Banned gay wedding ads: One Million Moms back to square one.

Banned gay wedding ads: One Million Moms back to square one. December 16, 2019
Image via YouTube

JUST days after US Christian hate group One Million Moms declared victory in their battle against the Hallmark Channel – sparked by the screening of Zola.com wedding planning ads that featured a lesbian couple – the channel yesterday (Sunday) reinstated the commercials.

The reinstatement came just after One Million Moms greeted the ban with the words “Praise the Lord!”

Commenting on the brief ban of the ads, Hallmark CEO Mike Perry said in a statement:

The Crown Media team has been agonizing over this decision as we’ve seen the hurt it has unintentionally caused. Said simply, they believe this was the wrong decision.

Hallmark will be working with GLAAD [Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation] to better represent the LGBTQ community across our portfolio of brands. The Hallmark Channel will be reaching out to Zola to reestablish our partnership and reinstate the commercials.

Perry also used the statement to apologise, saying:

Our mission is rooted in helping all people connect, celebrate traditions, and be inspired to capture meaningful moments in their lives. Anything that detracts from this purpose is not who we are. We are truly sorry for the hurt and disappointment this has caused.

It’s unclear whether Zola will continue airing ads on the The Hallmark Channel, but they noted they are “relieved” by these recent updates.

Zola Chief Marketing Officer Mike Chi said:

We were deeply troubled when Hallmark rejected our commercials for featuring a lesbian couple celebrating their marriage, and are relieved to see that decision was reversed. We are humbled by everyone who showed support not only for Zola, but for all the LGBTQ couples and families who express their love on their wedding day, and every day.

Late last week, The Hallmark Channel removed multiple Zola ads showing a same-sex couple.

The ban was met with considerable backlash, including from TV host Ellen DeGeneres, who tweeted at The Hallmark Channel and Abbot:

What are you thinking? Please explain. We’re all ears.

GLAAD Pesident and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis added:

The Hallmark Channel’s decision to correct its mistake sends an important message to LGBTQ people and represents a major loss for fringe organizations, like One Million Moms, whose sole purpose is to hurt families like mine.

LGBTQ people are, and will continue to be a part of advertisements and family programming and that will never change. GLAAD exists to hold brands like The Hallmark Channel accountable when they make discriminatory decisions and to proactively ensure families of all kinds are represented in fair and accurate ways.

One Million Moms said of its campaign to ban the ads:

The Hallmark Channel has always been known for its family friendly movies. Even its commercials are usually safe for family viewing. But unfortunately, that is not the case anymore.

Recently, One Million Moms received concerns about Hallmark airing a commercial from Zola.com in which two lesbians are shown kissing at the end of their wedding ceremony. Similar concerns from regular viewers are posted on an online complaint board for the Hallmark Channel.

One viewer commented on the board:

“Why would you show a lesbian wedding commercial on the Hallmark Channel? Hallmark movies are family friendly, and you ruined it with the commercial.”

Another viewer wrote:

“Our family was watching a wonderful Hallmark movie based on a true story. It was late, but our daughter was up late with us. During the commercial break, there was a commercial from Zola with two women lip locking! Please Hallmark … we are fed up with having the gay agenda crammed down our throats! You are one of the few channels we thought we would not have to deal with this issue! Please remove this and any other gay, lesbian, bisexual, or anything else it is called from your channels. … We love you but won’t keep watching with this type of ads.”

Hat tip: BarrieJohn


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • barriejohn
  • Jim Jones
  • barriejohn

    It’s been “imminent” almost as long as I can remember (1950s), so I have a feeling that you’re destined to be massively disappointed!

  • Jane Ravenswood

    ah, the lying mommies failed. I guess they didn’t pray hard enough.

  • Raging Bee

    It’s been “imminent” since the 0050s!

  • Jay McHue

    “That nasty, evil ‘h-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-ate group’ One Million Moms lost this one time — after initially winning, oh, and ignore all their past successes, too — so there, stupid Christians! Duuuurrr!”

  • Erp

    The second coming has been ‘imminent” since the 0030s; the idea of the rapture is much more recent (early 1800s) especially one coming significantly before the second coming.

  • William

    Greatly Disappointed.™ Since 1844.

  • Carstonio

    I’m about the 5 millionth person to point out the homoerotic implications of “crammed down our throats.”

  • Carstonio

    For Hallmark, “family friendly” means antifeminist parables. Imagine a reverse of the typical plot, where the cute country guy gives up life on his farm to be with his newfound love, who keeps her city career.

  • Raging Bee

    Kinda funny (in an old-joke sort of way) how one of those oh-so-concerned moms has to mention that the l3sbian-wedding-kiss ad aired WHEN HER PRECIOUS INNOCENT DAUGHTER WAS WATCHING!!! — but doesn’t mention any bad consequences thereof. So either said daughter didn’t freak out about it at all; or mom didn’t want to admit she’s the one who got all flustered. Either way, they’re using children as shields against the criticism they deserve.

    And what’s with all this “shoved down our throats” rhetoric? I thought only gay MEN did that. Did one of the l3sbian brides have something extra on?

  • John Evans

    ‘Past successes’ I think you have a mistaken impression of a group that claims credit for things that happen for other reasons. Or, in fact, don’t happen–such as the time they claimed credit for cancelling a show that just moved to another network.

  • johnsoncatman

    One of the brides had an extremely long tongue.

  • kaydenpat

    Good. Another battle that One Angry Mom has lost.

  • kaydenpat
  • kaydenpat

    Ewwww

  • johnsoncatman

    Yeah, when I first heard about this, I thought “Oh. Those 37 bigoted women are at it again.” One million moms? PFFFFFFFFFFFFT!

  • kaydenpat

    Actually, why doesn’t OMM start up its own channel with “wholesome”, family-friendly movies and shows instead of whining about the content of television programs and ads. They’re just not going to win the culture wars.

  • barriejohn

    Yes – early Christians wouldn’t have had a clue what it meant. I belonged to the Plymouth Brethren (Christian Brethren in America), so I was referring to my own experience. Darby may not have invented the idea of the Rapture, but he certainly championed it, and imposed his view of a pre-tribulationist rapture on the Brethren (Open and Closed). Even the “Open Brethren” are very authoritarian where doctrine is concerned!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism#History

  • Brian Shanahan

    About 150ce, that’s the earliest the apocalypse was writ.

  • Charles in IA

    Think of the child, distressed by seeing her mom freakout.

  • Jay McHue

    “…things that happen for other reasons.”
    “…a show that just moved to another network.”

    I’m sure you can prove those claims in a detailed manner instead of being deliberately vague about them. Yeah, I won’t be holding my breath waiting.

  • Raging Bee

    Sounds like one a’ them s3x-d3mons they’ve been screaming about recently…

  • Raging Bee

    …or secretly amused and trying REAL HARD not to laugh out loud.

  • Kevin R. Cross

    “I tell you, not all currently alive will have passed away…”

  • Jim Baerg

    Isn’t that why someone invented the ‘Wandering Jew’ legend? To have someone from the time still alive at the 2nd coming no matter how long it was delayed?

