What Is Anti-Gay Speech? And How Protected Should it Be? (2 of 3)

What Is Anti-Gay Speech? And How Protected Should it Be? (2 of 3) October 11, 2019

Seyi Omooba is a British actress who shouted “Gay!” in a crowded theater.

Actually, it was more “Gay is wrong!” She made a social media comment saying that the Bible is clear that being gay is wrong and you can’t be born gay. (Let’s leave aside the question of whether those claims can even co-exist.) As a result, she lost a part in a play. She’s now suing the theater and her agent.

The first part of this series (1) summarized the incident; (2) argued that it’s Christians who say things about homosexuality, not the Bible; and (3) explored the free speech issue. Let’s continue with a thought experiment to see the case from another angle.

Justification

The Christian Legal Centre tried to minimize Omooba’s insult with this example:

The presence of a homosexuality theme in the play is a very poor excuse for discriminating against a Christian actress. If we were talking about a lesbian actress playing a Christian character, nobody would dare to suggest that her sexual lifestyle would make her unsuitable, and that you could fire her without breaking the law.

Are you kidding? Imagine a play with an out lesbian as Mary Magdalene or Mary the mother of Jesus. I can imagine the same thing happening in reverse: with the target audience largely Christian, a single tweet could ignite Christian outrage, and that actress would get replaced to avoid a theatrical flop.

But notice the difference: a lesbian playing Mary Magdalene wouldn’t be criticizing Christians, straight people, or the memory of Mary Magdalene. By contrast, Omooba stated in her post that homosexuals should deny who they are (or else!) while putting no equivalent constraint on herself or her fellow straight Christians. She also said that no one is “born gay.” (Does she think that all people who identify as homosexual are taking on a new persona as if living in some sort of perpetual Halloween?)

I’m sure that she felt that her post was a generous and constructive statement—that we’re all in the same imperfect boat and God loves you and has provided a route to salvation—but I think I share the offense felt by the actor who outed that five-year-old post. “Hate the sin; love the sinner” may be as distasteful for the homosexual as “I love you, but you’re going to hell” aimed at the atheist. In either situation, being told that you deserve an eternity of torture in hell for living your life in a way that is honest to who you are and that hurts no one else is simply offensive.

In one of the news articles I read on this incident, one commenter asked, would it be acceptable for someone with public antisemitic views to have a leading role in Fiddler on the Roof, a play with a Jewish theme? If the response is that this comparison is unfair because antisemitic views are fringe while Christian views that gays deserve to be in hell are not, why should “it’s a religious belief” cover for a hateful view? Does Christianity deserve a fig leaf just because it’s a venerable tradition?

What the Bible says about homosexuality

There are six Bible passages that are typically used to make God’s anti-gay case. Understand them, and you’ll see that they don’t make an anti-gay case, at least not one that is relevant today.

I’ll list them below and give a brief response. Links are given to posts that discuss them in more detail.

  • Genesis 19:4–25 is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The lesson of the Sodom and Gomorrah story isn’t that homosexuality is bad, it’s that rape is bad. More here and here.
  • Leviticus 18:22 labels homosexual sex as an abomination. The problem is, this part of Leviticus lists lots of things as abominations—eating ham or shrimp, men wearing women’s clothes, sowing two kinds of seeds, tattooing, wearing cotton/polyester blends, and so on. These are ritual abominations, not actions that are objectively harmful to someone else. If Christians can dismiss the prohibition against pork because that’s an outdated custom, they can do the same for the rule against homosexuality. More here.
  • The same treatment applies to Leviticus 20:13. We need to see Old Testament prohibitions against homosexuality in the context of the time. One of the understood categories of male-male homosexual sex in that uncertain time was as a fertility rite—a fertility rite that was traditional within the other The Hebrew religion described in Leviticus defined rules that set their tribe apart—no ham, no tattooing, and no fertility rites to another god. These are “abominations” because they’re religious offenses. More here.
  • Romans 1:26–27 says, in part, “The men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts.” This passage imagines straight men who “abandon the natural function of the woman” and have sex with other men. Yes, that’s kinky, but it has nothing to do with homosexuals in loving relationships. More here.
  • 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 lists categories of bad people, including those who engage in homosexual sex, who won’t “inherit the kingdom of God.” But the same book says, “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says” (1 Cor. 14:34–5). If the latter is an outdated Old Testament custom, the same could be said for the former. More here.
  • 1 Timothy 1:9–10 gives a similar list. It mixes ritual abominations like homosexuality and idolatry with actual crimes like theft and murder. And it has its own misogyny: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet” (2:11–14). Like the 1 Corinthians 6 passage, this references back to Old Testament laws that we’ve seen are irrelevant. More here.

Remember the parable of the Good Samaritan? The Pharisee and the Levite walked past an injured man because they didn’t want to become ritually unclean. The Torah didn’t forbid touching blood or a dead person, it simply said that you would need to ritually cleanse yourself afterwards. The moral of the story isn’t just that you must help people in need. In addition, it’s that if there is a rule or tradition that gets in the way of your helping people, violate that rule. Outdated Old Testament laws belong in the same bin as Bible rules supporting slavery, and Christians have no problem seeing that slavery has no place in modern society.

Jesus himself showed how the priority works when he said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”

Concluded in part 3.

To make their faith right,
Christians first must make reality wrong.
— seen on the internet

.

Image from christian buehner, CC license
.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Ann Kah

    I’m in favor of people stopping ALL preachy public speech. “Religion stops where other people’s noses begin”, or something like that. If a person freely chooses to go to a church and listen, that’s their right, but for anyone to bring a message like that to unwilling listeners (or worse yet, get their hatred enacted into law), that’s an affront to society and an insult to those who don’t choose that particular flavor of religion.

    And yes, hate speech does REAL harm. See Uganda.

    • Illithid

      I like seeing the nutters yelling on street corners, because I enjoy seeing everyone just walk by them as if they weren’t there. Makes me want to giggle.

      • Michael Murray

        Unless they are Extinction Rebellion in which case they have my support.

    • Oddly enough, my religion STARTS where other peoples’ noses begin.

      Signed,
      The Reverend-Guru-Rabbi-Lama-High Priest-Imam-Cardinal Doc Farmer
      United Church of Bacon

  • I support the right of people to speak hatefully. I think that is better than making it illegal. But the right of expression is a protection against legal consequences, not other consequences. Lose your job? Lose social standing? Oh well… should have thought about that before speaking.

    • NS Alito

      It’s useful to society that they self-identify.

      • That’s my thinking, as well. I worry that when you criminalize hate speech, you simply drive it underground. I think it’s probably more dangerous there than out in the open.

        • TheNuszAbides

          As evidenced by the widespread surprised reaction to “alt-right” surges in the wake of, well, all kinds of stuff over the last 4-20 years …

    • Οрus

      What a pussy.

    • smrnda

      I’m also at a loss as to how a person can be protected from anything except legal consequences. Other people have a right to tune out. People can be protected job wise under specific conditions, but it’s not like ‘social standing’ of any sort can be legally protected.

  • Michael Neville

    This is just another example of how free speech can have consequences. Omooba can express her dislike of LGBTQ+ and the theater can decide they don’t want her to appear in their play.

  • Kev Green

    She’s claiming that she was fired for being a Christian. That simply isn’t true. She was fired for expressing hateful views that would provide bad publicity for the theater. But, aren’t her views part of her Christianity? Not in this case. Given her God’s supposed views on homosexuality He would never have approved of her taking the role in the first place. The fact that she took it anyway shows that her views are really personal bigotry. In other words she took a job that, according to her, a practicing Christian should never have taken and is now claiming she was fired for being a Christian.

    • Michael Murray

      I keep wondering why she was happy with the part. I don’t know the play. Was she going to have to act the part of a gay person ?

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Her *real* ‘god’, as with ALL of them, IMHO, is Mammon.

        She wouldn’t let her religion get in the way of making money, as long as it allowed her to abuse and 69denigrate others.

      • (According to Wikipedia) her part is a woman who is abused by men and then finds comfort, romance, and sex with another woman. I’m not sure she’s necessarily a lesbian, but close enough for this discussion, it seems.

      • wannabe

        By that logic she couldn’t play a murderer, thief, adulteress, or even a gossip. Not a lot of roles for flawless women.

        • Yes, but only if she’d first made clear how much God doesn’t like whatever kind of person she would later go on to play. And if that aspect was celebrated in the play.

          (I’m assuming you want to make an accurate parallel with the Omooba situation.)

        • wannabe

          Would she first have to tweet that God hates adultery in order to be disqualified from playing a happy adulteress?

        • I’m simply observing that it’d have to be symmetric. She’d need to highlight the anti-adultery bits of the Bible and accept a role as an adulteress where the adultery is a positive force (or at least not a negative force). That would be hypocritical in the same way.

        • wannabe

          Omooba wasn’t fired because of her hypocrisy. She was fired for publicly having a wrong opinion. She could just as easily been fired for a wrong opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict even though this play has nothing to do with that. The “hypocrisy” just highlights it.

          Hypocrisy isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Without it a lot of stuff couldn’t get done, like the many pro-gay blogs here on Patheos, whose owners funnel profits to anti-gay organizations. (I assume you’ve made your peace with that, for the moment.)

        • She was fired for being a financial liability to the show (I’m guessing).

          The public found her guilty of having a wrong opinion.

          the many pro-gay blogs here on Patheos, whose owners funnel profits to anti-gay organizations. (I assume you’ve made your peace with that, for the moment.)

          I assume you’re saying that the owners of Patheos fund anti-gay organizations using, in part, ad revenue from pro-gay blogs? I don’t worry about that. I do me; they do them.

          I spend a modest fraction of my airtime at this blog to focus on social issues–predominantly homosexuality and abortion. I hope I’m ruffling the right feathers.

      • Lark62

        It is an excellent, challenging lead part that has launched careers. Whoopie Goldberg’s for one.

  • Amused To Death

    Bob, why don’t you just save yourself the mental gymnastics and skip to the point where you say “I’m Alt-Right because, even though I totally supported equality, justice and reason (no, really, I swear), I’m against them now because those Progressives are just so darn mean!

    • Michael Neville

      Could you give us a quote from the OP where Bob gives the impression that he’s Alt-Right?

      • Amused To Death

        These are the standard mental gyrations of someone desperately trying to find a middle ground where none exists. Either we curtail superstitious speech to ensure the safety and humanity of LGBT people or we curtail the rights of LGBT people for the sake of superstitious attitudes. There’s no room to compromise.

        So, Bob, knowing well by now which side is more generous with their Patreon dollars, will “come around” to the Alt-Right. Maybe in Part 3.

        • Michael Neville

          So you can’t actually point to a quote where Bob shows he’s even tending to Alt-Right. You just think he is because…well, just because.

          How do you intend to “curtail superstitious speech”? Will the Thought Police monitor every social media outlet, every television broadcast, every conversation to “ensure the rights” of LGBTQ+? Please explain how your draconian speech curtailment isn’t outright fascism.

          I think you need to look long and hard at your own flirtation with Alt-Right.

        • Jason Boreu

          What you need to realise is that lot of pro-LGBT people are christians too but they are liberal christians, progressive christians and they not only don’t want to impose their beliefs on anyone but they are against christians that try to too. I know that because i have 2 aunts like that.

          Atheists only represent like less than 9% or so of the american population if we stand by ourselves alone we will lose every single battle due to sheer numbers so why should we crack on progressive christans that are on our side and want the same goal as us?

          Christian progressives, us and indenpendents make up for the majority and that’s why we win.

          Your ideas sound quite fascist btw.

        • Amused To Death

          I’m not fascist. I’m tired.

          I’m tired of watching queer bodies pile up while people who can help stand on the sidelines, okay? While people who can help cower in a corner because OMG picking a side would be “divisive” and “polarizing”. Human beings are suffering and dying because of people who speak like this woman and what are you doing but trying to evade taking a side. Or, as I’ve already said, maybe you have…

        • Phil Rimmer

          You’re tired. You’re not seeing how many of us are on your side. Your/our enemy only moderately correlates with the religious and then almost not at all in Europe. (True those fewer religio-zealots can spit bile for ten….)

          A religion as lived is ultimately only what its adherents believe it to be.

          Accuse people of the error of religion and you pick too many fights not worth the fighting. Accuse people of being immoral and you can do far more constructive damage to them.

        • Michael Neville

          Your solution to protecting LGBTQ+ is to stifle free speech. That is how fascists and other authoritarians kept people from saying things they didn’t like.

          Sorry, Mussolini Jr, but I’m not impressed with your desire to monitor everyone’s free speech INCLUDING MINE!

          incidentally have you noticed any people here supporting Omooba’s homophobia? I sure haven’t, so your whines about Bob being Alt-Right and the rest of us shirking “picking a side” are just that, whines.

        • Amused To Death

          So your solution is to…do nothing? Just hope the problem goes away while you wait for an option that doesn’t inconvenience you personally?

          And, yes, I have. You’re supporting it right now by not standing against it. You’re supporting homophobia by demanding that we compromise our humanity and keep quiet so someone can advocate our deaths. You’re supporting it by treating our rights and humanity as a popularity contest.

        • What course of action do you recommend? Changes in the law?

        • Thanks4AllTheFish

          Why are you purposely alienating those of us here, who consistently vote specifically against those candidates who want to purposefully marginalize you? I support your cause to be recognized equally in society but I reject your call for stifling others who do not share my progressive opinion. They have a right to their misguided opinions and the negative consequences they shall inevitably reap.

        • Amused To Death

          Is my humanity an opinion? Anyone who genuinely believes that is someone who won’t be there when they can actually make difference. So if what I’ve said drives you to Reason or The Federalist it’s no great loss.

          But I’ve seen you around before, so, you tell me: What can LGBTQ people do besides wait patiently in the closet that we haven’t been doing for the last 50-60 years? No one in the community really wants to go this far but no one wants to keep burying friends, no one wants to beg for their dignity or humanity, no one wants to have to face the growing crisis of homeless LGBT youth or any of the other crises that Ellen doesn’t talk about while dancing.

        • Thanks4AllTheFish

          “But I’ve seen you around before, so, you tell me: What can LGBTQ people do besides wait patiently in the closet that we haven’t been doing for the last 50-60 years? No one in the community really wants to go this far but no one wants to keep burying friends, no one wants to beg for their dignity or humanity, no one wants to have to face the growing crisis of homeless LGBT youth or any of the other crises that Ellen doesn’t talk about while dancing.”

          I don’t know you.
          I don’t personally know any transgender people.
          I do have a wonderful nephew who is gay and has been in a committed relationship for over 20 years. He is much loved.

          What I do is call-out bigotry and stand-up for diversity whether it is LGBTQI or any other non-cis, non-binary person. I celebrate diversity because it is fascinating, enlightening and almost always leads to a discovery of new and wonderful things.

          I am a married, cis-white male, 72 years old and I have survived combat in Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, unfair draft laws, the civil rights era, the Kennedy and MLK assassinations42, Woodstock, LSD, Watergate, Kent State, and riots at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. This nation was being torn apart in the sixties and seventies and if you think there is a culture war now,…

          What I can tell you is that it will take time – lots of time. Rome wasn’t built in a day. I know you don’t want to hear that because this is happening to you and those you love, RIGHT NOW! Too many Americans (mostly my age) are stuffy old curmudgeons who have unfortunately turned into their parents forgetting the hard-won liberties of their youth and instead mortgaging subsequent generations with their selfish excess, lack of empathy and willful rejection of understanding anything that they perceive as uncomfortable, not “normal” or sinful.

          F;;k them! Keep hammering away – we are all more alike than we are different – we have a shared humanity.

          All I can tell you is to hang-in there, provide as much support to others sharing your situation and align yourself with those like myself who can not know or fully understand the breadth and depth of your ongoing angst in a world that often must seem very alien and hostile towards you.

          Unfortunately, too much of what humanity eventually determines is worth having, often requires way too much sacrifice. As us long-haired hippies used to say, “don’t let the bastards42 wear you down”.

        • Amused To Death

          I’ve spent my entire life fighting. The first 22 or so it was fighting the self-loathing that came with growing up queer in the 70’s and 80’s. The last 25 have been fighting bias and discrimination in education and the workplace (have you ever had two senior coworkers laugh about “beating up queers” and being afraid of losing your new job and getting blacklisted if you speak against it? Hint: It’s not fun). The next 20 will no doubt be even more fighting. As little as I like it, I’m ready for it.

          What I am growing increasingly frustrated with is the increasing unwillingness among liberals (especially the ones with a voice to influence things) to grasp that conservatives aren’t playing the game by gentleman’s rules anymore. Or they’re getting increasingly bad about pretending they care. It’s almost if these free speech debates are a welcome distraction from having to deal with the merits (or lack thereof) of what’s being said.

          I sense I’m starting to ramble, so I’m done with this discussion. And I’m done with Mr. Snickerdoodle’s column. Go stick your head in a pig (just kidding on that last bit. I love Douglas Adams too!)

        • Your experience was very different from mind. Must’ve sucked.

          I’m done with Mr. Snickerdoodle’s column.

          You might want to double check who’s an ally and who’s an enemy before you attack them.

        • You seem to be venting a lot of anger. I’m not sure why you’re aiming it here, where the atheist regulars are all on your side.

          You haven’t made clear what you’re annoyed about in the post. Or even with the events about the Omooba case. She got outed and fired–is that not what you want?

        • Thanks4AllTheFish

          Based on what I’m reading, perhaps Amused To Death feels that the time for talk and reason has long since passed when dealing with homophobic activists who literally are beating and killing them?

