Downtrend
Because that's the direction of our freedoms.

Biblical Scholar Smacks Down Piers Morgan When Asked To Explain How Jesus Condemned Homosexuality

piersMorgan

(3,044 comments)

By
December 20, 2013

Piers Morgan is clearly a glutton for punishment. We saw that repeatedly during the gun control debates in the wake of the Newtown shooting.

A couple of nights ago on his program, Morgan criticized Phil Robertson’s recent anti-gay remarks as “repulsive” and claimed that he should be fired. Apparently, that’s Morgan’s way of handling opposing viewpoints from major celebrity figures.

On his program last night, he decided to invite a Biblical scholar, Dr. Michael Brown, on the show so that he could trap him into admitting that Jesus did not, in fact, condemn homosexuality.

That trap was not set properly.

When Morgan asked Brown to cite just one instance of Jesus condemning homosexuality, he probably thought that he had already won the debate. But alas, he was hoisted on his own petard.

Brown cited not one, but three instances of Jesus condemning homosexuality.

First, Jesus said that He came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. In other words, the Old Testament law, even in Jesus’ day, was still in force and Jesus accepted it. That is the same law that condemns homosexuality in the Book of Leviticus.

Next, Brown cited Matthew 15 in which Jesus states that all sexual acts committed outside of marriage defile a human being.

Finally, Brown cited Matthew 19 in which Jesus said that marriage, as God intended it, is the union of one man and one woman.

Game, set, and match. Brown.

Have a look at the video below.

  • [email protected]

    The Book of Leviticus also advocates slavery and stoning women for adultery, and forcing them to marry their rapists. It is just one instance where we see the monster Christian deity in all his bloodlust glory.

    • deepseaviking

      Hey I say bring back the rule of thumb. My wife cheated on me several times while I was deployed over sea’ I still want to stone that cunt!

      • [email protected]

        Luckily, man’s law is more moral than god’s law. So instead you have the right to divorce her rather than taking the law into your own hands to commit murder. Besides, maybe you’re a crap husband.

        • bravo27

          maybe you’re a crappy troll

          • deepseaviking

            Hooyah~

        • God? HAHAHA

          what a psycho you are, like all you religious weirdos… its 2013 and you still believe in some moronic god invented by humans hundreds of years ago. you truly are retarded and your mind is full of poison. No wonder your wife was out shagging other blokes, you are a nutcase. ps… do they have the internet in heaven?

          • deepseaviking

            You must get beat up allot huh? Oh and I do not believe in the Bible or GOD you dickless wonder! You are a very pathetic loser~ Next time you see you’re mother,tell her to swallow OK?

          • dmcmullen560

            For some months
            preceding Sunday, November 19th, 1899, the NEW YORK SUN had been devoting the better
            part of a page of its Sunday edition to the discussion of the truth of
            Christianity. On that date it printed a letter from one W.R.L., in which he
            denounced Christianity, using the old oft-refuted “arguments,” and
            challenged “some champion of orthodoxy to come into the arena of the
            SUN,” and give its readers some “facts” in defence of the
            Christian religion. The writer had not seen the NY SUN for years; but on his
            way from South Framingham to Grafton,
            Massachusetts, a copy of the SUN
            of that date, left on a vacant seat in the train, fell into his hands. The
            following letter met that challenge.

            The letter was reprinted by the writer
            himself in a pamphlet of some fifty pages with the Greek text of Matthew 1:1-17
            and the vocabularies thereto, enabling the scholarly reader to verify his
            statements for himself.

            SIR: – In today’s SUN Mr. W.R.L. calls for
            a “champion of orthodoxy” to “step into the arena of the SUN,”
            and give him some facts:

            1. The first 17 verses of the New
            Testament contain the genealogy of Christ. It consists of two main parts:
            Verses 1-11 cover the period from Abraham, the father of the chosen people, to
            the Captivity, when they ceased as an independent people. Verses 12-17 cover
            the period from the Captivity to the promised Deliverer, the Christ.

            Let us
            examine the first part of this genealogy.

            Its vocabulary has 49 words, or 7 x 7.
            This number is itself seven (Feature 1) sevens (Feature 2), and the sum of its
            factors is 2 sevens (Feature 3). Of these 49 words 28, or 4 sevens, begin with
            a vowel; and 21, or 3 sevens, begin with a consonant (Feature 4).

            Again: These 49 words of the vocabulary
            have 266 letters, or 7 x 2 x 19; this number is itself 38 sevens (Feature 5),
            and the sum of its factors is 28, or 4 sevens (Feature 6), while the sum of its
            figures is 14, or 2 sevens (Feature 7). Of these 266 letters, moreover, 140, or
            20 sevens, are vowels, and 126, or 18 sevens, are consonants (Feature 8).

            That is to say: Just as the number of
            words in the vocabulary is a multiple of seven, so is the number of its letters
            a multiple of seven; just as the sum of the factors of the number of words is a
            multiple of seven, so is the sum of the factors of the number of their letters
            a multiple of seven. And just as the number of words is divided between vowel
            words and consonant words by seven, so is their number of letters divided
            between vowels and consonants by sevens.

            Again: of these 49 words 35, or 5 sevens,
            occur more than once in the passage: and 14, or 2 sevens, occur but once
            (Feature 9); seven occur in more than one form, and 42, or 6 sevens, occur in
            only one form (Feature 10). And among the parts of speech the 49 words are thus
            divided: 42, or 6 sevens, are nouns, seven are not nouns (Feature 11). Of the
            nouns 35, or 5 sevens, are Proper names, seven are common nouns (Feature 12).
            Of the Proper names 28 are male ancestors of the Christ, and seven are not
            (Feature 13).

            Again: of these 49 words 35, or 5 sevens, occur more than once in
            the passage: and 14, or 2 sevens, occur but once. Feature 9 ; seven occur in
            more than one form, and 42, or 6 sevens, occur in only one form. Feature 10 .
            And among the parts of speech the 49 words are thus divided: 42, or 6 sevens,
            are nouns, seven are not nouns. Feature 11. Of the nouns 35, or 5 sevens, are
            Proper names, seven are common nouns. Feature 12. Of the Proper names 28 are
            male ancestors of the Christ, and seven are not. Feature 13.

            Moreover, these 49 words are distributed
            alphabetically thus. Words under alpha-epsilon are 21 in number, or 3 sevens;
            zeta – kappa 14 or 2 sevens; mu- chi also 14. No other groups of sevens
            stopping at the end of a letter are made by these 49 words, the groups of
            sevens stop with these letters and no others. But the letters, alpha, epsilon,
            zeta, kappa, mu, and chi , are letters 1, 5, 6, 10, 12, 22, of the Greek
            alphabet, and the sum of these numbers (called their Place Values) is 56, or 8
            sevens Feature 14 .

            This enumeration of the numeric phenomena
            of these 11 verses does not begin to be exhaustive, but enough has been shown
            to make it clear that this part of the genealogy is constructed on an elaborate
            design of sevens.

            Let us now turn to the genealogy as a
            whole. I will not weary your readers with recounting all the numeric phenomena
            thereof: Pages alone would exhaust them. I will point out only one feature. T
            he New Testament is written in Greek. The Greeks had no separate symbols for
            expressing numbers, corresponding to our Arabic figures, but used instead the
            letters of their alphabet: just as the Hebrews, in whose tongue the Old
            Testament is written, made use for the same purpose of theirs. Accordingly, the
            24 Greek letters stand for the following numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10,
            20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800. Every Greek
            word is thus a sum in arithmetic obtained by adding the numbers for which its
            letters stand, or their numeric values. Now the vocabulary to the entire
            genealogy has 72 words. If we write its numeric value over each of these 72
            words, and add them, we get for their sum 42,364, or 6,052 sevens, distributed
            into the following alphabetical groups only: alpha- beta have 9,821, or 1,403
            sevens; gamma-delta, 1904, or 272 sevens; epsilon-zeta, 3,703, or 529 sevens;
            theta-rho, 19,264, or 2,752 sevens; sigma-chi, 7,672, or 1,096 sevens. But the
            numeric value of the 10 letters used for making these groups is 931, or 7 x 7 x
            19, a multiple not only of seven but of seven sevens.

            Let Mr. W.R.L. try to write some 300 words
            intelligently like this genealogy, and reproduce some numeric phenomena of like
            designs. If he does it in 6 months, he will indeed do a wonder. Let us assume
            that Matthew accomplished this feat in one month.

            2. The second part of this chapter, verses
            18-25, relates the birth of the Christ. It consists of 161 words, or 23 sevens;
            occurring in 105 forms, or 15 sevens, with a vocabulary of 77 words or 11
            sevens. Joseph is spoken to here by an angel. Accordingly, of the 77 words the
            angel uses 28, or 4 sevens; of the 105 forms he uses 35, or 5 sevens; the
            numeric value of the vocabulary is 52,605, or 7,515 sevens; of the forms,
            65,429, or 9,347 sevens.

            This enumeration only begins as it were
            barely to scratch the surface of the numerics of this passage. But what is
            specially noteworthy here is the fact that the angel’s speech has also a scheme
            of sevens making it a kind of ring within a ring, a wheel within a wheel. If
            Mr. L. can write a similar passage of 161 words with the same scheme of sevens
            alone (though there are several others hers) in some three years, he would
            accomplish a still greater wonder. Let us assume that Matthew accomplished this
            feat in only 6 months.

            3. The second chapter of Matthew tells of
            the childhood of the Christ. Its vocabulary has 161 words, or 23 sevens, with
            896 letters, or 128 sevens, and 238 forms, or 34 sevens; the numeric value of
            the vocabulary is 123,529, or 17,647 sevens; of the forms, 166,985, or 23,855
            sevens; and so on through pages of enumeration. This chapter has at least four
            logical divisions, and each division shows alone the same phenomena found in
            the chapter as a whole. Thus the first six verses have a vocabulary of 56
            words, or 8 sevens, etc. There are some speeches here: Herod speaks, the Magi
            speak, the angel speaks. But so pronounced are the numeric phenomena here, that
            though there are as it were numerous rings within rings, and wheels within
            wheels, each is perfect in itself though forming all the while only part of the
            rest.

            If Mr. L. can write a chapter like this as
            naturally as Matthew writes, but containing in some 500 words so many
            intertwined yet harmonious numeric features, in say the rest of his days -
            whatever his age now, or the one to which he is to attain: if he thus
            accomplish it at all, it will indeed be marvel of marvels. Let us assume that
            Matthew accomplished this feat in only 3 years.

            4. There is not, however, a single
            paragraph of the scores in Matthew that is not constructed in exactly the same
            manner. Only with each additional paragraph the difficulty of constructing it
            increases not in arithmetical, but in geometrical progression. For he contrives
            to write his paragraphs so as to develop constantly fixed numeric relations to
            what goes before and after. Thus in his last chapter he contrives to use just 7
            words not used by hem before. It would thus be easy to show that Mr. L. would
            require some centuries to write a book like Matthew’s. how long it took Matthew
            the writer does not know. But how he contrived to do it between the
            Crucifixion, AD 30 ( and his Gospel could not have been written earlier), and
            the destruction of Jerusalem,
            AD 70 (and the Gospel could not have been written later), let Mr. L. and his
            like-minded explain.

            Anyhow, Matthew did it, and we thus have a
            miracle – an unheard-of literary, mathematical artist, unequalled, hardly even
            conceivable. This is the first fact for Mr. L. to contemplate.

            A second fact is yet more important: In
            his very first section, the genealogy discussed above, the words found nowhere
            else in the New testament occur 42 times, 7 x 6; and have 126 letters, 7 x 6 x
            3, each number a multiple not only of seven, but of 6 sevens, to name only two
            of the many numeric features of these words. But how did Matthew know, when
            designing this scheme for these words (whose sole characteristic is that they
            are found nowhere else in the New Testament) that they would not be found in
            the other 26 books? That they would not be used by the other 7 New Testament
            writers? Unless we assume the impossible hypothesis that he had an agreement
            with them to that effect, he must have had the rest of the New Testament before
            him when he wrote his book. The Gospel of Matthew, then, was written last.

            5. It so happens, however, that the Gospel
            of Mark shows the very same phenomena. Thus the very passage called so
            triumphantly in today’s SUN a “forgery,” the Last Twelve Verses of
            Mark, presents among some sixty features of sevens the following phenomena: It
            has 175 words, or 25 sevens, a vocabulary of 98 words, or 2 sevens of sevens,
            with 553 letters, or 79 sevens; 133 forms, or 19 sevens, and so on to the
            minutest detail.

            Mark, then, is another miracle, another
            unparalleled literary genius. And in the same way in which it was shown that
            Matthew wrote last it is also shown that Mark, too, wrote last. Thus to take an
            example from this very passage: It has just one word found nowhere else in the
            New Testament, [Image] [Image] [Image] [Image] [Image] [Image] [Image] [Image]
            [Image], deadly. This fact is signalled by no less than seven features of
            sevens, thus: its numeric value is 581, or 83 sevens, with the sum of its
            figures 14, or 2 sevens, of which the letters 3, 5, 7, 9 from the begin ning of
            the word have 490, or 7 x 7 x 5 x 2: a multiple of seven sevens, with the sum
            of its factors 21, or 3 sevens. In the vocabulary it is preceded by 42 words: 7
            x 6; in the passage itself by 126 words, or 7 x 6 x 3, both numbers multiples
            not only of seven, but of 6 sevens. We has thus established before us this
            third fact for Mr. L. to contemplate: Matthew surely wrote after Mark, and Mark
            just as surely wrote after Matthew.

            6. It happens, however, to be a fourth
            fact, that Luke presents the same phenomena as Matthew and Mark, and so do
            John, and James, and Peter, and Jude, and Paul. And we have thus no longer two
            great unheard-of mathematical literati, but eight of them and each wrote after
            the other.

            7. And not only this: As Luke and Peter
            wrote each 2 books, John 5, and Paul 14, it can in the same way be shown that
            each of the 27 New Testament books was written last. In fact, not a page of the
            over 500 in Wescott and Hort’s Greek edition (which the writer has used
            throughout) but it can be demonstrated thus to have been written last.

            The phenomena are there and there is no
            human way of explaining them. Eight men cannot each write last, 27 books, some
            500 pages, cannot each be written last. But once assume that one Mind directed
            the whole, and the problem is solved simply enough; but this Verbal Inspiration
            - of every jot and tittle of the New Testament.

            There remains only to be added that by
            precisely the same kind of evidence the Hebrew Old Testament is proved to be
            equally inspired. This the very first verse of Genesis has seven words, 28
            letters, or 4 sevens: to name only two out of the dozens of numeric features of
            this one verse of only seven words – NEW YORK SUN, November 21, 1899 -
            CORRECTED.

            To this letter several replies appeared in
            the SUN, but not a single answer. For in only three ways can it be refuted.

            1. By showing that the facts are not as
            here given. 2. By showing that it is possible for 8 men to write each after the
            other 7: for 27 books, or some 500 pages, to be each in turn written last. 3.
            By showing that even if the facts be true, the arithmetic faultless, and the
            collocation of the numerics honest, it does not follow that mere men could not
            have written this without Inspiration from above.

            Accordingly, as many as nine noted
            rationalists (of whom Drs. Lyman Abbot and Charles W. Eliot are still living
            [now in 1927 {original date of publication of this pamphlet} also gone to where
            they may know] ) were respectfully but publicly invited to refute the writer.
            One was not “interested” in the writer’s “arithmetical”
            doings; two “regretted” that they “had no time” to give
            heed thereto. Another “did not mean to be unkind,” but … The rest
            were silent. For the special benefit of these the writer printed the original
            data with numerous details, enabling them in the easiest manner to verify every
            statement made by him, if they wished. And to the best of his ability he has
            for years seen to it that no scholar whom surely these things specially concern
            should remain in ignorance of the facts here recounted, and of hundreds of like
            cogency.

            A notable exception to the above is a
            lawyer of standing [now also dead], who books on Law are deemed as of
            authority. He had intelligence enough and candour withal to confess that the
            case for the Bible as made out by the writer is impregnable, that the Bible is
            thus proved to be an “absolutely unique book.” This much the case
            itself extorts from the but too well equipped writer on – EVIDENCE; and
            accordingly he henceforth reads the writer’s Numerics with intense
            appreciation. And then, fresh from this confession, he betakes himself once
            more to the circulation of his anti-Christian books in the writing of which he
            joys to spend his leisure hours.

            In the second letter to the NY SUN the
            author, in discussing some irrelevant “answers” to his first letter,
            recited the three ways of refuting him and then continued:

            “No sane man will try to refute me by
            the second method. To refute me by the first method I herewith respectfully
            invite any or all of the following to prove that my facts are not facts: namely
            Messrs. Lyman Abbott, Washington Gladden, Heber Newton, Minot J. Savage,
            Presidents Eliot of Harvard, White of Cornell, and Harper, the University of
            Chicago, Professor J. Henry Thayer of Harvard, and Dr. Briggs, and any other
            prominent higher critic so called. They may associate with themselves, if they
            choose, all the contributors of the ninth edition of the Encyclopaedia
            Britannica who wrote its articles on Biblical subjects, together with a dozen
            mathematicians of the caliber of Professor Simon Newcomb. The heavier the
            caliber of either scholar or mathematician, the more satisfactory to me. They
            will find that my facts are facts. And since they are facts, I am ready to take
            them to any three prominent lawyers, or, better still, to any judge of the Superior or Supreme
            Court, and abide by his decision as to whether the conclusion is not necessary
            that Inspiration alone can account for the facts, if they are facts. All I
            should ask would be that the judge treat the case as he would any other case
            that comes before him: declining to admit matters for discussion as irrelevant
            when they are irrelevant; and listening patiently to both sides, as he does in
            any trial.”

        • Xanax

          I’m sorry for all of your suffering; hopefully for you, your religion doesn’t teach the hate you spew on the message boards. You come across rambling like the Westboro Baptist Church.
          BTW, I didn’t realize “GOD” shared his knowledge and judgment with you personally…. I’m really impressed.

          • deepseaviking

            Hey key board hero,send me you’re address and well see who is talking shit!

          • xanax

            Lol, since God talks to you personally, why don’t you ask him for my address. I’m sure I will be punished by the coming apocalypse. BTW congratulations on your adulterous marriage, and your $57K you can use to for your next pick of the litter.

          • Timothy Lunceford

            Deepseaviking doesn’t represent Christianity well. Can you see Jesus talking that way? Enough said. Obviously he’s angry but not responding in a Christ – like manner.

        • spikebat

          You were awarded damages AND pain and suffering? Quite fitting for the extreme hatred which spews from you…and who says the justice system never gets it right.

        • wowww

          You need medication…

      • Buddah

        I fucked ur wife, licked her butthole too

        • tktimoteo

          How does it make you feel to know you are going to burn in hell forever and ever for being a wicked rebel to a gracious King- Father God will not allow you to mock and deny his Holy Son.Just like the world saw the love of the son in His sacrificial sacrifice Like any Good father you will experience the Wrath of the father in defending the honor of His Son. No ruler on earth would allow you to blatantly break his laws- God has been more gracious than any human ruler would ever think of being but man in his pride refuses to submit to what is right- refuses to repent and call out for God’s mercy and accept his son’s redeeming sacrifice- he doesn want you to go to hell- (((((YOU CHOOSE))))) by your WILLFUL REBELLION to go to HELL. Permanent separation for ALLLLLL of eternity…and there is passage of time in heaven..one day in heal will seem like a thousand years to you. And even their you will be so calcified in your opposition to God and all that is good you will be completely irredeemable- beyond the point of no return. You will think a 1000 times a minute how you denied the sacrifice of the gracious king he died on the cross for his subjects. You will be in UTTER torment FOR ALL OF TIME and eternity and you will deserve it because again it was YOUR CHOICE.

          • sicorax

            Calm down brother.

          • deepseaviking

            If you have not noticed idiot,you are already in HELL dip shit!

          • @tktimoteo

            god is not real you fucking weirdo, stop slowing down humanity with your insane views, if religion is a personal thing then why do none of you retards keep it to yourself instead of spouting shit to rational sane people.,.. you really are mentally ill if you believe in a god or gods, you have a mental disease that you spread to your kids… you religious wankers make me sick, you are so uneducated and backwards. ITS 2013 YOU IDIOTS – GOD IS NOT REAL – GROW UP

          • xanax

            THE APOCALYPSE WILL CLEANSE YOU ALL!!!! MAY THE STORM BE UPON US..
            Please talk to a mental health professional.

          • Uncle Benny

            Wow, I don’t think I’m feeling the love here …

        • deepseaviking

          Thanks, Very cool,do you have video you can share? I do! Oh and she is my EX wife ha ha ha ha ~!

        • longbowman

          The left for some reason, are easy to spot just by reading the only messages they can write.

    • Whiteeagle

      Really !!! Perhaps You TOO … Need To Re-Look At The Scriptures And Learn To ‘Unentangle’ Your ‘Old Nature’ From Your Capacity (or Lack, Thereof) To Understand …. Jesus Admonished Us To Be : “Borned Again”, Which ‘Kills Off’ An Old Nature (Sin, Depravity) And Opens Our ‘Eye’ Of Understanding To The ‘Order’ Of GOD’S Word … Jesus Christ, The SAME ; Yesterday, Today & Forever …. Christianity Will NOT Be Defined By Blasphemers !!!!

      • [email protected]

        No, it defines itself by the words of your monster deity who orders Moses to kill thousands for not following the ten commandments, despite its saying that THou Shalt Not Kill. Your bloodlust deity is a thousand Hitlers and Stalins combined.

        • la_hire

          Your ignorance deserves an answer, but I don’t think your closed mind will be able to hear it.

          If you accept that God created man, then everything else falls into place.

          If God is the Creator, then He knows everything about His Creation. He knows everything about the laws of nature that he has ordained. He then knows what He must DO, what He must ALLOW, and over what duration of TIME He must act.

          If you accept this, (and I know you don’t), then the violence and the ignorance and the repeated risings and fallings of His people over time are intended to lead to a pre-ordained conclusion–one that is beyond our limited ability to understand. Why do the Evil prosper at times? Why do the Good suffer? Why does God choose to enact His will in the times He does for the reasons He chooses? I don’t know. King David didn’t know. He said so in his Psalms. And King David was “a man after God’s own heart.” If he couldn’t comprehend the intent of the Almighty, why would I assume that I can.

          If you don’t accept the nature of God… if you come at the argument from a basic premise of unbelief… then no answer a person of faith will give you will suffice.

          And you will continue to shake your puny fist at the heavens and call God a monster.

          • Buddah

            you guys know religion is fake right>

          • tktimoteo

            Firstly, I have a feeling if I followed you around for a day or a week- most likely there would be a lot more reason to call you a fake than Jesus. Secondly-BIG difference between Jesus and Religion. He himself warned there would be fakes trying to capitalize on His name and what he did while He was here.
            Thirdly, The disciples followed Jesus around for 3 years and at the end of that time confirmed he was who he said he was- God in the Flesh- the predicted Christ(Saviour). They gave their lives for this unshakeable conviction/truth. When it comes to Jesus- I hope foryour sake you are not false accusing him…a lot of people who don’t know the scripture from conjecture also don’t know their butt form a whole in the ground.

          • Marcus_Z

            There is a man in Iceland who claims to be the reincarnated Jesus. Over 3,000 people live in his new village. Pilgrims come from around the world. Just because people believe something, doesn’t make it true. There are people in this crowd in Iceland who’d give their lives for the fake Jesus too.

          • tktimoteo

            I Highly doubt they would give their life for their “faith” in this false messiah you are referring to.. Nonetheless…that doesn’t discount the ancient PROPHECIES fulfiulled in the real Jesus. You obviously have no grasp of History of the Historical writing of the Torah and the rest of the Old testament written hundreds years before the historical Jesus- whose existence was not only verified by the gospel writers themselves but by historians Josephus and Tacitus. You are probably ignorant on purpose-and purposeful ignorance is the worst kind and unforgiveable. Jesus is the rightful returning king and eternity is a loooooooooooooooooooo(you get the idea) oooong time to be wrong about Him. He was the predicted Messiah. God in the Flesh. You are more fiction than he is. If people ALL OVER THE WORLD are still talking about you Icelandic Jesus 2000 yrs from now then maybe you will have been proven to be right. But that will NEVER happen. You need to repent of your hard sayings about the King- bend your knee now or be forced to bend it in the Kingdom. The first time he came as a helpless baby, as a lamb to be sacrificed for sin, The second time he comes as a Lion…as a lion is king of the jungle,,, he will be KING of the UNIVERSE and all the naysaysers big fat mouths will be shut on that day except in saying Jesus is LORD. The book says EVERY tongue will confess this….and that applies to you. I hope you get real and look into the book yourself and research the truth on your own without making silly unsubstantiated comments like the ones above. There is grace and forgiveness for all who believe. So simple it offends the pride of proud arrogant mankind. All of us are sinners in need of forgiveness by Father God. But he will not let anyone into his eternal presence without acknowledging His unique Holy sinless Son. He will not let sinful wicked hateful men show His SOn disrespect. This will never ever stand. You wouldn’t allow people to disrespect your son if he shed his blood his blood in battle to save a ransomed group of people held hostage.

          • longbowman

            Christ is as fake as gravity. You can’t touch that either. LOL

          • sicorax

            Why doesn’t god send his son on earth again? With the advancements in technology Jesus2 could be recorded and used as proof to convince us and the future generations that the bible/testament wasn’t anything more than the product of some imaginative writers who took great pleasure in locking the minds of their contemporaries into a repressed limbo?

          • la_hire

            Good question. Why doesn’t God send his son to Earth again.

            Hint: I don’t want to give the ending of the book away for you, but … (spoiler alert) … He did say he was going to do just that. The actual words of the Bible claim that Jesus WILL come back and that ALL will see him. Unfortunately, He will not be coming just to be seen. He will be coming to bring final judgment to a world that has denied Him.

            Disbelieve if you want. Mock if you feel the need.

            And be careful what you wish for…

          • xanax

            BTW, did you know in biblical times they still thought the Earth was flat! DId you know the Internet wouldn’t work unless we could calculate the speed of light. Therefore, if the universe was 5000 years old as your “bible” claims, we would be able to see the edge of it, as the speed of light is constant. Guess what! We are at approximately 14 billion years in the past based on the speed of light.
            Damn those dinosaur bones too.. I guess God wanted to temp our faith!
            I don’t recall God decreeing, that a bunch of papyrus and stone tablets be bound together in a book 70-300 years after the death of Jesus and say though must follow these contradictory rules.
            Do you believe Jesus was white too? Last time I checked must people from the middle east aren’t white.

          • elephantix

            Please don’t post anymore. I’m saving people on your side of the argument the trouble of asking.

          • xanax

            I’m not the one who needs “saving”. I am more than willing to answer to my maker for anything I have done.

          • nwjohnson

            If they are not white, what are they? They consider themselves white.

          • xanax

            See below:
            Depictions of Jesus are from the artists’ imaginations. The passages to which you allude re: a man with long hair are in 1Corinthians 11 and the context is such that men are not to look like women nor women to be mistaken for men. Long hair was part of the Nazarite vow. Samson was a Nazarite. Numbers 6:1-21
            I consider myself white, but I’m also part native American. So I guess it depends on your definition of the word white.

          • nwjohnson

            Of Indo-European descent.

          • http://pceasy4me.com/ Joshua Hicks

            Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE OF THE EARTH, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: Check your facts xanax, before you spew misinformation.

          • xanax

            suggestions for you :
            Globe
            Science book

          • http://pceasy4me.com/ Joshua Hicks

            I am a big fan of science :) Just had to correct some misinformation. See, you wrote this: “BTW, did you know in biblical times they still thought the Earth was flat!,” and I felt the need to correct that statement. Apparently, in old testament times, they knew something that science didn’t relearn until far later. I’m not here to argue faith. In my opinion, that’s a total waste of time. I could, however, argue for the value of manners and respect for the feelings and beliefs of others in a civilized society. Just as I am sure you would argue for manners and respect when it comes to issues that you care deeply about. That said, good luck to you as well.

          • xanax

            Check your facts and get a globe and a science book.
            I’ve had my fun; if you want to start quoting me translated books that have been edited, parts removed, mistranslated, taken out of context, go right ahead, I could care less. I hope you find what you are looking for, and your God is there to welcome you with open arms.

          • dmcmullen560

            1. in Biblical times they knew the earth was round, Isaiah 40:22 It is he that setteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants……It was the “religious” (Catholic) who took the traditions of men over what God’s word said. 2. with the pressure of oil that erupts when tapped… all the oil should be laying on the surface of the earth. The pressure alone indicates a young earth.. 3.

          • Randy

            The Book of Isaiah (that’s in the Old Testament) says “God is enthroned above the circle of the earth.” So whoever thought the earth was flat in Biblical times didn’t get it from Scripture!

          • Marcus_Z

            Most of the people here probably still think the earth is flat.

          • la_hire

            Wow–for someone who claims science as a background for his post, you might try to write a bit more coherently.

            And as is the usual process for those with a smidge of knowledge, you make the incorrect assumption that the premise of your belief–which is based on other people’s assumptions–is shared by your opponents.

            And the whole race question? You show your rampant ignorance by pretending that people believe something that they actually don’t–just so you can make a lame point about racism. Jesus—white??? Jesus was a Jew. Born of an earthly mother, raised in Hebrew society, known by record as a historical member of a Middle-Eastern ethnicity.

            Why the venom? Why the transparently erroneous name-calling? If you want to make a point in a serious topic, try not to embarrass yourself.

        • deepseaviking

          I love Hitler~!

          • [email protected]

            You also love eating your own feces. Should we be impressed?

        • Guest

          Actually, it is Thou shall not “commit murder”. There is a difference! The Commandments are all explained in detail, in Leviticus.

          • [email protected]

            What’s your point? Moses, under orders from his monster deity, slayed–as in to kill violently–thousands of men, women, and children who wouldn’t love god enough.

          • [email protected]

            Ok, then why did god not stop Moses and his hordes from murdering thousands of men, women, and children?

      • deepseaviking

        Thank you!

    • marmo43

      which bible are you reading. in the new testament a woman was accused of adultery, What Jesus wrote in the sand, we do not know. He did say you who are without sin, cast the first stone. one by one they left, and Jesus said to the woman, Where are thou accusers? Go and sin no more. Here sir is the clincher, when asking or seeking forgiveness, if we truly repent we are to turn from our sins and try to live as close to God as possible. no man can live a life perfectly. You need to get an expositors Bible, it explains the Word fully.

      • [email protected]

        The one where Jesus says all of god’s commands must be obeyed, including those I suppose where god orders the death of millions, men, women, and babies.

        • deepseaviking

          You are an retard!!!!!

        • elephantix

          Read la_hire’s response to you above after you last attempted to interject this point.

    • YouDontHaveToLikeIt

      The Bible doesn’t “advocate” slavery, but it does accept it as a given, and give rules governing treatment of slaves.
      A rape victim is NOT forces to marry the rapist, the rapist is forced, if the victim so desires, to accept all the responsibilities of marriage and caring for the victim until he or she dies.

      • [email protected]

        Do you even read your own stuff? The bible only gives rules governing the treatment of slaves? So a rapist is forced to marry his victim, but only if the victim so desires, and that makes moral sense to you? No wonder Christian fundamentalists are considered by thinking people to have a mental disorder.

    • apologtics

      As for the marrying the rapist, the Torah states that the rapist must pay 12 silver (which would equate to 12 years of pay before taxes) to her father, provide for her as a husband would and if she denied his hand, the rapist would be put to death. The woman wasn’t forced to live with her rapist either.

    • Eph_612

      And when they brought the woman caught in the very act of adultery to Jesus they posed that to Him. Of course in your wisdom you know what Jesus said to the accusers of the woman, but for those not so erudite, Jesus who said he did not not come to destroy the law and the prophets but he came to fulfill them answered, “let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”

      • [email protected]

        If only more Christians followed that commandment.

    • VL123

      I love when leftists love to cherry pick the Bible to suit their needs. lol If I recall… Satan can quote Scripture too and he did to Jesus. Jesus slapped that crap down real quick.

      • [email protected]

        You think there aren’t millions of people on the left who aren’t just as deluded as you when it comes to religion? Believing in the bible’s word isn’t a political position, it’s one of reality vs. Superstition.

      • [email protected]

        You mean those on the political right don’t cherry pick the bible? You are kidding, right?

    • longbowman

      If man can resolve sin only by death, how better to acheive this than execution?? Christ offers the ONLY other way but it is too simple for anyone of your intelligence to accept.

      • [email protected]

        A religion requiring a blood sacrifice is a religion of brutality. How is it that god sacrifices himself (Jesus) to himself to save a flawed species that god created in the first place and knew was flawed to begin with; when god could simply have forgiven mankind? It’s lunacy.

        • longbowman

          Where would you get the “rules” of brutality?

          I consider abortions “blood sacrifices” but that is just my idea when much more “conpassionate” people think nothing about killing an unborn child. Man is not “flawed” rather rebellious in spirit. And God has forgiven mankind.

          You are here aren’t you?

          • [email protected]

            God condones slavery and misogyny in the old and new testaments. What boundaries does god break? The right to murder millions, including innocents as described in the bible in Leviticus? You worship a monster deity who reflects your own religious mindset.

  • deepseaviking

    We need to start a campaign to send Piers Moron back to the hell hole of England to live among the Islamic POSes~

    • Rocky

      They don’t want him either!

    • Buddah

      all you religious freaks are shot

  • johnanaguski

    The moron gets educated.

  • Paul Redmon

    it seems very funny to me how people can sit on TV or in their armchair and bash religion and tell how horrible it is, but when they are in a tight place they are always calling out for God’s Help…. especially just before they die…

    • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

      It’s called “having a form of godliness while denying the power thereof”…and that power is Christ Himself.

    • Ian

      You fail to make the distinction between religion as in dogma, rites, rituals, tenets, clergy, hierarchy, hypoctisy, fashion, politics, greed, egoism, etc. and faith and spirituality. Seeking solace in one’s faith in a benevolent spirit iduring times of duress is distinct and unrelated to a debating the validity of Bible-sanctioned homophobia.

      • Eph_612

        Christianity is not a religion it is a relationship with the living Christ. No such thing as Bible-sanctioned homophobia. It does say, “love your neighbor as yourself.”

        • Ian

          I can accept your personal, though unconventional definition of Christianity as not being a religion. That said, let me say that I also do not believe the Bible sanctions homophobia, however I do believe many people quote the Bible to sanction their homophobic stances such as Dr. Michael Brown, and this is what I meant by “Bible-sanctioned homophobia” or to rephrase that homophobia allegedly sancitoned by the Bible.

          • Miranda Robinson

            Are you trying to see how many times you can use the word homophobia? As already mentioned this isn’t a question of persistent or irrational fear. You use the word as an insult much as one would use fag as an insult toward a homosexual. For the religious, it’s a matter of God’s will. Regardless of religious belief, the homosexual life style has been despised throughout history and cultures. Most likely because it, like the other prohibitions found in religious texts are destructive to a strong natural family and ultimately to society. For anyone old enough , it’s easy to see the downward trend of our society that has accompanied the destruction of the family unit. Whether God or wise ancient humans, there is wisdom for the ages in religious texts.

          • Ian

            Well, Miranda – oh peevish one, let’s ignore your silly and peevish question about word-counting. Next, no assistance from you is needed to frame what this discussion is about – in my opinion this homophobic homophobia is EXACTLY about persistent, irrational and I should add hysterical fear. Yes, agreed. Homophobia is an insult for people holding irrational fears of homosexuality just as misogyny is intended as an insult to those who harbor negative feelings about women. And then how holier than thou art you to speak for “the religious” – which religion? As already mentioned Christianity isn’t a religion and anything that is mentioned seems to be…shall I say, gospel to you. So which religion? Catholicism? Islam? Buddhism? How dare you claim to speak for anyone other than yourself – so pretentious (and peevish). And how dare you fabricate history to make an ignorant statement like “the homosexual life style(sic) has been despised throughout history and cultures.” Hmmm, which history and which cultures have even hinted of a homosexual lifestyle when this lifestyle is relatively modern identity as compared with homosexuality which has coexisted through history, culture and nature without condemnation in Western and Eastern traditions. I think ignorance and lack of education has been more strongly despised thoughout civilization than a non-existent lifestyle. Regarding prohibitions destructive to a strong natual fmaily and thus society…here the main point is procreation and survival of humanity. I believe humans no longer live on the verge of survival and endless human procreation has devoured this planet to the point where humans can be compared to viruses in that we overprocreate to the point where we defile the very environment we need to survive. Let’s all demand that all humans must procreate to prove their worth as human beings, then you will see a real downtrend (I bet you’ll be peeved) as 8, 9 10 billion humans wallow and expire in our man-made waste like viruses… albeit content with our wise and holier-than-thou crusade against homosexuals.

          • EdCrunk

            You come across as a Christophobe. Your fear is irrational and hysteric.

          • Ian

            No Ed, you are wrong. I do not fear Christ. I fear ultracrepidarians, know-it-alls, like Miranda Robinson, who “knowledgeably” speak of God’s will, the history and culture of the ancient homosexual lifestyle” (I still chuckle at this) and of course she also speaks for “any old enough” -when in fact she knows NOTHING! Then this ultra-ultracrepidarian takes her “NO-LEDGE” and dares to condemn fellow human beings. Where’s the Christianity in that? Is live and let live un-Christian? Is there are need for Christians to crusade 11 centuries after coming to a draw with another religion seeking to dominate humankind.
            So Ed, you are wrong. As a Roman Catholic, I do not fear Jesus Christ – rationally, irrationally or hysterically. Your observation is noted and does not offend me. However, to paraphrase your earlier comment, my quarrel is not with Jesus Christ, it’s with fallible human beings who have the audacity to claim to speak for Jesus. jm33b’s point is indisputable what we have learned about God has been taught to us by humans. Should someone claim to have been in contact with God directly, let’s see what kind of comments that person will get.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            “I fear ultracrepidarians, know-it-alls, like Miranda Robinson, who
            “knowledgeably” speak of God’s will, the history and culture of the
            ancient homosexual lifestyle” (I still chuckle at this) and of course
            she also speaks for “any old enough” -when in fact she knows NOTHING!”

            See? Judging.

          • Ian

            Yes, Joe. Point conceded. I am able to form opinions based on people’s comments and thus I am capable of judging. Next???

          • jm33b

            Gods will ? How did you learn of Gods will ? Did he come to you personally and say this is what I want you and humanity to do ? No , you learned it from a mere man standing at a podium and reading a book that admittedly has many testaments left out , has been retranslated at least a half dozen times by ordinary men and has been cherry picked to say what they want it to say . Who are you or they to say homosexuality is a “sin” ? The American Indians held effiminate or homosexual men in the highest spiritual regard , as being touched by the Great Spirit , or God . In ancient Rome homosexual behavior was the norm in the bath house and apparently lingers still today . In ancient Greece it was the same way and we extoll their military and political systems . Then came Christians and the Bible that had the abomination roundly condemned because it offended them , though a portion of the population still practiced it . It’s about realization and personal choice , something else God has given us . I don’t condone the practice but I don’t condemn it , either , because , it is Gods will . And I will fight to the death for their right to do what they please just as I would fight to the death for your right to condemn it . But let’s leave God out of it .

          • EdCrunk

            Ya know, murder has been goin on since the beginning of time as well, but it doesn’t mean it is right. God reveals his will to us through the scriptures. You’re quarrel isn’t with Christians, but with The Lord.

          • Ian

            The scriptures are documents transcribed, translated and passed on by humans – this can at best be viewed as an adulterated version of God’s will – much of which may have been lost in translation. To view the scriptures as flawless and the literal is to ignorantly accept the handiwork of man as the voice of God.

          • Anthony

            Mentioning uneducated people from the past doesn’t make homosexuality ok. Nature makes homosexuality not ok. Do not mention how dogs and lions and other animals have had gay sex because they are not humans with the same level of intelligence and in most cases it’s done for reasons of dominance and such. Remove religion and being gay is still wrong, according to science. Something that has deathly bacteria and bodily waste coming out of it is not meant to have a penis put inside of it. Homosexuals have mental and physical issues. Just like someone with depression, anxiety, down syndrome and even pedophilia. There is no magic pill or way to reverse it but everyone with mental deficiencies should do their best to fight them. If you want to mention history lets talk about age of consent. Age of consent became a felony about only 500 years ago and it was age 12. According to your logic any woman or man should be allowed to either have sex with a 12 year old or younger since that’s the way it was during most of human existence. Also you cannot just say to leave God out of it because you are telling people to leave their religious beliefs out of their decision. Get over it and accept it, homosexuality is against nature and God. I don’t care what people do in their own homes and on their own time, but do not try to make me to change me beliefs or try to change what I believe because you think I should. You try to make it seem as though homosexuality has always been excepted up until just recently but you’re completely wrong and clearly a liberal with no morals or values. Without roots, morals, and values you have no identity and you stand for nothing. That equals chaos.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            Miranda, I would first and foremost above anything else view divorce as the primary contribution to the destruction of the family unit….not homosexual behavior. And in that respect, Christians are not exempt. Some of them endorse divorce just as openly and freely as some endorse homosexuality. Bear in mind that when you point a finger at someone, 3 are pointing back at you.

          • Miranda Robinson

            I said for the religious it was God’s will, I didn’t proclaim that it was God’s will nor was the the theme of my comment. I’m not a religious person nor do I believe that the Bible or any other religious text is the word of God. I do believe that there are good guidelines to be taken from those texts regardless of their origin. Guidelines that benefit society.

          • Ian

            How do you know what is viewed as God’s will by this ambiguous group of “religious?” More nonsense MIranda.

          • EdCrunk

            Divorce, Adultery, Premarital sex… it’s affecting it as well.

        • RyneBeddard

          I get that religion is a word that has fallen on hard times and that relationship sounds better but I don’t think that’s a fair assessment of Christianity. Most of Jesus’ teachings are about our interaction with others, especially the “least of these” as well our engagement with wealth, power, tradition, etc… Christianity isn’t a relationship, but perhaps it’s a network of relationships (the plural being important). If Jesus was just a nice guy, feeding people and talking about our spiritual relationship with God he probably wouldn’t have got himself killed for it…

      • Chief1942

        It is imperative that you actually have studied the Bible and understand it’s tenants before you wade into a debate on it. The term you folks so often choose is “homophobia” which implies a fear of homosexuals. To a Biblical Christian nothing could be further from the truth. Christians neither fear or have any animas towards homosexuals. It is their practice/chosen way of life, defined very clearly in several places in the Bible as an abomination to God or at best a sin, that they fault. Christians are admonished and most strive to follow that admonition, to “hate the sin, not the sinner”, since we are all sinners in God’s eyes. If you are not a believer in Jesus Christ, who He was and what He did,then no Christian can effectively debate your assertion of “the validity of Bible-sanctioned homophobia.” as they will come at you with scripture and your accusation that such even exists simply is in error. It would be tantamount to trying to discuss quantum physics with an elephant. “They have ears but cannot hear. They have eyes but cannot see”.

        • Ian

          In a way I agree that thoroughly studying the Bible would be a plus in this discussion. However, limiting this discussion to actual scholars of the Bible and its tenets vs. tenants (as in shopping mall) would be like saying only scholars of constitutional law should debate gun control or limiting the debate on abortion to biologists – rather draconian in its limitation of speech and expression to a very few specialists when these issues affect society in a much wider scope. Also, the gist of your comment is “Don’t venture to offer your opinion because I can see that you are not “Biblical Christian.” Oh, that’s right I am one of “you folks.” Well, your assumptions like your English, are flawed and slightly humorous – you can blame your cell phone spell checker if you’d like. Also, I find it curious that you feel qualified to speak for Christians (not quite sure what a “Biblical Christian”) and are so bold as to know what Christians fear and hate. As most of us, I believe you can sredibly speak for yourself but not for a diverse, and fractured group as CHRISTIANS. And on the contrary we are not discussing quantum physics and again your metaphor is flawed as elephants’ have eyes that hear and eyes that see. And this elephant which you unflatteringly try compare me to gives you a “C” for supercilious silliness…(oh, that starts with “S”.)

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            You’re judging.

          • Ian

            Your comment that I am judging is judging. So then what?

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            I have not judged you. I only pointed out that you are judging, an observation anyone can make from reading your posts.

          • [email protected]

            That would be a judgement. Think it through.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            Judging in the sense of censure and condemnation? Not I.

          • ambrs57

            You imply he shouldn’t do it. Therefore you are engaging in censure and condemnation.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            I implied nothing of the sort. I only made an observation.

          • ambrs57

            Is making moral judgments without the proper authority a bad thing? Aparently, you don’t think so. I suspect that if you really believed that you wouldn’t bother to point it out, since it would not really matter. If you do think so and are pointing out this flaw, then you are engaging in a negative moral judgment. What is your moral authority for doing so?

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            “Is making moral judgments without the proper authority a bad thing?”

            Yes, it absolutely is.

            Conversely, making judgments WITH the proper authority is NOT a bad thing.

            In these matters, if I make a judgment it is based SOLELY on the Word of God, wherein God has already pronounced His judgment on these matters. So in that sense, I’m not judging – I’m only repeating what God has already determined.

            So the question you’re really asking is, What constitutes proper authority by which we may rightly judge?

            I say it’s the Word of God alone. Do you disagree with this? If not, then we have nothing more to discuss. If so, then you have elevated YOUR improper judgment above the Word of God and, in so doing, seek to bring God Himself into judgment. That would make you a blasphemer and an idolator, setting yourself up as a god above God. It would also make you a hypocrite, but that would go without saying.

            So tell me…what constitutes the proper basis for valid moral judgments?

          • ambrs57

            OK, you said you did not imply that he should not do it, but then you tell me that doing it is a bad thing. You contradict yourself. I quite agree with you that the Bible is the final authority from which we know what is morally correct. My point is that you seem to be involved in a contradiction here. You appear to be denying that you are judging in a negative manner, but it sure looks like judgment to the rest of us. But, it is no skin off my nose either way.

          • Anthony

            How can you tell someone what their words mean when you’re not that person. FAIL FAIL FAIL!!!

          • ambrs57

            Having studied postmodern irrationalists and found their arguments wanting, I continue to believe that rational communication of propositions from one mind to another through writing is actually possible. I also think that it is legitimate to assume that reasonably intelligent people hold to the logical implications of their assertions, though this does not always turn out to be the case. Now,, your words appear on the surface mean that you do not approve of my prior assertion. So on this reading, I can tell you what those words mean. But perhaps since I am not you and I cannot really know what your words mean, then it is just as likely that your words are an ironic way of affirming the brilliant success of my previous post. I can live with that. Thanks!

          • Ian

            Joe you do not understand nor use the word “judge” correctly.

            Here are some definitions:

            1
            : to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises
            2
            : to sit in judgment on : try
            3
            : to determine or pronounce after inquiry and deliberation
            4
            : govern, rule —used of a Hebrew tribal leader
            5
            : to form an estimate or evaluation of; especially : to form a negative opinion about
            6
            : to hold as an opinion : guess, think
            intransitive verb
            1
            : to form an opinion
            2
            : to decide as a judge
            — judg·er noun

            In fairness, I did find this somewhat related to your definition. Notice the word “obsolete.

            b. Obsolete To pass sentence on; condemn.

          • Anthony

            FAIL, think it through but don’t over think it to the point it doesn’t make sense.

          • tktimoteo

            it is not wrong to Judge- see my comments above

          • Anthony

            No it isn’t, you don’t even make sense. You’re an idiot, there is your judgement.

          • Ian

            Anthony, from the 3rd grade level mentality in your comment, I wouldn’t expect you to make sense of what I write. So to translate into 3rd-grade-ese – I’m not and idiot cuz you’re a moron. Got it dimwit?

          • tktimoteo

            see my comment about Judging above… it is NOT wrong to judge

          • Chief1942

            Although my delivery might not be the smoothest, I sense that I was not able to communicate my thoughts adequately. First off, I was not aware I was addressing a grammar teacher, and irrespective of my spelling errors, you fully understood where I was coming from, so the written message designed to communicate a thought, was effective.
            My point is why would anyone accept the critique of a book from someone who has either not read said book or received their knowledge of the content of the book via word of mouth. That is what we Biblical Christians face quite often. As to Biblical Christian, that would be one who accepts the truth of God’s word as originally inspired to those that wrote it. We take it literally and accept that if any single part of it is wrong, then the whole of it is wrong.
            I would be the first to admit that Christianity comes in many “flavors” but although many of them are in close agreement, there can truly be only one correct interpretation and application of God’s word. That’s the reason for my reference to “studying” the Bible as opposed to simply reading it as you would with any other book.

          • cavpilot67

            Chief, the only error in your argument is that the Bible does contain contradictions and errors….but that is the fault of the men who compiled it and translated it, not the original writers.

          • Ian

            It’s nonsense to state that there can be only one correct interpretation and application of God’s word. Interpretation and application is subject to the attitudes and mores of a given society/culture. It is ludicrous to assume that one interpretation of practice of God’s word as set forth in an imprecise and inaccurate translation that is the Bible. Just witness how the definition of sin can change over time, how the punishments meted out for those sins vary. Absolutism is absurd.

            And how are individuals to determine what is truly God’s word? Who is the definitive interpreter?

          • RyneBeddard

            As someone who is a Christian and studies the Bible in an Academic context I don’t take it literally and I would venture that you don’t either, at least not consistently… Large parts of it are poetry.Have your tried reading poems literally? In fact throughout the majority of history most Christians did not take the Bible literally (Read how Augustine, Aquinas, Eckhart, Origen, Gergory, etc… interpreted the Bible, they were very creative and certaintly not literalist.) Paul makes it clear that he believed that Jesus would return during his lifetime and that didn’t happen… That doesn’t make the Bible wrong. The Bible never claimed to be an 100% objective historical lists of facts and events. That doesn’t mean it’s not trustworthy – it faithfully reveals the various authors’s inspiring encounters with the living God in their own context. Which gives us a framework to experience the living God in our own contexts as well.

          • Anthony

            Your analogies don’t make sense and you’re twisting words to make them say what you want. Fail.