  • Marc Weeks

    Isn’t that Veronica from the Archie comics? I’m glad she’s finally out.

  • Kevin R. Cross

    Logically. The legend starts getting traction (and mention in the historical record) around 900-1000 AD, when millenialism was at it’s height.

  • firebubbles310

    Lucifer was picked up by Netflix. Ya know the one about the devil.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    Maybe One Million Moms doesn’t like the ad because it doesn’t show a wedding based on the Bible view of marriage: 1 man and as many women as he wants to marry, and as many concubines as he can afford.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    Just say “get thee behind me Satan” and turn the other cheek.

  • Jay McHue

    Thanks for the straw man argument. Here’s what the actual Bible view of marriage is:

    Genesis 2:24
    That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

    Matthew 19:4-6
    “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

    Now, please be predictable and bring up, say, Solomon and his many wives and concubines while being ignorant of 1 Kings 11:3-6.

  • Jay McHue

    Netflix isn’t a network and doesn’t have advertisers like Fox and other TV networks. The show had to move because of the efforts of OMM, so it was still a win for OMM.

  • Hans-Richard Grümm

    So you pointed out another inconsistency of the Bible. BTW, what about Jacob ?

  • Lauren Greene

    You are being oh so predictable by leaving out scripture that destroys the picture you want to paint.

  • Jim Jones

    > Please Hallmark … we are fed up with having the gay agenda crammed down our throats!

    After 2000 years of Jesus enforced by murder.

  • Jim Jones

    > And your precious little children would probably rather watch something else anyway.

    On XHamster.

  • Jim Jones

    ‘Throat’ is a euphemism. The scissoring should have given it away.

  • Jim Jones

    If she keeps jumping in that tube top parts of her will be out!

  • Raging Bee

    Your last sentence totally undermines your argument.

  • Phil

    “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female” Nope, in the beginning god (male) created Adam (male). So there was some brief homo-erotic adoration and worship going on.

  • Thanks4AllTheFish

    Why would any reasoning person care what your interpretations of Bible verses say about marriage?

    Know your audience.

  • firebubbles310

    Not really. Fox never said it was because of OMM. Fox is famous for cancelling shows that aren’t the Simpsons. Also given it was owned by an outside studio, not fox, it isn’t shocking they cancelled it. They didn’t want to spend money on someone else’s stuff. Gotham was cancelled too after the merger, again money and not the cries of 6 angry moms ignoring their children.

  • persephone

    There’s only about 4,000 members, so it’s pretty obvious they have no mathematical ability, which is something very important when you’re budgeting for production and setting up your own network. Although, maybe they could show them on the 700 club or PTL

  • persephone

    They’re only about 4,000 moms, if that, so I don’t see any production company or network running in fear. As the population without religion grows, things will only get better.

  • Jay McHue

    But you’re not reasoning people. You are prejudiced, close-minded bigots.

  • Jay McHue

    Oh, look. Willful stupidity from an atheist. Big surprise there.

  • Jay McHue

    Not really, no. Solomon’s example is not portrayed as what people are intended to follow. Tell me, if a police officer breaks a law he’s charged with following and enforcing, does that invalidate the law or mean that every police officer is supposed to follow his example?

  • Jay McHue

    No, I’m really not. You’re being oh-so predictable by only presenting Scripture that you wrongly think justifies your views. I, on the other hand, endeavor to actually use my brain to understand the Scriptures you smugly like to portray as promoting something they are not.

  • Jay McHue

    What about him? His example on the matter is not portrayed as supplanting God’s intention for marriage as reflected in Genesis 2, which is before sin entered the world, and in Matthew 19, when Jesus, God the Son, clearly verified Genesis 2 as the only type of marriage intended by God. And look at what happened with Jacob’s marriages — Rachel became very jealous of Leah and it caused many problems which spilled over into their children’s lives. Much the same can be said about all the other examples you atheists ignorantly like to bring up. Sure, they aren’t outright condemned, but they don’t have to be because Genesis 2 and Matthew 19 exist. As I said, those passages aren’t supplanted by those describing Jacob’s or any other person’s multiple marriages.

  • Thanks4AllTheFish

    Jay, you don’t know me but I appreciate you demonstrating for anyone who reads this, precisely how you respond to those who don’t share your open-minded views about who gets to make the rules when it comes to marriage. I’m so closed-minded myself, that I think those who are in love and are of legal age of consent should be able to make that decision themselves. But, we closed-minded bigots are funny that way.

    Thanks for your insights.

  • Jay McHue

    Interesting how your reactions to me don’t apply to you. Do you know me? Do you think I care about what your misinterpretations of Bible verses say about marriage? Should I automatically think you’re undeniably right about marriage, love, legal age and so forth, and mindlessly agree with you because “love is love is love is love is love blah blah blah?”

    And tell me, doesn’t it follow under your reasoning, such as it is, about marriage that any number of people who are in love and are of legal age of consent should be able to marry? And if so, wouldn’t that mean you’d be okay with someone marrying hundreds of women or, as the law could easily allow under the slippery slope of “legal age of consent,” young girls (think Mohammed, who you undoubtedly criticize for marrying and having sex with a young girl)?

  • Thanks4AllTheFish

    Jay, may I call you Jay? Here’s the thing Jay, marriage actually occurs in cultures that aren’t Christian. Who knew? They actually have marriages in Hindu cultures, Muslim, Zoroastrian, Nordic, Pagan, etc. Christians don’t have a patent on marriage so why would we atheists care about what your Bible says about marriage? I stated a fact and your couldn’t deal with it. You are in an atheist blog reciting Bible verses as if they are some kind of Jedi mind meld mixed metaphor. Then you do a predictable and start talking about situations nobody is interested in pursuing and even if they were, who cares?

    The sad fact is that you have a myopic view of what marriage is and now you find yourself in a culture that expands that view into a more meaningful, and inclusive practice and you can’t handle it. Gee, that’s too bad. What are you going to do about it?

    And you call us closed-minded bigots.

    There’s this thing called the first rule or law of holes*. You are now a charter member.

    *[ P.S. You might want to stop digging. ]

    Time for this little atheist to hit the sack. Have a pleasant evening and sweet dreams.

  • barriejohn

    In one creation story (Gen. 1) he makes mankind after his own image (“male and female created he them”), and in the other (Gen. 2) he creates Adam and then forms Eve from his rib. The Jews obviously liked both, so included them both in their book of myths.

    PS I was taught that men have fewer ribs than women, and many Christians still believe this!

  • Phil

    So how do you interpret your god created Adam in his own image, ie male, and then demands he worship him and naked unconditional love?

  • Raging Bee

    Really, yes. Your reference to other passages admits that the Bible isn’t as clear or consistent on women’s status as you pretend it is. (Also, “suffer the women to learn in silence and submission?”)

  • Lauren Greene

    Until you learn that your gaslighting is useless here there is no hope for you.

  • Pauli Staalesen d.y.