        • TheNuszAbides

          I concur, but find it deeply unfortunate that {Bob? Everyone who isn’t fighting the way ATD is fighting?} are somehow thereby dismissed as practically-alt-right in – as far as I can tell, since ATD declared “I’m done” in basically the same breath after they started to engage with your reasonable response – a puritanical bifurcation of attitude-sets.

        • Thanks4AllTheFish

          I can only surmise that ATD has an alternate way of defining alt-right.

        • Michael Neville

          My solution is to speak out against homophobia. But you don’t want me to do that. You want me to follow your narrow script and, if I deviate from it in the slightest you’d shut me up. Sorry, fascist, but I don’t want to play by your rules. You can say what you want, I can say what I want, and even people like Omooba can say what they want. That’s how a free, democratic society works.

          You’d stifle free speech because people like Omooba use it against you and people you care about. I promote free speech but I have a different idea about it than you do. Free speech does not guarantee a platform, does not provide an audience, and (this is the important thing) does not protect against rebuttal, criticism and ridicule.

          Omooba said some hateful things against LGBTQ+. Have you noticed that she’s lost her job because of what she said? Maybe that’ll teach her not to parade her homophobia in public. Maybe that’ll show other homophobes that there are real-life consequences to showing their hatred.

          it’s clear that my concern for free speech doesn’t meet with your approval. Your authoritarian, totalitarian insistence that you should control what people say doesn’t meet with my approval. And I will continue to denounce you and your fascistic ideals as best as I can.

        • Amused To Death
        • Michael Neville

          You must think you’re a wit. You’re half-right.

        • Monkeyhunter

          No one like you. You whine too much and spend too much time whining. Live life and stop whining whiner.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Christian progressives, us and indenpendents make up for the majority and that’s why we win.

          Indeed. Though something atheist commenter S.Arch believes will not be the case where Christianity reaches a tipping point in the losing ground stakes in the US. That’s when S.Arch thinks ALL those self-proclaiming US Christians of a plethora of flavours will rally behind the cross and tear up the constitution in favour of installing a Christian theocracy of sorts.

        • Phil Rimmer

          UK Quakers (again! sorry everyone) wrote a definitive paper on the morality of homosexuality. That it was a legitimate expression, because it was an expression also of love. They wrote it in 1963 and it played a significant role in ensuring the 1967 Act decriminalising gay sex.

          In the UK among my religious friends not one has any truck with such specific religious moral dogma. The bible is metaphor of varying quality and theism an expression of feeling at home in the universe. (Makes me feel claustrophobic.)

          Way, way before hunting down the many decent religious folk and their suspected apologists to torment them into pure reason, we need to hunt down, misogynists, sexists, libertarians, kleptocrats and racists.

        • Seems that there is a middle ground: Christians can say whatever they want (and, BTW, so can you), and the public is free to vote with their ticket purchases (or book purchases or fast food restaurant patronage or whatever) to protest.

          I do marvel at your clairvoyance. I think yours is on the fritz at the moment, though.

        • Amused To Death

          Tell that to the dead, Bob.

          Oh, wait…

        • Too obtuse. If there’s an actual problem, you’ll have to speak clearly.

    • You’ve lost me. If there’s a problem, spell it out.

      Omooba was within her rights to say what she said, and the theater was within its rights to fire her because the play was at risk of being a flop. What blasphemy did I mistakenly utter?

  • Michael Murray

    More concerning I find are public attacks on pythonism

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asUyK6JWt9U&t=80s

  • Bob, you’re really reaching in claiming these verses aren’t condemning homosexuality. Especially the Romans one, since unlike the rest it can’t just be explained away as Old Testament “ritual” prohibition (though I don’t see how that isn’t a condemnation too). Paul reflects the view (held by some pagans then too) of natural law theory, which says homosexuality is wrong because it goes against the genitals’ purpose. This is a view still held by the Catholic Church, plus others. Whether or not a same-sex relationship is loving thus would be irrelevant to it. I don’t claim they’re right to believe this, of course, but the view is there in the Bible. They also didn’t have the concept of homosexuality as being someone’s identity (just like the actress) thus the idea of men turning away from their “natural” inclinations for women (it also speaks about women who did so, the only verse in the Bible that does).

    • you’re really reaching in claiming these verses aren’t condemning homosexuality. Especially the Romans one, since unlike the rest it can’t just be explained away as Old Testament “ritual” prohibition (though I don’t see how that isn’t a condemnation too). Paul reflects the view (held by some pagans then too) of natural law theory, which says homosexuality is wrong because it goes against the genitals’ purpose.

      Modern science makes clear that homosexuality is natural. Given that, tell me again what genitals’ purpose is.

      As for the Romans passage, explain it to me. I think my point is still invalid.

      Further, I don’t even know what it means. “The men abandoned the natural function of the woman”? When?? Is this some thought experiment? Did this really happen?

      This is a view still held by the Catholic Church, plus others.

      OK. They have lots of nutty beliefs.

      Whether or not a same-sex relationship is loving thus would be irrelevant to it.

      No, it’s relevant. If you want to condemn homosexuality as it is understood in the West, you can’t point to a Bible passage that is addressing something quite different. We both agree that (1) loving homosexual relationships and (2) SSM aren’t addressed directly, so you’re already on thin ice if you want to say that the Bible is relevant.

      • Modern science makes clear that homosexuality is natural. Given that, tell me again what genitals’ purpose is.

        As for the Romans passage, explain it to me. I think my point is still invalid.

        Further, I don’t even know what it means. “The men abandoned the natural function of the woman”? When?? Is this some thought experiment? Did this really happen?

        What science says is homosexuality occurs naturally. That isn’t the point here. Rather, that if the genitals are used for something except reproduction (or urination) that violates their purpose, thus it’s unnatural. This is not my view either.

        I already explained the passage’s meaning as I’ve understood it, and my issue with your view.

        They abandoned this, in Paul’s view, by having sex with men in Paul’s view. I don’t think “when” is the issue. Homosexuality existed back then as I’m sure you agree, so yes this happened and wasn’t just a thought experiment.

        No, it’s relevant. If you want to condemn homosexuality as it is understood in the West, you can’t point to a Bible passage that is addressing something quite different. We both agree that (1) loving homosexual relationships and (2) SSM aren’t addressed directly, so you’re already on thin ice if you want to say that the Bible is relevant.

        I don’t think we agree to that at all. Actually, it’s the opposite from what I’ve been arguing: that loving or not homosexuality is addressed by the passage. Same-sex marriage isn’t of course, since it didn’t exist then so far as I know, but it is encompassed by homosexuality so that’s pretty redundant. I don’t think claiming otherwise is correct or effective at addressing such a view.

        • I don’t think “when” is the issue.

          I’m just trying to understand what Paul meant. He said, “The men abandoned the natural function of the woman.” The verb is past tense. Was he talking about a specific event?

        • I don’t know, but if so he’s likely referring to homosexuality in general beginning (by his view, I presume after the Fall).

        • Greg G.

          In case Disqus doesn’t include my reply to Bob in your thread, the information is for you too.

          https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2019/10/what-is-anti-gay-speech-and-how-protected-should-it-be-2-of-3/#comment-4650911480

        • I can’t go to your comment, I’m not sure why. Paste it here?

        • Greg G.
        • Yes, it seems similar.

        • Greg G.

          I’m just trying to understand what Paul meant.

          I think Paul was basing Romans 1:18-27 on Psalms and the Wisdom of Solomon from the Apocrypha. The following are similar to Romans 1:24-27:

          Psalm 81:12 (NRSV)
          12 So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts,
              to follow their own counsels.

          Wisdom 14:12
          12 For the idea of making idols was the beginning of fornication,
          and the invention of them was the corruption of life;

          Wisdom 14:24-27
          24 they no longer keep either their lives or their marriages pure,
          but they either treacherously kill one another, or grieve one another by adultery,
          25 and all is a raging riot of blood and murder, theft and deceit, corruption, faithlessness, tumult, perjury,
          26 confusion over what is good, forgetfulness of favors,
          defiling of souls, sexual perversion,
          disorder in marriages, adultery, and debauchery.
          27 For the worship of idols not to be named
          is the beginning and cause and end of every evil.

          Compare Romans 1:18-23 with Psalm 19:1-4, and Wisdom of Solomon 11:15, 12:24-27, 13:1-5, 13:10, 14:8.

        • So you’re saying that the past tense in Rom. 1 is simply to parallel the form of other OT passages?

          Or maybe the OT passages are referring to (supposed) events in the past and Rom. 1 is referring back to those same events? But that’s hard to understand because these OT passages don’t refer to a homosexual bacchanalia as is mentioned in Rom.

        • Greg G.

          I am trying to give illumination but I do not have an answer. I think Paul may have been focused on “sexual perversion” in Wisdom 14:26. I haven’t examined the LXX version of Wisdom to see if the language matches.

        • helpful insights, thanks.

        • Jim Jones

          Who cares? Not one person on the planet follows the bible.

        • They claim to, and thus we discuss what it says (or does not say).

        • Ignorant Amos

          Same-sex marriage isn’t of course, since it didn’t exist then so far as I know,…

          Oh I don’t think we can go that far. There was a reason why there were OT ordinances against homosexual relationships. I think it’s fair to say that banning something infers that such an activity was occuring to warrant a banning in the first place. Just how marriage is defined is the problem.

          It seems homosexual partnerships were a thing in the ANE.

          There is history of recorded same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

          Were Jonathan and King David an item? Some scholars seem to think so. Breaking the rules wasn’t a thing King David was all that concerned about.

          2 Samuel 1:26

          “I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
          You have been very pleasant to me.
          Your love to me was more wonderful
          Than the love of women.”

        • Well of course same-sex relationships existed, I just didn’t think that extended to actual marriage. I stand corrected however-the Sifra, another ancient Hebrew text, says it did extend to same-sex marriage, which is included by what Leviticus condemned. They also had some in the Roman Empire, enough so that it was later banned.

    • Michael Murray

      I misread that as gentiles purpose.

      • TheNuszAbides

        I reckon the case could be made that as a group, they’re less purposeful than genitals.

    • Jim Jones

      “The only unnatural sex act is that which you cannot perform.” – Alfred Kinsey

      As for the bible, what does Harry Potter have to say about this?

      • “The only unnatural sex act is that which you cannot perform.” – Alfred Kinsey

        Fair enough. Celibacy as well seems pretty unnatural to most people. They get pretty selective on that.

        As for the bible, what does Harry Potter have to say about this?

        Nothing so far as I know. The books do quote it a couple of times though.

  • Phil Rimmer

    https://www.premier.org.uk/News/UK/British-actress-sues-after-being-sacked-for-quoting-from-the-Bible

    The defence that this is an attack on her Christian religion is bogus.

    We accept that the US is more conservative than the UK but even in the US the acceptability of homosexuality is surprisingly high…

    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-homosexuality/

    Second graph. The problem flavours of Christianity are stark.

  • Michael Murray

    Interesting that this coincides with the beatification of Cardinal Newman.

    https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129930850

    • epeeist

      Normally I quite enjoy Elgar’s music, even though he is not first rank (compare him to Vaughn-Williams for example). However I really can’t stand his Dream of Gerontius, the words were written by Newman and are utterly nauseating.

    • Interesting–he was canonized yesterday. I didn’t know about his potential homosexuality.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Newman#Discussion_about_potential_homosexuality

      • Pofarmer

        Pretty much all Priests are potentially homosexual by the numbers. I’ve seen numbers as high as 2/3’s. It’s one reason I don’t trust priests. They are fundamentally dishonest about their own sexuality. Why would I trust them about anything?

        • TheNuszAbides

          No wonder they’re still talking about exorcism with a straight face, if (e.g.) the only way they can synthesize the CogDis of [toxic dogma + natural orientation] is to crank up the Imaginaryenemymeter to 11.

  • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

    “Outdated Old Testament laws belong in the same bin as Bible rules supporting slavery”

    The Old Testament doesn’t support slavery. It places restrictions on it. Yes, it allows slavery, but it also allows divorce even though God has made his disapproval of it known in the same scripture.

    • Everyone placed some restrictions on slavery. If you allow it though, that’s support in itself. Divorce also isn’t condemned before Jesus either. So the Jews didn’t have any inkling. If you want to ban something, do it. Especially if you’re God-he can enforce things much better.

      • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

        Like i told the other poster I would like to see a ban on abortion after a certain gestation period. By your logic i still support abortion as i would grudgingly allow some.

        BTW How did God’s ban on murder work out?

        • I can’t speak to your motives. My point is that if God wanted to ban any of these things completely and effectively, he could.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          He banned murder. It doesn’t stop murder. Years ago the US had a national speed limit of 55mph. For all the good that was supposed to do all it really accomplished was creating a nation with no respect for our traffic laws.

          When dealing with imperfect humans that were given free will this was the best that could be expected from a Bronze Age society

        • Sure, but we lack divine capabilities. Regardless, he didn’t completely ban slavery.

          Oh? Yet he banned other things completely, and in some cases enforced his edicts with divine retribution. If slavery and murder really are some of the worst things people can do, as most believe, much more could be done by a divine being.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Right. We dont have the power to take control of other people’s minds and God chooses not to. Is that free will thing giving you a problem again?

          Yes, He outright banned tbings like murder which no society is going to question and things like eating pork which isnt that tough of a sell. You are saying that most people believe slavery is “one of the worst things…” but there is your problem. Most people DIDN’T believe that back then. Hell quite a few in this country didn’t believe that not too long ago. If we had to kill over 600,000 and cripple 1/5th of all military age males to end it here why do you think they would just say “Okay, whatever you want” in the Bronze Age when that was the norm for almost every society?

        • Yes, because just saying “free will” is not enough. I assume you don’t think criminal punishment violates free will. So what would be the problem with that? God only seems to do those things about certain things in the Bible. This is without even getting into what “free will” is, if it exists etc.

          Well, if God disagreed, he could tell them otherwise, no? I’m certainly well aware people mostly didn’t think that slavery is wrong back then, but that is the point. If it was always wrong, why didn’t God inform them of the fact and say “Don’t do that, or else” like the other things he forbade? He certainly isn’t portrayed as shy of doing so for many other issues, and then raining down fire or permitting them to be conquered etc. when they disobey. I would suggest that the best answer is just “God” said nothing-no one knew then how slavery would later be viewed.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Criminal punishment requires the cooperation of society. If society does not disagree with a practice that isnt going to happen. As i pointed out even in our modern history it took a horrific war to end it in the US.

          The same society that immediately went nack to worshipping idols right after being miraculously delivered from Egypt was simply not going to give up slavery. That is the reality of this Bronze Age society and looking at it from a modern perspective is not going to give an accurate analysis

          Also saying that God said nothing about it is simply wrong. He said much about it. He ensured that people who sold themselves into slavery for economic reasons would not remain there forever. He protected slaves from inhumane treatment by mandating that severely injured slaves would be made free. What you characterized as support of slavery was in reality a huge improvement for the poor individuals in bondage. That was a good thing but apparently anything less than utopia is a bad thing to some

        • Not if you’re God it doesn’t. Many times in the Bible he punished people without needing help. Why would he, being omnipotent?

          Yes, and he punished them as a result of that. Clearly slavery was not such a priority. Assuming slavery is inherently wrong as most people think, and that God agreed, why couldn’t this be banned entirely then? Modernity is not at issue if these really are eternal values.

          That’s not what I said. Rather, that it seems more likely people wrote this, without divine inspiration. In any case those laws also allowed lifelong, inherited slavery of foreigners and women. Even more, less bad slavery is still bad.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          God doesn’t render criminal judgement. He renders divine judgement

          Right, completely disregarding God and by extension all of his laws was a bigger deal. It leads to things like child sacrifice (can you say late term abortion)

          One more time and maybe you will ger it. Completely banning it does no good if people just ignore the law. Every Bronze Age society was inextricably linked to slavery. As such a complete ban would not work. God would either lose his people or end up.having to kill them. Was that more clear this time

          Yes, and better conditions for slaves is still better. Why is it that some people look at improvement and still complain because it doesn’t fit their utopian ideas? Utopian ideas dont freaking work. Reality and doing what doea work is always superior to wishful thinking and whining

        • What is the difference?

          Ah, so following God is compatible with having slaves it seems.

          Even if some people ignored the ban, the law would be in place. He wouldn’t have to kill everyone either. Assuming say he struck a few down, the rest would likely fall in line. Nor would it would necessarily mean killing-he could find other ways. You assume God could not teach them differently than other people. He did about many other issues according to the Bible, so why not this?

          It’s utopian to want slavery completely banned huh? I don’t expect it will make all slavery go away, but that’s better than saying it’s okay at all. These verses you defend were used by believers to justify slavery in later times. That is a good reason to make its evil from the get go, whether or not that led to all slavery disappearing. Besides, as I’ve repeatedly emphasized, we’re talking God here, not just us. I don’t expect utopia, but things could be better, and that would include this.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          The difference is one is rendered by man and the other is rendered by God.

          Yes, so is divorce it seems even though God expressed His disapproval of it.

          Right, because once the US Government burned Georgia the South just said “Okay, no slavery” Oh wair, tgat didn’t happen.

          Yes it is. Slavery exists to this day. A world without it is then a utopian world. You are not prepared to invade Africa and kill a bunch of people to end it. Why then do you condemn God for not doing what you would not do yourself?

        • Okay. I don’t think that affects my point.

          So one can do those things and remain in good standing with him?

          No, but as I said we lack divine abilities.

          A utopia is possible for God to create, but in any case that’s not what I said. I am not all good nor all powerful. To expect more from such a being doesn’t seem so odd.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Do you advocate using America’s ability to bomb African slave states until they cease enslaving people?

