbitrary, but it works. Like English units—messed up, but they more or less work. The French Republic corrected that as well, but the metric system is also no clue that the US is religious, either.

          ed: The Founders cared. They wanted their government to acknowledge the biblical God, as shown in their subsequent actions after we became a nation.

          bs: Again: read the Constitution. You want a religious foundation for a country? Look to Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia, and other very religious countries. That’s how to do it.
          ed: No, they are Muslim nations which derive their principles from the Koran which is a horrible document and therefore these countries are basically Hades holes compared to Christian principled nations, which provide all the great freedoms we enjoy.

          bs: Sure, that . . . or you could actually respond to my point. Going to try again

          ed: No, the did not want a religious foundation, they wanted a nation founded on God and His law, there is a big difference.

        • The First Amendment says Congress/the government cannot influence or favor a particular religious group, but it does not say that the church cannot influence the government to follow the laws of the Christian God.

          Wrong again. What influence can the church exert when “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”?

          see my quote from Washington my previous post and I could many more from many different founders.

          Which is what you’d do if you couldn’t support your argument by simply pointing to the Constitution.

          bs: And yet all those godly clauses are now unconstitutional and unenforceable. Most have been removed, and those few that remain are just sad reminders of more primitive times. Whoops.
          ed: Only because the establishment has been taken over by secular humanists since at least the 1930’s and intentionally want to remove any Christian influence on government.

          1. Kind of a pointless conversation, isn’t this? The Constitution is secular, which is pretty much game over, but you’ve been reading David “my book was dropped by my publisher because of my lying scholarship” Barton so you know all the caveats. Support your argument with the Constitution.

          2. Yeah, those danged secular humanists in the 1930s. Scary. Remind me—what fraction of the country identified as Christian at that time?

          ed: The concept of the consent of the governed comes from John Locke, Christian philosopher, who derived it from the Calvinist and Hebrew concept of the Covenant with the people and God.

          Running away again. You pointed to the DoI. When I make clear that it doesn’t support your position, you retreat to something else? The foundational law in the US is the Constitution. Deal with it.

          The DOI and the Constitution are very similar to those biblical covenants and especially the ones that the Puritans made 150 years earlier.

          Uh, yeah. The Mayflower Compact would work nicely as law today: “IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together . . .”

          Or maybe not.

          bs: Again: read the Constitution. You want a religious foundation for a country? Look to Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia, and other very religious countries. That’s how to do it.
          ed: No, they are Muslim nations which derive their principles from the Koran which is a horrible document

          Pro tip: when you change the subject and don’t answer the question, we can all see it. That’s weakness, not a clever rhetorical ploy.

          A Christian who wanted a God-centered Constitution could use Muslim countries’ constitutions as inspiration. Read the preamble of Pakistan’s constitution, and replace Allah/Islam with Yahweh/Christianity here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Pakistan#Preamble

        • Ed

          ed: The First Amendment says Congress/the government cannot influence or favor a particular religious group, but it does not say that the church cannot influence the government to follow the laws of the Christian God.

          bs: Wrong again. What influence can the church exert when “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”?

          ed: Great influence, Churches and Christians helped end slavery and fight for civil rights for blacks.

          ed: see my quote from Washington my previous post and I could many more from many different founders.

          bs: Which is what you’d do if you couldn’t support your argument by simply pointing to the Constitution.

          ed: No, if the founders interpreted the Constitution that way then that is the correct interpretation. Some hyperskeptical atheist 230 years later is unlikely to make the correct interpretation.

          bs: And yet all those godly clauses are now unconstitutional and unenforceable. Most have been removed, and those few that remain are just sad reminders of more primitive times. Whoops.
          ed: Only because the establishment has been taken over by secular humanists since at least the 1930’s and intentionally want to remove any Christian influence on government.

          bs: 1. Kind of a pointless conversation, isn’t this? The Constitution is secular, which is pretty much game over, but you’ve been reading David “my book was dropped by my publisher because of my lying scholarship” Barton so you know all the caveats. Support your argument with the Constitution.

          ed: No, most of the words and concepts used in the Constitution come from English Common law which in turn was derived from biblical law.

          bs: 2. Yeah, those danged secular humanists in the 1930s. Scary. Remind me—what fraction of the country identified as Christian at that time?

          ed: The general population had a large number of Christians but I am referring to the establishment, you do know the difference dont you?

          ed: The concept of the consent of the governed comes from John Locke, Christian philosopher, who derived it from the Calvinist and Hebrew concept of the Covenant with the people and God.

          bs: Running away again. You pointed to the DoI. When I make clear that it doesn’t support your position, you retreat to something else? The foundational law in the US is the Constitution. Deal with it.

          ed: See above about where the words and concepts come from.

          ed: The DOI and the Constitution are very similar to those biblical covenants and especially the ones that the Puritans made 150 years earlier.

          bs: Uh, yeah. The Mayflower Compact would work nicely as law today: “IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together . . .”
          Or maybe not.

          ed: I am referring to making of a compact between the government and the people.

          bs: Again: read the Constitution. You want a religious foundation for a country? Look to Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia, and other very religious countries. That’s how to do it.
          ed: No, they are Muslim nations which derive their principles from the Koran which is a horrible document

          bs: Pro tip: when you change the subject and don’t answer the question, we can all see it. That’s weakness, not a clever rhetorical ploy.
          A Christian who wanted a God-centered Constitution could use Muslim countries’ constitutions as inspiration. Read the preamble o

          ed: No, a better example is any of the Constitutions of the 13 original states which plainly acknowledge the Christian God.

        • Churches and Christians helped end slavery and fight for civil rights for blacks.

          As ordinary citizens, sure. The First Amendment still constrains government’s hands so that they can’t unfairly help religion.

          ed: No, if the founders interpreted the Constitution that way then that is the correct interpretation. Some hyperskeptical atheist 230 years later is unlikely to make the correct interpretation.

          This atheist can read. The Constitution defines a secular public square. Why are you whining about that? Why isn’t that a good thing for Christians? If I didn’t know better, I’d think that you were looking for a crutch from the government. Can’t Christianity stand on its own?

          ed: Only because the establishment has been taken over by secular humanists since at least the 1930’s and intentionally want to remove any Christian influence on government.

          First Amendment.

          ed: No, most of the words and concepts used in the Constitution come from English Common law which in turn was derived from biblical law.

          The Constitution defines a secular public square.

          ed: No, they are Muslim nations which derive their principles from the Koran which is a horrible document

          Can you stick to the issue? If you can’t answer something, man up and admit it.

          1. Why is the Koran any more horrible than the Old Testament? You have read about the crazy stuff God does/demands, right?

          2. The US Constitution is secular, and Muslim countries’ constitutions are often very overtly religious. That’s how the founders would’ve written our constitution if it were to be based on God. It isn’t.

          ed: No, a better example is any of the Constitutions of the 13 original states which plainly acknowledge the Christian God.

          Yes, some did. And they’re all unconstitutional now. Can we move on from this argument now? You’ve lost.

        • Ed

          ed: Churches and Christians helped end slavery and fight for civil rights for blacks.

          bs: As ordinary citizens, sure. The First Amendment still constrains government’s hands so that they can’t unfairly help religion.

          ed: No, the government enacted the laws that the Christians wanted.

          ed: No, if the founders interpreted the Constitution that way then that is the correct interpretation. Some hyperskeptical atheist 230 years later is unlikely to make the correct interpretation.

          bs: This atheist can read. The Constitution defines a secular public square. Why are you whining about that? Why isn’t that a good thing for Christians? If I didn’t know better, I’d think that you were looking for a crutch from the government. Can’t Christianity stand on its own?

          ed: No, it doesn’t. The constitution defines the judicial and legal principles derived from the laws of Nature and the laws of Natures God. Without the DOI it would not exist with a rational basis as shown in the quote I provided from Jefferson.

          ed: Only because the establishment has been taken over by secular humanists since at least the 1930’s and intentionally want to remove any Christian influence on government.

          bs: First Amendment.

          ed: Right, the free exercise clause allows Christians to practice their faith, like not being forced to violate their beliefs at their jobs.

          ed: No, most of the words and concepts used in the Constitution come from English Common law which in turn was derived from biblical law.

          bs: The Constitution defines a secular public square.

          ed: Non sequitur and doesn’t refute the fact I presented.

          ed: No, they are Muslim nations which derive their principles from the Koran which is a horrible document

          bs: Can you stick to the issue? If you can’t answer something, man up and admit it.
          1. Why is the Koran any more horrible than the Old Testament? You have read about the crazy stuff God does/demands, right?

          ed: I was referring to the bible as a whole but even the OT is superior to the Koran. The OT does not allow involuntary slavery except for POWs as I demonstrated earlier. The Koran lets you enslave anyone for any reason involuntarily. Also, even the OT does not force someone to convert as long as you dont publicly worship idols, but the Koran teaches if you do not convert you die. The of course, it also teaches you can beat your wife, the bible teaches that the husband should treat his wife as his own body. Also, Christianity teaches separation of church and state, the Koran does not.

          bs: 2. The US Constitution is secular, and Muslim countries’ constitutions are often very overtly religious. That’s how the founders would’ve written our constitution if it were to be based on God. It isn’t.

          ed: The Constitution is not complete without the DOI as I have shown above and with Jeffersons quote. So it is not secular. But it does separate church and state just not God and state. Unlike the Koran.

          ed: No, a better example is any of the Constitutions of the 13 original states which plainly acknowledge the Christian God.

          bs: Yes, some did. And they’re all unconstitutional now. Can we move on from this argument now? You’ve lost.

          ed: The founders did not consider that unconstitutional only the 20th century establishment thought so.

        • ed: No, the government enacted the laws that the Christians wanted.

          And the Christians wanted a secular public square. Sounds like we’re in violent agreement.

          bs: This atheist can read. The Constitution defines a secular public square. Why are you whining about that? Why isn’t that a good thing for Christians? If I didn’t know better, I’d think that you were looking for a crutch from the government. Can’t Christianity stand on its own?
          ed: No, it doesn’t. The constitution defines the judicial and legal principles derived from the laws of Nature and the laws of Natures God. Without the DOI it would not exist with a rational basis as shown in the quote I provided from Jefferson.

          Sorry–where in the Constitution is “God” mentioned? Oh, that’s right—nowhere.

          And again I’ll publicly point out that you won’t tell us why Christianity needs a little boost from the government. It can’t thrive in the secular public square, the marketplace of ideas? It needs a crutch?

          ed: Right, the free exercise clause allows Christians to practice their faith, like not being forced to violate their beliefs at their jobs.

          What do you do when two rights clash? The Mormons wanted freedom of religion, and their religion stipulated polygamy. Do you want to guess how that battle worked out?

          ed: No, most of the words and concepts used in the Constitution come from English Common law which in turn was derived from biblical law.
          bs: The Constitution defines a secular public square.
          ed: Non sequitur and doesn’t refute the fact I presented.

          I don’t give a shit about the fact you presented. The topic at hand is the Constitution and whether it defines a secular public square or not. If that’s a non sequitur from your standpoint, that’s bine, but then this conversation is over.

          ed: The Constitution is not complete without the DOI

          Show me in the Constitution where it says that.

        • Ed

          ed: No, the government enacted the laws that the Christians wanted.

          bs: And the Christians wanted a secular public square. Sounds like we’re in violent agreement.

          ed: No, they wanted separation of church and state but they also wanted and knew that our rights had to have a rational foundation The majority of the signers of both the DOI and Constitution were Christians and so the philosophical foundation of the Constitution, ie the DOI, mentioned where those rights came from and where our laws come from, the biblical God, not the Christian God but the Unitarian God who is the biblical God but does not intervene supernaturally.

          bs: This atheist can read. The Constitution defines a secular public square. Why are you whining about that? Why isn’t that a good thing for Christians? If I didn’t know better, I’d think that you were looking for a crutch from the government. Can’t Christianity stand on its own?
          ed: No, it doesn’t. The constitution defines the judicial and legal principles derived from the laws of Nature and the laws of Natures God. Without the DOI it would not exist with a rational basis as shown in the quote I provided from Jefferson.

          bs: Sorry–where in the Constitution is “God” mentioned? Oh, that’s right—nowhere.
          And again I’ll publicly point out that you won’t tell us why Christianity needs a little boost from the government. It can’t thrive in the secular public square, the marketplace of ideas? It needs a crutch?

          ed: He is taken for granted because He was already mentioned in the DOI, which the founders considered the basis for the Constitution. It is not that Christianity needs a boost from the government, it is that government needs a rational boost for its existence and check on its power from God and His laws, other wise it can become tyrannical. If the government gives us our rights then they can be taken away, but if God gives them to us, they are intrinsic and can never be taken away.

          ed: Right, the free exercise clause allows Christians to practice their faith, like not being forced to violate their beliefs at their jobs.

          bs: What do you do when two rights clash? The Mormons wanted freedom of religion, and their religion stipulated polygamy. Do you want to guess how that battle worked out?

          ed: The Supreme Court knew that our laws were based on the Biblical God and therefore ruled for that it is better to have a society based on God’s ideal marriage, monogamy and ruled against polygamy because of its negative effects. If your religious practice hurts others physically or economically then it may not be granted. Here is the exact verbiage of the ruling in the case: “The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world.” And this should also be the ruling to eliminate the imaginary gay “marriage”.

          ed: No, most of the words and concepts used in the Constitution come from English Common law which in turn was derived from biblical law.
          bs: The Constitution defines a secular public square.
          ed: Non sequitur and doesn’t refute the fact I presented.

          bs: I don’t give a shit about the fact you presented. The topic at hand is the Constitution and whether it defines a secular public square or not. If that’s a non sequitur from your standpoint, that’s bine, but then this conversation is over.

          ed: Yes, we may have reached an impasse on this subject. If you cant acknowledge something so obvious even to most non Christian historians, we may better just stick to the other subjects we are discussing.

          ed: The Constitution is not complete without the DOI

          bs: Show me in the Constitution where it says that.

          ed: The writer and Founders said it.

        • ed: No, they wanted separation of church and state but they also wanted and knew that our rights had to have a rational foundation

          How many times do you want to be publicly corrected? The Constitution is secular. If the founders had wanted God in the Constitution, they would’ve put him in.

          the biblical God, not the Christian God but the Unitarian God who is the biblical God but does not intervene supernaturally.

          Wow—how many gods are there now?

          ed: He is taken for granted because He was already mentioned in the DOI, which the founders considered the basis for the Constitution.

          And we come back again to that delightful fact: there is no God in the Constitution. That wasn’t an oversight; the founders didn’t put him in on purpose. Deal with it. And there is no “For background, see the DoI” in the Constitution. It stands alone.

          It is not that Christianity needs a boost from the government, it is that government needs a rational boost for its existence and check on its power from God and His laws

          All of which is just handwaving. Show me that a Constitution with this is somehow better or more effective or leads to a better society than one without.

          other wise it can become tyrannical.

          Oh, that’s right. If bad things happen, God will make an appearance and correct things.

          Or not. (Probably not, since he’s never done that before. Ever.)

          If the government gives us our rights then they can be taken away, but if God gives them to us, they are intrinsic and can never be taken away.

          More handwaving. Where is this god who will guarantee our rights? I see no evidence.

          And it’s weird that “no slavery” comes from the amendments to the Constitution, not from God. More whoops.

          ed: The Supreme Court knew that our laws were based on the Biblical God and therefore ruled for that it is better to have a society based on God’s ideal marriage, monogamy and ruled against polygamy because of its negative effects.

          God is cool with polygamy. “Biblical marriage” means polygamy.

          Wow—read your Bible for a change.

          this should also be the ruling to eliminate the imaginary gay “marriage”.

          You sure are obsessed with the gays. Are you feeling a little closeted yourself? It’s OK—we will be more compassionate than your church friends might be.

          ed: The Constitution is not complete without the DOI
          bs: Show me in the Constitution where it says that.
          ed: The writer and Founders said it.

          Show me in the Constitution where it says that.

        • ed: No, if they wanted a purely secular nation it would have been modeled after the French constitution.

          Ah, I think I see. There is precisely one definition of a secular nation, and the French revolution discovered it. Anything that’s not a clone can’t be a secular nation. Yeah, that makes sense!

          That’s almost as stupid as not realizing that the US Constitution was written in 1787, while the French Revolution didn’t begin until 1789.

          I can name many, many, more similar examples.

          Knock yourself out. Read the Constitution and you’ll see that it defines a secular state.

          Thanks for playing.

        • Ed

          Jefferson was watching France very close for several years before the Revolution actually started, he could tell where it was heading. What do you think in the Constitution proves it is secular? The laws and terms used in the Constitution come from English Common Law which was derived from Biblical law.

        • Why are we having this conversation? Haven’t you read the Constitution?

          What do you think in the Constitution proves it is secular?

          1. The lack of any god language.

          2. The rule against a religious test for public office.

          3. The First Amendment.

        • Ed

          None of those things prove it is secular. Especially since the theistic foundation was already covered in the DOI. There was no reason to repeat it. Jefferson even basically said this. He said in his notes on the State of Virginia “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?” He knew that the existence of God was only thing that provided a rational foundation and secure a guarantee for human rights as enumerated in the Constitution. No tyrannical government ever had a rational basis for human rights.

        • Who cares what Jefferson said? The Constitution (and I fear that I’m repeating myself) is the law of the land. If what Jefferson wanted didn’t wind up in the Constitution, then I guess it sucks to be him.

          And now I’m an atheist schooling a Christian about what a religious constitution would look like. Wow. I think this conversation is over.

        • Ed

          ed: Comes from the examples of Christ and his disciples not converting anyone by force. Jesus told His disciples that when they evangelize and someone rejects their message just shake the dust off your feet and move on.

          bob: Take the 10 Commandments. Which would be declared unconstitutional in the US?
          Take the Constitution. Which principles would not fit in an Old Testament context?

          ed: The first four deal with the relationship between God and Man, the second six deal with the relationship between humans. The first four are the church’s responsibility as Christ taught. Though because humans need at one day of rest a week, the governments concern for the general welfare would be within its responsibility to require companies to give workers at least a day off a week and because the US is founded on Christian principles it rationally would choose Sunday. The government is responsible with the second six, with stalking being covered by the 10th..

          bs: You’ll hem and haw and find some subset that works in each case. Yes, I’d probably agree. That’s why the secular US Constitution defines a democratic republic, not a Jewish theocracy.

          ed: See above. The US is a Unitarian democratic republic.

          Ed: No, both Judaism and Christianity prohibits involuntary slavery of non-POWs, read Exodus 21:16.

          bs: No, Yahweh has no problem with slavery for life, read Leviticus 25:44-46.

          Ed: No, that is referring to voluntary slavery for life and if you didn’t want it to be for life you didn’t have to stay for life. Read Lev. 19:33-34. Non Jews that lived in Israel had to be treated just like a fellow Hebrews. Also read Exodus 22:21-24. they were not allowed to vex or oppress strangers, ie non jews. Involuntary Slavery plainly is oppression. So just like the Hebrew mentioned in Lev. 25:47-50, if a foreigner, stranger, became poor they could sell themselves to a rich man, as seen in the verses you quoted plus verses 47-50. Also, all slaves were freed in the year of Jubilee. So for some it plainly was not for life. Also if you didn’t like your master or he mistreated you could escape to a sanctuary city as seen in Deut. 23:15-16.

        • ed: The first four deal with the relationship between God and Man, the second six deal with the relationship between humans.

          Right. Fitting for an OT theocracy, not so much for a secular country.

          the governments concern for the general welfare would be within its responsibility to require companies to give workers at least a day off a week and because the US is founded on Christian principles it rationally would choose Sunday.

          Yes, the 10 Cs say that one day in 7 is a day of rest. Does the Constitution echo that? I missed that.

          bs: No, Yahweh has no problem with slavery for life, read Leviticus 25:44-46.
          Ed: No, that is referring to voluntary slavery for life and if you didn’t want it to be for life you didn’t have to stay for life.

          Wrong again. Is it OK to worship Jesus with a lying mouth?

          Read Lev. 19:33-34.

          (1) That’s about foreigners in Israel. Doesn’t address Lev. 25:44-46.

          (2) Your point is that the Bible is contradictory, and you can pick and choose which verse trumps which? Sure, I agree that the Bible is contradictory, but is that really where you want to go?

          Non Jews that lived in Israel had to be treated just like a fellow Hebrews.

          Which doesn’t respond to Lev. 25:44-46: “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. . . . You can . . . make them slaves for life.”

          You just reading this passage for the first time?

        • Ed

          ed: The first four deal with the relationship between God and Man, the second six deal with the relationship between humans.

          bs: Right. Fitting for an OT theocracy, not so much for a secular country.

          ed: Since Christ taught separation of church and state, the first four no longer apply to government. Only to the individual conscience, though He did not teach separation of God and state. So a nation will be honored for recognizing His existence and that is what the Founders did with the DOI and the Constitution. The second tablet of six, IS fitting for government since it is concerned with the relationship between fellow humans.

          ed: the governments concern for the general welfare would be within its responsibility to require companies to give workers at least a day off a week and because the US is founded on Christian principles it rationally would choose Sunday.

          bs: Yes, the 10 Cs say that one day in 7 is a day of rest. Does the Constitution echo that? I missed that.

          ed: Yes, it allows the President to not work on Sundays.

          bs: No, Yahweh has no problem with slavery for life, read Leviticus 25:44-46.
          Ed: No, that is referring to voluntary slavery for life and if you didn’t want it to be for life you didn’t have to stay for life.

          bs: Wrong again. Is it OK to worship Jesus with a lying mouth?

          ed: Actually, it was not for life even for the non Hebrew, read verses 47 and 50. All were freed in the year of Jubilee.

          ed: Read Lev. 19:33-34.

          bs: (1) That’s about foreigners in Israel. Doesn’t address Lev. 25:44-46.

          ed: 44 refers to the nations that they were at war with surrounding them, they could make slaves out of POWs, just like the American Constitution allows. But even they were freed after 50 years in the year of Jubilee.

          bs: (2) Your point is that the Bible is contradictory, and you can pick and choose which verse trumps which? Sure, I agree that the Bible is contradictory, but is that really where you want to go?

          ed: No, not in context, no contradictions there.

          ed: Non Jews that lived in Israel had to be treated just like a fellow Hebrews.

          bs: Which doesn’t respond to Lev. 25:44-46: “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. . . . You can . . . make them slaves for life.”
          You just reading this passage for the first time?

          ed; No, see above.

        • Since Christ taught separation of church and state . . .

          Uh, Jesus understood that religion and state government were different; I doubt that he made the argument Jefferson did to the Danbury Baptists. So not really.

          the first four no longer apply to government.

          “no longer apply”? Tell me how God’s unchanging and perpetual covenant suddenly becomes changeable.

          So a nation will be honored for recognizing His existence and that is what the Founders did with the DOI and the Constitution.

          You’re adorable! You’re like the Little Engine that Could. Except that you couldn’t. No, the Constitution defines a secular state.

          But we’ve been over this, and you’ve got cotton in your ears. Good for you! God’s people should run from the truth.

          ed: Yes, it allows the President to not work on Sundays.

          If that doesn’t say “Praise Jesus!” I don’t know what does.

          Except that that merely acknowledges a social custom of the time.

          bs: No, Yahweh has no problem with slavery for life, read Leviticus 25:44-46.
          Ed: No, that is referring to voluntary slavery for life and if you didn’t want it to be for life you didn’t have to stay for life.

          And yet it says “you [can] make them slaves for life.” Careful! Someone is violating the commandment against lying.

          ed: Actually, it was not for life even for the non Hebrew, read verses 47 and 50. All were freed in the year of Jubilee.

          Which isn’t talking about the same group of people.

          ed: Read Lev. 19:33-34.

          Again, that’s a different group of people. Is your problem that you’re a liar, or is it just poor reading comprehension?

          ed: No, not in context, no contradictions there.

          And I’ll bet you can point to the apologetic that says that! Too bad you can’t make an honest case for that using the Bible.

          I wonder why people convert to Christianity for emotional reasons but never for intellectual ones.

        • MR

          Seeing these guys twist themselves into knots to defend the indefensible reminds me every day why I left Christianity. Sigh, if God actually existed, it wouldn’t be this hard.

        • It’s gotta be hard defending the indefensible.

        • MR

          It’s the Gospel According to Ed. Just proclaim it and it’s so. The hubris stinks to high heaven.

          When I was a Christian we used to call these types false prophets, pretending to know God’s mind. As if there were any true prophets. These are the kind of people that lead cults.

        • Ed

          ed: Since Christ taught separation of church and state . . .

          bs: Uh, Jesus understood that religion and state government were different; I doubt that he made the argument Jefferson did to the Danbury Baptists. So not really.

          ed: Jefferson’s letter doesn’t mean what most secularists claim it means. Otherwise he would never have ordered Congress to print bibles on taxpayer’s expense and have them shipped out west for settlers and Indians. It just meant that the Congress would not get involved in religion. Not that the churches and religious people could not get involved in government.

          ed: the first four no longer apply to government.

          bs: “no longer apply”? Tell me how God’s unchanging and perpetual covenant suddenly becomes changeable.

          ed: Because the old Hebrew theocracratic covenant ended completely in 70 AD and the New Covenant began which deals with the heart unlike the old covenant which dealt with outward behavior in relationship to God. The first four commandments deal with heart issues in relationship to God therefore under the NT they no longer apply to government. The second set of six commandments deals with relationships to other humans so therefore still apply to government and general society.

          ed: So a nation will be honored for recognizing His existence and that is what the Founders did with the DOI and the Constitution.

          bs: You’re adorable! You’re like the Little Engine that Could. Except that you couldn’t. No, the Constitution defines a secular state.
          But we’ve been over this, and you’ve got cotton in your ears. Good for you! God’s people should run from the truth.

          ed: What in the Constitution makes it secular?

          ed: Yes, it allows the President to not work on Sundays.

          bs:If that doesn’t say “Praise Jesus!” I don’t know what does.
          Except that that merely acknowledges a social custom of the time.

          ed: A uniquely Christian social custom.

          bs: No, Yahweh has no problem with slavery for life, read Leviticus 25:44-46.

          Ed: No, that is referring to voluntary slavery for life and if you didn’t want it to be for life you didn’t have to stay for life.

          bs: And yet it says “you [can] make them slaves for life.” Careful! Someone is violating the commandment against lying.

          ed; No, Read Deut.23:15-16.

          ed: Actually, it was not for life even for the non Hebrew, read verses 47 and 50. All were freed in the year of Jubilee.

          bs: Which isn’t talking about the same group of people.

          ed: Fraid so,read Lev. 25:9-10, it was to be”proclaimed liberty throughout the land to ALL the inhabitants thereof”. So to be freed all you had to be was living in the land. If the group was in the land then they were freed.
          read Leviticus
          ed: Read Lev. 19:33-34.

          bs: Again, that’s a different group of people. Is your problem that you’re a liar, or is it just poor reading comprehension?

          ed: They cannot kidnap any people that live outside the nation either read Exodus 21:16.

          ed: No, not in context, no contradictions there.

          bs: And I’ll bet you can point to the apologetic that says that! Too bad you can’t make an honest case for that using the Bible.
          I wonder why people convert to Christianity for emotional reasons but never for intellectual reasons.

          ed: No, I just point to Exodus 21:16. I know many people that have converted for intellectual reasons though usually it is both like myself.

        • ed: Jefferson’s letter doesn’t mean what most secularists claim it means.

          The issue is the Constitution and the First Amendment. They define a secular state, and that’s a good thing for Christians and atheists.

          It just meant that the Congress would not get involved in religion. Not that the churches and religious people could not get involved in government.

          Take a reading comprehension course. The First Amendment is actually quite short.

          ed: Because the old Hebrew theocracratic covenant ended completely in 70 AD and the New Covenant began

          Yeah? Show me where God says that in the OT.

          ed: What in the Constitution makes it secular?

          1. What in the Constitution makes it beholden to God/Jesus/religion?

          2. Article VI and the First Amendment.

          ed: A uniquely Christian social custom.

          A 7-day workweek is uniquely Christian? Explain that to us.

          bs: No, Yahweh has no problem with slavery for life, read Leviticus 25:44-46.
          Ed: No, that is referring to voluntary slavery for life and if you didn’t want it to be for life you didn’t have to stay for life.

          Can you not read a couple of sentences? Or are you a member of the Liars for Jesus Club? (The first rule of being in the Liars for Jesus Club is that you lie about being in the Liars for Jesus Club.)

          bs: And yet it says “you [can] make them slaves for life.” Careful! Someone is violating the commandment against lying.
          ed; No, Read Deut.23:15-16.

          No, read Lev. 25:44-46.

          You see what I just did there, right? I quoted God himself. You lose. You can’t trump God’s words, taken in context, with anything, can I get an amen??

          (Or can you? If you want to say that Deut. 23 applies because the Bible is contradictory, we can have that conversation. Sounds like a loser to me, though.)

          ed: No, I just point to Exodus 21:16. I know many people that have converted for intellectual reasons though usually it is both like myself.

          What intellectual reasons ground your faith? That is, what intellectual reasons, if overturned, would shake your faith?

        • WallofSleep

          What does Jesus have to do with a commandment from jewish texts? Why even bring a mythilogical xtian character into a discussion of jewish mythology?

        • Greg G.

          Especially when it follows from a Greek mistranslation.

        • Ed

          Jesus was a jew and God’s word includes two mostly jewish texts, the OT and the NT. Jesus is not mythological. The overwhelming majority of scholars believe He existed. I am surprised you didn’t know this being on an anti-religious discussion website. The bible is not Jewish mythology, there are multiple lines of evidence confirming its accuracy.

        • The overwhelming majority of scholars believe He existed.

          Meh. Any scholar who’s signed a faith statement is unreliable. When you promise up front to reach certain conclusions, you’re not an objective scholar anymore.

          The bible is not Jewish mythology, there are multiple lines of evidence confirming its accuracy.

          There are lots of ancient holy books. Why imagine yours to be accurate history but the others not?

        • Ed

          Your first statement is a genetic fallacy. But no, a significant percentage are not Christians. Because the amount of scientific, historical, and philosophical evidence for the Bible far surpasses any other holy book.