    The subject matter in Matthew 19 is divorce, not homosexuality. It is about a rule that regulates heterosexual relations. The rules of exegesis doesn’t allow the reader to include subjects that clearly was not on the mind of the writer of the gospel in question. That would be “adding to the bible”

    Jesus did not address homosexuality according to the gospels. Even though one situation, according to some interpretations, would have called for it if Jesus was concerned about that issue: when Jesus met the Roman soldier who had a sick servant “he held very dear”. It has been suggested that that expression hinted at a type of same sex relationship that some Roman soldiers had while away from home because of his duties as a soldier. Jesus did not seem to react to the arrangement, but showed mercy to the soldier and his “friend”

    Personally I don’t care if “the Bible” say something or not, because I CANNOT know if that statement represent Gods views or the very human opinions of the writer/speaker, but for those who think differently, the above exegesis should give pause (one hopes)

  • David Cromie

    The stupid is all yours. A supposed ‘god’ made a cloned human from a male rib, we are asked to believe, but the truth is that the cloned person would be the same gender as the owner of the rib, i.e. in the case of the biblical myth, your supposed ‘god’ created Adam and Steve!

  • Raging Bee

    If you don’t care about our interpretation of the Bible, then why should we care about yours? It’s not like there’s any proof that your is right and ours is wrong.

  • Raging Bee

    If she keeps jumping about in those heels, she’s likely to get hurt!

  • Raging Bee

    They rewrote Odin as a Jew?! Is nothing sacred?! /s

  • David Cromie

    “… before sin entered the world…” (beware of talking snakes?).

    Your supposed ‘god’, we are told, created everything, and that therefore must include demons, devils, fire and brimstone, etc., and, above all, ‘sin’. How ridiculous can a deluded world view get?

  • Lauren Greene

    You ask “Do you know me?” while simultaneously passing judgment on strangers on the internet. Hypocrite much?

  • Fred L Anthony

    You do realize that Marriage existed as a social contract long before religion decided to take it over right In fact Marriage was and always will be secular matter BTW The
    Catholic Church did not make marriage a sacrament until the 13th
    century, and only began to enforce strict religious conformity in
    marriage in the 16th century Before that it was a civil matter Maybe before claiming somethng you need to do research.

  • Fred L Anthony

    BTW Jay the bible you are interpreting means little considering that it is an edited , altered and translated version of the original hand picked scrolls that made the bible You are under informed on marriage the bible and civil law As for SSM those have been occurring since the dawn of time and have continued since the including several times the Church conducted such marriages Quit confusing Holy Matrimony with marriage And st trying to claim marriage as your religions right since ALL religions have a marital ceremony Please educate yourself of the facts

  • Phil

    Aw, hamsters are cool!

  • Geoff Benson

    What?

  • Geoff Benson

    To read the bible is probably to misinterpret it. It is of no benefit whatsoever to humankind now other than as a set of scripts of historical interest.

  • Geoff Benson

    Regarding scriptures as in any way meaningful, other than of historical interest, is not using your brain.

  • Geoff Benson

    Shouldn’t it be ‘one million bums’?

  • Lauren Greene

    With your zealous attempt to try and appear knowledgeable and intelligent, you falsely asserted that I presented scripture.

    Try harder.

  • Jay McHue

    Ah, the old “I know you are, but what am I?” tactic. Cute. The rest of your phenomenally poor attempt to be clever is just as childish and displays an immense ignorance of Genesis 2:22 in the original Hebrew.

  • Jay McHue

    Genesis 1 and 2 are not two different Creation stories. Genesis 1 is a general overview of the Creation week while Genesis 2 provides details of the creation of mankind.

  • Jay McHue

    No, the Bible is very clear and consistent on women’s status contrary to your ignorance on the matter. Why should my alleged reference to other passages (which you atheists do, ironically enough, in traditionally bringing up the matter of multiple marriages in the Bible in an impotent attempt to undermine Christians’ stance on marriage) equate to some imagined admission of the Bible not being clear on the matter? And you did so again by bringing up 1 Timothy 2:11. Hard to stay on topic when your position is being undermined?

  • Jay McHue

    Glad you apparently know so much more so much better than very educated Christians from history. Here’s more examples of people who weren’t using their brains, apparently:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaKUBGhuqP4

  • Jay McHue

    Oh, believe me, I have no delusion that my comments are useless here in a den of close-minded bigots. You have your preconceived notions about Christians and you’re sticking to them no matter what.

  • Jay McHue

    The demons/devils you refer to are fallen angels who rebelled against God who created them. The “fire and brimstone” you mention, being Hell, was created as the ultimate end for those angels and people who die in their sins. God did not create sin, as sin is rebellion from God. Do human lawmakers create criminals? Of course not, but that’s the loose equivalent of what you are ignorantly and rather stupidly arguing. You might want to look in the nearest mirror and see that pointing, accusing finger pointing back at yourself and your own ridiculous, deluded world view.

  • Jay McHue

    Not following the conversation very well, are you? Judgment was first passed upon me based on one of your atheist buddies saying I didn’t know them.

  • Jay McHue

    Oh, that old, evidence-lacking, debunked canard about the “edited” and “altered” Bible again? And bringing up what “the Church” wrongfully did in clear opposition to the Bible? And imagining SSM has occurred since “the dawn of time?” Such absurdity.

  • Jay McHue

    Correction: I don’t care about your misinterpretation of the Bible, which is proven both within the consistency of the Bible itself and through the work of educated Bible scholars throughout history (i.e. not Richard Dawkins et al).

  • Jay McHue

    So what? Lots of things occur in non-Christian cultures. That doesn’t automatically make them correct and acceptable and Christianity’s take on them incorrect and unacceptable.

    The rest of your screed, and particularly the “Jedi mind meld” bit, is rather silly and childish.

  • Lauren Greene

    Typical response a cognitively dissonant xtian who has zero sense of self-awareness and is unwilling/incapable of taking responsibility for their own words and actions. Your defense is that of an elementary school child on the playground – “they pushed me first!” In fact, you lobbed the first salvo and in a lame attempt to shirk responsibility for yourself, you attempt to question my reading comprehension skills. You’re a gaslighting fool.

  • Lauren Greene

    Poor fella – all you have in your arsenal are elementary school level insults.

  • Damien Priestly

    Yeah…’Fallen Angels” — makes for a rational, reasoned argument every time…in preschool !!

  • Raging Bee

    “Consistency of the Bible itself?” Please. Anyone who’s actually read the book knows there’s no such “consistency.”

  • Raging Bee

    Do you really think no one here has actually read the Bible, or seen firsthand how it’s used and interpreted by Christian “leaders?” You’re out of your depth here, and you’re not fooling anyone.

  • Actually David, it is correctly, “Beware of ventriloquists” 😀

  • Thanks4AllTheFish

    But it’s not childish to have an imaginary friend in the sky? Your deflection is noted.

  • Sophotroph

    Wow. That passage is talking about a single marriage. People don’t get married in batches. It’s one at a time.

