Yes, There’s An American Christian Taliban– and Yes, We Need To Stand Against Them

Yes, There’s An American Christian Taliban– and Yes, We Need To Stand Against Them June 12, 2017

christian-1281948_640

I am a Christian.

I grew up in Sunday School memorizing Bible stories as the teacher illustrated and taught each one on an old green felt board.

I grew up going to Church not just on Sunday mornings, but Sunday evenings, too. And of course, there was the Wednesday night prayer meeting as well.

When I grew more and became a teenager, I did what good Christian kids do- I spent my summers on international mission trips overseas.

As an adult? Well, as an adult I became a pastor, went to seminary, and spent eight years of my life studying theology, the Bible, and all the things that good Christians do.

I am a Christian- as committed a Christian as I can imagine one being. I believe in the inspiration of Scripture, sin, the incarnation of Christ, the death and resurrection of Christ, the second coming, and the final judgement.

I am a committed Christian. I love Jesus.

But let me be honest about something else: I’m deeply concerned about the American Christian Taliban.

You see, while I am committed Christian, I am also well aware that there is a very, very dangerous movement happening in our religion right now. It is a movement that embodies everything they claim to hate– but does so cunningly, with an aura of righteousness and superiority– so much so that Christians across the nation are blindly participating.

While this movement is busy warning us on the dangers of radical Islam, they’re doing the very things they are denouncing– right under our noses.

What are they warning us of?

They’re warning us of radical religious extremists who want to take political power, turning democracies into functional theocracies. They’re warning us of people who look at the culture around them, and are concerned that the laws of the land are not the same as the way they interpret the laws in their holy book. They’re warning us of people who think “God’s ways” ought to be reflected in laws which nonbelievers or other religions are forced to live by. They’re warning us of people who seem to care little for religious freedom, other than freedom for themselves. They’re warning us of people who discriminate and treat others as second class citizens, simply for not sharing their own religious views.

They’re warning us of the one who knocks, not even realizing they are the one who knocks.

They warn us of groups like the Taliban, not even realizing they are a group like the Taliban.

Case in point is cultural movements being led by people such as fundamentalist leader, Franklin Graham. Folks like Graham are issuing the rally cry of the Taliban– warning that culture is getting “too progressive”, warning folks that morality is under attack, and encouraging Christians of a very specific flavor to take control of the government at local, state, and national levels. There are frequent calls to “vote the Bible” or to return America to “biblical values.” There’s a need to send the LGBTQ community back into the shadows of society, a need to enshrine in law the right to discriminate against others, the never-ending thirst for power, and the desire to shut down or punish those who have morals that different from their own.

It’s not enough for them to live in a country where they are completely free to practice their own religious beliefs– they need power, and they need others to live under their religious code, too. (Exhibit A: Franklin Graham recently argued that it is good and right for the government to force unwed couples to get married if they live together.)

It’s not enough for them to say, “I don’t believe in X, and therefore I will not engage in X.” The Christian Taliban are the ones who say, “I don’t believe in X, and therefore I’m going to fight to make sure no one has it.”

Yes, there’s an American Christian Taliban, and we ought be concerned.

While they are busy working to achieve their vision through democratic means, the net-goal is not all that different than other religious extremist groups: taking control of culture and government to transform a nation into following the tenets and principles of their own religion.

Not via influence and by wining in the arena of ideas, but through power, control, and dominance.

Yes, there is a Christian Taliban in America, and they are actively working to take over the government at local, state, and national levels.

As freedom loving American Christians, we must stand against this movement. We must stand for religious freedom instead of religious compulsion. We must stand for equal rights that place liberals and conservatives, religious and non-religious, all on equal ground before the law. We must ensure all Americans, no matter what stipe, have equal access to the various areas of society, and that their dignity is maintained in the process.

We must stand for religious freedom, but must stand against religious rule.

We must stand against the American Christian Taliban.


unafraid 300Dr. Benjamin L. Corey is a public theologian and cultural anthropologist who is a two-time graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary with graduate degrees in the fields of Theology and International Culture, and holds a doctorate in Intercultural Studies from Fuller Theological Seminary. He is also the author of the new book, Unafraid: Moving Beyond Fear-Based Faith, which is available wherever good books are sold. www.Unafraid-book.com. 

Be sure to check out his new blog, right here, and follow on Facebook:

"Still waiting for this "tangible proof" of the legendary "King David" and Kingdom & City ..."

No, The Gospel Isn’t “Good News” ..."
"Well you are condemned as a liar once again, Dennis!Your claim of evidence is debunked ..."

No, The Gospel Isn’t “Good News” ..."
"What "subjective reality" do you detect within the evidence and absence of evidence based observations ..."

No, The Gospel Isn’t “Good News” ..."
"Reading is a critical skill.The question posed to you is what other world religion has ..."

No, The Gospel Isn’t “Good News” ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • lucky21

    If you want to addressing problems about what the Christian Right and Franklin Graham that is one thing, but going on the Christian Taliban label will just make people turn you off for a very good reason. The Taliban is something very different than people think of, also the fact that you hyberbole it as being as bad as them is really in poor taste. In some ways, you aren’t that different from Franklin Graham when it comes to addressing issues that people are on the opposite side of you. You even use the word freedom loving Americans without self awareness, which is the same thing Frankie does. If I can’t take him seriously, why shall I take you seriously.

  • Paul Schlitz Jr.

    I think what Ben is saying is that religious fundamentalism is always stupid and hypocritical. I tried to be a Christian fundamentalist in my youth. I wasn’t very good at it. But no one can say I didn’t try as hard as I could. What I find alarming is that people like Graham who are the biggest heresy hunters around embrace heresy themselves when they read the parts of the Good Book that require that compassion is shown to immigrants out of the canon

  • Paul Schlitz Jr.

    Because it is a lot easier fulminating against gays and immigrants and liberals than doing the hard work of welcoming refugees and asylum seekers

  • Iain Lovejoy

    On the one hand, Franklin Graham and co are nothing like the Taliban: I see the parallels, but that is really overboard.
    On the other hand, I suspect that in the beginning the Taliban themselves were nothing like the Taliban. Extremism like that doesn’t happen in a vacuum or start off at its ultimate end.
    Better to say that it is precisely to ensure the Franklin Grahams of this world cannot find themselves becoming the Taliban that such movements be resisted well before they come anywhere close, for their own good as much as anyone else’s.

  • I had written a piece (which went live today) critiquing the Islamophobia we see among Fundamentalists. I noted a lot of their paranoid fears about some supposed secret Muslim plan to take over America… were awfully similar to Fundamentalists’ overtly expressed wishes to take over America. Methinks they’re projecting.

  • Herm

    “Christianity”‘s reputation worldwide has been more like the Taliban ever since it, as a majority body, laid down it’s cross and picked up the sword of Constantine to win the war as soldiers for Christ; no longer disciples (students) of Christ. The crusades to capture the “Holy Lands” were all Talibanese; when the Messiah and His disciples are not of this world. As a closer to home example, the Roman church, which the majority of “Christian” churches still pattern themselves under, forced at gun point all the indigenous “pagans” in the Americas to convert to their morality or die (which was far more Roman like than Christlike).

    What about having to pick up one’s cross to become a pupil of our living Christ don’t the Christian Taliban get?

  • Donald Moeser

    Yes, I thinks it’s safe to say the the mass crime (murders and rape) slaughter of the unborn, colleges and universities becoming Marxist training camps, the war on Free Speech and 2nd amendment, toleration of Islamic terroriam ( what’s the big deal about female genital mutilation, child brides and throwing homoseuals off buildings,) is a result of Christian Fundies. You really nailed it.

  • ZackBop

    “They’re warning us of people who think “God’s ways” ought to be reflected in laws which nonbelievers or other religions are forced to live by.”

    You do this all the time by suggesting that we should legislate the Sermon on the Mount. Don’t pretend like you’re not a big government guy. The only difference between you and the Religious Right is that you’re in lockstep with the Democrat Party. But you still back up your big government positions by appealing to the Bible.

  • Herm

    While the very same religious body voted for, and still overwhelmingly supports, a president of the United States of America who has told all our defensive agencies to stand down from resisting the on going invasion of the most essential element within the fabric of any democracy, majority vote founded on truth. Methinks they are focusing on the wrong threat.

  • Herm

    Thank you, Donald, we needed your mindset to support Ben’s premise. You really nailed it.

  • Herm

    Wait just a moment, did you read this article? What, if anything, suggested legislation? I must have an ultra-liberal far left heart and mind but I honestly read Christians who follow Christ’s example should keep their nose out of legislating.

  • “Look, social ills that are running rampant in what used to be a religious nation will destroy us all unless we fight back!”

    It’s like you took ISIS’ marketing materials and substituted Christian fundamentalist talking points.

  • Donald Moeser

    “in what used to be a religious nation” So, America is a ‘religious” Nation? And the above woes are a result of Christians? I hardly think that “Christians” run our Government, media, Education and Entertainment, do you really?

    The slaughter of innocents, child brides, genitalia mutilation and throwing homosexual off buildings by ISIS is a bit more than marketing materials. But then, maybe they’re just misunderstood.

  • otrotierra

    Another excellent, insightful commentary, Dr. Corey. It is curious how the American Evangelical Taliban both love and hate Big Government dependency. Big Government is bad if it involves healthcare but great if it involves dropping bombs on select brown bodies in the Middle East.

    They want nothing to do with Jesus, that much is clear, and in their blatant rejection they are entirely consistent.

  • lucky21

    Man, this is why the Taliban comparison is even more dumb due to what you said about history. The label Taliban is worthless unless you actually understand what it means. Also the Crusades weren’t Taliban like in origin but an extreme reaction to an invading forces who were imperialistic in nature. Also not every so called pagan land was forced to convert at gunpoint, some places actually did better at not forcing natives to convert.

  • Your… objection to what I said doesn’t make any sense. Reading comprehension not really your go-to skill, is it?

    The reason ISIS has a following is because they parade the moral decline in Muslim nations, the loss of political power of Islam, and the encroachment of Western ways of thinking. It’s a very time-honored tactic to seize power. “Our country is going to hell in a hand basket unless we fight against Group X who are responsible for all our problems.”

    Christian fundamentalists do the exact same thing in America; just instead of “Group X” being Jews (well, sometimes it’s Jews) or America or the West, they swap out Muslims and/or homosexuals. I mean, you just did it. Just now. Just above my comments. You’re living proof.

  • If you disenfranchise American Evangelical Fundamentalism from the political arena, they will become the Taliban. The only reason they aren’t right now is that they mistakenly believe Donald Trump is one of them and has their interests at heart.

  • lucky21

    Also if you use a term like the Taliban to describe your political opposite, then ironically you spread this toxic us vs them mentality you criticize the right for having.

  • lucky21

    The minute someone uses the word Taliban, and the minute they use the dropping bombs on select brown bodies show they don’t know anything about their opponents and are not so different from how they simplify people into boxes. Sorry, but if you think the progressive left’s views on things are enlightening then Ben will not admit he’s just switch out being a right wing fundie for a left wing one.

  • lucky21

    Ironically, the statement in the title ironically doesn’t reflect what he speaks when it comes to those who in opposition with others they don’t understand. I have seen the progressive left claim that they do, but when it actually comes to it in practice they fall flat than they will admit.

  • lucky21

    You are not actually thrown down the toxic rhetoric, you are just making it worse by creating a just as hyperbolic boogyman to fight against. Again another feature of the religious left is that they claim that the religious right divides, but they don’t try to make them understand how they are wrong in generalizing others but they want to create an easy enemy to the point they will see them as the biggest threat. In other words, you guys still want a threat made out of your enemies and then claim you are different from the people you criticize using this tactic.

  • Matt Muldoon

    Dr. Corey, you and others (such as your friend Frank Schaeffer) have described white evangelicals who support Trump as the American Taliban, racist, deranged, mentally ill, dangerous, enemies of peace, Christofascists”, etc. I’m sure I could find plenty more similar epithets if I looked.

    Ok…let us stipulate that Trump, due to his inflammatory rhetoric, bears at least some responsibility for the TriMet (Portland) killings and similar assaults. Would you and your friends be willing to accept responsibility for any assaults against Trump supporters, such as occurred at the pro-Trump rally in Berkeley?

    I don’t understand why I see so much inflammatory rhetoric from people who rightly (IMHO) condemn that very thing. Or is only wrong when directed at some people, and okay when directed at others?

  • Never heard someone who is radically pro-life and completely anti-war accused of being lockstep with the democratic party. They’re not pro-life. They’re not anti-war. I’m not a democrat.

  • Did I say anything about Trump in the article? Nope. I referred to the movement of Franklin Graham trying to get fundamentalist Christians to take over school boards, local governments, state and federal positions, so they can legislate their “biblical values.” None of this has anything to do with Trump whose not even a Christian.

  • Exactly. Both sides use the same exact method to take power.

  • Lucky…for sure believe that the jealous God from the Old Testament is surely in the corner of the right, but Jesus Christ as your savior is well entrenched with the left. Jesus was not only for the poor, he was for the destitute.

    The difference (and it is defacto) between right and left is that one follows exclusion out of fear of other and one follows inclusion out of love for the other…it’s obvious which is which.

    Jesus was not only for the poor, he was for the destitute. The fundamentalist right prefers to attack the poor instead of poverty. right wing evangelizer, Linda Harvey just stressed in an audio commentary in calling for an appointment of special counsel to investigate “the outrageous actions of major homosexual groups trying to normalize this behavior throughout all of America.” It is the rightwing fundamentalist that cheers for the Trump wall…Jesus believed in no boundaries or borders to separate us.

    Sorry chief, but Corey is spot on here and apologies if it offends you, perhaps you even have fears from it awakening you…

  • To begin below…

  • Mr. Corey, spot on and well put…

  • It’s one thing to use “nazi” and “taliban” as undefined pejoratives, it’s another to literally list out the ways they are doing the exact same thing. I did the latter.

  • Matt Muldoon

    You’re right, you didn’t mention Trump. My bad. Let’s try this another way. If an Islamist Taliban cell were uncovered in the US, and it was determined that their intent was to overthrow the US government by force, they would be jailed, tried, and sentenced. Should those you identify as “The American Taliban” be treated in a similar way? Why or why not?

  • otrotierra

    #ThingsJesusNeverSaid sure do politically satisfy you.

  • Donald Moeser

    I suppose you make a good point. The history of Islam from the seventh century has been one of peaceful coexistence with its neighbors. They’ve only been radical for a few decades.

  • Andrew

    This is the same Franklin Graham who has helped build hospitals in war torn areas right? He’s done a lot more for the marginalized than your sorry ass ever will. Nothing at all paranoid about this post. BTW, besides abortion, gay marriage and the occasional spat over evolution can you actually name any objectives of this “Christian Taliban”

  • Donald Moeser

    May I go out on a limb here and suggest that I didn’t vote for the Donald any more than you voted for Mrs. Clinton?
    The point being; the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend.
    Can we restart there?

  • Donald Moeser

    I should have mentioned sooner to the Godly folks below; the evil of which you all speak should no longer be called Fundamentalist. That pretty well went south with the downfall of Wm. Jennings Bryant, for the most part.

    The folks you want to vilify with your broad brush as racist homophobes and fake Christians that didn’t vote for Mrs. Clinton are now to be referred to as Evangelicals.

    If you’re going to slur a large group of people, it’s best to get the name correct.

  • Andrew

    But I have seen plenty of articles from you and others about Trump and how he has “created an atmosphere of hate” (posts like “what I wish my white friends and family would understand about our election grief” come to mind). I’d say the gist of the above comment was if Trump has to take credit for every stupid thing one of his supporters says on social media, why is it that progressive leaders such as yourself, who lie about imaginary threats of white nationalism and a Christian theocracy for a living, are absolved when leftists attack Trump supporters in the name of “stopping Fascism”

  • otrotierra

    Yes absolutely, building a hospital somewhere excuses Franklin’s blatant rejection of Jesus. Superb logic you exhibit there.

  • Donald Moeser

    Are you sure the author is a friend of the son of Frank Schaeffer who described himself as a liberal and a self described “atheist who believes in God”? The one who asked to Christian Conservatives to pony up and help withhis excellent work, “How then should we live”.

  • Donald Moeser

    The reason for the Trump assumption is that the PPC has been on a rampage since the following morning of the Donald’s winning the WH. Your PPC has been foaming at the mouth with hatred for everyone you assume voted against Mrs. Clinton. Therein lies Matt’s error.

  • Donald Moeser

    Take a deep breath and relax there Amigo.

  • Donald Moeser

    Quite a following you have here Doctor. “Another excellent, insightful commentary, Dr. Corey. It is curious how the American Evangelical Taliban both love and hate Big Government dependency. Big Government is bad if it involves healthcare but great if it involves dropping bombs on select brown bodies in the Middle East.

    They want nothing to do with Jesus, that much is clear, and in their blatant rejection they are entirely consistent.”

  • Donald Moeser

    Keep in mind Andrew, these are now the real Christians, i.e. the Pathos Progress Christians.

  • Andrew

    I’d say building a hospital somewhere actually fulfills Jesus’s command. You know, loving your neighbors and whatnot. But what do I really know? Ask Corey, I’m just a heretic that needs to be converted.

  • Scott

    I’m far more afraid of the progressive taliban than I am of the crazies like Franklin Graham. You know the ones. The ones on college campuses who believe it is their civil right not to be offended. The ones who “don’t believe in X, therefore are going to fight” and destroy property and threaten people and make sure you’re not allowed to speak. I’m more afraid of those who will not accept diversity of thought. You toe the progressive line or you get whacked. Kind of like those on Patheos. It’s all about tribe.

  • Stuart Blessman

    What?

  • Stuart Blessman

    Are you referring to Dominionists?

  • Stuart Blessman

    Trolls aside, you are right in this post. Thank you for writing it.

  • lucky21

    The funny thing here is that whenever someone uses Jesus to criticize it’s never their own side, but the other side. It might be the Religious Right has problems with that, but the Religious Left like Ben who also have a recurring issue. They believe that they are the perfect example of Jesus’ teaching, do not think they are wrong in speaking down to others. Also you say the Left follows things out of love, well it’s not always the case and sometimes ironically as this article shows it’s sometimes out of fear that is not so different from what they criticize. I have also thing the Right do things out of love, and not fear as everyone demonizes them as.

    Also the use of Jesus to say believed in no boundaries and borders comes off as just sneaky in political use as Franklin Graham does when he justifies his positions. At some point, you have to realize that Jesus is not going to be your left wing fan boy who will agree with you but actually challenge. That will be the same fro Graham, because he wants a Jesus that fits his vision as well and not who he really was.

  • lucky21

    The funny thing is the people who criticize the Right for putting things in Jesus’ mouth are not above doing it themselves.

  • lucky21

    Nope, slapping a label carries a heavy condition to it. They are not taking over the government violently like the Taliban, Graham is just say that more Christians of their ilk should run for office. That’s the opposite of how the Taliban took over. Do I feel he really has gotten extreme over the years? Yes, but calling it the same level as the Taliban is not so different from how he treats other on the opposite side.

  • Scott

    As do progressives. Progressives are the other side of the same coin they rail against.

  • Yep. Just like Christianity’s long history of non-violence and peaceful relationships.

  • I’m not really criticizing “the right,” nor am I criticizing them for having an “us vs them” mentality. I am criticizing a certain segment of American Christianity for wanting to seize political power to impose their theocratic will in America – a maneuver that is even more ridiculous because it is facilitated by creating fear portraying a -different- religious group trying to do the same thing.

    This is the irony. Many American fundamentalist evangelicals who are politically active basically agree that ISIS and the Taliban are correct on just about everything; they’re just wrong about being Muslim. It’s not that radicalized fundamentalism or oppressive theocracies are inherently flawed ways of approaching the world; they just believe it’s the wrong fundamentalism/theocracy.

  • See Noevo

    How many have the American Christian Taliban blown up or decapitated this year?

  • Sure. In addition to the things you listed:

    1) Unquestioning support for Israel
    2) Any civil rights for gay people at all (i.e. restaurants should not have to serve them, etc.)
    3) Christianity taught in public schools
    4) Expulsion or detainment of Muslims
    5) Aggressive militancy against Muslim nations
    6) Draconian immigration policies
    7) Airtight guards against the travesty of someone using the “wrong” bathroom

    And typically:

    8) Thorough deregulation of the market (which always puzzles me – they complain all day about the moral decline of America, but they want freer markets, as if these things are not related)

    But, I mean, pick your issue, right? The Traditional Values Coalition is currently working to “defeat the Iran deal.” http://www.traditionalvalues.org/defeat_the_iran_deal

    Remember that teaching of Jesus, “Thou shalt not come to an agreement allowing nations to pursue a nuclear program?”

  • otrotierra

    The American Christian Taliban has the world’s largest military with the largest military spending budget in global history and the largest military presence around the globe to do the killing for them.

    Or did you conveniently forget Evangelical favorite George W. Bush and his Evangelical-supported “Shock & Awe” terrorism over Baghdad?

  • LOL! Yes, those progressive Christians going around beating everyone up so they can’t speak. Truly, Rob Bell has created a Thunderdome.

  • I’ve lost track of how many people Israel has killed this year, but that aside, the American Christian Taliban doesn’t have to blow anyone up because their allies are in power and, at least for the time being, America has laws prohibiting that sort of thing.

    But if Falwell, Graham, Baker, Perkins, etc. could execute “unrepentant” Muslims and homosexuals without ramifications, I don’t doubt they’d do it. And if they find themselves powerless in American politics, it won’t surprise me a bit when the guns come out.

  • otrotierra

    Yes, and murderous gangster Al Capone ran a soup kitchen.

  • He also gives himself an enormous salary for being the CEO of Samaritan’s Purse – the largest for any relief-based charity in the USA. So, you know, not exactly Mother Teresa, here.

  • Scott Harrison

    The logic here is faulty. If building hospitals and other construction projects on behalf of the poor marks one as Christian then Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein must be listed amongst the saints.

  • lucky21

    That’s not seizing power by force or anything. Heck, lots of people do the cries to get back America, and often times it’s not a cry for theocracy as people on the left make it out to be. Also the old saying they agree with what ISIS and Taliban is doing is really dishonest, because what they do is wrong on so many levels.

  • Richard Worden Wilson

    The proposed parallel here between the actual Taliban and supposed taliban Christians just isn’t quite parallel, in obvious ways. This is kind of like calling those with whom you disagree Fascists or Communists when they clearly aren’t. This is propagandistic in a way that might be compared to propaganda in the kind of repressive environments wherein actual Taliban have a predominant impact, but shouldn’t be because there are too many actual differences to make the comparison valid.

  • lucky21

    That ain’t the same thing, and it really comes off as far left talking point with no real meat to it. Also that’s not terrorism by definition, and trying to paint it as really is revisionist. Also saying that the military is there for the goal of killing all of the Religious Right’s enemies is really stupid as well, and really shows how people don’t actually know jack how it works.

  • lucky21

    Also saying Israel is terrorist is really again another lost point to any argument you are trying to make.

  • lucky21

    Berkley would love to have a word with you buddy.

  • Scott Harrison

    I like the point you make. There is a stunning poem by the French Catholic Michel Quoist (in “Prayers of Life”) where he expresses a theopaschite perspective on just this issue. We try to shoe-horn Jesus into our rigid positions. To continue a little: the poem is titled “Son, I beseech you, don’t sleep any more”.
    The poem touches on Matthew 25:35-40 and includes this meditation, “I am on the side of the demonstrators and on the side of the police, for men, alas! transform me into a policeman.
    I am a leftist, a rightist and even in the centre.
    I am this side of the Iron Curtain and beyond.
    I am a German and a Frenchman, a Russian and an American,
    A Chinese from Nationalist China and one from Communist China,
    I am from Vietnam and from Vietminh.
    I am everywhere men are, God says.”
    Christ is at the heart of our suffering, at the barricades where Christians disagree…

  • Matt Muldoon

    I’m referring to Dr. Corey’s “American Taliban”.

  • Matt Muldoon

    Yes, I’m sure. At least they pretend to be in their videos.

  • Richard Worden Wilson

    Whose sides are you referring to here? Who exactly are you referring to as a Christian? Who the Taliban? The Taliban and Christians actually exist today in the same political environments but act in completely different ways, don’t they? Come on, let’s get some on the ground perspective on this hyperbolic debate.

  • See Noevo

    You ARE from another planet, otrotierra.

  • Richard Worden Wilson

    Supposed Muslim plan? Really? Have you actually read or listened to Islamic fundamentalists? Every Islamic evangelical I’ve heard says clearly that his desire is to convert the world and impose Islamic law on the whole world. As you must surely realize, the example and teaching of Mohammad and the teaching of the Hadith confirm that this is the goal of Allah. And there is nothing in this even close to the persuasion / proclamation method inherent in the New Testament program of Jesus. This should be an Apples versus rotten Potatoes comparison, but many of us just haven’t done our historical homework.

  • otrotierra

    As soon as you are able to offer a logical counter-argument in response to what I wrote, be sure to let me know.

  • See Noevo
  • See Noevo

    I have to agree with Woody…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rcQO9oadp8

  • Richard Worden Wilson

    Nothing worse than a reformed whatever, always more critical of one’s own past than able to be critical of even those whose also abusive behaviors one might reasonably also oppose. If one fully embraces the forgiveness found in knowing Christ and his Gospel one might move on to a more healthy critique and stand against those who seek to destroy the mission of Christ and truth about him, including the Taliban, Islamicists, and , oh, all Muslims who believe in Muhammad. Just sayin’

  • Scott Harrison

    Lucky I take your point. I am not a fundamentalist or conservative Christian but hate to see my conservative Christian friends thrown into a box with the label “Taliban” stuck on it! Perhaps I’m hoping for too much here, but if christians of all persuasions could find the common ground of their humanity in Christ we would make progress in seeing the common humanity in those of different faiths. I live in South Africa and am every day amazed at and proud of the religious tolerance and mutual respect and cooperation between Muslims, Christians and Jews (read about “Gift of the Givers”). Our enemy is intolerance, othering, fear and cruelty. Maybe this developed in part because all three Abrahamic faiths saw the evil of apartheid and united against it, just as now throughout the world we must unite against tyranny, the degradation and demonization of our fellow men and women in any guise such cruelty manifests.

  • otrotierra

    Your spiritual and moral relativism must be very self-satisfying to you, but they aren’t sufficient replacements for a cogent counter-argument you don’t have. Hiding behind hypocrisy and intellectual sloth will never strengthen your position, and it is not persuasive.

  • otrotierra

    Thank you for confirming: you don’t have a logical counter-argument.

  • Richard Worden Wilson

    Unfortunately, Benjamin, they are not “doing the exact same thing,” and this is the problem with where you went with this. I love your passion for what you believe and do here, but I seriously question whether this is actually rational and accurate, rather than merely polemic/propagandistic.

  • Richard Worden Wilson

    Exactly.

  • otrotierra

    Yes, it equally pains Dr. Corey to see U.S. White Evangelicals using the same logic as the Taliban.

  • cary_w

    As a non-Christian, I want to thank you for writing this. The fundamentalists who seek to control everyone else give all Christians a bad name. It’s important for the more mainstream Christians, like yourself, to speak up and condemn this kind of behavior so that those of us that are prone to generalizing are reminded that most Christians are not like that. It is all too easy to jump on the hate bandwagon and condemn all Christians as radical nuts when one of you claims to be doing God’s will by stabbing people on a subway or bombing a medical clinic. I know the vast majority of you are not like that, you’re my co-workers, neighbors and almost all of the ordinary, friendly people I interact with every day.

    You have every right to follow your own beliefs (within the letter of the law, of course), but so do the rest of us, even when those beliefs are not the same. I just want to be able to send my kids to public schools without fear that they will be inundated with religious beliefs I don’t believe in. I want to be able to do business with the government without feeling like I have to pretend to be the favored religion if I what fair treatment. I’m sure you feel the same way. Separation of church and state protects all of us, and I’m always glad when the dominant religion can step outside themselves for a minute and recognise that.

  • lucky21

    It’s not moral and spiritual relativism, but calling out the fact that this is actually extreme tribalism that they rail the Right wing for doing without any self-awareness. This not hiding behind hypocrisy, but calling it out from people who criticize one side’s hypocrisy but never their own.

  • lucky21

    I say this is just generalization, and it actually does help anyone to understand anybody. Maybe, it would be better to say that the Religious Right should change itself, instead of saying they are as bad as the Taliban because when you look closer they aren’t the same type as category as them. The call to change culture is something they have always done, and it was never through violence like the Taliban but through democratic process. Can you say they have become too entangled into politics? That would be correct, but saying they are the Taliban shows extreme ignorance and partisanship.

  • Here in the UK, we have just had a weird General Election where no party has won. In response to concerned constituents’ questions about whether a minority party would be allowed to impose their hardline views in exchange for shoring up our collapsing Conservative Government, my local MP, who declares herself as a ‘gentle atheist’, had this to say: “I will never agree to any dilution of LGBT rights. And Creationism in schools? Hell no.” I am glad she’s my MP.

  • Paul Schlitz Jr.

    1763 Conrstoga Indiantown massacre committed by Presbyterians

  • Matthew

    I may have missed something, but I have been here rather regularly for a few years now and I have never gotten the vibe that Dr. Corey is trying to legislate the Sermon on the Mt.

  • Matthew

    Isn´t Jesus going to be king of a theocracy of universal proportions when he returns? If so, and if there is no final judgement, then aren´t people who don´t want to live under Jesus´ rule and reign pretty much going to be forced to?

    See where my thoughts go Phil on the morning train ride :-) …

  • Matthew

    I too would like to see Christians of all persuasions find more common ground on which to stand. Thanks for this.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    FYI the @92jazzqueen who upvoted your comment is a sock puppet for @lucky21.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    FYI @lucky21 is a sock puppet for @92jazzqueen who upvoted your comment.

  • Scott

    I never said anything about progressive Christians.

  • Andrew

    “1. Unquestioning support for Israel”
    Well most groups like the Taliban want Israel wiped off the face of the Earth, so this doesn’t seem an appropriate comparison. Also besides Christians many, if not most American Jews, both practicing and non-practicing, support Israel. I’m sure a large number of non religious Americans also support Israel. You know, they are one of our oldest allies in the region and everything.

    “2. Any civil rights for gay people at all (i.e. restaurants should not have to serve them, etc.)”
    I’m guessing “bake the cake” right? That’s the real issue here because other than Christian businesses not serving gay weddings I haven’t seen any “civil rights” violations. By the way this is called freedom of conscience. I know at least 50 atheist libertarians (all of whom support gay marriage by the way) who would unhesitatingly agree that businesses don’t have to serve gays if they choose not to. There are also plenty of devout Muslims and Jews who would agree. It’s the simple principle that if you own a business, you should be allowed to do business with whomever you want to. I’d be fine with this applying to everybody, including gay business owners not serving Christians. Also all this noise over the issue raises an interesting question. Why is it that if someone doesn’t like you enough that they won’t serve you that the instant response is “let me give you my money you bigot?”

    “3. Christianity taught in Public Schools”
    What exactly do you mean by this? I mean technically Christianity already is taught in a lot of public schools and colleges (look up this class called “religious studies). Is this going back to the whole creation-evolution controversy? Or are you worried about prayer in schools? I ask because these seem to be the two main fears coming out of the far left. Also, neither one seems that particularly worrisome. From what I can tell no one wants a mandate that all public schools nationwide teach Christianity. They are simply requesting that if a school is in an area that is mostly or uniformly Christian, that the school be allowed to make itself a little more “Christian-oriented” (whatever that might mean). This is simply the principle of localism. Again, I know a lot of non-Christians who would agree.

    “4. Expulsion or Detainment of Muslims”
    I’ve seen nothing to suggest that and I’ve been attending a “far-right” Southern Baptist Church for years now, and I have a good number of “fundie” friends outside that church, and I keep up with several figures that would probably be considered “far-right” Christians. By the way, a four month halt on immigration from seven terror racked countries is not in any way a policy to expel or detain Muslims.

    “5. Aggressive militancy against Muslim nations”
    Yeah because Trump (who, as you folks never fail to remind me, was elected by 81% of White Evangelicals) sure acted aggressive towards Saudi Arabia and Egypt when he went and shook the hands of their leaders and promised to help strengthen bonds between our nations. Then again I guess there has been the saber-rattling towards the Muslim majority nation of North Korea. Oh wait!

    “6. Draconian immigration policies”
    Translation, enforcing immigration laws that already exist and not having open borders. Again there are plenty of non-Christians who support these “Draconian” immigration policies. There are also plenty of non-whites who do to. Why do you think Trump won a third of the Latino vote.

    “7. Airtight guards against the travesty of someone using the wrong bathroom”
    Yes how could I have forgotten that one! I’m sorry, I was unaware that keeping a mentally confused man in a dress out of a women’s restroom was in the same category of stoning adulterers, throwing people off a building for homosexuality and instituting the death penalty for apostasy . Thanks for enlightening me Phil! By the way, there are plenty of Jews, Muslims and non-religious folks who think that “segregating” bathrooms is just common sense.

    “8. Thorough Deregulation of the market.”
    You’re kidding right? So let me see, advocating deregulation is a sign of a coming dictatorship. I mean you’re saying that a scenario where two parties are allowed to negotiate and come up with a deal that they both agree on without a third party forcing something on them results from…a theocracy that imposes its views on others. Makes perfect sense. Again there are (quite a few actually) non-Christians who want deregulation of the market.

    This sounds less like the agenda of the Taliban and more like the fact that there are simply people who you don’t agree with politically. 4 and 5 are just boogeymen and the rest are positions held by many non-Christians.

  • Andrew

    Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were mass murderers. If your actually trying to draw comparisons between them and Graham then to me that says less about him and more about your hatred of him.

  • otrotierra

    Your faulty logic invites the comparison.

    You’ll have to work much, much harder to justify Franklin Graham’s rejection of The Greatest Commandment.

  • Andrew

    I doubt anything I can say will end your hatred and bigotry. I’ll pray that one day you find Jesus

  • Because, right now, they don’t need force. That’s a valid difference between them and the Taliban. But their party line is the same.

    And you’re right, there are a lot of people in America who pull the same thing. “Group X is responsible for all our woes, so you should put us in power so we can stop them.” There are plenty of people of all political stripes who adopt that tactic.

    But Ben’s article is addressing self-proclaimed Christians who do this, and what they’re offering is the institution of their highly idiosyncratic view of Christianity controlling America as opposed to whatever they’re blaming all our problems on.

  • Where did I say Israel is “terrorist,” whatever that means? Has Israel killed Muslims? Did we help them do it? Ok, then.

  • Were those progressive Christians? Do you have evidence for that?

    I’m also disinclined to use “what college kids do” as a bellweather for America’s political scene.

  • Well reasoned argument. Thanks. It probably doesn’t surprise you that I don’t put a lot of stock in your assessments.

  • ZackBop

    The leftist demagoguery of this blog is quite astonishing at times. They’re literally just the leftist version of the Religious Right that they hate so much.

  • When Jesus returned, you mean?

    Well, setting up a kingdom is exactly what happened. It’s how we got Christendom, beginning with Constantine. And, yes, there were atrocities committed under that arc of Christian history as well. There were some good things about it, too – it wasn’t a totally unmitigated disaster, but you can see the shift from “let’s stop the persecution of Christians” to “let’s drive the pagans from our shores at the point of a sword.” Heck, at some periods in history, it was “let’s drive the other Christians who disagree with us from our shores at the point of a sword.”

  • Then what’s your point? Ben’s article is about a particular segment of Christians having a vision for America and how they are attaining power. Your point is… the American left has violent wackjobs? How is that any kind of critique to what Ben said?

    Or is Christianity and the American right the exact same thing to you?

  • ZackBop

    Your hatred is exclusively targeted towards people on the right. I don’t think I’ve ever heard you criticize your friends on the left. You tend to make excuses for them.

    I don’t recall you ever directing your moral outrage towards Obama when he was bombing the Middle East, or towards the group that regularly terminates unborn babies when they were caught describing (in extremely disturbing ways, I might add) some of the reprehensible acts that they commit.

    Instead, I would hear you defend them regularly.

  • otrotierra

    Yet the demagoguery you desperately seek is nowhere in Dr. Corey’s commentary. It’s not there, that’s why you can’t find it.

    You’ll have to invest your demagoguery-seeking talents elsewhere.

  • You asked what their political agenda is and I told you. I know you think that agenda is the greatest thing ever; I wasn’t trying to argue that with you because that would be useless. I was just answering your question.

    Ben’s article, if you decide to read it at some point, is about the tactics of a group of Christians who are trying to seize power by raising fears about one religious group controlling America only so that they themselves can be the religious group controlling America. The article is not about how the Right is evil and the Left is awesome. The article is not about the merits or demerits of various policies. It is about the inherent contradiction and apparent success of a group of Christian people taking power in America and how they are doing it.

    You and a handful of others who seem to have trouble reading anything are making this about whether the Left or the Right in America has the best policies. How you think you can resolve that in a thread of Internet comments is beyond me.

    The one thing you did say that was relevant to the discussion is that you don’t think this group is pushing for the expulsion or detainment of Muslims.

    What about Zach Drew? What about Jim Bakker? What about Sam Rohrer? Are these people NOT representative of politically active American evangelical Christianity? Hell, Brian Fischer said that they should kick out any immigrants who have been to Mecca and wanted to issue a mandatory polygraph test!

  • Scott

    I’d lump the fundies like Graham and his ilk, the alt left progressives and the hard right conservatives together. They’re all distinctions without a difference.

  • Well, you might be on to something, but Ben is a Christian writing a blog about Christianity and his article was concerned with how certain Christians are behaving in the political sphere. Generically speaking, the Right and the Left both have their wackjobs, sure, and if Ben’s article was about how the Left was full of compassionate angels and the Right was full of violent devils, your point would be well-taken.

    As it is, you’re basically saying, “Well, some people on the Left are bad, too!” Yes, they sure are, but the article’s not really a general analysis of the ethical behavior of the Left and Right.

  • otrotierra

    Yes, because there’s no difference between war-mongering Graham and anti-war anabaptist Dr. Corey. Excellent ISIS recruiting logic.

  • Matthew

    I guess I mean the idea that the full consummation of the kingdom is yet to come. The kingdom was at hand during Jesus´ life and ministry, the kingdom came initially at the cross and resurrection, and the kingdom will fully and officially come when Jesus returns at his second coming. This is what I understand to be pretty standard Christian teaching.

    If that´s the case, and King Jesus is going to reign in a more physical and real sense from Mt. Zion, what´s going to happen to all those who forsake God and want no part of Jesus if there is no final judgement? It seems to me those people will be forced to live in a theocratic kingdom against their wills.

  • I don’t agree with that eschatology, so I’m not sure how how an advocate of that eschatology would explain it.

    What I can say, and maybe this is a direction someone would want to go, is that the virtues of a kingdom God seems to be after revolve around justice and equity for all who live under the kingdom, especially expressive of mercy and restoration. And no national idolatry.

    What this looks like in a particular political venue probably varies from society to society, and if Jesus personally were to run it, I have no doubt that it would look very different from kingdoms (theocratic or otherwise) we’ve seen thus far. But, once again, I don’t really see Jesus physically establishing a theocracy on earth to be the endpoint of biblical eschatology. In fact, Paul tells us that Jesus will turn everything back over to the Father so that God will be all in all, so at minimum, kingdom seems to be a temporary paradigm that only has meaning insofar as the people of God have to exist among enemies.

  • Scott

    Good points. I’m just always trying to get people to realize they may be the other side of the same coin. I don’t think any of us have a monopoly on the truth, but we all tend to think our tribe is the good and pure tribe. I know I’m no better than my fundie friends, even though i think they are way off base.

  • Scott

    One other point. I think Ben using the Taliban as comparison is highly irresponsible and actually quite foolish. It’s a childish argument. It’s like comparing republicans to Nazis. It disqualifies you. Any historical understanding of the horrible atrocities committed by the Taliban would prove the comparison ridiculous.

  • Paul Cook-Giles

    Lucky, there is a vast difference between persuading a culture to change, and compelling it to conform to a specific set of beliefs and practices with the force of law. Peter Sprigg and Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum and Jerry Falwell II and John Hagee and Tony Perkins and James Dobson and all the rest of their merry band are working as hard as they can to make their Dominionist doctrine the law of the land… and I have no difficulty believing that they’d love to bring back* Prohibition and the stocks and the dunking stool and compulsory church attendance and blasphemy, fornication, and sodomy laws.

    *Note that “bring back”… this continent had all those laws once. It’s not impossible for us to have them again.

  • gimpi1

    Has anyone else noticed how closely the extreme end of conservative Christianity in the U.S. looks like their own depiction of the followers of the Antichrist? Now, I don’t see any evidence for the whole “end times” ideology, but conservative Christians often do, yet they never seem to notice how closely they mirror their own demons. Lust for power? Check. Desire to control others? Check. Desire to inflict draconian punishments on those who don’t submit? Check. Lying about others to justify their agenda? Check. Attaching themselves to authoritarian leaders? Check.

    Now, this is likely just the tendency of groups based on fear to become what they fear. There’s also a strong ‘family resemblance’ between any extreme group. Still, some of the people on the extreme edge of Christianity seem to be advocating for things that I have a hard time separating from the Antichrist, or the Taliban.

  • Matthew

    Sorry Phil … you may have explained this in previous comments to me … but can you express your eschatological viewpoint please beyond that of restoration and resurrection?

  • gimpi1

    I do see attempting to use force of law to compel people to live the way a group wants as a problem. Now,sometimes, it can be necessary – quarantine in the case of infectious disease is an a example. Most of the time, however, it’s not. Society has no right to force some people to marry, or to forbid others from marrying. It has no right to demand people follow some external appearances of belief, or to demand that they refrain from following them. Our private lives are private and no business of the law, as long as we’re not doing overt harm to others.

    Laws demanding cohabiting couples marry are wrong. Laws forbidding same-gender couples from marrying were wrong. Laws forbidding interracial couples from marrying were wrong. Laws demanding or forbidding articles of clothing are wrong. State-sponsored endorsements of one faith over another are wrong. Laws restricting one group based on faith, gender or appearance are wrong.

    Some groups want to impose those laws. That’s wrong. I’m glad they’re trying to use the democratic process instead of force of arms, but they’re still wrong. Laws imposing these restrictions can’t be imposed, not even by majority will. That’s “tyranny of the majority” and it’s against the Constitution.

    Remember, originally, the Taliban started out as the Mjuahideen, fighting the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. They took charge of Afghanistan after the government collapsed. They then wrote laws based on their beliefs and used force of law to impose them. Is that so different from what the Christian Dominionists want to do?

  • gimpi1

    Actually, the Taliban started out as the Mjuahideen, fighting the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. They took charge of Afghanistan after the government collapsed. The force against their own people came later, as they demanded more and more power over people’s private lives.

    Now, Mr. Graham isn’t there – yet. However, I see him as on the road. Perhaps Dr, Corey is doing Mr. Graham a service, warning him of dangers on the road ahead?

  • Well, that’s pretty much it, actually. Death and Satan will be destroyed. Creation will be renewed. General resurrection. Last couple of chapters of Revelation stuff, keeping in mind those chapters are written in apocalyptic imagery, so the reality on the ground may not exactly resemble the images.

  • gimpi1

    Do you really think you need to “stand against… all Muslims?” Because, I have to say, as an outsider to your faith, that’s, well, creepy? Do you need to stand against Jewish people? Hindu people? Buddhist people? Me? Is everyone who doesn’t share your beliefs an enemy to be controlled? Because that’s what I read in your comment… am I reading it wrong?

  • Matthew

    Thanks. In your view … what will we do after the general resurrection and will there be a final judgement of the unbelieving? I´m sitting here right now with my wife and we are talking about all of this. Neither of us can fathom how God would override someone´s will who really doesn´t want to be in his renewed creation. Where do these people go?

  • gimpi1

    They weren’t. They started out as the Mjuahideen, fighting the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. They took charge of Afghanistan after the government collapsed. They were anticommunist rebels fighting occupation, with the support – both financial and material – of the U.S. When the Soviet Union was driven out, they took over the collapsing government. Then, their fanatical beliefs were given full reign, and, well, we all saw the result.

    I think you’re right about the need for, well, road-signs on the road to fanatical and oppressive beliefs. Is Mr. Graham a fanatical oppressor? No. Is he on the road to fanatical oppressive dominionist beliefs? I think he is. Perhaps Dr. Corey’s post is a warning road-sign.. Warning, Danger Ahead. Use Extreme Caution.

  • gimpi1

    Fear-based groups do this. When your basic world view is grounded in fear of some “other,” you tend to, firstly, take all your worst tendencies and extrapolate them to that “other.” Then, you develop a strategy for controlling or oppressing that other that virtually always involves giving those worst tendencies free reign in yourself.

    When you found your world view on fear and hate of any group, you will take on the traits that you claim the group you hate embodies. You can set your watch by that.

  • Andrew

    His article insists that there is an “American Christian Taliban” that is trying to take over America through democratic means. The Taliban was a theocracy. This charge towards conservative Christians is not new. However, every time someone makes this charge there are usually three things that they seem to be worried about. These things are the outlawing of abortion and gay marriage, and the issue of whether creationism should be taught in schools. Regardless of what your opinions are on these things, they do not constitute a totalitarian theocracy (which controls almost every aspect of its citizens lives). Given that you can count these issues on one hand, and that none of them involve physical harm to people, it is downright paranoid to say that a group of people who want to outlaw abortions and gay marriage, and teach creationism are the same thing as the Taliban.

    So, since you apparently haven’t read any of my comments, I asked a simple question. Could anyone name anymore things that this “American Christian Taliban” was pushing for. You gave me eight other things that this “creeping theocracy” supposedly wants to do. My response (which seems to have really confused you) was that two of these issues are basically non-existent, and that the others are not even really touched on by theology, and are supported by Christians and non-Christians alike. I could go further and also point out that there are non-Christians that make secular arguments against abortion and gay marriage but that would probably only further confuse you. So to sum up, my response was not (please pay attention) to have a discussion on the merits of these policies. It was simply to point out that Christians and non-Christians alike support them. Except four and five which nobody but a few outliers support.

    The point of this is to say that articles like this one are extremely hyperbolic at best, and bold faced lies at worse. There is no “American Christian Taliban” trying to take over. It sounds like something straight out of the Protocols of the Elder Zion.

    “What about Zach Drew? What about Jim Bakker? What about Sam Rohrer? Are these people NOT representative of politically active American evangelical Christianity?”