        • Your first statement is a genetic fallacy.

          Wrong. Someone signs a statement that says, “I promise to always conclude that Jesus had a miraculous birth” and then writes a paper that concludes that Jesus had a miraculous birth. You don’t see a problem?

          https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2017/11/william-lane-craig-replies-attack-faith-statements/

          But no, a significant percentage are not Christians. Because the amount of scientific, historical, and philosophical evidence for the Bible far surpasses any other holy book.

          Do tell. If you can, please avoid arguments that I’ve already responded to.

        • Ed

          No, genetic fallacy means that you reject the argument because of the source and not because of the reasoning of the argument. Just because some one believes in the virgin birth does not mean he cannot produce a good strong argument for it. Therefore to avoid committing the genetic fallacy you have to engage with his argument irrespective of what he believes. I dont have time to go over all the evidence in each of the categories. Name a category and I will respond.

        • If the issue were biologists committing to declare that evolution were correct, regardless of the facts, you would be complaining loudly. It’s a shame you can’t understand the problem when it’s in your own camp.

          Name a category and I will respond.

          Are you saying that you can provide strong arguments for God’s existence? Don’t let me constrain you–give us the most compelling one. Or several.

        • Ed

          bs: If the issue were biologists committing to declare that evolution were correct, regardless of the facts, you would be complaining loudly. It’s a shame you can’t understand the problem when it’s in your own camp.

          Ed: No, if he presented a strong argument for evolution, I would not care if he had an a priori commitment to it being true. Most evolutionists actually do that anyway.

          ed: Name a category and I will respond.

          bs: Are you saying that you can provide strong arguments for God’s existence? Don’t let me constrain you–give us the most compelling one. Or several.

          ed: Almost all the evidence points to the universe being an effect and therefore needs a Cause. And using the law of sufficient cause shows that only the Christian God has the right characteristics to produce a universe like ours.

        • ed: Almost all the evidence points to the universe being an effect and therefore needs a Cause. And using the law of sufficient cause

          What’s the “law of sufficient cause”?

          You do know that quantum events don’t need causes, right?

        • Ed

          A corollary of a basic law of logic, causality. We dont know for certain that there is no cause, we just may not be able to detect the cause. But a quantum event requires an interval of time but at Time = 0, there was no time for a quantum event to occur therefore it could not have produced this universe.

        • epeeist

          Perhaps you could answer these questions:

          You see two balls travelling towards each other on a table. They collide and move apart. Now one can observe their velocities and positions. Where in this scenario is the “causality”? Given the kinetics are time reversible, how does this affect the “causality”?

          Since Einstein we know that there is no preferred frame of reference. My example uses a frame of reference in which both balls are moving. However I am perfectly at liberty to choose frames in which one ball is moving and the other is stationary. How does this affect the “causality”?

          My second example is simpler. You have two radon atoms in a box. What causes them to decay and why do they decay at different times?

        • Ed

          ep:Perhaps you could answer these questions:
          You see two balls travelling towards each other on a table. They collide and move apart. Now one can observe their velocities and positions. Where in this scenario is the “causality”? Given the kinetics are time reversible, how does this affect the “causality”?

          ed: The cause is the collision it changes their velocities and positions. In what way are the kinetics time reversible?

          ep: Since Einstein we know that there is no preferred frame of reference. My example uses a frame of reference in which both balls are moving. However I am perfectly at liberty to choose frames in which one ball is moving and the other is stationary. How does this affect the “causality”?

          ed: Again the collision is the cause irrespective of the frame of reference.

          ep: My second example is simpler. You have two radon atoms in a box. What causes them to decay and why do they decay at different times?

          ed: We dont know yet.

        • epeeist

          The cause is the collision it changes their velocities and positions.

          Well we can observe the collision. Are you saying that “collision” is simply another word for “cause”?

          Let’s try something different. Fill a container with chlorine gas. Insert a tube out of which hydrogen is flowing into the container and ignite it. The hydrogen reacts with the chlorine to form hydrogen chloride

          H2 + Cl2 → 2 HCl

          In what way are the kinetics time reversible?

          If you set the problems up using Newtonian mechanics you would use two equations, one involving the conserved momenta and the other involving the conserved kinetic energy. Neither of these two equations says anything about a direction of time.

          You will note also that neither of these two equations includes a “causality” term.

          In simple terms, if you took a video of the two balls colliding you would not beable to tell whether it was being played forwards or backwards.

          Again the collision is the cause irrespective of the frame of reference.

          If it doesn’t change with a change of frame then it must be real. This being so could you tell me what its dimensionality is? (for example the unit of energy is the Joule, this has the dimension ml²/t², normally expressed as kg m² / sec²).

          We dont know yet.

          And yet the problem is fairly easy to set up. It’s just the superposition of two states, one with the helium nucleus (the α particle) trapped in the nucleus and one with it free. As with all such state vectors there will be a probability associated with each state. If the potential function isn’t too high then the probability density functions will overlap. Wave function collapse will generate one or other of these states dependent on the probabilites. This is purely stochastic. So where is the cause in all of this?

        • And a popular option is that there is no cause, not just that we don’t know the cause.

          Again: what is the “law of sufficient cause”? State it clearly and show me that this is a law or axiom or whatever that is universally accepted by scientists (like the Law of Identity, say).

        • Ed

          Even if that is true that quantum events occur without a cause, that is not true about macro events and the origin of a universe is pretty macro. In addition, some physicists believe that quantum events only occur when there is an observer is present. The only observer present at the origin of the universe would be the Creator.

        • Susan

          Even if that is true that quantum events occur without a cause

          It seems to be. But you’ve insisted everything has a cause. Because you don’t worry about whether that statement can be supported. That would mean doing hard work, instead of repeating apologetics.

          You haven’t defined “cause” although epeeist has provided you with opportunities to do so, all the way up to billiard balls.

          the origin of a universe is pretty macro

          I’m sure that will be the title of a cosmology conference.

          In addition, some physicists believe that quantum events only occur when there is an observer is present.

          Really? Which ones?

        • epeeist

          the origin of a universe is pretty macro

          It is? And you know that how precisely?

          In addition, some physicists believe that quantum events only occur when there is an observer is present.

          A very small number of physicists. In actuality some 39% regard the observer as a complex quantum system, 21% do not think that an observer plays a distinguished physical role and 55% think it only has a role in the formalism but does not have a distinguished physical role. Only 6% think consciousness has any role (source).

        • epeeist

          What’s the “law of sufficient cause”?

          I think he’s probably mis-referring to the “principle of sufficient reason”. However, this doesn’t help him since, at best, this is simply an induction from observations at a particular scale over short period of time. It isn’t a necessary truth.

        • I was sure that I would get him to realize that “law of sufficient cause” isn’t in Wikipedia, though it might be mentioned on an Institute for Creation Research or Answers in Genesis page. And that therefore, it’s not a general scientific principle.

          Too optimistic, yet again.

        • epeeist

          And that therefore, it’s not a general scientific principle.

          Bertrand Russell rejected the idea of causality in science, as do a number of other writers. I don’t think I would go that far, but it certainly isn’t that important, look at any substantial article on science and see how few actually present causal explanations.

          I occasionally refer to Ernan McMullan’s paper The Virtues of a Good Theory, in this he calls the idea of cause and effect a “metaphysical principle”. If it fits anywhere then this about sums it up as far as I am concerned.

        • Isn’t the QM hypothesis that some quantum events don’t have causes a more compelling argument?

        • epeeist

          Isn’t the QM hypothesis that some quantum events don’t have causes a more compelling argument?

          It depends on the situation. Where someone is claiming the PSR as a necessary truth then pointing out that some quantum events do not have causes is sufficient to refute the claim.

        • Greg G.

          If Gone With the Wind had an amount of scientific, historical, and philosophical evidence that surpassed all other novels, would that make the plot of the story true?

          Superman comics refer to Kansas. Does that make them more authentic than Batman comics?

          When you drop the miracle baloney from the gospels, you are left with a preacher from Galilee which not supported by the early epistles.

        • Ed

          Gone with the Wind is a fictional novel. Fictional novels were not invented and widespread until the middle ages. No such thing existed in first century Judea. And neither did comics. The Jesus of the gospels IS supported by the earliest epistles and several extrabiblical sources.

        • Greg G.

          Gone with the Wind is a fictional novel. Fictional novels were not invented and widespread until the middle ages. No such thing existed in first century Judea.

          Is your mind so muddled that when you found that fiction novels first appeared in the middle ages that you thought fiction was invented then, too? Do you think The Odyssey is not fiction? Do you think Aesop’s Fables are not fiction? Do you think the dead saints coming out of their graves is not fiction?

          The Jesus of the gospels IS supported by the earliest epistles and several extrabiblical sources.

          Where do the early epistles support the gospels? 1 Timothy and 2 Peter are not early gospels as they take information from the gospels. Show me where the other epistles talk about Jesus of the first century that is clearly not an allusion to the Old Testament.

          Extrabiblical sources are a lifetime too late to help you and appear to come from people who only know about Jesus from the New Testament writings.

        • Ed

          Those are parables, I am referring to intentional fictional prose writings that are written to appear to be historical events. No such things existed prior to the Middle ages. So the writers of the Bible recorded events that they believed to be real historical events. There is evidence that I Tim and 2 Peter were written in the mid 60’s AD. And Paul quotes Jesus from the gospels when he writes about the Lords Supper and he quotes a pre-Pauline/NT hymn that has been dated by some non Christian scholars to before 36 AD about the witnesses to the risen Christ. None of which is an allusion to the OT. No, there are several that are not that late and some dont even refer to His name correctly but scholars believe that they are referring to Jesus.

        • Greg G.

          Those are parables, I am referring to intentional fictional prose writings that are written to appear to be historical events.

          Where did you get those rocket-powered goalposts? The gospels and Acts are written in chiastic form, which is not exactly prose. The gospels are chock full of miracles so they are not written to appear to be historical events. (Begin countdown for the rocket-powered goalposts.)

          There is evidence that I Tim and 2 Peter were written in the mid 60’s AD.

          Do tell.

          And Paul quotes Jesus from the gospels when he writes about the Lords Supper

          That account is within a seam that indicates interpolation. See the sequence of 1 Corinthians 10:18-22 where Paul gives an exhortation, asks a question, then answers it using the same metaphors. The cycle is repeated 3 times but the answer to the third question is found in 1 Corinthians 11:30-31. It shows that the material in between was added to the original version.

          he quotes a pre-Pauline/NT hymn that has been dated by some non Christian scholars to before 36 AD about the witnesses to the risen Christ. None of which is an allusion to the OT.

          You are referring to 1 Corinthians 15 but it is definitely not an eye witness account. It says that “Christ died for sins”. That is not something an eyewitness can see. It shows that the passage refers to Isaiah 53:8, “was buried” comes from Isaiah 53:9, and Hosea 6:2. Saying it is not an allusion to the OT is your delusion.

          No, there are several that are not that late and some dont even refer to His name correctly but scholars believe that they are referring to Jesus.

          You are asserting without evidence. I am showing you the evidence that you are being lied to.

        • Ed

          ed: Those are parables, I am referring to intentional fictional prose writings that are written to appear to be historical events.

          gg: Where did you get those rocket-powered goalposts?

          ed: No, that is what I have been saying all along.

          gg: The gospels and Acts are written in chiastic form, which is not exactly prose.

          ed: Maybe so, but the writer was writing something that he believed actually happened. He was not writing intentional fiction.

          gg: The gospels are chock full of miracles so they are not written to appear to be historical events. (Begin countdown for the rocket-powered goalposts.)

          ed: No, the writers believed that Yahweh actually exists, therefore, miracles would be very possible.

          ed: There is evidence that I Tim and 2 Peter were written in the mid 60’s AD.

          gg: Do tell.

          ed: Using information from I Clement 5:7 and Eusebius shows that I Timothy was most likely written between his two imprisonments which was from 62-64 AD. 2 Peter shows evidence of being written during a period of persecution in Rome, so most likely it was the persecution of Nero. Since Nero died in AD 68, it most likely was written from prison around AD 67

          ed: And Paul quotes Jesus from the gospels when he writes about the Lords Supper

          gg: That account is within a seam that indicates interpolation. See the sequence of 1 Corinthians 10:18-22 where Paul gives an exhortation, asks a question, then answers it using the same metaphors. The cycle is repeated 3 times but the answer to the third question is found in 1 Corinthians 11:30-31. It shows that the material in between was added to the original version.

          ed: Actually it is well known that ancient jewish rabbis often did their teaching using patterns of three. So this is expected from a jewish rabbi.

          ed: he quotes a pre-Pauline/NT hymn that has been dated by some non Christian scholars to before 36 AD about the witnesses to the risen Christ. None of which is an allusion to the OT.

          gg: You are referring to 1 Corinthians 15 but it is definitely not an eye witness account. It says that “Christ died for sins”. That is not something an eyewitness can see.

          ed: Yes, but it is something a eyewitness can HEAR from the lips of Jesus before and after his death.

          gg: It shows that the passage refers to Isaiah 53:8, “was buried” comes from Isaiah 53:9, and Hosea 6:2. Saying it is not an allusion to the OT is your delusion.

          ed: When a jewish person died they were buried, of course passages that talk about someone dying would mention being buried.

          ed: No, there are several that are not that late and some dont even refer to His name correctly but scholars believe that they are referring to Jesus.

          gg: You are asserting without evidence. I am showing you the evidence that you are being lied to.

          ed: Who is lying to me? 30-40% of the information I provide comes from my own research of the bible.

        • Greg G.

          ed: Those are parables, I am referring to intentional fictional prose writings that are written to appear to be historical events.

          gg: Where did you get those rocket-powered goalposts?

          ed: No, that is what I have been saying all along.

          No, that is not what you said. You said fiction didn’t exist in the first century.

          https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2019/09/outrageous-kim-davis-homophobe-and-hypocrite/#comment-4657890610

          Gone with the Wind is a fictional novel. Fictional novels were not invented and widespread until the middle ages. No such thing existed in first century Judea. And neither did comics. The Jesus of the gospels IS supported by the earliest epistles and several extrabiblical sources.

          I pointed out Homer’s epics and Aesop’s Fables being fiction, then you started talking about parables. But Homer’s epics are not parables.

          gg: The gospels and Acts are written in chiastic form, which is not exactly prose.

          ed: Maybe so, but the writer was writing something that he believed actually happened. He was not writing intentional fiction.

          You said the parables were written in prose. I said they were not written in prose. You said you were talking about parables at that point, which you said were intentional fiction. Now you are saying that the writer believed it actually happened.

          Ed, you do not know what you are talking about even when you are talking about what you were talking about.

          gg: The gospels are chock full of miracles so they are not written to appear to be historical events. (Begin countdown for the rocket-powered goalposts.)

          ed: No, the writers believed that Yahweh actually exists, therefore, miracles would be very possible.

          Since such miracles did not happen, the accounts are invented, which means they are fiction.

          ed: There is evidence that I Tim and 2 Peter were written in the mid 60’s AD.

          gg: Do tell.

          ed: Using information from I Clement 5:7 and Eusebius shows that I Timothy was most likely written between his two imprisonments which was from 62-64 AD. 2 Peter shows evidence of being written during a period of persecution in Rome, so most likely it was the persecution of Nero. Since Nero died in AD 68, it most likely was written from prison around AD 67

          1 & 2 Timothy and Titus are called the Pastorals for a reason. They have material about the running of a church. Paul didn’t see any sense in getting married and never discussed anything about raising children because he thought the Lord’s coming was imminent. Paul had no need for long range contingencies. These epistles were forged in Paul’s name at a time when churches realized the Lord wasn’t coming so they needed a power structure.

          ed: Actually it is well known that ancient jewish rabbis often did their teaching using patterns of three. So this is expected from a jewish rabbi.

          Sure, and I accept that Paul had a Jewish background so he would know about that. But he would not interrupt the pattern of three with irrelevant material. Therefore, you must admit that 1 Corinthians 10:23-11-29 was interpolated ham-handedly by someone who was not the original author.

          gg: It shows that the passage refers to Isaiah 53:8, “was buried” comes from Isaiah 53:9, and Hosea 6:2. Saying it is not an allusion to the OT is your delusion.

          ed: When a jewish person died they were buried, of course passages that talk about someone dying would mention being buried.

          Paul mentions that Jesus died many times but never mentioned that Jesus was buried anywhere else except where he says “according to the scriptures”. The only other places where Paul refers to “buried” is figurative regarding baptism.

          ed: Who is lying to me? 30-40% of the information I provide comes from my own research of the bible.

          60-70% of the time, someone else is lying to you and you are falling for it. 30-40% of the time, you are lying to yourself. You have clearly demonstrated how poor your own research is.

        • Rudy R

          The overwhelming majority of scholars believe He existed.

          Those overwhelming majority of scholars believe He existed are Christians. Go figure.

        • Ed

          Uh no, a very significant percentage are not Christians.

        • Rudy R

          I know you don’t realize that’s a ridiculous claim. Try backing that with a source or citation.
          Here’s my source, which shows a significant percentage of Christians. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:New_Testament_scholars

        • Susan

          Here’s my source which shows a significant percentage of Christians.

          I made it through the As and most of the Bs until I ran into Richard Bentley, whose case is interesting, and I’m not sure what sort of trouble he caused.

          Do I have to keep going through each one of them or is Ed going to support his claim?

          It’s not our job to disprove Ed’s claim. It’s his job to support it. But based on the As and Bs, this “significant percentage” thing seems to be something he pulled straight out of his ask or someone else did, served it to him on a warmed plate, and Ed swallowed it whole.

        • Ed

          I am not denying that the majority may be orthodox Christian but there is a significant number are liberal Christians who generally are not actual Christians since they deny the Apostles Creed, the Ten Commandments, and other essential teachings of Christ. And in fact your list confirms that. If someone denies that they have the doctrinal characteristics of what a Christian is and has been for 2000 years, they probably are not one. Just because you stand in a garage and yell “I am a car” does not make you one. In addition, there are even some atheist and agnostic scholars who dont deny His existence such as Bart Ehrman.

        • Greg G.

          Liberal Christians are as Christian as any other Christian. Splitting hairs over an imaginary religion is absurd.

        • TheNuszAbides

          oh come now, if sectarians aren’t entitled to split hairs over what they presume determines the “soul’s” “eternal” “fate” … what ARE they entitled to?

        • Ed

          Actual Christians dont believe Christianity is imaginary in case you didn’t know, otherwise they wouldn’t be Christians.

        • Rudy R

          Ah yes, reverting to a No True Scotsman lame rebuttal.

        • Susan

          Uh no, a very significant percentage are not Christians.

          What percentage is that?

          What percentage aren’t theists?

          What percentage started out with no belief and were convinced by “scientific” and/or “historical” and/or “philosophical” evidence?

          It’s quite a claim, Ed.

          Please support it.

        • TheNuszAbides

          To hope that Ed will justify his use of the phrase “very significant” is, I fear, to hope in vain.

        • Ed

          See my post to Rudy R below.

        • Susan

          See my post to Rudy R below.

          I can’t find a post that responds to my direct questions to your claims.

          It is Patheosdisqus, so it’s possible that you are asking me to respond to a post that you’ve made, that answers those questions, but I can’t find it.

          Can you link it? (It’s as simple as right-clicking on the time stamp, copy/pasting and posting it in a comment box… if any part of that is confusing, there are plenty of people here who will be happy to help you with the technical bits. Disquspatheos is a bitch69.)

          =====

          ETA 2 minutes later :

          What percentage?

        • Ed

          I am not denying that the majority may be orthodox Christian but there is a significant number are liberal Christians who generally are not actual Christians since they deny the Apostles Creed, the Ten Commandments, and other essential teachings of Christ. And in fact your list confirms that. If someone denies that they have the doctrinal characteristics of what a Christian is and has been for 2000 years, they probably are not one. Just because you stand in a garage and yell “I am a car” does not make you one. In addition, there are even some atheist and agnostic scholars who dont deny His existence such as Bart Ehrman.

        • Susan

          I am not denying that the majority may be orthodox Christian

          You made a claim. I asked you very simple and direct questions about that claim. They were:

          What percentage is that?

          What percentage aren’t theists?

          What percentage started out with no belief and were convinced by “scientific” and/or “historical” and/or “philosophical” evidence?

          Not only have you not answered any of those questions, you’re attempting to pull a No True Scotsman.

        • MR

          I think Ed believes himself to be the only Scotsman.

        • Susan

          I think Ed believes himself to be the only Scotsman.

          Well, yes… but that’s secondary.

          The fact is he made a claim and when asked to clarify, he pretended he’d done so to Rudy R. When I asked him to link to it, he went all True Scotsman on us.

          Ed likes to make shit up and is completely incapable of supporting the shit he makes up.

          It’s overtly dishonest and stupid.

        • MR

          That was evident from the beginning.

        • Susan

          That was evident from the beginning.

          Of course.

          Sadly, that is the only sort of consistency we’re going to get from Ed.

        • Ed

          Looking at your link, I would say 60-70% are orthodox Christians, 25% theists, and 5-10% atheists. Unlike Scotsmen, there is an actual objective definition of what a Christian is, and it is contained in the Bible. So the NTS fallacy does not apply.

        • Greg G.

          Unlike Scotsmen, there is an actual objective definition of what a Christian is, and it is contained in the Bible.

          If that were true, there wouldn’t be 49,000 different denominations that do not all have the same definition of “Christian”. All you can do is say those Christians who do not agree with you are not true Christians, which means you are pulling a No True Scotsman.

        • Ed

          Actually the ones that believe in the infallible authority of the bible do have the same basic definition.

        • Greg G.

          There’s the No True Scotsman, again. Infallible Bible thumpers make the most fallacious claims. Why should anybody consider their definition of Christian to be the correct one?

        • Ed

          Because only they believe what the founders of Christianity believed.

        • Greg G.

          Maybe you are not an authentic Christian because you think “the Apostles Creed, the Ten Commandments, and other essential teachings of Christ” are essential to being a Christian.

          Matthew 7:22-23 (NRSV)22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’

          So, if you believe the Bible, some people who think they are saved will find out they are not. Just because you think you are and trust that you are is no guarantee.

        • Ed

          Uhh without those teachings Christianity would not exist. Those have been the primary criteria for 2000 years. Paul explains how we can have assurance that we ARE Christians. Self examination with the Holy Spirit confirming it.

        • Greg G.

          Without those teachings, there would not be 49,000 denominations of Christianity, with many of them thinking other denominations are not authentic Christians.

          I challenged you about how you know you are a real Christian and all you can give is circular reasoning based on feelings, the same feelings inauthentic Xtians would claim.

        • Ed

          Many of those denominations do not accept the infallible authority of the bible, so they are not orthodox anyway from the get go. Only ones that accept that infallible authority agree on the essentials I stated above. No it is feelings based on the objective truth of the bible, I examine myself based on the orthodox essentials I stated above, the liberals dont even have those orthodox essentials to base their feelings on. For them it is just pure feelings.

        • Pofarmer

          Uhm, Ed, even Bart Ehrman says that something like 97% of biblical scholars are Christian.

        • TheNuszAbides

          So, then, something like 3% not-Christian is “very significant” in the sense that such an animal exists after accounting for statistical error? I mean, not that I’d personally hang my hat on Maurice Casey’s conclusions regarding anything beyond the mere translation of Aramaic …

        • Pofarmer

          I think it’s probably “Very significant” only in Ed’s mind.

        • TheNuszAbides

          My younger and less patient selves can identify with his obvious yearning to bolster his motivated reasoning with Power Wordz.

        • Ed

          See my post to RudyR below where I demonstrate that many of those that claim to be Christians are not since they deny the Apostles Creed.

        • Pofarmer

          It’s already been explained to you, that unless you specifically put in a link to the comment, there is no guarantee we’ll see it, thanks to the way disqus threads comments. If you hold your mouse over the date/time by your name, you should be able to right click and choose “Save link location” you can then paste that into another comment. Otherwise, it’s literally meaningless. There is no guarantee someone else will see the same comment.

        • Greg G.

          We know about the consensus of scholars. That’s about all the evidence anybody can come up with.

          Most of those in the consensus base their opinion on the consensus, so it’s circular.

          Some cite their evidence: Gospel of Mark, Matthew’s independent source(s), Luke’s independent source(s), Q (Matthew’s and Luke’s source, the Sayings source, the Signs source, and oral transmission. We have Mark. The others are imagined under the assumption there was a Jesus and people wrote about him. So the consensus is circukar.

          There appear to be literary relationships between the literature available in the first century to the gospels but that literature isn’t about Jesus. The stories are altered with Jesus stuck into them. This indicates the stories are fiction. About 75% of the Gospel of Mark seems to be derived that way and that’s the best evidence you have.

        • Arthur C. Clarke predicted that the space elevator would be built “about fifty years after everyone stops laughing.”

          Perhaps that maps in some way onto the mythicist question: scholars will reject Jesus as a historical person 50 years [or so] after everyone stops laughing.

          And the laughter now seems to be more forced.

        • Ed

          gg: We know about the consensus of scholars. That’s about all the evidence anybody can come up with.
          Most of those in the consensus base their opinion on the consensus, so it’s circular.
          Some cite their evidence: Gospel of Mark, Matthew’s independent source(s), Luke’s independent source(s), Q (Matthew’s and Luke’s source, the Sayings source, the Signs source, and oral transmission. We have Mark. The others are imagined under the assumption there was a Jesus and people wrote about him. So the consensus is circukar.

          ed: It appears you know next to nothing about this subject.

          gg: There appear to be literary relationships between the literature available in the first century to the gospels but that literature isn’t about Jesus. The stories are altered with Jesus stuck into them. This indicates the stories are fiction. About 75% of the Gospel of Mark seems to be derived that way and that’s the best evidence you have

          ed: There is absolutely no evidence that Mark has been altered in any significant way. The oldest copies of Mark are basically identical to the later copies. We have evidence for Christ much older than the book of Mark.

        • Greg G.

          It appears that you know next to nothing about what the consensus of scholars is based upon, otherwise you would provide a sample.

          I didn’t say the Gospel of Mark had significant changes. I am saying the original was a fictional story that used the literature of that was available in the first century.

          The Feeding of the 5000 and the 4000 is based on Elisha’s Feeding of the 100 in 2 Kings 4:42-44 and on the feasts Odysseus’ son attended when he began searching for his father.

          A woman recognized who Jesus was and washed his feet. Jesus said she would be famous. That is a play on the woman who washed Odysseus’ feet and recognized him. Her name means “anti-fame”.

          If you mean the early epistles are evidence for Jesus, the fact that all they say about Jesus can be derived from the Old Testament. The early epistles say nothing about a first century preacher/teacher from Galilee.

          If you think 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 is an eyewitness account, you are wrong. An eyewitness could not know that a particular death was “for sins”. That shows that the “according to the scriptures” means the read that the Suffering Servant died for sins and was buried comes from Isaiah 53:8-9 and the “raised on the third day” comes from Hosea 6:2.

        • robert

          quote:
          If you think 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 is an eyewitness account, you are wrong. An eyewitness could not know that a particular death was “for sins”.

          question: in other words paul is passing on something which is theological in nature and lacks historical witness?

          without any historical witness , one can easily say that groups of people saw tom flap his arms all the way to the moon.

          or kill thousands of pigs in one go

          or feed thousands of people in one go.

        • Greg G.

          Yes. Nearly everything the early epistles say about Jesus appears to come from OT quotes and allusions.

          The mass feedings appear to be based on a combination of 2 Kings 4:42-44 and the two feasts Odysseus’ son attended.

          The big pig drowning appears to combine Circe turning Odysseus’ sailors into pigs, the Cyclops incident, and a couple of OT allusions I cannot recall off the top of my head.

        • Ed

          gg: It appears that you know next to nothing about what the consensus of scholars is based upon, otherwise you would provide a sample.

          ed: It is based on archaeological data, dates and locations of the gospel writings, independent confirmations of the basic gist of the gospels, among other things.

          gg: I didn’t say the Gospel of Mark had significant changes. I am saying the original was a fictional story that used the literature of that was available in the first century.
          The Feeding of the 5000 and the 4000 is based on Elisha’s Feeding of the 100 in 2 Kings 4:42-44 and on the feasts Odysseus’ son attended when he began searching for his father.

          ed; In what way specifically is it based on Elisha’s feeding? Yes they are all feedings but the context is totally unalike. The only similarity is that there was not enough food based on the size of the crowd and that there was some left over. The key similarity is that they were both accomplished by the same God. He wants to bless the people so they both had some left over, that would be evidence that they are both dealing with the same God. But the differences are so significant that is obvious that they are not based the OT story. The OT story was a remedy to a poisoning. The NT story was a remedy to hunger. The OT was only for devout prophets, the NT feeding was for ordinary women, children, and men including skeptical unbelievers. You appear to be reading your theory into the stories rather than making an objective analysis. As far as Odysseus’ feasts, first it is unlikely that relatively uneducated first century jews who looked down on Greeks would even know or even if they did know would be interested to learn anything about his feasts. And even experts believe that those feasts had no meaning similar to Jesus’ feedings,see https://www.shmoop.com/odyssey/food-banqueting-symbol.html

          gg: A woman recognized who Jesus was and washed his feet. Jesus said she would be famous. That is a play on the woman who washed Odysseus’ feet and recognized him. Her name means “anti-fame”.

          ed: See above about how unlikely the writers of the NT would know these Greek stories. And if she was anti famous, why would they change it to famous? Makes no sense.

          gg: If you mean the early epistles are evidence for Jesus, the fact that all they say about Jesus can be derived from the Old Testament. The early epistles say nothing about a first century preacher/teacher from Galilee.

          ed: No I am referring to the ancient pre-NT creed reported in I Corinthians 15:3-7. Which many scholars including non Christian scholars date to within 3 years of Jesus resurrection due to the archaic names and terms used in the original greek. The reason the epistles dont go into details about His life is because the gospels had already been widely circulating orally for 10-20 years by the time they were written so there was no need to rehash that information, Paul and the other writers of the epistles wanted believers to grow spiritually. The gospels were the babies milk.

          gg: If you think 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 is an eyewitness account, you are wrong. An eyewitness could not know that a particular death was “for sins”.

          ed: Yes he would if he heard Jesus tell them that that is why He was going to die and there is evidence that He did.

          gg: That shows that the “according to the scriptures” means the read that the Suffering Servant died for sins and was buried comes from Isaiah 53:8-9 and the “raised on the third day” comes from Hosea 6:2

          ed: Or it could mean that those are predictive prophecies of the Messiah that came true when Jesus the Messiah came.