          • Ian

            Guilty as charged. Your lesson for the day. Words are tools to express our thoughts. Naturally we work the tools to achieve the ends we seek. This is the function of language and the purpose of communication. Whether one twists, bends, minces, hisses or articulates, exaggerates, etc. we are using words to seek a result. So that one day you may stop blaming others for your own failure to understand what is being communicated.

        • RyneBeddard

          Jesus (nor anyone else in the Bible) said “love the sinner, hate the sin” in fact he essentially said “love the sinner, hate your own sin” (to roughly paraphrase matt. 7:3-5) and left it at that

          • EdCrunk

            Your paraphrase is not exactly correct. Jesus said to first deal with the sin in your own life so that then you can see clearly to help your brother with the sin in his life. So when he says don’t judge or you will be judged in the same way he is saying “you can’t criticize those around you for being gay if you yourself are engaging in homosexual behavior.

          • RyneBeddard

            While it’s an admittedly rough paraphrase I think the idea still stands… Jesus doesn’t seem (to me, but you are entitled to interpret it how you’d like) to be making a caveat that it’s okay to judge sins just as long as you haven’t personally committed them.

          • David

            Actually when speaking of not judging the verse is referring to judging the condition of someone’s heart. There is no judgment in comparing evidence I provide by the way I live my life to the principals of God’s word. that would be considered accountability. We should always make sure that we remove the speck from our eye before trying to take the plank from our neighbor’s eye. This does not mean the same sin in my life but all sin. I need to have confessed my sin to the Lord before attempting to hold someone else accountable or I will do it incorrectly and with the wrong motives. Holding someone accountable is not condemning them but an attempt to help bring them closer to Christ when done with the proper attitude.

          • Your Planet Is A Toilet

            EdCrunk….the same EdCrunk from the LA [Slimes] Times I presume? You might recognize my s/n from the same leftist rag. One of 15 or so banned for my usually inflammatory comment especially on this subject.

            To clarify on your comment, “you can’t criticize those around you for being gay if you yourself are engaging in homosexual behavior” is not quite accurate. Ye’shua (the correct name for the misnomered “Jesus”) in His comment to “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” Matt 7:5

            Yeshua referred to ANY sin as being an impediment to clarity. Homosexualism is simply ONE of those impediments He indirectly referred to in a one lump statement. Hope that helps.

          • RyneBeddard

            Fun fact: Yeshua when translated into English is Joshua (The person we call Jesus had the same Hebrew name as Joshua from the OT). “Jesus” is probably a latinization of that word’s Greek form. If he were alive today we might would call him Joshua Davidson (from son of David). So next time someone tells you there is power in the name of Jesus, tell them that there is power in the name of Josh Davidson… lol

          • tktimoteo

            I think more accurately ifyou are engaging in ANY Porniea- greek word for ALL sexual activity outside of one-man one woman marital relationship. So heteros need to be careful they are not engaging in porneia if they hare to help people in other sexual sins….ie like homosexuality.

          • RyneBeddard

            Yeah…That’s not what that word means.

          • toncuz

            You shouldn’t be throwing stones AT ANYONE since Christians are supposed to believe that GOD said, “I WILL JUDGE” and that Jesus said “He who is without sin throw the first stone”. Any minister that preaches anti-gay, or any other lifestyle is basically an absolute fraud. Condemning other people is the easiest way to recruit the low-self-esteem crowd into your church. It’s why non-thinking people flock to religion in the first place.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            Not quite. The real issue is that GOD hates ALL sin and has already judged all that is not forgiven in Christ…in fact, Christ has been appointed to execute the judgment.

            “These six things doth the Lord HATE: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that deviseth wicked
            imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies and he that soweth discord among brethren.” Proverb 6:16-19

            “He [God] has set a day when He is going to judge the world in righteousness by the Man He has appointed. He has provided proof of this to everyone by raising Him from the dead.” Acts 17:31

            “Repent or you MUST perish.” Luke 13:3

          • RyneBeddard

            I agree. Without the ability to speak out against injustice in any sort of prophetic way then Christianity loses its teeth. We can call sin what it is. But we also have to take the warnings about not judging seriously, and I don’t think adding a caveat to that warning that Jesus himself doesn’t add is helpful. That’s what I was saying. My participation in the unjust systems of the world condemn me, and because of that I should offer the same grace to others as I hope to receive from God (and God knows I need plenty of it) whether they have sinned in the same way as me or not.

          • Ian

            You don’t know really know that God hates anything. How can you? You only repeat what you have been taught and choose to believe. What personal experience with God’s hate have you had? And why do you focus on hate when the underlying principal of God is love?

          • Anthony

            Your paraphrase doesn’t even make sense.

          • RyneBeddard

            Haha,maybe you just don’t get it… I think it makes sense, but I can’t take credit for it. I borrowed it from a Professor earning his PhD in systematic theology from the University of St. Andrews.

        • peter petrosino

          then why you tryto stop them for having equal rights that you do

          • ambrs57

            Which equal rights are you referring too?

          • cavpilot67

            Bingo!!!! The only thing I ever hear about is “special rights” or rights “in addition to”
            so far I have not seen a single “right” that I have that the proverbial “they” does not. Except of course the right to redefine traditional words.

        • toncuz

          Problem is…the Bible was written by men. And it is used to say anything one wants it to say. It’s a political book, nothing more. The human cult heroes of a Jewish Moses, Islam’s Mohammed or Christian’s Jesus takes away respect from God and are a true abomination to God. Anyone who studies history will know that Jesus is the last of about twelve “messiahs” who were invented through the ages to keep the cult worship alive by saying “he will return”. Every year for two thousand years have Christians been saying this utter nonsense along with the “end times are now”. The two fastest growing religions are Hinduism and Islam. Christianity is 22 percent of earth’s population and rapidly declining, Do the math as it completely contradicts the Bible’s assertion that the world will be two thirds Christian. By 2070, Christianity will be FIVE percent of earth’s population and just a small fringe cult. You cult followers really need to think for yourselves and stop listening to POLITICIANS CALLING THEMSELVES MINISTERS>

          • tktimoteo

            problem is your post is written by a man so I am not going to listento anything you say?!? see how stupid argument is?
            You obviously have not a shred of a clue about History about the Old Testament Messianic prophecies made hundreds of years before Christ. You have no idea that Josephus a recognized historian talked about Jesus. you have no idea that Jesus FULFILLED ALL of the Old Testament prophecies…not just a couple ALLLL of them. over 50. The odds of one person fulfilling all of them is a over a Triillion trillion….but you will never believe even if Jesus appeared on Earth todayl. But you WILL BOW YOUR PROUD ARROGANT KNEE TO THE RIGHTFUL RETURNING KING ONE DAY

      • EdCrunk

        Labeling behaviors as sin is not an irrational fear of those behaviors. Are Christians adulteraphobic or drunkardaphobic too?

        • Ian

          A sophomoric question – but you should realize the answer is yes. Christianity abhors any sin with excessive zealousness and this excessiveness is irrationality.

    • Steven

      Muslims execute gays. Why aren’t LBGT and activists condemning them?

      • afvet262

        Simple – they have a common enemy in Christians.

        • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

          True. Also, in centuries of practice, Islamic countries have a tacit approval of indulgence in sodomy, as long as its kept under the radar. Western homosexuals know this.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            Actually, I’m one of those “western homosexuals” who did NOT know that. Perhaps, for me personally, this will be the thing referenced in the saying “you learn something new every day.”

            I’m one of those strange breeds….a Christian who happens to be gay and is neither conservative nor liberal.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            First, I never meant to say ALL homosexuals know and admire that fact about Muslim countries, but many do. It’s actually been known for centuries that Muslim societies (at least the predominantly Arabic ones) are notorious for tolerance of sodomy IF, as already pointed out, it’s done discreetly and kept out of the public eye. It’s blatant hypocrisy but it is what it is.

            Second, you may label yourself whatever you like but no one can have died to self in Christ and be made alive to God in Him (the Biblical definition of what a Christian actually is) while being unrepentantly homosexual, idolatrous, a fornicator, an adulterer, a thief, a liar, a gossip, a slanderer, proud, a boaster, arrogant, conceited, greedy, covetous, disobedient to parents, irreverent, unholy, without natural affections, ungrateful, brutal, reckless, treacherous, trucebreakers, oathbreakers, a lover of evil and hater of good, a lover of pleasure more than of God or any other behavior God has called a sin. Sorry to break it to you but that’s just the way it is…and NONE of the above is my opinion or judgment. You know where that list comes from so don’t hold me responsible for pointing it out.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            First, quite simply, Joe, I didn’t claim you said ALL western homosexuals knew that. But you apologized for your mistake, and I accept that. I was simply commenting that I was one of those “western homosexuals” who didn’t know it. Nowhere did I say I approved of it.

            Second, you’re not breaking anything to me. I never claimed to be an active, unrepentant homosexual. I’ve been celibate for over 21 years now. But that doesn’t change the fact that my orientation is homosexual, or that I’m a western man, or that I am a Christian. Believe me, you have NO idea the degree to which I struggle with this, nor the level of my spirituality, so if you’ll excuse me for being a little frank and sensitive in my forthcoming comment, I can only say I don’t appreciate your arrogant assumption about me. You’ve made a judgement call, which, if I recall the Bible correctly, you’re forbidden from doing.

            Third, I know the source much better than you apparently assume I do. And I don’t hate you. I don’t know you. And even if I were to consider you my enemy, I’d still encourage people to love you, bless you if you cursed them, and do good to you if you harmed them.

            Fourth, again you’ve made a judgement call. I don’t THINK I’m a Christian. I KNOW I am. For you to even make such an assessment without knowing me is troubling. I’d like to encourage you to read Romans 14:4. As for the final question you asked, my answer is this: The same thing YOU were told.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            Sorry if I misunderstood you but the fault lies with your original self-description as “gay,” which in this context would lead anyone to assume as I did. Had you said ex-gay, I’d never had assumed what I did.

            If you are truly in Christ, then the old you was nailed to the cross with Him, including your homosexuality. You well know that Paul told the Corinthians – some of whom were lifelong homosexuals – “such some of you WERE.” I won’t quote more of that since you surely know the rest.

            However, if you’re now truly in Christ, YOU – the NEW man – IS DEAD to your old sin…not just the homosexuality but everything else. Yes, you still feel the same lusts because you still have the same flesh nature (“the old man”) within you. So do I. You still feel your old struggles, and others. So do I. We are no different from each other in that respect; only in the details (homosexuality was never my sin but I have others that are just as bad, which have plagued me since age 5). But we’re washed, we’re cleansed, we’re forgiven AND we’re declared righteous before God Himself in Christ, if we’ve believed He died for our sins and rose again for our justification.

            I do ask you to forgive me for coming across as I did, but for you to describe yourself as a gay Christian is, I maintain, categorically impossible. One can no more be a Christian adulterer or a Christian thief.

            In Christ, ALL that has passed away and, behold, all is made new. Yes, sin is still IN you (for now) but is no longer WHO you are. It is no longer your orientation – it cannot be – because it is not part of the NEW, TRUE you created by God in Christ.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            Joe, of course I forgive you. And I understand what you’re saying. First, I apologize for coming across a little insolent. I’ve been dealing with a number of personal issues lately, some of which have left me physically in pain, while others have left me an emotional mess and angry. I suppose it is making me a bit defensive.

            To be honest, I see nothing in the context of my comment that would lead you, or anyone else, to presume that I was an unrepentant homosexual who did not know Jesus, simply because I said I was a Christian who happened to be gay. From my perspective, I would find the fault to lie with you for falsely making an assumption before truly seeking an understanding of what was being said. To those of us who are homosexual, the term “gay” is more of a description of our emotional composition and personality, and has nothing to do with any particular actions.

            To be honest, I – even as a celibate homosexually oriented Christian – do not believe in the term “ex-gay”, because it implies that the feelings and attractions we used to have are no longer present. And frankly, that’s just not true. I’m as attracted to men as I’ve always been. I simply abstain from having sex with them. The true north to which my innermost emotional compass points is still to men, not women. Nothing about me fundamentally as a man attracted to other men has changed, and, to be honest, I don’t think it matters if it has or not. I know that Jesus accepts me. I’ve heard his voice within my spirit affirming me as his child. And yet, I still walk through a grocery store, or in a park, or still see a handsome man on television, and yearn inside myself for a connection to the man, and the connection is NOT based on any lustful desire to have sex. The difference is, I don’t pursue it. I choose, instead, to be obedient to the Lord. I know this subject well. When you live something firsthand, day after day, you tend to have a deeply rooted, intimate and highly informed and significant knowledge of it. I could write a whole book on this subject right now, but I simply don’t have the time or energy, nor do I feel the inclination to repeat what I’ve repeated countless times across the internet, only to be met with indifference and challenges. I’m tired of explaining the same thing over and over to those who think they know this subject better than a person who lives it. I could no more say I know more about being an actor than Tom Cruise. It’s only when you walk a number of miles in a person’s shoes that you actually start to gain true insight into what their life is like.

            Paul himself endured a struggle in which he found himself constantly doing the bad which he did not want to do, and unable to do the good he truly wanted to do. He considered himself a wicked sinner, the worst of them all. And yet the man was a Christian. He also endured a thorn in his side to which he begged the Lord for removal….but was told the Lord’s grace was sufficient for him.

            I’m afraid that even though we may agree on some things pertaining to this subject, when it comes to the reference of “gay Christian”, we’re simply going to have to disagree and consider it a petty matter of mere words.

            God bless….and have a wonderful Christmas.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            Thanks for answering. Just don’t forget – and dwell on this awhile for there’s true power in it – if you are truly in Christ, YOU DIED to sin. You’re still tempted, yeah (get in line), but in Him you’re no longer who you seem to be convinced you are. THAT man was crucified. YOU live now.

            Continued grace to you as well.

          • alan benson

            When you become a born again Christian you die to the old you and you become new in Christ. Christ died for our sins, our sickness, our burdens etc. As a Christian we have to ask Christ to change us to please him in every way, with our actions, our heart and our minds. If you’re struggling with thoughts of homosexuality then ask Christ to change you. As a Christian we are privileged with access to Christ’s power of change. When Christ comes into your life you are born again and holy. Yes,holy is one of God’s attributes that is given to us upon acceptance of Christ and repentance. I didn’t notice whether you accept being gay as normal but is now a lifestyle you do not want to pursue or you do feel it’s wrong in the eyes of the Lord and have decided not to pursue this lifestyle. I’m trying to put this in the most compassionate way I can, i hope it comes out right. Part of repentance is to admit you have lived as a sinner and want to now live as a holy “made new” man of God. The Lord intended, in his word, for the union of one man with one woman and blessed this union. He has made us to naturally desire this. When we ask God to change us he can change us in every way. Ask the Lord and believe that Lord can bring about these changes in your life. The devil will always tell you it’s not possible, you can’t control your thoughts or your desires. Don’t believe in what you are capable of but believe what God is capable of.doing in your life. The devil will tell you ” This is who you are inside, this is how you’re wired, you were naturally born this way”….. but if you truly believe in the sovereign power of God in your life, God will change all of you. God does not want you to live a tormented life. I can only imagine the battle you face in your mind. You see the devil will always attack you mind. But in Christ we can defeat the lies the devil tries to sow in our minds. And I don’t mean we beat the devil today and tomorrow again we fight.. I mean Christ can give you evelasting victory and fill you with love for a wife. And I don’t mean a love that is superficial “and we all know how you really feel”… NO!!! I mean the Lord can give you love for a woman and when the devil tries to plant the sinful seed of homosexuality you can reject it and feel disgust in your heart and mind. I have counseled Heroin , cocaine and meth addicts and Christ has freed alot of them. These types of addictions have led some of these people to destroy their families and some have even sold their kids to prostitution. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I have seen the power change in Christ in the lives of men, teenagers, etc. We have to let go,you can never do this on your own, let go and allow God to work in your life. Believe that Christ can change your life, starting with removing the desire to have a connection with men in any way except for the love as a friend. Do not let the devil lead you to believe that God isn’t able or that God is ok with you living a life of torment. Act upon the privilege we have as Born again Christians and tap into the power of change we have in Christ. I have been praying for you as I was writing to you.. God bless you and Have Faith, not in what you can do but in what God is capable of doing in you.

          • THETrueXenos Hamurabi

            so no disrespect, but if i understand correctly, you are trying to live your life to please a person who lived and died almost 2000 years ago?

            it sounds VERY limiting. Have you ever through about living in a manner that would make a person like Christ want to follow you? be more, be better, don’t accept an upper limit, and don’t tie yourself to the vagaries of scriptures riddled with translation errors, and political appeasement.

          • tktimoteo

            The word “Gay” is not biblical and should never be used by Christians…. people are sinners and we don’t give each sinner his own “category”… you, me, we= sinners. ALL sin is equally offensive to God- HOWEVER NOT all sin is equal in the severity of it’s consequences. Sexual sin is very dangerous- spiritually(it deadens your sensitivity to God and his Word), societally- it breaks up homes, and healthwise- it often comes with STD’s.
            I know I have had my strauggles- like I said with a married woman who I adored and who makde it easy for me …hardest thing I ever did was to move away from her- but it is the right thing as much as my flesh fights me…bottomline whatever you/I/we all struggle with in likfe it is about idolizing things that that take away from our relationship form the Lord.
            Merry Christmas and let’s pray for one another- we live in a time of unprecedented temptation. But as the darkness grows the sense that the dawn is about to break starts to come into the minds of all who look forward to the return of the KING

          • Vueiy

            In short, you’re saying you think of the word “gay” as describing the attraction, whereas Joe (and probably a fair amount of other non-gay/homosexuals/etc.) automatically assume that there is some sort of romantic or sexual ACTION attached to that term. Whichever one is truly accurate, I would encourage you as a fellow Christian to make sure to make that distinction clear when witnessing to others, as it may cause some confusion, which could potentially cause others to stumble. God bless you and continue to strengthen you daily!

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            Generally, I have learned to keep my sexual orientation to myself. From past experience, I can tell you I have been backstabbed by so-called “believers” in the church I used to attend when they learned about me. They would avoid me, and in fact the pastor once told a friend of mine to tell me to stop telling people I was gay. (Interesting how the pastor himself didn’t tell me directly himself, but rather went to a friend of mine.) Since that time, I’ve still been abandoned by someone I thought was a friend after I told him I was gay. So I’ve decided from now on I will only reveal it to those who have shown they can be trusted to remain my friends upon learning about me.

            And besides, It’s not as if I approach a stranger and say “Hey, I’m a gay Christian. Would you like to learn about Jesus or attend church with me?” I mean, it’s quite irrelevant in my mind. Likewise, I would not enter a conservative church and announce it in such a way as to give them the impression I was actively engaging in homosexual sex. But you want to know something? Look at the comments I’ve made in here, and from the start I’ve indicated I’ve been celibate for over 21 years and that I struggle with this on a daily basis. Read the responses I’ve gotten. I still get excoriated for saying what I do. So perhaps it would be better for me to simply shut up, huh? I mean, why not? I already live a lonely life anyway. I may as well become a hermit, too, since no matter what I say, someone still finds some way of challenging me.

          • Vueiy

            I actually read most of your comments and some of those made to you before I posted my prior response. The VERY FIRST one you made had you state that you were a “Christian who happens to be gay,” although you later clarified what you meant.

            I can totally understand not simply sharing that info with just anyone, and what I said initially was only intended to be hopefully helpful advice for the times when you DO decide to share your testimony and what God has done for you. God has blessed you to be able to be celibate for over 21 years, and that is definitely amazing and not something everyone could handle. Don’t lose hope, and don’t become discouraged. Persevere to the end, and the Lord will continue to bless you!

          • tktimoteo

            The word “Gay” is not biblical and should never be used by Christians…. people are sinners and we don’t give each sinner his own “category”… no you, me, we= sinners. ALL sin is equally offensive to God- HOWEVER NOT all sin is equal in the severity of it’s consequences. Sexual sin is very dangerous- spiritually(it deadens your sensitivity to God and his Word), societally- it breaks up homes, and healthwise- it often comes with STD’s.

          • ffidaj

            I am confused by some of your statements. A sin is a sin is a sin, doesn’t matter which sin it is except the ONE unforgivable sin. So the sin of an 8 year old laying about the bad grade he got on a test, or the sin of a 45 year old man lusting after the 25 year old co-worker OR the sin of desiring someone (sexually) of the same gender is all of the same caliber….You Have Sinned.

            Forgiveness of sins works the same way. If you seek forgiveness you will be forgiven. Just because your “old self” died when you were baptised or accepted Jesus does not mean you will not sin anymore. Can a Christian steal, lust, lie? I believe they can. However, a true Christian, will work against these “desires” just as Disqus_s4 has for 21 years.

            In the end, I believe, what matters is will Jesus be standing with you before the Father saying “I know this one and he is my friend”?

            Such a tough subject and it realy brings out raw emotions.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            I’m citing only what the apostle Paul wrote. Those in Christ died in Him, died to sin and are thereby made alive to God. Yes, they can still sin while still in their “earth suit” of flesh, for the old sin nature is NOT eradicated, only crucified but not killed.

            For those reasons, no one can rightly (biblically) say “I am a Christian AND a __________” (insert sin there) because God says they DIED to all that. Such Paul told the Corinthians, some of whom were falling back into homosexuality and other sins: “Such some of you WERE.”

            As for the unforgivable sin, there was only one group of people in history who could have committed it, and they did, for they were still under the Law.

            Today, no sin is unforgivable – save the sin of dying in unrepentance – because the human race is not under Law but under grace (Romans 6:14). The door of the ark [Christ] remains open for any to enter, but not for much longer I fear.

          • chngrffn

            Homosexuality, same sex inclination or attraction is not a sin. Acting on them is. I applaud you for your many years celibate. I can only guess to your daily struggles in remaining so. You have a powerful witness & I thank you

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            Christ said to simply lust, even if one does not physically act on it, is the same in God’s estimation as engaging in the actual act. So, hypothetically, if one can have a sexual attraction in any direction without ever acting on it or ever even lusting in the mind and heart, you’d have a point.

            No one is able to do that.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            The only thing I can say in response to that, Joe, is that you are in no position to be making any comments about this subject to begin with, since you yourself just claimed “no one is able to do that”. Pull the plank out of your own eye first, Joe, before you continue to attempt to pull the splinter out of mine or anyone else’s.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            When I said “no one,” did you think I was excluding myself? And what exactly did I say that doesn’t echo what you already described as your own struggle?

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            A new day, another round. Here we go:

            First, you seem to be very adept at referencing Matthew 5:27-28…..but may I ask, are you following through with Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:29-30 by pulling out your own eye or cutting off your own hand. Or are those words somehow not to be taken literally?

            Second, the very fact that you said “no one” should have been an indication to yourself that you were judging, and as such you should have kept your mouth shut instead of forgetting that we are told that in the same manner we judge another, we will likewise me judged.

            Third: You’re presuming you understand the full nature of my struggle, which I have not revealed. There is more to struggling against homosexuality than merely the desire to get naked with another man and engage in a sexual act. There are also the very emotions themselves, and the desire to bond soul-to-soul with another man, the way a man desires to bond with a woman emotionally as his wife.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            Do you, or do you not, believe that you died to sin in Christ?

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            If I answer by saying “yes”, you will say “how can you still call yourself a homosexual?”. If I answer by saying “No”, you will say “Then you are not a Christian”.

            The problem with your question is in how one views the atonement. Yes, I believe I died to sin in Christ. But Paul believed that, too…..and yet he continued to do that which he did not want to do. So let me ask…which particular version of the atonement do you subscribe to? And bear in mind, theologians have historically been unable to agree on this matter.

            So basically, WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

            A Catholic or Orthodox Christian could just as easily ask if YOU believe in transubstantiation, and if not, your theology and interpretation of the Bible is faulty.

            Joe, I truly do NOT have the energy, nor the interest, in engaging in a debate with someone who clearly wants to question the validity of my salvation.

            Have a good Christmas, sir….and many blessings to you for a good new year. But please don’t respond to this post. This discussion is over as far as I’m concerned. I have MUCH more things to be concerned with in my life than to be arguing with someone I don’t know about whether or not I’m truly saved.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            The question was not a trap of any sort. I had no replies preplanned, I was honestly curious what you’d say. Yet you prejudged my motives, just as you accused me of doing to you yesterday. But as you wish. I’m just glad you don’t believe God made you this way.

            Please know it was never my intent to upset or anger you.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            Joe, okay, I apologize for prejudging your motives in much the same way I thought you prejudged mine. The thing is, I’d have thought you’d understand that I basically already answered that question. How many different ways can it be asked? How many criteria are there to determine if someone truly is a Christian or not? The very fact that I’ve stated numerous times that it’s something I struggle against all the time should have been an indication that I was a Christian striving to adhere to the teachings of the Lord.

            You need to understand that this is a subject I have to deal with CONSTANTLY in my life. It gets exhausting, because I feel like I’m being put under a microscope and constantly on trial, being asking to explain myself. Some people don’t even bother to read my comments and continue saying the same things others have said. I literally get tired of it. I can’t even go to church or engage in discussions with other Christians without it turning into exactly the same type of comments I’ve been up against in this current discussion. In fact, the very thought of going to church and trying to make friends with anyone scares me, because in the past I was treated like a leper once I started letting people know about myself, and I don’t want to consider the possibility of it happening again. So…especially in this day and age where so much of society thinks I should embrace who I truly am (including close family members)…I have to live my life either very privately and silently, without truly being myself….or risk excoriation from others.

            I can accept that it wasn’t your intention to upset or anger me. I’m simply hypersensitive to this, and I get frustrated about it a lot…..as if I’m contantly pounding my head against a brick wall.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            I thought you said we were done. I’d like to reply but won’t until you say we’re not.

            PS I don’t own a microscope – metaphorical or otherwise – and don’t want to.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            Fine. We’re done. I’m not saying that to sound like a snot, but I’m just getting tired of going back and forth.

            I only said it because your one-sentence response to me felt like you were ignoring everything that I said in the prior comment. You didn’t address anything I said in that comment. You simply, once again, asked a question which, in my mind, was you own attempt at determining whether I was a true Christian or not. But for what it’s worth, yes…let’s consider the discussion closed. Somehow I get the impression that I’ll just have to continue explaining myself. If you’re truly and genuinely interested in learning about what it’s like to be someone like me, then I might consider continuing the conversation. But I also know from past experience that no amount of me doing that changes anything, and I really have other things I’d like to focus on in my life.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            As long as you don’t blame (or thank, according to some) God for “making you” homosexual, I guess we do have nothing else worth discussing in addition to what’s already been said. Thanks.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            In fact, I DO consider the possibility that God has made some people (not necessarily ALL) homosexual. Yes, yes, I know….Christians would tell me I’m not a Christian for saying that and might even say I’m out of my mind….but that’s what they said about Jesus, too. Nevertheless, the reason I say it isn’t because I think God approves of homosexual sex, but it could be possible that he has created some people to have homosexual orientation because he (as Sovereign Creator) wants a people who will dedicate their lives to him alone, and perhaps by creating them as homosexuals he could be testing their loyalty and obedience to him.

            The ultimate fact, regardless of whether my “theory” is true or not is that that we simply have NO WAY OF KNOWING exactly what causes some to be homosexual. But as I see it, it’s not the cause which is relevant. It’s how one responds to their own desires.

            To be frank, yes there have been times when I’ve thanked God for allowing me to be homosexual….NOT because I’ve been grateful to have the urge to hump another guy, but rather because it allows me to be in a position where I don’t look upon women inappropriately. You see, whenever I have tried to turn away from my homosexual desires and “become straight”, it has ONLY and ALWAYS caused me to look at a woman and wonder if I could have sex with her and enjoy it. It would cause me to look at her body and wonder, in my mind, if what lie beneath her clothes would be something I’d be able to satisfy for her during the act of sex. In other words, in attempting to “turn straight”, I’ve done nothing but thought of women inappropriately….as sex objects.

            HOWEVER, one might tell me “But it’s still a sin to look at a man and lust as well”. I won’t disagree with that….except that it presumes that everytime I look at a man, it means I want to strip his clothes off him and get him in bed. That’s not the case. For ME, the greatest struggle I deal with comes from looking at men, and desiring a closeness with them….and bonding and love for them – their heart, soul, mind, spirit, personality. I couldn’t care less what lies beneath their clothes because that’s not ultimately what interests me. I won’t deny it’s a PART of my struggle, but it’s hardly the thing I focus on, and far from being what I would want if I were in a relationship with a man.

            I’m truly sorry you don’t understand all this Joe. As I’ve said before, I live it….daily. And I’ve lived it on a daily basis for YEARS. And I know my standing with God, and what he has shown me. If that’s something you want to make assumption about, I’m afraid you have only God to answer to. But like I’ve said before, and hopefully I have not come across in too arrogant of a manner, but I know a LOT more about this subject than you do.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            I had a feeling you’d say that if you chose to be fully honest about it. And now you have.

            Saved or not, it is blasphemous for you to even CONSIDER that God might make some to be sinners – any sin, it doesn’t matter – when He said He detests sin, does not tempt anyone to sin, takes no pleasure in having to condemn all sin that is not forgiven, and so hates sin that He sent His own Son to die for all sin.

            To know all of that – which you already well know – and even consider the idea that God wants you to be homosexual is a sin unto itself that you would do well to repent of, NOW.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            Joe, I’m going to come right out and say “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn” what you think. Now I’m getting angry, because it’s exceedingly clear to me that you are a pompous, self-righteous version of a Christian who seriously needs to reexamine his heart and learn to READ what someone is saying. You exist to do nothing more than set people up….to entrap them…and, despicably, you must feel proud of being so arrogant. You’re a modern day pharisee who considers himself to be in a position superior to others. You have COMPLETELY missed the point of everything I’ve said, and even so much so that you’ve missed the very words I’ve used.

            I did NOT emphatically claim God made me gay. I say I considered it to be a POSSIBILITY, but you have NO IDEA nor understanding of WHY I say that. You simply don’t have the spiritual maturity to understand what I’m talking about. No, God does NOT tempt anyone. I don’t consider what I said to be blasphemous. But yet sinners are still born, aren’t they? God still creates people, knowing they will be tempted to sin. I never said God placed me in a position where I would be tempted to sin. I said I considered it POSSIBLE that he might create some people with a homosexual orientation because he could be testing their loyalty and obedience to him. After all, was not Abraham tested? Murder is a sin, yet God tested Abraham’s faith by ordering him to sacrifice (kill) Isaac.

            You need to leave me alone, Joe. You’re going to engage me in a debate which I guarantee you will not win. If that sounds arrogant, I’m sorry….it’s not meant to be. But I’ve been able to counter every argument you’ve thrown at me so far, and all you can do in return is presume to be superior to me and entrap me.

            Base your faith on love and compassion for others, instead of trying to trip them up so that you can launch a spear at them. What they say of Christians is very much true: The Christian army is the only army that kills its wounded.”

          • ffidaj

            I just discovered this thread and wanted to commend you for your words, actions and follow through. It is obvious that satan challenges you and tempts you every single moment of the day (just like I am although not the same temptation). It saddens me that you can’t find a church home where you will be accepted, understood and not judged. We ALL fall short of the glory of God and each one of us sins on a daily basis. Please keep looking for a church that suits you and have patience that the Lord will provide one. Stay strong, do not let satan win this battle.

          • Guest

            I had a feeling you’d say that if you chose to be fully honest about it. And now you have.

            Saved or not, it is blasphemous for you to even CONSIDER that God might make some to be sinners – any sin, it doesn’t matter – when He said He detests sin, does not tempt anyone to sin, takes no pleasure in having to condemn all sin that is not forgiven, and so hates sin that He sent His own Son to die for all sin.

            To know all of that – which you already well know – and even consider the idea that God wants you to be homosexual is a sin unto itself that you would do well to repent of, NOW.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            ffidag, ignore this, was not meant for you, thx

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            Pardon the mispost below, it’s mine but not directed at you. Not sure what happened.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            God bless you for saying that. I appreciate your support. I have not completely given up on looking for a church. I just happen to live in a liberal college town and it’s hard to find one that either isn’t liberal, or doesn’t profess to adhere to a set of doctrines or beliefs that I don’t agree with.

          • http://www.facebook.com/annathule Annathule

            disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS Come to Hagerstown MD, we have a church here that would LOVE to have you!!! Metropolitan Light (something) I believe it is. We’d love to have you, but come prepared for serious rednecks. Mines red, but I can believe in a God that made people HAPPILY honosexual and lesbian and all those other states of being. Magnificent and wondrous are His ways and we’re little ants scurrying around thinking we know what that person holding the magnifying glass is thinking.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            Hmmm….I’ve been wanting to move away from where I live. I’ll have to keep that in mind. I’ll do an internet search to see if the church has a website.

          • http://www.facebook.com/annathule Annathule

            New Live Metropolitan Community Church
            http://www.newlightmcc.com/homepage

            Facebook Page:
            http://www.facebook.com/NewLightMCC

            They are non-denominational and friendly as anything. I attended a while, then I moved on and got saved an Independent Baptist, but the church that broke away to follow the preacher’s bro-in-law, that preacher has given up reminding me of services and another person was the one to invite us to the Christmas service. He’s the preacher who is the “love thy neighbor” message (not a bad one, but can we get past pasting cotton balls onto construction paper lamb shapes and get into to what’s coming, in terms of Revelation and Daniel, etc.?) Do books verse by verse, quit jumping around every Sunday. I’d VERY much settle for a church that takes a book and learned it front to back. Teach me the REAL Bible, not random and overly-repeated sections that make for easy sermons. The preacher IS a beginner, but still… C’mon!

            Now this is MY church I’m discussing, not the one I’m giving you links to, here in Hagerstown. They have a new minister since I was there, and I know you made a reference to churches that are “too liberal” I think you said? No focus? I don’t know what they have now in terms of a message, except ultra-acceptance. We also have a gay store here – literally, everything rainbows!! Plus messaging of course. Right on the main street too! I think it’s still there, I haven’t looked at that part of the street and REALLY looked at it enough to see. In the summer, they have the door open and all kinds of wind spirals and whirlygiggers spinning in the wind – easier to catch the eye!

            Hagerstown has its share of rednecks, Bible thumpers and a GOODLY number of Po’ Folk who hate everyone. I’m not suggesting that you can’t be open and out, just mind until you get a good feel for the residents here. We also have at least one gay bar, more I think, my sons could tell me that. That one’s been gay since God made gay!! HEHEHE!! Jobs are fairly scarce unless you’re educated and then we live near enough to Frederick MD, (MANY good tech and “Beltway Bandit Businesses” – they die if the gov’t dies ya know?), Wash DC and even Northern VA if you have a good milage vehicle. (And the time to commute.) Check out the Washington Post online for jobs down around there, and for around here, the Herald Mail at http://www.herald-mail.com You’ll find fair to high priced housing in our paper as well, as well as the Waynesboro PA paper http://www.therecordherald.com/ and that has both lovely countryside and lower priced housing than around here. (But VERY Bible oriented, my son got guff for being pagan!!) Here it’s either $800-$1200/mo upwards or Sect 8 quality, I’m sorry to say. That is where I live, w/o Sect 8, and I pay, in full myself, $600 for a lousy cellar apartment that is rotten and thick w/ asbestos and black mold. No sunlight whatsoever, cardboard over the windows because we have a peeper, which was least on our list after nearly getting KILLED (swear before God, seriously) on my own front step. Just for being white and they made sure I knew that was why. But our city is more than the center of town they’re desperately trying to reinvigorate, and we’re getting shopping and eating out the wazoo!! Small little joints of ALL kinds of flavors in town, Lebanese, couple of Jamaican places, an Indian place I think, and then a good selection of chain restaurants, plus big box stores around the edges of town. Little stores, until they can do something w/ the middle of town, are a lost cause. (Until someone leaves us more than 3 pennies in our pocket to shop said stores, more like it!) However, we have architecture that would make your eyes pop!! And so much history, if we ever met and I got on that subject, my husband WILL warn you that you’re taking your life in your hands!! 6 hours or more! I ADORE the history around here!

            The Arts and Entertainment Section of town is wonderful and the streets even glitter! The Maryland Theater is nationally famous, we get some BIG names here! They even dropped their own “ball” tonight – a doughnut! We have THE WORLD’S BEST DOUGHNUTS ANYWHERE IN GOD’S GREEN EARTH, Krispie Kreme should hang its head in shame!! Krumpe’s… Mmmmm. *eyes closed dreamily* GOD eats Krumpe’s. And you can get them warm and fresh baked after 7 pm and before 2 am. Oh yeeaahh!

            Ah but here I’ve run my jaws again. We’d love to have you around here, and I hope those websites help. Give you a flavor of the place anyway.

            Chin up, you’re a mighty powerful witness, at least to ppl like me who can say “OK, celibate, now on to the next subject.” Such a witness for Christ! Good luck w/ that decision.

          • chrisewing

            Only an ignoramus believes in Satan … or God

          • chrisewing

            you are a cretin

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            A cretin, huh? I suppose you’re the paragon of intelligence and wisdom on this subject….?

            I read your other comment. I certainly hope you don’t consider yourself a Christian. With that hateful attitude in your heart, you’ll have a LOT of explaining to do to Jesus about why you did not love your enemies, bless those who curse you, or do good to those who would harm you.

            BUT…….who am I? Certainly not a judge. But I refuse to let your uncharitable response go unanswered. To express gladness that a cherished family member has died is beyond deplorable. The funny thing I’m noticing is that those people in here who have made comments in here about me, and apparently view me as a heretic to be avoided simply because he expressed he is a celibate gay Christian (who strives to base his interactions with others on love) are being strangely silent toward someone who is obviously hateful.

            Man, you just GOTTA love contemporary “evangelical Christianity”. I’d just as soon be a hermit.

            May God bless you and bring peace to your soul, revealing the truth of his love to your heart and spirit. Have a good new year….or at least try.

          • saailer

            Just came across your discussion…

            According to Orthodox Church Tradition, Christians are
            redeemed sinners. They are human beings who have been saved from sickness and sin, delivered from the devil and death by God’s grace through faith in Jesus by the Holy Spirit’s power: “and such were some of you.” (1 Cor. 6:10) They are baptized into Christ and sealed with the Spirit in order to live God’s life in the Church. They witness to their
            faith by regular participation in liturgical worship and Eucharistic communion, accompanied by continual confession, repentance and the steadfast struggle against every form of sin, voluntary and involuntary, which attempts to destroy their lives in this world and in the age to
            come.
            The homosexual Christian is called to a particularly
            rigorous battle. His or her struggle is an especially ferocious one. It is not made any easier by the mindless, truly demonic hatred of those who despise and ridicule those who carry this painful and burdensome
            cross; nor by the mindless, equally demonic affirmation of homosexual activity by its misguided advocates and enablers.
            Like all temptations, passions and sins, including
            those deeply, and oftentimes seemingly indelibly embedded in our nature by our sorrowful inheritance, homosexual orientation can be cured and homosexual actions can cease. With God all things are possible. When
            homosexual Christians are willing to struggle, and when they receive patient, compassionate and authentically loving assistance from their families and friends — each of whom is struggling with his or her own
            temptations and sins; for no one is without this struggle in one form or another, and no one is without sin but God — the Lord guarantees victory in ways known to Himself. The victory, however, belongs only to the courageous souls who acknowledge their condition, face their resentments, express their angers, confess their sins, forgive their
            offenders (who always include their parents and members of their households), and reach out for help with the genuine desire to be healed. Jesus himself promises that the saintly heroes who “persevere to the end” along this “hard way which leads to life” will surely “be saved.” (Matt. 7:13; 24:13)

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            Thank you. I don’t know what else to say besides that – except that I wish more Christians were of the same compassion that you are. God Bless and have a Happy New Year.

          • saailer

            Same to you

            Settings

            A new comment was posted on Downtrend

            ——————————————————————

            disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS
            Thank you. I don’t know what else to say besides that -
            except that I wish more Christians were of the same compassion that you are. God Bless and have a Happy New Year.

            2:29 p.m., Thursday Jan. 2

            Reply to disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS’s comment is in reply to saailer:

            Just came across your discussion…

            According to Orthodox Church Tradition, Christians are
            redeemed sinners. They are human beings who have been
            saved from sickness and …

            Read more

            ——————————————————————

            You’re receiving this message because you’re signed up to receive notifications about replies to saailer.

            You can unsubscribe from emails about replies to saailer by
            replying to this email with “unsubscribe” or reduce the rate with which these emails are sent by adjusting your notification settings.

          • Ron Gilbert

            I also cannot agree that God made anyone homosexual. God created Adam and Eve perfect and sinless. They chose to sin and brought about sin to all of us. Those sins were passed onto us through each person’s parents, not through creation by God. God does not cause anyone to sin nor does he cause people to be tempted in sin. That would be ourselves and Satan.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            *sigh*

            I wish you guys would just drop this. It’s really getting old. I know you have the right to express your opinions in response to mine, but I’m getting tired of this same old debate that is really getting us nowhere.

            No one is really listening to what I’m saying, and no one is interested enough to ask why I say the things I’ve said. So I give up.

            Just knock it off. I quit. I’m not coming back to this discussion anymore to waste my breath when people don’t really care to read what I’m saying……and indeed, some of you haven’t even READ what I’ve said before you opened your mouths and left comments for me.

            If you all want to keep hurling spears at me in an attempt to draw enough blood to make me drop to my knees, have at it. It’s not going to work. All you’re doing is just exhausting me, and driving me farther and farther away from any interest I had in looking for a church. I mean, hell……if I DID find a church, I would have to keep my fat mouth shut and never say anything to anyone about what I struggle against, because I’d just have to put up with the same third degree you guys are handing me….except I’d have to deal with it in person, and I just don’t have the time for it anymore in my life.

            Just leave me alone. You all think I’m lost and going to hell. So stop driving the knife further and further into me. You’re killing me already as it is, so just let me die already, okay? There’s no need to keep twisting the knife.

          • Ron Gilbert

            I read exactly what you said and am responding in an open forum to them. If you don’t want rebuttal for making claims of YOUR beliefs that are unscriptural, maybe you should not make them or maybe you should remove them. You said God made homosexuals and God says differently. I never said you are lost and going to Hell so stop with the over dramatization and over sensitivities.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            First, Ron, I think it’s pretty fair to conclude that you believe active homosexuals will go to hell. But I’ve been a celibate gay man for over 21 years, and yet I’ve STILL been told within this forum that such a thing is impossible. I’ve been told I cannot and MUST not call myself a “gay/homosexual” Christian, to which I’ve responded “What should I call myself? Should I say I’m heterosexual? I’d be lying. Should I say I’m an ex-homosexual?” I’d still be lying, because the core heart of what constitutes a person’s sexual orientation is who they are attracted to. It’s the emotional and psychological qualities of the sex that you are drawn to. Sex is but a very small part of it, and an insignificant one at that. Why do I say that? Because I would imagine YOU would not deny you’re a heterosexual, even if you’re celibate. The point being you are attracted to the opposite sex (I assume), despite whether you’re sexually active or not. THAT is what determines sexual orientation. It really should not be called “sexual” orientation, because it’s not about where you want to put your penis. It’s about who you want to share your heart, love, mind, and soul with. For you, I assume it’s with a woman. But for me, it is a man…..whether I’m sexually active or not. YOU connect romantically with a woman. You want to protect her and look after her and do what’s best for her. I want those very same things…..but I want them with a man, not a woman. And I can’t help that. I did not choose it. (Unless you’d like to call me a liar.) I just know it is how I developed as I hit puberty.

            So I am, have always been, and will remain a homosexual Christian……unless, and until, God so chooses to free me from it (if he indeed feels it would even be necessary to).

            Second, I did NOT assert that God made homosexuals. See, your response is a PERFECT example of what I meant when I said people aren’t listening to what I say, and are likewise not asking me for clarification. Before jumping down someone’s throat for saying something you don’t understand, or perhaps disagree with, it would only be common courtesy to first ask them to explain what they mean. But instead, everyone leaps to conclusions.

            So, with respect to God creating homosexuals, I said I considered it as a POSSIBILITY. My reasoning is that it could conceivably be for the express purpose of exercising his sovereignty to do as he wishes, and he could perhaps be creating them homosexual because he wants to test their loyalty to him…..to see if they will obey him, or obey their own desires.

            Perhaps you think it’s easy to endure this cross. I won’t assume you do or don’t think that way. But in all this, I WILL assert that NO ONE KNOWS what creates homosexuality. NO ONE KNOWS, for certain, why it develops. But something else I will attest to is that my sister-in-law has a nephew and niece – both of whom are brother and sister with the same parents – and they are BOTH gay. Explain that….if you think you can and/or presume to have the ability to.

            Now read this next part carefully: I will ALSO attest to the fact that within my OWN FAMILY….and I mean within my own blood line….there are a number of gay men and women, NONE OF WHOM chose to be gay. There is myself, and 4 cousins, who are all homosexual. Two of those cousins are also brother and sister. And to continue, today my mom revealed to me that she thinks my great-grandfather had a gay child by another woman who was not my great-grandmother. That means ALL of us are directly related, by blood, to my great-grandfather – the father of my grandmother, who was my dad’s mother. Let me reiterate….that means there have, thus far, been 6 blood-relatives related to my great-grandfather. Of those 6, only two share the same parent (who is my direct blood-related male cousin). The other 4 of us all have different fathers, but who are all blood-related to my great-grandfather.

            So you tell me…..was it a choice? Or is it more likely related to genetics? As I see it, it could only be genetic, having been passed down from my great-grandfather, to my grandmother, and to her 3 sons (my 2 uncles and my own dad)…and likewise from my great-grandfather to my great-uncle, who passed it on to my other cousin.

          • Ron Gilbert

            And first, you would be absolutely wrong about your first conclusion of my believing active homosexuals that are saved will go to Hell. Homosexuality is a sin as is any other sin. If you are saved as you claim, you will not go to Hell, EVER. As for you calling yourself a gay/homosexual Christian, you should stop doing that. To say that implies your active participation in that sin. You should instead call yourself someone that was saved out of that sin but still has problems with it. You sexual orientation should not define you, your Christianity and walk with God should. Pray that He delivers you from this temptation. I will pray for you as well.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            No offense, but you’re confusing me. Maybe that’s not your fault. But I’m confused, nevertheless. Am I to assume you’re either a Calvinist or Universalist? Because those are the only two branches of Christian theology that don’t believe a Christian will ever lose their salvation or go to hell. (At least the only two that come to my mind right now.)

            The thing is, I subscribe to neither one of those systems of theology.

            The problem I have with your statement is that you’re telling me I can be an active homosexual AND still go to Heaven.

            My sexual orientation does not define me. I acknowledge freely that there is MUCH about me that has nothing to do with it. But it IS, nevertheless, a significant part of who I am. I’m keenly aware of that part of myself on a daily basis due to the nature of my struggle. It rips me apart on a daily basis, and I mean that seriously. I went to the local pharmacy today to pick up my monthly prescriptions, and as I was leaving, I couldn’t help notice an attractive man at the counter. I didn’t stare, but the very fact that I even noticed him caused me to break down into tears when I got back into my car, because all it did was drive another dart into me. It reminded me of the struggle I deal with on a daily basis, and it took every ounce of strength I had just to drive home (in the falling snow) while tears were streaming down my face – because I was fighting to keep myself from feeling something I know I’m not allowed to feel and never allowed to pursue. I was an emotional WRECK when I got home.

            So no, my sexual orientation does NOT define me….but I can’t help the fact that it’s a significant part of my life, by virtue of the fact that I constantly fight an inner battle to keep myself from wanting something that ANY straight person is allowed to feel with another special person in their life.

            I mean, do you GET that? Can you IMAGINE what it’s like to want to share a deep love with someone you’re devoted to….but knowing you’ll never be able to have that, even though there is a segment of the population which is freely permitted to?

            And yet I’M getting castigated and called a cretin by people in here, and I’m being told I’m going to hell, and I’m being told I must stop referring to myself as a gay/homosexual Christian, and I’m having people hurling scriptures at me telling me I have to repent.

            Why should I stop referring to myself as a gay/homosexual Christian, and why repent if, as you believe, an active saved homosexual Christian will not go to hell?

          • Ron Gilbert

            Then go about your life as YOU see it should go and not how God says for you to go. Your self titling of being a homosexual Christian is an affront to what God says. He does not want you to continue in any sin and for you to continue to embrace it is your problem. As for my claim of still going to Heaven even though you consider yourself gay is also your problem. God says that once you accept Him as savior you cannot go to Hell no matter what you do after that. He says no one can take you from His hand, not even you. He says that He will NEVER leave nor forsake you and to believe otherwise calls God a liar. Upon accepting Christ, all sins, past present and future are forgiven. He also says that He no longer views the saved as sinners. Instead, when the saved sin he views it as the act of a disobedient child and should you continue in that sin you will both not receive blessings here on Earth and your time here on Earth will be cut short. You continue to assume upon me but fight against what you see as assumptions on my part and I find that completely ridiculous. It is obvious that help is not what you seek so this conversation goes no further with me. Stop putting down false doctrine on postings if rebuttal is not what you truly seek. God’s doctrine is not to be interpreted through our circumstances. Our circumstances should be interpreted through God’s word. I am not Calvinist nor Universalist. If I were a Calvinist I would have just given you a thumbs down and not said a word to you about your false doctrine. Calvinists believe that people are going to get saved or they are not and nothing that they say is going to make a difference. Which in essence, your rebuttals rather prove their point. If being left alone is what you want, stop replying with your nonsense and start talking to God. You really need to go back and read everything I said to you instead of twisting it to support your sensitivities. I will not be responding to anymore of your false doctrine and twisting of God’s word.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            I’M the one who’s twisting God’s word? THAT is the joke of the day. I question just how well you think you know it….or at the very least how you interpret it. But then again, as I stated previously, there are multiple interpretations of many verses among multiple denominations. So you apparently feel you are right, and I am wrong. Whatever.