    I’ve seen this argument before. It failed then, too. We’re not gullible enough to believe you’re bad enough at grammar to be convinced by your own argument.

    I love how you feel no shame contradicting the bible with quotes from the bible, as if the quotes supporting the inverse of your argument don’t matter because then you wouldn’t win.

    Stop being a child and take your medicine like an adult. Defending your religion with dishonesty just confirms its inability to actually confer ethical behavior to its adherents.

  • Sophotroph

    Maybe you ought to read this bible you keep talking about.

  • David Cromie

    So your supposed ‘god’ that knows everything, even before it happens, we are asked to believe, did not realise that his ‘angels’ were imperfect, because they were infected with ‘sin’? That really would constitute ‘original sin’. If not from your ‘loving god’, where did this angelic ‘sin’ originate from? Are there evil talking snakes in heaven too?

  • David Cromie

    Do you share in the historical ‘truth’ that the earth is flat (or a cube, as one Classical Greek philosopher contended)?

  • Lauren Greene

    The statistics concerning unethical behavior of kkkristers speak for themselves and I have witnessed their hypocrisy and unethical behavior up close and personal for decades.

  • Lauren Greene

    Obviously, he has neither read The Goatherders Guide to the Universe from cover to cover nor has he researched its origins.

  • Lauren Greene

    The vast majority of them have never read it cover to cover and rely on pulpit handlers for their interpretation of scripture…and yet, they’ll be the first to tell people who point out the numerous contradictions and who have read and studied it that they need to read it. Lol.

  • Raging Bee

    Are you kidding?! Do you really think she’d contribute anything good to her own demographic? Screaming at Hallmark is probably the least harmful thing she can do to anyone.

  • Lauren Greene

    She abd her ilk have a total lack of self-awareness. They are not even cognitively aware of the issues in their own demographic and if they were, we can be certain their imaginary enemy or atheists or someone else would be the scapegoat.

  • Ken Campbell

    Apparently “Million Mums” will need to accommodate the freedom to marry.

  • barriejohn

    None as blind as those who won’t see!

  • Jay McHue

    There, now it seems to be working, but it won’t matter much longer as far as you are concerned.

  • Jay McHue

    The subject matter in Matthew 19 is marriage. It is a rule that regulates all marital relations both regarding divorce and who marries whom. Cute how you berate me regarding biblical exegesis, then engage in your own error in regards to the passage about the sick servant.

  • Jay McHue

    Presuming that you saw the video I posted elsewhere, were those people childish for having “an imaginary friend in the sky?” Are people in government, universities, scientific research establishments, or other places childish for having “an imaginary friend in the sky?” Are all the current presidential candidates who have “an imaginary friend in the sky” childish? If any of those people are, perhaps you should endeavor to get them all fired based on what you believe to be their childishness. And thanks for your own deflection away from my correct observation about things occurring in non-Christian cultures not automatically being correct and acceptable.

  • Jay McHue

    I thought I saw when I was an atheist and also believed that Genesis 1 and 2 were two different Creation stories. I learned differently when I actually had my atheistic blinders taken off.

  • Jay McHue

    What depth? All I see is shallowness. You judge and condemn the Bible solely based on how it’s used and interpreted by people who you deem “leaders.”

  • Jay McHue

    You mean the “truth” that was put forth by those who, as atheists like you today do, self-righteously deemed themselves to be the most informed, rational, intelligent, mature, and sane persons?

  • Jay McHue

    Interesting how you inject arguments that I never made in order to try to discredit me. Where did I say the angels were imperfect or, for that matter, Adam and Eve were at the beginning? Where did I say they were “infected with sin?” Where did I say God didn’t realize something? Your objections are quite ignorant and absurd.

  • Jay McHue

    I have and I continue to, but feel free to continue to lie about me if you think it justifies your hatred of me. Just know that it only discredits yourself.

  • Jay McHue

    Show me a preschool that talks about fallen angels. I’ll wait. Meanwhile, fallen angels have been freely discussed, at least in the past, by very educated people in the Western hemisphere’s higher places of learning — Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Princeton, etc.

  • Astreja

    I’d hate to be the rabbi who tried to inflict a bris on Pabbi. 😮

  • Lauren Greene

    There, there now…there’s no shame in admitting you are wrong. You poor cognitively dissonant kkkristers would do well to learn that life lesson.

  • Damien Priestly

    Sure, lots of mythological creatures are discussed in colleges…Hanuman the monkey god, Inanna the goddess of sex, etc…there has even been classes on the history of Santa which is less ridiculous than Fallen Angels.

  • Lauren Greene

    “In fact, you lobbed the first salvo…”

    Reading comprehension is difficult for you.

  • Lauren Greene

    Your feelings of irrelevance are of no consequence to me.

  • Lauren Greene

    Take a remedial English class and brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

  • David Cromie

    I wish you would back up your wild, uninformed accusations. Repeated, semi literate, BS is still BS.

  • David Cromie

    “The demons/devils you refer to are fallen angels who rebelled against God who created them”. So, rebelling against your favourite supposed ‘god’ is not a ‘sin’?

    Do you have problems with English comprehension, or is it that your IQ is no bigger than your waist size (assuming you are not morbidly obese)?

  • Lauren Greene

    If only you mattered as much as you tell yourself you do, pumpkin.

  • Lauren Greene

    Your concession has been duly noted.

  • Thanks4AllTheFish

    Examine the reasons why you reject other religious ideology and you will come to realize why your own is so easy to reject.

  • Ken Campbell

    or perhaps just the pleasure in mocking some quaint little religious dogma

  • Ken Campbell

    It is good to be self aware!!

  • Ken Campbell

    It has great anthropological value

  • David Cromie

    Your post is merely a mangled version of the argumentum ad populum fallacy. It goes very nicely with your fallacious circular arguments.

  • David Cromie

    I should have added; ‘rebelling against your favourite supposed ‘god’ is not a ‘sin” will be good news for humanity,as a whole. So, may I quote you, as a registered keeper of the ‘true faith’?

  • Pauli Staalesen d.y.

    Well, let’s take it easy. Nobody is berating anybody. We just have a difference of opinion about a difficult issue: interpreting ancient scripture.

    Now, Matthew 19 verse 3 starts as follows:

    Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

    The comments from Jesus you were referring to was a response to this question from the Pharisees. It therefore customary to consider this question as the subject matter under discussion.

    It seems to me that you would have to assume that Jesus was discussing more than “a man and his wife” in order for homosexuality to be an issue discussed here. I just cannot see how that could be assumed (and that such a vague assumption aught be the basis for doctrine that regulates the lives of people)

    …. But as we know: there are over 30 000 Christian denominations who disagree about most things while all, i assume, is doing their utmost to understand, so …

  • Jay McHue

    I’ve read it. Plenty of consistency if you’re not a prejudiced atheist who’s been brainwashed into believing there’s none and are close-minded to any other conclusion.