        • Greg G.

          gg: It appears that you know next to nothing about what the consensus of scholars is based upon, otherwise you would provide a sample.

          ed: It is based on archaeological data, dates and locations of the gospel writings, independent confirmations of the basic gist of the gospels, among other things.

          Thanks for confirming that I was right. There is no archaeological evidence supporting the events about Jesus in the gospels.

          The dating of the gospels is based on the tenure of Pilate and others according to Josephus, then calculating dates so they can pretend they were written by eye witnesses because Luke says his gospel is based on eye witness accounts. It is based primarily on Mark, which is certainly not an eye witness account.

          We have more independent confirmations of the basic gist of Gone with the Wind but that does not confirm it’s a true story.

          I assume “among other things” are less valid than what you presented.

          ed: See above about how unlikely the writers of the NT would know these Greek stories. And if she was anti famous, why would they change it to famous? Makes no sense.

          You are making no sense. Homer’s Odyssey and Iliad were the most popular works of the day. There is a list of writings available at an ancient library. It had about 700 copies each of The Odyssey and The Iliad, the next highest number of copies was less than 100. They have inspired many works from Virgil’s Aeneid in the first century BC to O Brother, Where Art Thou? 19 years ago.

          The Gospel of Mark uses several Aramaic words and several Latin words. Mark almost always explained the Aramaic but never explained the Latin. Mark even explained the value of a Palestinian coin by comparing it to a Roman coin. This shows that Mark was writing for Romans so your argument fails because you do not understand the intended audience.

          ed: Yes he would if he heard Jesus tell them that that is why He was going to die and there is evidence that He did.

          That’s funny, Paul never mentioned hearing or seeing Jesus. Paul doesn’t seem to know anything about Jesus that doesn’t come from the Old Testament.

          Matthew 26:28 says it but the parallel passages do not (Mark 14:24 and Luke 22:20). It sounds like Matthew made it up from reading it in Isaiah. Matthew made up many things based on Isaiah.

          ed: Or it could mean that those are predictive prophecies of the Messiah that came true when Jesus the Messiah came.

          Everything Paul says about Jesus can be found in the Old Testament. He says nothing about Jesus from Galilee. Paul even says he relies on scripture. The only time he quotes prophecy is about the coming of the Lord when the dead will rise and the living will be changed, using the third person for the dead and the first person for the living.

        • Ed

          gg: Thanks for confirming that I was right. There is no archaeological evidence supporting the events about Jesus in the gospels.

          ed: Fraid so, among other things there is Caiaphas’s coffin and Jesus’ brother James’ coffin has now been considered authentic by most scholars and combined with the probability that all three names could be found together is astronomical and not be Jesus’ family. Then there are all the excavated towns and cities that confirm some of teh minute details found in the descriptions in the NT.

          gg: The dating of the gospels is based on the tenure of Pilate and others according to Josephus, then calculating dates so they can pretend they were written by eye witnesses because Luke says his gospel is based on eye witness accounts. It is based primarily on Mark, which is certainly not an eye witness account.

          ed: There is more to the dating than that, there is also linguistic evidence. And that linguistic evidence points to being eyewitnesses for the books of John and Matthew. Mark was not an eyewitness but the evidence points to his writing down the eyewitness account of Peter.

          gg: We have more independent confirmations of the basic gist of Gone with the Wind but that does not confirm it’s a true story.
          I assume “among other things” are less valid than what you presented.

          ed: No, as I explained earlier, other than parables, intentional fiction did not exist until the middle ages.

          ed: See above about how unlikely the writers of the NT would know these Greek stories. And if she was anti famous, why would they change it to famous? Makes no sense.

          gg: You are making no sense. Homer’s Odyssey and Iliad were the most popular works of the day. There is a list of writings available at an ancient library. It had about 700 copies each of The Odyssey and The Iliad, the next highest number of copies was less than 100. They have inspired many works from Virgil’s Aeneid in the first century BC to O Brother, Where Art Thou? 19 years ago.

          ed: Ordinary rural first century jews generally despised the greeks/gentiles as persons much more their “unclean” writings. They would not have touched the Odyssey and the Iliad with a ten foot pole.

          gg: The Gospel of Mark uses several Aramaic words and several Latin words. Mark almost always explained the Aramaic but never explained the Latin. Mark even explained the value of a Palestinian coin by comparing it to a Roman coin. This shows that Mark was writing for Romans so your argument fails because you do not understand the intended audience.

          ed: Even if true, how does that cause my argument to fail?

          ed: Yes he would if he heard Jesus tell them that that is why He was going to die and there is evidence that He did.

          gg; That’s funny, Paul never mentioned hearing or seeing Jesus. Paul doesn’t seem to know anything about Jesus that doesn’t come from the Old Testament.

          ed: I believe we were talking about the 12 here. But on the road to Damascus, Paul (a skeptic like you at the time) both heard and saw Jesus’ resurrected body.

          gg: Matthew 26:28 says it but the parallel passages do not (Mark 14:24 and Luke 22:20). It sounds like Matthew made it up from reading it in Isaiah. Matthew made up many things based on Isaiah.

          ed: Paul talks about it in I Cor. 10 and 11. There is no evidence Matthew made up things based on Isaiah.

          ed: Or it could mean that those are predictive prophecies of the Messiah that came true when Jesus the Messiah came.

          gg: Everything Paul says about Jesus can be found in the Old Testament. He says nothing about Jesus from Galilee. Paul even says he relies on scripture. The only time he quotes prophecy is about the coming of the Lord when the dead will rise and the living will be changed, using the third person for the dead and the first person for the living

          ed: No, he talks about the Lords supper in I Cor. 10 and 11 among other things.

        • TheNuszAbides

          It appears you know next to nothing about this subject

          YOU ARE HILARIOUS.

          Or you’re hiding your profoundly scholarly light under a bushel. That seems profoundly unlikely, though.

        • WallofSleep
        • Susan

          The overwhelming majority of scholars believe He existed.

          To what sorts of scholars are you referring and who is “He”?

          Are you saying that an overwhelming majority of scholars believe that a Mangod wandered the earth?

          If so, based on what?

          If you just mean something more mundane, like a guy wandered the earth on whom the Jesus stories are based, then say so.

          But then, you just have a dime-a-dozen guy who claimed to be a god, or whom others claimed was a god.

          Please state clearly what you are claiming and how you support it.

        • Ed

          ed: The overwhelming majority of scholars believe He existed.

          su: To what sorts of scholars are you referring and who is “He”?

          ed: Biblical scholars and historians, Jesus of Nazareth.

          su: Are you saying that an overwhelming majority of scholars believe that a Mangod wandered the earth?
          If so, based on what?

          ed: No, not that he was the Divine Son of God. But the basic gist of His life as seen in the Arabic version of Josephus.

          su: If you just mean something more mundane, like a guy wandered the earth on whom the Jesus stories are based, then say so.
          But then, you just have a dime-a-dozen guy who claimed to be a god, or whom others claimed was a god.
          Please state clearly what you are claiming and how you support it.

          ed; Most scholars believe that the nonsupernatural gist of the gospels are true as stated in the Arabic version of Josephus. But the resurrection of Jesus has one of teh strongest documentary evidence of 1st century events.

        • Rudy R

          Time to put up or shut up. Cite these multiple lines of evidence.

        • Ed

          History, science and philosophy.

        • Rudy R

          Your pathetic response speaks volumes of your failure to provide any coherent evidence for your god.

        • The nation’s philosophical foundation is based on the laws of God according to the DOI …

          The Constitution is the supreme law. The DoI isn’t.

          … which says “the laws of Nature and (the laws) of Natures God.”

          “Laws of God” = laws of the Christian god, but “Nature’s God” is a deist reference. There is no reference to the Christian god in the DoI.

          she decided to stand up for the moral laws that this nation was founded on.

          What moral laws? They weren’t Christian laws.

        • Ed

          See my post above about the role of the DOI. No, Jefferson was a Unitarian, Unitarians believed the moral laws of the Bible were revealed by the Creator and then there was the laws of Nature. There were two sets of laws as implied in the statement I quoted from the DOI. Unitarians believed the moral teachings of the Bible just not the supernatural events recorded therein. Those are the laws she was standing up for.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          The DoI is the pamphlet, the CONSTITUTION is the contract.

          The fact that YOUR KIND are too 69thick to realize that is NOT our problem.

        • Ed

          No, the DOI is the philosophical foundation of the Constitution, Jefferson was a philosopher and that is why he wrote it the way he did. Without the rights mentioned in the DOI you cant have the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights. And also it explains where those rights come from, Jefferson and the founders knew that human rights cant come from nature or government otherwise they can be removed. What does 69thick mean?

        • Without the rights mentioned in the DOI you cant have the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

          The Constitution doesn’t refer back to the DoI. If there were no DoI, the Constitution would be unchanged and untouched.

          And also it explains where those rights come from

          Yes, it does. The DoI says, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

        • Ed

          No, but it assumes the DOI. Without the right to life mentioned in the DOI, you can’t have any of the bill of rights. I didn’t say where governments come from I said it tells us where human rights come from, it states that human rights come from God in the DOI as intrinsic in that all humans are created in the image of God. And to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.

        • Why is this hard? (1) The DoI isn’t your friend. It says that Congress derives its powers from “the consent of the governed,” not from God.

          (2) The Constitution is it. That’s what constitutions are–the buck-stops-here document. The terminus. The end of the line. The foundation. There must be some document which, if you have a concern, you can’t go to another document to resolve, and constitutions are it.

        • WallofSleep

          “Without the rights mentioned in the DOI you cant have the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights.”

          Absolute BS. The bill of rights was added to the constitution after it was already drafted because of future/potential citizen’s concerns. That’s why they are called amendments.

          Man, you really fail at this. Hang it up, kid.

        • Ed

          That’s because they realized that the DOI’s enumerated rights were not specific enough.

        • Greg G.

          No, it was because the DOI was not law.

          The DOI does not mention God. It mentions a creator, which is a Deist argument, not the Christian god.

        • Ed

          Actually the DOI IS part of the US law code and has been referenced in several SCOTUS decisions. No, it is more accurate to say the Unitarian God. Jefferson was a Unitarian and put his understanding of God in the DOI. The deist god just created the universe and then did no more actions in the world. The Unitarian God while not doing any explicitly supernatural acts, DID act in the world such as endowing humans with certain rights as Jefferson states and Unitarians did believe in prayer for God to do certain things for humans but thru natural processes rather than supernatural ones. And they did believe that God revealed His moral laws in the bible. That is the second set of laws mentioned in the DOI after Natural law.

        • Greg G.

          Why do you keep saying this but never cite a single example?

          The DOI is a political document, not a legal document. It was not written as law nor was it written by any body with the authority to write laws as the men who signed it were still subjects of the King of England. Have you been swallowing David Barton?

          https://www.quora.com/Has-SCOTUS-ever-cited-the-declaration-of-independence-as-authority-for-a-decision

        • WallofSleep

          You know how gymnasts are always kind of small, so it’s easier for them to do all those stunts? Same goes for your mental gymnastics and the size of your brain.

          Anyway, the DoI was just that, a deceleration of intent to split from the British empire and become independent. There were no enumerated rights, and it is not law.

          And there were no enumerated rights in the constitution either, nor any intention to put them in at first. Those had to be added later because it became clear that people were reluctant to sign on to something until it spelled out citizens rights.

          You’re failing and flailing, kiddo. You really do need to give up.

        • Ed

          Good comeback for an ad hominem! Yes it is considered part of the law. It is listed in the United States Code Annotated under the heading Organic Laws of the USA. And is cited in many rulings by the SCOTUS. It mentions three of the enumerated rights. Your third statement basically agrees with what I said.

        • Greg G.

          The only times that the Supreme Court brings up the DOI is to say they interpret a law in the spirit of the DOI. They do not cite it as a law.

          The way to disprove this would be to cite a case where SCOTUS quoted the DOI as law. I haven’t seen you attempt this. Why are you avoiding it?

        • Ed

          I didn’t say it was A law. I said it is part of the law code. It is the philosophical underpinning of the legal code and Constitution as legal historian Martin Diamond as written. It was used by SCOTUS and Congress when Oklahoma Territory was petitioning to become a state, and they required Oklahoma’s Constitution to adhere to the principles of the American Constitution and the DOI.

        • Greg G.

          Can you post a link to where the DOI was used by SCOTUS of Congress’ requirement for Oklahoma that is any more than a handwave to the spirit of the DOI?

        • No, it’s because the DoI wasn’t a Constitution.

          Let go of the DoI. It doesn’t make your argument.

        • Ed

          No, the founders considered the DOI the philosophical foundation of the Constitution. It explains where our rights and laws come from, otherwise the Constitution is an irrational mess hanging in mid air with no foundation.

        • Noop. Remind yourself what “constitution” means. It’s the foundation. The buck has to stop somewhere, and that’s where.

          The DoI is an important historical document, but for evaluating law, you’re thinking of the Constitution.

        • Ed

          No, it is the philosophical foundation. Jefferson was an amateur philosopher, so he knew the Constitution needed a foundation based on rational thinking. And actually it is officially part of the American legal code. When Oklahoma became a state, they were ordered by the SCOTUS that their constitution had to be compatible with the US Constitution and the Declaration.

        • Why stop there? If everything must have a foundation, what grounds the DoI? And after you answer “nothing,” then I wonder, why can’t the Constitution be grounded on nothing?

          I think you need to read up on what a “constitution” is.

          How many SCOTUS decisions are grounded in the DoI? You’d think there’d be quite a few, if it’s the foundation of the foundation.

        • Ed

          The Creator who is the ground of all being, is the foundation of the DOI as implied in the DOI itself and as the founders believed. There are many decisions where the DOI was referenced, too many to list here.

        • You need to go back and read what “constitution” means. For starters, it means “the buck stops here.”

          The Creator who is the ground of all being

          Does this guy have a name? If so, show it to me in the DoI.

        • The Jack of Sandwich

          What do you think “Do not take the Lord’s name in vain” means?

          And what do you think Matthew 5:33-37 means?

        • Ed

          See my response above to WallofSleep.

        • Pofarmer

          “Natures God” is Enlightenment speak, nit wit. This was nearly 100 years before “On the Origin of Species”. It was a placeholder, but was specifically NOT the Christian God.

        • Ed

          Actually in the case of the DOI, it is the Unitarian God, the biblical God without the supernatural. But they kept His moral laws.

        • epeeist

          Actually in the case of the DOI, it is the Unitarian God,

          And there was me thinking that many of the founders of your country were deists. What kind of “moral laws” would a deist god promulgate?

        • Pofarmer

          I’d like to think that the smart theists go elsewhere, and we just get the dumb ones. But I’m pretty certain that’s not true.

        • TheNuszAbides

          The smart theists pretend they’re above all this bickering. And then there’s Luke B.

        • Ed

          Deists generally believe in Natural Law and that supposedly is where there morals would come from but natural law is a little debatable, so I think that is why Jefferson added the phrase “and (the laws) of Natures God.” Referring to the moral laws of the Bible which is what the Unitarians and the Christians believed in. Especially given that the overwhelming majority of the founders were Christians.

      • Thanks4AllTheFish

        So since Kim is guilty of adultery, and man’s law says that adultery isn’t a punishable offense but God’s law says that the adulterer should be stoned to death, then any consequence from stoning Kim to death should be ignored by man’s law?

        This is all so confusing. Why couldn’t she just be a Pastafarian and we could dress up as pirates and eat spaghetti? Christians are so ponderous.

        • Ed

          Evidence she is guilty of adultery? Under the New Covenant she should not be stoned even if true.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Easy.

          Her kids were by the man who *became* her third (I think) husband WHILE SHE WAS STILL MARRIED TO HER SECOND HUSBAND.

          Your idol here has feet of clay.

        • Ed

          She is not my idol. But if what you say is true then yes she did commit adultery and I am sad to hear it and she needs to repent. But that doesn’t mean she can not be doing the right thing in other aspects of her life. MLK was an adulterer too, but his fighting for civil rights for African Americans was still a good thing.

        • MLK’s adultery wasn’t involved with his civil rights work. Davis claimed the high ground on marriage when her own marriage house was not in order.

          In addition, she had no problem for licenses for divorced people, though the Bible prohibits that. Her bias against homosexuality alone was evidence. She’s just a homophobe.

          Big difference.

        • Ed

          Gay “marriage’ is not marriage. It did not exist on the planet until about 10 or 15 years ago when it was made up to normalize homosexual behavior. Marriage has always meant combining two different things even outside of the context of human relationships. In addition, Homosexual behavior goes against the “laws of Nature and Natures God.” If there was an explanation of why the divorce occurred and it was not morally justified then yes, she should have refused them a license, but I doubt the divorced people explained why they got divorced.

        • Gay “marriage’ is not marriage.

          And mixed-race “marriage” wasn’t marriage, either. Until it was.

          It did not exist on the planet until about 10 or 15 years ago when it was made up to normalize homosexual behavior.

          God made homosexuals. The proper response for loving Christians is to bring them into the fold.

          Marriage has always meant combining two different things even outside of the context of human relationships.

          Marriage has always meant combining one man with one or more women. Times change.

          In addition, Homosexual behavior goes against the “laws of Nature and Natures God.”

          A reference to the DoI? I’m not sure how that fits.

          To quote a popular observation: homosexual behavior has been observed in hundreds of animal species, while homophobia has been observed in just one. Which one seems unnatural now?

        • Ed

          No, even racists still considered interracial marriage a marriage, just an immoral marriage and definitely for Christians according to the bible it was a marriage. Nowhere in the bible does it forbid interracial marriage. However, many early atheistic evolutionists forbade it because Africans were not considered human. BTW, Race is never even mentioned in the bible. Evidence God made homosexuals? Of course, they are welcome into the fold, we are all sinners and all are welcome into Christ’s church. They just have to try not to engage in the behavior just as all of us try not to engage in sinful behavior. And repent when they do. Correct definition of marriage is a commitment between two different genders irrespective of number of members of each gender. Of course, the Christian ideal is only one wife and one husband. Yes a reference to the DOI because those are the principles Kim Davis was standing up for. She was standing up for America’s laws which were originally based on the laws of nature and Natures God. Homosexual behavior in animals is for establishing dominance hierarchies and when under duress as ways of coping with the stress. It is not engaged in when establishing mating pairs, because homosexual orientation has never been observed in animals. And so what if it has, animals kill and eat their young and rape their mates, does that mean it is ok for humans to do it? Also, why do you think all humans are anatomically heterosexual? Any guesses? Could it have anything to do with the law of nature for humans?

        • TheNuszAbides

          anatomically heterosexual?

          an objectively nonsensical phrase indeed. Give this theist-savant a prize!

        • Ed

          What is nonsensical about it? Beyond the obvious lock and key, it even extends to the cellular level.

        • MadScientist1023

          Marriage has constantly evolved over time. Marriage ceremonies used to be done between the groom and the bride’s father. The father of the bride used to pay large sums of money and/or goods to the groom. In the past, marriages were arranged and brides didn’t meet their husbands until the ceremony. Marriage wasn’t considered a religious ceremony until the 16th century. For most of the history of marriage, fidelity was only socially expected from the wife.

          Restricting the history of marriage to America doesn’t help your case either. Wives were treated as property for most of our history. Beating your wife was perfectly legal, although some states regulated how big a switch or how wide a belt you could use. Divorce used to be impossible, and no-fault divorce is a relatively new concept in historical terms. The idea that a wife can refuse to have sex with her husband is a legal concept only a few decades old. And, of course, interracial marriage was banned for much of our history as well.

          Now if we want to talk Biblical marriage, that’s an even more screwed up system. Many Biblical figures had multiple wives or concubines. The Christian God commanded that rape victims be forced to marry their attackers. He also commanded that widows had to marry their brothers-in-law. If you were a female slave (which the Christian God was fine with), he could assign you to marry another slave and then keep your kids as his property. I could go on.

          Marriage has constantly been changing throughout history. Pretending it’s some unchanging monolith and that this is that radical a change demonstrates complete ignorance of the institution you are pretending to defend. And of course the fact is you aren’t actually defending it. You’re trying to exclude people who want to buy into it.

          Lastly, homosexual behavior doesn’t go against the laws of nature. It happens in nature all the time. Homosexual behavior has been documented in just about every terrestrial vertebrate species we’ve studied. It can’t go against nature if it’s in nature. You know what does go against nature? Clothing. Eyeglasses. Air-conditioning. Computers. Artificial lighting. Electricity. And half a dozen other things you’re probably either using right now or have used today.

        • Ed

          ms: Marriage has constantly evolved over time. Marriage ceremonies used to be done between the groom and the bride’s father. The father of the bride used to pay large sums of money and/or goods to the groom. In the past, marriages were arranged and brides didn’t meet their husbands until the ceremony. Marriage wasn’t considered a religious ceremony until the 16th century.

          ed: No, the ancient Hebrews had religious ceremonies going back at least to the times of Moses. But even in time periods where it was not a religious ceremony it was considered a covenant between the couple and God in Christian countries and they were supposed to acknowledge their marriage to the public.

          ms; For most of the history of marriage, fidelity was only socially expected from the wife.

          ed; That may have been true during the Middle ages when the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church was corrupt and withheld the bible from the laity so they were ignorant of biblical teaching. But the official teaching of the church and the Bible is that fidelity was expected from both the husband and wife. Of course, I am not referring to pagan nations and atheistic communist nations.

          ms: Restricting the history of marriage to America doesn’t help your case either. Wives were treated as property for most of our history. Beating your wife was perfectly legal, although some states regulated how big a switch or how wide a belt you could use.

          ed:; Depends on your definition of property. Early Christianization of the Roman Empire helped end the Roman practice patria potestas, where the husband had the power of life and death over his wife. So Christians have greatly increased the status of women. Wife beating was only legal until the 1870’s in the US so that while most of the laws of the US are based on biblical principles not all to them were. This was a pagan, Roman practice. But by the 1870’s strong Christian women helped pass laws more in keeping with Christian principles. And as a result the US was one of the earliest nations to make it illegal, because they knew beating your wife violates biblical teaching. Just as an aside, the Koran allows it.

          ms: Divorce used to be impossible, and no-fault divorce is a relatively new concept in historical terms.

          ed: No fault divorce has actually hurt most women and was the beginning of the general philosophy that eventually led to the made up institution called gay marriage. And thereby has helped greatly damage and continue the destruction of marriage and family. Producing many if not most of the social problems we see today. Biblical Christianity only allows a few scenarios where divorce should be allowed and for awhile the US reflected these biblical principles.

          ms: The idea that a wife can refuse to have sex with her husband is a legal concept only a few decades old. And, of course, interracial marriage was banned for much of our history as well.

          ed: The biblical teaching is that the wife generally should not refuse to have sex with her husband if she is not ill and vice versa but neither spouse has the right to force sex on the other. Biblically literate Christianity has never taught that interracial marriage is wrong. This was just the result of sinful societies in this particular area of mores.

          ms: Now if we want to talk Biblical marriage, that’s an even more screwed up system. Many Biblical figures had multiple wives or concubines.

          ed; Yes but it is plain from the scriptures that that was not God’s ideal.

          ms: The Christian God commanded that rape victims be forced to marry their attackers.

          ed: No, that is false.

          ms: He also commanded that widows had to marry their brothers-in-law.

          ed: In some cases that is true. But in ancient times that was actually a good thing. Remember there were no police forces in ancient times, so single women were sitting ducks for attacks and kidnapping for sexual slavery. But if she had a husband and a connection to an extended family, you had security. In ancient times, women wanted to get married far more than women in modern times for this reason. That is why it was not as connected to romance as it is today.

          ms: If you were a female slave (which the Christian God was fine with),

          ed; No, contrary to popular belief the bible does not allow involuntary slavery for non-POWs. Read Exodus 21:16. among others.

          ms: he could assign you to marry another slave and then keep your kids as his property. I could go on.

          ed: Not sure who he is, but no this is not exactly correct, but see above for the extreme importance for women to marry in ancient times as compared to modern times.

          ms: Marriage has constantly been changing throughout history. Pretending it’s some unchanging monolith and that this is that radical a change demonstrates complete ignorance of the institution you are pretending to defend. And of course the fact is you aren’t actually defending it. You’re trying to exclude people who want to buy into it.

          ed: No, everything you have been explaining are just superficial changes based on changes in culture which I am not denying. Some of your statements are errors though about biblical marriage. But until so -called gay marriage, even in non Christian cultures and societies the primary purpose of marriage has always been for the production and raising of children. And this has been confirmed by recent research even among prehistoric peoples. Read the Sept. 2014 issue of Scientific American that showed that if not for heterosexual monogamous pair bonding, ie marriage, humans would not have survived.

          ms: Lastly, homosexual behavior doesn’t go against the laws of nature. It happens in nature all the time. Homosexual behavior has been documented in just about every terrestrial vertebrate species we’ve studied. It can’t go against nature if it’s in nature. You know what does go against nature? Clothing. Eyeglasses. Air-conditioning. Computers. Artificial lighting. Electricity. And half a dozen other things you’re probably either using right now or have used today.

          ed: First just because animals do something does not mean humans should. Animals kill and eat their own young and rape their mates, does that mean it is ok for us to do it? Second among animals homosexual behavior occurs only to establish dominance hierarchies and under duress to reduce stress and social tension. However, there is no evidence for homosexual orientation among animals such as where they would ignore the opposite sex during mating season. In addition why do you think all humans have a heterosexual anatomy? Any guesses?

        • ms: The Christian God commanded that rape victims be forced to marry their attackers.
          ed: No, that is false.

          You really should read your Bible: “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her” (Deut. 22:28–9).

        • Ed

          No, actually the Hebrew does not say “rapes”, it says “grabs hold of her”. But the key phrase is “and THEY are discovered”. This implies both were involved in hiding the behavior and that it was consensual. If it was rape it would say HE was discovered in the act. This was a case of fornication by both of them not rape. Rape is covered in verses 25-27.

        • Very creative.

        • Greg G.

          Of course the OT Hebrew doesn’t say “rape”. There is no legal or technical word for “rape” in ancient Hebrew. But grabbing and holding represents force in the sex, so you are very disingenuous with your argument.

          Deuteronomy gives various situations and the woman is generally considered guilty except for rape in rural areas.

          The differences are whether the woman is married, engaged, or not engaged.

        • Ed

          Men are generally somewhat aggressive in sex and some women like it, so just because he grabbed her does not necessarily mean rape and then the second part of the verse confirms it. Yes, Deuteronomy is case law to help the ancient hebrew judge make a decision they give certain situations but it is not exhaustive of all possible cases. The judge uses a similar case for a similar crime to then make a decision on the appropriate punishment and a judge could even commute a death sentence except for murder as seen in Numbers 35:31. Again Rape is covered in verses 25-27. 28-29 is fornication because they are both found out. Adultery is covered in verse 22 where both the man AND woman are punished unlike many other ancient societies where just the woman was punished for adultery. This shows the superiority of the Mosaic code compared to other ancient law codes.

        • Greg G.

          Men are generally somewhat aggressive in sex and some women like it, so just because he grabbed her does not necessarily mean rape 

          Ed, you are getting to be too stupid to read. Put your porn away and pay attention to current events. Women do not like to sexually assaulted thar way.

          Saying it might not be rape sometimes means it IS rape every other time and the woman is forced to marry her rapist. Hebrew law had no method for a woman to divorce a man and the man cannot divorce her so it’s a life sentence.

        • Ed

          No, this passage is not referring to sexual assault. That is covered in verses 25-27. It is definitely NOT rape. Actually non Hebrew women that had been captured during war COULD leave their fiancé after a period of living with the man for a month if they were not compatible.

        • Greg G.

          Taking a woman by force for sex against her will is rape. You know the passage makes no distinction. You are becoming disgusting pursuing this fantasy of yours.

          The women you mention are war booty. After watching er family and friends be slaughtered, she gets a month to mourn. Then the man can have sex with her againsr her will. The man gets to decide whether to dump her. Whether she wanted to stay or go, the husband decides.

        • Ed

          No, he cannot have sex with her, since they are not married it would be fornication or rape both of which are prohibited as I demonstrated earlier. They determine whether they are compatible, the woman can make herself incompatible to the man and he is required to let her go. Many of them would not want to go, given the obvious superiority of Hebrew society and families compared to surrounding societies.

        • Greg G.

          Ed, why do you bother? Why don’t you read the text of the Bible? We can. They didn’t do weddings like the present day. The man owned the woman so when the man had sex with the woman, they were married. If he didn’t like her then, she went out on her own.

          Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (ESV)10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.

          The NIV says “dishonored” in place of “humiliated”.

          Again, you are spectacularly wrong.

        • Ed

          No, the Hebrews believed that women were spiritual equals to men because remember in Genesis 1:27 that they are just as much created in His image as men are, so that they cannot be considered property. No, as has been demonstrated earlier they cannot rape a woman even a POW. So no they did not have sex until after the one month period and she consents to full marriage. Given that marriage in those times was the only way to security for a single woman, in most cases she would want to marry. Any woman in those times given its extreme importance being rejected for marriage would be humiliating. Which is the better translation.

        • Greg G.

          No, the Hebrews believed that women were spiritual equals to men because remember in Genesis 1:27 that they are just as much created in His image as men are, so that they cannot be considered property.

          So what? Men could be owned as property, too. Memorize Leviticus 25:44-46.

          No, as has been demonstrated earlier they cannot rape a woman even a POW. So no they did not have sex until after the one month period and she consents to full marriage.