            We’re at an impasse. I really don’t know what “false doctrine” you claim I’m presenting. I’ve tried explaining my thoughts about things, but I’m sorry you can’t understand what I’ve been trying to explain. There are many others who do understand. And if you’ll read back through our chain of comments, you’ll see I’m the one who first told you to leave me alone, but it was YOU who responded in turn. So this is, in essense, a game. And I don’t have time for games when I have to fight off a legion of other “Christians” who can’t seem to get past the concept that I’m celibate, and instead want to continue to instruct me to repent, lest I burn in hell.

            Amusing. And astonishing.

            And yet what YOU are basically telling me is that I don’t NEED to repent. You may not say it as such, but it doesn’t take Jack Frost to recognize a snow storm.

            Wow……..so many denominations and so many different interpretations and lines of thought. I can’t keep up with Christianity. I scratch my head at it, and shall reconsider my desire to even seek out a church. I am, and will remain, a follower of Jesus Christ……but as Ghandi said: “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

          • Ron Gilbert

            I could care less what your thoughts are at this point. You have done nothing but defend the sin that you want to hang on to and those that have shown you from God’s word what you need to do have been those that you argue against, constantly assuming the worst of them and then defending your own misconceptions of what God says in his word. So long as you continue to put the phrase “homosexual” in front of “Christian” you will be wrong.

          • chrisewing

            said like a true moron … God despises you

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            Getting paid by the reply, newbie troll?

          • http://www.facebook.com/annathule Annathule

            Sir, I HIGHLY commend your difficult choices you make every day. I have a niece who is in your exact position and has been since childhood – in a very religious family – and she never said a word about it or I would have worked w/ her to help her understand what she was feeling She thought she was possessed by the devil!!! Once she came out and said what she was I said “I knew it! I knew it!” But I didn’t really, unfortunately, but it made SOOO much sense in retrospect.

            I want to share w/ you, tho, that I understand your feelings of trepidation in going to church and making friends, always fearing something “wrong” would pop out and there goes the whole house of cards you spent so long building! And not there’s another LARGE section of society you need to make sure someone related to them isn’t a member of the next church you try and join, etc.

            Try being an ex-witch. When I told my pastor what his preaching (through him, God) had saved me from, his first few words of advice were “keep it to yourself.” He wasn’t being cruel and I knew it, just careful of ME! What a wonderful testimony of the preacher’s skill in going out and bringing in the lost souls – sure would have made his rep, right? But I guess word got around anyway, some fellows who were doing the “knock knock, do you know you’re going to heaven?” thing and they called me one evening, about 1/3 scared I think. They asked me if this gentleman – a pagan himself – had just cursed them. Given the circumstances they described I was able to say w/ confidence that “he wouldn’t have let them across the threshold if he was going to curse them”, but “no, I didn’t have a clue what he said” (various traditions and all you know.)

            I KNEW I could be SUCH an asset in reaching the pagan community, esp the young folks, I know the “lingo”, I knew the rituals, the reasons why this holiday was this and why that one was the way it was. But I also knew the cat was out of the bag by then and a deacon who, for some reason, and probably because I was a PRIOR witch, (and he was born perfect, I’m sure you know the kind, HE never needing saving, because he was BORN perfect, ya knoooow… *deep sigh*) he used my fear of being “outed” to GET me out by telling me not only was I NOT fit for ANY ministry, (I HAD been saved for over a year by then) everyone was talking behind my back and *I* was causing trouble in the church.” Well, truth be told, and I do truly know the why’s and wherefore’s of the whole sorry situation, he HIMSELF brought down that AWESOME preacher, got his wife to divorce him all thru lies and tore apart a church that had just rebuilt the most GORGEOUS church we were all dying to move into. No, the church split and I followed the preacher’s bro-in-law to our own church.

            Now I’ve gone back to being pagan and screw them all on a good day. I want a church that talks about GOD’S Word and WHERE we’re going, not “just say please and thank you” and “treat our neighbors kindly” – I not only learned that in Sunday School, I was nearly killed by my neighbors and no one cared the HELL we were going thru w/ them, pimping their women off our front doorstep and their drugs as well, and drinking and boozing the whole night quite loudly and half the day. I want a church that’s going to discuss prophecy and where we’re headed!

            I sincerely honor your strength of character. Me? I’m sick of the hypocrisy. I also don’t DO mornings, I just haven’t gone to bed since last night! hehehehe! I am what nobody, including you, will say I can be – a Christopagan. Try attending church when you’re what BOTH sides say you can’t be! LOL (There ARE those that understand, thank Mother Mary!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Neopaganism#Christopaganism

            and

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Neopaganism#Christopaganism (I don’t consider myself Wiccan, as that is a path unto itself, but in this article it explains it the best in conjuction w/ Christopaganism.)

            OK, everyone start dishing the hate, I’m laughing at y’all already. I’ve been hated by the best, Now let’s hear the rest.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            I’m leaving this reply to tell you it nearly brought me to tears to read what you’ve been through. It hurt to see you say you’ve returned to being a pagan. It’s not a hurt born out of disappointment or any sense of judgement. The hurt and tears it causes is born out of the frustration and hurt that you felt at the hands of other so-called “Christians”, which was of such an extent that it drove you to the point where you felt the only thing left to do was say “Screw it, I give up.” I understand that feeling.

            I am in no way going to judge you, nor will I in any way tell you that you can’t be what you are….because I am not God, and it is not my place to say that to you, nor to judge you. It is my place to say “God loves you”, and he always has.

            This reminds me of something I’ve been going through this year. It has been a hard year for me, not only emotionally but physically as well. I’ve lost my uncle, and the man I was named after died on Christmas Day. I’ve been the subject of spiteful, mean-spirited words that my family spoke of me behind my back, and have been dealing with the hurt of that nearly all year. I nearly crippled my back shortly after my birthday several months ago, and have been dealing with the pain and physical effects of that since then, which I have no way of dealing with because I don’t have health insurance. I’ve also been through an emotional Christmas season, in which I’ve literally had to reach a decision in my life that affects how I feel about my brother and his wife. I have to let go of my relationship to him, and have lost respect for his wife. Some will tell me I can’t do that as a Christian, and I question it myself as to whether I’m allowed to feel this way or not. But ultimately, the woman who has been affected and hurt the most in my family….my mother….gave me permission this morning to carry on with the decision I’ve made. And I believe God understands. It may not ultimately be what’s ideal, but it is the only decision I can find myself living with if I’m to free myself of animosity and a sense of being controlled by others.

            I don’t know you, and I don’t know if you’ll accept these words or not, but I pray God blesses you and touches your heart.

          • chrisewing

            I’m glad your uncle died, you sub-human, evil, disgusting p.o.s.

          • http://www.facebook.com/annathule Annathule

            If you mean the words you say, then YOU are sub-human, evil, disgusting, POS. Not the person you aim them at. I would add horrid, judgemental, spawn of the devil sent to torment this poor soul who is one way BUT IS NOT ACTING THAT WAY! Bet you like to DO it up the butt, are you all glory bound??? And I bet you act on that too, just because it’s w/ someone of the opposite s e x doesn’t make it any less disgusting and nasty. But YOU don’t refrain, in fact I can PROVE you like those things, because your mouth and mind are full of s h y t e, it just rolls out and makes your fingers type those cruel words. You think Christ would say those things, or would He say “He who is without sin, cast the first stone”? The Jews back then had the good sense to fade off into the woodwork, and Jesus FORGAVE the adulterous woman. Something the the Law called for stoning her to death. No good Jew broke the Law. Did Jesus kill her? Or did he lift her up and say “Go and sin no more”? I’ll guarantee you, that YOU don’t know. Yet you judge anyway.

          • Kathleen

            Your heartless, cruel words reflect the person you really are. Being glad someone died and then throwing it back at a grieving person and calling him names is characteristic of a low-life mentality. What is rotting in your heart which still manages to keeps you breathing each day? You also need many prayers to eradicate the poison with which you have allowed yourself to be consumed. You haven’t hurt anyone, else, but you surely have harmed your soul.

          • http://www.facebook.com/annathule Annathule

            Oh my!! How awful!! I appreciate your words and the care and love behind them, and if it eases your heart – 2 things.

            One, I’ve only talked pagan, never done any spells or candle magick since. I can’t seem to find a place anywhere anymore. THAT bothers me, but as I said, I torpedo all chuch attempt, I simply CANNOT seem to break this up-all-night-sleep-all-day bit! I used to be a full fledged pagan, spells and all, but I gave that up when I was saved.

            Two – I think it will please your heart to know that just today, I was praising and thanking God for his care of us. As my husband went down the road to deposit a check in the bank, he had a tire blow out. In the left lane and next to a semi, no less! *shudder* I’d’ve freaked! Now mind you, we live just $300 past our income, because that’s what we have to overdraw every month to carry us through. Well, Mom had sent us a $250 check and I was thinking, “oooooohhh yeah, we won’t have to bounce for a few months until something unforeseen happens!” Well, it beat me there. But see, thank God we had the $$ in our hand to correct this. (Well, his hand, I would have flipped out and been hysterical, as it was, I was home and getting him a tow truck etc, something to occupy me.) Between the tow truck and the tireS – plural, we had the $$$, make sure the rest were good for winter – we have $49 left. But GOD covered us w/ His mighty hand!! We had zilch in the bank, absolutely nothing to do this with, but Mom, who doesn’t part w/ money easily, had sent us that $250 out of the blue! I sat here today and just praised God for caring for us. I know where our protection comes from, I don’t think you need to worry quite as much as it seems.

            I’m SOOO sorry about your family woes, they cut deeper than any other person can, besides a spouse or S/O I suppose. I will pray for you, that you will find peace and rest, not the fate of Paul, to run everyday w/ a thorn, striving always for the end, exhausted, trying to run the race and do it right. In that small, tiny way, we share a bit of life, no place to find rest and peace and to be able to, so to speak, sit down and catch our breaths. And you are SOOO allowed to do what you have to – Christ Himself said, “if they receive you not, shake the dust from your feet and move on.” I believe firmly that God aimed it at you, no matter WHAT is the “thorn in your side” happens to be and you have every right to preserve yourself under those circumstances. Obviously you can’t go out and kill someone for it, but God certainly approves of you moving your self along and choosing to only include ppl in your life that affirm and bless you, giving honor to your mother and father, and them alone, that’s all the Commandments require (and the only commandment that comes w/ a promise – did you know that? ^_^) If your decision is what I’m thinking, (sudden insight into your words..maybe?) then by all means go for it! Esp if your mother can accept your decision. Hey look, if you want to talk more annathule at gmail dot com or if they erase this, @annathule and we’ll share email addys then. I don’t look at that much, only on my computer when I think of it cuz “I has a stupid fone” – it dials numbers and its biggest trick is speed dialing. LOLOL! Good Lord I wouldn’t know what to do w/ a “smart phone”! My kids yeah, but us? We can’t even see the screen! HAHAHA! I have NOOOO idea what I’m going to do when they quit making stupid phones!

            Happy New Years to you and here’s to hoping 2014 brings you peace and the strength to make all the decisions that need to be made. You don’t even have to write to me if you don’t want to, but if you do, I would welcome the conversation. God Bless You, my new friend. I will pray for you and it will be to God, not some pagan god, I promise! (And that would only be to Mother Mary or the saints, anyway, I don’t follow all these Greek and Roman gods, etc.)

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            A much welcomed response from you, and greatly appreciated. I’m so very glad everything worked out for you and your husband with his tire. I’d be freaking out, too….beLIEVE me. God bless your sweet mother….what a generous and kind-hearted act. God surely inspired her to send that gift of money your way.

            I’ve received your email address and twitter username….so no worries if they delete your post. Thank you for sharing them. I’ll definitely keep them handy and maybe we can “talk” more outside this comments section.

            P.S. Oh dear one, you’re not the only one with a “stupid fone”. LOL! Except I refer to mine as a “dumb phone”…..same difference, I suppose. It’s funny….there have been times when I’ve been out with my mom, and her iPhone has rang and she’d ask me to answer it for her. My response: “How?” ha ha. I suppose one day I’ll have no choice but to get one….but right now, I’d rather get my first flat-screen LCD television. I’m SOOOOO behind the times!

            God bless, hon……and likewise, YOU have an incredible New Year as well. Thank you for your encouragement and support!

          • David Lake

            Not the right answer either. Rather it’s ‘taking the easy way out’… Joes Question is valid & you need to examine it & answer it like a man-not hide from it!!!

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            And what question would that be, which you claim I need to answer like a man? Your very comment is antagonistic, and you presume I owe Joe any sort of response….which I do not. I do not answer to him for my life. I answer to God. Have you not read Romans 14:4?

          • David Lake

            One of my favorite Books in the Bible. Being Gay,as you claim, you’ve answered every Question to make yourself look good. No wonder Joe was getting angry with you. You haven’t hit on the truth & that truth is “that homosexuals are an abomination in Gods eyes”… You refuse to acknowledge that & it’s right there in Leviticus…

          • http://www.facebook.com/annathule Annathule

            Christ BECAME the Law for us. What part of THAT aren’t you understanding David? His very existence fulfills the Law, then rids us of the ponderous law the Jews still follow. Every jot and tittle which condemns them to hell w/ every breath they take. That’s what Jesus said it did, you DID read that in whatever bastardized version of the Bible you’re reading this week, right?

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            I’m starting to think neither Joe nor David know how to read anything, since they still completely presume I’m an active homosexual because I simply refer to myself as a gay/homosexual Christian – even though I’ve stated numerous times that I’ve been celibate for over 21 years. They don’t understand the difference between the orientation and the action. Using their logic, I could just as easily accuse them both of fornication or adultery by simply identifying themselves as heterosexuals (assuming that’s what they are.) They’d probably prefer that I simply lie and describe myself as heterosexual…which I’m not….or call myself an “ex-homosexual”….which I’m not, since the attractions that constitute homosexuality still remain with me….or else they’d prefer I just shut up and never share anything about myself with anyone. In that case, I guess I would never be able to witness to anyone.

            So as I see it, they’re just modern-day Pharisees who want to think of themselves as perfectly able to avoid any and all sin, while maintaining a judgmental superior attitude toward others. I sometimes think there are Christians who would have been members of the crowd that cried out for Barabbas to be freed, instead of Jesus. From now on, I’m ignoring them both. Nothing either one of them is saying is affecting me in any manner. Quite frankly, I have other more important issues in my life to focus on than to engage in a protracted argument with two people I don’t know, in a discussion forum at a website I’d never heard of until the other day, debating a subject I know more about than they think I do.

          • http://www.facebook.com/annathule Annathule

            Oh hun, I’m so (sorry?) for you. Maybe not sorry, because you are what you are and you *choose* to fight w/ your natural body that your redeemed spirit has overcome. I think you’re awesome and I really respect you for what you go through every day. Priests and Nuns have to go thru life celibate, but they have “families” and places that take care of them in their old age, something that if you followed your natural inclinations, you’d have, but lose your soul. My husband and I were talking about that. Betwixt and between. I looked up the verses about Jesus bringing a sword not peace and I found an entire page of verses that, from my POV, might help you for another round of the fight, another person that assumes.

            The Ministry of the Twelve
            (Mark 6:7-13; Luke 9:1-6)

            5These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. 8Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. 9Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, 10Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.

            11And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. 12And when ye come into an house, salute it. 13And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 15Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

            Comfort in Persecution
            (2 Timothy 1:6-12)

            16Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. 17But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; 18And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.

            19But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. 20For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

            21And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. 22And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

            Fearing God Alone
            (Luke 12:4-7)

            26Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known. 27What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. 28And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 29Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. 30But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.

            Confessing Christ

            (Luke 12:8-12)

            32Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

            The Sword of the Gospel
            (Luke 12:49-53)

            (This is the verse that started all this! *grin*)
            34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

            Take up Your Cross

            (Matthew 16:24-28; Mark 8:34-38; Luke 9:23-27)

            37He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. 39He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

            In that last set of verses I see you. Your fate is in Jesus’ hands, can there be any place safer? God bless you dear. BTW, in case you haven’t gotten to it yet, I’m sending the addies of the church, our papers’ links and some wordy bits about our town. Our city/town is the county seat and ppl don’t pay as much attention to you here as in some of the smaller towns in the county, and PA in our area is THICK w/ Brethren. Bible belt sorts, no words, but many sideways looks. They can be even spookier and off-putting. Besides, I think we have a fair amount of LGBT folks around and the folks at the church could introduce you around quite nicely! :)

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            Again, you’ve been so supportive and encouraging with your words. Thank you so much. Those verses are definitely encouraging, and on more than many occasions I’ve reflected upon what Jesus said about taking up your cross and following him.

            My mom and I were out today, talking about this very thing….in fact, talking about this comments section and what people have said. She’s Catholic, and was absolutely appalled to hear how some people have reacted. But I told her I face a life in which I have but 2 choices…..I can try to continue on in a life of loneliness, or accept who I am and engage in a relationship with someone but risk the fires of hell. She wants to cry, because she doesn’t know what to say….and sometimes I don’t know what to tell myself.

            People think it’s easy to just endure this. It’s not. I sometimes sit and stare into the darkness of my room at night, wondering how I’m going to get through the [hopefully] next 25-35 years of my life, bearing this pain. I sometimes honestly don’t know what to do, or why this is happening. I at times think “Wouldn’t it be easier to die before I’m 50 and go on to find peace?”….but then it’s followed with the equally strong response in my mind, which says “But I want to live”.

            Take care. Got so many things to take care of and not enough time in the day. Thanks again for your wonderful words of encouragement, and the time you take in conveying your messages to me.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            I shudder to think what either of you would have been like during the 1800s when Lincoln abolished slavery. You’re both clearly blind and not reading what I’ve said. Somehow you think I’m admitting that I actively live a homosexual lifestyle, but all the while missing the part where I’ve said I’ve been celibate for over 21 years.

            Tell me something, David…..how long has it been since YOU’VE had sex with anyone?

          • chrisewing

            I pray every day for the death of ignorant hicks like you

          • chrisewing

            what do you know about being a man, moron?

          • USAPatriotSC

            Don’t uses Jesus as a crutch, stand and walk or fall and crawl.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            Trust me, if it wasn’t for Jesus, I wouldn’t have been able to do either the past 2 months.

          • Weary Warrior

            I cannot imagine your struggles as I’ve never dealt with anything similar. Keep up the good fight!

            As for “pulling out your own eye or cutting off your own hand. Or are those words somehow not to be taken literally?” Those admonitions are figurative, not literal. Jesus certainly did NOT command that we should literally pluck out our eyes or cut off our hands. If His followers all did that, there would be millions of blind, maimed Christians walking the earth.

          • Ron Gilbert

            Before you get offended and believe that I side with Joe against you, I do not and have read what both of you said. You both have valid points. You made a statement where you said you were a homosexual. You did not say in that first statement that you merely had those temptations. For Joe to have seen the error in that was not his fault. You were not clear in your distinction and for you to get offended was not Joe’s fault. You have made some very truthful statements about God and temptation but your assertion on judging is wrong. We are to judge with righteous judgment in the area of recognizing sin. What many people misunderstand is that we are not to judge as in sentence a person for their wrong. Every single verse you see regarding judgement is written in what is called the imperative in Greek. This means a command from God to do so. The verse you used about removing the plank before the splinter does not mean that you are not to remove the splinter. It means that IF you are going to obey God in reproving, rebuking, and exhorting someone with all long suffering and doctrine, then you better prepare yourself spiritually first. Remember that it says that if you judge, you will be judged as how you have judged (paraphrasing but still the same concept). Again, in the imperative. There is passage after passage in God’s word, from the Old to the New, that tell us to adhere to the reproofs of a brother. There many passages that tell Christians to submit themselves to each other in the area of that reproof.

          • Kathleen

            Then the moral relativists fly in and attack with a form of the following: “What is “wrong”? Who are YOU to decide what is wrong for me or for anyone but yourself? If you think what I am doing is wrong, then don’t you do it. Otherwise, don’t judge me and STFU!”

          • Ron Gilbert

            Justifying sin is a mad circle of reasoning, isn’t it?

          • Kathleen

            It is indeed, Ron. And it never lets up, which is characteristic of sin’s insidiousness.

          • William Hagenmaier

            touchy touchy touchy you are judging also kathy

          • Kathleen

            Sin is sin. We must be able and willing to see sin for what it is, and strive not to sin. What we may not do, what we have no right to do, is to presume to pass sentence upon another for their sins. Judging and sentencing have become conflated as if they mean the same thing. They do not. We all make judgements on what is appropriate to engage in – or not. If I commit sin, I acknowledge it. If someone else is committing sin, I recognize it. However, I may not, and do not, pass sentence on how I think I and other sinners will be dealt with in the final analysis.

          • Mr

            You may want to read a bit more of your Bible .. Know you not that we will judge the angels ? How about the fact that we are told how to deal with other Christians who are erring ? Gotta study before you get so passionate. Just trying to help

          • Kathleen

            The last two sentences of Ron Gilbert’s post says it well, and to the point: “For some people to give a blanket assumption that someone is judging them for telling them that they are doing wrong only reflects that person’s pride in not wanting to be told they they are wrong. For others it is their way of justifying their wrong and using it to stay in that sin.”

          • Cheryl

            You told Ron Gilbert to “STFU”, then begin speaking as if you are a Christian?!?! What a hypocrite you are! You don’t have a plank in your eye, you have an entire forest. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

          • Kathleen

            I did not tell anyone, let alone Ron Gilbert, to shut up, let alone STFU. Ron Gilbert knew that, in his response to me. Can you not understand what you read, Cheryl? Shame – on you. READ. Carefully read what I wrote beginning with this: “Then the moral relativists fly in and attack with a form of the following:…” and then read the rest of it, and try to understand (through the forest not only in your eye, but in your comprehension skills) and attempt to discern the context in which my remark was made. WHO is it that is saying STFU if someone disagrees with them? The moral relativists that I was writing about, of course, and you might – might – have got that, had you taken the time to read and understand context. THAT is quite the shame, right there.

          • Weary Warrior

            Excellent response, Ron. On point.

          • Sandsto7

            Awesome exhortation, Ron Gilbert. I would not fear to say that you are probably, as David, a man after God’s own heart.

          • Anthony

            Yup, but apparently chngrffn doesn’t understand that.

          • Tonka Thor

            That’s why we need Jesus. We’re all sinful in nature and only through Jesus Christ are we justified in the sight of God.

          • sagan22

            Jesus real name is Titus Flavious..the son of the living roman god Vespasian..
            Caesar’s Messiah.. by Joe Atwill.

          • david

            To look upon a beautiful women and say she is beautiful is one thing and not a sin. The sin comes when you continue to look and think of dirty deeds or have lust in your heart for that lady. It’s is not an easy thing to do. But we must fight the temptation of that very sin every day. And so it is with whatever sin you struggle with. And we all have something we struggle with and you know that to be a fact. We just have to hand it over to the holy spirit and do are very best to avoid it. Even those we say we are Christians, we will deal with sin daily. WE live in an in perfect world. An the Devil / Satan still rule this world but one day God will take that away for Satan and put him in Hell for Every. WE will shed all our sin one day thank God. But until that day comes. We do the best we can. But if you hanging onto those sin and knot giving them over to the lord. I think long and hard if I can really call my self a Christian and know for sure that my name is in the Lambs book of life. Only you and God himself know that call.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            When Christ returns – and He will – we shall not only see Him but be as He is. Maranatha.

          • Viator16

            Sinful acts come from sinful desires, and sinful desires come from a sinful nature. It is not sin that makes us sinners, but it is because we are sinners that we sin. Human beings are filled with all sorts of evil desires, homosexuality is but one those sinful desires.

          • qneill

            http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lust‎ :

            a. An overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power.
            b. Intense eagerness or enthusiasm: a lust for life

            I contend that if you are not overwhelmed by your desire or craving but instead confront, deflect or defeat it, the charge of lust holds no power, especially in the arena of contemplation.

            We are to judge a tree by its fruit.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            No one can do what you describe with perfect lifelong consistently apart from the indwelling Spirit of Christ. Without Him, such a person has only dealt with the fruit of the sinful nature (sins), not the root itself (sin). That root – sin – is the true basis for our condemnation by God. The outward sinful acts are only the evidence of the sin nature; victory over sins apart from Him is no victory because one is still dead in sin; more so, as such meaningless victories are from the energy of the flesh itself and lead to pride, which itself is grievous sin.

          • qneill

            #1 – 100% agree about the requirement of His indwelling.
            #2 – once: indulgence would constitute not only being overwhelmed but possible complicity.

            My statement was concerning the charge of lust against a man who merely looks upon another woman.

            Sin is missing the mark, and as our aim improves we are held to a higher standard. But some are still learning how to hold the bow and must be brought along with compassion.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            “But some are still learning how to hold the bow and must be
            brought along with compassion.”

            If someone truly belongs to Christ while admitting enslavement to besetting sin that simply will not go away, the first thing they’re likely doing wrong is refusing to acknowledge, or are simply ignorant of, the fact of their death to sin in Christ.

            As difficult as that is for believers in Christ to keep in mind, that must be the starting point of all our thoughts regarding how we’re to walk in this life. We ARE forgiven ALL sins, yet sin itself still dwells within us. It may not feel like it but we must take it on faith that sin is a defeated foe RIGHT NOW. We will never, ever realize victory over it if we do not appropriate the power of Christ by His Spirit to resist…and we won’t do that if we don’t realize that HE said we’re DEAD to our sin….and we can’t realize that unless we’re truly saved by believing the Gospel of the grace of God that Christ died, was buried and rose again for OUR sin.

            I don’t wish to repeat myself but this has been my whole point with someone claiming to be a homosexual (in mental desire if not in actual practice) AND a homosexual. It is impossible to be both because the old man – of which the homosexuality as well as all sins is part – was crucified, and all things are made new in the new birth. IF he is REALLY a Christian, he is no longer a homosexual in any sense, any more than a kleptomaniac (thief) can remain a thief in any real sense in Christ. The temptation to steal may well remain alive inside him, yes, but HE HIMSELF is no longer that, if he’s really saved. Knowing that and believing that is where the battle really starts.

            Conversely, if one is saved but doesn’t know or believe that fact about himself in Christ, then the battle with sin is already lost.

            And if one is merely religious, guilty and conscience-striken but is without Christ, then he has a whole other, far bigger problem.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            And Thank YOU for your words of support and encouragement. I could only reply by asking you to say a prayer that the Lord will continue to uphold me and provide light and guidance to the path along which I walk.

          • Kathy McGrath

            You are both freaks.

          • USAPatriotSC

            Well said BIGOT!

          • JR Dowd

            You know you are a part of the problem. Neither Phil nor this man said they hate gays, we should prosecute and kill them, they are not treating them any differently as they would a straight couple… THOSE ARE ACTS OF BIGOTRY! Sexual preference is simply that, a preference. Someone that is against gay couples and acts and goes out to persecute, prosecute, commit hate crimes against or treats them less than human being because of their preference is a bigot. If they respect them, treat them as their fellow man, not judge them by condemning them to hell, be their friend and love them just as anyone else then they are not bigots! I believe in the Bible and it says its wrong. I have lots of gay friends and family members that I would lay down my life for. I treat everyone as I would treat myself. Their sexual preference is NOT MY PLACE to judge. I know that Jesus saved a man on the cross, so God will save anyone that is Gay if they believe Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior however they may have certain consequences from God they must face. You my friend by calling someone a Bigot for their belief and not actions, which in this case seems to be against all Christians is no better than attacking someone for being gay. You are doing what you are accusing this scholar and Phil about… bigotry! Christians should be treated like Gays, Muslims, Hindus and anyone else with a different perspective and belief. If they hurt or attack another person individually then they deserve the criticism. In the US and the world we should be able to have our own opinion and disagreeing with someone’s life choices does not mean you HATE that person. A lot of people disagree with me but they don’t hate me (the ones that do are stupid)

          • talkto

            It is not loving to tell someone they are okay, when if fact they are indulging behaviors that may harm them. Believers are called to judge the behavior of other believers and help them stay on the path of righteous living….we cannot judge another person’s heart, only God knows another’s heart!

          • M J

            ‘May’ harm them? There is no doubt about it: it will certainly harm them. That is why instead of indulging in it, instead of loudly claiming a right to do it, they should look upon that sin they way they would look on a cobra about to strike, and fight against it instead of embracing it.

          • Idders

            The only thing about homosexuality that seriously threatens the individual is Christians who believe that Jesus never repealed the commands of the Old Testament, and are now duty-bound to kill them. Leviticus.

          • JamesFBarry

            I think we can all agree now that Phil is going to sink his own boat with his crazy rants…..(He’s now onto men marrying 15 year old girls) I can’t wait until the next shoe drops. The point is once you take the cap off the bottle of bigotry/small mindedness it allows out all sorts of views that are better left unsaid….

            “Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything”.

            -George Bernard Shaw

          • sagan22

            there are no gods…. never have been never will be.. they are all fictional characters… nothing more.

          • tfmmv

            I thank YOU for opening some eyes! Every body needs to examine themselves and their relationship with Christ, their walk with Him! I sin every day, I am not proud of it but the Holy Spirit nudges me and I ask for forgiveness

          • Michael D Barber

            Speak for yourself and stop pushing your superstitions on other people.

          • USAPatriotSC

            Stop butting in to other peoples conversations with your hate post on an acticle that talks of Christianity and Homosexuality
            If you do not like people having a simple conversation then close the page.

          • JamesFBarry

            Your showing your age dear….. Homosexuality like Negro are very dated words……Try Gay it makes you sound less narrow minded.

          • USAPatriotSC

            A rose by any other name…..

          • radiofreerome

            And a redneck asshole is a redneck asshole.

          • USAPatriotSC

            Your original post to me was:
            radiofreerome
            And a redneck asshole is a redneck asshole.
            I think you have clearly shown everyone who and what you are.

          • radiofreerome

            You’re saying Phil isn’t a redneck asshole? You’re not terribly observant, are you?

          • Momo Luvy

            If you want to call him an asshole because if makes you feel better so be it but who are you do say what Phil have seen.

          • radiofreerome

            He is an asshole. Those incidents were reported daily on television, on radio, and in newspapers. Phil Robertson would have to have lived a more isolated life than the Unabomber in order to avoid knowing them. I was a child in an even more isolated part of the same state, and I knew about them.

            You are a fool.

          • USAPatriotSC

            Let me guess, it was reported on MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC, right?
            Fools reveal themselves when stating others are the fool.

          • Zoe

            You do know that back in the days of which Phil spoke, there was neither MSNBC nor CNN… right?

            Those incidents were reported on CBS, NBC, and ABC — because those were the only national networks from almost the inception of TV until the invention of cable in the 1980s.

            And you call *us* crazy…

          • USAPatriotSC

            Insane not crazy.

          • JamesFBarry

            Fear not with bigots like Phil they always shot their mouths off and end up showing not just their true colors but sinking their own ship……Thank “God” all bigots are dumb too….

          • USAPatriotSC

            Funny how I was going to write the same exact thing you did but my page froze on me. Maybe it froze for a reason!

          • USAPatriotSC

            Do your research brainiac, In 1866, the Ku Klux Klan was started by Democrats to lynch and terrorize Republicans, black and white, and the Ku Klux Klan became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party. The KKK morphed into the current racist hating organization still employed to this day by Democrats “Liberals”. Your ignorance of history is amazing and all you dumb schmucks who vote Democrat are only being a party to racism, hate and murder. You have had the wool pulled over your eyes for 50 years and you really are sheep been led to your slaughter. All that you wrote to me was done by your party, Conservatives do not do evil to other races.
            Now you must lash out at me because you can’t defend this, it is fact and it is history.

          • JamesFBarry

            Your talking about the 1870′s try the 1920′s,,,yes and most of those White did belong to the “Southern Branch” of the Democratic party…But since Johnson those White fled to your party and are now the Tea party problem the GOP has……There yours now….Good luck with them…

          • USAPatriotSC

            You really did go to Oxford, your history is so liberally slanted no wonder no one wants to follow you or be followed by you. It was 1866 and your Liberal School History screwed you up bad. I have had enough of correcting you, you should really go to a Liberal site and grace them with your billiance and charm….NOT!
            It has been good peering into the insane Liberal mind but I have had enough insanity.
            BTW, when the knock on your door comes and the men on the otherside say….We are from the Government and we’re here to help, please open the door because they are your buddies after all.

          • JamesFBarry

            The first Ku Klux Klan flourished in the Southern United States in the late 1860s, then died out by the early 1870s. Members adopted white costumes: robes, masks, and conical hats, designed to be outlandish and terrifying, and to hide their identities. The second KKK flourished nationwide in the early and mid-1920s, and adopted the same costumes and code words as the first Klan, while introducing cross burnings.[15] The third KKK emerged after World War II and was associated with opposing the Civil Rights Movement and progress among minorities. The second and third incarnations of the Ku Klux Klan made frequent reference to the USA’s “Anglo-Saxon” blood, harking back to 19th-century nativism and claiming descent from the original 18th-century British colonial revolutionaries. FYI……I went to BC……

          • JamesFBarry

            “Charm, in most men and nearly all women, is a decoration”.

            E. M. Forster

          • Confed

            I don’t know how you lasted as long as you did. I was only reading the crap he spewed and had to start drinking. LOL. You can’t fix stupid. I was waiting for him or one of them to start with the little green men. You are a better person than me. Hopefully, there is a lesson in there somewhere on how to deal with crazy, self-serving bigots that really do believe what they are saying. Thank God I don’t have to deal with them much now that I don’t work in the prison system anymore. I’ll be dead before most of those finish out their sentences. At least you stand for something. God Bless you and the other Americans who function better with less corrupt big govt..

          • Steve Dave

            Wait – you mean “I’m gonna have those niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years” Johnson? That Johnson? Yeah, re-enslaving a large portion of the race is the same as loving them. Liberal logic.

          • JamesFBarry

            Dear Steve,

            No matter how hard you wish it……Jim Crow isn’t coming back….You still have to work two jobs to keep your children in the “Christian School so they don’t have to attend the integrated ones

          • Steve Dave

            That literally has nothing to do with what I said. You’re talking about Johnson while calling Republicans racist, but he was incredibly racist, and bragged about how he was going to trick the “niggers” into voting for him by dangling short-term freebies in front of them and making them dependent on welfare programs. As far as my children, you shut your fucking mouth. My kids don’t know how to be racist, unlike yours who probably grew up with, “Now, you be extra nice to the brown kids and give them your money because they’re helpless and can’t earn their own due to their handicap.”

          • JamesFBarry

            Ain’t gonna let nobody
            Turn me around! Turn me around! Turn me around!
            Ain’t gonna let nobody turn me around
            I’m gonna keep on a – walkin’ keep on a – talkin’
            Marchin’ down to freedom’s land!

            Ain’t gonna let injustice
            Turn me around! Turn me around! Turn me around!
            Ain’t gonna let injustice turn me around
            I’m gonna keep on a – walkin’ keep on a – talkin’
            Marchin’ down to freedom’s land!

            Ain’t gonna let segregation…
            Ain’t gonna let oppression…
            Ain’t gonna let your jail cells… …
            Ain’t gonna let your violence…
            Ain’t gonna let nobody…

            DON’T LET NOBODY TURN YOU
            DON’T LET NOBODY TURN YOU AROUND!
            I’M GONNA KEEP ON A WALKIN’, KEEP ON A TALKIN’
            KEEP ON A WALKIN’, KEEP ON A TALKIN’,
            KEEP ON A WALKIN’, KEEP ON A TALKIN’,
            MARCIN’ DOWN TO FREEDOM’S LAND

          • Zoe

            No modern progressive is a fan of Lyndon Johnson. Lyndon Johnson was a classic professional politico; the only agenda he followed was whatever furthered his own political agenda.

          • LibertyIssues

            Obama’s NOT a progressive???

          • Steve Dave

            Zoe, Your first sentence is so incredibly false that it renders anything else you say irrelevant. I have heard more than a few defend him, and what he did is exactly what the democratic party does today, that’s what they call “progressive” – change your views, morals, and beliefs to trend with whatever will get you the most votes this year so that you get to keep your office, regardless of what’s best for the nation, that’s the entire agenda.

          • Barney Fife

            Yeah – but, those were very different republican and democratic parties.

            Now you are much more likely to find republicans in the KKK, not democrats.

          • USAPatriotSC

            Only a Liberal will say that without proof. It won’t fit into your agenda the other way, will it.

          • M J

            That’s right. You cons and neocons say very different things without a shred of evidence for them.

          • USAPatriotSC

            Look at what is happening in this Country.

          • M J

            It IS painful to watch what is happening in this country. But both the Right and Left are doing horrible things to the country; contrary to the assumption behind the name ‘downtrend.com’, it is not the Left alone that is leading the country to ruin.

          • JamesFBarry

            We elected our 1st Black Man to the highest office in the land twice……and next we will be electing our 1st women to the highest office in the land……That’s what makes America great….

          • Confed

            He is not black. He is mulatto. At least let the man own what he is. His mother’s DNA is just as important as that of his fathers.

          • JamesFBarry

            I’m sure in your address book you can kind a few Klan members…..

          • georgewbusted

            True but in the 1800s Republicans were liberal/progressives and Democrats Conservatives. TDR was a Progressive Republican President. However starting with FDR the Democratic Party move away from Conservativism and become liberal and Republican became Conservative. Dixiecrats became Republicans and Progressive Republicans from the Northeast and West became Democrats. Thats why all Southern white bigots are now Republicans. Unfortunately you guys are not very good at history are you.

          • USAPatriotSC

            Twist it Liberal, twist it…hahaha

          • Jeff McCabe

            Everytime someone points out the origin of the KKK some jackass claims that all those bad democrats are now Republican and those good Republicans are now democrats. Like former Senator Robert Bird. Who served and died as a democrat. Also if you have ever been around Union members, all democrats, who have been locked out from their factories that are protected by black security guards and heard what they yell at them, you know there are some serious racists. Or been in Boston during school integration and heard what those good democrats yelled at little kids. Talk about someone knowing nothing of history.

          • emmam34

            Wow, you have gone done lost your mind. Republicans were always the conservative party of no government interference (including social issues, they were not interested in government dictating morality). Democratic Party was created as a group that was “less” Republican. At the time both parties were quite conservative, Democrats less so. I’m certain your astounding ignorance is rooted in the historical struggle with slavery. Democrats supported slavery for religious reasons, because they felt this certain group of people could not take care of itself, they thought blacks were too stupid to be on their own, so slavery equaled kindness. Republicans, also religiously, believed all people are equal and government has no right to call anyone a slave, Funny how not much has changed. Dems still believe some people are just incapable of succeeding so they need government, ending up being de facto reliant on it – not that far from slavery…

          • JamesFBarry

            Oh honey…….LoL………In your are head this is what you hear….

            “There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South. Here in this pretty world, Gallantry took its last bow. Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and of Slave. Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered, a Civilization gone with the wind…”

            In the real word we call you “Crazy”………Own it…Wear it….

          • Zoe

            I find it disturbing that you and your ilk conveniently forget the “Southern strategy” and the migration of all Southern Democrats to the Republican party following the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1968 when talking about how terrible Democrats are and how great Republicans are. It’s the same convenient “understanding” of history that allows people like you to believe that Nazis were progressive, because the word “Socializt” was part of the name of their political party, despite the fact that they failed to pass a single piece of progressive legislation and tortured and murdered gays, gypsies, intellectuals, and Jews — not a usual approach favored by progressives, in this country or any other.

            This is what is known as “re-writing history.” Your type excel at this kind of virulent and dangerous propaganda.

          • USAPatriotSC

            A nice piece of propaganda with the usual liberal twist not based on fact, just fantasy. I am not a Republican and never said I was, you added this so your false fantasy can have more punch to it. Democrats did not and do not join the Republican party, they have been taken over by the Communists and although they are progressives they hide as Liberals. The current Republican party are more Democrat than anything else, they are history, they just haven’t realized it yet.

          • Raptor Jesus

            Up yur dosage.

          • georgewbusted

            What Phil actually meant was that pre civil rights Blacks knew their place and did not dare complain. This was the good ole days from people like Phil.

          • Jeff McCabe

            Yeah, all nonsense. Its not at all unlikely that poor whites and poor blacks would work at the same jobs together and get along. To claim that someone who says he worked with black people in the 50′s is JUST LIKE the people who bombed churches and killed people takes a special kind of stupid.. That’s just idiotic. Really idiotic. Unbelievably idiotic.

          • radiofreerome

            You may be too stupid to understand this, but a willingness to ignore evil facilitates evil. While filth like Phil claim this applies to treating gays as human beings, but doesn’t apply to ignoring racist laws and racial terrorism. Southern evangelicals are the shit of the Earth.

          • Confed

            How ironic that you speak of evil while it spews out of your keyboard directed at others. How can someone like you call another human filth. I don’t know you, but if you talk like this when not hidden behind the internet – then I finally understand why some people are pro-choice. The best part of you ran down somethings leg. You have called everyone with a different opinion or understanding by more evil words than I ever heard come out of Phil’s mouth. I guess it is different if one can presume that you are only talking about a white person. I mean they don’t count anymore. We as Native Americans have been mistreated and abused more than any one group in this country, and yet we complain the least.

          • Zoe

            Please re-read what radiofreerome wrote. While I do not agree with most of what he said, it’s a fact that it borders on the inconceivable to think that Phil Robertson lived in the pre-Civil Rights south and NEVER knew a black person who’d been mistreated. (The fact that the blacks he knew never complained about being mistreated *might* just mean that they didn’t trust him enough to tell him the truth.)

          • Momo Luvy

            radiofreerome is a bigot

          • USAPatriotSC

            Well spoken my friend.

          • JamesFBarry

            Redneck is a derogatory slang term used in reference to poor, uneducated white farmers, especially from the Southern United States. It is similar in meaning to cracker (especially regarding Georgia and Florida), hillbilly (especially regarding Appalachia and the Ozarks), and white trash (but without the last term’s suggestions of immorality).

            By the 2000s, the term had expanded in meaning to refer to bigoted, loutish reactionaries who are opposed to modern ways, and has often been used to attack white Southern conservatives. The term is used broadly to degrade working class and rural whites that are perceived by urban progressives to be insufficiently liberal. At the same time, some Southern whites have reclaimed the word, using it with pride and defiance as a self-identifier. In the North we just call them shanty Irish. If the shoe fits……Wear it…

          • M J

            Your first paragraph sounded good, you nearly had me fooled into believe I could trust it as accurate. But then your second paragraph revealed your inability to suppress your own biases and prejudices for long enough to make a rational judgment, so now I don’t trust your first paragraph either.

            And yes, it really is that bad. It is not because they are “perceived to be insufficiently liberal” that they are branded ‘redneck’, it is because the way of thinking they show both in reaching and holding to their “illiberal opinions” is so mind-numbingly ignorant, scornful and vile.

          • georgewbusted

            Redneck is a perfect term for poor whites in the South who are so tied up with bigotry that they vote against their own best economic interests.

          • JamesFBarry

            WARNING……..You will run into a few of them here

          • [email protected]

            What is the correct term for poor non-whites who are so filled with envy and hate that they vote against their own best economic interests?

          • Zoe

            Interestingly, not everyone votes in their own best economic interests.

            I often favor tax increases that would increase my own taxes while lowering taxes on others. I have enough, and every year I have more. Some people don’t seem to believe they can EVER have enough.

          • JamesFBarry

            Just like bigot……You know one when you see one.

          • M J

            Everything you say in your post is miles away from the truth. By no means is ‘homosexuality’ a “very dated word”. And your insistence on the use of the word ‘gay’ to replace it shows nothing but your own prejudice. Either you do not know the history of how this word took on its new meaning or you are deliberately suppressing it.

          • JamesFBarry

            Dear MJ,
            History is written by the winners…….Only people in there 90′s or bigots still use that word….Like Negro it has faded into the past….Much like Cracker, Redneck when speaking of the lower classes of the South and West.

          • M J

            You pretend to tell us who writes history, yet every single one of your posts shows such a deep ignorance of history, it is clear you do not know history well enough to make such generalizations.

            No, history is NOT “written by the winners”. On the contrary: even at the very beginning of history, we have not only both sides of the Trojan War, but even Herodotus’s testimony to the opinions of the Phoenicians and Egyptians, who then were disinterested third-parties. And the same thing holds with onlyt minor modification for history ever since. We have a LOT of access to the histories written by the ‘losers’ — only REAL losers ignore it.

            But more immediately relevant, you have only our own prejudice to rely on as a basis for your claim that “only bigots use those words”. It is simply not even close to true.

          • Barney Fife

            “On the contrary: even at the very beginning of history, we have not only
            both sides of the Trojan War, but even Herodotus’s testimony to the
            opinions of the Phoenicians and Egyptians, who then were disinterested
            third-parties.”

            How appropriate that you would cite an imaginary war to support your ahistorical claims…

            From Wikipedia:

            “In Greek mythology, the Trojan War was waged against the city of Troy by the Achaeans (Greeks) after Paris of Troy took Helen from her husband Menelaus king of Sparta. The war is one of the most important events in Greek mythology and has been narrated through many works of Greek literature, most notably through Homer’s Iliad and the Odyssey.”

          • M J

            Are you named after the purple dinosaur, Barney? Your reading skills are about that bad. Keep reading in the same article: it ALSO says something that overturns your claim completely, namely: ” By modern times, both the war and the city were widely believed to be non-historical. In 1868, however, the German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann met Frank Calvert, who convinced Schliemann that Troy was at Hissarlik and Schliemann took over Calvert’s excavations on property belonging to Calvert;[1] this claim is now accepted by most scholars”.

            So no, by no means is it a “imaginary war”.

          • Barney Fife

            I actually did read that far, and further, and if you had you would realize that there is still no proof that such a war had taken place.

            Cherry picking information is worse than having a poor intellect.

            The real key to the position of the article was the very first sentence: “In Greek mythology, the Trojan War was waged against the city of Troy by
            the Achaeans (Greeks) after Paris of Troy took Helen from her husband
            Menelaus king of Sparta.”

            If the authors felt that the war was real the first sentence would have omitted the word “MYTHOLOGY” and replaced it with “HISTORY”.

          • M J

            Oh, you did read that far? Then that only proves that you are the one guilty of cherry picking. For you conveniently passed over the passage where Wikipedia admits there is significant scholarly support for the real historical existence of a core war that really took place, inspiring all the literature about the Trojan War, both Homer’s and Herodotus’s. And no, your speculation that they would have had to replace ‘mythology’ with ‘history’ is just that — speculation. By no means were they bound to do that.

          • Barney Fife

            You didn’t do very well in that Philosophy of Science course you slept through, did you?

            Like so many true believers you fail to distinguish between the two vastly different interpretations of “… there is significant scholarly support for”:

            A very small number of people, some of whom may be experts, hold a belief that is inconsistent with the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of experts.

            Almost, but not quite half of well informed experts hold a belief that is inconsistent with the beliefs of slightly more than half of well informed experts.

            Sort of like how your creationist buddies find some inconsequential anomaly in a scientific study and assume that the anomaly is more important than 99.9999999% of the evidence in the study.

            Science doesn’t work that way – you actually have to develop a theory that accounts for the 99.9999999% of the evidence that your anomaly doesn’t explain.

            At the latter extreme we may be poised for a scientific revolution. At the former extreme we may just be dealing with people incapable of leaving behind their naivete.

            Yes, every once in a while there is an Einstein who makes us change how we see the world. But for every Einstein there are millions of people whose ideas never pan out. Creationists are in the latter group.

          • thaidude

            Creationists in the latter group, say you. More accurately Global Warmists in the latter group, say I. Wikipedia itself is a suspect source of factual information. Mostly just a collection of opinions.

          • Barney Fife

            So basically you have an ill-informed opinion about the credibility of wikipedia as you have an ill-informed opinion about creationism and evolution.

            The really neat thing about science is that you just keep losing ground every day when you are fundamentally wrong.

            I am guessing it might take you 3-4 years to recognize what most scientists and scholars already know:

            1. Wikipedia is a great academic resource

            2. Creationism is a crock of baby poop

            3. Evolution explains a lot more of the data we have on the history of species than creationism.

            But have at it – everyone has a right to be s t u p i d…. Not a god-given right but a right just the same.

            But please, please stop voting. We don’t need any more of the people you vote for sucking up at the public trough, failing to do their jobs because they don’t think it is necessary to have a brain to be a public official.

          • Helena_Handbasket

            I’m completely with you on points 2 and 3, but you’ve dropped a doozy I can’t let pass.

            “Great academic resource” and “viable source to site in an academic argument” are two separate things.

            Never in my life have a met a scientist or scholar who believes a wikipedia article means jack shit as a reliable source especially as it can be edited at anytime, by anyone on the internet.

            They almost all agree it makes a great jumping point for ACTUAL research and study, hence it’s value s an academic resource, but that’s about where its usefulness ends.

            I wouldn’t normally belabor this point… but you ARE going on and on about what a master of science you are..so I figure that keeping this shit straight might be important to you.

            (PS.. it is fairly well accepted idea, among historians, that the Trojan war actually happened, though the “story” was fiction. It is not a “Christian” or “Creationist” idea. )

          • Barney Fife

            Hell:

            I think you likely belabor a lot of points due to a failure to appreciate the meanings of words.

            Had I intended to say that wikipedia was a “definitive” academic resource I would have said that. Had I intended to say that wikipedia was a “conclusive” academic resource I would have said that.

            What I said was that wikipedia was a “great” academic resource.

            As it happens you apparently agree that wikipedia is a “great” jumping off point which was exactly my point.More to the point, you apparently have no real grasp of the editing process of wikipedia articles.

            If someone sticks an error in a wikipedia article it is usually discovered quite quickly. When differences of opinion exist, those differences are reviewed by many people and when a consensus emerges, often documented with specific references to extant literature, the most worthy interpretation is advanced and dissenting opinions are noted. As such, the standards for wikipedia articles tend to be higher, not lower, than the standards in use at most academic journals.

            Perhaps you need to spend more time researching wikipedia and less time mouthing off about things you do not understand.

            If you get yourself a dictionary and attend to it, you may avoid the need to clean up that shit-eating grin you obviously enjoy wearing.