  • Jay McHue

    No, it’s actually not. I never said anything even close to the idea that many people believe in something makes it true. I addressed the fallacy that believing in God is automatically “childish.” Also, unlike all of you, I’ve never made a single circular argument. You foolish atheists are very dishonest, but then you have to be in order to have any sort of arguments. You are all very angry, hateful, dishonest bigots.

  • Jay McHue

    Mine is “so easy to reject” because it’s true? Weird argument to make on your part.

  • Jay McHue

    Nah, it’s pretty clearly willful stupidity. Thanks, though.

  • Ken Campbell

    We do try to be helpful.

  • Jay McHue

    You could’ve fooled me regarding the nature of your response, particularly given the nature of the typical responses I’ve received here.

    The subject matter in Matthew 19 is marriage and Jesus clearly spoke about it as being only between one man and one woman. No assumption is necessary.

  • barriejohn

    Do human lawmakers create criminals?

    As far as I am aware, none of them have ever claimed to have created mankind. What a stupid argument; there’s no equivalence whatsoever.

    And it’s so obvious that Hell’s “fire and brimstone” is magma from the earth’s core, “down below”, with Heaven up in the sky above, where spirits might fly when “liberated” from their physical bodies, that I’m amazed that intelligent people still believe such things – though I did myself at one time!

  • barriejohn

    Exactly. Millions of intelligent people pray to Allah. Surely they can’t all be wrong? Millions of highly intelligent people believe in reincarnation. Surely THEY can’t all be wrong – and so on…..

  • Pauli Staalesen d.y.

    It’s a good thing text analysis is REALLY simple and straight forward then 🙂 … Well, I have to admit I am being a bit facetious. But on a more serious note. Text analysis (on the university level) is very interesting. Of course it would have to be a secular institution… not because Christians aren’t smart enough, but because the desire for a premade conclusion tend to cloud our mind. I studied both systematic theology at a bible college and text analysis at university (neither at a very high level), but yeah… one teaches you to think for yourself freely and the other leads you to premade conclusions, but anyway it is interesting stuff.

  • Thanks4AllTheFish

    “Mine is “so easy to reject” because it’s true to me? “

    FIFY

    Every religious zealot in every religion in the world says exactly the same thing. Over 30,000 different religions and you all fervently believe yours is the true one. Compartmentalization on full display.

    “Weird argument to make on your part.”

    Why? I merely reject one more made-up religion than you do.

  • David Cromie

    Have you never quoted the so-called ‘bible’ in support of your religious word view?

  • Lauren Greene

    Take your ball and go home then, ya whiny git.

  • lizdhm

    You should try reading the rest of Genesis and how the nation of Israel only existed because of polygamy and concubines.

  • David Cromie

    There is no evidence, whether written or archaeological, that any man-god named JC ever existed.

  • Jay McHue

    lol! “only existed” Sure, sure.

  • Jay McHue

    “FIFY”

    Yes, you did falsify it for me.

    Atheist zealots also say exactly the same thing. It’s true TO YOU, but it’s perfectly okay for you to force your unbelief however you can on everyone else. For example, the whole “keep it in your homes and churches where it belongs” bit I constantly hear. 30,001 different belief systems if you include atheism and you fervently believe yours is the true one. Hypocrisy on full display.

  • Jay McHue

    Given the fact that the human tendency, particularly of late, is to desire personal pre-made conclusions and inject those into the Bible instead of conclusions based on theology in the Bible, your argument kind of backfires.

  • David Cromie

    People who are not indoctrinated with religious woo are able to exercise their faculty for critical thinking, and thus, unlike christers, are not burdened with pre-packaged conclusions, and a deluded world view, as inculcated by scamming preachers.

  • Thanks4AllTheFish

    Oh Jay. You seem really upset that atheists have their own blog where they can discuss things that that the religious right wishes to make into prohibitive law.

    You talk about us forcing you to disbelieve but it is you who came here, to this blog, to tell us how we are somehow forcing you to come here. I didn’t go to your favorite religious blog and disparage what you believe. You came here.

    Atheists don’t construct giant shrines in which to worship, or come knocking on your front door in a Great Commission to spread the good word, or demand religious displays on taxpayer-funded public property, or refuse to acknowledge the civil rights and personal agency of others in a lawful, democratic free society.

    These are things that concern us and we come here to talk about them and those who seek to marginalize and restrict said freedoms. I’m guessing you resent that and if you would spend more time evaluating the valid concerns of those who don’t necessarily think the same way that you do, you might be able to embrace a cogent philosophy that allows for a divergence of opinion rather than an us-vs-them pov. We’re not asking for you to agree with us, we are merely demanding that we deserve a voice.

    Have a blessed day.

  • Pauli Staalesen d.y.

    You are right, actually there is no definitive evidence of ANYTHING supernatural as far as I know

    But, of course, a discussion can be had on several levels and Mr. McHue’s and my conversation had as an unspoken premise that the bible wasn’t outright lying, but MY premise was also that you have to be honest about the limits of communication across millennia, languages, cultures and (lack of) alternative sources. I hope it was fruitful for both of us and spurned new thought!

    A conversation based on utter contempt for his beliefs would probably not get us very far…

  • Pauli Staalesen d.y.

    Well, when it comes to the supernatural: I can only choose between MY conclusions or ANOTHER human’s conclusions because I have no way of knowing that any other people have spoken with God (no matter what they claim). To simply “choose” to guarantee that people you haven’t met from thousands of years ago are telling the truth about something you cannot verify is not honest. I even think it is “to bear false witness” (to quote the bible).

    Here is an example of what I mean:
    A bible story tells of something supernatural. My response can be:

    1. To use my scepticism to say: this must be untrue because it is unbelievable
    2. To use my faith to say: this must be true because only God could do something like that.
    OR
    3. Since I cannot verify OR falsify this supernatural claim, I SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW!

    Number 3 is the only honest response as far as I can tell
    Your comment seems to only consider the two first possibilities as far as I can tell 🙂

    Note: choosing response number 1 would be an example of a “personal premade conclusion” and you may be correct in criticizing that (by the way) 🙂

  • lizdhm

    Seriously? 12 Tribes doesn’t ring any bells?

  • Jay McHue

    I said nothing about being upset or wanting to pass anything into some purely imaginary “prohibitive law” or you forcing me to disbelieve. Strange how when atheists are backed into a corner of their own making, they lie, lie, and then lie some more for good measure. It’s impossible to discuss anything with you rationally or to use reason because of your paranoia, irrationality, and unreason.

  • Jay McHue

    Fascinating how easily that reasoning can be applied to evolution, though with a timeframe of millions of years ago instead. However, that doesn’t stop the godless from declaring with 100% certainty that humans evolved through several lines of lower animals that ultimately came from a single one-celled organism that lived billions of years ago. We have no way of knowing that happened and cannot verify that it’s honest.

  • Jay McHue

    You’re ringing the bell on the wrong house.

  • Thanks4AllTheFish

    “I said nothing about being upset or wanting to pass anything into some purely imaginary “prohibitive law”

    Jay McHue:“Do you think I care about what your misinterpretations of Bible verses say about marriage? Should I automatically think you’re undeniably right about marriage, love, legal age and so forth, and mindlessly agree with you because “love is love is love is love is love blah blah blah?”