    I’ve never heard of any of these people, so no they are not. Although I have my doubts that they even made the comments you accuse them off. I find it more likely that things they said were ripped out of context to make them look bad.

  • Donald Moeser

    Strangely, in the midst of all the nasty accusations, you are indeed correct about the foolishness of End Times Scofield Dispensational thinking among most Evangelicals. The Last Day / End Times of the Bible was the Fulfillment of Jesus’s promise to destroy and make Desolate the Harlot Jerusalem, which He did in AD70. It also is the source of the Churches belief that the Old Covenant is still to be fulfilled giving the seed of Abraham the land in the Levant, and ignoring the plight of the Palestinians.

  • gimpi1

    And the vast majority of Muslims don’t support that. I’ve read many statements from many Imans that specifically encourage an open, inclusive relationship with people outside their faith. I’ve read condemnations of terrorist actions, passionate statements in favor of U.S. freedoms and strong patriotic comments from Muslim Americans. Perhaps you might want to look in different places?

    In the past, the idea of Christendom was a thing. Christian governments fought religious wars to impose their version of Christianity on firstly Pagan and Jewish people, then Muslims and other varieties of Christians. Heresy trials, religious laws, forced conversions, all these were common. The need to establish a world-wide Christian government was strongly believed, and those who advocated for it quoted Scripture to justify it. It was used to justify the African slave trade, the conquest of South and Central America, and the seizure of lands from Native American tribes. It’s only recently that some sects of Christianity pulled away from all this. Now, that change is good, and I would hope to see the same change in some of the more radical Islamic sects in the middle east,

    Islam has many sects. Holding a moderate American congregation responsible for ISIS is no more reasonable than holding the Lutherans responsible for the acts of the Church of Jesus Christ, Christian that advocates for the murder of all Jewish people and regards Hitler as a saint.

    I would argue that if you want to restrict Muslim people in the U.S., you are violating the Constitution. Mr. Graham appears to want this. Do you?

  • In my view, there is a final judgement that goes along with the general resurrection. At minimum, death is destroyed as a result. Revelation also says that anyone whose name was not written in the book of life was destroyed as well. Now, who is in that group is obviously debatable. They are judged on what they have done. John is writing from the standpoint of a persecuted church, and I think it’s a good bet he’s thinking of oppressors and the people who assist them. Antiochus Epiphanes. Nero. But, obviously, that’s God’s decision, and some have argued that it may end up being no one at all. I guess this makes me a “soft annihilationist.” I don’t know if that’s a real thing.

    As for life after this event, I suppose we’ll go on doing human history things, albeit with a trajectory drastically changed by preceding events.

    I don’t know about a scenario where someone looks at a world free of persecution and oppression and death(!) under the purview of a loving God and does not want that. Although, I do think we sometimes make an idol out of human will – as if our personal choices are the hinge on which the cosmos must turn and God Himself is required to shy away from a hint of violation of any individual’s choices. John certainly does not seem to foresee the scenario where someone comes through the final judgement but actually prefers oppression and death.

    Maybe people so dedicated to a world like that won’t make it into the new heavens and earth and will just be dead. Maybe they will be brought in with the hope that, over time, they will be won over. There are passages like Revelation 22:2 that seem indicate there’s still damage that needs to be healed, even in this new state of affairs. I don’t know the answer to that and I’m not sure we have one.

  • gimpi1

    And the Taliban started out as the Mjuahideen, a rebel force. They were fighting an an invading force, the Soviet Union, which had invaded Afghanistan. We (the U.S.) were their allies, and we offered support in the form of money, weapons and advisers. The Soviet Union was forced out. They took charge of Afghanistan after the government collapsed. Then, when they were in charge, their fanatical ideology took over. We all saw the results.

    There are similarities here. Perhaps you might want to do a bit of research into the Afghan war in the 1980’s.

    Are you advocating for forced conversions of Pagan people? It kind of sounded like it at the end of your comment… Because that was pretty awful.

  • IconoclastTwo

    What do you define as terrorism?

  • Matthew

    Who is judged based on what they have done?

    “I suppose we´ll go on doing human history things, albeit with a trajectory drastically changed by preceding events.”

    I hope we learn from history Phil. I really do.

  • IconoclastTwo

    He’s not lying, though.

  • lucky21

    What Israel is doing is a war between two nations. The left’s obsession with trying to create false equivalence by liberally slapping the label of terrorism does people no service.

  • gimpi1

    I’m sorry that I came off as nasty to you. This is really how Mr. Graham’s movement looks from the outside. I don’t share your faith, and, seeing it as an outsider, I do see the extreme side of it, as sometimes manifested by Mr. Graham the way I describe. Given that that’s the view from my seat, how would you have me describe it?

  • But “non-Christian people support some of these things, too” doesn’t mean anything, so I’m sorry I didn’t address that. There are non-Muslims who support some things in Sharia law, too, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t theocratic Muslim states simply because some non-Muslims may agree with some of the policies. Many Fundamentalist Christians agree with ISIS on homosexuality. Does that mean ISIS is not theocratic? Your big, important objection is completely irrelevant.

    A set is a set whether or not other members exist outside the set that share the same characteristics. Of course there are non-Fundamentalist Christians who support some of the same policies Fundamentalist Christians do – that’s why Christians would vote for Satan himself if he claimed he might do something vaguely pro-life. But how in any possible equation does that mean those policies are not part of a theocratic agenda by a certain group of people?

    “I’ve never heard of any of these people, so no they are not.”

    You’ve never heard of Jim Bakker? Well, ok, but if you’re that out of touch with Christian America, I’m not sure your personal experience is the best standard to use for who is and isn’t representative of them.

  • lucky21

    That’s where so many actually a lot of differences are pointed out. For one the Religious Right is not a rebel force fighting against some invading nation, also Taliban’s beginnings sounds more like the Syrian rebels who have connections with ISIS. Sure there are American self-proclaimed militia, but the religious right don’t call for military take over as those extreme groups but do it in a democratic way.

  • lucky21

    Nope, if he’s calling for military takeover of the government then the Taliban can be a good comparison. However, at this state he’s a man who is too engrossed into politics to see that he’s making things worse instead of better.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “For one the Religious Right is not a rebel force fighting against some invading nation,”

    That’s exactly the rhetoric that they’ve always used, though. They don’t regard minorities, gay people, and liberals as people they just disagree with; they regard us as invaders/ungodly/sinful who need to be legislated against (at best) and expunged violently (at worst/when they’re finally being somewhat honest).

  • lucky21

    I compare a lot of the Religious Right in the same category as a lot of sections of the Religious Left who can be very tribalistic and cross the line on certain issues. However, I don’t see them as the same thing as communists as you see everyone as like the Taliban.

  • IconoclastTwo

    If it was a war between two nations then the Palestinians would be entitled to the protections of international law between combatant nations.

    You also didn’t answer the question. :)

  • Me, too.

    According to John, all the dead are judged according to their works in the general resurrection – Rev. 20:11-15

  • lucky21

    While these groups have problems, I actually would say they have been around in America for years and treating it as a recent thing shows that people don’t actually know anything from history. When you compare them to something like the Taliban, then it’s clear people are tone deaf to what they actually are.

  • gimpi1

    Well, I’ll address your last point first. ‘Taking Over’ democratically is unconstitutional. It’s called “tyranny of the majority.” Examples would be Jim Crow laws that were supported by majorities in the states that enacted them, and laws allowing discrimination against Catholic Jewish people that were common and supported by the majority of the voters in the 19th century. Those things were democratically supported, but wrong, and eventually overturned. I don’t support tyranny of the majority. Do you?

    Some groups on the fringe of the far right of Christianity do regard themselves as opposing an occupying army which they call ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government).

    Assuming all Muslims are represented by the few extremists is no more logical than assuming all Christians are represented by the ZOG folks.

  • lucky21

    Sprigg is the only one who comes closet to the theocracy label. While the others are dubious when you look closer at them. Also I have many problems with the Dominionistic label as well, because the left has misused it so much that it’s pretty much a meaningless word with no real meat to it except labeling your opponents.

  • gimpi1

    OK, I’m having a really hard time following you. Are you using some sort of Autocorrect program, because this didn’t make any sense.

    I never said I see everyone as like the Taliban. I never suggested anything about Communists. I just gave you some history on a group you were discussing that you didn’t seem to have. I also tried to show how groups can change when the obtain power. Did you get that?

  • Andrew

    You apparently didn’t read the article

  • Matthew

    Thanks so much Phil.

    Death and Hades is first emptied, and then destroyed according to the passage in Revelation 20. Thoughts?

    Also … who is not written in the book of life do you think?

  • Well, yes and no. It sort of depends on how you define “recent.”

    I mean, evangelicalism was completely ok with abortion until the late 70s, which is also when the Christian Right really started stepping up to the plate and swinging at pitches. Does that count as “recent?” Maybe, maybe not.

    I think, though, even though these groups have been around for decades, they have previously enjoyed a good deal of cultural support in America. What is probably “recent” is that America’s Christendom-derivative culture is quickly receding into the distance and being replaced by a secular one, and in that environment, these groups have started thrashing. It’s not just business as usual when the American Family Association demands that Native Americans convert to Christianity to be American citizens.

    Or maybe it is and I didn’t see it growing up, so it just appears more extreme to me these days. It certainly appears more extreme to me these days. I’m open to the criticism that my perception is wrong.

  • gimpi1

    He’s calling for a takeover. He’s just trying to use political means. That’s better than a call for a civil war, but it’s not OK. Any group “taking over” and restricting the rights of others is an example of .tyranny of the majority,’ which is unconstitutional. Jim Crow laws and laws restricting Chinese, Jewish, Mormon, Catholic and other people are examples of ‘tyranny of the majority.’ It’s called ‘tyranny of the majority’ because the majority of people supported this discrimination and persecution. It’s still wrong, democratically obtained or not. I feel this is what Mr. Graham wants. I oppose it. How do you feel?

  • Out of all the questions I am not qualified to answer, “Who is not written in the book of life?” may be chief among them.

  • Andrew

    “But “non-Christian people support some of these things, too” doesn’t mean anything, so I’m sorry I didn’t address that. There are non-Muslims who support some things in Sharia law, too, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t theocratic Muslim states simply because some non-Muslims may agree with some of the policies. Many Fundamentalist Christians agree with ISIS on homosexuality. Does that mean ISIS is not theocratic? Your big, important objection is completely irrelevant.”

    I don’t see fundamentalist Christians throwing gays off of roofs (in fact I’ve heard them reject violence against gays) so your analogy fails. Also most of the objectives of this so called “Christian Taliban” are completely secular. That’s why so many non-Christians can get behind them. There is no biblical mandate on free markets, or on immigration policy for nations that are not Israel. Are there plenty of Christians who have opinions on these issues? Yes, but these opinions are reached by different means other than theology. What you’re telling me in effect is that if Christians have an opinion on a subject, and that opinion is different than yours, than those Christians must be members of an “American Christian Taliban.”

    “Many Fundamentalist Christians agree with ISIS on homosexuality”

    Yes and from what I understand Dr. Corey is against abortion. So are the theocrats in Saudi Arabia. Oh no! It’s obvious Corey is a member of the terror group PCSA (Progressive Christian State of America).

  • Well, according to your logic, that would mean the theocrats in Saudi Arabia aren’t really theocrats since non-theocrats agree with some of their policies.

    I mean, the ramifications! The KKK wants safer neighborhoods, black people want safer neighborhoods – obviously this means the KKK does not have a racist agenda since black people also want some of those things.

    Thanks for your great contribution to sociology.

  • Andrew

    That would actually be the ramifications of your reasoning. You are the one who compared conservative Christians to Isis.

  • I’m sorry. Did you or did you not make the argument that the Christian Right does not want a theocracy because non-theocrats want some of the same things? I thought you made a pretty big deal about that, earlier.

    You know, it’s like how Conservatives don’t actually want a Conservative government because Liberals also don’t want the government to murder them while they sleep. Since they share an issue, they cannot want things the other group does not want. This is pretty key to your complaint. I mean, you made fun of me for missing it and everything, so I feel like I’m on pretty safe ground ascribing this point to you.

    Ben’s article, on the other hand, is about commonality of tactics. If a Christian emperor has heretics executed and a Muslim king has infidels executed then, yes, they are alike in that way. There is nothing in Ben’s article that says that the Christian Right is basically the Taliban because they take the same sides on various political and economic issues.

    They DO take the same sides on various political and economic issues, but that’s not what the article is about.

    My only mistake was assuming you actually wanted your question answered about what other various issues composed their platform besides the ones you named. I was unaware at the time that you thought that’s the point Ben was making – that their political platforms were the same. But your objection that these people don’t want a theocracy because some other people who also don’t want a theocracy want some of the same things doesn’t make any sense. That’s like saying Mussolini wasn’t a fascist because many monarchists also like the trains to run on time.

  • cary_w

    I think you are missing the point. What we’re trying to show is a comparison of the underlying values and ultimate goals of these two groups, it’s not a contest to see who can be the most violent. I also find the argument that “this group isn’t as bad as this other group, so we don’t need to be as concerned” a little naive and distracts from the real issue; the harm these groups do to our society. Christian extremists are right here, right now, effecting my family, my community and my country every day, and we all can take at least some steps to keep them from harming us all. The Taliban is much more removed, while terrorism and other problems around the world concern me, let’s be honest, there’s very little I, personally, can do about it, probably the most I can do is pay attention to the news and vote for or show support for the politicians and foreign policy that best deals with them.

  • Marja Erwin

    Can you explain your video? For those of us who can’t watch video?

  • Andrew

    You seem to have gotten lost so I’ll start from the beginning. Corey wrote an article accusing conservative Christians of being the Taliban. He didn’t mention why he thinks that, it was just a bold and blanket assertion. I’ve heard the claims before and usually when I hear it is because of three things: abortion, gay marriage and creation/evolution in schools. As I said this is not an impressive case for a theocracy, which the Taliban was, so calling someone the Taliban implies they are theocrats. With this in mind I asked what other objectives this theocracy has (in other words what would it do if in power). You responded with a list of issues that are pretty much unrelated to Christian theology or doctrine , but in which most Conservative Christians hold a position you don’t like. I pointed out that many non-Christians hold the same view on these same issues in order to illustrate that these positions are arrived at through secular reasoning, thus showing that this “Taliban” is a boogeyman. You then launched into some line about how ISIS and Conservative Christians are the same because they both oppose homosexuality. I responded that by this line of reasoning anyone who opposes abortion is the same as an Islamic theocrat. The entire point I’ve been trying to make is that comparisons between conservative Christians and the Taliban are ridiculous. But I think this will be lost on you as the impression I’m getting is you think anyone who disagrees with you is the Taliban.

  • What do you mean “he didn’t mention why he thinks that?” That’s literally what the whole article is about.

    Here’s sort of the kickoff point:

    “While this movement is busy warning us on the dangers of radical Islam, they’re doing the very things they are denouncing– right under our noses.”

    And then he goes on to give examples, both general and specific. Some mentioned are the group’s warnings of religious totalitarianism as well as an appeal to declining public morality, which are both key platforms of Muslim extremist political movements. This is all in the actual article, Andrew. Ben didn’t just make this assertion and stop writing.

    Your response is that you’ve heard people make this comparison before, and here are the reasons THOSE OTHER PEOPLE supplied, so you’re going to argue about that. Brilliant.

    Given how well you’ve managed to completely ignore what Ben had to say, I’m guessing your characterization of the arguments of “usually what I hear” is likewise inaccurate. I’ll file that with your claims like you’ve never heard of Jim Bakker, therefore he does not represent politically active Christian fundamentalism. You appear to be simultaneously devoid of any actual input while considering yourself the sole authority on said input.

  • Scott Harrison

    I didn’t know about this, thanks for sharing this sad piece of history; I’d like to read more. “The tendency to claim God as an ally for our partisan value and ends is the source of all religious fanaticism”.
    “Reinhold Niebuhr

  • IconoclastTwo

    John Hagee: “To the atheist: if our beliefs offend you move.” (rapturous applause) “We don’t want you. There are planes leaving every hour…”

    “I call upon the members of Congress to outlaw the practice of witchcraft and satanism in the US military. I don’t care about the atheist.”

    (I don’t want to embed a full youtube video here. I’ll just truncate with: watch?v=75b1FMzGTB8 )

    As for what Sanctimonium believes…

    https://thinkprogress.org/ten-outrageous-ideas-rick-santorum-actually-believes-5e46c28bc72b

    Even beyond all of the lying there are several other frauds/examples of bigoted behavior that I’ve seen him commit. I’ve watched him lie directly to a woman’s face that there were death panels running around the Netherlands killing old people. During a speech in which he talked about cutting welfare he barely caught himself from saying the n-word when it came to eliminating benefits for ‘those people’.

  • IconoclastTwo

    I’ll get back to the rest later:

    “I know at least 50 atheist libertarians (all of whom support gay marriage by the way) who would unhesitatingly agree that businesses don’t have to serve gays if they choose not to.”

    I’ll run this through the translator:

    “I know 50 atheist libertarians who are well off enough already to think that libertarianism is in any way a good idea who don’t live in regions where they would be stigmatized by the kind of discriminatory oppression that these ideas would re-introduce who think that doing so is a good idea.”

    FIFY.

    “There are also plenty of devout Muslims and Jews who would agree.”

    That’s not surprising if it’s true. That still doesn’t make it a good idea.

    “It’s the simple principle that if you own a business, you should be allowed to do business with whomever you want to. I’d be fine with this applying to everybody, including gay business owners not serving Christians. Also all this noise over the issue raises an interesting question. Why is it that if someone doesn’t like you enough that they won’t serve you that the instant response is “let me give you my money you bigot?””

    Except that historically this has already been tried before. It was called the segregation era in which it was treated as culturally and legally acceptable for businesses to discriminate even in those states where it wasn’t legally mandated (which I’m sure is going to be your first defense since it’s not like I haven’t heard all this before….)

  • Ron McPherson

    I wish he’d post something from Gilligan’s Island. I haven’t seen the castaways in forever

  • Andrew

    Actually most of them are currently college students or recent college grads who are largely living paycheck to paycheck. At least two are gay. By the way in states where segregation wasn’t legally mandated most businesses still served non-whites (especially where minorities represented a high percentage of the population). Money’s only one color.

  • Scott

    Did you really write Excellent ISIS recruiting logic? Was that a random thought or did you really spend some time constructing such a cogent response?

  • Ron McPherson

    Scofield just rolled over in his grave

  • Andrew

    The article is using vague language to draw a one to one comparison between conservative Christians and the Taliban. Can you please give me one prominent American Christian leader who has called for the death penalty for apostasy, for adulterers to be stoned, for all books but the Bible to be banned, for gays to be thrown of off roofs, for forced conversions, for atheism to be illegal, or for women to be completely covered and unable to leave their homes without a male family member? By the way I’ll be expecting a response in the next ten minutes, because if it takes much longer you probably had to do some hunting (the admitted trolls from WestBoro Baptist don’t count). I mean good lord, even liberal atheists like Bill Maher are starting to call these comparisons idiotic. I know you hate me Phil, but conservative Christians are not the Taliban. If you actually want to have dialogue then lying about the other side will not help.

  • I know it doesn’t always seem like it, but I do actually have other things I’m paying attention to besides our conversation.

    I don’t hate you and never said that, but it’s frustrating to dialogue with you because you because you’re investing in attacking arguments that no one here is making. You’ve already pre-decided what those arguments must be instead of interacting with what’s actually being said. Case in point: “I know you hate me, Phil.”

    Do you think there are Christian fundamentalists who are trying to get their religious beliefs as national policy by warning people about the absolutism of Islam and creating alarm around the country’s moral decline?

    If you do, then you agree with the article. If you don’t, you don’t.

    This other thing on you’re on fire about – about whether or not the Christian right wants the same -policies- as the Taliban – is not relevant to this article, but I’m reluctant to show you more examples of the similarities than I already have because I assume you’ll just say you’ve never heard of those people and they don’t actually represent the Christian right. It’s a real disincentive to put a case together for you given your responses thus far.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “By the way in states where segregation wasn’t legally mandated most businesses still served non-whites (especially where minorities represented a high percentage of the population).”

    Front door or side window?

    Even in those states that didn’t have segregation as bad as the south did there were still a *lot* of informal discriminatory rules and violent ‘enforcement’ of them. Saying that religious people can discriminate against gay people easily and obviously opens the door to someone claiming that their religion states that god has it in for ethnic minority group X or Y and they should be similarly abused.

    “Money’s only one color.”

    That’s not the way that people who lived through it remembered it and I’m more inclined to believe them than you.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “colleges and universities becoming Marxist training camps,”

    Where exactly?

  • Mark

    I can see the blogger’s point on some levels but my concern in not a religious one, it is a Democratic one. You can interpret the bloggers view as “evangelicals gone wild” or it could be interpreted as “everyone has a seat at the political table except evangelicals” . In other words, Any group in the United States can mobilize, run for office, effect change and seek to change the culture except evangelicals. They, (in some peoples view) should just go to church, sing their songs, preach their sermons but just shut up when it comes to politics and culture. My point being, if you want to do that to one group of Americans, who is to say it won’t be your group tomorrow? Compare them to the “taliban” ? Really?

  • IconoclastTwo

    I think part of the problem is that what I see is blatantly partisan (namely Republican) and blatantly far, far, far right wing-but they don’t want any of the constraints that would otherwise come upon their politicking if they had to just come out and say that they’re going to do nothing but:

    Be against civil rights for practically everyone but themselves.

    Support any and every war against Communism(!) (when it existed) and in favor of Israel that they can find.

    Support capitalism even when doing so is blatantly suicidal.

    Be horrendously and again blatantly anti-science.

    And on top of this (see this http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2017/06/13/ralph-reed-still-betting-white-evangelical-suckers/?ref_widget=trending&ref_blog=formerlyfundie&ref_post=yes-theres-an-american-christian-taliban-and-yes-we-need-to-stand-against-them ) be basically just as dishonest as anyone else in Washington DC.

  • Mark

    Yet your country allows Sharia law which has strict religious laws and has Muslim “no go” zones. The minority party (muslims) already impose their hardline views on your country.

  • otrotierra

    All the fear-mongering hysteria of a Trump Rally. Congratulations.

    Number of Marxists oppressing Donald Moeser: Zero.

  • otrotierra

    So glad I could help you backpedal from your faulty comparison. And it only took mere seconds.

  • Cheryl Simon

    This has been going on for decades. Don’t forget the “persecution” that fundies keep spewing.

  • otrotierra

    I believe Dr. Corey has touched on the U.S. Evangelical false victim narrative before, though I’d have to look across previous posts to find them. It’s implied in his commentary above, and deserves further analysis given how often Franklin Graham and his followers hide behind it.

  • otrotierra

    Number of Muslims oppressing Mark: Zero.

  • Russ Hale

    Yes. Think of all the people the Christian Taliban has beheaded, run over and shot in the last 10 years. Oh wait, never mind.
    Knucklehead.

  • Jimhere

    No sir, you are the knucklehead and most likely one of the blind followers the author spoke of.

  • Jimhere

    Israel is an apartheid state. Crawl out from under your bible and try thinking critically.

  • Dave G.

    That’s OK, Bernie Sanders just threw down the gauntlet and said Christians who believe Jesus is necessarily for Salvation need not think they deserve all of the Constitutional rights others enjoy. He was joined by the ACLU, CAIR (and if The Atlantic is to be believed, ‘other’ Muslim groups), in their belief that such doctrines are antithetical to religious liberty. So there you go. It looks like everyone’s out to say this country isn’t big enough for those beliefs over there. If protecting freedom is that important, I’d say go after those saying they’ll go straight for the Constitution, rather than Christians who are merely guilty of doing what everyone else does, and that’s say a country must have certain morals and values and we should insist everyone else conform to those standards.

  • Dave G.

    Oh, and these people aren’t the Taliban thank you. When they murder, slaughter, torture, destroy monuments and memorials to people they don’t like, and do others such things, then we can call them Taliban, or Nazi, or whatever label we like. But for now, they’re just people being like everyone else nowadays.

  • Karin Isbell

    It is a sad day when suggesting that couples living together ought to get married is considered Christian Taliban.

  • Dan S.

    But we do know an American political party that stands for removing historical monuments and memorials, just like the real Taliban – they’re called Democrats.

  • blogcom

    You obviously exist in the recesses of a mind which has no bearing in reality.
    You must have self induced nightmares and scare yourself when you glimpse your reflection in a mirror. .
    A sad and delusional post. .

  • Dan S.

    Of course, like most liberals, Corey presents us with this view of a so-called Christian “Taliban” forcing its religious views on others while ignoring the fact that the left has a religion that it forces on others too: it’s called homosexuality.

    It’s even expressed in the very same terms that Corey criticizes.

    “It’s not enough for them to live in a country where they are completely
    free to practice their own sexual preferences – they need power, and they
    need others to live under their sexual code, too.”

    That is why we see Christian businesses being sued into bankruptcy, opponents of gay “marriage” being imprisoned for refusing to sign a marriage license and states being boycotted for not allowing people, who “identify” as the opposite sex, to choose which bathrooms and locker rooms they will use.

    No, Mr. Corey. The real Taliban in America isn’t the Christian Taliban – it’s the Gay Taliban.

  • blogcom

    Yet how do you reconcile the fact that your country is a secular one and in the West at least there hasn’t been a theocracy since the enlightenment.

  • Dave G.

    Well, they’re not exactly the Taliban either. Now if they started pushing to have people fired, or wanted the government to legally punish, or filed lawsuits against people simply because they didn’t hold to liberal values, in addition to advocating the eradication of historical memorials and monuments, then you’d have a stronger case.

  • otrotierra

    All the frothing hysteria and deception of a Trump Rally. Congratulations.

  • otrotierra

    If you have a legitimate counter-argument in response to what Dr. Corey actually wrote, why won’t you share it?

  • IconoclastTwo

    This is one of the many things I’ve never understood about people who think like you: why do you think that your opinion on other people’s relationships is wanted or even matters unless it’s specifically solicited?

  • IconoclastTwo

    Oh look it’s the other half of American chronic irrationality on display now too.

  • ReaderV

    By far, the best informed and level leaded article I’ve read on Patheos In awhile. We are quickly learning, there are some dangerious people around who have a very different agenda from how our Nation was intended to stand free. We can’t rest our eyes and assume that all our elected officials have our best interested in their heart anymore. Some, expect us to behave as sheep. We can’t do that, we just can’t do that anymore. We must speak out and question authority. We can not take up arms against each other but, we should use our intelligence to stand tall and proud against those who seek to weaken our nation. Its our very freedom at stake.today, the Senate lumped newborns without Social Security numbers together with Illegal aliens without Social Security numbers. That sort of haphazard law making, intended to weaken healthcare, must end, in every law, they must prove, its for the good of all citzens instead of just a few. Lets also remember, Liberal isn’t a bad word. Liberal is exactly the mindset of our forefathers, our fine men and women settled this land were liberal enough to make the decision to cross the cold Atlantic to a new land. And, they fought for this new land. We can’t just give it away to the enemy. We are strong and we must not let our United States slip through our hands.

  • Mark

    Your comments are pure blind partisan rage and void of any rational thought, I don’t waste my time on people like you.

  • Dave G.

    Perhaps because when we see people being fined or sent to jail because their opinions on what people do together relationship-wise gave them the choice to compromise their values, quit their jobs, or face legal retribution, they remember years ago when we were told it’s just in people’s bedrooms, isn’t anyone’s business, and all we want is to live and let live.

  • Dave G.

    You mean Bernie Sanders saying that Christians who hold traditional Christian beliefs have no business serving in our government, correct? Oh, and never forget, as often as not, today’s liberal becomes tomorrow’s conservative, just as today’s conservative is likely closer to yesterday’s liberal. Which might explain the Sanders move.

  • Dave G.

    Nice dodge. Why not actually deal with how the Right is the Taliban when it’s been the Left using the power of the government to mandate conformity to liberal values and beliefs. I know that’s a tough one, but it’s better than a one-off statement that suggests you have nothing to say about the matter.

  • I agree with you that we should, as Christians, stand against this. The right methodology of moral influence is to convince others in the free marketplace of ideas of the superiority of the specifics of any moral code. We can’t go about it with anything that sounds like “Thus sayeth the Lord.”

    At the same time, Christians must not be demonized by people because we hold to the tenants our faith – as if we are evil simply because we are Christian. It was shocking how Bernie Sanders treated Russell Vought, the nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. Sanders acted like the head of the Liberal Taliban.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/bernie-sanders-chris-van-hollen-russell-vought/529614/

  • Dave G.

    Well said. As Christians, there are other ways to reach society for moral truths – assuming that is our goal. But let’s not even come close to thinking it’s only Evangelical Christians who are the mischief. The Sanders debacle, along with the support he received from the ACLU and some Muslim groups, speaks volumes.

  • IconoclastTwo

    1) No, my comments stem from very pure and entirely nonpartisan rage. Please at least try and comprehend that.

    2) By all means explain to me why even though I know that there are conservative christians who do in fact disagree with this, that at least with regards to global warming the dominant tenor is not in fact blatantly anti-science. That’s just one issue for starters.

  • IconoclastTwo

    That’s a strawman, though. It isn’t about just people’s opinions; it’s about the idea that you should be able to use the issue of service in public businesses (private businesses would still be a different issue) to force your religious preferences upon other people.

  • Bernard Dainton

    Sorry, as another Brit I must tell you that Muslim no-go zones in the UK are fake news. Sharia courts are only allowed to rule in disputes between Muslims (just as Jewish courts rule in disputes between Jews) and even that is pretty rare and very controversial

  • IconoclastTwo

    I can’t wait to hear the response to this….

  • IconoclastTwo

    Yes, I know it’s a discussion board so the informal rules are different but I’m asking more about offline interactions. Seriously-what do people think they’re accomplishing by passing judgment so often and with regards to so many other people’s issues-especially while the same often ignore that the people who are their political and faith leaders (cough cough *TRUMP*) are, to slightly modify a phrase “white sepulchers”?

  • Good_Samaritan

    I’m actually on your side Ico, and now with the context you provided I understand your post. I had misinterpreted it as you basically saying “dont post opinions here.” I also agree that Karin is an a-hole.

  • IconoclastTwo

    I apologize for the misunderstanding then. Sometimes things (on both sides) don’t come across clearly. I’ll edit accordingly.

  • hisxmark

    Religion is about separating people into groups: Us and them.
    “We eat pig. They don’t.”
    “We shout, ‘Alleluia!’ They shout, ‘Hallelujah!'”
    “We go to church on Sunday. They go on Saturday.”
    Therefore, we are obviously morally superior to them.

    And whether we advocate tolerance or intolerance, it is from a position of supposed moral superiority, because we believe the right stuff and they don’t.

  • Dave G.

    A strawman? You do know what that means, correct? I’m talking about since gay marriage has become legal, using the courts and threat of fines and lawsuits to mandate conformity to liberalism’s interpretation of the subject. And your’s is just that little sleight of hand. If liberals wanted liberalism, they would say live and let live, as they did in the early days of 60s and 70s gay rights. Telling people they must conform to a moral absolute or else face the legal consequences is not any different than anyone telling people they must conform to a moral absolute or face the legal consequences. Which, if the post is to believed, puts once squarely in the same camp as the Taliban.

  • Good_Samaritan

    There was no such thing as gay rights in the U.S. until Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.

    Your arguments are exactly the same as the arguments against racial integration.

  • Ron McPherson

    “opponents of gay “marriage” being imprisoned for refusing to sign a marriage license ”

    That was her fault. She was taking Caesar’s money, swore to uphold Caesar’s law, but then refused to enforce the law she swore to uphold. If her conscience won’t allow her to enforce such law, then all she has to do is quit and no longer take Caesar’s money. Can’t have it both ways.

  • Russ Hale

    See Jim, I gave reasons for disputing the author’s premise.
    Your reasons for disagreeing with me?…
    I find people that give equivalency to 1) people whose speech they don’t like and 2) people who behead, crucify and run over others, to be imbecilic.
    They are not the same. The “hate crime” of the first group is not the same as the “hate crime” of the second.
    You get that, don’t you?

  • Donald Moeser

    True. But I keep waiting, and prepared.

    I shouldn’t say this but; I’m hoping to make it to your next riots in DC. Missed the last one.

  • Donald Moeser

    Someone had to say it. Kudos.

  • ThoroughbredWriter

    Brilliantly, articulately and thoughtfully put forth; Amen, and thank you, Rev.Dr. Corey. God bless you, as you write fearlessly about wrong theologies that need addressing. And thank you, for showing Christians that loving Jesus AND being a thinking human being are not mutually-exclusive concepts.

  • Donald Moeser

    “. . . . “Support capitalism even when doing so is blatantly suicidal… . . now we’re getting somewhere, for those wanting to know who these rascals really are.

  • Donald Moeser

    Karin, you’ve got to remember who we’re dealing with here. We’re exchanging with these pious people who think it’s ok to murder unborn children. . . .and worse.

  • Donald Moeser

    I’m hoping non Christians are not looking in on this fiasco. And I’m ashamed that this will be reviewed when I/we stand before the Judgement Seat of Christ.

  • Donald Moeser

    Thank you for you kind reply. I just posted a note on top about nothing good for the Kingdom of God is coming out of all these blogs.
    The reason for my rambling on above is that my main course of study is Eschatology.
    The Church of Jesus Christ is certainly not making an influence for good in our Nation. We / I should be spending more time on sharing the Gospel with those in need.
    Kindest Regards.

  • Dave G.

    And if it was proven that being homosexual was the same as being black or Asian, you’d have a better point. As it is, the actual science is rather silent about why people have particular sexual attractions – most likely the reasons are varied, in all due respect to Lady Gaga. Nonetheless, the gay rights movement has been going on for decades. During those years, the emphasis was on who’s to say what is normal, live and let live, agree to disagree…until they began getting their way of course. Once the pendulum began to swing, we saw the old story repeat itself: how a minority, reaching majority, seizing authority, hate a minority. Which is why now we think nothing of doing to people who oppose gay marriage what we would have done to someone who advocated it decades ago.

  • Dan S.

    Frothing hysteria?

    That’s a good one.

  • Dan S.

    I see.

    It’s her fault that she was imprisoned for not signing a marriage license.

  • Dan S.

    Of course, I’m sure you have no problem with gays forcing their sexual preferences and marital preferences upon other people, right?

  • Dan S.

    Another cryptic non-comment, and what a surprise, your name is Iconoclast.

    It doesn’t get any more telling than that, does it?

  • Good_Samaritan

    Except actual science is NOT rather silent.
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/284/5414/665

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-005-0119-4

    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/271/1554/2217

    The fact that there is a significant genetic component in sexual orientation is pretty well established.

    I do agree, however, that the shaming tactics can be extreme, and I find the far left’s social justice crusade distasteful. We on the left should bahave better than the bigots on the right did historically.

  • IconoclastTwo

    If that’s what was happening then yes I’d have a problem with it. That’s _not actually happening_ though. Telling people that if they have a public business (or in Kim Davis’ case, a public employee for ALL of the citizens of the state, not just the ones she considers not to be morally lapsed) they can’t discriminate isn’t the same thing as having sexual or marital preferences forced upon them.

    Or do you think that the world would be a better place if everyone handed out questionnaires to everyone else about points of religious dogma and the instant they flunked (even on a curve) nobody would do business with anyone else?

    Congratulations. If you really believe this is true then you’ve found the only societal organizing principle worse than the one that really governs a lot of conservative ‘christians’ already-namely money.

  • Dan S.

    Oh, that’s not happening??

    The people of almost every state voted to define marriage as one man +one woman.

    Gay activists then forced their definition of marriage (marital preference) on them through a corrupt, activist judiciary.

    The legislators of North Carolina passed a law stating that only those who had officially changed sexes could use opposite sex bathrooms, locker rooms and showers.

    Gay activists then forced their definition of sex on the people of that state through corporate and state boycotts.

    So don’t even try pretend that these aren’t examples of gays forcing their sexual and marital preferences on others.

  • Dan S.

    The science is still not established, Good Samaritan.

    One of your links even says: “These results do not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality.”

  • IconoclastTwo

    Then I will be less cryptic and a lot more upfront in my response.

    I think that a huge portion-not all-of what underpins what’s wrong about this country is the kind of mindset that you’ve displayed with your previous response which was only not cryptic to me because I’ve heard enough people lying in the same way to understand exactly what you’re lying about and to explain it.

    The monuments and memorials that you’re referring to are in no way historically neutral (which would be defensible). They were intended to glorify indefensible causes-namely the confederate initiated war to preserve slavery by creating a mythos in which what the confederates actually stood for is sidelined in favor of a revisionism in which the south was in any way justified in what it did or for that matter how it behaved before the war even started, as well as white supremacy in general. Many of those statues weren’t even put up soon after the war-they were done after any vestiges of equal, human rights were extirpated by white supremacist/terrorist violence and never to be taken seriously in any significant matter until the late 1940s/early 1950s began a slow and unsurprisingly, also violent process of reversal.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:One_side_of_the_monument_erected_to_race_prejudice_New_Orleans_Louisiana_1936.jpg

    It doesn’t get much more blatant than that, does it?

  • IconoclastTwo

    “The people of almost every state voted to define marriage as one man +one woman.”

    If you polled available voters* in the states that had segregation in the years before Brown v. Board of Education then segregation probably would’ve won.

    * This, of course, is sophistry which I’m using as a demonstration and not as agreement. Black people couldn’t vote in those states until after the civil rights movements had created enough agitation to beat back to a significant degree both disenfranchisement as well as segregation.

    The point I’m making is that your views are about a principle that can (for once) accurately be described as ‘tyranny of the majority’. Its just as unfair to say that gay people shouldn’t have fundamental rights as it was to say that black people shouldn’t have them-even if there was a vote against them.

    You’re also framing this as this being an issue of only gay people using force but that’s misleading. Marriage has so many more rights than civil unions (which I suspect you’d also oppose) that there are very real, negative consequences for gay people not being able to get married-such as issues of inheritance as just one example.

  • Dan S.

    First of all, this new standard that you’ve imposed on historical monuments and memorials called “historical neutrality” doesn’t exist. In fact, it’s something you pulled out of your nether regions.

    What do you think would happen if we were to impose that standard on the Lincoln monument and memorial?

    After all, they were hardly “historically-neutral”.

    We all know they were put up in favor of a sort of revisionist glorification of the man who started a brutal war that resulted in many hundreds of thousands of Americans being killed, death camps, arrests of journalists, destruction of printing presses of unfriendly newspapers, forced death marches of women and children, mass slaughter of civilians, military rule etc.

    So let me hear you call for the dismantling of the Lincoln monument and the Lincoln memorial and maybe, just maybe, you’ll have a shred of credibility in this debate.

  • Good_Samaritan

    I linked a bunch of journal articles to show that Dave’s comment that science is silent was bullshit. And yeah, the study from 18 years ago made that conclusion, but recent studies have pretty conclusively shown that there is a major genetic/epigenetic component to sexual orientation. Not to mention the fact that homosexual activity is seen among large numbers of mammalian species.

    But there are still people who say that evolution isnt established science.

  • IconoclastTwo

    He started the war by doing what exactly? Getting elected in an election that was about as honest as any election was back then (bluntly: not very)? Having abolitionist sentiments and for that matter not even being all that radical compared to others about them? Did he launch a false flag attack upon Fort Sumter?

    This is exactly the revisionism that I’m talking about. You don’t get to claim that Lincoln started the war when the South attacked first and seceded not even in response to anything he actually did but because of what he *might* do.

    These are the words of the people you’re defending:

    “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.”

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

    Furthermore, you’re also engaged in whatabouttery by trying to make this about Lincoln. Do you think *that particular inscription* on that statue is defensible or not?

  • Dan S.

    I think what he meant to say is that the science has not been conclusive on the matter of whether homosexual preference is biological.

    But I probably shouldn’t speak for him.

  • Dan S.

    He started the war by attacking, invading and butchering the people of the Southern states which had already seceded from the union.

    And I’m sorry but you don’t get to pretend it’s “revisionism” when these issues were being discussed and debated even then.

    At the same time, that you’re defending the butchery and mass slaughter of civilians by Lincoln because of an “attack” in which nobody was even hurt or killed.

    Oh and shall I remind you that you’ve forgotten all about your main point which was that the monuments had to be torn down because they weren’t “historically neutral”?

  • Dan S.

    None of what you said, as debatable as it is, disproves what I said about gays forcing their marital preference on other people that had already said No.

  • dmcrane

    It was her choice, and she chose door three.
    #1 she could quit.
    #2 sign the license as she was accepting pay to do
    #3 she could go to jail.

    Seems fair to me.

  • dmcrane

    Raised in a Southern Baptist Church in the “Love” of Christ. I attended my first protest with other church members to protest forcing prayer in the schools and also was with my church to protest putting “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Baptists preached and practiced strict separation of church and state and were historically very aware that letting religion run government meant you better be practicing the “right” religion, and that might not be your religion. Later we supported desegregation because we sang “Red and Yellow, Black and White,they are precious in his sight” and we believed it. I also learned there to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s” “Love one another as I have loved you”. “Judge not lest ye be judged” ….we focused on the red words in the Bible.
    Give me that Old Time religion. Kudos Dr. Cory.

  • “…they need others to live under their sexual code, too.” Possibly the most ridiculous statement of 2017, if not the millennium. There isn’t a single instance where someone was forced to have a gay relationship or engage in gay sex through power of law or even social pressure.

    My “sexual code”, such as it is, says that relationships between mutually agreeable people are good things and ought to be encouraged. It doesn’t arbitrarily determine that some kinds of relationships are better than others or ought not to be permitted. The test of a relationship is the value it provides to its participants. Even if I did have the power to make you live under it – which I assuredly do not – would that be so terrible? All you’re being asked to do is forgo harassing your neighbors for their relationship choices. But that would be asking far too much, wouldn’t it? What a horrible abridgment of your freedom!

  • You don’t have to conform to any liberal values and beliefs if you don’t want to. You can believe anything that you like. You can also express it freely, as well as do your best to convince anyone else to agree with you, as long as they want to listen to you.

    What you CAN’T do is use the power of the law to force other people to conform to your preferred behavior. And you can’t refuse to extend to some people the rights and privileges you extend to others just because you disapprove of who they are or what non-harmful behavior they engage in. That’s a necessary principle of social equity in a good society.

  • You can suggest anything you like, to anyone you like. What you can’t do is use the power of law to force your beliefs about marriage onto others who hold different views. It’s trying to legislate your religion into law over unbelievers that constitutes the “Talibanness” of the Taliban, as well as of some Christians.

  • What conceivable right do you have to establish standards for other people’s relationships, or to only allow people to have certain kinds of relationships? You can practice any kinds of relationships you like. What you can’t do is prescribe or proscribe other people’s relationships.

  • It’s just a matter of asking you to extend the same respect to other people that you expect for yourself. Is that such a horrible thing to request?

  • Yes, what Bernard says is true. We have no such thing as ‘no go’ zones, nor do we have Sharia law imposed. Those assertions are utterly incorrect.

  • Ron McPherson

    Yep

  • Dave G.

    Until they started telling people that they had to compromise their own religious and moral convictions or face legal and government retribution, I didn’t really care. Do what you want, let me do what I want. But no. Upon achieving authority, the whole live and let live went out the window and it became the Left that was all about setting moral absolutes and using the government to impose those moral absolutes under threat of legal repercussions.

  • Ron McPherson

    Exactly. Some folks have some of the oddest logic I’ve ever seen. It’s like, I should have the right to break the law and discriminate against those whom I choose. And if the law forces me to abide by said law such that I can’t discriminate the way I want, then I’m being discriminated against. Lol, you can’t make this stuff up.

  • Dave G.

    Sure, if we’re just genetic clones; animals incapable of behaving in any way that our genes demand, there’s a case to be made. But for most who don’t want to reduce human behavior to a “DNA made me do it’ mentality, there is less consensus. In fact, where analyzing the causes and implications of the attraction go, most are very open about the lack of certainty. Take the American Psychiatric Association for example:

    “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”

    To sum up: ‘We don’t know. Probably many reasons. But they seem to think they can’t help it. That’s good enough for us.’ Which isn’t usually how we handle most things regarding human nature: Someone thinks it’s true, that makes it true. Though in our post-truth era, I can see where that would carry weight.

  • Dave G.

    That’s my point. Let people believe what they want. Don’t insist someone who opposes gay marriage should be fired from a company, or a business owner must partake in ceremonies against their religious conviction, or other forms of live and let live. I”m fine with that. Let folks do as they will. Using the law to mandate beliefs and preferences is a poor way to reach people. But the door swings both ways.

  • Ron McPherson

    But we can’t properly function in a “let me do what I want” society. If I’m a deli owner, I shouldn’t have the right to refuse serving a sandwich to a black person because I’m a racist.

    “Upon achieving authority, the whole live and let live went out the window and it became the Left that was all about setting moral absolutes and using the government to impose those moral absolutes under threat of legal repercussions.”

    The ‘moral absolutes’ are treating everyone equitably. It’s called civil rights.

  • Dave G.

    And that’s what comes of legislating morality. In which case, we conclude it’s fine to legislate morality and use the government to impose conformity on moral absolutes. No Taliban here. The only question is which moral absolutes do we with to impose. Which is fair. But it doesn’t make one side the Taliban for simply wishing to do what the other side clearly says is fine to do. That’s the point. You can’t call someone the Taliban for wanting to do what is being done by those doing the calling.

  • Bones

    Huh…he was pointing out the dangers of having fundamentalist Christians in government positions….Imagine if someone said that blacks were inferior.

  • Bones

    Certainly more than the types like yourself which favour sectarianism.

  • Bones

    If you are in government you serve all people.

    You aren’t going around saying that Muslims are inferior.

    That seems to be difficult for people like you to understand.

  • Bones

    Yeah. If I don’t do my job, I get the sack….

    End of….

  • Bones

    It’s called civil rights….which you hate….

    You can hate gays, blacks, Jews, whoever…..but the law has to protect their rights from people like you who wish to do them harm..

  • Bones

    From your side….yep.

  • Bones

    And you’re the same ones who persecuted and tortured gay people….

    And are sulking because you can’t anymore.

  • Dave G.

    So what you’re saying is that people like Vought have no business thinking that the Constitution applies to him anymore. For me, I’m fine with atheists or Muslims or even liberals holding office. How conservative of me. If only I could be more liberal, then I could say the Constitution only applies to people who think like me or pass my own set of standards.

  • Bones

    Do you like telling other people how to live?

    I smell another hypocrite.

  • Bones

    Do you guys have nothing better to do with yourselves than hate on gays and sook that you can’t?