            As to your statement: “fairly well accepted idea, among historians, that the Trojan war actually happened”, I acknowledged that there were differences of opinions among historians long ago. But there is a profound difference between a “fairly well accepted idea” and scientific consensus. Again here, a question of understanding the meaning of the words…

          • BK

            OK – here’s the stance on Wikipedia being a reliable source – IT IS NOT! As the true meaning of a Wiki is that anyone can edit the information. I am i college – professes do compare papers to documents that are on the web…it’s one of the first thing they do these days due to rampant PLAGIARISM, However, in the cited articles yo may actually find “Vetted” information. So I read the article , look at their sources, discover if the source can be used (comes from an accredited source, book, or institution) and read hat for my reports.

            If you use any direct information, it must be noted in your citations using the APA format.

            So there you have it Wikipedia itself is NOT itself a valid source, but you might find links in the articles that are.

            Point – Set- and match!

            BK

          • BK

            sorry correction…in college on line 3

          • Barney Fife

            You get an F for your post even with the correction.

          • Barney Fife

            Where do all you fools come from??? Is there a dolt factory somewhere and you are all produced on an assembly line?

            So, a few things wrong with your post:

            Nobody every said SOURCE – the word was RESOURCE

            Yes, copying material off the internet and pasting it in a word document, printing it out and submitting it as your own work is absolutely plagiarism – and I have rejected papers, as a college professor, because students did that and I turned in a colleague for plagiarizing a website, and the colleague had included links to the original web site in her plagiarized version – so I really do not need instructions from high school grads on the topic of plagiarism.

            But plagiarism is way more subtle than that – including an obvious thematic similarity as would occur if you copy and edit something paragraph by paragraph or line by line.

            No competent academician would EVER assume that any text: journal article, book, working paper was an accurate portrayal of another source. Competent academicians will ALWAYS read the original SOURCE not assume that the current RESOURCE got it right.

            As to using APA format? Wrong again – Every school and sometimes every department in a school, will specify what citation style to use. APA is just one formatting style guide, there are many more. Another guide would be the Chicago manual of style and on and on. But there are also many, many different ways of doing references beyond the major guides.

            “Point – Set- and match!” Hardly!

            Just another dolt who thinks he is a lot brighter than he is.

          • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

            I’m not terribly interested in rehashing the Creationism debate, as that’s what I believe and if you choose to look down on me for that then you’re the bigot in the room quite frankly. Here’s one little point that I don’t think gets talked about all that much, and it’s a legit point. One that no one has an answer to, at least not one that matters in my book.

            If the theory of evolution is true, and I do mean IF, then it cannot, by it’s very existence, be random. It has to be guided. Here’s why. The odds of all the genes in human DNA randomly lining up to make that DNA strand is something to the effect of 1 in 10 to the 140th power, which is a scientific impossibility. Scientifically evolution is impossible, yet you don’t hear that particular number ever taught. I wonder why.

          • Barney Fife

            OK, just speaking as a mathematician and statistician at the moment…

            What you are presenting is a classic case of misinterpretation. If you ask me – out of the blue – whether it is possible for some complex phenomena to occur, my answer is going to be very different depending on whether the phenomena has any parallels at all, or not. Also check out Bayesian statistics and prior and posterior distributions and Bayes Theorem.

            So, if I have NEVER seen, heard about, read about a bridge across a river and you ask me whether anyone could build a bridge across the Hudson river my answer might be no, I don’t think that could be done. (Well I wouldn’t answer that way but most people would).

            BUT, if I already know that bridges have been built over narrower rivers and you ask me whether anyone could build a bridge across the Hudson river my answer will be yes.

            So, you are assuming two things I would reject outright:

            1. That in order for human DNA to exist there has to be an even more complex entity than we already see just by looking at human DNA and that human DNA had to have been designed.

            Problem is that we still have the same problem rationalizing the existence of god as we do with the evolution of human DNA – but if God designed human DNA from scratch – why do we share so much DNA with other species including some of the most primitive living things.

            2. Human DNA could not have arisen by chance combinations of much shorter strands of DNA over billions of years. Here, the issue is not at all that someone sat down and designed human DNA strand but that the most likely thing is that lots of different DNA strands were floating in cosmic soup, having evolved over billions of years, and at some point there was a stable enough configuration of DNA that came together to form the most primitive versions of what we think of as human DNA.

            Certainly god would not have had to incorporate so much junk DNA into his greatest creation. Nobody can force you to be more rational but those of us who see a scientific explanation as more coherent and who don’t feel a need for some sort of mystical explanations, don’t want our tax money wasted teaching gibberish in public schools.

            I also don’t want anyone teaching students that the moon is made of green cheese, that Superman is a real person, that day is night and night is day or that the Pope (the religious figure of your choosing) is infallible. Not with my tax money!

          • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

            And what I understand is Occam’s Razor. The simplest explanation is likely the correct one. The more time progresses the more complicated your theory has to get to account for new material and the odds of things having happened by sheer random chance get even less likely and we’re already starting at a scientific impossibility, according to the scientific rules set up by the community itself. Again, not my rules. Theirs. If it’s impossible by THEIR rules, then there must be an alternate accounting for how things happened.

            Occam’s Razor is that the account in Genesis, being the simplest answer, is the correct one. Simple, basic reason. Nothing more and nothing less. Stop and think about it honestly and apply the test. If it’s too complex it becomes too out of control to have any degree of rational chance of happening at random chance. For example I can throw the parts of a watch into the air all day, every day but the odds of the falling together into a working watch is scientifically impossible. That’s what you’re asking people to believe in a nut shell. A ton of random things happened and then the world as we know it happened. It makes no rational sense if you actually stop and think about.

          • Barney Fife

            ROFLMFAO!!!

            Occam’s razor!!! Ho Ho Ho. How is the God of Genesis a simpler explanation than many deities: Fire, Earth, Water, Sun, Rivers, Winds, Storms, Lightning, Thunder.

            Your primitive christian god is pale in comparison with the far simpler explanations of mother nature.

            You are of course free to believe any nonsense you want – as long as you talk to yourself. But when you come up with such tripe you really need to expect anyone with an IQ over 80 to question you.

            You apparently have no idea what randomness is – assuming randomness is itself a pattern incapable of non-randomness. But of course that isn’t randomness at all.

            The core problem in your argument is that across the universe the are billions of galaxies with billions of stars and planets in abundance. Among all those planets there may be other places where life has emerged, where sentient beings have evolved, and then again, perhaps not. But there is clearly nothing “special” about the earth, the solar system or the milky way.

            Instead what you are doing is looking backward from where we are and forgetting that we were just one place in a universe of immense proportions that evolved over billions of years. During all those billions of years and all those billions of galaxies, the really remarkable thing would have been if life never emerged anywhere in the universe.

            Me, I don’t “NEED” a god. I find it far more appealing to honor reason, discovery, and the capacity of the human race to evolve further, turning its back on religiosity and embracing reason and regard for their fellow humans, the planet itself and ..all the other species here.

            If you want to believe that your god thought that a perfect human had been created billions of years ago and incorporated no ability to evolve and adapt – you also believe that we have not changed at all since the first human ever, You really fail Occam’s razor. Worse still, without the potential to evolve and grow, our petty human traits will never be overcome. That is one really, really sad god to believe in. I’d want a bigger god myself.

          • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

            You’re inability to argue your point without being insulting or condescending is only indicative of your own insecurity about your own belief. Me? I have no such fear of being wrong. I have knowledge of the Living God based on the sheer fact that I have observational skills, the capacity for reason and personal experience with the matter.

            You, on the other hand, have only speculation and abject “faith” that He does not exist and with that speculation comes extreme risk. If you’re willing to take that risk with your soul then it’s all on you. If I’m wrong, no harm no foul. If you’re wrong, then it’s not going to be pleasant to say the least.

          • Barney Fife

            As usual, you are projecting your own inadequacies on others – I have read a number of your posts – you are one of the most condescending people I have encountered – fueled by ignorance in so many areas. Your only astounding characteristic.

            As always, where you are the one who has only speculation about a loathsome supreme being who demands obedience or will torture for eternity, my conception of god, were i to indulge in fantasy, would be a far more beneficent being. So go ahead idolater – worship your crosses, bibles and shrouds. I just think you are weird.

            Personal experience with what – You have been living in your momma’s basement your whole life. Come into the light fella – there is a whole world out here. The universe isn’t 4,000 years old, it is billions of years old. Your god isn’t even the first god man invented – it is a relatively late entry in a packed field and most of the others are way better candidates.

            Of course you don’t have to worry about getting it wrong – you can never be wrong because you made the wrong choice at the start and rule 1 of the wrong choice is never relinquish your faith in your choice..

          • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

            See again with the insults so you only prove my point that all you have is insults because of the innate flaws within your own world views. What I have is called confidence and assurance and a rational mind that’s able to see the truth despite the many attempts by others to sway it away from said truth.

            Truth is all that matters to me. Again all you have is speculation and more and more complex theorems and explanation that have to get more outlandish the longer time goes on. The Biblical account of Genesis is pretty much the same as it was two thousand years ago during the time of Jesus Christ. Which then leads me to this, if one has to keep getting more complicated to answer a genuinely simple question is it true? More often than not the answer is no. Occam’s Razor.

            One has only to look at the wonders of the natural world to see that there is a God and that He designed this world with us in mind. Everything about Earth is designed to support life. The tilt of the axis, it’s placement from the sun, speed of rotation and chemical composition of the atmosphere. All of it set up to support us. Now with a straight face you honestly think all of that and that all life here on Earth is just random chance? Because if so then that is the most foolish theory I have ever heard in my life. It completely negates all reason once you look at simple facts. That you refuse to consider anything other than what you’ve been programmed with is indicative of your own brainwashing. I’ve actually sat and thought about this.

            As for personal experience. Yes. I do have experience with God. Not that you’d accept the knowledge OR experience as legitimate because you’re a bigot. You’ve outed yourself as that at this point. With your constant insults and complete lack of any kind of actual reason or ability to listen to another person you’re an anti-Christian bigot and I’m calling it out. I hope you come to your sense on the issue of God man, it’s a much brighter place with light in your life.

          • Barney Fife

            You assert that truth matters – but all you offer is delusion. You speculate that there is a god and demand that everyone else adhere to your narrow-minded belief.

            Where exactly did this complex, DNA designing god come from? If DNA is too complex to emerge on its own, where did your all powerful, all knowing god emerge from – who/what designed it? So your simple answer doesn’t explain anything – unlike the choices to be made with occam’s razor, the only choice you allow yourself, or will allow anyone else, is one which is incompatible with reason. Occam’s razor isn’t a choice between a delusional belief and reason, it addresses which is preferable between two choices based on reason and as scientists have come to realize, the more succinct version is often not the best one, because succinct versions tend to miss critically important details.

            You are right, though a bit off on the dates, that the biblical account of genesis has not adapted at all to the changes in science. That is not a virtue. But of course that 2,000 years is just the period since the entity you think of as the physical embodiment of your god was spawned by a virgin (read unmarried woman rather than a woman who had never had sex).

            But the biblical account of genesis is actually relatively unchanged for the last 2,500 – 2,600 years. So once again, your naive notions of god are revealed because you think the only religious tradition that matters at all is your narrow-minded, Christ-centric version. In fact that Christ-centric version of yours relied heavily on earlier pagan traditions and is mirrored in the stories of creation of dozens of other religions and superstitions.

            Well I suppose we could all go back to the days when we sat on beaches unaware that a cat 5 hurricane was heading straight for us. So, do we need complex models of weather patterns and an ability to answer, five days ahead, so simple a question as: “Is there a storm coming?? Naw, not according to you. Complex weather science is obviously far too complicated to fit your definition of reason.

            We can all just go back to praying. We don’t need any science at all.

            and you have the audacity to talk about Occam’s razor. ROFLMFAO!

            If in fact, your god spoke to Moses, Joseph and Mary, guided the three kings and sent Christ, why is it that your god hasn’t dropped by lately and taken to the airways. If your god is so concerned about the human race – why not visit every few millennia? Oh, maybe god got bored with all the delusional Christians. That is a simple enough explanation for you, isn’t it?

          • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

            Actually as a Christian I happen to think that Christ is the singular way one reaches the Father. He kind of said it Himself, you can read it yourself if you’d bother to crack the book open. I make no secret of my beliefs, nor do I feel shame over them as you are trying to imply that I should, Funny that all you have is schoolyard bully antics to counter calm and rational talk from someone that you can’t intimidate or push around.

            God is there whether you choose to hear or not. He is not your puppet to demand that He speak on command. God speaks through the written word. It’s not a complicated book, I’d recommend reading through it with an open mind sometime, maybe you’ll learn something. God is concerned with humanity, that’s why Jesus came to the cross and was resurrected. That whole John 3:16 verse sums it up pretty well.

            As for not needing science would you care to note where I or anyone else said that exactly? Because I’m pretty sure those words were never said by me. What I said is that I believe in the Biblical account of Creation. That doesn’t mean I don’t have an understanding of how biology works, or how other things work. Where we part ways is on how we got here. Nice attempt at a straw man though, might have worked with someone not on the ball.

            As to not needing science, would ypu

          • Barney Fife

            “Actually as a Christian I happen to think that Christ is the singular way one reaches the Father.”

            And that sums up your position on science in a nut shell. You believe things that do not have any justification except that you believe them to be the literal spoken word of god.

            Your entire argument is based on anyone else having to first accept your beliefs. Ergo, you cannot discuss at all without pre-condition of blind acceptance of your delusions, sort of the scientific equivalent of the Antichrist..

            You must be quite the hit at the local tea party meetings. Not so much so in any setting with an average IQ over 80. That you think you understand biology is laughable because any scientific understanding of biology is incompatible with the biblical account of creation. Hell, you can’t even provide references for when and where the biblical account was first written out.

            As to your suggestion that I read the bible – doh – I have read it many times. It is nice fictional reading, filled with lust, sex, murder, torture, plagues and always justifed on the basis that god wills such things for our own good. tee hee. I’d rather read contemporary fiction and I much prefer science.

            Done with your nonsense unless you can engage in an informed discussion of science. Your naive approach to theology is tediously dull.

          • John DeGraffenreid Jr.

            And again you resort to base insults, refusal to accept any view that doesn’t parrot your own without question, and typical school yard bully tactics. Interesting that your approach to this lacks any attempt at actual reason and resorts to the basest of irrational thinking and fear of being wrong.

            As to my IQ since you seem so interested in the intelligence of others mine is over 140. So there goes that little insult. :) Also not a tea partier and not affiliated with any political party. My political ideas run the range and are my own.

            I’ve given rational arguments for how and why I think the way I do. How the body works is part of basic biology and that’s led us to modern medicine, which I use to alleviate my own health issues. And before you go off on another straw man nowhere in the Bible does it say to not see a doctor for medical issues. (I know my teaching there sport). All you’ve done is insult, dodge and run from any idea that challenges your own. Which is the very definition of a fanatic. Funny that huh?

          • Phillip Ramsey

            Please stop trying out for a spot on a comedy stage
            Refute someone without one-lines.

            Is there a God or is it just fear that has been used to keep us in line.

            Don’t know, but I favor there is something, but it I believe it has developed withing our physci by our environment as it evolves.

            The influence is probably from the beliefs of religion, but not a God only his worshipers

          • ct_thecommish

            I have an idea for Barney; I’ll go to his zoo every week for a year and he attends my church every week for a year….. and let’s see who changes the most.

          • Barney Fife

            ct_thecommish

            You won’t change at all – but you will fit in really well with the ape exhibit.

            I, on the other hand, would be bored the first time I attend your church – been there, done that, don’t feel the need to retrace my steps.

          • TWOLF

            wow…true colors are certainly clear…BIGOT…

          • ArelR

            “I want a bigger god, myself.” Hmmm, methinks thou hast arrived.

          • Phillip Ramsey

            No matter how many times it has been said Check your sources, Wiki is a starting point, not a Point of all knowing

          • ct_thecommish

            Wiki can be edited; there are no ‘oversights’; and some people believe Elvis is still alive and that we never walked on the moon…. don’t tell me…. You’re one of them!!!

          • Barney Fife

            ct_thecommish

            Difference between us is that I don’t write about things I do not understand.

            You haven’t got a clue how wikipedia works – you just think you do. Why don’t you try starting a wikipedia page and give your description about how the editing process works. See how long it lasts before it gets corrected or taken out.

            While you are at it, check out the Elvis page – you won’t find a list of post-death Elvis sightings…

          • John M Holland

            wikipedia is a great academic source? Don’t tell your middle school teachers that’s where you got your essay on the Trojan War. Thanks for the
            laugh Barney. Now give Sheriff Taylor your bullet. Ha.

          • Barney Fife

            ROFLMFAO John.

            Always enjoy interacting with you guys from the families, the members of which have all had blue fingernails for the last 6 generations. Ain’t interbreeding fun?

            So the most obvious problems.

            1. You cannot read. I never said anyone should plagiarize wikipedia. Try telling your middle school teachers that you plagiarized your essay on the Trojan War from a book on Greek mythology and see how they respond. Better yet try telling your middle school teachers that your only reference for your paper on evolution was the bible, or a slipshod lecture on creationism by the minister of the Blue Nails Fundamentalist Church of the True Believer.

            2. wikipedia IS a great academic resource – apparently you have never seen a wikipedia article – because it documents the stances taken with relevant literature. You would know that if you had ever reviewed one of the articles on wikipedia or tried to get an article on wikipedia.

            3. Critical reasoning does not stop with selecting a source for beginning a research project – it begins at that point. You have to read any source critically, question the stance of the authors, take out a pencil and paper and work through the details and challenge the content. If you aren’t doing that it won’t make much of a difference where you start your research – you won’t be a critical thinker.

            4. Anyone can, and often do, challenge a wikipedia article and the challenge is right there in the article. Academic journals don’t have such access – yes, you can challenge an article in a letter to the editor or a contrary article, but it may take as long as 2-3 years before either of those challenges are printed by that journal, if ever.

            I’ll give a great example. The Journal of the American Medical Association published an article on Therapeutic Touch on April 1, 1998. How appropriate, but it was not an April Fool joke except to the editors and readers because the article itself was blatantly fraudulent, contradicting a report of the number of successful trials one of the authors reported on their website and containing four major statistical errors. JAMA allowed a few letters to the editor and responses by the authors, but in 15 years since then has absolutely shut the door on discussion of the article and has never censured the authors or withdrawn support for the article. That is the quality of a major academic journal’s policy on revising publication errors.

            So, you and the rest of your blue nail tribe need to start getting hip to the 17th century – that will only leave you 4 centuries behind those of us who are hip to the 21st century but well advanced from your current grounding in the 15th century.

          • John M Holland

            That would be inbreeding, not interbreeding. Interbreeding is when you breed with another kind or species. Inbreeding is what you were looking for.

            My guess is you don’t do much interbreeding, if you know what I mean.

          • Barney Fife

            good point! Mea culpa.

            But it doesn’t change the fact that the rest of your contributions lack any intellectual foundation.

          • John M Holland

            What’s the good point? that you’re not a breeder? Or that your vocabulary is limited, even in your arrogance?

          • Barney Fife

            I am guessing that you are used to making mistakes.

            The difference is that when I make a mistake I acknowledge it. You just keep making mistakes with no signs of recognition or remorse.

            I am going to guess that you are a regular at local tea party meetings.

          • John M Holland

            Nope. Just as I thought. An angry gay man. Good luck to you Barn.

          • Barney Fife

            Wrong as usual John – But like I say, you must be used to making mistakes by now.

          • John M Holland

            So: The article is about Jesus condemning homosexuality and you come on, not a christian, attacking the viewpoint with a vehemence that strongly suggest you have a vested interest. You love Piers Morgan? Not likely. You an employee of CNN? Nope.

            What could it be? I’ll bet my guess is dead on.

          • Barney Fife

            Hmmmm, your obsessive focus on the notion of deception could be a cover for your latent homoerotic fantasies.

            You might want to discuss this with your sexual offender counselor at your next group meeting.

            I think it is nice that the prison lets you get on the internet tho. Even child molesters have rights, huh?

          • John M Holland

            So now you’re comparing homosexuality with child molesters? Wow.

          • Barney Fife

            tee hee – You may want to consider cutting back on those stupid pills you take to fit in at the tea party rallies.

            Looks like you are at near toxic levels…

          • samfromhernando

            I’m wondering just why it is that the “Moderator” (if there is one) doesn’t shut this mess down now. No one will ever advance the Truth of Christ by arguing and neither will the cause of homosexuality be exalted the same.

          • John D

            So Barney, how are you liking that brown shirt and free obamaphone, you ignorant troll.

          • Confed

            Barney up there has just about made me rethink my position on abortion. Talk about an arrogant SOB. My daughters professor just informed her that any reference to Wiki anything would be an automatic failure on their work.

          • Len Biz

            No, Barney, Wikipedia is NOT considered an academic source. I teach English at the college level, and we do not allow students to use Wikipedia as an academic source…EVER!

          • Barney Fife

            Teaching English at a bible college isn’t quite the same as teaching English at a real college. If I was your department chair, or academic dean, I would be really concerned about someone teaching English who did not understand the difference between the words: Resource” and “Source” as commonly used in academia.

            “Resource” refers to something useful: Perhaps a person, place, thing that assists. “Source” refers to a document, expert, book, journal article or primary research.

            If you cannot distinguish between the two you ought not be paid for teaching English since you are clearly unfit for that activity.

          • M J

            But here you are guilty of the same crime you complained about so bitterly when you were called an “angry gay man”. Len said he taught English “at the college level”. He never said he did so at a “Bible college”. That is your prejudicial assumption.

          • Barney Fife

            “…complained about so bitterly…”

            So you ought to be able to quote some text where i complained at all. No, I thought not. Why complain about something so out of touch?

            “Prejudicial assumption”? Well assumption is correct, but “prejudicial” is your opinion. Right down there with your opinion of creationism on the scale of human achievements.

          • USAPatriotSC

            Just remember you can’t out argue a Liberal. There are more made up facts in their arguments than actual facts. Liberals insanely twist everything in their favor, there are no rules. When you just get tired of debating the rest jump in and degrade you, mock you and comment how weak and stupid you are. The whole point of the article is gone and you were steered away intentionally. Deputy Dipshiit brought the conversation to incidents almost impossible to prove. Wiki “Liberal facts; Pedia is not a source to rely on.

          • Phillip Ramsey

            And the GOP/TP are the Bringers of Truth and Enlightenment
            A big BS to that.

          • USAPatriotSC

            I am not a Republican.

          • Phillip Ramsey

            That’s nice, but no one said you where

          • Jazzboy1

            Hmmm… that’s not what I heard from the water cooler at work that you said at last month’s TV meeting – or were you joking then?

          • USAPatriotSC

            I told you to stop drinking the Kool-Aid out of the water cooler, you’re hallucinating again.

          • Phillip Ramsey

            During the Witch Hunt for communist anyone spouting loudly about being a Patriot, was looked as as a suspicious person.

            The countries Patriots always spout loudly, they drink the kool-aid of deception

          • USAPatriotSC

            So what is this so called deception? Please inform me of what the deception is.

          • JamesFBarry

            Oh your a Nazis?

          • USAPatriotSC

            Compare this Administrations tactics to Hitler’s tactics. To find the Nazi look inward to one’s self. You voted for your ideals and beliefs. Dirty people are the biggest mud slingers.

          • Phillip Ramsey

            I think you should compare GW’s tactics, he lied, he took some of our freedom away.
            All government appears to be ruthless at the time

          • http://www.facebook.com/sstephaniew stephanie wilson

            fu you lying pos!

          • USAPatriotSC

            You are right, GW is a NWO guy just like his Daddy. They are both republicans and will do anything to keep the power. Republicans are sell outs, they need to be removed from power along with the Democrats/Liberals/Progressives and investigated for Treason.
            Your comments about the Tea Party show me you are not an intelligent person. You might be educated but intelligence is a whole different world of it’s own. Very few people now use Critical Thinking to arrive at an answer. Political, social and racial bias is not to be a factor in critical thinking. This is why what you say to me is of no importance, you’re just critical without thinking.

          • Phillip Ramsey

            I agree with you about critical thinking, I see what you are saying,I would also like to add,
            Being “open-minded” is a large part of critical thinking,
            allowing a person to not only seek out all possible answers to a
            problem, but to also accept an answer that is different from what was
            originally expected. Open-minded thinking requires that a person does not assume that his or her way of approaching a situation is always best, or even right.

            Lets see you used critical thinking when you made the assessment of my intelligence about the Tea Party.

            We should over look the “Acquired Knowledge”Factor.
            That’s knowledge, that, you have learned without independently investigated if it’s truth, like “blessed are the meek” we accept that without really looking to understand what it means

            The Tea Party, has made statements about the poor and how they see them. Is this acquired knowledge.

          • M J

            Ah, you touched so close to the REAL root of the problem! Society is split, as our government is, between Democrat and Republican, when neither party is any “bringer of Truth and Enlightenment”. Instead, each party fools a different subset of the population into believing that their nonsense is “Truth and Enlightenment”.

          • logicdog

            That is the first thing you’ve said that I can agree with unequivocally. Unfortunately, most Americans can’t see past the game of illusions. . .

          • M J

            Yes, it is unfortunate. Very unfortunate. Such inability to see pat illusions has always been toxic to democracy, we got through similar periods only with difficulty. It was a miracle our democracy survived, but this time, it is under far worse stress.

          • Sean

            And therein lays a lie. We are a Republic not a democracy: A democracy is one where the government is directly chosen by the people
            (i.e., through elections); a Republic is one where government authority
            is derived through the will of the people. Thus, a Democratic Republic
            would be one where ultimate authority and power is derived from the
            citizens.

          • M J

            Nice try, Sean, but despite your effort, you have shown no lie in my words. Try catching up with the 20th century: the modern meaning of the word ‘democracy’ is NOT the “pure democracy” of Ancient Athens. Rather, all modern democracies ARE republics, though not all republics are democratic.

            But even more important than how the individual citizens express their will through government is the principle that modern democracies recognize limits on their power, even when the will of the people is that they should violate the human rights or civil rights of certain people. THAT is what many conservatives have trouble understanding (well, a few liberals have the same problem).

          • Sean

            Thinking about that. We, as a nation, were a Republic but looking at your reply has me thinking that yes we are more of the democracy than the republic. Thanks for the reply even though you hadn’t been on the post in a while.

          • http://www.facebook.com/sstephaniew stephanie wilson

            i disagree, libs lie

          • M J

            Well, so what if you do disagree? Who do you think you are, that your “I disagree” should carry ANY weight?

            And speaking of weight, just how convincing do you think it is to pretend to be so perceptive at seeing that “libs lie” while completely failing to see how cons and neo-cons lie? If you can really see that “libs lie”, then how can you miss it? Cons lie much more boldly and coldly.

          • Phillip Ramsey

            And GW say’s there are Weapons of Mass Destruction
            The we found out he lied

          • http://www.facebook.com/sstephaniew stephanie wilson

            BUSH DID NOT LIE!

          • Phillip Ramsey

            Then Who did, and why did Colin Powell Resign from his post,
            GW was a very Bright Bulb, but as a person i liked him, but he did lie

          • http://www.facebook.com/sstephaniew stephanie wilson

            poewll is a backstabbing obama supporter! bush did not lie.

          • Phillip Ramsey

            Gee are you full of kool-aid, or may be in you case Crap

          • http://www.facebook.com/sstephaniew stephanie wilson

            look is is talking!

          • Phillip Ramsey

            WOW, what a great retort, you standing in the school yard sandbox yelling “Look Who’s Talking” I’m underwhelmed with the force of your oratory,
            You are totally lost and taking the country down with you
            GOP/TP no survivors

          • http://www.facebook.com/sstephaniew stephanie wilson

            thanks wise*ss obama is the one doing that, sorry!!!

          • Phillip Ramsey

            Standing in a school yard yell at the world, typical GOD/TP

            This Guy was a Conservative also

          • Kepha Hor

            Phil, this guy was a typical Progressive–and he learned his Marx in Paris rather than from those “stupid Slavic “Uentermenschen” or the “Primitive Asiatics” in Beijing. I’m old enough to remember the editors of the WaPo and NYTimes praising his mentor and cheerleader Mao Zedong to the skies.

          • Kepha Hor

            Oops, had a pic of Saloth Sar that got lost.

          • http://www.facebook.com/sstephaniew stephanie wilson

            bull. you are full of it. i suggest you get a new line. hitler was a left winger. nazi= nat. socialist workers party. go read history sir!

          • HMichaelH

            You lose the minute you start attacking someone personally.

          • shootmyownfood

            Then where are Saddam Hussein’s WMDs? Do you have them?

          • http://www.facebook.com/sstephaniew stephanie wilson

            they were moved to syria. so says his general.

          • Cheryl Lynn Smith-Bell

            And everything Obummer does is Bush’s fault! You have lost all cred, now. The weapons you say weren’t there, were moved by the time the congress got around to approving it, which all the Dems did also. They have been found in Syria just as suspected. What general telegraphs the battle plan months ahead and expects to accomplish anything[ other than Obummer that is] This idiot is our worst enemy and you fools can’t or won’t see it.

          • PhilliesWS2008

            Wow, you’re something else! You are a whiz and how would you know those WMDs were moved? Smh…. Also, using an immature nickname like “Obummer” makes you sound like you have the mental capacity of a 2nd grader and you people lack any type of sophistication and relevance and calling an Ivy League graduate an “idiot” does not make you look too cool either. You morons worship Fox, Ted Cruz, Palin, etc so that doesn’t say much about you…

          • http://www.facebook.com/sstephaniew stephanie wilson

            bush DID NOT LIE you are full of it!

          • Phillip Ramsey

            I disagree Con’s Lie

          • CTH

            We all know that your idol odumbo is the anointed one and the second coming because you and the media tells us so.

          • Phillip Ramsey

            Your a very little person, hiding behind a User name, sticking people with pins, Typical Tea Party stuff

          • hankrbradley

            Phillip, You mean a big BO to that?

          • M J

            Maybe you can’t “out argue a Liberal”, but I can;) But that is not even where the true strengths of my use of dialectic lie. Rather, they lie in recognizing first of all, it is not only Liberals who “insanely twist everything in their favor”: I see that childish ‘technique’ used far more often by conservatives in Downtrend.com than by Liberals. But another strength is remembering the point of the article, so that no, it is NOT ‘gone’. On the contrary: I brought him back to the point by reminding him of his complaint at being called “an angry gay man”.

          • Phillip Ramsey

            The usage of ARGUE is a little telling,
            You seem to mean fighting with, is that true

          • M J

            No, it is your failure to READ that it telling, and that by more than just a little. I used the word ‘argue’ because I was replying to someone who used the very same word. Normal reading skills should have enabled you to pick up on this. But there was another failure on your part, a failure to practice normal reading skills: I also used the word ‘dialectic’ to specify which sense of ‘argue’ is appropriate here. You missed out on that entirely. If you had paid attention and applied these reading skills, you would know that no, I do not “mean fighting”. By being so careless with your accusations, you, OTOH, are picking fights while pretending to play the part of the aggrieved pacifist.

          • Phillip Ramsey

            Also, stop and think how an English teacher would use this

            “But that is not even where the true strengths of my use of dialectic lie.”

            Suggest you look up LIE and I think you meant “laid”

          • USAPatriotSC

            Make your point, state your facts and let it go. To argue with someone is try and force your opinion “reality” onto someone else. Liberal teachers argue, everyone else walks away. I had to throw this in before I walk away, Later “Teacher?”

          • hankrbradley

            Yep

          • PhilliesWS2008

            Oh, so “Wiki” to us is kind of like Fox is to you and your ilk? Wiki is neither liberal or conservative but you people always call something you don’t like “liberal” and I think you meant to say, “Liberals PROVE how weak and stupid you are” so I corrected it for you…. As far as the term, “deputy dipshit” is concerned, you should really reflect on the term, “people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.” As far as this article having a point, it did not and was pretty much only a half assed whiny diatribe to me.

          • USAPatriotSC

            Us Conservatives are so weak and stupid we are making comments everyday like the Island of Guam will get so over populated it will tip over. That was Democrat Hank Johnson and you say that Ted Cruz and Palin are stupid? Your complete lack of common sense, loss of reality and Party Ideology has made you stupid. Liberals prove nothing they always loose because they do not have the facts to back up their ideology. Wikipedia is open to the public to edit and add “facts” but the problem is Liberals change history to suit their “America is bad, racist and evil” belief.

            You people and your ilk never question anything Politicians, Hollywood and sports athletes say, you accept everything as fact and truth. What did your rant prove? Nothing! Your post was pretty much a half assed whiny diatribe to me.

          • CTH

            that is generally what happens when the ignorant speak.

          • logicdog

            CTH, you are an excellent example of what happens when the ignorant speak.

          • Kepha Hor

            Yes, at the Bible college, you probably can’t get away with writing bad grammar.

          • Sean

            You can not use Wikipedia as a source because it allows a person to go in and change information, which some people will call facts, thus making it an unreliable source. As an example, the homosexual boy that was killed by two bigoted guys, well, they were all friends. Go into Wikipedia and see the updates: Matthew Shepard.

          • patroklos

            How do you stop them?

          • Guest

            You mean Barney Fife above? Simply flush the ‘gay bar’ that he frequents, twice!

          • Phillip Ramsey

            That is a pretty telling comment and so wrong

          • wendy257

            well since this isn’t even our fight is the fight between good and evil ,GOD and the DEVIL, isn’t everything we do mute we are all powerless,everything is planned out for us,and nothing is at our control/…….ever .so shouldn’t we be enjoying the beauties that he placed on this earth for us and not fighting all the tome with each other…..y are there so many fights,even In the bible….war and rumors of war….wow

          • Phillip Ramsey

            we do not allow students to use Wikipedia as an academic source…EVER!
            That’s so wrong, it can never be the beginning and end of the search

          • M J

            As a matter of discipline for learners, it may be acceptable to ban the use of Wikipedia for grade-schoolers and middle-schoolers as sources for their papers, but once they graduate, many of them learn to discretion to deal with the “hit and miss” reliability of Wikipedia. It would be a mistake, for example, to rely on Wikipedia for the history of Angolan Civil War, but it is quite right to rely on it for the list of Classical Groups, their Cartan matrices homotopy groups and Lie Algegras. It is even acceptable to use their physics pages as supplemental reading for a physics course. They not only get Newton’s Laws of Motion correct, but they even cite Newton’s original Latin and explain why the modern terminology is somewhat different.

          • Phillip Ramsey

            Information comes from everywhere, for the idiot to the professor, even Stephen Hawkins admits to being wrong about dark holes.
            If the apple never fell then Newton would have never wondered.
            And no where was it said that Wikipedia should be Relayed on.
            My daughter is a Director of a research Library and we both agree, the best research starts with wonderment,

          • M J

            Well, so what if you and your daughter agree? You could easily both be wrong. You are certainly wrong about “information comes from everywhere”, because disinformation and misinformation “come from everywhere”, too. Without the means to tell the difference, it does no one any good to think that “information comes from everywhere”.

          • Phillip Ramsey

            You wrote;
            “Well, so what if you and your daughter agree? You could easily both be wrong.”
            As you maybe wrong and your assumption that Information and misinformation “come from everywhere, is true, so that tells people don’t bother looking.
            Is that what you tell your “Pseudo-Students”?
            Research is filtering and the filters used have to be a mesh that is Large and descending to fine.
            Your statement is a little convoluted, sounds like your augment has petered out

          • M J

            Nothing convoluted about my argument. You, OTOH, are the one who came out pretending no filter was necessary, and only now admit to its necessity — even as you still refuse to apply a realistic filter.

          • Patti McBride

            In our relativistic culture there is no “truth”. There is only my truth verses your truth. It’s all about feelings, yes?

          • M J

            That is what the relativists want you to believe, yes. But the truth is that even the loudest prophets of relativism find it impossible to really live that way, so their hypocrisy becomes more clear over time as reality sinks in.

          • TWOLF

            “Dark holes”?? hmmm

          • Phillip Ramsey

            I wasn’t implying anything about you

          • CynicalAtheist

            He said “resource” not “source”.

          • logicdog

            Then you are a poor teacher, Len. Wikipedia entries almost always include sources from which the article draws its information, and those are an aid to research and primary sources. It exceeds the best printed encyclopedias of the past because it is capable of quick and constant correction and /or enhancement. While you should always monitor your students for plagiarism, it is foolish to discourage the use of a potential source of information.

          • jefftherev

            You are missing the point of what he is saying. I also teach English. Students may not use Wikipedia as the SOURCE citation. But, the student is always free to examine any sources in the footnotes and see where they lead.

          • logicdog

            Which is exactly what I was suggesting, Jeff. It is worth noting that Len probably wouldn’t have accepted an article in the Encyclopedia Brittanica as an academic source, either. But the old encyclopedia format rarely listed complete sources for their articles.

          • Jazzboy1

            I allow students (college level) to check out all resources but not to use unattributed footnotes from Wikipedia as facts. When used correctly, Wikipedia can lead to more research, not less. Check out a Wikipedia article for yourself and see the ones with good footnotes (poor entries lack them).

          • Tracy

            Yeah…I kind of shuddered when I read somebody considers Wikpedia an “academic” resource. Wikipedia kind of reminds me of somebody copying a mediocre student’s class work.

          • Sean

            What!!! There goes my thesis on stupidity.

          • EnglishTchr

            I agree. I’m also a college English teacher, and I have to tell students every semester that they cannot use Wikipedia for their research papers because it’s not a peer-reviewed source. If they use it, they lose points.

          • jefftherev

            Concur! I’m also an English teacher, currently 2 years into a PhD program in education and my students are not allowed to use Wikipedia as source citation.

          • toms.here

            Sorry, but no competent professor accepts Wikipedia as a legitimate scholarly reference because anyone can contribute to it, whether they are fond of wearing tin foil hats or not.

          • Barney Fife

            Gee, with so many illiterate, tea party morons posting comments here, who is manning the local tea party confabs.

            Nobody here, not that this fact stops you morons from making stupid comments, suggested wikipedia as a legitimate scholarly reference.

            So, we have half a dozen really dumb people, with a combined IQ in the single digits, who cannot read and yet feel no embarrassment whatsoever. Oh, for the good old days when people like you were kept in the attic…

          • just_the_facts_man

            This Tea-partier can read what you just wrote – Wikipedia is a great academic resource. So, is it or not. Your quality of arguments are definitely descending. Name calling, especially when you most likely do not even know an actual Tea Party “member” but are taking your opinions about them straight from MSNBC, shows the end of argument and the beginning of a fight that is lost already.

          • Zoe

            I guess you’ve never heard (and definitely don’t understand) the theory of crowd-sourcing. Anyone *can* contribute to it, but facts quickly replace myths and superstitions, and… OMG… they have rules about how much evidence (in the form of citations) is needed for an article to stand. So you *might* want to try educating yourself about the utility and accuracy of Wikipedia (but I won’t hold my breath).

          • Peatro Giorgio

            Science the study of theory ! Actually I take creationism combined with science for They tend to prove each other! ,Might I suggest a study called the truth Project. As to toms.heres point he is correct no intellectually honest professor considers Wikipedia anything more than a mildly interesting comment source.

          • M J

            You would be better off to leave out the Creationism entirely. It really does have nothing to do with science. It is not even good religion or philosophy, either.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            Mj Science has never disproved a Creator in fact when you search out the dna of the smallest of life forms and You see how very similar and how mechanical they appear.You may wish to sidestep your uneducated opinion or leave it behind entirely and except and grow in the knowledge You were created. As to you speaking about the truth project Your truth is in self deception; Awaken and remove the veil from your closed eyes, heart and Mind. May God bless you with truth and wisdom in Him.

          • M J

            Have you confused me with someone else? I never did claim that “science disproved a Creator”. But by prating about “uneducated opinion” while insisting on such false dichotomies, you show that it is you, not I, who has the very uneducated opinion. Yet you pretend to be blessed by God with truth and wisdom.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            By discounting Biblical truth word of God in our bible which with careful reading contains historical proof to Gods truth. .Where as ( again ) Science is nothing more then the study of theory Much of science hypotheses is disproved Regularly .However biblical truths are proven just as regularly Sorry for catching you in your self inflicted contradiction I never claimed any such blessing of wisdom or truth for my self . However I had ask asked God to bless you with Truth and wisdom You had ask me in your aforementioned comment to my posting ;to leave out creationism from that I derived you to believe neither science or faith in creation to be on equal or greater standing ,This merely left me with the opinion you are blind to the probability of a Creator.Sorry I to have found it necessary to digress to your belittling nature . May God forgive Our sins.

          • M J

            You are the one guilty of “discounting Biblical truth”, not me. Why, even your idea of what ‘inspiration’ in Scripture means is itself not even Christian. That is why you have it all backwards: it is those like you who insist on literal inerrancy who “discount biblical truth”.

          • Peatro

            As anticipated You dilute reasonable differences into derogatory diatribe.
            Where in any area of a comment in which I submitted was a direct or in direct quote as to my beliefs or thoughts “on inspiration” in scripture. Leave out your installed quotation marks. For you shall not nor will you find such quotation advanced by my self. How ever it has come to my observation through out this comment area you attempt to way in on every subject matter injecting your opinion as fact or as an educated source. Whether it pertains to global warming . Gun control, Welfare. Conservative politics,liberal ,or progressive politics and many other areas of discussion,
            On a normal day I would not waste so much as a half breath on one whom attempts to pro port such a false level of intellect .You honestly appear to source your information from progressive bloggers or quite partisan progressive source’s . Here i shall inject some fact of my political and faith based values, All scripture is God inspired . As for myself My lord is Jesus Christ and yes I am not perfect nor do I claim to know all things.
            Now as to my political affiliation Yes absolutely Tea-party, Libertarian Man . Unlike you I have never taken in any form a hand out from our government. Nor have I taken a tax deduction for my tithing’s or for any charitable contributions I’ve made or those members of my family ,wife daughter or grandchildren I am now do to deaths guardian of .To add to this I am ex military having served in both the US Navy and the US army. My family my responsibility and yes I and my wife did build and do this all on our own period. We never ask nor received any help or support in any form.There is no one frankly more tired of absolute losers trying to tell us we had help we had not done or built this life and family on our own .That statement from them suggest weak minded, yellow spine, impudent cowards or out right self loathing sloth like semi humans. Not judging just proclaiming what I’ve observed. And yes The second amendment clearly state shall not be infringed here is another point many of you gun control morons either purposely set aside or leave out of the conversation. Individual can and doe receive class 3 license which allows them to own and collect fully functioning tanks cannons and many other forms of military weapons .So please quit the kool aid addiction and move out into the real world of reality get out from behind your many lap tops, hard drives, i pads or what ever join in the real living and the real world which is certainly not the world of make believe progressive utopia

          • M J

            None of your differences are ‘reasonable’, and you were the one to start the “derogatory diatribe”, not me. But you are so alien to the spirit of Christianity in your rigidity, you do not even notice when you do this. As for “direct quotes”, I don’t need one. I can already tell from your misinterpretation of Scripture that your very notion of ‘inspiration’ must be a notion closer to Gnosticism than to Christianity. Unfortunately, that is common these days. So it didn’t take a lot of effort. It will take you a lot of effort to free yourself from it, though. Especially as long as you persist in the delusion that you are following Christ when you are clearly following someone/something else instead. It has been proven, for example, beyond a shadow of any reasonable doubt, that Libertarianism is completely and radically incompatible with the Gospel. That is WHY the US Catholic Bishops have rebuked the supposedly Catholic Paul Ryan warning him that he cannot have it both ways: he cannot continue to call himself ‘Catholic’ while following the atheistic ideology of Ayn Rand.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            So you follow the dogma traditions and religion of the catholic church.The same church that persecuted other christians up to 325 ad the same church which began in 313 ad the same church that worshiped Idols that same church whose priest are least likely to resemble Christ you know with all the silk robes and gold hanging from around their necks .For Christ walk among us as us .one would not know Christ from the average man,except he is our God. Or is the Catholic church that same church who practices using pagan traditions of worshipping mother god as in mother earth. Is that the same church that places no bibles in their pews so one need to listen to the priest to hear the word of God. Is it that same church the says you must confess your sins to the priest who is your intercessor to The Father . When scripture clearly dictates otherwise . For our intercessor is JESUS CHRIST and NO other Now do not attempt to hold the Catholic church up to me as the true Church of Christ You may enjoy following your pagan Traditions and worshiping other IDOLs My Church was set in Zion and I worship at the feet of Christ And that old rugged wooden cross. No Man elected Pope . Though I will state clearly Pope Francis appears to be a true man of Faith unlike the past anointed pharisees.

          • M J

            After seeing how quickly to transgress so many of the commandments of Christ in your false zeal, Peatro, I should not be so surprised anymore by your vicious slander. Yet I am still taken aback at how far you go, even accusing of ‘persecuting’ the very people who were persecuted. No, Peatro, you have diverged very far from both basic Christian morality and basic history with that claim. No, the Catholic Church did not “persecuted other christians up to 325 ad”, nor did it “begin in 313″, nor did it “worship idols”.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            Then you ignore Historical Facts under Constantine Founder of Constantinople whom Claimed to see a vision of Christ And became a follower of Christ ,While still following his Pagan religious practice he ordered to gather together the bishops Then under his authority becan the error of persecuting anyone who dared to read any scripture not approved by him or his bishops He in fact murdered many true believer and followers of Christ This persecution continued up to the time 325 ad When the Bible as we know it today Was Canonized M.J If you are a true follower OF Christ I would Suggest you Learn your Churches history Before You belittle one Who has study it well After All I was once also A member of the Roman Catholic Church. Until the Holy spirit called me out from behind the veil of the False Church You are a very ignorant man Who hides in darkness because you refuse to see the truth even when It is placed before you,You My false brother shall die in vain and your soul shall perish. Google Roman Records Constantine Constantinople And persecution of the faithful followers of christ Who would not willingly go under the church Constantine was attempting to control.Then maybe your eyes shall be opened .

          • M J

            What you call ‘historical facts”, Peatro, are nothing but pseudo-historical myths popular among Baptist propagandists of a bygone era. The sainted Emperor Constantine did no such things. YOU are the “very ignorant man” repeating these myths. If you really know the history, you would know it was Eusebius of Caesarea who made the claim about the vision, Constantine never mentions it. Even more important, Constantine did not continue “pagan practices” — on the contrary: when he moved the capital of the empire to Rome, he made pagan sacrifices illegal in the new capital. You do not know what you are talking about, but love to prate on anyway, a perfect example of how you disobey the commandment implied and ignore the warning included in Proverb 18:2.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            So again you ignore roman Historical Documents . I would suggest to go to the churches library and pull out Roman historical facts pertaining to Constantine while their read also Apostolos Makrakis whom was a ancient greek scientist and Orthodox greek theologian commentator Who wrote splendidly on the church. Now after finding and fulfilling your duty to know truth You still wish to claim I am using nothing more than so called pseudo-historical myths Which had not in fact been derive from Baptist propagandists Thank you I shall read that proverb after completing my reply .It is better to remain silent and appear as fool than to open ones mouth and prove you’re a fool . Now my suggestion for a word for the wise is proverbs 25 : 18-19

            You may ish to pray that The Lord will give you sight to see and ears to hear.

          • M J

            If you yourself had the sight and ears you pray for, you would have known better than to try to bolster your case by mentioning such a man as Makrakis. The Synod was right to condemn him, he really did go astray in his later years. Very much astray. Like you. Unlike you, he at least started out on the straight and narrow path before he want astray.

            And yes, you really do go very much astray. Even with such little ways as completely misreading me: I never said they DERIVED from Baptists propagandists. I said they were popular among them and because of them. Very few in the US read Makrakis. Very many read Baptist propagandists or sources relying on them

            Finally, you aren’t even getting your own Proverbs citation right: “bearing false testimony” is a technical term of Jewish law, used to refer to lying when giving witness in court. The sources you rely on may have done that, but I never did. You, OTOH, are lying just by bringing that one up, since I have not lied in anything I said in any of these posts. Yet you pretend that I did by citing this Proverb.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            Yes apostolos was excommunicated from the church However if you continue to read further into his and the Greeks orthodox church history you shall also see 12 years later he was reinstated into Good graces with that church and the church accepted his writings and teaching. And yes YOU DO LIE when Not speaking or writing the WHOLE TRUTH Their for it is called apn us as brothers and sister in Christ to correct one and another when we are going astray. Let me ask you one final saline question Is it not against God’s law to play in Games of chance, If I speak here correctly then ask yourself this question Why In the Name Of the Lord Does the Catholic church sponsor and hold bingo games .As well sponsor trips to the casinos. Brother this not only occurs in the Roman catholic church But the ByZantine as well. Both of which are under the vatican. Please use scripture to justify this. As many times as I’ve read the Good book I have found no plausible justification nor any redeeming value for this practice. And yes M J I’ll call you brother in hopes we may teach and love each other in Christ.

          • M J

            Once again, even your first sentence is factually inaccurate, and that is a serious way. The Synod condemned him, but it never excommunicated him. Bishop Makarios did issue an excommunication, but not excommunicating him by name, excommunicating only those who shared his alleged peculiar beliefs concerning the relation between soul and body. And that ‘reinstatement’ you refer to was only just in time to allow him a Church burial. So yes, your statements are all either factually inaccurate or full of ‘spin’ giving an impression of meaning something very different from what the facts can support.