          Where does it say the woman must consent? They had arranged marriages where the father collects money from the husband and the woman is not guaranteed any say about who she marries. Memorize Deuteronomy 21:13 where it says, “After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.” Note that it does not say anything about the consent of the woman. The whole marriage ceremony is the sex. If she doesn’t consent, it is rape, though they had no concept of rape except to the loss of value of the woman to her master, which is her father or husband. Deuteronomy 21:14 says that the man can decide afterward whether to keep her.

          Given that marriage in those times was the only way to security for a single woman, in most cases she would want to marry. Any woman in those times given its extreme importance being rejected for marriage would be humiliating. Which is the better translation.

          It doesn’t mention anything about what the woman wants. All it says is that if the man wants her, she must be his wife. If he does not want her, she goes free with no family or friends, except maybe those who were also rejected by their captor.

        • richardrichard2013

          “Genesis 1:27 that they are just as much created in His image as men are, so that they cannot be considered property.”

          they couldnt be in that image after they eat from the tree. so the fucked up version through the curse is not what the elohim is.

        • Pofarmer

          His God, what a moron we have here.

        • Greg G.

          Here are a few passages to support that a woman was not an equal to men in the Old Testament and were treated as property. I am concentrating on the first two books but Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy are just as bad.

          Genesis 3:16 (ESV)16 To the woman he said,“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;    in pain you shall bring forth children.Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,    but he shall rule over you.”

          The wife is listed with the neighbor’s possessions.

          Exodus 20:17 (ESV)17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.”

          Deuteronomy 24:1-4 allows a man to divorce a woman but there is no provision for a woman to divorce a husband.

          You cite Genesis 1:27 but Genesis 2:27 says the she is called “Woman” because she is taken out of a man. Genesis 4:19 says a man can have many wives. Genesis 16:2 shows a maidservant gets no say if the wife says her husband can have sex with her. Genesis 19:8 shows us that a righteous man would allow his virgin daughters to be sexually assaulted if it was to keep a man from being sexually assaulted.

          Exodus 21 describes how a Hebrew could become an indentured servant for six years but Exodus 21:7 says a man can sell his daughter as a maidservant but she does not get to go out after six years.

          Exodus 21:22-25 describes how a pregnant woman can be assaulted severely enough to have a miscarriage. The man who caused the miscarriage must pay a fine to her husband.

          When a woman who is not engaged to be married is raped, the fine the rapist pays goes to her father.

          Daughters can inherit property but only as a last resort when there are no sons, to keep the property within the clan. If a man died with no sons, his brother was required to impregnate his wife with a son, so the woman or daughters wouldn’t inherit the man’s propery.

          Please read the Old Testament for what it actually says.

        • Ed

          gg: Here are a few passages to support that a woman was not an equal to men in the Old Testament and were treated as property. I am concentrating on the first two books but Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy are just as bad.

          ed: Genesis plainly teaches that they are spiritually equal, both created in the image of God, no other religion taught that at the time. Now dealing with physical things they were not equal until the NT.

          gg: Genesis 3:16 (ESV)
          16 To the woman he said,

          “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
          in pain you shall bring forth children.
          Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,
          but he shall rule over you.”

          ed: Actually a better translation for the last verse is “desire shall be FOR your husband” IOW women will live more for marriage than men will. And will center their life around getting and keeping a husband, and this has been confirmed by scientific evidence, check out some of Jordan Peterson’s videos where he talks about it. But men will take advantage of that and abuse their role of leadership in marriage. This is part of the curse of sin this was not a command.

          gg: The wife is listed with the neighbor’s possessions.

          Exodus 20:17 (ESV)
          17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.”

          ed: She was his possession but that does not make her property because she is still created in the image of God, no property can be in Gods image, even the servants are not property and cannot be treated as property. See the verse about going to sanctuary cities if you dont like your master, ie treats you like property.

          gg: Deuteronomy 24:1-4 allows a man to divorce a woman but there is no provision for a woman to divorce a husband.

          ed: You are correct here a woman could not initiate divorce under the old covenant but they can under the New covenant. But it makes sense because in the bronze age there was no police force and being a single woman for any length of time was either a death sentence or a life sentence of involuntary prostitution. But under the New Covenant the Romans had a little more security forces that could protect single women.

          gg: You cite Genesis 1:27 but Genesis 2:27 says the she is called “Woman” because she is taken out of a man.

          ed: Yes, which is true, man is the head of the woman in marriage, ie the leader of marriage. But that does not mean he is superior, just as your boss is not superior to you he just has different responsibilities and is your leader. But under the law you are both equal so it is with man and woman.

          gg: Genesis 4:19 says a man can have many wives.

          ed: It is just recording the name of the first man to have two wives, it is not a command of God to have two and in fact it goes against His ideal as shown in Adam and Eve’s marriage as the prototype.

          gg: Genesis 16:2 shows a maidservant gets no say if the wife says her husband can have sex with her.

          ed: No, that is not a command, that is just a recording of what happened. Unlike other manmade religious books the bible does not coverup the warts of its heroes, it reveals their flaws.

          gg: Genesis 19:8 shows us that a righteous man would allow his virgin daughters to be sexually assaulted if it was to keep a man from being sexually assaulted.

          ed: Again that was not a command from God to do so, the text is just recording what happened, again see above as compared to how other religious books try to cover up their heroes flaws. Believers sometimes do bad things. But this is plainly a sin, causing a woman to be raped is a very serious sin as seen in other parts of the bible. It is plain violation of the 7th commandment as well.

          gg: Exodus 21 describes how a Hebrew could become an indentured servant for six years

          ed: This is also how the foreigner becomes an indentured servant for 50 years.

          gg: but Exodus 21:7 says a man can sell his daughter as a maidservant but she does not get to go out after six years.

          ed: This is like an apprenticeship for his daughter to help out her father (by being one less mouth to feed) and can turn into a betrothal if the master likes her enough to make her his wife or his son’s wife.

          gg: Exodus 21:22-25 describes how a pregnant woman can be assaulted severely enough to have a miscarriage. The man who caused the miscarriage must pay a fine to her husband.

          ed: Yes, as the head of he household in the OT the father is one that handles all finances.

          gg: When a woman who is not engaged to be married is raped, the fine the rapist pays goes to her father.

          ed: No, rape results in execution of the rapist as I explained earlier the Torah uses case law for the judges to decide. Fornication results in the male fornicator paying the father.

          gg: Daughters can inherit property but only as a last resort when there are no sons, to keep the property within the clan. If a man died with no sons, his brother was required to impregnate his wife with a son, so the woman or daughters wouldn’t inherit the man’s property.
          Please read the Old Testament for what it actually says.

          ed: This was actually unusual among middle eastern societies, where no woman could ever inherit property. They were ahead of their time. This was actually a great security system for women in a time where there was no social security.

        • Ed

          Why is 50 shades of gray so popular? No, rape is forbidden as I demonstrated above. You are right under the old covenant women could not initiate divorce, but under the new covenant they can as seen in I Corinthians 7.

        • Greg G.

          It was legal for women to divorce in Corinth. Paul thought Jesus was coming at any time so there was no need to divorce or marry, except if you were too horny to resist having sex. Paul didn’t expect anybody would be raising a family. Because Jesus was coming.

        • just because animals do something does not mean humans should.

          The point is that it’s natural. Humans are animals, so unsurprisingly they exhibit homosexuality.

        • Ed

          But what does being natural have to do with anything? Again, just because something is natural does not mean the government should endorse it. Though humans have bodies like animals they are qualitatively different from animals. Humans have personhood, animals dont.

        • Humans are animals, sorry. Humans are better at some things (brain size, running endurance) and not at other things (speed, flying, strength).

          As for homosexuality being natural, I agree that “it’s natural” doesn’t mean “therefore it’s good.” I was simply pointing out that MadScientist was correct that “homosexual behavior doesn’t go against the laws of nature.”

        • Ed

          No, the main difference between humans and animals is not quantitative like brain size and running endurance if that was all the difference was then we would just be animals. It is qualitative. IOW there are things that humans can do that no animals can do and characteristics and qualities that animals do not have. Such as abstract reasoning, a true will, spirituality, knowledge of mortality, and a moral conscience. Homosexual behavior goes against the laws of HUMAN nature.

        • if that was all the difference was then we would just be animals.

          Yup, we’re animals. In fact, we’re primates (like monkeys). Even more narrowly, we’re great apes (the Hominidae family), along with gorillas and chimpanzees.

          IOW there are things that humans can do that no animals can do and characteristics and qualities that animals do not have.

          And there are things that other animals can do that humans can’t. Symmetry. We’re just animals.

          Homosexual behavior goes against the laws of HUMAN nature.

          Homosexual behavior is natural. It’s been observed in 500 species.

        • Ed

          ed: f that was all the difference was then we would just be animals.

          bs: Yup, we’re animals. In fact, we’re primates (like monkeys). Even more narrowly, we’re great apes (the Hominidae family), along with gorillas and chimpanzees.

          ed: IOW there are things that humans can do that no animals can do and characteristics and qualities that animals do not have.

          bs: And there are things that other animals can do that humans can’t. Symmetry. We’re just animals.

          ed: You dont seem to know the difference between quantity and quality. The only things that animals can do that humans cant do are quanities of things such as running faster, being larger, heavier, stronger, smaller, and etc.

          ed: Homosexual behavior goes against the laws of HUMAN nature.

          bs: Homosexual behavior is natural. It’s been observed in 500 species.

          ed: Maybe but homosexual ORIENTATION has not been observed in any animal species.

        • ed: You dont seem to know the difference between quantity and quality. The only things that animals can do that humans cant do are quanities of things such as running faster, being larger, heavier, stronger, smaller, and etc.

          And the only things that humans can do that animals can’t are quantities of things such as intellect.

          bs: Homosexual behavior is natural. It’s been observed in 500 species.
          ed: Maybe but homosexual ORIENTATION has not been observed in any animal species.

          Wikipedia: “Homosexual behavior in animals is sexual behavior among non-human species that is interpreted as homosexual or bisexual. This may include same-sex sexual activity, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairs.”

          This seems to cover “homosexual orientation.”
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

          But what’s your point? Even if homosexual orientation were limited to humans, so what?

        • Ed

          No, human intellect is qualitatively different from animal intellect. No, none of those are homosexual orientation because during mating season they become strangely heterosexual. I wonder why? It shows that the two behaviors are very different, IOW they are not analogous. So pro-gay apologists should stop using it to justify homosexual behavior.

        • Do you have a point? All I can figure out is, “Gay sex is icky.” You do know you can opt out, right? Gay marriage isn’t obligatory.

        • Pofarmer

          After reading through more of this thread the only thing I can conclude is that Ed is spectacularly ignorant.

        • And perhaps willfully so.

        • Pofarmer

          Perhaps?

        • Rudy R

          And I’m sure Kim will be rubbing shoulders with Hitler in Heaven as long as she is as repentant as Hitler was before he died. Hopefully, Anne Frank repented before she died, otherwise…

        • Ed

          There is no evidence Hitler repented, but even if he did, it is extremely unlikely he would have been sincere. Yes, I hope Anne Frank did.

        • Rudy R

          Again, a ridiculous claim with no citation or source. There is evidence he was a Christian. Hitler was raised a Roman Catholic and stated he was a Catholic and always will be. You may hope that Hitler is in hell and Frank is in heaven, but the probability is the contrary. Are you claiming to know your god’s mind to assess Hitler’s sincerity? If your a Catholic, I could understand your belief that Hitler probably is not in heaven, because good deeds are also required, but as a Protestant, good deeds aren’t.

        • Greg G.

          Hitler was nice to dogs. Aren’t such deeds good enough?

        • Ed

          No, while Hitler pretended to be a Christian in public to get the Christian vote, he actually showed his hatred of Christianity in private. And actually it started early in life. His childhood friend said he never went to mass unless his mother forced him. And he told him he didn’t like mass. Respected historian Alan Bullock quotes him during WW2 “The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science….When understanding of the universe becomes widespread…..then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.” These quotes sound like they could have come from this atheist website. Only God knows for certain whether Hitler sincerely repented, though generally people who have lived a life of criminality and unbelief dont regret what they have done in the past or feel sorry for having done it. Especially people who have hated Christianity for most of their life like Hitler. Then they would have felt like their life was meaningless and people with huge egos like his also generally dont regret their lives or feel sorry for what they have done. Actually for Protestants good deeds ARE required to show evidence of having truly converted or repented. They are not required for salvation, but they are required in order to show evidence of being a true Christian. Christ said you will know His followers by their fruit.

        • From the mouth of Jesus:

          Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery. (Mark 10:11-12)

        • Ed

          Depends on why they got divorced. If her husband committed adultery then God allows divorce among a few other reasons.

        • Huh? Jesus said, “if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” It’s not hard.

          You said that there was no evidence of adultery, but Jesus makes clear that it was adultery.

        • Ed

          Jesus’ words must be understood in context of the whole bible. There are other passages that allow divorce in other cases such as abandonment. Most scholars agree that domestic abuse is a form of abandonment of the marriage so divorce would be allowed in that case also. If one divorces for such justified reasons, one is free to remarry. If the reasons are not justified then yes, remarrying would be adultery.

        • You said, “Evidence she is guilty of adultery?” You see now that Jesus did indeed say that what she did was adultery. Right?

        • Greg G.

          Jesus’ words must be understood in context of the whole bible.

          That turns the Bible into The Big Book of Multiple Choice. It’s why there are 45,000 different denominations who believe the church across the street is wrong and at least half of the world”s “Christians” are going to hell.

        • MR

          Right. Everyone’s “context of the whole Bible” just happens to fit in with how they happen to interpret the “context of the whole Bible.” Meanwhile, the “context of the whole Bible” makes it obvious that it’s a bunch of evolving myths with ad-hoc fan-fic interpretations. Ed has no objective way to prove that Ed’s interpretations of the Bible are anything more than his own religious and cultural indoctrination sprinkled with his own whims and desires.

        • TheNuszAbides

          And if he ever draws a blank he can always crib from the dreary mountain of apologetics.

          #apologiestorealmountains

        • richardrichard2013

          especially on fundamentals like who god is and how to get saved .

        • Ed

          No, actually it does the opposite. Cults and liberal churches are the ones that take verses out of context and produce more denominations and off shoot religions. Churches that accept the infallible authority and understanding the bible in context generally agree on the essential teachings regarding salvation and morality. The number of those denominations is much less than 45,000.

        • Ah, I see. You and your church have it figured out. You’re letting the Bible speak for itself. It’s those other numbskulls who’ve got it wrong.

          Weird thing is, that’s what they say about you.

        • TS (unami)

          Like how Protestants took *entire books* out of Holy Scripture…?

          Oh Snap.

        • Ed

          If you are referring to the apocrypha, they were eliminated in OT by the Hebrews 2000 years ago. As far as the NT, they were eliminated in practice as early as 200 AD and officially in the 4th century. The RCC reinserted them in the middle ages to stick a finger in the eye of the Protestants.

        • Greg G.

          The NT alludes to, quotes from, and cites by name some of the OT Apocrypha.

          The oldest Bible with the NT also includes the Apocrypha. It was the Protestants who rejected the Apocrypha.

          Who is misinforming you?

        • Ed

          No, there is evidence that the OT canon, or the Hebrew Bible was closed in the first century AD to contain the 24 books that we now call the Old Testament by the rabbis of mainstream Judaism at the time and only these books were considered the inspired Word of God. Christians later added some of the Apocrypha that was considered valuable to study but was not considered inspired by God. The Apocrypha was quoted by the NT writers because it contained some truth (many non-inspired books contain some truth) but was not part of the inspired Canon or Word of God. Later Protestants stopped inserting them into copies of the Bible because they thought some people would get confused and think that they were equivalent in inspiration as the canonical books. But protestants like Calvin always thought there were things that could be learned from the Apocrypha like the historical information in the Maccabees books and even some spiritual truths as long as they didn’t contradict the Bible. The RCC church later declared them just as inspired as the original canon as part of the theological battles of the Reformation.

        • Greg G.

          Why is the first word of your post “No”? You confirmed what I said.

          The NT writers used the Septuagint primarily and it contained the Apocrypha.

          The Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest Bible in existence. It has the Septuagint, though about half has been lost, not the Hebrew version.

          The NT authors wrote in Greek so they quoted from the Greek versions of the OT.

        • Ed

          I said no, because you claimed that Protestants removed the Apocrypha from the inspired canon, but it was actually the Jews in the first century as I demonstrated above. The NT writers used the Septuagint but they did not consider the Apocrypha part of the inspired canon even though it was attached to it.

        • Greg G.

          Jude 14-15 cites its source and quotes from the Septuagint version of Enoch.

          The Catholic Bible still has the Apocrypha. The Latin Vulgate included the Apocrypha. The 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha.

          Go look for yourself.

        • Ed

          I know that, but the Hebrews did not consider them part of the inspired Word of God and that is why the Protestants rejected them as not inspired by God.

        • Greg G.

          You said:

          No, there is evidence that the OT canon, or the Hebrew Bible was closed in the first century AD to contain the 24 books that we now call the Old Testament by the rabbis of mainstream Judaism at the time and only these books were considered the inspired Word of God.

          I am saying that is irrelevant to Christianity as the Christians were using the Septuagint and the Apocrypha for centuries later.

          The inspired Word of God is a pretense coming from 2 Peter which is a late forgery.

          2 Peter 1:20-21 (NRSV)
          20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

          2 Peter 3:14-16 (NRSV)
          14 Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish; 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

          2 Peter relies heavily on Jude for many topics, even topics from where Jude quotes Enoch. Either the author of 2 Peter doesn’t know an inspired book when he sees it or he thinks Enoch is inspired.

        • Greg G.

          Cults and liberal churches are the ones that take verses out of context and produce more denominations and off shoot religions.

          Cults and fundamentalist churches tell us that verses must be interpreted in light of other verses, which is taking the verse out of context. But the various cults and fundamentalists use different verses for the interpretations.

          Churches that accept the infallible authority and understanding the bible in context generally agree on the essential teachings regarding salvation and morality.

          Essentially, you are saying that churches that agree with you on essential teachings agree with each other.

          Merely agreeing on essential teachings still makes Jesus the greatest prayer failure of all time.

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

          The whole world does not believe what Jesus prayed for. Is that because Christians have never agreed in unity or have Christians believed sufficiently at some point but it failed to make the rest of the world believe?

          Is the following verse considered to be an inessential teaching?

          1 Corinthians 1:10 (NRSV)10 Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose.

          These passages say nothing about your agreement being correct, only that you agree. Why do you insist on the division between you and liberal Christians?

          The number of those denominations is much less than 45,000.

          The study counts independent churches as independent denominations because they do not agree with other denominations. These tend to be fundamentalist churches which are anti-liberal.

          The study was done a few years ago, and it also gave the growth rate of independent denominations. I haven’t done the calculation for at least a year but the projection was over 47,000 at that time. Are you arguing against the growth of the church?

        • Ed

          ed; Cults and liberal churches are the ones that take verses out of context and produce more denominations and off shoot religions.

          gg: Cults and fundamentalist churches tell us that verses must be interpreted in light of other verses, which is taking the verse out of context. But the various cults and fundamentalists use different verses for the interpretations.

          ed; No, when you interpret ANY book in light of other sections of the book, you are interpreting IN context. When you bring in things that are not in the text or isolate verses by ignoring verses that clarify less clear verses, you are NOT understanding it in context.

          ed: Churches that accept the infallible authority and understanding the bible in context generally agree on the essential teachings regarding salvation and morality.

          gg: Essentially, you are saying that churches that agree with you on essential teachings agree with each other.
          Merely agreeing on essential teachings still makes Jesus the greatest prayer failure of all time.

          ed: No, churches that agree with the Bible on the essential teachings tend to agree with each other. In nations where there is not persecution, they tend to divide on non-essentials, but they are generally united in spirit so actually while not fully realized at this time I believe we are heading in that direction. Especially if the US continues in the direction of greater persecution of Churches then the unifying will increase in the US.

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

          The whole world does not believe what Jesus prayed for. Is that because Christians have never agreed in unity or have Christians believed sufficiently at some point but it failed to make the rest of the world believe?

          ed: See above about there is some evidence of agreement in spirit but we still need work and then the world will believe Jesus came from God. Many unbelievers DO believe He came from God but do not accept His teaching and therefore repress that belief to the point where they think they are atheists or agnostics or even liberal or apostate “Christians”.. Also, God the father does not always answer Jesus’ prayer the way He wants. Remember Jesus prayed that He could avoid the crucifixion, but God said no.

          gg: Is the following verse considered to be an inessential teaching?
          1 Corinthians 1:10 (NRSV)
          10 Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose.

          These passages say nothing about your agreement being correct, only that you agree. Why do you insist on the division between you and liberal Christians?

          ed: No, if you read the following verses, you see how they were putting Paul and Apollos and Peter on a pedestal above Christ. The purpose the Church is to follow Christ. So they had to have that same purpose which is the correct purpose of the Church. He definitely was concerned about correctness.

          ed: The number of those denominations is much less than 45,000.

          gg: The study counts independent churches as independent denominations because they do not agree with other denominations. These tend to be fundamentalist churches which are anti-liberal.
          The study was done a few years ago, and it also gave the growth rate of independent denominations. I haven’t done the calculation for at least a year but the projection was over 47,000 at that time. Are you arguing against the growth of the church?

          ed: No, even most of those independent fundamentalist churches DO agree on the essentials. They just over emphasize the non-essentials because of lack of persecution in the US. The church is not growing in the US right now, so I dont know if your numbers are worldwide or just in the US.

        • TheNuszAbides

          How astoundingly fortunate that you lucked into being trained in The Correct Series of Interpretations!

          … and how bizarre that what passes for reasoning in your tradition is so ineffective at convincing actual skeptics.

        • Ed

          Thousands of skeptics have been convinced of Christianity down thru history. BTW, reasoning would not be possible if God did not exist.

        • TheNuszAbides

          You forgot the “actual” part. I choose my words quite deliberately because I’m not regurgitating cult doctrine/dogma like you.

        • Ed

          Oh so now you are making the No True Skeptic fallacy. BTW, if there was no God, then we would not be able to reason. Natural selection only selects survivability not reasoning ability. And the most successful species on the planet cannot reason. So if atheistic evolution is true, reasoning humans would not exist, but yet we do, so most likely were created by a reasoning creator..

        • Pofarmer

          Humans aren’t the only animals who “Reason”. What a maroon.

        • epeeist

          So, given that the the fastest rising group when it comes to religion in the US (and in Europe) is “none” then one should conclude that your god does not exist.

          Alternatively, given that only about a third of the world’s population is Christian then one can conclude that the majority of people don’t find the Christian message convincing, therefore one can conclude that your god does not exist.

          Given that the number of Muslims is predicted to surpass the number of Christians before the end of the century then one can conclude that their god is the correct one and, since there can only be one correct religion, then your god cannot be the correct one and therefore does not exist.

        • Ed

          No, I didn’t say that the numbers PROVE Christianity only that large numbers ARE evidence. Just as large numbers of people that believe that evolution is true IS evidence for it being true but it does not prove it.

        • No, what counts as evidence for evolution (from the standpoint of we laymen) is the overwhelming consensus of the people who understand the data. Contrast that with pretty much zero for ID/Creationism

          but it does not prove it.

          Huh? Nothing is proven within science.

        • epeeist

          No, I didn’t say that the numbers PROVE Christianity only that large numbers ARE evidence.

          What you produced was simply an argumentum ad populum. The fact that large numbers of people believe in Christianity is evidence for the existence of large numbers of people believing in Christianity, not evidence that it is true.

          Just as large numbers of people that believe that evolution is true IS evidence for it being true but it does not prove it.

          But people don’t believe that evolution is true, they (provisionally) accept the theory as a consequence of the evidential backing, the explanatory power, the empirical fit and its ability to pass critical testing of its predictions.

        • Ed

          Many Christians accept Christianity for many of those same reasons you state why people accept evolution, including myself. So yes, large numbers ARE evidence for something being true but certainly not the strongest evidence.

        • epeeist

          Many Christians accept Christianity for many of those same reasons you state why people accept evolution, including myself.

          So Christianity has evidential backing, explanatory power, empirical fit and has passed critical testing of its predictions?

          So yes, large numbers ARE evidence for something being true but certainly not the strongest evidence.

          We’ve been through this. if this is true then Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists can equally make claims for the truth of their religions based on the number of adherents that they have.

        • Ed

          ep: So Christianity has evidential backing, explanatory power, empirical fit and has passed critical testing of its predictions?

          ed: Yes.

          ep: We’ve been through this. if this is true then Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists can equally make claims for the truth of their religions based on the number of adherents that they have.

          ed: Yes, I have not denied that that is evidence for their religion, but as I also stated, it does not prove that religion is true even for Christiainity, I am just saying that numbers are one piece of many evidences for Christianity. Those other religions have other problems that show serious weaknesses.

        • Susan

          ed: Yes.

          Excellent job of providing all of that!

          OK. I struck the sarcasm. Although it was deserved.

          Now… Ed… you can’t just say “Yes.”.

          You have to show your work.

        • epeeist

          ed: Yes.

          A little detail would have been nice.

          ed: Yes, I have not denied that that is evidence for their religion, but as I also stated, it does not prove that religion is true even for Christiainity

          But if all religions can make claims based on their reported membership then how are we to tell which is correct? (Assuming any are, religions are contraries rather than contradictories; one could be true, but all could be false).

          Those other religions have other problems that show serious weaknesses.

          And these are? Are they weaknesses that Christianity does not possess?

        • BTW, reasoning would not be possible if God did not exist.

          Your assertions toward this claim do not make your claim a fact. I’ve never come across anything that would suggest that any god, let alone your God, is necessary for us to be able to reason.

        • Ed

          Natural selection only selects for survivability not reasoning ability. And the most successful species on the planet cannot reason. So if atheistic evolution is true, reasoning humans would not exist, but yet we do, so most likely were created in the image of a reasoning creator.

        • Natural selection only selects for survivability not reasoning ability

          Do you think that the ability to reason offers us a survival advantage? I think it does!

          And the most successful species on the planet cannot reason.

          So because the most successful species on the planet cannot do X, therefore it could not have evolved?!? Is that what you’re saying? If so, how does that remotely follow?

          So if atheistic evolution is true, reasoning humans would not exist, but yet we do, so most likely were created in the image of a reasoning creator.

          I see you’ve been reading Plantinga, or at the very least somebody has read Plantinga. I’ve never been impressed by this argument, as it reeks of a god-of-the-gaps, and asserts that evolution cannot account for reason (which the presenters NEVER DEMONSTRATE!)

        • Rudy R

          God loves him his technicalities.

        • MR

          Objective morality except ’til it’s not.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Hey, wait a sec … Is “the devil is in the details” True Scripture or one of those bastardizations like “money is the root of all evil”?

        • Zeta

          I have not seen any response to my questions to you:

          What are your “god’s laws”? The Ten Commandments and/or Moses’ 611 commandments or only some of them?

        • Thanks4AllTheFish

          I’m sure that my fellow atheists and LGBTQ folks will be pleased to hear that. Apparently some folks in your camp didn’t get the memo.

        • Ed

          if so, they are biblically illiterate.

        • Thanks4AllTheFish

          Or maybe they’re not TRUE Christians™ , eh?

          What are you trying to accomplish here? Kim Davis was elected to a government position to perform a simple job, issue marriage licenses. She refused to do that. She should have been removed from her position immediately, but because of Christian privilege in her part of the world, she decided to override the Constitutionally legal rights of others to satisfy her own agenda and apparently you and many other loving Christians think that is totes okay. Now the chickens have come home to roost on Kim and she really has no one else to blame but herself. Let this be a lesson.

        • Ed

          Yes, that is evidence that they may not be Christians.

        • Thanks4AllTheFish

          “Yes, that is evidence that they may not be Christians.”

          They say the same about you. With over 45,000 different Christian denominations in the world, I’m guessing 1 Corinthians 1:10 can be summarily scrapped. You folks can’t even agree among yourselves who is and isn’t a bona fide™ member of your cult.

          Maybe it’s time y’all started to be a little more critical in your thinking about why you choose to follow a dogma that leads to this much incoherence? Who knows, reason and rationality might even make an appearance? Oh, my!

        • Greg G.

          Jesus prayed the same thing in John 17:20-23, making Jesus the greatest prayer failure in history.

        • Ed

          No, among churches that accept the infallible authority of the bible there is pretty much agreement on the essentials of Christianity. And they number many less than 45,000. Actually if there is no God then reason and rationality cannot exist. So the fact that reason exists, is evidence God exists. Natural selection only selects for survivability, not rationality, so if atheistic evolution is true, than it is very unlikely that you could reason.

        • Greg G.

          Why cite the most irrational forms of Xtianity to argue that God is necessary for reason and rationality?

          Are you actually arguing that neither rationality nor reason can benefit survivability? If rationality and reason can benefit survivability, then natural selection alone is sufficient for rationality and reason.

        • Thanks4AllTheFish

          Ed can’t help it. If knowledge, reason and rationality was important to him, he wouldn’t settle for faith – a poor substitute, if you ask me but whatever floats your boat.

        • Ed

          Actually liberal Christianity is the most irrational form of Christianity. They choose which Bible verses to believe based purely on emotion and the latest social fads. Yes reason and rationality can benefit survivability, but natural selection doesn’t select for rationality and reason it only selects for survivability. And the species that have shown the most survivability can not think rationally or reason, ie insects and bacteria.

        • Good for you! If slavery was good enough for Yahweh, it should be good enough for the West in the 21st century.

        • Ed

          No, see my earlier post where I demonstrated that He did not allow involuntary slavery.

        • And yet, God himself said, “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.”

          It’s almost like he’s calling you a liar.

        • Greg G.

          … He did not allow involuntary slavery.

          Don’t let your brain turn to much because you are reading apologetics. Read the passages themselves. Leviticus 25:44-46 says they could buy slaves from foreigners. It says nothing about ensuring only voluntary slaves were purchased with money. Do you think all slaves were volunteers all over the world? It says that people who were conquered in war could be enslaved. Do you think the choice between being killed or enslaved is a voluntary choice?

          The Bible also gives specific instructions about how to enslave a Hebrew indentured servant for life by using family values. The owner gives the indentured servant a slave wife. At the end of his indenture period, he is forced to choose between leaving his wife and children in slavery or becoming a slave for life.