    Get a f***ing life.

  • Bones

    He quite obviously supported the sacking of a person for defending Muslims.

    That sort of behaviour is not to be tolerated in government.

    That is the point Sanders is making. Hell can people discriminate against Jews because of their religious beliefs?

    That sort of discrimination is left to churches where you can moan and bitch about others to your hearts content.

  • Bones

    “it’s the Gay Taliban.”

    What a f***ing moron.

  • Chris Mooney

    There was also door four, the marriage certificates could have been signed by a deputy. Davis clearly wanted to be a martyr.

  • Bones

    Aaah yes- now it’s that evil liberal Abraham Lincoln’s fault….

    Someone’s missing their confederate flags and their slaves.

  • Dave G.

    Actually I don’t hate them. A lame and tired liberal tactic of instantly judging and condemning anyone who does’t conform to and think exactly like the liberal demands (in the name of open-mindedness and tolerance of course). And I’m fine for civil rights – including for traditional Christians. Now if you want a Taliban state that eradicates the rights of all who dare not believe as you believe, that’s up to you. For me, I’d like a country open to everyone, even if they don’t always agree with others – and that includes even disagreeing with me.

  • Bones

    Yes you do hate them…and you defend those who wish to take their rights away.

    You have the right to not have a gay marriage.

    You do not have the right to deny it to others.

  • Dave G.

    In a Christian college, that’s up to them. Colleges like that have a right to hold to a particular set of beliefs.

    Now, if he said no Muslims can serve in the government, then that would be a problem. But that’s not what he said, nor what Sanders attacked him on.

    Sanders said that his religious beliefs, beliefs held in some way or another by tens of millions of Americans, preclude the individual from holding the same Constitutionally allowed positions as others who don’t have those beliefs.

    Again, if you’re pining for that totalitarian state that can finally round up dissenters from your own belief system and send them to the catacombs and ghettos where they belong, that’s up to you. I simply support the right of people to hold public office, whatever their religious beliefs happen to be.

  • Dave G.

    Nope. I don’t. You may falsely judge and accuse all day, that doesn’t make it right. As for gay marriage, again, I appreciate the left’s desire to impose its values on the population and demand conformity to its own morals. What is liberalism other than that? Nonetheless, for an actual free country, we should be able to live and practice our faiths according to our creeds, even if they don’t agree with liberalism.

  • Bones

    Sanders made it clear from your own source…..

    “Sanders: I don’t know how many Muslims there are in America, I really don’t know, probably a couple million. Are you suggesting that all of those people stand condemned? What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too?”

    I work for the government and, no, you can’t discriminate against people based on your religious beliefs.

    What a f***ed up society that would be like.

    He’s no longer in a Christian College where he can beat up on Muslims.

    He is now going for a government position.

    You people don’t even understand the basic principles of State v Church and secularism.

    .

  • Dave G.

    No, just the freedom to practice and follow religious beliefs without being banished from the same Constitutional rights as others.

  • Bones

    You are the one who falsely judges and accusers and seeks to impose your morality on the rest of the population.

    They don’t want it.

    Move on.

    And yes you are free to live and practice your faith.

    You are not free to deny rights to others.

    You don’t want a gay marriage.

    Don’t have one.

  • Dave G.

    No he isn’t, but he made no suggestion about Muslims at all. Sanders brought that up, having referenced an incident from the past. He then went on to judge Vought by assuming Vought was incapable of doing what Sanders, well, is apparently incapable of doing – and that’s establishing his own beliefs as the litmus test for others to enjoy the same benefits of living in our society as he does.

    Perhaps it’s the old dishonest thief principle. You know, the thief does’t trust anyone because the thief knows he’s dishonest, and therefore assumes the same about others. So Sanders (and, ahem, others) naturally assume Vought would immediately demand nothing short of conformity to his own beliefs or face the consequences since that’s exactly what they appear to want to do.

    Oh, and State vs. Church is a two way street. It’s not license to rewrite the First Amendment to say “Congress shall establish a secular totalitarian state by eradicating the right to practice religious beliefs secularists don’t like thereof.’ That much I do know.

  • Bones

    Not when your religious beliefs denies rights to others.;

    It’s actually you who is against Constitutional Rights.

  • Matthew

    What about when belief and free speech turn the tide toward dangerous and hateful?

  • Dave G.

    Of course there are limits. I can’t yell out ‘Hey everyone, let’s kill him!” Yelling theater in a crowded fire house and all. But we must be careful. Today, the tendency is to define all hate and evil and violence as simply opinions we don’t hold. That can become a slick way to simply pull a Barry Lynn and explain we’re not banning freedom, just hate and evil. And out of dumb, blind luck, hate and evil are defined as views I don’t hold.

  • David Cromie

    This does not sound at all like the Southern Baptists I know!

  • David Cromie

    I wonder if Corey thinks of himself as a ‘true’ christian? On the other hand, he is spot on about machinations of the christian ‘Taliban’!

  • David Cromie

    Glad to hear that you are in favour of same sex marriage!

  • ThoroughbredWriter

    It’s the first sentence in his article–didn’t you read it? What makes up a “true” Christian, if not every point he made in introduction to his strong faith? He IS a Christian, obviously–but most obviously, to GOD. HIS is the only verdict that matters.

  • bthomas

    Read the article. Typical huffpuff stuff. Understandable. Some folks are fine with faith in Christ … specifically active Christian faith … as long as it stays in a ghetto.

    The day and hour you see Christians strapping on vest and blowing up on people, then perhaps it will be appropriate to use such labels as in this article. Until then, it is just thinly veiled kabuki parading as a statement of faith.

  • otrotierra

    The American Evangelical Taliban don’t need strap-on vests, as they outsource the killing to the largest military in planetary history.

  • blogcom

    A legitimate counter argument is that you don’t understand what a theocracy actually is or if you did you’d know the comparison with the Taliban is a fallacious one.

  • David Cromie

    Which law is ‘forcing’ you into a homosexual relationship against your wishes?

    Anyone taking tax-payers money as recompense for doing their job, cannot discriminate against people they dislike, for whatever reason, especially their religious bigotry.

    Why are religiots, such as Davis, so obsessed with what consenting adults get up to in private?

  • otrotierra

    You forgot to cite actual passages from what Dr. Corey actually wrote.

    Go ahead, we’ll wait.

  • Dave G.

    Woe now, let’s backtrack here. I never said there was a law forcing me to marry someone who is gay – or marry anyone for that matter. There has been, however, a quick step forward in saying that gay marriage is now a protected class, and therefore anyone who wishes to partake in the public domain must accept and approve, even it is violates one’s religious conscience. That is the problem. What people do in private is their affair. But when the government steps in and says I must now approve and partake in things that violate my religious conscience, that’s when we’ve overstepped the mark. Not only the Constitutional mark, but the basic common sense mark, that today it’s this issue, tomorrow it can be a hundred others.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “At the same time, that you’re defending the butchery and mass slaughter of civilians by Lincoln because of an “attack” in which nobody was even hurt or killed.”

    You’re defending the torture, mass slaughter, expropriation, and rape of civilians when slavery was legal. The basic right of people to be free from that shouldn’t even be considered ‘debatable’ especially if you, hilariously, probably also claim to be someone who follows someone who praised the meek and forgiving, not the people beating the crap out of them at every turn.

    That wasn’t even a war; that was considered a socially acceptable norm by slaveowners and confederate revisionists/white supremacist terrorists after the war was fought. Those types of statues clearly praise that worldview at the expense of one that is honest or otherwise worth respecting.

    Why is their suffering unmentionable to you? I’m guessing you think that “Christian love” follows the one drop rule.

  • David Cromie

    Your bubble of bigotry is very unattractive! Who needs the Taliban when we have such as you! Your hoped-for theocracy is not going to come to fruition, no matter how fervently you pray for it.

  • IconoclastTwo

    You haven’t demonstrated that you’re being forced, though. All you’ve demonstrated (at least in the part of the argument; in other places I’d say you’ve demonstrated even worse things) is that you can attempt to redefine ‘religious freedom’ in such a wide ranging way that in order for the rest of society to conform to it everyone else would be left with very little freedom at all.

  • Dave G.

    No, I don’t. I have a set of values and beliefs. Now if you want the government to step in and punish me for having values and beliefs you disagree with, then by all means. Throughout history, that’s been par for the course. Our little attempt at having a society where we are free to disagree is a rather unique attempt at the whole freedom thing. We’ll see how it goes.

    And it’s only denying the rights of others if you use the law to declare your particular values the only acceptable values, and therefore to disagree with your values and beliefs is akin to denying others’ rights. I don’t plan on having a gay marriage – I’m married already. Nor do I plan on being forced to approve or serve one, and I’m prepared to go to jail over it, which appears to be just fine with that strange modern incarnation of liberalism that says ‘as long as you conform to liberalism’s moral absolutes, we’re completely tolerant of everyone who thinks the way we demand they think under threat of legal retaliation.’

  • David Cromie

    The ‘protected class’ is the universal application of civil rights! It is the homophobic bigots that wish they were the protected class.

  • David Cromie

    You still fail to get it, You cannot use your ‘set of values and beliefs’ as an excuse for denying full partition of others in the civil rights enjoyed by you.

  • David Cromie

    The first sentence reads; ‘I am a christian’. I don’t see any mention of ‘true’ there. However, anyone professing to be a christer, could write exactly the same words, but there are many forms, sects, etc., and all believe different things. So which version is the ‘true’ version?

  • Dave G.

    Don’t get me wrong,if you believe there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, that’s fine. Celebrate all you want. But there are many whose religious convictions are deeply rooted in a model of the universe that rejects the premises needed for your conclusion. They should be able to freely go about their lives and not be forced to partake in events that violate their religious conscience. Note – none of the suits have been brought against businesses owners for discriminating against people for being gay, or even for being in gay marriage. All they have wanted was not to be compelled to take part in an activity against their religious beliefs. But again, if the desire is to use the government to impose values on others, then I suppose this isn’t a bad track to follow.

  • Dave G.

    Homophobic: a vacant and overused term to used shut down debate rather than engage .

    As for defining anyone who doesn’t conform to your values as a bigot, that’s just a clever way to say we’re not imposing values on others, we’re just taking a stand against bigotry – and out of dumb, blind luck, anyone who disagrees with our values is a bigot! How ’bout them apples.

    Nope. If you support the rights of Americans to carry on without being forced to conform to a set of values under threat of legal retribution or having their Constitutional rights compromised, then you can see the problem here. If you would rather use the state to impose your values on others, then I’d say keep up the good work.

  • ThoroughbredWriter

    Fascinating, that the phrase, “true Christian” appears no where in the Bible. And yet, too many Bible-believing Christians decide that somehow, THEY can measure the validity of someone else’s faith–by noting that the person did not refer to himself specifically, as being a “true” Christian. Remarkable, the ways that Christians find to judge each other.

    How about if *I* decide? Let’s see…unless one is baptized as a baby…is a member of the Anglican Communion…and partakes of Eucharist every Sunday…with real wine and a Host…one cannot be a “true Christian.” Sounds good–and MY proclamation thereof is just as valid as that of anyone who insists that a man must call himself, a “true Christian” in order actually to BE a Christian. Just as valid, just as judgmental–and just as silly.

    Logs/toothpicks.

  • gimpi1

    Thank you for responding. If you can describe it, I would still appreciate any suggestions on how to describe what movements like Mr Grahams’s look to me without sounding, as you describe it, nasty. I see real problems with the stereotypes and simply factually wrong ideas he promulgates. I want to be able to comment on that, without insulting people. Any ideas? Anyone?

  • Ron McPherson

    So if Kim Davis’ religious beliefs denied marriage licenses to interracial couples (cause I’ve heard people misuse the Bible on that one too), then that’s ok with you? Let’s also throw in no previously divorced couples can remarry (because that’s one Jesus DID actually talk about), and also no marriage between Christians and nonChristians (ya know Paul talked about that unequally yoked thing). Where does this all end? You can’t say, well there has to be a limit. Ok, so where do you draw the line then? See, there’s a reason we have civil rights laws in this country. I’m a Christian and the government has never once ‘forced’ me to change my ‘values.’ The government isn’t interested in telling me where I should place my own personal ethics and morals, or what religion I align with. They literally don’t care about that. But when my beliefs infringe on others rights such that I break the law, then the government rightly steps in.

  • Donald Moeser

    I quit torturing homosexuals over a year ago, when I left Islam. How did you find out?

  • Matthew

    Is the law above religious conscience?

  • Donald Moeser

    Having lived 75 years, and through a myriad of challenges, I’m probably considered, as what’s called an Evangelical, in a minority group.
    (Actually, all who belong to Jesus are called to share their faith i.e. ~evangelical~)

    I don’t particularly like or dislike Graham, but have participated in his outreach to feed hungry children overseas. I enjoy teaching from certain people, but do not put them on pedestals. In fact, I take the ‘be no respecter of men” to a fault. I have very little respect for the majority of those called to leadership positions.
    Many Christian leaders use even their “good works” to build fame and power, almost like politicians.

    Believing that the old Covenant has been fulfilled really makes me an outsider, and I support the Palestinians in their struggle against Zionism.

    To be honest, if we really walked in the Spirit of the Christian Faith, we would not be getting so wrapped in the political issues on these blogs that turn into a disgrace, something that dishonors Christ. We look like fools to the world. At least that’s the way I see it.

    I should know better at my age.
    Kindest regards. . . . .

  • Ron McPherson

    I wouldn’t characterize it as ‘above religious conscience’ but rather ‘independent of religious conscience’.

  • ZackBop

    While a few members of the so-called American Christian Taliban were out playing baseball today, a member of the peaceful and tolerant Progressive Left tried to gun them all down in cold blood. I don’t suspect we’ll get an article about how the hateful rhetoric of the left is a factor in this, because I’m sure it’s ACTUALLY all the gun’s fault.

    Damn you, American Christian Taliban, for supporting the 2nd Amendment! This is your fault!

  • Scott

    A quote on the shooters Facebook page: “Republicans are the Taliban of the USA”

  • ZackBop

    I really wish BLC would devote more of his time to actually trying to build some bridges between the Christian left and right instead of just pouring gasoline on the fires of division.

    There’s a lot about the religious right that deserves criticism. Franklin Graham certainly deserves to be criticized for some of his statements and beliefs. However, playing the part of a leftist demagogue to counteract that isn’t going to help.

    It’s time we recognize that both sides have serious problems. When you only focus on the sins of the right eye, you miss the plank sticking out of your left eye.

  • Matthew

    But laws and policies that are enacted are never “conscience” neutral — are they?

  • Scott

    Totally agree. I’ve been saying for years we are all the other side of the same coin. Writing a post and comparing a significant group of Christians to the Taliban is repulsive. I may not agree with Graham and his type but I’d never use the hyperbole that Corey used.

  • Dave G.

    I think as long as it is actually our desire to have a diverse and tolerant society, that we find ways of making it work. Most agree that the whole Kim Davis thing went down badly when it didn’t have to – and it was both her and her supervisors to blame. There were ways to accommodate all concerned without Davis ending up in a mugshot for gay rights.

    The same goes for business owners. As a general rule, there are endless businesses out there that cater to various interests. Go to them. Most of those who have been sued have no problem serving people of a wide variety of backgrounds. They just don’t want to be forced to do something against their own beliefs. If tolerance and diversity are are driving motives, then we find ways to accommodate.

    Do some things preclude service? Sure. I wouldn’t want someone who rejects modern medicine to be made Surgeon General. Likewise, I wouldn’t want someone who is Amish in charge of our transportation system.

    But when it comes to beliefs – I take a rather blank check approach. So if Richard Dawkins was an American citizen and running for office, even though he said that parents who teach their children my beliefs ought to be treated as abusers, I realize that is a belief, and we have a wonderful system of checks and balances to make sure that if he is otherwise capable of the position, he still can’t willy-nilly impose his other views on me. Especially since we do have that distinction between religion and state concerns.

  • ZackBop

    Amen. Good and decent Jesus-followers can and do disagree about which policies would best serve their country, state, and community (and would best serve the planet as a whole). As long as you’re approaching any stance you take from a place of Christlike love, it’s all good (IMO).

  • David Cromie

    Since you realise that SSM does not affect you, what is your problem?

  • Dave G.

    None, as long as nobody threatens to punish me for saying I don’t hold to that particular belief. If I’m told I must sign off on it or face termination from my company, or my business will be sued or shut down, or I have no choice but quit my livelihood or face jail time over the issue, then I think you can see the problem. Can’t you? I mean, you see the problem with declaring a moral absolute and then using the crushing power of the State in order to exact retribution on all who fail to conform, correct?

  • IconoclastTwo

    I’m just curious (although I suspect I know the answer to this already….) but did you vote for Donald Trump last year?

  • gimpi1

    OK, thanks for this. I don’t care for Mr. Graham’s political machinations – especially his factually wrong statements about gay people, Muslims and others. However, none of that takes away from his charitable actions. Those can be laudable.

    Most of us are a mix of good and bad. I just don’t understand the stuff Mr. Graham comes up with – linking all of a group to the actions of a few extremists. I’ve often cited a group here in the Pacific Northwest – the Church of Jesus Christ, Christian. They’re a neo-NAZI group that lauds the Holocaust and calls Hitler a saint. They’re awful people, involved in terrorism, and yet they consider themselves Christian. Should all Christians be expected to apologize for them? Of course not. It’s no more logical to hold all Muslims accountable for ISIS.

    Does this make sense to you?

    I’m turning 60 this year, so I’m also looking at this from a longer-term perspective. We could all stand to be nicer to each other, and we could all stand to learn about each other’s perspective. Good tlk. Thanks.

  • ZackBop

    No. But you obviously assumed that I did because I’m criticizing positions or people you agree with. Standard tribalism.

  • IconoclastTwo

    No, I’m assuming (or rather, I did assume in the past) because most of the time when people bring up this kind of “both sides do it” false equivalency I notice very little criticism of the kind of violence and racist venom that I’ve heard overwhelmingly coming out of the mouths of Trump supporters. Since Trump started running for office (let alone the way it’s been since he won) they’ve gone out of their way to very strongly correlate “being a pro-violence bigot” with Trump supporter.

  • David Cromie

    I see christers frequently proclaiming that some other person/church is not truly christian. At the same time, there is probably some religiot saying the same thing about them. Ask and self-righteous ‘true christer’ what they think of gay christians!

  • ZackBop

    Both sides do it though. Today’s attack was from a guy who was part of Bernie’s campaign. His FB page was loaded with rhetoric that kinda mirrors what BLC wrote here. Antifa uses violence as well. Some of the most toxic and venomous rhetoric comes from the left.

    My point is that people tend to ignore the sins of their political tribe. That’s why I rarely see BLC commenting on the stupid things people on the left do. His anger is EXCLUSIVELY directed towards conservatives.

    It’s not about saying which side is “worse.” It’s about acknowledging the reality that there are plenty of things to criticize about each side.

    But when you only focus on ONE side (and used charged rhetoric like “American Christian Taliban” in the process), you paint yourself as nothing more than a partisan demagogue.

    BLC is right to call out Franklin Graham on a lot of his BS. I just wish he’d apply those same standards to the people he agrees with politically.

  • IconoclastTwo

    Both sides don’t do it, though. Sanders immediately condemned what he did. In comparison, Sarah Palin was talking about “second amendment solutions”, Trump offered to pay the legal defenses of people who beat up protesters at his rallies (and the people there overwhelmingly supported violence against them), et cetera. There’s no honest comparison between the behavior of liberals and the behavior of conservatives in the last couple of years in terms of treating physical violence as acceptable.

  • IconoclastTwo

    I read that article. I thought it was kind of heartbreaking in its own way although I guess I shouldn’t have really been surprised.

  • ZackBop

    Both sides absolutely do it and to think otherwise is to be willfully ignorant of reality.

  • David Cromie

    Both ‘homophobia’ and ‘bigot’ are legitimate descriptive terms, relating to particular mindsets, and are not designed to close down debate, as your need to reply would confirm.

    Why would a Constitutionally guaranteed set of values do anything other that include all citizens in their remit, so that all may profit from equal treatment under the law when it comes to civil rights?

  • IconoclastTwo


    “So that’s his level of political discourse. Of course, he seems to be speaking figuratively if distastefully. But he made another rather appalling statement over the weekend at the NRA convention in St. Louis:

    If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will be either be dead or in jail by this time next year.

    He also recommends decapitating Democrats: “We need to ride onto that battlefield and chop their heads off in November.” (The folks brandishing rifles in the background of the video above add another element of surrealism to the proceeding.)”

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/quote-of-the-day-ted-nugent-threatens-barack-obama/256025/

    “If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will be either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”

    Oh look. It’s another promise a Republican didn’t keep.

    That’s just a very, very, very small example. It’d be trivially easy for me to find more-especially the closer I get to Twittler winning. Go on and tell me where you see high profile liberals, ones with enough credibility to speak at the liberal equivalent of organizations like the NRA, speak in similar terms.

    That’s not the real problem. The problem is conservative double standards where you tolerate any amount of violence, real or rhetorical, that comes from them but you don’t think that liberals (let alone leftists) have any kind of right to respond whether in kind or at all-and prefer to try and sink debate into this flagrantly dishonest “both sides do it” without even bothering to notice that conservatives have done everything they possible could to make things worse.

  • Ron McPherson

    Hmm. I’m not sure I quite follow. Is there something you’re thinking of in particular?

  • ZackBop

    You think it’s hard to find leftists calling for violence against people on the right?

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/31/prominent-leftists-now-outright-condone-violence-oppose-trump/

    We could go back and forth here, of course, but it would be pointless. You’re already convinced that it’s all the right’s fault. You’re a leftist. That’s your tribe. You can’t see the faults in your own tribe.

    I, on the other hand, have no problem seeing what’s obvious. Partisan ideologues on both sides are idiots.

  • David Cromie

    How do you know he doesn’t?

  • IconoclastTwo

    And you think the federalist is somehow nonpartisan? Their explicit goal is an ideology intended to eliminate any laws that actually help most Americans as compared to the wealthy because of the ridiculous idea that America never changed at all since the constitution was signed so everyone should be forced to live in accordance with their pretense. They’re a clearly reactionary organization.

  • ZackBop

    They provided the direct quotes. Doesn’t matter if they’re partisan or not. You can read what these left-wingers said yourself.

    But of course you’d discredit that source without acknowledging the partisanship of The Atlantic. Again, your “sinless” tribe…

    Calling people on the right Nazis or members of the Taliban is violently-charged rhetoric. You’re equating them to sinister military combatants. That’s why events like what happened today happen. They don’t see their “enemies” as people. They see them as something else.

  • ZackBop

    Because I’ve followed him long enough to see who he writes blogs against.

  • Dave G.

    Not really. Only if you insist your moral framework is the superior and infallible framework against which all dissension must be brutally judged. You can call anything you disagree with bigotry. That’s an easy one.

    As for homophobe, that’s just silly. Are there homophobes out there? Probably. People who have an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to same sex attraction? Probably. There’s all kinds. But not everyone who disagrees with non-heterosexual normality for humans is that. Most I know aren’t.

    Unless it’s just being used as a lame and, to be honest, cowardly, way to avoid debate of course. In that case, like bigot above, it can serve quite well.

    But why the exception? Because these particular values cross the religious convictions of others. Just like Conscientious Objectors. When the country says all must be prepared to serve, though we’ll make exceptions for strong convictions to the contrary, I’m sure there are other cases where these exceptions can be made. Assuming, of course, that we want everyone to be welcome at the Democracy table.

  • IconoclastTwo

    They’re not equivalent moral standards. The standard that Ron McPherson describes is one of ending arbitrary stigmatization against minorities even though it was considered ‘traditional’. The standard that you’re defending, in comparison, not only preserves this but expands it. They shouldn’t be considered the same-and that’s sort of what the court ultimately said when they decided that what was anti gay discrimination was no more legally justifiable than anti black discrimination.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “There has been, however, a quick step forward in saying that gay marriage is now a protected class, and therefore anyone who wishes to partake in the public domain must accept and approve, even it is violates one’s religious conscience.”

    You’re misrepresenting what actually happened even before getting into the issue of your slippery slope argument later on. What Kim Davis was doing was _not_ just ‘partaking in the public domain’. She had a legal responsibility to be impartial because she was an employee of the state.

  • Dan S.

    And the best (read ironic) part is that they come out with hilariously rich statements like the one above:

    “What you can’t do is use the power of law to force your beliefs about marriage onto others who hold different views.”

    Says the gay marriage supporter who just used the law to force his beliefs about marriage onto others who hold different views.

    I don’t know if it’s that these people are just that disingenuous and self-unaware or just that dumb.

  • Dan S.

    How did I “sow” anything?

  • Dave G.

    Yes she did. And she clearly violated the law. That’s what comes of legislating morality, of making a particular moral position equal to the law. Now if you disagree with my morality, you break the law. Funny thing that it’s now the left promoting that approach when, for so many decades, one of the rallying cries of the left was ‘you can never legislate morality’ and ‘it’s wrong to impose your values on others!’ Funny old world. Sort of a ‘we meant some animals are more equal than others’ tweaking of the principle.

    Oh, and always remember, slippery slope might be a logical fallacy, but it is also a historical fact.

  • Dan S.

    What was ridiculous about it?

    I only paraphrased the comment Corey made about Christians in order to show that he’s the opposite side of the coin – he’s just blissfully unaware of it.

  • Dan S.

    It’s astonishing that you would have the nerve to say that after forcing the nation to bow to your group’s definition of marriage.

  • Mark

    Your comments have nothing to do with the original blog topic or content. If you want to push your ideology, look somewhere else, I’m not interested in discussing 1001 things that make liberals mad.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “But of course you’d discredit that source without acknowledging the partisanship of The Atlantic. Again, your “sinless” tribe…”

    The Atlantic isn’t even that liberal, though, let alone leftist. In point of fact they give conservatives a fairly major voice.

    Really what this demonstrates more than anything else is the insularity of your position, and the relativism that it demonstrates: everyone is partisan and so there are no actual facts-and no grounds upon which anything can be questioned or challenged.

    “Calling people on the right Nazis or members of the Taliban is violently-charged rhetoric. You’re equating them to sinister military combatants. That’s why events like what happened today happen. They don’t see their “enemies” as people. They see them as something else.”

    Calling people on the right Nazis isn’t wrong if their positions do, in fact, significantly overlap with the Nazis.

    http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/steve-bannon-fascist-white-supremacist

    “A recent investigation by the Huffington Post exposed Bannon’s fondness for The Camp of the Saints, an obscure French novel that portrays a race war between the “civilized” white West and the evil brown hordes of the so-called East. The Huffington Post highlighted several interviews in 2015 and 2016 in which Bannon compared global politics and the refugee crisis to the plot of the book, which has been likened to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

    The Camp of the Saints, which takes its title from the Bible, was written by ultra-reactionary French author Jean Raspail, who openly describes himself as a “royalist” who wants to restore the Catholic monarchy. In the book, he describes hordes of Indians trying to conquer white Western Christendom as “thousands of wretched creatures” and “turd-eaters.”

    The Huffington Post described the novel Bannon admires as “nothing less than a call to arms for the white Christian West, to revive the spirit of the Crusades and steel itself for bloody conflict against the poor black and brown world without and the traitors within.”

    Yet Bannon’s admiration of The Camp of the Saints is by no means an isolated example of his extreme far-right politics. The New York Times pointed out that Trump’s right-hand man cited Nazi-affiliated Italian philosopher Julius Evola in a 2014 speech at a Christian conference.

    Benito Mussolini, the founder of Italian fascism, greatly admired Evola. The Italian leader of the extreme right-wing Traditionalist movement wrote for fascist publications and journals, espousing anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian ideas. Evola was virulently racist and anti-Semitic and openly claimed that non-European races were inferior. He also condoned patriarchal domination of women and advocated rape.

    A big fan of Nazi leader Heinrich Himmler, Evola spent years in Nazi Germany, where he gave lectures. He personally welcomed Mussolini to the Wolf’s Lair, Hitler’s military headquarters. In a post-war trial in 1951, Evola denied being part of Mussolini’s fascist movement, which was apparently not bombastic enough for his tastes; instead, he proudly declared himself to be a “superfascist.”

    Neo-fascist leader Richard Spencer told the Times he was excited that Bannon knew of Evola.

    “It means a tremendous amount,” Spencer said, adding that Trump’s chief strategist “is at least open to them.”

    So he’s a Nazi.

    When someone says the things that Spencer does about how threatened white people need an exclusive ethnostate (I think the right word for it is ‘lebensraum’), that race is destiny, and writes in his magazine that people should contemplate black genocide then a positive then they’re a Nazi.

    When someone says that the Klan would be ok with them except for smoking marijuana (and yes, Sessions actually said this) and has the relentless history of racism that Sessions does then they’re a Nazi.

    When someone online challenges an article not based on the facts, or potential bias on the part of the reporter _but because they’re Jewish and they think that obviously Jews are untrustworthy_ then they’re a Nazi.

    When someone talks about ‘human biodiversity’ which is really just reflavored eugenics and uses it to launch into a spiel against black people (unsurprisingly also a Trump supporter) then they’re a Nazi.

    When someone says they’re a national socialist right after going off on an n-word laden tirade against black people they’re a Nazi.

    At this point they’re even more honest about being Nazis than you are in your really tortured excuse making for them. Seriously? Do you think they’d stop being Nazis if everyone actually agreed to not call them Nazis (which we shouldn’t)?

  • Dan S.

    More like, if i don’t bow to an illegitimate court ruling from a activist judiciary beholden to the gay community, I’ll get sent to prison indefinitely.

  • IconoclastTwo

    He actually has to agree to see that first.

  • IconoclastTwo

    So does everyone get the chance to decide which rulings are wrong or do only fundamentalist Christians of your particular sects get it? I think the people from a lot of states would cheerfully vote against Citizens United if they got the option. Is Bush v. Gore an example of an illegitimate court ruling from an activist judiciary?

  • IconoclastTwo

    How have any heterosexual marriages actually been damaged by gay marriage being legal?

  • Dan S.

    Gay marriage activists are really good at pious little statements like,

    “What conceivable right do you have to establish standards for other people’s relationships, or to only allow people to have certain kinds of relationships?”

    But bring up a marriage or sexual relationship that they don’t approve of, like plural marriage or incest and watch them backtrack on that BS so fast it’ll make your head spin.

  • Dan S.

    You’re changing the subject.

  • Mark

    However the Brits want to run their country is their business, not mine. My response was in regards to Tony Cutty’s view that states “questions about whether a minority party would be allowed to impose their hardline views in exchange for shoring up our collapsing Conservative Government” Given the multiple terrorist attacks in the UK over the last year, it certainly appears that a minority group is attempting to impose their hardline views. He wrote this in response to the original blog content about Christian evangelicals who were attempting to impose their view yet he seemed rather blind to what’s been happening in the UK.

  • IconoclastTwo

    No, I’m getting at the heart of the subject. You’ve just been trying to be sufficiently evasive to avoid this issue. You’ve been trying to make the case that gay marriage is somehow damaging to straight marriage. So prove that it is, in fact, somehow damaging to straight marriage.

  • Dan S.

    Again, that you would say that while blithely ignoring the fact that both Democratic front-runners (Clinton and Sanders) spoke at length during their campaigns about how they would work to have Citizens United overturned is just another example of the hypocrisy that is part and parcel of the liberal movement.

    Even more comical is that with all the indignation I hear from liberals about Citizens United allowing corporations the power to potentially influence the laws, I heard not one denunciation of the direct (not potential but direct) effect of the gay activist corporate bullying measures against the state of North Carolina.

    In fact, most liberals that I saw were applauding corporations for their coercion against the state so don’t give me this nonsense about Citizens United giving corporations too much power over the laws, please.

  • When will you understand that “religious and moral convictions” that require you to oppress or harass other people who have done you no harm except to exist are not acceptable in a civilized society? All that is being asked of you is to refrain from gratuitously hurting other people. How’s that for a “moral absolute”? Could you live with that? Or is it more important to you to retain your ability to hurt others?

  • You can express your disapproval of other people; so can they. If customers prefer not to do business with someone whose publicly expressed political views they disapprove of, that’s their privilege. Christian Taliban groups haven’t hesitated to play the boycott card (e.g., against Target). You can’t complain when those you don’t like do the same thing.

    Once more: the law does NOT mandate anything about what you believe or what your preferences are. It has to do ONLY with preventing you from harming other people through your BEHAVIOR. And society DOES have the right to prevent harm to its citizens.

  • As I explained, your charge makes no sense. No one is advocating what you say they are advocating. The statement as offered is a pathetic lie attempting to scare people who don’t understand the issues about something that never happens. That’s what’s ridiculous.

  • I believe that you’re actually quoting me here, so let me answer. I don’t automatically proscribe any kind of relationship, including those you mention, as long as it is undertaken with full consent and understanding of those participating. What is unacceptable is the use of compulsion or fraud to coerce a relationship. Beyond that, don’t make assumptions that anyone else shares your prejudices about what is and is not acceptable.

  • ZackBop

    You equating conservatives (people who want smaller government) to Nazis is flat-out ludicrous. I’m not going to debate someone who is that willfully ignorant. Enjoy being hateful.

    The tolerant and progressive left: http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/05/kathy-griffin-trump-beheading-640×480.jpg

  • Businesses make corporate decisions based on their assessment of the opinions of their customers and shareholders. If they decide that they would lose customers because they sponsor some particular event, then they don’t have to sponsor it. Complaining about businesses or organizing boycotts against them (e.g., Target) isn’t a privilege reserved to christians. You’re welcome to try to convince these companies that it would be better business to sponsor events in NC. Good luck with that. You certainly can’t compel them to do business in only the ways you approve of.

  • Dale Paris

    How nice of you to provide you pedigree. While you may be concerned about the ‘christian taliban’, you base you identity on the mythology that makes it possible. Of course, how you rationalize that is completely up to you.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “You equating conservatives (people who want smaller government) to Nazis is flat-out ludicrous.”

    False argument. I’m not equating conservatives as people who want smaller government to Nazis for two reasons:

    1) Conservatives (at least of the mainstream variety, some of the more marginal libertarians are a bit more consistent, although with different issues) don’t actually want smaller government. They want government that will punish people they hate and reward people who are just like them and they don’t really care all that much about the size of it.

    Most conservatives that I’ve seen don’t object to a government that rampantly intervenes against women’s reproductive choices or a government that basically sponsors police practically raping black and brown people through ‘stop and frisk’. They’ll justify practically anything as long as it can be sold to them based on fear. Similarly even though the American military is the biggest, most useless, yet profitable for corporations, budgetary entity in the American government conservatives have overwhelmingly supported spending even more money on it. Similarly, you can’t say that conservatives support smaller government while so many of them are enormously enthusiastic over building the Trump Wall.

    As far as conservatives defending local control or property rights…that depends on who exactly is controlling and whose property, doesn’t it? Didn’t Texas, the beating heart of American conservatism, just have its state government pass a law that prevents cities and towns from banning fracking? When eminent domain was used to seize land to build the Keystone XL pipeline how many conservatives stood up for the local landowners whose land, if pipeline previous history is any guide to the future, will probably be irrevocably polluted, or the water protectors protesting in order to preserve what little they have left?

    As for conservatives being defenders of people from government overreach that’s…spotty as well. It was hardly a universally shared opinion that conservatives should join in with Rand Paul in protesting against the assassination of an American citizen overseas. (In the interests of fairness I will point out that most ‘liberal’ politicians didn’t do this either and I don’t respect them for it accordingly). Obama and everyone in his entire chain of command completely lied when it came to NSA spying and in all honesty, should really have been impeached about that. However, instead, I watched conservatives obsess over his birth certificate (which ties into other issues I’ll mention in a bit), “Benghazi” (even though the real crime was the illegal invasion), and other nonsense.

    2) With all of this being said, being a conservative does not automatically make someone a Nazi, although Nazism definitely belongs as part of the conservative spectrum of politics. In order to be a Nazi you have to *specifically* advocate notions of racial or cultural purity/supremacy that can only be achieved through extralegal and violent (and in many cases, practically monarchical) principles combined with notions of national decline caused by the impure (who are regarded as defeatable only with absolute trust in hierarchical leadership while simultaneously being nigh-omnipotent otherwise), supportive of corporate hierarchy, et cetera.

    There are a lot of other criteria (most of which Trump and his loudest, most obnoxious supporters absolutely meet). I suggest that you read an actual book about fascism instead of defining it as “what people I dislike believe in.”

    You really don’t want to hold Breitbart up as anything involving tolerance that doesn’t involve the words “opposed to”.

  • Dom S
  • Dan S.

    It makes all the sense in the world. You’re just too stubborn to admit it.

    “The LGBT groups are busy working to achieve their vision through democratic
    means, the net-goal is not all that different than other religious
    extremist groups: taking control of culture and government to transform a
    nation into following the tenets and principles of their own ideology.”

    You can pretend it’s not happening but it already has.

  • If you seriously believe that LGBTQ+ groups control anything in this government, let alone have any kind of agenda to enact other than being left alone, then the needle on your paranoia-meter is seriously out of whack. If we had control of the government, do you really think that things would be as nightmarishly out of control as they currently are? I assure you that if we really were in a position to “…tak(e) control of culture and government to transform a nation into following the tenets and principles of their own ideology” we’d have a society in which there was vastly less prejudice, violence, inequality, bullying, and general social nastiness than there actually is.

  • Dan S.

    The truth is you only had a problem with Citizens United when you thought it was going to disadvantage your side.

    When you realized it was going to help your side, you changed your tune and now, you’re all for it”.

    Congratulations on your “principled” stand.

  • Dan S.

    Oh please.

    You have the entire judiciary, most of the media, the entire public school system, and the entirety of academia, not to mention your own political party and a large number of corporations.

    There’s no paranoia there – just an honest assessment of reality, one which you stubbornly refuse to admit.

  • Dan S.

    You’re changing the subject just like Iconoclast.

  • Dan S.

    You’re changing the subject from one of “gays forcing their view of marriage on other people who don’t share their view” to “How does it harm you?”

  • I’m clueless here! How in the world am I going to use the laws to compel you to believe something that you don’t believe? And why would I want to do that, if I could, which I can’t? I don’t. You are making increasingly less sense as we proceed here.

  • Dave G.

    Yours only works, again, if we begin with the premise that your particular values in all things are a priori correct. That hasn’t been established. Things like that can take centuries to work out, truth be told. What you’re basically trying to say is those things which you approve should be approved and there is no reason why anyone who falls within those particular categories ought to be treated thus. Those ideals or beliefs with which you don’t approve are necessarily wrong, should be stigmatized, and further shouldn’t carry any particular legal or social protection. Well, that’s people throughout the centuries for you. No different than what societies have done for endless eons. Nonetheless, you can see where there would still be disagreement over the notion that rights and protection end where you say so.

  • Dave G.

    Yes she was. And once that particular moral standard was made law, failing to conform to that standard could now put one afoul of the law, as it did her. Again, that’s what comes of legislating morality. Which is what legislation often is. It’s saying this morality is right, that morality is wrong, and those who don’t act accordingly will reap the appropriate, perhaps legal, consequences. Which she did. Again, I’m second to none in my admiration for liberalism’s abilities to do everything it once condemned. For a movement driven by the promise ‘all animals are equal’, it’s done a smash-up job doing a 180 and almost proudly insisting that what it meant was some animals are more equal than others. Of course based upon the morals and values that liberals are seeking to legally mandate, those who refuse to conform will be punished. It remains to be seen, however, if this set of moral absolutes that the modern left wishes to legally impose on the population are good or not. We’ll see.

  • Dave G.

    Well, hold your horses on that. As recently as about 10 years ago, you’d be right. But I go to more left leaning outlets and make that case, and now I’m increasingly met with ‘Yeah? And? No problem there!’ Except for some biological issues, the incest notion has even met with ‘except for that, no problem.’ Just as 30 years ago gay rights activists mocked concerns over the rights of those who might reject gay marriage, as Mark Shea so eloquently said once, in future years the Church won’t be in trouble with society for covering up sex with children, it will be in trouble with society for opposing sex with children. Absolutely nothing in the evolution of the last two generations suggests there is any reason to believe he was wrong.

  • Dave G.

    I couldn’t care less what they do. But if someone tells me I must compromise my religious beliefs to conform to their particular moral standards, and they are further buttressed by the government imposing itself on how I exercise my religion, then we have a problem. Saying I’m hurting someone isn’t the point. I tell a child he can’t have a cookie, that hurts him. But so be it. He still shouldn’t have a cookie. It doesn’t mean the government has a right to step in and demand I provide the cookie. If people want to do thus, go ahead. I have the right to believe it’s wrong. If that ‘hurts’ them, then I’d say as a society we might want to do a double take on how we define being hurt, or someday we might end up with people going all violent because someone dared say they were wrong, or dared to think differently than they do. Oh, wait…

  • Dave G.

    Of course that’s their privelage. If you support LGBT rights, and tehre is a florist who said he didn’t want to take part in a gay wedding, then by all means, shop around! That’s freedom.

    As for Taliban equals boycott, you might want to consider the many boycotts liberal groups have proposed over the years. That’s the problem with this post. It’s nothing than a well written spin on ‘Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler.’ Replace Hitler with Taliban.

    And yes that’s what the law does. That’s why legislating morality is a fine way to ensure that people in a society must legally behave the way you demand. It’s what law is all about. That doesn’t mean a particular behavior, being law, is correct. There have been plenty of things that were legal that weren’t necessarily right. That remains to be seen. But again, that’s what comes from legislating moral absolutes. And I can’t think of anything more liberal that declaring moral absolutes and proceeding to use the power of the state to enforce them..

  • Matthew

    Well Ron … I think what I´m getting at is that even when someone decides to open a business (private sphere), or work as a legislator (public sphere), it seems we expect them to check their beliefs and convictions at the door before they dig in and start working/serving.

    I´m wondering if that´s possible?

  • The only people who have ever “legislated moral absolutes” are the christian conservatives. Remember Griswold v. Connecticut, prior to which the Catholic Church made it illegal to sell condoms in Connecticut and Massachusetts? Remember the anti-homosexual laws under which it was illegal for two gay men to be in the same room together? Bet you’re just panting for the return of such laws – perfectly happy to legislate morality as long as it’s your own crimped and twisted set of rules to be applied to other people.

  • Dave G.

    Well, no. That’s what the modern left is doing. The difference being traditional Christians never marched under the banners of inclusion, tolerance, diversity, you can’t legislate morality and all morals are relative. Liberalism did. But now, oddly enough, it’s the left that is stumbling over itself to do all the things it once condemned.

    As for laws like that, silly old me, I took liberals at their word back in the day, which was my basis for supporting gay rights. Not that I personally approved, but per the liberal doctrines of the 70s and 80s, I felt they had a right to do what they wanted. If that’s where we want to be, that’s fine. But if it was just a ruse, an attempt to promise grand inclusions but then seek to do double that which it once condemned, then you can count me out.

  • David Cromie

    Christers and logical reasoning are complete strangers!

  • David Cromie

    I would go for all three!

  • Chari McCauley

    Well Ron … I think what I´m getting at is that even when someone decides to open a business (private sphere), or work as a legislator (public sphere), it seems we expect them to check their beliefs and convictions at the door before they dig in and start working/serving.

    I´m wondering if that´s possible?

    Do our soldiers not have to do that when they go to war?

  • David Cromie

    Answer the question, instead of spewing bigoted hate.

  • David Cromie

    That is because Dan is a member of the Christian Taliban, but does not want to admit it to himself, or the world.

  • Chari McCauley

    You’re changing the subject from one of “gays forcing their view of marriage on other people who don’t share their view” to “How does it harm you?”

    Are you a troll of some kind cos you’re evading the question.
    How are you being harmed or forced?

  • David Cromie

    Universal Human Rights are, a priori, right, which a country wishing to be held as civilised must admit. What do you find wrong with that? Your religious beliefs and convictions cannot trump that axiom!

  • David Cromie

    Why do you suppose that your twisted ‘morality’ should take precedence over the law of the land? Your hoped-for theocracy is not going to happen!

  • David Cromie

    Have you ever heard of comparing like with like?

  • Matthew

    It´s a good point Chari McCauley. I´m still working through this question myself. I don´t really have a firm answer or idea yet. Thanks.

  • Ron McPherson

    I’m not sure I see it that way. Treat everyone equitably and with respect. How immoral or unconscionable could that be?

  • David Cromie

    Gosh, you are a simplistic moron! There is no law against you practising your religion, but you have no right, in doing so, to impinge upon the rights of others in any way.

  • Matthew

    Yeah … but what about the folks who claim this violates their religious conscience? I mean aren´t there laws in America that protect people´s rights to religious freedom/conscience? If so, it seems these people are just as protected (or should be) as those who also want to be treated equitably.

    I´m still processing all of this Ron. I don´t have a clear answer. The idealist in me wants to find a solution that deals with people who don´t agree with some Christians (for example) with respect, but which also protects the religious conscience of these particular Christians.

    As you know, I´m not for legislating morality, but on the other hand I´m not sure I´m for the state or government asking people to check their personal beliefs at the door before working/serving. That said, if religious beliefs become harmful and dangerous (like, for example, somebody in the KKK saying the Bible supports harming certain people), these beliefs and convictions too must be rejected by society at large.

    I´m lost for an answer really …

  • Martha Anne Underwood

    Problem is…those on the religious right want us on the left to deny what we believe because we are wrong and they are right.

  • Dave G.

    It depends. I’m fine with whatever people want to do, as long as others can do or not do as they wish. What’s wrong with that?

  • rubellapox2

    Excellent….

  • Dave G.

    Why did you suppose your morality should be the law of the land when it wasn’t? Or did you only began supporting gay marriage when it actually became law of the land?

  • Dave G.

    Yep. Which is why I thought this was a point worth making.

  • Dave G.

    Of course not. At no point should a business owner go in and stop a gay wedding from happening now that it’s the law of the land. Likewise they shouldn’t be forced into partaking in an event which goes against their own doctrinal beliefs. Fair is fair. Tolerance and diversity and all those cherished values on the left. Or you could just admit that your values are in fact superior and infallible and demand complete obedience and conformity in order to partake in the new order of society. At least that would be honest.

    I’ll let the name calling go, I’ve learned that when discussing things today, one must keep the bar of expectations pretty low.

  • Bones

    Oh poor Christian is persecuted because gays are getting married.

    FFS grow up.

  • Bones

    Yeah we get your point.

    You hate gays….how many different ways can you say it.

  • Chari McCauley

    Those who seek the death of their sibling.