            As for bingo games, weren’t you complaining about ME going off on tangents? That is s very tangential tangent. Of course they should not be doing it. But they do it because they are so desperate for money to keep the churches open, which is particularly hard now that so many dioceses have to pay outrageous sums of money thanks to the abuses of a few — and the greed of their victims’s lawyers.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            M J Brother so you except the hypocrisy of your Catholic church sponsoring bingo and other games of chance such as tricky trays. By doing so you to agree that going against God’s word is Okay and see no difference between the catholics and the pharisee of Christ time before and after Who acted righteous but were merely acting as if they were. It was for them about money as well. As for the Catholic bishop. I truly don’t follow their Dogma. I am first a Christian never a Catholic. You claim libertarians are not nor are their political beliefs found in Christ .So then you deny Christ came to free us from sin sin of the world and sin of the flesh . Freedom from the world of sin freedom from the evil which is inherent in politics. Libertarians derive their name from the word liberty so to does liberals Which means generous broad minded unprejudiced one who advocates greater freedom. Now the Political difference today between the Liberals and the libertarians is this the liberals have been Hijacked by the progressive socialist wing as for us libertarians we still believe in very small government. one whose sole purpose is for the defense of the nation .Yes Give unto caesar that which is caesar remember that was a question posed to Christ. He ask in reply whose face is on the coin This was all in reference to taxes. after all the majority of our founding father those of whom were Christian Believe nearly exactly as I do on this topic.Of Little government interference Frankly Very few Non Catholic Christians think as do the socialist agenda of some sect of the catholic church Like those who come from either communist bloc nations or those of socialist government. Last but not least youve stated to other you’re presently serving in the armed services. What branch ,what is your rate and what is your rank. With your beard and hair cut you appear maybe navy construction battalion otherwise know as C Bees.

          • M J

            You are the one being hypocritical by using the term ‘brother’ while addressing to me such unbrotherly words. No, I do not ‘except’ nor to I ‘accept’ their hypocrisy. I only explained it, I did not excuse it. I even said quite clearly that they should not be doing it. Yet here you are complaining after misreading so badly. You do not HAVE the “freedom from the world of sin” since you are repeating such sinful misuse of the power of speech.

          • Peatro

            M J By repeating the excuses the Catholic church spew as to both their actions and reasoning for their hypocrisy. You in fact appear to be of excepting this very behavior Even as you said you do not except this. We appear to both be having issue’s in our manner of communicating to one an other . You may recall I have never claimed to be free of sin in fact I struggle each moment of each day .Point I infer and express those things I hold to be true through my life’s experiences and studies of the Catholic church and And As a Good catholic you gloss over or blindly refute as well accuse me of falsely of going off in a tangential Tangent. When point in fact more then half of our dialog has been in regards to the false practices of the catholic church. Being a good catholic is not being a good christian And for I to be a hypocrite would require me to not point out the in correct practices of My church .Yes I bring matters to light there as well .You do attempt to refute the majority of my text you only attempt to refute That which appears to wound you in respect to your religion your approach is to declare me a hypocrite or sinner . Hypocrite no Sinner yes. I strive each day to live up to our Savior example. However the flesh is weak and their are many stumbling stones in my path. However unlike religious people I shall not allow corporate church to be my stumbling stone. My eyes ears heart mind and soul are open to truth Gods truth for GOD is truth That is the definition give to me by your church and My church as well the Truth project which you Denounced having never gone through the 14 week study. Which by the way was and is open to all denominations. Still you haven’t answer my last question as to the branch of armed services rate and rank. While in the Navy I served as a Gunners Mate left as 2nd class GunnersMate. or E5 to those whom do not understand ranking.

          • M J

            You are the one having difficulty communicating — mainly because you are ignorant, arrogant, uneducated and uncultured. So much so, that you don’t even know the difference between ‘except’ and ‘accept’.

          • M J

            The ether seems to have sucked up my previous reply, so I am going to be even more brief: even when you do get the facts right (which you failed to do even in your very first sentence), you put so much ‘spin’ on them, you come to the conclusions opposite to what the facts can support. No, his reinstatement does not imply what you dream: by no means did it imply acceptance of all his writings and teachings, and it was just barely in time for his own Church funeral. As for bingo, of course they should not be doing it. But they see no alternative in the States, since it is such an effective way to raise badly needed money.

          • Peatro

            M J Apostalos Was in fact excommunicated His very own words. His given words form his very own commentary based on his study and findings for the Church and the churches stance on there being scriptural evidence or credence for the Pope and the Popes authority. Apostolos conclusion was No such evidence and to the contrary position taken then by or of the church.This my brother was the very reason for excommunication. His words not some rewrite of history And yes he was returned and called back to the church in good standing and from that time The Greek orthodox church had not recognized the pope. as I had asked you to do before read his writings or his commentaries though they are difficult locate they are still quite available my copy is a reprint from 1947. Brother sorry I was unable to reply behind your last comment in regards to our discussion technical issue not sure if it was on my end or with in this site Bless you my brother please do read Apostolos writings he offers great insight in all areas of our discussion so to does MacArthur’s commentaries so to Gregory the Great.

          • Zoe

            I just adore the way you dismiss Wikipedia while embracing Google.

          • Peatro

            Zoe I have never dismissed Wikipedia in its’ entirety. I was writing in reference to those of the scientific community .Who do not regard Wikipedia as a reliable Source. Please the next time you attempt to dismiss even with Hubris intent Read fully the discussing presented.

          • LibertyIssues

            Umm, Google is a search engine, not a source.
            Wipe the drool from your chin.

          • Barney Fife

            roflmfao!!!!!!!!!

            Wikipedia is a search engine and a knowledge database…

            Not terribly different than Google except that you are far more likely to find a link to a really bad resource on Google than on wikipedia.

            You guys are sooooo wrong!!!!!!!!!

          • LibertyIssues

            Idiots on parade. (snicker)

            (Wikipedia is) Not terribly different than Google except that you are far more likely to find a link to a really bad resource on Google than on wikipedia.

            The search function in Wikipedia searches …. Wikipedia entries only.

            See for yourself, chump. Click the link. Search for something totally stupid, like Barney Fife.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/

            What you get is …ummm.. the Barney Fife page at … Wikipedia! Why do you insist that Wikipedia has the only information on the Internet for Barney Fife?

            Google gave me 176,000 results. Some are good. Some are bad. Those of us with a brain can sort it all out.

          • Barney Fife

            Wow liberty – you take the cake for moron of the day – Hats off to you!

            Where did I say that wikipedia had the ONLY information?

            What I said – and which you quoted without being able to read and understand – was:

            “Wikipedia is … Not terribly different than Google except that you are far more likely to find a link to a really bad resource on Google than on wikipedia.

            What you imagined I said appears to be that I: “insist that Wikipedia has the only information on the Internet”

            ROFLMFAO!!!!! I never came close to that.

            Then, to compound your error, you go ahead and re-assert my point – that you are far more likely to find garbage on a google search than on a wikipedia search as though you are informing me – rather than merely giving an example that proves my point..

            You are indeed a special kind of stupid. The idea that you would assert any ability to separate the wheat from the chaff on the internet when you are barely literate is ludicrous.

          • LibertyIssues

            One more time for the mentally impaired.

            Wikipedia is NOT a search engine. Their search function searches only Wikipedia.

            I’ll go slowly for you. (snicker)

            1) Search for Barney Fife on Wikipedia.
            2) You get ONE response for Barney Fife.
            3) It’s a Wikipedia page.
            4) You say Wikipedia is a search engine “not terribly different than Google.”
            5) If Wikipedia is a search engine, and it reports information on Barney ONLY on Wikipedia, then ….. (laughing) …. you believe Wikipedia is the ONLY source of information on Barney Fife.

            If there were more than one internet source for Barney Fife, AND if Wikipedia is a search engine, then why did Wikipedia find only one?

            Google found 177,000 entries — but you say Wikipedia is not terribly different than Google … so, why do you believe that 1 is not terribly different than 177,000?

            Or, you’re simply wrong that Wikipedia is a search engine “not terribly different than Google”.. Wikipedia is not a search engine.

            I even gave you a very simple test to prove it.

            Are you done stalking me yet?

            Apparently, tehe

          • Barney Fife

            ROFLMFAO!!!!

            You are dumber than I ever imagined. Note to the clueless – Wikipedia IS on the internet – Hence, when wikipedia searches through it’s own content, it is searching…. the internet.

            As well, your definition of a “search engine” is way too limited. Search engines are used in a variety of settings to search company databases as well as the internet and google can index your own data and search your data so it is absurd to think that a search engine has to search all of the internet and return links for all the internet.

            As well, even google has preferences about what areas of the internet it searches and what it presents. Google doesn’t return links in dozens of different languages when the user is an english speaking person. Why? Because it restricts the links it returns to match the user’s location and entry language. So your criticism is way off base because it isn’t like Google searches and returns links from the entire internet. It, like the wikipedia search engine, limits searches to portions of the internet..

            But even more to the point, and once again suggesting you are unable to read with understanding, let’s look at the wikipedia page for “barney fife”.

            First thing we note, is that there is a lot of information about Barney Fife. Pages and pages of information. So, if you were a martian, rather than just dumb, you would learn that Barney Fife is a fictional character. That, already, might save you a hell of a lot of time if you were a martian academician studying Earthling history and are only interested in real earthlings, not fictional characters.

            Leaning that Barney Fife was not a real person, though of course you will check this with primary, academically acceptable sources, will save you a hell of a lot of time and trouble looking for Mayberry and Barney..

            Then, there are all those blue links on the page. If you followed those blue links you would find additional information relevant to your inquiry about Barney Fife.

            Guess what? Those links lead to content that is also on the internet. Turns out that when you do a wikipedia search on Barney Fife it brings you links to other internet sites that ARE NOT just wikipedia sites. OMG!!!! What kind of moron would a person have to be to miss something as obvious as that?

            Among those dozens of blue links is a link to http://www.barneyfife.com – definitely not a wikipedia page.

            Give it up junior – you aren’t up to this conversation.

          • LibertyIssues

            The thread speaks for itself, clearly.
            Are you done stalking me yet?

          • Barney Fife

            Glad to see you finally figured out that you are that dumbest turnip…

          • Barney Fife

            Ask your psychiatrist to up your dose of Haldol – those delusions that anyone cares are breaking through again.

          • LibertyIssues

            So why did YOU start stalking ME?
            (snicker)

          • Barney Fife

            Talk it over with your shrink – I am guessing this isn’t your first relapse.

            A few days back in the hospital, get you meds straightened out, who knows – you might even stop seeing things that aren’t there and hearing those voices that tell you that you are really, really smart…

          • LibertyIssues

            Wikipedia’s search function searches Wikipedia entries only. Google searches the entire Internet.

            1) Go to Wikipedia
            2) Search for Barney Fife.
            3) Get one entry, a Wikipedia page.
            4) Now got to Google.
            5) Search for Barney Fife
            6) Get 588,000 entries.

            Google returns are ranked by popularity and relevance. Sources can be good or bad. You must decide that for yourself, using what we all learned in high school.

            Obviously, you’ve never done a search on Wikipedia.
            You can stop laughing now. We’re all laughing at you.

          • LibertyIssues

            Shame on you.
            The US Bishops said no such thing about Paul Ryan.
            You’re a wacko bird on libertarianism vs the Gospel.

            Reject the anti-Christ who has possessed your soul. Repent. Accept the TRUE Jesus as your savior.

          • M J

            Oh, but they did say such things. Here is one famous such statement: http://goo.gl/ZpCW2r

            Since you could have found this yourself had you been honest and taken the effort, I would say it is you who is the wacko bird who needs to repent.

          • LibertyIssues

            The wackjob PROVES he lied! (snicker)

            Here’s what MJ said, just above

            That is WHY the US Catholic Bishops have rebuked the supposedly Catholic Paul Ryan warning him that he cannot have it both ways: he cannot continue to call himself ‘Catholic’ while following the atheistic ideology of Ayn Rand.

            Everyone follow his link!
            http://goo.gl/ZpCW2r

            Now let’s deconstruct a lie.

            This is a letter to Paul Ryan, from the faculty of Georgetown University. The letter quotes the US Catholic Bishops … but the Ayn Rand reference is elsewhere.

            For those with a brain — and integrity — it is SOME on the Georgetown faculty which equated Ryan with Ayn Rand. And MJ also lied about what they said. Let’s compare.

            The US Bishops
            As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has wisely noted in several letters to Congress – “a just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons.” Catholic bishops recently wrote that “the House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria.”

            Close quote! (lol)

            Georgetown faculty words
            In short, your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Her call to selfishness and her antagonism toward religion are antithetical to the Gospel values of compassion and love.

            Ummm, Sparky, where do you see anyone saying YOUR LIE “he cannot continue to call himself ‘Catholic’?”

            Pathetic.

            I’m sure that many readers believe MJ to be the wackiest wackjob on the page. I have just proven that he is, using his own source!

            “Mass Movements don’t need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers.”
            -Eric Hoffer, The True Believer</blockquote

            You're WAY out of your league, chump. Go back to being a playground bully. And reject the anti-Christ who has possessed your soul. Repent. Accept the TRUE Jesus Christ as your savior.

          • M J

            Nope. You got it all backwards. Predictably. The only thing you prove with your quotes is that you cannot even READ. The letter I cited supports my earlier contention quite precisely. You misread like someone who never completed 7th grade.

          • LibertyIssues

            (snicker) Typical bully. Readers can see for themselves.
            Done stalking me yet?

          • M J

            Yet again, you prove the bully — and a mentally incompetent one at that — is you. It takes quite a stretch of the imagination to construe anything I have done as ‘stalking’. But the paranoid are very good at such stretches. Any reader can see this — unless he shares your prejudices or has worse ones. Unfortunately both are common.

          • LibertyIssues

            It’s called self-defense. duh
            You’ve been called out and documented as a proven liar.
            You lied about the Catholic bishops. Shame on you.
            Stalking includes lying about your own link, and then denying it when you got caught. A real piece of work.
            ———–
            Part Two. You gave this babbling as the REASON you lied about the Bishops

            Libertarianism is completely and radically incompatible with the Gospel.

            You’ve been called out on THAT also! By me again

            You’re a wacko bird on libertarianism vs the Gospel

            Paul Ryan is not a libertarian. (lol)

            “Mass Movements don’t need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers.”
            -Eric Hoffer, The True Believer

            Throughout human history, the greatest moral delusions have been promoted by those who claim to be following a “higher cause” – the Fatherland, the Master Race, the Collective, a God or the Party. The militant self-righteous .

          • M J

            You keep on acting like a school kid singing, “liar, liar pants on fire, hang yourself by telephone wire” — yet you are the one doing all the lying here, not me. The source I gave DOES back up my assertion about the bishops and Ryan. You just cannot read, or you refuse to. Guess which of the two options makes you a liar.

            Wait, both of them leave you the liar.

          • LibertyIssues

            I’ll provide the proof. Readers are encouraged to think for themselves.

            Here’s what MJ said, just above

            That is WHY the US Catholic Bishops have rebuked the supposedly Catholic Paul Ryan warning him that he cannot have it both ways: he cannot continue to call himself ‘Catholic’ while following the atheistic ideology of Ayn Rand.

            Everyone follow his link!
            http://goo.gl/ZpCW2r

            What do we see?

            This is a letter to Paul Ryan, from the faculty of Georgetown University. The letter quotes the US Catholic Bishops … but the Ayn Rand reference is elsewhere.

            It is the FACULTY which equated Ryan with Ayn Rand. And MJ also lied about what they said. See for yourself.

            The US Bishops
            As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has wisely noted in several letters to Congress – “a just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons.” Catholic bishops recently wrote that “the House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria.”

            Bishops are done.

            Georgetown faculty words
            In short, your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Her call to selfishness and her antagonism toward religion are antithetical to the Gospel values of compassion and love.

            I’m sure that many readers believe MJ to be the wackiest wackjob on the page. I have just proven that he is, using his own source! See for yourself, with your own eyes.

            Jesus Christ never taught such hate-filled behavior. And he’s still doing it! He’s probably also a Birther.

          • M J

            You promse the reader, “I’l provide the proof”, but then you did not do it. Instead, you repeated the same shallow mockery of a proof you offered before. And that is what it is: a shallow mockery of a proof. The only thing you ‘prove’ in it is that you cannot even READ. The Faculty of GU was correct when they quoted the Bishops, and both were correct in saying what you still refuse to admit, the obvious contradictions between the Gospels and Rand’s thoroughly materialistic, atheistic and individualistic ‘philosophy’.

          • Zoe

            I find it fascinating that you and your ilk cannot apprehend the concept of “you didn’t build that” except as taking welfare. You do know there are other forms of government largesse, do you not? Governments (federal, state, and local) favor certain companies with legislation; this can make or break a business. I’m sure you understand this, but pretend not to.

            Roads, airports, rails, phone infrastructure, internet infrastructure, the electricification of rural America — all of these were accomplished with “government largesse,” buddy boy.

            Are you telling me you and your wife “built all that” without help from any of the above? You used neither roads nor rails nor airports nor electricity for your success? Realllllly. Do tell.

          • LibertyIssues

            Ummm, they didn’t “help” or everyone could have done the same thing. (lol)

            You probably also a believe that a $50,000 secretary pays a higher average tax rate (at 8.0%), than millionaires and billionaires and billionaires (at 23%).

            Or that we had a postwar boom at 91% tax rates.
            (snicker)

          • Anthony Conti

            The scientific meaning of the word “theory” often confuses people like Paetro and the general public. The two words, theory and law, have very different common meanings. But in science, their meanings are very similar. A theory is an explanation which is backed by a considerable body of evidence,while a law is a set of regularities expressed in a mathematical statement.

            Evolution, and most of Biology, cannot be expressed in a concise mathematical equation, so it is referred to as a theory. A scientific law is not better or more accurate than a scientific theory. A law explains what will happen under certain circumstances, while a theory explains how it happens.

            Evolution has a considerable body of evidence, “God” has none.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            Theory Does not explain how it Happened It merely expresses a plausible outcome. And when referring to scientific meaning of the word theory It is the same . Plausible outcome. Everyday some previous scientific theory is being disproved . Well now God is the whole body of evidence you claim is evolution. And the evidence is glaringly bright to those whom are willing to look past them selves. Anthony can’t spell; My given name is spelled Peatro

          • Anthony Conti

            Once again, When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

            I’m sorry I misspelled your name. It could have been worse, I could have capitalized “Happened” in the middle of a sentence or spelled “themselves” like it’s two words or I could have starting sentences with “and” over and over.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            Anthony Why do you not read the entire definition of scientific theory?? The end paragraph which you either conveniently leave out or ignore as if it does not matter.That is the very paragraph which concludes with the simple explanation of Plausible out come and does not I repeat does not conclude with factual out come. You are either attempting to banter your way into a intelligent conversation with parcel facts.while refraining form using all available facts all the facts which is required to draw a complete conclusion .You like the globally warming alarmist . Who claim man caused but leave out the entirety of. historical data which establishes a natural reoccurring phenomenon. In large part do to polar shifting, solar flares .plate tectonics, volcanic eruptions earths rotation around the sun which has historically also shifted it’s distance from the sun. and final yes the arctic is receding however the Antarctic ice caps have grown existentially. Just want to add do a little more en-depth studying prior to digressing.

          • Gil Hamilton

            You cannot eat shellfish then or Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof, Having sex with a woman during her period, Getting tattoos, Cursing your father or mother (punishable by death) along with usery and making a profit on food sold to the poor.., all against the “law”

            Game, set and match

          • Peatro Giorgio

            Gil that is from the old mosaic laws 1 of 613, we live in this Love thy one and Only God with all your heart mind and soul and love thy neighbor as you would thy self . Further Christ said all things are good in moderation Meaning what one places with in ones mouth food drink is good but that which exists ones mouth is bad; wine, spirits, shellfish fish with or without scales and if one looks back to Genesis all thing of the sea and air and land are for mankinds use. The 613 commands were given to the jews because they believed it was what they need to be more righteous,so they were given. Just as the jews seeked a king so they were given. What they had not recognised was they already had a king, ABBA Father

          • Kim Hillstrom

            I would never use Wiki for a reliable reference. As someone previously noted, it is just a collection of opionions. People can add to and revise entries. There are too many reliable sources out there. Why use something just because it comes of first in a search?

          • Barney Fife

            Yet another ignorant tea partier, unable to read, but unfortunately able to write.

            NOBODY suggested wikipedia be used AS a “reliable reference”.

            Can any of you morons understand the meaning of the word “resource”?

            As to opinions – some of us seek contrary opinions and evaluate them. Others, principally the sort that hang out at creationist conferences, bible study groups and tea party meetings, reject any ideas contrary to their own.

            If you want to live among primitive fundamentalists why not move somewhere that has yet to enter the 21st century and leave those of us who prefer science and modernity to live without having to pull your weight as well as our own?

          • Kim Hillstrom

            Now that I have stopped laughing at your ridiculous reply let me respond. I
            am definately not a teabagger. Don’t go to church, believe that gay’s should
            have the same right to marry as anyone else who is in love and wants to make
            that committment. Love science and even watch the Science Channel. Also love to
            hear opinions that differ from mine. I like to hear both sides of an argument
            and draw my own conclusions. And I don’t assume that someone is a teabagger or
            bible thumper because they criticize my reference material. But, Wikipedia is
            not a good academic resource unless you want to take the chance that you get
            someone else’s ideas. As I stated before there are plenty of reliable and
            reputable resources and references. There are many university web sites that
            have a plethora of information that is preferable to Wiki. You use what makes
            you think you are smart. The real Barney Fife has nothing on
            you.

          • Barney Fife

            You clearly have not a clue what the editorial process at wikipedia is like. So here is a lesson.

            First link – precisely the kind of page that you are describing AND appropriately flagged because of the low quality of the page and lack of appropriate academic references. Also note the URL includes the word “simple”

            http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

            Then, there is the real wikipedia article on the same topic.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

            You may not be able to tell the difference between these two resources – but I sure as hell can. Sorry that you can’t distinguish between them but denigrating wikipedia for your failure to be able to be a critical consumer of information is inappropriate.

            Now “university websites” are really an odd recommendation because they are almost always the work of a single individual – Hence, they are absolutely one person’s opinion, with virtually no editorial review process even remotely possible.

            You and Otis need to stop drinking.

          • Kim Hillstrom

            You say that university web sites are an odd recommendation. Hmmm. Clearly you think they are opinions because you obviously have never attended a university. Yes, professors do give their own opinions. Often times that is for their students benefits because they need to look for reliable information on whatever particular area of history they are studying to find out what is real or what is opinion. Wiki again is not a reliable resource. Let me reiterate. There are tons of good and reliable resources that have a plethora of information. I don’t click on the first search result which is oftentimes Wiki. Anyone can add to these entries. I think you need to stop drinking. Just like Barney, Otis has nothing on you. I’m sure Andy will not keep the cell door unlocked for you:=)

          • Barney Fife

            ROFLMFAO – One of us likely has never been in a university, but it is definitely you.

            So you basically acknowledge my statement that most university websites are the work of single individuals with no editorial review at all and then act like you disputed it and that you have scored a point.

            First, go look up the word “Plethora”. It doesn’t really mean what you want to suggest.

            Really good professors know when they are opining and know when they are imparting facts. They try to avoid opining, and try to stick to facts, because they understand that students may not be able to distinguish between the two and would be led astray if they accept a professor’s opinions as facts.

            Real professors, not the sort you are likely to run into in bible colleges, know that when they confuse their opinions with facts it almost NEVER benefits their students. Yes, a professor may lay out 2-3 sides of an ongoing disciplinary debate and then say what “they think” the best side is, and why “they think” it is the best side, but good professors never just substitute their opinions for facts and ask their students to swallow such hogwash.

            Really bad professors are not secure enough in their disciplinary knowledge to acknowledge the existence of legitimate alternative views, especially when students express those views – but that is because they are really bad professors. Here again, having some dumb student who believes in creationism in your class is not sufficient grounds to interrupt a class on biology or comparative anatomy and let an obviously unprepared student waste everyone’s time with their Bizarro world pseudo-science about how Adam and Eve were planted in the Garden of Eden looking exactly as human beings look today.

            Good professors can respond to well-informed students with different disciplinary views – but that takes work on the part of students and believing in creationism doesn’t qualify as rigorous academic work. Discussing Creationism in a class on biology or comparative anatomy would be equivalent to taking time to discuss Superman’s origins on Krypton, his ride to the Earth in a rocket, the Kents finding him in a field and raising him as their son. It doesn’t matter how much the student knows about Superman, even if they have read every Superman comic and seen every Superman TV show and movie. Superman is fiction and has no place in the classroom. Nor does Creationism.

            You have absolutely no grasp of higher education, wikipedia or science. You are just a narrow-minded person with a very thin grasp on reality.

          • Zoe

            Kim, there is a difference between a Wiki site (any site where anyone can add, edit or subtract information), and Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a set of very stringent rules that its editors must follow; sure, anyone can contribute to a Wikipedia article, but unfactual, un-sourced information is removed or at least noted immediately by trained, knowledgeable editors in the field.

            Please don’t confuse “Wikipedia” (a well-sourced and documented collection of facts about most everything) and a “Wiki.” I could create a Wiki about anything, and it could be brilliant and factual or it could be complete hokum. Wikipedia is quite different from “a Wiki,” and the fact that you don’t seem to realize that is a little depressing.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            Yes I am a tea-party Tea-bagger throw moronic monikers at me .Just leaves all to read and see you haven’t a clue as to what a tea-party or person stands for .It is just that simple cowards can throw names and here it appears we have many.

          • Peter Urbina

            There is some evidence that supports high credibility with Wikipedia and this was from 2006:
            http://firstmonday.org/article/view/1413/1331

            I graduated from college in 2013 and any paper I wrote could use Wikipedia entries but they didn’t want the bibliography to be exclusively from Wikipedia. Our professors got the bibliography beforehand and we talked about credibility even before the writing began. It just seems like people have a bad impression of Wikipedia because you can temporarily change things to have incorrect information, but there are moderators who try to remedy that situation.

            Also guys, remember that anecdotal “evidence” is not true evidence.

          • V

            Funny, whenever we were assigned essays or papers to write in college, my classmates and I were explicitly told by professors not to use Wikipedia as a source because it is not peer reviewed and lacks academic credibility. Granted, you can find *some* facts on Wikipedia, but you usually don’t find wikipedia being quoted in academic journals.

          • Barney Fife

            Interesting that there are so many misunderstandings about wikipedia. Yes, in the earliest days there were a lot of orphan articles. People who knew little about a subject would start an article and nobody wanted to take the time to fix it. Over time, that problem decreased dramatically.

            At this point in time, the situation is very different. Most articles have been there for a long time. They have already gone through a lot of editing and more important, they have reached an age of maturity in which editing attempts by ill-informed people fail almost immediately. Core groups of article maintainers, who tend to be fairly expert, get notifications of changes. If the changes are not supported by strong academic support – the onus being on the person trying to change the article – the article will be reverted to its prior state.

            This means that it is really not worth the effort to intentionally submit trash because whatever you have done to ruin an article will be obliterated with a couple of mouse clicks by one of the article maintainers. If you make a good, though not conclusive argument in support of your editing changes, an article maintainer will add a section on disputed material. But readers will see that it is questionable material and they will have to weigh the evidence for themselves.

            Still, as is the case for reading any article, textbook, newspaper, or listening to talk radio or watching TV news, the onus is on the reader to assess the quality and perspective of the author, the content of the piece and the degree to which it corresponds to the real world.

            If you read an economics article in a journal that only publishes the work of Austrian school economists you should not expect to see any articles that support government intervention, taxation or safety net programs. Likewise, if you are reading an economics article in a journal that only publishes the work of
            socialist economists you should expect to see articles
            that support government intervention, taxation and safety net programs. .

            You can find academic articles in journals that cater to political perspectives from the far right to the far left – all of which are well documented with references to like-minded academic publications.

            There is no source, academic or otherwise, that is impeccable, bias-free, or entirely accurate. Wikipedia, like the encyclopedia Britannica decades ago, is a great resource for beginning a journey – not the only step along the way. Few academicians are so self-absorbed that they do not recognize that they are not happy when the consensus of opinion does not favor their own pet perspective.

            The reason creationists do not like wikipedia is because the “science” referenced in creationism does not, in general, stand up to even modest scrutiny. The evidence for evolution does.

            Most academicians understand the value of wikipedia and I have never suggested to my students that they end their research with wikipedia, but I always encourage people to check wikipedia before heading anywhere else because most questions can be sufficiently well answered by a quick check of wikipedia.

          • Peter Urbina
          • George Blair

            LOL @ the notion that “WIkipedia is a great academic resource.” Maybe, and I say MAYBE at the 1-6th grade levels, but no college or university worth their salt is going to accept Wikipedia as a “source”.

          • John D

            LOL. I don’t know of any academic types that think Wikipedia is a great academic source. Most professors I know will not accept a Wikipedia reference.
            Serious question here: If evolution is a fact and man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

          • Barney Fife

            Ah, yet another illiterate tea party member. The word was RESOURCE – not SOURCE.

            Serious answer and two serious questions back.

            Evolution presumes differentiation according to environmental factors. So there is absolutely no problem with some precursors to apes and humans as environmental conditions varied over millions of years. So mere coexistence of similar species doesn’t refute evolution at all, though you likely think that you are brilliant because you used something you heard in church one day and you and the other nimrods thought it was a great argument against evolution.

            Along that line, if evolution isn’t true, how do you account for the fact that superstitious dimwits like you currently coexist with brighter and more rational humans?

            Also, if man was truly God’s greatest creation, why is there so much garbage DNA in humans and why is so much of our DNA shared with apes and pigs? I’d be thinking a God that could design each species entirely on their own would have done a far better job and there would be no need to share DNA across species.

            After all, if you believe that God created man from scratch, why not use silicon rather than carbon for man and carbon for creatures intended to serve man? Such an approach would have made it abundantly clear that man was fundamentally different from all other living creatures.

            As well, following the same principle, why does man, God’s highest creation, have to eat, breathe and excrete, just like apes, when God could have created man without such engaging in such activities at all?

            Maybe the fact that God excretes, which he clearly must if man is created in his image, explains why there is so much junk DNA in man. God was just really sloppy the day he created man and just slapped together whatever sh*t was lying around..

          • Phillip Ramsey

            If you think you know truth, you could be wrong

          • Barney Fife

            True. And for the most part I consider myself to be a Positivist. So a critical assumption is that any of my beliefs are susceptible to falsification and I am skeptical about most things until they pass some minimal standards of verification.

            That makes me fundamentally different than people who use the bible as their sole source of truth – for whom there is never any doubt, nor are their beliefs subject to falsification.

            Worse still, if God came tomorrow and told them that they were wrong – that the bible was a perversion of his intent and that most of the preachers in the world were going to rot in hell eternally for their misconduct – true believers wouldn’t believe God.

          • USAPatriotSC

            So if we disagree with you, we’re stupid? Let’s see, Liberals voter base are People who vote race only, welfare, foodstamp and unemployment recipients, white people who can’t seem to manage their life without the Gov. tell them what to do, unemployed liberal college graduates living with Mommy and Daddy, women who use abortion as a contraceptive and all these low info/single issue me me me groups put together equal 51% of the Country. I guess we can include you unless you have special top secret information that explains driving the Country to bankruptcy and dividing people is how you raise a Country to prosperity.
            We will let this post stand for comment, I would love to see the Liberals explanation of these facts. Have at it Deputy dipshiit!

          • Barney Fife

            USATraitor

            No, you don’t earn a designation as stupid just because you disagree with me. But, not to worry, that little stupid diatribe you offered up more than qualifies you as stupid.

            I need not want women to use abortion as a contraceptive method to understand that it is a matter of her individual freedom to choose without my input.

            Conservatives are the lowest information voters on the scene. Fortunately, with rare exceptions, their tendency toward self-destruction and sabotage are overwhelmed by the vast majority of sane and intelligent voters.

            Liberals didn’t borrow tens of trillions to wage two unnecessary wars – that was GWB.

            Liberals aren’t the ones voting against race, welfare, foodstamps and unemployment benefits and trying to force women to remain pregnant when they prefer not to be pregnant. I hear much more about race, welfare, foodstamps and unemployment benefits and trying to force women to remain pregnant from conservatives than from liberals. Mostly a lot of closet KKK members who just cannot tand the fact that a black man was elected president.

            So, yes, you do qualify as stupid, uninformed and a danger to our democracy. But you are way too stupid to figure it out.

          • USAPatriotSC

            That is an unbelievable rant you did. You really are clueless and completely brainwashed by the Liberal/Communist Party. For someone who claims to be “informed” and us “uninformed” you really BELIEVE all that crap you just spewed at me! Oh, by the way Einstein, we live in a Republic, only Socialists and Communists call America a Democratic society. Unlike you, race has nothing to do with anything in my post, you have to bring it up because you think it gives you the badge of a superior man.
            BTW, ten is singular and tens is plural. We are 17 trillion in debt. I think you need to stop with the Liberal facts and the Washington Calculator and stop blaming Bush for barry’s 7 trillion spending spree.
            We are done, you have shown yourself to be a true “make it up as I go” liberal. All you BS will go unanswered by me, I like truthful debate and you don’t have much of that.
            Later Deputy Dipshiit!

          • Barney Fife

            Typical, uninformed, conservative ranting.

            Happily your future is less and less agreement with the rest of us every day as more Americans realize how twisted and perverse you really are.

            You will have to look harder and harder every year to find some backward region of the country to call home because everyone else is moving forward. Maybe Idaho will offer a refuge for a little while – but even Idahoans aren’t going to want to be left behind.

            Interesting that your allegiance to democracy is so thin that you assume that anyone who uses the term to describe America is a socialist or communist. So, because GWB said we were going to war to protect democracy and to bring democracy to afghanistan and iraq – he is a socialist or communist?

            ROFLMFAO! You are the best example of the coexistence of apes and humans from the same precursor species imaginable.

          • Brian

            You say that creationism is a crock? Ok, let’s look at this rationally. There is no scientific evidence for a primordial soup ever producing a single-celled organism to spontaneously spring to life. Then, millenia later deciding it needed a brain, devoloping muliple advanced biological systems and becoming every living thing currently on the earth. It is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for life to come from non-living. Every scientist knows this. However, the crux from which every evolutionist has to start with is a uncaused beginning of life. You would rather accept a impossible scenario than believe there was a God who caused life to begin. Yes, if I leave out soup on the counter for weeks flies begin to come out of it, but it is from the eggs laid by the parents, they didn’t spontaneously grow on their own. Once you eliminate the impossible the truth must be the other options, regardless of whether you believe it or not. The is a First Cause, his name is God, otherwise you are left with life from nothing, majic or what you call “evolution”.

          • Brian

            Yes, I know I have several typos above. Let it go.

          • Barney Fife

            It is very difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who abandons rationality at the outset. Let me show you why:

            You say: “There is no scientific evidence for a primordial soup ever producing a single-celled organism to spontaneously spring to life.”

            So the rational person’s response would be: “There is no scientific evidence for God emerging out of nothingness and creating the universe. What we have is an existent universe that would be improbable if it didn’t already exist. Likewise, we have life, which would be improbable if it didn’t already exist.”

            then you say: ” It is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for life to come from non-living.”

            Hence, the rational person’s response would be: “It is no more scientifically POSSIBLE for God to come from nothingness.” Here, of course, we have the same problem – We are engaged because of a quirk. I find it every bit as plausible to have cosmic soup as you do to have a god – except your belief in god takes a lot more “suspension of disbelief” than my belief in primorial soup. I prefer to limit my suspension of disbelief as much as possible. You apparently are not concerned.

            Actually every scientist does not KNOW “It is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for life to come from non-living.” Most scientists assume that something unusual happened, at some point, that resulted in life, they just do not know what as yet, but science is a search for precisely such detail. The reason “scientists” choose not to simply write it off to God and never try to figure out what might cause spontaneous life is, ready………. they are “scientists” and they prefer to know things rather than naively believe they already know the answer.

            The only people claiming to be scientists and foreclosing inquiry into alternative explanations for the emergence of life, are creationists – they are not scientists by definition having abandoned science and rationality at the outset.

            You say: “You would rather accept a impossible scenario than believe there was a God who caused life to begin.”

            Hence, the rational person’s response would be: “I consider both the spontaneous emergence of life and the spontaneous emergence of god to be equally unlikely. The difference is that I know there is compelling evidence that there is life – while I see no compelling evidence that there is a god in the christian sense.

            You surmise: “Once you eliminate the impossible the truth must be the other options, regardless of whether you believe it or not. The is a First Cause, his name is God, otherwise you are left with life from nothing, majic or what you call “evolution”.”

            Hence, the rational person’s response would be: “Once I acknowledge that I am here, it becomes abundantly clear that life is possible. It remains unknown whether there is a god. Not having an explanation doesn’t elevate a non-explanation. Even if I accept the notion of a First Cause, I do not have to assume that it is a male, or “YOUR” god. I might some day come to a conclusion that there is some sentience at the core of creation – but that doesn’t mean I have to accept that there is a God who talks from burning bushes any more than it means I have to be a Mormon, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim. I can elevate Mother Nature to the equivalent status of your God, or perhaps I can think of many Gods: Wind, Sun, Lightning…,

            The problem is that once you accept a god as the only explanation you have already given in to mysticism and superstition. I prefer science and rationality.

          • Double

            “1. Wikipedia is a great academic resource”
            -Things Every College Student Wishes Were True That Aren’t

          • Barney Fife

            Be a good little student and read all the posts in which your moronic comment has been addressed.

            F for failure to read the assigned readings!

          • Double

            Well at least you are consistent with presenting logical fallacies. I don’t think you know how to write a post without resorting to name calling and being condescending. Of course, you are just a troll who doesn’t care about what’s right, but just want to stir the pot. Yes, my comment was “addressed” but it was never successfully refuted. I know you want to be your own judge, but sorry it doesn’t work that way. OK, feel free to resort back to name calling and crass language. It’s all you have since you don’t have facts on your side.

          • Barney Fife

            Well, if you actually read the posts in this thread you would see where your moronic comments were both addressed and refuted.

            Oh yeah, there is no way to refute your beliefs because you won’t accept any contrary evidence. Sort of like you are pointing at the sky on a clear, sunny day without a cloud in the sky and declaring that there is a thunderstorm and that it is raining.

            No amount of facts will ever dissuade you from your naive belief that it is raining, even though what you believe is inconsistent with every known fact. Your clothing and skin are dry, there isn’t a rain cloud within 100 miles, the humidity is down around 5%, the dew point is 50 degrees lower than the current temperature. But for you, and nobody else, it is raining.

          • Double

            Sorry, as much as you want to be able to declare yourself the winner it doesn’t work like that. Claiming “your moronic comments were both addressed and refuted” doesn’t make is so. You can make all the analogies you want and you are still wrong. I can just as easily say that analogy applies to you, but that alone proves nothing. By the way, is this how you talk to people you disagree with when you are face to face with them? If you do you are thin-skinned and immature. You don’t understand how to handle conflict without going full bore and biting people’s heads off over even the smallest comment you don’t like. If you don’t talk to people like this in person then you’re just a coward hiding behind the Internet. Maybe you should do some self-evaluation and perhaps you can come out a better person for it.

          • Barney Fife

            It would be blasphemous for me to second-guess god.

            Why do you think I should be able to evolve?

          • Peter Urbina

            Resource is not a source i.e. when I use Google to get to a news article.

            edit: new to news

          • Michael

            Yes, Barney, you’re right. Dirt came to life, all by itself, complete with the ability to take in nutrients from outside itself, process and use them, eliminate waste, and reproduce! And the scientific method demonstrating that is overwhelming! Why experiment after experiment has proven that is what happened! Oh, and that little problem about how, since evolution is entirely dependent upon reproduction so that mutations can occur, meaning reproduction couldn’t have “evolved” (how did all of the female organs and processes occur when none are of any use without all of them, oh, and the male organs and processes also, oh my, and without both in place none of it benefits the species! Oh my, where was I?) So yes, of course, it is the creationists who are superstitious and ignoring the evidence. My bad.

          • Barney Fife

            and so you answer for all legitimate questions about where we come from, how life emerged, how there is so much similarity among animals – is: “Gee, God did it1″

            Where did God come from? No answer. Sorry, not good enough for anyone with an iota of curiosity.

            As to male and female organs – apparently you have ignored all of the human developmental biology that shows how human sexual organs evolve and how similar they are – not to mention how similar human sexual reproduction is to all other mammalian species. I just don’t have enough stupid pills to join you. There aren’t enough stupid pills in the universe for me to join you.

            It isn’t so much that I think you and your buddies are dumb human beings. I am, more and more, coming to the conclusion that you are a different, less evolved species, along the lines of hyenas or chimpanzees. Amusing to watch but pointless to talk to…

          • ponderer

            As for creationism being a crock of baby poop, you are a perfect example of a dust ball getting a brain. Do you really think all the complexity in every living thing, people, plants, the perfect balance of the planet itself is by evolution and not design? PLEASE>>>>It is all by design by someone or some thing.. I think God in what form I don’t know..

          • Barney Fife

            Where you preclude a need to inquire by deciding that what we see around us is here because it was designed to be here – I see as a topic worthy of exploration. I look at complexity and ask how did it arise. You look at the same complexity and assume that it had to have been designed at the very start.

            So, the current state of advanced micropocessors is that they put billions of transistor equivalents on tiny pieces of silicon. But this who process started with the first transistors.

            Back when the first transistors were crafted we didn’t have the ability to design our current silicon chips. We developed that capability to forge ahead by several generations of chip technology, As our chips became more sophisticate, our design potential increased. Using each new group of microprocessors we are able to design more complex chips.

            Not only is it possible for evolution to explain the current state, it is better by lightyears than anything you can explain with creationism….

          • Peter Urbina

            So if everything had a creator, who created the creator? Talk about making something from nothing…

          • Ponderer

            I wish I knew. Something or somebody had to design us and everything. Things are just too complex to be random atoms
            forming into something. I guess we will find out the big story when we die.. There are a lot of questions for sure. Is there a beginning or an end.. Too much to fathom..

          • M J

            WIkipedia is very much hit and miss, but the evidence that Global Warming is real is very sound evidence. So not a good comparison with Creationists or Trojan War Deniers.

          • Black Unemployment Crisis

            Exactly – Wiki is a collection of opinions that most people can conclude are facts.

          • Phillip Ramsey

            Wikipedia should only be used as a starting point for investigation of truth

          • hankrbradley

            And that’s a fact, Jack! Using Wikipedia as your scholarly reference, wow, maybe you get away with that at UNC or FSU, but not in the real world, lol!

          • Phillip Ramsey

            All information if though to be true is acquired knowledge from someone else, you must find the truth by the independent investergation of truth for your self

          • Phillip Ramsey

            Remember who Herodotus is and the tiled they placed on him;
            The Father of History and the Father of Lies

          • M J

            I remember very well who he is. Those who call him “Father of History” exaggerate only slightly — before him there were only logographers with no concept of history itself — while those who call him “Father of Lies” have no idea what they are talking about. They are evil tongue waggers.

            Sure, Herodotus reported many falsehoods a more modern historian (such as even Thucydides) would not, but remember that before him, there WERE no historians, he had to make up the methods as he went along, doing the best he could with very unreliable sources. As Amy Barbour put it, “In general, it may be said that Herodotus was singularly fair-minded and extraordinarily critical for his time He often cites his authorities and distinguishes carefully between what he has seen or obtained at first hand and what came from more remote sources”.

          • granddad1

            Why do you even bother to respond to the fool. I would imagine he is also a holocaust denier

          • M J

            Why? Because it is hard to tell when to apply Pro 26:5 and when to apply Pro 26:4;) Besides: if it is Barney you are referring to, he is a fellow math major, so he can’t be that irrational 100% of the time.

          • JamesFBarry

            FYI…….He loves to cherry pick so don’t take it personally…..

          • Yu

            Poor Barney! you looking beyond desperate right now.

          • Barney Fife

            Yu:

            “looking desperate” to you isn’t going to make me lose any sleep – You can’t even put together a literate sentence.

          • Phillip Ramsey

            Now that is the sign of a losser when they complain about spelling or Grammer, just little things from a little person

          • Black Unemployment Crisis

            The Trojan War did indeed happen – However – the Gods and sorcery involved were mythical.

          • Phillip Ramsey

            Basically there was any States or countries, there were City states, Like Rome

          • CTH

            I repeat myself, you are as stupid as your name implies.

          • HMichaelH

            Since there is no proof the war did take place, there is also no proof it did NOT! But you seem obsessed with just the one war, and ignore his reference to other wars to support his claim the losers have input into history, also. Try to stay focused on the issue at hand and not get distracted with Myth vs Reality.

          • Barney Fife

            So the absence of proof of something means it is as likely to exist as not?

            I don’t think so. I suspect that it is very likely unicorns do not exist. I could be proven wrong if someone finds one unicorn. But, no matter how many horses without horns I see it will not change my suspicion that unicorns do not exist.

          • Benmaxcon

            There is some recent speculation that the Trojan war really did take place, but not at Troy. It was really a story of an incident In the Baltic, not the Mediterranean. The story got passed down from tribe to tribe across Europe and was eventually adopted and adapted by the Greeks. Check it out.

          • Barney Fife

            PS – Barney the purple dinosaur was created in 1987 by Sheryl Leach of Dallas, Texas.[

            Note the word “CREATED”. Barney is no more real than the Trojan War.

          • M J

            You are missing the point, Barney. Do you practice missing points before the mirror every morning?

            The Trojan War IS real. It is just Homer’s version of it that is not real, since Homer was a poet, not a historian. If no Trojan War had taken place at all, then Herodotus would have had nothing to write in Histories 1.1.1-1.5.4. Yet he found Greek, Persian and Phoenician sources for the war.

          • JamesFBarry

            Dear MJ,
            Stop being a bully……..
            You were wrong about many things…
            *Please see my posts……
            FYI…..Say your right all the time doesn’t make you right……

          • M J

            But here is the big difference between you and me: when I say I am right, I really am right. You are the one being the bully, trying to browbeat people into sharing your false opinions even after you have been refuted not just once, but many times. You were wrong about ‘superstition’ you were wrong about the Trojan War, you were wrong about what words are ‘dated’…

          • JamesFBarry

            Like I said, saying your right doesn’t make it so……We shopped around and found that all roads lead to the same meaning with the word Superstition……I can’t make a word change its true meaning just because you don’t like the out come…….Trojan war isn’t my area…so it was me you were chatting with…..I’m the 7 years war/Age of Enlightenment and we all know that’s not your area……

          • M J

            Do you really love lying that much James? You are the one making the pretense that you can make it so by saying you are right. I do not do that. You are NOT “shopping around” as you claim. If you really were doing that, if you really read what was written there instead of only seeing what you are so desperate to see, you would have notice that all those other sources do NOT support you.

            Why, I gave you FIVE definitions of ‘superstition’, only ONE of which even got CLOSE to yours. But not even that one justifies your ignorant and arrogant anti-religious prejudice that brands all religion ‘superstition’. You are denying all the evidence and acting like a foot-stamping child.

          • JamesFBarry

            I don’t know what to say……………Your a grown man how can you in the 21 century still believe what you believe…..Its almost criminal to allow you near children you may infect them with your Primitive Beliefs……..

          • M J

            How? Quite simply. You are completely wrong about what it is that grown men and and do believe. That is what makes it so very simple.

          • Peas Creek

            Your imagined intelligence is negated by your obscenely swollen ego fool.
            But you can redeem yourself by proving God exists by using scientific method and make sure to provide proof that would stand up in a court of law.

          • mike

            Peas – Would you please ask your global warming allies to perform the same task, i.e. prove their case by use of the scientific method. They can’t, because it would take at least 800 years to do it. The first 400 to prove the theory and the second 400 for some else to replicate it, which is the basic requirement of the scientific method.

          • Peas Creek

            Do you realize how absolutely pathetic you make yourself out to be when you make erroneous assumptions about people based on a single issue disagreement you silly child?

          • mike

            peas – I apologize if I made an erroneous assumption that you believe in man made global warming, however I will offer a more direct challenge, Using the scientific method, please disprove that which you asked M.J. to prove and remember you must also prove it to a court of law.
            Your condescending attitude does not go very far in convincing people of your argument. It does, however, allow one to come to the conclusion that you are a pompous twit.

          • Peas Creek

            Are you still here troll?

          • mike

            Yes I am twit, You are good at spewing venom, but you lack a sense discourse, all you do is call names.
            By your responses I detect an irritation in your tone. I only hope that I can manage to get it to a full blown rash and that your store is out of ointment.
            Would you care to make an attempt at completing my challenge from the previous post, or are you just going to go to your thesaurus to find another name to call me?

          • [email protected]

            Thanks for the info on the Trojan War. On a related note, it’s my pet theory that this fella named Vulcan (Roman mythology) who:
            - Was created directly by Jupiter
            - Fell from the sky
            - Broke his leg
            - Was the “metalworker of the gods”
            …. is currently known as… Jesus!

          • M J

            That is a pretty poor choice for a pet. It will have to get put down when it bites someone — possibly even you.

          • [email protected]

            Similar characteristics for Baal. I’m thinking the same counterfeits keep popping up throughout history.

          • M J

            Thinking it is so does not make it so. Some of us see the differences in what you call ‘counterfeits’

          • [email protected]

            Of course there are differences, but there are also similarities and patterns. Just like history repeating itself, so does religion.

          • M J

            If you are one of those people who believes “history repeats itself”, then that explains a lot! History does not repeat itself that often. Even when it does, it is usually with some substantial differences.

            The same goes for your alleged “similarities and patterns”. When you look closer, you see the pattern does not hold up as well as you would like, and the ‘similarities’ are usually superficial similarities. Often, they are not even that, as in your case, where they are purely imaginary.

          • [email protected]

            I’ve always noticed that people who can’t see the patterns until they’re too late, are usually the first to complain when things repeat. Hope you wake up soon.

          • John M Holland

            History doesn’t repeat itself. It only appears that way to people who don’t know the details.

          • [email protected]

            Historical trends and patterns repeat. Details don’t. As Mark Twain put it, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does tend to rhyme a lot.” Or as I have observed, The first lesson of history is that people refuse to learn the lessons of history.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            So then by your statement mankind warring against one and another for the very same reasons century after century,such as land, food,slaves religious reasons,other goods or just plain old racist hatred; are not these enough similarities repetitive enough in history for you.