          Exodus 21:2-6 (NRSV)2 When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave declares, “I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out a free person,” 6 then his master shall bring him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.

          Notice that the children born into slavery, remain slaves. How is that voluntary?

          The next time a Christian tells you that Bible slavery is voluntary, tell them to stop lying and come to grips with what the Bible says.

        • Ed

          Read Exodus 21:16. They could not kidnap anyone to become a slave. It had to be voluntary unless it was war. POWs could be enslaved involuntarily just like in the Constitution of the US. I was referring to what happened within the nation of Israel. Involuntary slavery except for the children of slaves if their mother was a slave could not be involuntarily enslaved. But even she and her children had to be freed in the year of Jubilee if she wanted, because all slaves had to be freed except for those that voluntarily chose to be slaves for life like the verses you quote. Also, regarding strangers that lived in Israel it had to be voluntary because of Deut. 25:17 and Exodus 22:21-24 and 21:16.

        • Greg G.

          Read Exodus 21:16. They could not kidnap anyone to become a slave. It had to be voluntary unless it was war.

          Exodus 21:1-11 is about slavery. After that, Exodus 21 is about violence. I don’t know if Hebrew has a word for kidnapping but it seems that Exodus 21:16 is prohibiting that act. One cannot capture someone to extort money for the person or sell the person to someone else.

          Being sold into slavery over debt is not voluntary.

          Can you tell us which specific years were Jubilee years? Can you provide any evidence that a year of Jubilee was ever actually observed?

          Also, regarding strangers that lived in Israel it had to be voluntary because of Deut. 25:17 and Exodus 22:21-24 and 21:16.

          You still haven’t memorized Leviticus 25:44-46, have you? It specifies that foreigners can be bought, bequeathed as property, and are excluded from the admonition against treating indentured servants harshly.

        • Ed

          ed:Read Exodus 21:16. They could not kidnap anyone to become a slave. It had to be voluntary unless it was war.

          gg: Exodus 21:1-11 is about slavery. After that, Exodus 21 is about violence. I don’t know if Hebrew has a word for kidnapping but it seems that Exodus 21:16 is prohibiting that act. One cannot capture someone to extort money for the person or sell the person to someone else.
          Being sold into slavery over debt is not voluntary.

          ed: It doesn’t say that they were sold into slavery over debt. But being in debt was a crime so sometimes slavery was used for criminals.

          gg: Can you tell us which specific years were Jubilee years? Can you provide any evidence that a year of Jubilee was ever actually observed?

          ed: No, the bible doesn’t say. It was probably treated like God’s other laws, when they had good devout kings then they probably did observe it but when the kings were bad, they probably didn’t. But that is irrelevant as far as trying to prove that God commanded permanent slavery, He plainly did not unless it was voluntary.

          ed: Also, regarding strangers that lived in Israel it had to be voluntary because of Deut. 25:17 and Exodus 22:21-24 and 21:16.

          gg: You still haven’t memorized Leviticus 25:44-46, have you? It specifies that foreigners can be bought, bequeathed as property, and are excluded from the admonition against treating indentured servants harshly.

          gg: In the context of the other verses about strangers being treated like a Hebrew, it was saying that the Hebrews could buy their voluntary slaves from the foreigners in the nations around them. Hebrews could not be treated the way they were in Egypt. But yes foreigners could be treated a little harsher but they could not be treated too badly because the laws about treating slaves still had to be followed, and if the stranger decides he did not like his master he could always go to a sanctuary city.

        • Greg G.

          ed: It doesn’t say that they were sold into slavery over debt. But being in debt was a crime so sometimes slavery was used for criminals.

          NOT VOLUNTARY! Understand the concept. It blew away your argument.

          Leviticus 25:39-41 describes how a person sells himself into slavery. The Hebrew is not treated as a slave, but like a hired hand and his family is not enslaved. But what other choice is there?

          ed: No, the bible doesn’t say. It was probably treated like God’s other laws, when they had good devout kings then they probably did observe it but when the kings were bad, they probably didn’t. But that is irrelevant as far as trying to prove that God commanded permanent slavery, He plainly did not unless it was voluntary.

          Jubilee is mentioned in Leviticus 25, Leviticus 27, and Numbers 36:4, always as if it had never been done before. It must have been an embarrassing disaster since it was never written about as having been done.

          gg ed: In the context of the other verses about strangers being treated like a Hebrew, it was saying that the Hebrews could buy their voluntary slaves from the foreigners in the nations around them. Hebrews could not be treated the way they were in Egypt. But yes foreigners could be treated a little harsher but they could not be treated too badly because the laws about treating slaves still had to be followed, and if the stranger decides he did not like his master he could always go to a sanctuary city.

          Please edit your reply for the misattribution.

          Hebrews could not be treated harshly. They only pretended their ancestors were slaves in Egypt.

          Slaves could be beaten as long as the slave didn’t lose a tooth or an eye. If they suffered for a day or two before dying, the penalty was the loss of the slave because the slave belonged to the master. That is far more than a little harsher.

          While Deuteronomy 23:15-16 could be read to mean no slave is to be returned to the master, the Jews understood that to mean no slave from a foreign nation who escaped to Israel was to be returned.

        • Greg G.

          PS: Regarding Deuteronomy 25:17 and Amalek, see Exodus 17:8-16. particularly:

          Exodus 17:14 (ESV)14 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.”

          How can his memory be blotted out when it is written in the most sold book in history? He is mentioned in several Old Testament books.

        • Ed

          I have to give you credit for this one. I have been debating atheists for 30 years, and this is the first time I have heard this one for trying to find a contradiction in the Bible. So I looked up the Hebrew word for memory in this verse and one of the meanings is “something that marks something out”. So this would be similar to reputation or what makes you unique or special. So a better translation is God will blot out what made the Amalekites unique or special or their reputation. Not remove any knowledge of their existence. BTW, that verse was a typo, I meant to type Deut. 24:17.

        • Greg G.

          So I looked up the Hebrew word for memory in this verse and one of the meanings is “something that marks something out”. So this would be similar to reputation or what makes you unique or special. So a better translation is God will blot out what made the Amalekites unique or special or their reputation.

          This is why nobody should take you seriously. You are not just wrong, you are spectacularly wrong, again. You apparently looked up the word for “blot out” instead of “memory”. “Mark out” just means crossed out as in drawing lines through a word since they didn’t have erasers, White Out, or backspace keys. You make up crap to reconcile your own misunderstandings and misreadings on top of the standard apologetics.

          Here is what Strong’s says about the word for “memory”:

          Lexicon :: Strong’s H2143 – zeker

          זֵכֶר

          Transliteration
          zeker

          Pronunciation
          zā’·ker (Key)

          Part of Speech
          masculine noun

          Root Word (Etymology)

          From זָכַר (H2142)
          KJV Translation Count — Total: 23x

          The KJV translates Strong’s H2143 in the following manner: remembrance (11x), memorial (5x), memory (5x), remembered (1x), scent (1x).

          Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

          I.memorial, remembrance
            A.remembrance, memory
            B.memorial

          Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
          זֵכֶר zêker, zay’-ker; or זֶכֶר zeker; from H2142; a memento, abstractly recollection (rarely if ever); by implication, commemoration:—memorial, memory, remembrance, scent.

          Not remove any knowledge of their existence.

          So God could only do it half-assedly? See https://biblehub.com/exodus/17-14.htm

          All of the translations have “utterly” or “completely” modifying “erase”, “blot out”, and “wipe away”. Only the paraphrased New Living Translation lacks such an adverb but it says “erase”. How can you say the verse means what it says when you are ignoring what it says?

          Wouldn’t it make more sense for you to accept what it says instead of inventing your own translation?

          BTW, that verse was a typo, I meant to type Deut. 24:17.

          Would you like to try again? That verse is not about slavery, either.

        • Weismonger

          The Bible & your emotions it’s not proof of God. So you’re just making stuff up. There is also 50,000 versions of God so why do you think that only your version is the right one?

        • Greg G.

          The least false parts of the Bible are political spin in the Samuels, the Kings, and the Chronicles. The rest is mythology.

        • MR

          In varying degrees. Chronicles is less reliable than Kings and probably Samuels less so.

        • Greg G.

          They both rated the kings by how much they favored the Jerusalem priests, so both sets were written by them. If a king allowed priests from outside the city to do their thing for the rural people, they got down arrows.

        • Greg G.

          The Chronicles drop Elisha and only mention Elijah in a genealogy and a prophetic letter he wrote.

          There is at least one parallel where the prophet is named Obed in Chronicles and Elisha in 2 Kings. The Good Samaritan parable is likely based on the Chronicles version.

        • Ed

          No, there is evidence that none of the bible is mythology.

        • Greg G.

          Yet you can’t give any. Your assertion is empty.

        • Ed

          Unlike mythology most books in the bible were written near the time of the events that are recorded except for Genesis. In addition, there are many archaeological finds that confirm many tribes, cities, people and events recorded in the Bible.

        • Greg G.

          Unlike mythology most books in the bible were written near the time of the events that are recorded except for Genesis.

          How could they be written near the time of an event that didn’t happen?

          I have seen Superman movies set in nearly every decade since the 1940’s but they weren’t real.

          1 & 2 Chronicles parallels 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings from around the time of David to the Exile. They mention sources such as the book of the kings of Israel, the book of the kings ofIsrael and Judah, and the book of the kings of Judah and Israel. That tells us those writings come from the time of the Exile and are based on documents written over time.

          The Chronicles never mention Elisha and only mention Elijah twice, once in a genealogy and once about him writing a prophetic letter that disagrees with the parallel event in 2 Kings. 2 Kings 6:8-23 and 2 Chronicles 28:5-15 tell similar stories about the prisoners of King of Aram and what the prophet told him but in 2 Kings, the prophet was Elisha while in 2 Chronicles, it was Obed.

          Then there is the Book of Daniel which tries to give the impression that it was written as prophecy but the prophecies are true and ridiculously specific up to 167 BC and completely wrong after 164 BC.

          In addition, there are many archaeological finds that confirm many tribes, cities, people and events recorded in the Bible.

          Which would be consistent with the authors of the Old Testament relying on the Babylonian records during the Exile.

        • Ed

          ed: Unlike mythology most books in the bible were written near the time of the events that are recorded except for Genesis.

          gg: How could they be written near the time of an event that didn’t happen?

          ed: Almost all ancient historical events have documents that record them, that is how we know that the event happened. Do you know history works?

          gg: I have seen Superman movies set in nearly every decade since the 1940’s but they weren’t real.

          ed: See my previous post about intentional fiction.

          gg: 1 & 2 Chronicles parallels 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings from around the time of David to the Exile. They mention sources such as the book of the kings of Israel, the book of the kings ofIsrael and Judah, and the book of the kings of Judah and Israel. That tells us those writings come from the time of the Exile and are based on documents written over time.
          The Chronicles never mention Elisha and only mention Elijah twice, once in a genealogy and once about him writing a prophetic letter that disagrees with the parallel event in 2 Kings. 2 Kings 6:8-23 and 2 Chronicles 28:5-15 tell similar stories about the prisoners of King of Aram and what the prophet told him but in 2 Kings, the prophet was Elisha while in 2 Chronicles, it was Obed.

          ed: No, those are two very different events, one has the fiery Army of God surrounding them and the other has 200,000 captives many of whom were naked so had to be clothed and the avoidance of guilt and etc. There is no evidence that they are parallel.

          gg: Then there is the Book of Daniel which tries to give the impression that it was written as prophecy but the prophecies are true and ridiculously specific up to 167 BC and completely wrong after 164 BC.

          ed: In what way are they wrong?

          gg: Which would be consistent with the authors of the Old Testament relying on the Babylonian records during the Exile.

          ed: In what way would it be consistent the authors relying on the Babylonians records during the exile?

        • Greg G.

          ed: Almost all ancient historical events have documents that record them, that is how we know that the event happened. Do you know history works?

          Most historical events are completely unknown because there were no documents that recorded them. We only know of events that were recorded in some way. We even have conflicting accounts of certain events so what we think we know is provisional without archaeological evidence to back it up.

          Is that what you meant to say or do you not know how history works?

          There is no evidence that they are parallel.

          It is the same story used by different sides. One is the Israeli version and one is the Judean version. The 2 Kings story has the king of Aram capturing Israelis while the 2 Chronicles version has the the king of Aram aligned with Israel against Judea. In both accounts, prisoners are taken to Samaria. Both accounts have a prophet say to not kill the prisoners and the prisoners are fed and released. Elisha is never mentioned in the Chronicles and Oded is never mentioned anywhere else in the Bible. So there is evidence that they are the same story.

          If you actually study the Chronicles, you would know that there are parallels between them with Genesis, Ruth, Joshua, Nehemiah, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezra, but primarily parallels with 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings. But there are plenty of discrepancies. Elijah and Elisha are in 1 & 2 Kings while Elijah is barely mentioned in the Chronicles and Elisha is not found at all in them.

          ed: In what way are they wrong?

          Daniel 11:1-5 describes Alexander the Great. When he died in 32BC, his dominion was divided up to his four generals.

          Daniel 11:6 describes how Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy II, king of Egypt, which is the south, married Antiochus II, the grandson of Seleucus I, the king of Syria and Palestine, which is the north.

          Daniel 11:7 describes how Antiochus II and Berenice were killed by her brother, Ptolemy III.

          Daniel 11:8-44 describes Antiochus IV Epiphanies, as told in 2 Maccabees.

          Daniel 11:45 says Antiochus IV Epiphanies would plant his tents of his palace between the sea and the glorious holy mountain, but he didn’t. He died of natural causes elsewhere in 164BC.

          That’s why the writing of the Book of Daniel is dated between 166 and 164BC.

          ed: In what way would it be consistent the authors relying on the Babylonians records during the exile?

          The Babylonians had libraries as far back as 2200BC. We have the story of Gilgamesh from clay that was baked. Plus much more. The Noah story is similar to Gilgamesh.

          If the Babylonian libraries contained information from centuries before, it is logically consistent that the information from those libraries would coincide with archaeological findings. That’s how ancient writings are confirmed.

        • Ed

          ed: Almost all ancient historical events have documents that record them, that is how we know that the event happened. Do you know history works?

          gg: Most historical events are completely unknown because there were no documents that recorded them. We only know of events that were recorded in some way. We even have conflicting accounts of certain events so what we think we know is provisional without archaeological evidence to back it up.
          Is that what you meant to say or do you not know how history works?

          ed: What I meant to say is that most historical events are known about because of ancient documents. Some events by their nature would not have archaeological evidence for them so when we are trying to determine the accuracy of an ancient document we check those things that can be confirmed by archaeology or other evidence and if the document can be shown to be accurate in those events then it is rational to assume the document is generally trustworthy when it references events that we dont have archaeology or other sources to back it up.

          ed: There is no evidence that they are parallel.

          gg: It is the same story used by different sides. One is the Israeli version and one is the Judean version. The 2 Kings story has the king of Aram capturing Israelis while the 2 Chronicles version has the the king of Aram aligned with Israel against Judea.

          ed: No, the evidence points to both books written by scribes from Judea. Using sources from Israel of course. In addition, these are not even about the same king. One is King Jehoram of Israel and the other is King Ahaz of Judah. Also, many characteristics of the stories are not similar at all. The firey army of God is mentioned in Israel’s battle but not even mentioned at all in Judah’s battle. Also the one in 2 Kings was Syria against Israel while the other war is Syria and Israel against Judah. Of course, all war stories have some similarities that is the nature of war stories but the differences between these two stories and events are so significant that it is extremely unlikely to be parallel.

          gg:In both accounts, prisoners are taken to Samaria. Both accounts have a prophet say to not kill the prisoners and the prisoners are fed and released. Elisha is never mentioned in the Chronicles and Oded is never mentioned anywhere else in the Bible. So there is evidence that they are the same story.

          ed: No see above the major differences.

          gg: If you actually study the Chronicles, you would know that there are parallels between them with Genesis, Ruth, Joshua, Nehemiah, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezra, but primarily parallels with 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings. But there are plenty of discrepancies. Elijah and Elisha are in 1 & 2 Kings while Elijah is barely mentioned in the Chronicles and Elisha is not found at all in them.

          ed: You are reading your own theories into the stories. All events have some similarities if you look hard enough. Me and you are very different people but I bet I could find many similarities between our life stories, but none of them are of any substance or significance they are just superficial similarities that are just part of life in general.

          ed: In what way are they wrong?

          gg: Daniel 11:1-5 describes Alexander the Great. When he died in 32BC, his dominion was divided up to his four generals.
          Daniel 11:6 describes how Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy II, king of Egypt, which is the south, married Antiochus II, the grandson of Seleucus I, the king of Syria and Palestine, which is the north.
          Daniel 11:7 describes how Antiochus II and Berenice were killed by her brother, Ptolemy III.
          Daniel 11:8-44 describes Antiochus IV Epiphanies, as told in 2 Maccabees.
          Daniel 11:45 says Antiochus IV Epiphanies would plant his tents of his palace between the sea and the glorious holy mountain, but he didn’t. He died of natural causes elsewhere in 164BC.
          That’s why the writing of the Book of Daniel is dated between 166 and 164BC.

          ed: No, the evidence points to a shift to the antichrist in verse 35. This was often done in ancient prophetic literature, such as is also seen in Ezekiel 28.

          ed: In what way would it be consistent the authors relying on the Babylonians records during the exile?

          gg: The Babylonians had libraries as far back as 2200BC. We have the story of Gilgamesh from clay that was baked. Plus much more. The Noah story is similar to Gilgamesh.

          ed: There are very significant differences between Noah and Gilgamesh not only the wild mythological style of Gilgamesh as compared to the more subdued and realistic writing of Genesis unmythological-like. But even the substance of the story and point of story is very different. It could be though that Gilgamesh is a distorted mythological version of the real events of Noah.

          gg: If the Babylonian libraries contained information from centuries before, it is logically consistent that the information from those libraries would coincide with archaeological findings. That’s how ancient writings are confirmed

          ed: There is very little in Gilgamesh that has been confirmed by science and archaeology while many things in Genesis have been confirmed by science and archaeology.

        • Greg G.

          ed: What I meant to say is that most historical events are known about because of ancient documents. Some events by their nature would not have archaeological evidence for them so when we are trying to determine the accuracy of an ancient document we check those things that can be confirmed by archaeology or other evidence and if the document can be shown to be accurate in those events then it is rational to assume the document is generally trustworthy when it references events that we dont have archaeology or other sources to back it up.

          The magic events written in ancient stories are discounted. Some events by nature would be unlikely to leave archaeological evidence. But events that should have left lots od archaeological evidence should be supported by archaeological evidence. The lack of such evidence tells us that the story is exaggerated or fictional no matter what the document says.

          ed: No, the evidence points to both books written by scribes from Judea. Using sources from Israel of course. In addition, these are not even about the same king. One is King Jehoram of Israel and the other is King Ahaz of Judah. Also, many characteristics of the stories are not similar at all. The firey army of God is mentioned in Israel’s battle but not even mentioned at all in Judah’s battle. Also the one in 2 Kings was Syria against Israel while the other war is Syria and Israel against Judah. Of course, all war stories have some similarities that is the nature of war stories but the differences between these two stories and events are so significant that it is extremely unlikely to be parallel.

          It is hard to take the histories seriously. Who became king first, Joram son of Ahab or Joram son of Jehoshaphat?

          2 Kings 1:17 (NIV) 17 So he died, according to the word of the Lord that Elijah had spoken.Because Ahaziah (son of Ahab) had no son, Joram (son of Ahab) succeeded him as king in the second year of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah.

          NIV footnote:
          2 Kings 1:17 Hebrew Jehoram, a variant of Joram

          “(son of Ahab)” added for clarification

          2 Kings 8:16 (NIV)16 In the fifth year of Joram son of Ahab king of Israel, when Jehoshaphat was king of Judah, Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat began his reign as king of Judah.

          Elijah is mentioned in 2 Kings 1:17 regarding a prophecy he told Ahaziah. Elijah is mentioned twice in all of the Chronicles, once in a genealogy and once having written a letter prophesying the death of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat in 2 Chronicles 21:11-19.

          The death of Joram son of Ahab is described in 2 Kings 8:23-24. But Elijah was taken up by a whirlwind in 2 Kings 2:11.

          2 Kings 3:1 (NIV)1 In the eighteenth year of King Jehoshaphat of Judah, Jehoram son of Ahab became king over Israel in Samaria; he reigned twelve years.

          Wait a minute. 1 Kings 22:41-42 tells us Jehoshaphat was 35 when he became king and reigned for 25 years. So then Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat became king in the 7th year of the reign of Jehoram son of Ahab.

          We have three different dates and different orders for the reigns of Joram son of Ahab or Joram son of Jehoshaphat with two different spellings to muddy things up more. We have Elijah writing a prophetic letter 12 years after he disappeared.

          Elisha is completely written out of the Chronicles. Elijah is mentioned twice, once as a name in a genealogy and once as a letter-writing ghost. These stories are written loosely into an attempted historical narrative.

          The details between 2 Kings 6:8-23 and 2 Chronicles 28:5-15 are the same but for a few name changes. Perhaps the basic stories are about two different historical events but the addition of the prophets should be considered fiction.

          ed: You are reading your own theories into the stories. All events have some similarities if you look hard enough. Me and you are very different people but I bet I could find many similarities between our life stories, but none of them are of any substance or significance they are just superficial similarities that are just part of life in general.

          The addition of the prophets is an element of fiction.

          ed: No, the evidence points to a shift to the antichrist in verse 35. This was often done in ancient prophetic literature, such as is also seen in Ezekiel 28.

          The author of Daniel was trying to portray Antiochus IV Epiphanies as the antichrist. There was no shift. It is just that the narrative fell apart when it went from making history appear to be prophecy to making an actual attempt at prophecy.

          ed: There are very significant differences between Noah and Gilgamesh not only the wild mythological style of Gilgamesh as compared to the more subdued and realistic writing of Genesis unmythological-like. But even the substance of the story and point of story is very different. It could be though that Gilgamesh is a distorted mythological version of the real events of Noah.

          But there are similarities that are completely mythological. The lifespans in the early chapters of Genesis are mythological. The talking snake is mythology.

          ed: There is very little in Gilgamesh that has been confirmed by science and archaeology while many things in Genesis have been confirmed by science and archaeology.

          But a great deal of Genesis,and many other books of the Bible, have been debunked by science and archaeology. Getting a few names and places right by copying from the writings of an older culture with centuries-old libraries accounts for that. But they had to rely on different texts with conflicting details while compiling a history with political spin makes the best of the Bible unreliable.

        • Greg G.

          Also, you have made another empty assertion to support your other empty assertion.

        • Getting the names of kings, cities, and rivers accurate is the very least you’d expect. This merely gets you to the starting line.

        • Ed

          Yes, and then there are the events, cultures, and ancient words that it gets right.

        • Greg G.

          In addition, there are many archaeological finds that confirm many tribes, cities, people and events recorded in the Bible.

          I never saw Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer. Did the movie get the names of the politicians of the day and the geographical names right? if they did, does that mean Abe was a vampire slayer?

        • Ed

          Again, there was not intentional fiction at that time in history except for parables.

        • Greg G.

          The Odyssey was the most popular story of the era and for centuries before. It is intentionally tall tales. Euripides’ The Bacchae was also very popular and it is a fictional story. Aesop’s fables were popular and definitely intentional fiction.

          I mention these examples because they influenced the New Testament.

        • Ed

          As I stated earlier it is extremely unlikely that first century rural jews would have ever read pagan writings such as any of those. It was considered unclean. Those are parables, I dont deny that parables are fiction, but no intentional fictional versions of historical narratives were written until the middle ages. Therefore it is extremely unlikely that those writings influenced the NT and there is absolutely no independent evidence that they did.

        • Greg G.

          As I stated earlier it is extremely unlikely that first century rural jews would have ever read pagan writings such as any of those.

          I agree with that. The Gospel of Mark was written for Romans by a very talented writer who knew lots of Greek literature, the Septuagint, some of Paul’s writings, and Josephus’ Jewish Wars. The author of John knew the Gospel of Mark and lots of Greek philosophy and/or the writings of Philo of Alexandria. The author of Matthew knew Mark, John, the Epistle of James, some of Paul’s writings, some of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities, and lots of the Septuagint. The author of Luke/Acts knew the other three gospels, some of Paul’s writings, Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities and Life, other Greek literature, and probably at least one other history source.

          None of them seem to have any direct knowledge of a first century Jesus. Everything Paul says about Jesus seems to come from the Old Testament. James doesn’t tell us anything about Jesus.

        • Pofarmer

          but no intentional fictional versions of historical narratives were written until the middle ages.

          Whhhaaaaatttttttt???????????

        • Euripides’ The Bacchae was also very popular and it is a fictional story.

          Slow down, cowboy. If it ain’t in comic form, I doubt Ed has even heard of it.

        • Thanks4AllTheFish

          Oh dear, you really are a faithful devotee. Lots of declarative sentences with no citation to back them up. One of the nice things about knowledge is that one can build on it and learn from it. It seems as though there is an evolutionary flaw in some humans that requires them to expect more from reality than what meets empirical observations. I’ll leave you to it.

        • Ed

          Ummm. Many things in reality can not be empirically observed. Do you deny the existence of your mind, the laws of physics, the laws of logic, love, and etc?

        • The Jack of Sandwich

          Nah, Jesus said not to follow his Dad’s stupid laws. The only problem is figuring out which of his Dad’s laws were the stupid ones.

        • epeeist

          Nah, Jesus said not to follow his Dad’s stupid laws.

          But he was his dad.

        • The Jack of Sandwich

          I’m my own grandpa…

        • he was his dad.

          At the same time?? Kinky.

      • Otto

        No, if man’s laws go against God’s law then God says she should not obey. Read the book of Acts Multiple Choice.

        FTFY

      • Chuck Johnson

        No, read the Bible.
        There you can find justification for any politics that you prefer.

        • Ed

          Fraid not. Not if you study it within its entire linguistic and historical context.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I’m calling you a fatuous 69ass, absent documented proof that YOU have mastered all the languages in question and have a PhD in analysis of the texts.

          Your move, smugwannabe!

        • Ed

          No, but others have and I can read their books. That is how you learn right? What is a 69ass? Never heard that term.

        • 69 is added to words to avoid the rude filter.

        • Greg G.

          Google advertizers object to having to pay when they are associated with pages containing a list of words and phrases so Patheos added a filter that moderates any comment with one of those words. Adding digits to a word is one way to inhibit the filter.

          Ironically, not only is “bl‌ow j‌ob” banned, each of the words are banned individually, including a book from the Bible. Even common words like “urg‌ent” would get a comment blocked so it was difficult to compose a comment without getting surprised when it was blocked.

          They allowed moderators to edit the list to remove common words.

        • Chuck Johnson

          You are apparently one of those who can use dishonesty to justify any politics that you prefer.
          And you are pompous.

        • Ed

          What dishonesty?

        • Chuck Johnson

          I am now giving you a brief reply because of your dishonesty.

        • WallofSleep

          It might just be the poor little fella is brainwashed and uneducated; simply regurgitating talking points like a squeezed sponge.

        • Chuck Johnson

          “Regurgitating talking points.”
          This makes him a scintillating pundit and raconteur.

        • Ed

          Name one dishonest statement I have made.

      • Lark62

        Where does god’s law say a government employee cannot fill out a form that says the secular legal requirements for “X” were met?

        Chapter and verse, please.

        Because that is all Davis was asked to do.

        A clerk registering a lime green cadillac is not expressing approval of lime green cadillacs.

        • Greg G.

          A clerk registering a lime green cadillac is not expressing approval of lime green cadillacs.

          What about Bruce Springsteen’s Pink Cadillac?

        • TheNuszAbides

          What about Eve[‘s]?

        • Ed

          But owning a lime green Cadillac is not immoral.

        • Lark62

          Yes, it is. Owning a lime green Cadillac is immoral. The deity told me so.

          OTOH, the marriage of two adults who are in love and treat each other well is not immoral.

        • I’m liking this religion. Do you have any openings?

        • Lark62

          Write your prayer requests on a $20 bill and send them to me and you’re in. Write neatly. Use as many as you need.

        • Ed

          Yeah right. Why is it immoral to own one? God’s laws always have a rational basis for them, including your well being in this world and the next. Studies have shown that homosexual couples have higher domestic abuse rates than heterosexual ones. With lesbians having the highest rates

        • epeeist

          Studies have shown that homosexual couples have higher domestic abuse rates than heterosexual ones. With lesbians having the highest rates

          Which studies, you don’t seem to have provided a citation?

          Oh, and did these studies show that the causal factor was the reason for the higher rates of abuse, or were there other factors?

        • Good point on the causal factors.

          You treat slaves like animals and then say, “I mean look at them! You think they can be civilized humans?”

          In a similar way, fundamentalists in our world are doing their best to make living as an out homosexual difficult. A SSM couple then has stresses than a straight couple wouldn’t.

        • Ed

          The National Violence Against Women survey found that 21.5 percent of men and 35.4 percent of women living with a same-sex partner experienced intimate-partner physical violence in their lifetimes, compared with 7.1 percent and 20.4 percent for men and women, respectively, with a history of only opposite-sex cohabitation. Transgender respondents had an incidence of 34.6 percent over a lifetime according to a Massachusetts survey. There were no causal factors named in the study.

        • You should give the link.
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3138983/

          Twenty years after Christians stop dumping on homosexuals, do the survey again and get back to me. Given the substandard conditions Christians force on homosexuals, I don’t see these results as useful if you’re trying to use them to say that homosexuals are inherently more violent.

        • MR

          Well, just in sheer numbers violence against women in heterosexual relationships far exceeds anything at the homosexual level. The effects on society are far greater. I imagine this makes Ed want to end heterosexual relationships. I can see him leading the parade now with a big ol’ banner: “STOP STRAIGHT MARRIAGE NOW!”

        • Ed’s a reasonable guy. I’m sure he wants to be consistent.

        • Ed

          Jews and blacks were oppressed for many years, and there is no evidence that they had higher rates of domestic violence due to oppression.