    Those who are without sin are the only ones qualified to cast a stone that leads to death.

    Ironically, the Ones who are qualified, choose NOT to sentence everyone to death. The story of the Prodical’s son is what Father really wants.

    Father is not the jealous god, but the jealous god does need to learn what it would be like to live in a world of his own creation.

    You can forgive a child all day. you still have to teach them not to shoot their own feet off.

  • SamHamilton

    Other than the attempts to prevent Muslims from building mosques by some on the Christian right (definitely an issue of “religious liberty for me, but not for thee”), what’s the difference between the “Christian Taliban” and your average politically-active progressive Christian in terms of broad objectives and methods?

    Both “Christian Fundamentalists” and politically progressive Christians look at our laws and think they don’t measure up to the Gospel and seek political power to change them in ways that look more like the Bible (at least the portions of the Bible they like to emphasize). Both are concerned about the moral direction of our country and want to change them using cultural and political power. Both sides want to use political power to force our society to conform to their religious ideal. If you don’t believe me, go read Sojourners or another politically progressive Christian magazine, blog, website and look at all the ways they use scripture as the rationale for their public policy preferences.

    In addition, even non-religious people want to conform society to their version of the “good” using cultural and political power. Singling out politically-conservative Christians as if they’re the only ones who want to do this doesn’t make sense to me.

  • Dave G.

    Actually I don’t hate gays, unless your definition of hate is anyone who dares think or believe in any way other than that which you demand. Now based on that definition, you might have a point.

  • SamHamilton

    His anger is EXCLUSIVELY directed towards conservatives.

    I’ve noted this before in my comments here. I get where he’s coming from in that he sounds like he has a lot of baggage from his upbringing, but it sounds like he’s made that baggage into a brand rather than letting it go. I’m not saying it’d be easy; perhaps if I’d grown up in a particular type of theologically conservative Christian fundamentalism I’d have trouble letting go of my baggage too. But instead of continually focusing on Mr. Graham and people like him, Mr. Corey could be highlighting constructive and good things Christians of various political stripes are doing to bring people together or who are standing up for justice. I’m a politically conservative Christian who is pretty theologically orthodox and I hang out with a lot of people who think like me, and no one I knows looks to Franklin Graham for theological or political guidance. Yet the way Mr. Corey writes at times it’s like he wants any Christian who doesn’t fully sign up for his politics to be labeled the “Taliban.” Perhaps he just needs to be a little more specific about the policies he’s referring to that make someone a member of the “Christian Taliban.”

  • SamHamilton

    The Federalist didn’t make up the quotes.

  • SamHamilton

    If Mr. Corey’s blog post is merely aimed at the minuscule number of people who kill abortionists (and those that approve of such murders), then I’m fine with calling them the Christian Taliban. And I doubt anyone else would object to that either. But those aren’t the only people Mr. Corey was talking about.

  • Jim Deferio

    It sounds to me that you are the intolerant Christophobe here, Benjamin.
    What is your “Bible”, the democratic Party’s platform and left wing propaganda?
    Hate much?

  • otrotierra

    All the rage and name-calling of a Trump Rally. Congratulations.

  • Chari McCauley

    Well, how often do you think those folks develope PTSD because they have to do things they KNOW they would not want done to them or their own family? No religion involved although much of it is the fact that their religion taught them the opposite of what war wants them to do?

  • Jim Deferio

    So, you equate “name-calling” (which liberals excel at) with the murderous Taliban? You are some kind of genius, aren’t you?
    Btw, please cite one reference from Franklin Graham where he called for a “theocracy”, just one!
    Your boy Bernie Sanders is the most anti-democracy guy around but that doesn’t bother you, does it. You like to pick on Christians because you know that unlike Muslims, unlike your buddies the anarchists, unlike the liberals, we will not physically assault you or try to kill you. Coward!

  • Ron McPherson

    Here’s how I see it. If I’m against same sex marriage, the govt in no way infringes on my rights by forcing me to marry someone of my own gender. BUT, if I open a business for the purpose of making a profit off of the general public at large, then the govt will not allow me to discriminate against anyone. It HAS to be that way or we cannot operate within a healthy societal structure. Just ask minorities what they experienced in the Deep South. And if I’m a government employee, on the government payroll being paid through taxes imposed upon the general public, then I cannot impose my beliefs upon another such that that person would not have access to the same government services provided to them that others have. And as a Christian, I wouldn’t have it any other way. If I have a moral code of behavior that requires me to discriminate against anyone made in the image of God, then sadly so be it. If so, then I best not go into a capitalist venture to make money off the general public, or become a government employee who should otherwise be responsible to ALL citizenry, not just SOME. I’m reminded that Jesus said “My kingdom is not of this world.” Yet sadly, most of us Christians want it both ways. Make money off of this world living under the terms of this world, but then loudly howl when those terms somehow violates my “conscience.”

  • otrotierra

    Number of “Gay activists” oppressing Dan: Zero.

  • bthomas

    Re:Shooting. Just checked. The political terrorist who launched yesterdays attack in Washington was a democrat. The one who shot Giffords was not a right wing fundamentalist.

  • bthomas

    Really. When has has the U.S. military been under the command of any Evangelical group in the U.S.? At least for the last administration, these forces were commanded by a left-wing liberal democrat.

  • David Cromie

    Yet you claim that ‘god’s’ law takes precedence?

  • David Cromie

    Universal Human Rights have always been paramount.

  • Dave G.

    No, I claim that in America, one has the right to exercise his or her religion accordingly, and not be compelled by the state to act against religious conviction. Or, one has the right to not be liberal. Perhaps that makes it easier.

  • SamHamilton

    Ok…

  • Dave G.

    Of course. Including, but not limited to, religious rights and equality.

  • Jessica Nowlan

    Maybe not the Taliban. More like the Crusades: eliminate (massacre) the non-Christians, convert the rest, So much for religious freedom.

  • Jessica Nowlan

    I couldn’t have said it better! Thank you. Always ask yourself WWJD?

  • Ron McPherson

    “But if someone tells me I must compromise my religious beliefs to conform to their particular moral standards, and they are further buttressed by the government imposing itself on how I exercise my religion, then we have a problem. ”

    Many, especially here in the south where I live, believe that interracial marriage is sinful. Serious question. Should a government clerk have the right to refuse that couple a marriage license? According to the principles you advocate for, it would seem to me you would have to answer in the affirmative. Additionally, many are still racists and carry those beliefs with them everywhere they go. So a deli owner refuses service to an individual who is African American because of his ‘beliefs.’Again, according to the standards of which you advocate, the government has no right to intervene. Or are you advocating for allowing only Christians to be able to opt out? Not accusing you of this, but I just can’t find a work around to what you advocate for. It’s either I should be allowed to discriminate based on my religious beliefs, or I shouldn’t. It has to be one or the other. There is no middle ground here that I can see.

  • Dave G.

    It’s actually not an accurate comparison, as there is really nothing other than subjective opinion that equates race and sexual orientation. The science is woefully out on that subject.

    But let me ask you this. In the wake of gay marriage, I’m sure you know there has been an uptick in people pushing for other forms of marriage, including, but not limited to, incestuous and polyamorous. Some day, should those become law (and there’s really no reason to think they wouldn’t, if we apply the reasoning behind gay marriage), would you also want Christians who stand against incest or polyamorous relationships to be forced to partake?

  • Matthew

    Thanks so much Ron. Food for thought.

  • Ron McPherson

    It is absolutely an accurate comparison based on the premise you have given, which is this: if my beliefs preclude me from serving another, then the govt has no right to intervene. For instance, I’m not baking a wedding cake (serving a sandwich) for a gay couple (to a black person) because it is against my religious belief based on my definition of marriage (race relations). Literally no difference in principle. So why is it acceptable for the government to intervene in the latter instance but not the former?

  • Dave G.

    Actually it isn’t. There is no clear evidence that same sex attraction is no different than ethnicity. Marriage – who can and cant’ be – is based on a values set in a given society. Now, if we want to say gays, siblings, soccer teams, or whatever can be married, that’s fine. Societies call the shots on that. But if we want to be free, we’ll pardon those who don’t want to marry two siblings, or take part in a polyamorous marriage. That’s freedom.

  • Penelope LaFleur

    I agree, Jessica, my first thought when I read Graham’s praise of forcing the unwed couples to marry, was the crusades and then the Pharisees. Jesus’s message was not one of forcing people to do the right thing. We are to win souls not force outward obedience, that is what Jesus accused the Pharisees of, honoring with their lips while their hearts were far from Him. I understand and agree with what Benjamin is saying.

  • Ron McPherson

    I’m not sure how I can make this any clearer. The issue is all about whether the govt has a right to intervene when I discriminate against others. It literally has nothing to do with the evidence of whether or not same sex attraction is genetic. It’s the same if I discriminate against someone for being black (which is unquestionably genetic) or if I discriminate against one who purposely chooses to wear long hair (which is unquestionably their choice).

  • Dave G.

    Again, if being black was the same as being gay, then it would be a point. It isn’t. Many still maintain that despite our inclinations, we choose or don’t choose to indulge in them. That’s something that sets us apart from animals. We don’t have to act a certain way. We might be predisposed to act certain ways, but we don’t have to. Therefore, while a person can hardly help being black, many still maintain that no matter how strong the attraction, a person need not follow their instincts so to speak, and indulge in them. A separate issue. The same could be said about the incestuous couple.

    Now the law has spoken to this issue by virtue of legislating morality, which is fine. Contrary to what liberalism proclaimed through to at least the 80s and even beyond, law and morality go hand in hand. And now liberalism can see the fruits of that fact. Because by passing this law, it can now declare something that is far from ‘settled science’ as fact and use the power of the state to demand conformity and conversion to the moral dogmas proclaimed by the liberal movement regarding this issue. And furthermore, it can use the power of the state to punish any who still believe that, unlike being Black or Asian, one who is gay still has a choice, even if it isn’t an easy one.

    So yes, in the end, you are right. That’s what happens in society. There is no tolerance. No diversity. No open mindedness. Never was. Never will be. You simply have a side that sees its moral absolutes as unarguable, and when it can, seizes the opportunity to use whatever powers, legal or state or otherwise, to impose those morals under threat of retribution. With that obvious turn of events, clearway one cannot discriminate against a gay couple anymore than a black person.

    Of course, using the government to mandate conformity to a moral stance has, in some corners, been likened to the Taliban. But I’ll leave that to those who imagine the two are equal.

  • Dave G.

    I think we’re having two discussions, are we? I just posted an answer to you down south.

  • Ron McPherson

    LOL!!!

  • Ivan Beggs

    Doesn’t make sense to you because you believe you are right. Hard to allow another view political freedom.

  • Ivan Beggs

    Graham represents Conservative Christians. The GOP goes to him like going to a high priest.

  • otrotierra

    False equivalencies are very important to religious fundamentalists. Their intellectual sloth is self-satisfying to them, much like a drug addiction they refuse to quit.

  • Ivan Beggs

    Today.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “Other than the attempts to prevent Muslims from building mosques by some on the Christian right (definitely an issue of “religious liberty for me, but not for thee”), what’s the difference between the “Christian Taliban” and your average politically-active progressive Christian in terms of broad objectives and methods?”

    I have _rarely_ in fact, possibly not ever, run into progressive Christians who are as relentlessly obsessed with other people’s sex lives to the point where they want laws passed about it and special rights the way that conservative Christians from all sorts of different denominations (ie, not just Protestants groups or Catholics) want this.

    Another big difference is that even though their policies are harmful to many of their average followers in an objectively quantitative fashion, the Christian right also seems to have practically no limits to the degree of far right, pro economic royalist economics that they’re willing to sign on for.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “You have the entire judiciary, most of the media, the entire public school system, and the entirety of academia, not to mention your own political party and a large number of corporations.”

    How exactly?

  • IconoclastTwo

    “Again, that you would say that while blithely ignoring the fact that both Democratic front-runners (Clinton and Sanders) spoke at length during their campaigns about how they would work to have Citizens United overturned is just another example of the hypocrisy that is part and parcel of the liberal movement.

    Even more comical is that with all the indignation I hear from liberals about Citizens United allowing corporations the power to potentially influence the laws, I heard not one denunciation of the direct (not potential but direct) effect of the gay activist corporate bullying measures against the state of North Carolina.

    In fact, most liberals that I saw were applauding corporations for their coercion against the state so don’t give me this nonsense about Citizens United giving corporations too much power over the laws, please.”

    It’s not hypocrisy because of the following:

    1) A boycott (which is what you’re referring to as far as North Carolina is concerned) is something that everyone can organize and participate in. They do have certain very important limitations but I can try and convince people to boycott Hateburger (aka Chick-Fil-A) and Hobby Lobby as much as you can try and boycott corporations that you think are pro-gay (although you’ve been oddly nonspecific about that point so far…)

    2) In comparison, what Citizens’ United does is it gives the super-rich that are in charge of corporations an outsized voice in public discourse that most people will have to exercise basically herculean efforts in order to overcome. The people (or more properly: the class) in charge of corporations is free to advocate and outspend massively in advocacy of policies that are more often than not diametrically opposed to those that would be best for their employees, much less the planet or the country-and most of the time they get what they want accordingly. It’s why politics went from a state in which politicians, back in the 1980s, were already complaining about having to spend too much time fundraising-to choosing politicians who were good at nothing BUT fundraising and screaming (but had nothing else to offer the world)-to the superrich themselves running for office directly because they’ve either forced everyone else out or sufficiently disgusted people to the point where they’ve given up.

    With all of that being said, I do think that those leftist political theorists/journalists that have pointed out that relying so much on the supreme court is problematic. I do have some ideas about that but I doubt that you’d agree with them at all.

  • IconoclastTwo

    No, a lot of progressives still have problems with Citizens United.

  • IconoclastTwo

    Incest is nonconsensual so it shouldn’t even be considered valid for the purposes of this argument.

  • IconoclastTwo

    Then why are you so desperate to make them miserable?

  • Dan S.

    See? You’re already backtracking.

    Incest can be consensual so that’s a cop-out.

    Tell me what conceivable right you have to establish standards for other people’s relationships, or to only allow people to have certain kinds of relationships.

  • Dan S.

    Sadly, you may be right in some cases but for the most part, you’ll see them denouncing that as “ridiculous”.

    They’ll trot out the old, “What conceivable right do you have to establish standards for other people’s relationships, or to only allow people to have certain kinds of relationships?”

    But then, as soon as you bring up incest, they backtrack with a, “How dare you compare the rights of people who can’t legally get married with the rights other people who can’t legally get married?”.

  • Dan S.

    At least, you’re consistent.

  • Dan S.

    So getting back to Dave G.’s point, do you think it’s discrimination for the government to refuse to recognize polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages, marriages of adults to minors, marriages to animals and marriages to inanimate objects?

    Aren’t those just like refusing service to blacks?

  • Bones

    Lol….someone is moaning about a group in the community who has never hurt them….yep you hate them.

  • Bones

    No one hates like the Right!!!

    Just check the gay body count throughout history.

    Poor Christians are sulking because they can’t pick on gays anymore.

  • Bones
  • Dan S.

    Your answer shows that you can’t even be honest about this.

    My post was about corporations using their money and power to literally force states to bow to their legislative wishes (not citizen boycotts).

  • Bones

    George W Bush says hi.

  • Bones

    Of course!

  • Dave G.

    Nobody is saying be miserable. It’s not the law of the land. Just in the spirit of good old post-war liberalism, don’t impose your values on others and demand they conform to your own moral absolutes. Assuming, of course, that what liberals said all those years about imposing your values on others was true.

  • Bones

    Hey it’s ok for you to hate gays.

    It is not ok for you to tell gay people how to act or take away their rights.

    And here’s news…..

    It’s not even a liberal issue…..

    Gay marriage is the law of the land in many western countries…in fact it was legislated in the UK by conservatives.

  • Bones

    You have a person going for a government post who has openly advocated the sacking of someone over religion. And you now admit that people in government can treat others according to the whims of their religion and beliefs….whether that’s anti-semitism or whatever.

    That is a direct conflict of the separation of Church and State and what not be tolerated in ANY western democracy.

    That you can’t see that says a lot about you.

    And lol as describing the separation powers as totalitarian.

  • Bones

    No…you do the job you get paid for…..

    Imagine if doctors and teachers refuse to to do their jobs because their clients are gay or whatever else they hate.

    Of course these people have been lifted up as heroes by people like yourself for their bigoted discriminatory behaviour.

  • Bones

    Yeah you can whinge and moan that gay people are getting married as much as you want.

    You can go oout on the street and scream how much you hate them and wave your placards that God hates fags.

    You can preach in your churches how disgusting they are….and how the country is falling apart because of it……and how God hates them.

    The simple fact is western democracies are not run by your church and you cannot take away the rights of gay people.

  • Bones

    Yeah because these people are in jail.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cb993349de97af5aa05a3aefb741e864395f705eff66cb72f094470883a45d54.jpg

    Everyone has a set of values and beliefs.

    Everyone.

    You can preach in your churches how much you hate gay people and nothing will happen to you…..

    It’s weird that people like you want the government to take away rights from gay people.

    It is actually people like you who yearn for a totalitarian theocratic government.

    How are you going to jail?

    Are you going to assault and kill gay people?

  • Bones

    There isn’t any difference between you and fundy Muslims….

  • Bones

    What makes conservatives mad….gay people getting married….or even merely existing.

    Go f*** off and do something useful with your life.

  • Bones

    You mean the gay people you had tortured and put in jail?

    Yeah that’s the actions of the Taliban.

  • Bones

    But he’s being oppressed by thousands of gay people getting married….

  • Dave G.

    No, just saying don’t use the goverment to impose your values on others. That’s all. Now, if you want to declare your morals to be superior and absolute and use whatever state tools to impose your moral standards on others, that’s up to you. I think not. Live and let live, agree to disagree and all that.

  • Bones

    “don’t use the goverment to impose your values on others.”

    That’s exactly what you want to do….You want the government to take away rights from gay people.

    If you don’t want a gay marriage….don’t have one.

  • Dave G.

    Don’t hate gays. Don’t tell them how to act. Just ask that you stop using the government to impose your values on others.

    And yes, it’s the law of the land. That’s what comes of legislating morality and using the law to punish anyone who doesn’t think as you demand they think. Which, per liberalism for most of the last of the 20th century, was a no-no.

  • Bones

    “stop using the government to impose your values on others.”

    That is exactly what you want the government to do.

    Funny, that you didn’t have a problem when the government was locking gay people up and sending them to be tortured in mental institutions…or when the government denied them marriage….

    All of a sudden you’re a whiny bitch.

  • Dave G.

    He said that within the context of a Christian college, the individual had violated the expectations of that particular religious institution. A religious institution is not the government. That difference shouldn’t be difficult to understand.

    And separation of church and state does not mean congress shall build country of secular liberalism that prohibits people with the wrong religious beliefs from holding positions in government. Check out the actual Bill of Rights on that one.

  • Dave G.

    Not wihinging and moaning. Let them get married if they will, it’s up to them. Just don’t be like the Taliban and use the government to punish me for not thinking the way you insist I should think. Since, according to this post, that’s pretty much the definition of Taliban.

  • Dave G.

    Most I know rejected their rhetoric. In fact, I’m at pains to think of any mainline tradition that advocated what they did. Do you have any proof that Catholics, or Southern Baptists, or Methodists, Eastern Orthodox, or conservative Jews, or Muslims advocated this? Please, feel free to provide links.

    And you should really stop thinking that rights begin and end with your opinions and beliefs. Again, no Taliban allowed here. Don’t be the kind of person that the Founding Fathers were trying to protect us from.

  • Bones

    The whole point is….those people are not in jail….

    You can hate gays as much as you want.

    You cannot deny rights to others.

    It’s hard to believe the US had a civil rights movement.

  • Bones

    “Let them get married if they will”

    well no – not according to Kim Davis….whom you support….She doesn’t want them to get married. Which is US law.

    It’s weird because until Obama repealed the ban on consensual sodomy in 2014, it was still illegal in 17 states….and not a whinge from Christians about tyrannical governments locking up gay people.

  • Dave G.

    I won’t. And don’t make me attend one, and we’re happy. Live and let live and all that.

  • Dave G.

    I wasn’t around back then. Oh, and the mental issue was because up until recently (70s), homosexuality was considered to be a disorder. Thank goodness they changed that little standard.

    But if you say imposing values is fine, as long as you’re imposing the *right* values, then have at it. Per this post’s standards, welcome to the Taliban. Child of Western Liberalism off the 20th century that I am, I’m fine with live and let live. If gay marriage is the law of the land, fine, just don’t force others to support it. When incest becomes legal, don’t make me support it. That’s all. Live and let live, just like liberals used to say.

  • Bones

    He is applying for a government position.

    Sanders was well within his rights.

    Could you imagine the outcries if a Muslim supported the sacking of someone because they were Jewish and they applied for a government position?

    You people would be all over it.

    Sanders Is Right. Russell Vought’s Nomination Should Be Rejected.

    “Following this exchange, Sanders was attacked for what one National Review writer termed, a “disgraceful and unconstitutional line of questioning” and in a few more mainstream publications for “imposing a religious test for public office”.

    I cannot agree with Sanders’ critics. He is right. Vought is not what America is “supposed to be about” and he is not fit to serve as Deputy Director of OMB for two important reasons.

    In the first place, it is Vought, not Sanders who has used a religious test to support the firing of a tenured professor. His demonstrated intolerance is a disturbing trait for someone in public service. Vought may claim that all are “worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs”, but when it came to Professor Hawkins, a fellow Christian, Vought behaved quite differently, precisely because her description of her faith did not comport with his narrow interpretation of Christian theology.

    Secondly, OMB is the office in the White House that not only helps the President develop his budget, it also advises agencies on how to implement their programs in accordance with the priorities set by the Administration. To have a Deputy Director of OMB who has not only expressed intolerance toward those who do not share his interpretation of his faith, but who has also demonstrated this intolerance in practice is worrisome. This behavior calls into question his ability to implement policies and disperse resources without prejudice.

    One wonders if we would even be having this discussion if the nominee were a Christian who claimed, as some have, that their faith holds: that Jews are condemned because they rejected Jesus; or that Black people are the descendants of Noah’s son Ham marked by God for their sin; or that women are inferior to men; or that gays are condemned, etc? Of course, individuals have the right to hold such beliefs, but when seeking a position of public trust aren’t we entitled to know whether these beliefs will impact their judgments?

    As the ACLU noted in its comment on this controversial nomination, “Religious freedom is such a fundamental liberty that the framers of our Constitution enshrined it in the First Amendment. That’s why it’s so disturbing that Trump continues to pack his administration with appointees like Russell Vought, whose views threaten that very freedom… We know that diversity is one of our nation’s greatest strengths, and it is vitally important that Americans have confidence that their public servants will serve our entire nation in good faith.”

    Senator Sanders is right. At issue is not Vought’s Christian faith or his theology. It is his intolerance for the faiths of others, including a fellow Christian whose termination he supported because he did not agree with her theology. His nomination should be rejected.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sanders-is-right-russell-voughts-nomination-should_us_593af9d0e4b014ae8c69e030

  • Dave G.

    Weill, again, you seem to be slow on the uptake, but I don’t hate gays. You can scream at a tree and say it’s not a tree, but that doesn’t make it not a tree.

    As for them, no, they’re not in jail. And that’s a good thing, since it says we have free speech, even if their speech is totally repugnant to me. People have a right to disgust me. Freedom and all.

    And not denying the rights of others is fine. Once we move to things like incest, I’m sure they’ll have advocates. For my part, I’ll reject it and not want to have to support it. But if that’s the law of the land, then so be it. That’s my standard. You’re free to legalize what you will, just don’t force others to support it.

  • Bones

    There is so much hypocrisy here……

    It is actually people like you who want the government to legislate morality.

    Until 2014, gay people were criminals in 17 US states.

    And now you’re bitching because they can get married….

  • Dave G.

    No, she just didn’t want to sign off on it. And just about everyone agrees it didn’t go down the way it needed to. It could have gone a different direction, but both sides dug in.

    Oh, Christians never said all morality is relative, morals are opinions, it’s wrong to impose your values on others, it’s wrong to legislate morality, it’s wrong to force people to accept that which they reject. That would be the liberals who are now doing all those things. When you say doing something is the same as being the Taliban, it becomes even more unseemly when you then do the very thing you equated to being the Taliban.

    Sort of, you know, like saying ‘we promise a world in which all animals are equal’, but on achieving majority power, the promise its tweaked to ‘what we meant was, some animals are more equal than others.’

  • Dave G.

    Actually, again, I’m from a tradition that never said it was wrong to legislate morality. In fact, it’s common sense that laws and morality are intertwined. The interesting point is that liberalism (under which arose gay rights) was all about not legislating morality, living and letting live and agreeing to disagree, never imposing values and all that jazz. Now, of course, it’s suddenly about how important it is to legislate morality. So, who do you trust? The ones who always said it’s right to do what liberals are now doing (and calling others the Taliban for doing), or those like liberals who said it was wrong to do what liberals are now gleefully doing?

  • Dave G.

    I think I answered this already.

  • Ron McPherson

    Regarding marriage to a minor: As a child is not a consenting adult, I don’t believe prohibiting marriage to be discriminatory anymore than I believe prohibiting them from driving a bus on the interstate would be. Until a minor becomes of legal age, then it could be exploitive or abusive. In other words, it is potentially harmful to one party which differs in principle to two consenting adults.

    Regarding marrying an animal: Ok that’s kinda weird but whatever. I wasn’t aware anybody had been refused a marriage license for trying to marry their Doberman. If that becomes legal then I suppose we could have that discussion. Same with marrying an inanimate object like your Toyota. But since neither a Doberman or Toyota is capable of saying “I do,” then I don’t know how a marriage could even take place since it involves at least two humans.

    Regarding incestuous marriage. There can be negative psychological effects and it can be harmful to any potential offspring the marriage might produce. But if incestuous partners are legally married, then they should not be discriminated against even though I find it to be yucky.

    Regarding polygamous marriage: I actually think this is a valid question. I don’t want more than one wife but some religions call for it. If it’s legal, then a govt clerk should issue the license to comply with the law they swore to uphold.

  • J. Bruce Wilcox

    The only good thing about any of this is knowing all you fucking right-wing christians are going to spend eternity burning in the hell you’ve created for yourselves. And you’ll be there right alongside all the other fundamentalists from every other religion. And that’s going to be a funny shitshow.

  • Realist1234

    Ben, I think paranoia is setting in. And Franklin Graham, again?

    As for comparing some conservative Christians with the Taliban, thats pretty much a disgrace. From wikipedia –

    “During their rule from 1996 to 2001, the Taliban and their allies committed massacres against Afghan civilians, denied UN food supplies to 160,000 starving civilians and conducted a policy of scorched earth, burning vast areas of fertile land and destroying tens of thousands of homes.”

    You might strongly disagree with the conservative view, but please dont call them the ‘Taliban’.

  • Realist1234

    I dont think Evangelicals like myself are ‘obsessive’ about people’s sex lives. The only reason this issue has come up so publicly recently is because some governments have decided to legally recognise gay marriage. It is actually ‘progressives’ who have had the laws passed.

  • Realist1234

    Indeed. No mention of this incident on Ben’s blog. Biased?

  • Realist1234

    That works both ways. Ben etc firmly believe they are ‘right’ in their views – gay marriage, abortion on demand for social reasons etc etc. And such issues, for the most part, have now become law. So who is forcing who’s views and agenda on others?

  • Realist1234

    Its about reality, not separating people into groups. Either Christianity is true or its not. If true, that is it reflects reality, then other religions are inevitably incorrect and do not reflect reality, as they contradict the basic tenets of Christianity.

    Whilst, from a Christian point of view, God originally chose a certain people out of all the nations, it was with the intention of including ALL. And that is what happened. Salvation is open to ALL, including you. But if you reject God’s gift, that is your choice. How can you reject the Son of God?

  • Realist1234

    Ive found ‘liberals’ to be some of the most intolerant and illiberal people around. How ironic. Ben is a case in point – if you dont agree with my liberal views, then youre the same as the Taliban.

  • Realist1234

    Not sure how demonising those who disagree with you and calling them the Taliban discourages violence?

  • SamHamilton

    I’m interested in hearing why you think what I’ve said is a false equivalency. Do you have any further thoughts on that matter or are you just going to engage in more passive-aggressive insults?

  • SamHamilton

    Ivan,
    If you want to go into more detail about why you think I’m incorrect, I’m open to listening.

  • SamHamilton

    Thanks for your response. Obviously, there are different public policies each side supports. Of course, the Christian right and left disagree on what the best economic policy is. (Ironically, the Christian right doesn’t usually buttress their economic arguments using Biblical references, while the Christian left does constantly. The latter is not a bad thing, in my opinion, but it does work in favor of my argument.) But I asked about “broad objectives and methods,” not specific differences in what each side is trying to implement in regards to public policy.

    While I’m not sure what you mean about wanting laws passed regarding other people’s sex lives (can you be more specific?), but you can find areas where progressive Christians are “relentlessly obsessed” about how other people live and seek to pass laws to change their behavior (think of things like environmental, health care, tax policy). I’m not saying this is a bad thing; sometimes it’s a very good thing in that laws telling other people to do or not do certain things are necessary for a orderly and functional society. But the impetus and methods are exactly the same – both sides want a world that conforms more closely to their Christian ideal and are willing to use cultural and political power to achieve it.

  • SamHamilton

    Calling people the Taliban is getting to be just like shouting “Commie!” or “Fascist!” at someone with whom you have a disagreement. The purpose is negative association rather than actual realistic comparison.

  • Ivan Beggs

    Sam Hamilton: This is an oversimplification: Progressives tend towards letting people do what they want so long as it does not hurt others.
    Conservative Christians and Muslims want to impose some of their
    Biblical or Koranic views on all society.

  • Ivan Beggs

    Your comments are more rational and specific than most on blogs. I have gotten lost on the thread of the discussion here. There is a comment earlier to you. That might be a starting point. I will repeat the comment here again:

    “Sam Hamilton: This is an oversimplification: Progressives tend towards letting people do what they want so long as it does not hurt others. Conservative Christians and Muslims want to impose some of their Biblical or Koranic views on all society.”

    Well, there is one area that Progressives go nuts on and want to limit other people. That is gun control. I would prefer to not discuss that topic. May we leave that one alone?

    Thanks for the response!

  • IconoclastTwo

    Except that having the law set up so that it didn’t recognize gay marriage (which is what those evangelicals that are against gay people want)-is still having a law that exists being set up in their (evangelicals’) favor. It’s not a neutral standard. Evangelicals with these views have also tried to pass laws that were *specifically* against gay people and before gay marriage was a major issue there were a lot of places in the country that had anti-sodomy laws that were eventually held to be unconstitutional.

    The point I’m trying to get at is that I see a lot of implicit framing that *suddenly* gay people are attacking the laws without actually noticing that the way the laws were before (as well as a lot of associated standards like no gay people in the military) was or were massively discriminatory against them and that’s what they’re fighting against.

  • IconoclastTwo

    As long as they control they US government they still have Muslims to pick on instead.

  • Brian Hayford

    Excellent article willing to look at the beam in our eye before condemning the splinter in our brothers. Well done, sir.

  • Brian Hayford

    There is no such thing as a conservative Christian.

  • Jim Deferio

    And homosexualists should have civil rights based on what? Based on dehumanizing themselves and doing illogical and unnatural things with their sexual reproductive organs that were obviously designed by their DNA for the OPPOSITE sex? Based on that? Have you ever heard of Natural Law and Natural Rights and what a civilization entails? Are you some kind of STUPID? What is your education level?

    The 1st Amendment is not going away you homofascist. Your agenda is to eventually be free to have access to the bottoms of little boys but it is not going to happen. The tide is turning. The science over the last 30 years has clearly shown that NO ONE is born homosexual. It is a mental disorder.

  • IconoclastTwo

    You are entirely proving both his point and the point of the blog author.

  • Brian Hayford

    Bullseye!!!!!

  • Brian Hayford

    So, you not only think your religion is the only “right” one, you think that it affords you an exclusive view on reality? You are the kind of Christian Jesus himself would kick in the balls.

  • IconoclastTwo

    The vital difference (and this relates intimately to the issue of broad objectives and methods) though is that what progressive Christians often-but not always-want is still something that people who aren’t Christians might also want, or at least have some commonality with. For example, I can look at the writings of a lot of the progessive Christians here at patheos and absolutely agree with them against income inequality, incessant warfare, Islamophobia, et cetera. They’re also saying things that people who have phrased similar arguments in an entirely secular way have also said based on logic.

    In comparison, when I look at what the Christian right wants, what I see them doing is wanting things that are *only* good for them, and *only* relate to their particular sectarian dogmas even when in certain cases, the issues that they’re taking stands are _aren’t even in the bible like abortion or global warming_ but their leadership has decided that they’re basically going to do what the conservatives or the tories or whoever’s richest at the time and has power wants.

    With regards to methods, a massive difference that I also see is that conservative Christians are absolutely at peace with using monstrously antidemocratic methods of advocating their causes (like just plowing money into issues until they win) or sort of twisting democracy on its head by using it as a weapon against outgroups.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “Abortion on demand for social reasons” is the exact opposite of the reality in this country. In a lot of states controlled by conservative christians there are barely any abortion clinics left and out of the ones that are they’re sorely under threat by laws passed by them *specifically* to try and close them down without actually coming out and saying it.

  • IconoclastTwo

    What definition of religious conscience are you using? The entire point of this discussion is that the defenders of homophobia (whether they bother to call themselves such honestly or not) want to redefine religious conscience in such a broad way that as far as they’re concerned, mass refusals of service (ie, basically segregationist tactics) is an act of ‘religious consicence’-and everyone else would ideally to them be defenseless against this.

  • Ben Corey is correct. There is a religious fascism in America, but there always has been. This is nothing new. There has always been a group of individuals who feel America is a “Christian nation,” following Christian rules. Thomas Jefferson was deemed unfit for presidency because he was an “atheist,” Protestant mobs destroyed Catholic nunneries. Yes, there has always been a large group of individuals who see only one way to run our nation.

    Where ISIS and Fundamentalist Christians coincide is the belief in a theocratic government ruled through force, differing only in the area of violence. Islamic terrorists attempt to bring a coming millennial Islamic reign through violence and atrocities, while fundamentalist Christians attempt to achieve God’s reign through political means, slowly removing individual freedoms with a rigid “caliphate” of religious right politicians in control.

    But this mindset is 1500 years old, beginning with the rise of the Catholic Church, which was arguably the worst thing to happen to Christianity. I say this because when the young Latin church took on the trappings of the Roman Empire, coercive Christianity was born. Well intentioned Christians have been trying to force Christianity on the rest of the world ever since.

    But not all evangelicals are cut from the same cloth. What Ben is describing here are Neo-Fundamentalists as represented by Franklin Graham, John Piper, Jerry Falwell and Mark Driscoll. A good article on the matter can be found here:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/01/neo-fundamentalism-excellent-but-somewhat-lengthy-essay/?repeat=w3tc

    What we do have among Evangelicals is a growing concern that the far right is taking over, as we have seen happen in the last presidential election. The group that is showing concern is generally known as the Emerging or Emergent Church movement, usually referred to as the Evangelical Left in the media. This group of Evangelicals realize the Kingdom of God is spread not by force or legislation, but through acts of mercy and living a Christlike life in front of others. The problem with the Religious Right is that they have not learned from the failures of the past attempts of the church to spread the Gospel by force.

    Which brings me to a closing observation. I keep running into Neo-fundamentalist Christians who have blended the political views of Libertarianism with fundamentalist Christianity. There is no room for altruism in Libertarian thought. The individual reigns supreme. Free market capitalism is allowed full reign with little government oversight. Collateral damage is our environment, the poor and those that are disenfranchised in some way or another. All that matters is my rights. Where I see this most commonly asserted is in the area of private businesses being mandated to serve everyone equally. “The federal government should not tell me who I have to serve. I have the right to choose who I wish to serve or not.” You would think “we don’t serve your kind here” would raise all sorts of red flags among Christians, but sadly, it does not.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “Your boy Bernie Sanders is the most anti-democracy guy around but that doesn’t bother you, does it.”

    How is he the most anti-democracy guy around when much of what he says is broadly supported by Democratic party voters (the leadership is beyond hopeless and clueless) and he’s never done anything but work through democratic/Democratic methods?

  • I’m not blind at all. I just have my own emphasis on things, is all. That’s still allowed in my country. You are also overextending and, to some extent, twisting what I said. And you were still wrong in your comment. We don’t have either Sharia Law or no-go zones. Only way you can solve that is to delete or edit your comment ;)
    [Edit: Feel free to have the last word, as I know you’ll want to do. I’m done here]

  • Realist1234

    Im from the UK so I was thinking more about here. Though I thought the Roe v Wade ruling would have had an impact on the US?

  • Good comment, Kirk. Thanks.

  • IconoclastTwo

    Oh. I didn’t know that so my response wasn’t as clear as it should’ve been I’ll explain further.

    While Roe v. Wade has not officially been overturned by the Supreme Court (but the way that it’s going it probably will be fairly soon, unfortunately), states in the American system, which is highly federalized, have also had a lot of leeway that conservative Christians in those states have used in order to do their utmost to make abortion not outright illegal (yet) but outright so impractical or so punished that it doesn’t actually happen where they have control.

    The tactics that they’ve used when they haven’t resorted to violence, and there have been a lot of incidents of violent conservative Christians assassinating abortion providers, have included:

    1) Trying to make laws that will charge women who have abortion with burial fees for fetuses, which will make it more expensive.

    2) Requiring admitting privileges at hospitals, which are often massive distances away, so in this way the abortion clinic can be shut down without their saying in the text of the law explicitly that they’re doing this.

    3) Requiring women seeking abortions to watch sonograms of their fetuses before having the abortion or otherwise forcing them to be lectured at with forced birth spiels before getting abortions.

    4) Prosecuting women who miscarry in order to build a case that if a fetus dies, it’s murder so that way women who abort can be charged with murder.

    This is a really short list and these are just the ‘legal’ tactics. The illegal tactics, in addition to violence, or the really sleazy ones include things like television hosts giving out personal information of abortion providers on television (so nobody should be surprised when they get killed later) and going out of their way to specifically target them, or setting up things like “crisis pregnancy centers” which are in no way forward about the fact that they’re basically Christian fundamentalists doing nothing but haranguing women out of getting abortions and then hoping that they can trick women into calling them.

    It’s not *universally* bad here (I live in a state that has privacy rights explicitly in our state constitution, so unless the fundamentalists really manage to overturn everything here it won’t get bad any time soon with regards to this specific issue unless the federal government goes entirely Republic of Gilead) but in *much* of the country geographically abortion rights are actually in terrible shape.

  • So the absolute standard of assessing suitable law is to be what Jim Deferio thinks is logical and natural. You do know, don’t you, that so-called “natural law” is a gigantic mishmash of post-hoc rationalizations wrapped around raw prejudice? I got my PhD some 35 years ago, so I have studied these issues rather carefully over the years.

    I have no particular interest in little boys, so that’s utterly irrelevant. And I knew that I was gay “or something” long before I had any idea what sex was. But just to make you and your folks happy, I spent the better part of 20 years in a concentrated state of denial, trying to give the impression that I found women sexually interesting. Eventually I had to face reality, and it took another 15 years to get things sorted out. I was cut off from sustaining human companionship for some 35 years, just to gratify your prejudices. But then anything that causes pain to gay people is just dandy with you, isn’t it?

    Fortunately, we live in enough of a democracy that your agenda of loathing and suppression has largely passed from the public’s appetite. You are at perfect liberty to think and believe anything you choose, but your right to swing your arms wildly around in the air stops short of my nose. You can think anything you like, but in a civilized society you are obligated to tailor your behavior so as to not injure your fellow citizens.

  • David Cromie

    Where is the similarity between, for example, SSM and incest? As you say, not a valid comparison!

  • David Cromie

    You are obviously a homophobic bigot, just admit it and move on!

  • kinkinhood

    Actually there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality. It’s demonstrated across a number of species in the animal kingdom to be very normal. It’s encoded into their DNA to be interested in the same sex just as it’s encoded into your dna to be interested in the opposite sex.

  • $144948586

    What about all the violence of the antifa?

  • Dave G.

    I’m not actually. Sorry you’re so self-righteous, intolerant, judgmental, and demand that everyone conform to your superior moral or be punished by the state. Especially since you see so much wrong in that approach. Ah, liberalism is dead, long live the emergent left.

  • otrotierra

    Jim Deferio cannot name a legitimate justification for his self-satisfying hysteria.

  • Dave G.

    Based on arguments for accepting same sex attraction as normative and able to engage in marriage, how do you argue against it for other consenting adults who just happen to be biologically related (since biology itself seems to play a diminished role in our identities by the day)?

  • otrotierra

    Number of progressive Christians oppressing Josh: Zero.

  • David Cromie

    Are you for real?

  • David Cromie

    Deflection and projection, the last refuge of homophobic bigots.

  • Dave G.

    Heh. That’s OK. False and slanderous accusations, name calling and jumping up and down like a child: the first refuge of modern liberalism.

  • Dave G.

    I would suppose as real as you are. Though with some of your arguments, I’m beginning to wonder how real you actually are.

  • IconoclastTwo

    If that was true then wouldn’t every christian frequently be called that, as compared to christians that have a very specific pattern of behavior?

    As for shouting commie when that completely isn’t true yes, I absolutely agree that happens a lot. However you might want to take a good hard look at who exactly is responsible for that.

  • IconoclastTwo

    Who are in any way relevant to anything that’s been discussed so far…how exactly?

    Then again, I do know that you’re being manipulative because you’re not going to withdraw from that as much as you want to open that up as a complete and total side issue instead.

  • Ron McPherson

    I would frame this if I could find one big enough. Absolutely brilliant!

  • IconoclastTwo

    “A conservative would not utilize the government to force you to live a lifestyle or pay for something you don’t want. And a practicing Christian damn sure wouldn’t.”

    So wait-let me guess-when Americans were prosecuted for sodomy before those types of laws were overturned, and Americans lost security clearances (or military positions) when their supervisors found out that they were gay, the people responsible were all neither christians or conservatives, right?

  • Jim Deferio

    There are over 16 MILLION species of animals that have been documented and cataloged. Some same-sex activity has been observed in about 1,500 species in which less than 500 are vertebrates. How can you claim that something in “natura”, or how can anyone claim that this is “normal”, in the distributive sense of the word when less than 0.01% of animal species have ever been observed to engage in SOME same-sex activity? Did ever take Probability & Statistics in college? Do even know what a normal distribution looks like.

    WHY would you appeal to animals for advice on permissible conduct? Also, you assume that animals develop a “homo identity” like that of humans who have a mental disorder.

    There are NO “homosexual animals”. When homosexualists use that straw man for their “natural” argument, I laugh at them and give them some truth.
    Here is researcher Antonio Pardo:
    “Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals…. For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.”
    (Antonio Pardo, “Aspectos mŽdicos de la homosexualidad,” Nuestro Tiempo, Jul.-Aug. 1995, pp. 82-89.)

    CANNIBALISM has been observed in over 1,500 species of animals as of 1981 (and no doubt MANY more species can be added to the list during the last 34 years).
    (See: G. A. Polis. 1981. The evolution and dynamics of intraspecific predation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 12, 225-251.)

    So, tell me WHY you would want to consult animals for proper conduct and moral values? Btw, male lions will also eat the young of another male just so that they can father the cubs and not another. You are a special kind of STUPID.

  • Jim Deferio

    Everyone is born with either male or female sexual reproductive organs that were designed by their DNA and by God for the OPPOSITE sex, not the same sex. Men have male sexual organs designed for a woman’s vagina, not an exit like an anus/rectum. To use one’s sexual reproductive organs goes against that person’s ontology and teleology. It is IRRATIONAL and just plain lewd and perverted.

    Intersex occurs in less than 0.18% of people and most cases are easily correctable through minor surgery. The Intersex Society of North America says that SEX SHOULD BE ASSIGNED AT BIRTH!

    Homosexuality is a dehumanizing deathstyle in which FEELINGS are given priority over logic. What does it mean to be human? WHAT? I couldn’t care less about your supposed Ph.D. Big deal. I have two science degrees and I have completed about 230 semester hours of college work (mostly at the upper division and graduate level) and mostly in the sciences. So what!

    I’m not interested in degrees but in TRUTH. Truth is hate to those who hate the truth!

  • Jim Deferio

    So, because the “Democratic Party” has “democrat” in the name it stands for democracy? LOL
    Btw, the USA is a Democratic Republic and we have checks and balances and a document called the CONSTITUTION. Ever read it?

    Perhaps you should check out Sanders’ comments about Vought.

  • Jim Deferio

    I personally know numerous EX-homosexuals.
    There are many research studies that I could cite but here are a several that I assembled from my reading:

    NO “GAY GENE”:
    1) Rice G, Anderson C, Rich N, Eber. 1999. Male homosexuality; absence of linkage to micro-satellite markers at Xq28. Science 284:665-7.
    2) Mustanski BS, DuPree MG, Nievergelt CM, Bocklandt S, Schork NJ, Hamer DH. 2005. A genome wide scan of male sexual orientation. Human genetics 116:272-8
    3) Whitehead, N. 2014. Is Same Sex Attraction a Developmental Milestone? Journal of Human Sexuality 5:37-62

    HOMOSEXUALS CAN CHANGE:
    1) Savin-Williams RC, Ream GL. 2007. Prevalence and stability of sexual orientation components during adolescence and young adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior 36:385-394.
    * Dr. Savin-Williams of Cornell Univ. is pro-gay but he insists that he must go by research results!
    2) Spitzer RL. 2003. Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior 32:403-417.
    3) Jones SL and Yarhouse MA. 2007. Ex Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation.

    HETEROSEXUALS CAN CHANGE:
    Kitzuger C and Wilkinson S. 1995. Transition from heterosexuality to lesbianism: the dicursive production of lesbian identities. Developmental Psychology 31:95-100.
    * Kitzuger & Wilkinson rule out the genetic control in homosexual attraction!!!

    WHAT “CAUSES” HOMOSEXUALITY
    “Whitehead, N. 2011. Neither Genes Nor Choice: Same-sex attraction is mostly a unique reaction to environmental factors. Journal of Human Sexuality 3:81-114.
    * Don’t be confused by the title. What is demonstrated in this research that accesses numerous large twin studies since 2001 is this: idiosyncratic responses to environmental factors during childhood and adolescence influences individuals into various directions. There is no contributing genetic factor and there is no conscious “choice” involved that would correspond to the kind of choice that a mature, consciously aware, and informed adult would make after deliberating between options.