    You sound pretty upset to me,… blah, blah, blah. Ask yourself who fought against the laws allowing same-sex marriage? It wasn’t atheists.

    “I said nothing about…you forcing me to disbelieve.”

    Jay McHue: “…but it’s perfectly okay for you to force your unbelief however you can on everyone else.”

    “Strange how when atheists are backed into a corner of their own making, they lie, lie, and then lie some more for good measure. It’s impossible to discuss anything with you rationally or to use reason because of your paranoia, irrationality, and unreason.”

    Hysterical! Still digging that hole, I see.

    “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

  • lizdhm

    I’m ringing the bell on an empty house, apparently.

  • Jay McHue

    Yes, because it’s not the house I’m in. Glad you’ve come to realize that. Good job.

  • lizdhm

    So you disown your original comment?

  • Jay McHue

    No, because unlike your replies, my original comment isn’t wrong. Let me spell it out for you, though I seriously doubt it will help given your willful, close-minded ignorance. Genesis 2:24 is God’s original and only perfect plan for marriage — i.e. between one man and one woman. It comes before sin entered the world and perverted God’s plan for it. The rest of Genesis, which you ignorantly attempted to cite as if it completely and utterly debunked my original comment, comes after that. When Jesus, being God the Son, entered into the world as a man, he spoke on marriage, contrary to today’s liberal lie that he didn’t, and affirmed it in passages such as Matthew 19:4-6 as being between one man and one woman. Yes, it comes as a response to a question about divorce, but his answer is not wholly and only limited to the issue of divorce. He clearly affirms marriage as God intended it: between one man and one woman.

  • Jay McHue

    It’s talking about the first marriage, which is the design for all marriages. And people actually do get married “in batches.” It’s rare, but it does happen. Here’s one: https://www.independent.ie/style/weddings/the-final-say/wedding-talk/four-couples-reveal-why-they-decided-to-have-a-quadruple-wedding-37010464.html

    There is no contradiction between Genesis 2:24 and other passages describing other marriages. That’s like saying there’s a contradiction between our laws that forbid theft and the existence of people stealing things. That people break the law — either God’s or man’s — does not mean there’s a contradiction and that the law is invalid.

    The only dishonest ones here are atheists trying to defend the indefensible.

  • Jay McHue

    Marriage existed before any social contracts came along and was originally and should always be a matter involving God, as it was in Genesis 2:24.

  • lizdhm

    Neither of those passages sets a limit on the number of women a man can become one flesh with. The 12 Tribes of Israel, and hence the nation of Israel, only existed because of polygamy and concubines. Nice try.

  • Jay McHue

    No, they actually do set a limit. Look at them again. Here’s the Genesis passage:

    “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.”

    And here’s from Matthew:

    ““Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh.”

    Notice they don’t say “a man is united to his wives.” They say one man and one woman are united, that the they are no longer two (not three, four, ten, hundreds), but one flesh. You are falsely injecting a meaning that simply isn’t there.

    And again, no, Israel didn’t exist only because of polygamy and concubines.

    It’s really very sad that you’re so close-minded and locked into this false narrative that you’ve either invented yourself or are just mindlessly regurgitating from somewhere.

  • lizdhm

    There’s nothing that says a man can’t go become one flesh with more wives.

    If the 12 Tribes of Israel didn’t exist, how would Israel exist? Take all the time you need.

  • David Cromie

    “…spurned new thought!”, will not get us very far.

    I do have utter contempt for a belief in supposed supernatural entities of any sort, especially when no evidence is adduced that such exist, and when the thousands of supposed ‘gods’, imagined to exist throughout human history, are dismissed as not being real, except for the one the believe puts his/her faith in today.

  • David Cromie

    Textual analysis tells us much about the bogus nature of the so-called ‘bible’, and its history about the periods over which it was concocted.

  • Jay McHue

    Nothing except everything. You’re falsely injecting something that clearly isn’t there in order to have an idiotic complaint against the Bible. Quite the close-minded dogma you have there. You’re like a child who asks for some candy before supper, but is told they can’t have candy because it will ruin their supper, so they go off and find some cookies to eat instead because “mom didn’t say no cookies.”

    I’m not sure what makes you think Israel wouldn’t have ever existed if polygamy hadn’t been practiced by anyone.

  • lizdhm

    ROFL no one is asking you for candy, big guy.

    You claim to know the Bible better than I do, but you don’t even know where the 12 Tribes came from? Really? Try rereading Genesis.

  • David Cromie

    Metaphysics has no bearing on scientific questions.

  • Pauli Staalesen d.y.

    Yeah, text analysis is really cool!

    I was trying to explain to a friend why we cannot just “take the bible at its words” like fundamentalists say. Suddenly I saw an example of miscommunication. We were driving down a country road in a big rig and he greeted a couple of neighbors by blowing the horn…, one guy greeted back and the other guy jumped (afraid the horn was criticism of him being too far out into the road). Did you see that? I said to my friend: even when you are in your own culture speaking with neighbors you have known your entire life, communication can be misunderstood! Its a good thing they could see your smile and your hand gestures to correct the misunderstanding!

    Then I said: What if you learned that, say, The revelations of John was written in a bar and John was high as a kite while writing it, would that change your interpretation of the text? Of course, he said, but we don’t know that. That is true, I said, as a matter of fact we know practically NOTHING of the circumstances around the text and when you add all the other issues that limit understanding. truthfulness, who wrote it, who placed it in the bible and why, if the author truly was in touch with God (or perhaps something else was going on), it would be really hard to say we understand…

    Another issue with using ancient text as authority for OUR life and OUR society, is ACCOUNTABILITY. We would be letting an unknown person with unknown motives “run our lives” and if he gave us bad advice, he could not be held accountable and POWER without ACCOUNTABILITY is dictatorship! … a little “maxim” I believe in 🙂

  • lizdhm

    ROFL no one’s asking you for anything, big guy.

    Go back and reread Genesis. Especially the Jacob part.

  • Pauli Staalesen d.y.

    You may be right 🙂 I DO struggle to understand other people and what “moves them” ..

    Lets take children: Do you “despise” their error or do you “guide them gently” so to speak? Now, you may say that Christians aren’t children. True, but like you also pointed out: they have been sold “a bill of goods” that makes up the framework for their understanding and in some instances, I believe they truly are doing their utmost to be honest and understand and maybe sometimes not… but even then, perhaps it is fear that hinders them?

    I don’t know, I’m just trying my best to have a fruitful conversation, but I am open to finding better forms of communication 🙂

  • Jay McHue

    You can’t even directly cite anything to back up your claims. You simply throw out the old “go look it up yourself!” style retort. Not surprising. Typical anti-theist tactic when backed into a corner of their own making. I’m done with you and your ignorant, baseless nonsense.

  • Jay McHue

    …”Lucy” the alleged precursor of humans… That’s a fitting one.