            Whoa sorry guys But I think you’re drinking too much progressive Kool aid.
            As in global warming this to is a repeat of earths natural changing weather patterns; polar shifts; solar flares .earths rotation in reference to location and distance from the sun. I am not here to profess a great or minimal understanding of global warming .Nor am I claiming to have the answers to each and every subject matter here.
            What I am stating quite simply is many here lack common sense . Frankly the only one you are deceiving is your selves.
            There appears to be a couple of not so gentle, gentlemen here who profess through their diatribes into many subject matters as though they are all knowing, Or all so very knowledgeable in all matters of interest to others. When in reality what you actually appear to others as. Are some very lonely self loathing life evolves around the blogosphere progressive nitwits. Just saying that is exactly how you present yourselves . Just want to put this out their so everyone receives a bit of understanding from what my politics are. I am A tea-party libertarian. And No I have never taken a government hand out in any shape or form . and to further that statement. Yes I am a Christain and I am not perfect either .To further declare my lack of use for government I have never claimed a deduction for either my weekly tithing or other charitable contributions. Someone on this site had stated conservatives are on the government dole more so than the liberals moderates or progressives. That statement is so blatantly false as to prove that individual to be nothing more than a Progressive propagandis. If I am wrong prove me so. How ever do not use progressive slanderous talking points or their blogistspere non truth writing fools. Use non Partisan independent sources.

          • Yu

            stay off the drugs, son; it’s turnin your mind into mush!

          • Peas Creek

            and your brain appears to be some kind of fungus that you picked up while your head was up your ass so what your point loser?

          • Ria

            Thank you M J!

          • http://bajageoff.webs.com/ geoffinbaja

            I have visited the ruins of Troy and the horse is still there. LOL

          • MamieH

            If you want your comment to be taken seriously, please do not quote from Wikipedia.

          • Barney Fife

            Mamie: You cannot really be that dumb, can you?

            Wikipedia is one of the most respected intellectual resources available. Most academicians got over their concerns about wikipedia a decade ago when they realized that poor content rarely went unchallenged. Few scientific journals ever undergo the scrutiny wikipedia is subject to continuously.

            If you can think of any intellectual resource that has higher quality controls in place than wikipedia please share it with us.

          • mike

            Intellectuals do not rely on a single source as you do. Read any biography or historical tome and in the back you will find this thing called a bibliography. This is were the writer states were you can find the source for what he has written. Depending on the seriousness depth of the piece the bibliography can be quite long.
            As to the higher quality control, any major publishing house or encyclopedia would be far superior.

          • thaidude

            Public school students in our district a not permitted to use Wikipedia as a source for any assignments.

          • Zoe

            Correctly so. Are they allowed to find sources from Wikipedia articles? Because it’s very useful for that.

          • Barney Fife

            Mamie – If you want to be taken seriously you might want to stop making posts like:

            “Girl Scouts Promote ‘Incredible’ Wendy Davis on ‘Women of Year’ List

            MamieH • 11 hours ago

            Hag- I would never be so ignorant as to say I was an atheist, but I can say with absolute certainty that I do not know that there is a God of the Bible. Abortion is murder, and I am appalled at the sexualization of children. It’s one step closer to legitimizing scum like NAMBLA et al.”

          • JamesFBarry

            Mame Dennis: Well, now, uh, read me all the words you don’t understand.

            Patrick Dennis: Libido, inferiority complex, stinko, blotto, free love, bathtub gin, monkey glands, Karl Marx… is he one of the Marx Brothers?

            Is this interesting? Interesting? YesNo | Share this

            Share this: Facebook | Twitter | Permalink Hide options

            [Patrick reads a list of words he doesn't understand]

            Patrick Dennis: …Neurotic, heterosexual…

            Mame Dennis: Oh, my my my my, what an eager little mind.

            [takes the list]

            Mame Dennis: You won’t need some of these words for months and months.

          • Peas Creek

            If you want your comment taken seriously, don’t come off as a spoiled little school without a clue?

          • George Blair

            Quoting Wikipedia automatically negates any point you were trying to make.

          • Black Unemployment Crisis

            yep-that’s true – the Trojan War was a myth – or was it???

          • CTH

            You are as stupid as your name implies.

          • Rm

            Wikipedia is not a credible source. It’s a decent starting place. The next time you want to make a point use peer reviewed articles and journals.

          • Barney Fife

            Yet another late arriving moron. Look at the URL in your browser. This site is a magnet for brain dead tea partiers and republicans. The standards for publishing here are low enough for you guys to read – far from academic theses.

            Most of you would benefit a great deal by reading anything other than the right wing rags you usually read.

          • Historyishard

            Yes… At the very beginning of history, when god made light… And THEN made the sun. Science.

          • M J

            You picked the right monicker, ‘Historyishard’, because you make it abundantly clear that just like science, history is too hard for you.

            After all, anyone who knows even a little bit about the history of science knows better than to expect science out of Genesis, since it was written well before Galileo, Hooke, Boyle and Newton laid the foundations of what we now call ‘science’. Why, even those who are more flexible with the definition of ‘science’ would not dream of putting its creation before the Ionian Greek philosophers, who all wrote centuries later than Genesis was written.

            Besides: there really WAS light before the sun: the light of the Big Bang and of all the other stars. So you really do not know science either.

          • Spencer Brown

            Historical perspectives exist for most anything of importance. But countries tend to teach a version of history that reflects that country’s worldview. There is a reason we gloss over the Spanish-American war and never get to Vietnam in history class. Those was aggressive wars that were waged based on lies.

          • M J

            “Historical perspectives exist…” ahistorical ‘perspectives’ are even more common — especially right here in Downtrend.com:( Glossing over what you find embarrassing is an ahistorical ‘perspective’. Kluchevsky did not do it when covering the Mongol Yoke and its role in bribery throughout Russian history, neither did my high school history teachers who DID cover the Vietnam War and the Spanish-American war, admitting that these could no meet any reasonable definition of “just war”.

          • Midlandr

            You really don’t pay attention do you? Redneck and Cracker are used repeatedly (and contemporarily) by libtards and Negro’s as derogatory slurs upon honkies.

          • JamesFBarry

            Up North we just call them White trash………………………………………
            White trash is a derogatory American English term referring
            to poor white people, especially in the rural South of the US, suggesting lower
            social class and degraded standards. The term suggests outcasts from
            respectable society living on the fringes of the social order who are seen as
            dangerous because they may be criminal, unpredictable, and without respect for
            authority whether it be political, legal, or moral. The term is usually a slur,
            but may also be used self-referentially by working class whites to jokingly
            describe their origins…. In common usage “White trash” overlaps in
            meaning with cracker (regarding Georgia and Florida), hillbilly (regarding
            Appalachia), Okie (regarding Oklahoma origins), and redneck.[6] The main
            difference is that “redneck,” “cracker”, “Okie”,
            and “hillbilly” emphasize that a person is poor and uneducated and
            comes from the backwoods with little awareness of the modern world, while
            “White trash” emphasizes the person’s moral failings

            History of the Word..

            The term White trash first came into common use in the 1830s
            as a pejorative used by house slaves against poor whites. In 1833 Fanny Kemble,
            an English actress visiting Georgia, noted in her journal: “The slaves
            themselves entertain the very highest contempt for white servants, whom they
            designate as ‘poor white trash’”.

            In 1854, Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote the chapter “Poor
            White Trash” in her book A Key to Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Stowe tells the
            reader that slavery not only produces “degraded, miserable slaves”,
            but also poor whites who are even more degraded and miserable. The plantation
            system forced those whites to struggle for subsistence. Beyond economic
            factors, Stowe traces this class to the shortage of schools and churches in
            their community, and says that both blacks and whites in the area look down on
            these “poor white trash”. By 1855 the term had passed into common
            usage by upper class whites, and was common usage among all Southerners,
            regardless of race, throughout the rest of the 19th century

          • [email protected]

            I can only imagine a certain President on truth serum, calling all non-Liberal whites “poor white trash.”

          • JamesFBarry

            FYI…….Trash is trash……When you see it…..Just step over it and keep going……….

          • Yu

            ha ha ha ha ha haaa!

          • Yu

            at the end of the day you are still HOMOSEXUALS.

          • Scott Wegner

            Call it what it is and not try to sugar coat it…it’s homosexuality.

          • JamesFBarry

            Well if we are going to be formal……Then your a narrow minded………..

          • Nottaturk

            James, stop playing the fool. You’re smarter than this. 40 years ago the word “gay” still meant “happy” or “light-hearted”.

          • JamesFBarry

            40 years ago Richard Nixon was in the White House the world is very different now……lol

          • mike

            James = your the perfect example of what Mark Twain meant when said; “It is better remain silent and appear a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt.”

          • Helena_Handbasket

            James,

            What on earth are you smoking? Are you an idiot or just a troll? (same diff, but…)
            Honey, I have more GBLT friends than straight ones and you are the first person I have EVER heard object to the word “homosexual”.

            I’ve heard some people take objection to use the term homo as a pejorative,,, but that’s not the same thing that you’re complaining about, is it? I’ve also heard (and agree with) complaints about people claiming there is ONLY “homo” and”hetero” sexuality… but once again, that’s not what you’re complaining about.

            You do know what the origin and meaning of “homosexual” is, right? Homo means “the Same” or “as like” in Latin and is used such in scientific discussions. Therefore, homosexual is a completely neutral term to describe the sexuality of those attracted to those of the same sex.

          • Mike-N-Ike

            This is just too funny… yet totally sad at the same time. Using the word “homosexual” or “homosexuality” doesn’t display bigotry in any way, shape or form. You are seeking to remove them from the vernacular so that people in general do not associate the ACTS of homosexuality with the person. That is one thing the so called “gay community” wishes to do! Everybody is all warm and fuzzy when it comes to being around a homosexual in public… but when the acts themselves are put on display then the public will flee. As for the word “cracker”… you obviously don’t live in Atlanta like I do. All I need to do to hear black folks say “cracker” is hang out downtown or on MARTA!!!

          • Kim Hillstrom

            I have news for you James, we still use the term rednecks. I live in Florida. I am white, but I am not ignorant white trash. There are people here and in the south in general, Duck Dynasty for example that fit the term of redneck. And btw, they call themselves rednecks.

          • Ron Gilbert

            Funny how those displaying bigotry will generally display the attributes of a bigot while doing so.
            Bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person’s opinion, ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

          • Gee Cee

            JamesFBarry, not sure which rock you’ve been living under but those words are still used in america. My middle class white husband will tell you he’s proud to be a hillbilly redneck and cracker. Seems your history was written by wieners.

          • C Matthews

            Why do sodomites insist on calling everyone by this clique word, bigot, when we’re obligated to warn those who commit these acts to repent and stop or else.Ezek 3:17-21

          • LiberalGilt

            Only in your warped mind. What do you cal bisexuals? You are nothing but a hater.

          • Proud2bfromtheUSA

            I am sorry to inform you “Dear” but you have not won yet. I am homosexual I am not gay. I am Straight and live as a straight man but it doesn’t change the fact that I am attracted to other men. I choose not to be gay and am therefore not gay. OK you may now bash me but I will not fit in with your definition of my sexuality. You do not speak for me any more than I speak for you. I and My wife enjoy our sex life immensely and she knows that I also am attracted to men. I choose no to go down that path and she accepts that it is something I decide to do daily. Go ahead I am sure you are itching to tell me all about myself. Also I am not sure what state you are from but I know many proud Rednecks that have no qualms using the word to identify themselves. I myself am an identified Redneck.

          • Seanoamericano

            Cracker and red neck are terms used by the lower class today. It speaks volumes of the ignorance and racist attitudes and double standards used by the left to divide and place blame.

          • Proud Redneck

            I am a Redneck and proud of it. My parents WORKED for a living and whatever I might have accomplished was by the grace of God and hard work. When you call me a Redneck, I consider it the highest of compliments.

          • Sams_1

            Who uses those words the most
            Blacks
            Blacks and Blacks.
            They say so themselves

          • SGTRena

            Guess somebody forgot to mention that to the medical establishment since they still refer to sexual orientation in terms of the original Greek usage: “Hetero” meaning different and “Homo” meaning same. The mere fact YOU prefer “gay” vs. “straight” is irrelevant. Many of us still use dictionaries and proper terminology.

          • MaverickBoise

            OR “NEGRO’S?… the United NEGRO College Fund? How about another one? How about “COLORED PEOPLE”? The National Association for the Advancement of COLORED PEOPLE? Are these founded and run by the KKK? NEVER heard of “NEGRO SPIRITUAL’S”? JERK!

          • shootmyownfood

            Never heard cracker or redneck in the west. Heard both ubiquitously in the south.

          • James Godin

            The true bigots are the ones that hijacked that word. You gay people love to nitpick at details when it concerns people whom you hate like christians, but you do not use those same principles when looking at yourself. Typical gay behavior you think you are special.

            If you want to look at history look no further than the failed gay brain & the gay gene experiment. Both are fraudulent & found to be nothing more than tripe from sodomites.

            Also history is replete with the true reason the gay agenda progresses forward. An assault on our children & our youth to condemn them to homosexuality & steal with word bigot from its true intention (to preserve religion), as well as taking away the rights of people to disagree with the perversion. If you want to use vile hate words like redneck, look no further than the word HOMOPHOBE, a true hate word intended to lower the I.Q. of the gay community without them knowing it. Gays want tolerance but will call you names if you don’t give into there forceful ways.

            Look no further than the GAY MANIFESTO, held near & dear to every gay person. Written by Michael Swift it is a part of GAY HISTORY. The words of a gay man & the HATE THEY have for mankind is greater than any hate I have ever seen.

            “We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.”

          • JamesFBarry

            Dear James, Christians are jut one of many, many groups who think hey have all the answer……FYI..They don’t…….Thank “God” for the1st amendment its been keeping “God” in his/her place since1791……

          • James Godin

            Thats a lame comment. You know why christians have the answers? Because the nuts don’t seem to argue about anything besides Jesus. They don’t have the balls to pick on Muslims, & you don’t know anything about any of the other 4,200 religions in the world. FYI many groups think they have the answer thank GOD atheism is not it. Only 1.5% of the world even believes in it & to find someone who actually understands the concepts would be 1 out of 100,000. Thanks for the laugh you didn’t really say anything. Christians make up 62% of the world population & have pretty much built this country. So the last laugh is on you lady.

          • LibertyIssues

            Umm, it was Christians running the Inqusition at our founding,which is they created a wall of separation. The goober say those words aren’t in the Constituition .. as if they had to be (lol) That’s what Jefferson said the founders’ intent was. I have Jefferson, the goobers have nothing
            Even stronger was the Treaty of Tripoli on what our founders believed. Unanimously ratified in the Senate, in the 9th year of our Republic, “,,, the United States was not, in ny sense, founded on the Christian religion.” Unanimous. Deal with it. And James is not a “lady” (lol)

          • James Godin

            You put more into a lame argument than its worth. After the word “goober” you lost me or any desire to listen to some old man discuss his bizarre views of the world.

          • LibertyIssues

            (snicker) You were a Goober in your “reply” to James . Now the Goober denies the Treaty Of Tripoli!! ANYONE can prove your gooberhood here!!! Article 11.

            http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp

            Tnen Goobers whine that it was a dishonest translation — as if the Senate unanimously ratified it in ARABIC! (OMG)
            Treaties are, of course, the Supreme Law of the Land.
            I have Jefferson and a unanimous Treaty, Tne Goobers get manipulated by televangelist fundraisers
            This is a guy named James, who thinks James is a FEMALE (ROFLMAO). Deny the demons who have possessed your soul, by accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Savior. God Bless.

          • James Godin

            Seek help you poor soul. I accepted GOD a long time ago. I could care less about your bizarre theory of history your I.Q. is very limited. Must be a “goober” thing. How old are you like 70? LIke I said I have no desire to even sort through your ramblings you are talking to yourself.

          • LibertyIssues

            A “goober” is somebody who says an actual signed treaty is a “bizarre theory of history” and refuses to look at the proof. (snicker) And we’ve all seen him do it!

            >>”I accepted GOD a long time ago”

            If you’re slandering the Founders by saying they did not,… then God clearly has yet to accept you. I’m guessing a faux Christian like Santorum. Denying Christ. Shameful.

          • James Godin

            I think you have more issues than just liberty.

          • LibertyIssues

            This from someone who calls the Supreme Law of the Land a “bizarre theory of history,” Have you looked at the proof yet?

          • JamesFBarry

            “Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich”.

            Napoleon Bonaparte

          • James Godin

            It’s obvious you don’t have any words of your own. Anyone can copy & paste something that meant something decades ago that is meaningless now. All you are doing is magnifying the fact you have no real argument, just the desperate attempt to gain leverage by using outdated quotes in an impotent attempt to sound intelligent.

            Quoting: the act of repeating erroneously the words of another.
            – Ambrose Bierce

            You are an idiot flat out. Nothing you have said in any way shape or form refutes the facts I have revealed. Thanks for driving my point home.

          • LibertyIssues

            Am I the only one laughing that Godin “cut and pasted” a quote which (in its own words) is “just the desperate attempt to gain leverage by using outdated quotes in an impotent attempt to sound intelligent.” We can’t INVENT anything THAT wacky

            One set of rules for the goober, another set for everyone else. (snicker)

          • JamesFBarry

            OH SNAP……BENN TOLD…You go girl…..

          • James Godin

            You talk like a little girl. Simple minds, simple sentences. You got owned fair & square & now you have really nothing to say.

          • JamesFBarry

            “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” Your over ridding concern about Gays always sends up red flags….Not to worry your secret is safe with me.

          • James Godin

            Oh God the old “you must be gay thing?” really? Doesn’t work anymore.

          • JamesFBarry

            Really? Have you been down this street before? Something tells me your not looking for a parking space.

          • James Godin

            What a dumb comment.

          • JamesFBarry

            Please tell me why a middle aged White man from the west cares what I do in bed or anyone else that matter? Is your life that dull?

          • Guest

            No you idiot you live win unsafe lifestyle which affects the rat of the world. Why you ask since you don’t seem to be ably to figure that out why?

            Gays have 106 partners per year the average male that is straight has around 8.

            73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization.

            Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities”

            Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, “30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals”

            It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us

            Gay men may be at risk for death by prostate, testicular, or colon cancer….[And there are] increased rates of anal cancers in gay men

            But the real reason people like you who don’t seem to understand the way the gay lifestyle works acts stupid because they know inside its not right.

            But lastly another reason the gay community is shunned by the real world is the gay manifesto which clearly explains the way gays are supposed to live. Acting the victim but being the predator.

            “We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.” And you have to ask why?

            Clearly you are either not very bright or playing games.

          • LibertyIssues

            “Clearly you are either not very bright or playing games”

            (snicker) On the average day, how many conspiracy and/or bigotry websites do you visit?

          • JamesFBarry

            National Survey of Family Growth, PolitiFact.com estimated in 2012 that the lifelong probability of a 1 st marriage ending in divorce is 45%–50%. He who lives in a glass house should NOT throw stones.

          • JamesFBarry

            1 st marriage ending in divorce is 50%. FYI……He who lives in a glass house should NOT throw stones.

          • James Godin

            No you idiot you live with an unsafe lifestyle which affects the rest of the world. Why you ask since you don’t seem to be ably to figure that out why?
            Its because you are selfish!

            Gays have 106 partners per year the average male that is straight has around 8.

            73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization.

            Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities”

            Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, “30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals”

            It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us

            Gay men may be at risk for death by prostate, testicular, or colon cancer….[And there are] increased rates of anal cancers in gay men

            But the real reason people like you who don’t seem to understand the way the gay lifestyle works acts stupid because they know inside its not right.

            But lastly another reason the gay community is shunned by the real world is the gay manifesto which clearly explains the way gays are supposed to live. Acting the victim but being the predator.

            “We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.” And you have to ask why?

            Clearly you are either not very bright or playing games. This should shut you up.

          • JamesFBarry

            Wow you really need to get a new hobby. The world has changed. white straight men are no longer calling the shots. FYI assuming that I believe in a “God” (yours or anyone else’s) is rather dim witted of you in the 2nd decade of the 21 century. The world your pining for ended 60 years ago. I did get a good laugh at all your versions of “Facts” just remember one out of every two “Straight” marriages end in divorce ( at fact that hasn’t changed in 30 years) 2nd marriages only have a 25% chance of last more them 5 years. Maybe “your side” needs to worry less about us and more about its own less then stellar track record. “Clearly you are either not very bright or playing games. This should shut you up”…..LOL

          • Guest

            HAHAHAHAHA White men are no longer calling the shots? I cans stop laughing. Then who is??? Black men? Lesbian woman? Mexicans?

            Our side built this world & every invention in it. You wouldn’t ben have running water, Your side is a bunch of fruit l,oops who ignore facts & WANTS TO CHOOSE SIDES!

            IDIOT thats exactly what your government wants the ones that truly RUN THE SHOW. You are just a brainwashed unclean spirits filled with parasites.

            I am much brighter than you. I have provided facts you LAUGHED at them. Its called “denial” common in the gay community.

            We worry about your lifestyle because you are asking US to change you for you. Arrogant maggot this is no game.

            So the world ended 60 years ago? Bwaaa!!~ Wheres the fact on that?

            You want to compare “straight marriage” to gay marriage. Thats comedic WE built this world moron & this is no comparison. You cant procreate, you are spiritually dead, you bring disease & you would DIE without us idiot!

            So then tiptop it off you say to me “This should shut you up?” I CANT STOP LAUGHING. I have never been & never will be silenced by a bunch of tripe. YOU didnt say anything that would shut anyone up. All you did was provide an “opinion” from an idiot. No wonder you fail here as you do in life. You are tool stupid to know when you lost, gay people wont be quiet until they die.

            Gays live 202-25 years less than the average person. What you said comes right out of the gay manifesto its simply copy & paste for you. No gay man has EVER silenced the truth.

            GAY MANIFESTO SUPPORTED BY JAMESFBARRY:

            “The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence–will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.”

          • JamesFBarry

            Please see above response……

          • JamesFBarry

            For the first time in U.S. history, most of the nation’s babies are members of minority groups, according to new census figures that signal the dawn of an era in which whites no longer will be in the majority.

          • James Godin

            HAHAHAHAHA White men are no longer calling the shots? I cans stop laughing. Then who is??? Black men? Lesbian woman? Mexicans?

            Our side built this world & every invention in it. You wouldn’t even have running water, Your side is a bunch of fruit loops who ignore facts & WANTS TO CHOOSE SIDES!

            IDIOT thats exactly what your government wants the ones that truly RUN THE SHOW. You are just a brainwashed unclean spirits filled with parasites. THey want you so be divided thats the only way the government can control you DUH!

            I am much brighter than you. I have provided facts you LAUGHED at them. Its called “denial” common in the gay community. Where are your facts? Your intellect? Where are your facts disputing mine? You have provided drivel nothing else.

            We worry about your lifestyle because you are asking US to change you for you. Arrogant maggot this is no game.

            So the world ended 60 years ago? Bwaaa!!~ Wheres the fact on that?

            You want to compare “straight marriage” to gay marriage. Thats comedic WE built this world moron & this is no comparison. You cant procreate, you are spiritually dead, you bring disease & you would DIE without us idiot!

            So then to top it off you say to me “This should shut you up?” I CANT STOP LAUGHING. I have never been & never will be silenced by a bunch of tripe. YOU didnt say anything that would shut anyone up. All you did was provide an “opinion” from an idiot. No wonder you fail here as you do in life. You are tool stupid to know when you lost, gay people wont be quiet until they die.

            Gays live 202-25 years less than the average person. What you said comes right out of the gay manifesto its simply copy & paste for you. No gay man has EVER silenced the truth. EVER in the history of the world!!!!!!

            GAY MANIFESTO SUPPORTED BY JAMESFBARRY:

            “The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence–will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.”

          • James Godin

            TOUCHE!

          • JamesFBarry

            From the US Census: For the first time in U.S. history, most of the nation’s babies are members of minority groups, according to new census figures that signal the dawn of an era in which whites no longer will be in the majority.
            Population estimates show that 50.4 percent of children younger than 1 last year were Hispanic, black, Asian American or in other minority groups. That’s almost a full percentage point higher than the 49.5 percent of minority babies counted when the decennial census was taken in April 2010. Census Bureau demographers said the tipping point came three months later, in July.

          • James Godin

            And yet white man is still calling the shots because they own everything. Breeders don’t count idiot, the mexicans are all of the sudden going to own the banking industry? The FDIC? What a retard.

          • JamesFBarry

            National Survey of Family Growth, PolitiFact.com estimated in 2012 that the lifelong probability of a marriage ending in divorce is 45%–50%.

          • James Godin

            What does that prove? You cant compare the 2% who cant procreate to normal people. FAIL

          • JamesFBarry

            Wow. 1st we’re 10%. 2nd lean up your own house…50% rate of failure in marriage is the death bell to America.

          • LibertyIssues

            Umm, if the rich are killed off, who will subsidize 40% of the entire share of personal income taxes for the core middle class ($40k-99k)?

          • JamesFBarry

            We would use there collect wealth and put it towards the ‘common good”….Next issue?

          • LibertyIssues

            It’s not enough that you survive by sucking off their teat, you want it all. And you disguise your naked greed as :the “common good” And your hero is NAPOLEON! (OMG)

            After THAT wealth is all spent, you’ll have to survive on your own miserable earning ability for once.

          • JamesFBarry

            We still have the children of the “Rich” to eat….That should get us threw the winter.

          • JamesFBarry

            FYI…We will just eat the riches children….

          • JamesFBarry

            We will melt down the golden calf of capitalism. That should pay for things for some time.

          • LibertyIssues

            So we start by destroying worker pensions
            Liquidate the inventory of every store.
            Worker wages won’t be paid until the goods and services are actually paid for.
            We’d have to pay cash for homes and cars
            Luckily, factories and office buildings spring from earth spontaneously, like weeds.

            We take all their money, divide it all up evenly, and everyone’s living standards increase. Until everyone finishes spending their cash — because there are no further sources of personal income. It will be one hell of a month or two, until the collapse.

          • JamesFBarry

            The rich in the end always pay…..Because driving a cab in Paris isn’t that much fun. (Post Russian Revolution many of Russia old ruling class who got out alive turned to cab driving for income).

          • LibertyIssues

            You got me there. Post-Revolution Russia was a worker’s paradise.. (lol)

          • JamesFBarry

            Pennsylvania Will Implement Obamacare
            Pennsylvania’s Republican governor, Tom Corbett, has announced an agreement to provide health care coverage to 500,000 low-income residents through the Affordable Care Act…………..

          • LibertyIssues

            I did not think it possible, but that makes even less sense than your prior one.

          • JamesFBarry

            FYI…When push come to shove even the GOP will dump the 1%……

          • LibertyIssues

            FYI…When push come to shove even the GOP will dump the 1%…..

            Ever the clueless one. They already have. 85% of the Bush tax cuts went to UNDER $250,000 taxpayers, who paid only 45% of the personal income tax. That’s the greatest redistribution of wealth since FDR.

            Or have you been suckered into believing that ANYONE supports the 1% — more than any other group?

          • JamesFBarry

            Wow you are a Zombie for the 1%. I you just pull theses number for thin air or was it Fox news?

          • LibertyIssues

            (snicker) Here’s a source from the left. You lose AGAIN.

            http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm

            (laughing) Here’s more proof of your wackiness, entirely documented from original sources, so you’re STILL a loser, an eager puppet of the wacky left.

            I’ll even do all the math, for retards.

            All I need is a single page on the web. Just one. Let’s look at official data of the IRS. Black and White facts. You’ll see them here:

            http: //tinyurl. com/3v53nhw

            Look to the far right columns. Average income tax rate by income level. What do we see:

            YOUR President’s “$50,000 secretary” averages …. 8.0%
            Core middle class *$40,000-99,999) averages ……… 8.3%
            Millionaires and billionaires average …………………… 22%

            Hmmm. YOUR President says a $50,000 teacher pays a higher rate than millionaires and billionaires. OMG

            http://tinyurl.com/3v53nhw

            http://1.usa.gov/13imgV9

            Let’s now look at “fair share” of taxes. I’ll use that core middle class again. Same table. All in $billion

            REPORTED INCOME = $8,263
            $40,000 to $49,999…..$497
            $50,000 to $74,999…..1,180
            $75,000 to $99,999…..1,014
            TOTAL………………2,671….32.3% of personal income)

            INCOME TAXES PAID $1,032
            $40,000 to $49,999….31 billion
            $50,000 to $74,999….93
            $75,000 to $99,999….92
            TOTAL…………….216….(20.9% of personal income taxes)

            Now divide, 20.9/32.3 = 64.7% What we now see is that the ENTIRE core middle class — all of them combined — pay only 65% of their own share of taxes. Who subsidizes the other 35% of the ENTIRE middle-class share of taxes, Venezuelans?.

            Now divide the other way. 32.3/20.9 = 155% – 100% = 55%. What we see here is that the ENTIRE core middle class must pay an income tax increase of 55% …. JUST TO PAY ITS OWN WAY! (gasp)

            Simple math. Original IRS data. Indisputable.
            $500,000 + = 0.73% of all taxpayers.
            21.21% share of personal income
            37.03% share of personal income tax
            Pays 176% of their share of income taxes.

            $200,000+ = 3.17% of all taxpayers
            32.77% share of personal income
            54.46% share of personal income tax
            Pays 166% of their share of income taxes.

            $40,000-99,999 = 29.6% of all taxpayers
            Already proven. Pays 64% of its share of income taxes.

            Proof: (IRS data)
            http://tinyurl.com/3v53nhw

            We’re all glad that fairness is so important to you, so when will you pony up and pay your own way?

            Your puppetmasters wil be SO proud of your trolling. You may even get a cookie!

            Thank you for playing. Please select one of our parting gifts, on your way out the door.

            (snicker)

          • JamesFBarry

            All older White men have trouble facing change…….Its OK just remember your day is over and done with.

          • LibertyIssues

            Ummm,
            1) Let’s all note that you refuse to support your lie.
            2) Your lie had nothing to do with change, you lose.
            2) Stereotyping entire groups is the definition of a bigot.

            Strike three. You’re out!,

          • JamesFBarry

            Like I said Older White men have problems with change.

          • LibertyIssues

            Young liars invent and repeat personal attacks to “justify” being crushed.

          • JamesFBarry

            FYI..We will just eat the riches children…Meat is meat…

          • JamesFBarry

            The mind of a bigot is like the the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour on it, the more it contracts.

            Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr

          • James Godin

            People are just so stupid.

            Anna Nicole Smith

          • JamesFBarry

            Yes they are……..They will believe anything that saves them from thinking for themselves….

          • Ria

            Right on M J!

          • christinembarger

            uptil I saw the draft 4 $5514 , I be certain
            that…my… cousin woz like actualey bringing home money parttime online. .
            there dads buddy has done this for only fourteen months and just cleared the
            dept on there appartment and purchased a great Fiat Multipla . read the article
            J­a­m­2­0­.­C­O­M­

          • JamesFBarry

            Its like “Negro”……Your just showing your bigotry when you use it…

          • Extraordinaire

            I believe the word “gay” is shorthand for homosexual, in the same way that “straight” is shorthand for heterosexual. I consider neither of the longer words as passé. The more frequently a word is used in common discourse, the more likely it will be shortened, or replaced by a shorter representation. I reference many of the adaptations of language used by those skilled in texting.

          • M J

            well, that’s all very nice, but why are you telling me this theory? And how did not not know? It was the homosexuals themselves who chose the term ‘gay’, and they ddi NOT choose it just as ‘shorthand’. They very deliberately chose that term for its connotation of happiness, one that most people have forgotten since the new sense of the word has completely displaced the original sense, a synonym for ‘happy’.

          • Smilin’ Jack

            “Gay” is simply the accented center syllable of the adjective, “fagacious” (rhymes with “sagacious”) which derives (as you might suspect) from the noun, “faggot.” That is why I always use the term “homosexual” (in both its adjective and noun forms) instead of “gay.”

          • JamesFBarry

            Once again…Its a dated word…Like Negro……now when its used it is used by bigoted people…..And we all know that’s not you….time to update yourself…

          • M J

            Repeating falsehood does not make it true. NO matter how many times you claim it is a “dated word”, your claim remains every bit as false as it was the first time.

          • AmericanHorseman

            James…those who are homosexuals are definitely not carefree….which is the definition of “gay”. You may call an Oak Tree a Pig all you want. But you will never hear the Oak Tree oink. Putting labels on things does not change facts. You are wasting your time.

          • JamesFBarry

            Your right some facts never change…..once a bigot always one…..

          • JamesFBarry

            big·ot

            noun ˈbi-gət

            : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial group)

          • lewr2

            A bigot…
            In which you are as well apparently correct?

          • JamesFBarry

            I’m pale….compared to the bigots on this site……I’m a bigot because I was born in NYC, went to good school and never feel for any silly religious superstitions……

          • Midlandr

            Gay means happy, homosexual is accurate. Why don’t you just run along now.

          • JamesFBarry

            Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual. The term was originally used to refer to feelings of being “carefree”, “happy”, or “bright and showy”. The term’s use as a reference to homosexuality may date as early as the late 19th century, but its use gradually increased in the 20th century. In modern English, gay has come to be used as an adjective, and as a noun, referring to the people, especially to gay males, and the practices and cultures associated with homosexuality.

            By the end of the 20th century, the word gay was recommended by major LGBT groups and style guides to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. At about the same time, a new, pejorative use became prevalent in some parts of the world. In the Anglosphere, this connotation, among younger speakers, has a derisive meaning equivalent to rubbish or stupid (as in “That’s so gay.”). In this use, the word does not mean “homosexual”, so it can be used, for example, to refer to an inanimate object or abstract concept of which one disapproves. This usage can also refer to weakness or unmanliness. When used in these ways, the extent to which it still retains connotations of homosexuality has been debated and harshly criticized…….Now I would tell you to run along but I fear with your narrow mind you might not see your own bigotry and trip on it…….

          • lewr2

            The word means happy, with a new meaning of a homosexual. It still means a homosexual. Please note… a lesbian is ALSO a homosexual and not a lesbian. Lesbian is also a new connontation for the word homosexual.

          • Zoe

            What!? WTF.

            It’s very simple. A homosexual can be either male or female. A lesbian is a female homosexual.

            Lesbian is NOT a “new connontation [sic] for the word homosexual.” (It’s also really, really, really not new.)

          • JamesFBarry

            Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual. The term was originally used to refer to feelings of being “carefree”, “happy”, or “bright and showy”. The term’s use as a reference to homosexuality may date as early as the late 19th century, but its use gradually increased in the 20th century.[1] In modern English, gay has come to be used as an adjective, and as a noun, referring to the people, especially to gay males, and the practices and cultures associated with homosexuality.

            By the end of the 20th century, the word gay was recommended by major LGBT groups and style guides to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. At about the same time, a new, pejorative use became prevalent in some parts of the world. In the Anglosphere, this connotation, among younger speakers, has a derisive meaning equivalent to rubbish or stupid (as in “That’s so gay.”). In this use, the word does not mean “homosexual”, so it can be used, for example, to refer to an inanimate object or abstract concept of which one disapproves. This usage can also refer to weakness or unmanliness. When used in these ways, the extent to which it still retains connotations of homosexuality has been debated and harshly criticized……Now I would tell you to run along but I fear with your narrow mind you might not see your bigotry and trip on it…

          • lewr2

            ho·mo·sex·u·al ˌhōməˈsekSHo͞oəl/
            adjective adjective: homosexual
            1. (of a person) sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex. involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex.

            “homosexual desire”
            noun
            noun: homosexual; plural noun: homosexuals
            1. a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.

            synonyms:gay, lesbian; informalqueer, queen, dyke, butch, femme; literaryUranian

            “she has a serious crush on William, who, unfortunately for her, is a homosexual”
            antonyms:heterosexual

            Origin It’s a pretty easy answer no matter how you try to slice it.

          • [email protected]

            Is it okay to say “heterosexual” any more, or will only “straight” be acceptable?

          • JamesFBarry

            Both are fine…….I have to admit that both my parents are heterosexual…..And I do support their live style chose….But I do ask then to refrain from any public display when children are around……..=0)

          • [email protected]

            LOL. Good answer! They say you can’t choose your parents… I suppose, some even less so! ;*)

          • Ria

            The word “gay” means happy, joyful. It has been perverted to mean people that indulge in deviant sexual acts. PLEASE! I will use the proper terminology , which is HOMOSEXUALITY. Period. Stop bullying people into using the words they choose to use as long as they aren’t hateful. P.S. I’m black, Negro, African-American. I have no problem with either of those. Just don’t call me “colored.” LOL!

          • Zoe

            It’s too bad that you can’t understand that the current fight for civil rights for gays is very similar to the civil rights struggle for the rights of blacks in the 1960s. No one wants to make YOU “indulge in deviant sexual acts” (though it’s fine by me if you want to). However, I don’t believe it’s my business, your business, or the government’s business if my neighbors (Jim and Gordon, a lovely couple! salt of the earth, helped my elderly parents many times) or any other two consenting adults want to marry and have all kinds of awful, terrible, disgusting, horrifying, bizarre deviant sexual acts in the privacy of their own home.

            It may be God’s business, and if it is, He will deal with Jim and Gordon when the time comes. It is certainly not YOUR business.

          • Joe

            Actually “gay” is even more dated…..it used to mean happy until it was hijacked by homosexual men to be precise. What is wrong with Negro by the way? The largest civil rights group in the USA is still advancing the rights of Colored People.

          • JamesFBarry

            Oh Joe……………What can I say but …But Oh Joe…..FYI…Your best friend Jim Crow is dead and buried and not coming back…EVER…..Maybe you really need to face this personal lose and move on…Its not healthy living in the past….

          • Steve S

            or queer.

          • JamesFBarry

            I’m very Queer……But I’ve never lived with 12 unmarried men…..But we know who did…

          • Yu

            add to your list of wrong! If homosexuals are so proud of being homosexual why do they shirk away from the word homosexual to something childlike like gay. Very telling. You are HOMOSEXUALS pure and simple. If you have a problem with it, tough. Quit hiding behind black people – they have enough problems without your b.s. tag-a-long….dear.

          • Tom

            Wow – and we can call murder ‘knocking off’ or ‘deleting’ and lets call stealing simply ‘borrowing without permission’. It has nothing to do with being narrow minded. People used to be able to describe someone as ‘Gay’ when referring to them as happy, bright & joyful. And saying that one was married meant you had entered into a commitment ‘under GOD’ to a person of the opposite sex…in the days when there were only 2 sexes.

          • mike

            James – this is the United States of America, every person here has the right to use any word they want to, regardless of their age. Your junior PC police tin badge is hereby repealed, please put it back in the Cracker Jack box and return it to the movie show.

          • JamesFBarry

            Do you really want to sound like a bigot then freely use those words…But in 21 century America they are no longer used…The choice is yours…

          • mike

            James -I do not give a rat’s rear end what you may think about what I might say. This is still a relatively free country and I will not allow you or anyone else tell me or any other person what we may or may not say. Too many people are too quick to take offense at words when they should be taking offense at our lose of liberty.
            “I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
            That goes for your rights also James.

          • JamesFBarry

            Your from the “South’….
            You lost…
            You have to do what your told…..
            Sorry….

          • mike

            James – There you go again showing your steel trap mind, too bad it snapped, I was born, raised and seldom leave the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, whose border with Maryland defines North and South.
            Over 500,000 soldiers died in the Civil War, more than Americas total loses in WW! and WW!! combined. There was no winner in that war, everyone involved lost.
            As an American citizen I will not be told by anyone, especially not a cracker like you, what I can and cannot say, and I am NOT sorry about that

          • Confed

            Amen! I agree with you 100%. We are losing our freedoms at record speed. When it was confirmed that our govt. spies on our phone calls and mail, I thought I had moved to N. Korea while asleep. All of this being politically correct has caused more problems than it has or will ever fix. Our schools should teach our children Constitutional Law instead of half the crap they are drilling into their heads.

          • JamesFBarry

            Dear You, Living in some back water you can express yourself any way you like but in the rest of the civilized world something’s can’t be said….when you leave the deep South remember this advise….

          • Confed

            “advise” or “advice”. I would be careful when calling others out, especially when doing so in writing a language that you can’t spell or use correctly.

          • doc holiday

            I never use “Negro” only “KneeGrow” dis bees mo modern.

          • thaidude

            James, sweety…the word homosexual is non judgmental and defines a specific behavior. Gay is a contrived and twisted slang interpretation of a really beautiful word. Bitch is a female dog but we seldom use it in that context. That changes nothing.

          • babbott

            The reason homosexuals decided to use the term “gay” was to make their perversion more palatable to the public. They took a perfectly good English word and corrupted it. Also the word Negro is still a valid word, and it simply means “black or ebony”. Those who are constantly redefining words are simply trying to rewrite language to suit their own agenda. Liberals are doing that currently. Obama insisted on changing the “war on terror” to an “overseas contingency operation”. There is today a Negro Congresswoman who wants to have the word “welfare” changed because it is offensive to her.

          • Zoe

            Holy sh*t, what century were you born in? A “Negro Congresswoman”!?

          • babbott

            As I said, “Also the word Negro is still a valid word, and it simply means “black or ebony”.

            Language needs no revision or updating, and smart azzes like you are the ones who accept the political correctness that liberals are determined to force on everyone else.

          • Confed

            There is one more that comes to mind. Retarded. My aunt is mentally retarded and really gets upset when someone tells her that is a bad word. In her words, ” my doctor told me that I suffer from a form of retardation, not stupidity”. Why do people decide to take a word and after years of its use “they” decide it is no longer proper. The definition doesn’t change or become ugly until some liberal tries to make it so.

          • John M Holland

            How is it that the word “homosexual” is dated since the article headline includes the word?

          • Ron Gilbert

            Gay refers to state of mind in joy and happiness. Homosexuals are anything but happy. Just because you want to hijack the definition of a word and make it your own does not make you cool or hip. It makes you a liar.

          • Zoe

            My God, how long will you people cling to the past?

            “Gay” has more than one definition, and it has for many, many MANY years. (More than 50.) You can still say that a party you attended was very gay; but do not be surprised if your audience misunderstands you.

          • Ron Gilbert

            Just because you force a definition onto people does not mean that people have to accept it to be hip or cool. How long will you force wrong upon people?

          • Sanityisrare

            Since you are acting as this eveing’s “wordsmith czar” explain how the word “gay” and the penetration of another man’s sewer canal jive….

          • Nasty Man

            How about SODOMITE? If you swallow., your not “Nattor Minded”?

          • Black Unemployment Crisis

            what’s the difference?

          • C Matthews

            I prefer sodomite- colorful words or flags won’t mean much when you have been warned on that day.

          • John D

            Idiot.

          • LiberalGilt

            You are the bigot who sounds narrow minded, chimpboy. Homosexual covers same sex people. Gay covers dudes. Lesbians dont call themselves gay you hater.

          • Phillip Ramsey

            Question Yourselves;
            Is being GAY all about SEX

          • robert

            Uh…homosexuality is the proper word…we don’t need to sanitize what it really is…it’s men putting their private parts into another mans anus and instead of the beautiful gift of life…the fertilization of an egg…you have an inseminated turd.

          • CTH

            Gay for queer is a serious misnomer. They are not gay, they are sad sacks of sexual deviation.

          • Anthony Fletcher

            Homosexual is accurate.

          • sakovkt

            YEs. how true!
            Like how “diversity” now means “bigotry” and “tolerance” now means “intolerance”.
            Yup!

          • Drdean0

            How bout we call practicing Homosexuals FAGS,?

          • Bob Kennerson

            Homosexuality is the correct, literate term. “Gay” is slang. Check your dictionary.

          • Greg O’Grady

            We can’t all be politically correct to the point of nauseating. I’ve never come across a homosexual who was offended by the term but I have meet some who were offended by the term gay. Since this is the internet I guess I just have to ask you to get over yourself.

          • Holly Estey

            I hate that a perfectly good word like gay has taken on a whole different meaning these days. What is wrong with homosexuality? Sound to harsh?

          • Dan Most

            …or the timeless but fitting descriptor, “faggot.”

          • Paul Robinson

            Sodomy is the word, get used to it!

          • newark

            How sad to deny oneself

          • shootmyownfood

            A technical term never goes out of style. Slang, on the other hand, comes and goes. You know, like “queer” and “faggot.” “Gay” belongs in that category.

          • Sean

            It makes you sound Politically Correct. Being gay is an emotional state not a sexual preference. Saying that you are gay is trying to hide from the fact that you engage in a practice that is against the will of God and easier to live with.

          • JamesFBarry

            FYI……Its your “God” not mine…….Thank “God” for the1st amendment its been keeping “God” in his/her place since1791….

          • Jason

            But gay means happy and homosexual means sex with same sex. I am surprised that this has to be explained but here we are.

          • JamesFBarry

            Dear Jason, Your dating yourself……Next you be using Negro……

          • JamesFBarry

            Oh Jason………You are old and bigoted…….I’m afraid there is no help for you…

          • JamesFBarry

            Honey, The world has past you by….(almost 30 years ago) You really need to keep up or you going to be left behind……

          • JamesFBarry

            “Heterosexuality is not normal, it’s just common.”
            ― Dorothy Parker

          • Jason

            I was defining homosexuality not describing the frequency of which act is repeated more oft as a group.

          • LibertyIssues

            You were being an ignorant bigot, I am surprised this has to be explained but here we are

          • JamesFBarry

            Question all this concern about Gays sends up red flags…..”The lady doth protest too much, methinks”

          • JamesFBarry

            Jason…..Grow-up

          • Leonard

            Oh my, poor, poor baby, can not stand a little dissention in the choir. Preaching to the stand alone faithful does not make it the truth.
            Keep the faith, baby, because that is all you got.

          • Houmid

            Don’t sweat it. Public commentary, not private. And his/her opposing viewpoint. Of course highly emotional and inflammatory postings detract from any rational debate, usually losing whatever audience they may wish to speak to.

          • Phillip Ramsey

            Yes, stop butting into other peoples conversations, your a real bore

          • Thomas Davenport

            If you do not like someone disagreeing with your position, then don’t post to a public forum.

          • USAPatriotSC

            Posting hate comments is not disagreeing. Do you know the difference?

          • SATAN IS KING

            BABA BOOOOEY TO YA’LLLLLL

          • David Lake

            Michael God Loves you also. Read Your Bible. The answers for life are in there…

          • chrisewing

            Burn in your imaginary hell, stupid hick!

          • amcit

            What an ignorant and hateful person you are. It must really be unhappy to be you, isn’t it?

          • HairyHerry

            You’ll find out hell. It’s not imaginary if you hold your breath that you might turn blue and gasp for your next breath. Worse yet, when you deny existence of what is to come after your life. Both are realities, even if you deny them. Dylan sung it best that you gotta serve somebody. Go ahead and serve yourself. Seems more and more that society is all about self-serve, like gasoline down the street. You mean it’s quite the opposite in Oregon or New Jersey? Who’dThoughtIt..

          • JamesFBarry

            Its the 21 century “God” if is either dead or living in Old Greenwich Ct with his 3rd wife either way he stopped caring a long time ago…..FYI>Science kind of did way with the need for him.

          • Bill Jr. Farnum

            God was ready for you james

            Romans 1:

            22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools

          • JamesFBarry

            Thank you………I’m not sure I’m ready for him/her…..

            ”No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means”.

            George Bernard Shaw

          • M J

            Shaw was good at making pithy quips like that, but he never even showed interest in understanding why that is so. Why is it that people are so determined to read their own meanings into it instead of reading what is really there? The question never interested Shaw, because the answer would have forced Shaw to see his own need for repentance, too.

          • JamesFBarry

            Dear MJ, In the words of Leo Tolstoy ” religion is meant for small children and old women”. There is nothing beyond what you see with your own eyes….The rest is wishful thinking I’m sorry to say………

          • M J

            Tolstoy was wrong — so are you.

          • sagan22

            the christian myth was created from the jewish myth by the Roman Flavian family as a political tool.
            check out Caesar’s Messiah web site. for the details.

          • Don Berman

            But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be
            liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the
            council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of
            fire. Matthew 5:22

          • M J

            You do not understand this verse. By no means does it forbid every kind of anger, only the rancorous kind. And even the word carelessly translated as ‘you fool’, does not allow reading the verse as condemning calling a fool a fool. Did you really think Christ condemned Solomon in this verse, or were you just unaware of how many of Solomon’s Proverbs call people ‘fools’ for impious behavior?

          • sagan22

            go to the Caesar’s Messiah web site to learn who wrote the bible and why… The Jesus character is really Titus Flavious.

          • SandyIam

            Christians will stop pushing their “superstitions” on other people when you stop pushing your filthy behavior on others.

            Afraid of a little moral competition?

          • radiofreerome

            It seems to me that having a slutty past is a prerequisite among Evangelical Christian for establishing credibility. It is for Phil. It is for Bristol Palin.

          • SandyIam

            Well then, I guess that makes them more than qualified to advocate their position then, doesn’t it? After all, they’ve “been there, done that”, “walked a mile in the others’ shoes”, know from whence they speak and have learned from experience.

            What better teachers to others than those who already suffered and learned from their mistakes?

          • radiofreerome

            No, that makes them self-righteous creeps for condemning people and persecuting people they don’t know. I say persecuting because the Louisiana Baptist Convention and the Governor Phil voted tried to pass a law legalizing the exclusion of gay students from public schools. Most of these kids aren’t half the slut that Phil was. Most are not the speed popping, violent sh!t-kicker that he was. He and his co-religionists are persecuting people for what they are not for what they do. It’s shameful.

          • JamesFBarry

            In America you have the right to believe anything you want….And I have the right no to hear about your silly believes. its the 21 century please keep any irrational chatter for your Sunday mornings and leave the rest in peace…..

          • M J

            I suppose I should not be surprised that you do not even understand the most basic rights our Constitution protects for us: if you poke your nose in here, you do NOT “have to right no[sic] to hear about your silly believes[sic]“. Yes, it is the 21st century. So stop showing the ignorance even the 19th century turned its back on, learn to spell, learn what the rights to free speech and right to practice religion really are in the Constitution.