        • epeeist

          There were no causal factors named in the study.

          So you simply don’t know whether homosexuality causes the additional levels of violence or whether there are other, confounding factors.

        • MR

          I don’t think it’s about knowing with Ed, it’s “I’ve been taught: Gay, bad, ick!”

        • Ed

          True, we dont know for sure yet. More research is needed, but it does seem to point in that direction. From the 1930s to the 1960s blacks and Jews were being oppressed and yet their domestic violence rates were not unusually high.

        • epeeist

          More research is needed, but it does seem to point in that direction.

          It does? How do you figure that out if we “don’t know for sure yet”?

          From the 1930s to the 1960s blacks and Jews were being oppressed and yet their domestic violence rates were not unusually high.

          They weren’t? And yet, once again, you provide no backing for your claim. Perhaps you could provide a citation, at the same time perhaps you could provide the actual reference to your NVAW survey.,

        • Ed

          Some evidence comes from the Moynihan Report regarding blacks. I cant remember where I read about jews. The NVAW survey: https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpmc%2Farticles%2FPMC3138983%2F%3AMnzy4pAG77h6Ybf7-rTTlg0pMM4&cuid=2306652
          .

        • epeeist

          Some evidence comes from the Moynihan Report regarding blacks.

          Citation required

          I cant remember where I read about jews.

          This being so, I see no reason to accept your claim

          The NVAW survey: https://disq.us/url?url=htt

          This is a link to a paper on partner violence in LBGT relationships, nothing to do with an NVAW survey. Now you have quote mined a few numbers from the paper and you also said that the paper doesn’t identify causal relationships.

          However what you (deliberately?) ignore are the stressors identified within the paper, for example:

          However, there are some aspects of IPV that are unique to the LGBT experience. In particular, outing may constitute both a tool of abuse and a barrier to seeking help. LGBT individuals often hide outward expression of their sexual orientation or gender identity for fear of stigma and discrimination; abusive partners may exploit this fear through the threat of forced outing. Even if batterers do not employ outing as an abuse tactic, victims’ reluctance to out themselves may hinder them from turning to family, friends, or the police for support, further isolating them in abusive relationships

          and

          Many LGBT individuals have experienced prior psychological or physical trauma, whether in the form of rejection by their families of origin, hate speech or hate crimes in their communities, or bullying at school

          These same factors are also identified in Structural stigma and the health and wellbeing of Australian LGB populations: Exploiting geographic variation in the results of the 2017 same-sex marriage plebiscite, Perales and Todd, Social Science & Medicine, Volume 208, July 2018, Pages 190-199.

          To put in bluntly, your figures without this context are not just worthless but actually distort the findings.

        • Ed

          The Moynihan Report: https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Moynihan%27s%20The%20Negro%20Family.pdf. I will have to do some research to find the jewish data. Although stressors about being gay may contribute to domestic violence, I dont think it has been proven to be the primary source due to the limited number of studies that have been done because of political correctness.

        • epeeist

          The Moynihan Report:

          You expect me to trawl through 76 pages in a non-searchable image format to find something that substantiates your claim? Why don’t you provide the relevant passages along with their page numbers.

          I dont think it has been proven to be the primary source due to the limited number of studies that have been done because of political correctness.

          A feeble attempt at both burden shifting and poisoning the well. Your claim was that homosexuality was causal in intimate partner violence in same sex-relationships. Now that I have provided actual quotations from the paper you misquoted you now want to claim, as usual without justification, that this is due to “political correctness”.

        • Rudy R

          Ed deliberately ignoring the context speaks volumes of his bias towards the LGBTQ community and I dare say, just the raw statistics are proof enough for him to trust his god’s prurient interest is only in the best interest of his flock.

        • epeeist

          Ed deliberately ignoring the context speaks volumes of his bias

          I think one has to ask, did he deliberately suppress the contextual information or did he not understand the paper (or both of course)? In linking to primary data in scientific papers over the years I have to say that I have noticed a significant element of the latter in many theist posters (yes, Jesse H I am looking at you amongst a number of others). It’s almost as though they lack any background in the field they are quote mining…

        • Where are you going with this? Just an interesting anecdote, or is there something actionable here?

        • Ed

          More evidence for the Government to repeal gay marriage and have the government discourage homosexual behavior similar to the way it discourages smoking. Of course, they still “marry” each other, just not have government sanction.

        • The government discourages smoking because it’s bad for individuals and raises the insurance burden for society.

          Marriage (or so the Christians tell me) is a social good.

          Pretty poor comparison.

          Of course, they still “marry” each other, just not have government sanction.

          What you should’ve said was: they can still marry each other, just not with a church’s sanction. Churches can redefine marriage any way they want to, and that’s legal. But the actual “marriage” within Western society is defined by laws, not religious doctrine.

        • Rudy R

          Ed believes homosexual behavior is bad for society, so his comparison with smoking is germane to his argument. And as such, he should say that government shouldn’t sanction SSM. I applaud your attempts to sway his opinion, but I think he is a lost cause.

        • You’re right–a lost cause.

          It’s still the case that smoking is objectively harmful, while SSM is harmful only in his prudish little mind.

        • Ed

          Read my study from JAMA, homosexual behavior is also bad for individuals and has probably already raised the insurance burden for everyone with the high costs of AIDS drugs among other things. Biological marriage IS a social good, but not gay marriage. No, our nation is founded on “the laws of Nature and the laws of Natures God”. IOW nature and the Bible.

        • Greg G.

          You should read that JAMA article. The whole thing.

        • “Homosexual behavior”? What sexual behavior do heterosexuals not do, and in greater numbers?

          And if your point is that safe sex is important, I agree. Worldwide, AIDS strikes men and women roughly equally.

          Biological marriage IS a social good, but not gay marriage.

          Just cuz Ed says so? Well, golly, that’s good enough for me!

          How are the marriage vows you said not equally applicable to a gay couple? “To have and to hold”? “In sickness and in health”? “Till death do us part”? These are all noble sentiments that don’t depend on how you participate in the mattress Olympics.

        • Greg G.

          Last night, I responded to four or five replies from Ed that I found in Recent Comments but this morning I noticed that I had only one notification of them in my email. Perhaps the other notifications are being saved for Christmas presents from Patheos-Disqus-Gmail. I hate to spoil the surprise for others but I couldn’t resist. Maybe “hate” was a poor word choice.

        • Disqus is the gift that keeps on giving.

        • Ed

          The only reason it strikes equally men and women worldwide is because of the sexist cultures of Islam and some African cultures. They use anal sex as birth control. But most women do not like it. The men force it on them. Dont take my word for it. Read the Sept. 2014 issue of Scientific American. Anthropologists say that humanity would have gone extinct if early humans had not practiced monogamous heterosexuality.

        • Not what I’ve heard. I’ve heard that men pick it up from prostitutes and then give it to their wives through conventional sex. You do know that ordinary rumpy-pumpy transmits STDs like HIV also, right?

          Anthropologists say that humanity would have gone extinct if early humans had not practiced monogamous heterosexuality.

          I’ll bet they actually say that STDs wouldn’t exist if humans had practiced monogamous sex. And yet STDs do exist. So much for your hypothesis.

        • Trying to find some logic in your comment, one can distill out, “practice safe sex.” I agree with that. The rest is just prejudice and getting the willies from imagining two men kissing.

        • Susan

          More evidence for the Government to repeal gay marriage and have the government discourage homosexual behavior similar to the way it discourages smoking

          No. Gay marriage does not have direct, statistically demonstrated consequences. If that’s what you’re appealing to, a statistical form of consequences, then handwaving vaguely at the problems with being homosexual don’t get you the same consequences with gay marriage. Handwaving doesn’t even get you statistical problems with homosexuality.

          Also, when one investigates the studies, one doesn’t come up with the statistics you claim.

          While people who argue against smoking can show you a direct correlation between smoking and living a shorter life,present evidence.

          So, no. Being homosexual is not the same as being a smoker. But I doubt you’ve ever bothered to investigate the models and/or eivdence for either.

          And I very much doubt you’re going to start now.

          My bet is that you’re just going to repeat apologetic bilge and accuse us of “bias” for noticing that you can’t do any better than that.

          Rather than do the honest thing, which would be to engage in the subjects those apologists invoke.

          They count on you not to do that. And it’s easier not to. And they make you feel smart if you just play along.

          Blech!

        • Also, when one investigates the studies, one doesn’t come up with the statistics you claim.

          Even if the statistics did show what he claims (I don’t actually know either way, and he hasn’t provided a citation for his claim) this would only be evidence of correlation, and not necessarily causation. The hard work is still ahead of him to show that being in a same-sex relationship is somehow causing people to abuse their partners.

        • Susan

          this would only be evidence of correlation, and not necessarily causation. The hard work is still ahead of him to show that being in a same-sex relationship is somehow causing people to abuse their partners.

          Yes, it would.

          And no, he doesn’t show studies that support his claim.

          But that’s a bit of a pattern of his, isn’t it?

        • Pofarmer

          If you actually look for/at the studies that he is obliquely referencing, you will find that there is a huge range in the numbers reported.

        • Greg G.

          And no, he doesn’t show studies that support his claim.

          On the rare occasion that he does show a study to try to support his claim, it does not support his claim because he didn’t read it all the way through or just didn’t understand it.

        • Pofarmer

          Or just hoped you wouldn’t read it all the way through. Reminds me of he who shall not be named.

        • Ed

          No, there are physical and mental problems with engaging in homosexual behavior. Read this study from the Netherlands: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/481699 And there are studies that show shorter lifespans for gays. I will have to find them and post them.

        • there are physical and mental problems with engaging in homosexual behavior.

          And you’re doing your part, my friend! If homosexuality were as uninteresting as left-handedness within society, the anxiety of being homosexual wouldn’t exist.

          there are studies that show shorter lifespans for gays.

          Correct again! The only problem is that they’re 20 years old, before medicine moved AIDS from death sentence to merely a chronic illness.

        • Ed

          Not necessarily, given that other oppressed people dont have these problems to the extent of gays there appears to be more to it than just oppression. More studies are needed though due to political pressure scientists are unlikely to do the necessary research. Especially for males, we know that their primary sexual activity is one of the most disease ridden behaviors known. https://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns#1

        • Yet again, butt sex is done by more than just gay men. And there are few gay men in society. See the problem with your argument?

        • Ed

          Christian governments care about individuals irrespective of the relative numbers, one individual suffering from mental and physical illnesses is one too many. Anal sex should be discouraged by heterosexuals too.

        • Why? For the same reason that driving should be discouraged?

          You’re obsessed with teh gays. Keep it to yourself.

        • Ed
        • Greg G.

          Read the article you keep citing. It says nothing about marriage except as the name of a publication in the footnotes and that article supports gay intimate relationships.

        • Ed

          The key problem is the behavior. Due to all these health problems the government should discourage the behavior irrespective if you are “married” or not.

        • Greg G.

          Read the article you keep citing. The key problem is NOT the behavior. It attributes the problems to being caused by oppression by people like you. Maybe you are right if you mean that conservative Christianity should be discouraged.

        • The authors of the article also state, in their conclusion:
          The processes underlying the established differences need further study.

          Ed wants to attribute the higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders to having gay sex, when the evidence doesn’t lead to that conclusion. Further, even if we could definitely say that same sex relationships was causing the increased psychiatric disorders, I don’t see that as being a good reason to stop people from having same sex relationships.

        • epeeist

          Ed wants to attribute the higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders to having gay sex

          Still? He has been disabused of this this claim before.

          As ever his whole “argument” is, “Ooh, gay sex, yuck”.

        • More evidence for the Government to repeal gay marriage and have the government discourage homosexual behavior similar to the way it discourages smoking

          Why so?

          Let’s suppose that a new, and well verified, study came out tomorrow showing that married men are much more likely to be abusive towards their spouse than men who live in some kind of common-law arrangement. Would you claim that this is a good reason to abolish marriage, and only allow common-law arrangements between men and women?

        • Ed

          No, because there are other issues surrounding marriage that would still make it a good institution. Such as children need to be with their commited biological parents and then there is also the moral question. Homosexual behavior is immoral. So no, that is not the only reason gay marriage should not be supported by the government.

        • Homosexual behavior is immoral.

          While you are free to assert this, I’m equally free to reject it until you can show me the obvious, and unnecessary harm being inflicted by homosexual behavior. While I probably would have agreed with you 30 years ago, my moral foundations have shifted during that time. Today I can find insufficient justification to stop people from engaging in any kind of homosexuality.

          So no, that is not the only reason gay marriage should not be supported by the government.

          And I can see no reason why if government is in the business marriage that it should support “traditional marriage”, and not support same-sex marriage. SSM has been legal in my country for almost 15 years, and the sky has yet to fall on our heads. For the most part, most conservatives simply accept it, and recognize it’s not going away. Conservatives may not like it, but the outrage has been dead for a long time.

          But please, tell me more about how immoral homosexual behavior is, and why the government should be putting a stop to it, and same sex marriage…

        • Ed

          ed: Homosexual behavior is immoral.

          hn: While you are free to assert this, I’m equally free to reject it until you can show me the obvious, and unnecessary harm being inflicted by homosexual behavior. While I probably would have agreed with you 30 years ago, my moral foundations have shifted during that time. Today I can find insufficient justification to stop people from engaging in any kind of homosexuality.

          ed: I am not saying the government should actively try to stop it or outlaw it, I am just saying it should be discouraged like smoking because it is not good for you mentally or physically. Read this: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/481699

          ed: So no, that is not the only reason gay marriage should not be supported by the government.

          hn: And I can see no reason why if government is in the business marriage that it should support “traditional marriage”, and not support same-sex marriage. SSM has been legal in my country for almost 15 years, and the sky has yet to fall on our heads. For the most part, most conservatives simply accept it, and recognize it’s not going away. Conservatives may not like it, but the outrage has been dead for a long time.

          ed: Where are you from? Only heterosexual marriage can produce and raise children with a mom AND a dad especially biological parents because science has shown that that is the best situation for their happiness and development. The government should always strive for the best for children. And children are necessary for the future of any society to continue its existence. Ever wonder why all humans are anatomically heterosexual?

          hn: But please, tell me more about how immoral homosexual behavior is, and why the government should be putting a stop to it, and same sex marriage…

          ed: See above. There is no such thing as same sex marriage, the word by definition means combining two DIFFERENT things. For Judeo-Christian societies like America it is immoral because it goes against God’s moral law. The US and European nations were founded on the moral laws of the Christian God and homosexual behavior is forbidden. And since we are created in His image it also goes against our human nature so it is unnatural for humans.

        • I am not saying the government should actively try to stop it or outlaw it, I am just saying it should be discouraged like smoking because it is not good for you mentally or physically.

          Looking at the study you provided, it’s important to note right away the following from the authors: Because of the study’s cross-sectional design, it is not possible to adequately address the question of the causes of the observed differences.

          At best what you have is a correlation between certain mental health conditions, and being homosexual. I do not see this as a good reason to interfere with who people have sex with. It’s not like people are choosing to be homosexual!

          Where are you from?

          I’m Canadian. Take a trip sometime into Quebec, B.C., or Ontario, which tend to be the most progressive provinces. Or try rural Alberta if you want something more conservative.

          Only heterosexual marriage can produce and raise children

          Nonsense. Marriage is not required to produce children. If that was the case there would be a lot of horny unwed people who wouldn’t have the children that they had. Unprotected heterosexual sex is all that is required for producing children.

          Raising children doesn’t require marriage either, although having two parents does provide for better outcomes for children than having only a single parent.

          And children are necessary for the future of any society to continue its existence. Ever wonder why all humans are anatomically heterosexual?

          “Anatomically heterosexual”?! I’m going to assume you mean that humans are sexually dimorphic, just as other vertabret species are? Yes, evolution gave us sexual reproduction, but to imply that this is how we ought to behave is fallacious.

          There is no such thing as same sex marriage, the word by definition means combining two DIFFERENT things

          Only if you define marriage to be between a man and a woman. I see no reason why marriage must be defined that way.

          For Judeo-Christian societies like America it is immoral because it goes against God’s moral law.

          Objection. Assuming things not yet in evidence.

          The US and European nations were founded on the moral laws of the Christian God and homosexual behavior is forbidden

          I’m sorry that you’re so ignorant about the founding laws of the United States. The US is a secular nation, and has never founded on the laws of Christianity.

          And since we are created in His image it also goes against our human nature so it is unnatural for humans.

          Again, assuming things not in evidence.

        • Ed

          ed: I am not saying the government should actively try to stop it or outlaw it, I am just saying it should be discouraged like smoking because it is not good for you mentally or physically.

          hn: Looking at the study you provided, it’s important to note right away the following from the authors: Because of the study’s cross-sectional design, it is not possible to adequately address the question of the causes of the observed differences.
          At best what you have is a correlation between certain mental health conditions, and being homosexual. I do not see this as a good reason to interfere with who people have sex with. It’s not like people are choosing to be homosexual!

          ed: I agree that more studies are needed but the evidence from other sources point toward some correlation between engaging in homosexual behavior and these problems. For example, blacks and jews were extremely oppressed from the 1930’s to the 60’s, and yet they did not have these problems at the level of gays. Then you have the problem for males of anal sex. Anal sex is one of the most disease ridden behaviors known to man. Unfortunately the political climate would discourage many follow up studies to determine the causes of these problems due to the potential destruction of the standard narrative. Actually some do, such as Ann Heche and the wife of the mayor of NY, but generally no, most people do not choose to be homosexual but they do choose to engage in the behavior.

          ed: Where are you from?

          hn: I’m Canadian. Take a trip sometime into Quebec, B.C., or Ontario, which tend to be the most progressive provinces. Or try rural Alberta if you want something more conservative.

          ed: I have been to Montreal and Vancouver and enjoyed it, I would definitely like to both of those places you mention someday.

          hn: Only heterosexual marriage can produce and raise children

          Nonsense. Marriage is not required to produce children. If that was the case there would be a lot of horny unwed people who wouldn’t have the children that they had. Unprotected heterosexual sex is all that is required for producing children.
          Raising children doesn’t require marriage either, although having two parents does provide for better outcomes for children than having only a single parent.

          ed: Actually I left out three words on the end of the sentence. I meant to type “In the most optimal manner.’ The most optimal manner is the two biological parents raising the child. And second most optimal is a man and a woman if the child is adopted. Only being raised by both sexes provides the child with all of the unique aspects of parenting that only two gender parents can provide.

          ed: And children are necessary for the future of any society to continue its existence. Ever wonder why all humans are anatomically heterosexual?

          hn: “Anatomically heterosexual”?! I’m going to assume you mean that humans are sexually dimorphic, just as other vertabret species are? Yes, evolution gave us sexual reproduction, but to imply that this is how we ought to behave is fallacious.

          ed: No, sexual dimorphism is the condition where the two sexes of the same species exhibit different characteristics beyond the differences in their sexual organs. I am referring to the complementarian nature of the sexual organs, the “lock and key”. In addition, there are cellular structures in the vagina and womb that also are complementary to the male organ and sperm. So being anatomically heterosexual goes all the way down to the cellular level. Therefore this points to their obvious purpose and design. You are free to use them for things that they were not made for, but generally when that is done it can cause problems. Like using your microwave to dry your wet cat.

          ed: There is no such thing as same sex marriage, the word by definition means combining two DIFFERENT things

          hn: Only if you define marriage to be between a man and a woman. I see no reason why marriage must be defined that way.

          ed: No, you mean you have never heard of the phrase “marrying two ideas”? Or marrying two inventions, or ad infinitum. In all these phrases it means marrying two different things.

          ed: For Judeo-Christian societies like America it is immoral because it goes against God’s moral law.

          hn: Objection. Assuming things not yet in evidence.

          ed: The US and European nations were founded on the moral laws of the Christian God and homosexual behavior is forbidden

          hn: I’m sorry that you’re so ignorant about the founding laws of the United States. The US is a secular nation, and has never founded on the laws of Christianity.

          ed: No, the DOI is the philosophical foundation of America. It refers to the Laws of Nature and (the Laws) of Natures God. Most people know what the first is but most people dont realize what the second set of laws are, they are the revealed laws of the God in the Bible. Jefferson who wrote it was a Unitarian, Unitarians believe in the moral laws of the bible but they reject the supernatural aspects of the bible. And that is what he was referring to. The moral law contained in the bible forbids engaging in homosexual behavior.

          ed: And since we are created in His image it also goes against our human nature so it is unnatural for humans.

          hn: Again, assuming things not in evidence.

          ed: See above about the nature of our anatomy. Engaging in homosexual behavior goes against the purpose and nature of our sexual organs.

        • Lark62

          Who are you to question the deity?

        • (((GC)))

          … in this world and the next. [Citation needed]

          The fact that we all have this one real life is reason enough to make the world better for each other, including for adults in love who are committed to each other, and who happen to be of the same gender.

          Don’t like same-sex marriage? Don’t get same-sex married!

          (I apologize for the inaccurate terminology for the sake of a pithy dictum. It’s simply “marriage”, whatever the gender(s) of the people involved. Making babies is not a requirement.)

        • Ed

          Regarding this world, I have already provided the scientific study that shows its health problems and then God has revealed to us the next world concerns.

          gc: The fact that we all have this one real life is reason enough to make the world better for each other, including for adults in love who are committed to each other, and who happen to be of the same gender.

          ed: They are perfectly free to get their imaginary “marriage”, it is just because of the mental and physical harms associated with the behavior and the inability to produce and raise children in the optimum manner, it should not be recognized by the government.

          gc: Don’t like same-sex marriage? Don’t get same-sex married!
          (I apologize for the inaccurate terminology for the sake of a pithy dictum. It’s simply “marriage”, whatever the gender(s) of the people involved. Making babies is not a requirement.)

          ed: It has nothing to do with not liking an imaginary institution, it has to do with human health concerns for both adults and children.

        • Greg G.

          Regarding this world, I have already provided the scientific study that shows its health problems and then God has revealed to us the next world concerns.

          Read the whole study before you make that claim. Your claim is undercut in that very study.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        *Honor* says she should QUIT rather than follow the law.

        If she’s taking the GOVERNMENT’s money, she follows the GOVERNMENT’s rules.

        • Ed

          That is one honorable option, then there is also the option to fight, and that is what she chose. That also is honorable. Lincoln fought bad laws like the Dred Scott decision, he could have quit too and some would have thought that honorable.

        • But then you’re comparing slavery (not optional for the slave) with same-sex marriage (very much optional).

          The “You don’t like slavery? Then don’t be one” doesn’t work, while it works neatly in the SSM case.

        • Ed

          No, you are missing my point. I am referring to the fact that both fought terrible Supreme Court rulings..

        • I think Obergefell was just fine. Apparently evaluating SCOTUS rulings is in the eye of the beholder.

          I suspect that Obergefell will stand the test of time. Check back in in 20 years to gloat or take your medicine.

        • Ed

          It will probably be similar to the worst SCOTUS decision ever made, Roe vs. Wade. It has been over 45 years since then and the majority are finally turning against abortion as birth control. So hopefully by 2060 people will be starting to wake up and see that there is no such thing as gay marriage and fix all the other ways we have been destroying marriage like no fault divorce and etc. In Scandinavia where gay marriage was invented earlier, after a few years most gays stopped getting married anyway. Most of them dont really care about marriage, especially the men, they were just trying to normalize the behavior.

        • It has been over 45 years since then and the majority are finally turning against abortion as birth control.

          Why the “as birth control” qualification?

          So hopefully by 2060 people will be starting to wake up and see that there is no such thing as gay marriage and fix all the other ways we have been destroying marriage like no fault divorce and etc.

          You think that by imposing your worldview by law will improve things?

          In Scandinavia where gay marriage was invented earlier, after a few years most gays stopped getting married anyway. Most of them dont really care about marriage, especially the men, they were just trying to normalize the behavior.

          So then your opposition to it is just game playing.

        • Ed

          Because the majority still would allow abortion for rape or incest and of course life of the mother. But they are turning against abortion for all other reasons. I am not imposing my worldview, I am trying to save lives and get America back to its founding principles. And yes going back to our founding principles will improve things. No, my opposition is not game playing, I am just showing how the whole gay marriage push was not what the media and governmental establishment said it was. They were lying to us and they knew it.

        • I am not imposing my worldview, I am trying to save lives

          Nope, you are indeed imposing your worldview and nothing more. If you actually cared about saving lives (of the fetuses, I’m assuming), you’d take a path that would be the best one to reduce abortions. You don’t. More:
          https://valerietarico.com/2015/09/11/if-the-anti-abortion-frenzy-were-actually-about-abortion-what-a-serious-anti-abortion-movement-would-actually-look-like/

          I am just showing how the whole gay marriage push was not what the media and governmental establishment said it was.

          Your point apparently is that gays don’t actually want to get married. If you’re right, then your whining is pointless. Just shut up, and the gays will not get married. Problem solved.

          They were lying to us and they knew it.

          How many gay marriages in the US? I think it’s more than zero.

        • Ed

          Actually I agree with some of her ideas but also some of them are just not feasible economically, the government cannot pay for everything she recommends. But I do believe education is a key. We should return to teaching there is a Creator and Judge of the universe who will hold you responsible for your behavior in either this life or the afterlife as Benjamin Rush and Benjamin Franklin recommended. No, you are missing my point, they wanted gay marriage to normalize the behavior so the government has to discourage the behavior. The behavior is the point, that is what hurts people. The government’s job is to protect the health of its citizens.

        • Actually I agree with some of her ideas but also some of them are just not feasible economically, the government cannot pay for everything she recommends.

          The stakes are very large. How much does it cost to house, feed, clothe, and educate one more person? $250,000, I’ve heard. So, yeah, there’s plenty of money in savings that could be put into preventing unwanted pregnancies.

          We should return to teaching there is a Creator and Judge of the universe who will hold you responsible for your behavior in either this life or the afterlife

          Why mention this? It’s already been tried. It failed. You do know that red states have more unwanted pregnancies than blue states, right? Looks to me like God talk makes the problem worse.

          they wanted gay marriage to normalize the behavior

          Sounds good to me. Some people are straight and some gay. It’s about as dangerous as some being left-handed and some right.

          The behavior is the point, that is what hurts people. The government’s job is to protect the health of its citizens.

          Is this the place where you bring up 20-year-old statistics on AIDS deaths? You need to use current data.

        • Ed

          ed: Actually I agree with some of her ideas but also some of them are just not feasible economically, the government cannot pay for everything she recommends.

          bs: The stakes are very large. How much does it cost to house, feed, clothe, and educate one more person? $250,000, I’ve heard. So, yeah, there’s plenty of money in savings that could be put into preventing unwanted pregnancies.

          ed: Fraid not, the US has actually been in the red since around 2005.

          bs: We should return to teaching there is a Creator and Judge of the universe who will hold you responsible for your behavior in either this life or the afterlife

          ed: Why mention this? It’s already been tried. It failed. You do know that red states have more unwanted pregnancies than blue states, right? Looks to me like God talk makes the problem worse.

          bs: Uhhh no. unwanted pregnancies, STDs, teen promiscuity, drug use, and other forms of juvenile delinquency, have increased dramatically since the late 60’s when all mention of God was pretty much banned by the secular humanists.

          ed: they wanted gay marriage to normalize the behavior

          bs: Sounds good to me. Some people are straight and some gay. It’s about as dangerous as some being left-handed and some right.

          ed: No, read the JAMA report I posted.

          ed: The behavior is the point, that is what hurts people. The government’s job is to protect the health of its citizens.

          bs: Is this the place where you bring up 20-year-old statistics on AIDS deaths? You need to use current data.

          ed: Again read the JAMA report I posted and the WebMD article about anal sex I posted.

        • bs: The stakes are very large. How much does it cost to house, feed, clothe, and educate one more person? $250,000, I’ve heard. So, yeah, there’s plenty of money in savings that could be put into preventing unwanted pregnancies.
          ed: Fraid not, the US has actually been in the red since around 2005.

          Respond to the issue.

          ed: Why mention this? It’s already been tried. It failed. You do know that red states have more unwanted pregnancies than blue states, right? Looks to me like God talk makes the problem worse.
          bs: Uhhh no. unwanted pregnancies, STDs, teen promiscuity, drug use, and other forms of juvenile delinquency, have increased dramatically since the late 60’s when all mention of God was pretty much banned by the secular humanists.

          Cause and effect? Prove it. [Especially since we’ve already tried it, and red states are worse.]

          Bad measurements on social metrics correlate with more Christianity. Those secular northern European countries kick our ass on these. More:
          https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2017/06/christianity-lead-better-society-2/

          bs: Sounds good to me. Some people are straight and some gay. It’s about as dangerous as some being left-handed and some right.
          ed: No, read the JAMA report I posted.

          Summarize it for me. And respond to Greg G.’s suggestion, “You should read that JAMA article. The whole thing.”

          Anyway, what’s your point? If you’re recommending safe sex, I agree. If you’re recommending that the government make clear the dangers in any risky behavior (which is likely done by straight people more than gay), I agree.

        • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

          Notably, Obergefell (sp?) was a very good ruling for many people.

        • Ed

          No, it encourages people to engage in risky behavior. Studies have shown that engaging in homosexual behavior is not good for you mentally or physically.

        • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

          What is homosexual behavior? Gay/bi people seem plenty well off outside of bigoted bubbles.

        • Ed

          You dont know what homosexual behavior is? How old are you? Are you that naïve? Actually you are right economically. Gays have a higher average income than heterosexuals. So the oppression could not be that bad. For the evidence about bad health, read this: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/481699

        • Greg G.

          The study you cite says other studies have established that there is a relationship between the issues of gay men and women and oppression you claim isn’t so bad. Your own citation says that. Quit cherrypicking.

        • Ed

          No, as I stated the study I provided was from the most gay tolerant society in the world, so there is very little if any oppression in the Netherlands and yet they still have these serious problems so the evidence points that there may be more to these problems than just oppression.

        • Greg G.

          I know what you cited. Unlike you, I read the whole thing. If you had read the study, you would know that what I quoted comes from that same study from the link you provided. I copy&pasted it verbatim.