    The homofascists immediately began criticizing the John Hopkins Univ. researchers last year when they released this 143 page report. Homosexualists seem to love lies and hate science and rationality.
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publica…/number-50-fall-2016

  • Ron McPherson

    Since you’re interested in “truth” and since you labeled homosexuality as “a mental disorder” in an earlier post, you might want to know that the American Psychological Association determined 44 years ago that it was not a mental disorder. Just sayin.

  • Excellent!

  • Wow, you are a poet! Nowhere is the falsehood more apparent than the insistence that conservative Christians are a persecuted minority in America. They’ve stolen the mantle of persecution from those they’ve historically persecuted and unashamedly reapplied it to themselves, pathetic.

  • Russ Hale

    I have had no gay people tortured or put in in jail. It’s a straw man argument.
    The Taliban don’t put gay people in jail. They push them off high rise roofs or behead them. Not happening in America. See how that’s different? Einstein would have.

  • Mark

    Tolerant liberal alert

  • Mark

    Not looking for the last word, just looking for the truth. The U.S. and Brits have been allies for 100’s of years, I have no beef with you. I was just looking for clarification. I have been to your country and enjoyed it
    very much.

  • bthomas

    Please be specific. Where/when today did any Evangelical group command combat operations of any U.S. military unit at any level? Again, please be specific. Inquiring minds want to know.

  • Allahsnackbar!!

    Mr. Corey, I’m afraid that you have fallen to the very thing of which you acuse others like Mr. Graham. In your attempt to differentiate yourself from the Grahams of the world, you have shown yourself to be just what you accuse others of. I’m speaking of absolutes. It is the laziest form of arguing a point. To simplify an argument really does you discredit. Just because you may disagree with some aspects of those who tend to agree with Mr. Grahams views does not mean they should be sumarally invalidated and written off as some daesh extremist. You sir are lazy and dishonest. Please do better before you decide to stand before the crowds with your fine robes reading from your official scrolls to present your edicts and with a slight wave of your hand say something like “so it is written, so shall it be done” and then just walk away. Please think about it lest you come off as a Pharisee.

  • Bones

    Christian sooking about being oppressed by gay people alert.

  • Bones

    It’s not a straw man argument….gay people could have been arrested in 17 US states up to 3 years ago.

    Prior to that they were sent to mental hospitals to be tortured.

    And people like you wouldn’t give a shit.

  • Bones

    Someone’s been let out of the mental home I see.

    And we see here a living example of those who wish to deny gay people rights….

    Thanks for your post and proving what a merkin you are…..derpaderp.

  • Russ Hale

    Logic. It’s a beautiful thing. Try it.
    “Up to 3 years ago” – That means it it’s not true now. Taliban? It’s still true. They are still executing (not arresting) every gay (and Christian) they can find.
    “Could have been arrested in 17 states.” How many gays were arrested in the last 30 years in America?
    Taliban? I actually don’t think many gays were arrested. The Taliban don’t bother with arrests.
    So Bones, comparing the real Taliban with the American Taliban reveals there is actually NO comparison at all. Because there is no such thing as an American Taliban.
    Debating with you is like arguing with a flat earther. Facts don’t matter.
    I’m done.

  • Ivan Beggs

    The only difference between the Taliban and the Christian Taliban is the barrel of a gun. The Christian Taliban has and is very astute with winning votes. The Left is and has been quite lazy. As a result, the Christian Taliban wins local elections, state elections and national elections. They then implement laws that discriminate against those that don’t believe the way they do. (Bathroom laws, abortion, marriage, evolution, prayer, funding for schools, seving people they don’t agree with, etc). The business community supports them to get their support for very business friendly laws (gut the EPA, gut Consumer Protections, prohibit mention/using Global Climate Change in studies, destroy unions, significantly the safety net, increase military funding when the US spends nearly 50% of the world’s military spending, etc. Smart and clever politics. The next step will be the Christian Taliban calling a Constitutional Convention to place their theocratic ideas in the Constitution. I think they just need to win two more state houses. Mesnwhile, they will probsbly apoint two more Supreme Court justices in the next three years. That way, their changes won’t be undone for the next fifty to a hundred years. Freedom for those that don’t believe the way of the Christian Right will be smothered.

  • Ivan Beggs

    The video clips showing no-go zones are filmed when provocative groups start problems. Muslims come out. Police ask the provacateurs to leave. The clips show the ending not the incitement.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “Just because you may disagree with some aspects of those who tend to agree with Mr. Grahams views does not mean they should be sumarally invalidated and written off as some daesh extremist.”

    Even if the blog author was lying (and I don’t think he is) on what planet is Graham not guilty of much worse in terms of summarily invalidating and writing off people he disagrees with?

    Then again, that is sort of the point isn’t it-that when Graham and his ilk do it everyone is supposed to just shut up and accept it-but when he gets as good as he gives at long last it’s supposed to be horrifying?

  • Ivan Beggs

    Two items. 1) Many officers today are unashedly evangelical. At many military events conservative Christian prayers in the name of Jesus are made. That discriminates those that are not of that view. It is not uncommon for officers to witness to their troops. Some sort of moral health testing is done that leans towards Christian Fundamentalism.
    2.) Per Military Religous Freedom Foundation states, “Over 50,200 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 96% of them are Christians themselves.”
    https://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org

  • IconoclastTwo

    “Well it’s just as relevant as claiming conservative Christians are passing laws which, by definition, is not conservative. As well, these forcing of a person to behave in a certain way is not Christian.”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-texas-abortion-laws-20170128-story.html

    “A federal judge late Friday again blocked Texas rules mandating burial or cremation of fetal remains, in a victory for abortion rights groups.

    Austin-based U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks said that the health department regulations would remain suspended until further notice and that a trial date would be set in coming weeks.

    Sparks had previously suggested in court that the proposed rules had public health benefit. Opponents argue they could unduly shame and burden women seeking abortions.

    The rules seek to ban hospitals and clinics from disposing of fetal remains from abortions or miscarriages as biological medical waste, usually meaning they are incinerated and placed in sanitary landfills.”

    Moving down a bit…

    “Texas could appeal the injunction and ask a higher court to allow the rules to move forward while it waits for trial. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office hasn’t commented on that possibility but vowed Friday to keep fighting for the rules.

    “Texas has chosen to dignify the life of the unborn by requiring the humane disposition of fetal remains,” Paxton said in a statement. He said the ruling “reaffirms that the abortion lobby has grown so extreme that it will reject any and every regulation no matter how sensible.”

    From Ken Paxton’s own campaign webpage:

    “Ken lives in McKinney with his wife, Angela, a guidance counselor at Legacy Christian Academy in Frisco. The Paxtons have four children: Tucker, Abby, Mattie, and Katie. Ken and Angela are members of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano.”

    So are you saying that Ken Paxton isn’t actually a conservative Christian because he’s forcing people to behave, and defending laws which certainly do such? I know: maybe Prestonwood Baptist Church is actually secretly a front organization for an evil conspiracy of liberal Unitarians.

    Shocking.

    Wait. Let me guess. You’re one of those ‘libertarians’ whose ‘liberty’ ends where people having a uterus begins, right? If you really believed in a minarchist state then there’d be absolutely no grounds whatsoever to make abortion illegal: it would be even more obvious than it is now that doing so is about controlling women and nothing else.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “So, because the “Democratic Party” has “democrat” in the name it stands for democracy? LOL”

    Hardly. In fact he’s one of the only politicians in the party who seems to have any interest, even a faked one, in what happens to most Americans at all.

    “Btw, the USA is a Democratic Republic and we have checks and balances and a document called the CONSTITUTION. Ever read it?”

    Yes. Have you? I’ll give you a little hint on this because you so obviously need it: the constitution isn’t the bible.

  • IconoclastTwo

    Absolutely they were conservatives and practicing christians. In fact:

    1) The entire definition of conservatism (being more blunt about it) is the idea that people deserve to get run over by whoever has power because it’s traditional and this is somehow worth preserving/furthering in law.

    2) You don’t get to pretend that because christians do horrible things they’re magically not christians any more. Especially when the christians involved are people that are considered to be intelligent, otherwise celebrated members of their communities.

  • IconoclastTwo

    It was the threat of the citizen boycotts (in part; losing personnel was another) that pushed the corporations to say that they weren’t going to do business with North Carolina (or Indiana when Pence tried a similar theocratic stunt).

    Besides, I thought you were all for corporate power.

    So if I’m understanding your position:

    1) Gay people shouldn’t use the Supreme Court.

    2) Gay people shouldn’t use corporate power (which still has problems of course…)

    What exactly do you think gay people ought to do? Hold silent candlelight vigils but just as long as they don’t hold hands, because if they do God’ll create a hurricane and kill them all?

    This, to lead this back to the original topic, is exactly where I think the original author was right. Your problem is that you don’t think that the people you disagree with have any valid political grievances at all because they don’t meet your moral standard-so instead of dealing with them as people you want to use political systems to make sure that they get absolutely nothing out of them at all but abuse.

  • jasperjoiam

    Please don’t call yourselves Christians

  • David Cromie

    You seem to have confused me for someone else, yourself?

  • David Cromie

    I am real enough to recognise a homophobic bigot when I encounter one!

  • David Cromie

    “Christian because he’s forcing people to behave…”. You know perfectly well, I suspect, that this twisted misrepresentation of what was said is a lie (lying for christ?). If not, then you should take some English comprehension lessons. Or do you read your so-called ‘bible’ with the same degree of illiteracy?

  • David Cromie

    Even though you have not noticed it, your simplistic genetics would suggest that homosexuality is not a choice, but part of a person’s makeup.

  • David Cromie

    Do you support same sex marriage, and other LGBT rights?

  • Dave G.

    Again, homophobic bigot – just a lame insult mean to avoid substantive debate.

  • Dave G.

    Appears to be a lot of confusions swirling around this thread. ;)

  • David Cromie

    Do you even know the meaning, or the practice, of ‘inquiring’?

  • Ron McPherson

    Yes, it’s ironic. When someone calls out FG and other evangelical leaders for hypocrisy and tribalism, then that’s somehow wrong because it stirs divisiveness. If FG and fundamental evangelicals allowed everyone a seat at the table (ya know, like Jesus did) then none of this would even be an issue. It’s like, FG is divisive and that’s ok. Yet it’s not ok to point out divisiveness because THAT is divisive. It’s the weirdest logic I’ve ever seen.

  • Realist1234

    Jesus was very exclusive, ‘Noone goes to the Father but by Me.’ He was reflecting reality.

  • Realist1234

    “It’s not enough for them to live in a country where they are completely
    free to practice their own sexual preferences – they need power, and they
    need others to live under their sexual code, too.”

    That made me wonder who determines what is an acceptable ‘sexual preference’?

  • Realist1234

    If youre really saying ‘conservative’ Christians arent in fact Christians at all, then you clearly know nothing of Jesus. I would suggest you read the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament, as it is obvious you havent yet.

  • What an appalling display of ignorance and arrogance deployed in the service of hate and prejudice!I can’t imagine what sciences you’ve studied (phrenology? geomantics?) but you obviously know nothing about human sexuality, psychology, anthropology, cognition,or even physiology. It appears that your intelligence was assigned at birth and barely advanced from that point. On the other hand, I’ve had quite a long life and I’ve continued to learn and grow throughout it. And I have learned that people are far more complicated and varied than can be comprised in a simple gender binary, either biological or behavioral. It’s what happens to us after birth that makes us who we are.

    You have no interest in truth. All that interests you is stubborn adherence to a line of dogma that you cling to because you are incapable of investigating the world and all its wonderful variations. You call it “truth” and are thus marvelously exempted from the need to see anything outside your blinders. Inside, you know that this is wrong, and thus are compelled to SCREAMING attacks on others in an attempt to distract yourself from your own failure to be human. As someone once observed, it’s sad.

  • You seem unaware that science is a continuous process of investigating ideas and developing new understanding. Nothing is ever “proven” as such, particularly propositions about “no relationship”; every hypothesis is tentative and subject to investigation. It’s easy to cherry-pick a list of sources in support of almost any position. I would have thought that you’d be well acquainted with how effectively the flat earth theorists practice this approach.

    It would be pointless to offer a counter-bibliography, since you obviously have no interest in science as such but only in propping up your own prejudices so that you can heap blame on anyone who doesn’t fit your own narrow behavioral and attitudinal mold. If you were to seriously investigate the question, you might actually have to deal with how complex people actually are. And if you were to really know the folks you claim to be “ex-homosexuals” beyond what they say on a stage, you might learn something about how hard it is to pretend to be someone you aren’t. But that would make it more difficult to maintain your simple prejudices, wouldn’t it?

  • Don’t you know that your eligibility for civil rights depends on your not doing anything that Deferio finds icky?

  • IconoclastTwo

    Jesus allegedly barely talked about a lot of the things that I see conservative Christians prioritizing, and out of those issues where he did….do you really think that a man who was supposedly slain and tortured as a form of state violence would turn around and support state violence and torture, especially against the innocent? Wasn’t one of the single biggest factions in American politics that supported the war in Iraq, or for that matter, attacking Iran, conservative Christians?

  • David Cromie

    Indeed, mostly around confusing fairy tales for ‘truth’.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “1) Traditionalism dates back to anarchy.”

    This is going to come across as condescending but there’s just no way around this: I seriously doubt that you know what anarchy actually means by the way I see you using the term.

    Yes, I do understand that anarchy is not the same thing as _chaos_, or what Hobbes would’ve considered to be the ‘state of nature’ (which isn’t really true anyways…) What anarchy would mean is that all social interactions in which a person is not first attacked (at which point they would, and should, have the right to defend themselves) are noncoercive. This, by the way, is why true anarchy is/has been so hard to achieve; because coercion hardly and solely just means governmental power. Economic power relations (which are more often than not backed by governmental power anyways) are equally if not more insidiously coercive.

    However, this isn’t the same thing as traditional relationships; far from it. In fact, traditional relationships are often some of the most coercive ways in which societies can be organized (ie, monarchy, patriarchy, highly regionalized theocracy).

    2) I didn’t say that; I said they’re, perhaps in ignorance, not practicing Christianity.”

    Of course they are. They certainly believe in the same god you do (although I have no idea where you stand with regards to the trinity and other such issues, and it really isn’t relevant as far as this is concerned), believe that the bible is accurate morally and ethically, if not historically, et cetera, that Jesus existed and was the messiah, so on.

  • D.M.S.

    NO! Christians don’t support sinfilled chosen lifestyles.

  • Dave G.

    If you mean the fairy tale of morality and meaning and purpose that otherwise insignificant biological life forms with impressive cranial capacity invent to give ease of mind to their otherwise pointless existences as they struggle to pass on their DNA before they die and become worm food, I suppose. I’m more of a belief in God type, which seems more credible to my way of thinking.

  • PedasiPaul

    If sharia law is wrong, is it also wrong to enact into law Christian doctrine on, say, sexual conduct among consenting adults?

  • PedasiPaul

    I agree the Taliban has committed massacreses. But Corey is comparing the Taliban’s desire to enforce religious doctrine using the law to Franklin Graham’s desire to enforce his religious doctrine using law. In that regard, there is a valid comparison, no?

  • D.M.S.

    Why not in your world if brother and sister can’t conceive to have children.
    Why would it matter?
    The world keeps telling the Christian world to accept people when they’re in love.
    But incest isn’t allowed.
    Why they’re in love?

  • kaydenpat

    “The Christian Taliban are the ones who say, ‘I don’t believe in X, and therefore I’m going to fight to make sure no one has it.’”

    This is the scariest aspect of the American Christian Taliban — it seeks to force its views on society as a whole. It ignores the fact that individuals must be governed on moral issues via their own consciences.

    They don’t just say, “I am personally against abortion.” Instead they say, “I’m against abortion and thus am going to make sure that even though abortion is perfectly legal, you aren’t going to be able to get one because of my personal religious beliefs.”

    They don’t just say, “I don’t agree with same sex relationships.” Instead they say, “I’m against marriage equality and civil rights for the LGBT community because of my personal religious beliefs.”

    That’s not how a secular, religiously diverse, multicultural democracy like the U.S. should work.

  • Very good points. It’s hard to see a basis for a compromise when your opponents don’t just dislike you; they despise the fact that you exist, and see your existence as an infringement on their religious rights. The christian right will not be satisfied until, like Iran and Chechnya, there “are no gay people here”. And we know how that has been achieved in both places.

    Most of these christians would adamantly deny that genocide is their solution to homosexuality, but it’s hard to reconcile their public policy propositions with any other kind of goal. The more generous among them would allow gay people to exist, so long as we never become visible as such or contact one another or in any way impinge on their public space. For the less generous (some of whom have posted here) the very idea that some people anywhere might have same-sex attractions is so repulsive that nothing short of extirpation would be an adequate solution.

    I’m sorry, but LGBTQ folks aren’t just going to up and disappear to satisfy christian sensibilities. My sensibilities are equally offended by ignorant bigotry and cruelty, but even cruel ignorant bigots have a right to exist. I will, however, fight strongly to limit the scope of their exercise of their cruel ignorant bigotry over other people.

  • Bones

    Interestingly Josh is a libertarian who doesn’t believe in government.

    Apparently if you get sick or need the police or for your child to be educated, you ring his church.

  • Bones

    You mean like this

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/55f08354e51e1f01348f53ad6ab1fa72be891b2a8121c567e32817ec10add5c3.jpg

    Then went out and did this….

    “A man who slashed the throats of two men and stabbed another in Portland yesterday holds extremist views. Two of the men are dead after they came to the aid of Muslim women who were being harassed on a Portland train by the alleged suspect, Jeremy Christian. Police spokesman Sgt. Pete Simpson told The Oregonian that the man was using “hate speech or biased language,” before turning on the women, one of whom was wearing a hijab. When fellow riders came to their aid, he slashed their throats. ”

    https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/05/27/portland-stabbings-man-arrested-double-murder-after-allegedly-threatening-muslim-women-has

    That’s what happens when you promote hate…

  • Bones

    Just posting articles means nothing…

    Here is a critique of Jones and Yarhouse (who are Christians – not surprisingly)…..

    “The American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association regard attempts to change sexual orientation as “potentially” harmful or risky. However, Jones and Yarhouse misrepresent the American Psychological Association as saying that such involvement “would be” harmful (p. 353) or “is highly likely” to be harmful (p. 365). Likewise, the authors state they are examining whether the change process is “always” harmful (p. 19), “potentially” harmful (p. 77), or “likely to be harmful” (p. 77). They conclude there is “no evidence” such attempts are harmful (pp. 296, 332), it is not harmful “in and of itself” (p. 359), there is “no meaningful” evidence for it being harmful (p. 363), there is “little evidence” for harm (p. 365), and it is “not harmful on average” (p. 367), the latter being a far cry from there being no evidence it is harmful!

    The participants themselves refute the authors’ assertion that change therapy is not harmful. One participant says these groups are not “healthy or necessarily beneficial” (p. 301), another reports his faith is “taking a beating” (p. 313), a third feels “hopeless”, “helpless”, “empty”, “frustrated”, “hurt”, and “very alone” (p. 314, all after 3 years in the Exodus program), a fourth bemoans he spent so many years trying to change that he has missed out on other goals in his life (p. 316), and a fifth claims involvement in the therapy made life “more difficult” (p. 317). One wonders what would have to be the reports of the participants for Jones and Yarhouse to declare the ministry harmful? However, they do recognize that the 23 participants (of an original 98) who dropped out of the program may have been harmed, but they cannot be sure of such a conclusion (p. 354). Nonetheless, dismissing this possibility and ignoring the statements of the participants that remained in the program, Jones and Yarhouse confidently declare the change process is not harmful. Once again, their conclusion is not based on the evidence: those who declare they are hurt by the process are evidence of harm.

    One might be inclined to forgive Jones and Yarhouse for their optimism if they had not presented anecdotal stories of individuals not related to the current study who committed suicide because they were unable to change. The authors plead: “should such anecdotes foreclose the option of the individual choosing to attempt orientation change?” (pp. 359-360). Jones and Yarhouse do not indicate how many deaths and testimonies of harm they consider permissible in order to allow other individuals the opportunity for a change that, by all evidence, is unlikely to ever happen.

    Jones and Yarhouse recognize that individuals who enter ex-gay ministries are vulnerable (p. 64). Thus, it is disappointing to have the authors draw unwarranted conclusions that are in direct opposition to their own decree as to what the study can and cannot indicate. While their book will be likely and erringly used to convince some homosexual Christians or their families that change is possible, the results demonstrate nothing of the kind. How many lives must be broken before the authors realize the actual damage caused by these ministries outweighs any potential good?

    It is clear to me why the participants in this study retain homosexual desires, attractions and arousal: they were born that way. While Exodus and many conservative Christian leaders argue that postnatal causes lead to homosexual orientation (p. 69), to this day no scientific study has successfully identified any postnatal causal factor or factors. Meanwhile, scientific organizations, supported by considerable research summarized in Glenn Wilson and Qazi Rahman’s Born Gay, recognize the importance of prenatal factors in determining sexual orientation, specifically prenatal hormones and genetics, and believe that a homosexual orientation is immutable.

    The evidence indicates that while a person can change his or her behavior, sexual orientation cannot be changed. Homosexuality is not a disorder or illness that requires healing. Contrary to the conclusions of Jones and Yarhouse, the data from the current study adds additional support to this conclusion.”

    https://exgaywatch.com/2007/11/a-critique-of-jones-and-yarhouses-ex-gays-part-3/

  • Bones

    Also Whitehead is a member of NARTH…..and none of their articles are peer reviewed.
    eg

    What Research Shows: NARTH’s Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality
    A Report of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality
    James E. Phelan, Psy. D.
    Neil Whitehead, Ph.D.
    Philip M. Sutton, Ph.D

    ” NARTH Institute, is an organization that offers conversion therapy and other regimens that purport to change the sexual orientation of people with same-sex attraction. NARTH has been described by a Christian ministry group as a ministry partner that is “a multi-disciplinary professional and scientific organization dedicated to the service of persons who experience unwanted homosexual (same-sex) attractions (SSA)”.[1] NARTH was founded in 1992 by Joseph Nicolosi, Benjamin Kaufman, and Charles Socarides. Its headquarters are in Encino, California, at the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic and has operated under the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity (ATCSI) since 2014.[2][3][4] NARTH’s leaders disagree with the view of the world’s major mental health organizations that homosexuality is not a disorder.[5][6][7][8]”

    And how loony is NARTH…..full on…

    “NARTH relies on outdated studies and frequently confuses stereotypes with science. Dr. Nicolosi, for example, often tells audiences that people are gay because they have a rift with a same-sex parent or a have domineering opposite sex parent. It has been decades since any serious scientific body subscribed to these views and there is no contemporary research to uphold these anachronistic theories. Yet, NARTH’ co-founder Dr. Joseph Nicolosi repeats the empty mantra, “We advise fathers, if you don’t hug your sons, some other man will.”

    . . . NARTH also has bizarre theories, such as encouraging male clients who drink Gatorade and call their friends “dude,” because this will supposedly make them more masculine. Dr. Nicolosi also espouses the bizarre idea that, “Non-homosexual men who experience defeat and failure may also experience homosexual fantasies or dreams.”

    In 2006, NARTH had a meltdown after two major controversies. In the first, psychiatrist Joseph Berger, MD, a member of their “Scientific Advisory Committee,” wrote a paper encouraging students to “ridicule” gender variant children. “I suggest, indeed, letting children who wish go to school in clothes of the opposite sex–but not counseling other children to not tease them or hurt their feelings,” Dr. Berger wrote on NARTH’s website. “On the contrary, don’t interfere, and let the other children ridicule the child who has lost that clear boundary between play-acting at home and the reality needs of the outside world. Maybe, in this way, the child will re-establish that necessary boundary.”

    In the second controversy, Gerald Schoenwolf, PhD, also a member of NARTH’s “Scientific Advisory Committee,” wrote a polemic on the group’s website that seemed to justify slavery.”

    http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/lets-play-game-of-spank-homophobe.html#.WUXwU2iGOUk

  • Bones

    Many of the works cited aren’t by scientists…..neither have they been peer reviewed.

  • Yes, I saw you investigation of that. Thanks so much! I suspected that was the case, but I didn’t have the time or resources to do the investigation. Your points won’t of course change the guy’s mind, but then his attacks were never really fact-based in any case. But bad science is particularly bad, because it flagrantly violates the rules that make good science helpful. By clouding people’s minds, bad science or bad excuses for science diminish the credibility of good science, to the benefit of no one at all except the would-be theocrats.

  • Bones

    Yes…I’d say it’s a standard list posted by people who hate gays….

    What’s particularly damning is that the ‘researcher’s bias was so pronounced they deliberately overlooked the harm their own subjects were saying they had caused them.

    This is in their own studies!!!!!!

  • Bones

    “Kitzuger & Wilkinson rule out the genetic control in homosexual attraction!!!”

    No they don’t.

    Kitzinger and Wilkinson dealt only with women who changed from heterosexuality to lesbianism….they had nothing to say about women who were always lesbian…..

    From their actual study…..

    “Just as proponents of essentialism produce, as evidence for their theories, the stories of lesbians and gay men who “remember feeling different” or who were sexually attracted to the samesex from an early age, so we, as social constructionists, have produced the stories of women who reported constructing their lesbian identities.

    It is not our intent, however, to use our participants’ reported experience of transition from heterosexuality to lesbianism to support a social constructionist explanation of sexual identity in a manner paralleling the essentialists’ use of the personal testimonies of those who “always knew they were gay.” In part, this is because, just as social constructionists discount “born that way” (and similar) participant accounts as rooted in popular and scientific ways of explaining the world (rather than as transparent accounts revealing truths about experience), so essentialists, as mentioned earlier, can (and do) dismiss accounts using the language of choice as self-serving justifications and post hoc rationalizations for a predetermined sexual orientation only now revealed to conscious awareness.

    At issue here is far more than a technical problem of interview methodology. Rather, in laying claim to the right to accept some participants’ versions as true while discrediting others, social scientists are engaged in “a politics of experience” (C.Kitzinger& Perkins, 1993; Pollner, 1975, p. 427).

    For one to take a radical social constructionist stance implies not only to regard personal accounts as constitutive, rather than reflective, of social “facts,” but also to recognize that within this framework it is not possible to adjudicate between essentialism and social constructionism, because this debate itself is socially constructed. We have argued elsewhere (C. Kitzinger, in press) that the essentialist-social constructionist debate is not resolvable with reference to empirical fact, and it is not our intention(nor do we believe it possible) to prove essentialism wrong with our data here. Data cannot settle questions of epistemology. (pp 102-103)

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232445797_Transitions_From_Heterosexuality_to_Lesbianism_The_Discursive_Production_of_Lesbian_Identities

    They would be appalled that their work is being used by homophobes, given that they are married lesbians.

    It is in fact the homophobe who is irrational and loves lies,
    twists science, bearing false witness and causing harm to their neighbour.

  • Bones
  • David Cromie

    No surprise there then. I did not think any bigoted, homophobe, such as you, would believe in Human Rights! Yet, as someone who believes in the so-called ‘bible’, you are incapable (not surprisingly) of proving that your favourite supposed ‘god’ actually exists. Would you be in favour of bringing back slavery, should the opportunity arise?

  • David Cromie

    When you have mastered the art of comparing like with like, get back to me.

  • David Cromie

    Morality is no fairy tale, and was not invented by any ‘god’. Sorry to hear that you are struggling to pass on your DNA. There are fertility clinics that deal with such problems. So take yourself and your partner (if you have one) along to the nearest one.

  • D.M.S.

    Slavery is still here. It’s just under other names.

  • D.M.S.

    Not….

  • David Cromie

    Thanks for the info., I might need it sometime, but I do not have the contact details – can you help?

  • bthomas

    Asked for factual statements. Receive … opinion … that Christians in the military should keep their faith in a ghetto … while every other avocation is lauded and praised.

    Asked for factual statements. Receive … link to a left-wing advocacy group.

    Please respond clearly and factually to the question posed in response to your otherwise unsupported and unsubstantiated assertion as to where/when any Evangelical group has commanded any U.S. military unit at any level? Again, please be specific.

    Where/when today did any Evangelical group command combat operations of any U.S. military unit at any level? Again, please be specific. Inquiring minds want to know.

    As well … please spare one and all any response based in mere emotion.

  • D.M.S.

    Bigot, meaning: someone who is intolerant of someone else’s views..
    Which is about 99% of the population.
    It’s rather obvious that you’re intolerant of my views.
    Have a nice day, bigot.

  • David Cromie

    “Bigot, meaning: someone who is intolerant of someone else’s views”, describes you very accurately, as you rail against human rights for all citizens, based on your biblical homophobia!

  • Dave G.

    Sure it was invented, per the materialist view. It was invented by the gods we see in the mirror every day. Just a way to put some meaning in our momentary biological existences. Oh, and I fear that passing on DNA is a struggle since, you know, sometimes there is death and other such calamities that can hinder it as well. Perhaps you’ve heard about people dying? Apparently you missed that part. But again, being biological entities leaning on illusions of meaning until the earth’s end renders the entire human race as irrelevant as snail feces, I can see why a narrow lane view of existence is a way to cope with the harsh realities of our brief time on this temporary rock.

  • Ron McPherson

    Yeah, but…but

  • D.M.S.

    Thank you, I appreciate the sentiment.

  • D.M.S.

    It is very much a choice.
    But then you wouldn’t understand, you don’t live in the real world.

  • Larry Hutchinson

    When we talk about the Abortion aspect, it says that the Christian Taliban (CT) say “”I’m against abortion and thus am going to make sure that even though abortion is perfectly legal, you aren’t going to be able to get one because of my personal religious beliefs.” However, I am against it because my belief says it is killing a human and I don’t think we should be killing humans. To me, and please this is a discussion not a shouting match, it is exactly the same as those that were against slavery. They believed that the slaves were humans and thus should not be sold as though they were livestock and not treated that way either. Their belief was just like the CT in that you are not going to be able to sell slaves because of my personal belief. Can you see right or wrong where they are coming from?

  • Larry Hutchinson

    When you say most Christians I believe you are way off base. I went to an Assembly of God church over 15 years ago and we welcomed all people. There were grumblings of a few but how can you say: ” Only a few Muslims are extremist/radicals but Most Christians are haters of the LGBT community??

  • D.M.S.

    Why thank you, you’re so kind.
    Happy Dad’s day.

  • Realist1234

    I understand what Corey is attempting to do, but it is totally inappropriate for him to equate conservative Christianity with the murdering Taliban.

    He is acting like the tabloid press in having ‘outrageous’ headlines just to get them noticed.

  • kaydenpat

    No because those who are supposedly “pro-life” ( they should be called forced birthers”) do not advocate policies which would help the mother and child after the mother gives birth. Just the opposite. They seem to blabber on about the sanctity of life in the womb but don’t give a dang about the child outside of the womb.

    These are the same people who are pushing for Trump Care which would leave millions of children without healthcare. They don’t support policies which would provide struggling parents with the assistance they need to take care of children.

    And lastly, I find it ironic that Republicans have tried to argue that abortions are analogous to slavery because Republicans are now so closely entwined with racists and racism that your President is a birther which is based on challenging the legitimacy of the first Black President. And keep in mind that current Republicans support the Confederacy to the point that many are passing legislation to protect Confederate monuments. Confederacy = pro-slavery traitors now beloved of Conservatives.

    If you are personally against abortion, don’t get one. Let grown women make up their own dang minds about matters which impact their bodies and their lives. Stay in your lane.

  • Jim Deferio

    How convenient that you left out the first part of their conclusion. Biased much? YOU are intolerant and a homofascist. These two researchers ARE social constructionists! Here’s the part you left out:

    “This study documents the existence of women who have made a transition to lesbianism after a substantial period of commitment to heterosexuality, and we have illustrated the dis-cursive strategies and accounting mechanisms through which such an identity change is accomplished and sustained. This evidence of the discursive production of lesbian identities does not fit easily into an essentialist framework within which lesbianismis conceptualized as an innate or intrinsic characteristic of the individual, to be acknowledged or discovered, or to be denied or repressed. The emphasis on the constitutive nature of discourse in enabling the construction of identity accounts is characteristic of the social constructionist perspective; as such, our work contributes to the elucidation of processes involved in the construction of self and identity (cf. Shotter & Gergen, 1989).
    When a woman makes a transition to lesbianism, the appropriate question (from a social constructionist perspective) is not: “Am I a lesbian?”—with concomitant attempts to match actual experience against some assumed template of “real” prototypical lesbian experience. The question is, rather, “Do I want to be a lesbian?,” meaning “Do I want to construct my experience in that way?” From our perspective, there is no essential lesbian self, no set of uniquely lesbian experiences that can be discovered through introspection. What may feel like self-discovery—and that, not surprisingly (given the prominence of discovery accounting) was a frequently used discourse in our data and that of Charbonneau and Lander (1991)—is better considered as self-reconstruction:”True insight” is the application of socially derived intelligibility systems, conditions of “genuine self-knowledge” are a formalisation of our common rules for interpreting or describing social action. . . . Breakthroughs in self understanding are primarily breakthroughs in one’s capacity to master an intelligibility system as it applies to one’s own behaviour. Self-knowledge is not thereby increased; it is only reconstructed anew. (Gergen, 1977, p. 32)Within such a social constructionist framework, we have offered an account of the ways in which women in transition construct and interpret their changing identities in relation to their constructions of the category lesbian.”

    Transitions From Heterosexuality to Lesbianism: The Discursive Production of Lesbian Identities (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232445797_Transitions_From_Heterosexuality_to_Lesbianism_The_Discursive_Production_of_Lesbian_Identities [accessed Jun 18, 2017].

  • Jim Deferio

    So, if someone is a CHRISTIAN, you know, those who follow Christ and who don’t lie, then homofascists automatically suspect them of some sort of bias? WOW!

    Homosexuals are enslaved by lewd feelings and emotional turbulence.

    If you have actually read any of Dr. Whitehead’s papers you would immediately know that the guy is very meticulous and careful not to jump to conclusions.

  • David Cromie

    So says someone that believes in magical supernatural entities, for which there is no concrete evidence!

  • Jim Deferio

    exgaywatch??? LOL
    Christians don’t lie, homofascists do.

    “The former president of the American Psychological Association says political correctness and homosexual ideology rule the organization, and that leaving the homosexual ‘lifestyle’ is indeed a possibility, a position contrary to that of the APA.

    Dr. Nicholas Cummings, the man who led the movement to have homosexuality declassified as a mental illness, told an interviewer with NARTH, an organization of psychology professionals dedicated to helping homosexuals stop their self-destructive behavior, leave the “lifestyle,” and lead happy lives as normal adults, stresses that he is “lifelong champion” of “gay rights.

    Yet he also flatly stated that homosexuals can change, and that the current stance of the APA that homosexuals cannot change is false.

    Cummings Latest Remarks

    Psychologist Joseph Nicolosi interviewed Cummings, APA president 1979-1980, who said it is ‘absurd’” to say homosexuals cannot change. He flatly stated that leaving the homosexual lifestyle is quite possible.

    ‘I’ve experienced more than one,’ he said. In the past, he has said 20 percent of the homosexuals who came to him to change did so.”

    https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/item/11640-former-apa-president-says-homosexuals-can-change

  • Jim Deferio

    Mainly BIOLOGY but I also took courses in psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology, etc. About 230 semester hours mostly at the upper division and graduate level.
    I have personally witnessed change in many people and I personally know numerous EX-homosexuals, EX-alcoholics, “EX-fornicators, EX-adulterers, EX-atheists (I used to be an atheist).

    You can change too from a liar and extremely hateful and biased homosexualists to a God-honoring, truth-loving, honest person.

  • Jim Deferio

    Well, looking at the very large twin studies since 2001, homo attraction appears to be idiosyncratic responses to environmental factors.

  • David Cromie

    “Homosexuals are enslaved by lewd feelings and emotional turbulence”. That is precisely what christers would like to induce. But, the opposite is the case!

  • Jim Deferio

    Hey, I have ministered at over 80 gay pride events in 18 different cities and I have been to at least 60 college campuses (and to many of these campuses numerous times) and I have talked to MANY (thousands) of people who identify as “homosexual” and when they see that I care and that I have some intelligent answers, it is not unusual for them to pour their heart out to me telling me about their miserable lives. Some have openly cried in public.
    Stop being a Christophobe and stop being so hateful. Jesus Came to minister to sinners and He sent His disciples to do the same. What makes you think that you are better than me? I had to repent of my sins and YOU have to also. Stop playing games!

  • Jim Deferio
  • Jim Deferio
  • Jim Deferio
  • Jim Deferio
  • Jim Deferio
  • That’s a lot of hours to have spent in classes in which you clearly did little of the reading or paid much attention to the discussions. It’s possible, I suppose, that you were able to find some place where the reactionary doctrines you espouse were current; if so, that doesn’t say much about your actual level of education.

    Thank you very much; I am a loving, truth-loving, and honest person. Regarding a god, I am personally agnostic. In my 74 years, I have yet to see any meaningful evidence for the existence of any god, let alone anything like the christian god.

    People change their behavior all the time. As I mentioned earlier, I spent over 35 years trying to be a good little heterosexual. But at what a cost! Trying to be someone you aren’t – trying to be attracted to people you aren’t attracted to – is certainly possible, but almost always produces deep internal contradictions and vast inner pain. Of course, the more emotional energy you’ve invested in lying to yourself, the more energy you feel impelled to expend in defending that lie – right up until the point when it no longer works at all.

    Sooner or later, most of your “EX’s” came or will come to that point. You can’t fake life indefinitely. Clearly, you don’t know any of these people except at the most superficial, slogan-chanting level. I strongly sympathize with these people, and hope that they can eventually come to terms with themselves and not be torn apart by inner conflicts egged on by you and your peers.

    I don’t hate anyone. I don’t even particularly dislike anyone except those who are trying to take away my life and liberty and those of my LGBTQ siblings. But I do regard misrepresenting bad science as acceptable to be particularly heinous, since it undermines people’s understanding of good science.

  • D.M.S.

    The Lord Christ Jesus states in Mathew 5:11.
    Blessed are you when they (the world ) revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.

  • D.M.S.

    So says the person who considers the “magical supernatural theory of evolution ”
    To be cold hard fact. LOL.

  • D.M.S.

    Christ Jesus loves you….

  • Jim Deferio

    Seriously, THAT’s your reply?
    Non sequitur, we are discussing homosexuality, not the existence of God. But, I have personally met with people and I have given them MUCH evidence. I rarely waste my time doing so on social media since the body of evidence is quite large and books have been written about the topic and I found that people don’t even to bother to read what is posted because their minds are already made up and they would rather engage in confirmation bias.
    My former bias as an atheist was that I didn’t want there to be any evidence for God or anything else transcendental. A burning desire to know if “truth” existed led me away from atheism.

  • PedasiPaul

    Fair enough. Is this analogy better? Franklin Graham is like fundamentalist but nonviolent Muslims who want sharia law.

  • I’d be the last person to say that sexuality isn’t fixed, but evolves over time within each person. I’ve mentioned my own 35 years as an attempted although not particularly successful heterosexual, and my subsequent extended transition into a basically gay man. I know lots of people –
    particularly among older folks – who have taken long and winding roads toward finding themselves. Sexuality changes and reshapes itself as we grow into understanding. So what?

    Your fundamental error – and that of the article, although not that of Dr. Haynes – is to assume that means, or ought to mean, exclusive evolution toward heterosexuality. People evolve in lots of different ways. You’ve let your dogmatic insistence that homosexuality is bad blind you to the fact that for some people, and I’d include myself here, evolution toward homosexuality, acknowledging those elements of attraction that had always been there (as Dr. Haynes says) represents personal growth toward fuller humanity and greater happiness.

    It’s perfectly possible that you yourself might find yourself growing toward homosexuality. You wouldn’t be the first; think of the number of major religious figures, many prominent evangelicals and politicians, who have made that switch. In your case, it probably wouldn’t bring you happiness, because your response patters are frozen, but it’s possible.

    The sexual orientation binary is as obsolete as the gender binary. The fact that everyone’s sexuality is made up of many different strands that mix and play out in different ways over time should be a cause for joy, not despair. The fact that one might, with effort, be able to tease out an exclusively heterosexual identity by trying to cut out other parts of one’s sexuality doesn’t make it a good idea; more a recipe for personal disaster, given the fact that nothing ever really goes away.

    So I’m afraid that this article you’ve been flashing all over this thread actually supports arguments quite different from those taken by the nice orthodox folks. It helps to learn how to read an actual academic article. Sorry!

  • I mentioned belief in a god only because you suggested that I was not “God-honoring”. I thought it helpful to clarify that I would honor a god if I found a real one and it was worthy of being honored. I’ve been a student of religions of all sorts for well over 60 years, and I’ve seen, heard, and discussed just about all the various justifications for religious faith that have been offered by all sorts of people regarding all sorts of gods and no-gods.

    I suggest that you’ve just identified your basic problem here – that is, a fundamental misconception of what is meant by “truth”. Truth is a property only of formal logic systems and mathematics, not the empirical world. Science isn’t about “truth” – it’s about understanding through formulation of models of how things work and then investigating those models. Some will be supported and turn out to be useful; some will fail and have to be reevaluated. Science is cumulative, and everything builds on this advancing foundation. But nothing is ever certain.

    There is no “final set” of scientific truths. Those who can’t accept this often seek pseudo-truth in the form of incontrovertible religious faith propositions, which can’t be proven and don’t need to be. Using such propositions as a substitute for empirical investigation is merely stupid. Using them to justify the oppression and maltreatment of other people is downright immoral.

  • David Cromie

    “Christians don’t lie, homofascists do”. Perhaps this should be labelled ‘Lie of the Week’, but then, lying for christ does not count.

  • David Cromie

    “Everyone is born with either male or female sexual reproductive organs…”. Obviously untrue!

    Another ‘graduate’ of the Diploma Mill industry, I expect, so why would any reasonable person with a working brain read any further!

  • David Cromie

    You must be, or have been, the thickest student in your class. Which college(s) did you attend?

  • David Cromie

    So queers are running around, crying “‘Please help us. We’re born this way, and we can’t change’”? Balderdash! Has she not managed to ‘change’, or is she now 100% heterosexual?

  • David Cromie

    As a bigoted homophobe, I am sure you will find all sorts of idiosyncratic explanations for homosexuality, the more daft the better.

  • David Cromie

    Mythical supernatural entities are very self-serving, it seems!

  • David Cromie

    No, it is called science, about which you are totally ignorant!

  • David Cromie

    You have to prove that JC has ever existed, or still exists, if anyone is to believe your BS!

  • David Cromie

    At this point, the subject under discussion is your claim to academic prowess.

  • David Cromie

    If homosexuals are leading miserable lives, that is because of bigoted homophobes such as you. So go ‘minister’ to christer liars, anti-abortion misogynists, adulterers, etc.

  • David Cromie

    A pseudo scientific psycho-babble wrapping does not mean that nonsense is to be taken as truth.

  • If your beliefs and policies kill people, does it make a difference if you kill them yourself or kill them by a proxy agent?

  • Realist1234

    Im not aware of conservative Christians killing citizens within the US, either directly or indirectly, which your post relates to.

  • D.M.S.

    Not to a true Christian.

  • D.M.S.

    No, it’s still a theory.
    That it is only a fact to people like you who want believe it is factual.
    That sounds like your description of me.

  • D.M.S.

    Imagine that God/Jesus thru His enlightened words would tell people that there are other people on the earth that will loath you for your belief in Me.
    It’s called a warning.
    Only a fool would disregard those warnings.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “How utterly repulsive, insulting, and heartbreaking to God for his chosen people to credit idols with bringing blessings he had showered upon the chosen people. Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.”

    John Hagee

    “On “Focal Point” today, host Bryan Fischer once again linked the supposed moral failings of Native Americans to the seizure of their land by European colonists.

    Fischer recounted the Biblical tale of the Amorites, a group that had “lapsed into superstition and paganism and idolatry and sexual immorality and savagery” until they were vanquished by the Israelites. He then paraphrased God as saying, “I’m going to be patient with the Amorite people for 400 years, and if they continue to sin at the rate they’re sinning, every time they sin they’re putting a little more slop in the slop bucket, and if they keep doing that the slop bucket’s going to get full, and I’m going to have to empty out that slop bucket.”

    Fischer then used the story to justify the violent expulsion of Native American people from their territory at the hands of white settlers. “This may even be a part of American history, when we think about the moral right for the nation and the peoples that God brought into this land to exercise sovereign control over the land,” he said. “Part of that equation may have to do with the immorality of those nations that were exercising sovereign control over this land at the time.”

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/bryan-fischer-suggests-native-americans-were-justifiably-removed-from-their-land/

    “The Haitians “were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III and whatever,” Robertson said on his broadcast Wednesday. “And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, ‘We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.’ True story. And so, the devil said, ‘OK, it’s a deal.’ ”

    Pat Robertson

  • IconoclastTwo

    “What makes you think that you are better than me?”

    That I don’t need to use feigned pity for other people based on considering their sex lives sinful in order to bolster my pathetic semblance of an ego.

  • IconoclastTwo

    I’m quoting this at you because you’re taking the poster before you to task for not being loving, while I’m pointing out that:

    1) Even though I’ve never said that you follow these people.

    2) You absolutely can’t say that statements like this are loving. Whether you agree with it or not they’re indicative of a mindset that sees god, basically, as having both omnipotence and the mindset of a seventh grade bully that only punishes and humiliates perceived weakness. He (J. Bruce Wilcox) shouldn’t be obligated to love people who act like this and furthermore, gain power for doing so. Nobody really should.

  • IconoclastTwo

    Do you know who either Scott Roeder or John Dear are?

  • Jim Deferio

    I preach to hypocrites also who claim to be Christian but who divorce & remarry, use obscenities, etc. etc.
    I’m a “homophobe”? LOL. Is that your best argument? I’m not afraid of homos but you are afraid of actually standing for truth and reason, aren’t you! You are an alethephobe .

  • Jim Deferio

    I think you are an alethephobe, besides being a Christophobe and a heterophobe. LOL.

  • Jim Deferio

    Intersex is VERY rare and usually easily treatable with simple corrective surgery. The Intersex Society of North America says that all intersex cases only amount to no more than 0.018% of the population and that SEX SHOULD BE ASSIGNED AT BIRTH!!!