        • You aren’t addressing my point, so I’m not going to get diverted with that. There is a lot to unpack.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          What is your point? You say God should magically stop it but you dont say how. Explain. Pretend you are God and tell me what you would fo or concede that you could do nothing.

          That has been my point from before you ever responded to me and you have yet to answer it.

        • Greg G.

          You say God should magically stop it but you dont say how.

          He said by divine abilities. Are you saying that divine abilities don’t work or that they do not exist?

        • I actually said two things. 1) that God could stop this. 2) failing that, he could at least have made this clear: that slavery is completely forbidden, so there was nothing to hide behind. As to how, I don’t remember that being asked of me specifically. Yet will you seriously tell me God couldn’t enforce any anti-slavery ban here much more effectively than us? I actually did offer some possibilities as to how that could be done; apparently you missed it. However, an omnipotent and omniscient being could surely come up with far better.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Right. So

          1) Explain how you would stop it if you were God

          2) Explain how passing a law that is ignored is morally superior to passing reatrictions that truly improve lives.

          Further I will remind you of your logical fallacy as i did the other poster. Just claiming you are talking about God and that means you dont have to explain HOW things could be done is special pleading. Sorry, the same rules of logic apply to you as everyone else.

        • 1) I have done that already, repeatedly.

          2) Why should I accept the idea that God’s edict would always be ignored, or that restricted slavery improved lives?

          I gave examples actually, but in any case God is special according to believers.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You actually made me look through your entire conversation with me looking for something you never posted. I asked what you would do to stop it. Your only solution was a ban on it. Laws dont stop things. That is why we have police.

          Because you ignore God’s laws and even ridicule them. That is proof such laws could be ignored and common sense shoild tell you that if every society at that time had an economy based on slavery the ban would be ignored

          One of the laws said any slave severely injured must be set free. Since all owners would wish to avoid losing their slave most would refrain from harsh punishment rather than risk injuring and therefore losing their slave

        • No, earlier I said God could strike slave owners dead. It wouldn’t need to be all. As for the law, you ignore my logic on that: it’s better to make this clear as something God bans instead of the opposite.

          You resort to mind reading, as often happens. Does it occur to you that my issue is with the existence of God and thus any laws he issued overall?

          So if they would obey that, why not more restrictive laws? I’m not aware that God actually enforced this one either.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          “No, earlier I said God could strike slave owners dead. It wouldn’t need to be all”

          Oh please. We both know you don’t believe that. If you did then you would support capital punishment which i strongly suspect you dont.

          Do you?

        • Why does that matter to the hypothetical? I never said that was the only possible way God could crack down on slavery, just that ‘s one, as you denied it was even a possibility. My own preference is not relevant. Perhaps you could focus on the question, rather than guessing what my views are on capital punishment or anything else. Assuming you want to abandon this whole thing though, I’d be fine with that as well.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You are saying God could stop slavery yet you cannot explain how He could do so without either denying free will or passing some horrific judgement on his people.

          My guess on your views and your refusal to define them shows two things. My guess was correct and you are offering “solutions” that you don’t think would work. This shows you know God could not do what you insist He could in that situation without making things worse yet you are still going to insist He could to support your religious beliefs.

        • Why is passing such a judgment bad when the Bible portrays him doing that multiple times?

          More attempted mind-reading, which is not relevant. I could do the same, but I’m not going to. So now I do think we’re done.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I don’t think old Luther is the sharpest tool in the box. He’s happy to put human restrictions on his god to suit his argument, while ignoring the obvious. Thick as pigshit comes immediately to mind.

        • I prefer not to get personal, but he went there. So yes, there is a certain obstinance I see in him (and have many times before). I doubt anything I’ve said here has made a dent in his worldview.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh he’s dripping in obstinance and a refusal to see the forest for the trees.

          I can’t help it, when I see rank stupidity in action, I can’t bite my tongue. Not that am the sharpest tool in the box either mind you. So a get more embarrassed when someone is being so obviously dishonest and more stupid than even I am.

        • I’ve just got to stop getting into these discussions. They go nowhere.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I understand yer frustration.

          But there are the lurkers to think of, so shining the light on such stupid fuckwittery isn’t always about the knuckle-dragging Christer. I’ve gotten so much information reading such interactions in the past. I started off on the RDFRS forum circa 15 years ago and did much lurking before getting the minerals to comment.

          Luther has me blocked…along with a number of others, but who cares, his shite still deserves answering, even if he can’t see it himself. He was never here to learn anything in the first place.

        • Perhaps so, but it’s tiring for me.

        • Greg G.

          He was never here to learn anything in the first place.

          Nor has he been anywhere else to learn something in quite some time.

        • Huh? Killing 2% of slave owners and making clear that the way to avoid being killed is to not be in the class of slave owner is less humane than letting slavery continue?

          And I only mention the killing slave owners as an option because that’s what’s on the table. There would be lots of even better solutions to slavery. Your god couldn’t think of any of them.

          An easy out for you is to recognize that “God” evolved with time. In much of the OT, he wasn’t omnipotent.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          When ypu mentiom killing slave owners as an optiom for ending slavery that assumes that this killing is more moral than the slavery itself.

          Do you believe that?

        • Where do you see the balance point? If enslaving someone for their entire life is a crime of magnitude X and killing a slave owner is a crime of magnitude Y, how many Xs make a Y?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          As far as i know no society has ever prescribed the dearh penalty for slavery. How do you consider your support of such a policy morally superior to God’s policy concerning slavery?

        • That’s OK. If you can’t answer my question, just say so. No need to change the subject.

        • Greg G.

          God prescribed the death penalty for the guilty party and all of their descendants just for eating a fruit.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Insolent children were to be killed too.

        • Greg G.

          I don’t get argumentative on Facebook very often but a friend posted something about Pat Robertson mentioning that. A woman I do not know replied to my friend that old Pat was crazy and that her Bible didn’t say that.

          I couldn’t resist asking if she cut out the Deuteronomy passage (cited book, chapter, and verses, too lazy to look up now) and Exodus 21:15. I agreed with her that Pat was crazy but he was right about that.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’ve just been watching this debate between Dr. Hector Avalos and Keith Darrel, and am speechless at the fuckwittery of Darrel.

          http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2012/04/dr-hector-avalos-vs-keith-darrel-is.html

        • Ignorant Amos

          Poor LD is painted into a corner. It doesn’t matter one iota that we mere mortals can’t say how we’d fix it, we can, his position is fucked.

          If any god can say x, y, and z is bad, don’t do it or the punishment is death. The same god can also say a, b, and c are bad, don’t do it or the punishment is death.

          Not only did his god not say a, b, and c are bad, don’t do it or the punishment is death, but his god said here’s how a, b, and c is to be done and here’s my help to do it…in the silly book at least.

          LD is trying to defend the indefensible and demonstrating what a sad bastard he is in the process. He isn’t even very good at it as apologists go ffs. Deplorable is a spot on moniker.

        • I wonder if there’s any cognitive dissonance in his mind, or if he thinks that he actually is the sensible one in this conversation.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh there is a boat load of cognitive dissonance in that Dime Bar, for sure.

          The God Virus is strong in that one.

        • It is curious that we don’t see more of a Haggard’s Law* analog, where the more crazy you wuv Jeebus, the more shaky your belief. (Or maybe we do.)

          *The more anti-gay your actions, the more gay you’re trying to cover up.

        • Greg G.

          Somebody seems to have effectively banned tickling oneself. If God did that then he could also ban murder and stop it. Why has God limited our free will to tickle ourselves?

        • Ignorant Amos

          BTW How did God’s ban on murder work out?

          Like all the gods bannings ever…not very well. Still, omniscient gods should know that, but still, the bannings were made. Just not one that banned slavery, genocide, or the capturing of girl virgins to be used as sex slaves or peado rape wives, for that there was instructions and help on how to do it properly.

    • The Old Testament doesn’t support slavery. It places restrictions on it.

      That sounds like support to me. God could’ve prohibited slavery in at least one of the versions of the 10 Cs (or elsewhere). Or, he could’ve allowed it. That he put rules in place makes clear which route he took.

      it also allows divorce even though God has made his disapproval of it known in the same scripture.

      I thought the OT references to divorce made it pretty easy (for the man, anyway). Deut. 24:1, for example. Seems pretty straightforward, and no disapproval from God is apparent.

      • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

        I am sure there are quite a few Republican candidates that will be happy to know they can still say they support abortion rights even though they want to put numerous restrictions on it. Thanks.

        • Yeah, this is a common problem. Christians not really understanding what “omnipotent” means. I get this a lot–no worries.

          God can do anything. He could poof slavery out of existence, or he could make clear that it was forbidden. He listed some forbidden things in the 10 Commandments, as you’ll recall. And yet he didn’t either poof or forbid. Therefore, he’s A-OK with slavery for life.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I understand omnipotent. Do you understand”free will”? Why is it so many supposed Free Thinkers believe an omnipotent being cannot bestow free will on his creation?

          Noting said Free Will it is far more constructive to place limitations on something that will actually be observed than it is to ban something and have the ban ignored

          As an example do you think prohibition era speak bars were overly concerned with underage girls drinking there?

        • I understand omnipotent. Do you understand”free will”?

          I do. God could’ve just said, “Wow–they’re murdering, lying, and stealing a lot. I really ought to stop that, but that would step on their free will. Oh, God, what should I do??” But no, he didn’t dither. He said, “No murder. Also, no lying or stealing. Any questions?”

          So “but what about free will???” doesn’t really fly.

          God’s a take-charge kinda guy. I like that. And “take charge” in the context of slavery meant, for him, to regulate it. He’s fine with it, as long as a few ground rules are followed.

          do you think prohibition era speak bars were overly concerned with underage girls drinking there?

          You mean a speakeasy? No, I don’t suppose they were concerned about underage, since there was no such concept (it was illegal for anyone to drink alcohol). But I’m not sure what your point is. You do see the difference between the federal government saying “no alcohol” and God saying “no slavery,” right?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          No society is going to question laws about murder and theft. No Bronze Age society would give up slavery. Thus banning it would either mean having His people turning their backs on His laws or being forced to bring divine retribution against them and kill off multitudes of them.

          My point is that with the END of prohibition drinking age laws were established. Obviously they would not have worked during prohibition. Soooooo, prohibition didn’t work and placing limits on drinking did. See my point now?

        • No society is going to question laws about murder and theft.

          Yeah. So much for the brilliant, break-the-mold status of the 10 Cs. Why bother, amirite? God should’ve focused on the ones that weren’t obvious, like genocide, polygamy, and slavery.

          No Bronze Age society would give up slavery.

          Unless an omnipotent god told them to. You’ve read Job, right? God made very clear who was boss.

          Thus banning it would either mean having His people turning their backs on His laws or being forced to bring divine retribution against them and kill off multitudes of them.

          Golly. We underestimate how tough it must be dealing with thorny human problems when you’re omnipotent and omniscient. How many sleepless nights God must’ve endured.

          My point is that with the END of prohibition drinking age laws were established. Obviously they would not have worked during prohibition. Soooooo, prohibition didn’t work and placing limits on drinking did. See my point now?

          Nope.

          I do suspect, though, that my response, once I figure out what you’re trying to say, will have something to do with God being omnipotent vs. man being not.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          What do you mean “Nope”? You honestly think age restrictions on drinking would have worked during prohibition?

          You seem to have degenerated into flat out denial and i suspect further discussion will be a waste of time. Thanks for the conversation

        • You focus on one word? Was the rest of my comment just too hot to handle?

          What do you mean “Nope”? You honestly think age restrictions on drinking would have worked during prohibition?

          Nope. Not what I said.

          You asked, “See my point now?” My answer: Nope. I assumed you’d explain what you were trying to say. I guess not.

          i suspect further discussion will be a waste of time.

          I’m sure you’re right.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Ok. Let me try again. Passing laws like prohibition of alcohol or slavery that people will ignore does no good

          Placing restrictions on things that will be followed does do good.

          Was that more clear?

        • Yes, clearer. Thanks.

          Passing laws like prohibition of alcohol or slavery that people will ignore does no good

          Legislatures pass laws. There are ways to enforce, but civil government is imperfect and limited. Gods dictate rules, and they have a much broader palette of options. Big, big difference.

          The idea that God’s hands are tied by anything, including current customs, is ridiculous. Why are the atheists forever having to explain to the Christians what omnipotent and omniscient mean? I mean, yeah, God gives absolutely no indication of having these properties or of even existing, but you’ve saddled yourself with having to defend this characterization of God.

          Lord knows he won’t.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Given tbis nations technology we are nearly omnipotent when compared to the African states still practicing slavery.

          Do you advocate bombing them until they stop?

        • epeeist

          Given tbis nations technology we are nearly omnipotent when compared to the African states still practicing slavery.

          Doesn’t need anything more than this:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsKOYQ7z9CE

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          A bird?

        • epeeist

          A bird?

          Just pointing out the standard behaviour, having no response to the point that was being made you simply indulge in whataboutery.

          Oh, there is no such thing as “nearly omnipotent” , an entity either is omnipotent or it is not.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          The way i see it that is you. I am pointing out these individuals are saying God should have done something when at the same time they would say it was wrong for us to do the exact same thing today.

          So in response to my pointing out their hypocrisy you post a Simpsons video to distract from it

          Whataboutism my ass.

        • Greg G.

          No, you are asking why humans don’t resort to violence. An benevolent omnipotence has lots of options that are not available to humans. Your imaginary god thingy can do anything, remember?

        • epeeist

          I am pointing out these individuals are saying God should have done
          something when at the same time they would say it was wrong for us to do
          the exact same thing today.

          If you are going to try for an argument from analogy you really ought to have more similarities than differences.

          Are we omnipotent? No. Are we omniscient? No. Are we omni-benevolent? No. Yet your god supposedly has all these properties.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Then what, in His omnipotence, could or should He have done?

        • epeeist

          Then what, in His omnipotence, could or should He have done?

          Nice try, but the Christian god isn’t just omnipotent but is also omni-benevolent.

          A god with both of these properties would not only wish to eliminate suffering but would have the power to do it.

          Imagine a world with such a god and compare it to ours where we have things like hydranencephaly and the Loa-loa worm.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          If you have no answers yourself and you still criticize the efforts that others make then nobody really cares about your whining

          Have a nice day.

        • epeeist

          nobody really cares about your whining

          In my experience the person who resorts to abusive ad hominem usually does so because they do not have an argument.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You are complaining about injustice, insisting that something more could be done, and then coming up empty handed when asked specifically what you would do that is better

          If that isnt whining what is? Further you are saying that I have no argument when you claim a better solution exists that you cant even define. That is an empty argument

        • epeeist

          You are complaining about injustice, insisting that something more could be done, and then coming up empty handed when asked specifically what you would do that is better

          You seem to have missed the fact that I am neither omnipotent nor omni-benevolent.

          Further you are saying that I have no argument when you claim a better solution exists that you cant even define.

          You have no counter to the fact that an omni-benevolent entity would seek to eliminate suffering and being omnipotent would have the power to do so. So why do we not have a world without suffering?

        • Pofarmer

          So why do we not have a world without suffering?

          Place yer bets folks. Will Ed play the Get out of Jail Free card?

        • Greg G.

          I see Deplorable played the Get Out of Jail Free Will card.

        • Pofarmer

          Indeed.

        • epeeist

          Place yer bets folks.

          It’s betting on a sure thing though, isn’t it.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You seem to miss the fact that you are still engaged in the logical fallacy of special pleading. God could stop it but He would either have to eliminate free will or do horrific things to offenders. You know this and so you refuse to answer what you think He should have done. Answering would disprove your point.

        • Greg G.

          What if God just eliminated the unnecessary suffering? But “necessary” suffering would have to do something that is logically possible to do that does not inhibit free will that God cannot do. In that case, God is not omnipotent. So if God is omnipotent, all suffering is unnecessary which makes your free will argument irrelevant.

          Deplorable says he blocked me so feel free to post this to him.

        • epeeist

          you are still engaged in the logical fallacy of special pleading.

          Nope, simply pointing out the consequences of defining into existence an entity that is both omnipotent and omni-benevolent.

          God could stop it but He would either have to eliminate free will or do horrific things to offenders.

          Your god told you this personally I presume.

          But of course you have missed out the third attribute of your omni-maximal god, namely omniscience. If your god knows everything that is logically possible to know then how can we have free will?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          No, you are arguing a Strawman. Nobody says the God who flooded the Earth is omnibenevolent.

        • Greg G.

          Nobody says the God who flooded the Earth is omnibenevolent.

          Ah ha ha ha ha! You do not have a large circle of Christian acquaintances.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Just another liar for Jesus pious fraud.

        • epeeist

          Nobody says the God who flooded the Earth is omnibenevolent.

          Fine, your version of god is not omni-benevolent. Before we move on could you tell us:

          1. Whether your god is omnipotent

          2. Whether it is omniscient

          3. Whether it is triune (father, son and paraclete).

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Yes God is omnipotent
          Yes God is omniscient
          No restricting something is not supporting it
          No God will not use His omnipotence to deny our Free Will
          No passing a law does not stop all crime
          No capital punishment does not stop all crime
          Yes restrictions that are observed are superior to bans that are ignored
          No there were no societies at that time that either didnt practice slavery or would abandon it.
          Yes saying there is an answer but you dont have to explain it is special pleading.
          Yes making an assertion without support as just described is proof by assertion

        • epeeist

          Yes God is omnipotent

          Yes God is omniscient

          So in a situation where there are multiple possible alternatives can your god choose which alternative to take?