        • Ed

          There is other evidence that shows that other oppressed groups have not had all those problems so I am not so sure that has been proven. More studies are needed but they may not get accomplished due to their highly politically charged nature. Politics has interfered with an objective analysis of homosexuality ever since it was taken off the list of mental illnesses primarily for political reasons in 1973. This has been admitted to by a pro-gay psychiatrist who was present during those meetings at the time.

        • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

          Describe “homosexual behavior” without referring to the sexes of the people participating. I’ll save you the trouble and just point out that this is also “heterosexual behavior”.

        • Ed

          Well the primary problem with homosexual behavior is that the they are the same sex. But male homosexuals primary sexual behavior is one of the most disease ridden behaviors, anal sex. The number of heterosexuals that engage in it is relatively small, but it should be discouraged for heterosexuals too.

        • male homosexuals primary sexual behavior is one of the most disease ridden behaviors, anal sex.

          Uh, you do know that there are other disease-y ways to do it, right?

          Striving for common ground, what I hear you saying is that safe sex remains very important. And I agree.

          The number of heterosexuals that engage in it is relatively small, but it should be discouraged for heterosexuals too.

          And the number of homosexuals is also relatively small. I suspect there’s more butt sex within the heterosexual cohort than in the homosexual. Are you proportioning your finger wagging according to the number of practitioners in each category? Or are you hassling just the gays, again?

        • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

          Being of a sex is not behavior. Anal sex seems to be disease-free like all sex acts when no diseases are present and/or safe-sex precautions are taken.

        • Ed

          Two people of the same sex engaging in sexual behavior is a specific type of behavior. In fact only heterosexuals can have intercourse and consummate a marriage, gays cannot. Fraid not, read this https://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns#1

        • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

          Having certain sexual organs is not a behavior. All of the behaviors gay and bi people can engage in straight people engage in and in greater numbers.

        • Ed

          Fraid so. Two people of the same gender engaging in sex IS a behavior, it is called homosexual behavior. This is a scientific fact. Do you accept the findings of science?

        • Greg G.

          Which studies? Are you allergic to citing sources or are your sources to weak to be worth citing?

        • epeeist

          Which studies?

          If it is anything like his response to me asking for sources, he doesn’t quote them, what he does is misquote them.

        • Greg G.

          I see. For Ed, any quote unworthy of being cited is worth misquoting.

        • Ed
        • Greg G.

          IIRC, the following has been pointed out to you but you continue to ignore it:

          The effects of social factors on the mental health status of homosexual men and women have been well documented in studies, which found a relationship between experiences of stigma, prejudice, and discrimination and mental health status.52-61 Furthermore, controlling for psychological predictors of present distress seems to eliminate differences in mental health status between heterosexual and homosexual adolescents.62 The mediating role of relationship status suggests that higher prevalence rates of some disorders in homosexual people compared with heterosexual people could also be caused by loneliness.

          The problems of homosexuals appear to come from people like you, not from their sexuality. So, from that, in a way, you are worse than homosexuality.

        • Ed

          The study I cited from JAMA was conducted in the Netherlands one of the most gay tolerant societies in the world. So it appears there is more to it than that.

        • Greg G.

          Yes, you cited from that article and I quoted from that same article, so yes, there is more to it than the part of the article you read.

      • Zeta

        Your defense of this hypocrite is based on “God’s Law”. But you evade answering my question about what you consider as “God’s Law”. Why?

        • Ed

          There are three categories of His law, Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial, the only that still applies today is His moral law which includes the Ten Commandments, some other moral laws contained in other sections of the OT, and the moral teachings of Christ.

        • So then the anti-gay ritual law in Leviticus doesn’t count today? I wish conservative Christians would stop quoting it.

          the only that still applies today is His moral law

          Show me that all the law (including the bits you say are no longer in force) was introduced with this sunset clause. You can’t respect the OT if you’re just going to reinterpret it with the NT (unless the OT allows such a cut and paste job).

        • Ed

          No, the laws against homosexual behavior are part of the moral law that is still in effect. Generally speaking, any laws that have a connection back to the ten commandments, are moral laws. The punishment is part of the ancient civil law that only applies to the old Hebrew theocracy. Actually, many people dont realize that homosexual behavior is covered in the seventh commandment. The Hebrew term for adultery means any sexual behavior outside of marriage. So for the ancient Hebrews, that plainly includes homosexual behavior. The ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Christ and so are no longer in effect. Since Christ IS God, He Himself and speaking thru His disciples explained the OT, not reinterpreting it. The OT saw things thru a window darkly, with Christ things are more clear. Read Colossians 2:14-17.

        • No, the laws against homosexual behavior are part of the moral law that is still in effect.

          Huh? The “moral law” includes no tattooing, no mixing crops, no men wearing women’s clothes, and no ham. It sure looks like you’re picking and choosing which bits you like but justifying it with “the moral law is still in force.” It’s all or nothing.

          Generally speaking, any laws that have a connection back to the ten commandments, are moral laws.

          The 10 Cs say nothing about homosexuality. (They also say nothing about slavery, rape, or genocide, but that’s another story.)

          The punishment is part of the ancient civil law that only applies to the old Hebrew theocracy.

          So what are you saying? That the punishment is somehow stuck in the past, but you get to pick up “don’t be gay,” dust it off, and make it new and relevant in the 21st century? Guess again.

          Actually, many people dont realize that homosexual behavior is covered in the seventh commandment. The Hebrew term for adultery means any sexual behavior outside of marriage. So for the ancient Hebrews, that plainly includes homosexual behavior.

          Let’s not forget what’s inside of marriage: polygamy. Are you on board with that? Or do you grant yourself a little more picking and choosing?

          I wonder if you’re shaping “God” to fit your own needs and opinions. Be careful: idolatry is a sin.

          The ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Christ and so are no longer in effect.

          Ceremonial laws like “don’t eat ham”? You need to show us why “don’t be gay” isn’t in that set of laws and show that those laws made clear that they can and would be abrogated by a future savior. Otherwise, you’re just inventing your own religion.

          Since Christ IS God, He Himself and speaking thru His disciples explained the OT, not reinterpreting it.

          You’re not reinterpreting the OT iff the OT itself makes clear that part of it will be jettisoned in the future.

        • Ed

          ed: No, the laws against homosexual behavior are part of the moral law that is still in effect.

          bs: Huh? The “moral law” includes no tattooing, no mixing crops, no men wearing women’s clothes, and no ham. It sure looks like you’re picking and choosing which bits you like but justifying it with “the moral law is still in force.” It’s all or nothing.

          ed: No, those are ceremonial laws, Christ fulfilled them or revoked them as shown when he showed Peter he could eat anything.

          ed: Generally speaking, any laws that have a connection back to the ten commandments, are moral laws.

          bs: The 10 Cs say nothing about homosexuality. (They also say nothing about slavery, rape, or genocide, but that’s another story.)

          ed: No, the seventh commandment deals with alll sexual morality. As I stated earlier, the Hebrew word for adultery means ANY sexual behavior outside legitimate marriage, that plainly includes homosexuality (since by definition two people of the same sex cannot marry), bestiality, incest, pedophilia, rape and etc.

          ed: Rape is also covered in Deut. 22:25-27 and Pauls teaching to treat women you are not married to as sisters and mothers and your wife as your own body. Slavery is covered in the eighth commandment, by having a slave you are stealing their labor. And of course, genocide is covered in the sixth commandment.

          ed: The punishment is part of the ancient civil law that only applies to the old Hebrew theocracy.

          bs: So what are you saying? That the punishment is somehow stuck in the past, but you get to pick up “don’t be gay,” dust it off, and make it new and relevant in the 21st century? Guess again.

          ed: Yes, Christ removed all capital punishments except for murder. Remember the woman caught in adultery and Paul excommunicating the mother and son involved in incest. Paul did not order them stoned which would have been the punishment under the old covenant.

          ed: Actually, many people dont realize that homosexual behavior is covered in the seventh commandment. The Hebrew term for adultery means any sexual behavior outside of marriage. So for the ancient Hebrews, that plainly includes homosexual behavior.

          bs: Let’s not forget what’s inside of marriage: polygamy. Are you on board with that? Or do you grant yourself a little more picking and choosing?

          ed: Polygamy was allowed under the Old covenant but it is not God’s ideal as seen in creation, He only created Adam one wife. And the words of Christ in Matthew 19:5-6 and Pauls requiring church leaders to only have one wife.

          bs: I wonder if you’re shaping “God” to fit your own needs and opinions. Be careful: idolatry is a sin.

          ed: No, it called studying and interpreting His word in its grammatico-historical context.

          ed: The ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Christ and so are no longer in effect.

          bs: Ceremonial laws like “don’t eat ham”? You need to show us why “don’t be gay” isn’t in that set of laws and show that those laws made clear that they can and would be abrogated by a future savior. Otherwise, you’re just inventing your own religion.

          ed: I did regarding gay behavior, see above. No, this has been Christian teaching for at least 1700 years. See Colossians 2:14-17.

          ed: Since Christ IS God, He Himself and speaking thru His disciples explained the OT, not reinterpreting it.

          bs: You’re not reinterpreting the OT iff the OT itself makes clear that part of it will be jettisoned in the future.

          ed: No, it was the NT that made clear what laws apply today and which dont.

        • bs: Huh? The “moral law” includes no tattooing, no mixing crops, no men wearing women’s clothes, and no ham. It sure looks like you’re picking and choosing which bits you like but justifying it with “the moral law is still in force.” It’s all or nothing.
          ed: No, those are ceremonial laws

          So are the anti-homosexual laws. They’re mixed together in Leviticus. I guess Christ revoked them as well.

          bs: The 10 Cs say nothing about homosexuality. (They also say nothing about slavery, rape, or genocide, but that’s another story.)
          ed: No, the seventh commandment deals with alll sexual morality. As I stated earlier, the Hebrew word for adultery means ANY sexual behavior outside legitimate marriage

          Nope. The NET Bible says about “adultery” in Ex. 20:14: “This is a sin against the marriage of a fellow citizen—it destroys the home. The Law distinguished between adultery (which had a death penalty) and sexual contact with a young woman (which carried a monetary fine and usually marriage if the father was willing). So it distinguished fornication and adultery. Both were sins, but the significance of each was different. In the ancient world this sin is often referred to as “the great sin.””

          ed: Yes, Christ removed all capital punishments except for murder.

          Show me.

          ed: Polygamy was allowed under the Old covenant but it is not God’s ideal as seen in creation, He only created Adam one wife.

          Can we follow what the Bible says and no more? I realize the Bible is a sock puppet, but this is ridiculous.

          Yes, God created one woman for Adam. (1) They didn’t get married, and (2) it doesn’t follow that God hates polygamy. Indeed, read the whole Bible, and God is clearly OK with polygamy.

          ed: No, it called studying and interpreting His word in its grammatico-historical context.

          And yet there is still a myriad of Christian denominations. There is no method that will reliably get every serious Bible scholar to see every part of the Bible the same way.

          Hard to believe that an omniscient God couldn’t communicate more clearly.

          bs: Ceremonial laws like “don’t eat ham”? You need to show us why “don’t be gay” isn’t in that set of laws and show that those laws made clear that they can and would be abrogated by a future savior. Otherwise, you’re just inventing your own religion.
          ed: I did regarding gay behavior, see above. No, this has been Christian teaching for at least 1700 years. See Colossians 2:14-17.

          You haven’t shown that future abrogation of the OT laws was part of the plan (and not just part of your plan).

          No, you didn’t show that the passages in Lev. 18 and 20 about gay behavior are separate from the other laws that have been discarded. Leviticus 18–20 are full of ritual abominations. Don’t plant your field with two kinds of seed or wear clothing woven of two kinds of material (Leviticus 19:19); don’t cut your hair (19:28); don’t use fortune tellers (19:31) (and kill them, by the way—that’s in 20:27); the death penalty is the punishment for cursing your father or mother (20:9); and don’t forget your kosher food laws (20:25).

          Show me where it says what laws can be discarded in the future.

          bs: You’re not reinterpreting the OT iff the OT itself makes clear that part of it will be jettisoned in the future.
          ed: No, it was the NT that made clear what laws apply today and which dont.

          So then from the standpoint of the OT law, what you’re doing is wrong.

        • Ed

          bs: Huh? The “moral law” includes no tattooing, no mixing crops, no men wearing women’s clothes, and no ham. It sure looks like you’re picking and choosing which bits you like but justifying it with “the moral law is still in force.” It’s all or nothing.
          ed: No, those are ceremonial laws

          bs: So are the anti-homosexual laws. They’re mixed together in Leviticus. I guess Christ revoked them as well.

          ed: No any law that ties back into the Ten Commandments are moral laws. These are sexual laws so they tie back into the 7th commandment. You could make an argument that the law about men wearing women’s clothes also ties into the 7th commandment since it may have to do with sexuality and therefore still applies.

          bs: The 10 Cs say nothing about homosexuality. (They also say nothing about slavery, rape, or genocide, but that’s another story.)
          ed: No, the seventh commandment deals with alll sexual morality. As I stated earlier, the Hebrew word for adultery means ANY sexual behavior outside legitimate marriage

          bs: Nope. The NET Bible says about “adultery” in Ex. 20:14: “This is a sin against the marriage of a fellow citizen—it destroys the home. The Law distinguished between adultery (which had a death penalty) and sexual contact with a young woman (which carried a monetary fine and usually marriage if the father was willing). So it distinguished fornication and adultery. Both were sins, but the significance of each was different. In the ancient world this sin is often referred to as “the great sin.””

          ed: Yes, adultery is worse than fornication, but nevertheless the term adultery in Hebrew means any sex outside of marriage is a violation of the 7th commandment.

          ed: Yes, Christ removed all capital punishments except for murder.

          bs: Show me.

          ed: Where He dealt with the woman caught in adultery. Also, speaking thru Paul when Paul excommunicated the people that were committing incest. That shows that capital punishment no longer applies to those crimes and sins. But the command to execute murderers was instituted even before the Hebrew theocracy, so it applies forever.

          ed: Polygamy was allowed under the Old covenant but it is not God’s ideal as seen in creation, He only created Adam one wife.

          bs: Can we follow what the Bible says and no more? I realize the Bible is a sock puppet, but this is ridiculous.
          Yes, God created one woman for Adam. (1) They didn’t get married, and (2) it doesn’t follow that God hates polygamy. Indeed, read the whole Bible, and God is clearly OK with polygamy.

          ed: God married them read Matthew 19:5-6.I didn’t say that polygamy was a sin, just that it was not His ideal. If it was His ideal He would have created Adam two wives or even more. Also he would not have restricted church elders to just one wife.

          ed: No, it called studying and interpreting His word in its grammatico-historical context.

          bs: And yet there is still a myriad of Christian denominations. There is no method that will reliably get every serious Bible scholar to see every part of the Bible the same way.
          Hard to believe that an omniscient God couldn’t communicate more clearly.

          ed: They do on the essentials if they accept the infallible authority of the bible.

          bs: Ceremonial laws like “don’t eat ham”? You need to show us why “don’t be gay” isn’t in that set of laws and show that those laws made clear that they can and would be abrogated by a future savior. Otherwise, you’re just inventing your own religion.
          ed: I did regarding gay behavior, see above. No, this has been Christian teaching for at least 1700 years. See Colossians 2:14-17.

          bs: You haven’t shown that future abrogation of the OT laws was part of the plan (and not just part of your plan).

          ed: It wasn’t fully explained until the NT. But It was implied in the OT when thru Micah God said that it is not animal sacrifices that He truly wants but a contrite heart.

          bs: No, you didn’t show that the passages in Lev. 18 and 20 about gay behavior are separate from the other laws that have been discarded. Leviticus 18–20 are full of ritual abominations. Don’t plant your field with two kinds of seed or wear clothing woven of two kinds of material (Leviticus 19:19); don’t cut your hair (19:28); don’t use fortune tellers (19:31) (and kill them, by the way—that’s in 20:27); the death penalty is the punishment for cursing your father or mother (20:9); and don’t forget your kosher food laws (20:25).
          Show me where it says what laws can be discarded in the future.

          ed: See above about how they are moral laws if they tie into the ten commandments. Only the moral laws still apply. See above about the capital punishments. The kosher food laws were removed when God spoke to Peter.

          bs: You’re not reinterpreting the OT iff the OT itself makes clear that part of it will be jettisoned in the future.
          ed: No, it was the NT that made clear what laws apply today and which dont.

          bs: So then from the standpoint of the OT law, what you’re doing is wrong.

          ed: No, Christ has the authority to determine which laws no longer apply.

        • ed: No, those are ceremonial laws

          Then so are the anti-gay laws mixed in.

          ed: No any law that ties back into the Ten Commandments are moral laws.

          What’s special about them? There are lots of laws in the OT.

          Anti-gay laws don’t tie back to the 10 Cs.

          These are sexual laws so they tie back into the 7th commandment.

          There are lots and lots of sexual laws. No, you don’t get to imagine that “no gaiety” is in the 10 Cs. Anyway, “no adultery” means “don’t trample another man’s property rights” (the NET Bible’s comment on this word is, “This is a sin against the marriage of a fellow citizen”). A married man could screw as much as he wants, as long as he’s not having sex with another man’s woman.

          Anyway, the 7th commandment is “Celebrate the Festival of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Festival of Ingathering at the turn of the year” (Ex. 34:22). Forget ye not that Ex. 34:28 says, “And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.”

          ed: No, the seventh commandment deals with alll sexual morality. As I stated earlier, the Hebrew word for adultery means ANY sexual behavior outside legitimate marriage

          And as I pointed out with the NET Bible’s comment, that’s wrong. Having sex with another man doesn’t trample another man’s property rights. (But then I’ve pointed this out before, and it was inconvenient for you and therefore false. So I suppose I should beg your pardon for bringing it up again.)

          ed: Where He dealt with the woman caught in adultery.

          That shows that all capital punishment except for murder is gone? Uh, no.

          And now you’ve created a new problem for yourself: where God in the OT provided the clause that allowed his perfect laws to be changed.

          ed: God married them read Matthew 19:5-6.

          God didn’t marry them read Genesis.

          I didn’t say that polygamy was a sin, just that it was not His ideal.

          Show me where God says that it wasn’t ideal and that he never supported polygamy in the Bible.

          If it was His ideal He would have created Adam two wives or even more. Also he would not have restricted church elders to just one wife.

          This passes for thoughtful Christian analysis? It’s clear you’re not a lawyer.

          ed: They do on the essentials if they accept the infallible authority of the bible.

          Wrong again. Accepting the infallible authority of the Bible doesn’t mean that there’s one clear interpretation for every Bible passage or doctrine or issue.

          ed: I did regarding gay behavior, see above. No, this has been Christian teaching for at least 1700 years. See Colossians 2:14-17.

          Sure, it’s Christian teaching. So what? People make shit up; that doesn’t mean that it’s clearly stated in the Bible.

          bs: You haven’t shown that future abrogation of the OT laws was part of the plan (and not just part of your plan).
          ed: It wasn’t fully explained until the NT.

          Oh, yeah—that makes sense. God didn’t quite get it down right the first time. Luckily he had Jesus come and clarity centuries later.

          Wow—what an idiot this god is. That’s an odd definition of omniscient and omnipotent.

          ed: No, it was the NT that made clear what laws apply today and which dont.

          No, it was the Book of Mormon that provided the true clarification.

          (If you can imagine some later book supersedes the word of Yahweh, so can I.)

          ed: No, Christ has the authority to determine which laws no longer apply.

          And God in the OT was an idiot for getting it wrong? Got it.

          Tip: think about what you’re doing to your religion when you make up this excuses. When you pull the plug from one leak to plug another, that’s not progress.

        • MR

          Wallpaper arguments. When you smooth out the bubble here it pops up over there. Stupid biblical inconsistencies.

        • Perhaps “Whac-a-Mole argument” is a synonym.

        • MR

          Whac-a-Mole is what we do., wallpaper is what they do. They try to smooth out this inconsistency but it creates another.

        • Ed

          ed: No, those are ceremonial laws

          bs: Then so are the anti-gay laws mixed in.

          ed: No any law that ties back into the Ten Commandments are moral laws.

          bs: What’s special about them? There are lots of laws in the OT.
          Anti-gay laws don’t tie back to the 10 Cs.

          ed: They are the only commandments that were carved into stone showing their eternal and universal character. The Ten commandments are THE core of all moral law. They either directly or indirectly touch all morality.

          ed: These are sexual laws so they tie back into the 7th commandment.

          bs: There are lots and lots of sexual laws. No, you don’t get to imagine that “no gaiety” is in the 10 Cs. Anyway, “no adultery” means “don’t trample another man’s property rights” (the NET Bible’s comment on this word is, “This is a sin against the marriage of a fellow citizen”).

          ed: No, look up in a Hebrew dictionary, the Hebrew term “adultery” means any sexual behavior outside of marriage. Gay sex is plainly outside of Hebrew marriage or biblical marriage. While women were sometimes treated as property by some ancient Hebrews, God plainly teaches in Genesis 1:27 that men and women are spiritual equals as both are created in the image of God. But it was a sin against the marriage of a fellow citizen but the 7th commandment is even deeper than that.

          bs: A married man could screw as much as he wants, as long as he’s not having sex with another man’s woman.

          ed: No, as I demonstrated earlier the Mosaic law was the only ancient middle eastern law against adultery where both the man and the women were stoned for it.

          bs: Anyway, the 7th commandment is “Celebrate the Festival of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Festival of Ingathering at the turn of the year” (Ex. 34:22).

          ed: No, that verse is not part of the ten commandments.

          bs: Forget ye not that Ex. 34:28 says, “And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.”

          ed: Yes that verse is referring to the restoration of ten commandments but that has nothing directly to do with verse 22.

          ed: No, the seventh commandment deals with all sexual morality. As I stated earlier, the Hebrew word for adultery means ANY sexual behavior outside legitimate marriage

          bs: And as I pointed out with the NET Bible’s comment, that’s wrong. Having sex with another man doesn’t trample another man’s property rights. (But then I’ve pointed this out before, and it was inconvenient for you and therefore false. So I suppose I should beg your pardon for bringing it up again.)

          ed: No, it doesn’t have anything to do with property rights women were not property they are created in the image of God as shown above. Among other things gay sex goes against the nature of God as a diversity within a unity. Only heterosexual sex reflects Gods nature.

          ed: Where He dealt with the woman caught in adultery.

          bs: That shows that all capital punishment except for murder is gone? Uh, no.
          And now you’ve created a new problem for yourself: where God in the OT provided the clause that allowed his perfect laws to be changed.

          ed: Christ came to fulfill all the ceremonial and civil laws, and obey all moral laws. These Hebrew theocratic punishments were part of the Israeli civil law and were fulfilled by Christ on the cross when he took the ultimate capital punishment for us all.

          ed: God married them read Matthew 19:5-6.

          bs: God didn’t marry them read Genesis.

          ed: Genesis 2:24, that is a description of ancient marriage.

      • TS (unami)

        Then she should have quit her job if she couldn’t doS of her PUBLICLY FUNDED CIVIC role.

        • Ed

          She wanted to stand up for what she believed was right, imagine if Lincoln didn’t stand up to the Dred Scott decision.

        • Greg G.

          Lincoln wanted to eliminate involuntary slavery of adults and children. Davis wanted to prevent voluntary marriage of adults. The Bible says nothing about same sex marriage.

          She did not try to prevent divorced people from marrying. The Bible has a commandment about the commission of adultery and clearly says getting married after a divorce is adultery.

        • Ed

          As I explained earlier gay marriage is not marriage. The foundation of Marriage has always been based on biology not feelings or love though they may play a role, they are not the foundation of it. Yes, the bible and God’s other book nature, does say something about it indirectly in Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:4-6. And of course, in nature God created all healthy humans anatomically heterosexual. Since most divorced people dont say why they got divorced, she did not have enough information to make that call. But if someone did provide that info and the divorce was not justified then she should have withheld that license too.

        • The foundation of Marriage has always been based on biology not feelings or love

          Yeah? What were your marriage vows? Mine said nothing of the kind.

        • Ed

          See my response to Greg above.

        • Marriage is an English word and a human custom. It can be redefined. It was redefined in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia (anti-miscegeny laws declared invalid). It was redefined in the late 1800s when polygamy was outlawed.

          I notice you ran away from my challenge, so let me again insist on an answer: What were your marriage vows? Mine said nothing about biology or making babies.

        • Ed

          I am not referring to individual marriages, I am talking about the ultimate foundation and purpose of marriage. Certainly modern western 21st century marriages are often if not usually based on love. Which btw is a Christian ideal. Ideally God wants us to marry someone out of love, though He prefers agape love not just on eros love alone or otherwise it is unlikely to last..

        • I am not referring to individual marriages, I am talking about the ultimate foundation and purpose of marriage.

          And you’d think that that would be reflected, either in the marriage vows or in the state’s marriage license that both parties sign. Neither says, “Make babies.”

          Certainly modern western 21st century marriages are often if not usually based on love. Which btw is a Christian ideal.

          When was marriage made a Christian sacrament? And, for extra credit, what motivated the church to make it so?

          Ideally God wants us to marry someone out of love, though

          Yeah? Show me that in the Bible. Look at all marriages and sexual encounters that God doesn’t disapprove of and show me that God wants them to all be based on love.

        • MR

          Solomon’s 700 wives?

        • Plus a few hundred concubines. God was annoyed only in that it hurt his feelings that people might worship someone else.

          But in either case, you’re right–love wasn’t the focus.

        • Ed

          ed: I am not referring to individual marriages, I am talking about the ultimate foundation and purpose of marriage.

          bs: And you’d think that that would be reflected, either in the marriage vows or in the state’s marriage license that both parties sign. Neither says, “Make babies.”

          ed: I am referring to the foundation and purpose of marriage for the government. The main purpose of marriage for the government is the production and raising of children in the most ideal environment possible, which is biological marriage where the child is raised by his biological parents. And it is indirectly reflected in the fact that most states require blood tests before you get married. Marriage vows are usually based on the couples religious beliefs, not the government’s perspective other than the commitment. The Government does recognize the importance of making a public oath and commitment..

          ed: Certainly modern western 21st century marriages are often if not usually based on love. Which btw is a Christian ideal.

          bs: When was marriage made a Christian sacrament? And, for extra credit, what motivated the church to make it so?

          ed: As a protestant I dont consider marriage a Christian sacrament. But it should be a public covenant and commitment to each other to be made before God and man even as an unbeliever.

          ed: Ideally God wants us to marry someone out of love, though

          bs: Yeah? Show me that in the Bible. Look at all marriages and sexual encounters that God doesn’t disapprove of and show me that God wants them to all be based on love.

          ed: There is no such thing as a marriage that God doesn’t approve of. If God doesn’t approve of it and it doesn’t match your anatomy then it is not marriage. Though His ideal is one man and one woman, as seen in Gen. 2:24 and Matt. 19:5-6. The ideal is based on love as seen in the Song of Solomon but sometimes it may not come until later in marriage. And as treat your wife as you would your own body.

        • ed: I am referring to the foundation and purpose of marriage for the government. The main purpose of marriage for the government is the production and raising of children in the most ideal environment possible, which is biological marriage where the child is raised by his biological parents.

          You said, “The foundation of Marriage has always been based on biology not feelings or love.” That’s wrong because that’s not what your marriage license says. Nor is it what the marriage vows say.

          ed: Certainly modern western 21st century marriages are often if not usually based on love. Which btw is a Christian ideal.
          bs: When was marriage made a Christian sacrament? And, for extra credit, what motivated the church to make it so?
          ed: As a protestant I dont consider marriage a Christian sacrament.

          No, marriage based on love is not a “Christian ideal.” The church made marriage a sacrament in the 1200s so that it could control the implications of marriage on political power. You were close with “love.” (Kidding. Not close at all.)

          bs: Yeah? Show me that in the Bible. Look at all marriages and sexual encounters that God doesn’t disapprove of and show me that God wants them to all be based on love.
          ed: There is no such thing as a marriage that God doesn’t approve of. If God doesn’t approve of it and it doesn’t match your anatomy then it is not marriage.

          You said, “Ideally God wants us to marry someone out of love, though.” You avoided my challenge to show me this in the Bible. I agree with you: it ain’t there.

          “Doesn’t match your anatomy”? This is “God hates fags,” apparently? You pick and choose the parts of the Bible you’ll follow. It’s just your own hatred (I can’t even blame God this time) that makes you pick the bits that best allow you to make the argument that gays must be celibate and can’t get married. But you turned your back on God’s support for slavery, why not support SSM, especially when that’s not even in the Bible.

          Though His ideal is one man and one woman

          Oh, please. God is delighted with polygamy. You’re making baby Jesus cry when you reject it.

        • Ed

          ed: I am referring to the foundation and purpose of marriage for the government. The main purpose of marriage for the government is the production and raising of children in the most ideal environment possible, which is biological marriage where the child is raised by his biological parents.

          bs: You said, “The foundation of Marriage has always been based on biology not feelings or love.” That’s wrong because that’s not what your marriage license says. Nor is it what the marriage vows say.

          ed: I am talking about the big picture that only people like national leaders that think about the future of nations and humanity. It generally happens instinctually and most educated people know deep down that if wasn’t for real biological marriage humans would die out. Individual states decide what to put on marriage licenses and they can put whatever they want and people can put what ever they want to put in their vows.

          ed: Certainly modern western 21st century marriages are often if not usually based on love. Which btw is a Christian ideal.
          bs: When was marriage made a Christian sacrament? And, for extra credit, what motivated the church to make it so?
          ed: As a protestant I dont consider marriage a Christian sacrament.

          bs: No, marriage based on love is not a “Christian ideal.” The church made marriage a sacrament in the 1200s so that it could control the implications of marriage on political power. You were close with “love.” (Kidding. Not close at all.)

          ed: Actually I made a mistake, you are right it is not a Christian ideal, it is a direct command from God. Read Ephesians 5:25-33

          bs: Yeah? Show me that in the Bible. Look at all marriages and sexual encounters that God doesn’t disapprove of and show me that God wants them to all be based on love.

          ed: There is no such thing as a marriage that God doesn’t approve of. If God doesn’t approve of it and it doesn’t match your anatomy then it is not marriage.

          bs: You said, “Ideally God wants us to marry someone out of love, though.” You avoided my challenge to show me this in the Bible. I agree with you: it ain’t there.

          ed: See above.

          bs: “Doesn’t match your anatomy”? This is “God hates fags,” apparently?

          ed: Well explain to me why we all have a heterosexual anatomy even down to the cellular level? I have asked this question to several people on this website and have yet to receive a single answer not even an attempt to answer. Come on you can do it Bob, you seem to be an intelligent fellow! You can be the first! No, God does not hate gays, He loves them and wants the best marriage for them, biological marriage.

          bs: You pick and choose the parts of the Bible you’ll follow. It’s just your own hatred (I can’t even blame God this time) that makes you pick the bits that best allow you to make the argument that gays must be celibate and can’t get married. But you turned your back on God’s support for slavery, why not support SSM, especially when that’s not even in the Bible.

          ed: No, I try to never do that and I dont believe I have but of course only God is infallible. But I definitely dont hate gays, sometimes I wish that homosexual sex was not a sin, but as our Creator, God knows what is best for everyone. And it can be seen by all the health problems it causes, that God has good reason for not allowing that type of behavior.

          ed: Though His ideal is one man and one woman

          bs: Oh, please. God is delighted with polygamy. You’re making baby Jesus cry when you reject it.

          ed: No, I refuted that long ago in this thread. Baby Jesus has not existed in over 2000 years.