  • Jim Deferio

    The tenets of the Christian faith is the New Testament. It clearly is stated in the New Testament that all liars will be separated from God and be in a place called “The Lake of Fire”. This appears to be a metaphoric description of “hell” but the burning will not be the kind of burning that we see in a fire that consumes matter and converts it into heat energy. It will most likely be a burning in the sense of an incredibly intense yearning to be with your Creator but totally aware that it will now never happen.
    Why are you so hateful?

  • IconoclastTwo

    You’re still sort of missing my point which is that:

    1) I’m still not saying that you agree with these figures.

    2) What I am absolutely saying is that I think you have a double standard in which you criticized J. Bruce Wilcox (I did edit the name correctly because you were right about that) for not making loving statements-but at the same time there are all of these people who are, in fact, fairly prominent throughout conservative Christianity who have made all sorts of hateful statements and condemning them only seems to occur to you basically when you’re forced to look at them. It’s kind of a response without the context of the original affronts.

    His anger (and for that matter, my anger) comes from a place of seeing this type of person, with power, run over progressive Christians, people who aren’t Christian at all, and people who are Christian but aren’t white or rich or male for our entire lives-but we’re told we’re supposed to love them while you place no obligations whatsoever upon the people who are attacking us.

    And no, while you might not listen to them the problem is that there are a lot of Christians that _do_.

  • Jim Deferio

    Your definition of TRUTH is very deficient. Were you lying to me or were you speaking truth to me? Which is it.

    Is it really true that,
    “Truth is a property only of formal logic systems and mathematics, not the empirical world”?

    Is it true that, “Science isn’t about truth”?

    You seem to be making numerous TRUTH claims. UNIVERSAL truth claims!

    Probability statements in science actually depend on a universal claim that limits the number of possibilities. We can calculate the probability of many things, such as rolling dice, only because we do not live in a chaotic world but in an orderly one. Ever watch the movie or read the book, “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy “? Do you remember the Infinite Impossibility Drive? We don’t live in a universe anything like that, lol. The universe and the objects in it are NOT a pure contingency or else there wouldn’t be an enterprise that we call “science”. .

    Look, I’m really don’t think this forum is the place to detail the MANY sound and valid arguments for God from empirical evidence, logic and the impossibility of the contrary.
    I came out of atheism not because I “needed” some stinking psychological crutch but because of TRUTH.
    Perhaps one day I’ll meet you and we can have a long discussion over coffee and scones or whatever and I’ll answer your questions or concerns in depth. I travel a lot. If this ever happens then hopefully my youngest daughter will also be there (she’s 35) for she has an incredible gift for logic (she’s “scary smart”).

  • Jim Deferio

    The research below shows that BEHAVIOR modifies brain structure and how MERE THINKING also modifies brain structure.
    These research articles demonstrate BRAIN PLASTICITY.

    The one below shows how behavior affects the brain.
    Draganski B, Gaser C, Busch V, Schuierer G, Bogadahn U, May A. 2004. Neuroplasticity: changes in grey matter induced by training. Nature 427:311-2

    These next two research articles shows how MERE THINKING affects the brain!

    Zhou Y, Lin FC, Du YS, Qin LD, Zhao ZM, Xu JR, Lei H. 2011. Gray matter abnormalities in internet addiction: A voxel-based morphometry study. European Journal of Radiology 79(1):92-95

    Breedlove M. 1997. Sex on the Brain. Nature 389:801

    No one is born gay, transgendered, pansexual or any other perverted permutation.

  • SamHamilton

    Not necessarily. The epithet is usually directed by people on the political left at more politically or theologically conservative Christians as a slur. The epithet usually isn’t directed at non-conservative Christians because they’re not even in the same ballpark as the actual Taliban. It’s the same reason that “Commie” isn’t generally directed at political conservatives. That doesn’t mean it’s an apt comparison to American progressives.

  • David Cromie

    You may imagine anything that takes your fancy, as christers tend to do. But why would I have to imagine any supernatural entity for which there is no irrefutable evidence? Are you feeling lonely in your imaginary world?

  • David Cromie

    What do you understand by the expression ‘true christian’, if not an example of the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy?

  • David Cromie

    Good luck in your ‘lake of fire’!

  • I must say that I appreciate your change of tone here. Not much is gained by shouting insults at each other. We obviously come at things from very different life experiences, but we also share some things in common, such as inquiring minds, a fondness for the Hitchhiker’s Guide, and scary-smart daughters (mine’s 39, a physician working with underserved populations, and happily married; my ex-wife and I must have done some things correctly with her, despite my being gay for most of her life.) So there’s a basis for communication that doesn’t involve calling each other names.

    I also agree that this isn’t a great place to discuss the nature of truth, either logical or scientific. And I would be interested in further discussions. But it’s important to distinguish “truth” in the sense of a proposition that retains that property always by definition (e.g., mathematical and logical propositions (which are demonstrable by the rules), as well as statements of religious faith (which are by their nature unfalsifiable) from “truth” in the scientific sense of propositions that are currently supported by evidence but that may be subsequently falsified by subsequent evidence. For science properly defined, no proposition relating to the natural world is ever unconditionally “true”.

    There is also the world of “heuristics”, or propositions that are useful but by their nature unprovable. An example might be “the sun will rise tomorrow”. There’s no evidence I can adduce in support of this statement, aside from the fact that it has risen for each of the last approximately 27,000+ days that I’ve been around, but I feel comfortable using it as a basis for agreeing to have lunch with someone tomorrow. Newtonian mechanics is really just a big set of heuristics that fortunately is comprehensive enough to allow for a vast range of useful technology to be developed from it. We can’t “prove” it, but we can use it.

    Since by definition all scientific propositions must be regarded as tentative, they can’t be “true” in the sense of “mathematically or logically true”. Nor can they be “true” in the sense that a religious person accepts as true a proposition such as “God is omnipotent”. The scientific and religious domains address different kinds of “truth” One cannot deduce “God is omnipotent” from any amount of evidence from the natural world. On the other hand, no amount of natural evidence can falsify that statement to the satisfaction of a person who accepts it as religiously true. For the most part, science and religion talk fast each other, although they may be using the same words and referring to the same phenomena. Most of the controversy stems from our confounding these different kinds of “truths”.

    As I said, I’d be happy to continue these discussions in a more conducive environment. Feel free to message me directly through Disqus if you like, and I can promise you insult-free and thoughtful responses. I’ve had several extended correspondences with people I originally met in controversial discussion threads. While few minds are substantively changes through such correspondence, we at least understand our differences better and can respect one another as real and sincere human beings doing our best to understand the world and ourselves.

    At least, thanks for listening and considering what I have to say; and although we obviously have some very different opinions about the world and appropriate human behavior, I will listen to you and consider what you have to say as well. This latest exchange has been useful in terms of clarifying why we might each hold such different opinions, since we’re coming from very different ontological and epistemological foundations. And at least talking past one another is better than shouting past one another, I suspect that we can both wholeheartedly agree on that!

  • That’s pretty good. :-D

  • Again, as in the previous exchange to which I just offered a probably overlong response, we have here the basis for a civilized exchange (if we could perhaps get by the “perverted” characterization). There’s no question that the brain and the personality are “plastic” to a major degree, if not infinitely so. And likewise no question that people grow and develop in many different ways depending on environment and experiences.

    There do seem to be certain elements of personality that are heavily conditioned and limited by innate genetic factors and that are only to a limited degree affected by deliberate choice. Sexual responsiveness seems to be among these, despite there being no specific “gay gene”. I was born unquestionably male, and raised in a fairly traditionally upper-middle-class environment; my father was an Army officer and microbiologist; my mother a psychiatric social worker. From an early age, I was moderately gender-nonconforming; I simply wasn’t very interested in or good at the traditionally “boy-things” like sports, pets, outdoors stuff. I never questioned that I was a boy; simply accepted that there were aspects of being a boy at which I wasn’t particularly successful and never would be.

    I have no way of knowing why things developed in this way for me. I have two first cousins once removed who are like me in this respect, and I can’t account for them either; all the other members of my family are more traditional in orientation. Fortunately, we all respect one another as human beings, and enjoy close family connections.

    Over time, I came to understand that another “boy-thing” I wasn’t good at was being “interested in girls”. Like throwing a ball, it just wasn’t part of my skill set, and no amount of practice made it more so. Since in those days there was no information available to me about sexual alternatives, I simply concluded that I was asexual (although it would be quite a while before I actually learned that word). Many years later, when I understood that it was possible for a boy to be sexually aware of and responsive to other boys and men, I came to understand that I was largely homosexual rather than asexual in orientation.

    I never thought that I was a girl, or wanted to be one. I am quite happy being a male, gender-conforming in the vast bulk of my actions (with varying degrees of success) but gender-nonconforming in the key element of the kind of people I was sexually responsive to. And that has worked for me.

    Sexual responsiveness is largely uncontrollable, since it’s wired into the brain at levels well below consciousness. You can’t force yourself to twitch at certain things, any more than you can prevent yourself from twitching at others. Obviously, you can then choose to act on or ignore those twitches, but there are consequences to each set of choices. Usually (and in my case in particular) ignoring or trying to redirect those twitches (i.e., messages from your deep mind) results in frustration, pain and long-term unhappiness. Had I not taken steps to make my life more authentic, I could easily have been one of the numerous thousands who every year are driven to suicide by their internal contradictions. I find it hard to believe that you would actually prefer that someone kill themselves rather than acknowledge their real sexual attractions.

    Again, I apologize for the length and personal quality of this reply. But I thought it important to lay out the areas of our agreement as well as the areas of our disagreement, and let you see why I think the way I do. I believe that we can respect each other as thinking and feeling human beings while operating from some rather different philosophical bases.

  • D.M.S.

    ☠…

  • D.M.S.

    Lonely? Not with millions of brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus all over the world, I don’t.

  • D.M.S.

    I know what you mean. I think the same way about the atheist of the world.
    They’re lost and they don’t even know it.

  • D.M.S.

    No I don’t.

  • Jim Deferio

    I do understand what you are saying about truth but I’m not going to go on with this anymore. You are making many truth claims that don’t meet the standards you have set.

    There is absolute truth. Proof? This statement cannot be denied without accepting the proposition itself.

    I know people who claim that such statements are circular reasoning but all rational statements are circular. Funny how none can prove that it is a logical fallacy. When they claim this authority or that authority says it is then of course the thing to do is come right back and ask them if their appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and if not, why. We can go around and round all day long. Knowledge has to begin someplace or we’ll end up like David Hume and other extreme skeptics.

    Knowledge is actually impossible if God doesn’t exist. Universals (unity) and particulars (diversity) could never be reconciled (nominalism defeats itself) and THAT is the starting point for knowledge. Right there in the beginning of Genesis we see universals and particulars being related to each other. Predication begins with God. Even in Genesis 1:2 with the words “without form Hebrew “tohuw”) and void (Hebrew “bohuw”)” we see what it would be like without God taking control and further creating and relating.

    JOHN FRAME stated it this way:
    “Pure unity with no particularity is a blank, and pure particularity with no unity is chaos.”

    MICHAEL WARREN has stated it this way:
    A.1 Either unity and diversity are related from all eternity, or they are not originally related

    A.2 If not, either
    1) abstract unity is ultimate
    2) abstract diversity is ultimate
    3) they are both ultimate in original abstraction from each other

    B. Predication is the application of attributes to objects

    C.1 Predication is logically consistent with unity and diversity being eternally related (i.e. all predication is eternally determined)

    C.2 Predication is logically inconsistent with unity being ultimate because all attributes would be attributes of all objects, even attributes that are inconsistent with each other.

    C.3 Predication is logically inconsistent with diversity being ultimate because without unity, no attributes could apply to any objects.

    C.4 Predication is logically inconsistent with unity and diversity in original abstraction from each other because abstract unity excludes all diversity and abstract diversity excludes all unity and these are logically in consistent with predication per C.2 and C.3

    D. Unity and diversity being related from all eternity describes the God of the Bible who has determined the relationship of all objects to all attributes from all eternity.

    E. From C and D, the existence of God of the Bible is necessary for the possibility of predication.

    IAN HODGE of Biblical Landmarks has expanded on this and goes into WHY knowledge would not be possible unless one had ALL knowledge or unless they based their knowledge on One who did have ALL knowledge (i.e. someone who is omniscient).

    Hope I didn’t digress too much, lol.

    http://www.biblicallandmarks.com/wpl/category/apologetics/

  • IconoclastTwo

    “The epithet is usually directed by people on the political left at more politically or theologically conservative Christians as a slur. The epithet usually isn’t directed at non-conservative Christians because they’re not even in the same ballpark as the actual Taliban.”

    Perhaps you should consider why this is true, and what exactly politically and theologically conservative Christians (although I don’t think that’s exactly the best term for them) want for society?

    “It’s the same reason that “Commie” isn’t generally directed at political conservatives. That doesn’t mean it’s an apt comparison to American progressives.”

    Actually: no, it isn’t. Considering that what most American progressives have mostly wanted so far is basically a weakened version of what a lot of other nations have had for decades it says more about the insularity of the accuser and how ludicrously far right American political discourse is than it’s actually in any way an apt insult.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “Quite frankly, I don’t meet many conservatives who express such vitriol…I know a couple, and I will AND DO confront them on that. But most of the people I know live in the city, know muslims, gays, and black folks–they don’t harbor such hatred and disgust–and they don’t listen to Franklin Graham/Pat Robertson.”

    If you don’t know that many conservatives that are vitriolic then you need to get out more. I can’t see any liberal or leftist (to the extent that they’re allowed to still exist unmolested) board in which liberals _aren’t_ obligated to see vitriolic conservatives before getting sick of it.

    Similarly, the reason why I chose Graham and Robertson as examples was because they _weren’t_ Westboro Baptist Church-namely a group so far out there that virtually nobody respects them.

  • IconoclastTwo

    Damn, and I just installed a new irony meter and yet you busted it in just one post.

  • IconoclastTwo

    It’s a theory with a hundred plus years’ worth of discovered scientific evidence in favor of it.

  • Jim Deferio

    I do know from years of talking to people and counseling them that ALL have something egging them on to do things that the Bible refers to as sin, including me. Just because I have been married to a great woman for almost 42 years doesn’t mean that I am free from temptations to look after other women to lust for them. So, do I just give up resisting this temptation and claim I am polyamorous and therefore it is OK to act on those feelings? NO! I have been born again and I have power over temptation and sin.

    Actually, every court throughout the world acknowledges that people, whether born again or not, have the power of contrary choice when faced with the temptation to something wrong as defined by their statutes.

    Of course there is cognitive conditioning and habituation in molding our psyche (I don’t like using the phrase “social constructionist” because these guys tend to go too far and deny natural biology). We’re definitely complex triune beings (body, soul, and spirit) who were created by God who knows everything about us and what we really need.

    If you ever read the Bible, remember, the Old Testament from Exodus on was written specifically for the tiny nation of Jews called Israel. Many people stumble over the narratives, laws, and prophecies of the OT but they actually are very sensible but rather difficult for casual readers. For example, on Saturday when I was at the Syracuse Pride festival witnessing and preaching with two others, we heard the usual that goes something like this:
    “Do you eat shrimp? Do you wear mixed fabrics? Those are sins!!!”

    So, I asked them, “What penalties were given for breaking these supposed laws? NONE! That’s because these and similar admonishments are NOT moral laws but they were given to the Israelites to keep them separate from the other nations.”

    Then one usually hears:
    “What about slavery”???

    So I explain to them that the Jews were given that land by allotment and each parcel of land was to stay in the name of the family it was given too. If a nation came against Israel there were two fates, be killed in war or be taken captive and serve an Israeli family as a slave but with some rights (nothing like american slavery in the south or what is currently happening in Muslim African nations and in Dubai – PBS has documented the slavery in Dubai). These laws were actually very lenient compared to other ANE cultures.

    Anyway, hopefully you get my point. You sound very intelligent.
    Take Care

  • IconoclastTwo

    “”Of course they are.”
    Jim Jones convinced people to drink poison.
    Was he practicing Christianity?

    David Koresh was sleeping with minors.
    Was he practicing Christianity?”

    In both of these cases I’d have to say no. What they were saying (although Jim Jones didn’t originally start out anywhere near as extreme/authoritarian/psychotic as he ended up) is so far outside either the definition or normal history of Christianity that no, they shouldn’t be considered to count.

    I’d also have to say that The Family, which basically inverts by practically any reasonable standard everything that Christ allegedly said, shouldn’t be called Christian. However, also note that they’re extraordinarily politically convenient (for conservatives) and so there’s a lot less condemnation of this than you think there otherwise would be.

    “Franklin Graham says people should be forced to get married.
    Is he practicing Christianity?”

    In his case I’d actually have to say (unfortunately) yes-because what he’s saying and what he’s advocating does, unfortunately, come from a place of long held and very bad traditions within religion of forcing marriage (especially from a patriarchal perspective) upon people and looking down upon any relationships that are not within marriage.

    “Economic power relations (which are more often than not backed by governmental power anyways)”

    Exactly; and this is a main driver of proxy wars and collateral damage (including the deaths of many soldiers fighting for a cause they think is greater–freedom–than what it actually is–resources)

    “traditional relationships are often some of the most coercive ways in which societies can be organized”
    Isn’t this kinda what Paul called “the flesh”?
    We ultimately see that governmental power is abusive and law is based on violence/retaliation.””

    But there are a lot of other forms of power than just governmental that can be abusive. If, say, a woman is accused of doing something wrong that a man is actually guilty of, but she comes from an insular community that says, explicitly, as a course of religious doctrine that anything that’s wrong must be her fault and not a man’s, and she’s forced to conform and lie accordingly then that’s still power that’s being used in an abusive manner. However, it’s not governmental power that’s responsible.

    This is the central point that you don’t see because bluntly you don’t see yourself as the kind of person who will ever be subjected to this and so can’t empathize with it. Other people, however, _can_ and this is why we don’t want a society that’s heavily based on ‘tradition’, or uses market fundamentalism as a back door towards achieving this same type of dystopia.

  • jeffnkr

    God said, in His Word, that homosexuality is a sin.
    Jesus came to break the chains of bondage.
    If husbands loved their wives the way God said for them to love them, there wouldn’t be any need for suffrage (Eph 5:25 & Col 3:19).
    There isn’t any part of the Bible “doesn’t count” any more.
    Jesus said, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” MATTHEW 7:21-23
    It’s not a secret that many people who claim to be a Christian, live in ways that contradict what they profess. Rest assured that God knows who is His adopted son or daughter, and who isn’t, and that those who say they are, and are not, will receive a greater punishment. No one gets away with anything.

  • D.M.S.

    And most scholarly creationist could refute most if not all of evolutionist socalled scientific evidence.

  • IconoclastTwo

    Yes, you do.

  • I understand if you don’t want to continue this discussion; it’s long and complicated. If you do at some point want to continue our conversation, I’m available at discuss (at) chaos-monger (dot) net.

    I agree that epistemology is hard. It is necessary to find appropriate starting points, and those are debatable. Since you don’t want to continue, I won’t discuss your points in detail, Except to note that we diverge at your point (d). While “unity in diversity being related from all eternity” may describe the” od of the Bible”, they also describe many other explanatory frameworks. There’s nothing unique about the biblical framework that requires attention to it. Your point (e) doesn’t necessarily follow, because there are many other “gods” who could provide equal degrees of explanation.

    Regarding Mr. Hodge’s point, the existence of all knowledge does not necessarily imply the existence of a personality capable of incorporating all that knowledge. And even if there is such a personality who incorporates all that knowledge, there are almost infinite possibilities for describing the nature of such a personality or personalities; there’s nothing that constrains that personality to be the “God of the Bible”, even if we could clearly specify what the properties of that personality might be. The Bible offers many possible views of such a personality, ranging from an abstract intellect to a specifically tribal deity obsessed with maintaining the ritual purity of that tribe.

    The latter conception of the deity is the source of most of the specific behavioral prescriptions and proscriptions that are problematical for today’s society. We do not live in a ritually pure tribe, and so we don’t need to punish those who violate that ritual purity.

    In sum, most of the attempts to derive “God” from the natural world fall apart at the point where they try to equate some overall intelligence behind the universe with the specific image of a “God” as defined in the Christian Bible. There’s simply nothing apart from raw faith that supports that equation, any more than supports the equation of such an intelligence with any of the other thousands of gods that have been defined by human beings over the years. What is it that makes your conception of God uniquely valid over all the other conceptions of God that have been offered? And what entitles you to pick and choose which of the specific prescriptions and proscriptions offered in the Bible are currently valid and which have been superseded by later prescriptions and/or proscriptions?

    I’m always interested in exploring these questions with those who have different settled views on them that I have. But this exploration has to be undertaken in an open fashion, without stipulating in advance the answers. I certainly don’t claim to know everything about the universe or reality, but I do know what makes sense and doesn’t make sense in terms of the best of human reason. And I’m not prepared to throw reason overboard in favor of faith propositions for which there is no evidence adduced other than the belief of the person offering them.

    At the least, I’m glad we stopped insulting each other.

  • Where we differ on this point has to do with whether there are certain kinds of behaviors that can be characterized as “sins” on the basis of some a priori definition made some thousands of years ago in the context of a specific tribe and population. Even contemporary definitions of behavior were widely diverse. In classical Greece, homosexuality (or more precisely, ephebephilia) was not merely socially accepted but practically compulsory. In classical Rome, the sexual hierarchy was defined by bodily penetration; higher ranking people got to penetrate lower ranking people. Present-day behavior tends to be defined by sexual attraction and responsiveness. The concept of “sin” has no legal or practical definition apart from the conceptions of particular religious groups, and even it has undergone many permutations over the years. Bowling on Sunday used to be considered absolutely forbidden; today, even the most religious people would probably be disinclined to go to court to forbid it. Prior to Griswold v. Connecticut, it was illegal to sell condoms in many places; today, they are almost universally accessible. Sin itself turns out to be flexibly defined.

    I certainly agree that people have many behavioral choices, some of which are better for them and/or for society than others. Engaging in serial murder is generally frowned upon, except in the context of legally declared wars when it becomes not merely acceptable but practically compulsory. I certainly wouldn’t urge you to act upon any polyamorous impulses you might have, given the undoubted anguish that such behavior might cause you given your whole attitudinal set. For someone not committed to the same set of behavioral priorities that you have, such action might in fact increase their personal happiness and ability to interact effectively with others. You have to be true to yourself in any event, recognizing that what is meant by “yourself” may well change over time as you learn more and understand more.

    And I certainly agree that it’s important to understand the prescriptions and proscriptions offered in the Bible in light of culture and context. It’s precisely that that makes it difficult to determine why some elements ought to be considered permanent and others can be considered temporary or context specific. It isn’t as though the Bible contains a clear definition or criterion for establishing this, or even if it did why that should remain applicable to today’s society which differs in about as many ways as possible from the context in which they were originally offered.

    So I get your point; I just don’t see its precise relevance today.

    I appreciate the compliment, in any event, and I certainly appreciate the civil tone of our latest exchanges. But we are just operating from some very different premises here.

  • D.M.S.

    No I don’t.
    We can do this for a very long time.

  • D.M.S.

    Is a person who considers that all sexually active lgbt people are committing sins against God/Jesus.
    A hater?

  • D.M.S.

    I listen to Ravi Zacharias and Robert Jeffress.
    Do they count:-)

  • D.M.S.

    But it can be consensual, correct?

  • IconoclastTwo

    Mmmhmm. I’m not quite sure if I’ve ever heard a compelling (to put it mildly) creationist defense of how the flora of the Hawaiian Islands (whose geological history is well defined) manages to be so compellingly close to what you would see from the gradualist, evolutionary theory that has so much evidence in its favor.

  • D.M.S.

    Then you won’t mind if I don’t believe all of the lies of evolution.
    Everyone and everything has been created by God/Jesus.
    Take care neighbor.

  • Bones

    I doubt there’s a theory which has as much evidence across multiple disciplines as evolution.

    The fact that it goes against your superstition is your problem.

  • Bones

    God didn’t say anything…..and most of the Bible ‘doesn’t count’ any more.

    Thank God.

  • Bones

    Pretty much……

  • Bones

    NO, you are wrong and your citations are dishonest.

  • Bones

    No I’m not wrong.

    NARTH is a pseudo psychological organisation which does not write peer review articles but Christian propaganda.

    It’s far more likely that you have a mental illness than gay people do.

  • Bones

    More lies…..

    There’s that pseudo-psychology organisation NARTH again which just makes up its own shit.

    If you went back further than Cummings you would find presidents who supported torture and lobotomies of gay people. Heck I know of one Baptist pastor who had electrodes attached to his testicles to shock him while he watched thousands of pictures of gay porn. it didn’t work.

    Cummings was a dinosaur trotted out by Religious Right in their war against gay people.

    “Ex-gay” therapist wants you to believe that “ex-gay” therapy really helps people
    In an editorial for USA Today, a former president of the APA defends trying to “cure” gay people

    Nicholas Cummings was the president of the American Psychological Association from 1979 – 1980, but he now believes the organization he once led has been taken hostage by “ultraliberals” beholden to the “gay rights movement,” at the expense of “scientific objectivity.” The people Cummings is describing here sometimes go by the title “licensed therapists” and “accredited medical associations that disagree with Nicholas Cummings.”

    You see, Cummings is a proponent and former practitioner of ex-gay therapy, a discredited (except, that is, among right-wing Christian organizations and “ex-gay” practitioners) pseudo-therapeutic practice that seeks to “cure” gay people.

    On Wednesday, Cummings defended so-called reparative therapies in an editorial for USA Today:

    “Of the roughly 18,000 gay and lesbian patients whom we treated over 25 years through Kaiser, I believe that most had satisfactory outcomes. The majority were able to attain a happier and more stable homosexual lifestyle. Of the patients I oversaw who sought to change their orientation, hundreds were successful…

    Since then, the role of psychotherapy in sexual orientation change efforts has been politicized. Gay and lesbian rights activists appear to be convincing the public that homosexuality is one identical inherited characteristic. To my dismay, some in the organized mental health community seem to agree, including the American Psychological Association, though I don’t believe that view is supported by scientific evidence…

    A political agenda shouldn’t prevent gays and lesbians who desire to change from making their own decisions.

    Whatever the situation at an individual clinic, accusing professionals from across the country who provide treatment for fully informed persons seeking to change their sexual orientation of perpetrating a fraud serves only to stigmatize the professional and shame the patient.”

    Interesting that Cummings should be so concerned about shaming patients, as the lawsuit filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center against the ex-gay organization Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH) — which Cummings denounces as “damaging” — offers several accounts of abusive practices recipients of “ex-gay” therapies were subjected to, as the SPLC notes:

    Customers of JONAH’s services typically pay a minimum of $100 for weekly individual counseling sessions and another $60 for group therapy sessions. The lawsuit describes sessions that involved clients undressing in front of a mirror and even a group session where young men were instructed to remove their clothing and stand naked in a circle with the counselor, Downing, who was also undressed. Another session involved a subject attempting to wrest away two oranges, which were used to represent testicles, from another individual.

    Or as one survivor of ex-gay therapy and plaintiff in the lawsuit explained to SPLC: “Sadly, there is no accountability for those who practice conversion therapy,” said Michael Ferguson. “They play blindly with deep emotions and create an immense amount of self-doubt for the client. They seize on your personal vulnerability, and tell you that being gay is synonymous with being less of a man. They further misrepresent themselves as having the key to your new orientation.”

    In 2007, the APA commissioned a task force to conduct a systematic review of the peer-reviewed journal literature on so-called reparative therapies and concluded that “efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE [sexual orientation change efforts] practitioners and advocates.”

    http://www.salon.com/2013/07/31/ex_gay_therapist_wants_you_to_believe_that_ex_gay_therapy_really_helps_people/

  • Bones

    Except you do lie.

    By your logic, you ain’t no Christian.

    All of this because you hate gays.

  • Bones

    And they had nothing to say about women who said they were always gay and always felt that they were.

    They looked purely at women who had ‘changed’.

    That’s the whole point.

    Pretty convenient for you to deny and twist their own words for your own hatred.

    What a despicable human being you are.

  • Bones

    Call W-A-N-K-E-R

    That should get you through.

  • Bones

    Yeah, nah….

  • Bones

    They’re nutters as well.

  • Bones

    Funny – my cousins married each other..that slippery slope went the other way…yet apparently gay people can’t….because Dave says….

  • Dave G.

    Can’t they? I thought they could. That’s certainly the law. But it does seem to be Bones who has no problem telling people that if they want to be part of the new society, you’ll conform and affirm or else. Which is fine. Remember, there’s no such thing as liberalism at the end of the day. There’s merely the latest world view that seeks to impose itself on society and demand conformity and obedience because its adherents are sure of their moral superiority.

  • D.M.S.

    Have you noticed that most of the world has gone crazy when it comes to God/Jesus. They have made up their own version of God/Jesus, not the one in the bible.

  • D.M.S.

    As I can see that you are as well.
    Take care, neighbor.

  • D.M.S.

    And you’re also a hater. Thanks for bringing that out about yourself.

  • D.M.S.

    Evolution is a complete and total hoax. Just like global warming.

  • D.M.S.

    LOL….

  • David Cromie

    LOL indeed!

  • David Cromie

    Bollocks!

  • D.M.S.

    Are you a Christian?

  • D.M.S.

    What is a Christian extremist?

  • D.M.S.

    That sounds great, I’m voting for more Christians.

  • D.M.S.

    LOL!

  • IconoclastTwo

    Absolutely.

  • D.M.S.

    It’s sounds like we need to make the USA a Christian theocracy.
    That will be great…

  • IconoclastTwo

    I absolutely mind that you’re not making anything that could even remotely be called a logical argument, and no amount of passive-aggressive niceties is going to change that.

  • D.M.S.

    Only in the minds of Godless people.

  • D.M.S.

    Logical in your world only.
    Not logical in my world of my creator God/Jesus.

  • IconoclastTwo

    You’re not entitled to ‘separate’ logic. Nobody is.

  • D.M.S.

    Only the illogical such as yourself would come up with an explanation like that.
    I don’t ever need to go to a comedy club. I get all the laughter I need from reading what our Godless society has to say.
    Thanks for the humor.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    Only for the right sort of christians. The wrong sort will be the first against the wall when your theocracy comes about.

  • D.M.S.

    Yes!
    God/Jesus Christians that actually know what sin is.

  • D.M.S.

    This cite reminds me a lot of the
    Friendly atheist news cite.
    They also call in their colleagues from everywhere to attack anyone that doesn’t believe in their LIES just like this cite does.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    You seem really excited about the prospect of killing those whom you consider sinners, particularly your fellow believers. In that regard, the OP was spot on.

  • D.M.S.

    Me, No.
    But God/Jesus will take care of all of that.
    The sinners will either go to heaven or hell.
    It’s the sinners choice where they end up.
    Take care, neighbor.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    But I was referring to christians executing other christians as they did during colonial times in their little theocracies which prospect you seemed so exited about, not what you’re claiming now. Or did you not understand the idiom? Please, neighbour, build a wall along the 49th as well. I don’t want to see any of the violence inherent in theocracies spilling over into my home.

  • D.M.S.

    I’m more of a direct and to the point person.
    I don’t and won’t comprehend hints.

  • D.M.S.

    Killing people is not what Christians are supposed to do. Not even people they dislike.
    That’s left up to God/Jesus.

  • apoxbeonyou

    Which lie is that?

  • apoxbeonyou

    Your ‘god’ sucks.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    Then my original assessment was correct. I’m not hinting here. I really am afraid of the violence you christians will commit against each other when you achieve your theocracy and how it will affect the rest of us.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    Then too bad there have been so many bad christians who have failed to refrain from killing people, even people they love.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    god/jesus will kill the people you christians dislike?

  • David Cromie

    So you have nothing intelligent to say on this matter also?

  • David Cromie

    I wonder how many of your supposed ‘brothers and sisters in Christ’ would own you if they actually knew you. How many of them would you condemn as not being ‘true’ christers?

  • David Cromie

    But then, you are as thick as two short planks. To be generous to you, atheists are no more ‘lost’ than you are, but in one important respect, the christers I come across are lost in superstition and culpable ignorance.

  • David Cromie

    With Jesuitical ‘logic’ (Scholasticism’s major contribution to modern christer apologetics) it is possible to prove that black is white, and the sheep dutifully fall in line.

  • Meepestos

    I can think of millions and that is just in Greece ; )

  • David Cromie

    Yes you do, otherwise you are just talking through your hat!

  • David Cromie

    How?

  • D.M.S.

    That’s my belief.
    And that’s all that I need.
    I need to prove nothing to you.
    Christ Jesus loves you whether you believe it or not.
    Your belief doesn’t change the fact that Christ Jesus loves you.
    Take care, neighbor.

  • D.M.S.

    We still pray for them. Like true Christians are supposed too.

  • D.M.S.

    All of them.
    We will know them by their fruits.
    Let me know someday if you ever figure out what it means when the circumcised meet the uncircumcised.
    Hint:
    It has absolutely nothing to do with a persons genitals and never has.

  • D.M.S.

    I absolutely love being ignorant to atheist.
    I hope and pray that I stay that way.
    Thank you, very much.
    Take care, neighbor.

  • D.M.S.

    You wouldn’t consider it intelligent, no matter how this Christian states it.
    Right, neighbor?

  • D.M.S.

    Not….

  • D.M.S.

    When we achieve our theocracy.
    Christ Jesus will be in charge of the entire planet and everyone will agree with Him.

  • The perfect end of humanity! No more thinking ever! Obviously, letting humans think was a silly idea in the first place. That stuff called “reason” was just a license to be wrong. Should have stuck with the sea slugs from the beginning – a lot less trouble overall. Oh well – at least we’ll have a whole lot (probably 99.999%) of ex-humans nicely barbecuing for all eternity! Perhaps that was the point all along.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    Not what? Don’t hint, dude. If you didn’t mean that god/jesus will kill people why did you say “Killing people is not what christians are supposed to do. That’s left up to god/jesus”?

  • AtticusOSullivan

    Sounds like hell to me.

  • D.M.S.

    My name is nobody.

  • D.M.S.

    Don’t repent of your sins and don’t ask Christ Jesus to forgive you for your sins.
    And don’t believe that Christ Jesus died for all of our sins.
    And hell is what you will receive.
    It’s your choice, neighbor.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    That’s only your hope, neighbour.

  • apoxbeonyou

    There is no hell; only allegory.

  • D.M.S.

    The laws and rules in the Christian bible are pretty easy to follow and have been for centuries.
    It’s when proud mankind put their own twist on scripture, is when things have changed.

  • D.M.S.

    It’s like I said its your choice, neighbors.

  • apoxbeonyou

    Jesus kills people he doesn’t like?

  • apoxbeonyou

    Read your history; it won’t.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    I don’t base my choices on the hopes of other persons, least of all the likes of you. Do you have anything to offer other than your hopes?

  • D.M.S.

    You may be right. It might be completely covered in radiation poisoning for thousands of years. At least that’s what U.S. history tells me what will happen to the USA.

  • D.M.S.

    Which?

  • D.M.S.

    I know all of my choices have consequences.
    I guess you must think you’re above that.
    Take care, neighbors.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    Like you said, I’m more of a direct and to the point person. I don’t respond to what anyone guesses I must think. My choices don’t depend on what you hope are the consequences. Do you have anything other than guesses to offer me?

  • David Cromie

    Consensual incest would still be illegal, and highly undesirable, even if were not so, for the future of the human species.

  • David Cromie

    ‘Scholarly creationist’? There is no such being!

  • There’s no question that thinking has never been a human quality valued by christians. The obedient sheep as the desirable model for humanity. Seems like a pretty stupid approach to give humans the ability to think and then burn them for all eternity for exercising their most distinctive facility. But then consistency was never a strong christian suit either.

  • D.M.S.

    In your world.
    They’re everywhere in society.

  • And I agree with all that you have written

  • D.M.S.

    As decadent as our society has become it will be legal within 10 years.
    The debauchery in this country the USA is rampant.

  • D.M.S.

    That’s why we pray for each other, out of love for our brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus.
    We don’t believe in mankinds ignorant world.
    That mankind is destroying each day with their debauchery.
    Take care, neighbors.

  • D.M.S.

    I’ll take that as a compliment.
    I’m happy to follow our Lord and Savior where ever He needs us.
    Take care, neighbor.

  • D.M.S.

    Our Christian consistency is hopefully prayers for the lost of this world.
    People like you.
    Praise the Lord.

  • I welcome your prayers, if only because when you’re praying you aren’t actively conspiring to restrict my civil liberties and/or otherwise make my life and those of my friends difficult. If you stick to praying, we’ll have no difficulties.

  • Matthew

    I would argue that some of the greatest thinkers in the history of western civilization have been Christian. Even modern day fundamentalists use a large dose of logic and reason when attempting to articulate their faith, and I for one think that is part of the problem spiritually speaking — too much doctrine, dogma and apologetics at the expense of mystery.

    (Edited)

  • David Cromie

    Yes!

  • David Cromie

    Do you consider Universal Human Rights to be the ‘right’ values?

  • David Cromie

    Universal Human Rights apply to everyone, right across the world (as the name implies), yet bigoted christers would deny these rights to the people they hate, because their imaginary ‘god’ says so.

  • Bones

    Nope…that aint happening….

  • Bones

    Lol…..the insane one is the one who thinks Late Bronze Age ideology is given by God.

  • Bones

    Nah….mostly the lies come from people like yourself.

  • Bones

    Actually it is you that is lost.

    Lost in ignorance and superstition.

  • Bones

    Not many in the past 100 years though….before that everyone was a Christian….

  • Bones

    You share the same opinion as ISIS…..

    That shows you are of the same cloth as them.

  • Bones

    Who cares.

    You aren’t.

  • Bones

    Why do you come on web sites and search out gay people to express your hatred of them?

    Just stuck to your conservative right wing “I hate gays” sites.

  • Bones

    Yes they need prayers to keep them from people like you.

  • Bones

    Hi John Calvin….

    Yeah that’s already been tried,…

    People hated it….

  • Bones

    There is an infinite amount more evidence for evolution than there is for the mythology of creation.

    Wtf believes in a god who curses women with the pain of childbirth?

    That’s classic mythtology.

  • Bones

    Huh…the one seeking to impose their worldview on society is you….

  • Bones

    Dude you’re a couple of stubbies short of a sixpack ie you’re not all there.

  • David Cromie

    You should know, since you ape one very convincingly!

  • Bones

    Lol!

  • David Cromie

    So you really are a fully paid-up member of the christer Taliban! Thanks for admitting it.

  • What there have been are some very smart people who found themselves christian, and unable to deal with the fact that there was no basis for their faith other than their faith, proceeded to spin elaborate philosophical systems on top of their faith premises, apparently under the impression that if the superstructure was elaborate enough, no one would notice that there was no credible foundation. There are also some other very smart people who find participating in christian activities to be soothing or satisfying, but who are also capable of suspending or ignoring parts of the christian system that they know to be incompatible with the real world – maintaining a sharp line between the religious and secular domains. Both of these groups can be characterized as “thinkers”, but it’s thought wasted.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “Homosexuals are enslaved by lewd feelings and emotional turbulence.”

    While I realize this is anecdotal, most of the gay people I’ve known were actually pretty happy with their lives. Their biggest problem aside from the problems that everyone has is people who think just like you, but then people who think like you are problems for a lot of different people besides just them.

  • Dave G.

    Actually, that’s the big lie. There is no liberalism. Both sides are seeking to impose their worldview on society: you and me. It’s just that one side admits it, and the other either lies about it, or is so ignorant that it doesn’t realize it.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “Can you point me in their direction?”

    Yes. Scroll downwards.

    Alternately, since I can already see where this is going and your response is going to be that D.M.S. or Jim Deferio aren’t representative (even though I’ve heard from people who think like them before) you could go to Breitbart or look at what people say at CPAC.

    Furthermore, if you wouldn’t characterize them as leaders of Evangelical Christianity (primary voices might be pushing it) who would you characterize in such a way instead?

  • Dave G.

    Universal Human Rights do apply to everyone, including religions that don’t conform to liberal values. That’s the hangup some seem to have.

  • Dave G.

    Of course. For everyone. Conservative and liberal, secular and religious. Universal.

  • Matthew

    C.S. Lewis?

  • David Cromie

    Who will you appeal to if your hoped-for theocracy turns on you?

  • D.M.S.

    God/Jesus wants all of us to think to help humanity, not to destroy humanity.
    Most of mankind is trying to destroy humanity thru pride and greed.
    God/Jesus want all of us to love Him as much as He loves us.
    And to be humble toward each other.
    Praise the Lord the day that, that happens.

  • David Cromie

    Especially those christers that cannot tell the difference between ‘cite’ and ‘site’, among other things!

  • David Cromie

    There is not a lot you do comprehend, is there?

  • D.M.S.

    No matter what happens in this world. My entire focus will be on God/Jesus.
    And no one, including people like you will be able to stop that focus. So ridicule us to your hearts content. It won’t do any of you any good towards Christians that are focused on God/Jesus.
    Praise the Lord.

  • D.M.S.

    It must warm you all over to be so cruel to the humanity that is all around you, that doesn’t believe in this world the same way that you do.
    I have no problem if you don’t want to believe in God/Jesus, don’t.
    But you have problem if everybody doesn’t think the same way that you do. That called pride and greed.
    I hope and pray that someday you and your kind can stop that cruelty towards mankind.
    Praise the Lord.

  • Matthew

    I´m wondering what you think about the following quote from Leo Baeck´s book “The Essence of Judaism”:

    “To observe and explore the world is the task of science; to judge it and determine our attitudes toward it is the task of religion.”

  • D.M.S.

    Who would those people be?

  • Tim

    No, some of the people who wrote some of the words in the bible said (likely, as near as we can tell) in a FEW places that SOME specific forms of homosexual behaviour are sinful, and probably for reasons other than the homosexuality itself.

    Also, the bible is NOT the Word of God; Jesus is.
    The bible is the words of men ABOUT God.

  • IconoclastTwo

    He is a poster later on in this discussion.

  • D.M.S.

    Opinions vary…
    Praise the Lord.

  • D.M.S.

    Which lies would those be, sir?

  • D.M.S.

    I googled the definitions.
    Site is a place.
    Cite is quotes.
    I guess they must be both.

  • I have no problem with the statement, provided that we recognize that “judgment and attitudes” are not the exclusive property of any one religion or set of religions, and that these functions of religion can be equally well played by a variety of essentially non-religious spiritual and philosophical traditions as well. It is not necessary to be formally religious in order to be a fully ethical and moral human being.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    Motes and beams, dude. Ridiculing you is not being cruel to the humanity around us, and inferring that it is is prideful. Do you always accuse others of the sins you commit?

  • D.M.S.

    Please explain. Would you mind using cogent English please. Thank you.

  • D.M.S.

    What is a Christian?

  • D.M.S.

    I don’t kill people, if they don’t convert to Christianity.
    We Christians pray for their
    soul and heart to repent of their sins, only.

  • Matthew

    Thanks so much.

    I believe the fullness of divine revelation is found in Jesus Christ, though I also believe that all truth is ultimately God´s truth and that other religions, philosophies, etc. certainly can add value to the human experience.

    I too agree that it is not necessary to be formally religious in order to lead an ethical and moral life. From my perspective, I think the reason such is possible is because of the image of God each human holds, but I of course don´t expect a committed atheist to buy into my reasoning. Are you an atheist?

  • Matthew

    I´m nearly certain that although I could offer a clear answer to the question, you would still probably deem me not worthy to be part of the assembly.

  • D.M.S.

    I’ll be honest with you.
    Whatever your answer is, I will back it up with Christian scripture.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    Except when you christians do. Like “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius”, Genocide of indigenous peoples, etc.

  • D.M.S.

    We Christian are to rebuke other so they will know when they are wrong.
    That is in scripture as well.

  • D.M.S.

    Which people doesn’t Jesus like?
    When scripture states that He loves all of us.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    But why are you so prideful in your rebukes? The arrogance it requires to infer cruelty to humanity from someone simply ridiculing you or having a problem with other’s beliefs is staggering. You are skating dangerously close to hellfire according to your scriptures. Matt 5:22

  • D.M.S.

    Then I will ask the Lord God to forgive me, for I have sinned.
    Will you be doing the same?

  • D.M.S.

    Genocide of what indigenous peoples, etc?

  • AtticusOSullivan

    No. You’ve still offered me nothing but your hopes and guesses upon which to base my choices.

  • D.M.S.

    That’s what Christians are supposed to do.

  • D.M.S.

    Who’s John Calvin?

  • AtticusOSullivan

    The genocide of the American Indians, the First Nations, the Aborigines, etc. See eg http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Native_Americans_and_Christianity

  • D.M.S.

    I’m quite happy to be insane then.
    Thank you very much.

  • D.M.S.

    Probably within the the next 60 years the entire world will be Christian.
    Won’t that be great?

  • D.M.S.

    You’re going think that way about me whether it’s true or not.

  • David Cromie

    Prayer has been so efficacious throughout history, has it not!

  • D.M.S.

    I wasn’t here then.
    I can’t be blamed for the world’s past atrocities.
    I still can’t figure out why the USA celebrates Columbus Day.

  • D.M.S.

    You can recite scripture, but you still don’t know what your choices are. Hmmmm.
    You’re more than welcome to that choice.
    Take care, neighbor.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    Why do you think the genocide against the American Indians has stopped?

  • AtticusOSullivan

    You have given me nothing but your hopes and guesses regarding scripture. Why should I consider your hopes and guesses?

  • D.M.S.

    I still have had nothing to do with what is happening to the American Indian.
    Mankinds pride and greed has been and still is detrimental on many parts of our society.
    But if you want blame me, go for it.

  • D.M.S.

    Prayer has helped many true Christians in the last few centuries and still today.

  • David Cromie

    That is the question you need to answer, along with providing the irrefutable evidence for the real existence of your favourite supposed ‘god’.

  • David Cromie

    DMS is a fundy christer on a mission to deceive!

  • AtticusOSullivan

    My point, of course, is that your claims were false and christians do in fact kill folks who do not convert to christianity. Whether or not you were there, or can’t be blamed for past atrocities, doesn’t change the facts that christians commit genocide against indigenous peoples. For such a direct and to the point person, you can be awfully disingenuous.

  • D.M.S.

    So what! People from all walks of life including Christians have killed people.
    And everyone of them has the chance to repent and ask forgiveness from our Lord God.
    Take care, neighbor.

  • D.M.S.

    You can keep asking until your face turns blue.
    Christ Jesus is my Lord and Savior.
    And that’s all you’re getting out of me.
    I keep telling you, if don’t want to believe in God/Jesus, then don’t.
    It don’t matter to me.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    So what? You were lying, that’s what! And genocide is unforgivable and those who follow a god that commands it are evil.