          No God will not use His omnipotence to deny our Free Will

          Omnipotence is irrelevant here, what is important is omniscience. GIven your claim that your god is omniscient then it will know with certainty the choice we will make in any situation where there are alternatives. Thus we cannot have free will.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          How exactly does knowing what someone will do negate the fact that they chose to do it?

        • epeeist

          Why won’t you answer the first question I put to you?

          “[I]n a situation where there are multiple possible alternatives can your god choose which alternative to take?”

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Of course He can.

          How does God knowing what choice you will make take away your ability to choose?

        • Greg G.

          It is a Hobson’s choice situation. You really only have one choice, the one God knows.

          Hobson sold horses. You could have any horse in the barn you wanted as long as it was the one closest to the door.

        • Michael Neville

          Actually Hobson rented horses.

        • Greg G.

          I was debating myself whether it was renting or selling. I learned it in Philosophy 101 forty years ago. If only Monty Python had included Hobson in The Philosophers Song I would have remembered. I blame John Cleese.

        • Michael Neville

          Thomas Hobson (1544-1631) wasn’t a philosopher, he ran a livery stable near Cambridge University. When the young men would rent his horses they’d always choose the best ones so the good ones got overused and the poorer horses were underused. Hobson decided to rotate his horses around and if you rented one you got the one by the door. So the horse you got wasn’t your choice but Hobson’s choice.

        • epeeist

          You know you really ought not to get so tensed up.

          If we were talking about people I would agree with you. However we are discussing your god, an entity that is, according to you, omniscient. An omniscient entity will know, with certainty, what your “choice” will be and cannot be wrong, this means that your choice isn’t really a choice at all since the outcome is already known.

          The same argument applies to “choices” taken by your god, being omniscient it knows with certainty what action it will take and it cannot be wrong. This being so then your go cannot be omnipotent since it cannot freely choose.

          If you want to argue it the other way, that your god is omnipotent and can therefore freely chose then this means that it cannot know which action it will take, therefore it is not omniscient.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          An omniscient entity will know, with certainty, what your “choice” will be and cannot be wrong, this means that your choice isn’t really a choice at all since the outcome is already known
          ———
          Why wouldn’t it be. He still hasn’t made you choose anything

        • Greg G.

          How can you choose what Omniscience knows you won’t choose? It you actually had a choice, there would be no omniscience.

        • epeeist

          Let’s try a different approach.

          Libertarian free will (nothing to do with political libertarianism) requires that in an unconstrained situation an agent is able to choose freely from a set of alternatives.

          For example, to get to Manchester from where I live I can choose either to drive or take the train. Which I choose is purely up to me, my choice is not known nor is it determined.

          If it was the case that I drove to Manchester because the train was cancelled then this would not be a free choice.

          I would contend that if an omniscient entity exists then there is no such thing as an “unconstrained situation” since this entity already knows which alternative I will take, it essentially cancels all the alternatives but the one that I actually take.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          This same type of confusion is evident in people who confuse equality under the law with equality of outcome. Freedom does not mean you get whatever you want. It means the powers that be do not interfere with your decisions.

        • epeeist

          It means the powers that be do not interfere with your decisions.

          I really don’t know how to make this simpler.

          1. If I have free will then determinism is false;

          2. If there exists an omniscient entity then determinism is true.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I don’t know how to make this more clear. Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy

        • epeeist

          Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy

          Assertion isn’t a proof at all. But there again I wasn’t trying to make a proof, just to make things as simple as possible.

          If you want to know why free will implies indeterminism then I suggest this article on incompatibilism (libertarian free will is incompatibilist). It is much fuller treatment than I can give in a combox. If books are more your thing then there are good treatments in Robert Nozick’s Philosophical Explanations or Peter van Imwagen’s Metaphysics.

          As for 2., it is necessarily true that an omniscient being knows everything that it is possible to know. In other words this entity never gains new knowledge, this being so then nothing can change which would undermine that knowledge, this implies determinism.

        • MR

          As for 2., it is necessarily true that an omniscient being knows everything that it is possible to know. In other words this entity never gains new knowledge, this being so then nothing can change which would undermine that knowledge, this implies determinism.

          Ah, you just really clarified this for me, thank you!

        • epeeist

          There is a way out of it, if this entity existed within time then it would gain new knowledge as time passed (assuming that time does exist).

          However this isn’t available to LD since his god exists outside of space and time (whatever that means).

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You stated your opinion as fact. That is the logical fallacy of proof by assertion. If you wish to avoid this try a qualifier such as “I believe” Of course at that point i will respond “I don’t because…” and your lack of support for your sssertion will be evident

          I prefer to debate with people rather than articles. I find articles dont respond to critique well. That being said i can refute the basic premise by pointing out that hindsight, while 20/20, still does not negate the free will of the people in the past.

        • epeeist

          You stated your opinion as fact.

          Opinion? And yet I have given my reasoning

          I prefer to debate with people rather than articles.

          So what are you saying here, that you don’t click on links that haven’t been blessed by Jesus or that you didn’t understand what the article was saying?

          while 20/20, still does not negate the free will of the people in the past.

          So, you are asserting that people in the past had free will, pot meet kettle I rather think.

          Let’s try and make it easy for you (difficult I know):

          P1: If I have free will then I am a causal agent
          P2: If I am a causal agent then my choices cannot be known
          C: If my choices cannot be known then an omniscient entity cannot exist

          P1: If an omniscient entity exists then it knows what actions I will take
          P2: if my actions are known then I am not a causal agent
          C: If I am not a causal agent then I do not have free will

        • Ignorant Amos

          …or that you didn’t understand what the article was saying?

          That one, that one, definitely that one.

          Too many big words and the inability to use a dictionary am betting.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I dont know what your link says as Android and this forum dont play well together. Nevertheless, you offered no support in that post. You merely stated your opinion as fact.

          I’m saying that if you found a talking point in some link then post the idea and dont expect me to figure out what you are trying to say. I can put ideas in my own words. Why can’t you?

          What is the difference between my knowing what someone did in the past and some omniscient being knowing what they will do in the future? How does one negate free will when in both cases the person in question will make the same decision regardless?

        • epeeist

          I dont know what your link says as Android and this forum dont play well together.

          And yet I seem to have no problem using my tablet with this site.

          some omniscient being knowing what they will do in the future?

          So what are you saying here, that your god is anchored in time, that it doesn’t know what will happen in the future?

          I note you have no comment as to my two little syllogisms.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Click.on the link and see if it loads. It wont for me.

          You are answering a sentence fragment taken out of context so you can argue a Strawman.

          How dishonest can you be?

        • epeeist

          Click.on the link and see if it loads.

          Clicking on the link to my post on my Android tablet returns my post, clicking on the link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy returns the page on incompatibilism and non-deterministic theories of free will.

          How dishonest can you be?

          I think what is dishonest is not answering the questions that are put to you.

          EDIT: I should add, because I don’t trust Google and because I run the same browser on multiple devices I use FIrefox as my browser with the Privacy Badger and HTTPS Everywhere extensions.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’ve just tried it on my 2016 Google Android Nexus 7 tablet which is ancient by current standards and running an old version of Android Marshmallow 6.0.1 version OS. There is no problem clicking your link and being directed to the SEP page.

          There’s dishonesty about for sure…but I think the article is way too highbrow for LD. He is struggling with the idiots versions you’ve already provided in the comboxes ffs.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Would you mind reposting your question? My cheap phone will not allow me to view your comment in the thread by pressing view

        • epeeist

          Let’s go back to the properties of your god, so far you have stated that it is omnipotent and omniscient but not omni-benevolent.

          Let ‘s ask, is your god outside space and time or within it?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          My God created the universe. He is therefore outside of spacetime.

          As far as omnibenevolent I believe that God is perfect in His goodness. That would make Him omnibenevolent as per the definition i have found

        • epeeist

          He is therefore outside of spacetime.

          So given that your god is a) omnipotent; b) omniscient and; c) outside of space and time then how do reconcile this with us having free will?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Easy. They have no relation to each other.

          God can do whatever He wants. That doesn’t affect your ability to make your own decisions.

          He knows everything from our entire spacetime because He views it all from outside of it as if it has already happened. This is no different than you knowing what people did in the past. Again, it has no effect on your ability to make independent decisions.

        • Greg G.

          He knows everything from our entire spacetime because He views it all from outside of it as if it has already happened.

          That isn’t so easy. If God sees everything as if it has already happened, then everything has happened. It only appears to us that we make our own decisions. It is like when we watch a movie and a character makes a decision to do something. The character isn’t making a decision and there are no options to do anything but what is recorded.

          Edited for HTML.

        • epeeist

          God can do whatever He wants. That doesn’t affect your ability to make your own decisions.

          This has nothing to do with the subject in hand.

          He knows everything from our entire spacetime because He views it all from outside of it as if it has already happened.

          So let’s consider this. Given that your god knows everything in our entire space-time then everything in our space time must be determined. If everything is determined then we cannot be causal agents. If we are not causal agents we do not have free will.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You brought up omnipotence. Dont ask me about it and then say it has “nothing to do with the subject at hand”

          Yes, from God’s point of view, outside of our spacetime, you have already made any decisions you have and will make. So what? You made them.

          Again, the past is also “predetermined” from the perspective of the present. The present is either undetermined or predetermined depending on your relativistic perspective

          Your argument is based on Newtonian Spacetime. It was incorrect as proved by Einstein. Time is relativistic, but causality remains

        • epeeist

          The present is either undetermined or predetermined depending on your relativistic perspective

          But you said your god is outside of space-time, so a “relativistic perspective” does not apply.

          Your argument is based on Newtonian Spacetime.

          It is? And you determined this how?

          Time is relativistic, but causality remains

          If you really want to go down this route then I am happy to talk about block universes, which is what Einstein’s theory implies.

          But again, given that your god is outside of space time then relativistic time and causality are irrelevant.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          One’s perspective is relative to their location

          If an argument relies on time being linear and unchanging it is Newtonian

          This all boils down to a conflation of knowledge and cause

        • epeeist

          One’s perspective is relative to their location

          It is? How exactly?

          But as such, it is still irrelevant since your god is outside of space-time, therefore it doesn’t have a location.

          If an argument relies on time being linear and unchanging it is Newtonian.

          Oh, I know that Newton posited absolute space and time, but where in my posts do I rely on that?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          One’s perspective is relative to their location
          ———–
          It is? How exactly?
          =======
          Seriously? I give up. Have a nice day

        • epeeist

          Seriously? I give up.

          Of course you do in that you have no response to the questions I am putting you.

          Given my background (I was a physicist) I am quite happy to talk about Ricci and stress-energy tensors and block universes and the like. I am equally happy to point out that that there are no privileged frames of reference and, to invoke the Copernican principle, that there are no privileged observers. These rather undermine your claim that “one’s perspective is relative to their location” .

          But even if it were true then it only applies to entities within the universe and, according to you, your god is outside of space-time.

          TL;DR? You can have an omniscient entity or free will, you can’t have both.

        • Greg G.

          But as such, it is still irrelevant since your god is outside of space-time, therefore it doesn’t have a location.

          If a god thingy is outside of space and time, how can it be omnipresent in space and time?

        • epeeist

          how can it be omnipresent in space and time?

          I’d have to go with what Faith Reasoner said the other day, “It is amazing. But not totally mysterious, since it is similar to an ability He has given us.” Of course his response was complete garbage.

          I have to wonder whether people have thought about the implications of giving their god even a single omni- property, never mind make it omni-maximal. They are constantly having to shore things up with ad hoc auxiliaries in order to protect the whole thing dissolving into incoherence.

        • Faith Reasoner

          My God is outside of time, and is effectively interactive within time. He (and/or She) is the origin of all genuine benevolence, knowledge and power, so possesses the traditional omnis in that sense.

          Investing entities in the created order with genuine freedom leads to non-benevolent intentions and actions by some, but God’s benevolence guarantees justice. Those who committed or permitted harms they could easily have avoided will suffer exactly what harms they committed or permitted.

          All who have suffered injustice will be fully compensated. Skeptics are free to doubt this, but it responds to the accusation of non-benevolence.

        • epeeist

          My God is outside of time, and is effectively interactive within time.

          That’s clever, how does it do that exactly?

          He (and/or She) is the origin of all genuine benevolence, knowledge and power, so possesses the traditional omnis in that sense.

          So both omnipotent and omniscient. Given that it is also outside of time then how do you square this with human free will?

        • Faith Reasoner

          “That’s clever, how does it do that exactly?”

          It is amazing. But not totally mysterious, since it is similar to an ability He has given us. We imagine things in our dreams, and they are experientially real for us. Likewise, God has eternally imagined, like a memory or a recalling of a memory, the entire extent of the universe of space and time, of mind and matter, in a single, completed thought, co-eternal with Him. Our own experience is what He imagines for us, and His own experience, as compartmentalized for our role, becomes ours in time. He reserves for His avatar, His Logos, the powers appropriate for His temporal presence.

          “So both omnipotent and omniscient. Given that it is also outside of time then how do you square this with human free will?”

          Our will faithfully expresses our own values and priorities. Call that free or not, I don’t care. It is definitely our choice, our accountability.

          And in my theology, it doesn’t matter if God foresees all. He certainly knows all as it happens, including our intentions.

        • Greg G.

          We imagine things in our dreams, and they are experientially real for us.

          But they are not real. We can tell because of evidence. Which is the problem with your analogy. You must substitute the imaginary experiential for the evident.

        • Faith Reasoner

          “But they are not real. We can tell because of evidence. Which is the problem with your analogy. You must substitute the imaginary experiential for the evident.”

          It is not merely an analogy. Experience is the basis, the only basis, for our inferences about reality. Experiences are essentially mental. Reality is in the eternal Mind. Our share of that is given substance directly from that eternal foundation, moment by moment, continuously.

          The necessity of material objects is secondary, even making material reality superfluous, as Bishop Berkeley observed, illusory, as Hinduism observes, and unknowable, as Kant observed.

          No. My point was not an analogy, but a reference to the mechanism by which we have our experiences, per se.

        • Greg G.

          Experiences are essentially mental. Reality is in the eternal Mind.

          There is a non sequitur in there. You also left out that imagination is completely mental.

          We can work out models of our shared reality. Our senses work on a small sample of the reality around us but we can build instruments to detect what is outside of our sensory window. Much of that involves imagination that can be tested.

          Religion, on the other hand, is defined as being untestable, either at the outset or when they find that the evidence they imagined isn’t there. Appeals to the supernatural realm are attempts to exempt precious beliefs from scrutiny. Often it involves vigorous hand-waving.

          No. My point was not an analogy, but a reference to the mechanism by which we have our experiences, per se.

          You have no mechanism to distinguish experience of reality from imagination.

        • Faith Reasoner

          “You have no mechanism to distinguish experience of reality from imagination.”

          I have the same tests you have: intelligibility and systematic coherence.

        • Greg G.

          A fictional story can have intelligibility and systematic coherence. Doesn’t make it a true story.

          How did you test the bit about justice and compensation for suffering? How could that idea be falsified if it were not true?

        • Faith Reasoner

          “A fictional story can have intelligibility and systematic coherence. Doesn’t make it a true story.”

          No. A book cannot have systematic coherence, because you can set it aside, physically, and experience other things. By “systematic coherence” I intend exhaustiveness, completeness.

          If you never wake up from your final dream, your rational final state is to consider your dream to be the entirety of reality for your part of time and space. Exhaustiveness and non-contradiction are essential when we infer reality from experience.

        • Faith Reasoner

          “Religion, on the other hand, is defined as being untestable… ”

          Hahahaha.

          No.

        • Faith Reasoner

          “You also left out that imagination is completely mental.”

          Uh, no.

          The completely mental nature of imagination is part of my explicit statement.

        • Greg G.

          The completely mental nature of imagination is part of my explicit statement.

          Is it in “Experiences are essentially mental.” If not, I do not see it. If so, you are failing to distinguish imaginary experience from not imaginary experience.

        • Faith Reasoner

          Experiences are essentially mental. A given, I believe.

          Imagination is part of what we experience. By definition.

          Imagination is acknowledged to be a subset of our experiences.

          All sane adults are able to distinguish imaginations from the remainder of their experiences.

          Now, do you have any serious questions?

        • Greg G.

          And in my theology

          I think that your theology is preferable to the theology of the Westboro Baptist Church but how can we determine whether your theology is true and theirs is not.

        • Faith Reasoner

          Study. Learn the classics of metaphysics, logic. I recommend philosophy of mind, philosophy of science.

          Parmenides, Philo, Berkeley, Personalism and Absolute Idealism on metaphysical concepts. Aristotle and Gordon Clark on Logic. Karl Popper and Jeff Bub on philosophy of science.

        • epeeist

          We imagine things in our dreams, and they are experientially real for us.

          Except of course that they are not. I keep saying it, but if you want to make an argument from analogy you really do need to make sure there are more similarities than differences.

          Likewise, God has eternally imagined, like a memory or a recalling of amemory, the entire extent of the universe of space and time

          And you know this how precisely?

          And in my theology, it doesn’t matter if God foresees all.

          But if your god foresees all then it knows exactly what will happen in any situation. in other words we are not causal agents and hence do not have free will.

        • Faith Reasoner

          “I keep saying it, but if you want to make an argument from analogy…”

          I didn’t. There was no analogy, but a recognized process.

          “But if your god foresees all then it knows exactly what will happen in any situation. in other words we are not causal agents and hence do not have free will.”

          I corrected your error earlier. I haven’t seen anything disputing my reasoning.