        • bs: You said, “The foundation of Marriage has always been based on biology not feelings or love.” That’s wrong because that’s not what your marriage license says. Nor is it what the marriage vows say.
          ed: I am talking about the big picture that only people like national leaders that think about the future of nations and humanity.

          So then you agree that there is no evidence supporting “The foundation of Marriage has always been based on biology not feelings or love.”

          It generally happens instinctually and most educated people know deep down that if wasn’t for real biological marriage humans would die out.

          Are you stupid or playing games? It’s fucking that keeps humanity from dying out. You never had The Talk as a child? You think it’s the stork?

          Individual states decide what to put on marriage licenses and they can put whatever they want and people can put what ever they want to put in their vows.

          Right, and fucking never makes it on. Gee, it’s almost like “making babies!” isn’t the purpose of marriage.

          bs: When was marriage made a Christian sacrament? And, for extra credit, what motivated the church to make it so?
          ed: As a protestant I dont consider marriage a Christian sacrament.

          Dodging the question again? Let me just make clear your error: no, the Church didn’t make marriage central from Day 1. It wasn’t a sacrament until the 1200s.

          ed: Actually I made a mistake, you are right it is not a Christian ideal, it is a direct command from God. Read Ephesians 5:25-33

          What a surprise! The Bible, which says pretty much everything, can be mined to find a “Husbands, love your wives” quote. It can also be mined to support polygamy. You sure you want to go with this source?

          ed: There is no such thing as a marriage that God doesn’t approve of.

          Humans define “marriage.” It’s changed several times in my own lifetime, and not just with SSM.

          ed: Well explain to me why we all have a heterosexual anatomy even down to the cellular level?

          Well, explain to me why homosexual activity has been observed in 500 animal species. I guess the “homosexuality is unnatural” claim fails.

          (And explain to all of us what “heterosexual anatomy even down to the cellular level” means. You mean that DNA has X and Y chromosomes? That’s true, but that has nothing to do with fucking, which is the thing that you’re obsessed with.

          No, God does not hate gays, He loves them and wants the best marriage for them, biological marriage.

          And God loves gluten-intolerant people and wants the best food for them, fresh whole-wheat bread? Straight marriage isn’t an option to someone who is gay. “Biological marriage” is marrying who you’re attracted to.

          You’re kinda like the Grinch, aren’t you? Your heart is 2 sizes too small.

          bs: You pick and choose the parts of the Bible you’ll follow. It’s just your own hatred (I can’t even blame God this time) that makes you pick the bits that best allow you to make the argument that gays must be celibate and can’t get married. But you turned your back on God’s support for slavery, why not support SSM, especially when that’s not even in the Bible.
          ed: No, I try to never do that and I dont believe I have

          So you do support slavery as defined in the OT?

          but of course only God is infallible.

          Sure! You’ve got an ancient book of fables that says so.

          But I definitely dont hate gays

          You say that, but . . .

          it can be seen by all the health problems it causes, that God has good reason for not allowing that type of behavior.

          Leviticus 18 makes no mention of health problems. It does, however, prohibit a kind of homosexual sex, with death as the punishment. Praise the Lord for his righteous justice!

          And if safe sex is your point, you have many allies, including me.

          bs: Oh, please. God is delighted with polygamy. You’re making baby Jesus cry when you reject it.
          ed: No, I refuted that long ago in this thread.

          Do it again. God knows I’ve had to repeat myself to you.

        • Greg G.

          “The foundation of Marriage” was about property and marriages were often arranged. Women usually married who they were told to marry. Even young girls were sold into marriage.

          Marriage has changed so people could choose who they wanted to marry. Now that choice has been extended to consenting adults.

        • Ed

          No, those were side issues that later became attached to marriage. The intrinsic foundation of marriage was biological, ie reproductive. Even evolutionary anthropologists have admitted it, read the Sept. 2014 issue of Scientific American where they state that early humans would not have survived without monogamous heterosexual pair bonding, ie marriage.

        • Greg G.

          Now you are equivocating pair bonding with marriage.

          But don’t be so naive. Whether it is marriage or pair bonding, mating is not necessarily exclusive. There are evolutionary benefits to cheating for the males and the females.

        • Ed

          Monogamous heterosexual pair bonding is just a scientific term for marriage. Of course, since all humans are sinners they are not going to always obey God’s command to remain exclusive to your spouse and they are going to come up with rationalizations of sin like “there are evolutionary benefits to cheating….”

        • Ed

          Yes, outside of Hebrew and Christian teaching that is true. But Christianity is what started changing things and started giving women the right of refusal. Also, Christianity brought about women no longer marrying as prepubescents.

        • Greg G.

          There you go asserting stuff with nothing to back it up, AGAIN.

      • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

        Why? God says that it is not against its law.

        • Ed

          Fraid so.

  • NS Alito

    I’m a confessed fan of Randy Rainbow, who addressed the Kim Davis issue back in the day.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14C3TZg6NQM

  • She’s also stuck with $220,000 in legal fees.

    No, she isn’t (yet).

    The case against her as an individual is still proceeding, and last I looked no award of any kind had been made. The stories (e.g. on Friendly Atheist) that reported that Davis was personally on the hook for costs in the previous cases were in error.

  • Carstonio

    “because Davis acted as a state official for purposes of marriage licensing.”

    She’s been arguing that signing a license for a same-sex couple constitutes personal approval of that type of marriage. That statement undermines her point. Typically, she’s trying to have it both ways.

    • Chris DeVries

      EXACTLY. If she is personally responsible for every gay marriage she “signs off on” (which is what she claims), then she is also personally responsible for the fact that refusing to do so is breaking the law, and she (only she) is to blame. If she’s an agent of the state who only REPRESENTS the state’s interests in issuing marriage certificates, and therefore the state is responsible for her behavior while in that office…then how can she be accountable for the sinning? It’s not her who is giving approval, it’s the state! Her argument now DIRECTLY contradicts her arguments for why she shouldn’t have to issue gay marriage certificates.

      • Davis apparently had no problem with letting divorced people marry, but that’s forbidden in the Bible.

        Hypocrisy much?

        • Chris DeVries

          Oh she’s definitely a hypocrite. But my point was that it’s worse than mere base-level hypocrisy, it is believing one thing when it’s convenient to do so, and then renouncing that belief when it is no longer useful. It’s positively Trumpian! She’s using the same argument people used to try to get her to do her job (the state is sanctioning the marriages, not HER personally) to try to get out of the legal fees. She wants to have it both ways, leading me to believe that her issue wasn’t that she was “condoning sin” after all (if she truly believes that she represents the state’s interests and that they should have her back legally-speaking). Either she’s an individual who is accountable for all of her actions, or she’s a public functionary who enforces the rules she’s told to enforce.

          So there’s no way she thinks that God will get mad at her for a signature on a piece of paper if she knows that that signature doesn’t actually symbolize anything other than her being an agent of the state doing the job she was elected to do. Instead, she believes that the rules should only apply to her when she benefits from the rules; she wants special treatment that she’d never accept in someone with different beliefs. In this, she is no different from millions of her Christian peers who will support their leaders breaking rules, even LAWS, in the name of their beliefs, but will never accept an atheist or Muslim doing likewise. Tribalism. That’s all this is.

  • JBSchmidt

    Yes, burn her at the stake. She is obviously a heretic. Maybe we should first tie a rope around he neck and toss her in the lake. If she floats, we know she’s a witch.

    This is no longer about justice, it is about destruction. She sinned against the secular religion, a religion that has no forgiveness. The secular doctrine demands we expose her past and make sure every time she leaves the house the world knows her sins.

    I did find this statement ironic, “An easy solution leaps to mind: if your conscience says you can no longer perform your job then quit.” Considering the uproar over some businesses not including some birth control in their insurance due to religious objections. Those people should have just found a new job. However, that doesn’t seem to be what happened. The secular religion is also hypocritical.

    This entire topic is low hanging fruit and only exposes the hatred of the secular left in our country.

    • Otto

      Yes, burn her at the stake. She is obviously a heretic. Maybe we should first tie a rope around he neck and toss her in the lake. If she floats, we know she’s a witch.

      That comes from the Christian playbook…

      To us she is just a shitty hypocrite.

      Considering the uproar over some businesses…

      Except her job wasn’t working at some business, it was a gov’t job which is literally to service ALL citizens under the Constitution….not the Bible.

      The secular religion is also hypocritical

      Citation needed

    • Chuck Johnson

      Schmidt, you are low hanging fruit.
      You are a halfwit.

    • Michael Neville

      Aw, are you upset because one of your coreligionist fundamentalists tried to impose her religious beliefs on others and didn’t get away with it? Typical fundamentalist Christian, you see the power you folks used to have slipping away and you’re not happy about it. Equality for others does not mean you’re getting persecuted, so save your whining for people who might be impressed.

    • epeeist

      Yes, burn her at the stake. She is obviously a heretic. Maybe we should first tie a rope around he neck and toss her in the lake. If she floats, we know she’s a witch.

      So what are you saying here? That it is OK to ignore the laws of your country and you should suffer no penalties for doing so?

      Does this apply to everybody, or only to Christians?

      Let’s say one of the American states passed a law saying that evolutionary biology and creationism had to be given equal time in science classes. You would presumably be OK with an actual biologist refusing to do so on the grounds that creationism is not science.

      • Michael Neville

        Of course JBS would be in favor of teaching creationism, he is a creationist.

      • Greg G.

        Let’s say one of the American states passed a law saying that evolutionary biology and creationism had to be given equal time in science classes.

        Maybe if the law also required churches to teach evolutionary biology in Sunday school, too.

      • Rudy R

        Brilliant analogy with evolution/creationism. I’m curious how JB would answer, but not anticipating he will.

    • Lark62

      Davis claimed her individual religious beliefs gave her the right to ignore the responsibilities of her government job. Now she wants the government to be responsible for the results.

      We are a nation of laws. We have a legal processes for violations of laws.

      The “Toss her in a lake. If she floats (and lives) she’s guilty; if she sinks (and dies) she’s innocent” method was invented by Christians.

    • Thanks4AllTheFish

      Why do some religions actively seek to restrict or deny the freedoms and liberties of others and then its faithful adherents complain and claim persecution when there is Constitutionally, justifiable blow-back?

      I’ll wait.

    • This is no longer about justice, it is about destruction. She sinned against the secular religion, a religion that has no forgiveness.

      So you’re OK with every civil servant deciding for themselves which rules to follow, regardless of the law? The Christian Scientist in charge of a public hospital, a Satanist in charge of a school district, a Muslim as a police officer?

      I’m surprised you don’t agree with my position. Seems that the Kim Davis free-for-all® would suck for you, too.

      • JBSchmidt

        “So you’re OK with every civil servant deciding for themselves which rules to follow, regardless of the law? ”
        Funny, don’t remember saying that.

        “I’m surprised you don’t agree with my position.”
        This article is not longer about the original stance that Kim took, but rather about destroying her. I don’t agree with that.

        “Seems that the Kim Davis free-for-all® would suck for you, too.”
        You mean like the left finding sympathetic judges to overturn the will of the people? Yes, we all suffer from government officials taking the rule of law into their own hands.

        • Greg G.

          “So you’re OK with every civil servant deciding for themselves which rules to follow, regardless of the law? ”
          Funny, don’t remember saying that.

          Are you only OK with that one civil servant deciding which rules to follow? You defended her doing it, why are you not extending the privilege to all civil servants.

          “Seems that the Kim Davis free-for-all® would suck for you, too.”
          You mean like the left finding sympathetic judges to overturn the will of the people? Yes, we all suffer from government officials taking the rule of law into their own hands.

          That sounds like you want the tyranny of the masses over rights granted by the Constitution.

        • “So you’re OK with every civil servant deciding for themselves which rules to follow, regardless of the law? ”
          Funny, don’t remember saying that.

          You could explain what you meant. Too hard? Is it a secret?

          “I’m surprised you don’t agree with my position.”
          This article is not longer about the original stance that Kim took, but rather about destroying her. I don’t agree with that.

          Then convince us that her original stance was noble. I find it repugnant.

          “Seems that the Kim Davis free-for-all® would suck for you, too.”
          You mean like the left finding sympathetic judges to overturn the will of the people? Yes, we all suffer from government officials taking the rule of law into their own hands.

          (1) You can’t just respond to my point? Or does responding to my point undercut your argument?

          (2) Leftist judges acted illegally? When?

          What always amuses me is the “judges legislating from the bench.” The examples they always give is liberal decisions. It’s obvious that what they mean is “judges finding decisions that annoy me,” and what I need to correct me of this opinion is someone like you giving some examples where judges “legislated from the bench” that came to a conservative decision.

        • Michael Neville

          Just another conservative whining about some religious fanatic having the law of the land applied to her. Nothing to see here.

        • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

          The “will of the people” is to allow marriage of same-sex couples, but even if it were not we could come up with no sufficient reason to limit this freedom even after ~2,000 years of making it up as you go.

    • Rudy R

      This entire topic is low hanging fruit and only exposes the hatred of the secular left in our country.

      That appears to be a hasty generalization. Any evidence to back that statement? I’m sure many on the right, secular (yes, there are some) and religious, didn’t approve of Kim’s actions either. I feel sorry for Kim. She was led down the primrose path from leaders in the Evangelical community and misjudged their support.

    • Maltnothops

      “The secular doctrine demands we expose her past and make sure every time she leaves the house the world knows her sins.”

      I assume you point out to your co-religionists their error if they say that atheism means there are no consequences for bad behavior. You do that, right?

    • smrnda

      her job is sort of different in that she’s acting as an agent of the state. if the state permits people to get married, it can’t allow individual government employees to stand in the way of them exercising that right.

      this isn’t a story of the ‘little guy’ being pushed around by an employer, but a person in a government position abusing their power over the public.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      This is no longer about justice, it is about destruction.

      You mean Kim Davis’ actions? If so, I agree with you.

  • Buckminsterfullerene

    Davis is a hypocrite but she is right that she shouldn’t be personally liable while she was acting as county clerk. While I agree with Bob on his main point that she should have stepped down or have been fired, going after her financially when acting in her role as county clerk is a bridge to far for me.

    • Michael Neville

      The law says that a government official can be sued as a private individual if they knowingly and purposefully violate the law. That’s what Davis did.

      • Buckminsterfullerene

        You would have to prove she did that and I think that is a tough sell even in her case. Davis claimed 1st Amendment protection as her defense. I’m not defending her but your claim is not as clear cut as you make it appear. No one is going to want to work in government if they can be sued personally for just being ignorant and stupid.

        • Michael Neville

          She bragged that she was ignoring, i.e, disobeying, the law. She got on national TV and announced to all and sundry that she was disobeying the law. She was convicting in court of disobeying the law.
          This is not rocket surgery. She wasn’t just stupid and ignorant, she admitted that she knew what the law was and announced before, during and after the fact that she was disobeying it. Sorry to rain on your whatever but it is cut and dried in her case.
          If a government official disobeys a law through carelessness or ignorance then they’re safe from being sued. If they get on their soapbox and announce loudly that, despite knowing what the law is, they’re going to disobey it, that’s something else entirely.

        • Buckminsterfullerene

          She claimed 1st amendment protection, so your simplistic argument is weak. Yes I understand she was convicted but when she did this it was untested in the courts so she shouldn’t have to pay when she could claim legitimately at the time she did it that it was not clear. How many county clerks are constitutional scholars and legal experts? I would agree she should have known better but that is not the point. Besides the lawsuit is stupid because all the gay couples received marriage licenses by the state despite her initial resistance. This is a frivolous lawsuit that just wasted everybody’s time and money.

        • Michael Neville

          She can claim all she wants. SHE BROKE THE LAW AND WAS CONVICTED! Why is this simple concept so difficult for you to understand? She claims that she was following “God’s Law”. Unfortunately for that argument, “God’s Law” isn’t recognized in the Constitution.

          It’s already been established that if a government official knowingly breaks the law then they are personally liable for damages. Sorry if reality doesn’t meet with whatever you’re trying to push.

          This conversation is becoming boring. You keep repeating the same nonsense and pay no attention to what I’m trying to tell you

          You may have the last rant, I shan’t be replying to you any more.

        • You’re probably more up on the details than I am.

          How does the First Amendment protect her? Yes, her actions could’ve been considered speech, but since she was a government employee, I can’t imagine that that trumps not doing her job and violating civil rights.

      • That does clarify things. I assume that’s federal law, not Kentucky law?

    • The Jack of Sandwich

      Where’s the line? If she sexually harassed people coming to her office, would only the state be liable? What if she physically abused them?

      • Buckminsterfullerene

        No one is claiming she did either of those things so stick to the facts. I’m not a Davis defender by any means but you run into the problem of government workers being sued personally just in the course of doing their jobs (even if wrongly and ignorantly).

        • The Jack of Sandwich

          And this WASN’T a case of her just doing her job, it was explicitly a case of her willfully breaking the law by not doing her job.

        • Yes, I think the distinction is causing harm while doing her job to the best of her abilities vs. causing harm while deliberately not doing her job. Buckminster is referring to the former, while she did the latter.

        • Otto

          I get what you are trying to say but I have to disagree… she literally was NOT doing her job, and she was NOT doing her job for PERSONAL reasons NOT related to her job.

        • Chris DeVries

          I disagree. She swore to uphold the law. ALL OF IT. Not just the parts she agreed with. You don’t take a job, find out that it entails doing stuff you don’t want to do, and not do those things without consequences. In most jobs, the consequences would be getting fired, but as an elected official, that wasn’t an option available to the county or state. If her conscience was truly telling her not to provide certificates for gay couples, she could have quit in protest. Instead, chose to keep the position and explicitly not do the things the taxpayers were paying her to do, namely, issue marriage certificates (ANY marriage certificates), EVEN WHEN directed to stop her infantile behavior by higher authorities (who had every right to ensure that all of their clerks were serving the people). EVEN WHEN her name no longer had to appear on the documents (a cowardly concession, but given her supposed religious issues, the problem should have ended there).

          Agents of the state enjoy the right to legal protection only when they are doing their duties to the best of their ability, and something bad happens (that was not the result of negligence). She was decidedly NOT doing a large part of her job, and fought to keep enjoying the right to not do this particular duty. It was not a fight between the state and couples wanting to get married, it was a fight between an INDIVIDUAL acting directly against the direction of the state, and couples who wanted to get married. If the state had told her, y’know, “keep it up Kimmy, that’s a girl. You’re doing us all proud!” it would be a different story. Then you could argue that they have some liability since her behavior was supported. The minute the state directed her to cease her obstruction and she ignored them, she assumed responsibility for the legal costs.

    • TS (unami)

      She wasn’t acting on behalf of the county when she refused to do her job.

  • The Jack of Sandwich

    She’s like the pacifist who willingly joins the infantry, knowing that killing the enemy was a possibility.

    Colonel: Watkins why did you join the army?

    Watkins: For the water-skiing and for the travel, sir. And not for the killing, sir. I asked them to put it on my form, sir – no killing.

    Colonel: Watkins are you a pacifist?

    Watkins: No sir, I’m not a pacifist, sir. I’m a coward.

  • epeeist

    Let’s forget this woman and celebrate the life of one of the greatest female singers of the last half-century, Jessye Norman, someone who championed both the arts and diversity.

    This, still, makes my hair stand on end.

    https://youtu.be/jOIAi2XwuWo

  • Otto

    I just see it as problematic for other government officials who try to do the right thing and getting sued personally.

    This is the part I agree with you on.

    The part that I don’t agree with is that she was trying to do the right thing. She choose to not follow the law for personal reasons, not because she was trying to do the right thing, and not because she felt like it was her duty in her position as a civil servant. It was literally because she felt that her personal religious feelings superseded the Supreme Court and the Constitution (Imagine if every Civil servant was allowed to go against the law for religious reasons). Since it was her personal agenda and she was not ordered by another gov’t agency to take the action/inaction she took she should be personally responsible. I see no reason why the gov’t should be held liable for her behavior but I do see how she can be personally liable, and so do the courts apparently.

  • Ed

    Huh? Inter-tribal marriage was forbidden because they were idol worshipers not because they were a different race and in fact we know that they were not a different race almost all nations in the Middle East were Semites even the non-Hebrews.

    • Inter-tribal marriage was forbidden because . . .

      Let me stop you there. The “because” doesn’t matter. God forbade inter-tribal marriage.

      The white supremacist has his reasons for disliking brown people, but the reason doesn’t matter. Ditto the anti-Semite.

      • Ed

        Irrelevant. Just because white supremacists misuse the bible and take things out of context to justify their racism, does not mean that God and His word are racist. Good things are used to justify evil things everyday.

        • And you go off the rails again, having been beaten but still struggling to find something to say.

          So let’s review: you said, “Nowhere in the bible does it forbid interracial marriage.”

          Wrong. God forbade inter-tribal marriage, in the verses I’ve already given you. And remember that the OT invented the Chosen People. That is, the idea that God luvs everyone this much was wrong.

        • Ed

          Absurd. It is a scientific fact that race and tribe are not the same thing. It has to do with their erroneous religious beliefs. There is evidence Moses married an African woman. So obviously as long she believed in Yahweh, he didn’t care what race she was. Yes, all those that believe and try to follow the commands of Yahweh were His chosen people. That is how you became a chosen person by converting to Judaism. That is why He forbid inter-tribal marriage to those who did not follow Yahweh.

        • Absurd. It is a scientific fact that race and tribe are not the same thing.

          Which doesn’t change anything. The OT forbade inter-tribal marriage.

          There is evidence Moses married an African woman. So obviously as long she believed in Yahweh, he didn’t care what race she was.

          Ooh, you got me—not every single verse argues against inter-tribal marriage. But some do. “Do not intermarry with them” (Deut. 7:3). “[They] have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them” (Ezra 9:2). “You have married foreign women, adding to Israel’s guilt” (Ezra 10:10).

          That is why He forbid inter-tribal marriage to those who did not follow Yahweh.

          Oh, so you agree that there are restrictions! Why not just admit that up front?

        • Greg G.

          What things and how are they taking those things out of context?

        • Ed

          Equating prohibiting intertribal marriage with prohibiting interracial marriage.

    • Greg G.

      The other tribes were not Hebrews because they worshiped other god thingys. So they were barred from marrying non-Hebrews. They were hyper-racist as they differentiated between Hebrews and other Semites.

      • Ed

        No, throughout the bible idolators are condemned irrespective of what their race was. Egyptians who were majority white and non Semitic were condemned as well. They were condemned because of their immorality which was idolatry. There is evidence that Moses married an African woman. As I stated earlier race is not even mentioned in the bible. There is evidence that some non-Semitic Egyptians converted to Judaism when the Hebrews left Egypt after the plagues.

        • Greg G.

          No, throughout the bible idolators are condemned irrespective of what their race was.

          The concept of races has changed many times in the last 2500 years. To the ancient Hebrews, it was not black, white, yellow, and red, it was Jews and non-Jews. They were more racist than white supremacists.

          Leviticus 21:13-15 (NRSV)13 He shall marry only a woman who is a virgin. 14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or a woman who has been defiled, a prostitute, these he shall not marry. He shall marry a virgin of his own kin, 15 that he may not profane his offspring among his kin; for I am the Lord; I sanctify him.

          Numbers 36:3-9 (NRSV)3 But if they are married into another Israelite tribe, then their inheritance will be taken from the inheritance of our ancestors and added to the inheritance of the tribe into which they marry; so it will be taken away from the allotted portion of our inheritance. 4 And when the jubilee of the Israelites comes, then their inheritance will be added to the inheritance of the tribe into which they have married; and their inheritance will be taken from the inheritance of our ancestral tribe.”5 Then Moses commanded the Israelites according to the word of the Lord, saying, “The descendants of the tribe of Joseph are right in what they are saying. 6 This is what the Lord commands concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, ‘Let them marry whom they think best; only it must be into a clan of their father’s tribe that they are married, 7 so that no inheritance of the Israelites shall be transferred from one tribe to another; for all Israelites shall retain the inheritance of their ancestral tribes. 8 Every daughter who possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the Israelites shall marry one from the clan of her father’s tribe, so that all Israelites may continue to possess their ancestral inheritance. 9 No inheritance shall be transferred from one tribe to another; for each of the tribes of the Israelites shall retain its own inheritance.’”

          Deuteronomy 7:1-4 (NRSV)1 When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are about to enter and occupy, and he clears away many nations before you—the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations mightier and more numerous than you— 2 and when the Lord your God gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, 4 for that would turn away your children from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.

          They were condemned because of their immorality which was idolatry.

          Which sounds like the lies racists tell about other races.

          There is evidence that Moses married an African woman. As I stated earlier race is not even mentioned in the bible. There is evidence that some non-Semitic Egyptians converted to Judaism when the Hebrews left Egypt after the plagues.

          There is no evidence where there should be evidence for the Exodus in Egypt, the Sinai Desert, or in Canaan. The absence of evidence where there should be evidence is evidence of absence. No Exodus means no Moses and no wives of Moses. The “evidence” about Moses and his wives is equivalent to the evidence that Luke Skywalker and Leia Organa were twins.

        • richardrichard2013

          when a christan studies torah, he realises that yhwh chose the jews to do his commands. here is the evidence:

          https://judaismresources.net/2019/11/07/the-second-commandment-a-letter-by-concerned-reader/

          now why is it that the malaysian christian lady is asking the jews why god limited his revelations and commands to jews ?

          We see in torah that when yhwh gave command to destroy amalekite, he said to leave a pagan idolatrous group alone because they did not attack israel 400 years earlier. so i dont think yhwh has a problem with non-jews practicing idolatry

          this is contention which the malaysian christian women is brining, why is it that yhwh and his commands are just for the jews?

        • Greg G.

          this is contention which the malaysian christian women is brining, why is it that yhwh and his commands are just for the jews?

          I think it is that Judaism originated as a henotheistic religion. The pretensions of the creation myth they adopted helped lead them into monotheism.

        • Cynthia

          Or possibly vice versa – which came first, the notion of a global god or the creation story?

        • Cynthia

          Ok, let’s at least be consistent in how we address this.

          We can talk about what is written in the Biblical narrative, acknowledging that while these are ancient documents which were produced and revered by Israelites, they do not necessarily reflect actual historical events unless corroborated by other evidence. Agreed?

          So, the Biblical narrative does talk about Moses having a wife from Midian in Africa. It also mentions the mixed multitudes that left Egypt with the Israelites. That is present in the narrative, showing a desire in the part of the Israelites to include those elements in the narrative whether or not they reflect historic events.

          Same thing for the parts about not marrying with certain tribes. There was a motivation to include it in a narrative, but that doesn’t mean that it necessarily reflects historical fact.

          From other books of the Bible, it is quite clear that marriages between the groups did take place, and that there wasn’t a clear separation of the religions. The establishment of Jerusalem as the clear center of worship and destruction of older places of worship takes place relatively late, under the reign of Josiah, when a “lost” scripture is declared to be found (a weird story – that somehow part of the scripture got misplaced in the Temple and forgotten until some workmen doing repair work found it). We have actually archeological evidence of the impact of Josiah’s changes, such as broken altars. We don’t have archeological evidence for the events described in the book of Joshua. A likely explanation is that the Canaanites and Israelites were once the same people, or at least thoroughly mixed, and as the new religion emerged there was a struggle to separate it from the older religion.

        • Ed

          gg: The concept of races has changed many times in the last 2500 years. To the ancient Hebrews, it was not black, white, yellow, and red, it was Jews and non-Jews. They were more racist than white supremacists.

          ed: Not sure what you mean in the first statement. Scientifically race means differences in skin color, face structure, hair structure and etc. That is what I am referring to. I am not referring to any other definition of race whatever that is. How can they be racist when the prohibition had absolutely nothing to do with race? You are not making any sense now. For ancient Israel the prohibition was purely religious. It had nothing to do with appearance.

          ed: They were condemned because of their immorality which was idolatry.

          gg: Which sounds like the lies racists tell about other races.

          ed: But the difference is this is not a lie, and it is a scientific fact that races and tribes are not equivalent.

          gg: There is no evidence where there should be evidence for the Exodus in Egypt, the Sinai Desert, or in Canaan. The absence of evidence where there should be evidence is evidence of absence. No Exodus means no Moses and no wives of Moses. The “evidence” about Moses and his wives is equivalent to the evidence that Luke Skywalker and Leia Organa were twins.

          ed: No there is evidence that semites were in Egypt at the time the exodus occurred and there are other evidences depending on which theory about the exodus you are referring to. There are three major theories about the exodus story all three have about the equal amount of evidence. Since they were nomadic in the Sinai desert no archaeological evidence would be expected since they did not build any permanent structures. There are some ancient rock pictographs that may have been created by the Hebrews while they were there. But we dont know for certain.