  • Jay McHue

    Then why bother worrying about what this group is doing? Why waste the time? Doesn’t seem very logical or rational.

  • Jay McHue

    Do you have any evidence that it was for these other alleged reasons? If so, please present it.

  • firebubbles310

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-lucifer-netflix-tom-ellis-20190513-story.html%3f_amp=true

    Takes three seconds with the google. Plus I have lots of experience dealing with Fox cancellations. It was the only reason I didn’t get into Lucy to begin with. I knew it would be cancelled because fox. All my shows I have loved have been. Firefly, tru calling, dark angel, dollhouse, sleepy hollow, Gotham, etc. used to it by now.

  • Jay McHue

    “…ratings…”

    Which would include your stupidly, ignorantly, hatefully put “6 angry moms ignoring their children.” So, in trying to debunk it, you proved it. Congrats. Done with you.

  • firebubbles310

    Finish reading the paragraph little cabbage.

    Fox executives first blamed the cancellation on ratings, saying that “Lucifer” was not drawing enough viewership to warrant a renewal. But later, then-Fox Television Group Chief Executive Dana Walden also said that economics had played a role. The series is produced by Warner Bros. Studios in association with Jerry Bruckheimer Television, and “we couldn’t justify the economics” of paying for a show from another studio, she said in interviews.

    Fox has admitted they didn’t want to pay for a show that was from another studio. Silly little carrot. So close and yet so far.

    Happy new year little veggie-chan

  • lizdhm

    So yeah. Jacob totally didn’t have two wives and two concubines from which the 12 Tribes sprang. Nope. That’s not in the Bible at all.

    You’re right about one thing. You are done.

  • persephone

    Some people are going to jump to placate the extremists. They don’t look into the background or context. We, for example, are very aware that OMM has only a few thousand members, members who may not all be active, but many of these companies don’t, and they don’t do research.

  • Jay McHue

    Pray tell, how do you know, supposedly, how many people are a part of OMM?

  • persephone

    People have checked their followers/subscribers on social media. I’m not on Facebook, so I can’t check that, but multiple people have said the followers there are around 4,000.

  • Jay McHue

    You’re going on hearsay? I thought that was a big no-no among so-called, self-anointed “freethinkers.” Or does that only apply to Christians and the Bible?

    Social media is not the end-all and be-all of a group’s membership/participation. Besides, given their current social media counts, your numbers are either outdated or, more likely, false. Also, OMM has been around for a long time and started long before they had a social media presence. The earliest Wayback snapshot of the AFA website showing OMM is from January 2002. Their Facebook page was created about a decade later.

  • persephone

    If there were really a million moms, they’d actually have some influence with their boycotts. They haven’t. If they can’t even rally people to subscribe to a webpage, how many of them are going to put in the effort of boycotting. They use their social media presence as clout; that their presence is so small indicates their lack of power.

    Research is not hearsay. OMM has never produced a membership roster, not even one that lists membership information without names or addresses for privacy.

  • rationalobservations?

    The evidence exists regarding the fabrication of the oldest 4th century manufactured NT bibles and the centuries of editing, alteration, deletion from and addition to bible texts.

    There is no evidence of the existence of any of the millions of fictional, undetected and undetectable gods, goddesses and god-men among which the mythological previously Canaanite god “Yahweh” and the Roman’s god-man “Jesus” are nothing unique, original or authentic.

    Religionism is the ultimate absurdity…

    https://i0.wp.com/restlesspilgrim.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Sinai.jpg?w=960&ssl=1
    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FKxKMTv5kKI/UJ_u61RU5rI/AAAAAAAABsk/uCBFlOlhp30/s1600/487863_227759457347086_778655360_n.jpg

  • rationalobservations?

    Jay McHue

    It’s easy to reject religionism because it is obvious human authored garbage.
    Your brand of religionism is easy to reject for exactly the same reasons you reject religionism in which you have not been indoctrinated or brainwashed to accept regardless of how ridiculous it appears to the non indoctrinated members of our so very recently evolved species of ape.

    Millions of living people and the whole population of Ancient Egypt worship(ed) other gods and dismiss yours as fantasy just as you dismiss their gods as fantasy.

    Religionists are often baffled as to how atheists could deny the existence of their god(s), but they shouldn’t be. Members of all the many declining brands of religionism deny thousands of the same gods that atheists deny. Atheists just deny one more god than christians and Muslims.

    Christians and Muslims denyYahweh, Odin, Amun-Ra, Quetzalcoatl and Pratibhanapratisamvit, Buddhist goddess of context analysis, Acat, Mayan god of tattoo artists. and Tsa’qamae, north american god of salmon migration. They deny the 30,000,000 gods and goddesses that are said to inhabit the “sacred” cows of Hindu India and all the millions of other fictional undetected and undetectable gods, goddesses, god-men and prophets that include the fictional entities that you fail to validate, justify, defend or excuse.

    We’re not so different, after all. Let us celebrate our vast agreement on the non-existence of thousands of gods and agree upon the similarity between the reasons you deny others and the rest of us also deny yours.

    The third largest and fastest growing human demographic today are the godless nonreligious and that cohort is growing exponentially with the non-replaced death of each religionists and the closure of each church, chapel, mosque and temple.The millennial generation and gen Z are the least religious generations in the history of our very recently evolved species of ape and their indifference to myths,legends and lies may carry on down future generations that have not been blighted by the kind of nonsense you recycle but cannot defend, validate, justify or excuse.
    https://i0.wp.com/restlesspilgrim.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Sinai.jpg?w=960&ssl=1
    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FKxKMTv5kKI/UJ_u61RU5rI/AAAAAAAABsk/uCBFlOlhp30/s1600/487863_227759457347086_778655360_n.jpg
    https://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/04/05/35/4053575_6748d688.jpg

  • rationalobservations?
  • rationalobservations?

    We are all atheists – with the exception of one mythological, undetected and undetectable nonexistent god in your case.
    The rest of us dismiss your imaginary friend for the same reasons you dismiss those in which you have not been brainwashed to believe exist without evidence of it’s actual existence.

    https://external-preview.redd.it/KOR8lvX9Y6PmImGQxt5MDSKx8NPkVpQPCXZ8ZYAmpQI.jpg?auto=webp&s=a95d0284e01c903a7698f3c28db62a1b59518fa5

  • Jay McHue

    I’m not baffled in the least. I know what it’s like to reject the existence of God. I used to be an atheist and I used the exact same false, illogical, irrational arguments as you. (No mindlessly, uncritically regurgitated memes, though. Those weren’t a thing back in the 1990s.) I rejected God for the same reason you reject God: because of the love of sin.

    ==========

    Apparently this page doesn’t like my responses to your other replies, so here they are:

    See, here’s the problem with mindlessly and uncritically regurgitating the claims of some meme you’ve seen online — you’re mindlessly and uncritically regurgitating the claims of some meme you’ve seen online. XD

    Here’s a damning rebuttal of your false meme: restlesspilgrim[dot]net/blog/2016/01/10/sinai-vs-kjv/ I know it’s extremely unlikely to change your closed mind, but, well, there it is.