        • Greg G.

          God’s benevolence guarantees justice.

          All who have suffered injustice will be fully compensated.

          If those who suffered are fully compensated, then what is the point of the justice but unnecessary revenge and unnecessary suffering?

          How is one compensated for suffering? Any recompense could be granted without the suffering so the suffering will always be the taint of the recompense. If your god thingy “is outside of time, and is effectively interactive within time”, then it could prevent the unnecessary suffering in the first place and remove the taint.

          Omnipotence: the ability to do everything that is logically possible to do.
          Omnibenevolence: to be consistently benevolent at all times.

          If suffering is necessary, it must do something that is logically possible to do but cannot be done independently by your god thingy. If there is a logically possible thing to do then your god thingy is not omnipotent, even by the weakest definition of omnipotence. If your god thingy can do that logically possible thing, then all suffering is unnecessary which means it is no better than almost omnibenevolent, which means not omnibenevolent.

          Since suffering exists, there is no entity that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

        • Faith Reasoner

          “If those who suffered are fully compensated, then what is the point of the justice but unnecessary revenge and unnecessary suffering?”

          I didn’t claim there is any purpose. Justice is an innate concept requiring proportional penalty, proportional compensation. Why should the completion of justice serve another purpose?

          It is certainly convenient for mankind that strict delivery of justice trains bad individuals to be better.

          But I, for one, am certainly motivated in my own lifetime by the prospect of justice which I know will certainly be delivered in this life or the next.

        • Greg G.

          It is certainly convenient for mankind that strict delivery of justice trains bad individuals to be better.

          If the punishment is in another realm, it is quite inconvenient for mankind.

          But I, for one, am certainly motivated in my own lifetime by the prospect of justice which I know will certainly be delivered in this life or the next.

          I have little desire to harm others in the first place and no desire at all to participate in the drama that would ensue. I enjoy the inherent pleasure of helping others that apparently comes from our monkey ancestors.

        • Faith Reasoner

          “If the punishment is in another realm, it is quite inconvenient for mankind.”

          Presently inconvenient for the victims, convenient for the oppressors. But that other realm is our eternal home, so it will be eternally relevant.

          “I have little desire to harm others in the first place and no desire at all to participate in the drama that would ensue. I enjoy the inherent pleasure of helping others that apparently comes from our monkey ancestors.”

          Good. That is my attitude, and it is the attitude of all of my friends.

        • Greg G.

          Presently inconvenient for the victims, convenient for the oppressors. But that other realm is our eternal home, so it will be eternally relevant.

          How do you test that? How could that idea be falsified if it were not true?

          Good. That is my attitude, and it is the attitude of all of my friends.

          Excellent! But you do not need to be afraid of a next life.

        • Faith Reasoner

          “Excellent! But you do not need to be afraid of a next life.”

          I’m not.

        • Faith Reasoner

          “If suffering is necessary, it must do something that is logically possible to do but cannot be done independently by your god thingy. If there is a logically possible thing to do then your god thingy is not omnipotent, even by the weakest definition of omnipotence.”

          It is not logically possible for moral failure both to occur at some time and to never occur.

          But my definition of “omnipotence” simply asserts that all power originates from God. Even granting creatures autonomy for a finite period of time, fully observed, fully accountable to Him.

          Your definition of “omnipotence” depends ironically on your assumption that God is *unable* to grant genuine autonomy for any period of time.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You merely stated your opinion as fact.

          Spoiiiing-ty-spoiiing, spoiiing, spoing…goes another boat load of meters.

        • MR

          =D

        • Faith Reasoner

          “P2: If I am a causal agent then my choices cannot be known”

          Can’t be known? Ever?!!

          And if being known after the event doesn’t make your choice unfree, solely because it does not influence your choice, how can foreknowledge without interference make you unfree?!!

          It cannot.

        • Faith Reasoner

          So if incompatibilism is true, you are correct, but if compatibilism is true, you are wrong. People make choices based on who they are – their values, priorities, habits. How they came to have those predisposing attributes doesn’t change their freedom.

        • Billions of Christians actually do say that the God who flooded the Earth is omnibenevolent. You ought to get out more.

          So you’re saying that God in your conception isn’t omnibenevolent?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I guess that depends on the definition. I had assumed it to mean benevolent to everyone. Looking it up the definition is more like the sum of everything good. I agree with that.

        • Then what were you mean by, “Nobody says the God who flooded the Earth is omnibenevolent”?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          The first definition

        • Ah, very helpful. Much clearer–transparently so. Very good, thanks.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ya forgot the snark tags //s

        • I thought that I wouldn’t need them, but you’re probably right. “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” (Albert Einstein)

        • Ignorant Amos

          The wooden one hasn’t a Scooby what he means…it says something when he doesn’t know the meaning of omnibenevolent and had to look it up ffs.

        • Greg G.

          Omnibenevolent means benevolent all the time. If God was ever not benevolent, then it would be almost omnibenevolent, which means “not omnibenevolent”.

        • Ignorant Amos

          God could stop it but He would either have to eliminate free will or do horrific things to offenders.

          Yah mean like a bit of smoting?

          YahwehJesus loved him some smoting.

          Burning the wrong incense was crime enough to get ones arse smoted, ask Aarons two sons

          http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_wilderness/god_kills_aarons_sons/lv10_01a.html

          …but keeping human beings as property, or killing every man, woman, and child, in a whole nation…except the girl virgins who were to be kept as sex slaves and peado rape wives, no smoting for that bad shite…no, no, no…help and assistance for that debaucherous and nefarious load of shenanigans.

          I can only think you haven’t read the bloody silly book, you show no knowledge of its contents. If you are actively ignoring the nasty bits while trying to weasel reason around them, that makes you even worse.

        • You seriously think it’s hard for ordinary humans to think up better responses than the OT God produced on the topics of slavery and genocide?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Your only suggestions have been a ban that wouldn’t work and capital punishment. I personally dont think executing people for this is the morally superior option. Apparently you do.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Apparently YahwehJesus had no problem setting out ordinances for all sorts of mundane nonsense. Don’t eat shellfish, don’t work on a particular day, don’t get tattoos or piercings, don’t wear clothes of mixed fibre, etc., there are some 613 of them. But apparently don’t keep human beings as property and don’t kill everything in other nations except the virgin girls as war booty sex slaves and peado rape wives, it just couldn’t manage. Not only could it not manage to give orders not to do those things, but it gave ordinances in how those things were to be proactively done, and gave assistance in facilitating them to be done. The only out is moral relativism, which you’ve already argued. That’s the YahwehJesus of the Christers screwed already.

        • Apparently you have little imagination to consider the ways God could get his goals achieved.

          I’ll have to explain to you one of these days what omniscient and omnipotent mean. For starters, God never fail to achieve an objective. Human recalcitrance doesn’t get in his way.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Apparently you dont understand that you are the one making the claim so you are the one with the burden of proof. Or do i have to explain special pleading again?

          Also, enough with the Strawman. I am not saying God couldn’t do it. Im saying God didn’t want to do what would be required.

        • I am not saying God couldn’t do it.

          Good. Then we’ve been in agreement through this entire tedious conversation.

          Im saying God didn’t want to do what would be required.

          Huh? God didn’t want to do what would be required to eliminate slavery in the world?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Right. Unlike you He didn’t feel capital punishment was warranted

        • So which is it then? Is God a barbarian who didn’t see any moral issue with slavery or a lazy oaf who didn’t want to get off the couch and do something about it?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Obviously every civilization that passed laws against slavery but didn’t impose a death penalty considers you the barbarian

        • Just can’t stay on topic, can you?

          You’ll never admit any weakness or error to us, I’m sure, but you might wonder to yourself what it means that you can’t engage honestly with valid concerns about how your god is convicted in your own holy book.

        • Ignorant Amos

          At least there are some theist philosophers that are honest enough to understand the problems inherent in the silly book.

          https://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/DidGodCommandGenocide.pdf

        • Interesting. I’ll take a look at that.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Dr. Hector Avalos decimates Copan’s nonsense too.

          What’s interesting is apologetics admitting to moral relativism.

          http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2008/07/paul-copans-moral-relativism-response.html

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          WTF are you talking about? The topic is your assertion that you are somehow more moral than God because you would stop slavery and He didn’t.

          Never mind that you would institute a draconian punishment that no society in the history of mankind thought was moral.

        • The topic is your assertion that you are somehow more moral than God because you would stop slavery and He didn’t.

          Yes it is. And yes I am. (And, BTW, so are you.)

          Let’s pick it up from there.

        • BlackMamba44
        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          If you think the terrible things your hypothetical girl experienced means she doesnt have free will this again demonstrates the complete lack of understanding of the concept in so many supposed Free Thinkers

          Given how common this is in antitheists I can only assume it is willful

        • BlackMamba44

          The topic is your assertion that you are somehow more moral than God because you would stop slavery and He didn’t

          .

          My post is in response to this ^^^

          Where did I say the girl doesn’t have free will? I said I am more moral than your god. Your god is more concerned with the free will of the rapist than the free will of an innocent child. I would stop the rapist like I would stop slavery. That indeed does make me more moral than your god.

          Your reading comprehension sucks. Given how common this is in theists I can only assume it is willful.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          “Your god is more concerned with the free will of the rapist than the free will of an innocent child”

          You did it again in the same post you deny doing it!

        • BlackMamba44

          Cheezus…you’re dumb.

          Where in that statement do I make the claim that the innocent child doesn’t have free will?

        • Ignorant Amos

          The dickhead doesn’t seem to realise that different Cristers have different views on Free Will.

          Generally, it is in the Christian sense is the ability to choose between good or evil. That’s not an option open to murder victims or child rape victims.

          In “On the Bondage of the Will”, Martin Luther asserts the issue was whether human beings, after the Fall of Man, are free to choose good or evil.

          He concludes they don’t.

          Luther’s response was to reason that sin incapacitates human beings from working out their own salvation, and that they are completely incapable of bringing themselves to God. As such, there is no free will for humanity because any will they might have is overwhelmed by the influence of sin.

          Different flavours of the Christian cults have varying views on Free Will, so LD is talking even more bubbles when the Coco says shite like “demonstrates the complete lack of understanding of the concept in so many supposed Free Thinkers.

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

          A bet yer not in the least bit surprised.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I have answered your post. It is pending. Apparently only Atheists get to question the intelligence of others on this board

        • MR

          Actually it’s the religious overlord Patheos who has imposed the filter that caused your post to go to pending. Bob has culled many of the more nonsensical words from the filter and some of us know how to get around it. Bob is pretty good about releasing posts that fall into the trap; but your blame is misguided, blame the religious nut jobs who run this joint. Bob just rents here.

        • Everyone’s mean to the poor Christian? You used the word “retard”; that’s why your comment was quarantined.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          But the Atheist calling me stupid is fine.

          Got it.

        • But the Christian calling the atheist a retard is fine.

          Got it.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          LMFAO. The hypocrisy doesn’t even register does it?

          YES. If the board allows an Atheist to call a Christian stupid then the Christian should not be blocked from answering in kind.

          Will i get blocked if i point out the entitled nature of the double standards?

        • ?? I’m the moderator. I allow insults in both directions (to a certain degree). I don’t give priority to atheists. Your comment was in moderation because of Patheos rules, not mine.

          No, there are no double standards, idiot. Quit whining–that might get you banned.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Ok. Maybe if you explain the difference between calling someone stupid and saying they are a retard.

        • LMFAO. The hypocrisy doesn’t even register does it?

          The atheist and the Christian are treated the same. There is no hypocrisy. Why is this hard?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Again. Maybe if you explain the difference between calling someone stupid and calling soneone retard.

        • Again. I see no difference. You charged hypocrisy, and I’m pointing out that you’re wrong.

          You’re becoming more trouble than you’re worth. You have a different perspective, so bring something interesting to the conversation.

        • MR

          Wow, this one is denser than I thought.

          Yo, LD: Deep breath, dude. Try to comprehend that this is not Bob’s doing. Sheesh.

        • Luther is walking close to the precipice. I fear that I might need to give myself a birthday present soon …

        • MR

          What I love about your presents is that it’s a gift to us all.

        • Thanks the kind of sharing guy I am. Must be how God made me. 🙂

        • Ignorant Amos

          Awk…too soon. Am just starting to enjoy this fuckwit getting tore a new one. And he brought a fan base with him, so we’re getting at least a three-fer.

        • Has the governor phoned in an 11th-hour temporary reprieve? Stay tuned!

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          If you see no difference then why was one blocked and not the other? That is an obvious difference

        • $@**%!

          Patheos installed a naughty word filter. “Retard” was in that list. “Stupid” was not.

          Fuck! (Also on the list.) Find something useful to talk about.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Lol. Thanks for the clarification. Please forgive my presumption.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Do I detect a modicum of boiling over frustration in that reply Bob?

        • Pofarmer

          You have to wonder if Luther is being difficult just for the sake of being difficult at this point.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Being a dickhead ya mean? Absolutely.

          But I still think the woo-woo is ignorant of his holy texts and well too stupid to learn how ignorant he is demonstrating to us all here.

        • Oh, pshaw. I might get a little miffed now and again. Maybe even vexed, but I draw the line at irked.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The fuckwit needs you to explain to him in better simpler comms and detail (crayon drawing?), the difference between the site moderator censoring comments, and Patheos censoring comments.

          The cretin doesn’t get it that Bob is not Patheos and Patheos is not Bob, he thinks you are one and the same.

          He doesn’t know that Patheos is an autonomous higher power which blocks comments without your say so, and initially beyond your control.

          Or you could just let him carry on making a dick of himself.

          Feel free to copy & paste this comment into one of yer own, the tit has me blocked, so can’t see it directly.

          ETA…by better, a mean simpler for him to grasp.

        • (crayon drawing?)

          There aren’t enough crayons in the universe …

          Or you could just let him carry on making a dick of himself.

          You’re an evil bastard. That’s what I like about you.

        • Greg G.

          Google advertizers do not like to pay for ads on certain types of pages. Patheos adopted that whole list of words as a filter. Many of the words are common and completely not offensive in most contexts but Patheos didn’t screen them out. They have allowed moderators to edit the list. Apparently Bob took off the word “stupid” but not “ret‌ard”.

          Too bad you are too stupid to read this.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Too bad you are too stupid to read this.

          But in being so stupid, continually performing like a dickhead. And that makes me chuckle.

          D-K in full effect…too stupid to know just how stupid he is…ha!

        • Ignorant Amos

          And get this, there is two other dickheads upvoting his stupidity…there’s the icing on the cake of the Dopey Dickhead Christer Show.

        • Greg G.

          I saw that. My first thought was socks.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That was my first thought too. The commenting styles are not the same though, not that that matters much.

        • MR

          The filter doesn’t judge between atheist/theist. Talk to the religious nut jobs who put the filter together. It wasn’t this blog.

        • Helpful. As BlackMamba mentioned, I forgot to add that it’s not me who’s the Word Nanny. Whoops.

        • BlackMamba44

          And quarantined by Disqus, not the moderator. I was going to let him know but then decided it wasn’t worth it.

        • Thanks. I should’ve made that clear.

        • BlackMamba44

          He’s been told. 🙂

        • Greg G.

          That’s by Patheos.

        • BlackMamba44

          Thanks. I couldn’t remember which one it was so I went with Disqus.

        • Greg G.

          Patheos just accepted Google’s list of words that advertizers object to without examining the content so people couldn’teven mention the Book of Job nor the word “bl‌ow” for the same reason. It was frustrating because many were common everyday words. I had a post moderated because of the word “ur‌gent” was in a quote.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Every comment I make on TP goes into moderation. Jonathan clears them pretty quick mind. I’m just too used to a bit of a free rein here a guess.

        • Greg G.

          There are just so many words on the list that are ridiculous.

          You would think I would get over “urg‌” by now but not as of yesterday or today and tomorrow doesn’t look good, either.

        • BlackMamba44

          I’m a constant lurker with occasional posts. I actually had a number of posts that never went through because of that stupid filter.

        • Greg G.

          I feel sorry for the moderators. It would become a full time job just unmoderating.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I was going to let him know but then decided it wasn’t worth it.

          Hee hee…Bob has a name for that. Join the club.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Apparently only Atheists get to question the intelligence of others on this board

          And that statement demands the questioning of your intelligence ya Dime Bar.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Your as dumb as a box of frogs.

          Reading for comprehension isn’t a skill set Christers possess…must be all that knuckle-dragging homeschooling you can’t grasp.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ya may get the crayons out and do that knuckle a drawing, he doesn’t do words at all well.

        • BlackMamba44

          Yeah, I noticed.

          I forgot how frustrating it is engaging these imbeciles.

        • Susan

          If you think the terrible things your hypothetical girl experienced means she doesnt have free will this again demonstrates the complete lack of understanding

          Explain the free will she has.

          (Note: Free will is not a justification for suffering on the life of this planet, as most life on this planet suffers and dies and has for hundreds of millions of years, without free will.

          But if you are using the “free will” defense, define it and show us how much a six-year old girl in the helpless power of a rapist has it.)

          What choices does she have?

        • Susan

          If you think the terrible things your hypothetical girl

          Hypothetical? You’re not suggesting that this isn’t a real world scenario that has happened countless times in the history of our species? For GS, there are Europen folk songs that address it that go back centuries. It’s a very old story.

          This is not a thought experiment that requires hypothetical reasoning.

          This is real life stuff, in which you are pretending a six-year old has free will, when a manipulative adult wants to do terrible things to her.

        • MR

          Hypothetical? That he would even say that. Wow, just wow.