          • JamesFBarry

            * The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances…..In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court drew on Founding Father Thomas Jefferson’s correspondence to call for “a wall of separation between church and State”, though the precise boundary of this separation remains in dispute. Speech rights were expanded significantly in a series of 20th and 21st-century court decisions which protected various forms of political speech, anonymous speech, campaign financing, pornography, and school speech; these rulings also defined a series of exceptions to First Amendment protections. The Supreme Court overturned English common law precedent to increase the burden of proof for defamation and libel suits, most notably in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). Commercial speech, however, is less protected by the First Amendment than political speech, and is therefore subject to greater regulation……….I know about free speech…..

          • USAPatriotSC

            You know about free speech and you exocise that Right but try to censor other for exorcising thiers. You are a hypocrite!

          • JamesFBarry

            He who is sinless cast the first stone……..
            I guess that leaves us both out……

          • JamesFBarry

            The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.But also remember this very important case….In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court drew on Founding Father Thomas Jefferson’s correspondence to call for “a wall of separation between church and State”, though the precise boundary of this separation remains in dispute. Speech rights were expanded significantly in a series of 20th and 21st-century court decisions which protected various forms of political speech, anonymous speech, campaign financing, pornography, and school speech; these rulings also defined a series of exceptions to First Amendment protections. The Supreme Court overturned English common law precedent to increase the burden of proof for defamation and libel suits, most notably in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). Commercial speech, however, is less protected by the First Amendment than political speech, and is therefore subject to greater regulation…..Its that wall I love……

          • M J

            You say that it is “that wall [you] love”, but you admit that you do not even know where “the precise boundary of this separation” even is. Do you really not see the problem here? And where is the “greater regulation” for commercial speech after SCOTUS gave us “Citizens United”?

          • JamesFBarry

            Once again your cherry picking…….I said silly believes in response to this from Sandy…”Christians will stop pushing their “superstitions” on other people when you stop pushing your filthy behavior on others” think your around……

          • M J

            And you were wrong then, just as you are wrong now. What I did is not ‘cherry picking’. Do you even know what this means? I have to doubt it after seeing you misuse it like this. And Sandy was right to say that. You ARE “pushing your filthy behavior on others”.

          • USAPatriotSC

            What you say YOU have the right to is censorship. This is a Conservative site so if you do not like what we talk about then LEAVE! That is the RIGHT you have in this Country. You stay here with your Anti-Constitution and Anti-American posts and you will be taught something about the 1st Amendment. You come here with your ignorance and closed mind trying to tell Conservatives something you have no clue about only shows your lack of being a Patriotic American.

          • JamesFBarry

            Rapping your self in the flag I see……..FYI…. I’m descendants of Commodore John Barry and in the war between the states my ancestors fought with General Sherman……There were no copper heads in my family we know what is right and what is wrong….By the way have you read the 1st lately……I’ll refresh you on it…The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights…….Its the fist line I love the most….Keep that in mind when your jumping down to line 3….

          • USAPatriotSC

            Good for you, you had Patriots in your Family tree but it does not mean squat now with your harrassing people for execising thier 1st Amendment rights. I do believe you ancestors would be quite embarrassed with your Liberal beliefs that you hold so dear.

          • JamesFBarry

            Your the one getting ‘hot headed”….I’m being very civil….I’m asking anyone here to prove theres a “God”…Is that a lot to ask?

          • M J

            No, you are not being “very civil”. Not even close. Somehow, I am not surprised you do not even realize how uncivil you really are.

            And yes, you are asking a lot. Especially when you have repeatedly shown that you lack the inclination and patience to actually READ such a proof if it were presented to you. You failed, after all, you show that patience in reading through all the definitions presented to you for ‘superstition’ to realize how different they really are.

          • willie daniels

            i guess he finally told you off! You’re setting yourself up as the “moral police!” Try a little humble pie, moron!

          • USAPatriotSC

            My posts are not for the debater, they are for people who do have morals. Not everyone who replies has them do they.

          • JamesFBarry

            FYI…….The rude one here is Sandy…see her post..”Christians will stop pushing their “superstitions” on other people when you stop pushing your filthy behavior on others”.

          • Godzilla11

            All religions push their superstitions on others. It’s why humanity is faltering. Religion is the common enemy.

          • M J

            No, it is anti-religious bigots like you who are “the common enemy”. AND yet again, how many times do I have to repeat it before people figure it out? Not all religion or religious belief is ‘superstition’. Try looking up the word in a good dictionary before you use it again. And THINK: if “all religions push their superstitions”, what ‘superstitions’ do you think Deism pushes on people?

          • radiofreerome

            Sandy, I was never the slut that your idol Phil was.

          • ceakin

            Were you forced to have gay sex or marry a homosexual? Do you want to talk about it with someone?

          • M J

            Predictably, you are asking the wrong question. Marriage is a contract between two people, but it is much, much more than that — or at least it should be, since that is what it was for so many centuries when it really was the nucleus of the family. But since it is such an important social institution, changing this institution for a dubious ‘right’ is a reckless social experiment, depriving future generations of the benefits the institution has provided.

          • ceakin

            While marriage is the centerpiece, allowing others to marry is not going to replace it or harm it. My marriage nor yours will be affected one bit. ANd since gay couples can’t procreate, they typically only would become parents for a child that has already lost their “centerpiece” in which case two loving parents gay or not is better than none. How do you link allowing them rights degrading hetersexual families? Reckless? It appears gay people have made up roughly 5% of the population since time immemorial. NOt only that but many other species have gay members ase well so whether you belive in evolution or God or both, it seems it is perfectly natural. ANd I for one am not willing to deem an innocent person inequality in the eyes of the law for something taht is natural and does not harm others. If it doesn’t harm you or me or anyone, what business it it of yours to impose your morality? If its strictly the BIble, and you want to impose the laws of Leviticus on gentiles, than I must assume you also think adultererss houldbe stoned to death, football players touching dirty swine working on the Sabbath are sinners, you don’t wear blendde garb, eat shellfish, cut your sideburnsad n think women are property of men?

          • amcit

            If all you can do is be hostile, then go away – nobody here wants you or needs you.

          • jplaist002

            curious as to which superstitions YOU believe, Michael. If you are referring to Christianity as a superstition, you are the most ignorant of men – I say this not as a slam, but in the context of lack of information. Secondly, pushing them on other people? Really? I can’t tell you how often I have heard that accusation. When Peter and John were before the High Priest and Sanhedrin, they were commanded not to speak anymore in the NAME OF JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH. Their reply, “We cannot help speaking about what he have seen and heard.” Those simple fisherman, and a very raw, uneducated group of people turned the world upside down with their message of what you would call ignorance/superstition/fable/insert favorite ephithet here. I would call them pushy. These discussions I would not, unless of course you feel threatened by what they represent. If fables or superstition, you of course have nothing to fear.

          • JamesFBarry

            Superstition, belief in supernatural causality: that one event leads to the cause of another without any natural process linking the two events, such as astrology, religion, omens, witchcraft, etc., that contradicts natural science.
            Opposition to superstition was central to the intellectuals during the 18th century Age of Enlightenment. The philosophes at that time rejected any belief in miracles, revelation, magic, or the supernatural, as “superstition,” as well as unreasoned Christian doctrine.

            The word superstition is sometimes used to refer to religious practices (e.g., Voodoo) other than the one prevailing in a given society (e.g., Christianity in western culture), although the prevailing religion may contain just as many superstitious believe. It is also commonly applied to beliefs and practices surrounding luck, prophecy and spiritual beings, particularly the belief that future events can be foretold by specific unrelated prior events

          • M J

            First of all, your definition of ‘superstition’ is simply wrong. Worse, you ignore the history of the word — except for that small sliver of the history that looks like it might support your own POV. No, ‘superstition’ does NOT mean ” belief in supernatural causality”. Did you even try looking it up in a dictionary?

          • JamesFBarry

            FYI…..The above definition is from Wikipedia, and I stand by it….Remember up till the 18C most men’s live were engulfed in the dark fog of ignorance and fear of the unknown and organized religion used that but now science as opened our eyes to the real world and the open thing that isn’t there or needed is any form of a “God”…..

          • Curt Mobley

            Wikipedia is written by idiots. Anybody can supply a definition. Use a good dictionary.

          • M J

            Well now, even though I am criticizing him for relying on Wikipedia for definitions, I would not go THAT far. Wikipedia actually still does have some bright spots. But it is hit and miss, very far from being reliable. So, for example, on math and physics topics, they do pretty well: one mathematician even told me the Wikipedia pages on Lie Groups and Algebras are maintained by some of the world’s best experts in that topic. But on social science and political topics, Wikipedia is far less reliable. The worst of it is that in these topics, it always is much harder to tell when you are being sold a pig in a poke. JamesFBarry really wanted to buy that pig in a poke, because the false definition fits his ideology.

          • JamesFBarry

            And everyone can challenge any definition insuring that only correct definitions are used…..that’s why its the words most used site for definitions……
            ….

          • M J

            Most men’s lives are STILL “engulfed in the dark fog of ignorance” — as you illustrate with your ignorant insistence on the infallibility of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary. It is not at all a reliable source for accurate definitions. Like I said: look it up in a real dictionary, such as any of the several hosted on dictionary.com. There you just might see how very deficient your understanding is.

          • JamesFBarry

            Lets use Mr. Webster then……………… su·per·sti·tion
            noun ˌsü-pər-ˈsti-shən : a belief or way of behaving that is based
            on fear of the unknown and faith in magic or luck : a belief that certain
            events or things will bring good or bad luck
            1a : a belief or
            practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or
            chance, or a false conception of causation
            b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward
            the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition

            2: a notion
            maintained despite evidence to the contrary

            See superstition defined for English-language learners »

            It is a common superstition that a black cat crossing your
            path is bad luck.

            tales of superstition, witchcraft, and magic

            Origin of SUPERSTITION……Middle English supersticion, from
            Anglo-French, from Latin superstition-, superstitio, from superstit-, superstes
            standing over (as witness or survivor), from super- + stare to stand — more at
            stand

            *First Known Use: 13th century

          • M J

            Well, so you finally tacitly admitted you were wrong, and turned to a real dictionary. But true to form, you could not be honest even then, but had to pick a dictionary that shares your prejudices instead of using a dictionary with an honest definition. And though you include the etymological information, you still show no sign of actually understanding it, or how ‘superstition’ came to mean what it now means.

            Now if you HAD been honest in your choice, you could have chosen a dictionary like http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=superstition&ia=luna, which recognizes that it is invalid to claim that ‘religion’ is ‘superstition’: that has not been a correct meaning even for the original Latin word for centuries — since about 40AD!

            Look at the link I gave above and see how UNLIKE Webster’s this dictionary knows better than to insist on “fear of the unknown and faith in magic or luck” as a necessary part of the definition — except in ONE out of the FIVE possible definitions. Do you even understand the difference between the five, or are you one of those illiterati who never came go grips with multiple definitions of common English words?

          • JamesFBarry

            Dear MJ, You cant shop around for a definition you like If you have an issue with Mr. Webster……Sorry to say its not Mr. Websters problem……Its yours……

          • M J

            You are the one “shopping around for a definition”, not me. You had to pass over many other dictionaries to resort to upholding your fallacy using Webster’s. BTW: this is far from the first time Webster’s got a definition wrong. That is WHY there are better dictionaries competing with Webster’s.

          • JamesFBarry

            You have an issue with Webster……….The universal standard……Your looking for a dictionary that doesn’t say ‘religion’ is ‘superstition’……..Only ones that are wrong will say that…..Because the word means that…..Its a French word…1st used in the 13 cen….Sorry

          • M J

            Despite your ignorant foot-stamping, Webster is NOT “the universal standard”. For English, even American English, it is Oxford that is “the universal standard”. And you should be sorry — for pretending you had a point when you continue to repeat nonsense refuted long, long ago. Why, you repeatedly show you do not even understand the sources you ‘cite’, this time by saying it is a French word. It is not: it is a Latin word.

          • JamesFBarry

            Ok …I’ll keep you happy ….So I went to Oxford….and this is what they said…………….
            (su·per·sti·tion) noun
            excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings: he dismissed the ghost stories as mere superstiti a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief: she touched her locket for luck, a superstition she had had since childhood Origin:………Middle English: from Old French, or from Latin superstition (n-), from super- ‘over’ + stare ‘to stand’ (perhaps from the notion of “standing over” something in awe)
            All 3 say the same thing…..Sorry….

          • M J

            But this is where you show your inability to READ. By no means is it “the same thing”. You failed to notice the difference. In the Oxford definition, in order to qualify as “superstition’, the belief in “supernatural beings” has to be “excessively credulous”. That is NOT the case with religious beliefs. But you in your ignorance did not notice this, because in your anti-religious bigotry, you falsely believe that ALL belief in ANY “supernatural being” is “excessively credulous”.

          • JamesFBarry

            Credulous: Adjective[edit] (I used oxford)

            1) Credulous (comparative more credulous, superlative most credulous) Excessively ready to believe things; gullible.

            2) Excessively ready to believe things; gullible.
            (obsolete) Believed too readily

            What do you call believing in “supernatural beings”……Mildly credulous?
            If I told you there was a ‘leprechaun’ in the garden…
            What would you say to me?…
            You’ve been drinking…And I’d say Its 1 pm somewhere….

          • M J

            Are you really this incompetent at following an argument? Is that why you have to resort to circumstantial ad hominem like this? No, I have not been drinking, no, belief in leprechauns is NOT comparable to belief in God. If you were not an anti-religious bigot, it would not be so hard for you to understand: not all belief in some kind of “supernatural being” is credulous, excessively or otherwise.

          • sagan22

            superstition and belief in the supernatural go hand in hand..
            they are both very primitive concepts. And both require lack of logical thinking or intelligence to be accepted.

          • JamesFBarry

            You’ll find that Mr. Webster’s definition of superstition is very close to my first and they both clear to what a believe in a

            God/gäd/

            noun: God; noun: god; plural noun: gods; plural noun: the
            gods

            1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the
            creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the
            supreme being.

            synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker,
            the Godhead; More Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh;

            (God) the Father, (God) the Son, the Holy Ghost/Spirit, the
            Holy Trinity; the Great Spirit, Gitchi Manitou;

            humorousthe Man Upstairs

            “a gift from God”

            2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit
            worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

            “a moon god”

            synonyms: deity, goddess, divine being, celestial being,
            divinity, immortal, avatar More
            In the modern world believe in such a being is Superstition.

          • sagan22

            check out the Caesar’s Messiah web site to discover who created the christian myth and why.

          • sagan22

            Visit the Caesar’s Messiah Web site to discover who created the christian myth and why.

          • USAPatriotSC

            Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a conjecture or premise to be true.
            You used the wrong word, believing in God is not a superstition it is a belief. You took any word to support your argument but the definition does not support your it. Having 7 years of bad luck for breaking a mirrior is superstition. Believing in God is just that, a belief. You can’t twist words here and get away with it, we are not your ignorant Liberal buddies.

          • JamesFBarry

            be·lief/biˈlēf/

            noun: belief; plural noun: beliefs

            1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something
            exists.

            “his belief in the value of hard work”

            •something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held
            opinion or conviction.

            “contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living
            language”

            synonyms: opinion, view, conviction, judgment, thinking, way
            of thinking, idea, impression, theory, conclusion, notion More

            “it’s my belief that age is irrelevant”

            •a religious conviction.

            “Christian beliefs”

            synonyms: ideology, principle, ethic, tenet, canon; doctrine,
            teaching, dogma, article of faith, creed, credo

            “traditional beliefs”

            trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

            “a belief in democratic politics”

            synonyms: faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence

            “belief in the value of hard work”
            FYI….believing in something doesn’t make it true….

          • USAPatriotSC

            Who are you to say what is true and what is not true.
            Prove God does not exist! Without proof you have no right to ridicule others.
            People believe there is a God, you believe there is no God.
            People who believe in God don’t ridicule, trash, degrade, harrass, hate and use derogatory names.
            People who don’t believe in God DO, like you do.
            People who believe in God and are very Religious are for the most part happy, kind, nice and positive. People who don’t believe in God are like you, filled full of hate and contempt because they are empty, they have nothing to live for which make them like you, miserable. It shows in your posts, how you talk to others, how thier belief in God is something they have and you want but will not tolerate.
            You can try to defend against what I write here but no matter what you say it will be transparent, like you.

          • JamesFBarry

            Ask yourself……….If there really was a “God” he waited 14 billion years unto the reign of the Augustus Caesar then vanished again……..Really?……..Its the 21 century…..Science has done away with the need for a “God”…..Time to face that fact…..and move on with living…….

          • Confed

            It couldn’t of been said any better than you just did. If he doesn’t understand now….give up, he is hopeless and helpless. Some are so selfish that they want everyone to look to them for all the answers. It is almost as if they are jealous of God. He is loved by what some call “blind faith” while those that want to be him aren’t loveable. Sounds like he doesn’t even like himself, which is why most “try” to belittle others. He thinks he will feel better about himself by putting others down. He doesn’t want people to get along or find happiness.

          • John George

            Totally agree. We use to wonder how and why does the ocean behave the way it does – our answer thousands of years ago – The God Neptune controls the sea and when the seas were rough Neptune was angry – of course now we know what a bunch of crap…and Zeus is not hurling lightning bolts either. All of our gods are gone but one – he answers the big three questions: Where did we cone from (God), Why are we here (to serve God), and where do we go when we de (Back to God) thank you good night be sure to tip your waiter!!!
            I would love to believe in a just and fair god and that good ultimately conquers over evil and bad people who commit bad acts ultimately somewhere down the line pay – but I just ain’t seeing it!

          • JamesFBarry

            FYI….I’ve check may other sites point to the same thing.The word that means a belief in supernatural causality is “Superstition”. Superstition can also be defined as an excessive belief in something supernatural. Sorry

          • M J

            You SAY you ‘checked’. But only a fool will believe you. I just gave you FOUR definitions that show you are wrong. Read them.

          • JamesFBarry

            I went to the encyclopedia Britannica……that’s the top of the heap of information sources…….If you don’t like them I don’t know what to tell you?

          • RIRedinPA

            From Merion-Webster (bold is mine):

            a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation

            b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition

            And causation, or causality is defined as the capacity of one variable to influence another. I would say that causality is a pretty apt way to define many religions, if you believe in a omnipotent, omniscience God then he/it/she is the cause of all things. However, if you don’t share that belief then you can view it as a superstitious causality, a belief in an event occurring because of a variable that doesn’t exist.

            I would wager you do the same when viewing any of the polytheism religions such as Hinduism or Shintoism. To you there are not dozens or in the case of Shintoism or Han Chinese traditional religions, hundreds of deities affecting events throughout the world and their belief system is a superstitious casualty. I guess it all depends on the tea you prefer to drink.

          • JamesFBarry

            Thank you……..

          • M J

            I have already refuted your error concerning the definition of ‘superstition’ when JamesFBarry made the same error. But you introduce a new and very serious error, a definition of causation (or causality) that is so laughably deficient, you leave no way to distinguish between a genuine relation of causation and the old fallacy of “post hoc ergo propter hoc”. No, you cannot define ‘causality’ in terms of ‘influence’. Then how do you define influence? And how do you distinguish between causality and other kinds of influence? No, you achieve nothing at all with such a silly ‘definition’. Spend about 30m with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the topic (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/) to see just how badly you miss by a country mile.

          • sagan22

            the Jesus character’s real name is Titus Flavious…
            visit Caesar’s Messiah’s web page for more info.

          • M J

            Wow! I mean, just, wow! It takes a really astonishing degree of ignorance AND credulity to believe the arrant nonsense you just posted.

            Of course your claim is absolutely false, and not even possible. The Caesars persecuted Christians for centuries and neither their beliefs nor their interests were supported by the basic tenets of Christianity. But you do not know any of this, so you were easily fooled.

          • sagan22

            MJ.. ok.. how about you read Caesar’s Messiah and prove it wrong. You lack a true knowledge of Roman history.. which is common for most people.

            Read the book. and then write your claim that the discovery that the Flavian family did not create the christian religion from the Jewish one. I will be waiting to see your claim on the CM facebook page.. Please do a detailed rebuttal that is point by point of the examples in the book…I and I am sure Joe Atwill will love to see your examples.

          • M J

            What are you talking about? If YOU had even just a fraction of the knowledge of Roman history you claim, you would understand why Joe Atwill is just a crackpot, deserving only the kind of “detailed rebuttal” other crackpots get. Real historians of the era have long ago given up attempts to prove that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist, or that Christianity was created by any faction of the Roman Empire.

          • sagan22

            You read his work then prove him wrong… until you do… you are wrong.. It is well documented that the Roman Caesar Vespasian and his 3 sons… with Josephus being an adopted Jewish man when adopted were real people..

            After Titus had defeated the Druids in the now UK islands he went to defeat the Jews.
            There never was a real Jesus… the bible is a literary myth book nothing more… it was created as a political tool for the Roman rulers.
            I bet your will never read Joe’s book because your are afraid it is REAL.. and your are believing in a lie created long ago.. by the Roman Flavian Caesars.

          • M J

            Oh, really? You show you yourself know nothing of what it means to prove right or wrong when you say silly things liek “until you do, you are wrong”. Of course that is false. Just as every one of your many silly assertions in this thread is false. Again: real historians gave up a long time ago on trying to prove that Jesus did not exist. On the contrary: they ALL accept that he did in fact exist, even if they do not accept the claim that he was the Messiah or the Son of God.

          • sagan22

            MJ while you are looking up definitions..how about looking up the meaning of the name Mary.
            ok.. find it yet? says.. it means rebellious woman.
            no Jew would name a daughter Mary… because no women in the jewish culture is allowed to be rebellious.. why because women are suppose to be 100% controlled and obedient..aka slaves to men.. a woman Mary would never be able to be married off… ok.. now here is the joke.. one of many in the bible..
            There was never a Jewish women named Mary.. it would be like calling a women now a hoe or worst.. it is an insulting name. however. the Roman culture at the time is not known now… If you look there are no Mary’s in the old testament or Jewish myth… because no jew would name a daughter Mary. Women are sold or traded.. a Mary would NOT be married because men would not want a rebellious woman..
            The Romans knew this..thats why they named the character of the jesus mother Mary…
            This is one of the many jokes in the bible…

          • M J

            Where, oh where, do you manage to find such arrant nonsense. ‘Mary’ is the English form of the Greek name Μαρία, which in turn is the Greek form of the Hebrew name, Miriam. And she was no ‘rebellious woman’, being a prophetess and sister of the first Levite Priest and right hand of Moses, Aaron. By no means was it “an insulting name”. On the contrary: it is still common among Jews. And it means ‘bitter sea’, not ‘rebellious’, being a reference to the bitterness they lived in at the time she was born (http://goo.gl/CTUS71).

            This is not your only serious error, but not even I have time to refute ALL your nonsense;)

          • Southerner

            And you were forced to read his paragraph how? What harm befell you afterwards?

          • God Is Watching

            As you should stop trying to force your sinful and immoral lifestyle choice on others as well.

          • Yu

            one might say the same to you!

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EvidencefortheBible/ Galut1

            Neither I ,Jesus,or other Christians will force you into Christ’s kingdom …We may pray for you to have your eyes opened ,but You have every right to reject or accept up and until the day you die…. the seal of your final destination is placed there by you ….after that point Jesus can not and will not violate your will….

          • chris

            it is not superstition’s, quit spreading your false belief that same sex is a natural thing i know animal’s do it but they also eat their young and mate with their children

          • C Matthews

            Shame on you- God is trying to speak to you, why else feel compelled to comment?

          • Sams_1

            He just did you insipid fool

          • sakovkt

            tfmmv WAS speaking for himself!
            Who the heck else would he be speaking for?

          • GIGfriend22

            we would not be pushing our superstitions on anyone else if we didn’t feel threatened by them as well for sneaking into our spiritual and social life’s………..In other words takes one to know one.

          • chrisewing

            nothing nudges you but your own stupdity

          • Ria

            If you sin everyday, then something is wrong. No Christian should be sinning everyday. We WERE sinners saved by grace. We ARE NOT sinners, we are a holy people and God has cleansed us from sin. The Holy Spirit enables us to live life free from sinning. Read and meditate Galatians 5 and see my response above. You need to be free my friend.

          • mdr

            Forgiveness is given at the time of your conversion/immersion into Christ. Its the protocol of transformation. Hebrews states that there can be no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood. would you have Jesus back on the cross? He said “it is finished” for a reason. now rest in his work and stop trying to nail him to the cross over and over due to your unbelief in His final work and complete removal of your sin, ONCE and FOR ALL!
            Rest in Jesus. Learn about what happened to you at the time of conversion. Made alive in Christ!

          • Joey

            I walk with HER.

          • shootmyownfood

            Really, now! Every person in the world is not a Christian, nor wishes to be one. I, for one, have no desire for a relationship with some dead political activist.

          • talkto

            In His strength, and His alone, all things are possible.

          • [email protected]

            God bless you, I have a similar problem. Incel or Involuntarily Celebate my whole life…. I suspect there is a cross-wired pheromone somewhere, women seem to be repelled by me.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            Awwwwww.

            Since I’m not a woman, I couldn’t possibly say why women would be repelled by you. But somehow I doubt that’s really the case. I obviously don’t know how old you are, so I likewise couldn’t comment about the length of time you’ve been “Incel”. (Interesting way of saying that, BTW.) Do you live in a small town where there aren’t many women available, or closer to your age? I’m sure there are women out there who would be interested in you. Have you tried online dating websites? I know it sounds like a cliche’, but you may not have met the right woman yet. You might have a unique personality which will only match up with certain types, but the great thing about that is that once you find someone who likes you, the connection will be fantastic and strong.

            God bless you, too!

          • [email protected]

            Thanks for the reply. “Closer to my age” is kinda funny, after some 30 years, that number keeps changing. I guess I do have an unusual personality. I’ve lived everywhere from the backwoods to L.A. in the past 30 years. I’ll just have to be patient. Noah only took some 400 years to find his wife, so I’ve potentially still got a long wait ahead of me.

          • Ria

            You didn’t ask my advice, but as a minister of the Gospel, I’m going to take a chance and give you some anyway, praying you take them in the spirit in which it is given. It’s up to you whether you accept it or not. First, I would stop calling myself “gay”. Jesus said in Mark 11:23, that you will have whatever you say. Proverbs 18 talks a lot about our words, I suggest you read, meditate, and confess daily the scriptures that say who you are in Christ. Just because you have same sex attractions, does not mean you are gay. In Joshua 1:8 God commands that we are to meditate (mutter aloud), His word day and night so that we will be prosperous and have good success. That word prosperous in the Hebrew means to be successful in ALL areas of life, not just financially. I pray that one day you will no longer see yourself as “gay”, but as a child of the living God who has set you free from the law of sin and death. Blessings.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            I’ll repeat what I said in another response I left for you: Click on my name and read all my comments pertaining to this discussion. You’ll have to scroll through a LOT of miscellaneous comments (assuming you’re truly interested in hearing what I have to say, or are merely passing by with a glancing blow at me) – and you’ll see how much of a struggle this is for me.

            As I also told you in another comment, I don’t ordinarily go around referring to myself as a gay Christian. But in the context of the discussion about this article, I felt it was necessary to make my point.

            And yes, the same-sex attractions DO mean I’m gay…..much as YOUR opposite-sex attractions means you’re straight. It’s a matter of words…..it’s a matter of how we describe an aspect of our personality and character.

            Besides, what am I supposed to do when I go to church and people want to get to know me better? What if a lady says she’d like to ask me out?

            “Nope, sorry my dear….I’m gay”.

            Would YOU not say “Nope, sorry my dear….I’m straight” if a gay person asked YOU out?

            I’m done with this discussion final post. I sure hope no one else responds, because it’s seriously getting old. People need to click on my user name and scroll through a BUNCH of posts to find everything I’ve said about this if they feel some inclination to respond. And then if they still do, I won’t read it. I’m done with it here.

          • Peas Creek

            The only thing the Lord cares about is how you treat others.

          • Siobhan Elizabeth

            There is nothing wrong with being gay or being in a relationship with a person of the same gender if you are gay. Who convinced you of this? It is sad when gay people reject themselves for being who they are.

          • Mike

            You do have a lot of candor, and I appreciate that. I do wonder why you feel the need to identify yourself as a “homosexual.” It seems confusing to me. I understand that some people are oriented towards some temptations more than to others. But I just wonder if your identification of yourself that way might feed in to your ongoing struggle. I don’t know the struggle like you do, so I don’t mean to seem harsh. Thoughts?

          • Marla Hughes

            The strength of your faith puts mine to shame. I honor your sacrifice for Christ. May the Holy Spirit continue to bless your efforts and give you strength to continue.

          • Gaypornforlife

            I’m glad you have learned to deny yourself love so that you may enter heaven. What you want in your life is a SIN, and the only redemption is to deny what you are.

          • mooseinfmp

            Recognizing oneself as a sinner and walking away from those sins is one of the hardest things to do. I pray that your path away from Sin and toward Salvation may be straight and filled with the Joy that comes from God’s Love.

          • skeeter56

            you nailed it !!!

          • Anthony

            Most Christians would tell you that homosexuality is a sin. Even thinking about putting your penis into another man’s anus is considered sin. Thought of doing sinful things is still sinful. That’s like saying you can think and talk all about killing the president and even come up with a plan to do it but as long as you don’t act upon it then you’re fine.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            Ah yes, the old “putting your p e n i s into another man’s a n u s argurment, as if that’s the end all/be all of what it means to be gay. It would probably shock most straight people to know that men and women engage in anal sex, too….including Christian husbands and wives.

            Which, if I might add, just for clarification, I’m opposed to. I do not believe in anal sex for ANYONE. Period.

          • Viator16

            It is certainly unnatural to engage in anal sex. The male penis is designed to penetrate a vagina, and a vagina was designed to be the receptacle for a penis. Neither the anus nor the mouth is a proper receptacle. In terms of sexual pleasure, a hole is a hole.

          • tktimoteo

            I have attection to my best friends wife for years- I had to move out of state to get away from her…as she made it easy for me to be close to her. The Lord has delivered me but I had to take real streps to remove myself from any situation – we ALL struggle with sin and have temptations but we cry to God- Lead us not into temptation- but DELIVER US from evil.

          • talkto

            Best to evaluate what constitutes a “friend.”

          • SPINMASTER

            I tried..but failed. A married woman came on to me and I could not resist. I had sex with her about 4 times until we both got our fill. I believe in GOD. And I do not believe this means I am going to hell!!

          • Southerner

            If you repent and ask for forgiveness and mean it, you will be forgiven. We all screw up. It’s what we do about it that matters.

          • SPINMASTER

            I truly hope you are right. This mistake happened about 10 yrs ago. And has never happened again. I have asked and am still to this day asking for forgiveness for my transgressions.

          • Tonka Thor

            I beg to differ. Matthew 5:28 “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

          • Monique Maryssa…

            key word is “intent”. Having an attraction is simply that… an attraction. Attraction has no intent. It just IS. Nurturing that attraction is intent.

          • MidAtlanticWoman

            You can’t keep birds (thoughts) from flying over your head, but you certainly can keep them from building a nest in your hair.

          • Monique Maryssa…

            Love that!! Can I borrow it? =)

          • MidAtlanticWoman

            Sure! Actually, it’s something my dear, departed father used to say. RIP.

          • Tonka Thor

            When someone is lusting over another isn’t there some intent going in their mind already? Just because someone intends in their mind, they don’t always act on their intents. I think this verse just reminds us how easily just the thought of sinning can overcome us. Eventually if we keep having thoughts of lust, it will consume us.

          • talkto

            We are called to discipline our minds and our bodies.

          • Monique Maryssa…

            EXACTLY. Intent doesn’t just apply to a physical action being done, but also the nurturing of thoughts. Temptation is totally different. By its’ nature it is coming from outside of you. But the moment you “latch” onto that temptation and begin building it in your mind… that is the moment you start “lusting”.

          • Mr

            The King James doesnt say “intent” .. lust is a sin . period

          • M J

            But the King James is not the original text, nor the final arbiter. The word translated as ‘lust’ is επιθυμειν, which can in some places be translated ‘lust’, but in others, simply ‘desire’. But in the latter sense, it is part of the technical vocabulary for willing, so yes, it does concern intent.

          • Monique Maryssa…

            along the same lines, but getting back to even the concept of “lust”… the implication is that you have to “DO” something in order to nurture it. It’s one thing to be walking down the street and to arbitrarily get sidetracked by an attractive person that you’ve momentarily and automatically felt “desire” for. It’s another thing to nurture the idea of that person and to feed that desire with continual consideration of what that person is like, how well you’d get along etc. THAT is lusting. Hanging onto emotions about someone that is not your husband/wife is lusting.

            Feeling attraction that you didn’t ask for is completely different. No one can control that first physical reaction/attraction, but we can control everything AFTER that!

          • M J

            “We can control everything afte that”? I think you overstate your case here. But it is true that we can control a lot, though many deny this, using this denial as an excuse to assent to temptation. But until this assent occurs, there is no sin.

          • Bob Greenpoint

            M J: I love it when anti-gay fundamentalists start to parse the Bible or fall back on mistranslations, just like the gays! Curious: if you have a daughter, did you check her bed for blood? If it wasn’t there, did you stone her to death as the Bible demands?

          • M J

            I am all too familiar with the misuse of Scripture among “anti-gay fundamentalists”. But even among them, I have never seen it abused as much as you abuse it by claiming that that is what the Bible demands.

          • Bob Greenpoint

            20 “But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.” (Deut. 22:13-21).

          • M J

            I know you think you have scored a point with that lurid passage, but you have not. All you have accomplished is to show off your ignorance.

            How many times does it have to be explained to you? The Law was promulgated ONLY for the nation of Israel. Even this law. It is only that subset of the Law that was also promulgated for all people, or for all believers, that you can refer to to support your case.

            But guess what: the law condemning homosexuality as grievous sin WAS confirmed as of universal applicability, the law calling for stoning fornicators was NOT.

          • Chris

            And the very next passage, Tonka? Matthew 5:29

            “And if your right eye causes you to offend, pluck it out, and cast it from you: for it is better for you that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be cast into hell.”

            tktimoteo removed himself from that situation. He repented. He “plucked out his eye”. THIS is exactly what all believers who sin are called to do.

          • M J

            I have to agree that tktimoteo did the right thing, extreme though it was. And Mt 5:28 is not as applicable as you think. If you read it in context, considering tense, mood and aspect of the verbs, you just might see: it is not condemning anyone and everyone who ever say another man’s wife and felt the natural response, it is condemning someone who consents to the desire, forming a concrete intention to have her, an act foiled only by circumstances, not by his own will to refrain from evil.

          • SPINMASTER

            So…does that mean you cannot be forgiven by God? If not, then I guess the person has been sentenced to hell anyway. So he or she might as well continue down that same path..Right?

          • Viator16

            That is not entirely true. Sinful desire is a sin. Jesus makes this perfectly clear. The desire to have sexual intercourse with a woman that is not your wife is the sin of adultery according to Jesus. The desire to have sex with someone of the same sex is a sinful desire.

          • Michael D Barber

            According to your myth, not according to human nature.

          • Gregg Powers

            correct!

          • felix1999

            chngrffn,

            Who can forget Jimmey Carter and his Playboy interview?

            Matt.5:28

            [28] But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

            Same sex attraction and inclination is a sin! To be compassionate towards another person, doesn’t include changing God’s Word to fit our ever lowering social mores – as you have just done.

            I hope this man finds true peace. He deserves nothing less.

          • JamesFBarry

            LOL……..Aren’t we all a little old for this type of thinking…..

          • chipndale

            According to the “Word”, any physical relations outside of marriage is sin.

          • runton

            Science has proven that homosexuality is a natural biological variation, and to try and separate the love from attraction to one’s soul mate from the physical act that manifests that love, is not a viable cop out to justify your bigotry.

            As has been discussed already, you must consider shaving a sin and have your rebellious child murdered if you wish to consider homosexuality a sin. Also, only the poor practice of monoculture farming is allowed.

            Man-made law is far more moral than the laws of the god captured in this book.

          • ceakin

            Owning your belended garb is not a sin, just wearing it. I applaud you for your years struggling with this and am here to support your sinful ways if needed. You have a powerful friend an witness and I thank you.

          • AmericanHorseman

            The Bible states that if you “lust in your heart then that is a sin.” This makes you wrong.

          • [email protected]

            Your kind reply is appreciated. It’s good to see people who can disagree without being disagreeable!

          • Ria

            I’m an unmarried female. And though I’ve come to the point in my daily Christian walk where it no longer very difficult to live a celibate life, I don’t expect anyone to applaud me for it. My goal is to be pleasing to God, not men. And I certainly think it’s commendable that believers who have same sex attractions but choose to live holy before God, they should no more be applauded than the single, heterosexual, that does the same. They’re struggle is no more of a challenge than living celibate as a heterosexual. IJS

          • Michael Kimsal

            @chngrffn:disqus – not sure how inclination/attraction is not a sin. If you look at someone with lust, you’ve committed adultery “in your heart”, which is apparently the same as actually committing the act of adultery. Christianity criminalizes thoughts, not just actions.

          • 1stcav

            wrong young lady Jesus said to look upon someone with lust in their heart is just like doing the sin already period ! don’t try to change the word of God for your own purpose !

            if a man looks upon another man and in his heart says ” man that guy looks great ” in a sexual context , then the man has already committed the homosexual act with the other man without even touching him !

          • Ukweli Mungu

            We must be very careful regarding this argument. While temptation in itself is not sin, the word “homosexuality” indicates an individual who has accepted this term as his or her identity. This usually means, they have embraced the idea past the point of mere “temptation,” and have crossed over into dangerous and sinful territory in their hearts.

            Christ said: “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
            If lusting after a woman in one’s heart is crossing the line, even without physically sleeping with her, then the same would be true for a man who lusts in his heart after another man (homosexuality).
            We must be mindful, that Christ wishes to clean out our hearts, so that we can take every ungodly thought captive. In so doing, those thoughts will not dwell in our hearts and develop into lust and other sin.

          • Hunter

            I would agree with you to an extent….but Jesus also said if you look and lust after someone with your eyes it is no different than actually committing the act

          • JamesFBarry

            “I can resist everything except temptation”.
            – Oscar Wilde

          • Peas Creek

            Funny thing is, Jesus spent more time rebuking phony religious hypocrites like you more than anything else.

          • Romans7:19

            True but this is a very fine line to walk and many people cannot do it. Here are some scriptures to back this point up. I share these in love, growth in Christ and learning His word. Not to be right or mean. Only Jesus can and will ever be the perfect judge.

            Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

            (The answer about all of our thoughts is to love God with all of our hearts and to place focus on Him and only Him. Let your love for Jesus consume you. For thoughts can be strongholds and they need to be pulled down.)

            2 Co 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
            5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

            Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

          • Karma_HitMan

            oh suck my stick and take your thanks and cram it

          • Joey

            You kiddin me hoe. Aren’t u?

          • Matt Ranson

            Well aren’t you christians so kind, cock blocking this poor guy.

          • Johnny Butts

            you are just the worst kind of person… getting your morals from a bronze age text written by nomadic sheep herders is not only stupid, its even worse when you judge other people on it. i hope one day your religion as well as all others go the way of the greek mythologies. mankind will never be truly free until the last tyrant is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.

          • Matt Ranson

            WTF? You Christians sure are a bunch of great people telling others who they can have sexual relations with. I sure envy your fascism.

          • Angelina

            OMG who are you people. A gay man is encouraged to be celibate and that makes him “better” than one who is in an loving relationship with another human being? I feel sad for both of you.

          • Bro.Keith

            I agree. Yes, a person can be saved (born-again) and have homosexual tendencies. How? We are three-fold being. The spirit is regenerated, but the soul or flesh may still be oppressed by an evil spirit. Contrary to some Christian theology, regeneration doesn’t automatically take place in the soul or flesh. I know, because years ago, I had an unclean adultery spirit, and the Lord Jesus revealed it to me thru a vision, and several unclean spirits were cast out. This is what “deliverance” ministry is about. See ones like Don Dickerman,
            as he has a lot more experience in this than I do, and is very compassionate. Blessings to you! – Keith Townsend Ministries.

          • Anti-Unamerican

            A vagina is the way to go dude. Keep the sphinkster closed and maybe you won’t need diapers. Maybe !

          • justgo

            Yeah take sexual advise from this chick.

          • adam

            The same as wearing mixed fibers or eating shellfish.

          • Black Unemployment Crisis

            any sex outside of marriage is a sin. However, through Jesus Christ all your sins that you would ever commit are already forgiven.

          • disqus_ojpzHp5BY9

            if his sexual inclination is there that means he lusts after men which is a sin.

          • Michael

            They , who say they have not sinned have not known God, and are not a witness . Hence , chngriffn , you are not of God nether speak for Him .

          • themostforevereternity

            How did you come up with that one. I guess you forgot about lusting. Do you know that lust is not a physical action.

            But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:28
            Oh wait that verse is talking about a man and a woman. Guess that explains why there is no such thing as a gay christian.

          • chngrffn

            You are incorrect in your statement that there are no gay christians. There are plenty but they dont happen to be the loudest voices being heard. In fact, there have been a few in this conversation that have come forward as such. I think it is rather cowardly to be so angry and nasty on these comments when you can hide behind your anonymity. I once again commend those people who are homosexual and embrace a life of celibacy. And for those that seem to think you cannot be a Christian and homosexual at the same time, you are being very narrow minded and judgemental. God loves us ALL regardless of our orientations. And the sin of sodomy is listed right on par with a drunkard, so a homosexual is not especially hated by God.

          • http://www.facebook.com/sstephaniew stephanie wilson

            amen

          • Grafted Believer

            This is purely your opinion and you have the prerogative to say whatever you want. However, when examining the explicitly stated words of the Bible, effeminacy (1 Corinthians 6:9), which is someone known as a catamite and this is defined as a boy kept for homosexual practices, is declared as one of the things that will prevent someone from inheriting the kingdom of heaven. When the Almighty Creator created the heavens and the earth, the very first written commandment was written in Genesis 1:28, which is to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. After the flood, the one where Noah was commanded to build an ark to survive in, this was the first commandment given to Noah with the exception of subduing the earth and this was stated twice in Genesis 9:1 and Genesis 9:7. Homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce with each other, and please don’t use the infertility in heterosexual couples response as it is invalid.

            Homosexuality, same sex inclination or attraction is a stepping stone to what the Almighty Creator calls an abomination because of its deviation from what the Almighty Creator established and designed. The origin of homosexuality, same sex inclination or attraction is the same as any distortion or deviation from the Almighty Creator’s instructions, and that origin is Satan twisting the instruction and deceiving the people into rejecting what the Almighty Creator established and designed. The process is the same, which is that one or more demons subtly influences an individual with mental projections, like whispering in the individual’s ear and making the individual’s mind imagine the behavior. Once the individual considers that temptation affirmatively, a seed is planted in the individual’s heart. With each thought and emotion the individual gives to that temptation, it is feeding the seed. Once the individual acts on the temptation, the seed matures into a weed with a root and that individual’s heart is corrupted into infertile ground that truth cannot grow in. Once the individual gives justifications and excuses to continue in the sin, that individual’s heart becomes as stone.

            Again, you have the prerogative to say whatever you want, but if you claim to be a believer, your faith is incompatible with Scripture and you are not united with the Almighty Creator.

          • LibertyIssues

            Jesus spoke of “hypocrites” in His Sermon on the Mount, those who make a public spectacle of their faith.

            Nobody will believe a word you say about homosexuals, unless you also advocate putting people to death for:
            1) Cursing one’s mother or father. (Leviticus 20:9)

            2) Cheating on your wife, also kill the woman.(Leviticus 20:10).

            3) Sleeping with your wife and her mother (burnt to death). (Leviticus 20:14)

            4) If a man has sex with a woman on her period (Leviticus 20:18)

            5) If one’s wife was not a virgin on her wedding night, she must be immediately stoned to death.

            5) Immediately put to death your brother, wife, child or friend if they follow a different God.

            See, if you don’t demand that people be put to death for those reasons — there are others — then you are placing your own will above the word of Almighty God. Where does the Bible say you get to pick and choose which of God’s Laws you will follow, and which you will ignore?

            In other words, if you cite the Bible to condemn homosexuals, then you are morally obliged to demand the slaying of others for the sins listed above (among others).

            So when will you begin slaying all those who violate the laws of Almighty God? Else you become one of what Christ called “hypocrites.”

            When will you begin slaughtering Muslims, Hindus and the others?

          • Greg O’Grady

            If you believe that wouldn’t you have to designate homosexuality as a disease of the human condition? Just like lust?

          • [email protected]

            What consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms is not a sin. Why are religious bigots so fixated on who does what to whom?

          • Tracy

            Your comment is concise and courteous, and possibly the only that seeks NOT to judge others, but to offer mercy and kindness. Christians need more representatives like you.

            The guest struggling with homosexuality admits his weakness, instead of being prideful or self-righteous. In that, I believe there’s great hope for his witness for Jesus.

          • Rod

            incorrect…sin of thought is still sin…grace is what saves us. immediately when we go to God…even when we act on our sinful thoughts we are able to repent and be clean again…his grace knows no bounds…because we can’t control our thoughts not because its ok if we think it but not act on it…

          • robert d

            ‘But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

            Using this logic, being homosexual is a sin as the sin is committed when the thought enters your head. Another example of woolly Christianity. Either it is or it isn’t – and, of course, it isn’t.
            I am neither gay (not born that way) nor am I a Christian (not indoctrinated so).

          • janswed

            It would be highly appreciate if you demented and delusional Christians would practice celibacy having by accident landed on this website I must say I am shocked by these posts you are all mentally ill .

          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster CS

            Why is acting on your attraction a sin? Are they harming anyone?

          • Is the word of God absolute?

            I wonder if you eat shellfish our live in a tent during your period? Both are commanded by Leviticus.

          • shootmyownfood

            What is this word “sin” you keep using? Oh, wait, it’s something that your preferred imaginary omnipotent being says is bad, right? Funny how a “sin” in one religion is not even an issue in another.

          • James Godin

            Thats ridiculous. If you have sinned in the mind you have already sinned. Duh! Please read the bible!

          • allen

            God bless you, Joe. What you have revealed about yourself is exactly what i prayed was true when I read your initial post. Your struggles, like mine and others’, may be the greatest indicator of our spirituality. The unspiritual give in and give up, the spiritual keep resisting inappropriate desires while continuing to trust the crucified, risen Savior for strength and forgiveness.

          • tktimoteo

            you are wrong in saying that we cannot make judgement calls- YOU ARE MISQUOTING THAT SCRIPTURE as 99% of people do who are trying to excuse themselves. THAT scripture says not to make hypocritical jusgements. I.E. if you are a big liar- don’t try to correct others for lying until you repent yourself. If you are a big adulterer or engaging ANY sexual activity outside of one woman -one man marital relationship you have no right try to correct your brother engaging in those activities unlus you repent for yourself…It sasy be gracious with people reminding yourself that you also are prone to temptation yourself…it does NOT say you are to leave them with the stick in their eye…it just says bee careful when helping others that you are not a self righteous hypocrite. That is THE MOST MISQUOTED Scripture in the Bible.
            I applaud you for being celibate- If you are a Christian as you say – cry out to God -apply the blood…ask Jesus for the power by his Blood to overcome sin- I know how it sounds to the human mind but just DO IT- you will not be sorry. Reach out in faith. Jesus loved you enough to die for you- his blood is the Blood of God. The blood always comes from the father-and the Father of Jesus is GOD the Father. That blood is PURE it is healing. It PAYS for and overcomes Sin.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            I think if you re-read my comment, you’ll see the kind of judgment I was referring to is exactly the kind you mentioned: Matthew 7:1-5. Joe himself stated that NO ONE is able to have a sexual attraction without acting upon it or lusting in their mind/heart. Since he said “no one”, he could have only been including himself, which is why I told him if such was the case, he had no business addressing this subject since he needed to first pull the log out of his own eye before trying to remove the splinter out of anyone else’s.

            Second, the other type of judgment I was referring to is indeed Biblical: John 7:24 – “Do not judge by appearances”….which is exactly what Joe did by not knowing all the facts before making an assumption about me.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            I’m glad others have brought to your attention how confusing your initial self-description was. For you to describe yourself right off the bat as homosexual AND Christian…sorry, but every Christian who sees that is going to take it exactly at face value, as I did.

            Perhaps now you begin to see why saved people who, even though still tempted by homosexuality, go out of their way to say they’re EX-homosexuals. There’s a good reason for that: because it’s biblically true. Plus, it confuses no one.

            If you are really who and what you say you are in Christ (and I do not doubt it), you ARE an ex-homosexual.

          • Kay

            I think God lets us all, EVERONE, have burdens to bear. Some are born with debilitating mental issues or lacking limbs or other things that the so called “normal” people don’t have. Some are greedy or tend toward promiscuity. Some give in to these burdens and use them for their own temporary satisfaction. Others learn to deny their infirmities and love God and live by His will. I commend you for your faith and the strength you have summoned in order to live by your convictions. It doesn’t matter what you ARE or think you are, it is what you DO that God will reward.

          • Joshua B.

            Jesus never said for Christians to avoid judging people entirely; in fact, His only restriction involved doing so from hypocrisy. For example, if a person who claims to follow Christ engages in adultery, then telling someone else adultery’s wrong would be out of bounds for them.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            So you’re basically saying a person who claims to be a Christian, yet is a cheater and lying drunk, is permitted to judge someone involved in adultery because they themselves are not adulterers…? I mean, isn’t that basically your logic?

            Perhaps it would help you to click on my name and read all the posts I’ve made on this subject in order to understand my comments about judging. ;-)

          • Joshua B.

            Biblically speaking, infidelity is equal to adultery, so someone involved in either shouldn’t be hypocritically condemning others over it. Jesus never said to ignore the log in someone else’s eye, just to handle the speck in your own first.

          • RyneBeddard

            Actually he said the speck was in the other person’s eye and the log was in your own… seems like a kind of a minor correction, I know, but the way he said it gives it more teeth. It’s a fairly serious warning.

          • Joshua B.