  • Bones

    Nope. Especially if it’s Christianity like yours.

    And it wont happen.

  • Bones

    Yep..as I thought.

  • Bones

    Lol….the nutter who made his theocracy in Geneva.

  • Bones

    No…..

    You don’t understand the gospels at all.

  • Bones

    You have their same hatred.

    It’s only secular laws stopping you types from doing what you did in the past.

  • Bones

    Not you.

  • Bones

    Yours are all over this thread.

    Complete lies from about evolution to a nutty interpretation of revelation.

  • Bones

    Facts don’t.

    Grow a brain.

  • Bones

    What about gandhi, Einstein. …I’m sure our atheit friends can rattle off a few.

  • Bones

    One side is seeking equal rights and has the majority view of society.

    The other wishes to stop that and impose their religion on the majority. They do this through discriminating and lying about others.

  • Dave G.

    No, it seems both sides want to do the same thing, and see themselves as right for doing so.

  • D.M.S.

    You choose not to accept the truth of God/Jesus.
    Which is fine, if you don’t want to beleve in God/Jesus.
    Why am I not allowed to believe in God/Jesus?

  • D.M.S.

    I still don’t know who John Calvin is.
    I’m not going to google his name either.
    Why can’t you explain your statement toward me?

  • D.M.S.

    Revelation explains exactly what anyone wants to know about our immediate future.

  • D.M.S.

    You’re welcome to your opinion.
    Am I welcome to mine?

  • AtticusOSullivan

    Is this how you always react when caught in a lie?

  • AtticusOSullivan

    You still have offered nothing but your hope to establish this “truth of god/jesus”. Who said you weren’t allowed to believe in this god/jesus? Isn’t that another of your guesses about what someone else thinks?

  • AtticusOSullivan

    It’s only your hope that revelation explains exactly what anyone wants to know about our immediate future. Why should anyone take into consideration your hopes?

  • D.M.S.

    If people are unrepentant sinners all of their lives, until death everyone of them will go to hell.
    That’s straight from scripture. Beleive it or not, it’s your choice.

  • D.M.S.

    Go to bible.is. If you want to find out.
    I’m being attacked it took a little while. But you and crummy and bones want me to explain my belief.
    I can’t explain my belief.
    I just believe That Christ Jesus is my Lord and Savior.
    Take care, neighbors.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    I don’t want you to explain your hopes. I want to know why I should take your hopes into consideration.

  • Bones

    Oh dear, poor little christian is being attacked for coming on and attacking others….]

  • Bones

    I don’t accept your opinion as truth.

    It’s a delusion which you are free to believe and we are free to critique.

  • Bones

    Like I said, you don’t understand the gospels at all….

  • Bones

    No….Revelation is based in the first century and deals with Imperial Rome. It has nothing at all to with the future.

  • Bones

    And you continue to lie in your ignorance……

  • Bones

    No….one side is particularly annoyed that the other group has equal rights and has fought tooth and nail against every single right they have attained.

  • I am really more of an agnostic. I’m prepared to accept that the Universe is an enormously if not necessarily infinitely complicated place, and that there may well be an intelligence or intelligences that transcend our current understanding. I’m always open to new evidence and new arguments, although to be frank, I’be been studying these questions for more than 60 years, so there aren’t a lot of new arguments that can be brought forth at this point.

    My difficulties with Christianity (and most other religions, for that matter) is that I don’t see how one gets from this point of conceding possible intelligence to the Universe to the specifics of Christian dogma. There doesn’t seem to be any logical path from one to the other.

    For example, there’s nothing inherent in the universal intelligence approach that leads to a concept of sin or salvation, let alone prescriptions and proscriptions on who one might choose to have sex with or things not to eat. The moral law is a product of human thought, and ought to encourage the development of human potential rather than restricting possibilities for achieving happiness on no basis other than “because I say so”. I find it much more wonderful that humans can evolve an effective moral law for themselves through exercise of their best and most characteristic human qualities – reason and empathy – than that we had to be disciplined into good behavior by an over’strict parent.

    From time to time, I’m more persuaded by a sort of polytheistic model, with multiple competing intelligences running around, all with amazing powers (perhaps technological, perhaps spiritual) and often disliking each other enough to spend a lot of time tearing down what their colleagues might be building up. This would at least account for many of the apparent contradictions in what we understand about the Universe. This argument has at least metaphorical utility, I believe.

  • D.M.S.

    Goodbye …..

  • IconoclastTwo

    You’re changing the subject. The issue isn’t your right to your beliefs. The issue is that you don’t have a right to force your beliefs upon other people-especially when doing so means making laws in your favor against everyone else who doesn’t believe as you do.

  • Protestant theologian, 1509-64. French-born; set up shop in Geneva. Considered the father of the Reformed branch of Protestantism, as opposed to the Lutheran branch. Principally responsible for the doctrine of predestination (aptly described as “You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t”). Burned a number of people at the stake for having contrary theological views, including Michael Servetus. Calvin’s theology probably led pretty much directly to some 20 million deaths during the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin

  • D.M.S.

    Sounds great to me to change the laws in favor of Christianity.

  • Utterly false equivalency. There is no equation between a social philosophy that seeks to compel uniformity of belief in a particular spiritual entity and to significantly restrict human freedom of both thought and behavior to a vary narrow set of approved behaviors; and one that allows for plural beliefs and free human choices constrained only by the moral law of respecting and not doing harm to other humans. Your worldview is satisfied only when everyone thinks and believes just like you do; mine is satisfied when we have a just and moral society based on freedom of belief and diversity of behavior. it’s ludicrous to try to claim that there are equivalent approaches.

  • See my identification and description above. No grounds for your ignorance here!

  • Ron McPherson

    That’s not how the kingdom of God works. It’s built on love, not legislation

  • Ron McPherson

    LOLOL!!!!

  • TS (unami)

    Yes.

  • TS (unami)

    Good thing you’re not God.

  • TS (unami)

    And we affirming Christians pray that your mind be renewed and your heart be softened.

  • TS (unami)

    Well said.

  • Dave G.

    And you want to use the power of the state to exact punishment on those who fail to convert and conform to your superior moral standards. Got it.

  • Dave G.

    It sounds like that’s the same standard for which your worldview is satisfied. And I’m sure you think there should be restrictions on moral behavior. I have a hard time believing you think incest, polygamy and pedophilia should all be normalized and made legal (with further legal repercussions for those who fail to affirm and agree with those particular expressions of human freedom). Don’t say anything about consenting adults, by the way. That, too, is a rather subjective (and historically speaking, recent) development. Now, if you are OK with all those things, then I’ll give you an A for consistency. Otherwise, we’re both on the same page, we simply disagree over where our standards should apply and where the desires of others should be limited.

  • D.M.S.

    Thanks. And you people think that I’m like him.
    Not.

  • D.M.S.

    Not one sexually active lgbtq person will enter the kingdom of heaven ever.
    All sexual activity is reserved for heterosexual married couple only.
    That’s what God/Jesus states in scripture many times.

  • D.M.S.

    I’m glad about that, too.

  • I’ll take my A, thank you. The standard in all human relationships is consent and mutual respect and enhancement. Age is a factor only to the degree that it is associated with increasing understanding and maturity; there’s nothing magical about a particular number. I don’t believe that any behavior should be “normalized”, in the sense that we engage in it without thought and care; all relationships need to be undertaken with that same thought and care on the part of all concerned. While we can’t remove the element of power differentials from relationships, hopefully we can keep its influence minimal. Mutual respect can go a long way toward that end.

    How is all this so difficult? What conceivable benefit to society is conveyed by putting people into labeled little boxes and then rigidly constraining the people in those boxes to behave only in limited ways? Only those deeply afraid of their own freedom benefit from a society without choices.

  • You don’t believe in predestination? Well, maybe there is hope for you yet! Actually, as long as you’re willing to forgo burning people at the stake for disagreeing with you, you still have a shot at becoming a civilized human being!

  • D.M.S.

    I’m completely against the death penalty.

  • And you’re perfectly comfortable with denying the basic human consolations of intimacy and sex to a substantial portion of the the population, based on nothing more than your reading of an old book? There are enormous numbers of people for whom being part of a “heterosexual married couple” is not a possibility, for many social and economic reasons as well as affectional preferences. I guess I was wrong that you might have potential for growth into a human being. What a cruel person you are! And what a cruel god you worship!

  • But you’re fine with condemning people to a slow living death through lack of human contact. Not much of a mercy, as far as I can see!

  • TS (unami)

    No sir, Jesus never said a word against LGBT people. Not once.

    He had *plenty* to say about divorce, however. Why don’t you vent against your divorced and remarried friends instead?

  • Bones

    No….you are free to hate and scream hate at anyone you want.

    You are not free to deny people their civil rights because they don’t live up to your superior morality.

    Got it?

  • Bones

    And another one bites the dust….and another one’s gone….and another one’s gone……and another one’s gone…..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE

  • D.M.S.

    God/Jesus comes before any human contact.
    God/Jesus only allows sexual contact between one woman married to one man only.
    All other sexual contact is a sin.

  • D.M.S.

    He is the only God of this universe, Yahweh and Yeshua.
    Your god is satan by what you worship.
    Repent of your sins soon.
    Praise the Lord.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    God/Jesus comes before any human contact. An autoerotic deity. Who knew?

  • Bones

    Gee that quickly changed to what people do with their sex organs….

  • How is it to the advantage of God – or you – to deny probably at least a third of His creatures at any one time the basic comfort and pleasure of sex? How is His life made better by the suffering of others? Has He ever explained the answers to these questions to you explicitly? I’d be fascinated by the answers.

  • Bones

    “we welcomed all people. ”

    Everyone says that now…but it really means we welcome you to sit and shut up while we tell you what you’re like…..

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/137d2b99a576d1aadd0d58ad553d6d625f67eaa8fb0ed93d360e6eb945796535.jpg

  • Tim

    Yes, and unfortunately most of those people are in the church.

  • Matthew

    Thanks ever so much for sharing a piece of your journey JD Eveland.

    You bring up some good points — most I hadn´t even thought of myself actually.

    I´m wondering if part of the problem is that if we dismiss Israel´s story and God as pure fantasy when weighed against the other philosophies and religions of the world, or if we simply dismiss all philosophies and religions point blank, are we then of course left only with your very good questions? Maybe so.

    I suppose if Israel´s story and God are in fact above and beyond all other religious and philosophical stories, then one can basically understand how we get from intelligent creator, to sin, to the law, to the need for redemption, to Jesus Christ, etc. Personally, I tend to think the Judeo-Christian story is a very consistent one from beginning to end, however I must admit that the story itself (regardless of its ability to be intellectually consistent) is truly unbelievable from a human perspective.

    I think, also, the biblical narrative as well as church tradition which has “dogmatized” (is that even a word :-)?) much of that narrative, if true, really cuts against the grain of our human design and even our human expectations. I mean who really likes being called a sinner? Who really wants to bow to a higher moral authority? I suspect a lot of people don´t. Many people see this religious “stuff” as simply the smothering of human potential and freedom — and I get that. However, a fish is constrained by water, but it´s that very constraint that makes the fish flourish — no?

    Thanks again for sharing. I really appreciate it.

  • Dave G.

    No, the idea that the standard in all human relationships is consent and mutual respect and enhancement is, itself, a recent development. There have been many models of human relationships over the eons. This particular one is relatively late on the stage, and it could easily fade away just as quickly.

    It’s good that you don’t think any behavior should be normalized. That puts you in the bulk of humanity known as ‘the good guys.’ However, we then begin to break down as to just what behaviors should be normalized. Currently, we’ve decided that where two (and increasingly, or more) consenting adults are happy, that’s fine and they should be able to do whatever they want relationship-wise.

    So be it. For now, that’s the trend. Nonetheless, in a stunning reversal, movements like gay rights that once lived off of the post-war definition of liberal society: live and let live, agree to disagree, moral relativity and who’s to say what’s normal, are now the ones using the power of the state to demand that they be accepted and affirmed, if not in conscience, then at least in action. And of course, that’s the big test of freedom. Anyone can say ‘you’re free to think what you want.’ You could think what you wanted in the USSR. But actually acting on what you thought? That was a different kettle of fish. And so it seems now. No longer do we talk of live and let live. We speak of morality with the same assurance that we used to condemn Communism with.

  • Matthew

    So should there be no standards imposed at all — neither from the left nor from the right?

  • Dave G.

    Oh, I don’t hate. Unless you define hate as anything that doesn’t conform 100% to your thinking.

    But you may do as you like. I just don’t want you to use the state to punish those who dare not conform 100% to your thinking.

  • What’s wrong with being new? Does that make it wrong? For a thousand years, the moral standard for treating women involved slavery and genital mutilation. Does that make it beneficial? It’s “stood the test of time”, one might say.

    Don’t get me wrong. I said that no behavior should be “normalized” in the sense that it’s not examined and considered. Any relationship found to be based on good principles of moral conduct ought to be accepted.

    Re: the “good old days”. Did you ever see “The Boys in the Band”? A 1968 play and 1970 movie, it depicted the kind of lives lived in NY by a group of gay men, warped and twisted by the vicious oppression they lived under. Did you know that in NY in those days, a gay man could be arrested for being in the same room with another gay man? Living in shadows; constantly afraid of exposure and ruin – sounds pretty good to you, eh? Pardon us if we will not go back to living such lives in future!

  • bthomas

    Not a problem! However, if there is genuine disagreement as to the meaning or purpose, Google is our friend. One need only do a search.

  • Dave G.

    No, haven’t seen the movie/play. Did you know the 1950s Jimmy Stewart film ‘Bell, Book and Candle’ (which also inspired the 60s TV show Bewitched), was based on a play that was written about the NY gay underground? Even then, the issue was being addressed.

    And of course, it was in response to the abuse and oppression that the gay rights movement was born. Born based upon two crucial pillars: one, that homosexuality was not some biological anomaly, some mental disorder, but purely a basis of preference, no different than what topping one prefers on a pizza pie. The other was that since morality and normal were relative, who’s to say what is right or wrong. Live and let live, agree to disagree, tolerate, inclusion, diversity.

    Of course AIDS ended the whole ‘who’s to say what’s normal, it’s just our preference.’ If you remember that time, you’ll remember that almost overnight, it suddenly became ‘born this way.’ Though the trick was saying in this case, a physiological predisposition negated any moral or subjective appraisal, while other tendencies also linked to physiological predisposition (alcoholism, pedophilia) did not suddenly render those particular tendencies morally neutral. Nonetheless, it was achieved rather speedily.

    And now, we’re seeing the end to the second pillar, as live and let live and agree to disagree are no longer on the table. There is only one allowable approach to the issue of LGBTQ, and any publicly declared deviation will result in, well, treatment that would been reserved for someone actually promoting gay rights back in the 1950s, when Bell, Book and Candle was produced.

    That’s usually how ‘new’ works in history. Most change, most new, is of course not good. Most is irrelevant in the long term. Fads or brief changes that burn bright and then fizzle. Some, of course, end up being horribly bad. We tend to celebrate the minority good changes. But that can give us the false impression that just because something is new, soddenly it must be the way it must be, since it must be good.

    And, by my lights, a movement that once said complete tolerance and diversity are the meat and drink of a free, enlightened society, that now endorses the very tactics it once said are antithetical to a free and enlightened society, might be the first clue that this particular ‘new change’ might not end up as positive as we hope.

  • Bones

    Dude, I’ve heard Christians wish they could kill gay people. Christians preach every Sunday about how evil gay people are.

    And they’re still walking the street and no one’s punished them.

    Your problem, is you think people can deny others civil rights based on your own beliefs.

    You can’t.

    That’s the way its been since the black civil rights movement.

  • Bones

    What a bizarre post…lamenting the fact that gay people are no longer in the closet…which is none of his business…If only we could go back to the days of chemically castrating, lobotomising and electrically torturing gay people.

    and then he says he doesn’t hate gay people….

    Your type are coming to an end….you’ll be gone within a generation….then we will be an enlightened and free society.

    And f*** off with your comments about rights…you grub.

  • IconoclastTwo

    No, it isn’t, because it’s totally disastrous for everyone else and Christians barely even agree among each other. It guarantees disaster.

    By the way, Josh, do you think that D.M.S. is acting is a Christian manner based on what he’s saying right here and now?

  • Bones

    Yes….his standard….back to criminalising gays.

    Because that’s the way it’s always been.

  • Bones

    In a democracy it’s about majority – not what you want….

    So bad luck for you…

    You had it good for a couple of thousand years where you could torture and kill gay people and deny them their basic rights….that time has passed.

  • Bones

    Aaah yes, the Christian taliban in action.

  • Dave G.

    Stay out of mature discussions. JD appears to be debating in good faith, even if we disagree. Your childish rants about people not thinking the way you demand they think are fine for your little thread , but let mature adults continue over here. Back to the card table with you.

  • Dave G.

    Then we shouldn’t have gay marriage since, up until the last few years, the majority didn’t want gay marriage. So how can that be?

  • Dave G.

    No, get married all you want. Just allow others to not think the way you demand they think. Simple.

  • Matthew

    I think the deeper issue (and question) here is just what standards trump all other standards?

    Many see biblical standards and morality (as interpreted by some) to be archaic and thus are in favor of more enlightened and progressive rules (for lack of a better word) of morality. Others bark at the progressive and liberal social movements. Who wins?

    In fairness, from the posts I´ve seen from Dave G., I don´t think he wants to return to criminalising gays. What I´m reading is someone who is concerned that the progressives and the left are becoming just as tyrannical (so to speak) as the right in trying to legislate people into thinking a certain way.

    I´m not saying I believe this myself, I´m simply trying to state what I think is the heart of Dave G.´s argument.

  • otrotierra

    Yep. He just described U.S. white evangelicals still following Trump (81%).

  • D.M.S.

    For some strange reason our world believes that everything revolves around sex and pleasure. It doesn’t. Christ Jesus great love for all of mankind died on the cross for the entire world’s sins.
    Our lives are to serve and worship Him.
    Most of this world only want to serve and worship themselves and that will be mankinds entire downfall.
    We are all to humble ourselves before the Lord God and repent of our sins, and serve Christ Jesus.
    Praise the Lord.

  • D.M.S.

    We are to all have human contact under loving and serving Christ Jesus.

  • D.M.S.

    Yes to your first question.
    We are not here on this earth to to serve our own pleasure, pride, lust, and greed.
    We’re were put here on this earth to serve our Lord Christ Jesus.
    The New Christian Testament tells all of us how to serve our Lord Christ Jesus.
    Praise the Lord.

  • Jim Deferio

    ISLAM IS A TERRORIST RELIGION – THE QUR’AN GIVES THE MARCHING ORDERS TO MUSLIMS AROUND THE WORLD
    When Muslims engage in terrorism, rape, misogyny and lying they are being obedient to the most unholy Qur’an – they are being Muslims through and through! The tenets of the Islamic religion and ideology are the Qur’an (main source), the Hadiths and the fatwas.

    Below I have taken the time to type out just some of the MANY verses in the most unholy qur’an that show the true nature of Islam. And remember, the Qur’an is a small book – smaller than the Christian New Testament which condemns anyone who does what Muslims do and condemns them as a hypocrite and someone who will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

    SURAH 2:216
    “Fighting is obligatory for you, as much as you dislike it.”

    SURAH 2:217
    “Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed.”

    SURAH 3:12
    “Say to the unbelievers: ‘You shall be overthrown and driven into Hell – an evil resting place.'”

    SURAH 3:15
    “We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers.”

    SURAH 3:158-159
    “If you should die or be slain in the cause of Allah, His forgiveness and His mercy would surely be better than all the riches they amass.” (see also verse 195)

    SURAH 4:3
    This says that men are permitted slave girls and up to four wives at one time.

    SURAH 4:11
    “A male shall inherit twice as much as a female.”

    SURAH 4:34
    “Men have authority over women because Allah has made one superior to the other.”
    It also says that disobedient wives should be beaten and sent to bed.

    SURAH 4:74-83
    These verses calls for fighting against “infidels”.

    SURAH 5:17
    “Unbelievers are those who declare: ‘God is the Messiah, the Son of Mary.’ (see also 5:72-73)

    SURAH 5:43
    Jews are identified as not true believers.

    SURAH 5:51
    “Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians as your friends. They are friends with one another.”

    SURAH 5:57
    “Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels and those who were given the Book before you” (i.e. the Jews and the Christians).

    SURAH 5:60
    The most unholy Qur’an here claims that their “allah” thingy has transformed some Jews and Christians into apes and pigs.

    SURAH 8:7
    “rout the unbelievers”

    SURAH 8:12-13
    These two verses calls for the beheading of infidels/unbelievers and the cutting off of their finger tips if they resist Muhammad and this allah thingy.

    SURAH 8:39
    “Make war on them (i.e. the unbelievers) until idolatry shall cease and Allah’s religion shall reign supreme.”

    SURAH 8:59-60
    These verses orders Muslims to pursue “unbelievers” and to strike terror in them.

    SURAH 9:5
    “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them.”

    SURAH 9:12 & 14
    “make war on the leaders of unbelief”
    “make war on them”

    SURAH 9:29
    “Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given…”

    SURAH 9:39
    “If you don’t go to war, He (i.e. this allah thingy) will punish you sternly.”

    SURAH 9:73
    “Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them.”

    SURAH 9:123
    “Believers, make war on the infidels (i.e. “unbelievers”) who dwell around you.”
    There’s more.
    The most unholy Qur’an defines “unbelievers” and “idolaters” this way:

    SURAH 5:17 & 72 “Unbelievers (i.e. idolaters & infidels) are those who say: ‘God is the Messiah, the Son of Mary.”

    SURAH 5:73 “Unbelievers are those who say: God is one of three”

    LYING IS CONDONED AND PRACTICED IN ISLAM – IT IS CALLED TAQIYYA.
    See Surah 3:28 and 16:106 and 40:28
    Abu Darda, one of Muhammad’s companions, said, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.”

    Al-Hasan, one of Muhammad’s companions, said, “Taqiyya is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.”

    Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir, commenting on the doctrine of al taqiyya in Surah 3:28 said, In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship outwardly but never inwardly.”

    THE MUSLIM PARADISE IS FULL OF A SMORGASBORD OF FOOD, GINGER-FLAVORED WATER, DARK-EYED NYMPHOMANIACS CALLED “HOURIS” AND LITTLE BOYS!!!
    See:
    Surah 37:48
    Surah 44:52
    Surah 52:13-20
    Surah 52:22-24
    Surah 55:32
    Surah 56:17-20
    Surah 56:20 & 28
    Surah 76:19-20
    Surah 78:31 (“high-bosomed maidens”, lol)

    There is much more unholy and insane things in the terrorist manual called the Qur’an but this should suffice to show how wicked of a religion and ideology Islam is. Of course, 1,400 years of Islamic jihad throughout the world is evidence enough.

    *The Qur’an as translated into English by N.J. Dawood.
    I have also consulted with “The Qur’an” as translated into English by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. This copy of the Qur’an was given to me by Muslims in Washington DC.

    Watch, the anti-semites will probably respond to this by trying to disparage the Bible by taking things from the Old testament (the TANAKH, the Jewish Scriptures) and wresting them from the greater context to justify their hatred of Jews.

  • Jim Deferio

    I have also consulted with “The Qur’an” as translated into English by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. This copy of the Qur’an was given to me by Muslims in Washington DC.

    Watch, the anti-semites will probably respond to this by trying to disparage the Bible by taking things from the Old testament (the TANAKH, the Jewish Scriptures) and wresting them from the greater context to justify their hatred of Jews.

  • IconoclastTwo

    It’s totally unfair to act as if he actually meant what he said! How dare you!

  • IconoclastTwo

    Some of the people I’ve seen take what positive messages offered by Christianity the most seriously were both Christians and gay.

  • Dave G.

    So why didn’t majority matter when the majority didn’t support gay marriage?

  • Jim Deferio

    You are 100% correct. Patheos should be renamed PATHOS as it is full of the disease of sin.
    Oh, they will never attack Muslims because these cowards are afraid to death of Muslims. I have seen them make excuses for the murderous religion & ideology of Islam! Some of these people are wolves in sheep’s clothing but most tend to be wolves in full wolf garb – the kind who don’t mess with the grizzly bear (i.e. Islam).

  • IconoclastTwo

    “Christians are perfected Jews.”
    Ann Coulter

    How is that not an anti-Semitic statement?

  • AtticusOSullivan

    To paraphrase Capt. Kirk, why does god need service or worship?

  • D.M.S.

    You use a fictious character, for your fictious mind.
    Satan has all of you right where he wants you.
    To defy God/Jesus our only hope for salvation on this earth.
    Take care.

  • D.M.S.

    I Thank you, for your support. My brother in Christ Jesus.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    So why does god need service or worship?

  • D.M.S.

    That’s left up to God/Jesus by our own actions.
    We of this earth get to choose where we end up.
    It’s either heaven or hell.
    By our choices we choose where we will end up at the end of this life.
    It’s our choice!

  • D.M.S.

    Sorry, I looked on the wrong site.

  • D.M.S.

    NOT for long. I’m sure the Lord God will send someone else here pretty soon, thank the good Lord.
    If you’re blessed it might be me again.
    So long….

  • AtticusOSullivan

    My question was “If you didn’t mean that god/jesus will kill people why did you say “Killing people is not what christians are supposed to do. That’s left up to god/jesus”?”
    If you don’t want to answer the question, just say so. Don’t pretend I asked you anything else.

  • D.M.S.

    When you and your colleagues come to the realization that Christ Jesus is GOD. John 10:30.
    Christ Jesus also made that statement in Leviticus 18:22.

  • TS (unami)

    I’m a Christian, DMS. Jesus loves us and you equally.

  • Ron McPherson

    As a Christian, I largely frown upon when others attempt to use a particular religion’s book to try and discredit that religion in the eyes of others for several reasons:

    1) Other religions can pull the very same stunt by using the Bible against Christians (there are myriad ways to do it, particularly in the OT)

    2) It unfairly labels all persons of that particular religion as endorsing everything in their book (again, anyone can easily turn the tables on us by doing the very same thing; i.e. it’s like saying Christians believe that illegitimate children should be prohibited from worshipping in our assemblies because that’s what Deuteronomy commands, or being in favor of killing adulterers)

    3) It comes across as hypocrisy when Christians are allowed to interpret our ‘holy’ book within its proper historical and cultural setting, but do not afford other religions that very same right

    4) It unfairly stokes the flames of fear, bigotry and hate when lumping any religion’s violent extremist adherents in with the majority who are not that way (think vitriolic Westboro here, or misguided but perhaps well-meaning spiritual abusers who walk around with signs saying CERTAIN TYPES of sinners will burn).

    The message of Jesus focused on love, mercy, compassion, peace, and forgiveness. The only time he criticized other’s religion is when proponents of that religion (e.g. scribes, Pharisees, etc) claimed he was violating God’s commandments by associating, loving, forgiving, healing and showing mercy to the sinners and outcasts. They hated him because he seemed to value people over the written law.

  • Jim Deferio

    I have met and personally know numerous MESSIANIC JEWS!!! The ist churches were all Jewish! Don’t you know anything about church history?
    There are at least 150 Messianic Jewish congregations in Israel today!

  • Matthew

    Is the heart of Islam love and forgiveness, Ron?

  • Ron McPherson

    I think one of that religion could better answer that than me.

  • D.M.S.

    Christian scripture states that God gives all life and that God takes all life.
    What we choose to do as humans on this earth while we are alive. Dictates whether we end up in heaven or in hell.
    That’s the best explanation that I can give all of you.
    Take care.

  • D.M.S.

    Galations 1:9.

  • D.M.S.

    Galations 3:29.

  • Jim Deferio

    You need to read the Bible!
    Jesus said,
    “The world cannot hate you but it hates Me because I testify of it that it’s works are evil.” (John 7:7)

    Jesus said that unless YOU repent you will perish (Luke 13:1-5).

    Jesus Christ called His own disciples evil and when peter opposed him as recorded in Matthew chapter 16, Jesus called him “Satan”.

    Jesus also said of people in general that they were an adulterous and wicked generation.

    The TENETS of the Christian faith is the New Testament. real Christians read, obey and follow the NT.

    The TENETS of Islam are the Qur’an (which I have read carefully from cover to cover), the Hadiths (which I have read many things in the Hadiths) and fatwas.

    Muslims who are faithful to Islamic teaching are TERRORISTS, even the so-called moderate ones who practice taqiyya while a minority or while lacking power to take control. Moderate Islam is the seedbed and garden for the so-called terrorist variety.

    I dare you to take things from the Old Testament and try to use them against Christians you anti-semitic and hate-filled false teacher.

    You are truly desperate to name the Westboro people as an example of Christians. The Bible condemns them as foul-mouthed hypocrites. I verbally opposed them when I encountered them one year in NYC because they are NOT Christians. How do I know they are not Christians? Because I have the NT to compare their works by.

    PSALM 97:10
    “You who love the LORD,
    Hate evil!”

    ROMANS 12:9
    “Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.”

    HOSEA 15a
    “Hate evil, love good;”

  • D.M.S.

    Christian scripture states:
    That GOD gives all life and that GOD takes all life.
    We humans on this earth while we are alive get to choose where we go at the end of our lives
    and that is either heaven or hell.
    It’s our choice where we end up.
    There’s your explanation, I hope it will do.
    Take care.

  • D.M.S.

    Amen….

  • Jim Deferio

    Dude, Islam is NOT an Abrahamic faith. I don’t care what Muslims tell you. They are a cult based on the pagan Arab practices of the day and their qur’an is full of historical errors.

    Furthermore, both the Old Testament and the New Testament have detailed GENEALOGIES proving their direct blood connection with Abraham.

    It was Isaac who was the promised son. But like I said, there is NO evidence whatsoever to connect mohammedians with Abraham.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    So you do agree that god will kill the folks you christians dislike (and the ones you like, of course) even after saying “not”. You’re rather coy, aren’t you? It’s not attractive.

    You keep on repeating what you hope happens at the end of our lives but you still have yet to give me any reason to believe that your hopes are true.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    Your hopes are not an explanation. But thanks anyway.

  • D.M.S.

    Yes, I agree.
    It’s not a sin to be gay or lesbian.
    It is a sin to be a sexually active gay or lesbian.
    Do you understand the difference?

  • D.M.S.

    Is God/Jesus part of your taliban?
    He did make all of the Christian rules that Christians are to follow and live their lives for, did He not?

  • Ron McPherson

    Well I can see that one just flew right over your head.

  • D.M.S.

    Sorry, I didn’t think I was with stating that scripture, brother.

  • D.M.S.

    I keep stating the truth.
    You can accept the Lord Christ Jesus truth or not.
    It’s all of each persons choice.
    You either choose to accept God/Jesus;
    Or,
    The world:
    1 John 2:15-17.
    It’s all of our choices.
    Take care.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    You keep stating what you hope is the truth. I have no reason to believe in your hopes.

  • Jim Deferio

    Yeah, sorry for the mix up.

  • D.M.S.

    I KNOW what the TRUTH is.
    It’s GOD/JESUS.
    If you don’t want to accept that fact that is your choice.
    Goodbye.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    Don’t be impertinent. Of course I don’t accept the fact that you know what the truth is. You still have to show me that what you hope is true is in fact true.

  • @Ron McPherson What exactly is so nefarious about people who “…attempt to use a particular religion’s book to try and discredit that religion”? Are you saying we shouldn’t evaluate the merits of a religion in terms of its truth claims? Should we consider Hinduism as valid as Christianity? But that doesn’t work, because those belief systems are in conflict with each other. One says there is One God, the other says there are several hundred thousand gods. Since both of these premises cannot be true at once, one of them is false and should be pointed out as such to protect the uninformed. All religions are in conflict because of varying doctrines and histories. Out of all the hundreds of religions, only one is the most correct. There is a hierarchy of truth, and people of faith are called to defend the gospel (Philippians 1:7). You can’t very well defend the gospel while remaining silent when great hordes of unlearned people claim there are many paths to God. (Wrong! Read John 14:6.) In another point, your statement is misleading: “It unfairly stokes the flames of fear, bigotry and hate when lumping any religion’s violent extremist adherents in with the majority who are not that way.” No, it is perfectly fair to be cautious in our dealings with Muslims until we know who we’re dealing with. Islam’s own holy book preaches hate. (Someone in the comment thread here posted a score of violent quotes from the Quran, so please read them and consider my claim supported.) The “peaceful majority” of Muslims are not only reading a violent holy book, their leanings are irrelevant. Most of them are of low standing and have no means of cleaning up Islam. Most are silent about the violence of their extremist cousins. Like it or not, we are at war with Islam. Violence may beget violence, but so does passivity. Just ask residents of Boston, San Bernardino (and the list goes on…).

  • Jews, along with every other people, are guilty and in need of salvation. Christians are only “perfected” because of God’s grace, which gave Christ as an atonement. Orthodox Jews haven’t accepted Christ as the Messiah, so they are choosing to remain “imperfect.” Your beef is with God, who assigned Christ as the doorkeeper of Heaven.

  • Ron McPherson

    I don’t feel the need to bash another religion’s book in order to bolster the convictions of my faith in Christ. Jesus said others will know we are his followers by our love (John 13:35). Merely refraining from disrespecting another’s religion does not equate to one’s acceptance of their claims. I have a high regard for scripture, but when I start throwing rocks at another religion’s book, then they can pick up those same rocks and throw it back at us. Since I won’t join his attacks on Islam and instead point out areas where others could attack our book, Jim thinks that makes me anti Semitic, a false teacher and oddly enough, hate filled.

  • I know it’s trendy to genuflect to diversity and all, but I don’t see the point in mincing words about Muslims. I would never say Muslims are “inferior,” just that so many of them are misusing their God-given passion and energy, often in terribly violent ways.

  • IconoclastTwo

    No, my beef is with a set of false religious views that sound more like something you’d expect to hear the Borg say.

  • IconoclastTwo

    I have no Taliban and I need no god-especially not yours.

  • D.M.S.

    You’ve made your choice.
    I hope someday that you accept Christ Jesus as your Savoir and repent.
    Take care.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “Are you saying we shouldn’t evaluate the merits of a religion in terms of its truth claims?”

    I’m saying that you live in a glass McMansion as far as validity of truth claims is concerned but you still want to cast stones.

  • IconoclastTwo

    Do you think the US should’ve killed all of those people ostensibly to get Osama bin Laden for 9/11?

  • IconoclastTwo

    Thank you for perfectly illustrating the bile-pumping heart of your rotten strain of the religion: namely the view that unless people are connected to the right tribe of nomads 5000 years ago if they even existed at all they’re basically worthless in the here and now.

  • IconoclastTwo

    Why do they have to be Messianic Jews for them to be valuable to you? See above.

    Even this isn’t really valuing _them_ for _them_. It’s valuing them only to the extent that they fit into your ideology and for no other reason.

  • D.M.S.

    There is no such thing as a sexually active Christian.
    Unless they’re in a heterosexual marriage only.
    That is the only marriage that God/Jesus accept.

  • TS (unami)

    Your sect may not marry gay couples, but then again, your branch of Christianity (or whatever you are) does *not* speak for either God or the rest of Christendom.

    Our marriage was a sacrament in the church and God was fully present. He loves and approves of our marriage, even if you do not.

    Have a good night.
    Be well.

  • D.M.S.

    Your church is a heresy against God/Jesus.
    And they ( your church ) will be condemned by God/Jesus right along with the lgbtq fascist.
    Repent of your sins to the real Christ Jesus before its to late to do so.
    Take care, neighbors.

  • TS (unami)

    You have the audacity to slander me, my marriage, my church, my faith, my God and THEN say, “take care, neighbors”?!?

    You obviously have forgotten what Christ Himself told us.

    May God have mercy on your hard little callous heart.

  • IconoclastTwo

    “Sorry it took me a little while to respond Iconoclast:”

    That’s not a problem. Let’s start with the point where I think we’d agree before moving into less clear territory:


    So about Jim Deferio:
    No, he’s not a rep for this group of people–he’s an ass.
    DMS, he’s a coy ass.”

    I’ll agree with your assessments of them because I share your low opinion of them.

    As for whether they’re representative of other people or not…

    “And you might have “heard from people who think like them before”, but I’m willing to bet it wasn’t a large crowd–nor do I see any disqus forums in which writers willing to write such vitriol as “what you’ve heard of
    before” generating 950 comments–or 100 for that matter.”

    I’ve been having these types of arguments in a lot of other places besides Disqus and for that matter elsewhere long before Disqus existed. I’ll grant that I don’t go into hardcore conservative or fundamentalist sites in order to pick fights with them (a nicety that isn’t really reciprocated). However, what I absolutely have seen is people who are conservative Christians who absolutely are willing to be as vitriolic as Corey and a lot of other people are describing/have described/you’re seeing here.

    My point is that these should hardly be seen as isolated behaviors as compared to representations of ideological/moral flaws. I’ll also add that although I’ve seen people who were secular (who’d best fall into the spectrum of the alt-right/neofascist) express homophobic sentiments the overwhelming majority of the time I’ve seen people do this they’ve self-identified as Christians, and claimed that their views were based upon the bible.

    I deleted the parts with regards to who you’d consider leaders of the evangelical movement (or its current unified/ununified state) not because I agree or disagree with you but because I’m simply not familiar enough with most of them to comment for or against them either way. I’ll have to research what they’ve said and done and then form a conclusion based on that.

    However, as far as Jerry Falwell (Jr.) is concerned I can absolutely point to one group of people that do listen to him besides his congregation: the Republican party.

    “In a January 2016 speaking appearance at evangelical Liberty University, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump memorably flubbed a biblical reference and ventured, “There’s nothing like it, the Bible.” Despite an instantaneous round of Twitter eye-rolling, Trump soon picked up the endorsement of Liberty’s president, Jerry Falwell Jr. And on Saturday, Trump will return to Lynchburg, Virginia, as the first sitting president since George H.W. Bush to give the school’s commencement address.

    The son of Jerry Falwell Sr.—the Moral Majority firebrand and Liberty founder who once hoped for an end to public education and blamed abortion providers, feminists, and gay rights supporters for secularizing the nation and paving the way for 9/11—Falwell Jr. has long been outspoken in his support of Trump. Way back in 2012, he brought Trump to campus to give a convocation speech and praised him as “one of the most influential political leaders in the US”—the person who’d “single-handedly forced President Obama to release his birth certificate.”

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/05/jerry-falwell-jr-liberty-university-political-moments/

    The point I’m making with this article is that I hardly think that these kinds of relationships are isolated, or for that matter really good for much of anyone beyond the super-wealthy.

  • D.M.S.

    Jesus states in scripture that everyone are our neighbor(s).
    Christian scripture states exactly what a marriage is and its heterosexual only.
    The lgbtq fascist of this world choose to defy Christian scripture and God/Jesus.
    And make their own god that approves of their chosen Sinfilled lives.
    Now you fascist have taken over a church that loves your money more than God/Jesus.
    We true Christians know how you lgbtq fascist spell God/Jesus:
    M-O-N-E-Y!
    Your church will go to hell right along with all of the unrepentant sinners of this world.
    Matter a fact your church is one of the 6 evil churches stated in the first three (3) chapters of the book of Revelation.
    You’re welcome to read about it in your bible.
    That is if it actually is a true Christian bible.
    Or do you have the new queen james bible that’s takes all of your lgbtq sins out of it so you people don’t have to read how sinful all of you are.
    Take care, neighbors
    and repent soon.

  • TS (unami)

    Your hate betrays your true nature.
    Goodbye.

  • D.M.S.

    Yes. In your master satans church.

  • D.M.S.

    The Christian bible is
    ” EXACTLY ” the word(s) of ” GOD/JESUS.
    You blasphemy the word(s) of God/Jesus.

  • Bones

    Birds of a feather flock together.

    In this case two morons.

  • Bones

    The first Christians worshipped in the synagogues with other Jews.

    They were NOT a messianic Jewish congregation.

    Go learn about church history.

  • Matthew

    I´m not sure what that has to do with my initial question. Can you clarify?

  • Matthew

    I hope someone does. It would be good to hear a reliable Muslim voice here on the forum speak about the true essence of Islam.

  • Tim

    Sorry; if you understood your own bible, you would note that the words in it actually say that Jesus is the word of God. Nowhere does it say that it is the word of God.

  • Tim

    I think you’d best have a look in the mirror on that one. What we project onto other people says more about us than them.

  • D.M.S.

    I stand by that statement. It is your master satans church.

  • D.M.S.

    I’ll be more than happy to be a moron for God/Jesus.
    Hallelujah!

  • D.M.S.

    Sorry if you don’t understand that Jesus is God.
    The Christian bible is the word(s) of God/Jesus.
    Every true Christian believes that to be true.
    Praise the Lord.

  • David Cromie

    Define a ‘true christian’.

    Where is your irrefutable evidence for the existence of any supernatural entity, whatsoever?

  • David Cromie

    You still have not provided the irrefutable evidence for the existence of any supernatural entities! So, enough of the chorister BS.

  • David Cromie

    So why do you act as though you are?

  • David Cromie

    You must be living with a severe case of ‘housemaid’s knee’, and suffering great disappointment that prayer, even fervent prayer, is so useless!

  • expsy

    Which version would that be? There are over 1500 versions. They have been translated from translations from dead languages nobody fully understands. So how can you be sure your gods words were translated correctly?

  • David Cromie

    Does ‘gawd’ do brain transplants?

  • expsy

    Prove there is a god. I bet you can’t.

  • expsy

    LGBT people are no better and no worse than you.

  • expsy

    You do know fascists are extreme right wing don’t you?

  • expsy

    Wrong.

  • expsy

    Not a fact.

  • D.M.S.

    Get it thru your thick head I’m not going to give you what you want. You’re welcome to ask 2000+ more time and you’ll get the same answer.

  • D.M.S.

    Yes there is an American taliban and yes they want Christians to conform to their way of Sinfilled life.

  • David Cromie

    “We true Christians know…”, just as fundamentalist ‘true’ Muslims know that ISIS, and the Caliphate are the will of Allah! When do you expect your fascist theocracy to be instituted? Will your totalitarian sect be in charge (there will be a lot of competition for the role!)?

  • David Cromie

    Those atrocities were perpetrated by ‘true, bible thumping, christians’, like yourself!

  • David Cromie

    If you cannot justify your ‘opinions’ and beliefs, then you are talking deluded BS!

  • D.M.S.

    I’ve already figured that out. Crummy just keeps harassing me for an answer to his question. An answer he’s not going to get.

  • D.M.S.

    Anyone who believes that this universe happened by chance is a fool.
    There cannot be any other answer other than a superior being.
    But the really good part is the ones who don’t believe in God/Jesus can’t prove that He doesn’t exist.

  • expsy

    The reason they cannot prove he does not exist is because it is impossible to prove a negative. Thus your answer is moot.

    The statement “Anyone who believes that this universe happened by chance is a fool.
    There cannot be any other answer other than a superior being.” is also highly incorrect.

    There are many highly intelligent men that do not believe a superior being, whatever that is, made the universe.

    The Big Bang Theory seems the most plausible explanation and there are a multitude of data to support this theory. The big Bang Theory does not postulate the universe appeared by chance. It postulates there are sound reason show it came about. There is zero data to support your theory.

  • D.M.S.

    They are also allowed their own opinion.
    But I haven’t found out yet why it bothers people that I believe in God/Jesus.
    I’m not harming anyone with my belief.

  • D.M.S.

    ive been blocked a few times and I’ll probably be blocked a few more times.
    Even if I don’t agree with how a person believes, I will not block them.
    Take care.

  • D.M.S.

    So what. And how would you know that I believe the same way that they do.
    For instance even though I believe that you hate me, I want no harm done to you in anyway.
    No one win by killing people who don’t agree wth you and your ideals.
    Take care, neighbor.

  • IconoclastTwo

    Yes. I’ll also say that I’m not a Muslim.

    With that stated, I’ll explain further:

    1) Implicitly (or explicitly) I see a lot of people taking Islam to task for not having a heart of love and forgiveness.

    2) At the same time what was loving or forgiving about a lot of Christians supporting military efforts to catch and kill Osama bin Laden? I will grant, of course, that all Christians did not support this or what I will bring up in a second. What was loving or forgiving about a lot of Christians supporting the invasion of Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 at all and a nation that the United States ravaged for decades on end both before and after the war, up to and including obvious and undeniable use of torture? The only people that these same types of Christians have forgiven were the perpetrators, not the victims.

    My underlying point is that I think that a lot of Christians want to take Islam to task as if it’s *specifically* and *exclusively* pathological-but they are unwilling to look at a lot of the things they do right here in front of everyone that are in no way loving or forgiving-namely their hatred of (and contempt for) the poor, their willingness to embrace neoconservative realpolitik and capitalism, their homophobia, their insensitivity to the plight of black people (who are also overwhelmingly Christian) who are being oppressed by American society, et cetera.

  • expsy

    It does not bother me in the least while you keep it to yourself. I am firmly of the opinion that anyone can believe whatever they want providing it is not harming other people. However, when you start proselytizing to people who don’t want to hear it, that is when I object.

    Incidentally, the scientific opinion is backed by a multitude of hard data. That is how science works and that is why no scientist is trying to prove there is a god. there is no data.

  • D.M.S.

    With in the next 60 years.
    There won’t be any other competitors, because they will all be dead.
    Take care, neighbors.

  • IconoclastTwo

    So when the bible says that god stopped the sun so the ancient Hebrews could keep killing Canaanites did that actually happen or not to you?

  • TS (unami)

    It’s a figure of speech ;-)
    I’m trying to speak his language and be gracious to him.

  • IconoclastTwo

    …so you think that the theocracy that you advocate wouldn’t harm people? Theocracies always harm people arbitrarily.

  • Matthew

    Thanks so much.

    Truth be told, I´m really not taking anyone to task. I´m really confused about the Islamic religion, thus I asked an honest question from the heart. I have read parts of the Quran and have heard commentary from more moderate muslims as well as more conservative muslims. Of course there is all the negative commentary about Islam that comes from mainly conservative Christian corners that I too have heard. I´m really trying to see beyond all the caricatures and get at the very heart of Islam. What is Islam really?

    You are absolutely right about the negative things which have been done historically by the hands of some Christians. These things cannot be denied. That said, despite the actions of some, I still believe the very heart and soul of Christianity is love and forgiveness and I´m only wondering if such can also be said of Islam. The search continues …….

    Thanks again for the clarification IconoclastTwo.

    (Edited)

  • Tim

    I could say the same thing about your view. The truth is that when examined in detail linguistically and in cultural context, it is not anywhere near as straightforward as you think it is.