        • Ignorant Amos

          They think it is normal behaviour. The killing and raping of children, the genocide and taking of girls as sex slaves and paedo rape wives. I’ve been engaged with Luke Breuer over on The Tippling Philosopher in this, he thinks all the bad shit is justified because that’s how YahwehJesus needed to do it to get from a to b…it’s a necessary trajectory required for less good to more good. And because the victims alternative would’ve been worse, it’s not so bad.

          It’s sophisticated apologetics a la WLC, Copan Darrel, et al ya see.

          If ya’ve the time and stomach for it…in this debate with Hector Avalos, Keith Darrel compares slaves to the imprisoned for crimes and the killing of children with justified abortions.

          http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2012/04/dr-hector-avalos-vs-keith-darrel-is.html

          Keep a sick bucket by yer side just in case.

        • BlackMamba44

          That word bothered me, too. Because I am actually that little girl, only it was a neighbor, not an uncle. And it happened only once as he while he tried he never got near me again.

        • Ignorant Amos

          …it was a neighbor…

          And a dirty stinking sick bastard who should have his balls cut off and shoved down his throat.

          Am sitting here with a tear in my eye looking at my granddaughter who will be 3 next week…I’d do time for what I’d do to any scrot that laid their hands on her…or any of the other four grand wee’ns a have too.

        • BlackMamba44

          I never told my parents. Me, my brother and this neighbor’s two sons hung out. We had stolen some of my Dad’s cigarettes and he caught us. I had shoved the cigarettes down my pants and they fell down the pants leg and he saw them. He said that if I said anything he would tell my parents that he caught us smoking. But I knew even at that age if I had told my Dad, he would have gone to jail for murder.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The dirty fecker had you censored either way ffs.

        • Pofarmer

          I’m so sorry.

        • BlackMamba44

          It’s okay now. It was a very long time ago. But to this day, it still affects me. I don’t even like it when my man gropes me and I’ve been with him 27 years.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You do understand what hypothetical means right? Apparently free will is giving you trouble.

          Let me explain. Hypothetical simply means this ia not an actual case. It does not mean such cases don’t exist.

          Free will refers to autonomy of thought. Unless you are talking about lobotomy then nobody can take away your free will by their actions.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You do understand what hypothetical means right? Apparently free will is giving you trouble.

          Spooooing-ty-spoiiiing-spooooing-spoing…goes yet another boat load of meters ffs.

          Let me explain. We all know what hypothetical means ya moron. The issue is that you don’t, and felt the need to insert the word erroneously into the conversation in an attempt to diminish the impact of the lesson in the meme, ya Dime Bar.

          Hypothetical simply means this ia not an actual case.

          No, it doesn’t. Try a dictionary. Or something.

          Hypotheticals are possible situations, statements or questions about something imaginary rather than something real. Hypotheticals deal with the concept of “what if?”‘. Grammatically, the term is a noun formed from an adjective, and the word might be pluralized because it refers to the members of a class of hypothetical things.

          Wee girls being raped by adults is a real, not any imaginary, condition.

          It does not mean such cases don’t exist.

          Oh fer fuck sake. So asinine with just one head. Flabbergasting.

          A thought experiment is a hypothetical, i.e. such cases don’t exist.

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

          Children being raped by peadophiles, isn’t.

          Free will refers to autonomy of thought.

          Ballix. There is more than one concept of Free Will ya Coco.

          That said, the one used in common parlance is about actions not thoughts.

          The term “free will” has emerged over the past two millennia as the canonical designator for a significant kind of control over one’s actions.

          https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

          The irony is, those Christers that see Free Will as merely a thought process, claim there isn’t any.

          Unless you are talking about lobotomy then nobody can take away your free will by their actions.

          You really are a cretin. So someone giving someone a frontal lobotomy is removing their Free Will? What about the victim of murder? Does a virgin being raped, not have her autonomy to think she is still a virgin removed?

          And here’s a thing, we are not free to think whatever we like or don’t like, thoughts don’t care. Am I free to unthink a thought I decide I don’t like? How would that even work?

          We’ve no more ability to control or thoughts than we have to believe things that we don’t believe in.

          Your nonsense falls apart at a certain young age. A baby rape victim doesn’t have Free Will of autonomous thought.

        • BlackMamba44

          I am that “hypothetical” little girl, asshole.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It tells us all we need to know about that oxygen thieving piece of human excrement really, doesn’t it?

        • BlackMamba44

          So does this. Deplorable is an apt description of himself. Here he is over at the FA discussion:
          Christian Mom: To Avoid Domestic Abuse, Wives Shouldn’t Be So “Quarrelsome”

          Note the second and last comment.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5a7c130189fbc1651c3543ecc68fb1bbd597e8f597c3bb3fc51ec04ef4e63957.jpg

        • Ignorant Amos

          The problem for me, is these types walk amongst us.

        • Greg G.

          The last one is a lie. His policy is to block people who respond with a third option to his false dilemma.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          No. I am sorry to hear you faced that but the hypothetical girl was in the cartoon

          Also, just because you are a victim doesn’t give you license to be an asshole to people who make truthful comments that offend you.

        • BlackMamba44

          I’m not offended by you. When you actually make a truthful comment I’ll let you know if I’m offended.

          And I’m not being an asshole to you because I’m a victim, I’m being an asshole to you because that is all you deserve, you sorry piece of victim blaming shit.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I didn’t blame any victim you lying asswipe

        • BlackMamba44

          How about you go look for the pic I posted to this comment section. You are a victim blamer.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          What does YOUR PIC have do with anything I said?

          Show me where I blamed a victim or retract your false witness.

        • BlackMamba44

          Oh, you think I’m talking about the child sex abuse pic. No, I’m talking about the comments you made over at FA regarding domestic abuse, victim blamer.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5a7c130189fbc1651c3543ecc68fb1bbd597e8f597c3bb3fc51ec04ef4e63957.jpg

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Where did I blame ANY VICTIM? Your post makes no sense.

        • Greg G.

          Just because you are an asshole doesn’t give you license to be an asshole to people who make truthful comments that offend you, either, Snowflake.

        • Greg G.

          God set the death penalty for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week but not for enslaving people for life. How is God not a barbarian?

        • Ignorant Amos

          The boy LD is crackers.

        • Greg G.

          …and getting stale.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Demonstrating that every civilisation that passed laws against slavery, but didn’t impose a death penalty, means it can be done by people, but YahwehJesus couldn’t.

          You are all over the place on this crap.

        • Susan

          He didn’t feel capital punishment was warranted.

          Yet he did in the story of the great flood, the story of Moses and the Pharaoh, the crime of picking up sticks, etc.

          Capital punishment doesn’t work but Yahwehjesus used it.

          Why not use it for slavery? Or even put something beautiful in Psalms that is eloquently anti-slavery?

          Or have Jesus point out the cruelty and waste of human resources and downright wrongness of owning humans?

          No capital punishment required.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I guess God did not think slavery warranted mass killing. If you do then i suggest you advocate our invasion of the African states that still practice it.

          Jesus summed up His instructions with two commands. Love God more than anything and love your neighbor as yourself. If you follow these instructions you won’t be raping, robbing, or enslaving people.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I guess God did not think slavery warranted mass killing.

          Or any level of killing for that matter.

          So slavery is not as bad as the thought crime of fancying ones neighbors wife, collecting sticks on a special day of the week, cursing a parent, being a false prophet (how ta fuck does that one work?)…or a number of other silly misdemeanours that are capital offences and warrant death. But not slavery. YahwehJesus sets down ordinances on how that is to be done properly. And facilitates the taking of virgins as sex slaves and peado rape wives…some morality to achieve there.

          If you do then i suggest you advocate our invasion of the African states that still practice it.

          No need. We’ve found a much better way to outlaw it than having to put slavemongers to death…most folk just think it is a deplorable thing and don’t keep human beings as property. So there are laws against it. Something YawhehJesus failed at, because…oh that’s right, the fucking imaginary character in the book is a SLAVEMONGER too. Ergo, we’re all better than your god.

          Jesus summed up His instructions with two commands. Love God more than anything and love your neighbor as yourself.

          Nah, it ain’t as simple as that. Jesus condoned keeping slaves too. Ya see, one’s neighbor in those times only stretched to members of the in-group. Even then, the Hebrews were not allowed to keep slaves from among their own, certain caveats notwithstanding, while there was no problem with Christians keeping fellow Christians as slaves in the NT.

          Loving God was enslavement in itself. God is to be worshipped as the master, bend the knee. Submission. Do as ordered.

          If you follow these instructions you won’t be raping, robbing, or enslaving people.

          And how has that been working out for you Christer fuckwits?

          And get this, those that don’t love your god aren’t going around raping, robbing, or enslaving folk any more or less than those who do, so fuck off with all of your God Virus fuckwittery.

        • Stay on topic. Whining about humans’ imaginary response to slavery isn’t the point; rather, it’s that your “omnibenevolent” god condoned slavery. What’s worse is that you are defending him–that’s what religion does to you.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Who.is whining? I am pointing out that if someone thinks God not killing slavers is immoral then obviously they believe killing them is moral.

        • No, you’re changing the subject. Your god condoned slavery. Does this position need a defense? Or are you good with that?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You are once again igmoring every argument i have made against your assertion to portray it as indisputable fact.

        • Either I’ve missed every argument you’ve made saying that it’s not or I’ve already responded. Make it again, unless I have indeed responded or it sucks.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You have responded and we are obviously not going to ever agree on this. Thank you for a lively debate.

        • Ignorant Amos

          They all sucked.

          Luther comments from a position of absolute ignorance and is too stupid to be educated.

        • Rudy R

          So it’s your argument that your god doesn’t endorse slavery? I guess your argument is, don’t believe your lying eyes when reading Exodus.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I guess if I allow first term abortions but ban every other for of it then by your definition I am endorsing abortion.

        • Rudy R

          By your example, you endorse first term abortions and don’t for all others . What’s your point?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          en·dorse
          /inˈdôrs,enˈdôrs/
          Learn to pronounce
          verb
          1.
          declare one’s public approval or support of.
          “the report was endorsed by the college”

          I do not approve of abortion and agree with federal law that says my tax dollars cannot support it.

        • Greg G.

          You presented a hypothetical and RR responded correctly to your hypothetical. Maybe you need to look up “hypothetical”.

        • Rudy R

          What’s your point? How is this germane to your god endorsing slavery?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You said I endorse abortion because i would not completely ban it. I do not approve of abortion so by definition I do not endorse it. By the same token God does not endorse slavery because He only placed humanitarian restrictions on it.

        • Rudy R

          If you had the power to eliminate abortion, would you do so?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          How? Banning it completely? No. Changing the hearts of people by convincing them it is wrong? You bet!

        • Rudy R

          So, if you had the power, you would convince people that slavery is wrong, but your god is impotent in changing hearts.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Why is it that some people cannot understand that an omnipotent being can bestow free will if He wants?

          Its your heart. You can listen to whatever you want. If you reflect on your posting history how many times will you find where you said something nice to someone? That is your choice on who you want to be.

        • Rudy R

          Your god inspired over a thousand pages in the Bible, among which were rules for slavery, but he was impotent to inspire thou shall not own another human being. Is that what your heart is telling you?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          My heart tells me that humanitarian laws on the treatment of slaves which are followed are morally superior to a ban that would have been ignored

        • Rudy R

          You would consider Exodus laws for slavery as humanitarian? Again, you depict your god as being so impotent on banning slavery, that he had to capitulate to his stronger creation by only providing rules of slavery.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh fer fuck sake…brilliant, you’ve just demonstrated your god out of existence.

          God didn’t say don’t keep slaves because it would be ignored? Really?

          But he did say, don’t kill, which was ignored, don’t adulterate, which was ignored, don’t work on the Sabbath, which was ignored, don’t have gay sex, which was ignored, don’t covet, which was ignored, don’t steal, which was ignored, don’t get tattoos or piercings, which was ignored, don’t wear clothing of mixed fabric, which was ignored, don’t trim yer hair or beard, which was ignored, yadda, yadda, yadda. And get this, God felt it necessary to tell folk not to have sex with animals, which must’ve been a thing popular enough worth note. Jaysus….fuck, really?

          YahwehJesus was a useless bastard. Not powerful enough to stop folk doing stuff, whether they were told or not. And didn’t know ahead of time, except when it came to slavery and rape, that telling folk not to do stuff would be ignored.

          Or maybe the whole thing is a human construct at a time when slavery and misogyny were the social norms.

          Apologetic Christer cretins at a new low.

        • Greg G.

          But God did make it so that he wouldn’t have to ban people tickling themselves.

        • epeeist

          Why is it that some people cannot understand that an omnipotent being can bestow free will if He wants?

          Of course it can, but an omniscient one can’t.

          So here is a question for you. Your god is both omnipotent and omniscient. In a situation where there are alternatives can your god freely choose from these alternatives?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          God exists outside of our spacetime. He sees all of it. We don’t. We exist in our spacetime and as such we make choices that affect our future. You cannot conflate our existence with God’s.

          Of course God can and does make choices.

        • epeeist

          Of course God can and does make choices.

          And a similar argument applies, if your god can make free choices then it cannot be omniscient, otherwise it would know what choice would be made.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Can you please explain the logic of how knowing exactly what choice will give the best outcome precludes the ability to make choices?

        • Greg G.

          Why is it that some people cannot understand that an omnipotent being can bestow free will if He wants?

          Because he would not be omnipotent if he did. If you define omnipotence as “the ability to do everything that is logically possible to do”, the omnipotence ends with the next free will.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Funny how it’s all about Free Will when it’s about slavery and rape, but no such Free Will excuse when it comes to the 613 other things that aren’t to be done. The nonsense these cretins spew is beyond ridiculous.

        • Pofarmer

          Got an old high school friend on Facebook that has become a “Progressive Evangelical”. Everything is about Jesus all the time. He even wrote a book about his progressive theology. I’ve been trying to explain to him, as charitably as possible, that his particular theology isn’t any more valid than anybody else theology. I think he is starting to get it. But he finally leveled the “Free Will” excuse as to why I wouldn’t accept his theology. It’s just lazy.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s just lazy.

          Indeed. And a cop-out they put little thought into.

          The other one is, in a world where God exists, that God can do anything, virgin births, resurrections, make the Sun stop, those sorts of things. Well, duh…but using those things to demonstrate God’s existence, because they are written in a book about God’s existence, doesn’t occur to them to be even a tad circular in the slightest.

          And that we live in a world where none of that happens isn’t the slightest bit concerning to most of them. Of course, how many Christers think about such things. let alone question them?

        • Pofarmer

          Do, I just listened to a Sermon/talk here by Jennifer McLaughlin. She wrote a book titled. “12 questions Christian’s must ask.” It was given in a mega Church about 45 minutes away from me. The most notable thing about it to me, though, is that the whole thing is basically a long “No True Scotsman.” I keen, she talks about plenty of things we’ve dealt with here. But, and I’m sure most of her audience doesn’t care, she has to gloss over a whole lot of actual history. Ine I found particularly appalling, was that she talks about how Latin American immigrants are strengthening the American Church, without acknowledging those converts came at the point of a gun.

        • Rudy R

          LD: I guess if I allow first term abortions but ban every other for of it then by your definition I am endorsing abortion.

          RR: By your example, you endorse first term abortions and don’t for all others.

          Nowhere did I say you endorse all abortion. By the same token, your god endorses slavery with conditions.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Again. The definition of “endorse” is to approve of something. I dont approve of ANY abortion. The United States as a nation does not approve of slavery. We do not however invade crappy third world countries that practice it as we could easily do.

          Does the US approve slavery then? If you answer the question honestly you will have to concede your argument is flawed. If you ignore the question I will ignore your reply

        • Greg G.

          LD said in this thread:

          I guess if I allow first term abortions but ban every other for of it then by your definition I am endorsing abortion.

          That is a hypothetical situation. Rudy R. responded to it:

          By your example, you endorse first term abortions and don’t for all others. What’s your point?

          Luther Dorn’s argument was destroyed but he can’t admit it. What else should we expect from someone who takes “deplorable” as a compliment?

        • epeeist

          Luther Dorn’s argument was destroyed but he can’t admit it.

          There is another alternative, his argument was destroyed but he is unable to realise this.

        • TheNuszAbides

          I think even claiming to take it as a compliment is intentional but misfired irony. The rump-snowflakes rather take it as a badge of honor. Almost martyrbatory but not quite (since they generally seem as cowardly as their too-useful idiot chief).

        • Greg G.

          They seem to think calling people “deplorable” is worse than calling people “human scum”, if we go by their outrage responses.

        • Rudy R

          You are walking back your abortion allowance example and the only explanation I can draw from that is it doesn’t support your refutation that your god doesn’t endorse slavery.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          If i have to explain simple words like endorse and approve not to mention position and view we are both wasting our time

        • Rudy R

          We are both talking past each other. My point is, your god could have easily inspired the words in the Bible to have read, thou shall not own another human being as easily as he inspired thou shall not kill. This glaring omission is at least an inference he had no issue with slavery. Add to that he inspired rules for owning slaves is damning admission that your god acquiesced to the owning of slaves.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I understand that. The problem is that thou shall not murder was easily accepted by the people whereas your law would not have been. Given that what would be the point of your law?

        • Rudy R

          People still murder, so by using your logic for not banning slavery, your god needlessly banned murder.

        • Greg G.

          You don’t understand your own hypothetical. You are wasting your time just being on the internet.

        • Ignorant Amos

          We do not however invade crappy third world countries that practice it as we could easily do.