    The true “ultimate absurdity” is the atheist who believes that nothing plus no one plus no time suddenly explodes for no reason into everything in existence pretty much “just because.”

    But yeah, if you just completely ignore the existence of 66 separate books written in three different languages by dozens of authors from all walks of life living in a variety of cultures and situations on three different continents writing about a variety of subjects over about 1,500 years yet all agreeing on everything they wrote about, a feat which could not be replicated in the least by, say, just three authors alive today with similar backgrounds living in the same city and writing at length about a single subject, it’s pretty easy to claim “there no evidence.”

    Actually, that’s the typical non-argument an atheist uses: “Prove Jesus without the Bible!” What rule says that the Bible is verboten? Answer: the false rule you completely made up. There is nothing — NOTHING — that logically, rationally delegitimizes the Bible as evidence that Jesus existed. There is only your personal bias against it.

  • David Cromie

    “Prove Jesus without the Bible!”, you cannot. The so-called ‘bible’ does not prove anything, for the simple reason that it is a fallacy that the so-called ‘bible’ can be quoted as proof of itself – to try to do so is a circular argument.- any more than the stories of Harry Potter are proof that he is a real person.

    So where is the irrefutable. falsifiable, and independent evidence for the real existence of your favourite supposed ‘god’ (remembering that there are thousands to choose from)?

  • David Cromie

    What difference would it make what language the OT was originally written in? Since you are quite happy with Genesis in the English translation, the answer is obviously none at all. However, if there is some blatant mistranslation of Genesis 2:22 in the KJV, please point it out for us.

  • barriejohn

    What nonsense. You really are clutching at straws! You could take a hundred Muslim authors, over several hundred years, in many different countries and cultures, and their writings would broadly agree. The same would be true of other religions and even ideologies like Marxism. Of course, in all different belief systems, including Judaism, different sects will eventually arise, but all will claim to adhere to the earliest teachings. And can you be completely unaware of the argument going on in the NT between “works and faith”, and the necessity or otherwise of observing the mosaic law, to say nothing of the development over the years of ideas about the afterlife? Your argument has no validity whatsoever.

  • Raging Bee

    How do you know it’s not Biblical? Those could be two concubines marrying each other (and of course, consummating their marriage) for their master’s entertainment!

  • rationalobservations?

    For many times longer than the pathetic brand of religIonism based upon the fictional character “Jesus” was brutally enforced upon the world but in the 4th century, in ancient Egypt “marriage” involved a suitor taking his bundle (of clothes and belongings) to a girl’s door and knocking. If she took them in they were married in the opinion of their community.

    Your fantasies are based upon ignorance – not evidence or common sense.

    Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance and gullibility.

  • rationalobservations?

    Repeating garbage fails to validate that garbage…

  • Jay McHue

    First off, claiming something is “garbage” doesn’t automatically make it “garbage.” Second, it wasn’t a matter of validating anything, but debunking the claims against what the Bible says. Finally, it’s good to see you can’t actually respond with anything resembling reason, logic, or rationality.

  • Jay McHue

    I’m not the ignorant, arrogant, gullible one in this. You’re uncritically, irrationally, hatefully regurgitating some false nonsense about “religionism” and “fictional character[s]” you read about in a book or on some website or saw in some nonsensical YouTube video. And what does practices in ancient Egypt have to do with anything? Talk about non sequiturs! Now, since you clearly proven that you have nothing but illogical and irrational emotion outbursts to offer, I’m finished with you.

  • rationalobservations?

    Claiming that one/some (all?) the diverse and very different versions of internally contradictory, historically inaccurate and historically unsupported of human authored mythology called “bibles” are somehow “true” does not make one/some (all?) of them “true”.

    I make no claims!

    I challenge those who make claims regarding the existence of one/some (all?) of the fictional gods, goddesses and god-men and the validity of one/some (all?) forms of mythological fantasies within human authored religious collections of fables to offer evidence in support of their unconvincing claims.

    As you demonstrate: NO ONE EVER CAN…
    https://i1.wp.com/36.media.tumblr.com/de1f373a2f3a8ecfe11a70c6dde0ead2/tumblr_o3nch6g75k1rpw0zao1_1280.jpg
    https://external-preview.redd.it/KOR8lvX9Y6PmImGQxt5MDSKx8NPkVpQPCXZ8ZYAmpQI.jpg?auto=webp&s=a95d0284e01c903a7698f3c28db62a1b59518fa5

  • rationalobservations?

    I wonder if you can validate your erudition by accepting the evidence that you continually deny?
    You repeatedly demonstrate your ignorance of history by regurgitating mythology and denying the actual historical evidence.

    “…what does practices in ancient Egypt have to do with anything?”

    The religionism of the whole Egyptian nation was more devout than any minority enthralment to the mythology of Judaeo/christianity. Yet you dismiss that devout belief as casually as you fail to validate your own similar beliefs in other gods, and god-men.
    You ignore and/or blithely deny all that confounds you.

    “I’m finished with you.”

    I am not sure how you can “finish” with that which you have never started to engage with through logic, knowledge and evidence – but expect all those similarly confounded to cut and run at some point as they have always done in the past..

    Enjoy your delusions if you find comfort in them and try not to be too terrified by the inevitability of death and eternal nonexistence that is the fate of all individual living things.

    Best wishes and sincere sympathy to you and yours, Jay. By all means feel free to re-engage with me if you ever feel you have something interesting and evidence supported too offer.

    Remember that we share non-belief in nearly all the imaginary gods and goddesses of mythology so we are not so very different after all?
    https://external-preview.redd.it/KOR8lvX9Y6PmImGQxt5MDSKx8NPkVpQPCXZ8ZYAmpQI.jpg?auto=webp&s=a95d0284e01c903a7698f3c28db62a1b59518fa5

  • rationalobservations?
  • rationalobservations?

    Quoting from one of the human authored books called “bibles! fails to validate that book.
    https://i0.wp.com/restlesspilgrim.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Sinai.jpg?w=960&ssl=1

  • rationalobservations?

    Other official resources to count the number of “moms” in One Million Moms was their social media accounts. On Twitter, @1milmoms (created in February 2010) boasted a grand total of 4,525 followers:

    Time to end the lies and rename this group of dishonest fanatics “4500 bigots”?

    https://www.truthorfiction.com/how-many-moms-are-in-one-million-moms/

    https://www.truthorfiction.com/ezoimgfmt/dn.truthorfiction.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/17161231/how-many-moms-one-million-moms-1024×520.jpg?ezimgfmt=ng:webp/ngcb7

  • rationalobservations?
  • rationalobservations?

    It appears by your standards we must accept the books of Harry Potter tales as evidence of his existence and HG Wells’ War of the World’s as evidence Ty he Earth was invaded by Martians around the end of the 19th century?

    A book of confused and contradictory, historically inaccurate and historically unsupported, scientifically absurd fables will never stand up as evidence of anything but the wilder excesses of the human imagination.