            I was typing on several different boards at once; thanks for the fix. =)

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            I think many times Christians don’t understand the depth of what Jesus is really saying here in Matthew 7. He starts the chapter by emphatically stating “Do not judge, and you will not be judged.” He goes on to say (I’m paraphrasing): “If you DO judge, you will be judged in return using the same degree of force and acrimony that you used when you judged someone else.” If you’re gentle and humble with them, the judgment shown YOU will be gentle and humble in return. If you are forceful and strict in your judgement of them, you will be judged using the same degree of force and strictness.

            I personally believe the log and speck to which he is referring has NOTHING to do with any specific sin. It has to do with sin itself. So my way of seeing the log and speck is this: Jesus is saying “Why are you trying to judge someone else as a sinner, when you yourself are equally a sinner…and even more so? If you are going to judge someone else for being a sinner, you better first remove all sin from your own life before you can place yourself ina position where you are capable of helping them remove the sin from their own lives.”

            The question is: Who in this world has never sinned, and is capable of addressing any other sin in another person’s life? My answer is: No one. So the point I was making in response to your comment is that it sounds as though you’re saying someone can be a wicked sinner in every way, except adultery. And therefore. since they are not guilty of adultery, they are free to judge someone else of adultery…..despite the fact that they have a multitude of sins in their own life.

          • Joshua B.

            Its true no one but God is completely free of sin, but He did appoint Christians as messengers to the spiritually lost. God alone does the redemption through the Holy Spirit, but its our job to share with folks what Jesus did for them. If we don’t, no one will.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            I’m not saying Christians should not proclaim the gospel to the lost. And you’re right – “how will they know unless they are told, and how will they be told unless someone tells them, and how will someone tell them unless they are sent.” (Again, I’m paraphrasing). But WHAT they are being told is the gospel…..the message that God loves them, and loved them so much that he sent his son Jesus to die for them so that their sins would be forgiven. The gospel message is NOT about going around pointing out individual sins in a person’s life. In fact, many people refer to Romans 1 when informing homosexuals of their sins. But somehow they ignore Romans 2.

            We may just have to agree to disagree about this question of judging. There are numerous interpretations among numerous denominations and Christians, many times conflicting with each other. I don’t personally believe it’s my place, or anyone else’s place, to accuse anyone of sin, shoving it down their throat and making them feel inferior, particularly when I know I have my own sins.

          • Joshua B.

            Jesus also commanded His followers to make sound judgments, going so far as telling them, “if the people in a town refuse to listen, shake the dust from your sandals as you leave”. It was intended as a sign that those people were left to their chosen fate.

            The point is that many people continually live in denial regarding their own sin. They either think of it all all minor, or sweep it under the rug with the “nobody’s perfect” excuse. Christians are called to point out the reality of sin…and while we’re never to personally attack or condemn individuals, maintaining opposition to sinful behavior is a serious responsibility. What people do in their own homes is between them and God, but placing it in the public arena opens it for debate from every side.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            Somehow I think we’re going to get way off track in this discussion. Let me just say that by and large I don’t disagree with what you’re saying…at least not all of it.

            Imagine the following conversation between two early Christians:

            Brother A: “Brother B, you need to repent of your cheating, stealing, and drunkeness.”

            Brother B: “But brother A, don’t you likewise need to repent of your fornication, gossiping, and gluttony?”

            Which brother is truly in a position to point out the sin in the other’s life? My answer is: Neither of them.

            As I mentioned before, there is a great deal of differences in how Christians interpret the Scriptures. You’re saying Jesus sent the apostles with the message that they were to point out the sins of the people they encountered. But in Matthew 10, it simply states that Jesus sent the apostles to preach the message “The Kingdom is near!”…telling them to heal, cleanse, raise the dead, etc. No where does it state “Point out their sins and make them feel condemned.” The “knocking the dust” from your feet, as I see it, was simply a message telling the apostles to not waste their time preaching the message in a city or house that simply didn’t want to hear it. Yes, in a manner of speaking, they were being left to their chosen fate….but I don’t think judging the people had anything to do with it. It was more about “Whoever receives you, receives me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me.” The sending of the twelve was all about proclaiming the good news that the Kingdom was near. It was not about declaring the sins to the people and making them feel condemned.

          • Joshua B.

            How do you heal or cleanse people spiritually, without first explaining what’s wrong? I’ve heard so many people say that everyone already knows about their sins, but many have deceived themselves for so long its become “true” for them.

          • Monique Maryssa…

            That’s great that you’re celibate. I think the confusion came when you said you were “gay”. I’ve been told by my celibate homosexual friends that when the word “gay” is explicitly used, you’re basically saying that you you’re ACTIVELY engaging in homosexual acts. Obviously, you’re not so to clarify, you might not want to identify yourself as GAY, but a celibate homosexual.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            So what about heterosexuals? If I refer to them as “straight”, does that automatically imply they are engaging in heterosexual sexual activity?

            I suppose even homosexual friends disagree about things, and I would have to disagree with your homosexual friends on this matter. I don’t know how old they are, but I’ve known beyond the shadow of a doubt that I was gay since I was 15. That was 33 years ago. (I knew I found men attractive when I was 13, but didn’t understand the full concept of homosexuality until 2 years later.) In all that time, I’ve NEVER thought of the word “gay” as necessarily meaning “sexually active” anymore than I thought of the term “straight” as meaning “sexually active.” To me, it was simply a description which referred to my attraction – not my actions.

          • Karey Jackson

            The mind is the only battle field. The act is the result of an uncontrolled thought life. All sin starts as a thought. The word of God daily is your weapon. Staying around Godly people and casting down all thoughts that rise itself above the word of God. This is a spiritual battle for your soul. Go overcome in Jesus name. After an ungodly relationship, I was attacked by disgusting thoughts. I could not comprehend why I was not so disgusted by the dreams that I did not wake up. Then I turned to God. I gave it to him and asked him to deliver me. After a period of time it was gone. This is the choice weapon of Satan the mind. All battles start there.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            Agreed; I too have had attacks at night.

            In that light, thought you might find this of interest.

            http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/2013/12/the-whole-armor-of-god-what-is-it-really-intended-to-protect.html

          • Gregg Powers

            i apologize and am proud of you, as is God for trying to please him first and foremost. God bless….

          • Gregg Powers

            Also in context the Bible does not forbid judging. it forbids hypocritical judging (doing the same thing you are confronting someone else about) and judging someones salvation. Paul made lots of judgements (ex. corinthians) and so did others….

          • NoLibLiz

            My apologies for my comments to you about being “Christian.” I had not read your response to Joe.

            I am still curious as to how you think of yourself in a political context as you say you are neither liberal nor conservative.

          • http://theawakenednation.ning.com/profile/KevinMKeener Snowman8wa

            Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
            For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. [

          • amcit

            You have no orientation but that which God gave you. You might be demon influenced, but that just means you must draw closer to Jesus – you can do all things thru Him …. and you can do nothing by yourself. That is why there is such a struggle. The devil knows which one of your buttons to push. God bless you … and words have power so don;t call yourself a hoosexual. Just refer to yourslef as a Christian.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            Regarding the first half of your comment, I’ll just refer you to the following link and let you read what I wrote to someone else: http://downtrend.com/brian-carey/biblical-scholar-smacks-down-piers-morgan-when-asked-to-explain-how-jesus-condemned-homosexuality/#comment-1183632885

          • felix1999

            disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS ,

            It is clear that you do no have peace in your life if you continue to struggle with homosexuality. Have you ever considered getting therapy? Christ offers peace not struggle in your heart.

            Please don’t take Scripture out of context to avoid the fact that God finds homosexuality unacceptable. No one here is determining where you spend eternal life. It is GOD who is being quoted about homosexuality and GOD doesn’t see them going to heaven. We are simply telling you what GOD says about that and the verse is not just about homosexuals!

            This is the verse among many others that condemns homosexuality as well as other sins.

            Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such WERE some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. (1 Cor. 6: 9-11, 18)

            If you were a THIEF or a DRUNKARD the same verse can be used to warn a person of what GOD thinks about all of this. God condemns homosexuality as well as other sins.

            What concerns me most is your lack of peace and “struggle”. You shouldn’t have that when you give Him your heart. That has me puzzled..

            Lastly we ARE to make JUDGEMENTcalls! As I mentioned earlier taking verses out of context to try and stop people from saying homosexuality is wrong doesn’t work. No mere human can send anyone to hell. That will be up to Christ and He is clear on who won’t be in heaven.

            Read John 7 and understand this in context.

            John.7

            [24] Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

            If I may make a “judgment call”, I applaud your abstaining. In today’s culture it must be very difficult.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            So you’re basically telling me that the Apostle Paul himself did not struggle with sin?

            Read your Bible…pay attention to Paul’s words in Romans 7.

          • Susan Fox

            You have my admiration. God bless you. Here is a resource supporting chaste men with same sex orientation. It’s run by a member of the pro-chastity group Courage. http://www.pursuitoftruth.ca

            Susan Fox blogger at http://www.christsfaithfulwitness.com

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            Thank you for your kind-hearted words, and for the links as well.

          • Southerner

            Well said. An acquaintance of mine is in the same boat as you. Like you, he has abstained from that life style in order to follow Christ. We all have our crosses to bear, so to speak. You have yours, I have mine, and Joe has his. May God bless you and keep you and help you stay the course and finish the race.

          • proudanunion

            “excuse me for being a little frank”

            ok barney

          • JT

            Good for you Brother…..good for you.

          • SisterInChrist

            I just want to say I love you and I’m going to pray that you stay strong in your struggles! I know it cannot be at all easy being a christian when you have homosexual thoughts. I’m a christian too and I feel bad for christians that are like that because it has to be a really hard thing to combat in the flesh. Sexual sin is hard to overcome and I believe it is the hardest thing to overcome as human beings for anyone regardless if it is with another man or woman. God bless you. You are my brother in Christ.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            Well thank you! I appreciate your kind words of encouragement, and likewise your prayers.

            But there’s just a minor technicality here, if i may say so: It’s not nearly as hard to battle the flesh as it is to battle the desires and attractions. ;-) It’s the struggle against the feelings that causes me the most emotional stress, because I’m SUCH a lonely person who craves affection and love with someone else. And that doesn’t mean I crave sex with them. It just means I want to bond and connect with another guy and fall in love with him, and consider him as special to me as I am to him. A man and woman get to share that kind of bond in marriage, but I find myself very much alone….and so lonely that it aches.

            I’m going to stop now, because the tears are starting to come to my eyes again. But THANK YOU so much for you warm-hearted words. ;-)

          • agreeeasily

            What a great witness. You speak with authority I wish we all had here!! Tolerance, truth, and Christian witness. You are a better person than me. May God give me your strength and wisdom. Continue on with Gods blessings my friend.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            Oh, no no no no no no……I’m FAR from being a better person than you. I consider myself to be very much like Paul in the Bible, who considered himself at one time to be the worst of sinners. Don’t get me wrong – I appreciate your kind words of support and praise. They mean a lot to me, especially after a year of feeling completely torn down by some personal experiences with my family. But any and all strength or wisdom I may have are not my own. They come from God. And he will make them freely available to you if you simply ask him to give you wisdom, strength, and guidance….which was my prayer (and still remains)….for so long.

            God BLESS you for your kind heart.

          • Osei

            People like you prove the argument that Christianity is not accepting of gays wrong. You may struggle with homosexuality, but the fact that you have the strength and will to not go down that path is awesome. Every Christian will be tested and tempted. True Christians do not hate gays because God does not hate gays. The act itself is a sin, but that does not mean that Christians hate the sinner anymore than God does. We are all his children. Homosexuality is just not a path someone should go down or try to justify as they go down it. To God, it is the same as something as small as using His name in vain (we’ve all done it) to murder. A sin is a sin in His eyes. Doesn’t mean you will go to Hell if it is something you struggle with, it just means that you need to fight it. From what you wrote, you appear to be a model Christian in my eyes.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            Thanks for the kind words. I’m not sure I would call myself a “model” Christian, but I appreciate that you said that. I have my moments when I don’t even pray. There are moments when I strike out at others, knowing I will hurt them with my words. There are times when I need to forgive others, and struggle with doing that. There are even times when I allow myself to look at other men in ways I know I shouldn’t….despite the fact that I’ve been celibate for so long. Sometimes I don’t WANT to remain celibate. Sometimes I couldn’t care less about going to church. The only time I usually read the Bible is when I’m online and want to look up something. Sometimes I get bitterly angry at God and yell at him, or take a snotty, sarcastic, disrespectful attitude toward him.

            I tend to think if Paul were still alive, I’d be at the receiving end of one of his letters warning me to “straighten up and get your act together”.

            I am only alive because God is unfathomingly merciful, beyond what I could ever be. Somehow I’m not sure a model Christian would be the way I am, acting in ways I do and saying things I shouldn’t. But if there IS anything about being a Christian that would characterize me, it’s that I’m totally weak without God and I depend entirely on his mercy. And struggling against sin is a hallmark of my Christian walk.

          • Hope

            With all due respect sir, you simply said you are a homosexual and anyone who did not know you would assume that means you are practicing it. We are all used to homosexuals flaunting their behaviours, even under the guise of being a Christian–so you kind of put yourself in the situation to be rebuked because you really did not explain that you are a celibate homosexual.
            But you are a perfect example of what anyone, with whatever sin they harbour, should do –abstain from it! May God bless you, and also bless you in helping other people who are struggling with homosexuality and same-sex attraction!

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            I suppose I should automatically assume heterosexuals are sexually active when they identify themselves as straight…would that be acceptable?

            If I hear about a church’s ministry to singles, should I assume that means the participants are interested in obtaining a sexual partner?

            I don’t go around making snap judgements. As I said in another response, it’s only common courtesy to ask for an explanation first before making assumptions or accusations.

            To repeat what I said in a response to one poster……I am a Christian. But I’m a gay Christian. I say that much as you would say you’re a straight Christian. However, when I say I’m a gay Christian, I am NOT saying I’m a sexually active gay Christian. I’m merely referring to the description of myself as someone who is not attracted to women, but instead attracted to men. But just to clarify, I
            don’t ordinarily go around introducing myself to people as a “gay Christian”. The only reason it was EVER an issue in this particular discussion forum is simply due to the nature of the video/article subject itself, in which Piers Morgan interviewed several men about the subject and I
            simply wanted to comment about something one of them said. In order to make the point I wanted to make, I felt I had no choice but to identify myself as being a gay Christian. In other words, I’m a Christian with a
            homosexual orientation. That’s all. Nothing more was being implied, and I certainly didn’t intend to convey the message that I approved of homosexual sex. (You’ll see I’ve said numerous times that I’ve been celibate for over 21 years.) I was merely describing the struggle I
            endure on a daily basis.

            Thank you for your blessing, but I feel no conviction over what I initially posted.

          • Cam

            And if I recall the Bible correctly, you are forbidden from being homosexual.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            *sigh*

            And I suppose you would have me snap my fingers and it would all magically go away, is that right? It’s sad how wrong you would be to think that.

            Do me a favor….click on my user name and read ALL the posts I’ve left about this subject. You’ll have to scroll through a TON of other posts I’ve made, but you’ll eventually get to them all. You’ll find my explanation there….unless you want to start at the very beginning of this discussion thread and look at all 1200+ responses. Somehow TONS of people are misreading my comments, or simply ignoring them. I’ve addressed this until I’m blue in the face.

            Read Romans 7 which discusses Paul’s struggle with sin, even though he himself was an apostle. And then Read Romans 14:4.

          • Ria

            Then maybe when you inform people that you’re gay, you should include that you’re not a “practicing gay”. Because though it may be wrong to assume that you are not celibate, people will assume that you’re active if you don’t clarify it. In my opinion, you’re the one who’s being a little deceptive because you stated that you’re gay. What are we to assume without you clarifying that you’re celibate? I didn’t assume you were practicing, and I clarified that in my response with “if”. But others may assume it because you gave no indication that you weren’t a practicing gay person. You say you would love Joe for whatever. Well, doesn’t loving people include informing them when you make a blanket statement, “I’m gay”, to include that you’re celibate? I should think so. I could say more, but I think you get my meaning.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            Why should it be necessary for me to refer to myself as a “non-practicing” gay Christian? If someone wants to leap to the conclusion that it means I’m sexually active, that’s THEIR fault for making assumptions without having all the facts. But since you want to hit me with that, let me just say this: From now on, whenever I hear someone refer to themselves as “straight”, I’ll assume they are sexually active and commiting fornication. And whenever I read about a church’s singles ministry, I’ll assume all those single people are committing fornication.

            Seems to me you straight singles are being deceptive, too, by allowing people to think you’re celibate.

            *rolling my eyes*

            Your logic doesn’t seem so sound now, does it?

            As I’ve said elsewhere (and YOU’LL have to click on my name to read all my comments about this, because I’m tired of repeating myself)….I don’t ordinarily go around introducing myself to ANYONE – gay/straight, Christian/Muslim/atheist – as a “gay Christian.” I’ve explained WHY I did it in this particular forum, and you’ll just have to deal with that.

            As for Joe’s comment, instead of judging me for how I should have clarified my response, why don’t you look at the very first response I left for him. I put “western homosexuals” in quotes as a way of pointing out his bigotry. He said “Also, in centuries of practice, Islamic countries have a tacit
            approval of indulgence in sodomy, as long as its kept under the radar.
            Western homosexuals know this.”

            I merely replied by saying I was a “western homosexual” who did NOT know that. In fact, I SHOULD have challenged Joe to list his sources for such an assertion. It was a direct insult that sounded like mockery, as if “all us queers in the U.S. know that Islam permits homosexuality”. Not only did he post a bigoted, insulting comment (lovely how a Christian acts that way, isn’t it?)….but also lied. Yet who is challenging HIS sin?

            No, I’m afraid I don’t “get your meaning”….because I flat-out reject what you’re saying.

          • Paul Rosplock

            1 Corinthians 10:13
            13 No temptation[a] has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted[b] beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted,[c] he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.

          • Bobbybestcat

            you, sir, have my respect.

          • Lauren

            Hi Guest, I am awed by your dedication to celibacy and God. It’s very interesting and I’ve never met a gay person who could ever fathom doing what you do.

            I just wanted to ask some questions if it’s not too much trouble. Were you sexually active when you were younger? Did it make you happy or sad? Do you think you were born that way, or was it something else? What made you decide to become celibate? Are you happy right now? And do you ever have the desire to try dating or settling down with someone of the same sex? I guess what I’m asking for is a testimony. I don’t know, I just feel like a celibate life would be quite… lonely. Not that I think love is the only path to happiness, but to never allow yourself to become romantically active with someone… I don’t know. I certainly admire your tenacity to follow God though. It must take a lot of self-discipline.

          • cherykie

            I don’t know if I am wildly misinterpreting Matthew 19:12, but could a “born eunuch” be what in many cases today is what people are being called “gay”? I assume it could be a physical aberration or a lack of interest in the opposite sex in a romantic setting that would make one born a eunuch. Would it be too much a stretch to think that God may set some apart to be celibate from birth to serve a special service for the kingdom of heaven? If man( or woman) can choose not to have sex for the kingdom of heaven’s sake , couldn’t they also be born for that cause- to eschew sexual relations altogether?

          • mondolibre

            If you prayed to God and received his redemption, you could not be a homosexual.

            Homosexuals cannot inherit the kingdom of the heavens. That is from the Bible , the book that Christian believe is the Word of God.
            No such thing as a “homosexual Christian”. You are simply a sinner that like to go to a “church” where they tell you that your sex practices are okay. And then take your donation.

          • Tom

            For you to have resisted temptation to act shows that your trust in Jesus is strong – being a Christian is one who follows Christ and tries to uphold the teachings – of course, being human we all fall short each and every day (in either deed or thought) – this is why Jesus gave his life to wipe clean our sins if we are truly repentant. Having said that his sacrifice does not give us an excuse to continue to sin free of guilt.
            I do not know you but, like you I know Jesus. It is not for me to judge the person but I can judge the action in the same way that I know that murder, stealing, bearing false witness or adultery is wrong – we have all, at some point failed to abide by the commandments and I am sure that I will fall short again in the future. Some commandments are easier to obey than others.
            There is only one true GOD
            I do not have or follow false idols
            I try to never take the Lords name in vain – and bite my tongue when I inadvertently do so – seeking his forgiveness.
            Keeping the Sabbath Day holy is a conundrum – for I seek Jesus in my heart every day.
            Honoring my parents becomes easier to do as we age – even when we have had conflicting views and raised voices there has never been hatred or ill intent.
            I have never murdered (or even killed) another human – neither in act or thought
            I have never committed adultery – although I have, in the past been tempted – however I have allowed the though to enter my head.
            Stealing, bearing false witness and coveting – I have been guilty of all of those in the past to some degree at least.
            I ask Jesus each night for forgiveness of these sins and all others that I might make from one day to the next (if only in thought) I am but a weak human and long for the day that Jesus returns to remove the temptations of sin that the devil dangles before us every day.

          • MrsMMah

            Thank you, Guest, for your very brave and honest comments. As I was reading Joe’s response to you, I thought to myself “Well…he didn’t SAY whether he was active or not…” I could list many things that I struggle much less with today than at the time I became a Christian, but I could also list things that I struggle with to this day, and by the grace of God, keep throwing up there on the altar. I’m pretty sure I have been told not to stop working at it, so I won’t. God bless you for your obedience, which according to Jesus is the only true form of love for Him. I believe I am talking to a brother who is doing the work of storing up treasure in Heaven.

          • Romans7:19

            You need God’s grace brother and I will pray that you receive it. People cannot accept the fact that when they become Christian they still “SIN” it’s because of our triune nature as human beings. You and me and everyone are ALL under the law of sin and death which is over our flesh ONLY. The law of life in Christ Jesus is over your spirit which is why we have grace to enter into the kingdom of God regardless of our “sin nature.” Jesus loves you and accepts you because you accept Him as God’s only Son period. He knows YOUR heart and YOUR efforts despite what other Christians might say or think. Thank you for doing your best and asking God for the repentance and help you need. I pray that God’s will be done and that he will guide you into all things righteous.

          • babbott

            “I can only say I don’t appreciate your arrogant assumption about me. You’ve made a judgement call, which, if I recall the Bible correctly, you’re forbidden from doing.”

            How do you think he “made an assumption about you” when you clearly stated that you were a “western homosexual”? He didn’t make a judgement call on you, he simply quoted exactly what God said about sin. But when confronted with the word of God that you disagree with, you accuse others of “judging you”. That is the typical response when a homosexual is challenged–start quoting scripture about not judging others. The Bible does NOT forbid making a judgement–it simply warns that you will be judged with the same judgement you use to judge others. There is also a lot said about knowing people by their fruits, and if you insist on a lifestyle that God says is an abomination in his sight, you are disagreeing with God, and that’s dangerous.

          • Peatro Giorgio

            Thank You my brother in Christ ! Your testimonial is a powerful example to others whom struggle whether in addictions or fleshly desires, May our heavenly Father continue to bless you not only in giving you the strength to overcome your fleshly desires,May he also bless you with years of joy filled life. I might suggest we all read the entire Book of Romans .And pray for discernment. May Peace and Joy be with you In Christ Name .

          • Name

            Everything described as “sinful” describes man. We are all sinners. Some are visible but most lie deep in our hearts. I will save judgement for our Father God, thankfully I might add, since I know that I am unable to read another’s heart. May God Bless and keep you, “guest”.

          • Geckocat

            It seems to me like you should forgive Joe Doakes for his assumption when you started off your comment with: “Actually, I’m one of those “western homosexuals” “ What did you expect any one to think? † Peace

          • Bankslay

            What an amazing example you are God bless. I’m certainly not the spelling and grammer police type but on the issue of judging we all have to judge but according to Gods principles for the right reasons thus the take the log out of your own eye. Murderers, rapists those that do harm need to be held accountable for the sake of justice and protecting the innocent and of course sin harms the sinner us so we are not being malicious or selfish by confronting evil we are promoting peace and selflessness, it’s not an either or situation. Just as we have to drink water or breath air we need to reject sin in order to live at least in the sense God intended us to live.

          • Jabari Jackson

            now that’s insight, I’m completely empathetic to your struggle. Everyone Christian has their plight, whether it be drug abuse, fornication, or lying etc. I respect you for having enough courage share that. God Bless!

          • as_I_see_it

            You are a homosexual and I am a fornicator. God loves us both equally but does not like our ways. Let us both strive to please God.

          • Confed

            You sound like a remarkable person that anyone would be blessed to know. Please continue to share your struggles and faith. It helps more people than you may know. We don’t have to be “homosexual” to have daily struggles or feel as though we are falling very short of God’s blessings. You really have a way with expressing yourself. Way to go!

          • just_the_facts_man

            It would have helped if you had made the fact of your celibacy up front. When someone says they are homosexual that implies that they are actively homosexual. Setting a trap so you can be self-righteous and holier-than-thou is not the way to treat a fellow Christian. That is what turns people away from Christians. Joe was actually trying to help you by telling the truth in love as he thought the situation applied. Was he supposed to ask you who you slept with last night?

          • Stranger

            excellent reply Guest! The meekness and love of Jesus is hard for Christians to attain. Soundss like you have turned that corner. I might remind all who reads this …. condemnation is of the Devil. Thank goodness for the chance at repentance most of us get! Pray for Brother Joe, he has his struggles too as all of us do! Keep the faith, my brother!

          • justgo

            Dude go get yourself some tail! Jesus Christ we aint designed to be celibate, just ask any Catholic priest. Seriously if you are using the total of 2 lines from both books regarding homosexuality to torture yourself you are frigging nuts. The Bible gives greater instruction on how to be free of blame from beating your slaves to death, doing so that it takes more than 24 hours to die, than it does in regards to gays. WE CANNOT TAKE THE BIBLE ENTIRELY LITERALLY!!! Much love but seriously and with heartfelt prayer go find love and a life, God didn’t create you to torture yourself for how He created you, DUH!!!

          • factsobill

            Your interpretation sounds fairly self-serving! Show us where in your Bible, that God in Heaven advocates homosexuality in any way!

          • Phillip Ramsey

            Guest, you’ve;,
            “I’ve been celibate for over 21 years now”
            You’re in denying your true self, or you’re not being true to yourself

          • disqus_ojpzHp5BY9

            This is pride my friend. Don’t hate you but I hate homosexual spirit that is inside you. Hope you find God because you haven’t found him yet.

          • themostforevereternity

            I guess you missed somethings in the bible. Anyone can call themselves a christian. People assume that role very lightly. First off you say you don’t practice it, but you still claim you are gay.

            2. Here is a verse that explains people who say they are christian but don’t follow Jesus Christ, but see Jesus already knows your thoughts before you think them. Do you know what repentance is, it is making a U-turn and going the other direction away from sin, away from going down a road to destruction. “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Matthew 7:21-23
            You might not be a practicing gay, but you still claim you are gay.

          • http://www.facebook.com/sstephaniew stephanie wilson

            thats great, i will keep you in my prayers.for the Lord to strengthen you., so you can overcome the struggle.

          • Cb1913

            Brother, may God bless you and strengthen you and grant you freedom and peace. I just have to say, as we all fight the attacks of the devil, let’s not identify with them. Life and death are in the power of the tongue. If God has called any of us out of a particular sin, we are no longer its possession. You may struggle with thoughts of homosexuality, but that does not define you. Your walk with God- your desire to please Him more than to please yourself- is what defines you. I pray for you and ask that you continue to pray for me (& anyone else who may jump to conclusion, judgement, or defense). God bless!

          • guest

            I appreciate the efforts that you’ve made to live a life that you feel is right, but i just have one question- why would you want to stifle such a big part of yourself? I’m not trying to make assumptions (or judgements!) but I’ve heard many a story about someone repressing their sexuality for their religion and I don’t understand it. I am not a Christian and I don’t want this question to be viewed as an affront to anyone’s beliefs, but I just have to ask! There are rights and there are wrongs, but why is sexual desire or the ability to love a person of the same sex considered the latter? Because the Bible says so? That is not reason enough for me. Our differences are something to celebrate and something to be proud of. Why would any God want its followers to feel ashamed of something like that?

          • Opie

            Keep it going dude. You are a great example of how to deal with temptation. We all have feelings that tempt us. Some struggle with pornography. Some struggle with lying. I imagine I do not need to tell you this because you seem to have a clear grasp on it. I just wanted you to know that I was impressed with the way you responded to the comments above; very Christ-like and not condemning or taking offense. Have a good day

          • robert d

            Find a partner and live happily. What kind of twisted philosophy believes a supreme being allows babies to be born to love only to spend the rest of their lives ‘struggling’ and unhappy?
            You must be such a tortured soul, a good person trying to do the right thing but sacrificing happiness for the acceptance of others.

          • frank

            Romans 14:4 does not at all condone homosexuality, and as far as judging, we r to judge all things Paul wrote that but we r not to do it with a self-righteous spirit. that lifestyle is listed in both Corinthians and Rev as if we live those ways we will not inherit the kingdom of God. if u struggle that much with it, it is the Holy Spirit trying to show u that its not what the Lord wants for u, He did not make u that way. im not trying to judge u, we all have somthin to change or deal with. this is not out of hate,

          • Jason

            Actually John 7:24 allows us to make righteous judgments not ones based on just outward appearances. Just referencing your claim that we are forbidden from making a judgement call. If that were true then no one could make any decisions what so ever.

          • Carolyn Fern McElrath

            Very good post. Thank you for this. May many confused people read and actually learn truth.

          • David Lake

            Holy cow Joe Lighten Up. We’re all sinners in one way or the other. The fact of the matter is Jesus died on the cross & took all of those sins upon himself. As a society,I believe that we use that as a ‘blanket policy’.Instead of asking Gods Forgiveness & changing our behaviours,we think we’re covered for every time we commit those sins. I speak for myself,as know i’m “GUILTY” as charged. Can you say that Joe? Can you admit your indiscretions & Sins? Can you openly admit,that there are sins in your life,that you continually commit-over & over again,thinking You’ve already been washed clean? I can admit to my part & though God does forgive me,I believe he’s not very happy with me. Allowing Gays to marry is a sin beyond sins. A sin which God says is an abomination among mankind. I believe God is punishing us as a society,the same as he did Babylon. Read the Bible,it’s all in there!!!

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            “Lighten up?” If you’re correct that God is punishing us as a society for the many sins America is committing, why would ANY Bible believer “lighten up?”

          • michael drew

            That is truly stupid. Because Muslims might be performing sodomy on the down-low, gays would be ok with Muslims screaming that gays should die? There are plenty of christian bible thumpers and gay bashers who have gay sex in secret, and Im sure others who would like to-guess gays should support the religous right too……lol

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            You missed the point.

          • ThomasFrancisBeckett

            The reality is the most Islamic clerics allow homosexual behavior if the child is a boy or doesn’t have a “Man’s” beard.
            They allow allow it if it is needed to stuff explosives into the man’s anus.
            Just the facts,M’am. Nothing to see here so move along.

          • btwall60

            You left out that Obama body man named Reggie Love stayed with him all night when he hung up on ambassador Stevens’, letting his blood deep into the Muslim sand. While Hillary hung up to lie with Huma and Ricewas sent out to lie lie lie. What leadership!!!!

          • wow

            umm just wondering are you without sin because it really seems that you are throwing stones and also everyone sins and also didn’t Jesus himself say that no sin is greater than the other. James 2:10
            For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
            Romans 3:21 says that ‘all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God’

            John 5:16. We are not under the Law but as the followers of Christ we must do our best to Follow His example.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            New troll account. Nice.

          • Scout

            Actually, they are. If you knew anything about lgbt politics, you would know there are INGOs working on it. Jeez.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            Do you get paid per reply, newbie troll?

          • Kommissar Alexei

            You must consider to add “Human” to long list of yours.

          • Bob Greenpoint

            Zzzzzzzzz…

          • terry weaver

            Well according to your list there will be very few people in heaven while hell will be packed to capacity. Here’s a fact, both old and new testaments were written by men, not GOD and contain so many conflicting messages which basically make it no better than a fairy tale. Man has been using religion as a means of controlling others since the day the first word was written.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            First, Christ – not me – said “Enter through the narrow gate, for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are MANY who enter through it.” Conversely, “the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to Life, and there are FEW who find it.” If you don’t like that, your disagreement is not with me but with Him.

            Second, there will be people in the Lake of Fire, but NOT ONE will be there who did not ultimately CHOOSE to be there. As someone once said, “The gates of Hell are locked from the inside.” True, that.

            Third, as to control: I heartily agree with you that various strains of Christendom (note I don’t say “Christianity”) have done good jobs controlling the minds and souls of billions over the centuries – no argument! But faith in Christ that is based in the Bible alone seeks no control over anyone but self, and that only by His indwelling Spirit. So I seek no control over anyone else – only to warn them of what God has already said is coming.

            Show me a form of “Christianity” that seeks control by putting itself between man and Christ as a necessity for salvation, and I’ll show you a form of godliness that denies the power thereof and is in fact the work of Satan, not Christ.

          • agreeeasily

            The discussion I see between two very tolerant and intelligent individuals, “Joe”, and “discuss”, has required me to comment on something for the first time!! God Bless You both!! I wish everyone could see your intelligence! Joe, I agree completely. Discuss, God Bless you my friend. You have established your true faith before God. If I can repent from my sins, as you have, through avoiding them, maybe I can speak with authority as you do.

          • Melissa Ott

            Joe Dokes you sound extremely “proud, arrogant, brutal and reckless” in your remarks. You could not possibly have an awareness of Muslim beliefs. If anything you are entirely ignorant. Spreading hateful propaganda is exactly what spreads evil bullying and hate toward one another and you are guilty of this. Simply put, ou missed the message Jesus came to Earth to assure we understood the most, Love one another as I have loved you.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            Prove what I said is wrong, else you’re just another lying slanderer who starts new accounts just to troll those who speak the truth.

            I note this was your very first post. Someone who is as virulent as you are on their very first post is usually just a troll, paid or not.

            Prove that you’re not – prove what I said is wrong.

          • MamieH

            If this is truly the case, there would be about 2 maybe 3 Christians in the world.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            Wrong.

          • S.C. Steede

            Last time I checked, the Catholic church is also notorious for tolerating sodomy if its done “discreetly” as you put it. Many “western” Catholics and Christians know this too. Whats really funny is your insinuation that you have the moral authority to say who is and who isn’t saved in Christ. That arrogant and haughty presumption is in direct contradiction to what you claim is the biblical definition of a Christian. Christ never condemned homosexuality, he never even referred to it. The indirect association of marriage being between a man and a woman and homosexuality was made by man, not Christ. Jesus asked that we love the Lord our God and that we love each other as we wish to be loved, that is the only true definition of Christianity. The hate, fear, greed and intolerance being spread under the guise of Christianity today is exactly what Jesus died to prevent.

          • http://bajageoff.webs.com/ geoffinbaja

            You left bigoted off the list

          • peterroach

            Be careful to distinguish action versus disposition.

          • cherykie

            Revelation also added effeminate..

          • Jeff Williams

            So you are a perfect Christian? I never met one before.

          • clayton3120 clayton3120

            Hmmm, at that rate, NO_ONE is a Christian. Let”s talk about YOUR sins.

          • mike

            Mr. Dokes – as a Christian I refrain from telling anyone what they MUST do to be able to enter the Kingdom of God. I believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross to atone for the sins of mankind. In that act He not only gained forgiveness for the sins of all lived before, but for all of those yet to come, you and I included.
            All of the sins that you listed in your epistle are indeed sins and are to be avoided, however you risk Pharisee syndrome when you start quoting the law with no leeway. Remember when they wanted to stone Him for healing the sick on the Sabbath, or the comparison of the Pharisee and the Tax collector praying in the temple and who was condemned as a Den of Vipers.
            Be careful in your harshness.
            Guest – keep the faith and continue in your positive approach to seek God’s grace.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            Mike,

            Forgive my bluntness but I absolutely did not “tell anyone” what they MUST do about anything, as if I, in and of myself, have the slightest authority to do so. I don’t.

            All I have done over the past few weeks is quote in context what GOD in His Word has already said people MUST do. As an ambassador for the soon returning Christ, that is my duty. As a Christian, I trust you see the difference between what you assert I’ve done and what I’ve *actually* written. If not, feel free to scan this thread and see for yourself.

            I dare not make such judgments on my own, for doing so is expressly forbidden in Scripture.

            Warning the lost of the coming sure judgment of their openly admitted and cherished sins…that’s another matter. Maranatha.

          • MichaelCrackMonkey

            Joe, perhaps you should check before jumping to conclusions. First you are not the judge of who is or is not a Christian. Second you assume he’s a practicing homosexual when he did not state whether he was or was not. It is possible for one to be a homosexual and be repentant by not practicing. Third anyone can proclaim themselves to be a Christian and neither you nor anyone else can say they are not. All are sinners and in need of repentance all the time so that means that Christians will still sin but are forgiven if they repent. You might fit the category of one of those that says “Lord, Lord” yet he will say he never knew you. You noted arrogance as a sin yet you wreak of arrogance by your statements. So before you start accusing someone maybe you should take the beam out of your own eye first. And no there is no such thing as forgiven past, present, and future. Repentance is a full-time endeavor to be done on a daily basis. Just read Paul and you’ll see the truth of this. Don’t be one of those “so called” Christians who pick a little here and take a little there from scripture to justify their dogma.

          • http://musterion.typepad.com/blog/ Joe Dokes

            You are a liar for posting this, or you simply haven’t read through this thread, which means you are lazy. EVERY POINT YOU JUST ASSERTED was brought up by someone or other WEEKS AGO, and I (and others) replied to them already.

            Try to keep up and read what’s already been posted – it’ll save embarrassing you – or don’t post at all.

          • Joey

            Take your meds, schizo.

          • lah122

            Joe — I think you’ve missed some of the fundamentals of Scripture. First, you don’t get to judge, especially someone you don’t even know; that’s God’s job, and I’m grateful I can leave that to Him and focus on how He wants me to show His love to others. Second, loving others is described in Scripture as the “greatest commandment”. It’s much easier to judge than it is to love. Third, your long list of sins excludes pretty much everyone and I doubt that’s what God has in mind. Yes, I know you said “unrepentantly” but, again, God is the judge, not you or me.

          • AFB1

            Well said.

          • theThinker

            The edit button is your friend. :)

          • Mo_Hunkulus

            Damn. After reading your post quote, I guess that means that 0 members of the GOP are actually Christians. This list in particular: “while being unrepentantly homosexual, idolatrous, a fornicator, an
            adulterer, a thief, a liar, a gossip, a reviler, a railer, a slanderer,
            proud, a boaster, arrogant, conceited, haughty, greedy, covetous,
            disobedient to parents, irreverent, unholy, without natural affections,
            thankless, brutal, reckless, treacherous, traitorous, a trucebreaker, an
            oathbreaker, a lover of evil and hater of good, a lover of money, a
            lover of pleasure more than of God or any other behavior God has called a
            sin.”

          • Mo_Hunkulus

            And 1 Tim. 6:10, and Matthew 6:24 cover the rest.

          • Mike

            This is the most ignorant ramble I have seen today. I am a Christian and people like you who “think” they now what the bible means either through your own reading or through a pastor who feeds people lines of how to judge others. Anyone who is a Christian or considers themselves to be Christian has no right to judge another person, there’s only one who can judge and it’s definitely not you. Christianity suffers when you spout hate when you think your doing in the name of Christ. Christ is all forgiving, yes you should follow God’s law but to be honest is God’s law very clear on how many times the bible has been interprupted over the last 2000 years by people who used religion to control the population. At this very moment there are thousands of different bibles out there that if you go through and pick out tid bits here and there from them you can hear what you want to hear. And you don’t have to pick out a part of the bible to say that specific writing made you a Christian that’s ridiculous. To be a Christian you have believe in Jesus and follow your heart in God’s eyes follow the path God lays out for you and live life to God not know one else. To show how the bible is not and should not be used to persecute people and not saying I condone this but Suicide was not written in as being wrong until after 300AD because of the mass suicides from cults wanting to hurry up and be with God and escape the hardships of life so thee church wrote it in the bible as Gods word, but who did God tell in 300AD? Not saying people should commit suicide but who’s to say what God approves of except God. The bible does not say directly man cannot be with a man, theres a lot of sayings that you can possibly into that but again through interprupting the bible through so many languages meanings are confused and geared to ones beliefs of whos interprupting. I fell away from religion because of the preaching of judging others and have in recent years realized I need God and does everyone else but why would anyone follow a God who they think has already judged them? If your a True Christian, who created you? God. So if God made you maybe he made you gay to see and judge how other Christians treat his children for being gay. God doesn’t make mistakes he gives us challenges to test our faith to strengthen it, that’s through the bible. Being Gay doesn’t hurt anyone, as long as your not hurting another or harming in anyway or infringing on that persons rights we should not and cannot persecute them. On a final note I am married with 3 little girls and I am a strong conservative when it comes to politics but when it comes to religion I am a christian and I will not judge anyone on how they live their life or punish them in anyway.

          • in all seriousness

            Your religion reflects a dedication to the letter of the text and an intentional effort to ignore the spirit.

            Guess which Book says that you’re making a terrible mistake?

          • Sally

            Gee, I guess no one in the GOP is a true Christian then..just as I suspected all along.

          • Speechie

            omg did you just list all the sins that will send humans to hell? I lied in 3rd grade and pretty sure all of us judge others. I’m doomed. Is there anything I can do to get into heaven now?

          • Phillip Ramsey

            The last time those questions were asked it was by the inquisition a lively Christian group.
            They knew all the answers and you where always wrong

          • Brian Sciullo

            You never read Matthew 15 I guess? It isn’t about homos but about the difference between laws and traditions. Follow the law not the tradition but more watch what comes out of your mouth!!!

            Read Matthew 19 not so much about Homo’s but DIVORCE. Another instance where Christians ignore Christ

            9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

            You can’t have it both ways.

          • logicdog

            Your “list” set forth in your second point, seems to embrace most of the Republican Party. . . :)

          • Namakaokona

            How nice that you are able to speak for Jesus. Apparently because you said it, that is the end of the argument. Hogwash.

          • Adam

            YOU ARE REALLY MISINFORMED!!!

          • Adam

            Christ came so that we no longer LIVE UNDER THE LAW. Stop using The Lord to suit your racism and HATE!!!!

          • Curt Bacon

            Then there are no Christians. We are all sinners and I know of no one, even the best of us, who is not a violator of many of the traits you have listed. Christianity is actually a journey to become more Christ like. We can never be Christ. We are born of sin and it is only through God’s amazing grace that we will be forgiven. Jesus said that the most important of God’s commandments was to love God and to love one another. He also said let e is without sin is cast the first stone. It seems that man ofter mistakenly thinks he is god and wants to judge all those around him (but not himself). You can see this trait illustrated throughout the history of mankind. Jesus was telling us that God would be the final judge and that we should spend a lot more time worrying about our own lives and being a servant to those around us. God bless and may the love of Christ be poured out through you to others. Then you will truly be a Christian.

          • catman #65

            We are all sinners, start by repenting for you own sins while condemning others. Leave the Gays alone,. Let God save, let him judge. Maybe people will be saved when they die and see the light, ( that is not for you to know

          • catman

            Christ loves all instead of focusing on literature, focus on love.
            Remember Christ 2 commandments that was probably the most important things he mentioned. He mentioned Love ( look at the definition of love it is non-judgemental) No one is an expert in the Bible, only God is. So to quote one verse over the other to satisfy one’s own hate and judgement towards another is tragic. God loves everybody, let him pass the judgement on Gays ..He doesn’t need anyone on earth to do that for him. He has all power and can do it himself without any help.

          • Paul Robinson

            Moslems have an expression – Women are for children, boys are for pleasure. I’m NOT sure how widely spread that mindset is . . .

          • anonymous

            And that’s why the bible is BS. Written by awful men wanting to take advantage of believers. God is so much more than and BETTER than the bible.

          • tktimoteo

            do all homosexuals engage in sex or is it more of an asexual type of closesness they crave. On the power of the blood of Jesus can free you from the desire to commit any sexual act apart from a male female marital relationship- this goes for both heterosexuals and homosexuals both. Were you messed with as a kid. Were you from a broken home. Did you have a good relationship with your dad? Was your mother overbearing?…A lot of times people that develop homosexual urges grow up in dysfunctional home enviroments or were abused. Not always, but often.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            Yours is a deeply complex comment which would be hard to respond to in one sitting. But basically, pretty much all homosexuals are homoromantic. That is, they desire affection and bonding with a member of the same sex. But does that mean all homosexuals engage in sex with one another? How could I possibly answer that question? I’m not God, and I don’t have access to the private lives of all homosexuals. I would venture a guess that most of them do, but I will also assert that not all homosexuals engage in anal sex. And even if they DO engage in anal sex, it would only be fair to say that husbands and wives do, as well…including Christians husbands and wives. But do they all? Indeed, do ALL husbands and wives even engage in sex at all? What about heterosexuals? Do THEY all engage in sex simply because they are heterosexual? I hope my point is coming across.

            As for your other questions…..Yes, I’m aware the power of Jesus can free me from any homosexual desires. But as such, why has that not happened despite the pleas to be set free? You see, NOW it’s not such an easy question to answer, is it?

            Was I messed with as a kid? In what way are you asking that question? By an adult? No. By other kids my age, yes…but it was mutual.

            Was I from a broken home? It’s irrelevant to the discussion, because that would imply a broken home was a cause of one becoming homosexual…..and there are simply too many homosexuals who came from well-established, healthy, loving homes.

            Did I have a good relationship with my dad? No, not really. But to be honest, he wasn’t really home during the day anyway. He worked a lot while I was either in school, or he worked at night. So I didn’t see him much, and didn’t really have him as a role model. But again, I’ll refer to my previous paragraph and say there are many homosexuals who DID have wonderful relationships with their fathers, and still turned out gay. As for now, I get along better with my dad now than I have at any other time in my life….but why hasn’t that undone the “damage”??

            Was my mother overbearing? No, she really wasn’t that controlling. And here I go again referencing the prior paragraph to say that even kids with wonderful mothers who were NOT overbearing, still turned out to be homosexual. My relationship with my mom is such that she was independently minded when I was growing up. She was authoritative, sure….but then what normal mother shouldn’t be over their children?

          • Alan

            Good for you. Thank you for posting.

          • Gale Lett

            One cannot be homosexual and Christian. The very word Christian means “Christ like”. If Jesus condemned homosexuality then how can you call yourself a Christian? If you truly believe what Jesus taught then you cannot maintain your present lifestyle and be a Christian. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can call yourself a Christian all you want, but that doesn’t make it so.

          • RyneBeddard

            Jesus didn’t condemn homosexuality… He never said anything about it. I wonder if you would say that a person can’t be wealthy and Christian? Read what Jesus says about wealth, and for that matter, what the early church said about it.

          • Gale Lett

            Did you not even bother to read the story above, on which these comments are based? Apparently not.

          • RyneBeddard

            I read it and I responded earlier. I’ll repost my response here:

            Okay, so Piers is a tool… that’s obvious.
            However, Dr. Brown here is making an extremely weak argument. For one thing Jesus came to fulfill the law by moving beyond it to the thing that the law was always supposed to point us towards (incompletely, thus the need for a messiah) in the first place: Love God and love each other with everything you’ve got. That’s why Jesus and his followers broke the surface reading of the Levitical laws, a fact that Brown’s reading of that passage conveniently ignores.
            Also if you read Matthew 15 and 19 they plain and simple don’t say what he says they do. His version of them requires quite a bit of eisegesis (reading your own presuppositions into the text) and more than a little hubris.
            It’s almost universally agreed among scholars that the historical person Jesus was never recorded (or at least nothing survived)as saying anything about homosexuality…
            That’s not to say that it’s right or wrong or that he didn’t condemn it… simply that Brown is being misleading (at best)

          • Gale Lett

            My apologies then, and a Merry Christmas to you and yours!

          • RyneBeddard

            No Worries friend :)
            Merry Christmas to you as well

          • toncuz

            Jesus is QUITE clear about the rich. They will NEVER enter heaven. Chasing money instead of spiritual cleanliness makes the difference. The right-wing PERVERSION of Christ’s teaching, also known as the “God wants you to be rich” FRAUDSTERS is a complete fabrication of Republican politicians calling themselves “ministers”. Otherwise known as “false churches” in the Bible.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            Can a sober alcoholic be a Christian? My guess would be your answer is “Yes, of course, if they don’t drink anymore”. But unless you’re THAT totally misinformed and out of touch with reality, the fact that an alcoholic doesn’t drink doesn’t change the fact that they are still an alcoholic.

            Furthermore, may I ask exactly what lifestyle you think I’m engaged in? Have you even READ all my comments?? If so, you never would have left your comment because you would see that I said this is something I struggle with, but have managed to remain celibate for over 21 years. How many adult men or women, Christian or non-Christian, can say that?

          • Gale Lett

            Alcoholism is not a disease, it is a choice, like any other choice. No disease forces you to pick up that first drink and to keep on drinking. That is just an excuse for sin, like saying homosexuals are born that way. It’s simply justification for continuing to sin. When you give your life to Christ you are expected to make real changes in your life. The Bible says you become a new person. If you continue to indulge in the same sinful behaviors you never really gave anything to Him. Of course we will all be tempted, but we are expected to turn away and if we do falter we are expected to ask forgiveness and to strive to not do it again. Otherwise Christ’s sacrifice would be for naught.

          • disqus_s4ZMrFa7yS

            As I thought, you neither read all my comments….and it does seem you are out of touch with reality and are misinformed. First, I didn’t become homosexual simply because I slept with a man anymore than YOU became a heterosexual simply because you slept with a man. You were drawn to men, and likewise I was too, unexplicably. If I could UNCHOOSE to be attracted to men, trust me, I would have done that YEARS ago. But no matter how much I’ve tried, and no matter how many tears I’ve cried, and no matter how many times I’ve begged the Lord to free me from being homosexual, it hasn’t changed anything. You can continue on with your narrow-minded, misinformed opinion about this all you want and it won’t change anything. Truth is truth, and I know the truth about this subject (and myself) better than you do.

            I think it’s funny that you didn’t address my comment about remaining celibate for over 21 years. What’s the lon