          You don’t think slavery is practiced in the US? What simpleton.

          https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/19/us-modern-slavery-report-global-slavery-index

        • Ignorant Amos

          By the same token God does not endorse slavery because He only placed humanitarian restrictions on it.

          God didn’t “endorse” (he did) lots of other mundane stuff either, but chose the severest of humanitarian restrictions on them.

          Owning people as property? Well, if ya must, do it my way.

          “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

          Picking up sticks on the Lord’s day, don’t do it, or face the consequences of being put to death.

          Rape? That’s okay.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And reading Numbers 31…

          15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he [Moses] asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

          It goes on to describe how the “spoils of war” are to be divided up. YahwehJesus gets 32 of the 16,000 virgin girls that were taken as war booty to become sex slaves and peado rape wives.

          40 16,000 people, of whom the tribute for the Lord was 32.

          https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+31&version=NIV

          One wonders what ever became of Gods share, the Lords 32 virgins? Perhaps they were put into heavenly storage for the use of Abrahamic God 3.0 to give to suicide jihadists.

        • Rudy R

          And yet Christians rape, rob and enslave people. So much for Christians fearing their god.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I thought you were just advocating more instructions from God.

        • Rudy R

          You thought wrong.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You said “But your god’s disapproval didn’t rate an extra command, Thou shall not own another human being”

          This was not advocating another law?

        • Susan

          I guess God did not think slavery warranted mass killing. If you do

          I don’t. I was just pointing out that according to whichever bible you follow, lots of things warranted it.

          Jesus summed up His instructions with two commands. Love God more than anything and love your neighbor as yourself.

          There is no reason to accept that “neighbour” meant all other humans.

          Women were property or your neighbour’s property, for instance. And slaves were fine, as long as you didn’t enslave your neighbour.

          This is a social code, and nothing else.

          If you follow these instructions, you won’t be raping, robbing or enslaving people.

          You won’t be raping, robbing or enslaving your neighbour or raping your neighbour’s wife.

          But you can rape your wife and rob and enslave non-neighbours.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You won’t be raping, robbing or enslaving your neighbour or raping your neighbour’s wife.

          Not even sure that’ll be the case in the thonomy Christer Gilead.

        • Susan

          Not even sure that’ll be the case in the thonomy Christer Gilead.

          It’s as simple as decreeing them not your neighbours.

        • Michael Neville

          According to the propaganda your god had no problem killing people because he felt like killing.

          Lot’s wife looks in the wrong direction and ZAPPO! she’s a pillar of salt. Why was she looking that way? Because your god was nuking her home town.

          An unnamed pharaoh won’t listen to a political lobbyist so, as punishment, your god kills the “first born of Egypt”. But why doesn’t this pharaoh listen? Because your god “hardened his heart” (Ex 9:12). That’s right, your “moral” god set up the pharaoh to fail and, as a result, a bunch of children got killed.*

          The prophet Elisha is taunted by a bunch of boys for being bald. So Elisha flops on his knees and prays: “Dear God, these kids are being snotty to me. Time for a little smiting. Amen.” Your god whistled up two bears to maul 42 of those kids. What do you bet they weren’t rude to wandering prophets any more?

          So don’t wiggle your admonishing finger at Bob. The god you worship is shown in your Bible to be a sadistic bully who delights in killing.

          *It’s the consensus of all Egyptologists, archeologists, and non-literalist Biblical scholars that Exodus is fiction. It’s basically a small country saying that their god is a bigger badass than the gods of the local superpower.

        • Greg G.

          The king wanted to talk to Elijah so he sent a captain and fifty men. The captain to Elijah that he needed come with him. Elijah called down fire from heaven and killed them all. The king sent another captain with fifty men and Elijah did the same thing. The king sent a third captain with fifty men. This one asked Elijah to not kill him and his men but would he please come with them so the king could talk with him. Elijah agreed. Elijah didn’t have a problem with talking to the king but he capriciously killed 102 men for not asking politely.

        • Pofarmer

          Eh?

          As determined by the Babylonians, in 79 years Mars orbits the Sun almost exactly 42 times.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(number)

        • Greg G.

          That means I’m only 33 in Mars years.

        • Pofarmer

          Look at you go.

        • Pofarmer

          I still think Elijah and the she bears is an Astrological story, with Elisha being a moon God. Elijah was the sun God. Chariots of fire and all that. But I can’t figure out the significance of 42. I don’t think that number is an accident.

        • Ignorant Amos

          According to Douglas Adams, 42 is the answer to the meaning of everything.

          In other disciplines… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(number)

        • No, I advocate God using magic to make them stop. He exists, right? He might as well not given the impact he has in the world.

          Legislatures vs. God–you see the vast difference in power and wisdom, right?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You dont believe in God so apparently you are proposing the EXACT SAME lack of action that you hypocritically condemn my diety of

        • Greg G.

          Bob is not advocating violence. He is pointing out that an omnipotent god thingy should be able to make amends by any means, even peacefully. The fact that the conditions still exists is evidence that no such omnipotent, omnibenevolent god thingy exists.

        • You trying to change the subject? You said, “Passing laws like prohibition of alcohol or slavery that people will ignore does no good,” and I pointed out that God is far, far, far more powerful than legislatures. You don’t look back on the Old Testament and God’s actions as if you’re looking at laws coming from humans.

          Let’s first agree that slavery existed in the OT because God was fine with it.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Special pleading again.

          Simply saying “But God is different” doesnt cut it.. You sound like a Fundie when you say things like that.

        • Changing the subject again.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          What subject?

        • God’s support of slavery in the OT.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          WTF? I AM EXPLAINING WHY IT DOESN’T DO THAT

        • Ignorant Amos

          Your explaining fuck all of the sort, you are asserting it as a fact without evidence.

          As Dan Barker puts it…

          If the God of the Old Testament were more than a fictional character, he might have been more free to rise above the culture of the authors to denounce slavery. Instead, we had to wait millennia to abolish the biblically approved practice on our own, a progress that was hampered by faith in an ancient slavemonger deity. Like the writers who invented him, God had no choice but to endorse and encourage the cruel and inhumane customs of their primitive age. ~Dan Barker, “God: The Most Unpleasant Character In All Fiction”, Chapter 27, p283

        • Pofarmer

          You really suck at spotting fallacies. I suspect because you’ve often been accused of it but don’t actually understand what they are.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          When someone says “this is different and i dont have to follow normal rules of logic” that is special pleading. Claiming I am wrong and not supporting your claim with facts or logic (like you are doing here) is the fallacy of proof by assertion.

        • Pofarmer

          Uhm. No. Special pleading is exempting your claims from the same scrutiny as other claims.

          Description: Applying standards, principles, and/or
          rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain
          circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing
          adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong
          emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.

          Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle (without justifying the special exception).[1][2][3][4][5] This is the application of a double standard.[6][7]

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

          Notice the “without Justification.”

          The classic one is “Everything which exists has a cause” Except God.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          “Uhm. No. Special pleading is exempting your claims from the same scrutiny as other claims”

          Right he is saying he doesn’t have the burden of proof for his claim because God is speeeeeecial. Seriously, do you actually believe the crap you are posting or just feel a compulsive need to disagree because of your emotioal investment in his shared opinions?

        • Pofarmer

          Yeah, no. He os saying that your pet deity, per your own definition, is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, while he, as a human is not. This hardly seems controversial.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          So what? He is still claiming that his argument is special and does not, as you yourself stated, require the scrutiny that all other arguments share. Namely his argument is special and does not have the normal burdem of proof.

          In additio the assertion itself is the other logical fallacy of a Strawman argument. Where did you get the idea that a God capable of exterminating all but eight people on the planet or all but one family from a wicked city is “omnibenevolent”? That is YOUR definition specifically crafted to suit your argument.

        • Pofarmer

          The theological justification stems from God’s aseity: the non-contingent, independent and self-sustained mode of existence that theologians ascribe to God.[citation needed] For if he was not morally perfect, that is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of contingency, because one could always conceive of a being of greater benevolence.[8] Hence, omnibenevolence is a requisite of perfect being theology.[9]

          Theologians in Wesleyanism (see Thomas Jay Oord) argue that omnibenevolence is God’s primary attribute.[citation needed] Some Hyper-Calvinist interpretations reject omnibenevolence.[citation needed] For example, the Westboro Baptist Church is infamous for its expression of this stance.

          Christian apologist William Lane Craig argues that Islam does not hold to the idea of omnibenevolence.[10]

          Learn some theology, ya moron. The Tri-omni deity is basic to Christianity.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Up yours idiot. Destroying the entire population of the Earth is not a benevolent act. DUH!!!

          Read the Bible:
          Rom 9:13
          Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

        • Pofarmer

          It is if the entire population is evil.

        • Greg G.

          We atheists do not argue that god thingies are omnibenevolent. We are told by godbots that is one of his characteristics. We don’t believe there are any supernatural entities.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Overcompensating for cognitive dissonance doesn’t help you here. But it’s nice to know that your theology boils down to the notion that we should be afraid of and seek reward from this asshole you worship.

        • It is hilarious, BTW, that you confuse the power of God and the power of Man. Man is limited. We can’t stop slavery. For God, it would be effortless.

          Y’know, it’s almost like you don’t even believe the omnipotent/omniscient/whatever BS yourself. It’s gotta be hard seeing God act in his typical nonexistent way day after day. He’s both nonexistent and yet omnipotent at the same time? Yeah, I’d prefer those two thoughts didn’t coexist in my brain.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          What i believe is you are guilty of what Christians are accused of constantly; special pleading. You are saying your argument should be exempted from the rules of logic because, well, GOD! TA DA!

          Sorry, logical fallacies will be swatted down. If you are going to say an omnipotent being can do something you have to explain how. He can dispense with Free Will. He can destroy all that practice it. Whatever. Pick one or concede that YOU WOULD NOT DO WHAT YOU SAY GOD SHOULD HAVE.

          It is really that simple when one eliminates special pleading

        • God is uniquely powerful. God is not just another guy. Is that observation special pleading?

          You’re asking what I would do about slavery if I were magic like God? I could go back in time and put in an aversion to slavery. (You know how the idea of screwing your sister is abhorent? Like that.) Better: put that in humans from the start. Better: from the start, build humans with the wisdom that the residents of heaven have.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Yes, if you say “Something could be done but I don’t have to explain what that is because this is the special case of God doing it” then that is special pleading

          At least you gave an example. Too bad it involves eliminating free will. (Hint, screwing ones sister is common in history)

        • Pofarmer

          You think when someone is made a slave it doesn’t eliminate their free will? When someone is raped or murdered? Why is your pet deity only worried about the free will of evil people?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Free will is autonomy of thought.

          Like i said, the concept is hard for some atheists to grasp. A true Free Thinker has no problem with it however

        • Pofarmer

          It’s not just autonomy of thought. It’s autonomy of action. Without action thought would bed pretty meaningless.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Bullshit. Just because i cant fly to the moon doesn’t mean i lack free will.

          You are seriously confused about basic reality.

        • Greg G.

          If you can’t fly to the moon, it is because you lack the freedom to do so, which is an inhibition of free will.

        • Pofarmer

          You are seriously confused about basic reality.

          Yeah, that’s definately the issue.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Just because i cant fly to the moon doesn’t mean i lack free will.

          Are you a compatibilist, or just part of the My-Creator-lets-me-make-that-super-tricky-choice-between-salvation-and-damnation fan club?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Are you going to continue to ignore what I say, quote it, and then post some response that has absolutely nothing to do with what you quoted?

          But I will not do that to you. No, I don’t believe in determinism and I have no idea what the snarky comment was supposed to mean.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Actually my first draft merely said “Just because free will appeals to you as a concept and spackles over the plotholes of the totalitarian shitshow Old Testament doesn’t mean it actually exists.” But then I thought I’d try to get more particulars of your worldview. So that’s hard-line Calvinism off the menu I guess.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          So if you were living in that period which nation would you prefer?

        • TheNuszAbides

          That’d be profound if you could ever establish that your interpretive brand has eliminated special pleading from its train of logic. Yes, we’re doubtful that you or anyone can do any such thing; but most of us “here” honestly hope you can, since it would be unprecedented, the proverbial breath of fresh air. So far you just look like a Calvinist/Presupper who relies on the standard wishful-thinking stack of Ifs.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You are the one saying that the standard burden of proof doesn’t apply in this “special” case. How do you think i am guilty of special pleading?

        • Greg G.

          I have the free will to tickle other people. Other people have the free will to tickle me. Why is my free will limited regarding free will but my free will to masturbate is not limited?

        • TheNuszAbides

          The more outrageous the sin, the easier it is to accomplish (self-pleasure, naughty ideas, doing anything useful on The Seventh Day, etc.) … Coincidence?!

      • Ignorant Amos

        God could’ve prohibited slavery in at least one of the versions of the 10 Cs (or elsewhere).

        Aye, specifically in number ten, where YahwehJesus makes it a sin, and a thought crime, to covet ones “neighbors” slaves, both male and female, but can’t seem to bring himself to declare owning people as slaves as being a sin and not very nice.

        • You’ve never coveted your neighbor’s ass??

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ave never had a neighbor with an ass to covet.

          Now one with an arse worth coveting, that’s a different parcel of fish altogether.

    • Greg G.

      The OT allows a slave holder to use family values to trap an indentured servant into being a slave for life. It gives explicit details that the slave owner can give a slave girl to the indentured servant for a wife. When the time is up, the indentured servant is forced to choose his freedom while leaving his wife and children as they are the property of the slave owner or to stick an awl through his ear and declare that he will belong to the slave owner for life.

    • Ignorant Amos

      The Old Testament doesn’t support slavery. It places restrictions on it.

      Only with myopic Christer reading and cherry-picking it does.

      Yes, it allows slavery, but it also allows divorce even though God has made his disapproval of it known in the same scripture.

      Obviously you haven’t read yer silly book.

      Numbers 51 for example.

      The OT God hands down ordinances for how to acquire paedo rape wives and sex slaves as war booty. Helps facilitate said ordinances. And takes his share of said spoils of war.

      Division of the Spoils

      25 The LORD said to Moses, 26 “You and Eleazar the priest and the family heads of the congregation are to take a count of what was captured, both of man and beast. 27 Then divide the captives between the troops who went out to battle and the rest of the congregation.

      28 Set aside a tribute for the LORD from what belongs to the soldiers who went into battle: one out of every five hundred, whether persons, cattle, donkeys, or sheep. 29 Take it from their half and give it to Eleazar the priest as an offering to the LORD.

      30 From the Israelites’ half, take one out of every fifty, whether persons, cattle, donkeys, sheep, or other animals, and give them to the Levites who keep charge of the tabernacle of the LORD.”

      Earlier, Moses gets a bit pissed at the commanders of the army…

      14 But Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who were returning from the battle. 15 “Have you spared all the women?” he asked them. 16 “Look, these women caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to turn unfaithfully against the LORD at Peor, so that the plague struck the congregation of the LORD. 17 So now, kill all the boys, as well as every woman who has had relations with a man, 18 but spare for yourselves every girl who has never had relations with a man.

      Niiiiiccce!

      Here, I’ll let a Christian scholar, the Rev. Wil Gafney, PhD, put you and your nonsense in your box….timestamp 31:00…

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCqtMRZ2c8I&feature=youtu.be

      • MR

        The Deplorable made an interesting point: God condemns divorce, but not slavery. How fucked up is that? You can beat your wives, but that’s not grounds for divorce, and you can beat your slaves to within two days of their life.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Well, as usual, his point isn’t quite the way he would have it. Divorce is not condemned per se, it was reserved for certain conditions being met. Conditions that a lot of divorces today would meet.

          For example…

          Deuteronomy 24:1-4

          1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

          https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/divorce-bible-verses/

          So YahwewJesus gives ordinances for when it’s just fine to divorce. Like slavery.

          I notice that it’s the female that will always be at fault. In most instances, the woman becomes an adulteress and we all know what happens to adulteresses in the buybull? By law, a stoning will befall them…except of course in the multiple occasions where it doesn’t.

          How fucked up is that?

          How fucked up is that, indeed. Only someone fucked up with the God Virus can rationale it out as something divinely inspired. To the rest of us it is a fucked up piece of immoral crap.

          ETA link.

        • MR

          Ah, yes, I was thinking more of Jesus being a bit harsher. In my yout’, divorce was becoming a big deal and pretty much any reason for divorce was frowned upon. It just makes me think of all the women who are beaten yet encouraged to stay with their husbands. God can make anyone better, after all. Yeah, I saw that work out real great with a molestation case in our Christian community. “We can deal with this ourselves but God can overcome anything.” That person is in jail now because he started molesting a second generation.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The Jesus being harsher is the character having to explain to the dumb fucks that were followers why the divorce allowed by Moses wasn’t a free for all and having to explain it.

          Mark 10:2-12

          2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied. 4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” 5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “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.”

          One wonders why this was of course? Were the rules really so vague? Or is it more likely NT made up pish for full effect?

        • richardrichard2013

          ” Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “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.”

          it is quite clear that no one should separate what god has joined together. jesus goes on to explain that divorce = adultery, why? because god joined two together, but then act of adultery has the power to separate what god has joined together (found in gospel of matthew)

          looks like a contradiction .

        • Greg G.

          The Old Testament law on divorce comes from Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which has no provision for women divorcing men so Jesus talking about the wife divorcing the husband would make no sense in Judea. Matthew dropped that part from Mark’s version but it is an indication that Mark was borrowing the idea from 1 Corinthians where Paul was writing to the people of Corinth whose law did allow women to divorce men.

        • Rudy R

          But another example of Paul being the source of the Gospel of Mark, and not the ludicrous Q source.