    A couple of good books that explore this issue are: Changing our Minds, by David Gushee, and God and the Gay Christian, by Matthew Vines.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    Matthew 5:22. By the way, your ignorance or incredulity is not a valid argument about the origin of the universe, if it in fact had a beginning.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    “So what.” That tells me all I need to know about you and your beliefs. Thanks. If there is a hell, I’ll see you there.

  • D.M.S.

    You’re welcome to your opinion.
    Take care, neighbors.

  • D.M.S.

    If your father had been convictedof being a mass rapist of women for, let’s say 20+ years. Like the trial going on against Bill Cosby.
    You being his son are you also to be blamed for his atrocities against women?

  • D.M.S.

    I don’t mind being deluded in your mind.
    Take care.

  • D.M.S.

    You’re the one with the deluded mind, with that statement.
    Take care, neighbors.

  • D.M.S.

    Christ Jesus reign, didn’t.

  • D.M.S.

    Loaded questions don’t get answered.
    Take care, neighbors.

  • IconoclastTwo

    To those who doubt the blog author’s statements please read this story:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/appeals-court-allows-worst-anti-lgbtq-law-ever-to-go-into-effect-in-mississippi_us_594cfad1e4b05c37bb75cc85?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

    “Mississippi’s HB 1523, the “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act,” signed into law by Gov. Phil Bryant in April of 2016 but put on hold by a federal judge, allows for the most far-reaching religious exemptions of any bill we’ve seen in the states. And it could eventually be the first big test of the Supreme Court’s newest justice, Neil Gorsuch, who has been a staunch defender of “religious liberty” and, by his own description, is in the mold of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, yet who has gay friends who claim he’s been misunderstood.

    The law allows for businesses and government employees to decline service to LGBT people, and that includes bakers, florists, county clerks and even someone working at the department of motor vehicles, based on religious beliefs. It allows for discrimination in housing and employment against same-sex couples or any individual within a same-sex couple. Businesses and government, under the law, can regulate where transgender people go to the bathroom. The law allows mental health professionals and doctors, nurses and clinics to turn away LGBT individuals. It also allows state-funded adoption agencies to turn away LGBT couples.

    The law could have a wide impact beyond LGBTQ people as well, allowing for broad discrimination against many people. According to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, under the law:

    a government clerk could refuse to issue a marriage license to a couple because one person had been previously divorced;
    a taxpayer-funded adoption agency could refuse to place a child with a happy and loving family because the parents lived together before they were married;
    a taxpayer-funded organization that provides shelter to kids who have suffered child abuse could turn away a pregnant teenager;
    a counseling group practice could refuse to see a mother and her teen who is experiencing severe depression because the woman is unmarried;
    a counselor could refuse to help an LGBT person who called a suicide hotline;
    a fertility clinic could refuse to treat a veteran and his partner because they are not married;
    a car rental agency could refuse to rent a car to a same-sex couple on their honeymoon; and
    a corporation could fire a woman for wearing pants.”

    This is all exactly what deserves derision and hatred when Christians act this way. Mississippi is one of the worst off states in the entire country-but the governor has time for this in order to please his Christian religious backers?

  • IconoclastTwo

    Those prayers more often than not weren’t answered either. If they did the world and especially “America” would look a lot different.

  • IconoclastTwo

    It’s not a loaded question when that’s actually in the bible.

    “Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, “O sun, stand still at Gibeon, And O moon in the valley of Aijalon.” 13So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.”

    Joshua 10:12-13

    http://biblehub.com/joshua/10-13.htm

    The only relevant responses to the question are whether this is in the bible or not or whether you believe it or not?

  • D.M.S.

    How would josh know?

  • D.M.S.

    No, they’re extreme left wing, I thought everyone knew that.

  • D.M.S.

    You are not my Christian brother in Christ Jesus.
    Everyone is not Gods children.
    Why is it when people read the Christian bible, they can’t comprehend that a lot of Christian scripture is directed at Christian brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus?

  • D.M.S.

    When a person tells me that they believe that they’re a Christian and they think that they are allowed to keep sinning everyday of their lives as as part of the lgbtq.
    It’s my job as a Christian to rebuke them, so that they will turn away from their sins against their Savior Christ Jesus.
    The really bad part is that their church is filled with just as much sin as they are and will be condemned more severely than they will be before God.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    So it’s only hellfire for you if you say “thou fool” to a christian brother? Also, why bother telling people to repent before they’ve been regenerated?

    Don’t forget though, your ignorance and incredulity are not valid arguments for anything.

  • SamHamilton

    Progressives tend towards letting people do what they want so long as it does not hurt others.

    Saying that progressive Christians only use the methods that conservative Christians use when people are trying to hurt other people doesn’t refute my argument. You’re just saying that supposedly extreme situations make supposedly extreme methods okay.

    That being said, it seems a little disingenuous to argue that the vast, coercive regulatory structure of our federal government (most of which has been created and supported by folks on the left) is only there to protect people from “hurting” others, unless you’re defining “hurt” so broadly as to make any regulatory action permissible. For example, do you consider the myriad wealth transfer programs that exist today supported by coercive taxation an example of the government keeping people from getting hurt?

  • expsy

    I guess you are the only one that knows it. Fascists are extreme right wing. Read Richard Evans trilogy on the subject. A seminal work by a well respected and accomplished historian. A total of approximately 3000 pages including references. Then you will understand why fascist are right wing.

  • SamHamilton

    Perhaps you should consider why this is true, and what exactly politically and theologically conservative Christians (although I don’t think that’s exactly the best term for them) want for society?

    I did consider why this is true. I said it’s not directed at non-conservative Christians because they’re not even in the same ballpark as the actual Taliban in the same way people don’t use the pejorative “Communist” when referring to people on the political right.

    And I agree that it’s not an apt comparison to refer to American progressives as communists because they’re so far apart, just like conservative Christians are leagues away from the Taliban. That’s my point – these words are slurs, rather than good descriptives.

  • SamHamilton

    Thanks for your response. I totally get how you can look at the writings of a lot of progressive Christians and see points of agreement. Presumably, that’s because you are also on the political left. But consider that there are non-Christians on the political right (and other places along the spectrum) who see eye to eye with politically conservative Christians on various issues as well (for example, see Julian Sanchez’ post agreeing with the right of florists and bakers to discriminate against gay weddings: http://www dot juliansanchez dot com/2014/02/27/discriminating-between-discriminations/). You don’t have to be a Christian to oppose abortion (see “ProLife Humanists”). And there are certainly plenty of non-Christians who agree with various Christians’ varied positions on global warming.

    I’m not sure why you see spending lots of money on political causes as anti-democratic or why you associate that action solely with politically conservative Christians. In the U.S., most political campaigns see massive spending regardless of the issue.

  • Ron McPherson

    Unclobber by Colby Martin is also very good, as well as Unfair by John Shore.

  • D.M.S.

    Thanks for the update it all sounds good to me.
    I’m going to vacation in Mississippi this fall, it sounds like a great place to get away from most of the nuts in this country.
    Take care, neighbors.

  • D.M.S.

    I believe it 100%.
    What ever God/Jesus decides to do in this world is fine with me.
    Take care, neighbors

  • IconoclastTwo

    You’ve certainly got a head start on the moron part of that.

  • IconoclastTwo

    So as far as you’re concerned the laws of physics don’t really exist….

  • D.M.S.

    I don’t care how you
    satanic catholics believe.
    There’s nothing on this earth that would get me to join that pagan cult.
    Take care, neighbors

  • IconoclastTwo

    “I don’t care how you satanic catholics believe.”

    Coming from you that’s rich….

  • D.M.S.

    I’m supposed to bow down to a man the ‘ great poop ‘
    You people are sick.
    Christ Jesus is our Lord and Savior only.
    Christ Jesus is who we Christians are to bow down too and serve.
    May God/Jesus bless you as well.

  • D.M.S.

    I’m supposed to believe what the liberals of this world consider fascist, lol.

  • D.M.S.

    Mankinds interpretations of this world and how much that they think that they know, lol,lol,lol,lol,lol.
    I can’t stop laughing.

  • A certain amount of that laughter ought to be reserved for the idea that regarding the fundamental laws of the Universe, all the scientific minds of the last couple of centuries have gotten it all wrong and some anonymous blogger on a minor discussion board has the real truth, derived from his personal faith in a 2000-year-old book and an almost unlimited contempt for anyone and anything that doesn’t wholeheartedly agree with him. Any nice little ho-hos for that proposition?

  • D.M.S.

    There is no place as purgatory and there never has been.
    The sick cult of the RCC found a real money making opportunity when they made up a place called purgatory.
    And took God’s power thru there doctrine away from Him.

  • D.M.S.

    Same answer…

  • D.M.S.

    In the very near future the lgbtq won’t even exist.
    Praise the Lord.

  • D.M.S.

    Our pleasures are not be sexual in the first place.
    Our pleasure is to serve our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus.
    God/Jesus allows us human being sexual pleasure in a heterosexual marriage only.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    So the only thing all the different sects of christianity have in common is the money making thing?

  • Ken

    you old fool

  • AtticusOSullivan

    What does jesus/god need with service?

  • IconoclastTwo

    When you realize how bitter and hateful he is (and I’d agree with you about that) also bear into mind that he thinks that it’s a great idea for laws to be changed in order to suit his definition of christianity…

  • IconoclastTwo

    I would rather spend eternity in hell if it existed than spend eternity with people who thought like you.

  • expsy

    It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. It has to do with the political ideology of fascism which is extreme right wing.

    As for not believing anything a liberal says, I thought you were a christian. Jesus Christ was the ultimate liberal.

    And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

    But whoever has this worlds goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?

    He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

    Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”

    “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.”

    “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

    Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

    But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?

  • IconoclastTwo

    “Thanks for your response.”

    You’re welcome.

    “I totally get how you can look at the writings of a lot of progressive Christians and see points of agreement. Presumably, that’s because you are also on the political left.”

    Yes, I’d call that a correct assessment.

    “But consider that there are non-Christians on the political right (and other places along the spectrum) who see eye to eye with politically conservative Christians on various issues as well (for example, see Julian Sanchez’ post agreeing with the right of florists and bakers to discriminate against gay weddings: http://www dot juliansanchez dot com/2014/02/27/discriminating-between-discriminations/). You don’t have to be a Christian to oppose abortion (see “ProLife Humanists”). And there are certainly plenty of non-Christians who agree with various Christians’ varied positions on global warming.”

    I think you’re probably right that these people exist (although I’m not particularly familiar with them) although I’d disagree with their positions as well. At the same time, there’s still kind of a central difference between the case that you’re sort of making for their argumentation and the behavior of the people that the blog author are characterizing, both as public figures and examples of such in the comments here, as “Christian Taliban”.

    That difference is that they’re still arguing their points from a perspective that doesn’t obligate people to necessarily share their religious beliefs. In comparison, again, what the fundamentalists that are being criticized here want is totally one sided.

    They want to use their position on religion as a guidepost for policy that affects everyone. However, they don’t want other people to really examine their religion accordingly in the same way that I could question, say, a secular skeptic of global warming and ask if they’re being paid by the fossil fuel industry, or manipulating the data, et cetera.

    They want obedience and respect from everyone else, but they don’t understand and don’t want to understand that other people have meaningful grievances against the society that they want to create. They don’t even understand why progressive christians would be angry at the for befouling the pool all the time, or why nonchristians and their intended victims would be angry at a religious ideology that does nothing but pathologize us.

    In short: they want a totally one-sided relationship politically and culturally that favors them, and only them, at everyone’s expense and they don’t really think anyone else has any right to fight back against this, even peacefully.

    “I’m not sure why you see spending lots of money on political causes as anti-democratic or why you associate that action solely with politically conservative Christians. In the U.S., most political campaigns see massive spending regardless of the issue.”

    1) Most of the time whoever spends the most money wins. Money doesn’t mean that someone is actually right.

    2) It’s anti-democratic because most people can’t afford to do it and at this point can barely even spend massive amounts of money even collectively in order to counter the much smaller super-rich people that have ludicrously and disastrously outsized political influence as a result. It’s part of the reason why single payer health care is not even remotely close to being discussed by either political party and the only ‘solution’ that the Republicans can put forward not only makes the original problem worse, but in the process further engorges the super-rich at everyone else’s expense.

  • JD

    You’de deny help to a gay kid on the verge of suicide???

    You; sir; are a disgustingly foul excuse for a human being.

  • JD

    In your dreams maybe.

  • D.M.S.

    Well first of all if actually new anything about the bible, you would know that it’s almost 6000 years old.
    Science only exist because of God/Jesus, He created science.

  • I know that the oldest extant manuscripts of even portions of the Bible date from perhaps 100 BCE. ,Almost all of the Christian parts of the Bible date from 100-300 CE. I presume you’re getting your “6000 year old” figure from the 17th century calculations of Archbishop Usher, who by adding up lots of numbers concluded that the world was created at 9 AM, Oct 23, 4004 BCE. No written records remain to support this contention; 4000 years (supposedly) of absolutely perfect recollection of events and oral retelling of same. Word for word perfect.

    Why would God create a science that let people come to a vast amount of conclusions about the natural world (which actually are accurate to ten or so decimal places, and support virtually all the technologies that you undoubtedly use to make your life easier than it was for illiterate camel drivers some thousands of years ago) so at variance with the ideas set forth in his presumably inerrant book? Is there some divine purpose to all this, or does He just have a nasty sense of humor? And ought you not reject all those un-divine technologies that are not based on Bible statements? If not, why not?

  • D.M.S.

    Really a pagan doctrine that has been around for almost 1600+ years, that have sent countless people to hell for adhering to that doctrine.
    And the RCC ignores the commandment of Deuteronomy 4:2. Every catholic building ( church ) that I have been in have at least a few pagan statues of what the RCC considers saints.
    And a likeness of what they think that our Lord Christ Jesus looked like, more than likely Christ Jesus is black. There’s going to be a whole lot racist that are going to be surprised.
    Are you a born again Christian? Because if you are scripture states that you are a saint. 1 Corinthians 1:2.

  • D.M.S.

    That child needs psychiatric help to let him know that he’s mentally ill in the thought of having sexual relations with another male. But no, our society wants to nurture him into believing that this vile disgusting sexual act is normal.
    Our liberal society is quite mentally ill.

  • D.M.S.

    God/Jesus did not create science for that purpose.
    The ruler of this earth did.
    Again you presume mankind’s history in all things. The Israelites had a bible before Christ Jesus appeared to the world in human form. That’s the bible that Christ Jesus argued with the Pharasees and rabbi’s of that time.
    Christ Jesus new it very well because He wrote it.
    I believe it’s referred to as the Torah.

  • D.M.S.

    Again all your beliefs are in the ultimate ignorance of mankind.
    Mine is not.
    Mankinds greed and pride will almost destroy this entire world very soon.

  • D.M.S.

    For what Christ Jesus did for all of us on the cross to take away all of Mankinds sins.
    And God/Jesus for creating all of mankind and all the creatures in, on and under the earth and all the creatures of the seas.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    So much for omnipotence then.

  • D.M.S.

    When are we to put other peoples gods before God/Jesus?

  • D.M.S.

    I know that. But the pagan world plans to legislate to force Christians to accept their sins. So we Christian are to just lay down and let this world take over, without trying to stop and or even slow down their satanic takeover of this world?

  • D.M.S.

    Who right?
    God/Jesus in Deuteronomy 18:22?
    Or.
    The american psychological association?

  • Ron McPherson

    Where did God ever say that homosexuality is a mental disorder?

  • Ron McPherson

    Who is asking you to ‘accept’ their sins?

  • Ron McPherson

    Nobody is asking you to do that so I don’t understand the question

  • D.M.S.

    I gave them over to a reprobate mind…,

  • Ron McPherson

    Lol. Reprobate doesn’t mean disorder

  • Ron McPherson

    You just ooze Jesus LOL

  • AtticusOSullivan

    Who cares. The important thing is to put persons before god/jesus every time.

  • JD

    Your beliefs causes harms to others than you need a new belief system. And that’s exactly what yours does; causes harm.

  • JD

    So you will turn your back ol on a suicidal gay teen.

    I stand by my earlier statement: you, sir, are a disgustingly foul excuse of a human being

  • IconoclastTwo

    He’s certainly oozing something…

  • Ron McPherson

    It boggles my mind how people professing Christ can appear so callous. Jesus literally preached love, mercy, and compassion. He defended those oppressed by others in the name of God. He defended the ‘outcasts’ against the religionists. He preached love and said others would know his disciples by the love they had, not by how loudly they rail over the ‘sins’ of others. I continue to be amazed.

  • D.M.S.

    You don’t…

  • D.M.S.

    Romans 1:28. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things that are not fitting. NKJV.
    Romans 1:28. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.
    KJV.
    I’ll be more than happy to finish what God stated about homosexuals in Romans 1:29-32.

  • D.M.S.

    Remember Satan minions ( demons ) are everywhere and they love disguising themselves as angels of light.

  • D.M.S.

    God/Jesus comes before every human being on the planet..,,

  • D.M.S.

    You understand the question completely.
    I like how you try to come off as an angel of light. When it is quite blatant that you are not.
    Satans minion such as yourself love trying to fool people into believing that you’re an angel of light.
    Get behind me satan.

  • D.M.S.

    LIAR….

  • D.M.S.

    You don’t…,

  • D.M.S.

    LIAR…..

  • D.M.S.

    You are…

  • D.M.S.

    All I want people to do is ask the Lord Jesus Christ to forgive them for there sins. And Ho and sin no more.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    Right. You and your godthings are genocidal maniacs, aren’t you? People like you should be locked up before the voices in your head tell you rape, pilllage or murder folks.

  • JD

    Flagged.

  • D.M.S.

    You know absolutely nothing about true Christians do you?
    We don’t want to harm anyone physically.
    All we want is for everyone to turn away from their Sinfilled lives and rent to Christ Jesus.

  • D.M.S.

    I see you don’t like the truth thrown at you.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    I’m sure you don’t want to harm anyone but if you thought your god commanded you to, you would in a heartbeat and gladly.

  • JD

    Calling people of the devil is rude.

  • D.M.S.

    It’s all over scripture, sweetums.

  • David Cromie

    Just answer the question, or I might come to the conclusion that you are just a common troll, with nothing intelligent to contribute.

  • David Cromie

    You are attempting to harm people that do not agree with your deluded, superstitious BS, and you refuse to adduce any cogent arguments for your BS. That is not the way intelligent discourse is conducted.

  • Tim

    I think the major point here is that the bible says nothing about loving committed SS couples at all, except that love and commitment are positive things in general.
    You can’t demand proof by lack of evidence.

  • D.M.S.

    Goodbye.

  • D.M.S.

    Goodbye troll…

  • D.M.S.

    Scripture describes what makes a minion of Satan.

  • David Cromie

    Just as you do. So why may I not conclude that you are ‘devil possessed’ (if there really is such an entity as the devil, in which you say you believe)? You are hoist by your own petard, I fear!

  • David Cromie

    What do you suppose the so-called ‘bible’ is based on? By the way, Islam is largely based on the OT, and all the faults which Islam exhibits are equally true of christianity, since both are Abrahamic religions.

  • Bones

    And presenting a great witness of why to avoid your type of religion.

  • Bones

    Someone was on one of these threads about Islam.

    Christians apparently spent most of their time telling her what she really believed.

  • Bones

    Satan literally means ‘the accuser’ and the father of lies.

    These fundy clowns fit that description perfectly.

  • Bones

    Thank you for confirming why we want nothing to do with your poisonous religion.

    It’s good that you types come on to remind us of how disgusting you are.

  • Bones

    Satanos=accuser.

    That’s you.

  • Bones

    Yeah you’ll love it.

    https://youtu.be/SUtlJwfNEtI

  • Bones

    Nope….even jesus contradicts the torah teaching on adultery and divorce.

  • Bones

    This is the same Jesus who cursed women with pain in childbirth and says that women on their period were unclean.

    But then jesus didn’t know that a sperm fertilised an egg.

    No one did till the 18th century.

  • Bones

    He didn’t write it because he argued against it.

    The torah states only a man can divorce a woman and married men did not have adultery with single women.
    That’s why the law was seen as a millstone around people’s necks.

    How many adulterers did jesus kill?

    you also know nothing about first century judaism. Jesus was part of the liberal Hillel school as opposed to the ultra fundamentalists.

  • Bones

    It’s quite clear you are the troll.

  • Bones

    Are you catholic?

  • Bones

    Didn’t you just tell a poster that you repented and being gay was OK

  • Ron McPherson

    Are you for real?

  • David Cromie

    Firstly, I am not your neighbour. Secondly, I hate superstitious BS being offered as ‘truth’, especially when the person proffering it cannot even provide any irrefutable, or even cogent, evidence for their beliefs/opinions.

  • Ron McPherson

    Well it’s not one who advocates for peace and love that’s for sure.

  • Ron McPherson

    LOL!!

  • David Cromie

    How did you force yourself to believe in supposed supernatural entities, for which there is no proof?

  • David Cromie

    You are not deluded in my mind, but in your own mind. However, if you wish to dispel any delusions, just provide the irrefutable, falsifiable. evidence for the real existence of the supernatural entities you believe exist. It is as simple as that! Without any such evidence, then you really are deluded by definition, just as I would be if I believed there were fairies living at the bottom of my garden.

  • David Cromie

    Using a non sequitur is not very clever, and just shows that you are an illiterate who does not have any English comprehension skills.

    By the way, if the scenario you depict were, in fact, true, and I supported/excused his criminal actions, then I would be as guilty as he! Do you get the point?

  • Bones

    So the constitution doesn’t apply to Muslims.

    Sweet.

    Wtf is wrong with diversity?

    Da white man is so afraid.

  • Bones

    Yes we see your type all the time.

    You come here and spew your hate and move on.

    You are not a blessing…to anyone…

  • David Cromie

    That is not opinion, it is fact, which you confirm with every post you make!

  • David Cromie

    It is called ‘demon possession’, and it eats away at the brain.

  • David Cromie

    ‘Loaded question’. In what way? Why not just be honest and answer a perfectly legitimate question ( I know that you abhor legitimate questions, because they require you to think for yourself).

  • Bones

    BTW can you guys stop giving violent Muslims weapons?

    Like a couple of hundred billion to the most extreme Muslim ideology on earth.

  • David Cromie

    The Book of Jashar was an ancient book of myths, poetry, etc., excerpts of which were incorporated into the OT, along with much else from original Pagan sources, notably the Epic of Gilgamesh.

  • D.M.S.

    Christ Jesus did not preach any kind of sinful love, not once.

  • D.M.S.

    When we Christian read our Christian bible ourselves, nowhere in the New Testament does it advocate violence against another. It’s when people believe what their preacher tells them to do violently, in stead of what Christ Jesus tells us through His word(s).

  • David Cromie

    One cannot accept the ‘truth’ of any proposition that asserts the existence of any supernatural entity, without the irrefutable, falsifiable, evidence that such actually exist. Do you have the required evidence? Without it, you are just spouting complete superstitious nonsense! When will that truth sink in?

  • Ron McPherson

    Tell ya what. Why don’t you focus on your own issues and the things Jesus actually placed a premium on, like love, peace, and mercy, allow the Spirit of God to do the work in people’s lives in whatever way that might look (believe it or not, God is big enough to do his own work), align your thoughts and actions with the Prince of Peace, carefully examine the message of Christ and his kingdom without any preconceived bias of what your religion may have taught you, and you then might find that being Christian according to the words of Jesus looks a lot differently than what you think.

  • David Cromie

    You are very fond of your superstitious BS, but still avoiding answering my questions to you. Why?

  • David Cromie

    I was not aware that a mythical ‘god’ was able to beget children!

  • JD

    As I said, you put as much faith and devotion into your devil as you do your deities. Face it; you worship Satan just as much as you do your Jesus.

  • JD

    Once again, and do try to pay attention this time, mythologies only apply to the person that believes in them.

  • JD

    That wasn’t truth, luv. That was a blatant example of superstitious paranoid mythology.

  • JD

    You clearly have not read the Bible. Do you have any idea how many times your deity demanded full-scale genocide?

    Try this on for size; count every single death at the hands of your deity and why.

    You may want to put on a pot of coffee, it’s a long list.

    Good luck.

  • JD

    And Jesus never said a thing about gays.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    Who said anything about preachers? Doesn’t god speak directly to you? I’m sure you’re capable of anything if you god commanded it. You know, like sacrificing your own child.

  • David Cromie

    You will fit in perfectly, especially if you are a bigoted WASP, it seems!

  • D.M.S.

    Blood atonements, sacrifices to God, STOPPED when Christ Jesus gave His blood for all of us on the cross.
    You think that the Old Testament and the New Testament are the same.
    They are Not the same.
    We Christians are supposed to live by the New Testaments commands and rules.
    That’s why non-Christians haven’t faintest idea on how to comprehend Christian and or Jewish scripture.

  • JD

    D.M.S. is incapable of change, Ron. You see, his fear of his demon is stronger than his love for his deity. So strong in fact that to even allow himself to remotely think differently, to let the tiniest inkling of doubt cross his mind is to be possessed by his demon. So strong is this delusion that anything and anyone that challenges that paranoid mindset is an instant enemy and the minion of his demon. So strong is this paranoia that he is quite possibly dangerous to himself and to others.

    Until D.M.S. recieves serious psychological and mental care there is not much anyone can do to help him passed his delusions. He will simply scream “You’re of Satan!! ” and run away. It’s very sad actually to watch someone so mentally ill, so unable to live in the real world.

  • David Cromie

    I would not expect you to, since you have your own deluded, satanic, death cult to keep you warm at night. Don’t forget to freshen up the garlic and the pentagon, before you hit the pillow (one can never be too careful)!

  • David Cromie

    You don’t get it, do you, DMS is the only ‘true christer’ in the USA!

  • David Cromie

    If only I knew what you are talking about!

  • D.M.S.

    Yes He did in Leviticus 18:22 and when He stated that marriage is a man married to a woman only.
    That is also when sexual relationships are only allowed by God/Jesus is in Holy matrimony between a man married to a woman only.
    All other sexual acts are a sin.

  • D.M.S.

    Where in the New Testament is your statements made about genocide?
    We Christians try to live by the New Testament only.
    The Old Testament is our history book to show us Christians the old ways.
    And some of the rules from the Old Testament came over to the New Testament.
    We Christian try and follow the New Testament.
    No coffee brewing here for genocide.
    Take care, neighbors

  • D.M.S.

    That’s why the lost such as yourselves don’t recognize the truth when you see it.
    You’ve been blinded by the ruler of this earth.
    His name is Satan.

  • Matthew

    That´s too bad …

  • David Cromie

    I expect you will still be laughing when the men in white coats turn up to incarcerate you in the nearest lunatic asylum.

  • D.M.S.

    We Christians know what Satan is capable of to the world.
    Atheist etc, haven’t a clue to what Satan has already done to them.

  • D.M.S.

    He created you. At one time you were a child.

  • JD

    Your delusion is strong.

  • JD

    See why I mean, Ron?

    D.M.S.’s illness so strong that he fears anything that challenges his delusional mindset. He’s a clear example of someone so unstable that to be a threat to his own children. I pray none of them come out as gay for he will quite possibly do physical harm to them such as attempt to beat the devil out of them as well as kick them out of the house.

    He needs serious psychological help and quickly.

  • JD

    If your Jesus and your deity are one in the same then he is a murderer. Again , count the deaths by your deity. Take your time, like I said it’s a long list.

  • D.M.S.

    Christ Jesus never advocated sinning of any kind.
    But you advocate sinning to all of the lgbtq people.
    Why?

  • D.M.S.

    When you can prove that God/Jesus doesn’t exist, I will give you your answer to your question you keep asking me.
    But that question will Never be answered because you can’t prove that God/Jesus doesn’t exist.

  • Ron McPherson

    Nope

  • Ron McPherson

    And OT also states that adulterers and disobedient sons should be put to death. So do you think Jesus advocated for those too?

  • Ron McPherson

    Way to just totally miss the point

  • Ron McPherson

    I used to be so fear obsessed that I was afraid to even remotely entertain any idea that I could be wrong in some area of my faith. In all honesty, it was like a house of cards. If I could be wrong about one thing then it would mean my whole faith structure could collapse. I THOUGHT I was trying to live by faith but in all honesty I was utterly miserable. I truly believe God rescued me from that. And when I began to read what Jesus is quoted as actually saying, rather than to let a theological construct made of concrete dictate my beliefs for me, it was then I started feeling liberated. I also had a huge case of OCD scrupulosity, which can really warp one’s views as well. I also sucked it up and got meds instead of buying into the lie that my faith just wasn’t big enough to overcome my fears). That actually allowed me to think rationally and I had a clearer head to see that the ones who actually gave Jesus trouble were not the ‘sinners and outcasts’ but rather the self righteous religionists who were leveling the accusation. Boy did I have so much of this wrong lol.

  • JD

    ((((((((Huggles))))))))

    :-D

  • Ron McPherson

    It’s so sad

  • IconoclastTwo

    Jesus wasn’t even IN Leviticus.

  • IconoclastTwo

    These are very good questions.

  • D.M.S.

    Jesus is God. John 10:30.
    Jesus, Yeshua has been here from the very beginning, He created the heavens and the earth, He created man in our image just as its stated in Scripture. All the atrocities that the non-Christian world likes to recite in the Old Testament Jesus, Yeshua did along with His Father.
    There is NO difference spiritually with God the Father, God the Son, God the HolySpirit.

  • D.M.S.

    The point is telling people that it alright to sin against God.
    When scripture, the word of God, prohibits all forms of sin.

  • D.M.S.

    That’s fine, but you don’t get to teach your non-Christian beliefs on my Christian children.

  • Ron McPherson

    You got a weird way of thinking. To you, if I’m not banging people over the head with the Bible (provided of course it’s interpreted in the same manner as you do), if I’m not making it my life’s calling to judge others like you do, if I’m not disrespecting other’s beliefs or lack of beliefs, if I’m not in the business of trying to pick specks out of others eyes while ignoring the log in my own, and if I’m not acting like a total butthole like you are, then to you that means I’m of the devil and somehow equates to telling people it’s all right to sin. Gotta be honest here. That’s just warped

  • expsy

    Thank you.

  • expsy

    You are correct. However, sadly, he will never get help until he admits he has a problem and that will never happen.

  • D.M.S.

    You’re the one advocating sexual sinning against God/Jesus to the lgbtq people.
    I’m ‘ not ‘.

  • IconoclastTwo

    Your view basically makes everything that Jesus allegedly said in the new testament pointless, though. You’ve given him all of the characteristics of the murderous, arbitrary bastard that god allegedly was in the old testament.

  • expsy

    Let’s look at a couple of your quotes.

    You need to show the whole scripture not what just suits you. You are a dishonest person.

    You quoted SURAH 2:216
    “Fighting is obligatory for you, as much as you dislike it.”

    What it actually says is
    Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.

    You quoted
    SURAH 2:217
    “Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed.”

    What it actually says is
    They ask you about the sacred month – about fighting therein. Say, “Fighting therein is great [sin], but averting [people] from the way of Allah and disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] al-Masjid al-haram and the expulsion of its people therefrom are greater [evil] in the sight of Allah. And fitnah is greater than killing.” And they will continue to fight you until they turn you back from your religion if they are able. And whoever of you reverts from his religion [to disbelief] and dies while he is a disbeliever – for those, their deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter, and those are the companions of the Fire, they will abide therein eternally.

    You quote.
    SURAH 9:39
    “If you don’t go to war, He (i.e. this allah thingy) will punish you sternly.”

    What it actually says is
    If ye go not forth He will afflict you with a painful doom, and will choose instead of you a folk other then you. Ye cannot harm Him at all. Allah is Able to do all things.

  • IconoclastTwo

    Wait a minute. You’re contradicting yourself from what you said elsewhere in this _same discussion_. So if you believe that everything in the old testament applies because Jesus was just as much of the old testament as the new then you have to say that all of the places where the old testament commands violence and conquest in the name of god are valid-along with all of the horrible punishments that are supposed to be inflicted upon sinners.

  • IconoclastTwo

    I’d say it largely depends on what their belief system states. If it’s advocating something that could be defended on secular grounds or something very specific to them that isn’t harmful to everyone else then yes, we have commonality. If they want something at everyone else’s expense then no: that commonality doesn’t exist.

    It also absolutely needs to be pointed out that when he considers Catholicism to be a cult but he believes that he’s right (along with those who agree with him) when this is translated into federal policy ‘cults’ generally don’t get tax exemptions-but ‘religions’ do.

    Essentially when you look at his statements he’s trying to build a case for exactly what a lot of the original American colonies were founded in order to get away from: namely a political state or states where whoever won a war or wrested control of the royalty got to decide what the right religion was or wasn’t, and everyone else had to pay up or accept being subjugated/even killed for it.

  • IconoclastTwo

    When your belief tells you that gay people need fixing instead of equality and you vote accordingly then yes you’re harming people.

    Although this is an important issue I would hardly call it the only one. Do you think that evolution should be taught in schools, or (even more importantly than this) do you support the US’ unending financial assistance and continual rearming of Israel regardless of how many Palestinians their government kills?

  • D.M.S.

    Evolution is a theory.
    As long as it is taught as a theory, that’s fine.
    But today evolution is taught as a fact and that is a lie.

  • D.M.S.

    Jesus was in the Old Testament, but that was under the old covenant.
    Which the Jewish nation still follow today.
    There’s a new covenant under the New Testament.
    Thru Christ Jesus as a man and God.
    Non-Christian know nothing of scriptural understanding by just reading scripture.
    Take care.

  • Matthew

    You forgot to say “neighbor” :-):-).

  • D.M.S.

    Two different, separate covenants.
    Christ Jesus gave us 2 commandments in the new testaments, that completely covers the 10 commandments of the Old Testament.

  • D.M.S.

    In this world we either serve God/Jesus!
    Or.
    We are serving Satan.
    By serving ourselves.
    Those are our only choices.
    There are no other choices.
    What’s your choice?

  • Ron McPherson

    What I’m advocating is for one to focus on Jesus’ greatest commandment which is to love God and our neighbor. But apparently if I’m not obsessed about the sex lives of others as you seem to be , then that means I advocate sinning against God.

  • Ron McPherson

    You appear to be serving yourself by indulging in the desire to point out the sins of others.

  • Matthew

    Does the Bible really teach that anyone who is not of Jesus Christ is then clearly of Satan??

  • IconoclastTwo

    The rules of the old testament are a lot more detailed than what jesus allegedly said in the new testament, though. But you’re using those rules in the old testament to condemn gay people and treat literal interpretation of genesis as mandatory at the expense of basically ignoring that jesus said things like “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. Eva basically agrees with you about homosexuality being sinful (which of course I don’t think is even remotely true at all) but you’re so relentlessly doctrinaire that as far as you’re concerned she might just as well not even be a christian.

  • Ivan Beggs

    You try to follow the other 600 commandments in the OT?

  • Ivan Beggs

    There are more than 600 more.

  • Ivan Beggs

    How do you know your scripture is THE ONE and should be interpreted literally for every human?

  • IconoclastTwo

    “Jesus was in the Old Testament, but that was under the old covenant.”

    Not in any way that doesn’t require extremely loose ‘interpretation’.

    “Which the Jewish nation still follow today.”

    You did realize that Israel (for all of its myriad atrocities) actually let gay people serve in its military before the US did, right? While some of their ultra-Orthodox extremists absolutely would advocate stoning (just like the Taliban) that’s *not* their national, official policy.

    “Non-Christian know nothing of scriptural understanding by just reading scripture.”

    In other words: only people who already agree with you can be claimed to understand scripture-because anyone who disagrees with you can be denounced as non-Christian and therefore irrelevant.

    People who agree with you have a unique, correct, understanding of the text that cannot be found by a plaintext reading of it.

    That actually sounds more like Leo Strauss than anything else. However, at least he was marginally more honest in seeing himself as an enemy of truth, or the idea that ordinary people should ever be allowed to try and find it.

  • IconoclastTwo

    Good point.

  • Ron McPherson

    I think that would be a stretch

  • D.M.S.

    If you knew what the HolySpirits job is, you would know that the HolySpirit is the one that gives all people the ( gift ) ability to understand Christian scripture.
    And they the Jewish nation will be held accountable for the sins they commit just like the USA does with their homosexual ( lgbtq ) agenda before God/Jesus.
    Nobody nowhere will get away with sinning against God/Jesus, without repentance ever.

  • D.M.S.

    JESUS the CHRIST thru the
    HolySpirit.

  • lucky21

    Nope, this is where demonization has taken us to the point you find anyone who is an enemy of you being as worst as real scumbags like the Taliban. Also waving around theocractic all the time doesn’t mean it’s a true label.

  • D.M.S.

    I see that your master Satan sent you here to confuse everyone on this channel. So if any of them were thinking about seeking out their Lord Christ Jesus.
    They may have second thoughts.
    Your master Satan wants to keep everyone on this channel on their way to hell with him.
    Don’t be fooled people on this channel, Christ Jesus loves you and wants you to seek salvation thru Him.
    Take care, neighbors.

  • D.M.S.

    Get behind me Satan….

  • D.M.S.

    Get behind me Satan..,,

  • JD

    So, your Jesus is a murderer. Or, more accurately, a complete megalomaniac.

  • JD

    Cant handle the truth, eh, D?

  • David Cromie

    No, just believe well attested historical facts which you could research for yourself, if only you would put down that book of myths, legends, and folklore, commonly referred to as the ‘bible’.

  • D.M.S.

    I know your truth.
    You’re a messenger for the Great Deciever Satan.
    You and your master want all of the lgbtq people and their followers in hell with you and your master Satan.

  • D.M.S.

    And you will get to meet Him on a personal note in just a few years.
    Will it be as a defiant sinner?
    Or.
    Will it be as a humble sinner that has asked for forgiveness of your sins?
    It’s each one of us choice where we end up in eternity.
    Make your choice sinners.

  • David Cromie

    No doubt you will breathe a sigh of relief at that impossible event, and you will be able to kid yourself, as you slink into your closet pretending that you do not to have gay urges (the usual problem with those unnaturally obsessed with homosexuality), because you hope to have been ‘cured’ by a make-believe ‘god’ in the sky somewhere.

  • David Cromie

    Unless it is the eternal death (the wages of ‘sin’ death, i.e. hell, according to christers) for those that do not agree with you and your mythical ‘god’.

  • David Cromie

    If you find no pleasure in sex, just give it up and leave the rest of us to our natural pleasures.

  • D.M.S.

    I’m fine with whatever God/Jesus has done and will do in past, present and our future.
    He will be fair and just with everything and everyone.

  • David Cromie

    So you have the irrefutable, falsifiable, evidence for supposed supernatural entities, do you? If so, then let’s have it!

  • Matthew

    How should we understand Satan? I think we believers tend to sometimes assign more power to Satan than he deserves.

  • Ron McPherson

    Tend to agree

  • JD

    So you do not deny your deity is a murderer.

  • JD

    Sorry luv, but that is your demon, not mine. I’ve no need of such silliness.

  • D.M.S.

    You have no comprehension skills do you?
    We were NOT created for sexual pleasure only.
    We were created to serve our Lord Christ Jesus.
    By telling the world of His great love for all of us for dying on the cross for everyone’s sins.

    Well I tee off in 30 minutes.
    I’ll be back to catch all of you in the funny papers. I’m sure that’s where I will find all of you, later.
    Take care.

  • IconoclastTwo

    So if you believed that god ordered you to kill a clearly innocent person you would do it?

    Do you also think that it was fair for god to kill the first-born Egyptians when quite obviously most of them can’t even be claimed to even be remotely responsible for their parents’ enslavement of the Jews?

  • JD

    Im not worried in the least since your deity -and demon- only exists in your head.

  • JD

    So, in essence, humans are no more than cattle. Your deity only wants perfect pet humans to sit at its feet and praise it for all eternity. Anyone that doesn’t meet breed standards will be exterminated.

  • JD

    “By telling the world of His great love for all of us for dying on the cross for everyone’s sins.”

    Worship your deity or die is not love. That is terrorism. That doesn’t make you much different than ISIS.

  • AtticusOSullivan

    So you wouldn’t obey a command from your god/jesus?

  • “Cujus regio, ejus religio”, as the Treaty of Westphalia put it. A principle firmly implemented in all the original English colonies in North America. You could be hanged in Massachusetts for expressing beliefs that were wholly legal in Rhode Island – let alone for practicing the Catholicism that was semi’mandatory in Maryland. The First Amendment was an enormous step toward social justice, pretty much unprecedented anywhere else in the world at the time.

  • But if evolution is false, why should it be taught anywhere? I would have thought that you would advocate its suppression as a false and misleading idea, along with the idea that perhaps gay people are healthy and represent a valid human alternative. To the stake with them all!

  • Just where in either of those two commandments does the injunction to demonize and suppress homosexuality reside?

  • IconoclastTwo

    Do you think that disobedient children should be killed because that’s what Leviticus says?

  • D.M.S.

    We Christians try to live by the New Testament. That’s what we are supposed to do.

  • D.M.S.

    Evolution is false. But I don’t have the power to change curriculum in our schools.
    So it should be taught as a theory, if taught at all.
    Gay people do not represent a valid human alternative.
    They are an abomination under God.

  • D.M.S.

    Not one that goes against His teachings. Which He wouldn’t command in the first place.

  • D.M.S.

    The entire world only has two ( 2 ) choices serve God/Jesus
    Or
    serve satan.
    Which satan wants everyone to do what ever they want to defy God/Jesus in every way that mankind can. So you can enjoy an eternity in hell with satan.
    Satan wins when mankind of the world does whatever they like to do.
    It’s your choice, pick one?

  • Evolution is a “theory” in the scientific sense of “a comprehensive analytical framework for looking at lots of different phenomena and making sense of them all within the same language.” It is NOT a theory in the sense of “a wild-ass guess dreamed up and then floated out”. Evolution as a theory has stimulated enormous advances in sciences ranging from biology and chemistry to geology to psychology, and has stimulated technologies in areas from food science to communications to whatever. If in the interests of religious consistency you were to forgo the use of any technologies generated by this hated theory, you would live a far more difficult life than you do.

    On the other hand, creationism has stimulated no science or technology whatever, perhaps because it explicitly denies the utility and validity of the scientific method. All it claims is that God created everything from scratch some 6000 years ago, including all the mounds of evidence cited by evolutionists, probably as a way of confusing everybody. Any incongruities or inconsistencies in the evidence are explained away simply as “that’s how God made it”. Nothing much to investigate here, folks; just move along.

    If we’re so abominable, then why did God create us the way we are? Did he decide that a certain fraction of the population wasn’t going to have a difficult enough life, so he’d just throw in a little extra complication or two? Any decent omniscient and/or omnipotent being ought to have been able to fix this little design flaw with a flick of His right eyebrow. So why not/ Just so that he’d have a bunch more souls to torment for the rest of eternity?

    I can understand that if God didn’t think that men ought to fly, He had good reason to deny them wings. So if he was equally keen on allowing only male/female sexual behavior, why didn’t He just turn off the parts that allow for male/male or female/female sexual attraction and responsiveness? Even simpler than turning off the wings, I’d think. Creationism has no way of offering any insight into human sexuality other than to say, “Some people are born icky. Stop being icky.”

  • Bones

    You’re serving satan.

  • JD

    Neither since there is no demon that you put so much faith in nor is there a homophobic deity.

    Your childish mythology is so paranoid that you have absolutely no idea how trapped within its delusion you are.

    You also have no idea how ugly your mythology comes across. It’s a classic example of a believe or burn type of Mythology; believe in some all-powerful deity or a seemingly more powerful demon will get you.

    The issue is that you believe in it so strongly that you treat people like sh!t. When countered on it you fall back to if I don’t believe the demon will get me. Plus you have no real choice but to believe or burn. It even has you believing that people around you are possessed by a demon.

    It’s all very immature, ignorant and unhealthy.

  • JD

    Oh, and it’s very telling that you didn’t even dismiss the similarities between your mythology and that of ISIS.

    Very telling indeed.

  • It must be a very difficult life that DMS leads. On the one hand, it does give him permanent license to attack and degrade lots of other people who don’t think and/or behave just like him. On the other hand, it does obligate him to a permanent state of vigilance lest his own level of belief fall below some critical level. What would happen if he were to allow even the smallest shadow of doubt about his eternal correctness of everything to slip into his consciousness? His demon’s just waiting there to snatch him up off to hell. No wonder he can’t ever answer any of the questions put to him! Any concession of any validity in any question of his statements would set him up for eternal damnation. Tough way to live!

  • You’re talking about two different things. Of course we are to love individual Muslims, and we should always be ready to share the gospel with them. That, however, has nothing to do with how we ought to deal with the Islamic world as a whole. We ought to hate the violence in the Quran and speak out about what Islam is. Calling that “bashing” is ludicrous. There are lives at stake.

  • Ron McPherson

    What is the distinction between the “Islamic world as a whole” and “individual Muslims” which cumulatively make up that “whole”?

  • Your comment makes no sense at all. Stones get cast at people and groups, not books. It is perfectly proper and reasonable to discuss both the merits and deficits of Islam’s holy book, particularly given the plague of terrorist violence all over the world. I’m still waiting to hear what invalid truth claims I’ve been holding out.

  • I can love individual Muslims and still publicly state that Islam is a violent religion. I give my Muslim neighbor a sandwich, but I ask my representatives to vote for careful vetting of refugees from the Middle East.

  • The point is that this a lot more important than promoting diversity. This is a national security/public safety issue. If you are in government, your job is to protect your citizens from threats foreign and domestic. There’s nothing in the job description about being careful not to hurt the feelings of Muslims.

  • Mr. G.

    A Judgement Day question you might want to consider your answer for: “Why did you abuse and oppress my LGBT children?”

  • Ron McPherson

    How would you respond to a Muslim who broad brushed Christianity as a “violent religion” based on past atrocities like slavery (a prominent Christian denomination was founded during the civil war in part due to their advocacy of slavery), white America’s (a “Christian” nation) violent displacement of native Americans from their land, the violence of the Crusades centuries ago, and the OT instructions to annilihate entire groups of people including women and children? Would you believe that to be a fair characterization of our faith because it’s in our “holy” book?

  • AtticusOSullivan

    Evolution is both a fact in that it is a observable phenomenon and one of the most tested and well-supported theories in science.

    Gays are an abomination, or rather a taboo, just like shellfish and everything else labelled “to’evah”. If you had anything more than a superficial understanding of scripture, you’d know that.

  • AtticusOSullivan