    • Rudy R

      But your god’s disapproval didn’t rate an extra command, Thou shall not own another human being.

      • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

        Thou shall not Rape didn’t make it either. You don’t think God is cool with that do you?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yep, he certainly is, and the texts support it.

          But as LD has blocked those that have pointed this out, and hasn’t read his own holy book, he doesn’t know the passages that show YahwehJesus not only endorsed rape (was cool with it), but also helped facilitate it…and thus, continues to make a dick of himself by repeating stupid shit.

        • Rudy R

          I do think your god is cool with rape of non-Jews. Shall I prove you wrong?

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Sure

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh, his god is cool with the rape of Hebrews too.

          The Bible provides instructions on how to acquire several types of sex slaves. For example, if a man buys a Hebrew girl and “she please not her master” he can’t sell her to a foreigner; and he must allow her to go free if he doesn’t provide for her (Exodus 21:8).

          A Hebrew girl who is raped can be sold to her rapist for 50 shekels, or about $580 (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). He must then keep her “because she has been “humbled”.

          https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/what-marriage-would-look-like-if-we-actually-followed-the-bible-10484198.html

          And at the risk of being accused biased atheists…honest Christers see the “Tough Texts”.

          Ave posted this elsewhere, but given Disqus being what it is, you may have missed it.

          Time stamp 31:00

          The Rev. Wil Gafney, Ph.D. is Professor of Hebrew Bible at Brite Divinity School in Fort Worth, Texas.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCqtMRZ2c8I&feature=youtu.be

    • Raging Bee

      So it allows slavery, and disapproves of divorce. Not a very useful guide to moral behavior, is it?

      • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

        It allows and disapproves of both. That is the point. It is a very good guide for morals if you actually listen to what it really says.

        • Raging Bee

          You just admitted it isn’t.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          No. Please dont put words in my mouth. The restrictions placed on slavery allieved much suffering. A ban would have been ignored as slavery was integral to every society in the Bronze Age

          As such what you advocate for that Bronze Age society would have led to increased suffering. THAT is a piss poor moral code.

        • Raging Bee

          So the Bible may have been appropriate for its time, and people could support it because it didn’t go too far; but that time is long gone, so now the Bible is outdated and useless. Got it.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You seem to have a habit of putting words in other people’s mouths. No, it was the Christian morals that fueled the abolition movement. One cannot love your neighbors as yourself and enslave them. And before you say it Jesus defined your neighbors as everyone

        • Greg G.

          Jesus also used the beating of slaves in a parable as if it was completely acceptable.

        • Raging Bee

          …it was the Christian morals that fueled the abolition movement.

          69Horseypoop. It was observation of the objective facts of slavery that fuelled the abolitionist movement. “Christian morals” didn’t lead, they followed…when they weren’t actively resisting, that is.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)
        • Raging Bee

          And that means what? You’re admitting that “Christian morals” accepted slavery (because, as YOU just admitted, they had to); and then allowed US-style black slavery to get as vile and horrific as it did before SOME Christian churches (not all by any stretch) decided to mobilize against it.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          Geeze. I am proving that it was Christian morals that fueled the abolition movement exactly like I said. Remember that you disagreed? I was proving my point. Are you really having that hard of a time understanding me? That wsx the THIRD TIME IN A ROW that you (purposely?) misunderstood me.

        • Raging Bee

          No, it’s the third time in a row I showed how full of 69shit you are.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          You are seriously deluded. Three times you put words in my mouth I didnt say. Three times YOU were full of shit. And that doesn’t include you saying Christian morals didn’t fuel the abolition movement. I just proved you were full of shit on that too.

        • Raging Bee

          Nope, sorry, you didn’t. Seriously, read some actual history, as opposed to just apologetics, before you come to a grownup form pretending to know more than we do.

        • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

          I just supplied you with a link to the history. Do you need me to copy and paste the Christian condemnation of slavery going back to at least the forth century?

          Or are you one of those people who is never wrong regardless of the facts?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Do you need me to copy and paste the Christian condemnation of slavery going back to at least the forth century?

          It wasn’t Christian condemnation ya moron, it was some Christians condemning it. Other Christers were actually engaged in the practice.

          From your own source…

          Christian views on slavery are varied regionally, historically and spiritually. Slavery in various forms has been a part of the social environment for much of Christianity’s history, spanning well over eighteen centuries. In the early years of Christianity, slavery was an established feature of the economy and society in the Roman Empire, and this persisted in different forms and with regional differences well into the Middle Ages.

          It also says…

          In the eighteenth and nineteenth century debates in the UK and the US, passages in the Bible were used by both pro-slavery advocates and abolitionists to support their respective views.

          How can that be, if there is nothing in the bible supporting slavery?

        • Ignorant Amos

          More ballix.

          It was Enlightenment thinking that set the ball rolling. The Quakers, influenced by enlightenment thinkers were the first anti-slave movement in the US. Though Quakers kept slaves, and traded in slavery.

          In 1775, the first Quaker meeting of the “Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully held in Bondage” was held by Anthony Benezet in Philadelphia. Benezet was a French immigrant who had converted to Quakerism at fourteen and moved to Philadelphia with his parents where he eventually became a schoolteacher. Benezet had been influenced at a young age, and was throughout his life, by leading French enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire and Rousseau.

          George Fox, the founder of the Quaker religion, made several trips to the Americas. Like many of the wealthy planters in the Caribbean and in the southern colonies, Fox held conflicting views on the institution of slavery. As an enlightenment thinker and as a religious believer, Fox contended that the truest philosophy was to educate the slaves. From an economical point of view this ideology agreed with his belief in the necessity of slavery for the good of the plantation economy.

          There were individuals who frowned upon slavery before the Quakers. The Puritan Samuel Sewall for example. But he was a lone voice at the time.

          In 1700, Samuel Sewall published the first anti-slavery pamphlet in America called “The Selling of Joseph”, based upon his arguments against many of the beliefs presented in the Bible. At the time, Sewall was virtually alone in his publication and beliefs and could do little to deter many of the Puritans who owned or trafficked in slaves.

          Enlightenment Individuals and the Institution of Slavery

          http://public.gettysburg.edu/~tshannon/341/sites/Enlightenment/jim's%20page.htm

          So, when RB says…””Christian morals” didn’t lead, they followed…when they weren’t actively resisting, that is.”, that’s true.

          The first attempts to end slavery in the British/American colonies came from Thomas Jefferson and some of his contemporaries. Despite the fact that Jefferson was a lifelong slaveholder, he included strong anti-slavery language in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, but other delegates took it out. Benjamin Franklin, also a slaveholder for much of his life, became a leading member of the Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery, the first recognized organization for abolitionists in the United States. Following the American Revolutionary War, Northern states abolished slavery, beginning with the 1777 constitution of Vermont, followed by Pennsylvania’s gradual emancipation act in 1780. Other states with more of an economic interest in slaves, such as New York and New Jersey, also passed gradual emancipation laws, and by 1804, all the Northern states had abolished it, although this did not mean that existing slaves were freed. Some had to work without wages as “indentured servants” for two more decades, although they could no longer be sold.

          The first abolition of slavery passed into law was by atheists in France.

          The Convention, the first elected Assembly of the First Republic (1792–1804), on 4 February 1794, under the leadership of Maximilien Robespierre, abolished slavery in law in France and its colonies. Abbé Grégoire and the Society of the Friends of the Blacks were part of the abolitionist movement, which had laid important groundwork in building anti-slavery sentiment in the metropole. The first article of the law stated that “Slavery was abolished” in the French colonies, while the second article stated that “slave-owners would be indemnified” with financial compensation for the value of their slaves. The French constitution passed in 1795 included in the declaration of the Rights of Man that slavery was abolished.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You are placing restrictions on your YahwehJesus that it can’t have.

          You apologetics are doing all the work for us and proving your god doesn’t exist. It doesn’t get any better than this…bwaaahahahaha!

  • Faith Reasoner

    Jews portray Haman in their Purim plays and roundly condemn him. Playing a role doesn’t mean you endorse the intentions or lifestyle of the character

    not

  • Faith Reasoner

    Playing a role does not imply endorsement of the character, choices or lifestyle of the character in the story. Jews play Haman in Purim plays, yet treat him like Hitler, and rightfully so.

    The complaint against the actress apparently is that she should remain silent about what she personally thinks is best for people who wish to please her God.

    Her censors are like the book burners they pretend to oppose.

    • Raging Bee

      Your blatant misrepresentation of the fired person’s actions, and of her employers’ response to her and their reasoning, is duly noted.

      • Faith Reasoner

        I missed where she physically assaulted the gays.

        Throw the book at her.

        • Raging Bee

          So you don’t actually care enough to discuss the particulars of this case. Got it. You are dismissed.

        • Faith Reasoner

          My comments are based on nothing but “the particulars of the case.” I affirm the right of gays to exclude Christian employees or patrons for any reason or no reason as much as I affirm the right of Christians, Muslims or bigots to exclude gay employees or patrons for any reason or no reason.

          I’m just observing the hypocrisy.

        • Raging Bee

          You’re PRETENDING there’s hypocrisy, and ignoring the obvious facts that prove there isn’t any. This isn’t about discrimination against Christians; it’s about firing someone who has shown signs of bigotry toward some of her colleagues, and who has since refused to walk it back.

        • Faith Reasoner

          A private club that says somebody doesn’t qualify for membership is just a private club, not an assault on our freedoms.

          Quite the opposite. It is a celebration of freedom.

          The right to be wrong is among our most precious rights and ought to be strenuously defended, except in the very rare cases where the wrong is a physical harm to the harmless or advocacy of such harm.

        • Raging Bee

          What about the right to do one’s job without being discriminated against? Is that not a “precious right?” Does no one have a right to enforce rules of behavior in a workplace, for the benefit of everyone who is required to work there?

          Oh, BTW, this bigot made anti-gay statements, at a time when such statements have been used to incite or justify violence against gays. That’s “advocacy of harm.”

        • Faith Reasoner

          One has the perfect right to use his own tools, skills, facilities to produce for any willing buyer, any willing employer. Nobody should interfere. Nor should they burden him by imposing obligations to employ or serve anyone he chooses not to.

          His right to restrict his own voluntary exchanges harms nobody. And nobody has a right to add restrictions or burdens on him except where his actions would be overt harms to the harmless, as mentioned before.

        • Raging Bee

          Ah, libertarian rhetoric…you sound like the kind of person who called his parents “slave-drivers” when they tried to get you to take out the trash or bathe regularly.

        • Faith Reasoner

          Funny. My father was a pastor and my hero. I honor my parents, both in heaven now. They were as libertarian as I am, and were content to offer answers to anyone who asked how they were as full of joy of life, full of passion and gentleness and peace, as they were.

          I never needed to ask, because I was raised to respect everyone’s dignity and everyone’s rights. Our God is omni-benevolent and calls on us to have benevolence towards all of His creatures.

        • Phil Rimmer

          Do you know the play? Are you aware of the author’s intentions for this character, Celie? (We know what they are because Alice Walker restated her intentions in response to this controversy.) Are you aware that the actress resolved her own apparent hypocrisy on the matter by proposing a different interpretation of the part at odds with the desired interpretation of the author, director and other actors, gutting the political heft of the piece?

        • Faith Reasoner

          She proposed a different interpretation?!!

          The witch!!

          Silence, woman!!

          Your point? As long as she played the role as directed, I see no issue.

        • Phil Rimmer

          Silly.

          As long as she played the role as directed

          That is exactly the point, having announced she disagreed with the author’s intention.

          This is political theatre about the patriarchy with plenty of deserving women actors motivated to bursting point. Elsewhere I suggested a mode in which she could have stood by her views and shown a reason to commit to the character and the play as written and intended. She didn’t. She flat out disagreed over the character.

        • Faith Reasoner

          An actress who misrepresents a character on stage will not get roles.

          I doubt she agrees that she failed on stage. Her audition and past performance got her the role. If she is proud of her acting, she would be performing as directed, as she apparently agrees.

          Perhaps a jury will decide.

        • Phil Rimmer

          I have proposed here that there are most certainly roles for her that she could fully commit to.

          If she is an actor of any worthy stripe she would have announced why she must commit to the character as intended. She did not. As I also wrote elsewhere in this thread.

        • Faith Reasoner

          I suppose you think an actor is not qualified for a role unless he or she believes whole-heartedly that the story is true, or at least that it should be treated as true.

          That would eliminate a lot of sci-fi, fantasy, horror, etc.

        • Phil Rimmer

          Silly again. Truth and realism lie in the veracity, the humanity, of the character.

          Besides this is political/social theatre. People are suited to roles, long for roles, are committed to ideas. Passion particularly reads off the stage. The amity between players backstage is a huge aspect of ensemble playing, of creating a production that might win through to a West End transfer if the plaudits signal so.

          This isn’t a job, but a vocation.

          You are not a theatre goer, clearly.

        • Faith Reasoner

          I do not approve of gay relations, divorce or drunkenness, yet I have amity and friendship with many who are gay, divorced and/or alcoholic. Many of my neighbors are not even aware of my standards, because they don’t ask, and they don’t follow my comments here.

          If her situation is different,
          perhaps it is because someone hates to find out others are not thrilled with their off-stage choices.

        • Phil Rimmer

          Its not even that she publicised her views on homosexuality. Its that she took a view on a character that opposed the intentions of the author and presumably the director and other cast members.

          Again I outlined here how she could have responded in an honourable way. But she didn’t.

        • Faith Reasoner

          Irrelevant. You have not stated any measurable way in which she deviated from director’s orders.

          On stage.

        • Phil Rimmer

          That’s not the test at the casting/preproduction stage.

          Three lots of silliness and you’re out.

          Edit:

          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/crossexamined/what_is_anti_gay_speech_and_how_protected_should_it_be_3_of_3/#comment-4654571074

        • Faith Reasoner

          Many Hollywood actors have played police, military or billionnaire industrialist. They freely condemn the real ones.

          They glorify guns, and rage against them in the media and at protests.

        • Phil Rimmer

          This is not greedy Hollywood. This is provincial English Theatre. Its rewards are hardly the pay cheque. Critical approval and social change are far more the reason actors take the job. The cast , the director, producer and theatre deserve the best shot at success.

        • Faith Reasoner

          You accuse a harmless actress of “advocacy of harm.” Your libel is actionable in her jurisdiction. Do you advocate prosecution of yourself?

        • Raging Bee

          Yeah, right, she’s just a sweet innocent little Lamb of God who spouts God’s hatred of gays ’cause of God’s love in her heart, right?

          Go to bed, fool. You’re not fooling anyone.

        • Faith Reasoner

          I doubt she suggested that God “hates gays.”

          That would be typical hyperbole from those who dislike any standards of sexual exclusivity, propriety or dignity.

          She belongs to a private club that some don’t qualify to join. Deal with it, don’t whine.

  • What is anti-gay speech?

    Those shoes don’t go with that shirt.

    That’s not a real antique.

    Your hair looks like you don’t use product.

    This quiche you made is soggy.

    • Geeman

      Hilarious!

  • TheNuszAbides

    Sometimes it’s easier for my interlocutor to digest if I leave out all the supposedlies and hypotheticals and imaginers and abstracteds. Apparently not this time.

    The OT, in describing and “quoting” Yahweh, describes and quotes an asshole, by multiple standards and on multiple levels. Whether or not any scripture is an accurate/faithful account of reality, deserving of being taken seriously as anything more than literature … that character (evidently treated by multiple unidentified authors whose minds we cannot read … yet many are clearly eager to do so) is an asshole. In my [simplified to save time and ones and zeroes] opinion.

    I make the assumption that you worship that thing you almost-consistently use Proper “He/Him” for and so on, even though I have not actually seen you post “I worship [_____]”. Please disabuse me of that notion if I’ve made too bold an intuitive leap.

    Get it yet?

    • Luther Dorn (deplorable)

      Sure. You were admittedly articulate in explaining why you have no cognitive dissonance. Can you do the same explaining why I do?

      • TheNuszAbides

        Who says I have none? I remember believing/assuming that the religious training I was raised with was well-developed from sound and valid foundations. Then I learned more about questioning popularity, then authority, then motives, then perception in general. Dabbling in panentheism and pantheism for about half of my 20s, there was no end of opportunities to experience CD.

        There’s no “cure” for cognitive dissonance; the interesting point (AFAICT) is how one reacts to it (or to the anticipation of it), such as avoiding or confronting it in oneself and/or others. I’m no professional psych-worker/theorist but there seems to be a variety of misconceptions regarding CD, primarily that it gets confused with cognitive bias. About all they have in common, AIUI, is that one can attempt to avoid either type of thing.

        I won’t apologize for the word game of saying “____ won’t help you here” without explicitly asserting (let alone supporting) that _____ is exactly what you were doing. Though nearly none of us is a trained mental health/life professional (and even those who are can’t make solid diagnoses with only blog commentary to go by), we make all kinds of guesses/assumptions about motive/intent. A major point of departure tends to be whether to make those guesses in correspondence with current findings in relevant studies, or whether to make them in correspondence with theology.

    • Ignorant Amos

      Get it yet?

      Bwaahahahaha!

      Luthor must be fun to go to panto with…imagine booing and hissing the wicked queen in Snow White…don’t the fools know she ain’t real?

      Nope, yer not allowed to show animosity to any nasty imaginary characters in fiction, until ya believe they’re real.

      Luthor is a plonker.

      • TheNuszAbides

        When I see his name I can’t help thinking of George Dorn from the Illuminatus trilogy. For you it seems he might resonate with Lex Luthor … at least by name. 😛